AN INTERACTIVE FRAMEWORK OF INTAKE PROCESSES

Having briefly discussed various aspects of input, intake, intake factors, in-take processes and output, I now attempt to pull these constructs together in order to make sense of how learners might internalize the L2 knowledge system. There is no clear consensus among SLA researchers about what plans or procedures learners use for thinking, remembering, understand-ing, and using language. There seems to be a general agreement, however, that “SLA is a terribly complex process, that understanding the process re-quires the contributions of numerous fields, from linguistic theory to an-thropology to brain science, and that the process is not yet very well under-stood” (Gregg, 2003, p. 831). The primary reason why the process is not very well understood is that the phenomenon we wish to study—the under-lying mental mechanism—is not directly available for empirical verifica-tion; it can be studied only through its external manifestation: spoken and/

or written performance data produced by language learners and language users.

Despite the challenging nature of investigation and the limited tools available for the researcher, several exploratory models of cognition both in psychology and in SLA have been proposed. They include the monitor model (Krashen, 1981); the ACT* model (Adaptive Control of Thought, fi-nal version; Anderson, 1983); the language-processing model (Bialystok, 1983, 2002); the parallel distributed-processing model (McClelland, Rumelhart, & the PDP Research Group, 1986); the model for attention and processing (McLaughlin, 1987); the competition model (MacWhinney, 1987); and the model of input processing (van Patten, 1996). These are mainly descriptive models that are useful for explanation, not for predic-tion, of language learning. Although none of them fully and satisfactorily explains L2 development, each of them has contributed to partial under-standing of certain aspects of it. Drawing from these models rather eclecti-cally, I present below an interactive framework of intake processes, with particular reference to adult L2 development. Descriptive as well as specu-lative in nature, the framework seeks to highlight the intricate interplay of input, intake, intake factors, intake processes, and output.

Before I present the framework, it seems reasonable to posit two criteria that any framework of intake processes must necessarily satisfy: (a) it must be capable of including all the intake factors known to play a role in intake processes, and (b) it must reflect the interactive and parallel nature of in-take processes. The first criterion is quite explicit in the SLA literature. As the discussion in section 2.3 amply shows, there are several learner internal and learner external intake factors of varying importance that, separately or

in combination, facilitate or constrain L2 development. The issue facing the current scholarship is not whether any of the intake factors play any role in L2 development, but in what combination, in what learning context, and in what way.

The second criterion emerges from the insights derived from the models already cited. We now learn that processing goes on simultaneously in many areas of cognition and at many different levels. Language learning entails a nonlinear, parallel, interactive process rather than a linear, serial, additive process. It was earlier believed that learners internalize the TL sys-tem primarily by using either a top–down processing, a knowledge-governed system characterized by a step-by-step progression where output from one level acts as input for the next, or a bottom-up processing, an input-governed system characterized by a serial movement of information from the lower to the higher levels. It is now becoming increasingly clear that language learn-ing is governed by interactive processlearn-ing in which multiple operations oc-cur simultaneously at multiple levels drawing evidence from multiple sources. In other words, from the perspective of the framework presented below, language processing is considered essentially interactive, involving intake factors and intake processes that operate in parallel and simulta-neous ways, shaping and being shaped by one another.

As Fig. 2.5 indicates, the interactive framework consists of input, intake factors, a central processing unit (CPU), and output. The CPU consists of the cognitive processes of inferencing, structuring, and restructuring. The ini-tial phase of intake processing is probably activated when learners begin to pay attention to the linguistic input they deem accessible or comprehensi-ble. The input, with bits and pieces of information about the TL system, en-ters the CPU either directly or through any one or more intake factors. The

FIG. 2.5. An interactive framework of intake processes.

entry initiates the process of language construction. At this early stage, in-take processing appears to operate at several layers, some of which may de-pend heavily on temporary, limited capacity, short-term working memory systems that in turn involve, to a large degree, prefabricated routines and idiomatic expressions.

