EE818_1Understanding language and learningUnderstanding language and learningAbout this free courseThis free course is an adapted extract from the Open University course EE818 Language, literacy and learning www.open.ac.uk/postgraduate/modules/ee818.This version of the content may include video, images and interactive content that may not be optimised for your device. You can experience this free course as it was originally designed on OpenLearn, the home of free learning from The Open University –www.open.edu/openlearn/languages/understanding-language-and-learning/content-section-0There you’ll also be able to track your progress via your activity record, which you can use to demonstrate your learning.

Copyright © 2017 The Open UniversityIntellectual propertyUnless otherwise stated, this resource is released under the terms of the Creative Commons Licence v4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en_GB. Within that The Open University interprets this licence in the following way: www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/frequently-asked-questions-on-openlearn. Copyright and rights falling outside the terms of the Creative Commons Licence are retained or controlled by The Open University. Please read the full text before using any of the content. We believe the primary barrier to accessing high-quality educational experiences is cost, which is why we aim to publish as much free content as possible under an open licence. If it proves difficult to release content under our preferred Creative Commons licence (e.g. because we can’t afford or gain the clearances or find suitable alternatives), we will still release the materials for free under a personal end-user licence. This is because the learning experience will always be the same high quality offering and that should always be seen as positive – even if at times the licensing is different to Creative Commons. When using the content you must attribute us (The Open University) (the OU) and any identified author in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Licence.The Acknowledgements section is used to list, amongst other things, third party (Proprietary), licensed content which is not subject to Creative Commons licensing. Proprietary content must be used (retained) intact and in context to the content at all times.The Acknowledgements section is also used to bring to your attention any other Special Restrictions which may apply to the content. For example there may be times when the Creative Commons Non-Commercial Sharealike licence does not apply to any of the content even if owned by us (The Open University). In these instances, unless stated otherwise, the content may be used for personal and non-commercial use.We have also identified as Proprietary other material included in the content which is not subject to Creative Commons Licence. These are OU logos, trading names and may extend to certain photographic and video images and sound recordings and any other material as may be brought to your attention.Unauthorised use of any of the content may constitute a breach of the terms and conditions and/or intellectual property laws.We reserve the right to alter, amend or bring to an end any terms and conditions provided here without notice.All rights falling outside the terms of the Creative Commons licence are retained or controlled by The Open University.Head of Intellectual Property, The Open University Have you ever thought about the role of language in learning? This free course, Understanding language and learning, is designed to make you reflect on the relationship between language and learning. You will explore these two concepts in ways that may challenge your current understanding of them. One of the assumptions on this course is that language and learning are inextricably intertwined. It is hard to imagine learning happening without some sort of language mediating it; and it is almost as hard to imagine language being used without some sort – however small – of learning taking place.This OpenLearn course is an adapted extract from the Open University course EE818 Language, literacy and learning.After studying this course, you should be able to:understand key issues in the relationship between language and learningunderstand the importance of language in learningunderstand the different ways in which language features in learningreflect critically on language and on learning.This course will be of interest to educational professionals, whether they teach language or any other subject, as well as to students studying language or anyone interested in how learning takes place through linguistic interaction. The course will also be of interest to a wider audience because it views learning not only as something that takes place in a formal educational context, such as a classroom or a training course, but as any kind of learning taking place informally and throughout your life, as when giving a computer tutorial to your neighbour, or interacting with someone online. The course is a standalone section of a course at postgraduate level, which means that you are expected to engage criticality with what you read. If you like challenging and reflecting on commonly accepted notions and concepts, or if you are just genuinely inquisitive, then this course is for you.In this section, we are going to develop the argument that when we first learn to use language as infants we transform our understanding of language and of the world in general. In other words, we learn to use language, and through using language, we learn. This mutual reinforcement between learning language and learning more generally continues throughout our life in both formal and informal learning contexts. In this section, we will also set out the sociocultural linguistic approach (SCLA) to language learning and learning more generally. This is an approach which emphasises the inextricability of language and learning. Another feature that characterises this approach is its emphasis on learning through social interaction, in contrast to an exclusive focus of learning as a mental and cognitive process.

