9.1 The role of the first language in second language learning

Terms such as first language and second/foreign language do not refer to static entities but to porous and dynamic configurations (cf. Section 8.4) which can overlap in certain instances, for example, German loanwords in English, such as Kindergarten, Blitzkrieg, Schadenfreude, Zeitgeist, etc. Languages are also developing all the time in terms of vocabulary (e.g., creation of neologisms such as to underwhelm; cf. Section 4.1), semantics, phonetics, syntax, and grammar (e.g., the marginalization of the genitive case in German). When an individual embarks on the process of learning a L2 in school, he or she has normally already acquired a good command of the first language as a system (i.e., in terms of grammar, syntax, morphology, phonetics, lexis) and of its appropriate use in D/discursive and sociocultural contexts. However, in contrast to the L1, the L2 is not acquired as part of the learner’s general cognitive development.⁹³ Therefore, it is not an essential life-skill in the same way that the first language is and is, as a result, learned with less urgency and less consequential impact on the psyche, affects, and social skills of the learner.

Consequently, it would be hypocritical to ignore the fundamental influences of the L1 on the development of the L2 in the mind, emotions, and actions of the learner. The reason for this massive impact of the L1 structures on L2 acquisition can be explained with the central relevance of the L1 on mental, emotional, and behavioral development from early childhood onwards. In his work, Vygotsky analyzed the close interplay of language (as a sociocultural instrument) and voluntary thought, which operates with this instrument on a subjective level. Individuals have to internalize social functions though symbolic interaction: “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between people (interpsychological), and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relations between human individuals” (Vygotsky 1978: 57; emphasis in the original). The primary symbolic sign system which facilitates the subjective internalization of social functions is, of course, language. In the process of internalization, language also has a shaping effect on subjective processes of thought and logical memory (however, see the critique of the concept of “internalization” in Section 2.2.2). By acquiring the L1 through social interaction, the child gradually internalizes the cultural patterns of conceptualization and thought, the plausibility structures, and the social norms of behavior which are inscribed in language and constantly re-inscribed by a myriad of mundane processes of (inter-)acting.

The process of internalization occurs in a monothetical manner, “that is, as cohesive wholes and without reconstructing their original process of formation” (Berger and Luckmann 1966: 87). The infant and child grows, so to speak, unconsciously into the language, culture, and society of his or her immediate environment, which in turn has a fundamental impact on his or her ways of construing, thinking, feeling, behaving, and (inter-)acting, and this becomes ingrained in subjective patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior. The exact mechanics of internalization, i.e., the sequence and causality of what is being internalized why and when, certainly needs more research, as they are in parts hypothesized from observations of child behavior. What can be observed, for instance, is the fact that during the process of internalization, the child never asks questions about the basic validity of what is internalized and how the social becomes internalized as the subjective structures and patterns of conceptualization. Through language, culturally and socially produced and maintained concepts and patterns of thinking, interacting, and acting also grow “into” the child so that his or her psyche settles on the borderline of the subjective and collective. Although language does not determine thought, it certainly influences thought and the structures of (inter-) action and (cf. Section 3.5).

The increasing use of the L1 goes hand in hand with the child’s cognitive and psychological development, as well as with his or her needs and interests.

Through participation in the activities that constitute everyday life and in the interactions that accompany them, “the child encounters and begins to appropriate such semiotically mediated mental actions as remembering, classifying and reasoning, as these enter into the modes of knowing that are enacted in these activities” (Wells 1999: 101). The acquisition of language implies the parallel acquisition of plausibility structures, ways of classifying, reasoning, and meaning-making which are predominant in the L1 speech community and culture. Thus, L1 acquisition implies that cultural forces begin to exercise external control over the mental endowment of the child: “This control first resides primarily in other members of the culture (for example, parents, older siblings, playmates, etc.) but eventually humans are able to appropriate this control for themselves and in so doing develop the capacity to regulate their own mental activity” (Lantolf and Thorne 2006: 45). The control of one’s mental activity is normally exercised unconsciously; egocentric speech and inner (or private) speech are important tools in this process. Although they are not identical with the language used by others, being very personal languages with minimal, abbreviated syntax, they operate with concepts based on the subjectively adapted form of social language (cf. Sections 2.2.2 & 2.2.3). The internalized social control of mental activity is neither taught nor learned explicitly, but is accumulated through direct experience of numerous small events which may be insignificant in themselves. If children miss out on this vital part of mental development, they can hardly compensate for it by learning a language and its sociocultural context at a later stage in their lives, as the examples of wolf children, or feral children have demonstrated (cf. Itard 1812; Curtiss 1977).

It would be one of the ultimate objectives of L2 learning that inner speech can be developed in the second, rather than in the first language, requiring an internalization of the L2 system, including its social and cultural context in terms of habitus, norms, values, conceptualizations, and plausibility structures. The proficiency of the L2 internalized knowledge could then rival, blend, and even supersede the previously internalized L1 in terms of regulating and mediating thought processes through the L2. However, due to the intimate link between the L1 and cognitive development in infancy, childhood, and adolescence, this standard of L2 internalization for the regulation of one’s mental activities would be extremely difficult to achieve, although clearly sustained L2 learning has an impact on increasing self-regulated speech in the L2 (cf. Lantolf and Thorne 2006: 179-206; Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez-Jiménez 2004; cf. Section 2.2.3).

If concepts, understood in cognitive discourse as mental units, are organized by the acquisition of socially pre-conceptualized lexical items, grammatical structures, and cultural patterns in the form of procedural knowledge, they are automatically, that is, spontaneously and subconsciously, used as the basis for all abstract thought and (inter-)action by the subject who has grown into a particular language and socioculture. Thus, the intent to produce a coherent linguistic utterance (or engage in intrasubjective thought) triggers a mental process that is conceptually (and hence semantically, phonetically, grammatically, and morpho-syntactically) orientated at a procedurally represented chain of signs in the L1 which also influences efforts to learn a L2. This can be seen when the learner pronounces L2 phonemes just as they are pronounced in the L1, or when the L1 syntax is simply transferred to the L2, or when using lexical items in the L2 with the meaning of the L1.⁹⁴

Consequently, in order to develop linguistic and conceptual fluency in the L2, procedural knowledge (knowing how) has to be acquired so that the normally triggered conceptualizations and expressions of the L1 can be suppressed (though they might never disappear completely). Therefore, it is not sufficient to learn only how the L2 functions in terms of declarative knowledge (knowing what), although the acquisition of declarative knowledge is, of course, a necessary step in the initial phase of L2 learning. It is essential that one learns how speech acts are performed in the L2 for specific purposes or situational configurations in the other society and culture. Textbooks of the communicative approach frequently present rather limited pragmalinguistic contexts, for instance, how to interact in very specific settings, for example, in a restaurant or post office. This approach, while a step in the right direction away from structural and behaviorist L2 teaching and learning methodologies, is clearly deficient, because it relies on highly formalized, sometimes even formulaic speech acts which are dependent on stereotypical roles and ignorant of the underlying cultural context. Furthermore, the communicative situations presented are commonplace, the vocabulary chosen by frequency of use, the language typically studied through written dialogues, and the grammar presented in linear progression (despite the assumed dominance of a situational progression; cf. Neuner and Hunfeld 1993: 91-105). In the overall process of L2 teaching and learning, however, this schematic approach can have its benefits in the early stages to inspire confidence in facilitating communicative behavior in limited pragmatic situations which could be socioculturally contextualized at a later stage when the situation may be revisited. In the limited application, the communicative approach also tends to promote rote learning in terms of vocabulary, genre, phraseology, etc. However, this can be expanded by encouraging explorative learning in an imaginative and playful manner, although a comprehensive understanding of the speech situation is rarely fostered.

