ecological perspectives on second language ... - Springer Link

CLAIRE KRAMSCH AND SUNE VORK STEFFENSEN

ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND SOCIALIZATION

D E F I N I T I O N S : W H AT I S L A N G U A G E E C O L O G Y / ECOLINGUISTICS?

Ecolinguistics, or Language Ecology, was originally defined in 1972 by the Norwegian linguist Einar Haugen as “the study of interactions between any given language and its environment” (Haugen, 2001, p. 57). The definition echoes the German biologist Ernst Haeckel’s (1866) definition of ecology within the life sciences as “die gesammte Wissenschaft von den Beziehungen, des Organismus zur umgebenden Aussenwelt, wohin wir im weiteren ‘Sinne alle Existenz-Bedingungen’ rechnen können” (“the total science of the organism’s relations to the surrounding environment, to which we can count in a wider sense all ‘conditions of existence’”) (Haeckel, 1866, p. 286). Haugen understood language ecology as an approach to, or dimension of, linguistics. Today language ecology is still predominantly used within a broad array of linguistic disciplines concerned with multilingual realities, whether psychologically (micro-ecology) or sociologically (macro-ecology) conceived. Language ecology is thus a widespread approach within such fields as second language acquisition (SLA), bi- and multilingualism and language diversity, death, and revitalization (Crystal, 2000). In the 1990s language ecology, now widely termed ecolinguistics, developed into an institutionalized field in its own right, largely triggered by M.A.K. Halliday’s plenary talk at the IXth Congress of the International Association for Applied Linguistics (AILA) in Thessaloniki in 1990 (Halliday, 2001). In 1993 the first ecolinguistics section was held at AILA X (Amsterdam), and in 1996 a scientific commission under AILA was established at AILA XI in Jyväskylä (see the two AILA reports: Alexander, Bang, and Dr, 1993; Bang, Dr, Alexander Fill and Verhagen, 1996). In the AILA context, ecolinguistics comprises: 1. the study of how language reflects, refracts, and distorts our natural and social environment (see part 3 in Fill and Mühlhäusler, 2001) 2. the use of well-known theories, e.g. Critical Discourse Analysis or Systemic Functional Linguistics, in analyzing how ecological crises are expressed in, and constituted by, grammar and

P. A. Duff and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 8: Language Socialization, 17–28. #2008 Springer Science+Business Media LLC.

18

C . K R A M S C H A N D S . V. S T E F F E N S E N

discourse (see part 4 in Fill and Mühlhäusler, 2001; Mühlhäusler, Harré, and Brockmeier, 1999) 3. the development of new ecological theories of language, grammar, and discourse (Finke, 2001; Bang and Dr, 2007). A keyword in ecology, whether in the life sciences or in linguistics, is holism. A holistic approach to linguistics implies that language is not studied as an isolated, self-contained system, but rather in its natural surroundings, i.e. in relation to the personal, situational, cultural, and societal factors that collectively shape the production and evolution of language, ontogenetically as well as phylogenetically. Linguistic holism leads to a number of methodological considerations, shared by the majority of ecolinguists. First, the holistic approach makes ecolinguists investigate the contextual properties of language and communication. In ecolinguistics, context refers to both personal-situational and sociocultural phenomena. Thus, an ecolinguistic analysis relates linguistic data to the complex totality of the speakers’ situational positioning and the sociocultural and socioeconomic characteristics of the speech communities. Second, since the holistic approach presupposes a worldview in which everything is part of an undividable whole, ecolinguistics abandons any attempt to reduce complex phenomena to Cartesian dualisms. Rather, the ecolinguist describes linguistic phenomena as interconnected, interdependent, and interactional (Steffensen, 2007). Interconnectedness implies that every part of the whole is regarded as connected to any other part and to the whole. Interdependence implies that a linguistic phenomenon’s mode of existence changes if other phenomena change or cease to exist. Interaction implies that no part affects other parts without being affected itself; there is no mono-directionality, only mutuality. This does not, however, necessarily imply symmetry since one part may dominate the other(s). Third, holism values diversity. Rather than searching for universals— whether in the form of Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, Grice’s Universal Maxims or Habermas’ Universal Pragmatics—ecolinguistics adopts a descriptive frame that accentuates the particular and the specific over the general and universal. This differentiates ecolinguistics from such paradigms as (Labovian) sociolinguistics and conversation analysis. Fourth, the holistic approach leads many ecolinguists to general systems theory (van Lier, 2003, pp. 213–228)—including its newer developments: chaos/complexity theory—and the notions of open systems, dynamicity and emergence (von Bertalanffy, 1968). These theoretical frames offer a view on language as a mediator between cultural and natural ecosystems (cf. Finke, 1996; Trampe, 1996). The term dynamicity is also used outside of the systems theory frame per se, namely to describe changes in the personal, situational and cultural reality.

ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SLA

19

Fifth, and summing up the four previous points, a holistic starting point leads the ecolinguist to adopt a dialogical point of view on language: (i) It is in dialogue that the personal, the situational, and the cultural merge; (ii) it is in dialogue that interconnectedness, interdependence, and interaction of language unfold; (iii) dialogue provides the breeding ground for the creation and maintenance of sociocultural and linguistic diversity; (iv) dialogue offers a possibility for realizing our potential for changing ourselves and our surroundings1. It follows from the ecolinguistic emphasis on contextuality and open systems that the researcher sees him/herself as participant, i.e. as related to the object system under investigation. This is contrary to the positivist objectivism of the Cartesian–Newtonian era in science, but in accordance with key tenets of quantum physics and systems theory, e.g. as formulated by the Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine: “The experimental dialogue with nature discovered by modern science involves activity rather than passive observation. [. . .] Description is dialogue, communication, [. . .].” (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984, p. 41, 300). This non-dualist epistemology requires an explicit axiological stance; since the researcher interferes with the object under study, he/she is committed—as meticulously, conscientiously and explicitly as possible—to a praxis that furthers a development which is beneficial. According to Fill (1993), ecolinguistics promotes, inter alia, peaceful coexistence of all beings, the preference for the small in opposition to the big, and the preservation of the weaker against the stronger. This axiological stance emphasizes a family resemblance between ecolinguistics and critical applied linguistics. In her review of Fill and Mühlhäusler (2001), Gerbig notes: “[Fill and Mühlhäusler] employ a very broad notion of ecology, which leads to a seemingly irreconcilable diversity between the different contributions and which is one reason why ecolinguistics has been faced with major criticism.” (Gerbig, 2003, p. 91). However, the explicit axiological stance is arguably the one feature that reconciles the many branches of ecolinguistics. Whether an ecolinguist works with bilingualism, language acquisition and language socialization, political discourse or environmental problems, he/she 1

This definition of ecolinguistics is related to an ethnographic, sociocultural view of linguistic phenomena. Qualitative research (e.g., case study, ethnography) too is often described as seeking holism, sociocultural contextualization, multiple perspectives, dialogue etc. However, an ecolinguistic approach includes physical and economic phenomena that are not necessarily accounted for by an ethnographic approach. Moreover, dialogue is understood here in a Bakhtinian sense as a relational principle not only of here-and-now interactions but of human existence per se. In this sense, dialogue is always anchored, not in a multiperspectival external viewpoint, but in the unique subject position of the speaker or the researcher—a subject position for which each one is answerable.

