総説

Socio‑Cognitive Approach inSecond Language Acquisition Research
Rieko M atsuoka

David Richard Evans

National College of Nursing, Japan；1‑2‑1Umezono, Kiyose‑shi, Tokyo, 〒 204‑8575, Japanmatsuokar＠adm.ncn.ac.jp【Abstract】 In the area of second language acquisition(SLA),which dates back to behaviorism‑orientated discipline for second or
foreign language learning and/or teaching,a new trend including social elements has been highlighted recently.The purpose of thispaper is two‑fold；the first is to explicate how this new approach has come into existence followed by introducing the mainstream
SLA and socially‑oriented approaches and their differences,and the second is to explore the significance or meaningfulness of the
new approach in the research area of SLA.

【Keywords】 second language acquisition(SLA), socio‑cognitive approach, mainstream SLA,socially‑oriented approaches
using the behaviorist background. Accordingly, lanⅠ．Introduction

guage learning was regarded as habit‑formation andverbal behaviors, which are observable, were studied.
Contrastive Analysis, which compares the foreign lan-

The term ʻsecond languageʼ
literally refers to only theguage with the native language,was carried out in ordersecond language and does not includeʻ
foreign languageʼ

to facilitate learners to learn the target language.Fries

and these two concepts are obviouslydifferent.A second

wrote in his book Teaching and Learning English as alanguage means a language used on the daily basis；but

Foreign Language, The most effective materials area foreign language is not used by the learners as athose that are based upon a scientific description of thecommunicative tool for their survival. For instance,

language to be learned, carefully compared with aʻEnglishʼ
is a second language for a Japanese living inparallel description of the native language of thethe United States but is a foreign language in Japanlearner (Fries 1945,p.9,cited in Dulayet al.1982,p.98).

where English is not the official language. In the ab-

In sum,SLA research in 1950s and 1960s were theorized

breviated form, they are often called ESL(English as aby behaviorism and linguistically endorsed by structur-

Second Language)and EFL(English as a Foreign Lan-alism.

guage)respectively.Due to the different contexts,name-

The next stage of SLA research was strongly influen-

ly where English is spoken or is not spoken, ESL andced by Chomskyʼ
s nativism(1957)despite the fact that

EFL must be learned and/or taught differently. How-

Chomsky has never even hinted at the possibility of

ever,ʻ
second languageʼ
in Second Language Acquisition

including the second language acquisition in his genera-

has been used for all the languages other than native

tive theory from a nativistic point of view. In the SLA

languages(e. g.,M itchell et al. 1998).The term Foreign

study, Corder(1967)crystallized the significance ofLanguage Acquisition(FLA)does exist but only for spe-learnerʼs errors and Selinker(1972)delineated the char-cific context.

acteristics ofʻinterlanguageʼ
which he called learnersʼ

Second Language Acquisition(SLA, hereafter)

developmental language. SLA researchers started toresearch came into existence in the 1950s as a result of

look at ʻinterlanguageʼ
, that is learnersʼ
language, as aefforts to improve efficiency in language teaching by

meaningful evidence of development and Error Analysis

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 3巻

第 1号

2004年

⎜ 2 ⎜

replaced Contrastive Analysis. The notion of Universal

1989；Searle 1998), language is projected as an impor-

Grammar(UG)derived from the belief in Languagetant apparatus for our living space that constructs our

Acquisition Device(LAD)as postulated by Chomskyand

community and society on a larger scale. Language

is still active in the SLA research in the form of gram-cannot be taken from the context where we live；in

maticality testing.

other words, language coexists with us wherever we

The third stage is closely connected to a socio‑

may be. And we human beings are social or created tocognitive approach, the theme of this review article.

be social. It is almost impossible for human beings who

Hymes(1972)defied the dual system ofʻ
competence anduse language to live alone without any contact with theperformanceʼ
projected by Chomsky by introducing theoutside world, namely society. Language and society

notion ofʻ
communicative competenceʼ, which is theincluding culture cannot be separate but coexist. In

hybrid of competence and performance or competence

learning or teaching language, however, the contexts‑

for performance. In contrast with Chomskyʼ
s using thesocial or cultural‑that language carries, are excluded.

ideal of native speakers of English, Hymes put theOn the other hand,language functions as an indispens-emphasis on the real data going on in the real world,able tool to build up our mind.We think using language

which is called ʻ
societyʼas a container and ʻ
cultureʼasor language itself may build up our thought. It is truecontents.Sociocultural realityin Hymesʼ
s term is includ-that sometimes we have an image or picture in our mind

ed in this theoretical framework. According to Hymes,

in order to figure out some concept in our thinking but

a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences, notlanguage may assist the visual or aural image in our

only as grammatical,but also as appropriate(p.277).A

mind.Vygotsky,a Soviet psychologist who was influen-

child acquires not only grammatical competences but

ced by phenomenology,explored in what way our think-also competences regarding performance such as ining mechanism and language are related in our environ-what way to speak or when. What concerns Hymes, asment, in his book tilted Thought and language(1986).

an anthropologist, is language in use and consequently

Vygotskyʼs psychology was taken up in SLA researchsocio‑cultural elements started to be valued in SLA

and pedagogy(e.g., Lantolf 2001), which will be revi-

research.

ewed later using a sociocultural approach.