Only a culturally embedded approach can lead to the acquisition of conceptualizations, frames, genres, and D/discourses that can then be flexibly, creatively, and spontaneously applied to a variety of configurations in the target society and culture. This approach can have a liberating effect on the mind of the learner, as Vygotsky suggests: “As algebra liberates the child from the domination of concrete figures and elevates him to the level of generalizations, the acquisition of foreign language – in its own peculiar way – liberates him from the dependence on concrete linguistic forms and expressions” (Vygotsky 1986: 160). However, Vygotsky’s equating the liberating potential of algebra to that of foreign language is flawed, because algebra plays a much smaller role in the foundational cognitive development of children than the acquisition of the mother tongue does with its social and cultural context and its liberating, yet at the same time structuring and controlling, influence on our mental capacities. The use of figures and algebra is reliant on decontextualized thought which is provided by the L1 and, while this is also the case for the early and intermediate stages of L2 learning, by the advanced stages thought processes can increasingly be carried out in the internalized L2.

Whereas the acquisition of the L1 is usage- and construction-based, adult L2 learners have, in contrast to children, already developed cognitive, emotional, and behavioral skills and abilities. Often, the cognitive planning of utterances in the L2 is conceptually influenced by spontaneously arising compositional and formulation patterns of the L1, and for this reason even advanced learners often have problems expressing themselves adequately in the L2. This problem can be traced back to the traditional (and still very influential) approach to foreign language teaching and learning which devotes much of its energy to the task of learning the language in terms of grammar, morpho-syntax, and pronunciation, while neglecting the pragmatic, cultural, and subjective contexts of language use.

However, unless students as embodied subjects are also given space to explore how to use the L2 creatively and subjectively in the imagined other cultural and social context, it is likely that they will fall back on conceptualizations and language patterns acquired in the course of learning their L1. These then guide how they use the L2. The inevitable result is that learners commonly employ forms that are contextually inappropriate in that they differ in style, politeness, and register, but also in terms of frames, genres, and Discourses, from those which native speakers of the language might employ (cf. Geis and Harlow 1996: 129).

9.2 Translating and interlanguage

The impact of the L1 on the L2 is greatest in oral proficiency. Here, the most important psychological factor is usually taken to be attention to form, which is related to planning time. The more time learners have to plan, the more target-like their production may be. Hence, literate learners may produce much more target-like forms in a writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan, than in conversation where they must produce language with almost no planning at all (cf. Tarone, Bigelow, and Hansen 2009).

Thus, in the initial phases of second language learning, when the L1 is still the dominant tool for thought, learners frequently resort to directly translating between the L1 and L2 to themselves in their minds.⁹⁵ From the learner’s perspective, translating linguistic items from the L2 to the L1 (and vice versa) seems to facilitate a viable approach to trying to make sense of expressions in the L2. It also marks the starting point for developing both a subjective interlanguage and, albeit in a very limited and fragile manner, the cognitive blending of third spaces between the languages, conceptualizations, and cultures involved. Hence, the transient subjective linguistic constructs are beginning to take position between the native and the other language, although in the early stages, the L1 holds sway over many of the L2 configurations (in terms of grammar, orthography, pronunciation, syntax, morphology, and conceptualization).

When beginning to learn a L2, the learner starts to develop a specific subjective interlanguage which is characterized by elements of the learner’s knowledge of the L1, his or her (initially extremely) limited knowledge of the target language, knowledge of the communicative functions of language, knowledge about the system of language in general, and sociocultural knowledge of use of language, such as genres, narratives, and Discourses. On this fragile basis, the learner construes a structured set of rules that, for him or her, explains the system of the target language at a specific stage of the learning process, even if this subjective interlanguage typically is, unbeknown to the learner, highly deficient with regard to the L2 (and possibly the L1, too).

However, this deficiency is characteristic of a necessary transitional stage. Rather than seeing interlanguage in terms of deficiency with regard to the informing language systems, it should be treated as an independent system in its own right. On the surface, interlanguage can be understood to be similar to Vygotsky’s concept of inner speech (cf. Section 2.2.3) because it is highly subjective and provides the learner with spontaneously available, albeit subjective and hence potentially deficient information about the L2 (based mainly on the L1); it is also used by the L2 learner to regulate his or her thought processes (in relation to the task at hand). However, interlanguage is different from inner speech in Vygotsky’s sense, because it does not involve fundamental processes of subconscious thinking and self-regulation, as used for coping with everyday situations. By contrast, interlanguage is characterized by conscious attempts to construe lexical and grammatical items of the foreign language, based on internalized items and patterns of the L1.

The term interlanguage was coined by Selinker (1972) (sometimes it is also referred to as transitional competence, approximative system, idiosyncractic dialect, interim language, or learner language). The concept of interlanguage refers to “both the internal system that a learner has constructed at a single point in time (‘an interlanguage’) and to the series of interconnected systems that characterize the learner’s progress over time (‘interlanguage’ or the ‘interlanguage continuum’)” (Ellis 1994: 350). Interlanguage can be defined as a succession of highly subjective, constantly ongoing attempts to construct linguistic blended spaces (or interspaces) between elements of the two (or more) language systems involved in order to better comprehend, use, and memorize the different items and structures of the L2. Interlanguage is not so much produced when the learner foc uses on grammatical accuracy; rather, a learner’s interlanguage is mainly developed when the learner is focused on the meaning of the message or the communicative intent. It is based on attempts to translate and interrelate lexical, but also syntactical, morphological, phonological, and semantic elements of the languages involved. Typically, learners in the early stages of L2 learning invoke rules from their L1 when trying to produce an utterance in the L2. From this basis, the L2 learner is progressively adjusting the interlanguage system so that it slowly resembles the L2 system.

There are four important elements involved in this process: simplification, overgeneralization, restructuring, and U-shaped behavior (cf. Ortega 2009:116-118). Simplification is the process used when meaning must be communicated in the second language, knowledge of which at the very early stage of L2 learning may be very limited. Overgeneralization refers to the use of a form or rule in contexts where it applies – but also where it does not apply. Its application can be random or systematic. An example of the systematic overgeneralization is reported by Tarone and Swierzbin (2009: 13) who found that “any of our six learners of English who have correctly learned to form the past tense in English by adding -ed to the verb may occasionally produce the verb *gived.” Here, the learners produce the irregular forms conforming to regular patterns, just as children are doing when negotiating rules for their L1 use (cf. Section 2.1). Restructuring is the cognitive process of self-reorganization of grammatical representations of knowledge; it can involve alterations of knowledge, to a larger or smaller extent, or in an abrupt or gradual manner. Restructuring is always qualitative in character and related to progress or development. However, this does not mean that the process of learning the L2 is linear, and that progression in the development of interlanguage always means increasing accuracy. This can be observed in U-shaped behavior which is a part of restructuring knowledge (cf. Ortega 2009: 118).⁹⁶

Interlanguage is characterized by its systematicity, its instable and transitional character, its dependence on and simultaneous independence from the native and target languages, its variability, its permeability, and its changeability through processes of learning and communication. However, an interlanguage can easily stabilize or even fossilize due to internal and external factors such as age (loss of plasticity of the brain), lack of desire to acculturate (maintaining one’s L1 identity in L2 situations; cf. Chapter 6), communicative pressure (learner must communicate ideas, overstretching his or her linguistic resources), lack of learning opportunity, and the nature of feedback on learner’s use of L2 (inappropriate positive feedback results in fossilization) (cf. Ellis 1994: 354).

Sometimes, however, fossilized interlanguage can be intentionally used like a natural language for communicative purposes and for purposes of indicating one’s aspired social identity, including a habitus resistance against the majority culture. If this happens, one can speak of a pidginization of the interlanguage, for instance, Türkendeutsch, or “Turkspeak” which is popular among young people of Turkish descent in Germany. Fossilization and pidginization of interlanguage can sometimes be interpreted as a kind of defense mechanism, especially in language situations, serving the function of preserving cultural and linguistic group identity (cf. Chapter 6).