Figure 1 Scarlett interacting with her father

You will start to consider the relationship between language and learning by looking closely at an informal exchange between a young child, her father and her grandmother.Activity 1Allow 1 hourScarlett, father and grandmotherFATHERShould we just fill up the watering cans?SCARLETTYeah. It’s coming down nice.FATHEROK. Here you go. Do you want to put it here?SCARLETTYes. FATHERShould we put that one in here as well?SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE]. FATHEROK. Hold on to it. Say stop. When do you want me to stop? Now?SCARLETTYes. FATHERWow. OK. What are we going to water now?SCARLETTRight here. FATHEROK. I think what we should do is water these ones over here. Ooh, watch your feet.SCARLETTWhere? FATHERLook over here. Let’s put some more in here. Oh, no, there’s another earwig in there. I don’t know why they’re called earwigs. But look at him.SCARLETTKeep him over here. Keep him over here.FATHEROK, I’ll put him over here. Let’s water these ones. And then let’s have a look what’s under here. Should we water this one together? What have I got here? Scarlet, look. What’s that?SCARLETTA spider.FATHERWhy do you think it’s a spider?SCARLETTI don’t know. A beetle.FATHERHow many legs has it got?SCARLETTTwo. A beetle.FATHERIt’s a beetle. It’s a beetle. Shall I try and pick him up?SCARLETTHe’s moving.FATHERLook at him. Wow, that was a lucky find, wasn’t it?SCARLETTIt’s a snail. It’s a snail.FATHERA snail? Do you want to go and find a snail?SCARLETTTwo. FATHERWhat does a snail look like? What’s this? This is his foot, is it? We should go and have a look at the end of the garden, yeah? Should we see how many snails we can find? Do you want to go for the record of snails? What’s that one?SCARLETTA snail. FATHERWhat’s that?SCARLETTHe’s not getting up.FATHERShould we just pop him here? Like so.SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE] him [INAUDIBLE].FATHEROh! What’s that one then?SCARLETTI don’t know. Take him over here.FATHEROK, we’ll put him down here, shall we?SCARLETTHe’s moving.FATHERHow many feet has this one got?SCARLETTHe has two.FATHERTwo? Show me where the two are. I can’t see two legs. Look. Wow, you can see that those two are similar, aren’t they? Ooh, look, there’s the beetle. And there’s a snail. And do you know what this is called?SCARLETTNo.FATHERDo you know what this is called? It’s called a slug.SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE] that one here.FATHERYeah, the slug’s going down there, isn’t he? So look, look what’s different about them.SCARLETTYou touched him. FATHERYeah, this one’s got a shell. And this one hasn’t got a shell. SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE] down here. FATHERYeah. So what’s that one called? SCARLETTA snail. A snail. FATHERAnd? SCARLETTWhat is he? I don’t know. FATHERIt begins with S. Again, it’s slug. Right, I’ll find something else and see if you can - what’s that one called? SCARLETTI don’t know. Like this one. FATHERWhich one is it like? SCARLETTThis one [INAUDIBLE]. FATHEROK, it’s not - is it like that one? Why is it not like that one? SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE]. FATHEROK. GRANDMOTHERAre you going to show me your snails? SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE]. First we come here. GRANDMOTHERWe come here? OK. I’ll come here. You’re going to find them? Where’s those snails gone that we had? SCARLETTThey’re sleeping. GRANDMOTHERThey’re sleeping, are they? They put their head in their shells, have they? What have we got in here? Ooh, what’s that, Scarlet? What color is that? What color is that, Scarlet? SCARLETTNot very nice. You put him down. GRANDMOTHERYou put him down? Do you think - is that a worm? SCARLETTWe like worms. GRANDMOTHERYou like worms, do you? SCARLETTYeah. GRANDMOTHERI think that’s a slug, isn’t it? Is it a yellowy. SCARLETTNot touch him. GRANDMOTHEROh, not touch him? SCARLETTYes. You put him down. GRANDMOTHERYou want me to put him down? SCARLETTYeah. GRANDMOTHERWhy do you want me to put him down? SCARLETTHim not very nice. GRANDMOTHERIt’s not very nice. SCARLETTNo. GRANDMOTHERHe’s all right. He won’t hurt us. Look, there’s a little tiny one, the baby one there. Can you see the baby one? Which is the baby one, Scarlett? SCARLETTThis one here. GRANDMOTHERThat’s the baby one. And that’s a big one. He’s not harmful, is he? SCARLETTHe’s not hurt me. The little one not hurt me. GRANDMOTHERNo, the little one won’t hurt you. SCARLETTOh, OK. I like this little one. GRANDMOTHERYou like the little one? SCARLETTYes. GRANDMOTHERHe’s moving. We’re not frightened of him, are we? No. SCARLETTJust a tiny little bit. GRANDMOTHERJust a tiny little bit, OK. SCARLETTNo, don’t put your finger here. [? He’s ?] moving. GRANDMOTHERYou watch now. You watch him climb down there. Oh, look, he’s going to get down that. Look how clever he is. He’s exploring. Do you think he’s going to find the grass? SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE] going home. GRANDMOTHERHe’s going home, is he? Hm. That’s clever, isn’t it? Can you remember what colour these are? SCARLETTYellow. GRANDMOTHERThat’s right. And what about this one? SCARLETTPurple. GRANDMOTHERIs he purple? And what about those two? That one’s. SCARLETTYellow. GRANDMOTHERThat’s not yellow. What colour is that? SCARLETTWhite. GRANDMOTHERYeah. And that’s one is? Is he brown? Do you think he’s brown? What colour is that one? SCARLETTBlack. GRANDMOTHERHe’s black. Oh, look. Look at the little - can you see the baby snail climbing up now? SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE] don’t touch him. GRANDMOTHERNot touch him? He won’t hurt you. Look. You touch him. You just touch his shell. There you are. It doesn’t hurt, does it? SCARLETTAnd this one. GRANDMOTHERYou can touch that one as well - the big one. Both of them, they’re asleep I think. How many have got shells? How many? Count them. SCARLETTOne. Not touch him. One, two. GRANDMOTHERWhat about that one? SCARLETTThree. GRANDMOTHERThree. Should we just pick a few leaves up to help daddy before we go? Shall we? Now you know you haven’t got to pick the nice ones, don’t you? Where’s your bucket? SCARLETTThis is your [INAUDIBLE]. GRANDMOTHERAnd this is my bucket. By the flowers over there. Would you like to pick the dead flowers for nanny? Look, if nanny puts you over there look. Would you like to pick the dead flowers off there for nanny, please? Just off that one there. Pick the dead leaves and put them in your bucket. Put your bucket down. SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE]. GRANDMOTHERIs that dead? SCARLETTYes. Not take this. GRANDMOTHERNo, come on then. Step down there. You come and find the blue flowers. Where are the blue flowers, Scarlett? Are they dead, or are they alive? SCARLETTAlive. GRANDMOTHERThose are alive, are they? Well, we can’t pick those then, can we? Just get down on your knee and have a look. See if that’s alive. Is that alive? SCARLETTNo. GRANDMOTHERIs that one alive? Does that smell nice? Do you think that’s OK? SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE]. Yeah. That’s [INAUDIBLE]. GRANDMOTHERThat’s OK, is it? SCARLETTYeah. [INAUDIBLE]. GRANDMOTHERWe mustn’t pick those, must we? SCARLETTNo. GRANDMOTHERNo. What about the blue ones? SCARLETTNo. GRANDMOTHERYou mustn’t pick those either. SCARLETTNo. GRANDMOTHERNo. SCARLETTJust the leaves. GRANDMOTHERJust the leaves. SCARLETTYeah. GRANDMOTHEROh, that’s a good girl. There’s a leaf there. Look. SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE]. GRANDMOTHERYou picked that one up as well. Oh, that’s a lovely flower, isn’t it? SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE]. GRANDMOTHERYou’re not to pick those, no. You pick them off the ground, do you? SCARLETTYes. [INAUDIBLE]. GRANDMOTHERPut them in the bucket then. And some more. SCARLETTThey’re dirty. GRANDMOTHERThat one’s not ready yet, is it? No, you mustn’t do that one, must you? No, you can only pick the ones off of the ground. SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE]. GRANDMOTHEROnly [INAUDIBLE] yeah, there you are. Put them in the bucket. SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE] my bucket. [HUMMING] GRANDMOTHERCareful. SCARLETT[HUMMING] GRANDMOTHERLook, there’s a lot more down there, isn’t. SCARLETTThese are your ones. GRANDMOTHERThose are my ones. Why are they my ones, Scarlett? SCARLETTWell, these are big. GRANDMOTHEROh, they’re big because they’re my ones, OK. Put them in the bucket. SCARLETT[INAUDIBLE].

