Chapter 1:
COGNITIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LANGUAGE AWARENESS CONSTRUCTION

Boryana Ruzhekova-Rogozherova

web | Language Awareness...

The current chapter focuses on CgT with respect to its borderline status, as a result of CgT implications in ELT, ESP and applied linguistics spheres, due to its tight relatedness with LA enhancement, crucial issue in the study, and with LLS.

CgT, motivated by language and linguistic MR construction effectiveness in E(F)LT, is based on investing efforts in adequately building MR through LA improvement, and analyzing the results obtained. In order to delineate CgT and LA essence, this section layout will be the following: first MR formation and role will be examined, and then, LA nature and components will be considered in terms of their connectedness and LT usefulness.

Knowledge, language and linguistic knowledge. MR construction and role in EFL and ESP

Language and linguistic knowledge is constructed and perfected, likewise knowledge in general, based on already acquired concepts through their further processing, complication and elaboration with respect to knowledge unities mutual logical relationships and associations with other subsequently learned items of knowledge in the purpose of superior knowledge items successful and conscious implementation⁴. All pieces of language and linguistic knowledge, to be productive or appropriately applied in tasks solutions must be consciously acquired or learned through understanding. This is a theoretically and practically proved statement, in compliance with views of contemporary educationalists (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001 in Davidko 2011, among others) laying stress on consciousness and selective approach in knowledge formation and knowledge use in goal attainment, differentiating between four types of knowledge, factual (knowledge concept basic components), conceptual (basic components interconnections), procedural (knowledge used in task fulfillment) and meta-cognitive knowledge (task accomplishment elaboration strategies) (rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2015a). Language and linguistic knowledge⁵ building, within the framework of all above mentioned four knowledge types, is consequently founded on individual constructs (Kelly 1955 in Davidko 2011) or personal mental or "cognitive" representations, ‘the basic units of human knowledge stored in the mind’ (Davidko 2011: 83), ‘information-bearing structures’ (Paivio 1990: 18 in Davidko 2011: 83-84) used in ‘recognition patterns’ (Paivio 1990: 18 in Davidko 2011: 83-84) construction and enabling the individual to form logically and coherently organized mutually connected cognitive structures aimed at more complex or elaborated knowledge, higher rank structures creation and development (rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2015a). To more fully grasp MR essence and functioning in LT, it must be pointed out that although these concepts, constructs or models consist of non-linguistic information, according to cognitive linguists, MR are closely related to language categories pertaining to all levels of language description (Evans 2007) and refer not only to vocabulary, but also to grammar (Langacker 2007) with respect to corresponding situational contexts. The higher learners’ language and linguistic competence, the more elaborated and more tightly linguistically bound MR are; the more adequate and complete mental concepts and models turn out to be, the better they intersect and logically associate, this way promoting further students’ knowledge development and growth. Thus, MR quality equating learning value, while teaching, lecturers (teachers) need to direct their efforts in equipping learners with grasping of the most adequate connections between vocabulary, grammar categories, situations and cognitive models describing language categories, to be used in reception and production.

To more fully treat MR building and functioning with respect to LA enhancement as well, we shall refer to the following rather illustrative statements (Derry 1996: 168): "Mental modelling can be viewed as a process of constructing, testing, and adjusting a mental representation of a complex problem or situation. The goal of mental modeling is to construct an understanding of a phenomenon. The resulting interpretation is a mental model schema. Previously learned schemas (memory objects) provide building blocks for modeling activity, but mental models represent situational understandings that are context-dependent and do not exist outside the situation being modeled. (...) Once constructed, a mental model may be used as a basis for further reasoning and problem solving, which may give rise to further readjustments to the mental model. If two or more people are required to communicate about a situation, they must each construct a similar mental model of it."

Quite evidently, MRs to be coherent and consistent, are constantly processed with respect to context, communication constraints and type of further knowledge acquired, which is likewise corroborated by the concept of schemas (conceptions, ideas, models) being a memory structure in constant interrelation with other schemas, establishing links with them in cognitive process (rf. Derry 1996). Thus, only through LA enhancement procedures may we, lecturers and teachers, contribute to consistent, complex and relevant MR construction, LA rising procedures implying active and conscious multi-level information manipulation, retrieval, analysis, knowledge items selection, storage, creation of language concepts interconnections and corresponding task accomplishment strategies formation (rf. Anderson & Krathwohl 2001 in Davidko 2011), all techniques leading to upper level of concept elaboration prerequisite to a more elaborated stage of language material comprehension and learning (rf. Davidko 2011; Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2015a, 2016).

