Microsoft Word - Pizziconi_7.2.docx


E-­‐JournALL,	
  EuroAmerican	
  Journal	
  of	
  Applied	
  Linguistics	
  and	
  Languages	
  
Volume	
  7,	
  Issue	
  2,	
  October	
  2020,	
  116–119	
  
ISSN	
  2376-­‐905X	
  	
   	
  
http://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.12.222	
  
www.e-­‐journall.org	
   

© Pizziconi 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 
	
   	
  

	
   Review:	
  Balboni,	
  Paolo	
  E.	
  (2018).	
  A	
  theoretical	
  framework	
  for	
  language	
  
education	
  and	
  teaching.	
  Cambridge	
  Scholars	
  Publishing.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

SERGIO	
  PIZZICONI	
  
Università	
  per	
  Stranieri	
  di	
  Siena	
  

	
  
Book	
  review	
  

	
   Received	
  18	
  August	
  2020;	
  accepted	
  after	
  revision	
  28	
  August	
  2020	
  
 

ABSTRACT 
EN The volume is a reflection on the status of educational linguistics as a field of investigation in its own right. The author’s 

objective is to outline a theoretical framework for language education and teaching that is independent from the cultural features 
of the context in which the language curriculum is implemented. This goal seems to be intended by the author as a way to 
organize the many and often fragmentary trends and threads of research in the field and to provide scholars and practitioners 
with a benchmark against which they can contrast their research and professional practice decisions. 
 
Key words: EDUCATIONAL LINGUISTICS, LANGUAGE EDUCATION, LANGUAGE TEACHING, THEORETICAL PARADIGMS 
 

ES Este volumen es una reflexión sobre la situación de la lingüística educativa como campo de investigación independiente. El 
objetivo del autor es trazar un marco teórico para la educación lingüística y la enseñanza de lenguas que no dependa de las 
influencias culturales del ámbito en el que se aplica el currículo lingüístico. Parece ser que el autor entiende este objetivo como 
una forma de organizar las numerosas y con frecuencia fragmentarias tendencias y vías de investigación en este campo y de 
proporcionar a los estudiosos y profesionales un esquema de referencia con el que puedan contrastar sus decisiones tanto en 
la investigación como en la práctica profesional. 

Palabras clave: LINGÜÍSTICA EDUCATIVA, EDUCACIÓN LINGÜÍSTICA, ENSEÑANZA DE IDIOMAS, PARADIGMAS TEÓRICOS 
 

IT Il volume è una riflessione sullo status della linguistica educativa come ambito di ricerca a sé stante. Il fine dell'autore è quello di 
individuare una cornice teorica per l'educazione linguistica e l'insegnamento delle lingue che sia scevro dalle influenze culturali 
del luogo in cui il curriculum linguistico è progettato. L'obiettivo sembra essere inteso dall'autore come un modo di riorganizzare 
le molte e spesso frammentarie tendenze e direzioni di ricerca nel settore e di fornire a studiosi/e e a praticanti uno schema di 
riferimento rispetto al quale confrontare le proprie scelte di ricerca e di pratica professionale. 
 
Parole chiave: LINGUISTICA EDUCATIVA, EDUCAZIONE LINGUISTICA, INSEGNAMENTO DELLE LINGUE, PARADIGMI TEORICI 

  
  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

*  Sergio	
  Pizziconi,	
  Università	
  per	
  Stranieri	
  di	
  Siena	
  
sergio.pizziconi@unistrasi.it 

http://www.e-journall.org/


 REVIEW:	
  A	
  THEORETICAL	
  FRAMEWORK	
  FOR	
  LANGUAGE	
  EDUCATION	
  AND	
  TEACHING	
  
 