Watch the ‘Scarlett, father and grandmother’ video above. It shows Scarlett, aged two years and 11 months, talking to her father and grandmother in their garden in London, England. As you watch the unfolding interaction, note down the different types of learning you can observe. Provide an example of each. Consider, too, what role Scarlett’s family plays in the learning process. If you have already studied courses on language analysis, be as specific as you can about the language used.

Aspect of language acquisition	Notes
Grammatical structures
Vocabulary
Pronunciation
Interaction
Acquiring knowledge

Once you have written your notes, click on ‘Reveal discussion’ button below to read a commentary on the video clip. Please note that whereas you were requested to make notes, this is a more ‘polished’ commentary since it will form an important part of the teaching. There are many ways of responding to this activity, and your reply is unlikely to have made the same observations as the ones below.In the video, Scarlett is learning different aspects of the English language. For example, she is learning new vocabulary (‘beetle’, ‘slug’, etc.), and words she has previously learned (such as various colours and numbers) are carefully reinforced by her father and grandmother, including their correct pronunciation.At the same time that Scarlett is learning language she is also learning something about the world. For example, she is learning (in a very rudimentary way) how to sort and classify the natural world. This includes learning how different types of insects (namely beetles and spiders) can be distinguished through different attributes (such as numbers of legs) and how slugs are different from snails through having (or not having) a shell. She is also learning to differentiate between leaves that are ‘alive’ and those that are dead. Such taxonomies are a fundamental resource in enabling Scarlett to begin ordering and categorising the world around her.Scarlett is also learning how to interact with other human beings in order to exchange information and get things done. That is, she both listens and speaks to her family in an interactive process of ‘turn-taking’. Although she asks very few questions she finds out many new things when in response to her father’s questions she says, ‘I don’t know’. She can also give simple commands: ‘you come here’, ‘you put him down’, ‘don’t touch him’, in order to get people to do things for her. Although in mature adult speech, commands are often expressed as either imperative clauses in which the subject (you) is absent – e.g. ‘come here’ – or expressed indirectly through interrogative clauses – e.g. ‘Could you come here?’ – Scarlett tends to use declaratives to make commands, which include the subject – ‘You come here’. Did you notice how Scarlett’s father and grandmother use language structures first to facilitate cooperative interaction, using mood or question tags such as ‘isn’t it?’ and also to model causal relations, for instance ‘why are they …’ and ‘because they’re …’.The clip shows that learning often occurs in social interaction. Although in other contexts this might well be peer interaction, here Scarlett is interacting with more expert adults who provide various kinds of support for her language and learning development; prompting, guiding and modelling, as appropriate. For example, Scarlett’s father, Dominic, asks her (while pointing to a slug), ‘Do you know what this is called?’ And then prompts her, ‘It begins with “s”’. He then provides the answer, ‘slug’. In many ways, then, Dominic is acting as an informal teacher for Scarlett’s development, with, in some cases, quite explicit teaching of both language and ‘content’.This activity demonstrates the interdependency of language and learning. This inextricability between language and learning is a fundamental characteristic of the sociocultural linguistic approach (SCLA) to language and learning. Aside from emphasising the inextricability of language and learning, another feature of SCLA is its emphasis on learning through social interaction. In other words, according to this approach, learning can only take place through interaction with other human beings. This emphasis on interaction distinguishes this approach from other approaches to learning which pay more attention to the mental and cognitive processes of learning. In the next section, we will look at this in more detail and whether language and learning is a cognitive or social process.

Figure 2 Children interacting: a sociocultural linguistic approach to language and learningTwo children and an adult sitting on the floor making a jigsaw puzzle.

The well-known US theoretical linguist Noam Chomsky is one linguist who has been more concerned with the cognitive than the social processes of language and learning. He has argued throughout his career that human beings are born with the ability to learn language and that this ability, or mental grammar, is present without having been taught (Chomsky, 1965). Where the cognitive approach is disinterested in social aspects of language learning and language use, some interactional approaches are equally disinterested in cognitive aspects of language learning and use. The sociocultural linguistic approach sits somewhere in between, foregrounding the social but also recognising the relationship between the social and the cognitive. The sociocultural linguistic approach to language and learning is often associated with the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, whose work we will discuss in a later section. Vygotsky was among a group of psychologists and philosophers of language who emphasised the social aspects of learning.

Figure 3 Colour PET scan of language areas of the brain: a cognitive approach to language and learningColour PET scan of language areas of the brain:Colour PET scan of four brains on black background highlighting the language areas.

A scholar who reacted directly against Chomsky was Dell Hymes, a US ethnographer and linguist. Hymes criticised Chomsky’s notion of an innate linguistic competence. He saw this purely cognitive conceptualisation of linguistic competence as inadequate and coined an alternative term, communicative competence, to highlight that using language successfully is not only about knowing the rules of syntax, morphology and phonology. A language user must also know how to use and when to use utterances appropriately, thereby acknowledging the sociocultural and communicative aspects of language (Hymes, 1966). Unlike Vygotsky, Hymes is more often described as a linguistic ethnographer than as a socioculturalist, but the underpinning idea, that language is learned through social interaction with others, is fundamentally the same.What distinguishes the sociocultural linguistic approach from other approaches to language and language learning, then, is what we look at and how we look at it. In terms of the former, we prioritise social interaction and function over cognition and form. In terms of the latter, we favour methodologies that enable us to observe how language and learning occurs in social interaction and in context. One such methodology is ethnography, informed by anthropology, which provides insights about how social, historical and cultural contexts shape language and learning. Ethnography is one of the key methodologies used in the sociocultural linguistic approach.

Figure 4 Noam ChomskyA photograph of Noam Chomsky.

Figure 5 Dell HymesA photograph of Dell Hymes.

By observing the child–parent interaction in the earlier video we were able to draw out some answers to questions concerning language and learning and the relationship between the two. More specifically, we saw how learning takes place through language use and in social interaction with others, and we also saw how language itself is learnt in social interaction with others. A key proponent of this view is Michael Halliday, who is regarded as one of the world’s leading linguists and is the leading exponent of systemic functional linguistics (SFL).

Figure 6 Michael HallidayA photograph of Michael Halliday.

Halliday (2004) argues that there are three ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and language: learning a language, learning through language and learning about language. As children are socialised, they are engaged in all three processes simultaneously. They learn a language, i.e. how to form sounds and utterances in their first (or additional) language(s) (learning a language). They learn about the world as they do so, for instance, by acquiring the word ‘hail’ they come to learn that there is such a concept (possibly even before having experienced it in the real world) and that is different from both snow or rain (learning through language). And finally, they learn about language, i.e. through either explicit or implicit feedback and modelling, they learn how to put together phonemes, morphemes, words, and ultimately phrases together accurately.Halliday built his theory on the example of young children learning in informal contexts, so, as a way of beginning to encourage your skills in critical thinking, you may want to think about how learning in other contexts differs from this. For instance, to what extent does Halliday’s argument about the three-pronged learning still apply in formal educational contexts or in contexts where adults learn? To what extent does the subject matter play a role? In the next section, we will introduce another important scholar in the area of language and learning, who shares points in common with Halliday, but also differs from his thinking in other ways.Halliday argues that learning a language is not so much a process of acquiring a commodity that is ‘out there’ but rather a process of ‘construction in interaction with others’ (Halliday, 2004). This is a position shared by Vygotsky who, like Halliday, has also had a significant influence on those researching and working in first- and second-language learning contexts.

Figure 7 Lev VygotskyA photograph of Lev Vygotsky.