Communication, language communication and MR

MR construction complexity as well as its LA enhancement connectedness can be also revealed and corroborated in the framework of language communication process elucidation. Though language communication is characterized by its own typical features, it roughly complies with Shannon & Weaver’s (1949) communication model (rf. Chandler 1994), which has played an important part in language communication theory development. Shannon and Weaver were not linguists, but researchers in engineering (rf. Chandler 1994) whose objective was related to ameliorating telephone services, for the purpose of which they developed a really useful concept. If appropriately implemented, this scheme can facilitate linguists in reaching conclusions concerning linguistics, applied linguistics and ELT (FLT) (rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2013a).

Shannon & Weaver’s (1949) model consists of the components presented below.

To some researchers, such as Reddy (1979), Lakoff & Johnson (1980) (in Chandler 1994), Garrett (1975), Linell (1982), Chomsky (1975; rf. to in Linell 1982), language functions simply as a channel of thoughts and feelings transmitted from sender to receiver. However, cognitive, emotive and practical (rf. in Linell 1982) functions of language are intertwined and dependent on linguistic and extralinguistic context and sender’s message "clothing into words" is accomplished not only through grammar rules implementation, but it is based on subsequent and mutually intersecting stages of message construction, elaboration and improvement, a statement in accordance with Linell (1982) who considers that "...speakers elaborate their messages through the verbalization process itself, i.e. form and content are created simultaneously.’ (rf. Linell 1982). Likewise, reception does not just represent "taking in" (term of Bowers 1988; rf. Chandler 1994) message information, reception being a multilevel process with frequent checking procedures implemented through feedback, prior knowledge association, fitting and analysis performed at different language levels, and leading to overall information coherence and context adjustment of used categories functions and meanings. Thus, message reception and message generation are interconnected and interdependent in both directions, as "meaning is not "extracted", but constructed" (Chandler 1994) and linguistic communication is achieved through recurrent, complementary and simultaneous composition and decomposition, construction and deconstruction in terms of form and meaning, production and reception, encoding and decoding processes, on sender’s and receiver’s parts.

Meaningful, correct, sensible and adequate message generation, transmission and reception cannot consequently be achieved without exact, sensible and acceptable MR formation and elaboration, MR as mentioned above, being responsible for all types of knowledge formation (factual, conceptual, procedural and meta-cognitive), language and linguistic knowledge including, and all communication being unthinkable without exact mental models, concepts or schemes to be applied and processed.

Hence, FL (and EFL, ESP) communication represents a really complex encoding / decoding process, adequate message generation and reception, production and understanding depending on MR accurate functioning. Efficient E(F)LT, based on different levels of communication procedures, needs consequently to be carried out through teaching concepts in their relatedness perspective, the better comprehension of language working logic (FL, EL and NL) or LA learners acquire, the better message encoders (senders, producers) and decoders (receivers) they will be. LA insufficiency frequently represents noise in communication process (rf. the above communication model). However, in contrast to Shannon & Weaver’s model, noise in language communication impedes not only reception (decoding), but production (encoding) as well (Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2013a).

Language Awareness essence and related concepts. LA procedures implementation necessity

LA definitions

LAis a complex phenomenon, which includes different levels of linguistic and language knowledge, consciously learned through understanding, along with language processing and analysis abilities, a phenomenon, which has the potential of constant updating and improving with respect to teaching / learning circumstances, and this way, of greatly contributing to language teaching and learning success, if properly made use of. Thus, LA impact in applied linguistics branches, stemming from LA crucial E(F)LT relevance, has grown over the last years. Due to students’ language learning capacities and various age peculiarities, LA needs to be predominantly and assiduously taught at high and higher school levels.

The following definitions (rf. Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2014a) draw readers’ attention to most essential LA features.

According to Malmberg (2001: 141; quoted by Soons 2008: 10) "Language awareness is a person’s sensitivity to and conscious awareness of the nature of language and its role in human life."⁶ In compliance with ALA (Association for Language Awareness) LA "can be defined as explicit knowledge about language, and conscious perception and sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use." (Association n.d.; quoted by Soons 2008: 10). Alegre (2000) (in Araújo e Sá & Melo 2007: 9) defines LA as "the ability to reflect on languages and to verbalise that reflection"⁷.

The above definitions refer to common key concepts, which may be more broadly interpreted, such as, conscious awareness, explicit knowledge about language in general and in particular, nature of language, reflection on language and languages. We fully subscribe to the view, in terms of LA theory and practice, that consciousness and explicitness, up to learners’ level, profile and background, must be present in all spheres of linguistic activity, in teaching, learning and use. General and / or specific use of language/languages in quoted definitions is definitely related to students’ linguistic thinking development and interest in the nature, role and functioning of language,s at all language levels; put forward explicitness of language knowledge is a prerequisite to linguistic observation, analysis, induction, conclusion, generalization, hypothesis formulation and verification in general and in particular. All mentioned LA characteristics have revealed their teaching /learning usefulness, which will be substantiated below.