E-­‐JournALL,	
  7(2)	
  (2020),	
  pp.	
  116-­‐119 117	
  

	
   This	
  book,	
  entitled	
  A	
  Theoretical	
  Framework	
  for	
  Language	
  Education	
  and	
  Teaching,	
  is	
  the	
  type	
  of	
  work	
  
that	
  is	
  meant	
  to	
  recap	
  the	
  reflections,	
  arguments,	
  hypotheses,	
  and	
  findings	
  of	
  a	
  long-­‐lasting	
  academic	
  career.	
  It	
  
is	
   the	
   result	
   of	
   a	
   “theoretical	
   and	
   epistemological	
   self-­‐reflection”	
   (p.	
   2)	
   about	
   the	
   status	
   of	
   educational	
  
linguistics	
   as	
   an	
   operational	
   science	
   and	
   its	
   academic	
   standing.	
   Paolo	
   Balboni	
   organizes	
   definitions,	
  
theoretical	
  background,	
  and	
  inter-­‐disciplinary	
  influences	
  (in	
  the	
  etymological	
  sense	
  of	
  “between	
  disciplines”	
  
as	
  opposed	
  to	
  the	
  ideas	
  of	
  multidisciplinarity	
  and	
  of	
  desirable	
  syncretism	
  that	
  interdisciplinarity	
  is	
  supposed	
  
to	
   achieve;	
   at	
   this	
   stage,	
   Balboni	
   is	
   only	
   looking	
   for	
   knowledge	
   flows	
   between	
   disciplines)	
   to	
   support	
   a	
  
comprehensive	
   approach	
   to	
   linguistic	
   education.	
   The	
   goal	
   is	
   to	
   arrive	
   at	
   a	
   theoretical	
   framework	
   that	
   is	
  
universal	
  and	
  non-­‐cultural	
  specific.	
  To	
  this	
  end,	
  Balboni	
  proposes	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  definitions	
  and	
  models	
  that	
  frame	
  
the	
  scientific	
  discipline	
  and	
  the	
  concrete	
  practice	
  of	
  language	
  education	
  and	
  teaching.	
  As	
  the	
  author	
  states,	
  the	
  
ultimate	
   aim	
   is	
   to	
   provide	
   a	
   global	
   scientific	
   community	
  with	
   theoretical	
   tools	
   to	
   discuss	
   findings,	
   analyze	
  
data,	
  and	
  verify	
  hypotheses,	
  which	
  are	
  collected	
  locally. 

The	
   first	
   eight	
   chapters	
   of	
   the	
   book	
   comprise	
   the	
   bulk	
   of	
   the	
   theoretical	
   reflection.	
   The	
   first	
   two	
  
chapters	
   introduce	
   the	
   overall	
   design	
   of	
   the	
   book.	
   They	
   define	
   the	
   object	
   of	
   study,	
   or	
   put	
   differently,	
  what	
  
needs	
  to	
  be	
  theoretically	
  framed	
  and	
  how	
  the	
  framing	
  is	
  enacted.	
  In	
  the	
  first	
  chapter,	
  the	
  words	
  language	
  and	
  
education	
  are	
  defined.	
  The	
  former	
  includes	
  any	
  type	
  of	
  language	
  in	
  which	
  learners	
  can	
  get	
  formal	
  or	
  informal	
  
training:	
  L1,	
  L2,	
   foreign	
   language,	
  ethnic	
   language,	
   language	
  of	
   instruction,	
   lingua	
   franca,	
  classical	
   language,	
  
and	
  also	
  artificial	
  language;	
  they	
  all	
  determine	
  different	
  contexts	
  for	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  teaching/learning.	
  For	
  the	
  
latter	
   term,	
   Balboni	
   proposes	
   two	
   possible	
   roles	
   of	
   the	
   teacher:	
   either	
   a	
   main	
   character	
   who	
   “guides	
   the	
  
process”	
  (pp.	
  21–23)	
  or	
  a	
  stage	
  director	
  who	
  “facilitates	
  the	
  process”	
  (pp.	
  21–23).	
  	
