Emergentism is a philosophical idea that may be found in more recent theories of language acquisition. This study explores emergentist models of language acquisition theory, as well as their relation to pedagogy and language interventions. Contrasting theories are also considered, along with common criticisms. In addition, the literature review describes types of emergentism in language acquisition. The findings suggest limitations of the connectionist models used in emergentist research. Despite these limits, the reasoning behind emergentism is found to be more comprehensive than past theories.
Applying Emergentism in Language Development Contexts
For decades, the field of second language acquisition has been dominated by strictly innatist approaches that measure learning in isolation from environmental and social circumstances. Ask any language teacher what they know about language acquisition, and you’re likely to hear something about Steve Krashen’s Input Hypothesis or his “Acquisition-Learning Distinction” (1982). It seems easy enough to stop there, believing any other relevant theory to be little more than pedantry. Krashen deserves a lot of credit for pioneering teaching methods that are much more effective than those of the past. His theories do have a lot of ground to stand on, and there’s a mountain of evidence to back up the need for comprehensible input in language learning. However, developments in applied linguistics might offer much more insight into new theories about how cognition and memory work together during language learning. Furthermore, these developments may attend to pertinent inquiries, such as whether external stimuli is a necessary and ongoing reminder of anything one has learned. Is it an activator of new knowledge? Lastly, is a specific frequency of activation required for acquisition to occur? There are a few who address these questions from the emergentist point of view in applied linguistics and psychology. These theories could be just that: an alternative point of view… or they could offer new explanations as to how language is acquired.
Emergentism Defined
The origin of emergentism is likely to be found in works of philosophy. The term refers to an adherence to emergence: a process whereby larger constructs arise out of associations between smaller phenomena that do not exhibit the characteristics of those constructs on their own. This is well illustrated by psychologist Brian MacWhinney, who may be credited with developing the first concepts of emergentism in language acquisition:
There is no gene in the bee that codes for hexagonality in the honeycomb, nor any overt communication regarding the shaping of the cells of the honeycomb. Rather, this hexagonal form is an emergent consequence of the application of packing rules to a collection of honey balls of roughly the same size. (2002, p. 3).
This vivid ecological description has multidisciplinary implications that stretch from the field of biology, to applied linguistics.
Emergentism can more generally be defined as an “approach to cognition that stresses the interaction between organism and environment (Gregg, 2004).” In a second language context, this would refer to learners realizing language as it is used, or as it emerges between themselves and others, or their surroundings. Language is activated when physical stimuli or mental mappings provide for contextualization and/or comprehension. This is both an internal and external process, often happening simultaneously. Thus, emergentism could contain elements of innatist, as well as interactionist theories. Moreover, this process may refer to the construction of creative uses of language. Emergentism may be seen as a type of constructivism, but it is not synonymous with the term, despite some confusion surrounding the two concepts (Daftarifard, Alemi & Lavasani, 2011).
There are two emergentist camps in second language acquisition theory that may be contrasted according to focus. One studies mapping of language input and usage, such as analyses of cues that may lead to interpretation of collocations, animacy, inflection and word order. The other considers complex cognitive operations, such as working memory (O’Grady, Miseon & Hye-Young, 2009). In this approach, a “processor” would interpret experiences, and their connection to linguistic knowledge (6). Instead of a “language acquisition device” that is prewired to receive and store input (Bowers, 2005), the processor is a dynamic mediator of internal and external experiences, as well as an initiator of pragmatics, and constructor of expression. Both theories hypothesize on pattern recognition of either linguistic or non-linguistic phenomena, and both describe the initial features of language as non-linguistic before linguistic properties emerge. Input based theories study frequency, while using connectionist models to collect data on acquired language. The processor-based approach might take a closer look at mediation of semiotic relationships. Although the focus is slightly different; neither theory opposes the other, and both are mutually complementary.
Connectionist Models and Criticisms
Brain imaging techniques are used in connectionist models to test neural links. The results normally show stronger or weaker relationships, depending on the level of activation (Nygren, 2011). This supports the emergentist idea that language is a property of associations. It’s also similar to the idea of working memory, which is often described in the emergentist framework as a limiting factor in language acquisition. Working memory entails information being held in the brain temporarily, which in turn, makes activation necessary for recall, or other complex cognitive operations (Baddeley, 1992). John Doolittle described this in practical terms at a TED convention: “We need to process what’s going on the moment it happens, not ten minutes later, not a week later, at the moment (Doolittle, 2013).”
Due to the nature of working memory, it is necessary to elaborate further on frequency of input as it relates to recall. There is evidence that output is often quick to emerge with equal amounts and qualities of input (Khatib & Mehrgan, 2013). Production would reinforce acquisition in a continuous and ongoing process of recycling language use. Also, it would lower the burden on working memory as varying neural algorithms stay engaged with stimuli. Thus, language emerges as a natural product of combined experiences, and the frequency of input needed for acquisition varies from case to case.
