By André Ramos Chacón
Mick, Carola (2014). Sociological approaches to second language learning and agency. In Ping Deters et al. (eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 91-109). Multilingual Matters.
Summary
In “Sociological approaches to second language learning and agency “, Carola Mick studies the L2 learner in their interactions with a target language community and its inherent power dynamics and social structures. Mick uses the concept of agency to study a L2 learner’s influence on a target language community within the set of opportunities and restrictions that such community initially establishes on the L2 learner. In other words, agency refers to how a L2 learner holds sufficient capacity to transform a target community’s social borders and power dynamics, but only after the social environment has purported to determine —and to an extent has determined— the nature of a L2 learner’s participation in the target language community.
Mick approaches the L2 learner–target community interdependence through a combination of postmodern sociology (Deleuze, Foucault, Bourdieu) and second language acquisition (SLA) theory. Mick argues that there are four dimensions of agency in second language learning that, though similar, point to a L2 learner’s imprint on different spheres and to a learner’s distinct final purposes. The four dimensions of agency are:
- Agency as mediation and translation between different language systems and communities.
- Agency as access to, and transformation of, a target community’s representations of other languages and the L2 learners of its own language.
- Agency s acquisition of membership into a target language community.
- Agency as the transformation of a target language community’s social structures and power dynamics.
In general, the four dimensions point to L2 learners’ capacity to become social actors who configure or reconfigure social schemes through practices such as meaning-making, and the appropriation, actualization, and evaluation of linguistic resources and cultural tools. A concept central to Mick’s theorization on agency is Foucault’s and Deleuze’s dispositives, which is defined as the “complex socially conceived systems, structures and schemes that become enacted in social practice” (94). Dispositives are, essentially, institutions that are construed by communities to shape the identities of their individual members according to roles, hierarchies, and worldviews. A concrete SLA example is the school: an institution with characteristic buildings (classrooms), systems (schedules, textbooks, curricula), and social roles (teacher, student); elements which are shaped and reshaped by grand discourses (in the Foucauldian sense) such as foreign language teaching or K-12 education.
For Mick, the first dimension of agency, or agency as mediation, consists in the creation of a zone of contact among two language communities. Mick argues that, generally, the L2 learner develops their communicative competence and linguistic awareness through inter-language diplomacy; yet also notes that this type of agency is always conditioned by the characteristics of the dispositive that constitutes the setting. In general, many dispositives restrict language use to transactional type of interactions or to interactions only in the community’s target language. This reality hinders the transferability of the L2 learner’s linguistic resources to the target community and vice versa.
The second dimension of agency, or agency as access to a target language community’s representations of others, refers to a L2 learner’s capacity to challenge the “monolingual habitus” of educational systems or dispositives alike. In this section, Mick focuses on the restrictive nature of educational institutions in terms of language instruction as, generally, language teaching excludes regional or minority languages, or even the “migrant bilingualism” that contrasts with the exclusively legitimized “elite bilingualism”. Mick also argues that language teaching is often decontextualized, disregards existing varieties of the languages being taught, and also does not assign value to alternative literacy activities that are developed outside dispositives or institutionalized contexts. Though not explicitly stated, this second dimension of agency would consist, thus, in the L2 learner’s transformation of the linguistic representations found in their language learning setting.
The third dimension of agency, or agency as the acquisition of membership into a target community, consists in challenging monolingually-oriented, xenophobic, or sexist discourses present in the dispositives of language learning. Mick presents translanguaging here as a practice that not only allows the L2 learner to participate in distinct communicative environments, but also as an action that creates spaces for multiculturalism and the multiplicity of genders. Mick also contrasts translanguaging with the concept of interlanguage to clarify that agency is not a progressive incorporation into the standards of the target language, but a creative moving-between that transforms literacy practices in both the L1 and L2.
The last dimension of agency, or agency as transformation of discourses and power relations, entails a twofold process. First, the questioning of social hierarchies and power structures maintained through the use of language. Second, the development of a transformative language practice that is oriented to contributing to social change. This type of agency not only leads the L2 learner to challenge social structures, but also to self-reflect in the constant construction and perpetuation of relations of power through language use.
Finally, Mick contends that a sociological perspective alone cannot wholly describe all the dimensions of agency present in second language learning. Thus, Mick encourages further interdisciplinary dialogue to enrich the study of L2 agency with respect to target language communities.
Comment
In “Sociological approaches to second language learning and agency “, Mick conceives the L2 learner almost exclusively in the figure of the immigrant or “transplanted learner”. Though Mick assesses the diverse ways these types of L2 learners can transform the linguistic and social parameters of a target language community, it should be noted that L2 learners in other types of contexts (example, learners of a foreign language at an instructional setting in their own country) also exert agency with the appropriation, transculturation, and translanguaging of target “foreign” languages. These other L2 learners also bring divergent language communities into contact, and also bring about social change in their own language communities through L2 acquisition —as, for example, resources acquired in their L2 can help them rethink and question negative ideologies and language practices embedded in their L1.