After developing through these three aforementioned

The term ʻsociocognitiveʼ
is proposed by Atkinson asstages, SLA research diversified and currently is inter-the hybrid of the social and the cognitive. The social isdisciplinary,involving multiple studyareas starting withrelated to what is going on in the outside world；thelinguistics,psychology,sociology,anthropology and any

cognitive is related to what is going on in the insidehybrid of them. The purpose of this review is to ex-

world. Atkinson(2002)elaborated on how these two

plicate and locate the socio‑cognitive approach that

notions are intertwined in SLA,based on the belief that

Atkinson(2002)postulates, and to examine its signifi-

language and language acquisition are social andcance for SLA research. The first section that follows

cognitive. Sociocognitive, made up from socio andexplicates the rationale for including the social elements

cognitive, covers both the social(including cultural)andin the SLA research. The second section outlines the

cognitive phenomena, which are closely related to lan-mainstream SLA research,the position the mainstream

guage and language learning/acquisition as Atkinson

SLA researchers take and the discrepancy from theargues.Therefore,this approach contributes to the fieldsocially oriented approaches that caused a dispute inof SLA by focusing on mechanical features of language

academic journals from 1990 through to 1997.The thirdlearning/teaching and acquisition from a psycholinguis-section indicates the constructs consisting of Atkinsonʼstic viewpoint.

sociocognitive approach preceded by the outline of thisⅡ．Mainstream SLA research vs.

approach.The last section examines the significance ofSocially‑oriented approaches

socio‑cognitive approach in the SLA research including
its pedagogical implications.
‑

Mainstream SLA research is currently from the 1970s

As is suggested in some literature from disciplines

and 1980s and Ellis, R chose seven theories in his 1986

other than SLA‑related areas(Berger et al. 1966, 1967,

book that maydelineate the outline of mainstream SLA.

⎜ 3 ⎜J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol.3 No.1 2004

(3) Discourse Theory‑This theory, proposed by
Ellisʼ
book(1986),the purpose of which is provision of
a thorough account of SLA,gives seven theories of SLA.
As this book was first published in 1985, theories fromthe late eighties are not included, but the discipline of

Hatch(1978), has the following principles.
１．SLA follows a natural route in syntacticaldevelopment.
２．Native speakers adjust their speech in order

SLA was perceived as established by Ellis(1986). The

to negotiate meaning

researchers who established SLA in 1980s are regarded

speakers.

with non‑native

as mainstream SLA researchers, though the first three

３．The conversational strategies to negotiate

theories are classified as socially‑oriented according tomeaning, and the resulting adjusted input,

some researchers(e.g., M itchell et al. 1998, Norton

influence the rate and route of SLA in vari-1995). The seven theories are as follows.

ous ways(1) Acculturation Theory‑Acculturation is definedby Brown(1980a：129, cited by Ellis 1986)asʻthe

４．Thus,the natural route is the result of learning how to hold conversation.

process of becoming adapted to a new cultureʼ
.

Ellis(1986)says Hatchʼs interest is not the rate

Acculturation is determined by the degree ofor the level of L 2 proficiency but how the lan-social and psychological distance between theguage is realized like both acculturation andlearner and the target language culture(Ellis

accommodation theories. This theory does not

1986：252). The main figure of this theory isaddress the learnerʼ
s learning mechanism or strat-

Schumann who studied the process of one adultegies like the above two theories. Ellis(1986)

Spanish speakerʼ
s acquisition of English as aquotes Hatchʼs words to give her a credit forsecond language(L 2, hereafter) (Schumann

including the cognitive side of SLA as follows.

1978). As Ellis pointed out, this theory doesnʼ
tshed light on how L 2 knowledge is internalized
and used.This criticism is similar to that given by
the mainstream SLA researchers to the socially‑
motivated SLA research in 1990s. In fact, some

While social interaction may give the learner
theʻ
bestʼ
data to work with, the brain in turn
must work out a fitting and relevant model of the
input. (1983a：186)(cited by Ellis 1986)

literature(e.g.,M itchell et al. 1998)compares thisHatchʼ
s above words may be associated withtheory with the newer socially motivated the-the notion ofʻsocial mindʼpostulated by Geeories.

