论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】The cognitive and the social schools show fundamental differences in their understanding of language and learning， the object of SLA， research method and philosophical stance. This thesis wants to analyze how social school differs from cognitive school from the postmodernism philosophy and the reason why the social school is more suitable for China‘s second language teaching and learning. All in all， the social school has a wider range of object of observation and emphasizes on the relationship between the researchers and the objects of study. Besides the social school are more open to all the study methods and techniques.
【Key words】social linguistics; cognitive linguistics; postmodernism; modernism
Second Language Acquisition （SLA） refers both to the study of individuals and groups who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one as young children， and to the process of learning that language. During the past 20 years， there are two contrasting schools in the field of second language acquisition. The cognitive and the social schools show fundamental differences in their understanding of language and learning， the object of SLA， research method and philosophical stance. The cognitive-versus-sociocultural debate that took place in various journals and at several conferences in the 1990s， and many researchers in L2 learning and teaching are probably convinced that a wide gap between the two camps is unavoidable.
For the understanding of language and learning， the cognitive school considers language as an intricate rule-based system. Language is rule-governed， which has a finite number of grammatical rules in the system and with knowledge of these rules an infinite number of sentences can be produced. Cognitive style is an individual’s characteristic and relatively consistent way of processing incoming information of all types from the environment. Learning style is simply the application of an individual’s cognitive style to a learning situation （Schmeck， 1988）. The social school emphasizes interaction and engagement with the target language in a socio context based on the concept of ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ （ZPD） and scaffolding. In other words， learning is best achieved through the dynamic interaction between the teacher and the learner and between learners. With the teacher’s scaffolding through questions and explanations， or with a more capable peer s support， the learner can move to a higher level of understanding and extend his/her skills and knowledge to the fullest potential. The thesis of Wen Qiufang（2008） defines the differences of the cognitive school and the social school from five perspectives. The first one is language view. The cognitive school sees language as a mental phenomenon that language is a complex system constructed by intricate language rules. The social school sees language as a social phenomenon. Students need to take apart in the social activities to obtain culture and language knowledge. The second one is the study view. The cognitive believes learners selectively integrates the input into the existing knowledge system， and gradually converts the declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge through continuous output. However， the social school thinks that learners use language to participate in social communication activities， thus they gain language and culture knowledge which become a material for personal brain activities. The third one is the research object. The cognitive school believes that language study is the research which studies language acquisition but not language application. The focus of research is on the characteristics of abstract language systems in learners’ brains and their changes. But the social school believes that language study is the study if language use. It advocates that language acquisition and application are continuum and cannot be divided. The focus of research is on the success of language-based social communication activities. The fourth one is the research techniques and research methods. From an objective point of view， the cognitive school uses quantitative methods to emphasizing objectivity and impartiality， and is strongly opposes the personal views of researchers. From the subjective point of view， the social school uses the qualitative methods to emphasize the interaction between the researcher and the research objects， requiring researchers to understand and explain social communication events from the perspective of the research objects. The fifth one is the philosophical bent. The cognitive advocates the modernist view， believing that people and society can be divided into two entities， thus language and culture can be divided into two independent abstract systems. But the social school adheres to the postmodernist view， believing that people and society， language and culture are integrated and inseparable. This thesis wants to analyze how social school differs from cognitive school from the postmodernism philosophy and the reason why the social school is more suitable for China‘s second language teaching and learning. （To be more accurate， it should be called foreign language teaching for English is not the language Chinese people use in their daily life.） Postmodernism is a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy， the arts， architecture， and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism （Mura， 2012）. This is also the reason why postmodernism linguistics challenge potent modernism linguistics.