  

The	
   second	
   chapter	
   moves	
   from	
   the	
   distinction	
   between	
   hard	
   and	
   soft	
   sciences	
   and	
   positions	
  
educational	
  linguistics	
  in	
  the	
  area	
  of	
  those	
  sciences	
  that,	
  according	
  to	
  Edgar	
  Morin’s	
  (1990)	
  tripartite	
  scheme,	
  
deal	
  with	
   complexity.	
   The	
  other	
   epistemological	
   paradigms	
  being	
   the	
   reductionism,	
   typical	
   of	
   hard	
   sciences	
  
and	
  simplification,	
  enacted	
  by	
  “soft	
  sciences	
  when	
  they	
  try	
  to	
  work	
  like	
  hard	
  sciences”	
  (p.	
  26).	
  In	
  order	
  to	
  cope	
  
with	
   complexity,	
   Balboni	
   proposes	
   that,	
   for	
   such	
   an	
   operational	
   science	
   as	
   educational	
   linguistics,	
   a	
   set	
   of	
  
complex	
   models	
   is	
   necessary	
   to	
   describe	
   the	
   multi-­‐faceted	
   and	
   multi-­‐dimensional	
   process	
   of	
   language	
  
teaching/learning.	
   The	
   complexity	
   is	
   also	
   increased	
   because	
   operational	
   sciences	
   are	
   transdisciplinary—as	
  
opposed	
   to	
   theoretical	
   sciences	
   that	
   are	
   “monodisciplinary”	
   (p.	
   34)—and	
   their	
   knowledge	
   base	
   must	
   be	
  
capable	
  of	
  shaping	
  specific	
  behaviors,	
   such	
  as	
   “syllabus	
  design,	
   lexical	
  acquisition,	
  comprehension	
  activities	
  
and	
  so	
  on”	
  (p.	
  30).	
  

In	
   Chapters	
   3	
   to	
   8,	
   Balboni	
   proposes	
   a	
   series	
   of	
   these	
   complex	
  models.	
   They	
  will	
   substantiate	
   the	
  
eight	
   hypotheses	
   that	
   he	
   collects	
   in	
   Chapter	
   9	
   as	
   the	
   description	
   of	
   his	
   theoretical	
   framework	
   and	
   the	
  
conclusion	
   to	
   the	
   volume.	
   The	
  models	
   that	
   Balboni	
   presents	
   are	
   either	
   in	
   the	
   form	
   of	
   declarations	
   that	
   is,	
  
statements	
  “based	
  on	
  a	
  verb	
  like	
  is,	
  is	
  made	
  of,	
  has	
  and	
  the	
  like”	
  (p.	
  29)	
  or	
  in	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  “procedures,	
  based	
  on	
  
the	
   if...	
   then...	
  sequence”	
   (p.	
  29)	
  which	
  shows	
  a	
  declaration	
  and	
  a	
   consequence.	
   In	
  Balboni’s	
  design,	
   the	
   fact	
  
that	
  declarations	
  can	
  be	
  easily	
  verified	
  or	
  falsified	
  warrants	
  the	
  solidity	
  of	
  his	
  theoretical	
  construct.	
  

Chapter	
   3	
   discusses	
   the	
   contribution	
   of	
   language	
   sciences,	
   socio-­‐cultural	
   sciences,	
   neuro-­‐
psychological	
   research,	
   and	
  pedagogical	
   and	
  methodological	
   research	
   to	
   the	
   field	
  of	
   educational	
   linguistics.	
  
The	
  chapter	
  is	
  a	
  wealth	
  of	
  references	
  to	
  major	
  works	
  in	
  the	
  four	
  scientific	
  areas	
  mentioned	
  above	
  that	
  have	
  
been	
   feeding	
   the	
   knowledge	
   base	
   of	
   educational	
   linguistics,	
   which,	
   according	
   to	
   Balboni,	
   needs	
   to	
   be	
  
organized	
  in	
  a	
  hierarchical	
  structure:	
  a	
  theory	
  of	
  language	
  education	
  (approach),	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  theory	
  is	
  
translated	
  into	
  an	
  educational	
  process	
  (method),	
  and,	
  finally,	
  the	
  way	
  the	
  educational	
  project	
  is	
  implemented	
  
