Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Learning Introduction

Some information processing theorists have argued that information processing models are most helpful in explaining complementary strands in L2 learning. Andersons ACT model has been applied to two such strands: to the application of learning strategies to the L2 learning problem, and to the development of L2 fluency.
Andersons ACT (Adaptive Control of Thought) model revisited: main tenets Practice leading to automatization: the ACT model enables declarative knowledge (knowledge that, controlled processes) to become procedural knowledge (knowledge how, automatic knowledge). Three kinds of memory: Working memory (short-term memory, tightly capacity-limited) Long-term memories (LTM): declarative and procedural LTMs. The move from declarative to procedural knowledge takes place in three stages: 1. The Cognitive Stage: a description of the procedure is learned. 2. The Associative Stage: a method for performing the skill is worked out. The learner learns to associate an action with the corresponding declarative knowledge. 3. The Autonomous Stage: the skill becomes more and more rapid and automatic, to the point that the corresponding declarative knowledge may be lost. The learners speech becomes more fluent as more knowledge becomes proceduralized, and is therefore accessed more quickly and efficiently. Learning is an incremental process: as knowledge becomes proceduralized, the working memory is freed to work on higher-level knowledge.

Learning Strategies

Researchers such as OMalley and Chamot have applied Andersons ACT model (Adaptive Control of Thought) to the field of Language Learning Strategies. Learning strategies are procedures undertaken by the learner, in order to make their own language learning as effective as possible. They may include: Focusing on selected aspects of new information, Analyzing and monitoring information during acquisition, Organizing or elaborating on new information during the encoding process, Evaluating the learning when it is completed, Assuring oneself that the learning will be successful as a way to alley anxiety.

Learning strategies can be classified into three categories: metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective. They are different from communication strategies and must not be confused.

Even though there is some overlap, learning strategies focus is on facilitating learning, whereas communication strategies are used in order to overcome a specific communicative problem. In relation to the ACT model, OMalley and Chamot proposed that:

Learning strategies are COMPLEX PROCEDURES that individuals apply to tasks; consequently, they may be represented as PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE which may be acquired through cognitive, associative and autonomous stages of learning. As with other procedural skills at the different stages of learning, the strategies may be conscious in early stages of learning and later be performed without the persons awareness.
Consequently, strategies have to be learned just as other complex cognitive skills. A good language learner will be that who has proceduralized the learning strategies. It is important to
1

remember also that before a skill is proceduralized, it will have to compete for WORKING MEMORY SPACE with other aspects of the task in hand. Since the working memory is tightly capacity-limited, learning strategies which have not yet been fully proceduralized might not be applied because of competing demands.

What is the pedagogical implication of this view?

It is suggested that L2 learners would benefit from being taught learning strategies. If they are a skill, then they can be taught, with the advantage that they will be proceduralized more quickly, thus freeing working-memory space for other aspects of learning. However, a problem pointed out by OMalley and Chamot is that teaching strategies will involve a considerable investment of time and effort in order to be effective (before the skill taught can become proceduralized), and we therefore need long-term studies investigating the effect of strategy teaching. Their own research suggests some positive effect of strategy teaching on vocabulary development, listening comprehension, and oral production. They sum up the general benefits of applying cognitive theory to the field of L2 acquisition as follows:

Learning is an active and dynamic process in which learners make use of a variety of
information and strategic modes of processing. Language is a complex cognitive skill that has properties in common with other complex skills in terms of how information is stored and learned. Learning a language entails a stagewise progression from a) initial awareness and active manipulation of information and learning processes to b) full automaticity in language use; and Learning strategies parallel theoretically derived cognitive processes and have the potential to influence learning outcomes in a positive manner.

However, they are clear that such an approach does not concern itself with the language learning route followed by learners. Rather, it deals exclusively with the rate of learning and how learning strategies can influence it.

