Navigating the SLA/T conceptual landscape and investing in transdisciplinary practices

As a scholar from the global South who grew up in the Philippines, a country colonized by Spain and the United States, where English persists as a language of power that reinforces class divisions, I have developed a profound interest in the inequalities and ideologies that circumscribe language learning. Moving across borders as a transnational and residing in Canada, I recognize that the material, cultural, social, linguistic, and semiotic resources that we bring with us can be valued differently as we traverse online and offline spaces and as we are positioned by others based on the way we look or speak and other inscriptions of identity. It is with this awareness of the unevenness of the social world, the asymmetry of power, that I codeveloped with Bonny Norton a model of investment (Darvin & Norton, 2015) that recognizes how an individual's commitment to learning a language is dynamic, perpetually shifting as we move across orders of indexicality and negotiate identities, capital, and ideologies. Years later, we coauthored an article in Language Teaching, “Investment and Motivation in Language Learning: What's the Difference?” (Darvin & Norton, 2023). Our goal was to clarify the conceptual distinctions of these two constructs that evolved from contrasting epistemological perspectives. Through the exercise of writing this article, however, we discovered points of not only divergence but also convergence: How certain ideas ran parallel to each other, and how investment and motivation complemented each other and offered a bifocal lens that braided together cognitive, psychological, and sociocultural processes of language learning. Reading through the articles in this special issue (SI) and the shared synergy statement, I find the same invigorating spirit of discovering connections, parallels, and intersections across different perspectives. By structuring a conversation that progresses from individual viewpoints to shared understandings, this SI constructs a layered epistemological map of second language acquisition and teaching (SLA/T) where scholars not only establish their positions in specific areas but also draw vectors to connect concepts, methodologies, and pedagogical implications to construct a shared domain of understanding. Examining crosslinguistic influence and learnability from a generative linguistics perspective (Alexopoulou; see Sato et al., 2025, this issue), for instance, helps us understand more concretely the sociocultural perspective that a first language (L1) is a linguistic resource and a marker of identity (Kayi-Aydar; see Atkinson et al., 2025, this issue). Instructed SLA research bridges cognitive and social perspectives (Michel & Sato; see Sato et al., 2025, this issue) by examining individual differences and the way identity inscriptions of race and ethnicity can impact cognitive processes (e.g., how accent bias can interfere with the learning of pronunciation). A sociomaterial perspective expands ethnomethodological conversation analysis by making visible how human and nonhuman actants shape interaction (Thorne & Hellermann; see Sato et al., 2025, this issue), aligning with the mindbodyworld relationality (Atkinson, Mejia-Laguna, & Ribeiro, 2025, this issue) that emphasizes how cognition is not isolated within the individual but extends across social and material contexts. The mindbodyworld structuring of learning environments underscores how interaction is multimodal (Cappellini; see Sato et al., 2025, this issue), and how the interlocutor's gaze, for instance, can enable inferences regarding cognition and attention. A praxeological approach (Pekarek Doehler & Eskildsen; see Zheng et al., 2025, this issue), which recognizes how L2 emerges through repeated social actions, resonates with a complex dynamics systems theory (Gao & Zheng; see Zheng et al., 2025, this issue) that highlights the adaptive and emergent nature of language learning. By arranging these various constructs on this conceptual map, the SI contributors were able to draw various vectors, and develop a syncretic understanding of SLA/T as unique, individual, complex, multilayered, and oriented toward social action and humanization. The term “syncretic” signals both coalition and integration, the growing together of parts and the collapsing of boundaries; and this dynamic process demonstrates that while scholars take different theoretical routes and adopt cognitive, psychological, linguistic, or social perspectives, SLA/T research collectively contributes to the imagination of a more equitable and inclusive world. The nature of learning a language that is “second,” that comes after the privileged position of a first and often involves contexts where learners may be positioned as Other, drives this impetus. By establishing broader trends across groups, and by diving deeper into the narratives and contexts of individuals, mixed methods (Sasaki; see Zheng et al., 2025, this issue) can help amplify the voices of the underrepresented or excluded. The particularization that case studies offer enables an understanding of how moment-to-moment interactions can index systemic inequalities and relations of power. Working toward this shared impetus, scholars help construct the map of the SLA/T field by outlining a particular domain, but to expand this map, we also need to experience perturbations (Lowie; see Sato et al., 2025, this issue) that disrupt our own epistemological equilibrium and encourage us to establish greater connections with other ideas. Just as we need to decolonize language learning (Ortega; see Zheng et al., 2025, this issue), we must also decolonize the scholarly practices of publication and conference participation that have maintained our silos and the boundaries of research and practice. By recognizing the researcher as cartographer, we can understand how making connections within this map is critical to our work. As we co-construct and navigate the SLA/T conceptual landscape, the hope is that we cultivate dispositions of intellectual openness and curiosity, and invest in transdisciplinary practices that help imagine equitable and inclusive futures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.