(1990)and strongly supported by Atkinson(2002).

(2) Accommodation Theory‑Similar to Accultura-(4) The Monitor M odel(Krashenʼs theory)‑Thistion theory, Giles uses perceived social distancemodel consists of five hypotheses‑the acquisition/and regardsʻ
motivationʼas the primary determi-

learning hypothesis,the natural order hypothesis,

nant of L 2 proficiency as Gardner postulates

the monitor hypothesis, the input hypothesis and(1979). Key variables in Gilesʼ
s theory are as

the affective filter hypothesis. As Ellis(1986)

follows.

points out, Krashenʼs theory was the most com-

１．Identification with ingroupprehensive but it has been criticized. Currently

２．Inter‑ethnic comparison

only a few SLA researchers use this theory.

３．Perception of ethno‑linguistic vitality

However, the input hypothesis was modified and４．Perception of ingroup boundaries

extended by Long, who is currently one of the

５．Identification with other social categories

mainstream SLA researchers. Long, in his doc-

Ellis(1986)evaluates this theory asʻ
black boxʼtoral dissertation in 1980, conducted a study of

because it does not explain assembly mechanism

interaction between native speakers(NS here-

nor the developmental sequence, finding theafter)and non‑native speakers(NNS hereafter).

strength in that this encompasses language use

Based on this study, he established theʻInterac-and language acquisition in the same framework.

tion Hypothesisʼ. Krashenʼs Input Hypothesis,

This evaluation may be shared with the new typefocusing on ʻ
inputʼ
, proposes that a sufficientof socially motivated approaches.

amount of comprehensive input enables learners

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 3巻

第 1号

2004年

⎜ 4 ⎜

to acquire or learn their target language(1982).

mainstream SLA because the direction of research is

Krashen, who is a neuro‑psychologist, did not

towards the individual.

take outside elements into account. Longʼ
s Interaction Hypothesis pays attention to the interac-

Since Lantolf and Appel published a book titledtion between NS and NNS,shedding light on theʻ
Vygotskian approaches to second language researchʼ
indynamic mechanism of verbal interaction. Long

1994,sociocultural theoryhas become ubiquitous in SLA

argues that learners learn language via negotiat-

research. In some literature on Vygotskyʼ
s psychology

ing the meaning of utterances from the interlocu-(e.g., Vygotsky 1986), the term ʻsociohistoricalʼ
is usedtors(Mitchell et al. 1998). Longʼ
s Interaction

instead ofʻsocioculturalʼ. Kasper told us in 2001 that

Hypothsis has kept on attracting

Lantolf told her that it is OK to use the wordmany

researchers in SLA.Gass and Varonis(1994,citedʻsociocognitiveʼinsteadby Mitchell 1998),for instance,studied NN‑NNS

Vygotskyanʼ
s framework. In SLA‑related literature,pairs undertaking a problem‑solving game andʻsocioculturalʼis the predominantly used term；how-linked Longʼs interaction hypothesis with lan-ever, the mostguage acquisition. Gass and Varonis are alsoʻsociocognitiveʼ, which Atkinson(2002)exclusively usesof ʻ
socioculturalʼfor

appropriate term

might

be

main figures in the mainstream SLA research.

for his framework. Atkinsonʼ
s socio‑cognitive(5) The Variable Competence Model‑This model wasapproach, the constructs of which will be explicated inestablished by Ellis, Tarone, Widdowson, andthe next section, also includes Vygotskyʼ
s approach

Bialystok, all of whom are main figures in theusing Rogoffʼs apprenticeship theory(1990)and Lave andmainstream SLA research.The aim of this model

Wengerʼs theory of community of practice(1991).

is to account for the variability of language‑

Following Spinoza, Vygotsky postulated that thelearner language(interlanguage),and the processexplanation of the thinking process is not found in theof learning language both internally and exter-

internal structure but in the interaction between think-nally(Ellis 1986).Gregg argued that variation is a

ing bodies(humans) and objects(Lantolf and Appelperformance phenomenon, and that there is no1994). Piagetʼs theory of cognitive development alsovariability in the learnerʼ
s underlying competenceputs an emphasis on interaction in our thinking process.

(Gregg, 1990, cited in Mitchell et al. 1998).

According to Rogoff(1990), Piagetʼs interaction theory(6) The Universal Hypothesis‑This hypothesis is

is independent of the outside social world and conse-from the Chomskian tradition, providing anquently the process of cognitive development is a lonely

account of how the linguistic properties of theone,in contrast to Vygotskyʼ
s emphasis on the effect oftarget language and the learnerʼ
s first language

mediation from external world.Lantolf took Vygotskyʼ
smay influence the course of development(Ellis,

psychology for SLA research and pedagogy, based on1986). The problem pointed out by Ellis(1986)isthe belief that the primary symbolic tool for mediatingthat this hypothesis ignores variability.

our mental activity is language(Mitchell et al. 1998).

