A lot of discussions on ESL and EFL learning/teaching give the impression that second language learning/teaching (SLL/T) and foreign language learning/teaching (FLL/T) are more or less the same and that there are no significant theoretical and/or methodological differences that would mark the two areas as rigorously distinct (disciplinarily) fields/subfields. While SLL/T seems to dominate the field of language learning/teaching, discussions on FLL/T appears to eventually boil down to a discussion of SLL/T. On the one hand, this state of affairs questions the validity of FLL/T as an independent academic field/subfield; on the other hand, it indicates the failure of the scholarship and research on the language learning/teaching discourse to account for certain factors that mark the territories of SLL/T and FLL/T, factors that are crucial to a holistic understanding of the field, but that go unnoticed because they are hailing from peripheral contexts.
The evidence coming from certain South Asian language learning/teaching contexts (like Sri Lanka) attests to the fact that there are significant differences between SLL/T and FLL/T. Sri Lanka, like many other countries in South Asia, is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religion, and multilingual context. There are two state languages in Sri Lanka, namely Sinhala and Tamil. Sinhala is the “majority” language, while Tamil occupies the position of the main “minority” language. The Constitution defines English as a ‘link’ language in the country. Technically speaking, Sinhala is a second language for Tamil speakers, and, in the same way, Tamil is a second language for Sinhala speakers. However, due to the sense of mutual hostility between the Sinhala speakers and Tamil speakers generated by the ethnic tensions between the two communities (that were rather intense some time ago), neither group seems to have considered the language of the other a “proper” L2 that is worth learning/studying in a formal manner. This is not to say that the speakers of each group completely stay away from the language of the other group. A significant portion of each community (especially those living in areas that are numerically dominated by the other speech/ethnic group) speaks the language of the other mainly for strategic reasons like survival. (This is very much the case with the minority Tamil speakers learning the language of the majority that is Sinhala.) However, in a majority of contexts, their having to learn the language of the other is more a matter of options being limited to them than a matter of personal choice. My point is that this kind of learning is significantly different from learning a language as an L2 in a formal setting.
English, which is technically a link language in the country, is seen as the strongest L2 in Sri Lanka. Almost all the post-independence governments in Sri Lanka (regardless of whether they had a strong nationalist agenda or not), especially those of the post-1977 era, have promoted English as the single most important L2 in the country. Nevertheless, despite this massive support from the State, English education in the country remains to be a “colossal failure”. The predominantly negative attitude that society seems to have developed towards English due to the oppressive cultural baggage that it carries with it could be seen as the main reason behind this failure. This attitude has existed in society without being properly addressed for such a long time that this resistance has now become naturalized. However, despite this general trend, there is a general assumption (which has also been supported by certain research studies to a certain extent) that the minority communities (Tamil speakers/people belonging to the Tamil and Muslim communities), at least a sizeable population of them, are interested in learning English as an L2. In a context where they occupy a secondary position in the polity dominated by the majority Sinhala community, learning English is one (probably the best) of the few ways in which they could combat the domination of the majority community and carve a place for themselves in society. As far as the majority Sinhala community is concerned, they could afford to maintain this naturalized resistant attitude towards English as their ethnic identity within the polity is not in “danger”.
This complex and complicated situation in contexts like Sri Lanka in relation to ESL learning/teaching suggests the need to go beyond a mere focus on the methods and models of language learning/teaching. Most of the methods and models of language learning/teaching designed in western contexts primarily by taking into consideration the relatively apolitical language learning/teaching contexts fail miserably in contexts like Sri Lanka simply because they fail to account for the various social, cultural, political, and economic dynamics that seem to govern those language learning/teaching contexts.
Compared to this complex situation with regard to SLL/T in the said contexts, FLL/T can be said to operate in a relatively apolitical space. Apart from the fact that learning foreign languages is generally not popular in Sri Lanka, the contexts in which FLL/T takes place are relatively free of the social, cultural, political, and economic constraints that define the shape of SLL/T in the country. Provided that the learner is financially strong enough to afford an education of/in a foreign language, language learning appears to be a matter of personal choice.
