Theme: Speaking as an interactive process Table of content

2-Processes which operate on the system: In addition to the nature of organization, it is important to consider how learning can take place to affect the current organization. The major debate is the contrast between implicit and explicit learning. Implicit learning is incidental and does not involve selective attention to features of input that feed into the learning process. In contrast, explicit learning does involve selective attention and conscious induction of abstract rules (Schulz, 1991 & Schmidt, 1993: 211). Cognitive approach theorists argue that the two forms of learning have an integrative relationship. There is additional benefit to having both which seems to go further than the simple 'sum of the parts'.
3-The role of awareness: For Schmidt (1990) and Tomlin & Villa (1994), consciousness in the sense of awareness at the central processing stage enables the learner to notice the gap between his current language system and the language he encounters; this is termed “the matching problem”. Similarly, it is proposed that awareness may enable learners to appreciate better the instruction they are receiving and to recombine and restructure materials. Finally, awareness may help learners operate the “dual mode system” where they may need to combine rule-based and exemplar-based systems during performance.
C: The third stage: Output
In terms of spoken performance output, the cognitive approach adopts what is called “instance based model”. It is assumed that in real time production, FL learners, in order to achieve fluency, rely more on the ready made lexical units stored in their memory (memory based system) than on the rule-based system (Chambers, 1997 and Wood, 2002: 6). So even if a powerful rule system exists, this system is by- passed and the FL language user draws on his memory system to 72 produce a great deal of language quickly and enable real time communication to proceed. In other words, language output produced during speaking relies heavily on the learner's existing language system and does not allow a development or (restructuring) of that system, which might lead to "fossilization" if the language used is not correct. This means that during production, focus on form is not naturally connected with communication. Thus, it is crucial to benefit from consciousness in the sense of control which helps the learner to plan on-line and monitor his performance during speaking, thus integrating the newly acquired rules into fluent performance.
Analyzing this framework, the following can be inferred about the information processing system:
- It doesn't have all the resources to process all the language input received thus it prioritizes meaning, with the result that a focus on form has to be engineered in some way (VanPatten, 1990).
- It benefits from some degree of awareness at different stages (Fotos, 1993).
- It can produce language more effectively from lexicalized representations unless we provide special processing conditions (Crookes, 1989).
- It has a tension of the twin goals of wanting to solve current communicational real-time problems to convey meaning (fluency) while also producing and employing correct forms or language rules (accuracy). A further conflict that FL learners have to handle is one between controlling just simple rules (accuracy) on the one hand, and acquiring more complex rules to change the underlying language system (complexity) on the other hand (Ellis, 2003: 130). Based on these assumptions, the cognitive approach suggests some instructional principles and strategies that can guide speaking instruction in the foreign language. This is the focus of the coming section.
The cognitive approach and speaking instruction
Before identifying the implications of the cognitive approach with respect to teaching speaking, it is vital to analyze three concepts/goals underlying linguistic performance in general and speaking in particular. These are: accuracy, complexity, and fluency (Skehan, 1998: 46). Basically these three concepts are used by cognitive approach theorists to describe the learner's overall interlanguage development. To serve the purpose of the current study, the three concepts are considered aspects or levels that determine learners' development with regard to all speaking sub-skills. The first aspect is accuracy or form control which concerns the extent to which the language produced, in terms of grammar, vocabulary, discourse, pragmatic features, conforms to target language norms and the extent to which learners try to produce correct, but possibly limited language (Ellis, 2003: 103).
Complexity or restructuring concerns the elaboration of the language that is produced and the ability to use speaking skills in a more native-like way. It reflects the degree of language development. For instance, with respect to discourse competence, complexity can refer to learner's ability to use more elaborated organizational structures (Ellis, 2003: 104). The last concept, fluency concerns the learner’s capacity to use speaking competencies (linguistic, discourse and pragmatic) and their sub-skills in real time without undue pauses (Segaowitz, 2000). Eventually, there is a conflict in achieving these three goals. A focus on accuracy only makes it less likely that interlanguage change (complexity) will occur; more likely that speech will be slow. A focus on complexity increases the chances that new forms/structures will be incorporated at the expense of accuracy and fluency. Finally, a focus on fluency will lead to language being produced more quickly; and with lower priority being attached to getting language right, or to the use of new forms (Foster and Skehan, 1996 and Bygate, 1998). The cognitive approach provides ways to overcome the difficulties of achieving such conflicting goals. According to this approach, a process has to be contrived so that the foreign language learner can go through two processes parallel to those the 74 first language learner experiences: "analysis" and "synthesis". On the one hand, the learner needs to be prepared to focus on structure, and to identify patterns. On the other hand, the results of such analysis need to be reintegrated into fluent performance. So, according to Skehan (1998b: 91) "the two processes are in constant dialectic"
Procedurally, the cognitive approach helps FL learners:
* Practice pre-speaking planning and online planning (Skehan, 1998a).
* Analyze the spoken language to infer inductively the characteristics of spoken discourse through raising their awareness (Hughes, 2002: 61).
* Prompt their noticing ability, in the context of interaction, by realizing when they don't know the necessary forms to express a given meaning (Adams, 2003: 252).
* Self monitor their performance through evaluating their own as well as their peers' oral production (Skehan, 1998a).
* Use prefabricated and lexical language in an automatic way to achieve fluency (Bygate, 1998b: 31). The next section will highlight strategies to realize these aims.

Planning and oral production

It was argued by cognitive approach scholars that control may be extended into fluent oral performance through planning and rehearsal (Bygate, 2002: 30). Planning is defined by Crookes (1989: 380) as involving learners in evaluating what sort of language is needed to complete a given language task, determining whether he or she has command of that language, and taking steps to learn additional lexical items and, plan the use of relevant constructions. It was defined by Skehan (1998: 67) as the potential to prepare what is going to be said. This potential for preparation introduces a new element which may have interesting effects on a variety of aspects of language performance. Levelt (1989) distinguishes between three main levels of planning: conceptualization, which focuses on the content of the message; formulation, which is concerned with finding words or phrases to communicate the message; 75 and articulation, the execution of the precise articulation. These three types of planning are somewhat different, however planning at each level occurs simultaneously.
By gate (1998b) and Howarht (2001: 41) argue that what teachers do to encourage learners to anticipate what sort of language they will use during planning, is very similar to what second-language users do in real life. In which case, many learners are already consciously using preparation to help themselves to communicate and could be encouraged to do so in class as well.
As was mentioned previously, foreign language learners, especially those with limited proficiency, find it difficult to attend to meaning and form at the same time. However, when they have opportunity to plan the linguistic and propositional content of an upcoming task, they can compensate for these processing limitations (Brown, 1998: 6 and Yuan, & Ellis, 2003: 2).