The Metalinguistic Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning 9781441160898, 9781472542137, 9781441158338

Citation preview

The Metalinguistic Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning

Advances in Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Series Editor: Alessandro Benati, University of Greenwich, UK Editorial Board: James F. Lee, University of New South Wales, Australia Florence Myles, University of Essex, UK Emma Marsden, University of York, UK María del Pilar García Mayo, Universidad del País Vasco, Spain Cristina Sanz, Georgetown University, USA Teresa Cadierno, Syddansk Universitet, Denmark The mission of this series is to publish new theoretical insights in instructed second language acquisition research that advance our understanding of how languages are learned and should be taught. Research in instructed SLA has addressed questions related to the degree to which any form of external manipulation (e.g. grammar instruction, input manipulation, etc . . .) can affect language development. The main purpose of research in instructed second language acquisition is to establish how classroom language learning takes place, and how an understanding of second language acquisition contributes to language teaching. Despite the clear relationship between theory and research in SLA, and language practice, there are still very few cross-references between these areas. This series will publish research in instructed SLA that bridges this gap and provide academics with a set of theoretical principles for language teaching and acquisition. The calibre of research will inspire scholars and practitioners to learn more about acquisition and to reflect on their language teaching practices more generally. Other Titles in the Series: The Developmental Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning, Paul A. Malovrh and James F. Lee The Grammar Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning, edited by María J. Arche and Cécile Laval Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning, edited by Melissa Baralt, Roger Gilabert and Peter Robinson

The Metalinguistic Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning

Edited by Karen Roehr and Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez

L ON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W Y OR K • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com First published 2013 © Karen Roehr, Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez and Contributors, 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. eISBN: 978-1-4411-5833-8 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The metalinguistic dimension in instructed second language learning / Edited by Karen Roehr and Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez. pages cm. – (Advances in Instructed Second Language Aquisition Research) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4411-6089-8 (hardcover) – ISBN 978-1-4411-5833-8 (pdf) – ISBN 978-1-4411-6856-6 (epub) 1. Second language acquisition–Study and teaching. I. Roehr, Karen. P118.2.M48 2013 418.0071–dc23 2013008911

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India

Contents Contributors

vii

Foreword

ix

Introduction

1

1 The Metalinguistic Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning  Karen Roehr and Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez

Part 1  Cognitive Approaches to the Metalinguistic Dimension

3 13

2 Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness for Children Aged 8–11  Angela Tellier

15

3 Examining the Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities to Reading Comprehension among Native and Non-Native Speakers  Daphnée Simard, Denis Foucambert and Marie Labelle

45

4 Effects of Instruction on Learners’ Acquisition of Metalinguistic Knowledge  Rosemary Erlam

71

5 University-Level Learners’ Beliefs about Metalinguistic Knowledge  Benjaporn Thepseenu and Karen Roehr

95

6 Metalinguistic Awareness in Third Language Phonological Acquisition  Magdalena Wrembel

Part 2  Sociocognitive Approaches to the Metalinguistic Dimension

119 145

7 Metalinguistic Knowledge in Language-Related Episodes (LREs) with Covert Metalinguistic Activity  Xavier Gutiérrez

147

8 The Role of Metalanguage in the Performance of a Sequence of Collaborative Output Tasks by Five L2 Learner Dyads  Alan Fortune

171

9 Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance through Dynamic Assessment: Focusing on the Metalinguistic Dimension  Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez and Cristina Nogués Meléndez

195

Contents

vi

10 The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge: Rules and Categories of Grammatical Description as Functional Tools of the Mind  Eduardo Negueruela Azarola Index

221 243

Contributors Rosemary Erlam is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. One relevant research interest is the area of language assessment and the use of measures of metalinguistic knowledge to ascertain the level of language knowledge of teacher trainees. Alan Fortune is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Education and Professional Studies at King’s College London. His research interests include task-based learning; the teaching and learning of L2 grammar; classroom SLA, particularly collaborative learning processes; L2 materials development. Denis Foucambert is a Professor of Psycholinguistics at the Université du Québec à Montréal. His research focuses on the syntactic processes in reading abilities as well as the observation of writing processes in textual genetics and psycholinguistic frameworks. Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics in the Department of Language and Linguistics at the University of Essex. Her main research interests include explicit L2 learning, sociocultural theory and CALL. More specifically, she is interested in collaborative activity; L2 pedagogical tasks; and feedback and scaffolding. Xavier Gutiérrez is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures at the University of Windsor, Canada, where he teaches courses in general and applied linguistics, as well as Spanish language courses. His main research interests include metalinguistic activity and the development of knowledge representations of language. Marie Labelle is a Professor of Linguistics at the Université du Québec à Montréal. She specializes in first language acquisition as well as in French syntax and semantics. She co-authored the Canadian French adaptation of the CELF (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals). She recently participated in research on the comparison between school-aged native and non-native speakers of French. Eduardo Negueruela Azarola is an Associate Professor of Spanish Second Language Acquisition and director of the Spanish Basic Language Program at the University of Miami. His research is on the areas of sociocultural psychology and second language teaching and learning, Spanish second language acquisition and technology-enhanced language learning. Cristina Nogués Meléndez is a Lecturer in English as a Foreign Language in the Department of Applied Linguistics at Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain. Her

viii

Contributors

research interests include task-based methodology and second language acquisition. More specifically, she is interested in collaborative learning activities and oral language instruction and assessment. Karen Roehr is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Language and Linguistics at the University of Essex. Her research interests include explicit and implicit knowledge in L2 learning, the role of individual learner differences in L2 learning and usage-based approaches to language learning and teaching. Daphnée Simard is a Professor of Second Language Acquisition at Université du Québec à Montréal. Her research interests are twofold. First, she investigates the relationship between metalinguistic, second language acquisition and individual variables such as attentional capacity and phonological memory span. Second, she examines the role of attention in second language acquisition. Angela Tellier is a PhD candidate in the Department of Languages and Linguistics at the University of Essex. Her research interests include metalinguistic awareness and language aptitude in child L2 learning, the role of metalinguistic instruction in the acquisition of explicit/implicit knowledge and the development of language readiness in child L2 learners. Benjaporn Thepseenu is a Lecturer of English at the University of Phayao, Thailand. Currently she is a PhD candidate in ELT in the Department of Language and Linguistics at the University of Essex. Her research interests include metalinguistic knowledge in L2 learning and the role of metacognition in EFL reading. Magdalena Wrembel is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland. Her main research areas involve SLA of speech, phonological acquisition of a third language, language awareness and innovative trends in pronunciation pedagogy, on which she has published several articles, both in international journals and edited collections.

Foreword In the present book, Karen Roehr and Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez bring together a number of studies and original research investigating metalinguistic knowledge/ awareness. They provide an excellent introduction and an up-to-date position on the concept and role of metalinguistic knowledge/awareness in second language learning. The volume is divided into two main parts. Part 1 offers contributions focusing particularly on cognitive approaches to the metalinguistic dimension. Part 2, instead, focuses specifically on sociocognitive approaches. In both parts, the contributors have successfully addressed a number of issues concerning the characteristics and nature of metalinguistic knowledge/awareness, and have presented and discussed a series of important empirical findings within this research framework. The editors and the contributors have produced a solid volume that will be beneficial for both researchers and practitioners in the field of instructed second language learning and language teaching. We thank them for their excellent contribution to this research field, and we are very pleased to add this edited book to the Series in Advances in Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research. Alessandro G. Benati Series Editor Advances in Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research

Introduction

1

The Metalinguistic Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning Karen Roehr

University of Essex

Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez University of Essex

This volume brings together original research on the metalinguistic dimension in instructed second language (L2) learning. In the broadest sense, the metalinguistic dimension refers to how individuals bring to bear knowledge about language in their learning of the L2. In the field of applied linguistics more generally and L2 learning and teaching more specifically, it is widely accepted that L2 learners develop and use knowledge about language when engaging with the challenging task of acquiring a new language; this applies to both children and adults, as well as to the learning of L2, L3, L4 or Ln. Accordingly, the term L2 learning is used here to refer to the learning of any language beyond the L1, i.e. it includes the learning of L3, L4, Ln. Conceptualizations of the metalinguistic dimension in L2 learning vary, depending on the theoretical approaches employed by researchers. Moreover, findings about the role of the metalinguistic dimension in instructed L2 learning are not necessarily always homogeneous or compatible. Thus, there is still ample scope for further research into this important aspect of the discipline. The chapters in this volume explore the conceptualization of the metalinguistic dimension in instructed L2 learning by considering the nature of metalinguistic awareness and/or metalinguistic knowledge, how such awareness/knowledge can be measured, and how it may be used by learners of different ages, from different backgrounds and in different types of instructional contexts. Findings provide implications for L2 learning research as well as for L2 instruction in the classroom. The volume is organized into two parts: Part 1 focuses on cognitive approaches to the metalinguistic dimension, while Part 2 focuses on sociocognitive approaches to the metalinguistic dimension. Part 1 comprises contributions by Tellier (Chapter 2), Simard, Foucambert and Labelle (Chapter 3), Erlam (Chapter 4), Thepseenu and Roehr (Chapter 5) and Wrembel (Chapter 6). Chapters 2 and 3 focus on child learners, while Chapters 3, 4 and 5 are concerned with adult learners.

4

The Metalinguistic Dimension

In Chapter 2, Tellier conceptualizes the metalinguistic dimension in terms of metalinguistic awareness, defined as the ability to make use of explicit knowledge about language (Ellis, 2004). Following Bialystok and Ryan (1985, p. 230), Tellier argues that the term metalinguistic ‘applies not to a specific mental accomplishment, but rather to a set of problems which share certain features’. Specifically, metalinguistic problems or tasks make high demands on an individual’s ability to analyse, manipulate and explain their linguistic knowledge (analysis of knowledge), as well as on an individual’s ability to direct their attention to select whatever is immediately relevant to the task, while suppressing focus on anything not relevant (control of processing) (Bialystok, 1988; 1994). Typically, this is achieved by tasks which require the individual to attend to and manipulate language form (Jessner, 2006; Svalberg, 2007). Tellier describes the development of a written test of metalinguistic awareness for English-speaking children aged 8 to 11. The test requires children to solve a series of language-related tasks based on both natural and constructed languages. The researcher reports results from several studies which investigated the performance of children from a number of schools; her findings suggest that the newly designed measure constitutes a generally valid and reliable tool for assessing the metalinguistic awareness of instructed English-speaking children. The descriptive statistics show a good distribution of scores, with no obvious indication of a ceiling effect. Findings further point towards an overall age-based advantage, with older, more cognitively mature children outperforming younger children, as well as an apparent advantage for bilingual children that increases with age. These performance patters are in keeping with existing research and thus expected. Results also show a statistically significant difference in overall performance between boys and girls, with girls outperforming boys. In addition to quantitative results, Tellier reports qualitative findings from a series of verbal protocols which yield interesting insights into children’s thought processes while resolving metalinguistic tasks. These findings constitute further evidence in support of the validity of the newly developed measure. Also working with child learners, Simard, Foucambert and Labelle, in Chapter 3, conceptualize the metalinguistic dimension in a way that corresponds closely to Tellier’s approach. Following Gombert (1992), they define metalinguistic ability as a learner’s ability to consciously and intentionally manipulate language features. They likewise draw on Bialystok’s (2001) model of analysis of knowledge and control of processing, with metalinguistic abilities requiring high levels of both. Simard, Foucambert and Labelle’s study aims to identify the contributions of metasyntactic and syntactic abilities to reading comprehension in L1 and L2 speakers of French aged 8 to 12. The L2 children in this study are heritage language learners whose L1 is Portuguese, but who are educated in French-Canadian schools. Simard, Foucambert and Labelle regard metasyntactic ability as a sub-component of the broader construct of metalinguistic ability. Metasyntactic ability is defined as the ability to reflect on syntactic aspects of language, including words, grammatical class and rules governing the combination of linguistic units (Gaux and Gombert, 1999), as well as the ability to intentionally control and manipulate syntactic units (e.g. Bowey, 1986, 2005; Gombert, 1992). By contrast, syntactic ability does not have any explicit dimension; it refers to the ability to decode language implicitly by parsing phrases and sentences.

Introduction to the Metalinguistic Dimension

5

While syntactic ability is operationalized by means of a sentence-preference task and a sentence-repetition task, the metasyntactic measures used in the study require participants to either repeat or produce ungrammatical utterances. The authors argue that these tasks require high levels of attentional control; moreover, the production task additionally requires high levels of analysis, thus exhibiting the characteristics of tasks that tap metalinguistic ability. Using structural equation modelling as their main statistical technique, Simard, Foucambert and Labelle establish that metasyntactic ability as operationalized in their study contributes significantly to reading comprehension in both L1 and L2 speakers of French. Conversely, the contribution of syntactic ability to reading comprehension is mediated by metasyntactic ability and is thus only indirect. Overall, the statistical model of reading comprehension shows broadly similar patterns for the L1 and L2 groups. However, the direct contribution of metasyntactic ability and the indirect contribution of syntactic ability are found to carry more weight in the reading comprehension model for the L1 children than in the model for the L2 children. In Chapter 4, Erlam conceptualizes the metalinguistic dimension in terms of a learner’s explicit knowledge about the syntactic, morphological, lexical, phonological and pragmatic features of an L2 (Roehr and Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2009). Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is analysed and requires deliberate focus. Moreover, learners know when they are drawing on such knowledge, e.g. when making judgements about the grammaticality of sentences or when editing writing (Elder, 2009). In the context of her study, Erlam regards metalingual competence (Berry, 2004) as a subcomponent of metalinguistic knowledge. Metalingual competence is the ability to acquire and employ metalanguage, that is, any language that is used to talk or write about language (Berry, 2005). Erlam argues that metalanguage is not restricted to technical linguistic or grammatical terminology because it is possible to talk about language without using such terminology. In her investigation, Erlam operationalizes metalinguistic knowledge as the ability to accurately perform grammaticality judgements of ungrammatical sentences (though not of grammatical sentences; see Ellis, 2005) and to provide appropriate corrections, as well as the ability to correct highlighted errors and provide pedagogical grammar rules explaining why a correction was necessary. Metalingual competence is assessed through the number of types of relevant metalinguistic terms used by the learners when providing their rule explanations. Erlam’s study examines the amenability to explicit instruction of the English indefinite article to mark generic reference. Adult learners of L2 English from predominantly Asian L1 backgrounds are exposed to explicit instruction and language practice activities involving the targeted linguistic feature. In a pre-test/post-test/ delayed post-test design, their learning is assessed in terms of gains in metalinguistic knowledge. Erlam reports that both input-based and output-based instruction had a significant impact on learners’ metalinguistic knowledge about the targeted L2 structure, and in some cases gains are sustained over time. In addition, following the instructional treatment, performance on an oral elicited imitation test, a measure of implicit knowledge of the targeted structure, is found to be moderately correlated with the ability to correct sentences that were accurately judged to be ungrammatical.

6

The Metalinguistic Dimension

In Chapter 5, Thepseenu and Roehr take a similar approach to Erlam in their conceptualization of the metalinguistic dimension. Metalinguistic knowledge is defined as a learner’s explicit knowledge about the language that is being learned (Alderson et al., 1997; Elder and Manwaring, 2004; Elder et al., 1999); explicit knowledge is knowledge that is represented declaratively, can be brought into conscious awareness and is potentially available for verbal report (Hulstijn, 2005; Roehr, 2008). Thepseenu and Roehr present an investigation of L1 Thai university-level learners’ beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge as well as their actual metalinguistic performance with regard to L2 English. Through questionnaires and interviews, participants’ beliefs about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar in general and their beliefs about the difficulty and usefulness of instruction on selected aspects of English grammar are identified. In addition, participants’ metalinguistic knowledge about the selected grammar points is assessed. Metalinguistic knowledge is operationalized as participants’ ability to correct highlighted errors and provide metalinguistic explanations in the form of pedagogical grammar rules. Metalinguistic explanations are scored for accuracy and the use of appropriate metalanguage. Thepseenu and Roehr identify correspondences between learners’ beliefs and their actual metalinguistic knowledge, with greater perceived difficulty and less successful test performance going hand in hand. Moreover, findings suggest that participants’ belief systems are complex constructs. On the one hand, participants hold many positive beliefs about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar; studying grammar is deemed important for mastering the L2, for reading and writing in the L2, for accurate use of the L2 and for self-correction. On the other hand, negative beliefs are focused above all on the potential complexities of grammar rules, the potential for confusion and the challenges of memorizing a large number of rules. In addition, learners report both positive and negative beliefs about the usefulness of grammar for communicating in the L2. The researchers argue that these complex beliefs indicate differentiated rather than contradictory views. Finally, learner confidence emerges as an important qualitative theme in the data. Also working with university-level learners, Wrembel, in Chapter 6, conceptualizes the metalinguistic dimension in terms of metalinguistic awareness, that is, ‘the ability to focus attention on language as an object in itself or to think abstractly about language and, consequently, to play with or manipulate language’ (Jessner, 2006, p. 42). Thus, Wrembel’s conceptualization of the metalinguistic dimension is comparable to Tellier’s and Simard, Foucambert and Labelle’s approach. In her study, Wrembel focuses on adult learners’ metalinguistic awareness with regard to L3 phonology. Taking a primarily qualitative approach, participants’ metalinguistic awareness is investigated by means of verbal protocols. The participants are L1 Polish speakers learning L2 English and either L3 French or L3 German. The learners read aloud a short text in their respective L3 and subsequently listen to a recording of their own speech. They are then asked to improve and comment on their own L3 pronunciation. Finally, the participants take part in semi-structured interviews in which they reflect on the L3 acquisition process. Wrembel identifies generally high levels of metalinguistic awareness in her multilingual participants. At the same time, there is evidence of both quantitative and qualitative differences in metalinguistic

Introduction to the Metalinguistic Dimension

7

self-reflection on L3 performance, intentional focus on articulatory gestures and metalinguistic awareness of problems in L3 pronunciation. Moreover, findings suggest that L2 phonological transfer appears to override L1 phonological transfer, especially in the early stages of L3 acquisition, with the majority of participants reporting L2-to-L3 rather than L1-to-L3 cross-linguistic influence. This pattern is particularly pronounced in learners of L3 German, i.e. learners whose L2 and L3 are typologically closely related. Interestingly, Wrembel finds no conclusive evidence for a relationship between level of metalinguistic awareness and level of L3 proficiency. Part 2 comprises contributions by Gutiérrez (Chapter 7), Fortune (Chapter 8), Gánem-Gutiérrez and Nogués Meléndez (Chapter 9) and Negueruela Azarola (Chapter 10). All the chapters in Part 2 focus on the metalinguistic dimension in the L2 adult context. Both Chapters 7 and 8 use the construct of the language-related episode (LRE; Swain, 1998) to study covert and overt metalinguistic activity respectively, and both studies are concerned with metalinguistic knowledge brought about during collaborative activity. These two chapters usefully complement each other in their distinctive efforts to better understand the increasingly popular construct of LRE, particularly in studies of dyadic interaction. The last two chapters are grounded in sociocultural theory. Chapter 9 by Gánem-Gutiérrez and Nogués Meléndez provides a much broader view of the metalinguistic dimension, which is explored through, and embedded in, a pedagogical treatment based on dynamic assessment. Finally, Part 2 concludes with a theoretically oriented chapter by Negueruela Azarola (Chapter 10) which is firmly rooted in Vygotskian thought and, like Chapter 9, explicitly outlines pedagogical suggestions for the development of L2 metalinguistic knowledge. Based on Swain’s (1998) construct of the LRE, Gutiérrez, in Chapter 7, explores the nature of knowledge representations underlying LREs where there is no metatalk, i.e. where there is no overt discussion of the language foci at the centre of the episode. This chapter builds on the notion that LREs, episodes where L2 learners ‘talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or other- or self-correct’ (Swain, 1998, p. 70), represent a window into L2 learners’ metalinguistic knowledge, that is, explicit knowledge about language (Ellis, 2004). In his study, Gutiérrez sets out to investigate the hypothesis that covert reflection on language, that is, covert metalinguistic activity, operationalized as text reformulations in a written task, might constitute metalinguistic knowledge. His study builds on existing work on LREs both theoretically, as explained above, and methodologically by resorting to immediate recall as a data collection method of choice. The study involved 27 adult mixed-L1 students of Spanish as a foreign language in Canada. Participants worked in triads to write a picture-based story with the researcher present. When text reformulations on which no comment was made took place, the researcher prompted participants to elaborate on the reasons for their textual change in order to tap into covert metalinguistic activity. The data analysis reports on three aspects of the LREs scrutinized: the type of knowledge representations behind the episodes, their linguistic foci, and whether or not the episodes included technical metalanguage. Based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis, the results demonstrate that, as hypothesized by the author, the majority of LREs where no metatalk is originally present do appear to rely on metalinguistic knowledge.

8

The Metalinguistic Dimension

This chapter represents a valuable contribution to our understanding of the LRE as a construct and to our understanding of metalinguistic activity which might be at play when learners focus on language, for instance as a result of revisions to their written work. Gutiérrez’s chapter also offers interesting reflections on immediate recall as an instrument for data collection in studies of metalinguistic activity in the L2 context. In Chapter 8, Fortune also operationalizes metalinguistic activity through Swain’s (1998, p. 70) construct of the language-related episode (LRE). Fortune’s main goal is to contribute to our understanding of the construct by building on previous LRE taxonomies such as Kowal and Swain (1994), Swain (1998), Swain and Lapkin (2001), Fortune and Thorp (2001) and Leeser (2004) in order to work towards a more comprehensive and detailed framework for the classification of LREs emergent in collaborative activity. To this end, he presents an analysis of dyadic interaction of advanced L2 English learners at university level. Drawing on full transcriptions of the students’ interactions while carrying out a series of dictogloss and grammar dictation (Wajnryb, 1990) tasks as well as stimulated recall, he presents a taxonomy which distinguishes three main levels of metalanguage use and six categories differentiating the linguistic focus of LREs. Fortune’s analysis involves inter-group and intra-group comparisons. The former are based on a comparison of metalinguistic activity between intermediate students in Fortune and Thorp (2001) and the advanced students in the present study, while the latter involve comparisons regarding the metalinguistic activity of the five dyads in the advanced group. Fortune concludes that advanced learners both attend to form more often than intermediate students and make use of metalanguage to a greater extent. There are also interesting differences in the metalinguistic activity of individual dyads, where the use of metalinguistic terminology and allusion to grammar rules by individuals, regardless of accuracy, seem to be perceived as a status factor reflecting expertise. In other words, individuals who use metalinguistic terms and grammar rules to a greater extent understandably tend to dominate the outcome of LREs, an observation which reminds us of the importance of helping L2 learners acquire accurate metalinguistic knowledge. Gánem-Gutiérrez and Nogués Meléndez, in Chapter 9, focus on metalinguistic awareness as a key component of a pedagogical programme framed within dynamic assessment (DA). Their conceptualization of the metalinguistic dimension in L2 learning and teaching follows Jessner’s (2006, p. 42) view, that is, metalinguistic awareness is seen as the ability to reflect on language as an object of study. They operationalize this as the students’ ability to notice (Schmidt, 2001) and correct language errors as well as the ability to write and talk about their language to other students and the teacher. Dynamic assessment is a pedagogical approach based on sociocultural theory (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006) which aims at actively mediating L2 development while assessing learners and responding to either or both their individual and collective needs. Gánem-Gutiérrez and Nogués Meléndez’s longitudinal study took place in an intact EFL class where the teacher, who was also one of the researchers, enabled the programme as a means of helping the 30 participants improve their overall L2 oral ability. The chapter provides a detailed account of the pedagogical treatment (DA) in an attempt to fill a gap in the literature, given that little DA research has been

Introduction to the Metalinguistic Dimension

9

carried out in the L2 context. At the heart of the treatment was a suite of tasks and procedures to facilitate the co-construction of zones of proximal development where the metalinguistic dimension played a crucial role. The study relied on quantitative and qualitative analyses to ascertain the benefits observed in the participants at the end of the academic cycle where the programme was implemented. A pre-test/ post-test research design enabled the researchers to carry out statistical tests which showed improvement in L2 oral performance. The results also demonstrate that the treatment succeeded in addressing the students’ emerging language capacities on a wide range of morphosyntactic, lexical and discourse features. The metalinguistic awareness component in the study was facilitated through reflective tasks based on video recordings of students’ oral tasks. Chapter 10 also offers a view of the metalinguistic dimension rooted in sociocultural theory (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006). The main aim of this theoretically oriented chapter is to argue for an approach to pedagogy where explicit knowledge about the L2 is in the foreground, but which moves away from the teaching of grammar as a series of discrete linguistic features and rules. Negueruela Azarola takes the view that complex grammatical notions such as aspect, tense and modality should be taught through full conceptual definitions materialized by means of reflective tasks to enable L2 learners to articulate their thinking. His argument focuses on the concept of aspect in Spanish, specifically the use of preterite versus imperfect, and suggests that if learners become aware of their grammatical choices to express the specific meanings intended, metalinguistic knowledge can potentially become functional knowledge. Functional knowledge, Negueruela Azarola highlights, refers to knowledge which merges communication and conceptualization for verbal thinking. Ultimately, he argues that functional knowledge about language could be potentially relevant for L2 development. L2 development from a sociocultural perspective becomes evident through the increasing ability to exercise conceptual control over our communicative choices and can be historically studied and traced through microgenetic analysis. This analysis, which investigates language learning instances as observed in short periods of time and aims to understand certain aspects of mental functioning, is ‘analysis that returns to the source and reconstructs all the points in the development of a given structure’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 65). Based on this methodological framework, Negueruela Azarola puts forward the notion of semiogenesis as a methodological tool to document the emergence of conceptual meanings in concrete communicative activity. To illustrate his approach, both to pedagogy and analysis, Negueruela Azarola describes a task he employed to teach preterite and imperfect use in an intermediate-level L2 Spanish classroom and provides selected data examples to demonstrate the kind of reflective activity some learners engaged in.

References Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. and Steel, D. (1997), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency’. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121. Berry, R. (2004), ‘Awareness of metalanguage’. Language Awareness, 13, 1–16.

10

The Metalinguistic Dimension

— (2005), ‘Making the most of metalanguage’. Language Awareness, 14, 3–20. Bialystok, E. (1988), ‘Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness’. Developmental Psychology, 24, (4), 560–7. — (1994), ‘Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–68. — (2001), Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. and Ryan, E. B. (1985), ‘Toward a definition of metalinguistic skill’. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31, (3), 229–51. Bowey, J. A. (1986), ‘Syntactic awareness in relation to reading skill and ongoing comprehension monitoring’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 282–99. — (2005), ‘Grammatical sensitivity: Its origins and potential contribution to early word reading skill’. Journal Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 318–43. Elder, C. (2009), ‘Validating a test of metalinguistic knowledge’, in R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philip and H. Reinders, Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 113–38. Elder, C. and Manwaring, D. (2004), ‘The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese’. Language Awareness, 13, (3), 145–62. Elder, C., Warren, J., Hajek, J., Manwaring, D. and Davies, A. (1999), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge: How important is it in studying a language at university?’ Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, (1), 81–95. Ellis, R. (2004), ‘The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge’. Language Learning, 54, (2), 227–75. — (2005), ‘Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, (2), 141–72. Fortune, A. and Thorp, D. (2001), ‘Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks’. Language Awareness, 10, (2 and 3), 143–60. Gaux, C. and Gombert, J.-E. (1999), ‘Implicit and explicit syntactic knowledge and reading in pre-adolescents’. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 169–88. Gombert, J.-E. (1992), Metalinguistic Development. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005), ‘Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, (2), 129–40. Jessner, U. (2006), Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kowal, M. and Swain, M. (1994), ‘Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness’. Language Awareness, 3, (2), 73–93. Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006), Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leeser, M. J. (2004), ‘Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue’. Language Teaching Research, 8, (1), 55–81. Roehr, K. (2008), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners’. Applied Linguistics, 29, (2), 173–99. Roehr, K. and Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2009), ‘The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning’. Language Awareness, 18, (2), 165–81. Schmidt, R. (2001), ‘Attention’, in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–32.

Introduction to the Metalinguistic Dimension

11

Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2007), ‘Language awareness and language learning’. Language Teaching, 40, 287–308. Swain, M. (1998), ‘Focus on form through conscious reflection’, in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–81. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2001), ‘Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects’, in M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 99–118. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wajnryb, R. (1990), Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Part 1

Cognitive Approaches to the Metalinguistic Dimension

2

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness for Children Aged 8–11 Angela Tellier

University of Essex

Abstract The development of metalinguistic awareness and its measurement in adults and adolescents learning in instructed L2 settings is a well-established research area in the field of second language acquisition (e.g. Alderson et al., 1997; Roehr, 2008), but there has been relatively little work to date on developing measures of metalinguistic awareness for young children learning in the classroom. This chapter details the development of a written test of metalinguistic awareness suitable for group administration to English-speaking children aged 8–11. The test requires children to solve a series of language-related tasks (Jessner, 2006; Svalberg, 2007) based on both natural and constructed languages. Pilot studies investigated the performance of children from five English schools. The descriptive statistics from classes of children aged 8–11 years (N = 154) showed a good distribution of scores, with no obvious indication of a ceiling effect. Findings indicated an overall age-based advantage, with older children outperforming younger children, an apparent bilingual advantage which increases with age, and a statistical difference in overall performance between boys and girls, with girls outperforming boys. A series of verbal protocols (N = 22) helped to validate the test, and revealed interesting insights into children’s thought processes.

Introduction Metalinguistic awareness and its measurement in adults and adolescents learning in instructed second language (L2) settings is a well-established research area (e.g. Alderson et al., 1997; Roehr, 2008). However, even though it is now common for children to be exposed to an L2 in the early years of primary school (Enever, 2009), research on young learners has focused rather on the development of metalinguistic awareness in bilingual and multilingual children learning in naturalistic or immersion settings than on monolingual children learning an L2 in the classroom (e.g. Bouffard

16

The Metalinguistic Dimension

and Sarkar, 2008; Pinto, 2009). It is widely accepted that young children learn primarily implicitly (DeKeyser, 2003; Muñoz, 2008), i.e. intuitively (Dörnyei, 2009), by drawing on non-conscious mechanisms (Cummins, 1987; Birdsong, 1989; Karmiloff and Karmiloff-Smith, 2002), and that their ability to also learn explicitly, i.e. relying on potentially conscious mechanisms (Ellis, 2004, 2005), gradually develops as they mature cognitively. Explicit learning results in a learner’s explicit knowledge. Metalinguistic awareness is defined as the ability to make use of explicit knowledge about language (Ellis, 2004). The relevance of metalinguistic awareness in L2 learning is not a controversial issue, although the skill or set of skills which constitute the construct has ‘never achieved consensual definition’ (Bialystok, 1986, p. 498). Neither is there a clear distinction between the concept of metalinguistic ability and the concept of metalinguistic awareness as they relate to children. The terms are used synonymously in this chapter. It is acknowledged that the constructs of metalinguistic awareness and language learning aptitude may overlap with regard to language-analytic ability (see, for example, Harley and Hart, 1997); however it is outside the scope of this chapter to discuss this in detail. Metalinguistic awareness is considered by some researchers to be part of general cognition (Hakes, 1980; Bialystok, 2001). Bialystok’s (1994; Bialystok and Ryan, 1985) theoretical model aims to explain general cognitive skills including the development of L1 and L2 and is therefore particularly applicable to children who are still developing cognitively. For Bialystok and Ryan (1985, p. 230), the term metalinguistic ‘applies not to a specific mental accomplishment, but rather to a set of problems which share certain features’. Metalinguistic problems, or tasks, make high demands on two skill components  – analysis of knowledge and control of processing  – which develop as children mature. Bilingualism is believed to accelerate the development of these two skill components. It follows, therefore, that tasks measuring metalinguistic awareness should make high demands on both analysis of knowledge and control of processing (Bialystok, 2001). In other words, tasks should make demands not only on children’s ability to analyse, manipulate and explain their linguistic knowledge (analysis of knowledge), but also on children’s ability to direct their attention to select whatever is immediately relevant to the task, while suppressing focus on anything not relevant (control of processing) (Bialystok, 1988, 1994). Tasks which require children to attend to and manipulate language form (Jessner, 2006; Svalberg, 2007) are able to achieve this. It is reasonable to assume that an individual’s level of metalinguistic awareness would impact positively on explicit learning, and thus facilitate L2 learning. Explicit learning is believed to influence the achievement of L2 proficiency in the classroom (DeKeyser, 2003; Larson-Hall, 2008). If a child’s level of metalinguistic awareness facilitates explicit learning and the acquisition of explicit knowledge, it is important, from a pedagogical perspective, to monitor and foster such awareness as early as possible. Thus, in the context of the primary school,1 a measure of metalinguistic awareness would be useful. From a theoretical point of view, its use could contribute to an understanding of the development of metalinguistic awareness in children learning in the classroom, as well as help identify the age at which children can make effective use of explicit knowledge

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

17

and learning. From a practical point of view, such a measure would allow teachers to monitor learning, and develop specialized teaching programmes to improve L2 proficiency levels. In what follows, I examine the operationalization of the construct of metalinguistic awareness by looking briefly at previous measures developed for young learners, and describe the development and piloting of a new measure of metalinguistic awareness for English-speaking primary-school children aged 8–11.

Measures of metalinguistic awareness A number of previous studies have focused on the development and use of measures for children learning in instructed L2 settings, and the purpose of this review is to examine and evaluate the possible implications that these have for the development of a new measure. Previous research suggests that metalinguistic awareness begins to develop in children from age 4 onwards (Birdsong, 1989; Gombert, 1990; Karmiloff and Karmiloff-Smith, 2002; Milton and Alexiou, 2006). Hakes (1980, p. 2) worked with young monolingual L1 English children aged 4 to 8 who were in what he termed ‘middle childhood’, testing each child individually using age-appropriate materials. Children were tested in short sessions over a week on judgements of synonymy and acceptability in sentences, and on their ability to segment words phonemically. Synonymy and acceptability were included among the tasks because they are considered to play an important role in adults’ linguistic competence, and phonemic segmentation was included because it ‘seemed to require abilities at least superficially quite different from those involved in judgments of synonymy or acceptability’ (1980, p. 41). Ambiguity was acknowledged as an important aspect, but was not included because of the difficulty in devising a suitable task. Tasks required children to agree or disagree with statements and correct errors, rather than deduce a rule and apply it to new material. Tasks of synonymy, for example, required children to judge pairs of sentences such as ‘There is more cake than ice cream. There is less ice cream than cake’ (size/amount) as synonymous or non-synonymous (1980, p. 43), and tasks of acceptability required children to judge a sentence, for example ‘The kitten chased the string/*The string chased the kitten’ (word order), for acceptability or unacceptability (1980, p. 51). Additionally, if children judged a sentence to be unacceptable, they were encouraged to explain why, and to correct it. Hakes found a significant effect for age on all tasks, i.e. older children were better able to consider both meaning and form than younger children. He concluded that the period of ‘middle childhood’ showed ‘marked changes in children’s ability to focus on and deal explicitly with properties of language’ (1980, p. 99), and his analyses led him to suggest that children’s performance on the tasks was likely the result of the development of a metalinguistic ability related to general cognition. Pinto et al. (1999) built on Hakes’ work and developed three measures of metalinguistic ability for L1 Italian speakers, later adapted for L1 speakers of English. The first measure assesses ‘broad cognitive-linguistic abilities’ (1999, p. 40) in children between the ages of 4 and 6. The second is a paper-and-pencil test aimed at children aged 9–13 and comprises 6 sections (96 items in total), namely comprehension,

18

The Metalinguistic Dimension

synonymy, acceptability, phonemic segmentation, ambiguity and grammatical function. Each task consists of two parts: a linguistic question which targets children’s knowledge of rules of language use; and a metalinguistic question which asks for an explanation and justification of the linguistic response. For example, tasks of ambiguity look at either semantic ambiguity or ambiguity at the structural level: ‘The tables were made of stone. What – and how many – meanings do you see in the word “tables”? What is the first meaning you found for “The tables were made of stone”? What is the second meaning of that sentence?’; ‘John is easy to please. Does John please others, or is he the one who is pleased? What makes you sure of that?’ (1999, pp. 68–9). Children’s justifications are scored at one of three levels of analysis according to a set of criteria. Thus a response at the ‘pre-analytical’ level indicates a low level of analysis, while a response giving ‘exhaustive and pertinent analysis’ demonstrates a high level of analysis (1999, pp. 81–2). The authors acknowledge, however, that responding to the metalinguistic questions requires ‘a certain familiarity with the metalanguage of grammatical terminology’ (1999, p. 55), which raises the question of whether a test of metalinguistic awareness should be so heavily dependent on such knowledge. Children work through training items prior to completing each section, and are encouraged to give complete answers to the metalinguistic questions ‘in which all elements of the sentence are taken into account’ (1999, p. 77, italics in original). The authors suggest a maximum total time of over 4 hours to complete the 6 sections, which makes it difficult to administer the whole test in one sitting. A classic study by Bialystok (1988) compared the performance of fully bilingual, partially bilingual and monolingual 6–7-year-old children on a variety of metalinguistic tasks. These included testing children’s understanding of the concept of word, their awareness of syntax and ambiguity and their ability to segment sentences (count words) and substitute symbols. Additionally, she administered a variation of Piaget’s sun/moon problem to explore whether children understood that words are essentially arbitrary labels for objects. Bialystok found that the partially and fully bilingual groups outperformed the monolingual group on tasks requiring high control of processing, that is, on tasks requiring children to control their attention sufficiently to ignore misleading clues and focus on the specifics required to solve the problem. On tasks requiring high analysis of knowledge of linguistic structures and rules, that is, on tasks requiring children to extract and manipulate properties of language, the fully bilingual group performed better than the partially bilingual group, which in turn performed better than the monolingual group. Furthermore, older children outperformed younger children. Researchers believe that the experience of selecting and attending to linguistic features in two or more languages helps to create more highly analysed representations of linguistic and conceptual structures in the minds of young bilinguals, allowing them to benefit from enhanced metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok, 1988; Jessner, 1999, 2006). However, the level of metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals may also be dependent on other factors, such as the degree of balance between the two languages (Hakuta and Diaz, 1985), the level of literacy that the bilingual child has achieved in each language (Bialystok, 1988) and the level of emotional and academic support provided in the environment (Malakoff and Hakuta, 1991). Cummins (1987) suggests

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

19

that a threshold level of proficiency needs to be attained in both languages before a child’s bilingualism can result in positive cognitive effects. Yelland et al. (1993) carried out a study in Australia to see if minimal exposure to an L2 in the first two years of schooling would confer similar metalinguistic benefits on monolingual children as bilingual children appear to enjoy. The treatment group was exposed to Italian for an hour a week through stories, songs, games and rote learning of vocabulary. There was no written component, and the control group had no L2 input. Children were tested individually, and were asked to say whether the name of an object in a picture was a ‘big word’ (multisyllabic) or a ‘little word’ (monosyllabic). For half of the stimuli the word length and the real-life size of the object were congruent, for example ant, hippopotamus and for the other half, incongruent, for example caterpillar, car (1993, p. 431). Both groups demonstrated an equivalent low level of word awareness at the beginning of the study, but after six months, Yelland et al. found that the treatment group, despite having no testable competence in Italian, showed a significantly higher level of word awareness than the non-treatment group, that is, they showed a greater ability to respond correctly on the basis of word size rather than object size. These children appear to have developed the ability to exert a level of control of processing similar to that found in the full and partial bilinguals by Bialystok (1988), that is, they were able to control their attention sufficiently to focus on aspects relevant to the task (word length) while suppressing attention on those that were not (object size). Yelland et al. concluded that limited contact with an L2 in the classroom was enough to accelerate the development of word awareness, which adds a different perspective to Cummins’ (1987) proposed threshold level of competence. Milton and Alexiou (2006) studied the development of general cognitive abilities such as memory, phonetic skills and analytic skills in L1 Greek children aged 5–7 years who had been exposed to minimal input in L2 English for a year. Their measure comprised a test of rote memory, a semantic integration task, a paired-associates test and an artificial-language game. All tasks were based on pictures and games rather than on literacy. There was an apparent improvement in analytic abilities, i.e. in attention to explicit properties of language, in the children from around age 6, which led the researchers to note that ‘growth of analytic skills, and their connection with foreign-language learning success, suggests that this learning is explicit; even at very young ages’ (2006, p. 190). Moreover, results indicated an age advantage similar to that found by Hakes (1980) and Bialystok (1988), with older children outperforming younger children. In sum, from being dependent on relatively high levels of L1 literacy and focusing primarily on specific aspects of metalinguistic awareness in the L1, there has been a shift towards measures which are less literacy-dependent and which treat metalinguistic awareness as a set of general cognitive skills applicable to both L1 and L2 learning. Research has demonstrated that bilingual children enjoy enhanced metalinguistic awareness, and that it may be possible to encourage the development of aspects of metalinguistic awareness in young monolingual children learning in instructed L2 settings. Even so, there has been little work to date on developing measures of metalinguistic awareness for children.

20

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Developing a new measure of metalinguistic awareness The above review suggests four main points to consider in developing a new measure for classroom use. First, the measure should be suitable for group administration, and should therefore sit well within general school timetabling and be easy to administer by class teachers. Ideally, children should be able to respond to tasks without prior training. Second, the measure should be suitable for a broad population rather than be a highly specialized post-test used after a particular experimental treatment has been administered to a particular group of learners. The required level of literacy should be low2 to allow easy access by mixed-ability classes. Third, in the present context, the measure should be suitable for young L1 English-speaking children, who typically learn an Indo-European L2 at school. Lastly, previous research suggests that attention should be given to children’s thought processes (Hakes, 1980; Pinto et al., 1999), although scoring criteria should not be heavily dependent on the use of metalinguistic terminology. The new measure presented here is suitable for group administration to mixed-ability classes of English-speaking children aged 8–11 years. It is a composite measure comprising eleven tasks graded in terms of cognitive complexity, with complexity here defined as the number of mental manipulations needed to perform a task (Stankov, 2003). All the tasks require children to demonstrate high levels of analysis and control in order to complete them successfully. Children do not receive any prior on-task training. The children’s test booklet is designed to be non-threatening and motivating, with colour pictures and minimal written instructions (Bachman and Palmer, 1996; Weir, 2005; McKay, 2006). There is a prepared script for the teacher to read, and the test takes approximately 1 hour to complete. The review further suggests that a measure for use in English-speaking primary schools should cover domains relevant to both L1 and L2 learning, such as lexical semantics, morphosyntax, ambiguity and basic metalinguistic terminology. This latter, according to Ellis (2004, p. 261), ‘is not an essential component of explicit knowledge’, but may be helpful. Additionally, the new measure addresses concepts specific to L2 learning for L1 English-speaking children, such as grammatical gender, case, verbal and adjectival agreement, cognates and similarities and differences between languages (Schmidt, 2001; Jessner, 2006). Translation, considered by Malakoff and Hakuta to be ‘a bilingual language skill’ (1991, p. 146), is also included. Table 2.1 displays a conceptual analysis of the measure in terms of the individual tasks and the linguistic domains they cover. The tasks were ordered in such a way that knowledge gained from one task would not facilitate a later task. The booklet was divided into two sections, with tasks based primarily on natural languages presented in the first section, and tasks requiring manipulation of a constructed language in the second. This division allows for a short break in administration, if required. The first section comprises five tasks. Tasks 1–4 assess children’s ability to make comparisons between different L2s; Task 5 asks children to compare two sentences in L1 English. The first task presents seven short sentences, six from European languages and one from Esperanto, a language with a root-base drawn primarily from Indo-European languages. Children are asked to pair these for meaning (e.g. La rano estas verda and

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

21

Table 2.1  A conceptual analysis of the new measure of metalinguistic awareness Metalinguistic tasks (operationalization)   1.

  2.

  3.

  4.   5.

  6.

  7.

  8.

  9.

10.

11.