20


stands up for the minority language and its learners, for the victims of political exploitation and ecological devastation. E A R LY D E V E L O P M E N T S

Second language acquisition research has only recently become interested in language ecology. In the 1980s, after an initial focus on the linguistic and cognitive processes at work in the acquisition of L2 forms and rules of usage, SLA researchers started turning their attention to the influence of the social context in the development of language use or communicative competence. The early immersion programs in Canada and the study of immigrant language learners in natural, i.e., noninstructional, environments in the U.S. were the trigger for a host of studies that confirmed the fact that the ability to use language to communicate with others, by contrast with merely learning rules, is acquired through being exposed to comprehensible input as well as in and through interaction with others. Through the focus on language use rather than just language usage, second language acquisition, one could say, acquired a socialization dimension. Some sociolinguists, such as Leslie Beebe and Elaine Tarone, pushed the field into the study of interlanguage pragmatics. Nonnative speakers (NNSs) were encouraged to “express, interpret and negotiate meanings” in communication with native speakers (NSs), and to become socialized into the host society by approximating the NS. However, what was being approximated was less the diversity and variability of NS social and cultural meanings than a rather standard grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competence. In sum, until the 1990s SLA’s interest in the social context was an extension of its interest in the acquisition of standardized forms and meanings for the purposes of communication as exchange of information. Since the 1990s, the social has come into its own. Global migrations, the advent of the internet and the global spread of English have raised concerns about the appropriateness of imposing one NS model for all. Social and cultural variability in form and meaning became a source of concern for psycholinguists anxious to have reliable data to analyze and from which to make claims regarding learners’ level of language competence. Sociolinguists pointed out that a language is not just a mode of communication but a symbolic statement of social and cultural identity, especially in the increasingly multilingual environments in which L2 learners found themselves. For example, Rampton’s study of multiethnic and multilingual adolescents in a British high school showed the dazzling linguistic and social abilities of NNSs to temporarily “cross” over into peers’ languages and play with various roles and personae (Rampton, 1995). A renewed interest in the work of Dell


21

Hymes led proponents of communicative competence in SLA to revisit his understanding of the term and suggest that maybe the computer metaphor in SLA had prevented researchers from doing justice to the complexity of the “ethnography of speaking” (Firth and Wagner, 1997). The growing influence of cultural psychology (Stigler, Shweder, and Herdt, 1990) and of Soviet theories of language (Vološinov, 1986) and cognition (Vygotsky, 1962) on scholars from anthropology, education, and other disciplines made the full study of the social and the cultural in SLA respectable and legitimate. Sociocognitive and sociocultural theories have become particularly popular to explain the relationship between language acquisition and language socialization. The major contribution made to the social aspects of SLA since the early 1990s has been Vygotsky’s cognitive theory and its reinterpretation through Leontiev’s activity theory, applied to SLA by Jim Lantolf under the name of sociocultural theory (SCT). SCT reverses the notion that language acquisition takes place in the head and that language use merely applies this acquired knowledge to the social world. Cognition, says SCT, occurs first on the social plane and only later gets internalized on the psychological plane in the form of inner speech in interaction with more capable peers. For Vygotsky, socialization is part and parcel of acquisition. In fact, it predates it. SCT is having a substantial impact on SLA theory, as it responds to the need to account for social and cultural phenomena in a field that was originally mainly psycholinguistic. The notions of symbolic mediation, collaborative learning, participation, and the achievement of common activities around real-world tasks all show a desire to move L2 acquisition in the direction of L2 socialization and thus to adopt a more ecological approach to SLA. The continued interest in pragmatics and conversation analysis also shows a desire to bridge the gap between acquisition and socialization in SLA. Kasper’s recent review of the current theoretical perspectives on L2 pragmatic development encompasses not only a linguistic (e.g., grammar) and an information-processing perspective (e.g., attention, awareness), but also a Vygotskyian sociocultural perspective (e.g., assisted performance) and a language socialization perspective, which focuses on learners’ participation and apprenticeship in recurring situated activities—a focus she calls “neo-Vygotskyian” (Kasper, 2001, p. 516). In fact, Kasper sees SCT and language socialization theory converge in their close attention to interactional processes in SLA, and she suggests that both theories could benefit from adding conversation analysis to the mix, to form a theoretically “even happier ménage à trois” (p. 524). Conversation analysis, also born in the 1970s from ethnomethodology and the sociology of language, offers a highly elaborate tool to analyze the way conversational partners orient themselves