Based on the postmodernism， the social school has a wider range of object of observation than the cognitive school. The cognitive school sees language as a kind of knowledge， thus the study of language is a kind of science. Information Processing and Connectionism are two major theoretical frameworks that explain language development and learning processes from the cognitive school. Information Processing （IP） is a cognitive framework which assumes that SLA （like learning of other complex domains proceeds from controlled to automatic processing and involves progressive reorganization of knowledge. There are three approaches based on it， the Multidimensional Model， Processability， and the Competition Model， respectively. Connectionism is a cognitive framework for explaining learning processes， beginning in the 1980s and becoming increasingly influential. It assumes that SLA results from increasing strength of associations between stimuli and responses. However， both Information Processing and Connectionism claim that learning language is essentially like learning other domains of knowledge： that whether people are learning mathematics， or learning to drive a car， or learning Japanese， they are not engaging in any essentially different kind of mental activity.
A postmodern science of language puts forward that the study of language is not a kind of “science”， but a kind of discourse of all their forms with the connections with political， social， cultural and mental life. Based on the modernism， the cognitive school regards the study of language as a science. But the problem is that language itself is not the static object constructed by linguistics. Language is actually an area which is dynamic， fluid， volatile， interconnected with life and thought. Language is uninteresting except in all its protean forms， embedded in all its situations. And this thought leads to the difference on the study contents and study goals. Take speaking teaching for example. It is known to us that speaking is an important part of everyday interaction and most often the first impression of a person is based on his/ her ability to speak fluently and comprehensibly. So here comes the question： What is considered as a good pronunciation？ Based on the cognitive school， a good pronunciation just means a native-like pronunciation because language is a kind of knowledge. To be more specific， students are supposed to pronounce correctly all the speech sounds of the language and all the combinations in their proper order not only isolated words， but also in sentences. Besides， students should be able to pronounce sentences fluently at the speed required by the situation with correct stresses， linking of sounds， rhythm， pauses and intonation. However， most Chinese learners of English do not have enough exposure to English to acquire native-like pronunciation. It is quite strange that people avoid using other group society’s social norms to judge other group society’s lifestyle， but people tend to use one speech society’s language standard to evaluate other speech society’s language. Thus the realistic pronunciation goals come into being. It includes consistency （the pronunciation should be smooth and natural）， intelligibility （the pronunciation should be understandable to the listeners） and communicative efficiency （the pronunciation should help to convey the meaning that is intended by the speaker）. The social school is more considerable and reasonable to take the bilingual and multilingual situations into consideration. Second language learners （also the foreign language learners） are not the learners who pursue the “native-like” second language， but are the users of different languages. Postmodernism linguistics， or that is to say， the social school， is a new framework that looks at language in all its forms and in all its connections. It is a research of a more viable form of linguistics which is more comprehensive and illuminating about how language really for many purposes. The social school aims to be constructive but not destructive， respecting all the differences and becoming open， powerful and inclusive. Based on the postmodernism， the social school has emphasizes on the relationship between the researchers and the objects of study. The cognitive strongly holds the opinions that people and society can be divided into two entities， hence language and culture can be divided into two independent abstract systems and be studied respectively. Language is always affected by society and thought and by the physical world as well. The cognitive requiring language to be a linear form not affecting nor affected by forces outside is impossible. Language is not like this. Modernist Linguistics terms and theories will be adequate for language close to equilibrium （the condition of a system in which all competing influences are balanced）.That means all the influences are relatively static and ordered. Thus the language is static. As postmodernists， Poincare analyze the “Three Body Problem” and confirms that a three-body model can be used to represent a multiplicity of on-going interdependent interactions that will become increasingly unpredictable over time （Stewart， 1992）. Whorf thinks the three-body systems of Language， Thought and Reality （Whorf， 1956）， or Language， Society and Culture， will better map the non-linear many-body problems in which language is implicated. Holliday’s （1976） grammar is a valuable starting point for a three-body architecture for Linguistics. He proposed three systems which include ideational， interpersonal， and textual act separately or together to produce the functional complexity of language in any instance. Actually these kinds of opinions require researchers to understand and explain social communication events from the perspective of the research objects. Thus the relationship between the researchers and the objects of study becomes more connected.
