Second Language Learning and Identity: Cracking Metaphors in Ideo ...

A Focus on Language

Over the past 50 years, there has been a great deal of research on second language learning with a focus on the features of language. Many of these studies gathered quantitative data such as the order in which morphemes are acquired, error correction, interlanguage, fossilization, foreigner talk (Brown & Hanlon, 1970; Burt, Dulay, & Hernandez, 1975; Corder, 1981; Ferguson, 1975; Hakuta, 1974; Selinker, 1972; Young, 1996). In these cases, the research examined the learner’s cognitive processes, isolating them from other contributing factors to learning such as the learner’s social background. In many of these cases, language was considered a system of arbitrary signs or symbols, and learners of the language system were considered as a unitary group in which individual differences are ignored and social backgrounds are considered to be external. This research also ignored students’ historical background, culture, discourse, and the power structures of their environment, and thus was not critically framed. These approaches have separated the notion of language learning and identity, insisting that they are unrelated. Some researchers have looked at Japanese students via a quantitative approach, but the focus was limited to the linguistic aspects of language (Allaway, 1997; Bedford, 1974; Clancy, 1990; De Vos, 1985; Gillis & Weber, 1976; Hyland, 1993; Klein, 1995; Oishi, 1985; Sato, 1982; Spezzini, 2002; Trent, 1997).

Other previous approaches to the study of ESL and academic programs have relied on concepts of language and identity as separate (Canale & Swain, 1980; Cazden, 1988; Cumming, 2005; Deci, 1975; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Gass, 1997; Krashen, 1981, 1982; Long, 2003; van Lier, 1991). Many ESL teachers focus on the importance of “motivation”, (Carroll, 1995; Dörnyei, 1994, 2001; Giles & Byrne, 1982; Schmidt, 1981; Schumann, 1978) but dismiss the dynamic of motivational factors.