MODELS OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE USE Maria Cristina Carlosiano 1. Introduction This paper has emerged in the stimulating context of my 2017 SLA class at the University of Tucuman. 1 consider it a great privilege to have had, since 2010, the Opportunity to work on the discipline with young people who take it so seriously and who interact with the teaching team with so much friendship. With respect to the topic of discussion, I must say that, in creating the theoretical framework within which my reflections on language processing occur, I have tried to incorporate a functional perspective, drawing mainly upon two prestigious authors in the field of psycholinguistics (the science of human language comprehension, production, and acquisition): Michael Garman (1996) and Willem J. M. Levelt (1993). Then, when the moment came for me to sketch the three models which are presented here, I drew inspiration from the models that William Grabe and Robert Kaplan (1996) outline in their keystone book Theory and Practice of Writing, particularly Chapter 8 “Towards a theory of writing” “Each of the models represents a hypothesis about communicative language use for academic purposes and, as such, itis consistent with Klein’s three determining factors “for SLA (ie language input, the language processor, and propensity'). My purpose in the following section is to offer a summarised version of each model. 2. Three models of communicative language use 2.1ModelD Chapelle et a/(1993) proposed a model of communicative language use intended to id-writing). That model was adapted specifically to writing performance by 3 an 1996), In tur, I myself adapted Grabe and Kaplan's proposal tothe specific aim of providing my students with a way to integrate cognitive, social and jon. —~EC Fig. 1 below) presents communicativerlaniguage performance’as y @ OSE caren repoevepientainpinne . i s "processing. " For specific information about Klein's perspective, read Klein, W. (1986, reprinted 1997) Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scanned with CamScannerModels of Communicative Language Use - Maria Cristina Carlosiano EP ‘WIDER CONTEXT PERFORMANCE SITUATION CP ZR mA Mo TEXTUAL OUTPUT * INPUT PERCEPTION FORMULATOR I ¥ INTERNAL, GOAL SETTING INTERNAL PROCESSING ] OUTPUT LANGUAGE, COMPETENCE ‘ON-LINE PROCESSING ASSEMBLY. VERBAL, PROCESSING rr ZRH HZ WORKING MEMORY Figure 1. Adapted for pedagogical purposes from Grabe and Kaplan (1996) Scanned with CamScannerModels of Communicative Language Use - Maria Cristina Carlosiano (1) Context The context integrates situation and language performance’ The ‘situation’ comprises communicative event with participants, a setting, and a language taske(e.g. the task of reading a text or writing a linguistic paper). ‘Performance’ accounts for the actualy textual output produced as a result of the information processing in the language user’ sy Memory! In turn, the “textual output’ becomes available in the context as language input? (and aspfeedback for the producer himself/herself). All of the context variables are located within the wider social context of the listening, reading, speaking, or writing situation. (2) Language processing operations ‘AIW GO GaitiVelNVeballoperationsyare asumed to take place in_a person’s\iworking » sensory RLY MET OTe ROHN SHS or-processing * Perceptiow’ This is a low-order eapacityin charge of the ititial PROCBRINE SBE" At this initial stage, the language input received from the social context is first perceived and interpreted? Internal Goal Setting This is the primary locus for the wide range of affective and attitudinal factors that colour and alter the individual’s perceptionof language” input and specially. of the, Janguage task to be carried out. Metaphorically speaking, we can say that this ‘component generates lenses through which the individual attempts to’ match ther Janguage input received with his/her internal resources. ¥ * Verbal Processing This unit is composed of three parts: =Danguagelcompetence, which includesilifiguistics Sociolinguistion discourse) strategic and other types of language knowledge.# Knowledge of the world, which, together with ‘language competence’, are parts of Jong. term. and: working (ie, short-term): memory. Both generate! firther information interactively. n ‘which is activated by the joint work done by ‘language, ‘competence’ and:*knowledgevof the world’. This component, which plays the function of integrating all the-informational resources generated by the other components ofthe, ‘verbal processing’ unit, performs cognitive operations related to lexical” accessyy syntactic. parsing, ositional integration, inference, classification, comparison, distinguishing between f and ground, conceptual reification, and so forth. It is important to highlight that another major function of the ‘verbal processing’ unit as ‘a whole is to carry out metacognitive: processihg. When something doesn’t work” aecording'to’the expectations in the ‘Internal Goal Setting’, these metacognitive ‘operationsjalert:the “Internal: Goal Setting’ and the “Internal Output’ components so that Scanned with CamScannerModels of Communicative Language Use - Maria Cristina Carlosiano ‘they can engage interactively in Tepair’ Strategies. As processing is carried out, the It should be noted that each of the subcomponents of “Verbal Processing” are shown in the diagram as partly within and partly outside the verbal processing circle. This arrangement indicates that that each subcomponent activates a set of information and resources in relation to the language input received and the ‘Internal Goal Setting”; so, not all of the information and resources of each subcomponent are activated, but only those that are relevant for the situation. ‘* Internal Output , rove eciiptic ccymaalomeat gn + Formulator The ‘formulator’ translates the pre-verbal message into a linguistic structure. They i i :@ which consists mainly in pri accessing lexical items and syntactic parsirfg; (b) the which renders an internal representation of how the planned utterance will be articulated. However, such translation into linguistic structure ¢ Articulatory Buffer Motor execution 2.2 Model 2 The central premises behind Model 2 (see Fig.2 below) are exactly the same as for Model 1. Thus : * Itis clear that as suggested by the important place assigned in it to socio-cultural elements. * Clay iti ls a model of performance, as it attempts fo show how the mind ‘works in 12 comprehension and production, We might say that it is mainly @ model of L2 comprehension which can also be applied to L2 production, since both speech and writing entail the interaction of the internal and external elements in the graph, Scanned with CamScannerModels of Communicative Language Use - Maria Cristina Carlosiano +The model is als0 consistent With Klein's three determining factors in SLA access (i.e language input), the language processor and the whole biological endowment (i.e. LAD and related modules), and propensity, the cognitive system, seaiiaiilaliieeeaiaammaail * As in Model 1, the doubte-headel! atrows indicate thatthe whole process (of L2.y Comprehension and 12 production) is dynamic and recursive (as opposed to linear), ? 2.2.1 Specific observations about the ‘External’ part of language processing (in the social context) Y The graph clearly reflects the complex structure of language ‘inputfan umbrella term that covers up: a) Sources: jboth animate and”inanimate ‘sources (people, institutions, the mass media, the Internet, etc.) located in a wide rangerof places. b) Components (the different types of information that constitute language input) 1) Gore/nuclear information (indispensable but not sufficient): = Linguistic data (what we hear or read). = Affective, attitudinal, motivational information which is implicitly’ or-explicitly conveyed by the sources. and in which languagevis ‘embedded. 2) Complementary informatidh (as crucial as core information): * Sensory datt * Information’ about!” ‘the ‘participants? (roles, relationships), the setting (time, place), the type of communicative tas¥, all cultural factors surrounding the particular situation all factors involved in the wider social context.” 2.2.2 Specific observations about the ‘Internal’part of language processing (in the individual’s mind) Y The graph also shows the crucial role of Propensity (here, Internal Goal Setting) in generating the inducement (the motivation) necessary to make the cognitive system pursue a goal. This module is in charge of integrating all social, affective, psychological, attitudinal factors that induce the leaner to grasp a message or to create one. When the language input is received in reading Scanned with CamScannerScanned with CamScanner (EXTERNAL) ON TERNAT Participants eee Verbal + Relationships Working (lang —J Memory [ Seaing |} ‘Already Basing ¢ Where Language + When Knowledge of + How _ + Linguistic the World ivatic * Sociolinguistic Linguistic Input . © Discourse © Hearing i + Reading —— |. [LY iad |<$—+ | Gare ~ Affection] LAD Growing Languay 7 ‘© Principles Competence Citeivaion =) | : rn (Sensory Information] . Other Types of a “All Cultural Factors Knowledge N43 Processing ‘Surrounding the Situation © Problem ern a solving emly Wide Soca © Concept ‘formation * Etc. Attention Figure 2. Model of language processing (adapted from Grabe and Kaplan 1996)SESCSCPESCEEECCSEREREECOOCESSEESOOCOOESE Models of Communicative Language Use - Maria