Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The critics to systems approach - Coggle Diagram
The critics to systems approach
Two different traditions
SLA traditions
Tend to be cognitive and indivudual in orientation
construct language as a separate and distinct linguistic system
Two streams
Chomskyan framework
Generative grammarians tend to downplay the issue of transfer effects from the first langauge
More recent works see that SLA and FLA different
L1 acquistion is effortless, while L2 acquistiion may have difficulties in resetting parameters
Non-chomskyan framework
SLA has the same geenral cognitive system with the L2 acuqisition
Transfer effects are considered cognitively natural consequences
SLA is assumed to have a manner that differs from FLA
WE traditions
Trans-super-poly-metro movements
Criticism
Anticipated by Harris's (1988) integrationsim & Bahktin's (1981) hetergolssia
Does not provide the theoretical status of boundaries
Speakers need boundaries between languages to calibrate their own linguistic practices and evaluate those of others, even the boundaries are shifting and renegotiated
Mixing practices would be considered transgressive in certain contexts and by certain audiences
The cultural boundaries are still needed in sociolingistic account of language behaviour
Boundaries can theoretically co-exist with innovations and changes, and accomodates the folow, circulation, and mobility of languages and other resources
The systems approach remains a convenient and still influential default due to the absence of a clear and robust conceptual alternative
Linguistic assemblages afford advantages over the view of language as automous bounded system
It provide a coherent account of regularities and fluidities in language while also being open to the idea of what actually constitutes 'the linguistic'
Ideas
challenges the idea that language is an autonomous and integrated system
Speakers appear to mix the resources associated with conventionally established linguistic varieties