22


to the on-going interactional situation and position themselves vis-à-vis the turns-at-talk, the topics, and the cognitive tasks that participants set up for one another. Conversation analysis adds a particularly attractive feature to SCT because conversational transcriptions offer easily observable evidence of cognitive processes at the moment of their deployment in conversation. According to SCT, these processes can be seen as directly related to the learner’s inner speech in his/her zone of proximal development. MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS AND WORKS IN PROGRESS

SLA theories that explain acquisition processes through interactional, collaborative, or socialization processes show the significance of the social and the cultural in SLA. However, they retain the structuralist, dichotomous view of the cognitive and the social as separate realms. Thus, discourse data are considered to be “evidence” of underlying thought processes, not of constructing the very social and cultural reality they purport to reveal. Even though SCT has taken great pains to dissociate itself from earlier input theories and gives precedence to the social and cultural, it still proceeds as if it is possible to infer from individual speech to individual thought. However, to use Vološinov’s distinction, speech does not reflect thought, it refracts thought (Vološinov, 1986). Similarly, even though, according to SCT, individual speech is nothing but internalized collective speech, researchers working within an SCT framework rarely consider the fact that the utterances of L2 learners might express in L2 an inner speech that is mediated by an L1, L3 or L4 because the learner had his/her primary socialization in one of these languages (see research on Bilingual Education, Volume 5). Some researchers have therefore felt the need to draw on theories that take a more explicitly ecological view of language acquisition as socialization. The publication in 1997 of Diane Larsen-Freeman’s article on the application of chaos/complexity theory (C/CT) to SLA was a milestone in the development of this language-acquisitionas-socialization-view: SLA theory was taking a post-structuralist turn (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). Comparing the acquisition of a foreign language to the complex, nonlinear processes of dynamic systems, Larsen-Freeman proposed that we should look for interconnections between scales, e.g., between the microlevel of the individual organism and the macrolevel of society, between past and potential future performance, between organic processes of learning and inorganic materials such as computers, tapes, etc., between local behaviors and global events, between lower level phenomena such as textbooks and classrooms and higher level phenomena such as geopolitics and globalization. C/CT


23

elides the dualism individual/society, individual cognition/group socialization, and offers a broader lens to view the development of language as one among many semiotic systems through which we make meaning of the life around us (see also Herdina and Jessner, 2002). Around the same time, ecological theories of language acquisition as socialization were gaining momentum. Three representatives of this trend are Kramsch (2002), Leather and van Dam (2003), and van Lier (2003). They all view SLA as an emergent phenomenon, triggered by the availability of affordances in the environment, heavily dependent on an individual’s perception of these affordances and his/her willingness to participate actively in their use. As Jay Lemke (2002) has argued, an ecological perspective on SLA does not circumscribe the individual learner to the limits of his/her skin or to her own experience. The “learner” includes not only the here and now of his/her learning, but memories of previous learnings, projections of future scenarios, subjective appraisals, fantasies, identifications with remembered, relived, and potential selves. We have to distinguish between the biological time of the child, the sociological time of the institution, and the ideological time of society. Teachers teach to multiple timescales, not only to the actual adolescent in the classroom, but to the former child and the future adult; they must judge not only the actual capacity and performance but a set of perceptions, expectations and potentialities. For ecologically oriented researchers, learning takes place not only in educational settings, but also in nurseries, community centers and on the internet, as documented in the collection of papers in Leather and van Dam (2003). As Kramsch (2002) argues, many researchers who work within an ecological framework have adopted a phenomenological stance, ranging from the sociological to the philosophical, which provides them with a sense of educational responsibility and social justice (cf. the axiological stance mentioned in the first section above). In order to take into account the many other semiotic systems in the environment beside the verbal (e.g., visual, acoustic, electronic), van Lier (2003) explicitly couples an ecological perspective on SLA with C.S. Peirce’s semiotic theory and attempts to reconcile an ecological and a semiotic perspective within the activity theoretical framework offered by SCT. The current interest in SLA as an ecological phenomenon has been accompanied, in language education, by a veritable passion for Bakhtin (1981) and the notion of dialogism that has been associated with his work and that of Vygotsky (Ball and Freedman, 2004). What language educators find attractive in Bakhtin is the collaborative, participatory, dialogic aspect of his stylistic theory that converges with the interactional theories of learning reviewed above and with the holistic conceptions of learning advocated by language ecology. But some scholars