Section one – natural languages Recognizing cognates (simple nouns) Translating a short sentence into L1 English (5 words) Recognizing cognates (simple nouns and adjectives) Translating longer sentences into L1 English (11–14 words) Identifying and applying a morphological rule (singular and plural nouns) Recognizing cognates (simple and compound nouns) Recognizing syntactic ambiguity Comparing different interpretations of pictures

Construct investigated: awareness of

Linguistic domain

lexical relationships between languages, what constitutes a sentence

Lexical semantics and syntax

lexical relationships between languages, what constitutes a sentence

Lexical semantics and syntax

systematicity in inflectional morphology

Inflectional morphology

lexical relationships between languages syntactic ambiguity

Lexical semantics

Section two – constructed language (ogramana) Understanding and applying metalinguistic terminology, metalinguistic terminology what constitutes a sentence Translating a sentence from L1 English into ogramana Identifying and applying a systematicity in inflectional morphological rule (case morphology, what marking) constitutes a sentence, word order Understanding and applying metalinguistic terminology, metalinguistic terminology what constitutes a Identifying and applying a sentence, word order syntactic rule (word order) Identifying and applying a systematicity in derivational morphological rule (word morphology, vowels, class) consonants and hyphens Identifying and applying systematicity in inflectional a morphological rule morphology, what (subject-verb agreement) constitutes a sentence Identifying and applying systematicity in inflectional a morphological rule morphology (grammatical gender and gender agreement)

Syntax

Syntax and lexical semantics

Syntax and inflectional morphology

Syntax

Derivational morphology, graphemes Inflectional morphology and syntax Inflectional morphology

La rana è verde), and to translate the remaining sentence (Tigrul este negru și verde) into L1 English. The second task requires children to translate three longer sentences into L1 English. Marks are awarded for the correct translation of content words with additional marks for the translation of function words such as articles and conjunctions, and for answers displaying sensible meaning. Both Task 1 and Task 2 assess children’s

22

The Metalinguistic Dimension

ability to recognize cognates of English words in other languages. Task 3 presents the singular and plural forms of the English word elephant in four European languages which children are required to pair (e.g. éléphant and éléphants; eilifint and eilifintí). To complete Task 4, children are asked to match both simple and compound nouns from European languages with cognate forms in Esperanto (e.g. arboretum and arbo; pivert and verda). Task 5 is the only task in the first section to be based entirely on L1 English, and looks specifically at the syntactic ambiguity of an English sentence: The mouse is looking at the owl with the binoculars. Four pictures illustrate three possible correct responses and one incorrect response; children choose whichever of the four they consider a match. The tasks in the second section differ from those in the first section in that they require children to manipulate a simple constructed language put together by the author, and named ogramana. Created languages, such as Esperanto, have frequently been used in tests of language aptitude, and to measure on-task learning (Spolsky, 1995; Graaff, 1997; Dörnyei, 2005). Esperanto’s transparency, regular grammar and international root vocabulary make it particularly suitable for tasks of language manipulation. The ogramana lexicon is formed from anagrams of Esperanto lexemes. Task 6 investigates children’s understanding of metalinguistic terminology; in this instance, parts of speech (see Appendix 1). Task 8 looks at children’s understanding of the relationship words have to one another (see Appendix 2), and Task 9 requires children to spot the common features in lists of words and create two more words which could belong to the same word class (see Appendix 3). Tasks 7, 10 and 11 examine a child’s ability to cope with concepts unfamiliar in L1 English but relevant for L2 learning of other European languages. Task 7 focuses on the accusative case marker. Children are asked to attend to two clauses which accurately describe the same picture of an owl looking at a mouse, but which are presented differently (SVO and OVS). The subject and object of the sentences are made clear by the use of an accusative case marker (-ch), as shown in the top line of (1). The additional information is presented here for the reader only. 1.  ogrtsi grarid omsu-ch ogrts-i grarid  oms-u--ch owl-M look.at mouse-N-OBJ An owl is looking at a mouse

omsu-ch grarid ogrtsi oms-u--ch      grarid   ogrts-i mouse-N-OBJ     look.at   owl-M An owl is looking at a mouse

Children are asked to construct two similar clauses to describe a picture of a mouse looking at an owl, the inverse of the example picture. Task 10 presents illustrated examples of third person singular and plural nouns, with subject-verb agreement in the plural, for example ogrtsi mrod (singular) and n-ogrtsi sape (word-initial plural marker n- and word-final verbal agreement e). Children are required to attend to the examples, deduce the rule and then apply it by choosing the correct response from four multiple-choice options which describe other pictures of active owls (see Appendix 4). Task 11 presents examples of nouns morphologically marked for gender (e.g. sun, masculine gender: ogrtsi, oplki, obrli; moon, feminine gender: oblta, osta, onkba; and star, neuter gender: omsu, olkinku, ondhu). The adjective dragn is introduced, and a

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

23

paradigm illustrates how a sun and moon noun and adjective inflect, as shown in the top lines of (2) and (3). The additional information is presented here for the reader only. 2.  ogrtsi dragn ogrts-i  dragn owl-M  big a big owl

n-ogrtsi dragn-t n--ogrts-i  dragn--t PL-owl-M  big-PL big owls

3.  osta dragn-e ost-a   dragn--e cup-F  big-F a big cup

n-osta dragn-et n--ost-a  dragn--e-t PL-cup-F  big-F-PL big cups

To complete the task, children must identify the morphological rule and apply it to construct the paradigm for the star group, which follows the sun group for singular agreement and the moon group for plural agreement. The basic scoring procedure and further details for each task are presented in Appendix 5.

Participants The new measure was piloted over three months in five schools selected, as far as possible, to be broadly representative of schools in England. Schools were of different sizes, were located in different geographical and socio-economic areas, including areas of social deprivation, and had varied pupil composition. All pilot studies were carried out on school premises and in normal school time, with tests administered to intact classes by the usual class teachers. Children’s previous language input was not controlled for, as it is increasingly difficult to verify in a multicultural society where children are exposed to different languages in the media, home, school and community. Data collected from intact classes, however, has the merit of ecological validity. Children known to be bilingual in the primary schools were noted and treated as a separate group in some analyses (see below for details), with bilingual here defined as speaking, reading and writing two or more languages to a level sufficient to cope well with ordinary classroom teaching and learning in L2 English. The researcher was present throughout. In addition, verbal protocol data were gathered by the researcher from a subsample of children. The protocols took the form of interviews, similar to think-alouds, with the researcher intervening, when appropriate, to encourage children to stay on task (see Study D for details).

Data collection and analysis Piloting was carried out in four separate phases, each of which had specific aims: Study A checked that the ogramana lexemes used in the second section of the test were not immediately recognizable as anagrams of Esperanto; Study B checked for a ceiling effect with children aged 11–12 years; Study C checked the suitability of the test and the appropriateness of the prepared script for primary ages 8–11, and additionally checked timing, and gathered teacher feedback in the context of an

The Metalinguistic Dimension

24

Table 2.2  Details of pilot studies, participating schools and participants Pilot study and school ID

School context

Year group (Y) and children’s age in years

N

Study A

S1

Y4 (8–9)

45

Study B

S2

Medium-size primary, predominantly monolingual white British, increasing L2 English Medium-size secondary, predominantly monolingual white British Large-size secondary, high ethnic minority with L2 English, high social deprivation Medium-size primary, predominantly monolingual white British. Several bilinguals, high-level L2 English Small-size primary in area of social deprivation, predominantly monolingual white British, increasing L2 English

Y7 (11–12)

26

Y7 (11–12)

31

S3

Study C

S4

Study D

S5

Y4, Y5 & Y6 (8–11)

Y4 (8–9)

154

22

informal discussion; Study  D used verbal protocols to examine children’s thought processes to check whether children understood the tasks in the way intended by the designer. Table 2.2 presents a summary of the pilot studies and participants. All test data were scored by the researcher using a prepared answer key. Data from Studies A, B and C were analysed using the statistical program PASW 18, and Study D used the CHAT transcription conventions and CLAN analysis tools of the CHILDES database (http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/). As one class was interrupted and completed only ten of the eleven tasks in the test booklet, quantitative analyses were worked on percentage scores where appropriate to facilitate comparisons between year groups. None of the data sets diverged significantly from a normal distribution, and reliability indices of the test (Cronbach’s alpha) proved to be excellent in all year groups, ranging between .90 and .92.

Results and discussion Study A checked whether the ogramana lexemes used in the measure were recognizable to young children as anagrams of Esperanto, and was carried out with two intact classes of monolingual children aged 8–9 years (Y4: N = 45) who had received approximately 30 hours of instruction in Esperanto. The children were presented with two 14-item lists of the ogramana vocabulary and were asked to write next to each item a word or words in other languages which they recognized or which the stimulus word brought to mind. Examples were given using Esperanto and English words: katti  – kato, Esperanto; wurme  – worm, English. Analyses showed that of the ten children who

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

25

claimed to recognize a word in Esperanto, only four correctly identified one word, and two correctly identified another, a two-letter word. Moreover, of those children who identified words in Esperanto, several also claimed to have recognized the same words in another language, most commonly French. The low proportion of correct responses suggests that none of the children, even after considerable input in Esperanto, recognized to any meaningful extent how ogramana was constructed. Study B was conducted with two classes of children aged 11–12 years (Y7: N = 57). The descriptive statistics for the test presented in Table 2.5 indicate that there was no obvious ceiling effect, and moreover suggest that the test is also suitable for children aged 11–12 years (see Study C). Study C was the main focus of piloting and examined the performance of children in the last three years of primary school (Y4, Y5, Y6). The test was administered to two parallel classes in each year group, that is, to a total of 157 children. Three of these (Y4: N = 1; Y6: N = 2) were excluded from the analyses, as their level of L2 English was not sufficient to allow them to function adequately in the classroom. Bilingual children (N = 11, Y4: N = 4; Y5: N = 2; Y6: N = 5) were treated as a separate group, as previous research suggests that they may have a metalinguistic advantage over monolingual children (Bialystok, 1988). Classes completed the test satisfactorily within the hour, which suggests that the measure is suitable for group administration and sits well within general classroom timetabling. Feedback was gathered from the six teachers who had administered the test during an informal discussion after testing. Teachers reacted positively, agreeing that the script is teacher-friendly, suitable for group administration and age-appropriate. A general introduction to the script was added in response to feedback, as well as examples of appropriate remarks to aid classroom control while encouraging children to stay on task, for example: ‘put your pencil down when you’ve finished the task so I know you’ve finished and we can move on’.

The test and its components Initial analyses of the data collected in Study C examined the performance of the measure as a whole as well as the individual tasks. The descriptive statistics for the individual tasks and for the two sections of the test are presented in Table 2.3. For nine of the eleven tasks, children’s scores ranged from zero to the maximum possible score, which suggests that tasks differentiated well. Tasks 1, 2, 6 and 7 display low means, however. This suggests that children did not find these tasks particularly easy. The descriptive statistics for the two sections indicate a greater heterogeneity in children’s performance in section two (ogramana) than in section one (natural languages). Correlations (Pearson’s r) were calculated for all tasks in order to examine the test components in more detail. The results are displayed in Table 2.4. There are a large number of significant correlations of weak to moderate strength. This suggests that there is relatively little overlap between individual tasks, and that none of the tasks included in the measure can be considered redundant. Task 5 (ambiguity) demonstrates two negative though non-significant correlations, which suggests that

The Metalinguistic Dimension

26

Table 2.3  Descriptive statistics for individual tasks, and sections one and two (% scores) for children aged 8–11, excluding bilinguals Task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Section 1 Section 2

N

Mean

SD

Min.

Max.

Maximum possible score

Range

143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 117 143 143

2.99 3.62 5.06 4.57 2.46 1.44 .26 2.42 5.31 1.01 2.05 32.8 40.0

1.89 3.10 2.15 2.39 .64 1.36 .61 1.44 3.79 .97 1.76 11.39 21.23

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0

9 13 8 9 4 5 2 4 12 3 5 60 97

9 27 8 9 4 5 2 4 12 3 5 100 (%) 100 (%)

9 13 8 9 3 5 2 4 12 3 5 56 97

Table 2.4  Correlations of individual tasks (Pearson’s r) Task 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

.27** 2

.19* .18* 3

.35** .22** .32** 4

.22** –.05 .21* .19* 5

.28** .23** .17** .18* .02 6

.34** .07 .09 .25** .23** .25** 7

.29** .32** .19* .34** .23** .26** .33** 8

.28** .33** .18* .38** .23** .23** .23** .43** 9

.27** .20* .04 .18* –.07 .15 .12 .25** .17* 10

.24** .29** .32** .34** .12** .26** .26** .34** .28** .14

**significant at the .01 level (two-tailed) *significant at the .05 level (two-tailed)

there may be a problem with the design or the scoring of this task. There is a significant correlation of medium strength between the two test sections (r = .604, p = < .01), indicating a certain level of homogeneity in the measure, but no excessive overlap between sections. It appears that each test section makes a meaningful contribution to the measurement of metalinguistic awareness. To further examine the measure, a principal components analysis was conducted after the suitability of the data set had been established (Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p < .01, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = .792). The analysis, run

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

27

in an exploratory mode, included the 11 tasks as variables. One prominent component with an eigenvalue of 3.259 emerged, and scrutiny of the scree plot likewise suggested a one-component solution. Taken together with the correlation coefficients reported in Table 2.4, this result suggests that the test may be regarded as a measure in which each individual task makes a unique contribution to assessing the overall construct of metalinguistic awareness.

Analyses by year group The descriptive statistics for all year groups (excluding bilingual children) are presented in Table 2.5. They indicate that the test not only discriminated adequately between the different year groups, but also differentiated well within each year group. The statistics show a clear improvement over the years, which is consistent with previous findings that children’s metalinguistic awareness improves with age and cognitive development (Hakes, 1980; Bialystok, 1988; Milton and Alexiou, 2006). There is an evident upward shift in the minimum and maximum scores. Likewise, there is a clear increase in means with a larger increase in evidence between the lower years (Y4 and Y5) and again between the upper years (Y6 and Y7). T-tests confirm that the difference in performance between years 4 and 5 is statistically significant (Y4–5: t(93)–3.474, p = .001, two-tailed) and likewise between years 6 and 7 (Y6–7: t(103)–4.791, p < .001, two-tailed), but not the difference between years 5 and 6 (Y5–6: t(95)–1.317, p = .191, two-tailed).3 The standard deviations across the year groups remain relatively stable, indicating that the year groups are similarly homogeneous. Nevertheless, the differences between the year groups suggest that something may be happening in children’s development between the ages of 8 and 9, and again between the ages of 11 and 12. Children of the latter age range are in the first year of secondary school where the emphasis shifts to more explicit teaching and learning, so the larger increase in means at this time may be attributable to the transition and change in style of teaching. There is, however, no obvious reason for the differences in evidence between children in years 4 and 5. Although the range of means across the year groups (Y4: M = 28 to Y7: M = 54) is encouraging, the means themselves are lower than expected, implying that children did not find the test easy. Figure 2.1 and Table 2.6 display data for the individual tasks across the primary years (excluding bilingual children).

Table 2.5  Descriptive statistics for primary years 4, 5 and 6 and secondary year 7 (% scores) Year group Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7

Age

N

Mean

SD

Minimum

Maximum

Range

8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12

46 49 48 57

28 37 40 54

12.88 13.22 14.37 14.81

4 13 17 28

62 63 65 85

58 50 48 57

The Metalinguistic Dimension

28 90 80

8

70

5 3 9 4

Facility value

60 50

11

40

10 1

30

6

20

2 7

10 0 Year 4 ages 8–9

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Task 10 Task 11

Year 5 ages 9–10

Year 6 ages 10–11

Primary year groups and age ranges

Figure 2.1  Facility values (mean per cent correct) of individual tasks for years 4, 5 and 6

Figure 2.1 demonstrates that all year groups clearly found some tasks more challenging than others, with facility values (mean per cent correct) ranging between 9.8% (Y4: Task 7) and 70.8% (Y6: Task 8). Generally speaking, children in years 5 and 6 found the tasks easier than children in year 4. This is to be expected, as children should be able to tackle complex tasks more easily and more successfully as they get older. It would likewise be expected that year 6 children would perform better than year 5 children on all tasks, but this was not the case. Figure 2.1 demonstrates that year 6 children performed marginally less well than year 5 children on five of the eleven tasks (Tasks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7) but markedly better on the more complex tasks, the last four in the booklet (Tasks 8, 9, 10 and 11). Table 2.6 presents the tasks rank-ordered by facility. It is noteworthy that the order of facility for years 5 and 6 matches almost perfectly, but that the order shown for year 4 is quite different. Analogous to the statistical difference found between years 4 and 5, but not between years 5 and 6, this indicates that children in year 4 show a different performance pattern from children in years 5 and 6. The rankings suggest that year 4 children found Tasks 8 (word order) and 9 (word class) more challenging than years 5 and 6, but that they had less difficulty with Task 1, which required children to match pairs of short sentences in different languages. Possibly children of this age are able to focus on basic similarities and differences between languages at a lexical level more successfully than older children who may already be anticipating a more complicated task. The three year groups were unanimous in experiencing the most difficulty with the same two tasks, that is Tasks 2 and 7. Task 7 required children to attend to word

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

29

Table 2.6  Tasks rank-ordered by facility (from high to low) for primary years 4, 5 and 6 Tasks rank-ordered by facility Task number

Y4

Y5

Y6

3 5 4 8 1 11 6 10 9 2 7

8 3 5 4 9 11 10 1 6 2 7

8 3 5 9 4 11 10 1 6 2 7

order (SVO  – OVS) and identify and apply a morphological rule (accusative case marking), and Task 2 asked for translations of sentences from other languages. It is understandable that children should find Task 7 challenging, as an accusative case marker is no longer obvious in L1 English, but it is surprising that children experienced such difficulty with the translation task. Possibly the length of the sentences was too daunting, or translating an unknown language is too specific a task for young children to cope with. Bilingual children are generally able to cope well with switching between two or more languages (Malakoff and Hakuta, 1991), so it would be interesting to see how a class of young bilinguals might succeed in accessing unknown languages in similar tasks. Analyses of children’s written responses to the translation task (Task 2) and explanations given during the interviews (see also Study D below, and Appendix 6) reveal that children’s translations and interpretations were heavily dependent on word recognition based on personal experience at home and in the school. Attention to punctuation was the only evidence of the use of contextual clues. For example, in the Italian sentence Ho una tazza di caffè con latte e zucchero, e una torta al cioccolato (I have a cup of coffee with milk and sugar, and a chocolate cake), the word tazza was often translated as pizza, caffè as a place of refreshment (café) more often than coffee and latte as the milky-coffee drink of the same name rather than milk. One child imaginatively suggested that the ‘Ho’ could refer to the well-known seasonal chuckle, ‘Ho!, Ho!, Ho!’. Cioccolato, on the other hand, generally posed few problems, although the phrase una torta al cioccolato was frequently translated as a hot chocolate. Children generally used a word-by-word approach focusing on both graphemes and phonemes as cues, rather than relying on context. Extracts (4) and (5) from the interviews in Study D illustrate how localized children’s translations of words were, and how personal experience acted as the main focus.

30

The Metalinguistic Dimension

4.  CH14: Cioccolato. INT: But what does that mean? CH2: Chocolate! INT: Why are you saying it’s chocolate? CH2: It’s got the oco, then late at the end. . . . 5.  CH3: . . . or there might be three people in this. So say there’s a mother and a dad and a child, and one wants coffee, one wants a latte, and one wants chocolate.

Children’s translations of the German sentence Der Hund, die Katze und die Maus sind sehr gute Freunde (The dog, the cat and the mouse are very good friends) offer further interesting insights into how children tackle translation. The capital letters were used as formal clues, and were assumed, as in L1 English, to be proper nouns, thus Freunde was often translated as France, and Katze became the girl’s name Katie. The lexical item Der Hund with the capital letter and the following comma was taken to be a greeting at the start of a letter, reinforced by the close similarity in spelling between German Der and English Dear. Predictably, the feminine definite article die was most often read as the English verb die, which sparked many imaginative suggestions as a result. As these examples show, Study D investigated children’s thought processes as they solved verbally the same metalinguistic tasks as those presented in the written measure. This was in order to check the match between children’s thinking and the thinking behind the design of the tasks. For the purpose of Study D, the eleven tasks were presented as language puzzles on cards for children to physically manipulate, which gave focus to the discussion and helped scaffold children’s thinking. The participants were drawn from an intact class (Y4: N = 29) of whom seven were excluded because of special educational needs or because parents or carers refused permission. The remaining children (N = 22) were paired by the class teacher for general ability and were interviewed in turn by the researcher. At the beginning of each interview, children were told to explain their thinking and agree a solution. Such an approach had the advantage of pushing children to articulate their thought processes, and the researcher asked specific questions when necessary to keep children on task and encourage discussion. Each pair completed three of the eleven tasks. These were selected so that pairs completed tasks varying in cognitive complexity (for example, the first pair completed Tasks 3, 7 and 10; the second pair, Tasks 4, 6 and 9). A research assistant made observational notes and recorded the conversations which were transcribed using the CHAT transcription conventions and subsequently coded using CLAN. A product code was assigned to indicate a correct or incorrect response. Utterances which indicated children’s thought processes were assessed against a specific set of criteria and, if appropriate, against additional criteria for each task. These criteria graded the development of children’s metalinguistic thinking into three levels (see Appendix 6 for examples), ranging from almost total unawareness (level 0) to a burgeoning understanding of how language functions (level 2). Coding was subsequently checked for inter-rater reliability (95.4%).

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

31

Table 2.7  Frequency totals and ratios for correctness of response (product) and ­metalinguistic level (process) Process

Product

Ratio

Correct response

Incorrect response

52 30 3

7 21 19

Level 2 Level 1 Level 0

7.5:1 1.4:1 1:6.3

Combined totals of pairs’ correct and incorrect responses (product) and similarly their levels of thinking (process) for the whole measure are presented in Table 2.7. The results show that the majority of the children’s responses resulting from higher-level metalinguistic thinking (level 2) were correct. Conversely, the majority of responses resulting from lower-level thinking (level 0) were incorrect. There is a reasonable balance between correct and incorrect responses at level 1, although the trend is in favour of more correct responses. These findings indicate that there is a correlation between thought process and product, and confirm that there is a reasonable match between designer intention and child response, which gives a good indication of the test’s validity.

The gender advantage It is a widely held view that girls generally achieve better than boys in instructed L2 settings (Harris, 1998), particularly at secondary-school level. The data collected in Study C were analysed by gender to see if findings from mixed-ability primary-school classes were consistent with this view. Results from an independent samples t-test for the combined primary classes (N = 143), not including the bilingual children, show a statistical difference in overall performance between boys and girls (t(141)–2.315, p = .022, two-tailed), with girls outperforming boys (boys: N = 70, M = 33; M girls: N = 73, M = 38). Table 2.8 shows, however, that there are no statistical differences in evidence for similar t-tests carried out on individual year groups, although the result for year 5 approaches significance. The means show a clear progression for both genders as children get older, which is consistent with findings from Study C, although the difference in means between the genders is greater in years 5 and 6 than it is in year 4. These findings might indicate the beginning of a trend of difference in achievement between the genders found by researchers in children of secondary-school age (Harris, 1998).

The bilingual advantage Previous research has demonstrated that bilingual children have a metalinguistic advantage over monolingual children (Bialystok, 1988). In order to examine whether this was similarly the case in Study C, children’s scores for intact classes (Y4, Y5, Y6) were ranked. Table 2.9 presents the rankings of the top three scores for each year group.

The Metalinguistic Dimension

32

Table 2.8  Differences in performance between boys and girls in primary years 4, 5 and 6 (% scores)

Y4 Y5 Y6

boy girl boy girl boy girl

N

Mean

SD

T

Df

sig. (2-tailed)

22 24 26 23 22 26

27 30 34 41 38 43

13 10 12 12 12 13

–.872

44

.388

–1.946

47

.058

–1.437

46

.157

Table 2.9  Ranking of the top three scores (%) for primary years 4, 5 and 6 Ranking 1st 2nd 3rd

Primary year group Y4

Y5

Y6

62 60 59

71 63 59

82 69 65

The five scores in bold were gained by bilingual children, of whom four were bilingual in Dutch and English (Y4 and Y6) and one in Korean and English (Y5). Considering the low ratio of bilingual children to monolingual children participating in the study (1:14), the rankings display a high proportion of bilingual high achievers. Interestingly, the highest score in year 4 was obtained by a monolingual child, and there is less of a difference in the highest percentage scores between the top bilingual and monolingual children in year 4 (2%) than there is in year 5 (8%), which in turn is less than in year 6 (17%). This suggests that the metalinguistic advantage developed through bilingualism may become more marked as a child matures. Even though the number of bilingual participants in the sample was small (N = 11), a comparison of the mean facility values of individual tasks reveals that the group of bilingual children performed better than the monolingual children (N = 143) on all tasks except Task 5 which looked at the syntactic ambiguity of an English sentence (bilingual: 52.3%, monolingual 61.5%). The bilingual group performed much better than the monolingual group on three tasks in particular, Task 6 which required an understanding of metalinguistic terminology (bilingual 65.5%, monolingual 28.8%), and on Tasks 1 and 2 which depended on cognate recognition (Task 1  – bilingual 59.6%, monolingual 33.3%; Task 2  – bilingual 37.6%, monolingual 14.5%). The fact that the bilingual children were better at recognizing cognates is consistent with previous research. Cummins’ iceberg theory argues that bilingual children have an underlying language proficiency common to both their languages which allows them to compare languages more easily (Cummins, 1991, cited in Jessner, 1999), and Jessner

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

33

(1999, p. 205) states that the recognition of similarities across languages is part of a ‘multilingual person’s natural linguistic repertoire’. Moreover, it is not surprising that other-language children have a better grasp of metalinguistic terminology than L1 English-speaking children, given that it is often taught earlier and in a more structured way than in English primary schools. Nor is it surprising that L1 English-speaking children have a better grasp of syntactic ambiguity than children for whom English is an L2. In conclusion, even though the number of bilinguals in the present study was low, the findings accord well with the findings of previous research that bilingual children display a metalinguistic advantage over monolingual children (Bialystok, 1988; Jessner, 1999; Bialystok, 2001) and thus perform better on metalinguistic tasks. Moreover, if bilingual children are more metalinguistically aware, their strong performance on this test suggests that the measure as a whole has succeeded in capturing (some of) the metalinguistic skills that underlie that advantage.

Conclusion The aim of the research presented here was to develop a measure of metalinguistic awareness for young L1 English-speaking children learning in an instructed L2 setting. The measure performed well empirically, with no obvious indication of a ceiling effect. Analyses showed that the test was highly reliable, differentiated well both within and across year groups and that tasks were generally well-ordered in terms of facility. Moreover, the test was found to sit well within general classroom timetabling. Five main findings have emerged as a result of the pilot studies. First, there was an overall age-based advantage, with older children outperforming younger children. Additionally, year 6 children displayed a marked ability to solve the more cognitively complex tasks, which suggests that children’s ability to analyse linguistic features and control their attention develops as they mature cognitively, allowing them to access and make use of explicit knowledge (Ellis, 2004) and attend more to form (Bialystok and Ryan, 1985). This is consistent with previous research (Hakes, 1980; Bialystok, 1988; Milton and Alexiou, 2006). Second, the overall statistical difference between years 4 and 5 points to a possible threshold of development occurring around age 9. Moreover, although years 5 and 6 showed an equivalent pattern in the ordering of facility of tasks, year 4 showed a different pattern. Third, findings revealed an overall statistical difference in performance between boys and girls in the sample, with girls outperforming boys. There were no statistical differences between the genders within year groups, although the result for year 5 approached significance, and there was a lower difference in means between the genders in year 4 than between the genders in subsequent years. These findings suggest the beginning of a possible trend of difference in achievement between the genders which has been found to manifest itself more obviously in children of secondary school age (Harris, 1998). Fourth, the high ratio of bilingual to monolingual top-scoring children, and the bilingual children’s better performance on specific tasks, notably cognate recognition,

34

The Metalinguistic Dimension

suggests that bilingual children may enjoy not only a general metalinguistic advantage over monolingual children, but also a specific metalinguistic advantage on certain tasks. An age advantage was also in evidence, with older bilingual children outperforming younger ones. Furthermore, results indicate that the difference between the top-scoring monolingual and bilingual children increased considerably over time, suggesting that metalinguistic awareness in young bilinguals becomes more marked as they mature cognitively. Lastly, the analysis of the verbal protocols indicated that there was a correlation between thought process and product, in other words, those children who showed evidence of higher-level metalinguistic thinking gave more correct responses than children who displayed lower-level thinking, and conversely. This finding, and the fact that the test showed excellent reliability as well as good empirical discrimination and differentiation, helps to validate the measure. In sum, findings from the empirical investigation are generally consistent with previous research, which suggests that both age and bilingualism confer cognitive benefits. From a pedagogical perspective, it might be useful to give specific input to monolingual children before the age of 9 to help maintain the impetus of metalinguistic development at an age when the difference between boys and girls and between monolingual and bilingual children does not appear to have opened up yet. Input might take the form of specific programmes which give attention to the similarities and differences across languages. Moreover, if bilingual children are more metalinguistically aware than monolingual children, their strong performance on this test suggests that the measure as a whole is capturing (some of) the metalinguistic skills that underlie that advantage. Overall, the findings from the pilot studies have thrown up some interesting issues that warrant further investigation, and confirm that the new measure is worth developing further.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Peter Oliver for designing the owl graphics which appear in the test; Simon Davies for his assistance with proof-reading; and Karen Roehr for her many constructive comments on earlier drafts of the chapter, and her continued support and advice.

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

Appendix 1 – Task 6 

35

36

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Appendix 2 – Task 8

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

Appendix 3 – Task 9

37

38

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Appendix 4 – Task 10

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

39

Appendix 5 – Scoring procedure Task number 1.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Scoring criteria

Maximum score

mark for each pair of sentences correctly identified (3) mark for each word of the remaining sentence correctly translated (6) mark for each of six keywords correctly identified in each of the three translation sentences (3 x 6); additional marks if: (a) words other than keywords are correctly identified, (b) appropriate sentence-initial and sentence-final punctuation are used, and (c) the sentence displays sensible meaning (3 x 3) mark for each correctly identified singular or plural (8) mark for each cognate correctly matched to the appropriate headword (9) mark for each picture correctly identified as appropriate (3) mark for the inappropriate picture left unidentified (1) mark for each ogramana word correctly identified (5) mark for each accusative case ending correctly written (2) mark for each verb correctly indicated (2) mark for each adjective correctly positioned (2) mark for each correct commonality written (3 x 4) mark for each correct picture noun-verb phrase identified (3) mark for the selection of correct gender nouns (2) mark for each correctly inflected adjective (2) mark for a correctly inflected noun (1) Maximum score

9

27

8 9 4 5 2 4 12 3 5 88

Appendix 6 The following extracts from transcripts of interviews with children in Study D illustrate how examples of coding criteria for each of the three developmental levels were applied to paired conversations. Level 0 – the child has not yet acquired the ability to analyse, and thus: ll ll ll

makes general and sweeping statements, e.g. ‘I don’t know’, ‘I guessed’ employs tautology relies solely on word length as a means of comparison

Example: extract from Task 4, matching cognates, e.g. binoculars/okulo; ĝardeno/ jardin; dachshund/hundo; arboretum/arbo.

40

The Metalinguistic Dimension CH4: I think it [binoculars] goes there [ĝardeno], because they’re both long words. CH5:  That’s what I was thinking! CH4: Umm dachshund. That’s a dog. I’ve got this strange feeling in my head that it goes there [arbo].

Level 1 – the child is developing awareness, and directing his/her attention more appropriately, but does not yet have the ability to move far from visual observation; the child has not yet acquired the ability to analyse, and thus: ll ll ll

relies on a one-to-one letter/word match may identify or cite a linguistic rule, albeit inappropriately imposes English orthography on other-language words, assigning English meaning as a result.

Example: extract from Task 1, pairing sentences from different languages, e.g. La rano estas verda and La rana è verde. CH6: Um, I think them two go together because they say almost exactly the same word [= verde and verda] (attention focused at lexical level). INT: Oh, I see. CH6: But that has an e and that has an a (attention focused at phoneme level). Level 2  – the child gives a pertinent explanation which, although it may not necessarily involve much use of metalanguage, shows a growing awareness of the relationship between words and displays linguistic knowledge in addition to that gained through visual comparison, and thus: ll ll ll ll

identifies and/or cites an appropriate linguistic rule shows awareness of exception to rule shows awareness of an underlying linguistic comparison goes beyond expecting English orthography to either apply to other languages, or to dictate meaning.

Example: extract from Task 3, identifying singular and plural pairs of the English word elephant in different languages by separating the endings from the stem and comparing not only between languages, but between same language forms: éléphant/ éléphants; eilifint/eilifintí; elefante/elefantes; elefant/elefanţi. CH7: So if anything that [el] means one (pointing to the start of all the elephant words), and that [..efantes] means elephant (covering the beginning two letters el of the word elefantes leaving only ..efantes visible) and then you’ve got one [el] and elephant [..efantes], but there you’ve got, so if you had apple and you added on that [s] (indicates plural marker s on the word

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

41

elefantes) it would be apples. So that [elefantes] really means elephants. So that’s more than one elephant. CH8:  I think the i [pointing to the i on elefanţi] maybe, might be like an s. CH7: explained that he had been learning ‘holiday Spanish’ which seemed to have been uppermost in his mind, as he detached the prefix el suggesting that it indicated the singular (el is the singular masculine definite article in Spanish). He then focused on the plural marker s in English to suggest that other-language words with s in word-final position are similarly plural. This overrode his original thoughts on el as a singular marker. CH8 is able to extrapolate that if the English marker s in word-final position indicates a plural, then it is possible that a word-final letter in another language performs a similar function.

Notes 1 The terms primary and secondary are used here to refer to schools in England providing non-selective compulsory full-time education for children aged 5–11 (school years 1–6) and 11–16 (school years 7–11), respectively. 2 As pointed out by a reviewer, it is difficult to take into account different levels of literacy in a written test. 3 A one-way Anova and post-hoc analyses provided similar results. 4 The abbreviation CH refers to the child interviewees; INT refers to the interviewer.

References Alderson, C., Clapham, C. and Steel, D. (1997), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency’. Language Teaching Research, 1, (2), 93–121. Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. (1996), Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bialystok, E. (1986), ‘Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness’. Child Development, 57, 498–510. — (1988), ‘Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness’. Developmental Psychology, 24, (4), 560–7. — (1994), ‘Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–68. — (2001), Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. and Ryan, E. B. (1985), ‘Toward a definition of metalinguistic skill’. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31, (3), 229–51. Birdsong, D. (1989), Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer. Bouffard, L. A. and Sarkar, M. (2008), ‘Training 8-year-old French immersion students in metalinguistic analysis: An innovation in form-focused pedagogy’. Language Awareness, 17, (1), 3–24.

42

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Cummins, J. (1987), ‘Bilingualism, language proficiency, and metalinguistic development’, in P. Homel, M. Palij and D. Aaronson (eds), Childhood Bilingualism: Aspects of Linguistic, Cognitive and Social Development. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 57–73. — (1991), ‘Language learning and bilingualism’. Sophia Linguistica, 29, 1–194. DeKeyser, R. (2003), ‘Implicit and explicit learning’, in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 313–48. Dörnyei, Z. (2005), The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. — (2009), The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2004), ‘The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge’. Language Learning, 54, (2), 227–75. — (2005), ‘Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–72. Enever, J. (2009), ‘Can today’s early language learners in England become tomorrow’s plurilingual European citizens?’, in M. Nikolov (ed.), Early Learning of Modern Foreign Languages: Processes and Outcomes. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 15–29. Gombert, J. E. (1992), Metalinguistic Development. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Graaff, R. de. (1997), ‘The EXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–76. Hakes, D. (1980), The Development of Metalinguistic Abilities in Children. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hakuta, K. and Diaz, R. M. (1985), ‘The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability: A critical discussion and some new longitudinal data’, in K. E. Nelson (ed.), Children’s Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, vol. 5, pp. 319–44. Harley, B. and Hart, D. (1997), ‘Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 379–400. Harris, V. (1998), ‘Making boys make progress’. Language Learning Journal, 18, 56–62. Jessner, U. (1999), ‘Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language learning’. Language Awareness, 8, (3 and 4), 201–9. — (2006), Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Karmiloff, K. and Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2002), Pathways to Language: From Fetus to Adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Larson-Hall, J. (2008), ‘Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input situation’. Second Language Research, (24), 35–63. Malakoff, M. and Hakuta, K. (1991), ‘Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals’, in E. Bialystok (ed.), Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–66. McKay, P. (2006), Assessing Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milton, J. and Alexiou, T. (2006), ‘Language aptitude development in young learners’, in C. Abello-Contesse, R. Chacón-Beltrán, M. D. López-Jiménez and M. M. Torreblanca-López (eds), Age in L2 Acquisition and Teaching. Oxford: Peter Lang, pp. 177–92. Muñoz, C. (2008), ‘Age-related differences in foreign language learning. Revisiting the empirical evidence’. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46, (3), 197–220.

Developing a Measure of Metalinguistic Awareness

43

Pinto, M. A. (2009), ‘Early metalinguistic development in Italian-English bilingual preschoolers. A study in a British context’, Conference paper. ACLA Conference: Ottawa, 27–29 May 2009. Pinto, M. A., Titone, R. and Trusso, F. (1999), Metalinguistic Awareness: Theory, Development and Measurement Instruments. Pisa Roma: Istituti Editorialie Poligrafici Internazionali. Roehr, K. (2008), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners’. Applied Linguistics, 29, (2), 173–99. Schmidt, R. W. (2001), ‘Attention’, in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–32. Spolsky, B. (1995), ‘Prognostication and language aptitude testing 1925–62’. Language Testing, 12, (3), 321–40. Stankov, L. (2003), ‘Complexity in human intelligence’, in R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey and T. I. Lubart (eds), Models of Intelligence: International Perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 27–42. Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2007), ‘Language awareness and language learning’. Language Teaching, 40, 287–308. Weir, C. (2005), Language Testing and Validation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Yelland, G. W., Pollard, J. and Mercuri, A. (1993), ‘The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language’. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 423–44.

3

Examining the Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities to Reading Comprehension among Native and Non-Native Speakers Daphnée Simard

Université du Québec à Montréal

Denis Foucambert

Université du Québec à Montréal

Marie Labelle

Université du Québec à Montréal

Abstract Syntactic and metasyntactic abilities are some of the components involved in reading skills. Previous studies indicate that they both correlate with reading skills in L1 and in L2. However, correlations do not provide information about the relative importance of each skill in the reading process. Using structural equation modelling, we examined whether the relative importance of syntactic and metasyntactic abilities in reading comprehension is the same among child native and non-native speakers of French. The results show for both groups that although metasyntactic ability contributes directly to reading comprehension, the contribution of syntactic ability is mediated through metasyntactic ability.

Introduction Metalinguistic ability is defined as a learner’s ability to consciously and intentionally manipulate language features (Gombert, 1992). According to authors such as Armand (2000), Carlisle (1995) and Snow et al. (1989), good metalinguistic ability allows the use of abstract and decontextualized language, which is an asset in successful reading skills learning. Since reading is identified as a strong predictor of school success (Bialystok, 2001b, p. 175), its successful development is crucial for school-age children.

46

The Metalinguistic Dimension

In this chapter, we aim to shed new light on the specific ways in which metalinguistic ability, and more precisely, metasyntactic ability, contributes to reading skills. Metalinguistic ability can be related to any domain of language (Gombert, 1992), and two different metalinguistic domains, metaphonological and metasyntactic abilities, have been identified as particularly important contributors to reading skills development (Siegel, 1993). By far, the one most studied is metaphonological ability (Smith-Lock, 1995; Bowey, 1986), i.e., the ability to identify and intentionally manipulate the phonological components in linguistic units (Gombert, 1992, p. 15). It is believed to predict reading skills given that good metaphonological ability is essential to understanding grapheme-phoneme correspondences in play in fluent word recognition (Goswami et al., 1990; Tunmer et al., 1992). Despite the importance attributed to metaphonological ability, some researchers have highlighted the limitations of phonological processing. In Gaux and Gombert’s (1999) words, ‘some children fail to understand sentences in a text, in particular one possessing a complex syntactic structure, even when they manage to decode all the words it contains’ (p. 169). Therefore, they hypothesized that the difficulties experienced by these children are related to their metasyntactic ability. Metasyntactic ability (MSA) refers to the ability to reflect on the syntactic aspects of language such as words, grammatical classes and rules governing their combinations (Gaux et al., 1997) as well as the ability to intentionally control and manipulate them (Bowey, 1986, 2005; Goff et al., 2005; Gombert, 1992; Tunmer et al., 1987). Certain behaviours such as rejection of ungrammatical sentences have been observed among 4-year-old children (e.g. Hakes, 1980). However, according to Gombert (1992), it is not until 6–7 years of age (with the beginning of schooling) that real metasyntactic judgements are made. Other metasyntactic behaviours such as correcting syntactic errors (e.g. word order) appear only at around age 6 or 7 and are still scarce at around age 9 (Comblain, 2005). MSA appears to continue developing throughout elementary school. The relationship between MSA and reading skills among native speakers has been demonstrated repeatedly (e.g. Bowey, 1986, 2005; Blackmore et al., 1997; Nation et al., 2000; Tunmer et al., 1988; Tunmer, 1990). Although fewer MSA studies have been conducted among non-native speakers, these studies provide evidence for a significant contribution of MSA to reading skills in this population as well (e.g. Abu-Rabia et al., 2002; Cain, 2007; Da fontura et al., 1995; Geva et al., 2000; Low et al., 2005; Lesaux et al., 2006; Lesaux et al., 2007). MSA has been claimed to support reading comprehension by allowing for the predictions of the sequence of words in sentences (e.g. Chiappe et al., 1999; Lesaux et al., 2003; Lipka et al., 2012; Low et al., 2005; Siegel, 1993) as well as facilitating the reassembly of decoded words into phrases, thus making recall easier (Tunmer et al., 1984). However, the nature of the relationship between MSA and reading comprehension is still not well understood and further research is needed. Another relationship that needs to be better understood is the interrelationship between MSA, reading skills and syntactic ability (e.g. Cain, 2007). Syntactic ability corresponds to the ability to decode language by parsing phrases and sentences. This processing of linguistic information is incremental in nature as the individual has to integrate incoming words syntactically and semantically in order to derive meaning

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

47

(Koda, 2007). Therefore, syntactic ability allows readers to construct the syntactic frame of a sentence. According to Koda (2007), this involves two major operations: (1) phrase construction through lexical information integration and (2) assignment of roles to the sentence constituents. Only intuitive and unconscious knowledge is necessary to carry out these two operations. Syntactic ability (SA) has been shown to correlate with MSA (e.g. Cain, 2007) and with reading skills among native (e.g. Goff et al., 2005) and non-native speakers (e.g. Martohardjono et al., 2005; Verhoeven, 1990). However, the study of the interrelationship between MSA, SA and reading skills has been neglected (Cain, 2007; Koda, 2007). Correlational studies such as the ones mentioned above are interesting because of the information they provide about associations between reading skills and their various components, but they do not provide information about the relative importance of these components in reading comprehension. van Gelderen et al. (2007), drawing on the work of authors such as Carr et al. (1990), Just et al. (1992), Laberge and Samuels (1974), Perfetti (1999) and Stanovich (1991), argued that in order to better understand the way various components relate to reading skills, the use of structural equation modelling is necessary. This type of analysis allows for the measurement of how much of the performance in reading comprehension is explained by performance on other tasks assumed to contribute to the skill (p. 477). In that respect, a few studies specifically examined SA or MSA as reading skills components among non-native speakers. In a seminal study, Verhoeven (1990), for instance, investigated the differences in reading acquisition processes among grade 1 and 2 native (Dutch) and non-native (Turkish) speakers using a word-reading task and three reading comprehension tasks (coherence, anaphora and inference tasks). A sentence repetition task was used to measure SA. The sentences targeted morphosyntactic (e.g. plurals, tense markers) and syntactic features (e.g. determiners, pronominals). An oral proficiency task measuring receptive and productive vocabulary was also used. According to the author, the results revealed that SA in the second language (L2) as measured by the sentence repetition task had a strong direct impact on L2 reading comprehension. In their 2004 study, van Gelderen et al. investigated the role of first language (L1) and L2 components in reading comprehension among 397 Dutch students (13–14 years old) learning English. Metacognitive ability was measured by means of a self-report questionnaire in which the participants had to judge whether or not a series of statements such as ‘When you read it makes sense to put most effort into memorizing the details of the text’ (p. 480) were correct. The grammatical tasks in Dutch L1 and English L2 consisted of three parts in which the participants had to provide correct verb conjugations, noun morphology, adjectives, function words and word order. The results demonstrated that the L1 and L2 reading comprehension componential structures were very similar, but not identical. In particular, among L1 speakers, only metacognitive knowledge accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in reading. Among non-native speakers, results revealed, according to the authors, that vocabulary knowledge along with metacognitive knowledge explained the variance in reading.

48

The Metalinguistic Dimension

In a follow-up study, van Gelderen et al. (2007) examined the relationship between L1 and L2 reading development among 389 native and non-native speakers of Dutch learning English (10–14 years old). They used similar instruments as in their 2004 study, except that their grammatical task targeted only morphosyntactic knowledge. In the grammatical task, the participants had to provide the correct form of verbs (i.e. number, tense, aspect, agreement). The results show that metacognitive skills contributed to reading in both L1 and L2, unlike linguistic knowledge, which seems to contribute to reading only in the language in which it is measured.

Aim of the present study Although MSA and SA both appear to contribute to reading skills among non-native speakers, overall, no L2 study has looked specifically at the potential relationship between the two constructs in the modelling of L2 reading comprehension. Moreover, no previous study has investigated whether the weight of syntactic and metasyntactic abilities in explaining reading comprehension is the same among child native and non-native speakers. Therefore, the aim of our study is to investigate the following research questions: (1) What is the respective weight of MSA and SA in explaining reading comprehension skills in French-speaking native and non-native children? (2) Is there a relationship between MSA and SA in the modelling of reading comprehension in French-speaking native and non-native children? The investigation of syntactic and metasyntactic abilities within the same study raises the issue of their respective measurement (e.g. Birdsong, 1989; Demont, 1994; de Villiers et al., 1972; Cain, 2007; Simard et al., 2007). It is possible to address this issue by using Bialystok’s framework (2001b), according to which tasks may be classified along a continuum from linguistic to metalinguistic on the basis of two orthogonal dimensions: analysis of knowledge, and control of attention (e.g. Bialystok, 1991, 1993, 1999, 2001a, 2001b). Analysis of knowledge refers to the level of explicitness of knowledge required to accomplish the tasks (Bialystok, 2001b). The more implicit (unconscious and unavailable for verbal report) the language knowledge, the less analysed it is and the more explicit (conscious and available for verbal report) the language knowledge, the more analysed it is. Control of attention refers to learners’ ability to direct their attention to relevant information and to integrate it in real time (Bialystok, 1990). Therefore, tasks located at the lower end of both dimensions, i.e. tasks requiring no or minimal analysis of knowledge and control of attention, are considered linguistic. As the demand in both dimensions increases, tasks are considered to involve more and more metalinguistic ability. For instance, acceptability judgements and repetition-of-grammatical-sentences tasks both containing only semantic sentences (the processing of asemantic sentences is believed to increase the demands on control of attention) require very low levels of analysis of knowledge and control of attention (Bialystok, 2001b, p. 178). Therefore, they will be considered as linguistic in the present study. It should be noted that these two tasks are also considered non-metalinguistic by many researchers including Gaux et al. (1999). An example of a metalingusitic task, on the other hand, would be explaining why a sentence is ungrammatical. In such a task, participants have to locate the error (higher level of control) and provide an explanation (higher level of language analysis).