Based on the postmodernism， the social school are more open to all the study methods and techniques. The thesis has mentioned above that the social school uses the qualitative methods while the cognitive school uses quantitative methods. There is a cluster of related ideas in science and linguistics around the ideas of uncertainty and unpredictability， which together make up a powerful critique of the core principle of modernist thought， precision and prediction as absolute goods， the goal and measure of every inquiry.The cognitive school constructs itself as science， thus the study of language is opposed to humanist approaches which include literary studies and philosophy of language in the past， even culture studies and discourse analysis now. As a dominant linguistics of today， the cognitive school excludes many legitimate ways of studying. It regards many aspects of language as ‘not Linguistics’， or distorts them by trying to squeeze them into inappropriate modernist models. The social school looks to ever more out of science， which no longer works only so well in physics and biology， but also for social， cultural and semiotic phenomena. Combined with science and humanities， the social school includes different schools of linguistics and different approaches to understand language. The social school is more suggestive and productive which will well illuminate the study of language. In summary， the social school has a wider range of object of observation and emphasizes on the relationship between the researchers and the objects of study. Besides the social school are more open to all the study methods and techniques. Equipped with such characteristics， the social school promotes an organic combination of cognitive and social perspectives. Diversity helps to promote the development of second language acquisition and the development of second language teaching. But also the social school should avoid extreme relativism. The cognitive school still has many researches that will make a good impact on second language acquisition.
References：
[1]Halliday M.System and Function in Language G Kress[M]. London Oxford University Press，1976.
[2]Mura， Andrea. The Symbolic Function of Transmodernity[J].Language and Psychoanalysis，2012（1）：68-87.
[3]Saville-Troike， Muriel. Introducing Second Language Acquisition [M]. Cambridge University Press，2012.
[4]Schmeck，R，R. Learning Strategies and Styles[J]. New York， Plenum，1988.
[5]Stewart I. Portraits of chaos[J]. in N Hall （ed） New Scientist Guide to Chaos Harmondsworth Penguin，1992.
[6]Whorf B.Language， Thought and Reality J Carroll （ed）[M].Cambridge MA MIT Press，1956.
[7]Wen Qiufang[文秋芳].評析二语习得认知派与社会派20年的论战[J].中国外语，2008（3）：13-20.
【Key words】social linguistics; cognitive linguistics; postmodernism; modernism
Second Language Acquisition （SLA） refers both to the study of individuals and groups who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one as young children， and to the process of learning that language. During the past 20 years， there are two contrasting schools in the field of second language acquisition. The cognitive and the social schools show fundamental differences in their understanding of language and learning， the object of SLA， research method and philosophical stance. The cognitive-versus-sociocultural debate that took place in various journals and at several conferences in the 1990s， and many researchers in L2 learning and teaching are probably convinced that a wide gap between the two camps is unavoidable.
For the understanding of language and learning， the cognitive school considers language as an intricate rule-based system. Language is rule-governed， which has a finite number of grammatical rules in the system and with knowledge of these rules an infinite number of sentences can be produced. Cognitive style is an individual’s characteristic and relatively consistent way of processing incoming information of all types from the environment. Learning style is simply the application of an individual’s cognitive style to a learning situation （Schmeck， 1988）. The social school emphasizes interaction and engagement with the target language in a socio context based on the concept of ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ （ZPD） and scaffolding. In other words， learning is best achieved through the dynamic interaction between the teacher and the learner and between learners. With the teacher’s scaffolding through questions and explanations， or with a more capable peer s support， the learner can move to a higher level of understanding and extend his/her skills and knowledge to the fullest potential. The thesis of Wen Qiufang（2008） defines the differences of the cognitive school and the social school from five perspectives. The first one is language view. The cognitive school sees language as a mental phenomenon that language is a complex system constructed by intricate language rules. The social school sees language as a social phenomenon. Students need to take apart in the social activities to obtain culture and language knowledge. The second one is the study view. The cognitive believes learners selectively integrates the input into the existing knowledge system， and gradually converts the declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge through continuous output. However， the social school thinks that learners use language to participate in social