Unlike Halliday, however, Vygotsky’s perspective on language and learning has its origins in the discipline of psychology. Vygotsky argues that learning and mental development need to be viewed as a social process: it is through the interactions we enter into with other members of our culture, particularly those who are more knowledgeable or proficient, that we make sense of the world and learn new (usually culturally and socially specific) ways of seeing, doing and being (Vygotsky, 2011). Thus Vygotsky’s emphasis on the sociocultural can be seen as breaking away from his disciplinary grounding in psychology, which is normally concerned with exploring the psyche of the individual. Vygotsky was quite radical for his time as he was among the first theorists, at least in psychology, who recognised humans as social and cultural beings. He remains very influential to this day, albeit more so in the field of education than in linguistics.An important aspect of Vygotsky’s theory is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The concept emphasises the social aspects of learning by recognising the role of a ‘teacher’ (in an official or unofficial capacity) for a learner to realise their full potential. His view was that language arises as a means of communication between a child and those around them, and that it is the social interaction that develops children’s learning and language; this places the teacher/caregiver in a very important role. Contrary to the research dominant in the nineteenth century, Vygotsky argued that there is an optimal age for all learning and that for some topics, students might be either too young or too old to learn efficiently. Vygotsky also challenged the view that the brightest students continue to learn more than weaker students upon entering school. He makes the case that, in comparative terms, the learning of brighter students actually slows down when they enter school. On the basis of such evidence, Vygotsky introduces the concept of relative achievement, which emphasises the importance of assessing achievement in relation to the starting point. In relative terms, brighter students (measured in IQ terms) learn less and weaker students learn more. This, in turn, leads him to introduce the notion of ‘zone of proximal development’, which is a key concept in Vygotsky’s thinking. It relates to the differences between where the child/student currently is in terms of intellectual ability, and where they could be. The implications of this idea is that a child could gain a higher degree of learning by exploiting their learning potential. Key to Vygotsky’s thinking is also that this learning potential is best developed through interaction with an adult, an idea that is central to the sociocultural linguistic approach to learning adopted on this course.

Figure 8 The zone of proximal development (ZPD)A figure illustrating Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development ’. The figure shows three concentric circles. The innermost circle says ‘learner can do unaided’. This circle represents the skills and knowledge already possessed by the learner before approaching new learning context. The outermost circle says ‘learner cannot do’, which represents the skills and knowledge the learner does not yet possess. The circle between the innermost and the outermost circle says ‘zone of proximal development’, and in brackets ‘learner can do with guidance’. This circle represents the skills and knowledge that the learner can acquire through guided interaction.

In the video with Scarlett, you considered how learners learn through language. In the case of Scarlett, the language through which she learnt was her first language. The language which is first acquired by children is referred to as ‘L1’ by linguists, and any subsequent languages learned are referred to as ‘L2’, ‘L3’, etc. One context in which learning through language becomes more marked than in Scarlett’s L1 context is in bilingual or multilingual education. Bilingual or multilingual education takes place when there is more than one language involved in an educational setting. There are many different models of bilingual education and as many reasons for their existence. Various multilingual education models have evolved in order to suit the learning needs and demands of societies. For example, in many postcolonial contexts, learners from a young age are taught all subjects of the curriculum (Maths, Science, History, etc.) through an ex-colonial language, e.g. English in Ghana or French in Senegal. In some very linguistically diverse contexts, such as Nigeria where there are 527 officially recognised languages and Ghana where there are 79, English also functions as a lingua franca enabling communication between speakers who have a variety of L1s. Parents often endorse English-medium education as it is seen as bringing opportunities for social mobility. Those who have researched bilingual education and English as a medium of instruction, however, have highlighted the many negative consequences of learning through English. Usually, the advice given by researchers is to ensure that literacy is developed through the L1 and that English is introduced once a solid foundation for literacy in the L1 has been attained.Activity 2Allow 10 minutesIn order to understand the relationship between language, literacy and learning, take a moment to think about the advice given by researchers of bilingual education. Why do you think it is important for a child to develop their literacy in the first language before being taught through a second language?You will recall from the video with Scarlett that she was taught things about language and the world in general through linguistic interaction with her father. When Scarlett starts school she will begin to learn more systematically how sounds correspond to letters; she will begin to develop literacy in her L1. The advice given by those who have researched bilingual education to develop literacy in one’s L1 first assumes that it is easier to transition into literacy, i.e. develop competence in reading and writing, if a learner is already familiar with the sounds to which the letters can correspond: for instance, that the phoneme ‘k’ can correspond to the letters ‘c’ as in ‘curtain’, ‘k’ as in ‘kilo’ and ‘q’ as in ‘queen’. Once this code has been ‘cracked’ for one language, it is easier to apply those principles of matching to another language.So far, we have operated with fairly straightforward notions of learning, and particularly of language. However, research has recently begun to problematise the dichotomy between L1 and L2. In an age characterised by an unprecedented degree of migration, transnational and translingual communication – physical as well as virtual – linguists have begun to question the idea that languages are discrete, essentialised and countable. Such scholars argue that the difference between languages is more political and ideological than empirical. Thus, the reason why mutually intelligible entities such as Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are considered languages but the mutually incomprehensible Hokkien and Hakka are considered dialects of Chinese has more to do with politics and nation building than with empirical and linguistic facts.More specifically, there has been a conceptual shift which prompts us to move our gaze from languages as systems (English, Chinese and French) to languages as practices, which may be a lot more hybrid in nature than the notion of systems would suggest. In fact, some scholars have even begun to use the word ‘language’ as a verb (as in ‘they are languaging’) to prioritise the ‘doing’ and emergent nature of languages over their a priori existence (García and Wei, 2015).This conceptual shift also has implications for L2 proficiency. When the gaze moves from languages as systems to languages as practices, there is a recognition that some people can have greater proficiency in their L2 than in their L1 in some registers. One of the course authors has an anecdote from her childhood, which illustrates this. Her Swedish mother and her mother’s Danish husband (her stepfather) sometimes got into arguments about who was better at English, a second language for both of them. Her mother’s claim was backed up by the fact that she has a degree in English and used to teach it as a second language to Swedish secondary students. Her stepfather’s claim was not based on having a degree in English, but on the fact that as an engineer he often gave talks in English at international conferences. In the particular area of engineering in which he was specialised – sanitation – he certainly knew a lot more vocabulary items in English than her mother did, and possibly more than he did in Danish, his L1. This goes to show that in certain registers you can have greater proficiency in an L2 than in your L1, thereby further blurring the distinction between L1 and L2.Further challenges to the dichotomy between L1 and L2 can be seen with the introduction of the concept of translanguaging, which refers to the idea of mixing features from L1 and L2 (García and Wei, 2015). While such language mixing has always occurred in bilingual contexts and has been studied under headings such as ‘code-switching’, ‘code-mixing’ or ‘code-meshing’ by sociolinguists, the novelty of this concept is that researchers are beginning to recommend that translanguaging should be exploited as a resource teachers and learners can draw on to enhance learning in bilingual contexts. You will explore this in greater detail in the next activity.Another challenge to established paradigms prompted by globalisation and increased transnational and translingual communication can be found in the field of global English. Here, it is argued that because the number of English speakers has grown so considerably in recent decades, with estimates suggesting that non-native speakers of English now outnumber native speakers by at least three to one, new ways of thinking about norms and ownership are needed. One paradigm that has subsequently attracted criticism is Kachru’s three-circle model of English speakers (Kachru, 1992). When it appeared, this was itself a groundbreaking way of thinking the English language and stimulated a wealth of research under the heading ‘World Englishes’.The field of ‘World Englishes’ developed towards the end of the twentieth century with the work of Braj Kachru and others to theoretically and empirically investigate the statuses and functions of the English language in various contexts around the world, and explore issues in the ownership of English. Kachru’s (1992) well-known three-circle model of English speakers has become an influential way of understanding the varieties and functions of different Englishes being used in the world. This can be broken down as follows: The inner circle (norm providing) represents the traditional sources of English speaking, e.g. UK, USA, which have provided the language norms for English Language Teaching (ELT). The outer circle (norm developing) which includes countries in Africa and Asia, where English is not necessarily people’s first language but has been important historically through colonisation. The expanding circle of countries (norm dependent) where English has never had an official status, but is now important as an additional language or lingua franca.