The initial process of provisional one-to-one translating of words and expressions which is characteristic of early subjective attempts to make sense of L2 constructs is clearly deficient in several respects. The pragmatic context, the force of the utterance (or text), allusions, implications, and connotations may go unnoticed, as do subtle sociocultural differences in conceptualization, metaphors, and frames (cf. Section 8.3). However, before a basic understanding of these complex configurations can be developed, the learner has to rely on the process of, at least partial, translation at initial and intermediate levels of L2 learning in order to make sense of the target language items, their pragmatic context and underlying cultural patterns:

Translating in early L2 learning refers not only to vocabulary, but also to syntax and social forms of L2 use (e.g., frames, genres, D/discourses, etc.). Deficient as it may be, translating seems to be the most efficient path for beginners to understanding aspects of the target language and culture. One example of this technique is provided by in the language learning biography of the Japanese native Chizu Kanada (cited in Schumann 1997: 265-278) who, in her attempts to learn English, initially translates every word of an utterance from Japanese into English before actually saying something in English: “I had been ‘writing’ English sentences in my head. I actually visualized each letter of the alphabet in each word of the sentence I was formulating. I would then check for grammatical errors and, finally, produce it orally” (Kanada, cited in Schumann 1997: 269). This approach might have been sufficient for her English classes in Japan but, when having moved to the U.S. as a visiting student, she encounters an immersion situation in which the emphasis is not so much on grammatical accuracy but on communicative proficiency: “This pre-thinking in Japanese was particularly disadvantageous in the classroom context. I would often find that the discussion had moved on to other subjects by the time I was ready to express my ideas. It was excruciating. My self-esteem was badly hurt” (Kanada, cited in Schumann 1997: 269-270). The change of context from learning English as a foreign language in a decontextualized Japanese classroom with an emphasis on rote learning and pattern drills to an American immersion situation where English becomes the second language with emphasis on communicative proficiency, does not leave time for careful planning of every utterance. This is clearly a distressing situation for Kanada. However, this challenge is met by Kanada by adjusting to the situation, trying to shift her linguistic frame of reference from Japanese to English:

Kanada is now able to use English as the language of thought and inner speech which enables her to move away from the constant and arduous task of translating utterances from Japanese to English, thus becoming much more flexible and spontaneous in using English as a communicative medium with others. This gradual shift of language from the L1 to the L2 as a tool for thought and inner speech, however, requires preparedness to risk one’s own self in the process, and it clearly requires a high level of proficiency in the L2. An immersion situation certainly supports this move from the L1 to the L2, as spontaneous use of the L2 is essential for coping with everyday life situations.

In the typical L2 classroom, situated in the L1 speech community with relatively homogenous groups of learners, this shift of language is extremely difficult, if at all possible, to achieve because the pressing need to use the L2 in everyday life situations is absent, as may be the preparedness of learners to deeply engage with this school subject (as it is part of the school syllabus which has to be studied, just like all other subjects on the curriculum); frequently, the primary objective is to pass the next test and exam. In this context, the activity of translating often dominates the whole L2 learning process at school, as, for example, a highly motivated student with exceptionally good results in the Irish Junior Certificate examinations (taken after three years of foreign language learning at 15 years of age) remarks with regard to learning French: “I found that vocabulary was very important. I practised tape work and built lists of vocabulary to learn. (...) The most important thing for me was to understand as many words as I could” (Irish Times, 3 March 2008: 2, cited in Witte 2009: 89). This translation-based approach to foreign language learning clearly seems sufficient to pass the relevant institutional examinations at this educational level in Ireland. However, it can only be a transitional phase on the path to gradually opening up to elements of the socio-pragmatic context of other constructs in real life situations, and thus to more appropriate L2 use at all levels.

This path is not as simple and straightforward as it might as first seem. For instance, Walter Benjamin (2000: 18) famously points out the difficulty of translating even apparently simple lexical equivalents, such as bread, pain and Brot. What they have in common is their grain-based quality as food items; but there are remarkable differences between both cultural connotations and the material product itself. Brot is German for multigrain, wheat- or rye-based bread, with a significantly different taste, texture, and color to French wheat-based pain (for example, baguette) or English bread which typically refers to soft wheat bread. In addition to these material differences, each of these items has culture-specific connotations or “modes of intention (...). [Thus] the word Brot means something different to a German than the word pain to a Frenchman, (...) these words are not interchangeable for them, (...) in fact, they strive to exclude each other” (Benjamin 2000: 18; emphasis in the original). An inclusive translation, therefore, has to translate the intentional modes and the cultural and social contexts, including the habitus, too (cf. Section 8.3).

Contextually sensitive translation (and therefore L2 learning) requires more than just linguistic knowledge, namely pragmatic social knowledge and intercultural sensitivity. L2 learners as translators must, according to Simon, “constantly make decisions about the cultural [and pragmatic] meaning which language carries, and evaluate the degree to which the two different worlds they inhabit are ‘the same’. (...) In fact the process of meaning transfer has less to do with finding the cultural inscription of a term than in reconstructing its value” (Simon 1996: 139; emphasis in the original). What this actually means can be demonstrated with a simple example. Learners of Spanish, French, or German with English as a mother tongue might have difficulties in learning and applying appropriately the formal/informal distinction in personal address, since this distinction no longer exists in the English language and socioculture. On the other hand, even monolingual German speakers sometimes have difficulties using the Sie and Du forms appropriately in processes of social indexing, and are usually unaware of the fact that some other languages do not have this distinction. In one of the best-known jokes concerning the former German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl is portrayed as being ignorant of this phenomenon. Upon meeting former US president Ronald Reagan for the first time, he wanted to create a relaxed atmosphere, and therefore told his mighty host “You can say you to me” (cf. Roe 1998: 213). This gesture wouldn’t make sense in English at all, unless it is reconstructed on the basis of the German socio-pragmatic source-context.

In order to be able to contextually translate situations and configurations from one language and culture into another, one has to have acquired a high level of competence (linguistic, social, cultural, D/discursive) in both languages and cultures involved. This obviously cannot be the case at the beginning of the L2 learning process. Therefore, it makes sense to distinguish between the concepts of translating as an expression for the mental process, and translation for the accomplished product, as James S. Holmes (2000) has suggested. Translating in this sense refers to the ongoing collaborative and subjective efforts to gain access to the meaning inherent in the L2 expression by translating the L2 text or utterance word-by-word into the L1. By contrast, translation refers to the polished written product which ideally translates not only the text on the linguistic level, but also the cultural context and tacit assumptions in a way that the “translated text should be the site at which a different culture emerges, where a reader gets a glimpse of a cultural other and resistency” (Venuti 1995: 306). Translating attempts to bridge the gaps in meaning that arise when the learner is confronted with the unfamiliar, by subordinating it to the categories of his or her first language; he or she tries to harmonize the “resistency” of the other text or utterance and thus eradicate its otherness. By contrast, translation does not remove this resistency but integrates it into the translation, as based on the intercultural third space:

Whereas the production of such a culturally sensitive translation in Venuti’s sense could only be attempted by very advanced and interculturally competent L2 speakers (particularly professional translators who have specialized in the two languages and cultures), the process of translating is firmly rooted in the L1. For translation, the imperialistic annihilation of the Other would be highly unacceptable; for translating, it is the norm. Although clearly deficient on the linguistic level, translating should not only be tolerated in the L2 classroom, but actively encouraged in the initial stages of L2 learning. Rather than failing to address naturally occurring acts of translating in the classroom and leaving the learners to their subjective devices, playful co-construction among peers in the L2 classroom could help negotiate meaning and reduce the occurrence of possible mis-constructions. This process can be highly imaginative, for example, where the individual L2 learners compare their translations and choose the best or most original effort (from their point of view, possibly scaffolded by the teacher). Languages represent different ways of constructing the same experience and event through different a “language glass” (cf. Deutscher 2011); in the early L2 classroom it can be highly imaginative and creative to try finding semiotic, semantic, and phonetic similarities and differences between the two systems, thus starting to discover different perspectives on and construals of aspects of “reality.” The teacher, in his or her role as the more knowledgeable other, could help to facilitate and co-ordinate translating-activities but should refrain from interfering unduly in the construction processes, as learners may become less engaged if they do not have ample opportunity to apply their interlanguage constructs to the process.