in	
  concrete	
  teaching/learning	
  situations	
  (action).	
  This	
  hierarchical	
  structure	
  is	
  the	
  major	
  contribution	
  to	
  the	
  
eight	
   hypotheses	
   Balboni	
   presents	
   in	
   his	
   final	
   framework	
   in	
   Chapter	
   9.	
   But	
   the	
   distinction	
   between	
   the	
  
application	
   and	
   the	
   implication	
   paradigms	
   (pp.	
   37–39)	
   is	
   also	
   central	
   to	
   the	
   definition	
   of	
   the	
   disciplinary	
  
status	
  of	
  educational	
  linguistics.	
  According	
  to	
  Balboni,	
  educational	
  linguistics	
  does	
  not	
  simply	
  apply	
  pieces	
  of	
  
knowledge	
  which	
   the	
   sciences	
  mentioned	
  above	
   arrived	
   at.	
   So,	
   for	
   instance,	
  we	
  know	
   from	
  sociolinguistics	
  
that	
  more	
  often	
  than	
  the	
  alleged	
  standard,	
  in	
  real	
  situations,	
  speakers	
  use	
  other	
  varieties	
  of	
  the	
  language.	
  We	
  
could	
  apply	
  this	
  piece	
  of	
  knowledge	
  in	
  the	
  language	
  class	
  by	
  teaching	
  these	
  other	
  varieties.	
  Conversely,	
  from	
  
that	
   very	
   same	
   piece	
   of	
   knowledge,	
   educational	
   linguists	
   start	
   a	
   process	
   in	
   which	
   the	
   other	
   varieties	
   are	
  
observed	
   in	
   situation	
   and,	
   finally,	
   decide	
   which	
   varieties,	
   when	
   and	
   how	
   they	
   must	
   be	
   introduced	
   in	
   the	
  
course	
  syllabus. 

Chapters	
  4	
  and	
  5	
  discuss	
  general	
  and	
  specific	
  objectives	
  of	
  language	
  education,	
  respectively.	
  Because	
  
of	
   the	
   culture-­‐independent	
   design	
   of	
   the	
   theoretical	
   framework,	
   Balboni	
   resorts	
   to	
   a	
   very	
   comprehensive	
  
perspective	
  about	
  the	
  general	
  objectives	
  of	
  language	
  education.	
  In	
  Chapter	
  3,	
  he	
  had	
  already	
  pointed	
  out	
  the	
  



PIZZICONI	
  

	
  E-­‐JournALL,	
  7(2)	
  (2020),	
  pp.	
  116-­‐119	
  118	
  

centrality	
   of	
   linguistic	
   and	
   meta-­‐linguistic	
   competencies	
   to	
   develop	
   all	
   other	
   semiotic	
   abilities.	
   Here,	
   he	
  
remarks	
   the	
   instrumentality	
   of	
   language	
   to	
   both	
   thought	
   and	
   relations	
   among	
   people.	
   In	
   this	
   sense	
   he	
  
introduces	
  the	
  me-­‐you-­‐world	
  paradigm,	
  according	
  to	
  which	
  language	
  is	
  crucial	
  for	
  the	
  self-­‐actualization	
  of	
  the	
  
individuals	
   (me).	
   This	
   only	
   happens	
   when	
   individuals	
   have	
   already	
   undergone	
   both	
   the	
   culturalization	
  
process,	
  which	
   brought	
   them	
   to	
   fit	
   in	
   the	
   societal	
   and	
   cultural	
   context	
   they	
  were	
   born	
   into	
   and	
   grew	
   into	
  
(world),	
  and	
  the	
  socialization	
  process,	
  which	
  brought	
  them	
  to	
  establish	
  relations	
  with	
  other	
  individuals	
  (you).	
  