(7) Neurofunctional theory‑The basic proposition of

The notion ʻ
mediationʼ
, which is the key concept forthis theory is that there is a connection between

Vygotskyʼs theory,is eventually a key for SLA as well.

language learning and the neural mechanism.

Lantolf mentioned ʻ
the most fundamental concept of

Neurofunctional accounts have contributed tosociocultural theory is that the human mind is mediatedʼ

understanding age difference, formulaic speech,(2000：p.1 Italics：original) The Zone of Proximal

fossilization and pattern practice (Ellis 1986).

Development(ZPD,hereafter) is another key notion for‑

Vygotsyʼs theory.The ZPD is deciphered asʻ
the domain

What follows is to delineate some socially‑orientedof knowledge or skill where the learner is not yet

approaches in SLA, that is, sociocultural theory, lan-capable of independent functioning but can achieve theguage socialization theory and social identity theory,alldesired outcome given relevant helpʼ
in Mitchell et al.

of which came into existence in 1990s. The first three(1998, p.146).

theories in the previous section can be categorized as

Activity theory, which Lave and Wenger elaborated

being sociolinguistic approaches but may well be in theinto a theory of community of practice(1991), was⎜ 5 ⎜J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol.3 No.1 2004

developed by Vygotskyʼ
s successor A.N. Leontiev

concepts of self and social roles,is constructed through(Lantolf and Appel 1994).

social interaction(1986,p.165).As Schieffelin and Ochs

Within the sociocultural framework,as Mitchell et al.

(1986)suggest,this theory is in the same line as Piagetʼs(1998) mentions, the learning process is seen as social

interactionism which delineates the child as an active(inter‑mental) and individual(intra‑mental) andconstructor of the development. Rogoff(1990)clarifies

learners are seen as active constructors of their own

the difference between Vygotskyanʼ
s and Piagetianʼslearning environment. Regarding the rate and route oftheories. Their directions are opposites though bothsecond language learning, Mitchell et al. (1998) men-value interaction between the inside and outside worlds

tions that Vygotskyʼ
s theory has not explicitly

in a process of constructing concepts of selves or iden-contributed to solving the specific problems；however,tities. Another theory, that is, phenomenology, follows

in some data‑based studies such as Morita(2000)and

the idea that ʻmembersʼ
perceptions and conceptions ofDuff Uchida(1997), this framework functions as a vital

entities are grounded in their subjective experiences andtool embodying their studies orchestrated with languagethat members bring somewhat different realities tosocialization.

(1986, p.165).
interpersonal encounters.ʼ
Socialization is the process of becoming an appropri-

According to Ochs(1990), socialization is an inter-ate member of a certain society or community or aactional display, whether it is covert or overt, to agroup of people. Therefore, in order to socialize our-novice‑regarding the expected way of thinking,feeling,

selves to be such a member, we must equip ourselves

and acting(1990,p.2).Ochs mentioned that social inter-with the identity. The notion of identity has also been

actions are sociocultural environments, following

highlighted in 1990ʼ
s.What follows is explication on the

Wentworth(1980：68, cited by Ochs 1990)and thatframework of social identity and SLA.

through social interactions, people(children in Ochs
1990) come to internalize and gain performance compe-

In M itchell(1998), the definition of social identity is

tence in the socioculturally defined context(Vygotsky

That part of an individualʼ
s self‑concept which derives

1978, cited by Ochs 1990). Language socialization is afrom his knowledge ofhis membership ofa socialgroup(s)concept developed by Ochs and Schieffelin for both

together with the emotional significance attached tosocialization through language and socialization to usethat membership (Tajfel 1974, p.69, quoted in M itchelllanguage. According to Schiefflin and Ochs(1986), lan-

1998, p.168). In Mitchellʼ
s words, social identity is theguage socialization involves sociological, anthropologi-

sense ofʻ
belongingʼ
to a particular social group,whether

cal and psychological approaches for the study of social

defined byethnicity,bylanguage,or anyother means (p.

and linguistic competence in a social group(p.163).

168).

