Response to: “On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA”

After reading their “On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research,” I found that there is still something to be done in SLA research as Firth and Wagner has attempted to analyze critically the predominant view of discourse and communication in SLA research. They discuss the status of some fundamental concepts in SLA, primarily nonnative speaker, (NNS), learner, and inter-language. Like them I also believe that whatever methodologies and theories are developed, they reflect an imbalance between cognitive and mentalistic orientation, and social and contextual orientation to language. SLA draws on multidisciplinary theoretical and empirical perspectives to address the specific issue of how people acquire a second language and the specific problem of why everyone does not do so successfully. No doubt, there are many important and groundbreaking findings and theories in SLA. However, the work that purports to examine nonnative/learner discourse and communication is impaired--an imbalance of theoretical concerns and methodologies.
I believe that language--as a socio-cultural phenomenon--is acquired and learned through social interaction. Active involvement is a necessary aspect of acquisition because it is through active involvement that discourse and communication become deeply charged. Learning FL is really a challenge for NNS as various factors play a significant role in this venture. In this sense, feeling of competence and difficulty are surely commonplace. What I believe is that meaning is not a private thought transferred from brain to brain. Rather, it a social and negotiable product of interaction, transcending individual intensions and behaviors. In a way, meaning is a social construct; it is negotiated. Firth and Wagner examine different manifestations of the mindset of the learner or nonnative, and finally come to the conclusion that FL learning and interaction are inherently problematic undertakings.

Finally, this article focuses on some of the existing theoretical, methodological, and conceptual problems within SLA and the ramifications of a conceptualized SLA. Loaded with heavy linguistic terms, the ideas Firth and Wagner have developed are rather vague and unclear in first reading. However, what is interesting for me in this article is that some sort of researching activities and interpretation of theoretical issues are juxtaposed together to make the points clear somewhere in the middle part of the article. Their arguments regarding the definition of language are what I concur. I also think that language is not only a cognitive phenomenon, the product of the individual brain; it is also fundamentally a social phenomenon. It is acquired through the active participation of LR (language learner) in a variety of contexts for myriad practical purposes. Now it is necessary that we have to go further analyzing the theoretical and methodological implication of SL learning so that we will redress the imbalance of perspectives and approaches within the field.

Questions for discussion: What are the major problems an NS faces while talking to an NNS? How can they conceptualize the ideas that they want to share during their communication?