communication activities， thus they gain language and culture knowledge which become a material for personal brain activities. The third one is the research object. The cognitive school believes that language study is the research which studies language acquisition but not language application. The focus of research is on the characteristics of abstract language systems in learners’ brains and their changes. But the social school believes that language study is the study if language use. It advocates that language acquisition and application are continuum and cannot be divided. The focus of research is on the success of language-based social communication activities. The fourth one is the research techniques and research methods. From an objective point of view， the cognitive school uses quantitative methods to emphasizing objectivity and impartiality， and is strongly opposes the personal views of researchers. From the subjective point of view， the social school uses the qualitative methods to emphasize the interaction between the researcher and the research objects， requiring researchers to understand and explain social communication events from the perspective of the research objects. The fifth one is the philosophical bent. The cognitive advocates the modernist view， believing that people and society can be divided into two entities， thus language and culture can be divided into two independent abstract systems. But the social school adheres to the postmodernist view， believing that people and society， language and culture are integrated and inseparable. This thesis wants to analyze how social school differs from cognitive school from the postmodernism philosophy and the reason why the social school is more suitable for China‘s second language teaching and learning. （To be more accurate， it should be called foreign language teaching for English is not the language Chinese people use in their daily life.） Postmodernism is a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy， the arts， architecture， and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism （Mura， 2012）. This is also the reason why postmodernism linguistics challenge potent modernism linguistics.
Based on the postmodernism， the social school has a wider range of object of observation than the cognitive school. The cognitive school sees language as a kind of knowledge， thus the study of language is a kind of science. Information Processing and Connectionism are two major theoretical frameworks that explain language development and learning processes from the cognitive school. Information Processing （IP） is a cognitive framework which assumes that SLA （like learning of other complex domains proceeds from controlled to automatic processing and involves progressive reorganization of knowledge. There are three approaches based on it， the Multidimensional Model， Processability， and the Competition Model， respectively. Connectionism is a cognitive framework for explaining learning processes， beginning in the 1980s and becoming increasingly influential. It assumes that SLA results from increasing strength of associations between stimuli and responses. However， both Information Processing and Connectionism claim that learning language is essentially like learning other domains of knowledge： that whether people are learning mathematics， or learning to drive a car， or learning Japanese， they are not engaging in any essentially different kind of mental activity.
A postmodern science of language puts forward that the study of language is not a kind of “science”， but a kind of discourse of all their forms with the connections with political， social， cultural and mental life. Based on the modernism， the cognitive school regards the study of language as a science. But the problem is that language itself is not the static object constructed by linguistics. Language is actually an area which is dynamic， fluid， volatile， interconnected with life and thought. Language is uninteresting except in all its protean forms， embedded in all its situations. And this thought leads to the difference on the study contents and study goals. Take speaking teaching for example. It is known to us that speaking is an important part of everyday interaction and most often the first impression of a person is based on his/ her ability to speak fluently and comprehensibly. So here comes the question： What is considered as a good pronunciation？ Based on the cognitive school， a good pronunciation just means a native-like pronunciation because language is a kind of knowledge. To be more specific， students are supposed to pronounce correctly all the speech sounds of the language and all the combinations in their proper order not only isolated words， but also in sentences. Besides， students should be able to pronounce sentences fluently at the speed required by the situation with correct stresses， linking of sounds， rhythm， pauses and intonation. However， most Chinese learners of English do not have enough exposure to English to acquire native-like pronunciation. It is quite strange that people avoid using other group society’s social norms to judge other group society’s lifestyle， but people tend to use one speech society’s language standard to evaluate other speech society’s language. Thus the realistic pronunciation goals come into being. It includes consistency （the pronunciation should be smooth and