Figure 9 Braj Kachru’s three-circle model of English speakers (Kachru, 1992)A figure with three slightly overlapping circles vertically aligned. These three circles are used to categorise nation states according to the status and use the English language has within them. The bottom circle is titled ‘The “Inner Circle”’ and lists some countries in which English is the first language of the majority of the population, where it is widely spoken and typically has official status. The countries listed are USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. On top of this is a circle titled ‘The “Outer Circle”’, which lists examples of nation states in which English is spoken as a second language by the majority of the population. In ‘Outer Circle’ countries, English typically has a significant role in some public domains, e.g. education, and it may have status as a second or first official language. The states listed are Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Zambia. The top circle, finally, is titled ‘The “Expanding Circle”’ and lists some of those nation states in which English is increasingly used, e.g. in education, in business or in youth culture. These nation states are expanding in numbers, hence the term. The countries listed in this circle are: China, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Russia, Zimbabwe.

The field of ‘World Englishes’ broke new ground in terms of challenging conventional notions of language ownership, and there is now a considerable literature on the existence of national or regional varieties of English, e.g. Indian English, Nigerian English, Malaysian English, Singapore English and so on. However, in response to the continued global spread of English, as well as the increasing diversity among communities within nation states as a result of globalisation, there have been criticisms launched against this work. In the following interview, Suresh Canagarajah questions whether Kachru’s model – which was developed at the end of the twentieth century – is still useful in the context of the twenty-first century.

Figure 10 Suresh CanagarajahA photograph of Suresh Canagarajah.