Since the 1990s, the framework of language socializa-

According to Gumperz(1982), social identity is in ation has started to be used for studying SLA(e.g.,Poolelarge part established and maintained through language

1992；Duff and Uchida 1997). As elaborated in Ochs(p.7).It is also pointed out that the viewpoint of social(1990), Vygotskyanʼ
s psychology is intertwined in thisidentity created through language practice is expanded

frameworkembedded

to the issues of ethnic identity to include social identity

Vygotskyanʼ
s psychology in their studies.Therefore,theas gender and social class in interaction with ethnicity

framework of language socialization does include(p.21). In the area of SLA, Norton suggests that a

Vygotskyanʼ
s theory. In an actual study on SLA, bothcomprehensive theory of social identity for integratingsocialization through language and socialization to use

the language learner and the language learning context

language could be realized.For instance,students in law

must be developed(Norton 1995). For Norton, social

may socialize and/or identify themselves to be a mem-

identity is not static but in flux and is subject to change.

ber who majors in law in the process of appropriating

And it is constructed in a multiple waythrough language

language for law.

with context. Learnersʼ
identity is dynamic, negotiable,

and

SLA

researchers

Schieffelin and Ochs also introduced other theories forlanguage socialization. The first one isʻ
symbolic inter-and socially contextualized,even within the frameworkof individual interactions(Mitchell 1998, p.170).

actionistʼ
which follows the idea that reality, such as

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 3巻

第 1号

2004年

⎜ 6 ⎜

M itchell et al.(1998) pointed out that Acculturation

Ⅲ．Dispute between mainstream SLA andtheory and Discourse theory do not have any detailedsocially orientated approaches

explication regarding how the learners can internalize

M orita(2000), who studies discourse socialization,

the language items in their minds；namely how tomentioned that ʻ
there has been a growing interest in andacquire language. Therefore, these three approaches

calls for socially culturally,and historically situated L 2

may share their features with the new wave of sociallystudies(e. g., Davis 1995, cited by M orita 2000),moving

oriented approaches. Gassʼs response(1998)to Firth andaway from the previous focus on the individual mecha-

Wagnerʼs article, elaborated on the importance of thenism.In this climate,some mainstream SLA researchers

cognitive mechanism of language learners to facilitatestarted to make their position explicit in an SLA

their process of learning language.

research.Long (1990)made explicit the requirement for
SLA research, followed by other researchers(e. g.,

２．Different ʻ
worldviewsʼ
.

Beretta 1991, Long, 1993). The mainstream SLA

Blockʼ
s article implies that socially‑oriented

researchers implicitly criticized the new trends in SLA

approaches follow constructivism. According to Gubasuch as the multiplicity in theories and the relativisticand Lincoln(1998), its ontology is relativistic and its

positions that the new wave, namely socially oriented

epistemology is subjective；on the other hand, positiv-

SLA researchers, took. In 1996, Block wrote an article

ism or post‑positivism that so‑called mainstream SLA

criticizing each point that mainstream researchers madetheories are based on is realistic both in ontology andagainst the new wave. In a response to Blockʼs article,

epistemology. In sum, the ways in which the world isGregg, Long, Jordan and Beretta responded with anviewed are different. Consequently, mainstream SLA

article full of harsh criticism in 1997. In the same year

researchers(e.g., Long 1990)argue against many the-(1997), Firth and Wagner wrote an article blaming theories, being critical about relativistic views by citing

mainstream SLA research because the social context

Feyerabendʼsʻ
anything goesʼ, which specifically means

was not sufficiently counted in analyzing discourse. Inthat anything is fine with relativism. Blockʼs article

response to Firth and Wagner,Liddicoat(1997),Kasper(1996), which ignited the fury of the main SLA(1997)and Gass(1998)wrote a paper respectively.

researchers, is mainly from his criticism of the position

The possible causes for this nearly decade‑long dispute may be summed up in two items as follows.

mainly expressed explicitly in Longʼs article(e.g., 1990)
that SLA should not accommodate various theories.
However,not all the mainstream SLA researchers take１．Difference between SLA and SL in use.

the same position as Long, Beretta, Gregg and others.

M ainstream SLA research deals with language itself,

For instance, Kasper(1997)evaluated Firth & Wagnerʼs

whereas the new wave of socio‑oriented research con-article in a positive way, though she pointed out theycerns second language in use. When dealing with lan-made a misinterpretation. Kasper(1997)appreciatedguage only, social or cultural contexts are excluded.

their efforts in including social factors and showed her

Therefore, the main interest of mainstream SLA

interest in ethnographic application and expectation

researchers is the cognitive mechanism regarding thethat Conversation Analysis can play an important role

inner part of learnerʼs mind(e.g., Long 1990). As thein a language socialization approach. Liddicoat(1997)

name of Longʼs interaction hypothesis suggests, thealso emphasized the importance of considering the inter-mainstream SLA researchers do take interaction withaction in the social context for language learning in aoutside world into account. However, the focus is on

response to Firth & Wagner.

individualistic cognitive mechanisms.On the other hand,

Two revolutionary articles‑Block(1996)and Firth &socially oriented approaches include social and cultural

Wagner(1997)‑have some biased and/or wrong interpre-

factors based on the belief that language is a social

tations according to mainstream SLA researchers(e.g.,practice.

