Two mentalist perspectives were developed in opposition to Audiolingualism and in contrast to each other:Cognitive Anti-Method, andCognitive-Code Method Cognitive Anti-Method (p113-115) Major theoretical assumptions

Second language learning is controlled by the learner rather than the teacher Learners have an innate ability to learn languages (like a child) It is not necessary to pay attention to form, grammar explanations are not useful in

the classroom Linguistic features are acquired globally—not one-by-one. Do not sequence

instruction through selection and grading of input (finding easy texts or simplifying texts—building from easier to more difficult)

Errors are inevitable and should be tolerated. Learners will discover and correct their own errors and should not receive error correction from the teacher.

L1 interference will disappear with more exposure to the TL. Overt contrastive analysis and language comparison between L1 and L2 is of little use.

Elements of the cognitive anti-method are currently embraced although they were largely rejected at the time of their introduction into language theory.

The greatest contribution of this method is in shrinking the theoretical gap between “classroom learning” and “real-life language use”

Cognitive-Code Method (p115-116) In sharp contrast to the Cognitive-Anti Method and Audiolingualism, these

theorists assume that meaningful learning is essential to language acquisition and conscious knowledge of grammar is important.

Major theoretical assumptions Develop in students the same types of abilities that native speakers have. This is

done by helping students attain a minimal control over TL rules so they can generate their own language.

The teacher must move from what is known to what is unknown (background knowledge). This aspect is considered foundational to language learning experiences.

The teacher and textual materials must introduce students to situations that will promote the creative use of the language.

Explaining language rules as a “system” as opposed to memorizing surface strings by rote (as in drills) allows students to increase variety and creativity in language production.

Learning should always be meaningful—students should always understand what they are being asked to do.

New material should always be organized in order to relate it to students’ existing cognitive structure and presented in a variety of ways to appeal to all senses and learning styles.

Cognitive-Code Method (p115-116) As in any approach, the success in regard to proficiency will depend on the quality

of materials and the manner in which the teacher presents them. Many current texts appear to use these principles in their course design.

The greatest pitfall in regard to this method is to devote too much concentration on the study of grammar structures. If you avoid this trap, there is a lot of value for teaching and learning language within this method. Keep grammar explanations basic.

Docto 2Mentalist perspectives

• Based on reactions to Audiolingualism, influenced heavily by Chomsky• The Cognitive Anti-Method

– Learner controlled– Innate ability to learn languages– No attention to form necessary– Language is acquired globally– Errors are inevitable, shouldn’t be corrected– L1 interference naturally disappears with more experience

• The Cognitive-Code Method– Goal is to develop same abilities as natives– The instructor must move from the known to the unknown– Promote creative use of language– Students should understand the rule system, not memorize it– Learning should be meaningful

Docto 3Cognitive CodeMethodology (CCM), constructed upon the assumption that an explicit understanding of agrammar rule precedes its usage (Chastain, 1970), centers on teacher rule explanations in thestudents’ L1, followed by a prescription of practice drills (first mechanical, then meaningful,then communicative), and it remains largely unchallenged and attractive in the sense that it isknown; most of us were taught this way.Doctor 4Cognitive anti-method

Reacción al audiolingüismo. Características

El aprendiz controla el aprendizaje de la L2.

Las personas tienen una habilidad innata para aprender una lengua. No prestar atención a la forma. No se adquieren los rasgos de la lengua uno por uno, sino que se adquiere la

lengua globalmente. Tolerancia de los errores. La interferencia de L1 desaparecerá con la exposición a la L2.

Inconvenientes: método demasiado radical, pero luego se adaptará en el Natural Approach.

• Cognitive-Code Method Características:

Desarrollar en los estudiantes la misma habilidad que tienen los hablantes nativos

Conocer primero las reglas de la nueva lengua, desarrollar la competencia, antes de aplicarlas.

Se debe llegar a usar una lengua creativa Deben entender el sistema de reglas, más que memorizarlo

Proficiencia: bastante orientada a la proficiencia. Los estudiantes hablan la mayor parte del tiempo, se usan actividades para crear con la lengua.

Inconvenientes: no se debería dedicar mucho tiempo a las explicaciones gramaticales, especialmente en la lengua nativa. Para que sea proficiente se deben dar explicaciones mínimas a través de la práctica contextualizada.

• Natural Approach Características

Distribución de las actividades de aprendizaje y adquisición: adquisición en el aula; aprendizaje fuera del aula.

No hay corrección de errores Énfasis en la comprensión, las respuestas en L1 o L2.

Actividades de comprensión: escuchan y comprenden Producción temprana: respuestas de una palabra, completar oraciones... Comienzo de la producción: juegos, actividades afectivo-humanísticas. No se

corrigen errores. Proficiencia: aprenden la lengua en contexto, el filtro afectivo es bajo, se crea con la

lengua. Inconvenientes: falta de instrucción enfocada en la forma, carencia de corrección. Docto 5Rationalist and Mentalist Methods Cognitive Anti-Method

Characteristics Controlled by learner rather than teacher No linguistic, grammatical analysis No error correction

Interactive or content-based applicability Students acquire language globally Students actively engaged in problem solving & critical

thinking Cognitive-Code Method

Characteristics Moves from the known to the unknown Promotes creative use of the language Understanding of rule system Learning should be meaningful

Interactive or content-based applicability Direct association of target language words and phrases with

objects and actionsCognitive Anti-Method

Characteristics L2 learning is controlled by the learner. The learner must solve. Innate ability for language, no attention to form Acquisition of language is globalProficiency Orientation Strategic competence (solving problems) Compensatory techniques (lack of knowledge)Drawbacks “Too radical” Extreme Some exercises are similar to behaviorism (pattern practice)