Translating can be fostered in a variety of ways, beginning with the simple and playful translating of isolated words and phrases (while acknowledging that there may be more than one “correct” translation) and comparing the sounds of words and expressions, and then progressing to finding synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms. This procedure can be expanded to include role play, critical incidents, translating games, and the co-operative subtitling of film-snippets (cf. Incalcaterra McLoughlin 2009). Bearing in mind the definitions of translating and translation, translating continues to become less relevant for the cognitive activities of the learner, as he or she will develop increasingly more complex intercultural places in order to move between the constructs of the first and the second language and socioculture. However, the process of translating may never disappear completely and may continue to have an influence on L2 learning on linguistic, conceptual, discursive, pragmatic, and strategic levels for much longer than many of us theoreticians and practitioners would care to admit, or like to see.

9.3 Metaphoric competence

Conceptual metaphors are an important, yet frequently untranslatable, instrument of cognition for constructing meaning. Conceptual metaphors are blended spaces; they arise when one domain of experience is conceptualized in terms of another so as to make the subject-matter more accessible for understanding (cf. Section 3.4). Since conceptual metaphors are a fundamental and integral part of language and mind, L2 learners have to develop some degree of metaphoric competence in order to understand L2 metaphorical constructs and use them for appropriately communicating in the target language and generating inferences and predictions. The ability to understand and use metaphors in the L2 is likely to make a substantial contribution to second language proficiency. Some conceptual metaphors may use the same, or similar, systematic mappings between the source domain and the target domain in the L1 and the L2. For instance, in the metaphors to grasp a meaning and eine Bedeutung begreifen (German translation), the verbs to grasp and begreifen use the same mapping from the physical to the abstract domains. While there may be such cross-culturally stable ways of conceptualizing abstract thought in primary conceptual metaphors in terms of basic level categories and superordinate categories, as well as basic image schemata and the spatial conceptualization of abstract categories (e.g., LIFE is A JOURNEY, SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE PLANTS; cf. Section 3.4), these may be expressed linguistically in different ways so that the mapping-process has to be reconstructed by the L2 learner. Secondary conceptual metaphors, however, are principally culture-specific. In order to consciously understand, use, and create metaphors, one has to have a conceptual grasp of the two domains and levels of meaning involved and, more importantly, of the tacit connections, or mappings, between the concepts combined in a metaphor, especially since metaphor is not necessarily based on similarity. An example of different metaphoric mappings can be found in color metaphors. In the English language, metaphors such as to feel blue or blue movie, are commonly used. However, the understanding of these metaphors relies on cultural background information. The meanings are related to melancholy, and to the color of paper on which laws prohibiting the screening of pornography used to be printed, respectively. If one does not know about these metonymic relationships (which typically is the case), the meanings of these expressions are taken to be as metaphorical (cf. Niemeier 2005: 105). Since these metaphors have not developed in other languages, learners of English have to be aware of the cultural background in order to be able to decipher the meanings in question. The color blue is used metaphorically differently in other languages; for example, in German the statement that someone is blau [blue] means that this person is actually drunk (for further examples, cf. Section 3.4). However, as Pütz and Sicola (2010: 293) point out, the area of metaphoric competence in the L2 and the relationships between mental transfer from L1 metaphoric configurations to the L2 (and vice versa) still requires much more detailed research: “[T]here has been surprisingly little research into the extent to which language learners are able to transfer their metaphor interpretation and production skills (or behaviour patterns) from their mother tongue (L1) to the target language (L2).”

Due to the high level of complexity of the required linguistic, social, and cultural knowledge of target and source domains, as well as the systematic mappings between them, it has been assumed that children acquire metaphoric competence relatively late in their socialization. This, however, may be a wrong assumption as Gibbs (1994) suggests:

In tandem with acquiring language and concepts in general, children learn to understand and use conceptual metaphors by incidental learning, casual use, and implicit construction, rather than by receiving explicit instruction from others for the inherent mapping potential. Once metacognitive and metalinguistic skills have developed, normally by the time the written form of the L1 is learned, primary and secondary conceptual metaphors are used effortlessly by children.⁹⁷ Younger children, however, sometimes require scaffolding by more knowledgeable others in terms of the mappings used by the metaphor because they may not have an adequate understanding of the source domain or the source-target correspondences (cf. Cameron 2003). Fauconnier and Turner (2002: 389) suggest that young children spend hours trying to work out connections between conceptual spaces that adults find obvious; they tend to focus on the relevant material anchors, whereas adults’ attention is focused on running the blend. Thus, “children are born into a world richly structured by complex, cultural conceptual blends, many of which they must master to function in society” (Fauconnier and Turner 2002: 390). Children are obviously in a position to internalize culturally developed and maintained conceptual blends, just as they internalize linguistic features, namely by participation in a myriad of processes of incidental and spontaneous mimicking, copying, and taking on the roles of others, be it in play or in social (inter-)action. Many of these conceptual blends and metaphoric mappings are acquired in an unconscious and automated manner so that they only become explicit when being confronted with other systems of blends and mappings.

Due to the previous development of these skills in the L1, the L2 learner in school should also be in a position to basically understand and use primary conceptual metaphors in the L2, for instance, the metaphor to grasp (or begreifen), the meaning of an expression or event (cf. Section 3.4). However, the culture-specific domains and mappings make the endeavor of teaching and learning secondary conceptual metaphors very difficult, to the extent that some applied linguists suggest that “there is little value in trying to develop a pedagogical program for teaching metaphorically organized conceptual knowledge if such knowledge in an L2 is unlearnable in the first place” (Valeva 1996: 36, cited in Lantolf and Thorne 2006: 118). Stern (2000: 203; emphasis in the original) is equally pessimistic, because the L2 learner “may not know that some utterance is not to be interpreted literally but not yet know what it is to interpret it metaphorically.” According to Stern (2000: 203-204), the L2 learner may not have the specific vocabulary, or he or she may not know the mapping-potential of the culture and language in which the metaphor is expressed. Consequently, he or she cannot develop metaphoric competence in the L2.

Other academics, such as Danesi (1992), are of the opinion that conceptual metaphoric knowledge can be taught and learned in the L2 classroom setting if appropriate materials and pedagogical practices are available. Danesi (1992) rightly suggests that, “students do not develop MC [Metaphoric Competence] by osmosis. It would seem that metaphoric competence, like grammatical and communicative competence, must be extracted from the continuum of discourse and held up for students to study and practice in ways that are similar to how we teach them grammar and communication” (Danesi 1992: 497). The findings of Hashemian’s and Nezhad’s empirical study (2006) seem to corroborate Danesi’s assumption that metaphoric competence is learnable in a systematic fashion. However, this cannot be achieved by a specifically developed program for acquiring metaphoric competence, but metaphors can instead be explicitly discussed in an integrated manner as they arise in the learning process. Understanding metaphoric mappings does not automatically lead to the appropriate use of metaphors in the L2. Pütz and Sicola (2010: 307) conducted a study in metaphoric construction of English learners of French and concluded that “metaphoric competence must not be seen as a homogeneous trait. Rather, it is, to some extent, a multifaceted entity, and a student can, for example, be good at finding the meaning in metaphor fairly quickly, but not good at producing multiple interpretations.” The productive potential of multifarious meaning by metaphors clearly has to be given more room for reflection and creative application in the L2 classroom, including the restructuring of linguistic and cultural knowledge in the minds of L2 learners.