In measuring acquired language, the connectionist models used to validate emergentism do have their limits. Brain imaging techniques are used to study relationships between the operations of first and second layer neurons, and these tend to miss a lot of information in terms of the unknown (Poll, 2011). Since the brain’s complexity isn’t fully understood; the language interventions in these models are part speculative. For instance, other researchers state that the input provided in these tests might introduce grammar that is already innate to humans (Pinker & Jackendorf, 2009; as cited in Poll, 2011). However, the same style of inductive reasoning, and the guarded quality of this argument are broad. Not only does the argument discount emergentism, but any theory that would refer to brain research. Therefore, the relative accuracy of connectionist models still makes a strong case in favor of emergentism over a priori theories.
Despite the lack of solid evidence in these arguments, some have criticized emergentism by citing empirical information, namely that of Chomsky’s Poverty of the Stimulus, which refers to the relatively small amounts of input that children receive in contrast to their performance in a given language (as cited in Gregg, 2004). Although this criticism is posed as antithetical, it does not take conceptual differences into account within the emergentist paradigm. Because the defining characteristics of language are not addressed as comprised of constructed elements; using this particular concept to criticize emergentism is fallacious. In emergentist theory, language is constructed by several sources of input and internal associations working together. Therefore, Poverty of the Stimulus would be a better argument for this concept than its own nativist philosophy.
Pedagogy, Interventions and Language Development
An application of emergentism may involve encouraging creative uses of language on the part of L2 learners. In the social-constructivist fashion, learners may not only be motivated to interpret input, but they are active participants in creating new uses of language to reflect meaning from their own perspectives. A smaller amount of input would be sufficient to provide opportunities for learners to engage in a type of negotiated interaction in which new uses of language are coconstructed. This type of construction during interaction could even define language acquisition. Social circumstances already demand intelligibility, so these creative uses of language are likely to unfold accordingly. In addition, language development is encouraged with a forward-thinking pedagogy that embraces new uses, from varying expressions that reflect specific sociocultural contexts, to language produced by individuals as a property of mediation. One example of this type of pedagogy can be found in Scott Thornbury and Luke Meddings’ suggestions in “Teaching Unplugged,” in which emergent language is elicited as a major portion of content in lesson and curriculum development (2009).
Emergentist interventions are shown to be beneficial in the acquisition of common, morphosyntactic patterns, as well as assisting in the accuracy of meaning through reduction of approximations (Poll, 2011). The latter is evidence of MacWhinney’s Competition Model, which emphasizes the importance of the “reliability and availability” of cues in language comprehension (2002). This could occur in learning environments where language is scaffolded, or as meaning is negotiated between peers. As learners interact, spontaneous cognitive processes reflect dialogue between learners, and closure becomes unnecessary because it is the process of engaging in this reduction that promotes fluency, not limited answers.
It appears that the drawbacks of emergentism are no more evident than those of other theories of language acquisition. Evidence will back reasoning in any legitimate theory, and the debate between nativism, interactionism and emergentism will continue. Emergentism on its own is an idea that is in development. Like other theories, further models of testing will be necessary to present findings that are more convincing to those looking for hard science. The connectionist models that are currently used may become insufficient in the future, but this is something that any serious linguist or psychologist would welcome with an open mind. At the moment, these theories offer a unique perspective, and a new way of thinking about language development that is potentially the most accurate with regard to recognizing the complexity of cognition. Therefore, emergentism should be considered very seriously if the field of applied linguistics intends to keep up with information beyond the tired droning of nature versus nurture.
References
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9759336.
Bowers, J. (2005). Language acquisition device. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human development. (pp. 767-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952484.n371.
Daftarifard, P., Alemi, M. & Lavasani, M. (2011). Constructivism, connectionism and emergentism in SLA: Commonalities and differences. Islamic Azad University. Sharif University of Technology. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/10811486/Constructivism_Connectionism_and_Emergentism_in_SLA_Communalities_and_Differences.
Doolittle, P. (2013). How your “working memory” makes sense of the world. TED Conferences. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_doolittle_how_your_working_memory_makes_sense_of_the_world#.
Gregg, K (2004). The state of emergentism in second language language acquisition. Second Language Research. 19. 2. Momoyama Gakuyin University. doi: 10.1191/0267658303sr213oa.
Khatib, M. & Mehrgan, K. (2013). Nativist emergentism in second language acquisition. 133. Advances in English Linguistics. Vol. 2. No. 2. Alameh Tabataba‘i University. Tehran, Iran.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. 10, 20. University of Southern California. Pergamom Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2002). Language emergence: Five timeframes and three illustrations. 3. Burmeister, P., Piske, T., and Rohde, A. (Eds.). An integrated view of language development. 17-42. Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
MacWhinney, B. (2002). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. 1. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. 69-90. New York. Cambridge University Press.
Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching. Peaslake, UK: Delta.
Nygren, T. I. (2011). Language acquisition, emergentism, and the brain-changing norms of unilateral interventionism. TCNJ Journal of Student Scholarship.
O’Grady, W. Miseon, L., Hye-Young, K. (2009). Emergentism and second language acquisition. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Emerald Press.
Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. (2009). The reality of a universal language faculty. Behavior and Brain Sciences. 32: 465–466.
Poll, G. H. (2011). Increasing the Odds: Applying Emergentist Theory in Language Intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42(4), 580–591. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0041).