SOURCE 3
Isurin, Ludmila and Altarriba, Jeanette. Memory, Language, and Bilingualism . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
In his article Freeman draws on the thesis that in the solution the second language acquisition (SLA) field has perennially adopted when there are conflicting views to seek a larger frame, one that acknowledges the contributions of both perspectives, "individual/cognitive and social/contextual" (Freeman 773). Freeman expects both perspective to be productive for future understanding and believes that there will be a point where both views cross paths and will prove productive in the understanding of second language acquisition. Rather than providing a biased view, Freeman aims to portray both sides of the bilingual debate and provide a reason for why reconciliation among both sides is
impossible. Looking at different theories and researches, Freeman leaves his audience with an open-ended conclusion requesting his audience "not to maintain old walls, or construct new one, but instead to open up to new spaces." and anticipating that "the field of inquiry (in bilingualism) will once again broaden and move on."
Through out his narrative Freeman forwards and counters the views of a number of linguists and researchers. Drawing upon Long (1997) and Kasper's (1997) mutual view that second language acquisition occurs through participation, it can be seen that had Shivanii participated more in conversations in Sindhi, she could have improved her second language skills and avoided being at a "cognitive disadvantage" in the case she illustrates in her narrative. Referring to Firth and Wagner, he suggests that "communications are not simply a transfer of information in a 'normal', that is native speaker equivalent, manner" thereby contradicting the view portrayed by Shivanii's father in his narrative as he tries to enforce and persuade his daughter to converse in their native language which he believed, as did Shivanii towards the end of her narrative, that speaking her native language would help keep her grounded to her culture.
Hence, it can be seen that Freeman’s thought process and methodology is different from that of the authors of the other two sources used and hence, adds a completely different perspective to the research indicating that with time, there is scope for more research and hence more coherent and definite answers to the question being researched.
Isurin, Ludmila and Altarriba, Jeanette. Memory, Language, and Bilingualism . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
In his article Freeman draws on the thesis that in the solution the second language acquisition (SLA) field has perennially adopted when there are conflicting views to seek a larger frame, one that acknowledges the contributions of both perspectives, "individual/cognitive and social/contextual" (Freeman 773). Freeman expects both perspective to be productive for future understanding and believes that there will be a point where both views cross paths and will prove productive in the understanding of second language acquisition. Rather than providing a biased view, Freeman aims to portray both sides of the bilingual debate and provide a reason for why reconciliation among both sides is
impossible. Looking at different theories and researches, Freeman leaves his audience with an open-ended conclusion requesting his audience "not to maintain old walls, or construct new one, but instead to open up to new spaces." and anticipating that "the field of inquiry (in bilingualism) will once again broaden and move on."
Through out his narrative Freeman forwards and counters the views of a number of linguists and researchers. Drawing upon Long (1997) and Kasper's (1997) mutual view that second language acquisition occurs through participation, it can be seen that had Shivanii participated more in conversations in Sindhi, she could have improved her second language skills and avoided being at a "cognitive disadvantage" in the case she illustrates in her narrative. Referring to Firth and Wagner, he suggests that "communications are not simply a transfer of information in a 'normal', that is native speaker equivalent, manner" thereby contradicting the view portrayed by Shivanii's father in his narrative as he tries to enforce and persuade his daughter to converse in their native language which he believed, as did Shivanii towards the end of her narrative, that speaking her native language would help keep her grounded to her culture.
Hence, it can be seen that Freeman’s thought process and methodology is different from that of the authors of the other two sources used and hence, adds a completely different perspective to the research indicating that with time, there is scope for more research and hence more coherent and definite answers to the question being researched.