Fluency Development in SLA

Towell and Hawkins (1994) reject the idea that Andersons model can account for all aspects of L2 learning, notably the acquisition of core grammar. They have used models of natural language processing in order to explain how grammatical knowledge becomes transformed into fluent performance in the second language. Their model attempts to integrate for learners learn the L2 system with how they learn to use the system. They resort to a Universal Grammar approach to explain why certain grammatical structures appear before others, and why learners go through rigid stages in their acquisition of an L2. On the other hand, they appeal to an information processing account to understand how learners use this grammatical knowledge in increasingly efficient ways. In Towell and Hawkins model, the internally derived hypotheses about L2 structure are stored in the declarative long-term memory. When put to use, this internally-derived knowledge will give rise to a production stored in the procedural long-term memory, in an associative form at first. The hypothesis may then be revised and cause some reorganization of the declarative knowledge, giving rise to other revised productions. Eventually, after successive reorganizations, these productions will become autonomous. This allows Towell and Hawkins to make some specific claims concerning types of learning: Internally-derived hypotheses about L2 structure, if confirmed by external data, will give rise to a production which will be stored in procedural memory, first in associative form and eventually in autonomous form. Formulas, that is form-function pairs which have been learnt as routines, can be stored in the procedural memory at the associative level, before going back to
2

declarative memory to be re-analyzed, and then they can be stored as an autonomous procedure. Explicit rules can be stored as proceduralized knowledge but, if they can go back to the declarative memory to undergo a controlled process of analysis, they may eventually give rise to autonomous productions. Learning strategies facilitate the proceduralization of mechanisms for faster processing of language input and are incorporated in the information processing part of the model, without having to interact with internal hypotheses.

This model tries to link together linguistic and cognitive approaches to the study of second language learning.

Communication Strategies in L2 use

Communication strategies are tactics used by the non-fluent learner during L2 interaction, in order to overcome specific communicative problems. The study of communication strategies (CS) is a relative newcomer in the field of SLA research. Initially, work within the field of communication strategies concentrated on primarily descriptive issues, to do with definition, identification and classification. More recently, explanation of CS in terms of psychological models has come to the fore. Early definitions tended to focus on the notion of problem-solving: what does a learner do when encountering a communicative difficulty? The learner resorts to mental plans or strategies in order to overcome the problem. For some researchers, communication strategies tend to be seen as some kind of self-help module within the learner, located within models of speech production, or within general models of cognitive organization processing. For other researchers, CS are seen as a much more interactional, inter-individual activity in which learners solve problems by negotiating meaning. CS for these researchers are seen within the framework of conversational analysis or sociolinguistics. The methodology used by those two distinct approaches will also be different, with the sociolinguists tending to observe natural phenomena, while the psychologists experiment with controlled variables. Identification of CS usually relies on two methodological approaches, often used in parallel. The first is the study of explicit strategy markers, such as increased hesitation, or metalinguistic comments such as I am no sure how to say this. This is often complemented by retrospective protocols, in which learners are played back a tape of their own speech and are asked to identify problems they encountered and indicate how they solved them. Classification of CS probably formed the most important part of early CS work. Early approaches tended to be taxonomic, and concentrated on the characterization of differences in strategy output, for example in terms of paraphrase, use of L1, use of L3, gestures, mime, etc. The focus of CS studies has been largely on the lexicon (vocabulary), as word-finding difficulties are much easier to identify and investigate than other communication problems, and CS taxonomies (classifications) reflect this. Researchers who are primarily interested in variability in learners and in expanding and refining the list of strategies learners resort to, see CS as playing an important role in second language learning, as good strategy users are seen as maximizing their language opportunities. The teaching of CS therefore is considered useful and to be encouraged. At a conceptual level, this approach is based on the belief that the study of performance (learner output) is a window on to their competence. At a methodological level, what is of interest to these researchers is the comparison of the strategies used by L2 learners when performing a task with the strategies used by native speakers when performing the same task. The view assumes that, as L2 learners use of CS moves closer to that of native speakers, so does their competence. The other main psycholinguistic perspective on CS argues that taxonomies need to be both generalizable and psychologically plausible, and therefore need to be reduced to their underlying processing mechanisms. The belief in this approach is that the CS used by L2 learners are no different from the CS used by any language user, and that learners will make use of the same set of CS when using their L1 and their L2 (with the obvious difference that they will encounter more
3