Kövecses (2001: 113) gives an indication of what would be needed to effectively teach metaphoric and idiomatic competence in the L2 classroom. He suggests that one should use mainly primary conceptual metaphors relating to the human body. Secondly, he proposes the creation of a dictionary of metaphoric idioms whose arrangement should ideally “follow the presumed conceptual organization of idioms; it should indicate the target domain, the source domain, and the scope of the source domain for the idioms that are based on a particular metaphor source” (Kövecses 2001: 113). Thirdly, this dictionary should indicate the general, specific, and connotative meaning “which should all be indicated in giving the meaning of these idioms; these meanings depend on the relevant mapping (s) between a source and a target” (Kövecses 2001: 113). And finally,

Kövecses seems to have in mind a traditional instructivist learning paradigm, operating with dictionaries and the dominant figure of the teacher. If, however, his suggestions were to be applied in a constructionist-developmental classroom where the teacher acts as the more knowledgeable person and as the facilitator of a collaborative community of enquiry in the classroom in a situation in which individual students could take a shared, active, and reflective role in the development of their own potential for metaphoric (and other) constructing, the production of a “dictionary” of metaphorical expressions by the learners could stimulate fruitful comparisons between the mappings of metaphors of the L2 and similar metaphors in the L1, bearing in mind the heteroglossia inherent in language. The “dictionary” of metaphorical expressions cannot relate to isolated metaphors but has to include some of the Discursive examples of metaphor use, given the difference in culturally contextualized experiences and interactions. Primary conceptual metaphors can foster an understanding, not only of similarities on the semantic level, but also of the use of domains in metaphors. These discoveries could lead, over time, to the development of metaphorical competence as an integral part of linguistic, communicative, Discursive, and intercultural competences.

However, teaching and learning metaphorical competence in the L2 would require, in addition to enthusiastic, well-trained, and competent teachers producing and presenting stimulating materials tailored to the needs of their learners, a lot of extra time and effort in a typically already overburdened L2 classroom. Therefore, Lantolf’s and Thorne’s (2006) conclusion of their discussion on the teachability and learnability of conceptual metaphors seems convincing: “The research to date does not provide much evidence in support of the idea that conceptual metaphors are learnable” (Lantolf and Thorne 2006: 123). This, however, may be too sweeping a statement. The reflections of Danesi (1992) and Kövecses (2001) suggest that at least some aspects of conceptual metaphors are teachable and learnable and these can be developed over time towards metaphorical competence in the L2. However, this should be done in an integrated manner in the L2 classroom in cases where they arise,⁹⁸ and an awareness of them may contribute to the overall understanding of the situation, text, or utterance, including affective and behavioral aspects. It is easy for the teacher to move discussions of metaphors to a more general level of language awareness sessions and instigate discussions where learners become aware of the underlying domains of mappings (for example, ARGUMENT IS WAR) and playfully develop new metaphors in the L2. Since conceptual metaphors are anchored in sociocultural activities of construction, it may be a useful exercise to reconstruct the differences in these activities between the two (or more) cultures involved with the aim of furthering an awareness of the cultural and linguistic processes of construction. In these kinds of activity, learners engage actively with both languages and cultures, reflect on the differences and similarities between them, and work purposefully on tasks using the L2 in imaginative ways.

The notion of metaphoric competence implies more than just being aware of metaphorically constructed meaning and its analysis; it is more than just knowing about metaphor. As Low (2008: 221; emphasis in the original) points out, “learning, for example, that ‘run up a flag’, ‘run up a bill’, or ‘run up an election’ are metaphoric, or knowing that LOVE IS A JOURNEY has numerous exponents in English will not per se improve your ability to use metaphoric expressions effectively as a speaker.” Metaphorical competence implies the ability to adequately understand and appropriately produce metaphors in the use of language. The term competence in this context alludes to the concept of communicative competence which comprises of four components: linguistic, sociolinguistic (contextual appropriateness), discourse, and strategic (cf. Section 5.2.1). Metaphor skills involve all four components and thus these components have to be acquired by learners. This has implications for mediating metaphor knowledge in the L2 classroom, because metaphorically competent learners must be (1) linguistically able to abstract metaphor from a conversational topic, (2) sociolinguistically able to use their knowledge of the target culture to guess what is implied in the metaphor (be it in receptive or productive use), (3) discursively aware of the reason for metaphor use and its implications for the unfolding discourse (e.g., sarcastic, friendly, humorous); and (4) strategically aware of the communicative aims of the use of metaphor in the discourse. This comprehensive metaphoric competence is typically used in the L2 classroom first receptively, i.e., the learners will have to cope with metaphors they encounter in the L2, before being able to expand on this basis and develop metaphoric competence for appropriate productive use in the L2. This implies a contextual-constructionist approach to teaching and learning which relies, not on dictionaries of conceptual metaphors and idioms, but on the enthusiasm and creativity of learners and teachers, as well as on stimulating and interactive learning materials. The intercultural classroom provides the opportunities for opening up spaces of possibility which the learners can subjectively and collectively occupy in transient activities of critical reflection, language play, metaphoric mapping, conceptual blending, and creative writing. Teaching and learning is orientated, not so much towards linguistic facts, but towards semiotic relations between words, metaphors, and concepts within and between the languages at hand.

9.4 Efforts of stabilizing linguistic and sociocultural context

9.5 Learning culture in the zone of proximal development

Culture, as was discussed in Chapter 7, is a very comprehensive and elusive concept. On the one hand, it is difficult to pin down because it is highly dynamic, complex, context-dependent, multi-layered, and multi-faceted, and on the other hand, it can be used as an instrument to construct similarities and essences where there are none. Culture, understood in a culturalist manner, has the tendency to harmonize (up to the point of ignoring) inherent inner tensions and contradictions. It tends to promote determinism and reductionism which can lead to a regression from cultural to ethnic (and at worst biological-racial) reasonings, and it tends to lack empirical correctives and thus cannot eliminate the danger of stabilizing stereotypes of the Other (cf. Chapter 7).

Due to the shortcomings of essentialist concepts of culture, some academics do not use the concept of culture any more (e.g., Hess 1992; Altmayer 2004). Altmayer (2009: 126), for example, posits that the concept of culture is outdated, improper, and even dangerous. In its place he suggests using the concept of “cultural patterns of interpretation” (kulturelle Deutungsmuster) which, based on the theories of Max Weber and Alfred Schütz, is much more flexible and socially appropriate, because it emphasizes the socially and subjectively constructed and interpreted “reality” which informs culture in a dialectical manner. However, it does not completely abandon the concept of culture, even if it reduces it to the status of an adjective. But what is certainly necessary is to move away from outdated culturalist concepts and to embrace constructionist concepts of culture, understood as a system of knowledge distributed between subjects (cf. Chapter 7).

In addition, an expanded concept of culture differentiates between regional, particular, micro, and special cultures which are not necessarily bound to specific geographically definable territories. These de-territorialized concepts of cultures lend themselves to building bridges between territorialized cultures. For example, in institutional L2 teaching and learning, young people are familiar with the youth culture in their own speech community, and are usually interested in learning about how their peers in other cultures go about their lives. In the age of globalization, young people tend to have similar interests and idols; the specific cultural contexts, however, might differ vastly.