LA related concepts

To better present LA and LA related concepts in the perspective of these constructs interconnection, we shall refer to the following researchers’ views.

To Schmidt (1990) concepts of consciousness, intention, attention and awareness are interchangeable. Though, later on, in Schmidt (1994a), consciousness is subdivided into four categories - intention or intentional learning; attention, encompassing noticing and focusing; awareness and control. In Al-Hejin’s (2004: 1) view, attention and awareness are "inherently connected"; referring to the same author (Al-Hejin’s 2004: 2), "Attention and related terms such as consciousness, noticing, awareness and understanding are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature...". This opinion is corroborated by Carr & Curran (1994: 219; quoted by Al-Hejin 2004: 2) who deem that "if you are conscious of something, then you are attending to it... and if you are attending to something, then you are conscious of it." Thus, obviously, the constructs of awareness, consciousness, attention, noticing and control⁸ blend together, all of them being inherently connected and mutually defining. Before conclusion formulating as to LA essence based on related concepts definitions, some further descriptions will be adduced.

• Noticing

Schmidt (1994b: 179) defines noticing as the "registration of the occurrence of a stimulus event in conscious awareness and subsequent storage in long term memory." As Al-Hejin (2004: 4) postulates "since it is impossible to be aware of something without detecting it, we might... simplify the equation [noticing = detection + awareness] to noticing = awareness."

• Attention

To Schmidt (2010) "...attention does not refer to a single mechanism but to a variety of mechanisms or subsystems, including alertness, orientation, detection with selective attention, facilitation, and inhibition (Schmidt 2001; Tomlin & Villa 1994). What these have in common is the function of controlling information processing (...). Learning, establishing new or modified knowledge, memory, skills, and routines is therefore largely, and perhaps exclusively, a side effect of attended processing."⁹ Posner & Peterson (1990; quoted by Al-Hejin 2004: 3) estimate attention consists of alertness (related to selection speed), orientation (referring to stimulus orientation) and detection ("cognitive registration of a stimulus" (Al-Hejin (2004: 3).

• Understanding

Schmidt (1990, 2001 and 2010) compares noticing to understanding, affirming that "noticing" refers to the "conscious registration or attended specific instances of language, and "understanding", to "a higher level of awareness that includes generalizations across instances. Knowledge of rules and metalinguistic awareness of all kinds belongs to this higher level of awareness." (Schmidt 2010). Soons (2008: 13) defines understanding as "recognition [of rules, regularities] at a deeper level of abstraction"¹⁰.

The above mentioned quotations examination logically leads us to LA / LA related constructs relationships establishing.

• Stemming from attention concept selective nature, it can be concluded that awareness and attention are tightly connected as selective procedures are impossible without appropriate conscious prior knowledge. Hence, LA deepening assists controlled selection, promotes attention focusing on specific language items, this way, contributing to further LA extending, and vice-versa.

• LA and attention improving processes can be associated with a repetitive circular procedure promoting better awareness and thus, resulting in further selection.Recurring procedures, consequently, lead to more profound LA achievement or understanding, more enhanced awareness level, including abstraction and generalizations (rf. the above definition).

The examined dependency may be schematically represented in the following figure¹¹.

[Attention (Detection, Selection) ↔ Awareness] (process repetition) → higher level [Attention (Detection, Selection) ↔ Awareness] ↔Understanding (cycle recurrence)

LA formation summary

Before proceeding with revealing, not only in theory, but also in practice, LA implementation necessity, a basic LA construction conclusion will be made. Stemming from the above LA and LA related concepts definitions, laying stress on LA and related constructs characteristics, it needs to be pointed out that LA can only be built through adequate LLS application, most crucial types in our view (Ruzhekova-Rogozherova 2104b, 2016, 2017a,b) being cognitive and metacognitive ones. This study second chapter being devoted to their description and use in EFL and ESP teaching, here a few preparatory lines will be only written. Cognitive LLS teach learners how to process, manipulate, retrieve and summarize language items information at various levels (rf. the above figure) improving LA components and understanding; we may mention, among others, the sub strategies of form / semantics explanation; pattern analysis; transformation; reformulation; key words analysis; NL (FL₁) translation; CT (NL / FL₁ contrasts) and CpT (similar forms comparisons within a language). Metacognitive LLS, on the other hand, in close connection with cognitive ones, lay stress on learners’ awareness of learning process parameters. Thus, constructing LA and its components, learners should be lead into asking themselves questions and searching for answers, individually, or supported by lecturers, e.g.: "What is studied category all about?"; "Why does it exist in language"?; "Is it similar to other EN / NL categories?"; "Why should it be taught / learned?"; "How essential is it to communication?"; "How important is it for everyday (written, formal, specialized, etc.) use?"; "What do I understand (to a great extent or partially) and why?"; "What kind of problems as to the understanding / use of this category do I experience?"; "How can I solve them?"; "Can I solve them on my own or should I ask for assistance?", etc.