Cognitive Code- Method

CharacteristicsMeaningful learningGrammar is importantDevelop skills that natives haveMove from known to unknown(cognitive structure is the base)First competence, thenPerformance

Proficiency OrientationCreative use of languageCreate with languageUse language in context to usenew structuresMeaningful activitiesDrawbacksIt may lead to explain grammar inL1

2.2 The cognitive anti-methodAs a result of those views of language processes other trends in ESL were formulated as the cognitive antimethod,which was the articulation of a series of articles written by Newmark and Reibel in the sixties. Its drastic views on ESL learning made it lack of adepts and the theory was forgotten almost without being born (Ellis,1999). The assumptions for the classroom outlined in this theory, which constitute a stepping stone for the support of the pervasiveness of error correction in ESL settings in this study, are the following, according to Ellis (1999):

2.2.1 The learner rather than the teacher controls second-language learning. The learner is the principalactor of the class. Too much consideration had been given to the teacher’s role in the classroom. The student is the one who is really passing through all the processes going on in the class. The learner selects and organizes the input, whatever this is. This view is central for the objectives of this paper, since teachers have traditionallyused correction as a mechanism of control of the class, and more pervasively for assessment and testing ‘against’ the students.

2.2.2 Human beings possess an innate capacity for learning language. UG arguments defined L1 acquisition as a successful learning model and its proponents arguedthat L2 learning proceeds in much the same way as long as the teacher avoids ‘interfering’ (Ellis, 1999: 36). The implication of this assumption is that the EFL adult learner is equaled to the L1 child in a qualitative, although not quantitative, manner in terms of learning capacities. Consequently, this assumption will support the idea that error correction in EFL contexts will not benefit a successful acquisition process among students.The concepts of acquisition and learning, applied more especially to L1 natural and unconscious processes and to L2 conscious and structured process, respectively, haveserved to benefit many authors at writing for a nonequivalent view of L1 and L2 learning processes. However, the literature against this view is overwhelming (Ellis, 1999: 41). Salmon (forthcoming), for example, suggests in a more sensitive manner thatalthough L1 and L2 processes are different in terms of acquisition time, cognitive maturity and learning environment, it is the teacher’s responsibility to effect the balance of these variables in the EFL and ESL contexts.

2.2.3 It is not necessary to attend to linguistic form in order to acquire a L2. The implication of this assumption is that the EFL learner needs not to be corrected for language forms since this is not a necessary condition for a successful L1 learning (Newmark, 1963). Thestructures of the second language can be learned by means of the use of contextualized language and cognitive methods, which emphasis is on meaning and not on forms. Although, there has been no attempt to develop a specific cognitive theory of instructed L2learning (Ellis, 1999), the general cognitive theory andthe Bialystok’s bidimensional model33 have been largely applied to the classroom. The gradients of the two dimensions go across from the non-analyzed (L2 learners at early stages) to the analyzed (L2 formal learners), and down from the non-automatic (children learning L1) to the automatic (fluent speakers). Considerable training is thus needed before the automatic processing

takes place. Errors occur because the learner does not have an automatized performance and does not have the time for controlled processing (Ellis: 180). Errors can also occur as a result of obliterative assumption34. Away to prevent errors is practice, since it helps to“activate mental nodes, strengthen connections and increase speed of access (Ibid, 181). Another way of correcting errors –in this case mistakes, as the author prefers to call them (Ibid)– is corrective feedback, whenever a number of criteria are met (Johnson, 1988):_ The learner must have the desire or the need to eradicate the mistake. She must be able to form an internal representation of what the correct behaviour looks like .She must realize that her performance is flawed _ She must have the opportunity to perform in realconditions.This condition is important since it constitutes a fundamental difference between the cognitive and the behaviorist view of practice.2.2.4 Classroom language learning is not an additive process. This means that ESL learners need not to be exposed incrementally to organized and sequentialstrands of language forms, but rather be exposed to “whole chunks” at a go (Ellis, 1999: 36). This assumption contrasts with views of interlanguage theory whichassume that the competence in ESL is transitional and that the L2 learner does not necessarily utilize the same language devices as the child (Ibid.: 52). “Eventually,the attention of those working on learners errors has moved away from the analysis of errors in their own right as indications of hypothesis testing and interlanguage development to concern with questions relating to the potential effects of corrective procedures on language learning” (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994: 465).Nevertheless, the teacher here must be aware of theprocesses of transfer, generalization and simplification,proper of this interlanguage continuum. In doing so,teachers will be able to explain many of the deviantforms the students produce and therefore let themhappen naturally and intervene only when necessary,since they are normal stages in the process of learning asecond or foreign language.2.2.5 Errors are a concomitant of the learning processand are, therefore, inevitable. The studies on the productionof utterances (performance) and the developmentof language competence in children show that thechild develops an internally consistent grammar, whichnot necessarily corresponds to the language he or she isbeing exposed. When deviant utterances are produced,it is just that the child is testing hypothesis about therule system of the language (Ibid.: 36). The productionof deviant forms in L1 does not prevent the child fromproducing correct forms at later stages, by applying achanging and complex system of rules and set ofstrategies for which he or she is well equipped. Theimplication for the correction of error in L2 classroom,here, is significant. Corder (1967) suggested that it wasmuch more important that L2 learners be allowed todiscover their own errors rather than be corrected bythe teacher. The aim is to provide the less guidance to

the student to make her more self-reliant andindependent. I consider that errors are to be allowed,as natural outcomes in the process of acquiring alanguage, in order for the students to develop fluencyin the L2, replicating the process of L1, and be given theopportunity of self-correcting and being totallyresponsible for their process of learning/acquisition ofthe second/foreign language.