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

49

Method An empirical study was conducted to investigate the research questions. The methodology used is detailed below.

Participants The participants in the study were 37 French native speakers (NS) (17 girls and 20 boys) and 36 non-native speakers (NNS) (18 girls and 18 boys). The NS used French to communicate with their mother and reported no other language being spoken at home. The NNS were of Portuguese origin, but were all born in Canada. They are therefore considered heritage language speakers, i.e. children raised in a home where a non-majority language is spoken, in our case Portuguese, and children who speak or at least understand the non-majority language and are ‘to some degree bilingual in that language and in the majority language’ (Valdés, 2001, p. 2). They were all enrolled in a heritage language programme, either as an extra-curricular activity at a regular school, or at a Saturday school. It is expected that the language competence of heritage language children ‘will differ from that of native monolinguals of comparable age’ (Rothman, 2009, p. 156), which is the case with our NNS participants who are statistically weaker in French than the NS, as measured by a standardized receptive vocabulary test, Échelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody (NS M = 12.8, SD = 1.96; NNS M = 11.2, SD=2.51; F(1,71) = 8.98; p=0.004). The 73 participants had the same mid-level socio-economic status. The mean age of the participants was 10.6 years at the time of the study (range: min. = 8.2; max.= 12.5); there was no significant difference between the mean ages of the two groups (Mage NS = 10.3; Mage NNS=10.8; F(1, 71)=1.61, p>0.2).

Measurement instruments The participants completed a series of measures as described below. For all the measurement instruments, care was taken to use vocabulary known by the children, except for the standardized receptive vocabulary task and the phonological memory test, which involves non-words. Additionally, two practice items were presented at the beginning of each task and all the instruments were piloted beforehand.

Metasyntactic measures The first MSA measure was a task traditionally used in MSA research, i.e. repetition of ungrammatical sentences (Gaux et al., 1999). This task requires participants to repeat deviant sentences exactly as they heard them without correcting the errors encountered (Bowey, 1986; Demont, 1994). It consisted of 40 sentences, 20 target items and 20 filler sentences. The average length of the test sentences was 15 syllables (min. = 13; max. = 17). The sentences were pre-recorded by a NS of French on a digital recorder and presented to the participants through headphones.

The Metalinguistic Dimension

50

This task is considered to be metalinguistic as it requires ‘[. . .] an effort of control on the part of the subject, who has to suppress the natural tendency to normalize such utterances’ (Gombert, 1992, p. 59). Consequently, it exerts higher demands of control of attention. Although it is considered to be metalinguistic, the level of analysis of language required to carry out this task, according to Bialystok’s framework, is rather low. By contrast, the second metalinguistic task used, i.e. the replication-of-error task, required higher levels on both dimensions. In the replication-of-error task, the participants were presented with two sentences, with the first one of each pair containing an error. The participants’ task was to identify the error in the first sentence and reproduce the same type of error in the second sentence (Simard et al., 2007; Gombert et al., 1994; Nocus et al., 1997). Here is an example: Samuel donne lui la bicyclette rouge. [ungrammatical] (Samuel gives him the red bicycle.) Sophie lui propose d’aller à la plage. [grammatical] (Sophie suggests to him to go to the beach.)

In order to provide the correct answer, the participants would have to say ‘Sophie propose lui d’aller à la plage’, replicating the misplacement of the clitic pronoun observed in the first sentence. The task consisted of 15 pairs of sentences similar to the example. The sentences were presented visually. In addition, to control for reading ability, the sentences were pre-recorded by a NS of French on a digital recorder and presented to the participants through headphones. The syntactic features targeted in the two MSA tasks were placement of clitic pronouns, formation of passive sentences and of causative sentences and comparison and choice of relative pronouns. According to Gombert and his colleagues, since participants have to use explicit knowledge to locate an error and to intentionally reproduce it, the replication task is considered to be metalinguistic (Gaux et al., 1999; Nocus et al., 1997). In Bialystok’s framework, it would be located in the higher right quadrant, indicating higher demands in both analysis of knowledge and attentional control, since it requires participants to analyse the erroneous sentence, identify the source of the error, find the same element in the second sentence and consciously reproduce the error (see Simard et al., 2007, 2012 for details).

Syntactic measures To measure the participants’ SA, a preference task and a repetition-of-grammatic al-sentences task were used. In the preference task (Ellis, 1991), two sentences like the following were presented visually in a single line of text and, in order to control for reading ability, the items were additionally pre-recorded and played back to the participants. The aural presentation also controlled the time the participants had to indicate which sentence they preferred. This was done in order to ensure that the participants would use their intuitive (unconscious) knowledge.

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

51

Cette activité est aussi facile à faire que l’autre. Cette activité est autant facile à faire que l’autre. (This activity is as easy as the other one. This activity is as easy than the other one.) In the preceding example, the correct answer is ‘Cette activité est aussi facile à faire que l’autre’ since the comparative presented in the two sentences is constructed with an adjective, ‘facile’ (easy); ‘autant’ can only be followed, in that context, by a noun or a verb. The test targeted auxiliary use, subjunctive in connection with relatives, comparatives, indirect questions, verb agreement in opaque contexts, preposition selection and constructions with quantifiers or negation. The task requires little analysis and little attentional control since the participants only have to identify which of the two sentences sounds better. However, it requires the participants to parse the two sentences, and therefore involves syntactic decoding. In the repetition-of-grammatical-sentences task (e.g. Verhoeven, 1990), the participants were asked to repeat a series of 40 sentences comprising 20 target items and 20 filler sentences. The average length of the test sentences was 15 syllables (min. = 9; max. = 18); all the sentences were pre-recorded by a NS of French on a digital recorder and presented to the participants through headphones. This type of task has been shown to require syntactic parsing (e.g. Clay, 1971; Lust, 2006; Lust et al., 1996). It also requires considerably lower levels of control of attention and analysis of language than the other repetition task, since the participants do not have to refrain from correcting an error. Both the repetition-of-grammatical-sentences task and the repetition-of-ungramm atical-sentences task arguably require some level of phonological memory. However, since the sentences were of the same length in both tasks, it was assumed that better performance with the set of grammatical sentences would be due to the lower level of control of attention required.

Reading comprehension The participants completed a reading comprehension task (Foucambert, 2003, 2009). In order to demonstrate effective reading comprehension, the participants had to show that they had a coherent representation of the meaning of the text (Cain et al., 2011). This coherence is established by relationships the reader makes between different important text items (Graesser et al., 2007; Graesser et al., 2003) and is measured at three different levels of comprehension (Denhiere et al., 1992; Haberlandt et al., 1985; Zwaan et al., 1995): (1) text surface structure (i.e. the recognition of lexical and syntactic elements explicitly present in the text), (2) propositional text base (i.e. inferences made on the basis of elements that were not explicitly present in the text) and (3) the mental (or situational) model generated by the reader (i.e. the mental model created from the integration of sentences into text representation, abstraction from the main and sub-topics and interaction of textual information with the reader’s knowledge of the world) (see Johnson-Laird, 1983; Kintsch, 1988; van Dijk et al., 1983).

52

The Metalinguistic Dimension

The text comprised 589 words (taken from ‘Les contes du chat perché’, Marcel Aymé, 1930). After reading it, the participants were required to answer 12 questions in a multiple-choice format. One-third of the questions tapped the text surface structure (e.g. Q1: Sur les peintures, le cheval est dessiné plus gros que le coq. Response: – Vrai, – Faux,  – l’histoire ne le dit pas. ‘On the pictures, the horse is drawn bigger than the rooster. Response: – True – False – the story does not tell’). Another third targeted the propositional text base (e.g. Q6: Dans cette histoire, le coq croit depuis longtemps être au moins de la taille du cheval. Response: – Vrai – Faux – L’histoire ne le dit pas. ‘In this story, the rooster has long believed to be at least of the size of the horse. Response: – True – False – The story does not tell’). The last third focused on the mental (or situational) model generated by the reader (e.g. Q4: Ce texte parle: a. des boîte de peinture; b. des rapports difficiles entre personnes; c. de la cuisson du poulet; d. du changement de taille. ‘This text is talking about: (a) boxes of paint, (b) uneasy relationships between people, (c) of cooking chicken, (d) the change of size’). The participants were asked to answer the questions without the support of the text. Leaving the text in front of them would have allowed the scanning of the text for relevant words in order to answer text surface structure questions. The answers would then hardly reflect any reading comprehension. Researchers such as Guthrie et al. (1987a, 1987b) see such a superficial search for information as a relatively independent cognitive process, which they conceive as a problem-solving process (see Cataldo et al., 2000 for a discussion). In addition, the common model of text comprehension assumes that readers use long-term memory structures that are activated by phrases that enter into working memory as they are read (Bower et al., 1990; Kintsch, 1988, 1998). Therefore the participants should be able to answer questions regarding the mental model or the propositional text base without going back to the text.

Receptive vocabulary A standardized French Canadian translation of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (Dunn et al., 1981) was administered to measure the participants’ receptive vocabulary in French (Échelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody  – EVIP; Dunn et al., 1993).1 Researchers have also used this test as a measure of language proficiency (e.g. Luk et al., 2008). The participants had to identify within a set of four pictures the image corresponding to a given word. For practical reasons, the group administration procedure proposed by Bourque Richard (1998) was used, whereby the participants received a booklet and were told to cross out the image corresponding to the word they heard. According to this group procedure, a baseline (first item of the series) is first identified on the basis of the participants’ age group. Then, from this baseline a total of 41 items were presented to each age group. All the words were pre-recorded by a NS of French.

Phonological memory To assess our participants’ phonological working memory, we used the standardized Poncelet et al. (2003) test. The test required the participants to repeat two series of

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

53

non-words (Gathercole et al., 1994). The first series is composed of 21 items following a CV syllabic structure. The non-words range from two to eight syllables (three words of each). The second series is composed of 15 words with CCV syllabic patterns, with the non-words ranging from two to six syllables. The non-words are chosen to follow French phonotactic patterns while being as much as possible dissimilar to existing French words, in order to avoid any potential access to lexical representations. All the items were pre-recorded by a French NS. The test was presented to the participants through headphones, and the participants’ answers were recorded.

Procedure For the NS, trained research assistants administered the syntactic, receptive vocabulary and reading comprehension tasks in class during regular school hours. Later the same day or the following day, a research assistant met the participants individually to complete a background information questionnaire, and to administer the phonological memory task and the two metasyntactic tasks (repetition-of-ungrammatical-sentences task and error replication task). The NNS who were studying at the same school as the French NS completed the tasks under the same conditions as the NS. The remaining NNS were met at their Portuguese Saturday school. For the MSA tasks, feedback was provided to the participants when needed to encourage them to continue. All individual tests were digitally recorded for further analysis. In order not to discourage the participants, it was decided to put an end to the administration after four consecutive missed items in one of the tasks (e.g. Roman et al., 2008).

Coding procedures Two independent raters coded the two MSA tasks. The coefficients of inter-rater reliability were 0.993 for the repetition task and 0.997 for the replication task. For the MSA repetition task, if the target (the syntactic error) was correctly repeated, a point was given. Errors in the repetition of the rest of the sentence (e.g. missing adjective (grosse/ big) in *La grosse tortue de mer nage plus lentement le dauphin *The big sea turtle swims slower the dolphin) were not considered. Since the participants were stopped after four missed items, the percentage of correctly repeated targets out of the total number of answers provided was calculated. For the replication task, one point was awarded for each correct answer, i.e. for correct production of the second sentence containing the same type of error found in the first sentence (maximum score = 15). For the repetition-of-grammatical-sentences task, the same procedure as for the repetition-of-ungrammatical-sentences task was used. Finally, for the preference task, one point was given for each correct answer (maximum score = 15). For the reading comprehension task, three different measures were calculated, based on the three different levels of comprehension, i.e., from the least to the most complex. One point was given per correct answer (maximum score = 12). For the receptive vocabulary task, since there was a ceiling effect in the score out of 41, and since the words are ranked according to level of difficulty, only the last 15 items

54

The Metalinguistic Dimension

were considered (maximum score = 15). Finally, the number of correct syllables was calculated using Poncelet et al.’s (2003) coding procedure in the phonological memory task. An item was considered correct if it did not contain more than one authorized transformation of a phoneme (CV, maximum = 105; CCV, maximum = 60, total = 165). Two independent judges coded the repetitions (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.979).

Data analysis The data were analysed using structural equation modelling. The analysis was conducted in two consecutive steps. First, the measurement model specifies the relationships between the measured and latent variables. Latent variables correspond to variables that are constructed using a combination of manifest variables – the actual collected data (Loehlin, 2009). In our specific case, the constructed – or latent – variables are Reading Comprehension, Metasyntactic Ability and Syntactic Ability, and the manifest variables are, respectively, the three different types of comprehension questions, the two metasyntactic tasks and the two syntactic tasks. Since receptive vocabulary and phonological memory might contribute to the construction of the three latent variables, and in particular to reading comprehension (e.g. Oakhill et al., 2003), their potential contribution was tested in one of the measurement models. Once latent variables are constructed, the structural model specifying the relationships among the latent variables is calculated (Kunnan, 1988). We applied a Generalized Structured Component Analysis (GSCA)2 (Hwang, 2009) to fit the specified model simultaneously to NS and NNS in order to examine the difference in parameter estimates between the two groups.

Results Descriptive statistics The means, standard deviations and reliability scores per group for each variable observed are shown in Table 3.1. The results show that both groups of participants obtained similar results on the three levels of the reading and receptive vocabulary tasks. However, the NS obtained higher scores than the NNS on the two syntactic tasks, the two MSA tasks and the phonological memory task.

Specification of the model and model fit The two models tested to evaluate the contribution of the variables identified in this study to reading comprehension are represented in Figure 3.1. The first model (M1) looked only at the two targeted abilities, the latent variables Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities, and postulated that they each had an effect on reading comprehension independent of the other. In Figure 3.1, all these relations are symbolized with solid lines. The second model (M2), in addition to postulating that both Syntactic and

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

55

Table 3.1  Descriptive statistics of observed variables Tasks

Groups NS

Syntax: Preference Syntax: Repetition Metasyntactic: Replication Metasyntactic: Repetition Reading: Level 1 Reading: Level 2 Reading: Level 3 Phonological memory Receptive vocabulary

NNS

M

SD

M

SD

15.78 83.92 10.28 57.75 2.78 2.94 2.40 121.19 12.8

3.18 15.1 5.67 24.3 1.22 0.99 1.42 22.64 1.95

13.39 74.5 8.32 35.51 2.03 2.36 2.11 105.3 11.3

3.04 24.8 4.95 21.6 1.38 1.22 1.36 16.85 2.51

Note: Correlation between syntactic tasks: r = 0.6 (p < 0.05); correlation between MSA tasks: r = 0.5 (p < 0.05); Cronbach’s alpha between the three reading levels = 0.76.

Metasyntactic Abilities have an effect on reading comprehension, supposed that vocabulary knowledge and phonological memory might also play a role, either as a part of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities or directly related to reading comprehension (dotted lines in Figure 3.1), and that Syntactic Ability might also affect Metasyntactic Ability (p3 in Figure 3.1). In M1, the three latent variables are constructed as follows. Syntactic Ability is constructed by loading the manifest variables measured by the preference (c1) and the repetition-of-grammatical-sentences tasks (c2), Metasyntactic Ability is constructed by loading the manifest variables measured by the repetition-of-ungram­ matical-sentences (c3) and the replication-of-error tasks (c4), and finally Reading Comprehension is constructed by loading the manifest variables measured by three levels of reading comprehension questions (c5–c7). The structural part of M1 consists of only two paths, one going from Syntactic Ability to Reading Comprehension (p1) and the other from Metasyntactic Ability to Reading Comprehension (p2). In M2, the possibility that Receptive Vocabulary and Phonological Memory might load on any of the other latent variables – Syntactic Ability (c8, c9), Metasyntactic Ability (c10, c11) and Reading Comprehension (c12, c13), was introduced into the measurement model. For the structural model, the link between Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities (p3) was added (represented by dashed lines in Figure 3.1). Thus, M1 is represented only by solid lines, while M2 is represented by solid and dashed lines.3 It should be noted that reflective arrows were used in the measurement model indicating that latent variables are illustrated by their respective measures.4 Table 3.2 provides the measures of overall model fit for the two models. The data presented support M2 over M1. This is shown by the GFI and SRMR values referring to the difference between the sample covariances and the covariances reproduced by the parameter estimates. A good model fit is indicated by values of GFI > 0.95 (the closer to 1 the GFI value is 1, the better is the model) and SRMR < 0.08 (Hu et al.,

Replications

Repetition of Ungrammatical sentences c4

c3

c9

c11

c8

c2

c1

c10

c13

c12

Metasyntactic Ability

p3

Syntactic Ability

p2

p1

Reading Comprehension

c7

c6

c5

Figure 3.1  Structural models (M1 and M2) for Reading Comprehension for NS and NNS

Phonological memory

Vocabulary

Repetition of grammatical sentences

Preference

Read 3

Read 2

Read 1

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

57

Table 3.2  Four measures of overall model fit and number of free parameters Models

FIT AFIT GFI SRMR NPAR

M1

M2

0.557 0.528 0.982 0.202 32

0.605 0.567 0.987 0.071 58

1995). NPAR is the number of free parameters in the models. The FIT indicates the total variance of all variables explained by the model (the values of FIT can range from 0 to 1). AFIT (Adjusted FIT) takes model complexity into account, and this criterion may be used for model comparison: the model with the largest AFIT value may be selected among competing models (Hwang, 2010). Consider the first column, M1, in Table 3.2. This model explains about 55% of the global variance, but the value of the SRMR criterion is not high enough to accept M1 without any modifications (SRMR > 0.2 instead of < 0.08). Model M2 explains about 60% of the global variance and proves to be more robust than M1: GFI and SRMR reached their minimal expected values (respectively 0.98 and 0.071). The measurement and structural models of M2 are explained in more detail in the following sections.

Measurement model of M2 Table 3.3 displays the estimates of loadings of each construct (c1–c13) in the measurement model for the two groups of participants. The Squared Multiple Correlation (SMC) of each indicator indicates how much variance is explained by the corresponding latent variable. The bootstrap critical ratios (CR) evaluate the significance of each estimate parameter. The loading and quantity of variance (SMC) of each parameter were similar for both groups. The standardized factor loadings were generally large and statistically significant for Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities and Reading Comprehension. This suggests that the latent variables were well chosen to explain a large percentage of the variance of our observed variables. An examination of the results shows an important similarity between our two groups of participants in terms of loading and significance of the various constructs, but interesting differences can be observed: the replication-of-error (c4) task contributed to Metasyntactic Ability in a much more important way for the NS than for the NNS, and Receptive Vocabulary (c8, c10) and Phonological Memory (c9, c11) contributed in a marginally more important way to Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities for the NS than for the NNS. The three measures that comprised the reading comprehension test contributed significantly to reading comprehension (c5–c7) in a similar way for NS and NNS.

The Metalinguistic Dimension

58

Table 3.3  Estimates loadings and SMC for the NS and the NNS groups NS

NNS

Loading Est. Syntax C1 0.82 C2 0.92 C8 –1.37 C9 0.95 Metasyntax C3 0.88 C4 0.73 C10 1.49 C11 0.05 Reading C5 0.86 C6 0.7 C7 0.82 C12 0.31 C13 –0.09

SE

SMC

Loading

CR

Est.

SE

CR

0.06 12.8* 0.03 35.8* 0.36 3.9* 0.22 4.4*

0.68 0.85 1.87 0.89

0.10 0.05 1.13 0.46

6.7* 0.79 17.9* 0.87 1.6 0.73 1.93 –0.45

0.04 24.4* 0.09 8.4* 0.51 2.9* 0.26 0.2

0.78 0.53 2.22 0.002

0.06 0.12 1.54 0.09

12.3* 4.4* 1.4 0.02

0.07 12.9* 0.14 5.1* 0.06 14.3* 0.35 1.0 0.12 0.7

0.74 0.49 0.67 0.09 0.008

0.11 0.16 0.09 0.26 0.03

6.87* 3.11* 7.37* 0.36 0.31

Est.

SE

SMC CR

Est.

SE

CR

0.09 0.04 0.39 0.6

8.9* 19.4* 1.9 0.7

0.62 0.76 0.54 0.20

0.14 0.08 0.57 1.60

4.57* 9.72* 0.95 0.12

0.85 0.60 0.02 1.15

0.05 0.14 0.51 0.7

16.2* 4.3* 0.04 1.6

0.72 0.37 0.00 1.31

0.09 0.16 0.4 1.93

8.38* 2.34* 0.0 0.68

0.87 0.71 0.85 0.07 –0.15

0.05 0.09 0.07 0.31 0.32

17.2* 7.5* 12.4* 0.2 0.5

0.74 0.50 0.71 0.005 0.02

0.08 0.13 0.11 0.25 0.18

8.96* 3.95* 6.44* 0.02 0.12

Note: Asterisks correspond to significant effects at p < 0.05. Est. = Estimate; SE = Standard error; CR = Bootstrap critical ratio.

However, neither Receptive Vocabulary nor Phonological Memory was associated with Reading Comprehension. For Syntactic Ability, the factor loadings and SMC of preference (c1) and repetition-of- grammatical-sentences (c2) followed the same pattern for the NS and NNS. For Receptive Vocabulary (c8) and Phonological Memory (c9), the factor loadings were significant only for the NS, and the SMCs are not significant. For Metasyntactic Ability, the factor loading and SMC of Receptive Vocabulary (c10) was significant for the NS, but not for the NNS (SMC=0.00); Phonological Memory (c11) was not significant; repetition-of-ungrammatical-sentences (c3) is significant for both groups, with similar loadings; for the replication (c4) task, both factor loading (+0.13) and SMC (+0.16) were substantially greater for the NS than for the NNS. In summary, from the analysis of M2, it appears that our three latent variables (Syntactic Ability, Metasyntactic Ability and Reading Comprehension) are indeed illustrated by the data obtained from the measurement instruments (the two Syntactic Ability tests, the two Metasyntactic Ability tests and the three parts of the reading comprehension test), rather than receptive vocabulary or phonological memory. The model shows little difference in this respect between NS and NNS.

Structural model In Figure 3.1, paths p1, p2 and p3 (middle part of the figure) constitute the structural model for reading comprehension, SA and MSA. This model is based on the hypothesis

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

59

Table 3.4  Estimates of path coefficients and bootstrap standard errors for NS and NNS groups NS Estimate P1 syntactic*RC P2 metasyntactic*RC P3 syntactic*metasyntactic

–0.260 1.032 0.889

NNS

SE

CR

0.428 0.361 0.021

0.61 2.86* 41.94*

Estimate

SE

CR

–0.162 0.843 0.753

0.243 0.200 0.083

0.67 4.21* 9.02*

Note: Asterisks correspond to significant effects (p < 0.05).

that the latent variables underlying Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities influence latent variables representing Reading Comprehension, and that Metasyntactic Ability is influenced by Syntactic Ability. The direction of the arrows represents these relations between the latent variables. Table 3.4 presents the parameter estimates for the path coefficients for the two groups of participants. The only latent variable that had a direct effect on Reading Comprehension was Metasyntactic Ability (p2), but with a larger effect for the NS. Crucially, Syntactic Ability had no direct effect on Reading Comprehension (p1), but it had a large significant effect on Metasyntactic Ability (p3). This effect was larger for the NS than for the NNS (0.89 vs 0.75).

Discussion As mentioned in the introduction, the way factors such as SA and MSA contribute to reading comprehension skills among NNS and how this contribution differs from NS, if it does, is still not well understood. The present study was conducted in order to provide some insight into this issue. Our first research question was: What is the respective weight of MSA and SA in explaining reading comprehension skills in French-speaking native and non-native children? In order to provide an answer to this question, we first verified whether MSA and SA were constructed by the measurements taken. Results show that SA is significantly constructed by both the preference (estimate for NS = 0.82; estimate for NNS = 0.79) and repetition-of-grammatical-sentences (estimate for NS = 0.92; estimate for NNS = 0.87) tasks, with very similar weights for the two groups, and that MSA is significantly constructed by both the repetition-of-ungrammatical-sentence s (estimate for NS = 0.88; estimate for NNS = 0.85) and the replication (estimate for NS = 0.73; estimate for NNS = 0.60) tasks for the two groups. However, differences can be observed in the groups’ respective weight for the replication task. The parameter estimate values indicate that less weight was loaded in the model for the NNS. A possible explanation is that the task was harder for the NNS. After making sure that MSA and SA were actually constructed by their respective measurements, we verified their particular contribution to the construction of reading comprehension. Our results reveal that MSA contributes significantly to the construction of reading comprehension for both groups. However, the weight of its

60

The Metalinguistic Dimension

contribution is more important for the NS (parameter estimate = 1.03) than for the NNS children (parameter estimate = 0.84), indicating that the NS relied more on their MSA than the NNS in order to comprehend the text they read in French. The existence of a strong link between MSA and reading comprehension raises the question of the exact nature of the contribution of MSA to reading comprehension. As mentioned in the introduction, MSA has been claimed to support reading comprehension by allowing for the prediction of upcoming words (e.g. Chiappe et al., 1999; Lesaux et al., 2003; Lipka et al., 2012; Low et al., 2005; Siegel, 1993). However our tests did not tap word prediction skills, while still providing a significant contribution to the construction of reading comprehension. MSA has also been claimed to facilitate the reassembly of decoded words into phrases (Tunmer et al., 1984), which is closer to the repetition-of-ungrammatical-sentences and replication-of-error tasks we used. In order to refine our understanding of the way in which MSA contributes to reading comprehension, further research should investigate the exact nature of the observed link by using tasks tapping different aspects of MSA (i.e. word prediction vs reassembly of decoded words into phrases). Syntactic ability, on the other hand, does not make a significant direct contribution to the componential model of reading comprehension for either group. However, it contributes indirectly through its contribution to MSA. This is contrary to the results of van Gelderen et al. (2007), who found that SA contributed to reading comprehension in L1 and in L2, and Verhoeven (1990), who found that SA in L2 explained reading in L2. In the case of van Gelderen et al. (2007), the difference between their results and ours probably lies in the type of SA measurement used in each study. In our case, the two syntactic tasks targeted parsing ability, whereas in van Gelderen et al. (2007) grammatical knowledge was assessed. In their study, the participants were asked to fill in correct forms of verbs while taking into account number, tense, aspect and agreement (p. 480). This task arguably requires higher levels of analysis of language than ours. As for the difference between our study results and those of Verhoeven (1990), we believe it is related to the age of the participants. Verhoeven’s participants were first and second elementary school graders, while our participants were at least 2 years older. The MSA of Verhoeven’s younger participants may not have been sufficiently developed to contribute to reading comprehension. As they get older, children’s mental representations become more explicit and more structured (Bialystok, 2001a, p. 14; but see also Karmiloff-Smith, 1986; Gombert, 1992), and control of attention improves (Bialystok, 1988). Therefore, the mental representations and cognitive processes necessary to carry out cognitive and linguistic tasks that make higher demands, such as reading comprehension tasks, become available as children get older. In our study, the contribution of SA to reading comprehension appears to have been mediated by MSA in both groups, but slightly more strongly in the case of the NS participants (parameter estimate for NNS = 0.75; for NS = 0.89). This observation provides an affirmative answer to our second research question, which was: Is there a relationship between MSA and SA in the modelling of reading comprehension in French-speaking native and non-native children? At first glance, the componential structures of reading comprehension seem to be very similar for both the NS and NNS, which is in line with what van Gelderen et al. (2004, 2007) concluded in their studies.

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

61

The analyses conducted provided us with an additional piece of information regarding the particular weight carried by each factor in the explanation of reading comprehension among the NS and NNS; neither vocabulary nor phonological memory directly contributed to reading comprehension for either group. This contrasts with the results of Lesaux et al. (2010) and Schoonen et al.’s (1998) findings that vocabulary knowledge contributes significantly to reading in L1 and in L2. The discrepancy between our results and theirs might be due in part to differences in the vocabulary measures used in each study. Our results are based on a multiple-choice recognition task, whereas Schoonen et al. (1998) used a multiple-choice sentence completion task requiring both productive vocabulary knowledge and syntactic parsing. Additionally, they used regressions in order to determine the contribution of each variable studied. In Lesaux et al. (2010), vocabulary knowledge was part of a composite measure of language proficiency, which also included listening comprehension. Thus, it is impossible to know for certain the exact contribution of vocabulary knowledge to reading comprehension. Another possible explanation might be that in our test the level of vocabulary required to understand the text in the reading comprehension task did not represent a challenge for the participants. Our results regarding the absence of a direct contribution of either SA or vocabulary to reading comprehension also offer a different view on Cain’s (2007) findings. She concluded, from the multiple regressions she conducted on her data collected among NS, that the relationship between MSA and reading comprehension was indirect and arose from the variance shared with vocabulary, grammatical knowledge and memory. Instead, we would argue that the link between MSA and reading comprehension is direct, but that MSA is constructed by factors such as grammatical knowledge and vocabulary. This requires further investigation, of course. As for phonological memory, although it has traditionally been strongly correlated to reading comprehension, at least in L1 (e.g. Cain et al., 2004; Daneman et al., 1980, 1983), it did not contribute to reading comprehension in the present study. It is possible to think that the role of phonological memory is mediated by other factors. For instance, according to Nation et al. (1999), the relationship between phonological memory and reading comprehension is underpinned by linguistic skills. Therefore, one might hypothesize that the contribution of phonological memory to the construction of reading comprehension is mediated by vocabulary. The model we tested did not include such a potential link between phonological memory and vocabulary, but this is an issue further research might want to address. Finally, while neither vocabulary nor phonological memory contributed to either SA or MSA for the NNS, vocabulary emerged as significant for both SA and MSA for the NS, and phonological memory contributed only to SA in the NS group. According to Bates et al. (1997), SA and vocabulary are closely related in L1. Phonological memory has also been associated with SA in L1 (e.g. Adams et al., 1995; Sansavini et al., 2007), and more recently in L2 (e.g. Andrade et al., 2011; French et al., 2008). However, according to Andrade et al. (2011), the role of phonological memory in SA has not been clearly demonstrated yet, since in most previous studies the influence of vocabulary had not been teased apart from phonological memory in the results obtained. In the same vein, the instrument used to measure phonological memory

62

The Metalinguistic Dimension

in the present study was based on French phonotactic patterns, which might have biased the results obtained by the NNS, despite the fact that they were all educated in the French system (see Simard et al., 2013 for details). This might in part explain the absence of link between phonological memory and SA among the NNS. It should be noted that the contribution of phonological memory in the construction of MSA has never been directly investigated among NNS. These links will definitely have to be explicitly investigated in the future in order to get a better understanding of their contribution to reading comprehension.

Conclusion In the present study, we investigated the way MSA and SA contribute to reading comprehension among NS and NNS of French. It was shown that, for both groups of participants, MSA contributes significantly to the construction of reading comprehension, while the contribution of SA to reading comprehension is indirect as it is mediated by MSA. In addition to adding support to the assumption that MSA is an important contributor to reading comprehension for both NS and NNS, our results offer an important new piece of information regarding the interrelationship between MSA, SA and reading comprehension. As for differences between the two populations, the results revealed that NS and NNS are very similar. However, the weight of the contribution of MSA to reading comprehension as well as the contribution of SA to MSA is more important for NS. This was explained by their higher proficiency in French. In addition, there were differences between the two populations in the respective contributions of phonological memory and vocabulary to SA and to MSA.

Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We wish to thank Véronique Fortier and Karina DaRocha Da Silva who assisted us during various phases of the project. A special thanks goes to Stephen L. MacDonald for his help with the text.

Notes 1 Version B of the Échelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody was used, since version A overestimates language proficiency for children living in Quebec, according to Godard and Labelle (1995). 2 Until recently, two different approaches have been employed for structural equation modelling (Jöreskog et al., 1982). The first one is based on covariance structure analysis (Jöreskog, 1973), and the other on partial least squares (Wold, 1975). For the covariance structure analysis, a large sample size is necessary – Boomsma (1987) recommends 400 – and the data should have a normal (and multinormal) distribution. The partial least squares analysis does not rely on strict distributional assumptions,

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

63

which are often violated in language data. However, it has an important flaw in that it does not provide a solution to the global optimization problem, indicating that there exists no particular measure to determine model parameter estimates (Jöreskog et al., 1982). In order to overcome the limitations associated with these two approaches, a third approach – the Generalized Structured Component Analysis (GSCA) – has recently been developed by Hwang and his collaborators (e.g. Hwang, 2009). GSCA is a component-based approach to structural equation modelling which enables measures of overall model fit and whose method of calculation does not assume multivariate normality. Because of its characteristics, the GSCA approach to structural equation modelling is best suited to our data and was chosen to perform componential analyses in an attempt to answer our two research questions. 3 Residual terms associated with the variables are not presented to make the figure more concise. 4 We considered our measurement model to be reflective, hence the direction of the arrows that are going out of the latent variables, as they show the effects of abstract latent variables. Latent variable measurement models such as the ones found in SEM can be either reflective or formative. ‘Reflective measures are caused by the latent construct, whereas, formative measures cause the latent construct’ (Freeze et al., 2007, p. 1482). More specifically, reflective measurement models are used to validate indicators (in our case the measures) and their latent variables (in our case the key variables). This was our intention with our measurement model. The direction of the arrows shows that changes in the latent variables are reflected by changes in the measures. In formative measurement models, the measures influence the construct.

References Abu-Rabia, S. and Siegel, L. S. (2002), ‘Reading, syntactic, orthographic, and working memory skills of bilingual Arab Canadian children’. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 661–78. Adams, A.-M. and Gathercole, S. E. (1996), ‘Phonological working memory and spoken language development in young children’. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 216–33. Andrade, J. and Baddeley, A. (2011), ‘The contribution of phonological short-term memory to artificial grammar learning’. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 960–74. Armand, F. (2000), ‘Le rôle des capacités métalinguistiques et de la compétence langagière orale dans l’apprentissage de la lecture en français langue première et seconde’. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 56, 469–95. Bates, E. and Goodman, J. C. (1997), ‘On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia and real-time processing’. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 507–84. Bialystok, E. (1988), ‘Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness’. Developmental Psychology, 24, 560–7. — (1990), ‘Connaissances linguistiques et contrôle des activités de langage’, in D. Gaonac’h (ed.), Le français dans le Monde – Recherches et applications, ‘Acquisition et utilisation d’une langue étrangère, l’approche cognitive’. Paris: Hachette, pp. 50–8.

64

The Metalinguistic Dimension

— (1991), ‘Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency’, in E. Bialystok (ed.), Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–40. — (1993), ‘Metalinguistic awareness: The development of children’s representations of language’, in C. Pratt and A. F. Garton (eds), Systems of Representation in Children: Development and Use. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 211–33. — (1999), ‘Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind’. Child Development, 70, 636–44. — (2001a), Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. — (2001b), ‘Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 169–81. Birdsong, D. (1989), Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer. Blackmore, A. M. and Pratt, C. (1997), ‘Grammatical awareness and reading in Grade 1 children’. Merrill-Palmer, 43, 567–90. Boosma, A. (1987), ‘The robustness of maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation models’, in P. Cuttance and R. Ecob (eds), Structural Modeling by Example. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–88. Bourque Richard, J. (1998), Les distorsions mnémoniques en fonction de l’âge, le vocabulaire et la suggestibilité. Unpublished PhD thesis, Université de Moncton, Canada. Bower, G. H. and Morrow, D. G. (1990), ‘Mental models in narrative comprehension’. Science, 247, (4938), 44–8. Bowey, J. A. (1986), ‘Syntactic awareness in relation to reading skill and ongoing comprehension monitoring’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 282–99. — (2005), ‘Grammatical sensitivity: Its origins and potential contribution to early word reading skill’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 318–43. Cain, K. (2007), ‘Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special relationship?’ Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 679–94. Cain, K. and Nash, H. M. (2011), ‘The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 429–41. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. and Bryant, P. E. (2004), ‘Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42. Carlisle, J. F. (1995), ‘Morphological awareness and early reading achievement’, in L. B. Feldman (ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 189–209. Carr, T. H. and Levy, B. (eds) (1990), Reading and its Development: Component Skills Approaches. San Diego: Academic Press. Cataldo, M. G. and Oakhill, J. (2000), ‘Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, (4), 791–9. Chiappe, P. and L. S. Siegel (1999), ‘Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in English- and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 20–8. Clay, M. M. (1971), ‘Sentence repetition: Elicited imitation of a controlled set of syntactic structures by four language groups’. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 36 (No. 143).

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

65

Comblain, A. (2005), ‘Le développement de la syntaxe et de la métasyntaxe et leur évaluation’, in B. Piérart (ed.), Le langage de l’enfant. Bruxelles: DeBoeck, pp. 83–98. Da Fontoura, H. and Siegel, L. (1995), ‘Reading, syntactic, and working memory skills of bilingual Portuguese-English Canadian children’. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 139–53. Daneman, M. and Carpenter, P. A. (1980), ‘Individual differences in working memory and reading’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450–66. — (1983), ‘Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 561–84. de Villiers, J. G. and de Villiers, P. A. (1972), ‘Early judgments of semantic and syntactic acceptability by children’. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 299–310. — (1974), ‘Competence and performance in child language: Are children really competent to judge?’ Journal of Child Language, 1, 11–22. Demont, E. (1994), Développement métalinguistique et apprentissage de la lecture. Unpublished PhD thesis, Université de Bourgogne, France. Demont, E. and Gombert, J. E. (1996), ‘Phonological awareness as a predictor of recoding skills and syntactic awareness as a predictor of comprehension skills’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 315–23. Denhiere, G. and Baudet, S. (1992), Lecture, compréhension de texte et sciences cognitives. Paris: PUF. Dunn, L. M. and Dunn, L. M. (1981), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised. Circle Pines, NM: American Guidance Services. Dunn, L. M., Theriault-Whalen, C. M. and Dunn, L. M. (1993), Échelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody. Toronto: Editions Psycan. Efron, B. (1982), The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM. Ellis, R. (1991), ‘Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 161–86. Foucambert, D. (2003), Syntaxe, vision parafovéale et processus de lecture. Contribution du modèle structural à la pédagogie. Unpublished PhD thesis, Université Grenoble 2. — (2009), ‘L’amélioration de la compréhension en lecture de jeunes collégiens par un entraînement syntaxique: modalités, résultats et perspectives’. Revue des Sciences de l’Éducation, 35, 41–69. Freeze, R. D. and Raschke, R. S. (2007), ‘An assessment of formative and reflective constructs in IS research’. Proceedings of ECIS, 1481–2. French, L. M. and O’Brien, I. (2008), ‘Phonological memory and children’s second language grammar learning’. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 463–87. Fu, J.-R. (2007), VisualPLS 1.04b. Retrieved 19 October 2011 from http://fs.mis.kuas.edu. tw/~fred/vpls/index.htm. Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C. S., Baddeley, A. D. and Emslie, H. (1994), ‘The children’s test of nonword repetition: A test of phonological working memory’. Memory, 2, 103–27. Gaux, C. and Demont, E. (1997), ‘Conscience phonologique, morpho-syntaxique et lecture: étude chez les jeunes enfants et les pré-adolescents’, in C. Barre-De Miniac and B. Lete (eds), L’illettrisme: De la prévention chez l’enfant a la prise en chargé chez l’adulte. Approches pluridisciplinaires. Bruxelles: De Boeck, pp. 203–23. Gaux, C. and Gombert, J.-E. (1999), ‘Implicit and explicit syntactic knowledge and reading in pre-adolescents’. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 169–88.

66

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Geva, E. and Siegel, L. S. (2000), ‘Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages’. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 1–30. Godard, L. and Labelle, M. (1995), ‘Utilisation de l’EVIP avec une population québécoise’. Fréquences, 7, 18–20. Goff, D. A., Pratt, C. and Ong, B. (2005), ‘The relations between children’s reading comprehension, working memory, language skills and components of reading decoding in a normal sample’. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 583–616. Gombert, J.-E. (1992), Metalinguistic Development. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Gombert, J.-E., Gaux, C. and Demont, E. (1994), ‘Capacité métalinguistique et lecture. Quels liens?’ Repères, 9, 61–73. Goswami, U. and Bryant, P. E. (1990), Phonological Skills and Learning to Read. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S. and Louwerse, M. (2003), ‘What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text?’, in A. P. Sweet and C. E. Snow (eds), Rethinking Reading Comprehension. New York: Guilford, pp. 82–98. Graesser, A. C., Louwerse, M., McNamara, D. S., Olney, A. M., Cai, Z. and Mitchell, H. H. (2007), ‘Inference generation and cohesion in the construction of situation models: Some connections with computational linguistics’, in F. Schmalhofer and C. A. Perfetti (eds), Higher Level Language Processes in the Brain: Inference and Comprehension Processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 289–310. Guthrie, J. T. and Kirsch, I. S. (1987a), ‘Distinctions between reading comprehension and locating information in text’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 220–7. Guthrie, J. T. and Peter, M. (1987b), ‘Literacy as multidimensional: Locating information and reading comprehension’. Educational Psychologist, 22, (3/4), 279–97. Haberlandt, K. and Graesser, A. (1985), ‘Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, (3), 357–74. Hill, T. and Lewicki, P. (2007), Statistics Methods and Applications. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft. Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P. (1995), ‘Evaluating model fit’, in R. H. Hoyle (ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. London: Sage, pp. 76–99. Hwang, H. (2009), ‘Regularized generalized structured component analysis’. Psychometrika, 74, 517–30. — (2010), GeSCA User’s Manual. Retrieved from GESCA website: www.sem-gesca.org/ manual.php. Hwang, H., Malhotra, N. K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A. and Hong, S. (2010), ‘A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling’. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 699–712. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983), Mental Models: Toward a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jöreskog, K. G. (1973), ‘A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system’, in A. S. Goldberger and O. D. Duncan (eds), Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Academic Press, pp. 85–112. Jöreskog, K. G. and Wold, H. (1982), ‘The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: Historical and comparative aspects’, in H. Wold and K. G. Jöreskog (eds), Systems Under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction I. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 263–70.

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

67

Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A. (1992), ‘A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory’. Psychological Review, 99, 122–49. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986), ‘From meta-processes to conscious access: Evidence from metalinguistic and repair data’. Cognition, 23, 95–147. Kintsch, W. (1988), ‘The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A constructionintegration model’. Psychological Review, 95, 163–82. — (1998), Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koda, K. (2007), ‘Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development’. Language Learning, 57, 1–44. Kunnan, A. J. (1998), ‘An introduction to structural equation modelling for language assessment research’. Language Testing, 15, 295–332. LaBerge, D. and Samuels, S. J. (1974), ‘Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading’. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. Lesaux, N. K. and Siegel, L. S. (2003), ‘The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language’. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005–119. Lesaux, N. K., Lipka, O. and Siegel, L. S. (2006), ‘Investigating cognitive and linguistic abilities that influence the reading comprehension skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds’. Reading and Writing, 19, 99–131. Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A. and Siegel, L. S. (2007), ‘Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 821–34. Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A., Kieffer, M. J. and Pierce, M. (2010), ‘Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills’. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 475–83. Lipka, O. and Siegel, L. S. (2007), ‘The development of reading skills in children with English as a second language’. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 105–31. — (2012), ‘The development of reading comprehension skills in children learning English as a second language’. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1873–98. Loehlin, J. C. (2004), Latent Variable Models (4th edn). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Low, P. B. and Siegel, L. S. (2005), ‘A comparison of the cognitive processes underlying reading comprehension in native English and ESL speakers’. Written Language & Literacy, 8, 207–31. Luk, G. and Bialystok, E. (2008), ‘Common and distinct cognitive bases for reading in English–Cantonese bilinguals’. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 269–89. Lust, B. (2006), Child Language Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lust, B., Flynn, S. and Foley, C. (1996), ‘What children know about what they say – Elicited imitation as a research method’, in C. McDaniel, C. McKee and H. Cairnes (eds), Methods for Assessing Children’s Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 55–76. Martohardjono, G., Otheguy, R., Gabriele, A., de Goeas-Malonne, M., Szupica-Pyrzanowski, M., Troseth, E., Rivero, S. and Schutzman, Z. (2005), ‘The role of syntax in reading comprehension: A study of bilingual readers’, in J. Cohen, K. McAlister, K. Rolstad and J. MacSwan (eds), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 1522–44. Nation, K. and Snowling, M. J. (1997), ‘Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill’. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 359–70.

