Dichotomies as points of departure
A response to Truscott and Sharwood Smith (2024)
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11655645 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Stefanie Wulff (0000-0003-3245-6064, University of Florida), Nick C Ellis (0000-0002-4235-6481, University of Michigan), Jason Rothman (0000-0002-1895-561X, Lancaster University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 165-174 |
| Publication date | 2025-11-02 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Second language Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0267-6583 • E-ISSN: 1477-0326 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/02676583251389445 |
| OpenAlex | W4415782030 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 28 |
We here respond to a 2024 discussion and commentary article entitled Dangerous dichotomies and misunderstandings in second language research by Truscott and Sharwood Smith (T&SS), who argue that several dichotomies pervade the field of second language acquisition (SLA) that negatively impact progress in the field. T&SS focus on four dichotomies, all of which imply an opposition of generative and usage-based approaches: (i) Cognitive vs. Generative, (ii) Usage-based vs. Generative, (iii) Dynamic vs. Static/Fixed, and (iv) Innatist vs. What? We find T&SS’s specific approach problematic as corrections are overly skewed towards a single side; some imprecisions are simply swapped for others; and at times, crucial developments in both generative and usage-based approaches are ignored. Thus, we – two usage-based and one generative language researcher – combine forces here to offer our perspective. For the ‘dangers’ that T&SS list regarding each of the four dichotomies they discuss, we provide a synopsis of where we agree with T&SS and where we do not; and, based on where we see contemporary generative and usage-based approaches stand with regard to these four dichotomies, we offer an alternative set of statements that we consider more balanced and nuanced than the ‘corrective statements’ initially offered in T&SS (2024)
Dichotomy · Field (mathematics · Focus (optics · Generative grammar · Opposition (politics · Set (abstract data type · Categorization, perception, and language · EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning · Language Development and Disorders
The Price of Linguistic Productivity
Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer
Moving Where? A Reaction to Slabakova et al. (2014)
We Have Moved On
Rumors of UG's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Internal and External Factors in Heritage Language Acquisition
Rethinking multilingual experience through a Systems Framework of Bilingualism
Using latent variable analysis to capture individual differences in bilingual language experience
Different variables hold varying significance from childhood to adolescence
Easy as ABC. Functional-pragmatic factors explain “binding-principle” constraints on pronoun interpretation
Comprehension and production of non-canonical word orders in Mandarin-speaking child heritage speakers
Some consequences of the Tolerance Principle
Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers
Third-way linguistics
Negative entrenchment
Dangerous dichotomies and misunderstandings in L2 research
Learning datives
Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition
Language Emergence
Essentials of a Theory of Language Cognition
L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |