日本大学歯学部紀要 49，7‒13，2021

The Use of Neurocognitive Recall Mechanisms
in Language Development
Aaron J. Armstrong
Abstract

This literature review aims to provide an overview of some basic linguistic theories in orderto provide a general consensus on what is held as the standard for neurocognitive recall
mechanisms. It differentiates the opposing views of Ferdinand de Saussure’s (1857-1913) The
Object of Study, with that of Noam Chomsky’s (1928 - present) Universal Grammar, while
unifying their theories by the underlying cognitive framework they seem to agree upon. It willthen demonstrate some of the practical uses of this cognitive framework and expand on how
the process of language acquisition for a second language learner (L2 Student) is more thanjust aiming to improve language skills, but to utilize the neurocognitive recall mechanism inincreasingly naturalized ways that are fundamental to storytelling.

Key words : linguistics, neurocognitive, superordinate, subordinate, narrative signposting

Preamble
Coming from a literature studies background, teaching courses in communications skills andcritical thinking to both Canadian and Japanese students the one unifying factor, regardless oflanguage, is the access to a history of information that the learner can utilize in the taught
structure of discussion. As an instructor assuming students are not empty vessels waiting to be
filled, knowing of course there is no common knowledge yet there are delivery standards, thegoal thus far has been to provide students with the emancipatory skills to voice their own ideas
and build their own set of tools to express themselves. What has remained consistent in both
native language and second language (L2) classrooms is the use of an information feedback loopthat undoubtedly is the mechanisms of skills acquisition, as much as it is, a mechanism ofstorytelling. This has led me to see the goals of language learning to be akin to that ofstorytelling, mirrored from the most basic iteration to the largest conceptual idea, there isalways the background information that is necessary for anything to hold meaning. From theearliest of language syntax to the framework of academic writing, the L2 classroom tasks
negotiate the relationship between the teacher, the student, the information and the intent; andwhile we bring into the fold the idea that we are teaching language acquisition and use as a skill
to communicate ideas, I feel what we are actually teaching is storytelling.

日本大学歯学部〒101-8310

外国語分野（英語）

東京都千代田区神田駿河台 1 − 8 −13（受理：2021年 9 月15日）

Department of Foreign Languages (English), Nihon University
School of Dentistry
1-8-13 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8310, Japan─ 7 ─

日本大学歯学部紀要 49，7‒13，2021

Introduction
The review will begin by characterizing and explaining the linguistic system of Saussure’s
greater faculty of linguistics and the process by which he theorizes it enables the establishmentof language. This theory will then be contrasted with the idea of a Universal Grammar as
posited by Noam Chomsky. After differentiating between the two, building some working
definitions, and exhibiting the main pitfall in failing to interact with the language history of thelearner effectively, a demonstration of what is evident in some example of early and advanced
L2 student tasks will be provided. This final element will lead to an exploration of how thisneurocognitive recall mechanism begins to mirror narrative signposting used in storytelling,concluding with the role of language teaching and the importance of offering cognitive disruption
in the L2 Classroom.

Linguistic Frameworks and Definitions
The Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure, considers the greater faculty of linguistics to be aunion between the faculty of governing speech and the faculty of governing signs. And while heposits that spoken language could very easily be a coincidental development (Chomsky, 2012), heleans to suggest that it integrates with the foundational faculty of governing signs in such a waythat it establishes a faculty of structuring language systems. This greater faculty of structuring
language systems, utilizing both the faculties of speech and sign, becomes the primary functionof the greater faculty of linguistics. It is in this greater faculty, where a neurocognitive process,utilizing past knowledge and experiences, creates a cognitive framework which enables aspeaker to create content by using knowledge from situations which are not here and now(Lucarevschi, 2016).
Complicating matters, while Saussure and his contemporaries claim that spoken language isan essential part of language creation, and this has been the general consensus for roughly 100
years, a note should be made that more recent theories aligning with Noam Chomsky’s idea of a
Universal Grammar have begun to permeate the field of linguistics. Universal Grammar
differentiates from Saussure’s framework by finding evidence that the creation of language
structure is a process that is predominantly in-born, whereby speech is secondary and in no way
an essential element to communication. Studies have shown that other non-vocal methods ofcommunication are equally as effective for transmitting ideas, concepts, culture, and content(Chomsky, 2012). In this framework it is assumed that although the common and by definition
preferred mechanism for communication is vocal speech, to study the process of language
creation by studying patterns of speech in isolation is fundamentally erroneous. Where the twotheories collide however is in the process of feedback with the subconscious or recall factor. As
Chomsky and his more contemporary theories claim, language maintains an internalized mode of─ 8 ─

The Use of Neurocognitive Recall Mechanisms in Language Development

understanding the world, no matter the outward mechanism of transmission (Chomsky, 2012).

Definitions
From this point the focus of linguistics as a framework that must include vocal speech, andthe study of language creation in general, is fundamentally differentiated. Therefore, to avoid
minimizing the scope of this review, and to avoid discounting one theoretical framework overanother, the term neurocognitive mechanism will be used to speak of the shared cognitive
activity that happens in both frameworks. Additionally, Saussure’s definitions will be used tocharacterize this neurocognitive mechanism as one composed of a distinct present superordinate
system of communication that corresponds to a distinct subordinate history of ideas (Saussure,
2000, p. 3).
This neurocognitive mechanism creates a framework by which language educators cananalyze some of the processes a student in an L2 classroom is expected to undertake during
learning tasks. For an early L2 student, while working on foundational structures of language,
this subordinate history remains for the most part displaced in the origin language of thelearner, and so to a certain extent remains also unusable. As the student’s use of the target
language becomes more practiced, this subordinate history shifts more and more into the target
language.

Avoiding Language Souvenirs
As stated, if language involves an established superordinate system and a subordinate history
for content, the two cannot be divorced. By providing one half of this system an educator runs
the risk of providing language souvenirs. If a souvenir is a thing brought back from a foreign
shore without an associated subordinate history, it is meaningless. Language souvenirs would besounds or symbols in isolation (see Figure 1.).
Here is a sound:yablokoHere is a symbol:

яблоко

Fig 1

The example above is the Russian word for apple. Chances are, without a knowledge ofRussian, lacking a subordinate history to retrieve any meaning encoded, both the writing systemand the pronunciation fail to represent, by Saussure’s definition, language content. To avoid
teaching this type of language souvenir, teachers can choose to lean into a practice of theneurocognitive recall mechanism. It is common practice to do this with activities like warm-up
questions, vocabulary expansions, and discussion questions for the express purpose of sourcing
─ 9 ─

日本大学歯学部紀要 49，7‒13，2021

from the learner a pseudo-synthetic subordinate history in the hopes to target something usefulfor a practice.

Neurocognitive Recall Mechanism in Early L2 Activities
If for example, an early L2 student is tasked with basic grammar, the student can source fromtheir origin language the needed vocabulary. In this case, the question What are your favorite
and least favorite foods? Once the student has prepared the terms necessary, classroom activities
can be visually categorized providing a layer of context, and the teacher can demonstrate thebasic superordinate system in the form a question. Do you like ~ _______? From here we elicit a
response in the syntax presented by the superordinate system where the student replies with
Yes, I like ~ _______. For expansion of this superordinate system option A has been modified tooption B by adding the adverb really (see Figure 2.1.). Of course, this basic structure in one
direction can be reversed to exhibit a contrasting structure (see Figure 2.2.). And if the student
can use the superordinate system of syntax thus far, they should be able to pull into theirsubordinate history the understanding of don’t as a place holder for negation. This should allow
the student to fill in the blanks as exhibited (see Figure 2.3.) We can then take this syntactic
structure and use other verbs. (see Figure 2.4.)
What has been show here is only the superordinate system that has been introduced to a
student, yet as you can see already, from figure 2.1. to figure 2.4. most of the newly introduced
superordinate system elements have slipped into the subordinate history and have been recalled
as new elements of the subordinate history. In Figure 2.1. I like has been recalled. By the end of
Figure 2.2. I really like has slipped into recall mode, and so on with I really don’t like by the endof Figure 2.3. with the remainder being recalled by Figure 2.4.

A
Yes, I
Fig. 2.1.

C
No, I really

B~

Yes, I

like ~

Basic Superordinate System: Expansion Ⅰ

Alike ~

Yes, I

B~

Fig. 2.2. Basic Superordinate System: Expansion Ⅱ─ 10 ─

Yes, I

like ~

The Use of Neurocognitive Recall Mechanisms in Language Development

CI reallyD
like.

I ̲̲̲̲̲ likeFig. 2.3.

CA
I

I ̲̲̲̲̲ ̲̲̲̲̲

Fig. 2.4.

I

likeBasic Superordinate System: Expansion Ⅲ

DI ̲̲̲̲̲ ̲̲̲̲̲ ̲̲̲̲̲

B

A
I

B
I ̲̲̲̲̲ ̲̲̲̲̲

Basic Superordinate System: Expansion Ⅳ

Neurocognitive Recall Mechanism in Advanced L2 Activities
As a learner’s use of the target language becomes more practiced and the ability to use thetarget language as a source for a subordinate history begins to naturalize, the complexity of
discussion will of course begin to present with more options of expression and exploration. If forexample the theme is community, and the target is talking about social issues, we can assume
that the student is going to need more than a basic foundation of language to work from, so we
can expect that the student is likely leaning into a subordinate history that is formed in thetarget language. Activities here might include categorizing different types of social issues andvaluing them in importance, or answering questions with increased complexity: What to you is
an important social issue, and why? or How is community support important? With the learner’sability to use their growing subordinate history in the target language, possibly utilizing moresecondary sources in the target language building further the students individualized
subordinate history, we can make advances into the topic and possibly begin to think about andcome to understand ideas like global ramification, complex emotions, reactions, and reasons foractions.
Say for example a class of students has been provided information detailing the damaging
effects of plastic on the environment. The students have then been asked to form three separate
reasons for their opinion on the banning of plastic bags. The group provides, from the source─ 11 ─

日本大学歯学部紀要 49，7‒13，2021

material, in their own words, an explanation that includes details of environmental impacts andconcerns about waste disposal, etc. At this point we have breakout groups with each group
receiving one of three facts to consider.
•

Millions of trees are cut down every year for paper products.

•

The growth of the hemp industry is a viable source of many products.

•

New interest has been invested in recycling some plastic products into new reusablefabrics.

Each of these will recode the information in a dynamic and unpredictable way. A question
such as this is designed to confront a student with the challenge of primarily using theburgeoning subordinate history in the target language in such a way that it begins to look more
like a displaced schema, or information dump than it does a retrieval of information. This type ofactivity holds all the earmarks of a specific narrative devices. Namely, narrative signposting, amechanism used in stories to force or introduce a reassessment of ideas, a refocus discussions,and a potential to complicate or change opinions.

Narrative Signposting
Narrative signposting is a term used to describe a device that interrupts the main narrative toreveal or deliver a displaced schema or information dump, commonly in the form of the
flashback or words of the wiser. This results in the delivery of a prior structured knowledge
that is useful to the narrative development as a mechanism that modifies how the characters
and/or the audience understand the story and its themes. It promotes a changing of opinions
and reframes the value of present details. Here is a device that presents itself as a disruptor.
Imagine now, you are a student in a series of courses who has journeyed from an earlylearner, accessing a subordinate history for terms and vocabulary to place in the superordinate
system. To a place where your language is premediated and more momentary, and you havejust had your first authentic moment of disruption in the target language of your learning. Just
like a story where the audience is disrupted, we should aim as educators to create this same
disruption in our students because this is where critical thought begins. Anyone can learn toregurgitate data, sentences and information. But to question yourself, to question your placementin the information. Thinking academically begins in these moments of disruption, where if ateacher can promote these moments of authentic and realized orientation toward practicalinterests, openly or covertly, something useful is being communicated (Banjamin, 2000, p. 15).

─ 12 ─

The Use of Neurocognitive Recall Mechanisms in Language Development

Conclusion
This literature review provided a theory that the most basic language task becomes a first
iteration of the most complex patterns in storytelling. The early L2 student sources from theirsubordinate history translated words, the intermediate L2 student sources from information
opinions they agree with founded on evidence, the advanced L2 student sources andcommunicates a change in perspective. From the foundational structures of language, displacing
and shifting deeper into the subordinate history, until the learner is confronted with the ability
to appreciate language displacement in theme. By teaching language, we are not only teaching
pragmatic language exchanges, or how to express the appreciation of experiences, but how toappreciate and share personal experience. L2 students are not empty vessels waiting for
direction, they are storytellers building a set of tools. This review does not discuss the degree a
student is expected to source from their own history, how and where this might be problematicand the kind of activities this practice is be best suited for. Research exploring certain
drawbacks to disruption in the learning environment would be useful going forward.

References

Banjamin, W. (2000) The Storyteller. In D. Lodge & N. Wood (Eds.). Modern Criticism andTheory: A Reader (2nd. ed.). (pp. 10-29). London, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Chomsky, N. (2012) Noam Chomsky: Language and Other Cognitive Processes [Noam Chomsky,
noted linguist, philosopher, and social critic explores the complexities of language and its
study. This lecture was presented by Boston College and recorded on 7/20/2011] Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_W6Afed2k
Lucarevschi, C. R. (2016) The role of storytelling in language learning: A literature review.
Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 26 (1), 24–44
Saussure, F. d. (2000) The Object of Study. In D. Lodge & N. Wood (Eds.). Modern Criticism andTheory: A Reader (2nd. ed.). (pp. 1-9). London, England: Pearson Education Limited.

─ 13 ─