In our reply to Margaret Thomas's article “Programmatic
ahistoricity in second language acquisition theory,” we first review pertinent literature,
concluding that historical awareness is evident in SLA, though it is not as far-reaching as
Thomas would like it to be. We then argue that the attitude of most scholars in SLA toward the
past is reasonable given that no significant work in SLA from antiquity has been
discovered—by Thomas or anyone else—and that if such work exists Thomas has
the burden to bring it to light before declaring the field guilty of ahistoricity. We consider various
ways to define the field of SLA, arguing that it should be defined theoretically first, and
historically second. We claim that the point at which SLA separated itself from language
teaching is a logical point from which to date the beginnings of SLA as a true discipline. We
consider and reject Thomas's comparison of SLA and its history to various other scientific
disciplines and their histories, arguing that these disciplines have true milestones to point to in
the distant past, whereas SLA does not. Although we agree with Thomas that a general
awareness of the history of philosophy and science is beneficial for scholars in all fields, we
make a sharp division between that history and the history of SLA proper. We conclude by
arguing that respect for the field of SLA can come only through sound scientific progress, not by
appeals to history.
Comparison Among Some View Points Upon Second Language Acquisition Theory