natural）， intelligibility （the pronunciation should be understandable to the listeners） and communicative efficiency （the pronunciation should help to convey the meaning that is intended by the speaker）. The social school is more considerable and reasonable to take the bilingual and multilingual situations into consideration. Second language learners （also the foreign language learners） are not the learners who pursue the “native-like” second language， but are the users of different languages. Postmodernism linguistics， or that is to say， the social school， is a new framework that looks at language in all its forms and in all its connections. It is a research of a more viable form of linguistics which is more comprehensive and illuminating about how language really for many purposes. The social school aims to be constructive but not destructive， respecting all the differences and becoming open， powerful and inclusive. Based on the postmodernism， the social school has emphasizes on the relationship between the researchers and the objects of study. The cognitive strongly holds the opinions that people and society can be divided into two entities， hence language and culture can be divided into two independent abstract systems and be studied respectively. Language is always affected by society and thought and by the physical world as well. The cognitive requiring language to be a linear form not affecting nor affected by forces outside is impossible. Language is not like this. Modernist Linguistics terms and theories will be adequate for language close to equilibrium （the condition of a system in which all competing influences are balanced）.That means all the influences are relatively static and ordered. Thus the language is static. As postmodernists， Poincare analyze the “Three Body Problem” and confirms that a three-body model can be used to represent a multiplicity of on-going interdependent interactions that will become increasingly unpredictable over time （Stewart， 1992）. Whorf thinks the three-body systems of Language， Thought and Reality （Whorf， 1956）， or Language， Society and Culture， will better map the non-linear many-body problems in which language is implicated. Holliday’s （1976） grammar is a valuable starting point for a three-body architecture for Linguistics. He proposed three systems which include ideational， interpersonal， and textual act separately or together to produce the functional complexity of language in any instance. Actually these kinds of opinions require researchers to understand and explain social communication events from the perspective of the research objects. Thus the relationship between the researchers and the objects of study becomes more connected.
Based on the postmodernism， the social school are more open to all the study methods and techniques. The thesis has mentioned above that the social school uses the qualitative methods while the cognitive school uses quantitative methods. There is a cluster of related ideas in science and linguistics around the ideas of uncertainty and unpredictability， which together make up a powerful critique of the core principle of modernist thought， precision and prediction as absolute goods， the goal and measure of every inquiry.The cognitive school constructs itself as science， thus the study of language is opposed to humanist approaches which include literary studies and philosophy of language in the past， even culture studies and discourse analysis now. As a dominant linguistics of today， the cognitive school excludes many legitimate ways of studying. It regards many aspects of language as ‘not Linguistics’， or distorts them by trying to squeeze them into inappropriate modernist models. The social school looks to ever more out of science， which no longer works only so well in physics and biology， but also for social， cultural and semiotic phenomena. Combined with science and humanities， the social school includes different schools of linguistics and different approaches to understand language. The social school is more suggestive and productive which will well illuminate the study of language. In summary， the social school has a wider range of object of observation and emphasizes on the relationship between the researchers and the objects of study. Besides the social school are more open to all the study methods and techniques. Equipped with such characteristics， the social school promotes an organic combination of cognitive and social perspectives. Diversity helps to promote the development of second language acquisition and the development of second language teaching. But also the social school should avoid extreme relativism. The cognitive school still has many researches that will make a good impact on second language acquisition.
References：
[1]Halliday M.System and Function in Language G Kress[M]. London Oxford University Press，1976.
[2]Mura， Andrea. The Symbolic Function of Transmodernity[J].Language and Psychoanalysis，2012（1）：68-87.
[3]Saville-Troike， Muriel. Introducing Second Language Acquisition [M]. Cambridge University Press，2012.
[4]Schmeck，R，R. Learning Strategies and Styles[J]. New York， Plenum，1988.
[5]Stewart I. Portraits of chaos[J]. in N Hall （ed） New Scientist Guide to Chaos Harmondsworth Penguin，1992.
[6]Whorf B.Language， Thought and Reality J Carroll （ed）[M].Cambridge MA MIT Press，1956.
[7]Wen Qiufang[文秋芳].評析二语习得认知派与社会派20年的论战[J].中国外语，2008（3）：13-20.