As was discussed in Chapter 7, culture could not exist without language, and language could not exist as a refined semiotic system without culture. All human sense-making as well as intra- and intercultural interaction is tied to and mediated through language (cf. Göller 2000: 330). This close interrelation of culture and language has repercussions for L2 teaching and learning. In this context, one has to think about cultures in the plural, because at least two cultures are involved: the source and the target cultures. By engaging with the conceptualizations, norms, attitudes, and values of another culture, the corresponding conceptualizations, norms, attitudes, and values of the source culture become explicit. Seen from this angle, cultures are ascribed similarities and differences constructed in the process of active differentiation from one another by people moving in two (or more) cultures. This approach, however, implies that one also has to consider the complex relationships and interplay between cultures, or more precisely, between corresponding elements and configurations of the cultures involved – or even categories that refuse to become conceptualized as cross-culturally valid (e.g., juju, as discussed above). The subjective L2 learner, as well as the group of learners, also has to come into focus, as they are the people who will subjectively negotiate this interplay of languages and cultures by embarking on a journey away from hitherto taken-for-granted monocultural conceptualizations, values, beliefs, attitudes, and norms towards ever shifting intercultural third places. Learning does not take place in a vacuum, but is anchored in the cultural traditions and social practices in that a learner engages; it is also situated within the body of the learner which “does not respond directly to input or impulses from the outside, but to idealized representations that it has constructed within itself over time” (Kramsch 2009a: 75).

Since culture manifests itself in language, the two cannot be separated in interaction, be it intra- or intercultural; both aspects of social life have to be treated as one in the process of learning a second language (and culture). An artificial separation of the two would lead to essentialized and de-contextualized portrayals of aspects of culture in the sense of Landeskunde, Civilization, or Cultural Studies that only accompany the process of learning the L2. In addition, this procedure would also create the wrong impression on the part of students that language and culture can be separated. An integrated approach to teaching and learning which treats language as a manifestation of culture can avoid these pitfalls. Culture, especially patterns of tacit cultural knowledge, has to receive its fair share of attention in the L2 learning process. This does not mean that emphasis cannot be laid on specific aspects of language or culture at times, but the overall approach should guarantee a balanced and integrated presence of culture in the language-learning materials and processes. Therefore, learners of a L2 need to successively re-construct and negotiate the underlying cognitive schemata, conceptual metaphors, socialization patterns, conversational styles, and dominant ideologies found in both (or more) speech communities. Learners can develop an understanding of these aspects of the other culture not only by cognitively analyzing linguistic materials but, more importantly, by collaborative negotiation for meaning and by acting them out in the classroom (and beyond) by means of role plays, games, playful performances, etc. This would provide a broader basis for the collaborative negotiation for meaning among peers in terms of involving emotions and the body with the effect of sustained yield for the subjective learning process.

However, even this integrated and co-constructive approach to learning cultural facets of the L2 community falls short of how dynamic intercultural L2 learning efforts could develop a progressive cognitive and emotional approximation of the other cultural constructs, because it still operates with stable definitions of cultural configurations, for example, cognitive schemata. Therefore, this approach does not make appropriate use of the hybrid, blended conceptual spaces, code-/culture-switches by L2 learners, of their dynamic interlanguage and untranslatable epistemic and affective positionings which increasingly develop in the course of actively engaging with the other language and culture. Here, Kramsch’s (2009a) notion of symbolic competence, which emphasizes the fact that all these elements are symbolically mediated, and not directly experienced in the L2 classroom, is relevant. Meaningful learning of cultural patterns is only possible from this metaphorical position in-between which symbolically challenges the authority of the dominant discourses and develops new fragile constructs from this blended space (cf. Section 9.6).

As a consequence, this kind of intercultural approach to mediating language and culture in the classroom cannot be based on the traditional instructivist teaching paradigm and on a teacher-centered learning process, but has to be developed collectively and co-constructively with the particular group of learners at their own pace and according to their own interests. Rather than putting emphasis on the predefined quantity of what is to be taught and learned (which is characteristic of the instructivist approach operating with fixed curricula and “reliable” instruments measuring the “progress” of learners), the constructionist-intercultural approach places the learner and his or her needs with regard to the learning process at the center of its considerations. This may run counter to the requirements of testing and examining a superficial “learning progress,” demanded by the school as a socially selective institution, but fosters a more meaningful learning experience and a more sustainable learning effect on the students (cf. Section 10.3). The constructionist approach does not focus on testing the state of knowledge or development that has already been attained, but is forward-looking in that it provides a nuanced determination of the development achieved and the potential for subjective development in order to provide tailored scaffolding to the group of learners, as well as to the individual.

Meaningful learning is not an exercise to fulfill abstract demands of curricula, but is the creative transfer and subjective negotiation of knowledge, skills, and abilities which can be constructively applied in diverse situations. Purely cognitive teaching and learning is ineffective, because students do not test its relevance in relation to their personal constructs of the world and its practical application in action (cf. Wells 1999: 90). By contrast, collaborative construction of knowledge makes use of the hybrid spaces by challenging the learners themselves “to analyze and interpret, find connections, and discover patterns in cultural contexts and relate their results to their own subjective stance” (Kramsch 2009b: 232).

Rather than being superficially involved in “learning” prescribed knowledge which is authoritatively mediated by the teacher, the constructionist approach places the responsibility for learning on the learners’ shoulders. Learners cannot stand idly by and let the facts and figures go over their heads. On the contrary, learners have to be prepared to apply themselves to the process of learning and negotiating for learning, and risk deep change.¹⁰² Therefore, L2 learning also has repercussions for one’s psychological constructs, including that of personal, social, and cultural identity (cf. Chapter 6). This makes it very difficult to develop a general analytical framework for predicting specific learning outcomes, as Lantolf explains:

Therefore, the composition of circumstances and conditions that promote learning in a particular context (for instance, learning a particular L2 in a certain geographical location, at a particular time, and in a sociocultural space) has to be developed by the teacher, ideally together with the learners. The teacher has to allow for the different subjective motivations of the learners, their goals for engaging in the particular learning activity, the aims prescribed by the syllabus, and his or her subjective teaching theories (cf. Grotjahn 2005).¹⁰³ Teachers and learners can also draw on some insights of activity theory (cf. Section 5.3) which posits that subjective perception and knowledge are facilitated by material and symbolic tools, as well as by immediate communities of practice. Learning efforts that are centered on project work could foster learning processes which include several dimensions: (1) social (discussing with peers about the community of practice at hand, negotiating, and agreeing on decisions on the distribution of actions and operations to perform a complex activity); (2) affective (active involvement in these collaborative decision-processes, collaborating with others in achieving success, despite having different learning histories and different subjective traits); (3) behavioral (contributing to the collaborative or individual actions and operations with the aim of successfully achieving the complex activity); (4) cognitive (deliberately dividing the activity into meaningful actions and operations, gaining new knowledge from carrying out the operations, actions, and the activity to achieve an objective); (5) meta-cognitive (planning to tackle the complex activity and devising a plan as to the many actions and operations that are most likely to result in successful completion of the project). Project work enhances the learners’ sense of agency and contributes to furthering processes of identity-construction, thus ameliorating the everyday conditions and effects of teaching and learning. During the activity of teaching or overseeing complex project work, the teacher must also be aware of the subjective motivations, problems, goals, personalities, and preferred learning styles of each learner and, on this basis, he or she has to try to create the ideal circumstances and conditions for the subjective learning process (cf. Witte and Harden 2010). However, even if the circumstances of learning have been ideally composed, the success of learning is never guaranteed because the subjective interests or motivations of learners cannot be externally controlled.

Learners should not be left alone in the process of negotiating for meaning, but must get support, or scaffolding, from peers and the teacher. The term scaffolding is a metaphor used to describe the transitional character of support for cognitive and emotional construction. Just like buildings require scaffoldings in the process of being built because they cannot yet stand alone, learners require scaffolding for their construction processes concerning certain items in the second language and culture. However, once the process of acquisition and internalization has been accomplished, learners no longer require scaffolding for this aspect of knowledge.

The teacher is part of the collaborative knowledge-building exercise in the L2 classroom, although he or she has the role of the more knowledgeable other in Vygotsky’s sense who, by passing on cultural tools to the learner, enhances his or her performance.¹⁰⁴ According to Vygotsky, learning takes place in the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky 1978: 86), which denotes the cognitive space of development located just beyond the stage of previously acquired knowledge. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) allows for understanding the hitherto unknown, which can be accessed under careful assistance of more knowledgeable others such as peers or teachers.¹⁰⁵ In the context of L2 learning, the ZPD stands for the distance between the potential the learner can achieve in the second language if assisted by others in joint activities that are still other-regulated, versus what he or she can accomplish alone in independent and self-regulated activity. Vygotsky defines the ZPD as, “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky 1978: 86).

