As mentioned earlier, the problem with the Vygotskian approach is that it
is a theory of development, but not specifically of language. Cognitive lin-
guistics is seen as a useful contribution to the application of SCT to SLA,
since it provides a theory of what constitutes language that is in line with
some of the core assumptions in SCT.
Why SCT caught on so massively is not clear. According to Tim McNa-
mara, Merrill Swain’s move into SCT provided it with more credibility, and
made it“salonfähig” (socially acceptable). Jim Lantolf assumes that the
mentioning of SCT as a theory for AL in handbooks and overviews like Ellis
(1994) and Mitchellet al.(2013) is the main factor. Also the AL community
seemed to be ready to accept a more socially based theory as a reaction to
the dominant psycholinguistic approaches in the 1970s and 1980s.
William Grabe relates the growth of SCT with the development of what
might be called SCT-Light. An SCT analysis can be done very rigorously
“but sometimes it can be done very superficially”. In his view, it is much
easier to do a SCT-Light analysis of classroom interaction than to set up a
complicated experiment with human subjects. He feels that SCT needs to be
based on empirical research; introspection is not enough. Of course, this
raises the question of what counts as empirical data. For some this implies
quantification and statistics, while others see introspective data, stimulated
recalls and think aloud protocols as equally valid.
6.1.5 Foundational sources and reinventing the wheel
Many informants argue for more attention for the foundational literature
of thefield. Albert Weideman in particular stresses the need to link devel-
opments in thefield with essential foundational concepts. The basis of
what is now seen as AL was laid in the 1970s and 1980s by people like
Corder, Hymes, Labov, Grice, Fishman and Halliday, and even further back
by Wundt and de Saussure. That is not to say that reading such classics
is easy. Karen Johnson remembers that, in a course, she had to read
Vygotsky in original form“and we had no clue what we were reading”.
Many of the things these eminent researchers said are still relevant and stu-
dents of AL should be made aware of that. But that literature should
also be framed or reinterpreted in the light of what happened after that.
The old literature should, in my view, not be like a gospel, but awareness of
the ideas expressed in them is useful. We also need conveyers and inter-
preters of these traditions. The obvious example in AL is the growth of
interest in SCT. Without the reinterpretation by people like Lantolf,
Thorne and van Lier of the original writings by Vygotsky and other
researchers in that tradition, the interest in it would certainly not have been
what it is now.
Henry Widdowson (2003) points to the tendency to recycle old ideas
without recognizing that they are old and the failure to take advantage of
previous thinking. He further says:
Main trends I 63