Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cognitive Theory
Cognitive Theory
At face value, cognitive theory appears intuitively correct. After all, a 16-year-old is able
to learn and play the game of chess more readily than a five-year-old. As the game of
chess requires good analytic and predictive capacities, the more intellectually able 16year-old is better suited to learning its intricacies. By extension, if the acquisition of
language is solely dependent upon intellectual ability then, according to cognitive
theory, one might reasonably predict that older children would learn a new language
more easily than younger children, as they are intellectually more able. Whilst learning
the rules of chess is simpler for the 16-year-old childs superior intellect, research has
shown that the five-year-old child would likely learn a second language more easily
than the older adolescent. Consequently, the acquisition of language cannot be as
straight forward as being solely reliant on a developing intellect if it were, then the 16year-old should learn the new language more easily.
Cognitive view on Second Language Acquisition
As it can be seen, opposite to Innatism, which focuses on first language acquisition,
Cognitivism, by its own nature, also aims its efforts at explaining second language
acquisition (these theorists called it acquisition, but nowadays in this area of L2 the
term learning is more appropriate). A cognitive theory sees second language learning
as a conscious and reasoned thinking process, involving the deliberate use of learning
strategies. Learning strategies are special ways of processing information that enhance
comprehension, learning or retention of information. This explanation of language
learning strongly contrasts with the behaviorist account of language learning, which
sees language learning as an unconscious, automatic process.
Knowing a language involves more than knowing what form it takes: it involves
knowing how it functions too. According to Widdowson (1996: 18), referring to adults,
What is distinctive about it (linguistics) is that it uses the abstracting potential of
language to categorize and explain language itself. Language may be considered from
different though complementary points of view: the study of language itself and the
human ability to acquire it and to use it in concrete situations. Both aspects should be
born in mind by L2 teachers if they are to help learners in their process of acquiring
new languages.
Adult second language learning
However, the process of L2 learning in adults, as it is the case with engineering
students, is different from a childs process of learning because adults have developed
cues to comprehend a new language based on their mother tongue principles. From a
cognitive perspective, the concept of interlanguage (Spanish: Interlingua) tries to
explain the mental processes responsible for L2 acquisition: the internal system that a
learner has constructed at a point in time, and the series of interconnected systems
characteristic of the learners progress over time (Ellis, 1994: 350-352). Interlanguage
theory is now considered the first major attempt to provide an explanation of L2
acquisition. It was based on the research that investigated learners errors and the
general pattern of L2 development, and it tried to explain why most learners do not
achieve full target language competence. Selinker (1992), who coined the term
.interlanguage, mentions five cognitive processes related to L2 acquisition: language
transfer, transfer of training, strategies of L2 language learning, L2 communication
strategies, and generalization of rules and principles. In relation to L1L2 language
transfer mechanisms, Garrudo (1996: 18-19) points out that both positive and negative
transfer should be born in mind, and that these do not always function according to the
same rules; age, knowledge of the L1 and the L2, among other variables, influence
learning transfer abilities.
Considering generalization principles, Selinker (1972: 37) affirms that some
interlanguage elements are the result of clear overgeneralization of target language
rules and semantic features. Focusing on meaning deduction strategies, we have
observed that generalization principles may frequently turn into overgeneralization. As
we shall see in some of the learners interpretations of words known as cognates and
false friends. It seems that students activate ad hoc hypotheses built in their minds,
trying to understand a new language principle or a new word. This construct has been
subject to both linguistic and cognitive interpretations, but we will only be concerned
with the cognitive approach here. In order to understand the mental mechanisms
involved in L2 interpretation, we should keep in mind that the above mentioned
principles depend upon how our brain works based on neural connections. Therefore, I
shall make a brief outline of such brain functions next, trying to recall how linguistic
structures depend upon neural instantiation.
experience, dependent on the physical apparatus of the brain, where abstraction can
be considered the result of mental operations on which it is experienced; linguistic
concepts, words, are abstractions. However, when we talk about linking linguistic
elements with elements of the context, we mean more than establishing conditioned
associations, as an association is not a meaning. Meaning includes associative links
between words and objects and experiences that result in the formation of concepts
(Johnson-Laird, 1986). The theory of neural instantiation, explained by Jackendoff
(2002), holds that the data structures and the processes that store and assemble them
are realized in the brain. Thus, according to the same author, linguistic structures are
functional characterizations that require neural instantiation. (Jackendoff, 2002: 58),
although little is known yet about how neurons actually instantiate such language
details.
On the other hand, the essence of cognition appears to rely n mechanisms of memory.
Now we know that our memory is based on neural connections of the hippocampus
area of the brain, though the localization of various forms of memory is under research
(Aleksander, 1996). Long-term memory refers to the information stored in the brain for
long periods of time, including our store of knowledge that represents our semantic
memory. Much of the neuroscience of language has been concerned with how memory
can be dependent on context; that is, how an area of knowledge may be activated and
become .working memory. at a given point in time. The way words stored in long-term
memory are activated in the course of sentence perception and production is another
area of concern still under study (Caramazza & Miozzo, 1997; Pulvermller, 1999).
Neuropsychologists consider that cognitive phenomena, such as attention and the use
of language, could involve many functional modules of the cerebral cortex yet to be
determined. Understanding both the localisation and the interaction between such
functional areas in the brain is now a challenge for most neuroscientists. In a near
future, linguists will surely profit from such findings. Along this line, recent studies on
.brain-based learning. try to facilitate the way in which people learn and store
information, by using activities that help activate the several memory lanes in which the
brain stores information (Leiguarda, 2003).
Perceptive, phonological and semantic structures
The link between the linguistic sign and its meaning is a matter of convention. Such
conventions differ across languages, even though the etymology of the linguistic signs
may coincide, as in the case of cognates. Learning a language involves making links or
associations between a particular linguistic sign and its meaning in a particular
language; i.e. linking the particular graphic representation of a word and its sound in a
given language (dog, chien, perro) with its meaning. Jackendoff (2002) highlights the
interconnections between the different language structures: phonological, syntactic and
conceptual, establishing their interrelationship:
(...) language as a whole can be thought of as a mapping between sounds and meanings; phonological
structure is the specifically linguistic encoding of sounds, and conceptual structure is the encoding of
meaning. Syntactic structure serves as a .way-station. between these two structures, making the
mappings between them more articulate and precise. (Jackendoff, 2002: 126)
As we can see, the phonological and the conceptual components of a language are
closely interrelated and this holds for the language as a whole as well as for the
But his theory does not explain why language emerges in the first place. Apes also
develop cognitively in much the same way as young children in the first few years of
life, but language acquisition doesn't follow naturally from their development. Bees
develop the cognitive ability to respond to many shades of color, but bees never
develop any communication signals based on shades of color.