24


fear that the notion of dialogic pedagogy is becoming trivialized, thus concealing the truly ecological complexity of Bakhtinian thought (e.g., Cazden, 2004). The emergence of ecology-friendly theories of SLA is accompanied by a renewed interest in linguistic relativism and in the relation of language, thought, and culture in applied linguistics. Gumperz and Levinson’s (1999) volume revisits this once controversial issue by publishing together papers in first language acquisition and bilingualism, language socialization, and conceptual development. As a theoretical construct, the notion that a person’s thought is channeled or influenced by the language this person has been socialized in is no longer controversial. However, the concept of linguistic relativism is dangerous to educational institutions that pride themselves in delivering knowledge that is universally valid, i.e., that is independent of the language in which it is delivered. The inroads made by post-structuralism and social constructionism in a traditionally structuralist, objectivist research field like SLA are still tentative but significant. However, it presents problems. Not only is SLA research as a field keen on maintaining its credibility by producing findings that are as reliable and generalizable as those of the natural sciences, but by being tightly linked to the field of language education, it is hostage to the criteria of educational success recognizable and acceptable by a general public that does not necessarily espouse ecological views of education. And yet, ecological theories of learning must prompt us to rethink the relationship of individuals and various learning environments beyond the classroom, e.g., study abroad and distance learning. It is also prompting us to seriously conceptualize the relationship of individuals and their objects or artifacts, in particular computer technology. A growing number of SLA researchers are focusing on computer-mediated communication as a site of learning and socialization and much has yet to be understood in the way language learning technologies and virtual environments mediate learners’ acquisition of a second language. P R O B L E M S A N D D I F F I C U LT I E S

The ecolinguistics perspective described in section 1 above enables the researcher to identify the problems with an ecological approach to language education both in theory and in practice. From a theoretical perspective, ecological approaches to second language education present four challenges: 1. Historical. Individuals learning a second language in late childhood, adolescence, or adulthood have already been fully socialized


25

into one language and culture in their families, schools, and workplaces. The memory of this primary and secondary socialization lingers when they attempt to adopt the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of another speech community. Second language education should take all this previous socialization into account. 2. Cognitive. According to the linguistic relativity principle, we have to take into account the way language as discourse categorizes and frames our perceptions of reality. Even if NNSs are socialized into adopting the linguistic and pragmatic codes of a L2 speech community, they might retain the discourse categories and the mental patterns of meaning making of their first socialization. Bi- and multilingual individuals (and monolinguals too, of course!) are known to say one thing and mean another, because they can capitalize on the surplus of meaning afforded by the mastery of other symbolic systems. 3. Methodological. The historical and cognitive relativity brought about by the ability to navigate several languages and to straddle several speech communities is difficult to document because it is often a matter of subjective appraisal, contingent upon an individual’s ecology at the time. Researchers working within an ecological framework (Kramsch, 2002) are very conscious of the need for qualitative, longitudinal data that put the researcher on the line and expects him/her to reveal his/her subject position. An ecological research approach offers more internal validity (appropriately called ecological validity) but less reliability and inordinately less generalizability or external validity. 4. Ethical. Applying the paradigm of first language socialization to already socialized individuals raises ethical issues that are currently anguishing many English teachers and researchers of English as a Second Language (ESL) around the world. Many have problematized the use of the NS as model of socialization, especially as the availability of large scale electronic corpora of NS English is making it easy to socialize NNSs into the ways with words of true, genuine, native speakers on the streets of London, New York, or Sydney. But should they be? The resistance of learners to reproduction through ESL is well documented. Socialization researchers talk about negative socialization. Some have suggested the notion of a third place between socialization processes (Kramsch, 1993). Furthermore, an ecological theory of language education that takes seriously the notions of interdependence, dynamicity, and dialogism is bound to encounter the difficulties that any poststructuralist approach has encountered in the social sciences. A case in point is Bonny