The	
  paradigm	
  is	
  rather	
  flexible	
  and	
  encompasses	
  both	
  native	
  and	
  non-­‐native	
  language	
  learning.	
  Moreover,	
  it	
  
clarifies	
   that	
   Balboni's	
   design	
   of	
   the	
   framework	
   recognizes	
   variation	
   inherent	
   to	
   the	
   language-­‐learning	
  
process	
   at	
   the	
   individual	
   and	
   cultural	
   level.	
   The	
   chapter	
   closes	
  with	
   an	
   application	
   of	
   the	
   paradigm	
   to	
   the	
  
issue	
   of	
   ethical	
   language	
   education	
   that	
   is	
   centered	
   around	
   the	
   right	
   to	
   self-­‐actualization	
   of	
   every	
   single	
  
learner.	
  The	
  specific	
  objectives	
  of	
  language	
  education	
  are	
  discussed	
  in	
  Chapter	
  5	
  with	
  an	
  integrated	
  approach	
  
in	
   which	
   linguistic,	
   extra-­‐linguistic	
   (kinetics	
   or	
   gestural	
   competence,	
   proxemic	
   code,	
   based	
   on	
   distance	
  
between	
   interlocutor,	
   and	
   objectual	
   codes,	
   that	
   is	
   clothes,	
   status	
   symbols	
   etc.),	
   and	
   socio-­‐pragmatic	
   and	
  
(inter)cultural	
   competences	
  are	
   connected	
   to	
   the	
  performance	
   in	
   communicative	
  events.	
  Balboni	
  maintains	
  
that	
  if	
  this	
  multidimensional	
  perspective	
  on	
  the	
  aims	
  of	
  language	
  education,	
  which	
  is	
  derived	
  from	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  
sciences	
  he	
  listed	
  in	
  Chapter	
  3,	
  is	
  true,	
  then	
  the	
  educational	
  linguist	
  should	
  help	
  design	
  a	
  language	
  curriculum	
  
that	
  trains	
  learners	
  in	
  all	
  these	
  competences	
  and	
  performance	
  instances,	
  namely	
  communicative	
  events.	
  The	
  
remainder	
   of	
   the	
   chapter	
   provides	
   readers	
   with	
   copious	
   and	
   well-­‐organized	
   practical	
   examples	
   of	
   these	
  
dimensions	
  of	
  language	
  education. 

Chapters	
  6,	
  7,	
  and	
  8	
  analyze	
  the	
  connections	
  between	
  language	
  education	
  and	
  more	
  general	
  semiotic	
  
education,	
   literary	
   education,	
   and	
   the	
   training	
   in	
   languages	
   for	
   specific	
   purposes,	
   respectively.	
   Balboni	
   had	
  
already	
   clarified	
   the	
   privileged	
   status	
   of	
   verbal	
   languages	
   because	
   of	
   their	
   capability	
   to	
   be	
   used	
   as	
   meta-­‐
languages	
   in	
   any	
   field	
   of	
   knowledge.	
   In	
   Chapter	
   6,	
   he	
   details	
   this	
   primacy	
   by	
   showing	
   how	
   the	
   study	
   of	
  
semiotic	
  codes	
  is	
  enriched	
  by	
  notions	
  of	
  text,	
  coherence,	
  cohesion,	
  and	
  the	
  generative	
  power	
  of	
  combination	
  
of	
  a	
  short	
   list	
  of	
  smaller	
  units,	
   in	
  the	
  same	
  way	
  that	
  verbal	
   languages	
  are	
  generated	
  from	
  single	
  sounds	
  and	
  
graphical	
  signs.	
  Balboni	
  explicitly	
  justifies	
  Chapter	
  7’s	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  connection	
  between	
  literary	
  education	
  and	
  
language	
  education:	
  	
  

Literature—above	
  all	
  if	
  the	
  traditional	
  canon	
  is	
  widened	
  to	
  include	
  operas,	
  songs	
  and	
  films	
  as	
  forms	
  
of	
  poetry	
  and	
  drama—is	
   fundamental	
   to	
  achieve	
  a	
  person's	
  self-­‐actualization	
  which	
   is	
   the	
   final	
  and	
  
the	
  highest	
  aim	
  of	
  education,	
  including	
  language	
  education.	
  (pp.	
  115–116)	
  