68

The Metalinguistic Dimension

— (2000), ‘Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders’. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 229–41. Nation, K., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C. A. and Snowling, M. J. (1999), ‘Working memory deficits in poor comprehenders reflect underlying language impairments’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 139–58. Nocus, I. and Gombert, J.-E. (1997), ‘Conscience morpho-syntaxique et apprentissage de la lecture’. Revue de psychologie de l’éducation, 3, 71–101. Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K. and Bryant, P. E. (2003), ‘The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills’. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–68. Perfetti, C. A. (1999), ‘Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader’, in C. M. Brown and P. Hagoort (eds), The Neurocognition of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 167–208. Poncelet, M. and Van der Linden, M. (2003), ‘Assessing the phonological store of working memory: elaboration of a non-word repetition test for a French-speaking population’. Revue de neuropsychologie, 13, 377–407. Rego, L. L. B. and Bryant, P. E. (1993), ‘The connection between phonological, syntactic and semantic skills and children’s reading and spelling’. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8, 235–46. Roman, A. A., Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R. K., Wade-Woolley, L. and Deacon, S. H. (2008), ‘Toward a comprehensive view of the skills involved in word reading in Grades 4, 6, and 8’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 96–113. Sansavini, A., Guarini, A., Alessandroni, R., Faldella, G., Giovanelli, G. and Salvioli, G. (2007), ‘Are early grammatical and phonological working memory abilities affected by preterm birth?’ Journal of Communication Disorders, 40, 239–56. Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J. and Bossers, B. (1998), ‘Metacognitive and language-specific knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An empirical study among Dutch students in grade 6, 8, and 10’. Language Learning, 48, 71–106. Siegel, L. S. (1993), ‘The development of reading’, in H. W. Reese (ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behaviour (Vol. 24). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 63–97. Simard, D. and Fortier, V. (2007), ‘Metasyntactic ability development among submersion and French native elementary school children: Investigation of task demand’, in Z. Han (ed.), Understanding Second Language Processes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 160–75. Simard, D., Fortier, V. and Foucambert, D. (2013), ‘Measuring the metasyntactic ability of Portuguese speaking children living in a French speaking environment’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 19–31 Smith-Lock, K. M. (1995), ‘Morphological usage and awareness in children with and without specific language impairment’. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 163–85. Snow, C. E., Cancino, H., Gonzalez, P. and Shriberg, E. (1989), ‘Giving formal definitions: An oral language correlate of school literacy’, in D. Bloome (ed.), Literacy and Classrooms. Norwood, NJ: Albex, pp. 233–49. Stanovich, K. E. (1991), ‘Word recognition: Changing perspectives’, in R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal and P. D. Pearson (eds), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2). New York: Longman, pp. 418–52. Stothard, S. E. and Hulme, C. (1996), ‘A comparison of reading comprehension and decoding difficulties in children’, in C. Cornoldi and J. Oakhill (eds), Reading Comprehension Difficulties: Processes and Intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 95–106.

Contribution of Syntactic and Metasyntactic Abilities

69

Tunmer, W. E. (1990), ‘The role of language prediction skills in beginning reading’. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 25, 95–114. Tunmer, W. E. and Bowey, J. A. (1984), ‘Metalinguistic awareness and reading acquisition’, in W. E. Tunmer, C. Pratt and M. L. Herriman (eds), Metalinguistic Awareness in Children: Theory, Research, and Implications. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 144–68. Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L. and Nesdale, A. R. (1988), ‘Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading’. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134–58. Tunmer, W. E. and Hoover, W. A. (1992), ‘Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read’, in P. E. Gough, L. C. Ehri and R. Treiman (eds), Reading Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 175–214. Tunmer, W. E., Nesdale, A. R. and Wright, A. D. (1987), ‘Syntactic awareness and reading acquisition’. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 25–34. Valdés, G. (2001). ‘Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities’, in J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard and S. McGinnis (eds), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource. Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems, pp. 37–77. van Dijk, T. A. and Kintsch, W. (1983), Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., De Glopper, K. and Hulstijn, J. (2007), ‘Development of adolescent reading comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 477–91. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P. and Stevenson, M. (2004), ‘Linguistic knowledge, processing speed and metacognitive knowledge in first and second language reading comprehension: A componential analysis’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 19–30. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A. and Stevenson, M. (2003), ‘Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling approach’. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 7–25. Verhoeven, L. (1990), ‘Acquisition of reading in a second language’. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 90–114. Wold, H. (1975), ‘Path models with latent variables: The NIPALS approach’, in H. M. Blalock, A. Aganbegian, F. M. Borodkin, R. Boudon and V. Cappecchi (eds), Quantitative Sociology: International Perspectives on Mathematical Statistical Model Building. New York: Academic Press, pp. 307–57. Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C. and Graesser, A. C. (1995), ‘The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model’. Psychological Science, 6, 292–7.

4

Effects of Instruction on Learners’ Acquisition of Metalinguistic Knowledge Rosemary Erlam

University of Auckland

Abstract This chapter investigates how amenable a particular linguistic feature is to explicit instruction drawing on metalinguistic descriptions. It presents a study where adult ESL students (n = 51) were given explicit instruction and language practice activities targeting the use of the indefinite article to mark generic reference. Learning was assessed on a Grammaticality Judgement test (ungrammatical items only, Ellis, 2005) and a Metalinguistic Knowledge test. Results investigate the impact of instruction on metalinguistic knowledge and metalingual competence, allowing also for a comparison of the relative effectiveness of two types of instruction (input-based and outputbased). The relationship between results on the Grammaticality Judgement test and a hypothesized measure of implicit language knowledge is also presented.

Introduction Research studies investigating the effectiveness of different types of L2 instruction will often incorporate a measure of metalinguistic judgement. Norris and Ortega (2000) found that 14 out of the 49 experimental and quasi-experimental studies they incorporated in their landmark meta-analysis included metalinguistic judgement as one of their outcome measures. However, notwithstanding the not uncommon use of measures of metalinguistic knowledge, one can have the impression that results on these measures are not given as much weight or importance in reporting learning outcomes as other measures that give information about language ‘use’, which is seen to be a more valid indication of language acquisition. This may explain why there is a relative lack of focus on metalinguistic learning in instructed contexts and, as Roehr (2008) points out, a lack of research investigating how amenable particular linguistic features are to explicit language instruction drawing on metalinguistic descriptions.

72

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Definition Metalinguistic knowledge is a learner’s explicit knowledge about the syntactic, morphological, lexical, phonological and pragmatic features of a L2 (Roehr and Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2009). It is knowledge that is analysed, requires deliberate focus and, as Elder (2009) claims, learners know when they are drawing on it, in, for example, making judgements about the grammaticality of sentences or in editing writing. One can demonstrate metalinguistic knowledge without being able to use metalanguage. Metalanguage is any language used to talk or write about language (Berry, 2005). It is not restricted to the use of linguistic or grammatical terminology only, because one can ‘talk’ about language without using such terminology. Metalingual is the adjective derived from the word metalanguage. Berry (2004) refers to ‘metalingual competence’, given that learners seem to have differing levels of ability to write or talk about language. In the present chapter metalingual competence will be considered a subcomponent of metalinguistic knowledge. Metalinguistic knowledge is differentiated from implicit language knowledge, which is intuitive knowledge that cannot be directly reported (Ellis, 2008). Loewen and Reinders (2011) state that learners may draw on implicit knowledge in completing some measures of metalinguistic knowledge, such as Grammaticality Judgement tests, but they would not be able to draw on this knowledge to explain the basis for decisions they had made. Most researchers would see linguistic competence as consisting primarily of implicit L2 knowledge, in that it is primarily this knowledge that allows for effective language use in real-time contexts. There is some debate as to whether the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge should be seen as a continuum or a dichotomy (Ellis, 2008).

Review of research Research that has focused on learners’ explicit or metalinguistic knowledge has done so mainly with the aim of investigating ‘the interface question’, that is, the impact of explicit instruction on implicit knowledge. This is an unresolved issue, however, there is an impressive body of research which suggests that explicit instruction does seem to enable learners to acquire explicit knowledge (Norris and Ortega, 2000).There are fewer studies that look at the impact of instruction on metalinguistic knowledge along with metalingual competence, and those that do, tend to look at knowledge that learners may have as a result of exposure to long periods of formal instruction (e.g. Green and Hecht, 1992; Hu, 2002) rather than at the impact of a short, focused treatment on metalinguistic learning. Of the former, Green and Hecht (1992) investigated German learners’ knowledge of 12 common target structures in L2 English. The learners were asked to correct sentences and explain the rule that had been violated. They were able to correct 78% of the sentences but could state the correct rule in less than half the cases (46%). Hu (2011) conducted a study which was designed to investigate the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge and the metalingual competence of learners exposed to large amounts of explicit grammar instruction. All 76 participants were Chinese learners of English and had been exposed to large amounts of explicit and detailed

Effects of Instruction

73

English grammar instruction. Hu had participants formulate 49 rules to explain the use of underlined structures in sentences. He found that their rule formulation was mostly consistent with typical pedagogical rules and that they could use a large number of metalingual terms. On the other hand, Elder et al. (2007) found that a group of Malaysian teacher trainees, who had had considerable exposure to explicit grammarbased instruction, achieved less than 50% of acceptable responses on a task requiring them to give rule explanations and that their command of metalingual terminology was even weaker. These same participants performed at a high level when asked to judge the grammaticality of sentences, however. The researchers pointed out that performance with respect to rules differed widely and concluded that participants seemed more successful with pedagogical rules that are traditionally taught early and ‘recycled’. They also suggested other factors that could determine difficulty such as processing constraints (Pienemann, 1998) and the transparency of form-meaning links (DeKeyser, 2005). With respect to research that has investigated the impact of focused and shorter periods of instruction on metalinguistic learning, the results of Norris and Ortega’s meta-analysis (2000) are informative, in that 40 out of the 49 studies they investigated had instructional treatments of less than 6 hours. For the 14 studies that included metalinguistic judgements as an outcome measure, Norris and Ortega report a large average effect size (d = 0.82). Roehr (2010) hypothesizes that rules which are high in schematicity (i.e. can be applied across a class rather than to a specific linguistic construction only), low in conceptual complexity, low in technicality of metalanguage and high in truth value (i.e. apply without exception) will be more easily learned than rules which do not meet these criteria. She also suggests (Roehr, 2008) that constructions that demonstrate comparatively ‘stable, and context independent usage patterns should be more amenable to explicit teaching (p. 93)’ than constructions that do not demonstrate these characteristics. There has been little attention in the research literature as to whether different types of instruction are more effective in fostering the development of metalinguistic knowledge. This is perhaps not surprising given the previously mentioned preoccupation in the research literature with the development of implicit rather than explicit language knowledge. However, in her Output Hypothesis, Swain (1995) has argued that the opportunity for metalinguistic reflection and the chance to process language syntactically during the process of language production may foster L2 development. She thus stresses a key role for output in the language learning process, a position that has put her at variance with a number of researchers (VanPatten, 1996; Krashen, 1998) who argue that language acquisition is input-driven and deny a significant role for output. More recently, Izumi (2003) and Ellis (2003) have also argued that the need to encode meaning during language production can force learners to have recourse to their own cognitive resources, including any metalinguistic knowledge they might have, and that this may have a flow-back effect into the developing language system. Drawing on Levelt’s model, Muranoi (2007) suggests that where learners are given opportunities to convey messages relying on their lexical, grammatical and phonological knowledge, there are opportunities for hypothesis testing which is crucial for interlanguage development, a claim that is endorsed by Swain.

74

The Metalinguistic Dimension

The hypothesis that giving learners opportunities to engage in language output may allow for metalinguistic reflection suggests the possibility that instruction that favours language output may more successfully promote the development of metalinguistic knowledge than instruction that favours language input. There is a lack of research that can speak to this issue because, as Toth (2006) points out, most studies that compare the effectiveness of input-based and output-based instruction assess learning outcomes on Interpretation and Production tests rather than on measures of Metalinguistic knowledge. An exception is his own study (Toth, 2006), which does address the relative effectiveness of these two types of instruction and which includes a Grammaticality Judgement test. Toth compared two groups of students, one that completed structured input activities, following a Processing Instruction model (VanPatten, 2004), where they did not engage in production of the target structure (anticausative clitic ‘se’ in L2 Spanish) and another where students completed activities that required them to use the target structure in meaningful contexts. Students in this second, ‘Output’ group also received feedback as to the well-formedness of their utterances. Toth recorded the classroom interaction of both groups and presents in his paper an example in the ‘Output group’ of how a learner’s engaging in communicating meaning led to metalinguistic reflection which pushed the learner to correctly reformulate her previously incorrect utterance. On the Grammaticality Judgement test, however, there was no statistically significant difference between the results for both groups, although the Output groups’ scores were higher overall. Thus there was no conclusive evidence to suggest that greater opportunity for metalinguistic reflection led to greater gains in metalinguistic knowledge. On the other hand, the Output group did make statistically significant greater gains than the Input group on a guided Production test. Toth goes on to highlight a need for further research on the links between metalinguistic knowledge and output. In a similar vein Muranoi (2007) states that the role of output in language acquisition remains contentious and argues that L2 researchers should examine the roles of output in acquiring various linguistic rules, especially complex syntactic rules.

Role of metalinguistic knowledge in L2 acquisition The issue of the impact of explicit instruction on implicit knowledge, commonly known as ‘the interface question’, is still a largely unresolved issue. Berry (2005) refers to a lack of evidence that metalanguage supports language proficiency and Hu (2011) refers to the controversy that has raged over the usefulness of an explicit focus and metalinguistic knowledge in L2 learning. Researchers (e.g. Ellis, 2009) have tended to suggest that explicit knowledge makes only the very indirect contribution to acquisition of focusing attention to form in L2 input. In a review of empirical research on explicit and implicit knowledge, however, DeKeyser (2009) concludes that explicit knowledge, when fully proceduralized and automatized, may be directly involved in real-time language use. This means, DeKeyser claims (2003), that it might not be possible to distinguish the two types of knowledge empirically given that explicit knowledge may be proceduralized so as to make it indistinguishable from implicit knowledge. Evidence for this hypothesis would be the demonstration of some relationship between the two

Effects of Instruction

75

types of knowledge, that is, explicit or, as is more relevant in the case of this study, metalinguistic knowledge and implicit language knowledge as a result of opportunities that might be given in instruction to proceduralize language. DeKeyser notes that proceduralization may be facilitated through either comprehension or production practice, but specifies that procedural knowledge is unlikely to be transferred from one skill to another, that is, practice in comprehension, for example, is likely to lead to improvement in language comprehension only.

Measuring metalinguistic knowledge The grammaticality judgement test is a common measure of metalinguistic knowledge (Loewen, 2009). Ellis (2004) outlines three steps that learners may go through in making a grammaticality judgement: 1. Semantic processing, 2. Noticing and 3. Reflecting. Ellis claims that in judging a grammatical sentence, learners may stop after step 2. Reflection may only be necessary if the test taker has noticed something ungrammatical. For this reason ungrammatical sentences are a better measure of explicit, metalinguistic knowledge than grammatical sentences. The test taker may rely on implicit knowledge to make decisions about grammatical sentences but is more likely to draw on explicit knowledge in judging ungrammatical sentences. Loewen’s results (2009) from the trialling of a grammaticality judgement test support this conclusion. Grammaticality judgement tests may have a number of additional optional features such as requiring learners to correct sentences that they judge as incorrect (Ellis, 1991) or indicating the degree of confidence they have in judgements made (Gass, 1994). Another way of measuring metalinguistic knowledge is to require students to match items from a list of grammatical terms to corresponding exemplars in a sentence or text or to have learners choose the explanation which best describes an error or language feature (Elder, 2009). A common measure of metalingual competence is to have learners verbalize language rules (Elder, 2009). Roehr (2008) observes that the verbalization of metalinguistic knowledge often takes the form of a ‘proposition involving at least two categories and a relation between them (p. 85)’.

The present study The questions which the study asked are as follows: 1. What effect does instruction have on learners’ metalinguistic knowledge of the target structure? 2. Does the type of instruction (i.e. input-based versus output-based instruction) lead to differences in the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge? 3. What relationship is there between a measure of metalinguistic knowledge and a measure of implicit language knowledge used to assess learning following instruction?

76

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Method Participants The study was conducted in two private language schools in New Zealand with students enrolled in ‘general English’ courses of between four and six weeks in length. In each school two intact classes of intermediate level students were randomly allocated to one of two treatment options: input based (InI) or output-based (OI). Students receiving OI totalled 19 while students receiving InI totalled 20. A third group of students at one of the language schools formed the Control group (n = 12), receiving no instructional treatments as part of this study but taking part in all testing episodes. A total of 51 students took part in the study. A background information questionnaire showed that the majority of students came from an Asian language-speaking background (Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean). The remainder came from a variety of language backgrounds (Spanish, Arabic, German, Russian, Portuguese). See Table 4.1 for more information about the students.

Design All students sat a pre-test at the end of a teaching week. Commencing the first day back in class, students in the treatment groups received lessons over two consecutive days, each of 1-hour duration. The same researcher taught all lessons. The post-test was completed the day after the second lesson and the delayed post-test two weeks later. For all testing episodes participants completed the Oral Elicited Imitation test first, followed by the Grammaticality Judgement test and the Metalinguistic Knowledge test. The Control group completed all testing episodes over the same time scale.

Target structure The target structure was the use of the indefinite article to mark generic reference. e.g. A cheetah runs fast. Generic reference with count nouns can also be marked by use of the zero article with plural noun (Cheetahs run fast) and the definite article with singular noun (The cheetah runs fast). However, the indefinite article is the most concrete and colloquial way of expressing a generality (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999). When noncount nouns are used generically, the indefinite article is omitted. e.g. Water is essential for life. Table 4.1  Background information of participants

Asian language background Average time spent learning English Average time spent in an English-speaking country

OI group (n = 19)

InI group (n = 20)

Control (n = 12)

14 8 years 3 months

13 6.9 years 9 months

6 5.9 years 3 months

Effects of Instruction

77

In this study, the focus was the use of the indefinite article with count nouns and the omission of the article with noncount nouns to convey generic reference. Generic articles were chosen as the target structure, first, because they cause learners difficulty. One reason for this is that the indefinite article ‘a/an’ is often not acoustically salient because it is usually used in its unstressed, weak form (/ә/ or /әn/) and so may not be perceived by learners (Parrott, 2000). It is, furthermore, completely omitted when noncount nouns are used generically, so that learners have the added confusion of receiving input without the indefinite article. Second, generic ‘a/an’ is complex. It is notthe only way of conveying generic reference (as mentioned above) and furthermore, a/an can convey a variety of other meanings (it can be used to convey non-specific meaning and to represent a particular type of class, that is, to classify). The indefinite article (and indeed the definite article) violates what Andersen (1984) describes as the One-to-One principle which states that acquisition of a form is facilitated when there is a clear and unique correspondence between the form and its meaning. To sum up then, the rule describing the use of the indefinite article with count nouns and the omission of the article with noncount nouns to convey generic reference may not be as amenable to explicit instruction as some grammar rules. This is because it is high in conceptual complexity, low in schematicity, relatively context dependent and low in truth value (Roehr, 2010). It also describes a secondary or peripheral use of the article system, the more prototypical or central use of the indefinite article being to convey non-specific meaning and to classify (see also Hu, 2002 on metalinguistic knowledge about prototypical vs peripheral uses of linguistic structures). Evidence that students in this study had only limited knowledge of the target structure comes from their performance on the pre-tests of the measures used to assess learning. Students scored on average 7.31 (out of a maximum of 12) for judging ungrammatical sentences and 3.69 (out of a maximum of 12) for correcting sentences on the Grammaticality Judgement test. They also scored an average of 0.77 (out of a maximum of 3) for ability to give a correct metalinguistic explanation and 41% on the Oral Elicited Imitation Test.

Instructional treatments Both the InI and OI groups received explicit instruction at the beginning of both days of instruction. Students in the InI group then worked at a total of eight structured input activities and students in the OI group at eight meaning-based output activities. The activities were matched for subject matter and vocabulary. The explicit instruction for both groups covered the following points (see Appendix A): Day 1: Indefinite use of article ‘a’ with the meaning of ONE Use of indefinite article to make a generalization, not referring to just one person/ thing Use of plural noun as another possible way of making a generalization Day 2: Revision of explicit information given on Day 1 Expressing generalization with an uncountable noun.

78

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Instruction for the OI group followed a PPP (presentation/practice/production) format (Gower and Walters, 1983), however, there was a focus on meaning at all times. The explicit instruction, as described above, was given during the presentation phase. During the practice phase students were encouraged to use the target language structure in a linguistically controlled context and in meaningful interaction with each other. They were given feedback so that a response which omitted the generic article, for example, was recast so that they heard the correct form. During the production phase of the treatment students were given free practice in using the target structure, that is, they were not given linguistic resources to help them complete the activity. However, activities were designed so that the target structure was useful or essential, in the belief that this would provide a context for Swain’s ‘pushed output’. See Appendix B for examples of instructional activities. The instruction the InI group received was based on VanPatten’s model of Processing Instruction (2004), meaning that they received additional explicit instruction in which the strategy that did not help them learn language effectively was described to them, that is, the One-to-One Principle (Anderson, 1984). They were told that they needed to learn to ‘process’ differently ‘a/an’, a form with which they were already familiar as conveying indefinite meaning. Structured input activities then aimed to train them to distinguish generic from particular meaning. These activities required them to process both written and oral input, but did not require them at any time to engage in producing language output. Students were given feedback about the accuracy of the choices they made when completing these activities (see Erlam et al., 2009 for more information about the treatments). To summarize then, the key difference between the two treatments was: 1/ there were opportunities for students in the OI group to produce output containing the target form, whereas for the InI group, the target form occurred in utterances made by the teacher only; 2/ students in the OI group received feedback concerning accuracy of their output containing the target form, whereas in the InI group, students received feedback about the accuracy of their selection of answers in relation to language input. The Control group continued with their normal class programme during this time; their part in this study was confined to participation in the testing episodes.

Testing Tests The Grammaticality Judgement test (GJT) This was a pen and paper test in the form of a booklet. The 32 items were presented on a new page so that answers to one item were not influenced by preceding items. Students were not allowed to turn back and look at previous pages. The ungrammatical items (n = 12) formed the data set for this study, although of course participants completed all items. This is because, as previously discussed, ungrammatical items are considered better measures of explicit and metalinguistic language knowledge (Ellis, 2005). Eight items tested for ungrammatical marking of generic ‘a’ and four tested for generic use of noncount nouns in grammatically incorrect contexts.

Effects of Instruction

79

Test takers were asked to indicate by ticking a box whether each sentence was correct or incorrect. They were then asked to state how certain they were of their decision, by putting a percentage in a box. Lastly, they were told that if the sentence was incorrect, that they should rewrite it correctly at the bottom of the page (see Appendix C for an example of the test format). Before beginning the test, participants completed six training items. One version of the test was used over all three testing sessions, however the order of presentation of items was different for each test administration. Wherever possible, the target structure was not placed initially in the sentence. Examples of test items are: These days, computer saves a lot of time at work. Often an information helps people make decisions.

In scoring for the correction of sentences where a context was established for the generic use of count nouns, any correction that allowed for generic use of the noun was accepted (i.e. including correction with ‘the’ or plural noun if appropriate in the specific context). Reliability, using internal consistency, was estimated on all versions of the test for judgement of ungrammatical items, giving Cronbach’s alpha as follows: pre-test, α  = .559; post-test, α = .805; delayed post-test, α = .788. Cronbach’s alpha values for the correction of the ungrammatical items were as follows: pre-test, α = .695; post-test, α = .911; delayed post-test, α = .893. It is suggested that the lower reliability estimates for the pre-test in each case may be due to the fact that students had less knowledge of the target structure and that there was therefore less variability in scores. Reliability was also estimated for the certainty rating participants indicated, giving Cronbach’s alpha for the three tests as follows: α = .931, α = .966, α = .976.

The Metalinguistic Knowledge test (MKT) The Metalinguistic Knowledge test consisted of a total of six items but only three were relevant to this study. Two sentences established a context for generic use of count nouns and one for generic use of noncount nouns. All sentences were ungrammatical and the part of the sentence containing the error was italicised. Test takers were asked in each case to correct the error and to explain what was wrong with the sentence. See Appendix C for a sample item. Students were shown two sample items before beginning the test, in each case the model answer that was given was an explanatory rule that used metalanguage. For example: Before a noun, you have to use the possessive adjective, not the pronoun.

Scoring Students were scored for the ability to correct the three sentences. They were then scored according to whether they had given a satisfactory explanation for the error. Scoring at this stage did not take account of metalinguistic terminology. Participants were given credit EITHER for an explanation that focused on form and that accounted for the use or nonuse of articles with count or noncount nouns (referred to subsequently as

80

The Metalinguistic Dimension

‘syntactic’) OR for an explanation that focused on form and meaning and demonstrated understanding of use of ‘a’ to convey generic reference (referred to subsequently as ‘semantic’). The rationale behind this was that many might initially know some of the syntactic rules governing the more prototypical use of articles but that they might have little understanding of the use of ‘a’ to convey generic reference, which is primarily a form-meaning distinction and a more peripheral use of indefinite article ‘a’. In particular it was expected that, as a result of the instruction, students might move from giving ‘syntactic’ to ‘semantic’ explanations, given that the criteria for a semantic explanation (see below) corresponded closely to the metalinguistic information that participants were given during instruction (see Appendix A). For a correct ‘syntactic’ explanation for an error with a count noun, participants needed to fulfil the following criteria (the words in parentheses are optional, not required): reference to the fact that you need ‘a’ before a (count) noun OR you need a determiner/article before a (count) noun (in the singular)

For the stimulus: In Japan, dog is a popular pet an example of an answer which was given credit as a syntactic explanation is as follows: It is countable and needs article

For a correct ‘semantic’ explanation for an error with a count noun participants needed to fulfil the following criteria: reference to the fact that ‘a’ + noun (or article) refers to a general concept (or to many) OR if you want to make a generalisation/refer to the general idea of something you need to use ‘a’ (with a singular noun)

An example of an answer which was given credit as a semantic explanation for the above stimulus is as follows: This sentence describe about general thing so we need article.

The following answers were not considered satisfactory in terms of either a ‘syntactic’ or ‘semantic’ explanation and were given no credit. Before noun, we must use the pronoun. It must use article ‘a’. There is a ‘is’ so I have to use ‘a’.

It is important to note that, in order to be given credit, an answer needed to present a proposition (Roehr, 2010) of the type ‘because X therefore Y’. To some extent then, for some participants, success on this measure may have depended on their willingness and

Effects of Instruction

81

ability to write a full explanation. However, with respect to the former it is important to stress that there were two examples of adequate definitions given to participants before they began the test and also that it was impossible to infer understanding on the basis of incomplete answers. Further limitations with respect to this test are the smaller than ideal number of items (this was due to the limited amount of time available for testing) and the requirement that students complete the test in their L2. It is important, therefore, that results on this particular measure are interpreted with caution. For these reasons, and in the interest of space, results for this test will address Research question 1 only, thus they are presented for the Treatment group as a whole and the Control group. Test takers were also scored for their use of metalingual terminology in completing this Metalinguistic Knowledge test. They were given a score for using any of the following terms: article, count, noncount, noun, singular, generalization. Thus it was possible for them to score up to a total of six for this category. However, this score was the total number of different terms used, in other words, they were given credit for type rather than token. The Metalinguistic Knowledge test was scored by a Masters student in applied linguistics who had been trained for this purpose. The researcher independently scored 25% of the scripts to test for rater reliability. Pearson’s correlations for each category are presented as follows: metalinguistic explanations (r = .944), metalinguistic terminology (r = .968).

The Oral Elicited Imitation Test This instrument, which incorporates a primary focus on meaning and time pressure as crucial components of the test design, is hypothesized to be a measure of implicit language knowledge (see Erlam, 2009). In the present study this test consisted of 32 statements, 17 of which contained generic ‘a’ in a grammatically correct context and 7 of which contained generic ‘a’ in a grammatically incorrect context. A further eight statements contained examples of noncount nouns used generically, in both grammatically correct and incorrect contexts. As far as possible, statements were designed so that the target structure was not placed initially in the sentence. Statements varied between 8 and 18 syllables in length, with the mean length being 13.53 syllables. Sentence length was not controlled for beyond this, because structures that are both simple and complex were targeted and length was a feature that is intrinsic to some of the grammatical structures targeted. The statements used represented a range of difficulty for the learners participating in the test and broadly sampled ‘stimuli of various lengths and complexities’ as recommended by Bley-Vroman and Chaudron (1994, p. 253). Examples of test items are: During games, soccer player runs a lot. [ungrammatical] Information travels around the world on the internet. [grammatical]

The statements were presented on audiotape to participants by an interviewer. Participants were told that they were to complete a Beliefs Questionnaire and were

The Metalinguistic Dimension

82

asked to indicate on paper by checking one of three boxes whether each statement was true, not true or whether they were not sure. Requiring participants to make decisions about the truth value of the statements they heard focused their attention on meaning rather than on form and also had the added benefit of delaying repetition (see Erlam, 2009). This time delay meant that information about the surface structure of the statement, that is, its form, was less available to participants when they did repeat the statements (Sachs, 1967; McDade et al., 1982), thus making it more likely that this test was measuring implicit language knowledge. Participants were then told to repeat the statement in correct English. Pre-test training gave participants practice in responding to both grammatical and ungrammatical test items. It should be noted that participants heard each statement only once and in real time. Grammatical items were scored as correct if the target structure was correctly repeated and ungrammatical items were scored as correct if the target structure (presented in a grammatically incorrect context) was spontaneously corrected. Incorrect suppliance or avoidance of the target structure was scored as 0. Participants’ total scores were averaged, that is, divided by the total number of items. The decision to report scores as percentage data was made because the sound quality of the recording at times meant that a decision about some responses could not be made. These were thus scored as missing data. One version of the test was used over all three testing sessions, however, the order of presentation of items was different for each test administration. Reliability, using internal consistency, was estimated on all versions of the test, giving Cronbach’s alpha as follows: pre-test, α = .809; post-test, α = .816; delayed post-test, α = .869.

Results The first research question investigated the impact of instruction on the learners’ metalinguistic knowledge of the target structure. For this question the two treatment groups were combined. Descriptive statistics for the judgement of ungrammatical sentences on the GJT and certainty (indicated according to a percentage) with respect to these judgements are presented in Table 4.2. Effect sizes for judgements are also reported using Cohen’s d-index which was interpreted following Cohen’s criteria

Table 4.2  Descriptive statistics for correct judgements and certainty of judgements for ungrammatical sentences on the GJT (total number of items is 12) Judgement Treatment (n = 39) Pre-test Post-test 1 Post-test 2

Certainty

Control (n = 12)

Treatment (n = 39)

Control (n = 12)

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

7.46 9.03 9.74

2.51 2.46 2.05

6.83 6.33 6.83

2.04 3.47 3.10

70.25 81.58 85.09

20.04 18.43 20.33

57.36 63.26 64.44

19.33 22.32 18.31

Effects of Instruction

83

(1988): 0.80 constitutes a large effect size, 0.50 a medium effect size and 0.20 a small effect size. As described by Norris and Ortega (2000), d was calculated by contrasting the Treatment group with the Control group on the post-tests. Because assumptions of normality were violated for the descriptive statistics on a number of occasions, non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U) were used to test for differences in performance between the Treatment groups and the Control groups at making correct judgements. Mann-Whitney U tests showed no statistically significant differences between either group on the pre-test (Z = –.931, p > .05, d = 0.23) but a statistically significant difference with large effect sizes between the two groups on the post-test (Z =  –2.552, p .05, d = 0.42) but a statistically significant difference with large effect sizes on the post-test (Z = –3.269, p < .01, d = 1.40) and the delayed post-test (Z = –4.050, p < .01, d = 1.72). Table 4.4 presents descriptive statistics for syntactic and semantic corrections on the Metalinguistic Knowledge test and also for the total number of correct explanations on this test (scores for syntactic and semantic components were aggregated and so it was possible for participants to score up to a maximum of 6, that is, they could get credit for both a syntactic and semantic explanation for each item. Note, however, that the highest score for this section was 3). For syntactic explanations, Mann-Whitney U tests showed no statistically significant differences between either group on the pre-test (Z =  –.878, p > .05, d = 0.40) or post-test (Z = –.953, p >.05, d = 0.22 ) but a significant difference with a large effect size on the delayed post-test (Z = –1.981, p < .05, d = 0.81). For semantic explanations, there were no statistically significant differences between either group

Table 4.3  Descriptive statistics for correct corrections of ungrammatical sentences on the GJT (total number of items is 12) Correction

Pre-test Post-test 1 Post-test 2

Treatment (n = 39)

Control (n = 12)

M

SD

M

SD

3.92 8.18 8.85

2.61 3.13 2.81

2.92 3.50 3.92

2.15 4.08 3.06

The Metalinguistic Dimension

84

Table 4.4  Descriptive statistics for correct explanations on the MKT Treatment (n = 39) Pre-test

Post-test 1

Syntactic (maximum score = 3) M 0.74 0.72 SD 0.99 1.00 Semantic (maximum score = 3) M 0.13 0.46 SD 0.41 0.76 Total (maximum score = 6) M 0.87 1.18 SD 1.08 1.23

Control (n = 12)

Post-test 2

Pre-test

Post-test 1

Post-test 2

0.82 1.07

0.42 0.67

0.50 1.00

0.17 0.39

0.62 0.91

0.00 0.00

0.50 0.80

0.25 0.62

1.44 1.31

0.42 0.67

1.00 1.04

0.42 0.67

on any of the tests (Z =  –1.144, p > .05, d = 0.44; Z =  –.163, p > .05, d =  –0.05; Z = –1.212, p > .05, d = 0.48). For the total number of correct explanations Mann-Whitney U tests showed no statistically significant differences between either group on the pre-test (Z = –1.202, p > .05, d = 0.50) or post-test (Z = –.339, p > .05, d = 0.16) but a significant difference with a large effect size on the delayed post-test (Z = –2.291, p < .05, d = 1.06). Table 4.5 shows the descriptive statistics for the total number of metalingual terms used. There was no limit to this score, however the maximum score obtained over the 3 test items was 5. Mann-Whitney U tests showed no statistically significant differences between either group on the pre-test (Z = –.595, p > .05, d = 0.22) but a significant difference with a medium effect size on the post-test (Z = –.2.036, p < .05, d = 0.73). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on the delayed post-test although there was a medium effect size (Z = –1.687, p > .05, d = 0.59). The second research question investigated whether the type of instruction led to differences in the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge. Table 4.6 presents descriptive statistics for all groups on the GJT. To establish differences between groups, non-parametric tests needed to be used. Therefore, Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for between-group differences and Mann-Whitney U test was used for post-hoc testing where a significant difference had been established. For judging ungrammatical sentences, Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed no significant between-group differences on the pre-test (χ² (2) = 2.317, p = .314) but significant differences on both post-tests (χ² (2) = 7.285, p = .026; χ² (2) = 9.942, p = .007). MannWhitney U tests revealed a significant difference and large effect sizes between the OI group and the Control group for both post-tests (Z =  –2.812, p < .01, d = 1.22; Z = –3.096, p < .01, d = 1.35). There was a significant difference and a large effect size between the InI group and the Control group on the delayed post-test (Z = –2.481, p < .05, d = 0.92) but not on the post-test although there was a moderate effect size

Effects of Instruction

85

Table 4.5  Descriptive statistics for the total number of metalingual terms used Group M SD M SD

Treatment group (n = 39) Control group (n = 12)

Pre-test

Post-test

Delayed post-test

1.59 1.21 1.33 1.16

2.26 1.33 1.33 1.23

2.00 1.19 1.33 1.07

Table 4.6  Descriptive statistics for all groups on the GJT test Group

InI group (n= 20) OI group (n = 19) Control (n = 12)

Judging statements (max. score = 12) M SD M SD M SD

Correcting statements (max. score = 12)

Pre-test

Post-test 1

Post-test 2

Pre-test

Post-test 1

Post-test 2

7.05 2.87 7.90 2.05 6.83 2.04

8.50 3.07 9.58 1.47 6.33 3.47

9.45 2.56 10.05 1.31 6.83 3.10

3.60 3.07 4.26 2.05 2.92 2.15

7.30 3.95 9.11 1.56 3.50 4.08

8.15 3.60 9.58 1.35 3.92 3.06

(Z =  –1.771, p > .05, d = 0.66). There were not statistically significant differences between either of the treatment groups on either post-test. Friedman tests were also used to establish within-group differences. For the InI group there were statistically significant gains for judging ungrammatical sentences over time (χ² (2) = 9.594, p = .008). Post-hoc testing using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test showed significant gains from the pre-test to the delayed post-test (Z = –3.145, p = .002). For the OI group there were significant gains for judging correctly on the GJT over time (χ² (2) = 11.742, p = .003). Post-hoc testing showed statistically significant gains between the pre-test and both the post-test (Z = –2.496, p = .013) and the delayed post-test (Z= –2.993, p = .003). For correcting incorrect sentences, Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed no significant between-group differences on the pre-test (χ² (2) = 2.280, p = .320) but statistically significant differences on both post-tests (χ² (2) = 12.552, p = .002; χ² (2) = 17.353, p = .000). Mann-Whitney U tests revealed a statistically significant difference between the InI group and the Control group for both post-tests (Z= –2.364, p < .05, d = 0.95; Z= –2.995, p < .01, d = 1.27) and also between the OI group and the Control group for these same tests (Z= –3.520, p < .01, d = 1.82; Z= –4.280, p < .01, d = 2.39). Effect sizes were large in all cases, although larger for the OI group than the InI group. There were no statistically significant differences between either of the treatment groups on either post-test. In terms of within-group differences, Friedman tests showed that the InI group made statistically significant gains for correcting incorrect sentences over time (χ² (2) = 17.268, p = .000). Mann-Whitney U tests revealed statistically significant

The Metalinguistic Dimension

86

Table 4.7  Summary of results Grammaticality Judgement test Judging sentences

Correcting sentences

Group

Time

Group

OI > Control: post-test 1 OI, In I > Control: post-test 2

OI: pre < post-test 1 OI, InI: pre < post-test 2

OI, InI > Control: post-test 1 OI, InI > Control: post-test 2

Time OI, InI: pre < post-test 1 OI, InI: pre < post-test 2

Table 4.8  Spearman’s correlations between judgements and corrections of ungrammatical sentences on GJT and the Elicited Imitation test Correlations

Groups Control (n = 12)

Treatment (n = 39)

pre-test post-test 1 post-test 2 pre-test post-test 1 post-test 2 Elicited imitation

GJT judgements

.130

.241

.281

–.377

.016

–.173

GJT corrections

.295

.470**

.389*

.102

.241

–.086

* p < .05; **p < .01

gains between the pre-test and both post-tests (Z =–3.319, p = .001; Z =–3.589, p = .000). The OI group also made statistically significant gains over time (χ² (2) = 31.200, p = .000). Post-hoc tests revealed statistically significant gains between the pre-test and both post-tests (Z=–3.841, p = .000; Z=–3.831, p = .000). Table 4.7 shows a summary of the results of between-group and within-group differences in performance on the GJT. The third research question investigated the relationship between the measures of metalinguistic knowledge used in this study and the Elicited Imitation test, hypothesized to be a measure of implicit language knowledge. In order to answer this question, performance on the two hypothesized measures of metalinguistic knowledge were correlated with the Elicited Imitation test. In each case correlations are presented for the Total group. See Table 4.8.

Discussion Research question 1 asked what effect instruction had on learners’ metalinguistic knowledge of the target structure. Results (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3) show that instruction had a significant impact on participants’ ability to both judge ungrammatical sentences correctly and correct ungrammatical sentences, both in the short term (i.e. on the

Effects of Instruction

87

post-test) and the longer term (i.e. the delayed post-test). Pre-test scores (M = 7.46; maximum score = 12) demonstrate that participants had some initial competence in judging ungrammatical sentences, but little ability to correct these sentences (M = 3.92, maximum score = 12). This pattern was also evident in the pre-test scores of the Control group. The instruction that the participants received resulted in gains for correcting ungrammatical sentences that meant that their competence in this skill approximated their ability to judge sentences correctly on the delayed post-test (M = 8.85; M = 9.74). Participants who received instruction also demonstrated greater certainty over time with respect to their judgements about the ungrammaticality of sentences (see Table 4.2). This group made gains with large effect sizes in comparison with the Control group although it needs to be noted that there was a between-group difference with a medium effect size between the two groups on the pre-test. (There is no obvious reason why the Control group were less certain in making judgements than the Intervention group on this test.) This result suggests perhaps that traditional measures of learning may underrepresent the effects of instruction by looking only at the impact on language knowledge rather than on learner certainty or confidence. With respect to the impact of instruction on the ability to give metalinguistic explanations, it is important to note the extremely low scores in Table 4.4, suggesting a ‘floor’ effect, and the Standard Deviations that are, in many cases, higher than mean scores. This highlights the need to interpret results with caution. Results tentatively suggest that instruction had a significant impact on the ability to give metalinguistic explanations, although here the gains were only evidenced over time (i.e. on the delayed post-test only). The Treatment group made statistically significant gains in comparison to the Control group for the ability to give ‘syntactic’ explanations on the delayed post-test and also on the delayed post-test for aggregated explanations. There were no significant gains in comparison to the Control group for ‘semantic’ explanations on either post-test although the descriptive statistics do show some gains over the three testing episodes. This is a potentially interesting and unexpected result given that the emphasis of the instruction was on the use of ‘a’ to mark generic reference and that rules explaining this were explicitly given in class (see Appendix A). It might, therefore, have been expected that the participants would make greater gains in being able to give a form-meaning explanation describing use of generic ‘a’ than one relating more to form and to the type of explanations they may have received previously. However, Hu (2011, p. 72) points out that there is no guarantee that L2 learners’ metalinguistic knowledge will ‘mirror the pedagogical rules presented in classrooms’ and reports that participants in his study performed better at verbalizing rules that described a central or prototypical use of the target structure than rules that described a periphery or secondary use. It seems that the instruction learners received in this study may have contributed more to strengthening expression of knowledge that they had already been exposed to rather than to fostering the ability to explain the new use of the target structure, although the less than rigorous nature of the measure used in this study means that any conclusion needs to be tentative. More research is needed to ascertain whether new knowledge helps learners perceive certain aspects of rules about which they have already received instruction, as Hu (2011) suggests.

88

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Results also demonstrate that instruction had an impact on participants’ ability to use metalingual terms in giving error explanations, although in this case the gains were only evidenced in the short term (i.e. on the post-test). In conclusion then, instruction did have a significant impact on participants’ metalinguistic knowledge of the target structure. Furthermore the gains made on the GJT were sustained in that they were evidenced on both post-tests and delayed posttests, and, while not statistically significant, descriptive statistics show an increase in delayed post-test scores over post-test scores (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3). There is some evidence to suggest that instruction also had an impact on participants’ metalingual knowledge, that is, the ability to give error explanations, although the limitation of the measure used and the need for more research has been highlighted. The second research question asked whether the type of instruction led to differences in the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge. Results show that for judging ungrammatical sentences, the group that received output-based instruction (OI) made gains more immediately (i.e. on the immediate post-test) than the inputbased instruction group (InI). Both groups, however, made significant gains from pre to delayed post-test. The two types of instruction (i.e. input-based and output-based) did not result in any differences for correcting ungrammatical sentences. Overall then, there is little evidence of difference in terms of the effectiveness of each type of treatment, a result which is similar to that obtained by Toth (2006) who found a nonsignificant difference between his Input and Output groups on a GJT. In explaining this result, we need to perhaps focus on the similarity between the two Treatment groups, in that both types of instruction were designed to require learners to focus on language form. Perhaps, as Izumi (2003) claims, attention to form and metalinguistic reflection are inextricably linked and the benefits of output do not outweigh the opportunity for learners to focus on language form in terms of gains in metalinguistic understanding. The last research question asks what relationship there was between a measure of metalinguistic knowledge and a measure of implicit language knowledge, in this case the Elicited Imitation test. There were small correlations only between the measure of metalinguistic knowledge and the measure of implicit knowledge. On the one hand this is an unsurprising result given that the Elicited Imitation test required participants to use highly automatized knowledge under real-time performance conditions. Metalinguistic knowledge, on the other hand, requires high levels of controlled processing and analysis (Elder, 2009). However, the slightly stronger and statistically significant correlations for correcting ungrammatical sentences following instruction are interesting even if these are still small (rho = .470, rho = .389). To some extent the ability to correct errors was a skill assessed in the Elicited Imitation test as well as in the GJT, 11/25 items measured test takers’ ability to spontaneously correct the target item presented in an ungrammatical context. It is interesting to speculate to what extent, then, the explicit knowledge that students gained as a result of instruction may have been proceduralized and automatized, using DeKeyser’s model (2009), to the extent that it was available for use in real time. Results are tentative and more research is needed to further test this hypothesis. A complicating factor in this study is the fact that the same version of the Elicited Imitation test was used for each testing episode,

Effects of Instruction

89

albeit with varied presentation of items, so that students may have become familiar with some of the items, which could have allowed them to draw on explicit knowledge. However, this is not the first time that a relationship has been demonstrated between results on a metalinguistic measure and a measure of oral language production. White and Ranta (2002) report an even stronger correlation (r = .56) between performance on a metalinguistic measure and an oral task. It is important, however, to signal the different nature of the measures that White and Ranta (2002) used. Their picture description task does not seem to have included the constraint of any time pressure so that we cannot be sure that participants, particularly those in the Rule group who had received instruction focusing on the target structure, did not have time to access their explicit knowledge.

Limitations Limitations with respect to the MKT have already been mentioned, that is, the small number of items and the fact that participants did not complete it in their L1. To some extent then, successful performance on the MKT may have depended on L2 proficiency. It is also regrettable that there was no measure of passive understanding of metalinguistic concepts along with the measure of competence in rule verbalization. The fact that the explicit grammatical instruction that the participants in this study received was followed by language practice activities means that it is not possible to disambiguate the effects of the instruction from language practice. An anonymous reviewer pointed out that the differences in the background experiences of participants could be a factor impacting on results obtained. This is possible although there was, as has been discussed, a lack of pre-test differences among the different groups.

Conclusion This study investigated the impact of explicit teaching, which included metalinguistic description, on the learning of a linguistic structure judged to be less amenable to instruction than some because of its complexity, low schematicity, relative context dependency and low truth value. Results showed that explicit grammar instruction (with language practice activities) did have a positive impact on metalinguistic knowledge in that learners made significant gains in the ability to judge and correct ungrammatical sentences. Furthermore, these gains were sustained over time, suggesting that this type of knowledge is relatively durable. There was also some evidence to suggest that a greater consistency in response correctness was associated with a greater certainty on the part of participants as they made their grammatical judgements. Instruction also had a positive impact on participants’ metalingual competence, however, not as might have been expected, although results, it has been suggested,

90

The Metalinguistic Dimension

need to be interpreted with caution. Participants made significant and greater gains in giving rule explanations for the more central or prototypical use of articles than they did in describing the more peripheral or secondary use of the indefinite article ‘a’ to convey generic reference. This result is aligned with predictions (Roehr, 2008) and results from other research (Hu, 2011). An interesting result is the lack of significant difference between instruction that provided opportunity for learners to engage in pushed output and instruction that required students to work with language input, in terms of gains in metalinguistic knowledge. A probable explanation is that it was the opportunity that both types of instruction allowed for learners to focus on form that led to gains in metalinguistic understanding (Izumi, 2003). Finally, evidence that demonstrated that metalinguistic performance was not initially correlated with performance on a test of implicit language knowledge concurs with existing research (Loewen, 2009; Elder, 2009) which suggests that these two types of knowledge are elicited under very different performance conditions. However, it was interesting to note some significant, if small, correlations between both these measures (i.e. the Elicited Imitation test and the component of the MKT assessing the ability to correct incorrect sentences) following explicit instruction, providing tentative evidence for DeKeyser’s hypothesis that explicit knowledge that has been proceduralized may be able to be used in real time.

Acknowledgements This research was funded by a Marsden grant awarded by the Royal Society of Arts of New Zealand to Rod Ellis and Cathie Elder. Other researchers who contributed were Shawn Loewen, Jenefer Philp, Satomi Mizutani and Shuhei Hidaka. The author would also like to thank Juanita Watts and Faiza Hadji for their careful coding of the data which was specific to this chapter only.

Appendix A: Summary of rule explanations given to students We use a/an when the person or thing is indefinite (i.e. when we do not know for sure which person/thing is being talked about) We can use a/an when we want to talk about ONE person or thing that is not definite. We can use a/an with a COUNTABLE noun to make a GENERALIZATION about people/ things. When the noun is UNCOUNTABLE we cannot use a/an to make a generalization. We must use the noun by itself.

Effects of Instruction

91

Appendix B: Examples of teaching activities used in instructional treatments Structured input activity

In this activity the article ‘a’ is used with two meanings. You have to sort out which meaning it has – whether it is general or ONE particular thing. Tick the ‘General’ or ‘Particular’ box.

1. I bought a new bicycle. 2. I bought a bus ticket with my last dollar. 3. A helicopter can land just about anywhere. 4. A car costs a lot of money to run.

General

Particular

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Etc. Production activity (students are given one of two cards and complete this activity with a classmate who has a different card)

Card 1. You will meet an alien from planet Zlog. The alien will ask you, ‘What’s a human?’ Explain clearly 3 characteristics of a human. Find out 3 things about a zlog.

Card 2 You are an alien from planet Zlog. Find out 3 things about a human. The human you meet will ask you, ‘What’s a zlog?’ Explain clearly 3 characteristics of a zlog.

What’s a zlog?

The Metalinguistic Dimension

92

Appendix C – Examples of test items Sample item from GJT In class, good student listens to the teacher.

Correct

Incorrect

a. This sentence is: ☐ ☐ b. How certain are you? ☐% c. If you think the sentence is incorrect please write down the correct sentence below. If you think the sentence is correct, please go to the next page.

Now turn to the next page and continue the test. You MUST NOT turn back to look at this page. Sample item from MKT For a friend, book is a good present. 1. Correct the error. 2. Explain what is wrong with the sentence.

References Andersen, R. (1984), ‘The one to one principle of interlanguage construction’. Language Learning, 34, 77–95. Berry, R. (2004), ‘Awareness of metalanguage’. Language Awareness, 13, 1–16. — (2005), ‘Making the most of metalanguage’. Language Awareness, 14, 3–20. Bley-Vroman, R. and Chaudron, C. (1994), ‘Elicited Imitation as a measure of secondlanguage competence’, in E. Tarone, S. Gass and A. Cohen (eds), Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 245–61. Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999), The Grammar Book (2nd edn). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeKeyser, R. (2003), ‘Implicit and explicit learning’, in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 313–48. — (2005), ‘What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues’. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1–25. — (2009), ‘Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning’, in M. Long and C. Doughty (eds), Handbook of Second Language Teaching. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, pp. 119–38. Elder, C. (2009), ‘Validating a test of metalinguistic knowledge’, in R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philip and H. Reinders, Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 113–38.

Effects of Instruction

93

Elder, C., Erlam, R. and Philp, J. (2007), ‘Explicit language knowledge and focus on form: Options and obstacles for TESOL teacher trainees’, in S. Fotos and N. Hossein (eds), Form-focussed Instruction in Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 225–41. Ellis, R. (1991), ‘Grammaticality judgements and second language acquisition’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 161–86. — (2003), Task-based Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. — (2004), ‘The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge’. Language Learning, 54, (2), 227–75. — (2005), ‘Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 141–72. — (2008), The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erlam, R. (2009), ‘The elicited oral imitation test as a measure of implicit knowledge’, in R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philip and H. Reinders, Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 31–64. Erlam, R., Loewen, S. and Philp, J. (2009), ‘The roles of output-based and input-based instruction in the acquisition of L2 implicit and explicit knowledge’, in R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philip and H. Reinders, Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 241–61. Gass, S. (1994), ‘The reliability of second-language grammaticality judgements’, in E. Torone, S. Gass and A. Cohen (eds), Research Methodology in Second Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 303–22. Gower, R. and Walters, S. (1983), A Teaching Practice Handbook. London: Heinemann. Green, P. and Hecht, K. (1992), ‘Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study’. Applied Linguistics, 13, (2), 168–84. Hu, G. (2002), ‘Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, (3), 347–86. — (2011), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners’. System, 39, 63–77. Isumi, S. (2003), ‘Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis’. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–96. Krashen, S. (1998), ‘Comprehensible output?’. System, 26, 175–82. Loewen, S. (2009), ‘Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge’, in R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philip and H. Reinders, Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 94–112. Loewen, S. and Reinders, H. (2011), Key Concepts in Second Language Acquisition. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. McDade, H., Simpson, M. and Lamb, D. (1982), ‘The use of elicited imitation as a measure of expressive grammar: A question of validity’. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 19–24. Muranoi, H. (2007), ‘Output practice in the L2 classroom’, in R. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a Second Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 51–84. Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000), ‘Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis’. Language Learning, 50, (3), 417–528.

94

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Parrott, M. (2000), Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pienemann, M. (1998), Language Processing and Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Roehr, K. (2008), ‘Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning’. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 67–106. — (2010), ‘Explicit knowledge and learning in SLA: A cognitive linguistics perspective’. AILA Review, 23, 7–29. Roehr, K. and Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2009), ‘The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning’. Language Awareness, 18, (2), 165–81. Sachs, J. (1967), ‘Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse’. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437–42. Swain, M. (1995), ‘The functions of output in second language learning’, in G. Cook and B. Seidlhoffer (eds), Principles & Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 125–44. Toth, P. D. (2006), ‘Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition’. Language Learning, 56, (2), 319–85. VanPatten, B. (1996), Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition: Theory and Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. — (2004), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. White, J. and Ranta L. (2002), ‘Examining the interface between metalinguistic task performance and oral production in a second language’. Language Awareness, 11, (4), 259–90.

5

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs about Metalinguistic Knowledge Benjaporn Thepseenu University of Essex

Karen Roehr

University of Essex

Abstract We report an investigation of L1 Thai university-level learners’ metalinguistic knowledge about L2 English and their beliefs about such knowledge. Using questionnaires and interviews, learners’ beliefs about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar in general as well as their beliefs about the difficulty and usefulness of instruction on selected grammar points were examined. Moreover, learners’ performance on the selected grammar points was assessed by means of a test of metalinguistic knowledge. We identified correspondences between learners’ beliefs and their actual metalinguistic knowledge. Furthermore, our findings suggest that the learners’ belief systems are complex constructs. The participants held both positive and negative beliefs about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar, with specific beliefs indicating differentiated rather than contradictory views. Learner confidence emerged as an important theme from the data.

Introduction Instructed second language (L2) learners’ metalinguistic knowledge, or their knowledge about language, and its relationship with L2 proficiency, i.e. the ability to use language fluently and accurately, have attracted the interest of language researchers and teachers for more than three decades. Existing research shows that in instructed adults, metalinguistic knowledge and written L2 proficiency are positively correlated (Alderson et al., 1997; Roehr, 2008b; Sorace, 1985). It has also been suggested that learners’ beliefs about language and language learning may influence their achievement  – or otherwise  – of L2 proficiency in the classroom (e.g. Cotterall, 1999; Horwitz, 1987,

96

The Metalinguistic Dimension

1988, 1999; White, 2008). Thus, researchers have considered both metalinguistic knowledge and learner beliefs in conjunction with L2 proficiency. However, no study to date has examined the relationship between learners’ metalinguistic knowledge and their beliefs about such knowledge. We present a study which was undertaken to address this issue. If beliefs can affect the attainment of L2 proficiency, then it is reasonable to assume that beliefs may likewise impact on other aspects of learning such as the development of metalinguistic knowledge and a learner’s ability to make use of such knowledge in their L2 learning. Thus, it is of interest to investigate whether there is any association between learners’ metalinguistic knowledge and their beliefs about such knowledge.

Metalinguistic knowledge in instructed L2 learning In the context of adult L2 learning, metalinguistic knowledge can be defined as explicit knowledge about the language that is being learned (Alderson et al., 1997; Elder and Manwaring, 2004; Elder et al., 1999). Explicit knowledge is represented declaratively; it is knowledge that can be brought into conscious awareness and that is potentially available for verbal report (Hulstijn, 2005; Roehr, 2008b). Explicit knowledge can be contrasted with implicit knowledge, which cannot be brought into awareness or articulated (N. C. Ellis, 1994; R. Ellis, 2004). In the context of the present study, the terms metalinguistic knowledge and explicit knowledge about language are used as synonyms. Most adults who learn an L2 in a classroom setting are exposed to metalinguistic information on a regular basis. Language teachers, textbooks, grammar books and dictionaries rely on explicit knowledge about language when describing linguistic categories or grammatical roles of parts of speech (e.g. intransitive verb, direct object, etc.) as well as when explaining the form and/or use of particular linguistic constructions (e.g. ‘In English, in the third person present tense, an –s needs to be added to the verb’). Thus, metalinguistic knowledge in the sense of explicit knowledge about language often takes the form of pedagogical grammar rules. In principle, a learner can develop explicit knowledge about language inductively and independently through analysis of the linguistic input following extensive exposure to the L2 (Bialystok, 1994; Roehr, 2008a). However, in a classroom setting, explicit knowledge is more likely to be assimilated from external sources such as teacher input and grammar books (Hu, 2011). Put differently, it is acquired through explicit learning, facilitated by explicit instruction (DeKeyser, 2003). Research spanning more than two decades has demonstrated that explicit instruction effectively promotes L2 learning in the classroom; overall, this finding can be regarded as trustworthy and robust (Norris and Ortega, 2001). Along similar lines, research examining the role of different levels of learner awareness indicates that higher levels of awareness and understanding on the part of the learner are generally associated with improved L2 performance (Camps, 2003; Leow, 2000; Rosa and O’Neill, 1999). Hence, it appears that explicit teaching and learning are generally effective, if compared with implicit teaching and learning or no instruction at all. As outlined above, explicit teaching and learning typically rely to

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

97

at least some extent on metalinguistic knowledge, with a view to enabling learners to apply such knowledge in productive and receptive language use. Investigations into the specific role of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed L2 learning have led to two key findings. First, learners’ levels of metalinguistic knowledge generally correlate positively with levels of written L2 proficiency as measured by performance on tests of grammar and vocabulary, reading and writing (Alderson et al., 1997; Elder and Manwaring, 2004; Elder et al., 1999; Roehr, 2008b), although correlation coefficients vary between studies from moderate to strong. Second, learners’ levels of metalinguistic knowledge may be predicted by certain individual learner differences. Individual learner differences are characteristics which all learners possess, but on which individual learners differ (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003), either categorically, as in the case of age or gender, or on a scale, as in the case of language learning experience, language learning aptitude or metacognition. To date, there is relatively little research that has investigated the relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and individual difference variables in instructed L2 learners.1 Existing findings suggest that instructed adults’ levels of metalinguistic knowledge are significantly predicted by their language learning experience in the sense of number of languages learned and length of exposure to formal classroom instruction (Roehr and Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2009b). In addition, two components of language learning aptitude – grammatical sensitivity and associative memory – have been shown to be significant, though weak predictors, together explaining 15% of the variance in L2 learners’ metalinguistic knowledge (Roehr and Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2009b).

Learner beliefs Beliefs are part of an individual’s metacognition. In its broadest definition, metacognition refers to cognition about cognitive phenomena (Flavell, 1979), or, put less formally, to ‘thinking about one’s own thoughts’ (Hacker, 1998, p. 3). Metacognition includes knowledge of one’s knowledge, cognitive, and affective states as well as the ability to consciously and deliberately monitor and regulate one’s knowledge, cognitive, and affective states (Hacker, 1998). Learner beliefs can be regarded as a subset of the metacognitive knowledge a learner holds. Beliefs are relatively stable, and they can be articulated (Wenden, 1998, 1999). In the area of L2 learning, beliefs about language and language learning in general have been the focus of the so-called BALLI studies (Horwitz, 1987, 1988, 1999). These studies have identified and described the beliefs classroom learners of different L2s hold about issues such as the nature and difficulty of language learning, language learning aptitude, learning and communication strategies, and motivations and expectations. Findings suggest that certain majority beliefs may hold across cultures and across instructional contexts, but that there is likewise considerable variation in evidence, both within and between specific learner groups (Horwitz, 1999). Apart from seeking to uncover the nature of learner beliefs (Benson and Lor, 1999; Cotterall, 1999), existing research has identified a relationship between learners’ beliefs and their use of language learning strategies (White, 2008; Yang, 1999).

98

The Metalinguistic Dimension

By contrast, attempts to identify culturally based differences in learner beliefs have led to inconclusive results. In a review of seven BALLI studies, Horwitz (1999) compared the beliefs of US, Korean, Taiwanese, and Turkish-Cypriot learners and US language teachers. Differences within cultural groups (e.g. eastern Asian) and even within groups of the same nationality (e.g. Korean) were often more pronounced than differences between eastern and western cultural groupings. Horwitz (1999) concludes that professional status (student or teacher), age, learning context, L2 proficiency level and the L2 being learned are all factors likely to influence beliefs; what is more, each of these factors may be more powerful than cultural differences. In addition to the BALLI studies which focused on general beliefs about language and language learning, there is a small body of recent research which has investigated learner beliefs about the role of explicit instruction. Using questionnaires, Schulz (2001) explored perceptions of the role of explicit grammar instruction and error correction in the post-secondary classroom. The participants were 607 Colombian language students and 122 teachers. Questionnaire responses were compared with the findings from a previous study which employed a similar instrument administered to 824 US language students and 92 teachers. The questionnaires consisted of statements to which participants responded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Results showed that US students’ responses differed significantly from Colombian students’ responses. The greatest discrepancy was found for the items ‘I like the study of grammar’, with 76% of Colombian students but only 46% of US students agreeing, and ‘My foreign language improves most quickly if I study and practise the grammar’, which yielded a 77% agreement rate from Colombian students, as opposed to 48% from US students. The author concludes that there is evidence for a strong belief on the part of students from both cultures in the positive roles played by explicit grammar instruction and corrective feedback. In general, teachers also valued explicit grammar instruction and error correction, but their beliefs as a group were far less homogeneous than those of the students. More recently, Loewen et al. (2009) conducted a further investigation aimed at identifying L2 learners’ beliefs about explicit grammar instruction and error correction. The study was carried out at a US university and involved 754 participants enrolled in 13 different language courses, with English, German, Arabic, Japanese, Chinese and Spanish the most frequently represented L2s. The participants mostly had English as their L1; other frequent L1s were Korean, Chinese and Arabic. Thus, although conducted in the United States, the study yields information about the beliefs of learners from a range of L1s and cultural backgrounds. The instrument used was a questionnaire with 37 belief-related statements about grammar instruction and error correction, some of which were adapted from Schulz (2001). After responding to these questionnaire items on a five-point Likert scale, participants were asked to complete four open-ended statements on why they liked or disliked studying grammar and how they liked or disliked being taught grammar. The researchers report that learners valued explicit grammar instruction, but also that there were individual differences in evidence. In general, learners of L2 English were less enthusiastic about grammar instruction and error correction than learners of other L2s; at the same time, learners of L2 English showed more interest in improving

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

99

their oral communicative skills. The immersion context of this group of participants is put forward as a possible reason for the observed difference in beliefs. In addition, the language learning history of L2 English learners, who had reported significantly more previous grammar instruction than the other L2 learners, constitutes another possible causative factor. A content analysis of learner responses to the open-ended statements enabled the researchers to identify a number of general themes in the learners’ belief systems. Studying grammar was seen as central to the language learning endeavour, and it was regarded as generally beneficial. Grammar was also seen as helping with specific L2 skills such as writing. Many learners saw grammar as beneficial for extrinsic reasons such as academic success, and some learners reported that they enjoyed studying grammar. This latter sentiment was more noticeable in L2 learners who studied languages other than English. The most frequently cited reason for disliking the study of grammar was that it was boring, with characteristics such as difficult, confusing and complicated listed as well. Some learners felt that they would prefer practising speaking skills instead; they perceived a lack of relation between grammar and ‘real life’. Moreover, many participants reported a dislike for memorization. Complementing the large-scale research by Schulz (2001) and Loewen et al. (2009), Scheffler (2009) undertook a study which exclusively focused on L2 learners’ beliefs about the difficulty of certain grammatical structures and the usefulness of explicit instruction on these structures. The researcher administered a questionnaire to two groups of L1 Polish learners of L2 English at a college of modern languages in Poland. One group of learners (N = 50) was asked to rate the perceived difficulty of selected aspects of English grammar on a five-point scale ranging from ‘very easy’ to ‘very difficult’. Another group of learners (N = 50) was asked to rate the perceived usefulness of instruction on the same grammar aspects on a five-point scale ranging from ‘not useful at all’ to ‘very useful’. Learners had encountered all the targeted structures in their L2 classes. It was found that the participants generally perceived English grammar as fairly easy, while the usefulness of instruction was generally rated quite highly. Results further showed that, overall, if an area of grammar was considered difficult, instruction was considered useful.

Research issues and questions In summary, existing research indicates that metalinguistic knowledge in the sense of explicit knowledge about language is associated with L2 proficiency. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that explicit teaching and learning, including grammar instruction which makes use of metalinguistic knowledge, generally promote L2 learning. At the same time, studies suggest that learners’ levels of metalinguistic knowledge are influenced by individual difference variables; learner beliefs are part of an individual’s metacognition and thus likewise constitute an individual difference variable. It is reasonable to hypothesize that learners’ beliefs about explicit grammar instruction more generally and metalinguistic knowledge in particular are associated with their level of L2 metalinguistic knowledge. A small number of recent studies has sought

100

The Metalinguistic Dimension

to identify learner beliefs about explicit grammar instruction, but no research to date has investigated such beliefs in conjunction with learners’ actual metalinguistic knowledge. The present study addressed the following research questions: 1. What is learners’ metalinguistic knowledge about aspects of L2 grammar which are characterized by low explicit learning difficulty versus high explicit learning difficulty? 2. What are learners’ beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge? 3. What is the relationship between learners’ metalinguistic knowledge about the targeted aspects of L2 grammar, their beliefs about the difficulty of these grammar aspects and their beliefs about the usefulness of instruction on these grammar aspects? 4. What are learners’ reasons for liking and/or disliking explicit teaching and learning of grammar in the context of their L2 learning?

Research design, participants and methodology The research questions were addressed in a study which employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. The instruments used were an L2 English placement test, a test of L2 metalinguistic knowledge, a questionnaire aimed at gathering biodata and background information as well as eliciting learners’ beliefs and semi-structured interviews which were conducted with a sub-sample of participants in order to gain deeper insights into learners’ belief systems. These instruments are described below. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants before the study began. A total of 64 university-level learners of L2 English participated in the study (53 females, 11 males). The participants’ L1 is Thai, and they were fourth-year undergraduates majoring in English at a university in Thailand. At the time of data collection, the learners were in the first semester of the final year of their degree programme. They were aged between 18 and 23 years (mean = 21.4). On average, the participants had learned English for 12.9 years. In Thailand, English is a compulsory subject at all levels of education. Overall, the teaching and learning of English is characterized by explicit instruction with a focus on forms and considerable reliance on metalinguistic knowledge; textbooks which include grammatical descriptions and explanations are widely used (see also McDonough and Chaikitmongkol, 2007). At primary level, students are introduced to basic grammatical concepts and terminology (e.g. noun, verb, adjective, subject, object). From the secondary level onwards, pedagogical grammar rules are in use. Typically, such rules are presented by the teacher, and students engage in controlled practice via gap-fill or multiple-choice exercises, writing at sentence level, etc. At the university attended by the participants, a focus on forms, explicit teaching of grammar rules and controlled practice of grammar points by means of oral and written exercises are part of most English courses in the first and second year of study. English courses in the third and fourth year focus on topic areas such as literature or English for Specific

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

101

Purposes. As one would expect, learners at university level are exposed to more advanced metalinguistic concepts and rules than students at secondary or primary level. As the university attended by the participants is in a rural region of Thailand where few speakers of English can be found, students typically have little opportunity to practise English outside the classroom. The university English teachers are typically L1 Thai speakers. In addition to being asked about basic demographic information such as their gender and age, the participants were asked about their perceived level of L2 proficiency compared with native speakers of English (excellent – good – fair – poor), their views on the importance of achieving proficiency in the L2 (very important – important – not so important – not at all important) and their level of enjoyment in learning the L2 (very much – quite a lot – not really – not at all). At 61%, the majority of participants regarded their overall L2 proficiency as ‘fair’; 23% rated their proficiency as ‘good’, while the remaining 16% considered their proficiency to be ‘poor’. With regard to the importance of achieving proficiency in English, 59% of the participants stated that it was ‘very important’ for them, while 39% considered it ‘important’. There was only one participant who thought it was ‘not so important’ to become proficient in the L2. Most participants reported relatively high levels of enjoyment in learning English, with 56% stating that they enjoyed it ‘very much’ and 42% stating that they enjoyed it ‘quite a lot’. One participant stated that s/he did ‘not really’ enjoy learning English. In summary, the participants were relatively homogeneous in the self-assessment of their L2 proficiency, their views on the importance of becoming proficient in the L2 and the reported level of enjoyment in learning the L2, with generally positive attitudes in evidence. In order to obtain a more objective estimate of the participants’ level of English language proficiency, the pen-and-paper version of the Quick Placement Test of English for speakers of other languages (UCLES, 2004) was administered. The 60-item test takes 30 minutes to complete and assesses knowledge of English grammar, vocabulary and reading skill. The participants’ scores ranged from 14 to 36 (mean = 24, SD = 3.9). According to the test manual, a mean score of 24 is to be interpreted as L2 proficiency at the elementary level (roughly equivalent to CEFR level A2) – a result which was unexpected, given the participants’ language learning experience.

Test of L2 metalinguistic knowledge The test of L2 metalinguistic knowledge (henceforth: MLK test) was aimed at assessing participants’ explicit knowledge about selected grammatical structures. The test had been used in a previous study (Ziętek and Roehr, 2011). It consisted of 24 sentences targeting 12 aspects of English grammar which are typically taught to L2 learners in the classroom. The targeted aspects are summarized in Table 5.1. They were drawn from the pedagogical grammar literature (Murphy, 1994; Swan, 1995) and were intended to represent both low and comparatively higher explicit learning difficulty (R. Ellis, 2006). Explicit learning difficulty was operationalized following Roehr and Gánem-Gutiérrez (2009a). If an L2 aspect can be described by means of a metalinguistic rule which

102

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Table 5.1  Aspects of English grammar targeted in the MLK test Low explicit learning difficulty: Use of . . .

Higher explicit learning difficulty: Use of . . .

Third person present tense –s Plural of nouns Adverbs to modify verbs

Some vs any There as a preparatory subject Active vs passive voice with ergative verbs Question tags in positive and negative sentences Personal vs reflexive pronouns The preposition in to refer to parts of the day

Definite article to express specific reference and prior hearer knowledge Ordinal numbers to express a ranking Present progressive to express an on-going event or action

is relatively high in schematicity, relatively low in conceptual complexity, relatively high in truth value, and makes use of relatively non-technical metalanguage, explicit learning difficulty is low. Conversely, if an L2 aspect is described by a rule that is low in schematicity, relatively high in conceptual complexity, relatively low in truth value and makes use of relatively technical metalanguage, explicit learning difficulty is high. Schematicity refers to the extent to which a linguistic construction is schematic or specific, and it likewise refers to whether a metalinguistic description covers a schematic or a specific linguistic construction. The metalinguistic description ‘Since denotes a period of time commencing at a specific point in the past and continuing into the present’ is low in schematicity because since is a single specific linguistic construction. By contrast, the metalinguistic description ‘Adverbs can be positioned sentence-initially and finally and also between the subject and the verb, but not between the verb and the direct object’ is high in schematicity because it covers all adverbs, i.e. a schematic linguistic construction. Conceptual complexity refers to the number of elements that need to be taken into account when applying a metalinguistic description, i.e. the number of categories and relations between categories included. The description ‘As an on-going event or action is being expressed, the present progressive is required’ is low in conceptual complexity because it is a simple proposition consisting of two categories (on-going event or action, present progressive) and one relation. Truth value refers to the extent to which a metalinguistic description applies without exception. Technicality of metalanguage refers to the relative familiarity and abstractness of the metalinguistic terminology used in a metalinguistic description. For further details on the development of the MLK test and the underlying taxonomy of explicit learning difficulty, the reader is referred to Roehr and Gánem-Gutiérrez (2009a) and Ziętek and Roehr (2011). The MLK test presented participants with 24 English sentences containing 1 highlighted error each. Participants were required to correct, describe and explain the highlighted errors. The description/explanation task tested learners’ ability to implement pedagogical grammar rules, since each targeted error could be described and explained by means of a statement of the type ‘As form X occurs/function X is being

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

103

expressed, form Y needs to be used’. Essentially, the targeted description answered the question ‘What form?’, while the targeted explanation answered the question ‘Why this form?’. The participants were at liberty to use either Thai or English when completing the test. The test was untimed; all participants finished within 1 hour. The MLK test was scored dichotomously in accordance with a prepared answer key. For each appropriate error correction one point was awarded. For each adequate description and for each adequate explanation one point was awarded, respectively. Adequate descriptions and explanations were defined as any descriptions and explanations that were not incorrect and that showed at least some evidence of meaningful generalization beyond the instances provided in the test items themselves. The test was scored by the first author who is proficient in both Thai and English. As the scoring of descriptions and explanations required qualitative judgements, a second marker who is likewise proficient in Thai and English scored a random sample of 20% of the test papers. Inter-rater reliability was very high (r = 0.98, p < 0.01). Any remaining disagreements between the two markers were resolved through discussion. Sample items from the MLK test, sample participant answers and scores awarded can be found in the Appendix. The description/explanation section of the MLK test exhibited reasonable reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.79). Following the removal of three poorly performing items, the correction section was likewise fairly reliable (α = 0.68). The test showed good overall reliability (α = 0.80). The maximum score that could be achieved on the MLK test was 69, with a maximum of 21 points for correction, 24 for description and 24 for explanation.

Beliefs questionnaire A tailor-made questionnaire containing closed-ended as well as open-ended items was used to identify participants’ beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge. The questionnaire consisted of four sections. Section 1 was aimed at eliciting biodata and background information, as reported above. Section 2 was modelled on the instrument used in Scheffler’s (2009) study. Participants were asked to indicate the perceived level of difficulty of the twelve aspects of L2 grammar included in the MLK test on a five-point scale (very easy  – easy  – moderate  – difficult  – very difficult). In addition, they were asked to indicate the perceived usefulness of instruction on these grammar aspects on a five-point scale (very useful – useful – moderately useful – of little use – not useful at all). Each of the 12 listed grammar aspects was illustrated with a concrete example. Participants’ responses were converted into numerical scores for statistical analysis (Dörnyei, 2003, 2007). Section 3 was based on the questionnaire used in Loewen et al.’s (2009) study. It consisted of 32 statements about the learning and teaching of grammar; the statements were either adopted directly from Loewen et al.’s (2009) instrument or adapted with slight modifications in wording. Both positive and negative statements were included. Participants were asked to respond to the statements on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree – agree – neither agree nor disagree – disagree – strongly disagree). Responses were converted into numerical scores for statistical analysis (strongly agree = 5), with reverse scoring applied to negative items (strongly agree = 1) (Dörnyei, 2003, p. 37).

104

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Section 4 comprised two open-ended items which were likewise adopted from Loewen et al. (2009). Participants were asked to complete two statements in their own words, namely ‘I like studying grammar because . . .’ and ‘I don’t like studying grammar because . . .’. Participants’ responses to these items were subjected to a content analysis (Cohen et al., 2007; Silverman, 2000). The aim of the analysis was to uncover recurring patterns and themes in the data (Miles and Huberman, 1994); the identified themes were triangulated with learner responses to the closed-ended questionnaire items in section 3 and the interview data (see below). The participants completed the questionnaire immediately after the MLK test; they took about 30 minutes to respond to all items.

Semi-structured interviews about learner beliefs Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of nine participants in order to gain further insight into learners’ beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge in the context of their L2 learning. The interviewees were volunteers who represented different levels of metalinguistic knowledge as measured by the MLK test, with two participants scoring in the upper third, three in the middle third and four in the lower third of the range of MLK test scores. Interviews were conducted 2 weeks after the MLK test and beliefs questionnaire had been administered and took about 30 minutes each. Learners were asked whether they regarded knowledge of grammar as useful in their learning of English and why or why not, how they applied their knowledge of grammar, whether they thought it was worth teaching students grammar rules, whether they had found any limitations or disadvantages to grammar rules and what their overall opinion about grammar rules was. The interviews were conducted in Thai by the first author and audio-recorded with the participants’ permission. Subsequently, the recordings were transcribed and the transcripts subjected to a content analysis. The same analytic approach as outlined above for the open-ended questionnaire items was taken. All quotes from the interviews included here are in English translation.

Results Research question 1 The descriptive statistics reported in Table 5.2 serve to answer our first research question, which asked about the participants’ metalinguistic knowledge about the targeted 12 aspects of L2 grammar. The results in Table 5.2 indicate that all participants had at least some metalinguistic knowledge about the targeted grammar aspects. The range of scores suggests that there were differences between individual learners, as one would expect, but overall standard deviations are fairly small. It is clear from the descriptive statistics that grammar aspects which were judged by the test designers to be of low explicit learning difficulty were easier for the participants than grammar aspects which were judged to be of comparatively higher explicit learning difficulty; the mean facility value was 56% for

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

105

Table 5.2  Descriptive statistics – MLK test No. of items

Mean % correct

Mean

SD

Min.

Max.

69 21 48

44 63 36

30.39 13.33 17.06

8.91 3.19 7.32

15 6 2

51 20 35

33 36 24 24

56 33 50 21

18.56 11.83 12.00 5.06

5.38 4.88 4.41 3.78

6 2 2 0

29 22 21 14

MLK test total Correction Description/ Explanation (D/E) Low difficulty total High difficulty total Low difficulty D/E High difficulty D/E

low-difficulty items as opposed to 33% for high-difficulty items. Moreover, the results demonstrate that the error correction task (mean 63% correct) was less challenging for the participants than the description/explanation task (mean 36% correct). This finding is in line with previous results based on the same test when administered to a different group of learners. Ziętek and Roehr (2011) found a mean facility value of 91% for the correction task and a mean facility value of 34% for the description/ explanation task in their sample of L1 Polish learners of English. It is interesting to note that the Polish learners were extremely successful at error correction, while the Thai learners in the present study were less adept at this task. By contrast, performance on the description/explanation task shows very similar achievement rates for both learner groups. This is noteworthy because there are several differences between the samples, including L1, mean age (21.4 in the present study, 18 in the case of the Polish group), learning context (university in the present study, secondary school in the case of the Polish group) and language learning experience (all Polish participants had learned at least one other L2 apart from English).

Research question 2 The second research question asked about learners’ beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge. The positive statements from section 3 of the beliefs questionnaire which attracted the strongest mean agreement from the participants are shown in Table 5.3; negative statements attracting the strongest mean agreement are listed in Table 5.4. As Table 5.3 demonstrates, participants agreed most strongly with statements about the usefulness of grammar rules for writing and reading. Moreover, they felt that studying grammar is necessary for mastering the English language. Learning grammar is considered a confidence-boosting activity and, less obviously perhaps, knowledge of grammar rules is seen as playing a role in fluency and communication. Interestingly, strong agreement with these positive statements co-occurs with strong agreement with negative statements about the role of grammar rules in communication and the issue of confidence (see Table 5.4). Some of the negative statements attracting the strongest agreement from participants refer to the difficulty of grammar rules, the potential confusion they can cause and feelings of nervousness in the absence of

The Metalinguistic Dimension

106

Table 5.3  Positive belief statements attracting the strongest agreement (strongly agree = 5) Item no.

Statement

7 3 13 16 1 19

Knowing a lot about grammar rules helps my writing. Knowing a lot about grammar helps my reading. Knowledge about grammar rules helps me to use English fluently. Learning grammar makes me feel confident. Studying grammar formally is essential for mastering English. Knowing grammar rules helps communication in English.

Mean 4.72 4.39 4.30 4.25 4.23 4.20

Table 5.4  Negative belief statements attracting the strongest agreement (strongly agree = 1) Item no.

Statement

8 21

Grammar rules are difficult to understand. It is more important to practise English in real-life situations than to learn grammar rules. I feel nervous when I don’t understand grammar rules. It is difficult to apply knowledge of grammar rules in real-life situations. Thinking too much about grammar rules makes me speak English less fluently. Learning grammar rules makes me confused.

24 11 4 29

Mean 1.95 2.05 2.14 2.27 2.33 2.45

understanding. These statements seem to represent the exact opposite of confidence. A similar pattern can be observed with regard to beliefs about the role of grammar rules in communication. Practising English in real-life situations is regarded as important, and thinking too much about grammar rules is seen as impeding fluent speech. The strong agreement with these negative belief statements contrasts with learners’ equally strong agreement with positive statements about the usefulness of grammar rules in communication. However, rather than being outright contradictions, these responses may suggest that the participants are aware of both advantages and disadvantages of studying and using grammar rules. Learners’ responses to items on section 2 of the beliefs questionnaire are shown in Table 5.5. Learners were asked to indicate the perceived level of difficulty of the 12 aspects of L2 grammar included in the MLK test as well as the perceived usefulness of instruction on these grammar aspects. With regard to perceived difficulty, it is worth noting that none of the targeted grammar points attracted a mean rating which was in the ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ range. The participants’ usefulness-of-instruction ratings were quite unanimous, with all grammar points attracting a mean score above 4. In other words, instruction was generally considered ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’ in all instances.

Research question 3 The third research question asked about the relationship between learners’ metalinguistic knowledge about the 12 aspects of L2 grammar targeted in the MLK test,

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

107

Table 5.5  Learner beliefs about targeted grammar aspects – Difficulty and usefulness of instruction Rank Difficulty 1 = very easy 5 = very difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Third person present tense –s Plural of nouns Present progressive Ordinal numbers (ranking) In with adverbials of time Use of the definite article There as a preparatory subject Adverbs modifying verbs Personal vs reflexive pronouns Use of some vs any Question tags Active vs passive with ergative verbs

Mean Usefulness of instruction 1 = not useful at all 5 = very useful 1.53 1.64 2.11 2.14 2.19 2.19 2.33 2.34 2.52 2.52 2.59 3.31

Third person present tense –s Ordinal numbers (ranking) Plural of nouns Present progressive In with adverbials of time Adverbs modifying verbs Use of some vs any Use of the definite article Personal vs reflexive pronouns There as a preparatory subject Question tags Active vs passive with ergative verbs

Mean

4.58 4.45 4.38 4.36 4.36 4.33 4.28 4.22 4.16 4.11 4.11 4.05

their beliefs about the difficulty of these grammar aspects and their beliefs about the usefulness of instruction on these grammar aspects. Results show that the participants regarded L2 grammar aspects of low explicit learning difficulty as defined by the test designers as significantly easier than aspects of higher explicit learning difficulty (t = –9.476; df = 63, p < 0.01, two-tailed). As the participants also performed better on items of low explicit learning difficulty than on items of comparatively higher explicit learning difficulty in the MLK test, this finding is indicative of a correspondence between learners’ beliefs and their actual knowledge. In addition, participants regarded instruction as significantly more useful for L2 aspects of low explicit learning difficulty than for L2 aspects of higher explicit learning difficulty (t = 3.804; df = 62, p < 0.01, two-tailed). This finding is reflected in the ranking presented in Table 5.5 and was confirmed statistically by a rank-order correlation calculated for perceived difficulty of a grammar aspect and perceived usefulness of instruction on that grammar aspect, according to the learners. A near-perfect correlation was obtained (rho = –0.99, p < 0.01, two-tailed). Thus, participants clearly regarded instruction as more useful when a grammar aspect was perceived to be easier.

Research question 4 The final research question asked about learners’ reasons for liking and/or disliking explicit teaching and learning of grammar in the context of their L2 learning. In order to address this question, participants’ responses to the open-ended items in section 4 of the questionnaire were analysed; in addition, the responses of the nine interviewees were taken into consideration.

108

The Metalinguistic Dimension

A total of 27 participants (42%) completed only the statement ‘I like studying grammar because . . .’, while 10 participants (16%) completed only the statement ‘I don’t like studying grammar because . . .’. The remaining 27 participants (42%) completed both statements. These figures suggest that the majority of participants (84%) expressed at least some positive views about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar, while just over half of the sample (58%) had at least some critical views. Analysis of learners’ continuations of the statement ‘I like studying grammar because . . .’ resulted in the identification of four main themes which were labelled cognitive/metacognitive reasons, affective reasons, practical/instrumental reasons and social/identity reasons. Cognitive/metacognitive reasons were by far the most frequently mentioned points, with participants stating that they liked studying grammar because ll

ll

ll ll

it is necessary or important for learning English; because English cannot be learned without it; because it is the basis of the language (10 occurrences); it is necessary or important or useful for writing English (27), speaking English (22), reading English (14) and listening to English (13); it is necessary for using English accurately and for correcting one’s own errors (15); it improves one’s understanding of how English works and it is useful for developing one’s language (6).

Affective reasons mentioned were statements that studying grammar gives a feeling of confidence (5 occurrences) and that it is interesting to explore the rules (1). Practical/ instrumental reasons concerned the usefulness of grammar for passing tests or exams and for successfully completing one’s degree programme (3). Social/identity reasons are perhaps the most interesting category, since they seemed to be primarily informed by considerations of social status, with the participants situating themselves as both potentially successful members of their university and potentially successful members of society at large. Learners stated that they liked studying grammar because it shows that one is educated (2), it is useful for one’s career (2), it will help one get a good job and become rich (1), it makes one look professional (1) and one has to be an expert on grammar if one majors in English (1). Analysis of learners’ continuations of the statement ‘I don’t like studying grammar because . . .’ yielded responses that fell within three of the four main themes discussed above, that is, cognitive/metacognitive reasons, affective reasons and practical/ instrumental reasons. Cognitive/metacognitive reasons were mentioned most frequently, with participants stating that they did not like studying grammar because ll ll ll ll

it is complicated or difficult to understand (25 occurrences); it is or can be confusing (16); there are many rules (10); the rules are difficult to memorize or remember (10).

Affective reasons mentioned were statements that studying grammar is boring (5 occurrences), that it makes one lose confidence or feel stressed or worried (3) or

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

109

that ‘it’s just not me’ (1). The practical/instrumental reason which led to the dislike of studying grammar was the perception that grammar is not always useful when communicating in English or using English in ‘real life’ (4). Data from the semi-structured interviews with nine participants were triangulated with the questionnaire data. Some participants’ contributions more or less directly reflected the predominant views identified in the responses to sections 3 and 4 of the questionnaire. As learners saw the belief statements in section 3 prior to responding to the open-ended items in section 4, their answers to the open-ended items were probably influenced to at least some extent by what they had just read in the closed-ended items. By the same token, the interviews followed questionnaire administration, though less immediately. Some participants  – Manee, Lee, Pen (all names are pseudonyms)  – primarily repeated in their interviews what had already been stated in the questionnaire responses, while others – Wanna and Walai – discussed in more differentiated ways both the potential advantages and the potential disadvantages of grammar rules in L2 learning, thus elaborating in more detail on what had been stated in the questionnaire responses. Overall, however, the views of these learners corresponded very closely to the beliefs as represented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 and as summarized in the analysis of cognitive/metacognitive reasons, affective reasons and practical/instrumental reasons for liking or disliking the study of grammar. The interview responses of the remaining four participants – Lila, Chanya, Suda, Pranee – included references to social/identity issues. This theme was not represented in the closed-ended questionnaire items, but emerged in learners’ answers to the open-ended item ‘I like studying grammar because . . .’ . It is revisited in the interviews by these four participants. Lila points out that ‘when we communicate with foreigners or other people, our knowledge of grammar can indicate that we are educated’. Chanya highlights that knowledge of grammar is ‘very important for English major students because our writing performance can indicate our level of knowledge of English’. Later on, she states: ‘Yes, it is really worth teaching grammar rules. As many of my teachers have told me, as English major students we should be accurate with grammar rules, not just be users of the language.’ This comment suggests that Chanya’s tutors encouraged the association of high levels of explicit knowledge and grammatically accurate use of English with the participants’ status as (future) experts in English and, by implication, as educated, valued and valuable members of society. Suda takes the same position when she states that the teaching of grammar rules ‘is very necessary for English major students’. Pranee’s response reflects a similar point of view, though less directly: ‘I should be accurate with the use of grammar’, and later: ‘Grammar needs to be taught since it is part of learning English (. . .) Since I have chosen to study English, I think grammar rules are still important.’

Discussion It is now possible to bring together the findings reported above in order to arrive at an overview of the participants’ belief systems in relation to metalinguistic knowledge.

110

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Positive beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge With regard to beliefs about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar in general, it was found that the Thai university students participating in the present study had more positive than negative views. This finding is consistent with the results obtained by Schulz (2001) for Colombian post-secondary students. Over 75% of the Colombian participants agreed with the statements ‘I like the study of grammar’ and ‘My foreign language improves most quickly if I study and practise the grammar’. In the present study, the Thai learners strongly agreed with belief statements about the importance of studying grammar for mastering English, the usefulness of grammar knowledge when writing or reading in English, the role of grammar rules in fluency and communication and the feeling of confidence that can be derived from studying grammar. In addition, 84% of participants expressed at least some positive views about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar when completing the open-ended statement ‘I like studying grammar because . . .’. In the cognitive/metacognitive domain, the most frequently cited reasons reflected the closed-ended belief statements learners most strongly agreed with; in addition, participants mentioned the importance of studying grammar for accurate use of the L2 and for correction of one’s own errors. In some respects, these findings mirror the results obtained by Loewen et al. (2009) from learners with different L1 backgrounds studying a range of languages in the United States. These students shared the Thai learners’ beliefs about the centrality of grammar in the language learning endeavour generally as well as the usefulness of grammar for reading and writing. There are also some contrasts in evidence, however. The learners in the United States tended to mention practical/instrumental reasons such as academic success and affective reasons such as enjoyment of the study of grammar as an end in itself; reasons such as these arose in the present study as well, but they were much less prominent. Interestingly, in the present study, affective reasons relating to the feeling of confidence which may be gained from studying grammar were mentioned only five times in the open-ended statements, although the mean agreement rate to the corresponding closed-ended statement was sufficiently high to put it in the top six of beliefs attracting the strongest agreement (see Table 5.3). It is worth noting that the range of scores for this item was small, with none of the participants actually disagreeing with the statement ‘Learning grammar makes me feel confident’. In other words, it is not the case that a few particularly enthusiastic participants pushed up the mean, while the majority was neutral about the statement. A possible explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the closed-ended and the open-ended statements about confidence may lie in the participants’ interpretation of the concept. The open-ended statement ‘I like studying grammar because . . .’ and the interviews revealed a theme in the learners’ belief systems which was not directly represented in the closed-ended items of the questionnaire, namely, the role of social/ identity reasons. This theme appeared exclusively in conjunction with positive attitudes towards the study of grammar. Participants stated, for instance, that studying grammar and being able to demonstrate a good grasp of grammar rules is necessary for students majoring in English since they are expected to be experts, it makes one look professional,

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

111

and shows that one is educated. Such beliefs may be closely associated with confidence in the participants, since being an educated, professional and highly knowledgeable individual should instil just such a feeling. Thus, it is possible that associations with one’s social role and identity as a member of society at large were foremost in the learners’ minds when responding to the closed-ended statement ‘Learning grammar makes me feel confident’. In other words, in addition to confidence which arises out of gaining and maintaining cognitive control over the knowledge domain that is the English language, i.e. confidence in the sense of self-efficacy (Hsieh and Kang, 2010), learners were equally, or perhaps even more concerned with confidence which arises out of how the learner sees him/herself as being perceived by others, i.e. confidence in a wider, social sense.

