Dr. Johnson’s metaphor, here applied to the writings of the English poet Abraham Cowley, has been the subject of a variety of essays and comments in either an agreeing or disapproving mode3. It is, basically, a reflection of the connection between thinking and its linguistic expression and, at the surface, hard to contradict. When it comes to the analysis of higher order thinking skills (the so-called HOTS, cf. chapter 6.7), however, a couple of issues arise. If the kind of clothes you wear reflects in some ways what you are, your style of speech would indicate your thinking and, in Dr. Johnson’s own diction, spoil the quality of your most brilliant ideas and “drop their magnificence”.
The Lives of the Poets has been called the best of Dr. Johnson’s works: “The narratives are as entertaining as any novel. The remarks on life and on human nature are eminently shrewd and profound” (EB 1939: 115). But clothing seems to be more than “just having something on”, it is subject to fashion, sometimes hides more than it shows and it is also supposed to protect and support his or her bearer. When it comes to language “as the dress of thought” texts and translations have to fit the context and need to express your ideas and intentions. On a lighter note, it could be said that language is not the dress but the costume of thought4, disguising what people mean to say and, in this way, separating thoughts from the language supposed to express them. The famous philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, for instance, underwrote the possibility that language could deceive people and Noam Chomsky as a linguist underlines the creative and innovative character of language which leads him to his conclusion of language innateness and the nativist quality of his frequently cited Universal Grammar. Other writers have engaged in similar discussions, George Orwell pointed at the corruption of language and thought working in both ways, and Hans Christian Andersen described the admiration of missing garments in the “Emperor’s New Clothes” as a sign of subjugation and the fear of being left out by praising the stuff they do not see.
As much as the exact relation between language and thought might never be known, even the origins of language themselves are somewhat diffuse. Language in the widest sense of the word refers to any means of communication between living beings and in its developed form is decidedly a human characteristic, considered the distinctive mark of humanity:
On the ultimate origin of language speculation has been rife … Greek philosophers were divided into two groups on this question, some thinking that there is from the beginning a natural connection between sound and meaning and that, therefore, language originated from nature, while others denied that connection and held that everything in language was conventional. The same two opposite views are represented among the linguistic thinkers of the 19th century, the former in the nativism of W. v. Humboldt …, the latter in the empiricism of Whitney etc. (EB 1939: 702).
In this light, the assumptions about the origins of language, the connections between thought and its linguistic expression and the relationships between acquired native and learned foreign languages have remained open to discussion and provided a rich field for research and investigation in the language classroom.
2.1 The Research on Second Language Acquisition
Over the years and beyond bilingualism, linguistic research in the context of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has yielded quite different if not controversial results. It seems to meander between the opposites of the Unitary System (USH) and the Dual System Hypothesis (DSH) and even goes back as far as the assumptions of learning psychologists (Lernpsychologen) like Carel van Parreren (1960). Van Parreren assumed a mental dual track system, where interferences occasioned distracting connections between the L1 and L2 “track” (like in the old-fashioned stereo tape recorders), and he considered the unitarian view as being harmful to the learning process. Over time, language teaching strategies went through a number of turns from behaviorism and the direct (Berlitz) method through to paradigmatic changes like immersion and generative SLA (see above: Noam Chomsky’s Universal Grammar and the Language Making Capacity—LMC), and the communicative, competence-oriented and intercultural approaches. All these changes have strongly influenced teaching strategies and more recently were complemented by social-constructivist ideas, relating to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD; cf. Klewitz 2017a: 15) and to research results from cognitive neuro-science and experimental neurolinguistics. A comprehensive and integrative approach towards learning processes in general is presently gaining considerable influence as the concept of Visible Learning based on the meta-analyses conducted by New Zealand’s educational researcher John Hattie.
One of the central issues remains, however, whether there are basic differences between acquiring your mother tongue (L1) and learning your second and/or foreign language (L2) and if so, how decisive these are. Apparently, L1 acquisition entails the parallel development of cultural and world knowledge and always happens successfully and effortlessly, if not automatically. Learning a foreign language, on the other hand, is perceived as being more difficult, can only be completed to a certain level, e.g. as described in the global scales of the CEF (see 4.2 and 7.2), and a nativelike competence is rarely, if at all, achieved. The language level arrived at depends, moreover, on vast individual differences, such as motivation, attitudes and types of learners and the respective contexts of societal expectations, school provisions and cultural environments. At the same type, there are certain parallels between L1 and L2 acquisition: similar mistakes occur in child- and adult-learning, for instance to-do-negations in English, syntax errors in German, fossilization in the development of the so-called interlanguage as a phase in the acquisition process that curbs learning progress or standstill as in the third-person-singular-“s” and other grammatical phenomena that deviate from the target language and seem difficult to “repair”. The answer to the question if learning L2 follows conscious (“learning”) or unconscious (“acquisition”) patterns5 depends on the learning theories operating in the background (cf. for details: Riemer 2010: 278 ff).
2.2 Behaviorism and a Black Box
Prevalent between the 1940s and 1970s in Anglophone as well as European countries, one of the early learning theories was dominated by behaviorism claiming that learning as part of behavior occurred through interaction with the environment in a process called conditioning. New behavior/learning was simply a response to environmental stimuli. Stimuli-response behaviors were to be studied in a systematic and observable manner as opposed to internal events like thinking or emotions, expectations and motivation. In this theory the nature-versus-nurture dilemma (chapter 3) was resolved in favor of nurture with the near exclusion of innate or inherited factors. Extended to language learning, the stimulus-response system plus positive and/or negative feedback was realized by so-called pattern-drills that allowed repetition and correction but very few situational or conscious operations, never mind language awareness. Since the learner’s brain was thought of as a black box operating between stimulus and response, results of learning activities were in the focus of instruction, they were measurable and comparable. This is probably why audiolingual and audiovisual methods, the direct application of the behavioral learning theory, are still being used to gain insights into learning and language development although the theory itself has since been refuted in many details, albeit keeping some relevance—in textbooks, exercise sequences and audiolingual practice.
The behaviorist approach maintained that all complex behavior,