Gregg et al. 1997, Gass 1998)；however, their articles

The seeming flow in socially oriented approach does

have revealed the distinction between the mainstream

not provide concrete pedagogical tools which the main-

SLA and the new wave of SLA related research.In 2002,

stream and traditional SLA approaches are abundant in.

Atkinson published the article to elaborate his position⎜ 7 ⎜J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol.3 No.1 2004

in the new wave of SLA research. What follows is a

(Ochs et al.)that social interaction organizes grammar

review of Atkinsonʼ
s sociocognitive approach.

and grammar organizes social interaction(p.38cited by
Atkinson 2002). Even grammar is socially organized.

Ⅳ．Socio‑cognitive approach in SLA research
Connectionism is a neuro‑computational model ofWhen I learned the word ʻ
behaveʼlong time ago, I

learning by building up association potentials(Atkinson

wondered if this word was made up from ʻ
beʼ
and ʻ
haveʼ
.

2002, p.529). Compared with the cognitive perspectives

Theʻ
beʼ
is an intrinsic factor or what we are and thethat mainstream SLA researchers use, connectionismʻhaveʼis an extrinsic factor or what we have.So ʻ
behaveʼdeals with the micro‑level brain system. According tois the result ofʻbeʼand ʻhaveʼ.If theʻbeʼis related to the

M itchell et al. (1998), connectionism was previously

cognitive and theʻhaveʼis related to the social, ʻtoknown asʻ
associationismʼand has been applied to L 2behaveʼitself is related to socio‑cognitive. Language

learning quite recently(p.79).In the connectionist view,and language acquisition areʻ
social and cognitive phe-learning occurs when the learners process one neuralnomenaʼas Atkinson(2002)points out.I believe that hownode to a linguistic node to establish regularity in their

the social and the cognitive are interpreted is crucial.As

brains.Byso doing,linguistic patterns are extracted andmentioned earlier, the term ʻsociocognitiveʼ
is also usedbecome strengthened by repeated association till learn-

for Vygotskyanʼsʻsociocultural. Here Atkinsonʼ
s socio‑ing occurs.This view is certainly cognitive but is differ-cognitive(2002)is different. Atkinsonʼ
s sociocognitiveent from the cognitive perspective that mainstream SLA

approach is based on the belief that ʻlanguage is social‑research harbor, based on the Universal Grammar fora social practice,a social accomplishment,a social toolʼ

instance. Ellis N.(1998)elaborates the way in which(2002, p.526). The constructs of Atkinsonʼ
s approachconnectionism provides computational tools for condi-

are as follows.

tions where emergent properties of languages arise(p.
631). Atkinsonʼ
s socio‑cognitive model in SLA takesGeeʼ
s social linguistics is most influential inconnectionism as a cognitive phase of language learning.

Atkinsonʼs approach as he expressed in the section of

Atkinson(2002)argues that connectionism enables lan-acknowledgements(2002, p.539). Geeʼs basic belief isguage per se to be an integral element of socio‑cognitivethat cognition is both in the head and in the world(Geeactivity with the ultimate purpose being to perform

1992, p.12, quoted by Atkinson 2002). The question issituated action in the world(p.532).

where the mind is. Mainstream SLA researchers(e. g.,‑‑

Long, 1990, Gass 1998)believe the language acquisition
occurs in the learnerʼs individual cognitive system orLeontiev, who was Vygotskyʼ
s successor, developed

inside the learnerʼs head. It is impossible to look at

activity theory, which is made up from a series of

directly the way in which the learners acquire the lan-

proposals for conceptualizing the social context inguage,whether in the head or in the outside world.The

which learning takes place(M itchell et al. 1998,p. 148).

notion ofʻsocial mindʼ
is that the mind is generated via

Based on activity theory,situated learning and commu-

social interaction or some effect from outside world ornity of practice(Lave and Wenger 1991)have been devel-

environment. Without any interaction with our outside

oped.This framework is utilized into small group activ-

world, our mind may not be enriched at all. Atkinson

ities, for instance.Rogoffʼs apprenticeship theory(1990)(2002)used an example of moving the city from Gee

is also influenced by activity theory. Atkinson(2002)(1992, p.12)to describe the way in which we use bothincludes some visions derived from the neo‑Vygotskian

inside schema and outside tool. Geeʼsʻsocial mindʼissociocultural theory for his socio‑cognitive approach,exactly the hybrid ofʻthe socialʼand ʻ
the cognitiveʼ. In

instead of the original Vygotskian psychological theory.

other words,ʻ
mindʼ
is constructed byʻ
the socialʼ
and ʻ
the

In the section titled ʻ
language acquisition as asocialʼis constructed byʻmindʼ
as well.