	
  

It	
  is	
  not	
  clear	
  how	
  wide	
  the	
  extension	
  of	
  the	
  traditional	
  canon	
  is	
  in	
  Balboni's	
  idea:	
  did	
  he	
  mean	
  to	
  also	
  include	
  
graphic	
  novels,	
  speeches,	
  TV	
  series,	
  comics,	
  the	
  performance	
  of	
  standing	
  comedians,	
  newspaper	
  articles	
  and	
  
cartoons,	
  or	
  even	
  printed	
  or	
  audio-­‐visual	
  advertisements?	
  The	
  way	
  literacy	
  studies	
  are	
  continuing	
  to	
  question	
  
and	
   stretch	
   the	
   concept	
   of	
   the	
   literary	
   canon	
   seems	
   to	
   be	
   welcomed	
   by	
   Balboni,	
   who	
   mentions	
   not-­‐so-­‐
common	
   examples	
   of	
   literary	
   texts,	
   such	
   as	
   songs	
   and	
   music	
   video	
   clips,	
   and	
   provocatively	
   distinguishes	
  
between	
  Literature	
  with	
  capital	
  L,	
  and	
  literature.	
  The	
  chapter	
  discusses	
  when,	
  how,	
  and	
  what	
  literary	
  texts	
  are	
  
to	
  be	
  included	
  in	
  both	
  native	
  and	
  non-­‐native	
  language	
  education.	
  The	
  focus	
  on	
  languages	
  for	
  specific	
  (special)	
  
purposes	
   (LSP)	
   in	
   Chapter	
   7	
   reaffirms	
   the	
   comprehensive	
   role	
   of	
   language	
   education	
   in	
   any	
   schooling	
   and	
  
training	
  system.	
  The	
  specificities	
  of	
  the	
  language	
  used	
  to	
  deal	
  with	
  any	
  type	
  of	
  discipline,	
  whether	
  scientific,	
  
technological,	
  humanistic,	
  or	
  even	
  vocational	
  should	
  be	
  of	
  major	
  importance	
  to	
  the	
  educational	
  linguist	
  and	
  to	
  
the	
  teacher	
  of	
  the	
   language	
  of	
   instruction,	
  whether	
   it	
   is	
  native	
  or	
  non-­‐native	
  to	
  the	
   learners.	
  Very	
  often	
   it	
   is	
  
taken	
  for	
  granted	
  that	
  the	
  linguistic	
  competence,	
  understood	
  broadly,	
  that	
  is	
  acquired	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  language	
  
curriculum	
  will	
  be	
  sufficient	
   for	
   learners	
  to	
  talk	
  about	
  the	
  other	
  disciplines	
  studied	
  at	
  school	
  and	
  that	
  their	
  
teachers	
  will	
  cope	
  with	
  language	
  issues.	
  However,	
  Balboni	
  points	
  out	
  that	
  language	
  teachers	
  do	
  not	
  consider	
  
themselves	
  prepared	
  to	
   tackle	
   issues	
   in	
  subject	
  disciplines	
   they	
  have	
  not	
  been	
   trained	
   in.	
  He	
  also	
   indirectly	
  
suggests	
  that	
  the	
  professors	
  of	
  those	
  subject	
  disciplines	
  might	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  meta-­‐linguistic	
  tools	
  to	
  tackle	
  the	
  
language	
  of	
  their	
  disciplines	
  beyond	
  definitions	
  of	
  single	
  terms	
  in	
  their	
  own	
  native	
  language	
  let	
  alone	
  in	
  a	
  CLIL	
  
context	
  with	
  a	
   language	
  that	
   is	
  an	
  L2	
  to	
  them.	
  After	
  concisely	
  describing	
  the	
  main	
  features	
  of	
  LSPs,	
  Balboni	
  
suggests	
  what	
  language	
  teachers	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  train	
  their	
  students	
  to	
  do	
  when	
  using	
  language	
  to	
  study	
  a	
  
different	
  discipline. 