LA procedures implementation necessity evidence

LA enhancement and learner performanceinterdependence in E(F)LT is undeniable not only from theoretical, but also from practical andexperimental point of view. Thus, for instance, Svalberg (2007) provides evidence of explicit learning greater efficiency in comparison with implicit acquisition. Robinson’s (1995)¹² study witnesses to better results when using inductive approach in grammar rules formulation. Schmidt (1995; rf. in Soons 2008: 13) attests "a low level of learning associated with a low level of attention"¹³, maintaining that in methodological terms "it seems difficult if not impossible to demonstrate complete absence of attention when learning takes place" (cited by Al-Hejin 2004: 11). Truscott (1998) (rf. in Schmidt 1995) corroborates these views through the statement: "Since learning necessarily requires detection¹⁴, and since detection is the essence of attention, learning without attention is also theoretically impossible". Jourdenais et al. (1995; cited by Al-Hejin (2004: 16) emphasize the "facilitative role of noticing" achieved by means of highlighting structures in various styles and fonts¹⁵. Leow’s (1997) experiment reveals that "the high aware group significantly outperformed the unaware and low aware groups"; Rosa & O’Neill (1999) similarly confirm high awareness role, laying stress on the "strong correlation between awareness and intake"¹⁶ in syntactic structure acquisition. Schmidt (2010) interprets Wes’ "very limited" grammar development in L2 as a result of "implicit learning strategy, learning through interaction alone, with little attention to language form and little conscious reflection about language structure"¹⁷. Quite the contrary, Julie’s "native-like grammatical competence" in L2 is explained as an outcome of conscious L2 grammar structure manipulation and observations, "attention to morphological variation" and feedback use (Schmidt 2010). In the same train of thought, Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam (2008; rf. to in Schmidt 2010) justify their learners’ group highest performance based on "interest and devotion to language structure and language learning." To support LA implementation necessity we deem crucial to refer to Schmidt (2010) again who convincingly writes "...to the best of my knowledge, no study has ever shown that people learn better in dual task conditions than in single task conditions, or that ignoring grammatical forms in input results in better learning outcomes than noticing forms and forming hypotheses about them. Indeed, explicit knowledge (whether gained through instruction or through conscious induction) should have mostly positive influences on learning..." Horaničová’s (n.d.; italics are ours) perspective on the essence of learning is likewise in conformity with the above statements revealing LA importance as she estimates that "learning is an active, constructive, cumulative,and self-directed process that is dependent on the mental activities of the learner"; this statement also lays stress on the relevance of cognitive teaching / learning procedures, attention, noticing and understanding, greatly influencing E (F)L acquisition, enumerated learning features being bound up with conscious and explicit knowledge manipulation and processing.

Last, but not least, it has been revealed on many occasions that LA procedures application is vital with respect to LM as well as with LrA formation. A special part of the current research being devoted to improved LA outcomes in terms of LM parameters, a few words only will be hereby written in this respect. LM is not only a complex phenomenon in Dörnyei’s (1998) perspective, due to language multiplicity, language representing "a communication coding system (...) an integral part of the individual’s identity involved in almost all mental activities (...) the most important channel of social organisation embedded in the culture of the community where it is used", but it is also a phenomenon with cognitive essence, which will be revealed in this study third chapter. Any FL (NL) teaching, along with ELT, is tightly related to MR construction and MR constant elaboration in encoding ↔ decoding procedures (see above), language being a coding system; hence, LM and stemming from it LrA, are likewise dependent on adequate MR building, LM strongly depending on learner achievement.

Thus, to sum up, we may state with absolute conviction that LA enhancement plays a crucial part in any type of language teaching and learning, and, more specifically, in hereby commented EFL and ESP teaching / learning processes, corroborating and preconditioning MR construction, on the one hand, and, on the other, strongly influencing LM creation and improvement. This relationship may be schematically represented by means of the following diagram of ours:

[COGNITIVE TEACHING (CgT) through MR ↔ LA ↔ LLS ↔ LM] → [COGNITIVE TEACHING through MR ↔ LA ↔ LLS ↔ LM] _{higher level recurrence}

© Boryana Ruzhekova-Rogozherova
=============================
© E-publisher LiterNet, 10.05.2018
Boryana Ruzhekova-Rogozherova. Language Awareness, Language Learning Strategies, Contrastive and Comparative Teaching in ELT and ESP. Varna: LiterNet, 2018