Multimodality in second-language offline processing
1. Multimodality in second-language offline
processing
Renata Geld
(& Mateusz-Milan Stanojević)
University of Zagreb
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Case Western Reserve University,
Cognitive Science Department,
Colloqium – March 2015
6. images (and recurring sequences) that get
stuck in our mind
• this is what we learn implicitly, without
conscious effort, unintentionally
• we are endowed with a strong implicit learning
mechanism – effects have been demonstrated
in ortography, phonology, syntax
(Williams 2009, N.C. Ellis 2006a, 2006b, Dell, Reed, Adams, and Meyer
2000, Aslin, Saffran, and Newport 1998, Shanks, 1995, 2005 and others)
8. meanings and L2 or strategic construal
• the situation becomes even more complex
(Geld 2006, Geld and Letica Krevelj 2011, Geld 2015)
cco
(2) L1 and other cognitive processes / ablities
(1) e x p e r i e n c e
(3) construal
(4) strategic
construal
9. How do we learn?
L1 vs. L2 / implicit vs. explicit
• Implicit learning processes are sufficient for
the acquisition of L1. Why not for L2?
transfer – in the broadest sense
The L2 learner’s neocortex has been tuned to the L1 – it
has reached a point of entrenchment where the L2 is
perceived through mechanisms optimized for the L1.
(see Ellis, 2008)
10. explicit and implicit knowledge of
language
...explicit and implicit knowledge are disctinct
and dissociated, they involve different types of
representation, they are substantiated in separate
parts of the brain, and yet they come into
mutual influence in processing...
(as concluded by Nick Ellis, 2008)
11. marriage between the implicit and the
explicit
• Where do the two meet?
• How do they meet?
• How long do they stay together?
• How do they affect each other?
- questions are still only partially answered
- especially the question of psychological and
neurological processes by which explicit knowledge
impacts upon implicit language learning
12. depth of processing
Craik and Lockhart (1972) Levels of processing theory
shallow vs. deep processing
• shallow processing (e.g. oral rehearsal) does not lead to long-
term retention
• deeper processing, whereby semantic associations are accessed
and elaborated, does lead to it
why?
• deep processing may lead to a more elaborate mental
representation >> our mental representation becomes
associated with a greater number of things >> there are
potentially more retrieval pathways
13. What do language learners do?
• experienced learners are great at activating
strategies (despite individual differences)
• their cognitive strategies reflect general
cognitive processes that lead to easier learning
and retention
>>>they are selective, they pick up cues, they
relate new with old information, they categorize,
they contextualize, imagine, construct...
14. What do learners do?
put off (postpone)
TIME and SPACE overlap
“Although we’re talking about TIME I associate this
with SPACE. It’s like there is an object which is close to
me, and I move it further away ...”
18. language acquisition (L1, L2, L3, etc.)
a dynamic process
from the conception of interlanguage (Selinker 1972)
to:
• connectionists
• functional linguists
• emergentists
• applied linguists influenced by chaos/complexity
theory
• constructivist child language researchers
• computational linguists
• cognitive linguists
• socioconstructivists…
19. a dynamic process
• mental packing and unpacking >> compressing
and expanding ideas
(Turner 2014 and elsewhere)
• a very simple but mind-provoking example of a trip to another
country
we pack various items we are likely to need
we go to another cultural environment
we unpack and get hooked into the new situation
...what we unpack is changed by the new situations in
which we deploy it...(Turner 2014: 23)
20. a dynamic process
This sketch differs from the usual picture of thinking as
"retrieving" what you "have" and "using" it.
(2014: 24)
This is exactly what happens in the process of L2, L3, etc.
Let us consider the following example:
Brazilian Hostage Taker Taken Out with a Headshot
from Police Sniper
(retrieved from YouTube, March 6, 2015)
21. a dynamic process
What is our learner unpacking?
• the context gives the frame / the scenario of killing
INPUT 1 INPUT 2
take out
AG containment
agent
object
action
directed motion
.
.
.
topology
containment
(boundaries)
removal
departure
relocation
nonexistence
accessibility
inaccessibility
completion
.
.
22. a dynamic process
• meaning potential (Turner 2003 and elsewhere)
and
• strategic construal (Geld 2015 and elsewhere)
>> experience & knowledge of the world + our cognitive abilities
in interaction with language + a new system (L2)
>>>> for a number of reasons – subjective and objective, social,
psychological, neurological, etc. our L2 development calls for
shortcuts and mental engagement – deeper processing!
23.
24.
25.
26. using FORCE SCHEMA in reasoning
“When I imagine this verb
I see a huge force which like
TAKES a tiny plane OFF
And it all happens in a very short time.
OFF is the arrow!”
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32. conclusion
• students’ “language naive” thinking about language is
not at all naive
• cognitive (learning) strategies reflect general
cognitive processes
• learning involves conscious efforts that trigger
construction of knowledge and language acquisition
• cognitive linguistics offers an indispensible
description of cognitive abilities underlying language
structuring
33. References
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9,
321–324.
Craik, F.I.M. And R.S. Lockhart (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Joural of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour,11,
671-684.
Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams, D. R., & Meyer, A. S. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of
experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1355–1367.
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied linguistics, 27, 1–24.
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing,
blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.
Ellis, N.C. (2008). Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 6: Knowledge about
Language. Edited by J. Cenoz and N. H. Hornberger.1–13. Springer Science+Business Media LLC
Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2003). Polysemy and Conceptual Blending. In Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Edited by
Brigitte Nerlich, Vimala Herman, Zazie Todd, and David Clarke. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp 79-94.
Geld, R. (2015). What vocabulary networks reveal about young learners' language. In A New Dynamics of Primary English. Edited by Mihaljević Djigunović
Jelena; Marta Medved Krajnović. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2015. pp. 149-173.
Geld, R. (2006). Strateško konstruiranje značenja engleskih fraznih glagola [Strategic construal: English particle verbs]. Jezikoslovlje. 7.1-2. 67-111.
Geld, R. And S. Letica Krevelj (2011). Centrality of space in the strategic construal of up in English particle verbs. In Space and Time in Language. Edited
by Brdar, Mario; Omazić, Marija; Buljan, Gabrijela; Bagarić, Vesna; Gradečak-Erdeljić, Tanja. Frankfurt / New York: Peter Lang Verlag. pp. 145-166.
Geld, R. And R. Mandonado (2011) . Strategic construal of in and out in English PVs. Language Value, 3 (1), Multiword patterns: considering phrasal
verbs and their underlying semantic systems. Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I: Castelló, Spain. 76-113.
Geld, R. And M.-M. Stanojević (2012). Strategic construal of down in English particle verbs. Paper presented at Cognitive approaches to English. An
international conference to mark the 35th anniversary of English studies at Josip Juraj Strossmayer University Osijek. Osijek, Croatia
Shanks, D. R. (2005). Implicit learning. In K. Lamberts & R. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp. 202–220). London: Sage.
Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, M. (2014). The Origin of Ideas: Blending, Creativity, and the Human Spark. New York: Oxford University Press.
Turner, M. (to appear). Blending in Language and Communication. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Edited by Ewa Dabrowska and Dagmar Divjak.
Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