Negative beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge Negative beliefs about the teaching and learning of grammar in general were in evidence as well, even though they were less prominent than positive beliefs, with 58% of participants expressing at least some critical views when completing the statement ‘I don’t like studying grammar because. . . .’ The negative closed-ended statements attracting the strongest agreement from participants refer to the difficulty of grammar rules, the potential confusion they can cause, feelings of nervousness in the absence of understanding, the importance of practising English in real-life situations, the difficulty of applying grammar rules in such situations and the view that thinking too much about grammar rules will impede fluent speech. All these reasons are directly reflected in the participants’ open-ended statements, but the distribution is slightly different. In the open-ended statements, the overwhelming emphasis was on the difficulty of grammar rules, the potential for confusion, the sheer quantity of rules to be learned and the challenges inherent in memorizing them all. Affective reasons such as boredom, nervousness or loss of confidence were listed much less frequently; likewise, the lack of usefulness of grammar rules in real-life communication was also much less prominent in the open-ended statements. The reasons for disliking the study of grammar given by the Thai learners comprise the same themes as the reasons provided by the learners in the United States who were studied by Loewen et al. (2009). Differences between the two samples are above all in evidence in the frequency distribution. The most frequently cited reason for disliking the study of grammar by the US learners was the view that it is boring. This reason only played a subordinate role for the Thai learners. A second difference lies in the fact that the US learners had exclusively negative associations between the study of grammar and its role in developing speaking skills and succeeding with real-life communication in the L2. While the same theme arose with the Thai learners, they also had strong positive associations between the study of grammar and its role in fluency and communication. Indeed, in the open-ended statement ‘I like studying grammar because . . .’, importance or usefulness in connection with speaking English was mentioned no fewer than 22 times, while it was mentioned 13 times in connection with listening. Thus, the Thai learners saw both potential advantages and potential disadvantages of studying

112

The Metalinguistic Dimension

grammar in connection with speaking and communicating in the L2; by contrast, the learners in the United States did not show such differentiation. A possible reason for this discrepancy in beliefs is mentioned by Loewen et al. (2009) when they discuss differences between L2 learners of English and learners of other L2s. The L2 learners of English found themselves in an immersion setting and therefore regularly used the L2 outside the classroom. This may help explain why they were overall less enthusiastic about grammar instruction while at the same time showing more interest in improving their communicative skills. As the Thai leaners in the present study were learning English at a Thai university and had had no immersion experience, beliefs about the potential usefulness of grammar study for speaking English may have remained intact.

Beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge and actual metalinguistic knowledge In the present study, we investigated not only learners’ beliefs about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar generally, but also their beliefs about the difficulty and usefulness of instruction on 12 specific grammar points. Moreover, we were able to relate these beliefs to actual performance on a test of metalinguistic knowledge targeting the same 12 grammar points. The analysis of learners’ beliefs about the difficulty and usefulness of instruction on the 12 grammar aspects targeted in the MLK test yielded a number of noteworthy results. With regard to metalinguistic performance, it was found that learners did better on items of low explicit learning difficulty than on items of comparatively higher explicit learning difficulty, as expected. Participants’ beliefs about the difficulty of specific grammar points were fully in line with this finding, i.e. they judged grammar points of low explicit learning difficulty to be significantly easier than grammar points of higher difficulty. Thus, beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge and actual metalinguistic knowledge were in close correspondence in this instance. More interestingly perhaps, participants considered instruction significantly more useful for grammar points of low explicit learning difficulty than for grammar points of higher difficulty. This view is reflected in the difficulty versus usefulness-of-instruction ranking presented in Table 5.5 and the near-perfect negative correlation between the two variables. In other words, the Thai learners considered instruction more useful when a grammar aspect was perceived to be easier. This finding is in direct contrast with previous research. In his study with Polish learners of L2 English, Scheffler (2009) obtained the opposite result. The Polish learners found instruction particularly useful when a grammar aspect was perceived to be more difficult. Although the present study used the same rating scale as Scheffler (2009), there are a number of differences in research design which might help explain the opposing findings to at least some extent. First and foremost, the L2 grammar points targeted were not the same; moreover, the participants in the present study completed the MLK test, which measured actual explicit knowledge of the targeted grammar points, prior to making their difficulty and usefulness-of-instruction judgements. The Polish learners were not tested for explicit knowledge and thus made decontextualized judgements. Finally, the difficulty and usefulness-of-instruction judgements were made by two

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

113

different groups of participants in Scheffler’s (2009) study, while in the present study the same sample of learners made both judgements. It is possible that the inclusion of the MLK test in the research design of the present study led to a task effect. As the descriptive statistics reported in Table 5.2 indicate, the test was quite challenging, especially the description/explanation task. In conjunction with the learners’ self-assessment of their overall L2 proficiency as ‘fair’ and their actual performance on the English placement test in the elementary range, this may have led to a decrease in confidence in their own abilities and knowledge; accordingly, more difficult L2 grammar points may have seemed beyond their grasp, whereas less difficult points may have been perceived as better suited to instruction with a view to subsequent mastery. This line of argument is speculative, though.2 At the same time, it is worth noting that the generally high scores for usefulness of instruction and the generally lower scores for perceived difficulty (see Table 5.5) quite closely reflect the tendencies which were in evidence in Scheffler’s (2009) study. The Polish learners likewise generally perceived the English grammar points they were asked about as fairly easy, while usefulness of instruction was generally rated quite highly.

Conclusion The present study was aimed at investigating university-level learners’ beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge in conjunction with their actual metalinguistic performance. We examined participants’ beliefs about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar generally as well as their beliefs about the difficulty and usefulness of instruction on 12 aspects of English grammar. In addition, we assessed participants’ metalinguistic knowledge about these grammar points. The findings indicate that our learners’ belief systems are complex constructs. Three key points are worth noting. First, in accordance with previous research, the participants held many positive beliefs about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar. Studying grammar was deemed important for mastering the L2, for reading and writing in the L2, for accurate use of the L2 and for self-correction. Negative beliefs focused above all on the potential complexities of grammar rules, the potential for confusion and the challenges of memorizing a large number of rules. In contrast with existing research, the learners in the present study had both positive and negative beliefs about the usefulness of grammar for communicating in the L2. Second, our findings point towards a correspondence between learners’ beliefs and their actual metalinguistic knowledge. Greater perceived difficulty and less successful test performance went hand in hand. Third, our findings suggest that confidence may be a multi-dimensional concept which can be interpreted in different ways. Focusing on the individual, confidence in the sense of self-efficacy can arise out of perceived cognitive control and the perceived understanding of a knowledge domain. We used this interpretation to explain the finding that participants considered instruction more useful on grammar points that were deemed less difficult. We proposed that more difficult grammar points may have

114

The Metalinguistic Dimension

been perceived by the participants as being beyond their cognitive reach; they had little confidence in their own abilities and themselves as learners of English. Focusing on the collective, confidence may also arise out of one’s perceived identity as a member of society and of how one believes to be perceived by others. We posited that this interpretation might have been foremost in the participants’ minds when they responded to closed-ended belief statements which included the term ‘confidence’, when they used the term productively, and when they put forward social/identity reasons for liking the study of grammar. In this interpretation, confidence is based on how one is viewed in one’s role as an English major student (future expert on the language) and one’s role as a member of society (educated future professional with a promising career). In this interpretation, confidence was strongly associated with positive beliefs about the explicit teaching and learning of grammar and the importance and usefulness of metalinguistic knowledge. It is tempting to speculate about culturally based reasons for interpreting confidence in the collective sense in addition to the individualistic sense that focuses on self-efficacy. However, caution is in order here because existing research about the role of culture in learners’ belief systems has led to diverging findings. While Schulz (2001) identified a number of differences in beliefs about grammar instruction between US and Colombian students, the review by Horwitz (1999) failed to pinpoint clear cultural differences in general beliefs about language and language learning of US participants on the one hand and Taiwanese and Korean participants on the other hand. Addressing the concept of confidence in a targeted cross-cultural comparison would be an interesting avenue for future research in the area of L2 learner beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge.

Appendix Sample items from the MLK test, sample participant answers and scores awarded; all explanations are translations from Thai, unless indicated otherwise. Item 5: I’m afraid we will have to think quick. Correction: quickly Explanation: ‘quick’ is an adjective. Therefore it is wrong. Must change ‘quick’ to ‘quickly’ to become an adverb because an adverb modifies a verb, which is ‘think’. In sum, ‘quick’ is an adjective which cannot modify a verb. (Participant 1) Scores awarded: Correction = 1, Description = 1, Explanation = 1 Correction: quickly Explanation: quick is a verb which requires an object, in this case placed at the end of the sentence without an object. Thus, must change it to be an adjective by adding –ly at the end so it becomes quickly. (Participant 5) Scores awarded: Correction = 1, Description = 0, Explanation = 0

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

115

Item 6: On the six day, the workers finally decided to stop the strike. Correction: sixth Explanation: Because it is a rank order. (Participant 32) Scores awarded: Correction = 1, Description = 0, Explanation = 1 Item 7: Can you please be quiet? I work. Correction: am working Explanation: use present continuas [sic]. (Participant 43; explanation was provided in English) Scores awarded: Correction = 1, Description = 1, Explanation = 0 Item 9: It was a lovely evening, was it? Correction: isn’t Explanation: This sentence is a question tag which wants to ask at the end of the sentence. The rule of question tag: if the previous [sentence] is affirmative, the latter must always be negative. (Participant 6) Scores awarded: Correction = 0, Description = 1, Explanation = 1

Notes 1 As pointed out by a reviewer, researchers often use essentially metalinguistic tasks such as grammaticality judgements to measure L2 development; studies aimed at assessing L2 learning or L2 proficiency by means of such tasks in connection with individual difference variables are not reviewed here. 2 A reviewer suggested two further possible reasons for the discrepancy in findings. First, the Polish learners in Scheffler’s (2009) study and the Thai learners in the present study have probably been exposed to different types of L2 instruction. Second, the Polish learners were of a more advanced level of proficiency than the Thai learners when the respective studies were undertaken.

References Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. and Steel, D. (1997), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency’. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121. Benson, P. and Lor, W. (1999), ‘Conceptions of language and language learning’. System, 27, (4), 459–72. Bialystok, E. (1994), ‘Representation and ways of knowing: Three issues in second language acquisition’, in N. C. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press, pp. 549–70. Camps, J. (2003), ‘Concurrent and retrospective verbal reports as tools to better understand the role of attention in second language tasks’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, (2), 201–21. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007), Research Methods in Education (6th edn). London: Routledge. Cotterall, S. (1999), ‘Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe about them?’ System, 27, (4), 493–513.

116

The Metalinguistic Dimension

DeKeyser, R. M. (2003), ‘Implicit and explicit learning’, in C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 313–48. Dörnyei, Z. (2003), Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. — (2005), The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. — (2007), Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003), ‘Individual differences in second language learning’, in C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 589–630. Elder, C. and Manwaring, D. (2004), ‘The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese’. Language Awareness, 13, (3), 145–62. Elder, C., Warren, J., Hajek, J., Manwaring, D. and Davies, A. (1999), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge: How important is it in studying a language at university?’ Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, (1), 81–95. Ellis, N. C. (1994), ‘Consciousness in second language learning: Psychological perspectives on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition’. AILA Review, 11, 37–56. Ellis, R. (2004), ‘The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge’. Language Learning, 54, (2), 227–75. — (2006), ‘Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge’. Applied Linguistics, 27, (3), 431–63. Flavell, J. H. (1979), ‘Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry’. American Psychologist, 34, 906–11. Hacker, D. J. (1998), ‘Definitions and empirical foundations’, in D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky and A. C. Graesser (eds), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 1–23. Horwitz, E. K. (1987), ‘Surveying student beliefs about language learning’, in A. L. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. London: Prentice Hall, pp. 119–29. — (1988), ‘The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students’. Modern Language Journal, 72, (3), 283–94. — (1999), ‘Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies’. System, 27, (4), 557–76. Hsieh, P. P.-H. and Kang, H.-S. (2010), ‘Attribution and self-efficacy and their relationship in the Korean EFL context’. Language Learning, 60, (3), 606–27. Hu, G. (2011), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners’. System, 39, (1), 63–77. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005), ‘Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, (2), 129–40. Leow, R. P. (2000), ‘A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, (4), 557–84. Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S. and Chen, X. (2009), ‘Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction’. Modern Language Journal, 93, (1), 91–104.

University-Level Learners’ Beliefs

117

McDonough, K. and Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007), ‘Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand’. TESOL Quarterly, 41, (1), 107–32. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Murphy, R. (1994), English Grammar in Use (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2001), ‘Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review’. Language Learning, 51, (1), 157–213. Roehr, K. (2008a), ‘Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning’. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, (1), 67–106. — (2008b), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners’. Applied Linguistics, 29, (2), 173–99. Roehr, K. and Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2009a), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge: A stepping stone towards L2 proficiency?’, in A. Benati (ed.), Issues in Second Language Proficiency. London: Continuum, pp. 79–94. — (2009b), ‘The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning’. Language Awareness, 18, (2), 165–81. Rosa, E. and O’Neill, M. D. (1999), ‘Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–56. Scheffler, P. (2009), ‘Rule difficulty and the usefulness of instruction’. ELT Journal, (1), 5–12. Schulz, R. A. (2001), ‘Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia’. Modern Language Journal, 85, (2), 244–58. Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Sorace, A. (1985), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge and language use in acquisition-poor environments’. Applied Linguistics, 6, (3), 239–54. Swan, M. (1995), Practical English Usage (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. UCLES. (2004), Quick Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wenden, A. L. (1998), ‘Metacognitive knowledge and language learning’. Applied Linguistics, 19, (4), 515–37. — (1999), ‘An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Beyond the basics’. System, 27, (4), 435–41. White, C. (2008), ‘Beliefs and good language learners’, in C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons from Good Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–30. Yang, N.-D. (1999), ‘The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use’. System, 27, (4), 515–35. Ziętek, A. A. and Roehr, K. (2011), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge and cognitive style in Polish classroom learners of English’. System, 39, (4), 417–26.

6

Metalinguistic Awareness in Third Language Phonological Acquisition Magdalena Wrembel

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

Abstract This contribution explored metalinguistic awareness in the acquisition of third language phonology. It provides new insights into this issue by expanding the investigation beyond the second language acquisition perspective and embracing the recently recognized discipline of third language acquisition. The study investigates metaphonological awareness with the application of stimulated recall protocols, i.e. verbalized reports aimed at disclosing participants’ mental processes. The participants were Polish native speakers with a very good command of English as their L2, and a more limited competence in French or German as their L3. L3 speech samples were collected by means of introspective and retrospective protocols in which the participants were asked to improve and comment on their L3 pronunciation after listening to an excerpt of their previous performance. The study explored whether trilingual speakers of typologically related and unrelated sets of languages tend to resort to L1 or L2 transfer in L3 speech performance, and to what extent they were aware of this phenomenon. The findings provide evidence for qualitative and quantitative differences in reported metaphonological awareness manifested through the participants’ reflective metalinguistic analysis of their own L3 performance, their intentional focus on articulatory gestures, their self-awareness of problems in L3 pronunciation and a considerable degree of processing control.

Introduction Metalinguistic awareness Metalinguistic awareness is acknowledged as a significant component of language proficiency and is commonly ascribed a facilitative role in foreign language acquisition (Herdina and Jessner, 2002; Gombert, 1992). In an attempt to define metalinguistic

120

The Metalinguistic Dimension

or language awareness, James (1999, p. 97) proposed that it consists of ‘a mix of knowledge of language in general and specifically, a command of metalanguage (standard or ad hoc), and the conversion of intuitions to insight and then beyond to metacognition’. James (1999) further distinguished between language awareness as such (i.e. language awareness as metacognition) and consciousness-raising (i.e. language awareness as cognition). The former begins with one’s own intuitions and can relate to one’s knowledge about language through reflection, whereas the latter starts with one’s objective linguistic knowledge and personalizes it. Jessner (2006, p. 42) summarizes various attempts to define metalinguistic awareness by stating that it ‘refers to the ability to focus attention on language as an object in itself or to think abstractly about language and, consequently, to play with or manipulate language’. The question of the role of awareness in foreign language learning is a complex one and has been discussed extensively in the literature. A vocal proposal was put forward by Schmidt (1990, p. 131), who made the following distinction between three types of consciousness: (1) consciousness as awareness, (2) consciousness as intention and (3) consciousness as knowledge. Consciousness as awareness was further subdivided according to different levels of awareness ranging from ‘perception’ which may not always be conscious, via ‘noticing’ which involves focal awareness, and ‘understanding’, i.e. conscious analysis. Addressing the role of consciousness in input processing, Schmidt (1990) proposed the so-called noticing hypothesis, according to which conscious awareness at the level of noticing is essential for the development of L2 proficiency. This process refers to learners’ comparison between the observed input and their own production at a particular stage of development of the interlanguage system. One of the most persistent problems from the perspective of foreign language learning is the distinction between intuitive language awareness and metalinguistic knowledge. Reflecting this contrast, Gombert (1992) distinguishes between epilinguistic and metalinguistic awareness. Epilinguistic awareness is unconscious, spontaneous and contextualized and can thus be exemplified by instances of self-repair in speech performance. Metalinguistic awareness, on the other hand, is decontextualized, conscious and intentional and involves, for instance, language analysis in the classroom or conscious reflection on language properties.

Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals Looking at metalinguistic awareness from a multilingual perspective, Jessner (2006) provides evidence that it is an essential component of multilingual proficiency. In her study, Jessner (2006) investigated the nature of linguistic awareness in German-Italian bilinguals acquiring L3 English through the application of think-aloud protocols. By focusing on lexical problem-solving behaviours, Jessner explored the compensatory strategies of L3 acquirers (e.g. language switches, foreignizing, coinage, approximation) that evidenced indirectly the participants’ language awareness as well as instances of explicit metalinguistic awareness (e.g. the use of metalanguage). She concluded that multilinguals make use of this ability much more frequently than monolinguals, as ‘linguistic objectivation is the multilingual’s most characteristic cognitive ability’

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

121

(Jessner, 2006, p. 42). Consequently, Jessner proposed an extension of traditional definitions of metalinguistic awareness to include a component of cross-linguistic awareness that interacts with metalinguistic consciousness in multilingual processing (Jessner, 2006, p. 116). The role of an increased level of metalinguistic awareness, which forms an integral part of multilingual proficiency, is emphasized in the Dynamic Model of Multilingualism developed by Herdina and Jessner (2002). The model assumes, among other things, the non-linear nature of language growth and the cumulative interdependence between language systems of a multilingual (i.e. L1, L2, L3, etc.), resulting in complex cross-linguistic interactions. The formula of multilingual proficiency, as proposed by Herdina and Jessner (2002), also accounts for the so-called multilingualism factor, which is defined as consisting of increased metalinguistic awareness, an enhanced monitor and the catalytic effect of the third language (Jessner, 2006, p. 34). Based on extensive research on third language acquisition, some researchers including Hufeisen (1997), Cenoz (2003) and Jessner (2006) claim that multilingual learners tend to develop a higher level of metalinguistic awareness as well as metacognitive strategies and, as a result, demonstrate linguistic and cognitive advantages over their monolingual counterparts. This advantage is attributed, to a large extent, to the metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals as evidenced, for instance, by the seminal work of Pearl and Lambert (1962) or Bialystok et al. (2004).

The third language acquisition perspective The focus of the present contribution falls on the phonological aspects of metalinguistic awareness, understood as intentional focus on phonetic forms and articulatory gestures during foreign language speech performance. This investigation is conducted within the framework of third language acquisition, which is a young area of study with a limited body of research (e.g. Hammarberg and Hammarberg, 2005; Gut, 2010, Llama et al., 2010; Rothman et al., 2013; Wrembel, 2010). The third language (L3), often referred to as ‘Third or Additional Language’ (De Angelis, 2007), is understood as any language learned after the second language (L2), i.e. the first foreign language acquired by an individual. Third language acquisition has recently been acknowledged as a separate sub-discipline from second language acquisition because it involves a more complex context of acquisition and a qualitative difference in language learning and processing (Cenoz et al., 2001; Herdina and Jessner, 2002). Moreover, some researchers claim that the study of L3 acquisition is a potential source of unique new insights into the process of language learning that cannot be gained by investigating the first or second language alone (Flynn et al., 2004). Phonological acquisition in a multiple-language setting is of a very complex nature since phonological transfer is not limited to L1, but involves other, earlier acquired foreign language systems (L2). Apart from negative interference, there is a potential for positive transfer, especially due to metalinguistic awareness gained in L2 acquisition and the application of specific learner strategies to learning a subsequent foreign language. Traditionally, non-native languages have not been regarded as significant sources of cross-linguistic influence, in contrast to a widely attested transfer from the L1 of

122

The Metalinguistic Dimension

multilingual learners (e.g. Pyun, 2005; Ringbom, 1987). Nonetheless, there have been several studies that testify to the complex interference between foreign languages acquired as second and third ones, and which point to the existence of the so-called foreign language effect or L2 status in L3 phonological acquisition (e.g. Cenoz, 2001; Hammarberg and Hammarberg, 1993, 2005; Williams and Hammarberg, 1998). The results of these studies on third language acquisition demonstrate that the previously acquired foreign language (L2) tends to be activated in L3 performance, thus suppressing L1 influence. Several factors have been identified in the literature as conditioning cross-linguistic transfer in the acquisition of a foreign language, particularly of a third language, including typological distance or psychotypology, foreign language effect, proficiency level, recency of use and the context of interaction (Williams and Hammarberg, 1998; Cenoz, 2001; Jessner, 2006). One of the strongest predictors of cross-linguistic influence is the typological distance between the languages being learned; semantically and categorically related linguistic structures are likely to lead to transfer. However, the actual linguistic typology and transferability are conditioned, to a large extent, by the learner’s perception of language distance, i.e. psychotypology (Kellerman, 1979). Studies on third language acquisition have demonstrated that when the multilingual learners’ L1 is typologically unrelated to their newly acquired L3, they tend to transfer linguistic knowledge from their L2s (e.g. Ringbom, 1987; Cenoz, 2001; De Angelis and Selinker, 2001). Consequently, the perceived similarity may lead to positive L2-L3 transfer in addition to the interference between the native and the additional foreign language (Cenoz, 2005).

Overview of research The majority of studies to date on the role of metalinguistic awareness in the development of language proficiency have focused on grammar as well as the knowledge of metalinguistic terminology. Early research conducted by Białystok (1982) and Gass (1988) pointed to higher levels of metalinguistic awareness as concomitant with improvements in L2 proficiency. In a more recent study, Alderson et al. (1997) demonstrated a weak to moderate correlation between metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency, on the basis of a battery of administered tests. Renou (2001), in turn, used grammaticality judgements as a measure of metalinguistic awareness and found that it was correlated with language proficiency. The status of metalinguistic knowledge in relation to individual learner variables in instructed adult L2 learning was examined by Roehr and Gánem-Gutiérrez (2009). The findings showed that the primary variable responsible for the attained level of metalinguistic knowledge was the length of form-focused language instruction. Instances of correlational research on metalinguistic awareness outnumber the existing qualitative studies in this field. A notheworthy example of the latter is Roehr’s (2006) study exploring metalinguistic knowledge in L2 task performance by means of stimulated recall protocols. The author found a qualitative difference in the implementations of metalinguistic knowledge evidenced by various complexity

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

123

levels and the co-occurrence of metalinguistic knowledge with learners’ success and consistency in task-solving. Phonological awareness has not been explored extensively in the SLA literature. Only a limited number of studies to date have dealt with this issue (Kennedy and Trofimovich, 2010; Venkatagiri and Levis, 2007; Wrembel, 2005, 2011). In an extensive study Venkatagiri and Levis (2007) investigated whether phonological awareness is related to speech comprehensibility. To this end, they administered a battery of tests, including 14 tests of phonological awareness (e.g. phonological blending, segmentation, manipulation, spoonerism, rhyming, alliteration) and 3 tests of phonological short-term memory (i.e. non-word recall). The comprehensibility ratings performed by 12 native-speaker raters pointed to a strong positive correlation between composite phonological awareness scores and rated comprehensibility, as well as to a positive correlation between phonological awareness and phonological short-term memory. The analysis demonstrated that 19% of variance in rated comprehensibility was accounted for by phonological awareness scores. On the whole, learners with superior explicit phonological knowledge were perceived by the raters as more intelligible foreign language speakers, thus lending some further support to Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis. Consequently, Venkatagiri and Levis (2007, p. 275) suggest that phonological form may be amenable to awareness-building classroom strategies, similar to what is indicated in focus-on-form research on other linguistic aspects such as syntax or lexis (cf. Doughty and Williams, 1998). Kennedy and Trofimovich (2010) conducted a classroom study in which they examined the relationship between the quality of L2 pronunciation and language awareness. L2 learners’ pronunciation was assessed on the basis of ratings of accentedness, comprehensibility and fluency. Language awareness, in turn, was analysed on the basis of dialogue journal entries made by the learners. Benson and Lor’s (1999) analytical framework of dual conceptions of learning according to which language awareness can be quantitative or qualitative was applied. The former type concerns the awareness of how language is acquired, i.e. language learning as assimilating a set of discrete items, whereas the latter refers to the awareness of how language works to convey meaning, i.e. meaningful context in which learning occurs (Kennedy and Trofimovich, 2010, pp. 171–2). The findings point to a relationship between pronunciation ratings and the number of qualitative language awareness comments. The author’s previous long-term empirical study (Wrembel, 2005) was fairly innovative since it explored the impact of analysed phonological knowledge and metalinguistic awareness on L2 pronunciation performance. The findings substantiated the basic underlying assumption, according to which participants who were equipped  with declarative knowledge targeted at the conscious monitoring of the acquired phonological system outperformed controls, who relied only on procedural knowledge developed through practical L2 pronunciation training. The results demonstrated that awareness-raising and the acquisition of explicit knowledge contribute to the development of L2 phonological competence and may be considered an important predictor of L2 pronunciation attainment. A follow-up study (Wrembel, 2011) was intended to complement the earlier investigation by tapping into learners’ self-perception of metaphonetic awareness

124

The Metalinguistic Dimension

in spontaneous L2 speech production. It aimed specifically to elicit the participants’ self-reflection on the ways of monitoring their English pronunciation through verbal protocols. The study revealed that the participants demonstrated a fairly high degree of metalinguistic awareness, evidenced by the elicited aspects of formalized phonetic knowledge, instances of self-repair and explicit statements of pronunciation strategies applied in the L2 learning process. The present study is intended to shed new light on the issue of metalinguistic awareness by expanding the investigation beyond the SLA perspective and embracing a more complex context of acquisition of third language phonology.

The present study The study aimed to explore cognitive process and variables associated with metaphonological awareness during L3 oral performance through the application of verbal protocols. It was intended as a process-oriented investigation to supplement quantitative findings with qualitative data in view of the recent plea by Roehr (2006), according to which qualitative analyses of metalinguistic awareness are relatively rare. The specific objectives of the study were to verify whether multilingual speakers of typologically related (L2 English and L3 German) and less related sets of languages (L2 English and L3 French) tend to resort to the L2 rather than L1 Polish transfer in their L3 speech performance, and to explore to what extent they are aware of this phenomenon.

Research design The study adopted and slightly modified the introspective method of think-aloud protocols (TAPs) which consists of verbalized reports aimed at disclosing the participants’ intuition and mental processes when performing a given task. TAPs are widely used in research on human information processing (Ericsson and Simon, 1984), meta-awareness in multilingualism (e.g. Jessner, 2006) and pronunciation monitoring strategies (Osborne, 2003). According to Cohen (1996), verbal reports can reflect the following aspects: – self-report, i.e. learners’ descriptions and general statements about the learning process, – self-observation, i.e. inspections of specific language behaviour both introspective and retrospective, – self-revelation, i.e. disclosure of thought processes, thinking aloud. Verbal reports differ from self-report interviews and questionnaires in that they attempt to elicit introspective data near the moment of the learning event (Jessner, 2006). Taking this advantage into account, think-aloud protocols were adapted as a method of data collection for the purpose of the present study, however, since the verbalization was not concurrent, but followed a slight delay (approximately 1 minute), the resulting verbal reports can be better classified as stimulated recall protocols (Gass and Mackey, 2000).

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

125

Participants and procedure The participants in the study were 60 Polish native speakers (17 male, 43 female) with a mean age of 20. They were all students of the School of English at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland and proficient in L2 English (C1 level according to the classification of the Common European Framework of Reference, CEFR, 2001). There were two groups of participants with respect to the language they acquired as an L3, i.e. either French or German. The L3 French/L3 German groups were further subdivided according to L3 proficiency level into elementary groups 1F and 1G (A2 level, CEFR) and intermediate groups 2F and 2G (B2 level, CEFR); see Table 6.1. The study consisted of three stages (see Table 6.2) performed as individual sessions in a quiet room. The participants were seated in front of a computer screen with an audio recording program on, wearing a headset with a microphone and headphones. The first stage involved reading a text in the participants’ L3 and was recorded by the researcher using CoolEdit96 as 16-bit mono files at 16,000 Hz sampling frequency (Recording 1). The texts were about 100 words long and included a French text, Les Français et l’argent, and a German text, Üben, üben, üben. The selection of the text corresponded to the participants’ language group (L3 French vs L3 German). In the second stage, which focused on analytic listening, Recording 1 was played back through the headphones and the participants were asked to listen attentively and assess their own pronunciation performance in L3. Stage three, involving

Table 6.1  Participants Group

Proficiency level

L3 French L3 German

1F 2F 1G 2G

Elementary (A2) Intermediate (B2) Elementary (A2) Intermediate (B2)

Number of participants 12 18 16 14

Table 6.2  Study design Stage 1

L3 text reading Recording 1

 Stage 2

 Analytic listening Recording 1 played back  Stimulated recall protocols Recording 2

 Stage 3

A) retrospective protocol   − self-correction   − comments on L3 phonetic performance  B) introspective protocol   − self-reflection on L3 acquisition process

126

The Metalinguistic Dimension

stimulated recall protocols, was further subdivided into (1) retrospective protocols and (2) introspective protocols. In the former part, the participants were asked to provide self-corrections and comments on their phonetic performance in L3 and to try and verbalize all the thoughts and reflections that came to their minds. The latter part was devoted to self-reflection on the process of acquisition of L3 phonology and took the form of a semi-structured interview. The researcher decided to use stimulated recall protocols rather than concurrent ones because the participants were unwilling to provide verbal protocols simultaneously when listening to their own recordings and preferred to perform them after the listening task was completed. Interaction with the researcher was limited to the occasional provision of support questions. The retrospective and introspective protocols at stage three were also audio-recorded (Recording 2) in the same manner as Recording 1. Later, Recording 2 was transcribed and the dataset was coded by the researcher. The data was analysed by means of a content-analytic approach focusing on pre-established central categories (see below for details).

Concept operationalization and coding Metaphonological awareness was operationalized in the study as instances of: 1. noticing, i.e. mentioning L3 phonetic features, commenting on one’s own specific pronunciation problems, 2 understanding, i.e. formulating phonetic rules, conscious analysis of L3 pronunciation performance, 3. metacognition, i.e. self-reflection on L3 pronunciation and the learning process in general. The analysis of the verbal protocols was expected to reflect the following types of metaphonological awareness, as distinguished by Gombert (1992): – epilinguistic awareness, manifested by the observed instances of self-repair of L3 pronunciation; − metalinguistic phonological awareness, reflective phonetic analysis and intentional focus on articulatory gestures during speech performance. A special coding system was devised by the researcher and aimed at the objectivization of the data analysis. The retrospective protocol focused on three issues, namely: 1. self-corrections, i.e. L3 repair: −  number of instances (raw frequency), −  instances of successful/unsuccessful repairs; 2. noticing one’s own problems with L3 pronunciation: −  number of instances (raw frequency), − categorization of problems, e.g. phonetic features, mispronounced words, suprasegmental aspects;

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

127

3. levels of complexity of reported phonological awareness (the typology was adapted from Roehr, 2006, p. 188): − Level A (low) – noticing and attentional focus on relevant auditory forms, i.e. phonological surface patterns, − Level B (medium) – metalinguistic description or explanation, i.e. the participant performs an analysis of the targeted feature, − Level C (high) – metalinguistic description or explanation and metalanguage, i.e. the analysis is articulated employing metalinguistic categories. The introspective protocol involved self-reflection on the following three aspects: 1. Reported influence from other languages, including the source and strength of this influence, e.g. L1, L2, L1/L2 or Ln (other languages); 2. Acknowledged facilitative or intrusive role of metalinguistic awareness; 3. Explanations and metacognitive comments which were coded as instances of self-report (in the case of general statements about the learning process) or self-observation (in the case of inspections of specific language behaviour), using Cohen’s (1996) terminology.

Results and discussion Retrospective verbal protocols Self-correction The first aspect of the retrospective verbal protocols concerned the qualitative and quantitative nature of self-corrections registered when the participants were asked to monitor their recorded L3 reading performance. The number of self-repairs in L3 oral performance totalled 71, including 54 corrections in L3 German (M = 1.7 corrections per participant), and 17 instances of modifications in L3 French (M = 0.5). An independent samples t-test revealed a statistical difference in the instances of self-repair between the two groups (t(58) = 2.76, p < 0.01). However, an analysis of the success rate of self-corrections points to the opposite tendency, since self-repairs by participants in the L3 French group were correct 81% of the time, thus showing greater success than those of the L3 German group, whose success rate reached only 54% (see Table 6.3). Instances of self-corrections were also analysed with respect to the proficiency level in the two L3 groups and with respect to the number of self-corrections and their success rate (see Table 6.4). It was hypothesized that a higher proficiency in L3 would result in more instances of self-correction and a higher success rate, showing increased metalinguistic awareness. While this expectation was substantiated in the L3 French group, with the lower-proficiency subgroup 1F performing significantly fewer successful self-repairs than the higher-proficiency subgroup 2F (t(28) = 2.8, p < 0.01), the L3 German group demonstrated the reverse tendency, with the lower-proficiency subgroup 1G outscoring their higher-proficiency counterparts 2G in terms of the

The Metalinguistic Dimension

128

Table 6.3  Self-correction data

Total L3 German L3 French

Raw frequency

Percentage

Mean

Success rate (%)

71 54 17

100 76 24

1.1 1.7 0.5

60 58 81

Table 6.4  Self-correction according to L3 group and proficiency level Group L3 French L3 German

1F 2F 1G 2G

Raw frequency

Percentage

Mean

Success rate (%)

1 16 39 15

2 22 55 21

0.1 0.9 2.3 1.1

0 81 56 60

number of self-repairs. The success rate was higher for the higher-proficiency subgroup 2G, although this difference was not statistically significant (t(28) = 1.52, p = 0.1). Consequently, no clear relation between the number of self-corrections and L3 proficiency level was found, since opposite trends were observed in the L3 German and L3 French groups. It could be expected that higher proficiency would lead to increased metalinguistic awareness and thus affect the quantity of L3 self-repairs. However, this was not substantiated by the comparative analysis of 1G + 1F vs 2G + 2F, with no statistical significance found between these groups (t(58) = 0.88, p = 0.4). As far as the quality of self-repairs is concerned, the success rate of corrections was higher for the higher-proficiency groups in both L3 German and L3 French, yet in the former group the difference was not significant, as indicated earlier. Moreover, the number of self-repairs was not equally distributed in the two groups (see Table 6.3) since the percentage of total corrections was three times higher in the L3 German group than in the L3 French group. This finding could be interpreted in the light of the typological proximity of the language repertoires of the participants, with a facilitative effect of a typologically more related set of L2 English and L3 German leading to a higher percentage of total self-corrections (76%), compared to a less related set of L2 English and L3 French (24%). One cannot exclude other possible explanations, e.g. the impact of the quality of L3 instruction. However, this variable was beyond the control of the investigator. As far as the qualitative analysis of the instances of L3 self-repair is concerned, Table 6.5 presents the frequency of occurrence of particular corrections divided into categories. As can be seen, segmental corrections were most frequent by far (92%), while modifications of suprasegmental aspects of L3 pronunciation performance accounted for only 8% of self-repairs. The most commonly modified phonetic segments included vowels (34%) and consonants (32%), the quality of the /r/ sound (12%), unclear pronunciation of a word (8%) and word endings (6%), whereas suprasegmental modifications involved word stress (6%) and linking (2%).

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

129

Table 6.5  Categories of self-correction in L3 vowels consonants /r/ unclear pronunciation word stress word endings linking

34% 32% 12% 8% 6% 6% 2%

Noticing of problems The second aspect of metaphonological awareness investigated by means of the retrospective protocols concerned noticing one’s own problems with L3 pronunciation. The raw frequency of self-reported phonetic problems totalled 162, with a mean of 2.6 instances per participant. The reported problems were distributed relatively equally across the L3 language groups and proficiency levels (1G M = 2.5, 2G M = 2.7, 1F M = 2.1, 2F M = 3.1). The differences in means between the two L3 groups (i.e. L3 German vs L3 French) were not significant (t(61) = 0.62, p = 0.54). However, within L3 groups a statistical difference was found between proficiency levels for L3 French (t(28) = 8.9, p < 0.05), with intermediate learners reporting on average more phonetic problems; no statistical difference was found for L3 German (t(28) = 1, p = 0.3). The reported problems in L3 phonetic performance were further analysed with respect to the specific categories they fell into. As shown in Table 6.6, the most frequently noticed phonetic problems concerning segmental features included vowels (21%), the quality of the /r/ sound (16%), consonants (14%) and word endings (11%), whereas suprasegmental aspects involved intonation patterns (7%), word stress (7%), fluency (4%), linking (3%) and rhythm (1%). On the whole, the reported problematic areas in L3 were dominated by segmental features (78%), while suprasegmentals accounted for the remaining 22%. It is interesting to juxtapose the patterns of actual instances of L3 self-repair (see Table 6.5) with the phonetic problems in L3, as reported by the participants (see Table 6.6). The comparison points to a considerable overlap in the distribution of problematic phonetic categories as well as their relative frequency of occurrence.

Levels of awareness The third aspect of metaphonological awareness examined with the aid of the retrospective protocols focused on levels of awareness. To this end, the participants’ retrospections including comments on self-corrections and reported problems with L3 pronunciation were analysed using a modified version of the framework proposed by Roehr (2006, p. 188). In the course of the analysis, the participants’ retrospective comments were assigned to the specified complexity categories (see above). The findings demonstrated

130

The Metalinguistic Dimension Table 6.6  Reported phonetic problems in L3 vowels /r/ consonants word endings intonation word stress spelling/sound correspondence fluency linking /l/ umlaut vowel length rhythm

21% 16% 14% 11% 7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1%

qualitative differences in the participants’ reported use of metalinguistic awareness. The largest number of comments (56%) was classified as Level A awareness, as they involved noticing a particular phonological surface pattern or providing its auditory form. Level B was evidenced in 28% of the cases, and it was characterized by the participants performing an analysis of the targeted feature and articulating a metalinguistic description or explanation. Level C was found to be the least frequent (16%) as it required the metalinguistic analysis to be articulated employing metalanguage. The complexity of reported metaphonological awareness in L3 was further analysed with respect to each L3 group. The results pointed to an advantage of the L3 German group over the L3 French group at all the complexity levels (see Figure 6.1). However, this difference did not reach significance (Level A – t(58) = 0.85, p = 0.4; Level B – t(58) = 1.8, p = 0.07; Level C – t(58) = 0.58, p = 0.57). The patterns of distribution of complexity categories in both groups were found to be similar, with the largest number of retrospections coded as Level A, and the smallest number of reported comments classified as Level C. The analysis of level of awareness with respect to L3 proficiency level, where Level 1 comprised lower-proficiency groups of L3 German (G1) and L3 French (F1) and Level 2 consisted of higher-proficiency groups of L3 German (G2) and L3 French (F2), did not yield uniform correspondence patterns (see Figure 6.2). In the case of Level A awareness, the participants with higher language proficiency presented more instances of conscious phonetic noticing in their L3 performance (30% vs 26%). However, the reverse trend was observed at Level B, where lower-proficiency participants outperformed their counterparts by providing more examples of metaphonological descriptions and explanations (21% vs 7%). At Level C the difference between the reported awareness at the particular L3 proficiency levels was negligible. The differences in levels of awareness with respect to L3 proficiency levels proved statistically significant only at Level B (t(59) = 2.31, p < 0.05), but not at any other level (Level A – t(59) = 0.86, p = 0.4; Level C – t(59) = 0.12, p = 0.9).

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

35%

131

31%

30%

25%

25%

19%

20% 15%

9%

10%

10% 6%

5% 0%

A

B L3 German

C L3 French

Figure 6.1  Level of awareness with respect to L3 group

30% 30%

26%

25%

21%

20% 15% 10%

7%

7%

B

C

9%

5% 0%

A Level 2

Level 1

Figure 6.2  Levels of awareness with respect to L3 proficiency level: Level 1 (F1, G1) vs Level 2 (F2, G2)

An issue worth further investigation is whether the use of metalanguage may indeed function as an indicator of a higher level of awareness. If that were the case, the results of the complexity analysis of reported metaphonological awareness should demonstrate superiority of the higher-proficiency level group at more complex levels (B  or C). The findings, however, were rather inconclusive, pointing to irregular patterns of complexity corresponding to particular proficiency groups. On the other hand, a lack of explicit metalanguage may possibly be interpreted as a sign of automatic processing and thus evidence of a higher proficiency attained by the L3 learners.

132

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Introspective verbal protocols The introspective part of the verbal protocols aimed to investigate the participants’ self-reflection on the following three aspects of metaphonological awareness: 1. Reported phonological interference from other languages known to the participants, 2. Acknowledged facilitative or intrusive role of metalinguistic awareness in the area of phonetics and phonology, 3. Explanations and metacognitive comments, including: ll general statements about the process of learning L3 pronunciation (self-report), ll inspections of specific language behaviour (self-observation).

Sources of cross-linguistic influence The first question related to the source and direction of cross-linguistic influence, which has been a hotly debated issue in the third language acquisition literature (cf. Wrembel, 2013). Traditionally, in the area of SLA, cross-linguistic influence has been perceived to be of a one-to-one type between the source and the target language. The third language acquisition perspective posits combined cross-linguistic influence that involves the simultaneous influence of more than one previously acquired language on the target language (cf. De Angelis, 2007). However, different theoretical conceptualizations of the role of L1 and L2 transfer in third language acquisition suggest varied approaches to the prevailing role of the native versus non-native languages in the acquisition of an additional foreign language. Moreover, the existing body of research on L3 phonological acquisition points to complex and sometimes conflicting patterns of transfer between L1, L2 and L3 (cf. Wrembel, 2013). Therefore, the aim of the present investigation was to tap the participants’ introspections about the sources of influence on their L3 phonetic performance. Figure 6.3 presents the reported sources of transfer, including the native language (L1), the previously acquired, dominant foreign language (L2), complex interference from both L1 and L2 (L1/L2) and interference from other foreign languages known to the participants (Ln). The native language, i.e. L1 Polish, was reported as the sole source of transfer in the acquisition of L3 phonology by 26% of the participants from the L3 French group and no participant from the L3 German group. The majority of participants considered their previously acquired and dominant foreign language, L2 English, as the prevailing source of influence on L3 phonology, the percentages totalling 64% for the L3 German group and 48% for the L3 French group. The complex nature of cross-linguistic phonetic interference involving transfer from both L1 and L2 was acknowledged by 23% of the L3 German respondents and 7% of the L3 French respondents. Other foreign languages (Ln) were identified as sources influencing their L3 phonology by 19% of the L3 French participants and 13% of L3 German participants. On the whole, non-native influence was reported to be a stronger source of cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonology, particularly in the L3 German group,

Third Language Phonological Acquisition 70%

133

64%

60% 48%

50% 40% 26%

30%

23%

20% 10% 0%

7%

0% L1

19% 13%

L2 L3 German

L1/L2

Ln

L3 French

Figure 6.3  Reported sources of influence on L3 pronunciation performance

where L2 English and L3 German are more typologically related languages than L2 English and L3 French. This interesting self-report finding is in line with the majority of empirical investigations on the acquisition of L3 phonology, according to which L1 transfer is outweighed by L2 transfer, particularly at the initial stages of L3 acquisition (e.g. Hammarberg and Hammarberg, 1993, 2005; Llama et al., 2010; Wrembel, 2010). Several hypotheses have been put forward to account for the status of L2 in cross-linguistic influence, one of which suggests the existence of two interacting constraints which concur in blocking the influence of the native language (De Angelis, 2005). The proposed constraints include the perception of correctness and the association of foreignness. The first constraint assumes that the transfer from L1 into the target language will be blocked because of the multilingual learner’s realization of the incorrectness of L1 forms and an increased acceptance for non-native forms in the target language. The second constraint, i.e. the association of foreignness, predicts that non-native languages will be assigned a common status of ‘foreign languages’ and due to this association, the use of non-native forms in the target language will be favoured over native ones (De Angelis, 2007, p. 29), which would imply the prevalence of the L2 rather than the L1 influence on an additionally acquired foreign language (L3).