(p. 532),however,Atkinson
sociocognitive phenomenonʼ
(2002)explicates his differentiated position from neo‑

Atkinson(2002)cited the grammar part from

Vygotskian theory that posits that formerly external-

Cambridgeʼ
s Studies in Interactional Linguistics series

ized/social knowledge is substantially reconfigured as

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 3巻

第 1号

2004年

⎜ 8 ⎜

internalized/cognitive knowledge, arguing that the(p.526). Language in use is social
language in useʼ

cognitive and the social are more closely related. (p.

because human beings socially interact via language.

532).M ore explicitly,Atkinson delineates the difference

Therefore, SLA must deal with language in use. Somebetween his socio‑cognitive theory and neo‑Vygotskian

mainstream SLA researchers argue that SLA shouldsociocultural theory by citing Lantolf(2000), ʻ
language

only deal with language per se. (e.g.,Gass 1998)In terms

appears,developmentally speaking,first on the interpsy-of efficiency, reductionistic mainstream SLA researchchological plane(i.e., as social speech)and only after

maycontribute to language learning more than socially‑

awards on the intrapsychological plane(i.e.,as internal-

oriented approaches.The socio‑cognitive approach pos-

(p.537). Atkinsonʼ
ized or inner speech)ʼ
s socio‑tulated by Atkinson(2002)orchestrates the cognitive

cognitive model is that ʻin actuality language always

into the social based on the belief that our mind exists

and everywhere exists in an integrated sociocognitive

simultaneously both in the head and in the world.

spaceʼ
, adding that ʻlanguage is always mutually, simul-

Pedagogically, as Atkinson(2002)suggests, dynamic

taneously and co‑constitutively in the head and in thetype of class activities or what is called collaborative(p.537).
worldʼ

learning may be encouraged and endorsed by the socio‑
cognitive theory. Utilizing this multiple disciplinary

Ⅴ．Significance of socio‑cognitive approach in SLA

framework,SLA research equipped with both social andcognitive factors, will be realized.

Atkinson(2002)suggests four implications of a socio‑
cognitive approach to SLA(pp.538‑539).

■References

As postulated by Lave & Wenger(1991), learning
occurs through active and legitimate participation incommunity of practice.The novice or apprentice learns
from the expert or master in the classroom as well as in
the world outside the classroom(p.538). For instance,
the students learn the way in which L 2 is used byparticipating in activities with their teachers oradvanced peers.
Based on the belief that language is social, SLA isable to promote and/or reinforce various fields such as
culture,identity and discourse.Therefore,SLA hasʻ
real

Atkinson, D.(2002) Toward a sociocognitive approach tosecond language acquisition. Modern Language Journal.
86, 525‑545.
Beretta, A.(1991) Theory construction in SLA：Complementarity and opposition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 13, 4, 493‑511.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T.(1966, 1967, 1989) The social
construction of reality. New York：Anchor books.
Block, D.(1996) Not so fast：Some thoughts on theory culling,relativism,accepted findings and the heart and soulof SLA. Applied Linguistics. 17, 1, 63‑83.
Clark, A.(2001) Mindware：An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science.New York：Oxford University
Press.
Chomsky, N.(1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague：
M outon.

(p.539).
potential for changing the worldʼ
Following the belief in socio‑cognitive approach that
all the human beings are holistic in existence,qualitative
research approaches such as ethnography are encouraged.
For the last implication, Atkinson quotes Lave &Wenger(1991)that is,ʻlearning involves the construction(p.53).
of identitiesʼ
Ⅵ．Concluding remarks
Human beings are social as other primates are.Atkinson(2002)rephrases Hallidayʼs words, ʻ
all language isCorder, P.(1967) The significance of learnersʼerrors. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 5, 161‑169.
Duff, P. & Uchida, Y.(1997) The negotiation of teachersʼ
sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary
EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly. 31, 451‑486.
Dulay,H.,Burt,M .& Krashen,S.(1982)Language two.New
York：Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N.(1998) Emergentism, connectionism, and language
learning. Language Learning. 48, 631‑64.
Ellis, R.(1986) Understanding second language acquisition.
Oxford：Oxford University Press.
Ellis,R.(1997) Second language acquisition.Oxford：Oxford
University Press.
Firth, A. & Wagner, J.(1997) On discourse, communication,and(some)fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal. 81, 286‑300.