26


Norton’s (2000) pioneering book on Identity in Language Learning, which revisits such notions as motivation and learning in a poststructuralist, feminist theoretical light. Inspired by a more ecological view of identity as multiple, changing and the site of conflict, she argues that immigrants to Anglophone countries can capitalize on their various identities as, e.g., immigrant, woman, mother, employee, to stand up to their landlords or employers and redress the power imbalance they encounter in social life. The SLA concept of motivation in language learning has now been supplemented by that of “investment”–a more participatory metaphor than that of motivation. However, Norton has been criticized for holding still too structuralist a view of identity. Instead of seeing one’s multiple social identities as given by one’s position in the social world, an ecological paradigm would see them as so many subject positions emerging in the interplay between the social world and the discursive situation at hand. From the perspective of educational practice, language ecology has already had its critics from within applied linguistics. In a recent article on the “ecological turn” in language policy, Alastair Pennycook (2004) is ready to admit that, while the strength of an ecological approach to SLA lies in its poststructuralist relativity, reflexivity, and decenteredness, it risks losing the capacity to take a critical stance toward certain (nefarious) forms of socialization. This insight should function as a reminder to ecologically oriented linguists never to loose sight of the power struggles inherent in cultural ecosystems (as acknowledged in Steffensen, 2007, p. 11). Others, like Shirley Brice Heath, inspired by Bakhtin, prefer to highlight the educationally beneficial role of literary narratives and counternarratives in providing youngsters with alternative models of socialization, which she calls “scenarios of possibility” (Heath, 2000). Furthermore, an ecological practice of language education should require abandoning the demand for standardization in language education. Like generalizability in educational research, standardization in educational practice expresses the need to eliminate diversity and to exercise control, both notions that are incompatible with language ecology. CRITICAL APPRAISAL AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

Ecolinguistics has given us a rich holistic framework for studying phenomena of second language acquisition and socialization. It highlights the emergent nature of language and language learning, the crucial role of affordances in the environment, the mediating function of language in the educational enterprise. It brings back into focus the historicity and the subjectivity of the language learning experience, as well as


27

its inherent conflictuality. The notion that language education operates on multiple timescales, e.g., the timescale of human and personal development, the timescale of the institution, the timescale of the job market should make us pause. Relevance should be researched differently for each of these timescales, and so should the evaluation of knowledge and the control of its use. The challenge for an ecologically oriented research in language acquisition and socialization is to meet both the institutional demands for public accountability and efficiency and the individual demands for personal relevance and meaning. Rather than generalizability, an ecological approach to educational research strives for dialogicality. The articulation of local and particular experiences, might lead to global changes, not by way of generalizability, but by way of analogy, because dialogue implies the emergence of shared experiences. REFERENCES Alexander, R.J., Bang, J. Chr., and Dr, J. (eds.): 1993, Papers for the Symposium— Ecolinguistics. Problems, Theories and Methods: Essays for the AILA’93 Symposium, Research Group for Ecology, Language and Ideology, Odense University, Odense. Bakhtin, M.M.: 1981, The Dialogic Imagination. Edited by Michael Holquist (Trsl. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist), University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Ball, A.F. and Freedman, S.F. (eds.): 2004, Bakhtinian Perspectives on Language, Literacy and Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bang, J. Chr., Dr, J., Alexander, R.J., Fill, A., and Verhagen, F.C. (eds.): 1996, Language and Ecology—Ecolinguistics. Problems, Theories and Methods. Essays for the AILA’96 Symposium, Research Group for Ecology, Language and Ideology, Odense University, Odense. Bang, J. Chr. and Dr, J.: 2007, Language, Ecology and Society—A Dialectical Approach. Edited by Sune Vork Steffensen and Joshua Nash, Continuum, London. Cazden, C.B.: 2004, ‘An appreciation and two questions’, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 42(6), Special Issue on Bakhtin, 76–78. Crystal, D.: 2000, Language Death, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fill, A. and Mühlhäusler, P. (eds.): 2001, The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment, Continuum, London. Fill, A.: 1993, Ökolinguistik: eine Einführung, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen. Fill, A. (ed.): 1996, Sprachökologie und Ökolinguistik, Stauffenburg, Tübingen. Finke, P.: 1996, Sprache als missing link zwischen natürlichen und kulturellen Ökosystemen. Überlegungen zur Weiterentwicklung der Sprachökologie. In Fill 1996, 27–48. Firth, A. and Wagner, J.: 1997, ‘On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research’, Modern Language Journal 81(3), 285–300. Gerbig, A.: 2003, ‘Book review: The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment’, in Current Issues in Language Planning, Vol. 4, no. 1. 91–93. Gumperz, J.J. and Levinson, S. (eds.): 1999, Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Haeckel, E.: 1866, Generelle Morphologie der Organismen—Allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformierte Descendenz-Theorie. Zweiter Band: Allgemeine Entwickelungsgeschichte der Organismen, Verlag von Georg Reimer, Berlin.