Cristina Carlosiano or listening comprehension, it is first checked against this module, which generates a representation of the language task and the goal to be attained. When a text is created for oral or written production, the initial representation of the task and the goal also emerges from the ‘Internal Goal Setting” unit. The diagram also reflects the amazing intricacy and sophistication with which the cognitive system operates: once checked against. ‘Propensity’, the y information continues its way to the LAD module, which interacts with they other modules, cach of them in charge of a different type of knowledge: 7 Knowledge of the World, Other Types of Knowledge, Already Existing y Language Competence, Growing Language Competence, On-liney Processing Assembly? We can also see the place of Tas a module in its own right: the Growing ‘Language Competence, which has a double link with: (a) the ‘Already Existing Language Competence’ and (b) the ‘Online Processing Assembly’. The Online Processing Assembly is in charge of gathering and integrating all the information resulting from the interaction of the different modules. Online" y means directly and simultaneously gonnected to all the other modules; assembly y refers to'the process of putting all the parts together g Two higher-order capacities complete the internal picture as part of the biological endowment: Working Memory (ie.short-term memory) and Attention. 2.2.3 Differences as compared with Model 1 Unlike Model 1, Model 2 does not specify anything about the “Internal Processing Output’, nor does it show the ‘Formulator’ or the ‘Textual Output’. However, all of these components remain implicit, above all if we consider that, as Levelt (1993: 109- 110) suggests, the verbal processing in charge of the LAD module and all the converging modules always entails a journey from intention to preverbal message. Such journey can be graphically represented as follows: Macro ‘Miere planing [-— sq ——| planning |}-—Ppyy — === Figure 3, From intention to pre-verbal message (Adapted from Levelt, 1993: 110) Scanned with CamScanner" ST weweereeeeeeeeazresaaaaeressid Hess Models of Communicative Language Use - Maria Cristina Carlosiano Figure 3 shows that communicative intentions are a subclass of intentions and that only illocutionary intentions are to be realised by means of speech acts (SA). So, once the individual elaborates an illocutionary intention, s/he plans a speech act with an overall organisation (mode). This is macro-planning. Then, because the information to be expressed must be shaped into an ideational content (field) with a structure and an attitude (tenor) that will guide the addressee’s attention in the intended way and will meet the requirements of the Formulator, micro-planning takes place and a pre-verbal message (PM) is represented in memory. (It is important to note that micro- and macro- planning are reciprocally affected.) 2.3 Model 3 This is Garman’s model of sources of language input in the process of understanding utterances. It is a box-and-arrow sketch in which we see: Two human actors: (1) the speaker (S), placed in a social context, and (2) the listener (L), who receives the language input coming from the speaker and the social context, (1) Within the speaker's area, we distinguish a number of components of language input ranging from (a) to (f) (a) Visual input, independent of S and L, containing information about objects and events in the situation of utterance. Not all of it will be relevant for understanding, (b) Visual input from the S which is independent of the linguistic message: gestures, facial expressions, etc. They may carry information relevant to the linguistic message, e.g. information indicating irritation, amusement, and so on. (©) Visual input from the S that is dependent on the form of the linguistic expression: articulatory movements of lips, jaw, tongue, face. (@) Auditory input from the S constituting the linguistic signal. (e) Auditory input from the S related to personal traits such as voice quality, speech rate, precision of articulation. (Other sensory information from the S, e.g, how s/he is dreessed, a slight tap on the arm, etc. (2) Within the listener’s area we have: : > -The perception box. This is the low-order, peripheral level of information processing, > at which language input is first received and interpreted. -The memory box (current memory and encyclopaedic knowledge). -The location of understanding, which is not a box but a merging of arrows, because, rather than a place to be reached, itis the result of a number of interactions that occur in dynamic balance. There are a number of routes which operate in the following way. ee Scanned with CamScannerModels of Communicative Language Use - Maria Cristina Carlosiano The routes numbered (i) take information from outside the domain of the specifically linguistic signal to memory, which is divided into two areas: current memory (j.