Balboni's	
   quest	
   for	
   a	
   general	
   theoretical	
   framework	
   which	
   is	
   culture-­‐independent	
   and	
   possibly	
  
universal	
  should	
  not	
  be	
   interpreted	
  as	
  wishful,	
  naive	
  thinking.	
  On	
  the	
  contrary,	
   it	
  must	
  have	
  been	
  driven	
  by	
  
the	
   fear	
   of	
   the	
   senior	
   scholar	
   that	
   the	
   fragmentariness	
   of	
   a	
   plethora	
   of	
   situated	
   studies	
   might	
   hinder	
   the	
  
possibility	
  of	
  a	
  more	
  organized	
  and	
  structured	
  approach	
  to	
  educational	
  linguistics	
  and	
  might	
  threaten	
  its	
  very	
  



 REVIEW:	
  A	
  THEORETICAL	
  FRAMEWORK	
  FOR	
  LANGUAGE	
  EDUCATION	
  AND	
  TEACHING	
  
 

E-­‐JournALL,	
  7(2)	
  (2020),	
  pp.	
  116-­‐119 119	
  

nature	
   as	
   a	
   field	
   of	
   investigation.	
   Throughout	
   the	
   book,	
   Balboni	
   makes	
   it	
   clear	
   that	
   the	
   way	
   syllabi	
   are	
  
designed	
   and	
   implemented	
  must	
   necessarily	
   vary	
   according	
   to	
   culture	
   as	
  well	
   as	
   according	
   to	
   the	
   specific	
  
group	
  being	
  trained.	
  He	
  also	
  points	
  out	
  that	
  differences	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  determined	
  at	
  the	
   individual	
   level.	
  Only	
  
one	
  example	
  will	
  suffice	
  to	
  show	
  this	
  awareness	
  and	
  the	
  way	
  Balboni	
  means	
  to	
  comprise	
  it	
  in	
  his	
  theoretical	
  
framework.	
  In	
  the	
  first	
  flowchart	
  in	
  which	
  he	
  presents	
  the	
  if...	
  then...	
  procedure,	
  he	
  writes:	
  	
  

If	
   the	
   approach	
   level	
   points	
   out	
   that	
   each	
   person	
   is	
   unique	
   as	
   far	
   as	
   aptitude,	
   types	
   of	
  
intelligence,	
  cognitive	
  and	
  learning	
  style,	
  etc.	
  are	
  concerned,	
  and	
  they	
  have	
  the	
  right	
  to	
  have	
  
their	
  peculiar	
   features	
  respected;	
  then	
  the	
  method	
  level	
  must	
  provide	
  curricula,	
  syllabi	
  and	
  
course	
   organisation	
   models,	
   etc.	
   that	
   make	
   for	
   individual	
   characteristics	
   to	
   be	
   respected;	
  
then	
  the	
  action	
  level	
  must	
  provide	
  a	
  catalogue	
  of	
  activities	
  that	
  help	
  all	
  students	
  activate	
  their	
  
faculty	
  of	
  language,	
  not	
  only	
  the	
  holistic	
  or	
  the	
  analytical	
  ones,	
  not	
  just	
  the	
  introverted	
  or	
  the	
  
extroverted	
  ones.	
  (p.	
  60,	
  emphasis	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  re-­‐presentation	
  of	
  Balboni’s	
  original	
  flowchart	
  
as	
  linear	
  text) 
	
  

Balboni	
  also	
  touches	
  on	
  the	
  way	
  the	
  concrete	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  language	
  curriculum	
  is	
  affected	
  
by	
  teachers’	
  diversity,	
  considering	
  the	
  way	
  their	
  curiosity	
  and	
  personal	
  proclivities	
  may	
  play	
  a	
  role	
  when	
  they	
  
cope	
  with	
  literary	
  texts	
  or	
  LSPs.	
  And,	
  finally,	
  he	
  is	
  also	
  aware	
  that	
  “each	
  school	
  system	
  has	
  its	
  own	
  traditions	
  
and	
   beliefs	
   about	
   what	
   a	
   non-­‐native	
   language	
   syllabus	
   is	
   and	
   about	
   what	
   to	
   include	
   in	
   a	
   course	
   so	
   that	
  
students	
  are	
  ready	
  to	
  face	
  national	
  exams”	
  (p.	
  99).	
   