An important task of the CPU at this stage appears to be to reduce the pressure on working memory systems by coding the incoming pieces of in-formation into some meaningful organizational schemas. Such coding, which is probably a precursor to fully established mental representations, is assisted by the intake process of inferencing. Inferencing helps learners de-rive working hypotheses about syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of the TL. Depending on the learning and teaching situation, learners might get various types of positive evidence, that is, well-formed utterances ex-posed to them, and negative evidence, that is, explicit corrections from their teachers or other competent speakers of the language, both of which will help them reject or refine their working hypotheses. This level of intake processing involving attention-allocation, short-term memory, and integra-tion of pieces of informaintegra-tion constitutes a part of what has been called controlled information processing.

If inferencing leads to the formation of working hypotheses, structuring, which is a higher level of processing, contributes to the establishment of mental representations. As we learn from schema theory, which explains how the human mind organizes knowledge in long-term memory (Schank

& Abelson, 1977), the faster the testing and refinement of working hypoth-eses, the swifter the formation of mental representations and greater the chances of limited capacity, working-memory systems being purged and placed by permanent long-term memory schemas. Memory schemas are re-sponsible for storing incoming information, retrieving previously stored in-formation, and pattern-matching mental representations (McClelland et al., 1986). This transition from working memory systems to permanent memory schemas is critical because, as we learn from schema theorists, lan-guage use requires that linguistic units such as phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, syntactic patterns, and other discourse units be abstracted and stored in the form of memory schemas.

Repeated cycles of hypothesis formation, testing, and confirmation or rejection, and the construction of memory schemas mediated by intake processes, particularly by the process of structuring, result in the strength-ening of mental representations of the TL, thereby considerably increasing the learners’ ability to gain a greater analysis of and a better control over the properties and principles of the TL system. Any remaining gap in the establishment of mental representations is taken care of either by further opportunities for intentional corrective learning or by the activation of the process of restructuring. Restructuring, as mentioned earlier, represents

quick insight formation that could result in incidental learning whereby complex and hitherto unclear language problems are teased out paving way for accurate decisions about the TL system. This level of intake process-ing, where the complex and combined processes of inferencprocess-ing, structur-ing, and restructuring gradually assist the learners in internalizing the L2 system and in accessing the system for effective communicative use, consti-tutes a part of what has been called automatic information processing.

An important point to remember in the overall process of internaliza-tion of the L2 system is that each of the intake processes is facilitated as well as constrained, not merely by the availability and accessibility of linguistic input and the interplay of intake factors, but also by the role played by learner output. The arrows connecting input and output (Fig. 2.5) suggest that learner output is not a terminal point; it is rather a part in a cycle serv-ing as an important source of input data for the learner thereby affectserv-ing the course of L2 development.

The interactive framework of intake processing described here incorpo-rates several aspects of parallel distributed processing at both micro and macro levels. At the micro level, intake processing is considered to involve a large number of parallel, simultaneous, and interacting processes such as perception, syntactic parsing, and semantic interpretation, and the selec-tion of whatever input informaselec-tion is relevant and useful, be it phonologi-cal, syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic. The development of a particular syn-tactic rule, for example, depends often on the development of a rule in some other domain, say a phonological or lexical rule, or vice versa (Ard &

Gass, 1987; Klein, 1990). Following the connectionist perspective, the intake processing network is seen as a continual strengthening or weakening of in-terconnections in response to the language input encountered by learners, and to the language use employed by them.

At the macro level, the framework posits a criss-cross interplay among in-take factors on one hand, and between them, and inin-take processes on the other hand. Most of the intake factors appear to interweave and interact with each other in a synergic relationship where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. How the learner seeks, recognizes, attends to, and controls the input data depend to a large extent on the synergy of intake factors.

The interactive framework also suggests that the linguistic input is not processed linearly by proceeding step by step from one intake factor through another, or from one intake process through another. Instead, the entire operation is seen as interactive and parallel, responding simulta-neously to all available factors and processes at a given point of time. In other words, none of the intake factors by themselves seems to be a prerequi-site for another to be activated but each is considered to be a corequiprerequi-site. The processing of input data is never consistent; it varies according to varying

degrees of influence brought to bear on it by an unstable and as yet un-known configuration of intake factors and intake processes. Different in-take factors and inin-take processes in-take on different statuses in different learn-ing contexts, thereby significantly affectlearn-ing the learners’ worklearn-ing hypotheses about the TL and their strategies for learning and using it. The configuration also varies widely within an individual learner at different times and situa-tions of learning, and also between learners, thereby accounting for wide variations in the degree of attainment reached by learners.

2.7. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I explored the concepts of intake, intake factors, and intake processes in order to explain the factors and processes facilitating adult L2 development in formal contexts. I argued that any framework of intake processing must be capable of including multiple intake factors known to play a role in L2 development, and that it must reflect the interactive, paral-lel, and simultaneous nature of intake processes. Accordingly, I presented an interactive framework by synthesizing theoretical and empirical insights derived from interrelated disciplines such as second-language acquisition, cognitive psychology, information processing, schema theory, and parallel distributed processing.

In addition to input and output, the interactive framework of intake processes presented here consists of a cluster of intake factors (Individual, Negotiation, Tactical, Affective, Knowledge, and Environmental factors) and intake processes (inferencing, structuring, and restructuring). Inter-weaving and interacting in a synergic relationship, each intake factor shapes and is shaped by the other. The interactive nature of intake factors and intake processes suggests that input can be successfully converted into intake if and only if the intake factors and intake processes are optimally fa-vorable and that consistent absence of one or a combination of these con-structs may result in partial learning, or even nonlearning.

The interactive framework presented here casts doubts over the nature and scope of current research in L2 development. For the past 30 years or so, we have been focusing mostly upon narrowly circumscribed research problems within each intake variable, accumulating an impressive array of unrelated and unrelatable findings, which by the very nature of investiga-tion can allow only a limited and limiting view of L2 development. If, as this chapter emphasizes, several intake factors facilitate the course of L2 devel-opment, if these factors shape and are shaped by each other, and if they are constantly acted upon by intake processes that are interactive, parallel, and simultaneous, then it is imperative that we reframe our research agenda by focusing on the synergic relationships between and within intake factors

and processes in order to understand how they relate to each other, and how that relationship impacts on language learning.

Given the tentative and limited nature of knowledge that can be drawn from L2 research, the classroom teacher is faced with the task of making sense of such knowledge as well as with the task of making use of such knowledge for teaching purposes. In addition, the teacher has to take into account the dynamics of the classroom, which is the arena where learning and teaching is constructed. What is the nature of instructional interven-tion the teacher can profitably employ in order to construct a pedagogy that can accelerate language learning and accomplish desired learning out-come is the focus of the next chapter.

3. INTRODUCTION

We learned in chapter 2 how intake factors and intake processes interweave and interact with each other in as yet undetermined ways to convert parts of language input into learner intake. A crucial dimension of such a conver-sion, particularly in the context of classroom L2 development, is the rela-tionship between teaching strategies and learning outcomes. Several stud-ies have been conducted to investigate the role and relevance of instruction in the L2 classroom. One of the limitations of these studies is that they have focused narrowly on grammatical instruction rather than on any wider as-pect of language teaching. In fact, as learned in chapter 2, this limitation is true not only of research related to teaching effectiveness but also research in second-language acquisition in general and, therefore, we should always keep in mind what Hatch (1978) said a quarter century ago about using re-search findings for pedagogic purposes: Apply with caution.

Systematic investigation into the effect of language teaching (read:

grammar teaching) began as an offshoot of what came to be known as mor-pheme studies (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Larsen-Freeman, 1976). These studies at-tempted to assess whether, among other things, learning a language in classroom settings is different from learning a language in naturalistic envi-ronments. They revealed that the acquisition/accuracy order for various grammatical morphemes like singular copula (’s/is), plural auxiliary (are), possessive (’s), third person singular (-s), and so forth, is more or less the same regardless of the learner’s L1 background, age, and learning environ-ment (i.e., instructed or naturalistic). European researchers Wode (1976), Chapter

3