Dangerous dichotomies and misunderstandings in L2 research

This article draws attention to the obstacles created by imprecise definitions and misleading dichotomies. In this case the focus is on second language and multilingualism research literature. Despite the obvious benefits of reformulating otherwise complex ideas and approaches in simpler terms in order to distill their essential meaning, misunderstandings and misrepresentations can too easily arise. These can then proliferate within and beyond these research fields and hinder productive debates between proponents of different theoretical approaches. A selection of classic examples relating to issues of language cognition are discussed in this article. They include definitions of terms like cognitive, nativist, innatist, interactionist, usage-based, and dynamic. Simple contrasts introduced to improve readability and to introduce a longer discussion can become highly misleading where the context fails to include clarification. Incorrect inferences may otherwise be drawn by less well-informed readers. In other cases, dichotomies can be just wrong. We discuss the choice and phrasing of various terms and distinctions and argue that more care is needed by all involved. Discussions can still be carried out in a combative style if discussants so wish but not to the point of introducing conceptual confusion in debates that should serve to advance understanding in second language acquisition research.