Activity 3Allow 1 hourSuresh CanagarajahSURESHI think everybody starts any discussion on World Englishes from Kachru … He did important service to English language and speakers of this language by I think for the first time showing that English is not one language. It's a heterogeneous language. It's a composite of many varieties of English and I think more importantly he showed that there are other new varieties that are evolving which are also standardised and he made the case that other varieties like, you know, Sri Lankan English, Indian English have their own rules. They have a grammar. So it was important breakthrough in linguistics to show that other varieties of English should be accepted as legitimate. I think it is a classic distinction of ESL countries in the outer circle and EFL kind of usage in the expanding circle. And he also used a couple of other terms. I think he called the inner circle as non-providing and, you know, the norms come from there and go out to other communities. The outer circle he called non-developing because you know they are developing their own standards. But the third circle, the expanding circle, he called nondependent because, you know, he assumed that they borrow their norms from the inner circle because they don’t have a history of usage in their own country. But things have changed since then. We find that there are a lot more uses of the English language outside the inner circle, you know, people who use English as an additional language are more in number and also the currency of English, its usage is much more among multilinguals. They are the people who need this language. So people think that the native speakers have lost their clout, you know, have lost their say over this language because others are using it much more and they are more importantly for their purposes. A lot of people wonder whether the inner circle is the inner circle any more. It has lost its status as norm providing. Youth all over the world are using English for their identity. And there are also some articles I read recently from both Mexico and Germany where people say, you know, we have a variety of our own. So it looks like these countries are not norm dependent. They are evolving norms of their own. So in a sense a lot of people now doubt this tripartite distinction even native speakerhood is being critiqued and there are others outside the traditional native speaker countries, the USA, England, etc., who are claiming English as one of their local languages and part of their repertoire. Now to be proficient in English from the way I look at the global scene is a person with a repertoire, a person who can shuttle between different varieties but then we come across a very practical problem. You can't teach all these varieties to everybody. So what I find interesting is to change the kind of paradigm of teaching English as we always taught in terms of a target language or a target variety and we had a good understanding of where we want these students to go, towards which model. But now I think that we need a repertoire rather than just one target variety. I think a lot of teachers are wondering whether it's better to teach students to become learners of English or people who can decipher the different varieties that are – that they are engaging with and accommodate those varieties, negotiate those varieties to outsiders so that we are not now thinking of variety X, variety Y etc. But developing in students a language awareness so that they know how varieties work or develop a social linguistic sensitivity to why people speak differently and then they can negotiate with these speakers. So I think two things are happening. One is people, I at least am thinking in terms of developing language awareness. On the other hand we can also teach students negotiation strategies. So I'm thinking of moving away from grammar to strategies. So what I find is these are very traditional sociolinguistic constructs which might come to use like speech accommodation theory, code switching, things which will help us show empathy and show solidarity with another person but at the same time understand, you know, what they are saying. So what I think is, a lot of people this looks like a difficult kind of pedagogy where it goes against a lot of things we’ve been doing in language classrooms. But I think this comes very naturally to multilinguals because they negotiate different languages in their communities. So I think multilinguals come with a readiness to negotiate. It's very intuitive. It's developed through social practice, you know, in their own communities. But eventually I … language teachers should learn from communication outside. We have a lot of research also, you know, recorded interactions between multilinguals they negotiate each other’s difference and sometimes come up with a third option. They may not end up with a native speaker, lexical items or grammatical structures but they end up using English in their own way. They develop their own norms and they are able to succeed in the business transacted in that particular location. Part of the assumption that there is multilinguals develop an intersubjective norm, you know. As they talk they negotiate and then come up with a usage, a particular structure or a word that native speakers won't use but it was just OK for them. So there are a lot of scholars who feel English as a lingua franca is being negotiated in more dynamic ways. People are developing new norms on the spot as they talk to each other. And we have to if we are preparing students for those kinds of communication. I guess the shift will be from expecting students to look for grammar rules and, you know, the product of language, you know, in our particular system to work it out as a process in how do you communicate in a situation like this in English and then reflect on it to see what did you do in order to be understood and to understand each other. But I would say that it's still, because we've not been doing this kind of teaching, there's a lot more to be done. It's important to not only have high stakes kind of encounters where students are evaluated and assessed all the time. Safe houses I've used it in terms of an intercultural classroom where there are students from different communities, formed hidden communities, to resolve some of their problems and they would talk about issues that seemed to be off task but when you look at them carefully they are framing the discussion in a way that’s relevant to them, you know. They are bringing things from popular culture or from music or, you know, cinema. And what I found was this at one level looks like deviating from the expectations of the teacher but at another level this is framing the discussion in their own terms and it's equally valid. Students need spaces to play, not always to be judged. They need spaces to be creative, to make mistakes, to have fun. So I think in those sites that people will negotiate much more freely whereas if they sense that the teacher is looking for correctness they're not going to be negotiating on equal terms to try to understand other people and to make themselves understood. I think a lot of these things might not make sense if we look at language teaching and language through the glasses of traditional linguistics. So I think a lot of people are coming to the idea of a native speaker and using native speaker varieties as the norm might have to be re-thought for all kinds of reasons. We don’t know who the native speaker is now. I guess all of us are multilinguals in a sense. For a lot of us it's difficult to identify one language as sole or main language compared to the others. But more importantly I think for multilinguals it's the idea of a native speaker norm is unfair and even irrelevant because they are using English with other multilinguals to negotiate transactions at their own level so they are not necessarily thinking of satisfying a native speaker who is not present on that occasion. So that will affect assessment and so many other things, teaching materials. In one sense it was easy to construct all these things because we had one variety as the target and as the norm but now when we are thinking in terms of repertoires and people negotiating one on one at an equal level the native speaker idea, you know, would be a hindrance it would, you know, stifle all this creativity. So people are thinking of newer terms. I have actually used in the summer recent articles used a term called ‘poorly lingual English’ to distinguish it from World English. World English is still oriented towards stable varieties of English; something that is stabilised, used for a long time. But what we find is the way people negotiate English varieties all the time now, there are new words and grammatical structures which are emergent and they are not wrong in the sense for that occasion it works perfectly well for them. You shuttle in between those languages to use them for your needs. And English is one of them. It's one of those languages and with English, people might mix their own varieties of local languages. So we are bringing into question terms like inter language, error, competence, you know. I think competence where we are beginning to understand it's not perfect competence in every language but a social competence to use the language appropriately for your needs and functions. I think also the connection language is a separate system as, you know, English is different from Tamil and Brazilian or Portuguese, etc. I think people are beginning to acknowledge that language is so much more fluid. They interact with each other. They form a repertoire where English is part of other languages. So there are kind of major shifts in human linguistics about how we think of language. People are thinking of language as much more mixed and so that – sometimes kind of very disturbing kind of implications for the field.Part 1Listen to the audio interview with Suresh Canagarajah, conducted by one of the course authors. As you listen, consider what changes in the use of English across the world are calling into question Kachru’s tripartite model. Note them down in the text box.English is now spoken more extensively outside the inner circle, as an additional language. It is used globally in youth culture, and countries in the expanding circle are evolving their own norms and claiming English as one of their local languages. The norm-providing role of the inner circle and the status of ‘native speaker’ are therefore being questioned. Canagarajah suggests the use of the term ‘plurilingual English’ to better describe this context in which norms of English are not stable.Part 2How does Canagarajah suggest replacing the concepts underpinning ELT listed in the following table?