28


Halliday, M.A.K.: 2001, New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics, in A. Fill and P. Mühlhäusler (eds), The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment, Continuum, London, 175–202. Haugen, E.: 2001, The ecology of language, in A. Fill and P. Mühlhäusler (eds.), The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment, Continuum, London, 57–66. Heath, S.B.: 2000, ‘Seeing our way into learning’. Cambridge Journal of Education 30(1), 121–132. Herdina, P. and Jessner, U.: 2002, A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics, Multilingual matters, Clevedon, UK. Kasper, G.: 2001, ‘Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development’, Applied Linguistics 22(4), 50–530. Kramsch, C.: 1993, Context and Culture in Language Teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kramsch, C. (ed.): 2002, Language Acquisition and Socialization. Ecological Perspectives, Continuum, London. Larsen-Freeman, D.: 1997, ‘Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition’, Applied Linguistics 18(2), 141–165. Leather, J. and van Dam, J. (eds.): 2003, Ecology of Language Acquisition, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Lemke, J.L.: 2002, Language development and identity: Multiple timescales in the social ecology of learning. In C. Kramsch (ed.), Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. Ecological Perspectives, Continum, London, 68–87. Mühlhäusler, P., Harré, R., and Brockmeier, J.: 1999, Greenspeak: a study of environmental discourse, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Norton, B.: 2000, Identity and Language Learning, Longman, London. Pennycook, A.: 2004, ‘Language policy and the ecological turn’ Language Policy 3, 213–239. Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I.: 1984, Order out of Chaos—Man’s New Dialogue with Nature, Bantam Books, Toronto and New York. Rampton, B.: 1995, Crossing. Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents, Longman, London. Stigler, J.W., Shweder, R.A., and Herdt, G. (eds.): 1990, Cultural Psychology. Essays on Comparative Human Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Steffensen, S.V.: 2007, Language, ecology and society: An introduction to dialectical linguistics, in J. Bang Chr. and J. Dr (eds), Language, Ecology and Society – A Dialectical Approach, Edited by Sune Vork Steffensen and Joshua Nash, Continuum, London. Trampe, W.: 1996, Ökosysteme und Sprache-Welt-Systeme, in A. Fill and P. Muhlhausler (eds.), The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment, Continuum, London, 59–75. van Lier, L.: 2003, The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning. A Sociocultural Perspective, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Vološinov, V.N.: 1986, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, (Trsl. Ladislav Matejka and I.R.Titunik), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. von Bertalanffy, L.: 1968, General System Theory. Foundation, Development, Applications, George Braziller, New York. Vygotsky, Lev S.: 1962, Thought and Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.