Vygotsky elaborates:

The difference between the two zones of development, actual and proximal, forms the key to the concept of the ZPD. This concept can be used in order to diagnose the potential of creating conditions that may give rise to the next developmental level of learners. Thus, the ZPD is not a descriptive analytical tool, but a practical tool to constructively apply in the teaching and learning process. If the teaching process is to be effective, the activity to which it is addressed should be understood as meaningful, satisfying, and as an intrinsic need of the learner which means that it is “incorporated into a task that is necessary and relevant for life” (Vygotsky 1978: 118); only then it can be considered effective scaffolding.

The scaffolding process is not necessarily characterized by a situation where the teacher is providing assistance to the learner. In the place of the teacher, more capable peers of the same age group can often provide more adequate support for structurally creative and developmental processes. Peers have a better understanding of the particular circumstances in learning a certain aspect of the other language or culture, because they are at roughly the same developmental stage as their fellow pupils. From this position, they can provide tailored scaffolding beyond formal L2 accuracy and include sensitive assistance for developing communicative and intercultural competences, subjective and social identities, and self-regulation. These more capable peers also benefit from the collaborative classroom because, in providing constructive scaffolding to others, they have to reconstruct their own knowledge and thus gain a deeper understanding of the issues under discussion. However, scaffolding can also be initiated by graduated assistance from the teacher. It is vital that the teacher provides no more assistance than is needed; otherwise the learner’s agentive capacity could be decreased and his or her potential for creativity and negotiation would be constrained.

The well-trained teacher should have a good idea about how the L2 is learned, how interlanguage is structured, how a supportive learning environment is created, how the individual learners in the group construct their subjective knowledge, and how the learners in their respective stages of the ZPD can be supported. Ideally, the teacher should also know about the individual differences in L2 learning with regard to the level of preparedness of the learner to invest in the learning process, learner personality (for instance, risk-taking versus cautious), age (for example, the sensitive period), learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, tactile, analytic), and favored learning strategies (e.g., social, emotional, cognitive, metacognitive). Only a familiarity with and awareness of these factors enables teachers to effectively tailor their assistance to the requirements of the learner (as a subject and in a group of learners): “Mediation (...) cannot be offered in a haphazard, hit-or-miss fashion but must be tuned to the learner’s ZPD, which means taking account of individual’s or group’s actual level of development as well as continually recalibrating the mediation offered in order to accommodate – and indeed bring about – changes in the learner’s ZPD” (Lantolf and Thorne 2006: 356). Only this sensitive tailoring of minimal scaffolding can foster the learner’s increasing progress from other-regulation (e.g., by guided activities and scaffolding) to self-regulation (i.e., autonomous learning).

This is an important step for fostering intercultural third places in learning a second language and culture in which the learner discovers and explores increasingly complex regularities and patterns of construction, not only in the L2, but also in the L1 and their respective cultural contexts. By explicitly negotiating for the meaning of these constructs and configurations, the learner develops, initially with the assistance of others, more confidence in his or her subjective construals located in-between the dominant patterns of both (or more) languages and cultures. Thus, the hybrid third space increasingly becomes the basis of construction for the learner, who can now mentally move away from the previously internalized certainties of monolingual and monocultural constructs.

9.6 Second language learning and its effects on learners’ minds

Notions of identity and self are central concepts in all human cultures (cf. Chapter 6). All processes of comprehending, acting, and interacting are carried out against the horizon of subjective construals of situated personal, social, and cultural identities. Constructs of identity are facilitated by participation in a myriad of linguistic, social, and cultural practices, and they guarantee the imagined coherence of the self which might otherwise be absorbed in respective contexts and thus lead to a diffusion of identity. Identity can only be negotiated in contexts of difference; therefore both categories are to be understood as complementing one another. For instance, the identity definition I am a Catholic implies that I am not a Protestant (or Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, animist, etc.).

All human languages reflect the centrality of the concept of personal identity by having deictic terms referring to people, for example, the personal pronouns I and you. Therefore, poststructuralist demands of abandoning the category of identity, based on the assumed essentialism of this construct, should be resisted. Essentialist implications can be avoided by applying the concept of a dynamic, hybrid, narrative, and multi-layered self (cf. Chapter 6) which is located at the intersection of the categories of subjectivity, language, social context, society, and culture. The dynamism of subjective constructs of identity is guaranteed by the ontogenetic development of the person, but also by the diversity of personal, social, and cultural contacts. In addition, since the construct of identity, like every construct, fundamentally relies on language and its underlying cultural patterns, it is prone to constant change and renegotiation, not only by the subject, but also by others who engage with that person. Language use does not only derive from internalized structures such as concepts, beliefs, and schemata, but it emerges from the dynamic of events, either in the form of inner speech (cf. Section 2.2.3) or social interacation. Therefore, constructs of identity are always multilayered, dynamic, and context-dependent.

The multiplicity and variability of the concept of identity manifests itself in the fact that a person has not one coherent identity (although subjectively this may appear to be the case) but multiple identities, aspects of which can be momentarily invoked according to the requirements of a particular situation, including the activity of positioning. The quality and range of identity formation and positionings depend on the level of access the individual has achieved with regard to language, genres, Discourses, narratives, frames, social constructs, and cultural patterns. This level of access develops basically in three stages of socialization. In the first stage of primary socialization, the individual acquires the fundamental categories of language, conceptualizations, frames, social pragmatics, and cultural constructs (cf. Section 2.3). In secondary socialization, these categories are reconstructed and expanded on more formal and comprehensive levels (cf. Section 2.4). Secondary socialization, the primary agent of which is schooling, lays the foundation for further conscious and deliberate learning and cognitive-emotional development in adult life. Interaction in the classroom and learning to write are important mediators of the positioning and re-definition of one’s identity: “[Learning] requires that children take on new cultural identities [which] affect their sense of self in profound ways” (Rowe 2008: 411). This is the case because children have to find their social voice among their peers in the classroom by selecting their topics, and conferring about specific aspects of the learning process. The classroom is more than just a temporary speech community within the school. It is a community of practice (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991) in which not only cognitive learning takes place, but social engagement of learners is required; after all, language is social practice, and therefore the study of language use is also a form of social practice requiring ways of doing things, using and developing beliefs, values, and power relations. Learning is not just an individual endeavor but takes place in social interactions. In this context, the learner has to position his or her self, while at the same time being positioned by the other learners. “For example, children’s choices to write about insects or video games position them in particular ways in relation to their peers, the ongoing dialogue in their classroom, and to the texts and practices of the larger society” (Rowe 2008: 412).

L2 learning introduces another leap of personal development, including identity construction, because it fundamentally challenges the acquired stock of options for construal and restructures and redefines ways of knowing, understanding, construing, feeling, and (inter-)acting. Thus, L2 learning in its advanced stages can be likened to undergoing a tertiary socialization process (cf. Chapter 6), since it reconstitutes and expands the subject’s potential for construction, including identity-construction. In contrast to primary and secondary socialization, tertiary socialization involves reconstructing the categories of another linguistic system and the habitus of another socioculture, while at the same deconstructing the internalized linguistic and cultural constructs:

Ultimately, the activities of de-centering and de-familiarizing, facilitated by the encounter with alternative sociocultural ways of constructing “reality,” stimulates the blending of sociocultural spaces in the mind of the L2 learner. The result is a new basis for mental construction, and that is the subjective third place. The learner now has the ability to step beyond his or her cultural frame of reference. The development of intercultural places has repercussions for personal constructs of identity, as the underlying monolingual and monocultural patterns and structures are now being qualified and expanded by gaining access to alternative plausibility structures, cultural patterns, and values which are part and parcel of social L2 use. The fact that tertiary socialization, as defined above, overlaps in parts with secondary socialization, highlights the enormous complexity of the process and the genuine challenge it poses for learners who are still undergoing the secondary socialization process.