Nonetheless,	
  Balboni's	
  idea	
  of	
  a	
  universal	
  and	
  culture-­‐independent	
  theoretical	
  framework	
  shows	
  one	
  
way	
   it	
   should	
   be	
  according	
   to	
   the	
   scientific	
   evidence	
   used	
   and	
   generated	
   by	
   educational	
   linguistics.	
   In	
   this	
  
sense,	
  his	
   framework	
  can	
  work	
  as	
  a	
   sort	
  of	
  benchmark	
  against	
  which	
  every	
  single,	
   specific	
   choice,	
  whether	
  
strategical	
  or	
  tactical,	
  can	
  be	
  contrasted	
  to	
  prompt	
  the	
  decision	
  maker	
  to	
  justify	
  diverging	
  solutions.	
  For	
  this	
  
reason,	
   this	
   volume	
  can	
  be	
  of	
   some	
  help	
   for	
   the	
  young	
   scholar	
  who	
   is	
   approaching	
   the	
   field	
  of	
   educational	
  
linguistics.	
   At	
   the	
   same	
   time,	
   it	
   can	
   serve	
   as	
   a	
   valuable	
   resource	
   for	
   more	
   experienced	
   scholars,	
   who	
   can	
  
consult	
   it	
   as	
   a	
   checklist	
   to	
   verify	
   whether	
   their	
   research	
   has	
   taken	
   into	
   proper	
   consideration	
   all	
   the	
  
dimensions	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  language	
  education.	
  
	
  

	
  
References	
  
Morin,	
  Edgar	
  (1990).	
  Introduction	
  à	
  la	
  pensée	
  complexe.	
  (Introduction	
  to	
  complex	
  thinking).	
  ESF	
  éditeur.	
  
	
  
	
  
Sergio Pizziconi, Università per Stranieri di Siena 
sergio.pizziconi@unistrasi.it 
 
EN Sergio Pizziconi has an Italian doctorate in Linguistics and in Teaching Italian as a Foreign Language and an 

American Ph.D. in English with an emphasis in Applied Linguistics. He has taught courses in linguistics and 
composition in both Italian and American universities. He currently works as researcher and professor of English 
Language and Translation at the University for Foreigners of Siena. His research interests are in cognitive linguistics, 
languages for specific purposes, and first/second language acquisition and teaching 
 

ES Sergio Pizziconi tiene un doctorado en Italia en lingüística y enseñanza del italiano como lengua extranjera y otro 
doctorado en Estados Unidos en inglés con énfasis en lingüística aplicada. Ha impartido cursos de lingüística y 
composición en universidades italianas y estadounidenses. Actualmente trabaja como investigador y profesor de 
lengua y traducción de inglés en la Universidad para Extranjeros de Siena. Sus líneas de investigación se centran en 
la lingüística cognitiva, lenguas con fines específicos y adquisición y enseñanza de L1 y L2. 
 

IT Sergio Pizziconi ha conseguito un dottorato di ricerca in Italia in linguistica e didattica dell’italiano a stranieri e un 
Ph.D. negli Stati Uniti in inglese con enfasi in linguistica applicata. Ha insegnato discipline linguistiche e composizione 
in università italiane e americane. Attualmente, è ricercatore a TD tipo A di Lingua e traduzione inglese presso 
l'Università per Stranieri di Siena. I suoi interessi di ricerca sono in linguistica cognitiva, lingue per scopi specifici, e 
acquisizione e insegnamento di L1 e L2.