By Andr\u00e9 Ramos Chac\u00f3n<\/p>\n
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 <\/em>(pp. 91-109). <\/em>Multilingual Matters.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Summary In \u201cSociological approaches to second language learning and agency \u201c, 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<\/strong> to study a L2 learner\u2019s 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\u2019s social borders and power dynamics, but only after the social environment has purported to determine \u2014and to an extent has determined\u2014 the nature of a L2 learner\u2019s participation in the target language community.<\/p>\n Mick approaches the L2 learner\u2013target 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\u2019s imprint on different spheres and to a learner\u2019s distinct final purposes. The four dimensions of agency are:<\/p>\n In general, the four dimensions point to L2 learners\u2019 capacity to become social actors<\/strong> who configure or reconfigure social schemes <\/strong>through practices such as meaning-making, and the appropriation, actualization, and evaluation of linguistic resources and cultural tools. A concept central to Mick\u2019s theorization on agency is Foucault\u2019s and Deleuze\u2019s dispositives<\/strong>, which is defined as the \u201ccomplex socially conceived systems, structures and schemes that become enacted in social practice\u201d (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);\u00a0elements which are shaped and reshaped by grand discourses (in the Foucauldian sense) such as foreign language teaching or K-12 education.<\/p>\n 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;\u00a0yet 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\u2019s target language. This reality hinders the transferability of the L2 learner\u2019s linguistic resources to the target community and vice versa.<\/p>\n The second dimension of agency, or agency as access to a target language community\u2019s representations of others, refers to a L2 learner\u2019s capacity to challenge the \u201cmonolingual habitus\u201d <\/em>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 \u201cmigrant bilingualism\u201d that contrasts with the exclusively legitimized \u201celite bilingualism\u201d. 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\u2019s transformation of the linguistic representations found in their language learning setting.<\/p>\n 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<\/strong> 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 <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Comment<\/strong><\/p>\n In \u201cSociological approaches to second language learning and agency \u201c, Mick conceives the L2 learner almost exclusively in the figure of the immigrant or \u201ctransplanted learner\u201d. 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\u00a0at an instructional setting\u00a0in their own country) also exert agency with the appropriation, transculturation, and translanguaging of target \u201cforeign\u201d 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 \u2014as, for example, resources acquired in their L2 can help them rethink and question negative ideologies and language practices embedded in their L1.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Andr\u00e9 Ramos Chac\u00f3n 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 \u201cSociological approaches … Continue reading
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n