Evaluation of cognitive approaches to second language learning

In conclusion, it is clear that a wealth of second language studies have been carried out recently from the angle of cognitive psychology. The methods used as well as the questions asked differ substantially from more trad-itional second language acquisition studies which stem directly from the field of linguistics, or from a more socially-oriented approach.

4.4.1 The scope and achievements of cognitive approaches

There is no doubt that we have learnt much from cognitive approaches about the role of processing mechanisms in second language acquisition.

We understand better, for example, how these mechanisms develop over time, or why fossilized structures can be so difficult to eradicate, even if we do not understand yet why some structures fossilize and not others.

The scope of cognitivists' research varies widely, from the application of general models of language processing, to studies using computers in order to simulate the acquisition of discrete grammatical phenomena. More generally, as we have seen in the introduction, some cognitivists see their field of enquiry as being specifically the processing mechanisms and how they develop in SLL. They believe that we also need a property theory in order to understand the linguistic system, which will complement the transition theory they are developing. Others, adopting an emergentist or connectionist view of learning, see their field of enquiry as the whole process of language learning, as they do not separate the development of processing from the development of the linguistic system.

4.4.2 Cognitivists' view of language

Processing theorists we have reviewed do not say much about the nature of language itself; they are concentrating on the study of the processing con-straints operating in second language acquisition. It does not mean to say that they do not incorporate a linguistic theory in their overall model of sec-ond language acquisition, such as Lexical Functional Grammar in the case of Pienemann, or Universal Grammar in the case of Towell and Hawkins.

However, as we have just seen, the view of language in emergentism or connectionism differs fundamentally from views of language reviewed so far. Learning in this view occurs on the basis of associative processes, rather than the construction of abstract rules. Connectionists believe that the human mind is predisposed to look for associations between elements and create neural links between them. These links become stronger as these associations keep recurring, and they also become part of larger networks as connections between elements become more numerous. Language in this view is seen as a set of probabilistic patterns that become strengthened in the brain of the learner through repeated activation.

Methodologically, connectionist researchers have tended to rely on con-trolled laboratory research, often involving experiments with artificial lan-guages or small fragments of real lanlan-guages. This is partly because computer simulations are only able to deal with small, well-contained samples, and also because the connectionist approach stems directly from the field of psychology, where such a degree of control is common. From one point of view, that of control of extraneous variables, this can be seen as an advantage:

Laboratory research offers a number of important advantages over research conducted with L2 learners in classrooms or with uninstructed, so-called nat-ural learners: control of the language and the target structures to be learned, control of exposure, control of instruction (explanation), control of tasks, and control of response measurement.

(Hulstijn, 1997, pp. 139-40) However, the controlled nature of laboratory research can also be seen as a disadvantage. It is questionable how far you can isolate variables that would be interacting in a natural context, and therefore how far results obtained in that way actually mirror what happens in real life with real languages.

Moreover, because of the highly controlled nature of laboratory experi-ments, the questions being asked tend to be very specific and local, with the resulting danger of ignoring how different aspects of the learning process might interact. Connectionists have tended to concentrate on simple,

discrete, language phenomena: 'However, the more controlled the design and the more specific the learning task, the more we bear the risk of not studying L2 acquisition any more, but only participants' capacity to carry out some kind of cognitive puzzle' (De Graaff, 1997, p. 272).

Having said that, studies recently have been drawing on corpus linguis-tics in order to estimate the input 'real' learners learning 'real' languages have had, and to compare their performance to that of a connectionist simulation of the acquisition of some properties (e.g. in German and Russian: Kempe and MacWhinney, 1998). Nonetheless, connectionist models overall have ofteil been criticized for their rather clinical and frag-mentary view of language, ignoring social and linguistic phenomena.

Moreover, connectionist models are not in a position yet to adequately explain what the mental grammar of the learner consists of, and what con-strains learners' hypotheses about the language system, although they are clearly attempting to do just that. But at the moment, the developmental route followed by second language learners, or the acquisition of highly complex linguistic phenomena, are not convincingly explained by such approaches.

4.4.3 Cognitivists' view of language learning

As we have seen throughout this chapter, cognitivists investigate primar-ily the development of processing in second language learners. In order to do that, psychologists make use of laboratory techniques to measure accurately performance indicators such as length of pauses, priming effects, etc. Linguists, on the whole, tend to apply linguistic analysis techniques to the study of second language learners' productions or intuitions, though they tend to consider language outside of the mech-anisms underlying its use.

Both methodologies have their advantages and disadvantages. We have seen earlier how laboratory studies have the benefit of being able to control in a precise way the variables under study. This very fact can also be seen as a disadvantage, as it assumes one can study discrete aspects of language in isolation, without taking account of the interaction between the different language modules.

The ultimate goal of any second language acquisition model, that of better understanding the second language acquisition process overall, has undoubtedly been much enriched by studies of the cognitive processes involved. It is clear that our understanding of how second language learners use and process language has greatly increased, and the

development of fluency for example has received well-deserved attention.

Cognitive approaches have also been able to enlighten us on what processes are involved in the speeding up of the acquisition process; we should in due course be able to draw pedagogical implications from such findings.

Eventually, both linguistic and cognitive theories will surely feed into a comprehensive model of second language acquisition, encompassing both linguistic and cognitive development.

4.4.4 Cognitivists' view of the language learner

Cognitivists, like the linguists reviewed in Chapter 3, are concerned primarily with the individual, and do not view the learner as a social being.

But they are interested in the learner's mind, as a processor of information rather than in the specificity of the linguistic information it contains.

Additionally, a distinctive feature of connectionist approaches resides in the links they attempt to build with neurology and even neurobiology.

Connectionists believe that we have to study learning within the actual architecture of the brain, and make use of neurological information. As Ellis and Schmidt put it:

The advantages of connectionist models over traditional symbolic models are that (a) they are neurally inspired, (b) they incorporate distributed represen-tation and control of information, (c) they are data-driven with prototypical representations emerging as a natural outcome of the learning process rather than being prespecified and innately given by the modellers as in more nativist cognitive accounts, (d) they show graceful degradation as do humans with language disorders, and (e) they are in essence models of learning and acquisition rather than static descriptions. Two distinctive aspects of the con-nectionist approach are its strong emphasis on general learning principles and its attempt to make contact with neurobiological as well as cognitive phenomena.

(N.C. Ellis and Schmidt, 1997 p. 154) We will certainly hear a lot more about processing approaches to second language acquisition. Recent models have made well-developed proposals for integrating linguistic and cognitive dimensions, even if much research remains to be done (Towell and Hawkins, 1994; Pienemann, 1998; Carroll, 2000). The connectionist approach is an exciting and promising new avenue for research. Especially within the field of first language acquisition, there have been important developments recently. However, at present, the models which have been applied to the study of second language

acquisition have tended to be concerned with the acquisition of relatively simple (and often artificial) data, somewhat removed from the richness and complexity of natural languages and language learning contexts, and much more research needs to take place before connectionist simulations of SLL give us a more comprehensive picture of the processes involved in learning in real situations.

• f

5

Functional/pragmatic