Firth and Wagner: On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research

I’m not sure if it was just me, or if this article seemed a little difficult to digest. If I understood correctly, the main point of this article was to re-evaluate research within SLA; mainly how a foreign language is taught to a NNS. Instead of gaining insight from just dialogue with a NNS and a NS, researchers need to use the surroundings and come from all angles in order to fully help a NNS learn the native language.

I fully support Firth and Wagner’s approach of using a holistic approach on language acquisition. I, personally, have seen this holistic approach used when teaching English. Four years ago my family adopted a nine year old girl from China who has a hearing impairment, and still has not fully learned English (of which laziness is a huge part of the issue). Instead of just using a cognitive approach, we also use a social approach. We try to take every opportunity to help her learn English. For example, we took her to the Indiana County Fair to help her know and recognize the various animals and farm vocabulary. By actually seeing and touching these things, she was able to gain a better knowledge of what they were. When I read the part where the authors described that some of the characteristics NS have when speaking with NNS are to slow the speech rate, use “shorter and simpler sentences…[and use] greater pronunciation articulation…” (291) I had to chuckle because this is exactly what we do with my sister in order for her to understand what we are saying. I was unsure if the authors condoned this or was merely explaining this common practice…does anyone have any insight to this?

However, as I read this article, a question came to me that I would be interested in knowing more about. Are there some things that would be better using the cognitive approach rather than the social approach? To those of you who have taught before, can you think of any areas where using the cognitive approach would be more beneficial? Or to those of you in the class who are NNS of English, are there any areas that would be more helpful learning cognitively rather than socially? Although I am a firm advocate of the social approach, I couldn’t help but wonder if there were some areas where a more cognitive approach would be more effective.

One last thought before I conclude… I was struck at how much the information and suggestions of the authors on redefining SLA research can also be applied to teaching in general. For example, when the authors wrote that communication is frequently viewed as a “process of information transfer[ed] from one individual’s head to another’s” and “prioritizes etic concerns and categories over emic ones…” (288), I thought that this is an area where teachers fail so often. When teaching, many teachers teach the information as something that the students must regurgitate and the focus is placed on memorization; the students do not walk away with a firm knowledge of the subject. My aim, as I hope many of the teachers in this class, is to teach (whatever subject/area) in a more emic, or participatory, way where the students will walk away saying, “I actually learned something and will remember that.” This article, as difficult as it was to read, helped encourage me in the way I want to teach (TESOL and Social Studies).