Abstract
In her article ‘Issues of narrowness and staticity in ISLA’, Han presents a radical criticism of previous ISLA research, listing a number of faults and limitations that can be ascribed to a narrow and static view on the phenomena of interest. In this reply, I argue that many of these accusations are unwarranted and that they exacerbate academic debate rather than promoting constructive dialogue among different approaches. Han’s proposal for a ‘new way’ of doing research is inspired by some polemical versions of Complex Dynamic System Theory, which easily dismiss the contribution of other methodologies while remaining rather vague on the level of concrete solutions. It is argued that every approach is to some extent reductionist, that narrowness and staticity are inevitable, and that instead of being the target of violent reproach they should become the object of rational discussions about when, what and to what degree one should simplify.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Education
Reference26 articles.
1. Berthele, R. and Udry, I. (eds.) (2021) Individual Differences in Early Instructed Language Learning: The Role of Language Aptitude, Cognition and Motivation. Berlin: Language Science Press.
2. Borges, J. L. (1954) Historia universal de la infamia. Buenos Aires: Emecé.
3. Bulté, B. and Housen, A. (2020) A critical appraisal of the CDST approach to investigating linguistic complexity in L2 writing development. In G. G. Fogal and M. H. Verspoor (eds.) Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development (vol. 54) 207–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.09bul
4. Bygate, M. (ed.) (2018) Learning Language Through Task Repetition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11
5. Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. and Schumann, J. (1978) The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E. Hatch (ed.), Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings 207–30. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.