Original term	New term
target language
linguistic proficiency
grammar
native speaker norms
language competence
language as a system
individual stable languages

Canagarajah suggests replacing terms as follows:

Original term	New term
target language	language repertoire
linguistic proficiency	language awareness
grammar	negotiation strategies
native speaker norms	intersubjective norms negotiated on the spot by multilinguals
language competence	social competence
language as a system	language as a process
individual stable languages	languages as fluid, interactive, mixed

The criticisms charged at established theories of learning and language have been prompted by real-world changes such as migration and globalisation and a resultant increase of bi- and multilingualism and increase in the number of English-language users. Educational practitioners are still working on how to implement these changes into their practices. Some of the question which still need to be addressed are: according to what norms should English language learners be taught if non-native speakers outnumber native speakers? How does one reorient curricula and teaching strategies to align with the new terms suggested by Canagarajah above? To what extent do learners want and need to be taught according to more established norms and are we doing them a disservice by ignoring the status and prestige of established norms and varieties? The answers to such questions are complicated and are likely to emerge over time.In this free course, Understanding language and learning, you considered the role of language in learning and started out from the assumption that language, and more particularly, linguistic interaction with other people, is a key aspect of learning. You also began to develop more critical skills, asking questions about what we actually mean by language and whether it is possible and necessary to separate out one language from another. In relation to English in particular, you began to question the extent to which new forms of English or ‘Englishes’ must begin to be recognised alongside more established ones. The growing discomfort with established notions of language in general and English in particular has been prompted by well-documented and intensified global interconnectedness in recent years, leading to increased language contact and a growing number of English-language users. Such real-world phenomena bring into question what we mean by English and what we mean by language. For educational practitioners, it raises important practical questions about the norms according to which students should be taught.This OpenLearn course is an adapted extract from the Open University course EE818 Language, literacy and learning.Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.García, O. and Wei, L. (2015) ‘Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education’, in Wright, W.E., Boun, S. and García, O. (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education, Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 223–40.Halliday, M.A.K. (2004) ‘Three aspects of children’s language development: learning language, learning through language, learning about language’, in Webster, J. (ed.) The Language of Early Childhood, London, Continuum, pp. 308–26.Hymes, D. H. (1966) ‘Two types of linguistic relativity’, in Bright, W. (ed.) Sociolinguistics, The Hague, Mouton, pp. 114–58.Vygotsky, L. (1935 [2011]) ‘The dynamics of the schoolchild’s mental development in relation to teaching and learning’ (trans. A. Kozulin), Journal of Cognitive Education & Psychology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 198–211.This free course was written by Kristina Hultgren.Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence.The material acknowledged below is Proprietary and used under licence (not subject to Creative Commons Licence). Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this free course:ImagesCourse Image: © davidf / iStockphoto.comFigure 2 Children interacting: a sociocultural linguistic approach to language and learning: © SAMUEL ASHFIELD / SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARYFigure 3 Colour PET scan of language areas of the brain: a cognitive approach to language and learning: © WELLCOME DEPT. OF COGNITIVE NEUROLOGY / SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARYFigure 4 Noam Chomsky: Photo by Al Dunlop / Toronto Star via Getty ImagesFigure 5 Dell Hymes: Reproduced by permission of the American Anthropological AssociationFigure 6 Michael Halliday: © Annabelle Lukin via Wikimedia. This file is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.enFigure 7 Lev Vygotsky: Taken from Marxists Internet Archive, www.marxists.orgFigure 9 Braj Kachru’s three-circle model of English speakers: Kachru, B.B. (1992 [1982]) ‘Teaching world Englishes’ in Kachru, B.B. (ed.) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, Urbana, University of Illinois PressFigure 10 Suresh Canagarajah: Photo supplied by Suresh CanagarajahEvery effort has been made to contact copyright owners. If any have been inadvertently overlooked, the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.Don't miss outIf reading this text has inspired you to learn more, you may be interested in joining the millions of people who discover our free learning resources and qualifications by visiting The Open University – www.open.edu/openlearn/free-courses.

Discussion 2019050300