We are grateful to the editors of ReCALL and in particular Dr Liam Murray, the Reviews Editor, for giving us an opportunity to respond to David Little’s review of our book.
The major function of reviews is for reviewers to express their own opinions, but they also have a responsibility to give readers a fairly accurate idea of what a book is about. Here, this review is problematic, in our opinion. It misrepresents central arguments in the book, and it repeatedly criticizes the book for not doing what it does not set out to do.
The reviewer states that the book does not amount to a coherent whole by bemoaning the absence of an ‘overarching argument’. We can, however, point to just such a conceptual framework that binds together the different chapters of the book; it is that the goal of autonomous language learning should be what we call ‘Language Understanding’, discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Language Understanding, in our view, ‘includes some formal knowledge of linguistic features and an ability to use language communicatively,’ and we believe that ‘it should provide the basis for acquiring the “new” literacies’ (p. 11). It is puzzling that the reviewer should fail to see this ‘overarching argument’, as it is set out fully and explicitly in the opening chapters and is referred to throughout the book.
A key element in Language Understanding is the relationship between L1 teaching and L2/FL teaching, and in both of these the role of explicit language knowledge has long been the subject of controversy. Accordingly, we examine developments in L1 education in England and Wales over recent decades, with a focus on explicit language knowledge, particularly of grammar and discourse (Chapter 3). Then, within a more general context, we turn to L2/FL teaching and examine: arguments against and in favour of explicit grammar teaching; relationships between grammar knowledge and formulaic phrases; and how these may fit with discourse knowledge and use (Chapter 4). The reviewer’s complaint that the book is not a comparative study and contains no examples of pedagogical practice is simply irrelevant, as we set out to write neither.
The literature on learner autonomy (LA) and autonomous language learning (ALL) bristles with differing and often contending definitions. Our focus is on ALL, which, in our definition, does not have LA as its goal but implies, instead, the goal of greater learner effectiveness (p. 139). The reviewer regards it as an important omission that we have not embarked on the task of exploring the relationship between ALL and LA. However, we have tried to make as clear as possible what our definitions are and why we are adopting those definitions as opposed to any other. It is unusual to be criticized for doing so.
Some of the confusion surrounding LA and ALL can be traced back to one of their earliest and most influential proponents, Henri Holec. In his Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning (1981) Holec espouses both a radical version of ALL, meaning that the learner can take all necessary ‘practical decisions’ (pp. 2–3), and a gradualist version, according to which the student must learn how to become an autonomous learner (pp. 3–4). This is, in our view, a highly significant internal conflict, which merits examination. The reviewer disagrees; he believes that the inconsistency in Holec can be explained by reference to an entirely different writer, van Ek – in our opinion, a baffling piece of reasoning.
Regarding target language use in the classroom the authors’ position can be summarized as follows (p. 155): ‘in the FL classroom extensive exposure to the TL and TL texts, whilst a necessary condition for developing proficiency, is not a sufficient one’. The reviewer is plainly unhappy with this. However, his reasons for being so are far from clear, and he misrepresents the argument in Chapter 4 to the extent that it is unrecognizable.
The reviewer completely reverses the order of our argument in Chapter 6, thereby making it appear nonsensical. In fact, the chapter starts by pointing out that changing patterns of FL demand and provision, as well as the advent of the new technologies, may tend to give ALL a particular character, and it goes on to argue that educationally sound principles are needed if effective forms of ALL are to be developed.
An especially damaging line of attack is for the reviewer to observe that he or she can think of no suitable readership for a book. If a reader is relying on a review as a guide to the worth or interest of a book, such a comment is likely to persuade him or her not to read it. However, contrary to what the reviewer claims, readers may well not be familiar with all the issues discussed: mother tongue proficiency; FL proficiency; and literacy in the new technologies – all in relation to ALL. Readers will certainly not be familiar with the arguments deployed by the authors in linking these different areas.
There were minor problems with the printing of the Bibliography after it had passed out of the authors’ control, and the reviewer is mistaken in attributing them to the authors. Rather than G.A. Wells, G.C. Wells should be credited with the authorship of one book. Coincidentally, G.A. Wells, in The Jesus Legend (1996), provides ‘guidelines for hostile writing’ (pp. 1–9) to show how to dismiss someone’s ideas without having to analyze their reasoning; Wells’s intention is to discourage this practice. Recommended reading.