Renegotiating one’s identity in the subjective third space between the L1 and L2 and their cultural contexts may be a difficult psychological process for the learner, because the first language is normally not only an anonymous semiotic system for him or her, but also the very personal mother tongue which has been given to the person by others from birth onwards. Typically, it has been adapted by the subject as a very personal property which has developed with the subject, and the person has grown into it and adapted it for personal use. It constitutes the most important subjective and intersubjective tool for construal on cognitive, but also on emotional and behavioral levels. Although one can learn other languages, the mother tongue always holds a special and very personal place in the individual’s life because of the intimate interrelation between the conceptualizations, grammar, pragmatics, and sounds of the native language and the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development of the individual. The mother tongue is embodied by the subject, as, for example, is expressed in the following statement by Julia Alvarez, an American writer born and raised in the Dominican Republic (cited in Pavlenko 2006: 20):

Here, the mother tongue triggers deeply internalized emotional and behavioral patterns of identity which would be different if the L2 as the language of the new living-environment would have been used. English as her L2 was not experienced as the medium of socialization, and the cultural community was also different from the newly adopted culture; hence, only the L1 can provoke such deeply embodied reactions. The mother tongue, therefore, is part of one’s identity, and it also exposes social identity by the accent used when speaking (in the L1 or the L2). This, in turn, has repercussions for the process of being positioned by others, or ascribed identity, and therefore on the identity-constructs of the subject because “differences in the use of language are quickly, and quite systematically, translated into inequalities between speakers” (Blommaert 2005: 71; emphasis in the original).

The subjective intercultural constructs may at times be experienced as a threat to deeply embodied notions of identity which have been internalized monothetically, i.e., without asking questions as to their validity. Learners might fear losing their identity and their selves in the third spaces because, from their perspective, the safety of the taken-for-granted constructs is being challenged (cf. Bredella 1992: 569). Consequently, they may be less inclined to further engage with the L2 and withdraw to the apparent safety of the familiar. In order to overcome such a situation, teachers should be encouraged “to regard students’ identities as potential, and to experiment with activities that do not lock students into ‘finalized identities”’ (Norton and Toohey 2011: 429). In order to unlock this potential, careful assistance is required of more knowledgeable others (for instance, teachers or more capable peers), who are aware of the individual’s current stage of ZPD and can provide tailored support for specific problems in the individual’s efforts of construing identities. This can be done, for example, by encouraging pupils to become aware of the multiple identities they already have, for instance, as children of their parents, as pupils in school, as customers in shops, as friends, as members of clubs, etc. By reflecting on these multiple identities and acting them out in role plays (including the different voices they entail), the possible fear of taking on a multilingual and intercultural identity may be reduced, and by constructively discussing ascribed identities of classmates, or the shaping of identities by membership of a group (e.g., the class community, the family, the tennis club), the complexity and multiplicity of concepts of identity can be discovered, for example, by producing an analytical autoethnographic account of one’s notions of self in different contexts, including the aspirations with regard to an imagined L2 identity.

However, the learner’s constructs of personal and social identities can be affected from the first lesson in the L2 classroom onwards. This is due to the potentially upsetting experience that suddenly one can no longer verbally express oneself in the comfortable and non-reflective manner one is used to from the first language. All at once, the internalized linguistic, conceptual, communicative, and pragmatic means of the L1 cannot be accessed for producing utterances in the L2; the automaticity of one’s own voice has been lost in the L2. This can be an unsettling experience, especially for adolescents, because their carefully constructed image as a self-assured “cool” person may be undermined by stuttering and searching for words while the whole class is watching. This loss of face can have very negative consequences, not only for the social identity of the learner, but also for his or her personal identity-constructs, as well as impacting negatively on the preparedness to continue learning this potentially unsettling other semiotic system and its sociocultural context.

Negotiation for identity is neither a one-dimensional process nor is it confined to the cognitive level in the L2 classroom, as Kramsch suggests:

It is therefore important that teachers and learners make every effort to create a reassuring, pleasant, playful, collaborative, supportive, relevant, encouraging, and non-threatening learning environment which emphasizes the positive and enriching aspects of the initial encounter with the second language and its conceptualizations. The adequate provision of tailored scaffolding does not only require fine pedagogical abilities, methodological awareness, and didactical sensitivity on the part of teacher, but also intercultural competence in terms of dealing adequately with cultural heterogeneity and potential conflicts of voices and identities in the classroom. Intercultural competence in this sense includes the cultural sensitivity of the teacher not to reduce students in the classroom to their cultural or ethnic backgrounds, but to perceive and treat every single student as a representative of the intercultural ethos of the school they are attending (cf. Over and Mienert 2010: 43).¹⁰⁶ Providing appropriate scaffolding for learners’ engagement with the other language and socioculture will also lead to the ability to deal fearlessly with difference, and not to perceive it as a threat to subjective constructs of identity. It is important to create this playful atmosphere, especially at the beginning of the learning process, so that the students are encouraged to invest more time and effort into learning the second language and culture. They will do so with an understanding that they will acquire a wider range of symbolic and material resources which will in turn increase their cultural capital (cf. Norton and Toohey 2002: 122; Chapter 6).¹⁰⁷ In this way, their sense of themselves and their identity are reassessed in terms of aspirations for the future.

Once this initial threshold has been crossed and learners display their enthusiasm and their willingness to invest, the ever more intensive engagement with the other linguistic structure and, more importantly, with the other cultural patterns and social habitus, will increasingly influence their identity-constructs. Intensive, playful, collaborative, and subjective engagement with the differential norms, beliefs, constructs, practices, customs, traditions, and emotions has a liberating and transformative effect on subjective construals in the sense that learners are no longer solely influenced by the linguistic and sociocultural context of the L1. By developing agency in the L2 classroom on the part of the learners, new roles can be explored and new identities can, at least temporarily, be adopted. Developing agency in the classroom is important because agency (a) stimulates reflexivity on one’s own environment-oriented actions, (b) is oriented to the social world in the L2 classroom (and beyond) by understanding the actions of others, (c) encourages self-reflexively related to the purpose and level of investment of one’s actions, (d) is related contemplatively to some transcendental phenomenon (cf. Eckensberger 2003: 93). By learning not only another linguistic system, but a diverse set of sociocultural conceptualizations, values, and practices, the subject continues to develop for himself or herself increasingly complex intercultural blended places which are highly dynamic and subject-specific. Comparable to the special status of the L1 in subjective development, they are also experienced by the learner as something unique to him or her because they open up a new world of construal, just as the L1 did in childhood. Of course, intercultural spaces do not develop in tandem with the essential cognitive, social, and emotional maturation typical of primary socialization, but the subjectivity of these spaces is facilitated by the subjective character of the interlanguage, of translating, and by subjective efforts to gain access to the other sociocultural world with its different construals.

Meaningful intercultural learning, including the conscious development of third places, presupposes the ability to transform elements of the self which is not possible when the L2 learning process remains at a superficial level, for example, when limited to focusing on learning grammar or communication in pragmatically limited situations. This kind of sustained deeper access and implicit change of subjective positioning is only possible, when the contexts of social and cultural practices are explicitly included in the structured holistic long-term learning process. This integrated approach is best fostered by creating rich learning environments, characterized by playful performance, collaborative, experientially-based, multi-perspective, and explorative learning activities which involve the learner holistically. Only by accessing the sociocultural constructs of “realities,” or daily Lebenswelt, of the other cultural community by means of empathy, can a real understanding be developed, because constructs of social reality underlie the practical contexts of action.