Given this significant distinction between SLL/T and FLL/T in peripheral contexts like Sri Lanka, the taken-for-granted similarity between the two and the assumed homogeneity of the learner community are rather misleading.
The evidence coming from certain South Asian language learning/teaching contexts (like Sri Lanka) attests to the fact that there are significant differences between SLL/T and FLL/T. Sri Lanka, like many other countries in South Asia, is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religion, and multilingual context. There are two state languages in Sri Lanka, namely Sinhala and Tamil. Sinhala is the “majority” language, while Tamil occupies the position of the main “minority” language. The Constitution defines English as a ‘link’ language in the country. Technically speaking, Sinhala is a second language for Tamil speakers, and, in the same way, Tamil is a second language for Sinhala speakers. However, due to the sense of mutual hostility between the Sinhala speakers and Tamil speakers generated by the ethnic tensions between the two communities (that were rather intense some time ago), neither group seems to have considered the language of the other a “proper” L2 that is worth learning/studying in a formal manner. This is not to say that the speakers of each group completely stay away from the language of the other group. A significant portion of each community (especially those living in areas that are numerically dominated by the other speech/ethnic group) speaks the language of the other mainly for strategic reasons like survival. (This is very much the case with the minority Tamil speakers learning the language of the majority that is Sinhala.) However, in a majority of contexts, their having to learn the language of the other is more a matter of options being limited to them than a matter of personal choice. My point is that this kind of learning is significantly different from learning a language as an L2 in a formal setting.
English, which is technically a link language in the country, is seen as the strongest L2 in Sri Lanka. Almost all the post-independence governments in Sri Lanka (regardless of whether they had a strong nationalist agenda or not), especially those of the post-1977 era, have promoted English as the single most important L2 in the country. Nevertheless, despite this massive support from the State, English education in the country remains to be a “colossal failure”. The predominantly negative attitude that society seems to have developed towards English due to the oppressive cultural baggage that it carries with it could be seen as the main reason behind this failure. This attitude has existed in society without being properly addressed for such a long time that this resistance has now become naturalized. However, despite this general trend, there is a general assumption (which has also been supported by certain research studies to a certain extent) that the minority communities (Tamil speakers/people belonging to the Tamil and Muslim communities), at least a sizeable population of them, are interested in learning English as an L2. In a context where they occupy a secondary position in the polity dominated by the majority Sinhala community, learning English is one (probably the best) of the few ways in which they could combat the domination of the majority community and carve a place for themselves in society. As far as the majority Sinhala community is concerned, they could afford to maintain this naturalized resistant attitude towards English as their ethnic identity within the polity is not in “danger”.
This complex and complicated situation in contexts like Sri Lanka in relation to ESL learning/teaching suggests the need to go beyond a mere focus on the methods and models of language learning/teaching. Most of the methods and models of language learning/teaching designed in western contexts primarily by taking into consideration the relatively apolitical language learning/teaching contexts fail miserably in contexts like Sri Lanka simply because they fail to account for the various social, cultural, political, and economic dynamics that seem to govern those language learning/teaching contexts.
Compared to this complex situation with regard to SLL/T in the said contexts, FLL/T can be said to operate in a relatively apolitical space. Apart from the fact that learning foreign languages is generally not popular in Sri Lanka, the contexts in which FLL/T takes place are relatively free of the social, cultural, political, and economic constraints that define the shape of SLL/T in the country. Provided that the learner is financially strong enough to afford an education of/in a foreign language, language learning appears to be a matter of personal choice.
Given this significant distinction between SLL/T and FLL/T in peripheral contexts like Sri Lanka, the taken-for-granted similarity between the two and the assumed homogeneity of the learner community are rather misleading.