difficulties in the L2 and therefore resort to CS more often). Strategic language use is part of adult competence; it has already matured and is therefore available to adults when they are learning an L2. It is part of the cognitive make-up of the individual, and as such, any taxonomy must reflect this cognitive underpinning. Strategies are already present in learners; they therefore do not need to be taught.

Communication strategies and language processing

The CS are usually resorted to when the learner has word-finding difficulties. Any account of CS therefore has to be placed in context of what is known about the way in which we access words in our mental lexicon. Poulisse (1993) has used a model of lexical access and applied it to the study of CS. She bases her work on Levets model of lexical access. The model Poulisse uses is a spreading activation model of lexical access. We can explain such a model in terms of lexical items having a list of features characterizing them. For example, a word such as shark might have features [+ noun], [+ animate], [+ fish], [+ grey], [man- eater], and a word such as elephant might consist of the features [+ noun], [+ animate], [+ mammal], [+ grey], [+ enormous]. Lexical retrieval in this view consists of the narrowing of possible candidates to just the one needed. In other words, accessing the word elephant will involve the activation of all the words sharing some of its features: all nouns, all mammals, everything grey and everything enormous. The more features are shared, the stronger the activation. The reason for positing such a model of lexical access is that we know that accessing words in our mental lexicon activates other words in semantically related fields. The mental lexicon is seen as a complex network with words linked together not only by semantic similarities, but also by phonological and syntactic properties.
4

An important feature of this model is that the lexical items sharing features with the word searched for will also be activated, and increasingly so the more features they share. Applied to bilingual lexical access, a communicative strategy when access is denied is to use a lexical item which is just one feature short of the target. For example, an English learner of French trying to access the lexical item with the feature specifications [+ noun], [+ human], [+ male], [+ young], [+ in French], should ideally activate garon, but also boy as well as homme, as both are only one feature away. If garon is not available for any reason, the learner in this view will resort to the nearest item. In this view, using either boy or homme would be considered as the same strategy of substituting the target item with the closest one available. This strategy is known as substitution by Poulisse. This particular model is concerned specially with lexical access, but other models, such as for example Bialystocks model of second language proficiency have also been applied to the study of CS.

Evaluation of Cognitive Approaches to L2 Learning

From the angle of cognitive psychology, the studies carried out differ from the more traditional second language acquisition studies in the methods used and the questions asked. Psychologists use laboratory techniques to measure performance indicators as length of pauses, priming effects, etc. On the other hand, linguists tend to apply linguistic analysis techniques to the study of second language learners productions. Both methodologies have their advantages and disadvantages. For instance, laboratory studies are able to control more precisely the variables under study but at the same time it assumes that one can study discrete aspects of language in isolation, not taking into account the interaction between the different language modules. On the other hand, linguists tend to consider language outside of the mechanisms underlying its use. The studies of the cognitive processes have enriched the understanding of second language acquisition process and have also enlighten the processes involved in the speeding up of the acquisition of the language. However, cognitive approaches cannot explain certain aspects such as what the mental grammar of the learner consists of. Different aspects of the second language process are being integrated in more complex models, which take account of linguistic as well as cognitive development.

Bibliography: Second Language Learning Theories, Mitchell & Myles, 1998 -Chapter 4: Cognitive Approaches to L2 Learning, sections 4.5 to 4.8 Students: Ayimn Melisa, Cucui Laura, Candela Lpez, Victoria Oleaga, Natalia Simn.