Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology
Psycholinguistics in language teaching: Current vision
J. Alonso Aguilar-Valera 1 *
More Detail
1 Faculty of Psychology, National University of San Marcos, Peru
* Corresponding Author
Open Access Full Text (PDF)
ARTICLE INFO

Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2019 - Volume 1 Issue 1, pp. 6-11

Article Type: Review

Published Online: 23 Apr 2019

Views: 7296 | Downloads: 6284

ABSTRACT
As a result of the vertiginous advance of sciences and the development of information technology, over the last three decades a multidisciplinary trend has been generated, which has allowed the integration of research designs that were previously far from fundamentality and methodology. This approach has allowed various disciplines to create possible methodological bridges between each other, thus facilitating the understanding of different phenomena. In relation to applied linguistics, language teaching has not been exempt from these changes, which has led to a progressive succession of paradigms, that have established a series of precepts that obey more to the result of the investigation, than to an arbitrary and inflexible tradition, being the innovations coming from the generative linguistic and the cognitive psycholinguistic the most outstanding ones. The psycholinguistic model of language teaching is based on a set of multidisciplinary studies, which respond to the fundamentally objective methodological requirement -from the controlled manipulation of covert behaviors and intervening variables- and to an evidence-based practice. In this article, a general review of the evolution of the language teaching landscape, the methodological problems found within it and the proposal of a psycholinguistic model as an emerging alternative to the need to create increasingly efficient programs and projects will be developed, adapted to different age groups, supported in turn by the use of information and communication technology (ICT).
KEYWORDS
cognitive sciences language teaching methodology psycholinguistics
In-text citation: (Aguilar-Valera, 2019)
Reference: Aguilar-Valera, J. A. (2019). Psycholinguistics in language teaching: Current vision. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 1(1), 6-11.
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Aguilar-Valera JA. Psycholinguistics in language teaching: Current vision. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2019;1(1), 6-11.
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Aguilar-Valera JA. Psycholinguistics in language teaching: Current vision. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2019;1(1):6-11.
In-text citation: (Aguilar-Valera, 2019)
Reference: Aguilar-Valera, J. Alonso. "Psycholinguistics in language teaching: Current vision". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology 2019 1 no. 1 (2019): 6-11.
In-text citation: (Aguilar-Valera, 2019)
Reference: Aguilar-Valera, J. A. (2019). Psycholinguistics in language teaching: Current vision. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 1(1), pp. 6-11.
In-text citation: (Aguilar-Valera, 2019)
Reference: Aguilar-Valera, J. Alonso "Psycholinguistics in language teaching: Current vision". Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, 2019, pp. 6-11.
REFERENCES
  • Ahmadi, M. (2018). The use of technology in English language learning: A literature review. International Journal of Research in English Education, 3(2), 115-125. doi: 10.29252/ijree.3.2.115
  • Altasan, A. (2016). English Language Provision in Australia within the Global Context of ELT. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 563-569.
  • Amer, M. (2014). Language Learners’ Usage of a Mobile Learning Application for Learning Idioms and Collocations. CALICO Journal, 31(3), 285-302. doi: 10.11139/cj.31.3.285-302
  • Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. (2015). Why Only Us. Language and Evolution. Massachusetts: The MIT press.
  • Boumová, V. (2008). Traditional vs. Modern Teaching Methods: Advantages and disadvantages of each. (Master´s Diploma Thesis). Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
  • Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language Teaching Approaches: An Overview. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language, (pp. 3-11). Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle.
  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Massachusetts: The MIT press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (1976). Studies on semantics in generative grammar. Paris: Mouton Publishers, The Hague.
  • Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Paris: Mouton Publishers, The Hague.
  • Chomsky, N. (1997). The Minimalist Program. Massachusetts: The MIT press.
  • Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • De Bo, K. (2000). Psycholinguistics in applied linguistics: Trends and perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 224-237.
  • Demirezen, M. (2004). Relations between psycholinguistic approach and foreign language learning and teaching. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17, 26-36.
  • Devís, A., and Chireac, S-M. (2014). Language Learning Methodology for Adults: A Study of Linguistic Transfer. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 318-324.
  • Dündar, S., & Ayvaz, ü. (2016). From Cognitive to Educational Neuroscience. International Education Studies, 9(9), 50-57. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n9p50
  • Fonzari, L. (1999). English in the Estonian multicultural society. World Englishes, 18(1), 39-48.
  • Friederici, A. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91, 1357-1392. doi:10.1152/physrev.00006.2011
  • Gangaiamaran, R., and Pasupathi, M. (2017). Review on Use of Mobile Apps for Language Learning. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(21), 11242-11251.
  • Guaqueta, C., & Castro-Garces, A. (2018). The Use of Language Learning Apps as a Didactic Tool for EFL Vocabulary Building. English Language Teaching, 11(2), 61-71. doi: 10.5539/elt.v11n2p61
  • Harley, T. (2001). The Psychology of Language From Data to Theory. New York: Psychology Press.
  • Hartwigsen, G. (2015). The neurophysiology of language: Insights from non-invasive brainstimulation in the healthy human brain. Brain & Language, 148, 81-94.
  • Hong, S-B., Park, J., Moon, Y., Grandmason, M., Nowroski, D., and Moon, M. (2017). Learning a Foreign Language in Adulthood using Principles of Neuroscience. ARC Journal of Neuroscience, 2(1), 10-13.
  • Kennedy, T. (2006). Language Learning and Its Impact on the Brain: Connecting Language Learning with the Mind Through Content-Based Instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 471-486.
  • Lee, J. (2012). Experimental methodology in English teaching and learning: Method features, validity issues, and embedded experimental design. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(2), 25-43.
  • Leow, R., Cerezo, L., and Baralt, M. (2015). A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
  • Liu, Q-X., and Shi, J-F. (2007). An analysis of language teaching. Approaches and methods-Effectiveness and weakness. US-China Education Review, 4(1), 69-71.
  • McLelland, N. (2018). The history of language learning and teaching in Britain. The Language Learning Journal, 46(1), 6-16.
  • Moghaddam, A., & Araghi, S. (2013). Brain-Based Aspects of Cognitive Learning Approaches in Second Language Learning. English Language Teaching, 6(5), 55-61. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n5p55
  • Motteram, G. (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching. London: British Council.
  • Nunan, D. (1987).Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41(2), 136-145.
  • Nushi, M., and Eqbali, M. (2018). 50 languages: A mobile language learning application. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 93-104.
  • Renau, M. (2016). A review of the traditional and current language teaching methods. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences, 3(2), 2349-5219.
  • Richards, J., and Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Richards, J., and Rodgers, T. (1999). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Scliar-Cabral, L. (2012). Psycholinguistics. Scientific and technological challenges. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS.
  • Thouësny, S., and Bradley, L. (2011). Second Language Teaching and Learning with Technology: Views of Emergent Researchers. Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
  • Traxler, M., and Gernsbacher, M. (2006). Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: Elsevier.
  • Vila, I. (1993). Reflexiones sobre la enseñanza de la lengua desde la psicolingüística. En C. Lomas y A. Osoro (Eds.), El enfoque comunicativo de la enseñanza de la lengua, (pp. 31-54). Barcelona: Paidós.
  • Wilson, R., & Keil, F. (1999). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
  • Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent Developments in Technology and Language Learning: A Literature Review and Meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7-27.
  • Zwart, J-W. (1998). The Minimalist Program. Journal of Linguistics, 34, 213-226.
LICENSE
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.