Perceived role of metalinguistic awareness The second part of the introspective verbal protocol aimed to investigate the participants’ self-reflection on the role of metalinguistic awareness arising from their knowledge of previously acquired languages (L1 Polish and L2 English) in the process of learning L3 pronunciation. The participants’ opinions on whether such metalinguistic awareness is of a facilitative or intrusive nature are presented with respect to L3 group and proficiency level (see Figure 6.4). It appears that the L3 German group acknowledged

The Metalinguistic Dimension

134 100% 90%

29%

23%

80% 70% 60%

55% 21%

41%

50% 40% 30%

28%

50%

20%

42%

60%

36% 17%

10% 0% 2G No opinion

1G

2F Interferes

8% 1F Facilities

Figure 6.4  Reported role of metaphonological awareness in L3 learning

the facilitative role of metaphonological awareness for L3 learning to a much larger extent than the L3 French group (43% vs 12% on average). This tendency may have been conditioned by a greater typological closeness between the Germanic languages facilitating transfer from L2 English into L3 German and the learners’ awareness of this fact. Furthermore, the reported degree of the facilitative or intrusive nature of metaphonological awareness corresponds to the respective L3 proficiency levels, with the higher-proficiency L3 German group (2G) reporting the highest level of facilitation (50%), compared to the lower-proficiency L3 German (1G) (36%), and a reverse trend for a reported intrusive role (2G – 21%, 1G – 41%). Similar tendencies were observed in the L3 French group, with the intrusive role reported by 28% at the higher-proficiency level (2F) and 50% at the lower-proficiency level (1F), and the reverse tendency for the facilitative effect; 2F – 17% and 1F – 8%. As illustrated in Figure 6.4, a facilitative role of metaphonological awareness was reported by a relatively small percentage of participants in the L3 French group, where the majority of the respondents had no opinion on this issue (2F – 55%, 1F – 42%). This option was selected to a lesser extent in the L3 German group (2G – 29%, 1G – 23%).

Metacognitive comments and explanations The final part of the introspective verbal protocols which investigated aspects of metaphonological awareness looked at the participants’ metacognitive comments and explanations concerning the process of acquiring L3 phonology. These comments were divided, using Cohen’s (1996) terminology, into (1) self-observations, i.e. inspections of specific language behaviour, and (2) self-report, i.e. general statements about the process of learning L3 pronunciation.

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

135

Self-observations As far as self-observations are concerned, many explanations of specific language behaviour in L3 were related to the phenomenon of cross-linguistic interference. The participants attempted to account for the self-reported sources and directions of influence by pointing to factors such as amount of L2 use, typological relations between L1, L2 and L3, psychotypology, i.e. subjectively perceived typological relatedness, as well as the route of acquisition, learning stage and task. The overall degree of metalinguistic awareness in this respect proved to be fairly high as the participants referred to all the factors conditioning cross-linguistic influence enumerated in the L3 acquisition literature (e.g. Williams and Hammarberg, 1998; Cenoz, 2001; Jessner, 2006). The greatest number of comments found in the verbal protocols was connected with the phenomenon of transfer from a non-native language. The participants appeared to be fully aware of the special status of L2 in the process of acquiring their subsequent language (L3) as they acknowledged it as a significant if not prevailing source of influence on L3 phonology, and they even pointed to specific aspects of pronunciation that seem to be affected the most (e.g. vowels). Moreover, they frequently admitted that they utter words in L3 German with English pronunciation, or that when practising their L3 French they articulate words in an English manner. In an attempt to account for this effect, the participants pointed to the intensity and recency of L2 use, which is not surprising since the participants were students at the School of English and their exposure to L2 English and the amount of daily use were considerable. The reported self-observations on the specific sources and reasons for cross-linguistic interference in L3 testify to a fairly high degree of metalinguistic awareness demonstrated by the participants. Furthermore, they correspond to a theoretical model proposed by Bardel and Falk (2007), the L2 Status Factor Model, according to which it is the L2 rather than the native language that plays a dominant role as a source of the cross-linguistic influence. Moreover, the participants’ self-observations are in line with L3 research findings showing a considerable role of L2 transfer in L3 phonological acquisition, including Hammarberg and Hammarberg’s (2005) claim that the ‘foreign language effect’ in L3 phonological acquisition is a coping strategy that the learner resorts to; this coping strategy may temporarily override the basic constraint of L1 transfer. The following selected excerpts from the participants’ verbal protocols illustrate how amount of L2 use may have determined the predominant L2 transfer in L3 pronunciation: ll

ll

ll

ll

I am so much focused on English, that’s why it influences my German, Polish is more natural, I don’t have to think about it. English vowels affect my German vowels in a positive way because English interferes with other languages I know, for me it’s positive. One tends to pronounce foreign words as if they were the words of the first foreign language (L2), it’s the case with me and L3 German. When I practice French at home, I start to articulate in an English way, I am so accustomed to articulating in English.

136

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Another factor that was reported in the self-observations as determining the source of phonological transfer was typology, i.e. relative distance between languages. Several participants were conscious of the typological relatedness of the languages that they speak and thus they ascribed the transfer to L3 phonology to this fact. Interestingly enough, their perception of typological closeness or distance between L1 Polish, L2 English and L3 German or French was rather subjective as their statements often proved contradictory. It further shows that it is the learner’s perception of language distance, i.e. psychotypology (cf. Kellerman, 1979), rather than the actual linguistic typology that conditions to a large extent cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonology. The majority of the participants reported that they considered their L3 German or French to be more typologically related to L2 English than to L1 Polish, so the perceived similarity resulted in the predominant L2-L3 phonological interference. There were, however, some participants who pointed to the impact of their native language (L1 Polish) or another foreign language (e.g. Ln Italian) on L3 French due to the perceived typological closeness between the respective languages. The role of typology and psychotypology in determining the source of influence on the participants’ L3 German or French is evidenced in the following quotes: ll

ll

ll

ll

English influences my German because it’s the same language group, these languages have something in common; Russian and Polish are completely different, they wouldn’t influence German. When I don’t know how to read some words I use English pronunciation, English sounds a bit similar to German. For me English and German are completely different languages, they have to be learnt in a different way. Polish and French are to me somewhat similar, e.g. the features of consonants.

Some of these self-observations seem to be in line with Rothman’s (2011) Typological Primacy Model, which predicts that typology is a more deterministic factor for multilingual transfer than order of acquisition. Rothman claims that the selection of the source of transfer in L3 acquisition is motivated by the typological proximity between the target language and L1 or L2, as perceived by the learner’s internal mechanisms. Moreover, these instances of metalinguistic awareness appear to be consistent with those studies on L3 acquisition which showed that when the multilinguals’ L1s are typologically unrelated to their newly acquired L3, they tend to transfer linguistic knowledge from their L2s (e.g. Ringbom, 1987; Cenoz, 2001; De Angelis and Selinker, 2001). The participants also identified other factors that tend to determine their specific linguistic behaviour in L3, including stage of acquisition and the performed task. They generally reported that L2 transfer was particularly problematic at the early stages of learning their L3, when they were not yet aware of the sound system of the newly acquired language. These self-observations tend to be in line with L3 findings, according to which learners resort to L2 at the initial stages of L3 acquisition when the L3 phonetic form is too unfamiliar to master, and therefore, this coping strategy overrides temporarily the basic constraint of L1 transfer (cf. Hammarberg and Hammarberg, 1993, 2005; Wrembel, 2010).

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

137

Task-related observations made by participants of the present study pointed to differences in L3 reading versus L3 speaking. While the former tends to trigger more L1-accented performance, the latter tends to be more L2-accented, possibly due to a lower degree of monitoring characteristic of this task. It is quite noteworthy that the participants were conscious of such fine-grained influencing factors related to task performance and the stage of L3 learning, which may be interpreted as a sign of well-developed metalinguistic awareness. The excerpts quoted below illustrate some of these issues: ll

ll ll

At early stages I had more problems, more influences from L2, I was not aware of all those sounds that exist in different languages. I experienced some mixing of (L2) English and (L3) German at the beginning. In speaking German I can hear more L2 English influences, in reading a text – more Polish accent.

The role of the L1 phonology in the process of L3 acquisition was reported much less frequently than that of the first foreign language (L2). L1 influence was generally acknowledged as a natural phenomenon and as a basic constraint in the phonological acquisition of any foreign language. On the other hand, some participants admitted that they applied a conscious strategy to suppress L1 Polish when speaking in their third language. This suggestion corresponds closely to Williams and Hammarberg’s (1998) findings from a longitudinal case study, according to which the multilingual informant attempted to consciously suppress L1 English in order to not sound foreign when performing in L3 Swedish. On the whole, the participants’ awareness of the native Polish influence on L3 phonology was less frequently articulated than their self-observations of the prevailing L2 influence. Some were also conscious of psycho-affective factors such as the willingness to suppress one’s L1 as non-foreign. The following quotes exemplify relevant comments: ll

ll

ll

It’s natural when you don’t know a language that you pattern pronunciation on your L1. When I don’t know how to pronounce something in German, I may just use Polish, some of my sounds sound more Polish than German. When I see a text in a foreign language I try to repress my ability to speak in Polish almost consciously.

Metacognitive self-report The second aspect of metacognitive comments elicited through the verbal protocols involved self-report, i.e. the participants’ general statements about the process of learning L3 pronunciation. In the subsequent analysis the self-reports were subdivided by the researcher into several categories focusing on the following issues: (1) cognitive processing in L3, (2) route of acquisition, (3) consciousness and control in L3, (4) emotional reactions and physical states and (5) increased metalinguistic awareness.

138

The Metalinguistic Dimension

The participants’ introspective comments on cognitive processing in L3 were quite revealing as they demonstrated their attempts to explain this phenomenon in various ways. Some claimed that L3 German lexical items are processed in their mind as if they were L2 English words, while at the same time processing as L1 Polish is blocked. These self-reports seem to be related to De Angelis and Selinker’s (2001) claim about the existence of a ‘foreign language cognitive mode’ that multilinguals tend to switch into whenever they speak any language other than their L1. Moreover, some participants admitted that upon exposure to a text in L3 German, their L2 English is automatically activated first in their mind and they have to make a conscious switch to the third language. Such a line of thinking corresponds to some of the theoretical conceptualizations of multilingualism, particularly to Green’s (1998) activation/inhibition model, according to which there are multiple levels of activation and control of the language systems of a multilingual person, and these languages may be continuously activated, although to different degrees. Several participants emphasized that knowledge of other foreign languages is beneficial in the process of learning L3 phonology, especially when this knowledge is at an advanced and sophisticated level. The following excerpts illustrate cognitive processing in L3 as reported by the participants: ll

ll

ll

My mind tends to process German words as if they were English not German. The knowledge of other foreign languages, when it’s sophisticated and advanced, affects the process of learning a second foreign language (L3). Our mind is trained and knows that it’s not Polish and it should not treat the text as if it was Polish. When I see a German word, I first associate it with English pronunciation, then I have to switch from one language to another. Phonological knowledge from other languages helps.

In an attempt to account for the switch to a foreign language mode, the participants’ self-reports pointed to the different route of acquisition of L1 versus that of L2 or L3. The acquisition mechanisms of the L1 as opposed to any foreign language vary considerably; the conscious process of learning a second or third language usually takes a similar route of acquisition, which is inherently different from the natural acquisition of the L1 (Hammarberg and Hammarberg, 2005). Therefore, L3 phonological learning may lead to the reactivation of L2 acquisition mechanisms. Different routes of acquisition of native versus non-native languages are exemplified by the following self-reports: ll

ll

ll

I am learning foreign languages consciously, that’s what influences my learning of French. I treat Polish as something separate, whereas I put English and French into one bag, they influence each other. Since English and German are both non-native languages, I apply rules from one language to another.

Metacognitive comments about the process of learning L3 pronunciation also gave interesting insights into the mechanisms of consciousness and control. Several participants reported that performance in any foreign language requires focal attention

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

139

and consciousness that L2 and L3 are separate language systems. Some participants admitted that they have to consciously control their articulation when speaking L3 German or French in order not to pronounce L3 words or sentences in an English manner, since their articulatory settings are so much set for the dominant L2 English that they are automatically selected when speaking any foreign language. For some participants, the switch to another foreign language does not appear to be problematic. Other reports indicate that the participants would need to expand their knowledge of L3 phonetics in order to gain better control over pronunciation in L3. Furthermore, several self-reports provide evidence of a component of cross-linguistic awareness that interacts with metalinguistic consciousness in multilingual processing, as predicted by Jessner (2006). The examples below are representative of the consciousness and control strategies in L3 as reported by the participants: ll ll ll

ll

I have to control myself not to articulate in an English way. I don’t have problems with switching into another foreign accent. I think consciously when speaking foreign languages, that’s why I can transfer some rules from English to French. Sometimes I wanted to articulate long vowels as in English or to pronounce ; my mouth is used to English consonants and vowels, I automatically produce them in another foreign language, it’s automatism.

The self-reports also bear witness to the significance of psycho-affective and physical factors which affect L3 performance. Among the emotional reactions reported by the participants there is a feeling of frustration that English-accented German speech may be perceived as funny and inadequate. Moreover, physical states such as tiredness are acknowledged as being detrimental to conscious control over L3 pronunciation, resulting in more accented speech performance. One of the participants admitted that she needs to drink water before speaking French, because having a dry throat prevents her from articulating correctly. The factors of attitude and motivation were illustrated by the participant’s desire to sound native-like in both L2 English and L3 French. Several metacognitive comments demonstrated an increased level of metalinguistic awareness among the multilingual participants. They claimed that the acquisition of the first foreign language and explicit knowledge of its phonetics were of great assistance when learning a subsequent foreign language (L3). Not only did it make them more attentive to foreign language pronunciation, but it also stimulated their interest and motivation, and it made them aware of a wide range of language learning strategies. Furthermore, increased metalinguistic awareness helped the L3 learners understand better several phonetic aspects in the newly acquired languages, frequently through an analogy to the L2 sound system. Their foreign language perception also seems to have been affected, since the participants no longer expect L2 and L3 sounds to be equivalent to those of their native Polish. A noteworthy conclusion was drawn by one of the participants, who emphasized several times in his self-report that awareness is of vital importance in foreign language learning. The following excerpts illustrate instances of increased metalinguistic awareness among the multilingual participants:

140 ll

ll ll ll

ll

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Since I’ve learnt English phonetics I am more aware that German also has something like this, I may pay more attention to the way I pronounce, or I may be interested in it or ask the teacher for pronunciation and try to transcribe it somehow. I have started to pay more attention to the way I speak, pronounce words. English schwa helped me understand this feature in German. I am more aware of sounds in other languages, that they are not equivalent to sounds in Polish. It’s all about awareness, I think! (emphasis mine, MW).

Conclusions This study aimed at investigating the concept of metalinguistic awareness in the acquisition of L3 phonology and to provide further insights into the issue by expanding the research perspective beyond SLA and embracing the more complex context of third language acquisition. Verbal reports elicited by means of introspective and retrospective stimulated recall protocols generated revealing data about the multilingual participants’ metaphonological awareness of the process of acquisition of L3 pronunciation. The findings of the present study provide evidence for both qualitative and quantitative differences in reported metaphonological awareness manifested through reflective metalinguistic analysis of L3 performance, intentional focus on articulatory gestures, self-awareness of problems in L3 pronunciation and a considerable degree of processing control. The observed types of metaphonological awareness involved epilinguistic awareness illustrated by instances of self-repair of L3 pronunciation as well as metalinguistic phonological awareness reflected in the conscious analysis of L3 speech, language processing and pronunciation learning on the part of the participants. Moreover, the analysis revealed varying levels of complexity of metaphonological awareness, ranging from a low-level attentional focus on the auditory form via metalinguistic description or explanation to a high level of explicit metalinguistic knowledge evidenced in the use of the metalanguage. The introspective analysis partially confirmed Hammarberg and Hammarberg’s (2005) hypothesis that L2 phonological interference overrides L1 transfer, particularly at the initial stages of L3 acquisition, since the majority of self-observations and meta-comments reflected the participants’ awareness of the L2-to-L3 cross-linguistic influence. This was especially evident in the L3 German group, in which the sets of languages, i.e. L2 English and L3 German, were more typologically related than in the L2 English/L3 French group. The reasons provided to account for this phenomenon included an unconscious switch to L2 foreign language mode, and to a lesser extent, a conscious strategy to avoid L1 phonological interference. One of the important questions that arise from the presented analyses is whether metalinguistic awareness is an indication of a higher level of language proficiency. It appears that this assumption was not fully substantiated by the findings from the retrospective and introspective protocols. To account for these inconclusive results, we may point to the limitations of the present study, in which the participants’ L3

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

141

proficiency levels were possibly not divergent enough to illustrate visible differences in the degree of metalinguistic awareness. Among the variables that seem to have considerably affected the findings is typological proximity between the language systems of the participants, i.e. L1 Polish, L2 English and L3 German versus L1 Polish, L2 English and L3 French. The former group generally showed higher levels of metaphonological awareness as evidenced by several aspects of the verbal protocols. The question arises whether the typological proximity between the participants’ L3 German and L2 English could be interpreted as generating higher metalinguistic awareness and having a facilitative effect on the acquisition of L3 phonology. Finally, the L3 multilingual perspective taken in this study added an extra dimension to the understanding of metalinguistic awareness by focusing on participants’ awareness of existing interactions between their language systems, i.e. L1-to-L3, and in particular, L2-to-L3. This cross-linguistic phonological awareness seems to interact with metalinguistic consciousness in multilingual processing, thus substantiating Jessner’s (2006) claim that it constitutes an essential component of multilingual proficiency.

References Alderson, J., Clapham, C. and Steel, D. (1997), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency’. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121. Bardel, C. and Falk, Y. (2007), ‘The role of the L2 in L3 acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax’. Second Language Research, 23, (4), 459–84. Benson, P. and Lor, W. (1999), ‘Conceptions of language and language learning’. System, 27, 459–72. Białystok, E. (1982), ‘On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms’. Applied Linguistics, 3, 181–206. Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Klein, R. and Viswanathan, M. (2004), ‘Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task’. Psychology and Aging, 19, (2), 290–303. Cenoz, J. (2001), ‘The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition’, in J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 8–20. — (2003), ‘The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review’. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 71–88. — (2005), ‘Learning a third language: Cross-linguistic influence and its relationship to typology and age’, in B. Hufeisen and R. Fouser (eds), Introductory L3 Readings, Tübingen: Stauffenberg Verlag, pp. 1–9. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. and Jessner, U. (eds) (2001), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, A. (1996), ‘Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies’. Applied Language Learning, 7, 5–24. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Council of Europe, 2001, Cambridge University Press.

142

The Metalinguistic Dimension

De Angelis, G. (2005), ‘Interlanguage transfer of function words’. Language Learning, 55, 379–414. — (2007), Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Angelis, G. and Selinker, L. (2001), ‘Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems’, in J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 42–58. Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (1998), ‘Pedagogical choices in focus on form’, in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–262. Ericsson, A. and Simon, H. (1984), Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Flynn, S., Foley, C. and Vinnitskaya, I. (2004), ‘The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in L1, L2 and L3 acquisition of relative clauses’. The International Journal of Multilingualism 1, (1), 3–16. Gass, S. (1988), ‘Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies’. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198–217. Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2000), Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gombert, J. E. (1992), Metalinguistic Development. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Green, D. (1998), ‘Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81. Gut, U. (2010), ‘Cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition’. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, (1), 19–38. Hammarberg, B. and Hammarberg, B. (1993), ‘Articulatory re-setting in the acquisition of new languages’. Phonum, 2, 61–7. — (2005), ‘Re-setting the basis of articulation in the acquisition of new languages: A third-language case study’, in B. Hufeisen and R. Fouser (eds), Introductory Readings in L3. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, pp. 11–18. Herdina, P. and Jessner, U. (1994), The Paradox of Transfer. Paper presented at IRAAL conference, Dublin. — (2002), A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Changing the Psycholinguistic Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. James, C. (1999), ‘Language awareness: Implications for the language curriculum’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12, (1), 94–115. Jessner, U. (2006), Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals. English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kellerman, E. (1979), ‘The empirical evidence for the influence of the L1 in interlanguage’, in A. Davies, C. Criper and P. R. Howatt (eds), Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 98–122. Kennedy, S. and Trofimovich, P. (2010), ‘Language awareness and second language pronunciation: A classroom study’. Language Awareness, 19, (3), 171–85. Llama, R., Cardoso, W. and Collins, L. (2010), ‘The influence of language distance and language status on the acquisition of L3 phonology’. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, (1), 39–57. Osborne, A. (2003), ‘Pronunciation strategies of advanced ESOL learners’. IRAL 41, 131–43. Pearl, E. and Lambert, W. (1962), ‘The relation of bilingualism to intelligence’. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1–23.

Third Language Phonological Acquisition

143

Pyun, K.-S. (2005), ‘A model of interlanguage analysis – the case of Swedish by Korean speakers’, in B. Hufeisen and R. Fouser (eds), Introductory Readings in L3. Tübingen: Stauffenberg Verlag, pp. 55–70. Renou, J. (2001), ‘An examination of the relationship between metalinguistic awareness and second-language proficiency of adult learners of French’. Language Awareness, 10, 248–67. Ringbom, H. (1987), The Role of the Mother Tongue in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Roehr, K. (2006), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge in L2 task performance: A verbal protocol analysis’. Language Awareness, 15, (3), 180–98. Roehr, K. and Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2009), ‘The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning’. Language Awareness, 18, (2), 165–81. Rothman, J. (2011), ‘L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model’. Second Language Research, 27, (1), 107–27. Rothman, J., Cabrelli Amaro, J. and De Bot, K. (2013), ‘Third Language Acquisition’, in J. Herschensohn and M. Young-Scholten (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 372–93. Schmidt, R. (1990), ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–58. Venkatagiri, H. S. and Levis, J. M. (2007), ‘Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study’. Language Awareness, 16, (4), 263–77. Williams, S. and Hammarberg, B. (1998), ‘Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model’. Applied Linguistics, 19, 295–333. Wrembel, M. (2005), Phonological Metacompetence in the Acquisition of Second Language Phonetics. Unpublished PhD thesis. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland. — (2010), ‘L2-accented speech in L3 production’. International Journal of Multilingualism. Special Issue 7, (1), 75–90. — (2011), ‘Metaphonetic awareness in the production of speech’, in M. Pawlak, E. Waniek-Klimczak and J. Majer (eds), Speaking and Instructed Foreign Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 169–82. — (2013), ‘Foreign accentedness in third language acquisition; the case of L3 English’, in J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn and J. Rothman (eds), Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281–309.

Part 2

Sociocognitive Approaches to the Metalinguistic Dimension

7

Metalinguistic Knowledge in Language-Related Episodes with Covert Metalinguistic Activity Xavier Gutiérrez

University of Windsor

Abstract This chapter reports a study that sought to confirm the hypothesis that knowledge representations underlying language-related episodes (LREs) with covert metalinguistic activity likely constitute metalinguistic knowledge (Gutiérrez, 2008, 2011a). The study took place at two Canadian universities with 27 students of mixed L1 background enrolled in intermediate Spanish language courses. The participants were divided into groups of three and were asked to write a text in collaboration based on a picture story with the researcher present during the task. Using immediate recall (Gass and Mackey, 2007), LREs with covert metalinguistic activity were identified as they occurred during the task and the participants were prompted to elaborate on their knowledge sources. The findings show that 78.45% of the verbalized representations constituted metalinguistic knowledge and, therefore, LREs with covert metalinguistic activity need to be taken into account in research on LREs. The analysis of the data also yielded information about the language aspects at the centre of the episodes and the learners’ use of technical metalanguage. The chapter also discusses methodological and pedagogical implications.

Introduction This chapter reports the results of an empirical study that examined the nature of the knowledge representations that L2 learners of Spanish resorted to in language-related episodes (LREs) with covert metalinguistic activity (i.e. without metatalk) during a collaborative writing task. Although episodes without metatalk have been identified in the LREs literature (e.g. Fortune and Thorp, 2001; Kuiken and Vedder, 2002; Qi and Lapkin, 2001), they have been often interpreted as showing learners’ limited

148

The Metalinguistic Dimension

engagement in the episode (Storch, 1998, 2008) or as evidence of learners’ lack of knowledge sources (García Mayo, 2002a, 2002b). Alternatively, in two previous studies (Gutiérrez, 2008, 2011a), I hypothesized that the knowledge representations underlying LREs with covert metalinguistic activity likely constitute metalinguistic knowledge (i.e. explicit knowledge about language). The main goal of the study presented here was to seek confirmation of this hypothesis. The chapter is organized as follows: First, the constructs of metalinguistic knowledge, language-related episodes and metalinguistic activity are discussed in detail along with relevant research about them. Second, the chapter addresses the usefulness of verbal reports, and of immediate recall in particular, as data collection methodology for the purposes of this study. Then, the context and participants of the study, as well as the implementation of the methodology are described, followed by a presentation of the analysis procedures and of the results. The chapter ends with a discussion of the findings and of implications for future research and for L2 pedagogy.

Background Research on knowledge representations occupies a central role in SLA (DeKeyser, 2003; Doughty, 2003; N. Ellis, 2005; R. Ellis, 2004, 2005; R. Ellis et al., 2009). Specifically, research has focused mainly on the relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge, on how these two types of knowledge contribute to L2 development and on what kind of knowledge representations L2 learners draw on in language use. Implicit knowledge is characterized as the tacit, intuitive and procedural knowledge that is mainly responsible for automatic language processing. On the other hand, explicit knowledge is defined as the declarative and often anomalous knowledge of the phonological, lexical, grammatical, pragmatic, and sociocritical features of an L2 together with the metalanguage for labeling this knowledge. It is held consciously and is learnable and verbalizable. It is typically accessed through controlled processing when L2 learners experience some kind of linguistic difficulty in the use of the L2. Learners vary in the breadth and depth of their L2 explicit knowledge. (R. Ellis, 2004, pp. 244–5)

Studies on metalinguistic knowledge usually define this construct similarly to explicit knowledge (e.g. Alderson et al., 1997; Hu, 2002), including recent studies, such as Elder (2009) and Roehr (2008), which rely on R. Ellis’s (2004) definition. Roehr, for example, defines it as ‘a learner’s explicit knowledge about the syntactic, morphological, lexical, phonological, and pragmatic features of the L2. It includes explicit knowledge about categories as well as explicit knowledge about relations between categories’ (2008, p. 179). In the present study, metalinguistic knowledge is also understood as explicit knowledge of language as defined by R. Ellis. Metalinguistic knowledge is often measured through identification of speech parts, identification and correction of errors and/or verbalizations of rules (e.g. Alderson et al., 1997; Elder and Manwaing, 2004; Roehr, 2008; Roehr and Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2009).

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

149

Knowledge representations of language have also been studied by examining learners’ collaborative interaction while carrying out tasks in the L2. The assumption is that tasks carried out in collaboration, by their very nature, generate reflection about language, which in turn draws on those representations. Thus, the interaction about language aspects that emerges in such collaborative tasks may provide access to those representations. Such studies stem from Swain’s (1985) seminal paper about the output hypothesis and her subsequent work on the functions of output (e.g. Swain, 1998, 2000; Swain and Lapkin, 1998, 2002). The unit of analysis in these studies is the languagerelated episode (LRE), which Swain defined as ‘any part of a dialogue in which students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or other- or self-correct’ (1998, p. 70). Studies on LREs have examined the metatalk (i.e. talk about language) in those episodes in relation to the linguistic aspects on which the episodes focus (Fortune, 2005; Fortune and Thorp, 2001; Leeser, 2004; Swain and Lapkin, 2002; Williams, 2001), the level of learners’ engagement in the episodes (Fortune and Thorp, 2001; Qi and Lapkin, 2001; Storch, 2008; Tocalli-Beller and Swain, 2005), and the benefits of those episodes for language learning and language use (Kuiken and Vedder, 2002; Leeser, 2004; Storch, 1999, 2008; Swain, 1998; Swain and Lapkin, 1998; Watanabe and Swain, 2007; Williams, 2001). Several studies on LREs have also examined the language sources to which learners resort when encountering and solving a language problem. In a study about the cognitive processes generated in L2 output, Swain and Lapkin (1995) examined the LREs that emerged during the think-aloud protocols of nine learners of French as they wrote and edited a text. Their analysis of the episodes yielded seven descriptive categories in terms of how the learners solved the LREs. These categories reflect the use of different types of knowledge sources such as implicit knowledge (e.g. ‘sounds right’, ‘doesn’t make sense’) or explicit knowledge (e.g. ‘applying a grammatical rule’, ‘lexical search’, ‘stylistic’). Swain and Lapkin further classified these descriptive categories into ‘three general categories of cognitive processes: generating alternatives, assessing those alternatives, and applying the resulting knowledge’ (1995, p. 386) and concluded that these processes are implicated in the development of the second language. Storch (1998) compared attention to form in the LREs produced by nine adult ESL students working in pairs (and one triad) to carry out four tasks (multiple choice, cloze, text reconstruction and short composition). As additional data, individual retrospections were collected after the text reconstruction task and the multiple choice task. After classifying the episodes into grammatical and non-grammatical, Storch analysed the knowledge sources that the students used for solving the grammatical LREs and identified the following types: grammar, meaning, context, intuition, analogy/memory, combination of knowledge sources, no reason given and other. Interestingly, Storch found that the students often gave no reason for their solution of the grammatical LREs, with the two most structured tasks, multiple choice and cloze, having the highest percentage of no reason given (61% and 75%, respectively). Storch interpreted the high proportion of ‘no reason given’ as the learners’ lack of engagement with the task, and related this lack of engagement to factors such as the nature of the tasks and their level of difficulty, as well as other individual factors such as the learners’ language proficiency, their attitudes towards collaboration and their personality.

150

The Metalinguistic Dimension

In a similar study, García Mayo (2002a, 2002b) explored attention to form in five focus-on-form tasks (cloze, multiple choice, dictogloss, text reconstruction and text editing).1 The participants were 14 advanced EFL learners enrolled in an English Philology programme at a Spanish university. García Mayo categorized the knowledge sources that the students used for solving their LREs similarly to Storch (1998): grammar; intuition; context/discourse; meaning; analogy; combination of reasons; and no explanation. As in Storch’s (1998) study, the participants gave no explanations for solving the LREs in high percentages for all the tasks (from 21% in the dictogloss task to 88% in the cloze task). García Mayo considered such a finding to be striking because the learners were instructed to provide explanations and also because, given their level of L2 proficiency and the type of language instruction they had received, they should have been able to verbalize them. In other words, García Mayo also interpreted the results as the learners’ lack of involvement in the task, as well as their lack of resources to verbalize their knowledge: ‘we expected these learners to have a wider range of resources to verbalize grammar rules that would help to resolve their grammatical problems’ (García Mayo, 2002b, p. 336). Importantly, most of the studies on LREs mentioned above focused mainly on episodes in which attention to language was overtly accessible through the learners’ metatalk. However, some examples presented in many of those studies showed LREs in which the learners did not overtly discuss the language aspects at the centre of the episode. This type of LRE with little or no metatalk is identified in the literature as ‘simple noticing’ (Kuiken and Vedder, 2002), ‘perfunctory noticing’ (Qi and Lapkin, 2001), ‘episodes with limited engagement’ (Storch, 2008) or episodes with no reason or explanation given (García Mayo, 2002a, 2002b; Storch, 1998), and are said to be less conducive to L2 learning than LREs with elaborate noticing or engagement, since the latter involve a deeper level of reflection about language (Qi and Lapkin, 2001; Storch, 2008). Consequently, this type of episode has received considerably less attention in LREs studies, likely because the absence of overt reflection about language does not allow, for instance, the examination of the nature of the metatalk or of the knowledge representations that the learners resort to in the resolution of the episodes. Conversely, such aspects can be easily examined in LREs with metatalk. Nevertheless, Fortune and Thorp (2001) noted that episodes without metatalk are also significant: ‘Although metatalk does provide researchers with an opportunity to study L2 developmental processes, we would suggest that such processes, though less readily accessible, are also at work in some LREs without metatalk’ (p. 151). A concept related to LREs is that of metalinguistic activity (Camps et al., 2000; Gutiérrez, 2008, 2011a). This concept is similar to that of metalinguistic reflection (Simard et al., 2007) and is defined as ‘the cognitive process in which individuals reflect about language’ (Camps et al., 2000, p. 104). Reflection about language can become apparent in the metatalk that emerges in learners’ collaborative interaction, but it can also take place at the mental plane in individual activity. Similarly to the literature on LREs discussed above, studies on metalinguistic activity have also noted the absence of metatalk in the learners’ interaction in collaborative tasks. In their analysis of such interaction in a text composition task, Camps et al. (2000) note that, when learners propose changes to the text (i.e. text reformulations), the data analysis often shows

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

151

‘implicit activities of comparison and substitution [that] entail a metalinguistic activity that is not expressed through explicit utterances, but that is present at the origin of these changes and can be retraced from their analysis’ (p. 113). Likewise, also in a study about collaborative writing tasks (Gutiérrez, 2008), I found that there was no metatalk in 57.9% of all the turns containing metalinguistic activity and, consequently, I distinguished between overt metalinguistic activity (i.e. with metatalk) and covert metalinguistic activity (i.e. without metatalk).2 These studies offer a different interpretation of covert metalinguistic activity than that in the studies about the knowledge sources underlying LREs. Camps et al. (2000) and Fortune and Thorp (2001) interpreted absence of metatalk as the learners resorting to their implicit representations of language or, alternatively, the learners resorting to unarticulated explicit knowledge. In the latter case, representations are either automated and/or shared by the learners, in which case they do not perceive the need to verbalize them. Thus, what Storch (1998) explained as lack of engagement and García Mayo (2002a, 2002b) as lack of resources could also be explained as lack of perceived need for engagement. In Gutiérrez (2008), I argued that, given the nature of writing tasks, the representations underlying covert metalinguistic activity likely constitute metalinguistic knowledge. A later re-analysis of the data into LREs (Gutiérrez, 2011a) provided limited evidence supporting that hypothesis (25.4% of the covert LREs showed metalinguistic knowledge). These results stress the need to gather data using an introspective method in addition to collaborative interaction and emphasize the fact that this type of episodes deserves further attention in SLA research, particularly given the high percentages of episodes without metatalk found in previous studies (see also Fortune and Thorp, 2001).

The use of verbal reports for data collection The afore-mentioned suggestion that the use of an introspective data collection method would provide the most valuable data is based on the assumption that such a method would allow access to internal processes and mental representations that would otherwise remain hidden (Cohen, 1998; Ericsson and Simon, 1987; van Someren et al., 1994). Verbal reports gathered through introspective methods, such as think-aloud, stimulated recall and immediate recall (see below), have been recognized as potentially useful for accessing and measuring L2 learners’ metalinguistic knowledge. R. Ellis (2004) noted that ‘verbal reports offer another way of investigating both whether learners are drawing on a conscious representation of L2 knowledge and the extent of their metalanguage’ (p. 262). Likewise, in specific reference to stimulated recall, although also applicable to other introspective methods, Gass and Mackey (2000) pointed out that such a methodology ‘can help to identify the type of knowledge a learner uses when trying to solve particular communicative problems, when making linguistic choices or judgments or just when generally involved in comprehension and/ or production’ (p. 21). For this study, immediate recall was chosen as the introspective method for data collection. Although used extensively in cognitive science and psychology, immediate

152

The Metalinguistic Dimension

recall has rarely been used in SLA research. Gass and Mackey (2007) describe it as ‘a technique used to elicit data immediately after the completion of the specific event’ (p. 60), which may or may not be aided by the use of an additional stimulus. To my knowledge, the only two studies that have used this technique in SLA research are Egi (2004) and Philp (2003). Both studies examined L2 learners’ noticing of recasts, and both used two knocking sounds as a recall prompt immediately after a recast. It must be noted that describing immediate recall as occurring ‘after the event’ can be misinterpreted since, in both studies, ‘the event’ is actually each recast rather than the oral production task in which the recast occurred. This methodology can be particularly useful when the focus of the research is the thought process in relation to specific instances of the task, rather than the whole, as it was the case in Egi (2004), Philp (2003), and in the present study. Immediate recall has certain advantages over think-aloud protocols and stimulated recall, two introspective techniques more commonly used in SLA research, that make it more suitable for the present study. First, although immediate recall may require training the participants in order to carry out the procedure, such training does not need to be as extensive as in think-aloud protocols. Regarding the latter, Gass and Mackey (2000) note that ‘even after training, not all participants are capable of carrying out a task and simultaneously talking about doing the task’ (p. 18). This is because ‘in the conduct of a mental task, it is difficult, if not impossible, for people to function at the metacognitive and cognitive levels simultaneously, without distorting one or the other process’ (Goss et al., 1994, p. 265). In think-aloud techniques, it is likely that either the task that is being carried out or the think-aloud itself may break down. Furthermore, as Hyland points out, ‘subjects’ verbalizations tend to slow down task progress and may interfere with the way they perform the task or explanations they give’ (2003, pp. 256–7). Although interference with task performance may be an issue with both think-aloud protocols and immediate recall, it is quite likely that immediate recall may cause less interference than think-aloud protocols because in the former learners are only asked to pay attention to their thoughts at particular instances during the task and only when prompted. Finally, compared to stimulated recall, in immediate recall the time elapsed between the event and the recall is shorter. As Gass and Mackey (2000) noted, the accuracy of the recall declines as the distance between the event and the recall increases, which may affect the veridicality of the recall: ‘protocols are nonveridical if they fail to capture participants’ thoughts or include cognitive process that actually did not take place’ (Egi, 2004, p. 245).

The study The goal of the present study was to examine the nature of the knowledge representations in the LREs without metatalk in a collaborative writing task in order to seek confirmation of the hypothesis that those representations underlying covert metalinguistic activity likely constitute metalinguistic knowledge. Additionally, the language aspects on which those representations focused as well as the absence or presence of technical metalanguage in the verbalization of those representations were also examined.

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

153

Participants and task The participants in the study were adult students (N = 27; 22 female and 5 male) of mixed L1 background (21 English speakers, 2 French, 2 Rumanian, 1 German, and 1 Russian) enrolled in intermediate-level Spanish language courses (equivalent to the B1+ level of the Common European Framework of Reference) at 2 Canadian universities who returned a signed consent form. The participants were divided in nine groups of three members each. Since the study took place outside class time, the participants were grouped based on their time availability. The groups were asked to write a text in collaboration based on a picture story they were given (the same for each group), with the researcher present during the task. On average, it took each group about an hour to complete the task.

Methodology In the present study, immediate recall was implemented considering the recommendations offered by Gass and Mackey (2000, pp. 54–5) regarding stimulated recall in terms of timing, strength of the stimulus and structure of the procedure. The participants were instructed to write the text in collaboration, as explained above. They were told that I was interested in their knowledge of language and that they would be asked questions while they wrote the text so that they could elaborate on this knowledge. However, they were not told at what instances they would be asked or what kind of questions they were going to be asked. As the participants carried out the task, I identified all instances in which the participants proposed a text reformulation. After waiting a few seconds,3 if the participants did not provide any reason for suggesting the reformulation (i.e. instances of covert metalinguistic activity), I prompted them to elaborate on the reasons, generally by repeating the proposed change as a stimulus.4 Since the focus of the study was the knowledge representations underlying covert metalinguistic activity, it was believed that the use of such a stimulus would better focus the learners’ attention on those representations than the use of auditory prompts as in Egi (2004) and Philp (2003). Therefore, the recall immediately followed each instance of covert metalinguistic activity and the stimulus was somewhat strong in that it pointed to the change proposed by the participant. It is worth noting that LREs with covert metalinguistic activity might have become overt without the need of a prompt if another member of the group had initiated a discussion about the proposed change. However, there is no guarantee that such a discussion would have prompted the participant who proposed the change to elaborate on the reasons for that change, which was the main goal of the study. Therefore, it was believed that immediate recall was necessary in order to elicit those reasons. Following the prompt, the participants were allowed to elaborate as much (or as little) as they wished and, in most instances, I did not ask further so as to not influence their thought processes and to not interfere excessively with the writing task.5 Thus, in terms of structure, the recall procedure was intended to produce little interference with the participants’ response while keeping their focus on the specific instances of covert metalinguistic activity. Although the fact that the immediate recall might have interfered with the writing task needs to be acknowledged, the analysis of the

154

The Metalinguistic Dimension

interaction showed that the learners were able to get back to the writing task without much trouble, possibly because the ensuing discussion after the recall had to do with the part of the text that they were writing. In addition, the fact that the recall was implemented in a group task might have helped in this respect: while the recall usually focused on the thought processes of one of the group members, the remaining members seemed to be able to keep the group on task.

Analysis The interaction of each group was digitally recorded and subsequently transcribed in full. Episodes containing covert metalinguistic activity and the ensuing immediate recall were identified and coded into three main categories, reflecting the type of knowledge representation expressed by the participants: (1) non-linguistic reasons (i.e. the justification for the text reformulation was not based on knowledge representations of language; see excerpt 1 below); (2) implicit, in which the learners resorted to their intuitions about language (see excerpt 2 below); and (3) metalinguistic, in which the learners verbalized their explicit knowledge about a language aspect (e.g. a grammatical rule, knowledge about a vocabulary item and its meaning, or a discursive aspect; see excerpts 3–9 below). The episodes reflecting metalinguistic knowledge representations were further coded according to the different aspects of the L2 to which the verbalized knowledge representations alluded: lexico-semantic, morphological, syntactic, discursive, mechanics and combination of aspects. Finally, episodes were also analysed for presence or absence of technical metalanguage. Excerpts illustrating these different aspects of the learners’ responses are discussed in the results section. In order to check for inter-rater reliability, 50 LREs (21.55% of the data) were randomly selected and coded by a second rater following a set of guidelines describing the categories of analysis. Inter-rater reliability regarding type of knowledge representation was 92%, and with respect to aspects of language it was 80%. It must be noted that the percentage of disagreement regarding language aspects was due to a difference in understanding regarding one of the categories of analysis. We reached an agreement with respect to this category and, afterwards, all instances of disagreement were resolved. I subsequently re-coded the same 50 episodes in order to check for intra-rater reliability, which was 100% for type of knowledge representation and 92% for aspects of language.

Results The analysis of the data yielded information regarding the type of knowledge representations on which the participants drew, the language aspects on which those representations focused, and the absence or presence of technical metalanguage in the episodes. This section presents a quantitative analysis of the data regarding such

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

155

aspects, followed by the qualitative analysis of some episodes in order to illustrate those aspects. Figure 7.1 shows the percentages of the three types of knowledge representations identified in the analysis for the nine groups combined. As the data in Figure 7.1 show, the participants offered non-linguistic reasons in 5.17% of the LREs, they resorted to implicit knowledge in 16.38% of the episodes, and they drew on metalinguistic knowledge in 78.45% of the LREs. In other words, the representations underlying covert metalinguistic activity constituted metalinguistic knowledge in almost 80% of the instances of such metalinguistic activity. This is a very important finding to which I will return in the discussion section. Table 7.1 shows a breakdown of the three types of knowledge representations for each of the groups in the study. Episodes with non-linguistic reasons ranged from 0% (groups 5 and 6) to 11.54% (group 7), LREs with implicit knowledge ranged from 10% (group 6) to 27.03% (group 4), and episodes with metalinguistic knowledge ranged from 64.86% (group 4) to 90% (group 6). Therefore, the groups in this study resorted to metalinguistic knowledge in at least almost two thirds of the LREs, whereas implicit representations constituted slightly over one fourth of the episodes at the most. In addition, as the data in Table 7.1 indicate, even though there is variation across groups regarding the number of episodes for each category, all the groups show similar patterns to that of the whole data set shown in Figure 7.1: Namely, episodes revealing metalinguistic knowledge representations are the most frequent for every group, followed by episodes with implicit knowledge and LREs showing non-linguistic reasons as the least frequent type. As mentioned earlier, the episodes that contained metalinguistic knowledge representations were further analysed into the different types of language aspects that the verbalization of those representations alluded to. Figure 7.2 shows the percentages of each language aspect for the dataset as a whole. As the figure shows,

90 78.45%

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

16.38% 5.17%

0 Non-linguistic

Implicit

Metalinguistic

Figure 7.1  Types of knowledge representations in LREs without metatalk

The Metalinguistic Dimension

156

Table 7.1  Types of knowledge representations in LREs without metatalk Groups

Type of knowledge representation Non-linguistic N

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9

1 1 2 3 0 0 3 1 1

% 2.70 4.76 6.90 8.11 0 0 11.54 3.23 6.25

Implicit

Metalinguistic

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

5 3 4 10 2 2 4 4 4

13.52 14.29 13.79 27.03 13.33 10.00 15.38 12.90 25.00

31 17 23 24 13 18 19 26 11

83.78 80.95 79.31 64.86 86.67 90.00 73.08 83.87 68.75

37 21 29 37 15 20 26 31 16

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Note: N = raw number of LREs.

60 50

47.80%

40 30 20

23.63% 12.64 %

10

6.04%

3.30%

6.59%

0 Lexico-semantic

Discursive

Morphological

Syntactic

Mechanics

Combination

Figure 7.2  Language aspects in LREs with metalinguistic knowledge

almost half of the episodes (47.80%) dealt with lexico-semantic aspects, followed by 23.63% of the LREs dealing with morphological aspects and 12.64% focusing on discursive aspects. The other language aspects identified (syntactic, mechanics and combination) represented rather low percentages: each below 7%. Although detailed information about each group is not presented due to space constraints, it is worth noting that, for the most part, the groups showed similar patterns to that of the data set as a whole. Another aspect observed in the analysis of the episodes is the use of technical metalanguage in the verbalizations of metalinguistic knowledge. As shown in

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

157

Table 7.2, the learners used metalinguistic terms only in about one-third of the total number of episodes (34.05%), but this is due to the large number of lexico-semantic episodes. When examined by type, the data show that learners rarely resorted to technical terms in LREs about lexico-semantic aspects (only 7.23% of those episodes contained metalanguage), whereas they did so in much higher percentages in the other types of episodes: syntactic, 83.33%; morphological, 73.33%; mechanics, 66.67%; combination, 64.29%; and discursive, 52.17%. The following excerpts exemplify the knowledge representations that learners verbalized, the different language aspects that the LREs dealt with, as well as the presence or absence of technical metalanguage in those episodes. The first two excerpts illustrate non-linguistic and implicit representations, respectively. Excerpts 3 to 9 illustrate instances of metalinguistic knowledge representations and are organized on the basis of the language aspect at the centre of the episode. Excerpt 1 is one of the few examples in which the participants provided a nonlinguistic reason for suggesting a text reformulation. In turn 666, Roxanne7 suggested ‘pero no le encontró’ (but he didn’t find him) instead of what Audrey had suggested in the previous turn. When asked why she wanted to make such a change (turn 671), Roxanne replied that she had already started writing what she had suggested (turn 672). Excerpt 1. Non-linguistic LRE 665. Audrey: ‘Pero su hijo no estaba allí’ [But his son wasn’t there]. 666. Roxanne: I was gonna write, ‘pero no le, uhh, no le encontró’- [but he didn’t find him] 667. Audrey: ‘Encontró’ is668. Roxanne: ‘Encontré’ [1st pers sing] or ‘encontró’ [3rd pers sing]? 669. Audrey: ‘Encontró’. 670. Roxanne: ‘Encontró’.