⎜ 9 ⎜J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol.3 No.1 2004

Gardner, R.(1979) Social psychological aspects of second
language acquisition. In H. Giles and R. St. Clair(Eds.)
Language and social psychology. Oxford：Basil Blackwell.
Gass, S.(1998) Apples and oranges：Or, why apples are notorange and donʼt need to be：A response to Firth andWagner. Modern Language Journal. 82, 83‑90.

language use：A response to Firth and Wagner.Modern
Language Journal. 81, 313‑317.
Long, M .(1990) The least a second language acquisition
theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly. 24, 629‑666.
Long,M .(undated) SLA research：Scope,goals,and future.

Gee,J.P.(1992) Social mind.New York：Bergin & Garvey.
Gregg, K.(1993) Taking explanation seriously, or let a couple of flowers bloom.Applied Linguistics. 14, 3, 276‑294.

Unpublished paper.
Long, M .H.(1997) Construct validity in SLA research：A
reply to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal.
81, 318‑323.
Mitchell, R. & M yles, F.(1998) Second language learning

Gregg, K.R., Long, M.H., Jordan, G., & Beretta, A. (1997)
Rationality and its discontents in SLA.Applied Linguistics 18, 4, 539‑559.
Guba,E.& Lincoln,Y.(1998)Competing paradigms in qualitative research.In N.Denzin and Y.Lincoln. (Eds.)The
landscape of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks：Sage.

theories. London：Arnold.
Morita,N.(2000) Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. TESOL
Quarterly. 34, 279‑310.
Norton, B.(1995) Social identity, investment, and language
learning. TESOL Quarterly. 29, 9‑31.

Gumperz, J.(1982) Language and social identity. Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.
Hatch, E.(1978) Discourse analysis and second language

Norton, B.(2000) Identity and language learning：Gender,
ethnicity and educational change. Singapore：Pearson

acquisition. In Hatch(Ed.)Second language acquisition.
Rowley, Mass.：Newbury House.

Norton, B.(1995) Social identity, investment, and language
learning. TESOL Quarterly. 29, 1995.

Hymes,D.(1972) On communicative competence.In John B.
Pride & Janet Holmes(Eds.), Sociolinguistics：Selected
readings, 269‑293. Harmondsworth, UK：Penguin.
Krashen,S.(1982)Principles and practice in second language
learning. Oxford：Pergamon.
Kasper,G. (1997)“
A”Stands for Acquisition：A response toFirth and Wagner. Modern Langague Journal. 81, 307‑

Ochs, E.(1990) Introduction. Language socialization acrosscultures. New York：Cambridge University Press.
Poole, D.(1992) Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language Learning, 42, 593‑616.
Rogoff, B.(1990) Apprenticeship in thinking：Cognitive
development in social context. New York：Oxford Uni-

312.
Lantolf, J.(1996) SLA theory building： Letting all theflowers bloom!”Language Learning. 46, 4, 713‑749.

Educational.

versity Press.
Schieffelin, B.B. & Ochs, E.(1986) Language socialization.
Annual review of anthropology. 15, 163‑191.
Schumann, J.(1978) The acculturation model for second

Lantolf, J.(2000) Introducing sociocultural theory. In J.
Lantolf(Ed.),Sociocultural theory and second languagea
learning. (pp.1‑26). Oxford：Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. & Appel, G.(1994) Theoretical framework：An

guage acquisition and foreign language teaching. Arlington, VA：Center for Applied Linguistics.
Searle, J.(1998) Mind, language and society. New York：

introduction to Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In Lantolf, J. et al.(Ed.), Vygotskian
approaches to second language research(pp.1‑32). Nor-

Basic books.
Selinker, L.(1972) Interlanguage. International Review ofApplied Linguistics. 10, 209‑231.

wood, NJ：Ablex.

Vygotsky, L.(1978) Mind in society：The development ofhigher psychological processes.Cambridge,M A：Harvard

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991)Situated learning：Legitimate
peripheral participation.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.
Liddicoat,A.(1997) Interaction,social structure,and second

language acquisition. In R. Gingras(Ed.). Second lan-

University Press.
Vygotsky, L.(1986) Thought and language. Cambridge,
M A：MIT Press.

第二言語習得研究における社会認知的アプローチ
松岡里枝子
David Richard Evans
国立看護大学校；〒 204‑8575 東京都清瀬市梅園 1‑2‑1【要旨】 第二言語習得研究は，行動主義に基づく研究に端を発するが，近年，社会的要因を含めた研究が脚光を浴びるよ
うになっている。本稿では，社会認知的アプローチという新しい研究アプローチがどのように生み出されたか，また従来の第二言語習得研究がいかなるものであるか，社会的要因を中心に捉えたアプローチが従来のアプローチとどのような点で異なるのかを明らかにする。さらに，社会的要因に注目した新しい研究アプローチが第二言語習得研究においてどのような意義があるかを探究する。

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 3巻

第 1号

2004年

⎜ 10 ⎜