¢ working or short-term memory) and encyclopaedic knowledge (more closely connected with long-term memory). ic information to the understanding of The routes numbered (ii) link this extra-lingui the utterance -where this information is relevant to it The route numbered (iti) allows information fiom both old knowledge and recent experience loaded in memory to play a role in understanding. The route numbered (iv) embodies the processing of linguistic signal. One of the principal characteristics of this ‘model by Garman is that it alerts to the dangers of a deviant conception of language input as composed only of linguistic information. In a typical communicative situation, there is linguistic information along with extra-linguistic information coming in via our senses, and there is also input coming from the knowledge stored in memory. The model also carries the implication that linguistic understanding (of spoken or written input) is accomplished at high speed, with little or no conscious effort. But understanding is a human construct, subject to gaps and imprecision, and even downright misunderstanding. Just as language production is by no means perfect, so it is understanding, Other important points to notice about understanding are the following: The understanding of individual parts of the linguistic message takes place in the context of the understanding of other parts of the message. “Understanding also takes place in in the context of our general knowledge about the Events and objects being talked about. As a result, one individual’s understanding may incorporate elements that were not actually specified in the linguistic message! -Alll of these facts account for the differences between individuals concerning their understanding of the same piece of discourse, Finally, it is worth noticing that there is an extensive set of concepts available to describe what happens during language input processing, although there is no generally agreed usage for these concepts. Some of these concepts are: -Perception: the initial processing of language input, at the most peripheral, low-level dimension of cognitive operations. Scanned with CamScannerModels of Communicative Language Use - Maria Cristina Carlosiano -Understanding: most usually regarded as the end product at the central, high-level dimension of cognitive operations. -Recognition: the processing via information already stored in memory. Interpretation: it carries the implication of creative processing, beyond the strict Properties of the linguistic signs involved. ~Comprehension: it acts as a cover term for both ‘interpretation’ and ‘understanding’ SPEAKER J ‘specific linguistic L signal INPUT visual auditory other PERCEPTION 7 (iv) | further linguistic processing Y LISTENER () — (i) ——> understanding <—— (ii) — (i) k (ii) current memory encyclopaedic knowledge Figure 4. Garman’s model of sources of input to the process of understanding (1996) Scanned with CamScannerModels of Communicative Language Use - Maria Cristina Carlosiano 3. Conclusion As all other models of language use, the ones have limitations, The ones th Particularly wanting in theory (which are many!) are to be attr presented in this paper are tentative and fat I myself adapted for pedagogical purposes are and further elaboration; clearly, while their strengths ibuted to their authors, most of their weaknesses derive from my own work in trying to adapt them for pedagogical purposes. Anyway, some of their limitations have to do with the fact that the full set of interactions of cognitive components and operations is n vompone \ot sufficiently specified, as well as the fact that the direct implications for language teaching and learning are not obvious. However, the three models described allow us, implicitly or explicitly, to have a useful insight into cognitive processing and its relati jonship to the social context and to the textual product. It is this three-way integration of cognitive processing, language input and textual product that renders this paper parti icularly useful for EFL student: in the challenging task of understanding the nature of language use and acquii so I hope! REFERENCES Garman, M. (1996) Psycholinguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Grabe, W. and R. B. Kaplan (1996) Theory and Practice of Writing. An Applied Linguistic Perspective, London and New York: Longman, Levelt, W. J. M. (1993) Speaking. From Intention to Articulation, Cambridge and Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Scanned with CamScanner