69Linguaculture Resistanceas is the case for learners of English as a global lan-guage, since integrating foreign patterns into the cognitive architecture of the mind is disruptive gen-erally. 5. Resistance and a sociocultural view of second language acquisition (SLA) Although the term resistance is not common in the field of language education, it is broadly concor-dant with a sociocultural view of second language acquisition (Gardner, 1985, 2010; Lantolf, 2000). This view emphasizes the idea that “the learning of a second language involves taking on the features of another cultural community” (Gardner, 2010, p. 2). Gardner argues that because language is tied so closely to our sense of self, “learning another lan-guage in school is unlike learning any other subject” and that “it involves making features of another cul-tural community part of one’s own repertoire.” He recognizes that for some, “this can be a very posi-tive enriching experience, but for others, it can be a difficult negative one” (Gardner, 2010, p. 3). In a similar vein, Schumann (2004), argues that second language acquisition is closely tied to a pref-erence/averse response, evaluating stimuli in terms of maintaining balance within our physiological systems (homeostatic value), seeking successful so-cial interaction (sociostatic value) and preferences we have learned through experience (somatic value). Self-determination theory, which sees learning in terms of an innate human tendency to develop in-creasingly elaborated self-structures, sees negative reactions to learning challenges as not uncommon (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Learners may develop a “highly fragmented and sometimes passive, reac-tive, or alienated self” (p. 5) depending on socio-en-vironmental conditions. This open systems view, in which learning involves ongoing interaction with one’s environment, is central to the notion of resis-tance. Stevick (1980), representing a humanistic per-spective, describes negative reactions to language learning in terms of the threat that foreign language learning poses to our identity and sense of self, due to “new information being imposed on us from out-side ourselves” (p. 10). Krashen (1982) hypothe-sizes that anxiety and lack of confidence act as an affective filter that prevents foreign language input from being acquired. Larsen-Freeman (2011) refers to cognitive language habits as a “neural commit-ment” that is not easy to modify. She points out that constructing new linguistic knowledge is not easy because “language learning is not just about adding knowledge to an unchanging system. It is about changing the system” (p. 57). The need to “change the system” at a deep level is what can provoke re-sistance.6. Resistance and foreignness The notion of foreignness is central to an under-standing the intercultural adjustment perspective in language learning in general, and of resistance in particular. Foreignness is defined as a gap between habits and patterns internal to the learner, and pat-terns the learner encounters in her environment. Foreignness may be explicit and obvious, as when we can’t understand signs when traveling in a for-eign country, or when we encounter a foreign word we don’t understand. Foreignness may also, how-ever, be implicit and experienced primarily at the intuitive level of feeling or sensation. The behavior of foreigners might strike us somehow as pushy, for example, or, we may feel vaguely uncomfortable trying to pronounce the sounds of a foreign lan-guage. The word foreign has admittedly negative conno-tations. To refer to someone as a foreigner empha-sizes that person’s outsider status or otherness and implies a lack of acceptance or integration. If we describe music or food as foreign we imply distaste.