Table 7.2  Use of technical metalanguage Type of LRE

Technical metalanguage Presence

Non-linguistic Implicit6 Lexico-semantic Discursive Morphology Syntax Mechanics Combination Total LREs

Total type of LRE

Absence

N

%

N

%

N

%

1 4 6 12 33 10 4 9 79

8.33 10.81 7.23 52.17 73.33 83.33 66.67 64.29 34.05

11 33 77 11 12 2 2 5 153

91.67 89.19 92.77 47.83 26.67 16.67 33.33 35.71 65.95

12 37 83 23 45 12 6 14 232

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

158

The Metalinguistic Dimension

671. Researcher: Why did you-, Roxanne, she was saying, ‘pero no estaba allí’, and you changed it to, ‘no le encontró’? 672. Roxanne: I was already in the middle of writing it. Excerpt 2 below is an instance of the participants resorting to their implicit knowledge of Spanish for suggesting a particular text reformulation. In this example, Laura proposed writing ‘en la noche’ (in the night) in turn 265, to which Roxanne agreed in the subsequent turn. However, Audrey suggested substituting the preposition ‘en’ (in) with ‘por’ (at) in turn 267, to which Laura agreed (turn 268) acknowledging the correctness of the change. When prompted to elaborate on the reasons for suggesting that change, Audrey replied that ‘it sounds better’ (turn 272) showing her resorting to her intuitions about Spanish. Excerpt 2. Implicit knowledge LRE 265. Laura: ‘En la noche’ [In the night]? 266. Roxanne: Yeah, ‘en la noche’ is fine too. Whichever. 267. Audrey: ‘Por la noche’ [At night]? 268. Laura: Sí, ‘por la noche’. You’re right. 269. Audrey: Ok, ‘por la noche’ . . . 270. Laura: ‘Por la noche’ . . . 271. Researcher: Why ‘por la noche’ and not ‘en la noche’? 272. Audrey: Because it sounds better. Excerpt 3 shows an instance in which the learner is resorting to his knowledge about word meaning to solve an LRE about a lexico-semantic aspect. In turn 106, Josh was wondering whether to write ‘rompió’ (broke) or ‘tiró’ (threw), as Jessica had suggested in a previous turn, and he decided to choose ‘rompió’. In response to my prompt to explain why he chose one over the other, Josh explained the difference in meaning between both verbs in his own words (turn 109). This excerpt shows that learners’ verbalizations were not always accurate. In this case, while it is true that ‘tiró’ implies a certain degree of intentionality, ‘rompió’ may imply so as well. Interestingly, Josh added the phrase ‘sin querer’ (accidentally) to his reformulation, possibly to emphasize this meaning. This example also illustrates the fact that the learners rarely used technical terms to discuss the meaning of the words when justifying their vocabulary choice or other issues related to conveying a certain meaning. In this example, the metatalk produced by Josh lacked any technical metalanguage. Excerpt 3. Lexico-semantic LRE 106. Josh: ‘El hijo rompió o tiró’ [The son broke or threw]? Eh, ‘rompió’. 107. Jessica: Yeah. 108. Researcher: Why ‘rompió’ and not ‘tiró’? 109. Josh: I would say . . . ‘tiró’ sounds a bit more like he did it on purpose, maybe, and ‘rompió’ sounds more like an accident. ‘Rompió, un accidente’. ‘Hijo rompió’ . . . that has an accent . . . ‘sin querer el hijo rompió’ [accidentally, the son broke] . . . The episode in Excerpt 4 deals with the choice of the possessive adjective ‘su’ (his) or the determiner ‘el’ (the; masculine, singular) to go with the noun ‘padre’ (father).

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

159

Andrew’s justification for suggesting the use of ‘el’ instead of ‘su’ was based on a discursive aspect; that is, based on the fact that they were starting a new paragraph (turn 1156). At that point, the three group members got involved in a discussion about the roles that the two characters, the father and the son, play in the story. The learners believed that both characters are central in the story, and they seemed to be concerned that the use of ‘su’ might relegate the character of the father to a secondary role. They decided to use ‘el’ to convey this idea. This episode also illustrates the fact that the use of immediate recall likely encouraged the engagement of all the group members in the resolution of the LRE. Excerpt 4. Discursive LRE 1154. Andrew: ‘Corriéndolo fuera de la casa. Su padre lo esperó’ [Chasing him out of the house. His father waited for him]. Can we say ‘el papá’ [the dad]? ‘El papá lo esperó’? No? ‘Su padre lo esperó’ 1155. Researcher: Why would you like to change that? 1156. Andrew: Just because it’s starting a new paragraph and ‘su’ [his] is from the previous paragraph. 1157. Kim: But I think having ‘padre’ here and ‘padre’ here is just more of a consistency. 1158. Andrew: Ok. 1159. Tom: But I’m just making sure by saying ‘su padre’ or ‘el padre’ you’re making the main character 1160. Andrew: The father 1161. Tom: No, Juanito, because you’re giving Juanito a name. To me that’s how it sounds. It’s more central around1162. Andrew: But this paragraph is about the father not really about the (. . .) 1165. Kim: I think it still can stay the same because like right here it talks about the father, like just a main point, and it talks about what the son did – but then right here it talks about the reaction of the father and right here it’s kind of a- it’s kind of a mix of the father and son. 1166. Andrew: Yes. 1167. Tom: I would say I’m kind of xxx ‘el padre’ (. . .) 1171. Andrew: I think grammatically it doesn’t make a difference. 1172. Researcher: Tom, why do you want ‘el padre’ instead of ‘su padre’? 1173. Tom: Well it’s obvious that like it’s his father to begin with. And ‘el padre’, it’s just, it makes, by saying ‘su padre’ it makes the father seem kind of secondary. 1174. Andrew: Juanito becomes still the main character 1175. Tom: Yeah, and it’s about both of them. In Excerpt 5, the learners discussed a morphological aspect without technical metalanguage. Josh (turn 77) was unsure about whether to use ‘jugaba’ (played/ was playing) in the past imperfect tense or ‘estaba jugando’ (was playing) in the past progressive tense. In the next turn, Haley chose ‘estaba jugando’ as the appropriate form for their text. When prompted to elaborate on the reasons for her choice, she

160

The Metalinguistic Dimension

explained that another action took place while the action of playing was in progress (turn 80). Thus, this learner resorted to her metalinguistic knowledge of the fact that continuous actions in the past need to be expressed with a progressive tense, although she did not use any technical metalanguage in her verbalization. In addition, her explanation reflects partial knowledge of the use of the past tenses in Spanish since, while it is true that the past progressive can be used for expressing continuous actions in the past, ‘jugaba’, the form in the imperfect that Haley discarded can also be used to convey the same meaning. Excerpt 5. Morphological LRE without technical metalanguage 77. Josh: ‘Jugaba’ [was playing/played]? O ‘estaba jugando’ [Or was playing]? 78. Haley: Was playing, ‘estaba jugando’. 79. Researcher: Why is that ‘jugando’ and not ‘jugaba’? 80. Haley: Porque . . . durante el tiempo que . . . su . . . hijo . . . estaba jugando, hay un otra cosa que se pasa . . . [Because . . . during the time that . . . his . . . son . . . was playing, there’s something else taking place] The type of metalinguistic knowledge representation involved in Excerpt 6 also has to do with verb morphology. Unlike the previous example, in this excerpt the learner used technical metalanguage to discuss the conjugation of the verb. Jocelyn suggested changing ‘oye’, the third person singular in present tense of the verb ‘to hear’, for ‘oyó’ in the preterite. In her verbalization, she described the morphological features of the form she was proposing (turns 723 and 725) and of the form she wanted to change (turn 729). This change is probably due to the fact that they were narrating the story in the past tense, although Jocelyn did not say so. The rising intonation of turns 723 and 725 (shown by the question mark in the transcription) is likely an indication of Jocelyn’s uncertainty about her knowledge and possibly an attempt to seek confirmation. Excerpt 6. Morphological LRE with technical metalanguage 722. Researcher: Why do you think it’s ‘oyó’ [heard, 3rd person singular], Jocelyn? 723. Jocelyn: Porque es la tercera persona del . . . singular [because it’s third person singular]? 724. Researcher: Uh huh. 725. Jocelyn: Pretérito [preterite]? ‘Oye’ [hear, 3rd person singular] es la primera persona [is first person] 726. Alicia: I don’t see it. 727. Jocelyn: ‘Oye’ [hear, 3rd person singular] 728. Alicia: Ahh. 729. Jocelyn: ‘Oye’ es la tercera [it’s third], es en el presente [it’s in present]. Excerpt 7 shows the group discussing whether they needed to include the subject pronoun ‘él’ (he) in the sentence they were writing. Kim believed so (turn 719) because, according to her, the subject needs to be present in the sentence, likely drawing an analogy with English. In turn 720, Andrew explained that, in Spanish, subject pronouns are not necessary because the verb morphology already indicates the person and number of the subject. Kim, however, did not seem to be certain of what Andrew was telling her (turns 721 and 724). In turn 727, Tom came up with a compromise

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

161

solution to solve the impasse; namely, to write the full noun phrase ‘el papá’ (the dad) instead of the pronoun ‘él’, to which Kim and Andrew agreed. In the ensuing discussion, not included in the excerpt due to space constraints, the learners refer to discursive aspects to justify the presence or absence of a subject pronoun. Excerpt 7. Syntactic LRE 712. Kim: ‘Él salió a buscar a su hijo’ [He went out to look for his son]. 713. Andrew: ‘Él salió’, we can just say ‘salió’ [went out], no? Entonces- [Then] 714. Kim: ‘Salió’ 715. Tom: ‘He leaves to go’ 716. Kim: Yeah but we need ‘he leaves’, so ‘él salió’ 717. Andrew: Alright 718. Researcher: Why do you need ‘él’ [he]? 719. Kim: Because it shows it’s the subject of a sentence 720. Andrew: You know, but it’s written into the verb, into the conjugation, right? ‘Salió’ is conjugated for third person, so we already know there is a person there. So you don’t have to say- I mean in English you have to say ‘he went out’, but in Spanish ‘salió’ already means there is a person there, right? 721. Kim: I’m not sure. 722. Andrew: It’s like ‘yo salgo’ [I go out]. You could just say ‘salgo’. 723. Tom: Well it’s pretty clear 724. Kim: But see because in Spanish if you’re talking about somebody, and they are saying ‘oh where were you’? And then you go ‘oh yo salí a’ [I went out to] . . . 725. Andrew: Or you could just say ‘salí al supermercado’ [went to the supermarket] 726. Kim: Ok. 727. Tom: Wait. You know what, could you just say ‘el papá salió’ [the dad went out]? 728. Andrew: Yes you could. 729. Kim: ‘Entonces’ [Then] 730. Andrew: And then we sort of side-step the problem. As shown in Figure 7.2 above, there were very few episodes that dealt with spelling or punctuation aspects. All these episodes were very short and involved only one participant. In other words, all these episodes constitute instances of limited engagement (Storch, 2008) since none of the group members other than the one who suggested the text reformulation participated in the discussion. This is illustrated in Excerpt 8, in which Parker reminds the participant who is writing the text to insert the inverted question mark that Spanish requires at the beginning of a question. When asked to elaborate on the reasons for his suggestion, his response shows his knowledge of this rule. Excerpt 8. Mechanics LRE 230. Parker: ¿Dónde está mi hijo? [Where is my son?] . . . don’t forget the backwards question here . . . there’s a backward question mark there. 231. Researcher: Why do you need it there? 232. Parker: Because that’s the rule, because it’s indicating a question.

162

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Finally, Excerpt 9 shows an episode in which there are two language aspects involved. The group was trying to come up with an appropriate preposition to express purpose since they wanted to write that one of the characters in the story, the father, left the house in order to look for his missing son. Melissa suggested ‘a’ (to) in turn 408, but Rebecca and Diana thought ‘para’ (for) would better convey their intended meaning (turns 409 and 410). Diana explained this idea of expressing purpose as the basis for the suggested change in turn 413. Thus, up until this point the episode seems to be dealing with a lexico-semantic aspect: how to express purpose in Spanish. However, in turn 418 Rebecca realized that they needed to use the preposition ‘a’ because of the construction they were using to express this idea. In Spanish, the construction ‘ir a’ (to go to) followed by an infinitive conveys the notion of going somewhere with a specific purpose in mind. Therefore, the correct resolution of the episode depended on a syntactic aspect, since the required preposition in this expression is ‘a’. Excerpt 9. Combination LRE 408. Melissa: Would it be ‘a buscar’ [to look for]? 409. Rebecca: can we say ‘para’ [for]? I don’t know if that makes sense though because if I was going to translate that in English it would be like his father went – no, no that would just sound weird: went in order to look for his son. His father went in order to look for his son. It would sound better if the father left his house in order to look for his son. Because like the father went where to look for his son? In order to410. Diana: I would put ‘para’. I don’t know 411. Rebecca: ‘Para’, after here? 412. Researcher: Why Diana? 413. Diana: Just because it’s a purpose 414. Rebecca: I think that ‘para’ would work better. But I don’t know 415. Diana: It almost reminds me of when you’re getting into the future 416. Rebecca: Yeah 417. Diana: You know how ‘I am going to’ 418. Rebecca: No, no, no, ‘a’ [to] would work because this is the verb ‘ir’ [to go], when, so you would use ‘a’ and with the verb ‘ir’ you always use ‘a’. The data presented in this section demonstrate the important role that metalinguistic knowledge plays in the resolution of LREs, since this was the most frequent type of knowledge representation underlying the episodes. In addition, the data also provide evidence about some characteristics of those representations, such as their accuracy and the use of technical terms, and of the usefulness of immediate recall. These aspects are discussed in detail in the following section.

Discussion The analysis of the data collected in this study shows that the knowledge representations underlying LREs with covert metalinguistic activity constituted

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

163

metalinguistic knowledge in 78.45% of those episodes. In other words, in the present study, the learners’ reflection about language relied to a great extent on metalinguistic representations. This finding confirms the hypothesis presented in Gutiérrez (2008, 2011a), providing evidence that reflection about language is indeed present in a considerable amount of those episodes with covert metalinguistic activity, in which there seems to be no apparent reflection. Therefore, although absence of verbalizations in episodes such as those classified as ‘no reason given’ (García Mayo, 2002a, 2002b; Storch, 1998) or ‘simple noticing’ (Kuiken and Vedder, 2002; Qi and Lapkin, 2001) may be interpreted as ‘limited engagement’ (Storch, 2008), such absence cannot be unequivocally interpreted as lack of resources (García Mayo, 2002a, 2002b) or as absence of knowledge representations8 unless a thorough analysis is undertaken. In fact, there may be other reasons why knowledge representations were not verbalized in such episodes that would explain the learners’ lack of engagement. One possible reason is that, although the learners may have metalinguistic knowledge representations about particular language aspects, they may not have the adequate resources to verbalize them (e.g. lack of adequate knowledge of metalinguistic terminology). Indeed, metalinguistic knowledge representations exist independently from the individual’s ability to verbalize them (R. Ellis, 2004). In addition, it is also plausible that in some of those episodes learners do not perceive a need to verbalize their knowledge representations because they may assume that these representations are shared by the other group members (Camps et al., 2000). In any case, the strong reliance on metalinguistic knowledge representations demonstrated by the learners in this study constitutes evidence of the usefulness of such representations in L2 writing tasks. Thus, from a pedagogical perspective, it can be argued that learners can benefit from the development of this type of representations since, as N. Ellis (2005, p. 308) notes, L2 learners resort to their explicit representations of the L2 when their intuitions are not sufficient for successful language use. In L2 writing in particular, availability of metalinguistic representations can help learners in producing an adequate text regarding, for example, morphological, syntactic and discursive aspects (Johns, 2003; Mitchell, 2000). The qualitative analysis of the episodes also showed the often incomplete and sometimes inaccurate nature of the learners’ metalinguistic verbalizations, as well as the presence or absence of technical metalinguistic terms in those verbalizations. In other words, learners’ verbalizations are highly idiosyncratic and often do not correspond to the metalinguistic descriptions found in grammars and textbooks. This fact reflects the characteristics of metalinguistic knowledge outlined by R. Ellis’s (2004) definition. However, it is not clear whether the incompleteness and inaccuracy found in some of the learners’ verbalizations are due to the imprecise nature of their metalinguistic representations or to their inability to verbalize such representations. In any case, it is worth noting that the imprecise or incomplete nature of these representations does not seem to have an effect on the successful resolution of the episodes (Gutiérrez, 2011b). With respect to the use of technical metalanguage, the data show that learners rarely need it to verbalize their knowledge about lexical aspects, and they only resort to such terms in about half of the discursive episodes. However, technical metalanguage was used extensively in the verbalizations focusing on other language aspects such as morphology and syntax.

164

The Metalinguistic Dimension

The use of immediate recall as the method for data collection proved to be very valuable in that it allowed access to the knowledge representations underlying LREs with covert metalinguistic activity. If learners had not been prompted to elaborate on their reasons for suggesting text reformulations, those episodes would have likely been categorized as lacking metatalk and, therefore, it would not have been possible to discern whether the knowledge representations the learners were resorting to constituted implicit or unarticulated metalinguistic knowledge, as Fortune and Thorpe (2001) noted. Thus, the use of this introspective method for data collection was essential in determining that, for the task used in this study, the knowledge representations in the majority of those LREs were metalinguistic. In this sense, immediate recall in combination with collaborative interaction yields more complete information than collaborative interaction alone (i.e. without the intervention of a researcher). Even though collaborative interaction encourages the verbalization of metalinguistic reflection in language production tasks, it is likely that the learners might not verbalize everything the researcher would hope for (García Mayo, 2002a, 2002b; Gutiérrez, 2008, 2011a; Storch, 1998). One limitation of immediate recall, however, is that it might not be easily implemented in natural classroom settings if a researcher needs to be present in the group task. However, just as learners can be trained to think aloud without prompts, they can also be trained to carry out immediate recall in a similar manner. Another potential drawback of immediate recall is the possibility that learners might resort to metalinguistic knowledge as a direct result of the prompt following the proposed change rather than simply reporting on the knowledge representations behind that change. R. Ellis (2004) suggests analysing pauses and hesitations in verbal reports in order to find evidence of online reasoning. However, he also notes that ‘there is probably no foolproof way of determining whether an explanation reflects pre-existing explicit knowledge or aptitude for grammatical analysis’ (R. Ellis, 2004, pp. 263–4) and therefore this validity issue is acknowledged in the present study. There are also pedagogical implications regarding the use of immediate recall. In this sense, it is quite likely that the use of this introspective method for data collection also prompted the involvement of other group members in the ensuing discussion and, thus, generated more metatalk, as shown in Excerpt 4. Although not within the scope of the present study, it is worth noting that 99 LREs (42.67%) constitute instances of what Storch (2008) identified as elaborate engagement. In turn, the metatalk generated in such episodes can be interpreted as the learners co-constructing knowledge of the L2. Swain (2006) discussed the use of verbal protocols in SLA research and noted that verbalized thoughts become the object of reflection and manipulation, which may lead to the internalization of this differently understood object. In Swain’s words, ‘what this implies is that verbal protocols not only potentially transform thinking, focussing it in highly specific ways, but also are the sources of changes in cognition’ (2006, p. 101). Swain concluded that, not only should verbal protocols be considered as a data collection method, but also as part of the treatment in those studies that make claims about learning. As noted earlier, some studies that examined the learners’ level of engagement in LREs (e.g. Qi and Lapkin, 2001; Storch, 2008; Tocalli-Beller and Swain, 2005) found that elaborate engagement has benefits for L2 development.

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

165

Therefore, training learners to elicit metalinguistic reflection from other learners during collaborative tasks might be a useful tool for the development of the L2. In this sense, learners’ verbalizations might serve two purposes. First, these verbalizations might help the learners who verbalized their reflection to consolidate their existing knowledge of the L2, and second, verbalizations might also provide the necessary help that other group members may need in order to acquire those features of the L2 at the centre of the episode.

Conclusion The study presented here provides evidence that metalinguistic knowledge of the L2 underlies the majority of instances of covert metalinguistic activity and, thus, confirms the hypothesis I developed in previous studies (Gutiérrez, 2008, 2011a). Therefore, it can be argued that research on LREs needs to pay more attention to episodes without metatalk since, as Fortune and Thorp (2001) noted, processes that lead to the development of the L2 might also be at work in this type of episodes. Similar to previous research on LREs, this study also found that learners pay attention to a wide array of language aspects when engaged in a collaborative writing task. In addition, the study also provided data regarding the learners’ use of technical metalanguage in their verbalizations of knowledge representations. In relation to these two findings, the use of immediate recall was critical in order to elicit the verbalization of those representations, which otherwise might have remained hidden. In turn, the qualitative analysis of the verbal reports proved to be a useful method to examine the nature of the learners’ representations, yielding detailed information about those representations, and constitutes a valuable complement to studies that use a correlational design (Roehr, 2006). However, the use of verbalizations as a measure of learners’ metalinguistic representations has certain limitations, since ‘verbal report tasks may not be a sensitive or exhaustive measure of explicit knowledge, because the ability to verbalize a rule is distinct from conscious awareness of the rule’ (R. Ellis, 2004, p. 263). R. Ellis suggests using other measures, such as a receptive test of metalanguage, to complement the data yielded by verbal reports. The limitations of the present study also need to be acknowledged. As noted above, the use of immediate recall as a data collection methodology is not exempt from potential risks. In addition, the study does not (nor does it intend to) provide evidence that resorting to metalinguistic knowledge representations leads to successful language use or to L2 development. These are, however, avenues for future research that are worth pursuing. For example, L2 development could be measured with the use of a post-test design in which the language aspects that are the focus of the LREs are used as tailor-made items in the test (García Mayo, 2002b). With respect to successful language use, a subsequent study (Gutiérrez, 2011b) about the data reported here is currently underway in order to examine the successful resolution of the episodes. Another aspect worth exploring further is the learners’ knowledge of technical metalanguage and its role in language development. Future research about these aspects is essential for determining the role of metalinguistic knowledge in L2 development.

166

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Acknowledgements This study was partially funded by an internal Humanities and Social Sciences Research Grant from the University of Windsor. My appreciation goes to my colleague Giuliana Salvato for her generosity in taking the time to rate part of the data, to Ana Stojcev, Aleks Slupinski and Magdalene Friesen for their help in transcribing the recordings and organizing the data. Thanks also to the editors and the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. All errors or omissions are, of course, my own.

Notes 1 García Mayo (2002a) reports on the dictogloss and the text reconstruction tasks only, whereas García Mayo (2002b) reports on the five tasks. 2 See Gutiérrez (2008, 2011a) for a detailed discussion and examples of these two types of metalinguistic activity. 3 Three or four seconds were allowed after each text reformulation in case the participants would elaborate on the reasons for suggesting that change on their own, which would constitute an episode with overt metalinguistic activity. In those cases, the participants were not asked about the suggested change. 4 In a few instances (14.66% of the episodes), the proposed change was not repeated as a stimulus because it was obvious what the question was referring to. This obviousness is demonstrated by the fact that the participants’ response was always relevant to the researcher’s question. 5 In 3.88% of the episodes the participants were asked to elaborate on their response if the reasons for suggesting a text reformulation were not clear enough. 6 The technical metalanguage in the four LREs with implicit knowledge occurred in the ensuing discussion in which the participants engaged after the learner had provided the reason for suggesting the text reformulation. 7 All names are pseudonyms. 8 This has been the case mainly in studies about explicit knowledge of language (R. Ellis, 2004).

References Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. and Steel, D. (1997), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency’. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121. Camps, A., Guasch, O., Milian, M. and Ribas, T. (2000), ‘Metalinguistic activity: The link between writing and learning to write’, in A. Camps and M. Milian (eds), Metalinguistic Activity in Learning to Write. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 103–24. Cohen, A. (1998), Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London: Longman. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003), ‘Implicit and explicit learning’, in C. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 313–48. Doughty, C. (2003), ‘Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement’, in C. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 256–310.

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

167

Egi, T. (2004), ‘Verbal reports, noticing, and SLA research’. Language Awareness, 13, 243–64. Elder, C. (2009), ‘Validating a test of metalinguistic knowledge’, in R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp and H. Reinders, Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 113–38. Elder, C. and Manwaring, D. (2004), ‘The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese’. Language Awareness, 13, 145–62. Ellis, N. (2005), ‘At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–52. Ellis, R. (2004), ‘The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge’. Language Learning, 54, 227–75. — (2005), ‘Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. A psychometric study’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–72. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J. and Reinders, H. (2009), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ericsson, K. and Simon, H. (1987), ‘Verbal reports on thinking’, in C. Faerch and G. Kasper (eds), Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 24–53. Fortune, A. (2005), ‘Learners’ use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output tasks’. Language Awareness, 14, 21–38. Fortune, A. and Thorp, D. (2001), ‘Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks’. Language Awareness, 10, 143–60. García Mayo, M. P. (2002a), ‘The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156–75. — (2002b), ‘Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities’. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323–41. Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2000), Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. New York: Routledge. — (2007), Data Elicitation for Second and Foreign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goss, N., Ying-Hua, Z. and Lantolf, J. (1994), ‘Two heads may be better than one: Mental activity in second-language grammaticality judgments’, in E. Tarone, S. Gass and A. Cohen (eds), Research Methodology in Second Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 263–86. Gutiérrez, X. (2008), ‘What does metalinguistic activity in learners’ interaction during a collaborative L2 writing task look like?’. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 519–37. — (2011a), ‘Knowledge representations underlying covert metalinguistic activity. A working hypothesis’. Language Awareness, 20, 239–54. — (2011b), Metalinguistic Reflection and Resolution of LREs in L2 Spanish. Manuscript in preparation. Hu, G. (2002), ‘Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 347–86. Hyland, K. (2003), Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johns, A. M. (2003), ‘Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction’, in B. Kroll (ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–217.

168

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2002), ‘The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language’. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343–58. Leeser, M. J. (2004), ‘Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue’. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81. Mitchell, R. (2000), ‘Anniversary article. Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy’. Applied Linguistics, 21, 281–303. Morrison, L. (1996), ‘Talking about words: A study of French as a second language learners’ lexical inferencing procedures’. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 41–75. Philp, J. (2003), ‘Constraints on “noticing the gap”. Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126. Qi, D. and Lapkin, S. (2001), ‘Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task’. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303. Roehr, K. (2006), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge in L2 task performance: A verbal protocol analysis’. Language Awareness, 15, 180–98. — (2008), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners’. Applied Linguistics, 29, 173–99. Roehr, K. and Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2009), ‘The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning’. Language Awareness, 18, 165–81. Simard, D., French, L. and Fortier, V. (2007), ‘Elicited metalinguistic reflection and second language learning: Is there a link?’. System, 35, 509–22. Someren, M. van, Barnard, Y. and Sandberg, J. (1994), The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. London: Academic Press. Storch, N. (1998), ‘Comparing second language learners’ attention to form across tasks’. Language Awareness, 5, 176–91. — (1999), ‘Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy’. System, 27, 363–74. — (2008), ‘Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development’. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114. Swain, M. (1985), ‘Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development’, in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 235–53. — (1998), ‘Focus on form through conscious reflection’, in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–81. — (2000), ‘The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue’, in J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–114. — (2006), ‘Verbal protocols. What does it mean for research to use speaking as a data collection tool?’, in M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle and P. Duff (eds), Inference and Generalizability in Applied Linguistics: Multiple Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 97–113. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995), ‘Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning’. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–91. — (1998), ‘Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescents French immersion students working together’. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–37. — (2002), ‘Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation’. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.

LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity

169

Tocalli-Beller, A. and Swain, M. (2005), ‘Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 5–28. Watanabe, Y. and Swain, M. (2007), ‘Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners’. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–42. Williams, J. (2001), ‘The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form’. System, 29, 325–40.

8

The Role of Metalanguage in the Performance of a Sequence of Collaborative Output Tasks by Five L2 Learner Dyads Alan Fortune

King’s College London

Abstract Classroom research has been conducted on tasks which require learners to collaborate in attempting to write grammatically accurate, socially appropriate texts. Studies of the learning outcomes of these collaborative output tasks, or COTs, and the learning processes they engender, provide evidence to support Swain’s Output Hypothesis. It is claimed that learners performing COTs co-construct new knowledge about their L2, that this knowledge is usually correct, and that it tends to ‘stick’, at least in the short to medium term. Much of the influential research has taken place in Canadian French immersion classrooms with English L1 students. This chapter is based on a study of the use of Dictogloss, a frequently researched COT, in a mixed nationality class of advanced adult learners of English at a UK university, and investigates some of the claims made for such tasks in other teaching-learning contexts. The main focus of this chapter is on the nature of the metalanguage students use during on-task attention to form. The chapter also compares metalanguage use in this study of advanced learners with that in an earlier study of intermediate learners, and refines the framework for describing metalanguage use proposed in the earlier work. The interactions of five dyads performing the same sequence of COTs were audio-recorded for analytical purposes; the recordings were subsequently transcribed and coded for Language Related Episodes. Quantitative and qualitative analysis revealed some noticeable differences, not only between each dyad’s use of metalanguage, but also between that of individuals in each pair. One case is of particular interest. Despite being a more proficient language user than her interlocutor, the tendency of one student to accede regularly to the demands of a peer who possesses greater metalingual knowledge (Berry, 2005) appears to drive much of the decision-making.

172

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Introduction The role of metatalk in the production of language output first came to general attention in Swain’s work on the Output Hypothesis (1985, 1995, 1998). The third of the three functions of output which constitute the hypothesis, the metalinguistic function (Swain, 1995), concerns the use of metalanguage in students’ conscious reflections about their output. Renamed metatalk in Swain (1998), it refers to when ‘learners use language to reflect on language use’ (Swain, 1998, p. 68). The author points out that such metatalk may not necessarily involve the employment of metalinguistic terminology; students can talk about language without employing the technical terms regularly used in linguistic description. From the perspective of teachers and researchers, metatalk acts as a window through which learning processes such as noticing and hypothesis-testing and -formulation, the other two functions of output (Swain, 1998), can be observed. It is this which prompted my own interest in how learners use metalanguage when engaged in output tasks.

Background The Output Hypothesis (hereafter OH) raised issues which have prompted researchers to think anew about the role of output in second language acquisition. Several studies (see below) lend support to the OH’s claim that ‘output can, under certain conditions, promote language acquisition by allowing learners to try out and stretch their IL[interlanguage] capabilities’ (Izumi, 2003, p. 169). Most of them look at how learners’ written output can be pushed during the production of ‘messages which are concise and socially appropriate’ (Ellis, 2003, p. 113) in the completion of writing tasks which are predominantly form-focused and almost always collaborative.1 Hwang (2009) uses the acronym COT for such collaborative output tasks. The above studies attempt to demonstrate that pushed output (Swain, 1995) can facilitate learning. Much of the aforementioned research (e.g. Kowal and Swain, 1994; Swain and Lapkin, 1995; Swain, 1998) took place with L1 English students in Canadian French secondary immersion classrooms, where it was observed that most school leavers achieved a high level of fluency in French without attaining native-like accuracy. In these classrooms the students participated in tasks most of which were completely meaning-based, or unfocused (Ellis et al., 2002), during which the learners’ limited L2 processing capacities make it difficult to attend to meaning and form simultaneously. Hence they are likely to prioritize meaning. To combat this tendency and to try to improve the students’ L2 accuracy, researchers employed tasks which were primarily about ‘making meaning’ (Swain, 1998, p. 69) but which also engaged students in the detailed scrutiny of form while expressing their meanings. Such focused tasks (Ellis et al., 2002) may involve briefly attending to form, meaning and use during one ‘cognitive event’ (Doughty, 2001, p. 211), and thereby serve to draw learners’ attention to form without negating the overall emphasis on meaning. This focus-on-form approach is more consistent in principle with immersion education than the isolation

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

173

and sequencing of individual target language forms employed in the traditional focus-on-formS2 approaches (Long, 1991) typically employed in classrooms in foreign language learning contexts. Most of the researched tasks involve collaborative text reconstruction of some kind. For example, prominent among the task types researched by Storch (1997, 1998, 2002) with ESL students in Australian higher education are text editing and text reconstruction from written prompts. Probably the most frequently researched task is Dictogloss, or grammar dictation (Wajnryb, 1990), in which students reconstruct a text which has been read aloud to them (e.g. Kowal and Swain, 1994; Leeser, 2004; Swain, 1998; Swain and Lapkin, 2001). In all these studies, the on-task interactions of small groups of learners, usually dyads, were recorded, transcribed and analysed. The studies all employed the language-related episode, or LRE, as a key construct in their analytical frameworks, and all found evidence in support of collaborative dialogue and the OH (Swain, 2000).

Language-related episodes (LREs) Since the LRE is the key construct in my own study, I shall first look at how LREs have been defined, categorized and employed by different researchers. For Swain (1998, p. 70), an LRE is ‘any part of a dialogue in which students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or other- or self-correct’, and focuses on one language item only. In many such studies, instances of learners deliberating over the correctness of their own, and not just their interlocutors’, utterances are regarded as triggering LREs. However, I took the view that since LREs are identifiable elements in collaborative on-task dialogue, self-corrections should not be treated as constituting LREs.3 This perspective is employed in the study reported here and in Fortune and Thorp (2001), the initial study which in part set the agenda for it. The formal taxonomies of LRE which have arisen from different studies vary considerably. To exemplify, Table 8.1 shows differences in the taxonomies employed in four studies which scrutinize the collaborative dialogue of learners performing a Dictogloss. This feature of the research literature is regrettable as it makes the comparison of results across studies difficult. To give just one example, in Study 4, the category ‘lexical’ includes ‘talk about the spelling . . . of words’ (Leeser, 2004, p. 64), which other studies, e.g. Fortune and Thorp (2001), would designate ‘orthographic’.

Table 8.1  Formal LRE categories in four COT studies Study

1. Kowal and Swain (1994)

2. Swain (1998)

3. Swain and Lapkin (2001)

4. Leeser (2004)

Categories of LRE

Grammatical Lexical Lexis-based Grammatical Meaning-based Form Orthographic Form-based (incl. Lexical Orthographic orthography)

174

The Metalinguistic Dimension

The initial study With the aformentioned terminological confusion in mind, Fortune and Thorp (2001) sought to build on the formal LRE taxonomies in other studies to develop a common framework for potential adoption in future COT studies. They did so by analysing the on-task interactions of intermediate learners of English at a UK institution of higher education doing a sequence of four Dictogloss tasks in mixed L1 triads, and the resulting taxonomy comprised four formal categories: ‘grammatical’, ‘lexical’, ‘discourse’ and ‘orthographic’. There is an obvious equivalence between the ‘lexical’ LRE category and similar categories in studies 2–4 in Table 8.1. The categories ‘orthographic’, ‘grammatical’ and ‘discourse’ together correspond roughly with Swain and Lapkin’s (2001) subcategories of ‘form-based’ LREs. Kowal and Swain’s (1994, p. 81) ‘meaning-based’ LRE category equates approximately with ‘lexical’ except that it includes ‘reconstructing the meaning of a sentence or phrase in own words’. This subcategory is of dubious value in the analysis of Dictogloss interaction. It implies a view of text as a series of individual sentences whereas the emphasis of DG tasks is intended to be on whole text construction, not just the construction of individual sentences. The students had been encouraged to think about how the constituent parts of the text link grammatically and semantically. Such episodes, dealing with formal intersentential links, were classified as ‘discourse’. Others were broken down into two or more separate LREs, since the construction of higher-order linguistic units, like sentences, often involved more than one grammatical and/or lexical decision. Before describing these new taxonomies, I should add that one aspect of COT interaction not previously emphasized in the literature is that LREs are not always completed at the first attempt. Sometimes learners make a decision about which form to employ only to return to the same issue later and select a different form. On other occasions they may fail to resolve the discussion only to do so when they return to it later. In Fortune and Thorp (2001) the LREs were labelled continuous and discontinuous – to be renamed unrecycled and recycled in this study – according to whether they are resolved respectively at the first attempt or after two or more attempts. Fortune and Thorp (2001) were also interested in how, and how often, students used metalanguage while focusing on form, and discovered that metalanguage was present in 29.8% of all LREs, including 29.0% of 131 lexical and 27.1% of 264 grammatical episodes. Thus in only about one-third of the intermediate students’ form-focused interactions was Swain’s third function of output, metatalk, evident. These intermediate students appeared to tap into their implicit knowledge as a basis for decision-making roughly twice as frequently as they made explicit reference to language items during negotiation of form. An example of an LRE without metatalk is provided in the form of the following extract, a grammatical LRE taken from the main study reported later in this chapter. The verb form, ‘are running’, that Nina and Chen co-construct during turns 15–18 (see excerpt below) arises through successive alterations to their output. During the construction process, the different language items produced are not subjected to overt scrutiny. No metalinguistic comments are made about them; there is no overt metalinguistic activity (Gutiérrez, 2008).

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks 15 16 17 18

N C N C

175

. . . cats run into the streets into the streets running into the streets are running into the streets

The study entered previously unresearched territory in distinguishing between LREs with and without metalanguage, and through scrutinizing the metalinguistic content of the former. A new set of categories for the analysis of grammatical episodes containing metalanguage was developed, the main aspects of which are explained in Table 8.2. The final column comprises examples made up especially to demonstrate how learners may query article use in ways constituting each of the three coding categories. In all three examples, a language item is ‘objectified’ during the joint production of language output (Swain, 1998); the students treat it as an object of debate in a similar way to, say, how physicists in discussion might refer to a subatomic particle. Table 8.3 shows that metatalk4 occurred in under one-third of grammatical episodes and explicit rule-giving in only 7.6%. Some episodes, of course, contained both grammatical terminology and rule-giving, and therefore exhibited both M+G and M+R. No comparable taxonomy was developed at the time for lexical LREs. It should be noted that there are evident links between the discussion above and work by Gutiérrez (2008, 2011, present volume) in which he distinguishes between overt metalinguistic activity, which is ‘directly observable in the learners’ speech’ and covert metalinguistic activity which is not observable but in which ‘attention

Table 8.2  Framework for coding LREs containing metalanguage Code

Explanation

Example

M

Metalanguage alone, i.e. with none of the features listed below. Metalanguage with use of grammatical terminology. Metalanguage with a grammatical rule or generalization as the reason for a decision.

A: ‘A’ or ‘the’ before ‘zoo’? B: ‘The’, I think. A: ‘A zoo’? Or is it the definite article? B: Definite is correct. A: Is it ‘a zoo’ or ‘the zoo’? B: We use ‘the’ when something’s been mentioned before.

M+G M+R

Table 8.3  Grammatical episodes with metalanguage (percentages of total in brackets) in the initial study Total no. of grammatical episodes No. of episodes with metalanguage (+M) +M M+G M+R

236 64 (27.1%) 7 (3.1%) 44 (18.6%) 18 (7.6%)

The Metalinguistic Dimension

176

to language underlies that speech’ (Gutiérrez, 2011, p. 241). All the categories in Table 8.2 could be regarded as overt metalinguistic activity while LREs without metalanguage would constitute covert metalinguistic activity. Gutiérrez (2011, p. 241) claims that covert metalinguistic activity is ‘very frequent in text reformulations in collaborative writing tasks’, an assertion which is certainly supported by Fortune and Thorp (2001). Moreover, in Camps et al.’s (2000) study of metalinguistic activity during collaborative text composition, 57.9% of the turns (not LREs) were found not to involve overt metalinguistic activity. Gutiérrez (2008) found covert metalinguistic activity to be 15% more frequent than overt metalinguistic activity in his study of Francophone ESL students in Canada doing a collaborative writing task. Like Fortune and Thorp (2001), in which under a third of LREs displayed overt metalinguistic activity, in both Camps et al. (2000) and Gutiérrez (2008) a majority of the interactions appears to involve covert rather than overt metalinguistic activity.

The main study – Research design, procedures and analytical framework Context and participants Like the initial study of intermediate-level students, this study was carried out with a mixed nationality class of 20 advanced English language learners at a UK institution of higher education. The students were of mixed L1 (Italian, Arabic, Spanish, Korean, Japanese, Georgian), mixed sex and aged between 18 and 25. They were all doing a one-year foundation programme prior to becoming undergraduates at a UK university. I taught this class, an optional 2 hours per week of English grammar, thereby functioning as both teacher and researcher. A few students were excluded from the research study after an initial 65 item proficiency test of English grammar and an oral interview. These students either scored too high to find the administered tasks challenging or too low to qualify as advanced learners. All participants consented to take part in the study, recognizing it as an integral part of the grammar syllabus of their course.

The research schedule The research procedure followed is shown in Table 8.4. One week before each Dictogloss there was classroom focus on the form seeded in the DG text. In each case the learners’ attention was drawn to the form, often through the direct presentation of a rule or set of rules to the whole class. In other words, there was some kind of proactive or pre-emptive focus-on-form (Doughty and Williams, 1998; Ellis et al., 2002). The students then worked on a series of individual or group exercises of the focus-on-formS (Long, 1991) variety, centred on that form. The approach to learning in most tasks, though not all, was essentially deductive. In other words, after exposure to rules and example language, students were required to produce examples of the target form(s). Most tasks were of the grammar practice, not the consciousness-raising (C-R) variety, see, for example, Rutherford (1987) and

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

177

Table 8.4  The research schedule Week/Lesson

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Lesson content

Form(s) under focus/ Seeded form(s) in DG Title of DG Text

Pre-test Focus on Form 1 DG1

Passive voice

Follow-up interviews to DG1 Focus on Form 2 DG2 Follow-up interviews to DG2 Focus on Form 3 DG3

8

Follow-up interviews to DG3 Focus on Form 4 DG4

9 10

Follow-up interviews to DG4 Class-specific post-test

Passive voice ‘Pre-Quake Jitters’ Past perfect Past perfect ‘The Best Advice’ ‘If ’ sentences ‘If ’ sentences ‘Planning a Holiday’ Relative clauses Relative clauses ‘Doctors Under Stress’

DG = Dictogloss task

Batstone (1994). Most C-R tasks tend to be inductive in that students are exposed to language selected specifically to enable them to make generalizations and figure out rules themselves without any requirement to produce their own examples of the target form. C-R tasks are designed to facilitate noticing of a form and thinking about its meaning in context, and not its active production.5 The instructions for all four DG tasks replicated those in Fortune and Thorp (2001). The text was read aloud twice at a natural speed. Students were instructed to write a grammatically accurate text with the same meaning as the original, and exhorted to try out alternative syntactic and lexical forms whenever they felt able to do so. Furthermore, the students were not exposed to metalinguistic modelling (Swain, 1998; Swain and Lapkin, 2001); no one primed them for the task by publicly enacting a Dictogloss. Students were expected gradually to become more and more familiar with this type of collaborative focus-on-form as they tackled the sequence of reconstructions. Such task type repetition is considered to facilitate second language development (Bygate, 1996, 2001). The one significant difference from Fortune and Thorp (2001) was that the students did the tasks in dyads, not triads. My main reason for using dyads was to facilitate comparison with published studies involving pair work (e.g. Storch, 2002; Eckerth, 2008) and to eliminate the possibility of students failing to participate, or participating minimally, in the interactions (Eckerth, 2009). I made no attempt to pair the selected students on any principled grounds. Most preferred to work every week with the same

The Metalinguistic Dimension

178

partner, with whom they were familiar. I was happy to accept this because the students’ continued cooperation and attendance were paramount. As the course was optional, I did not wish to risk losing their participation.

Recordings, transcriptions and stimulated recall Seven dyads completed the full sequence of four tasks. However, the data from two dyads was discarded because some recordings were of poor quality and impossible to transcribe adequately. Hence the final set of transcriptions for this study, otherwise called the process data, comprised complete records of the on-task interactions of five dyads, i.e. 20 audio recordings fully transcribed for analytical purposes. Table 8.5 shows the labels used for the five dyads. After each DG, and before any transcription had taken place, I listened to each recording and noted any salient LREs. I also picked out segments of each dialogue which appeared to be part of an LRE, but where it was difficult to pinpoint which language point the students were discussing, or precisely what they were saying or why they were saying it. I then used these segments to make a short list of questions to ask each dyad in a follow-up interview, which functioned as a stimulated recall (SR), an introspective research technique (Dörnyei, 2007), session. However, students were unable to meet me outside the allotted lesson hours, so interviews had to be conducted in lessons. I could not spend what would have been half the class time on this, so on each occasion I conducted and recorded just one post-task interview myself and gave each other dyad a written list of dyad-specific questions. These dyads discussed the questions and produced jointly constructed answers at the same time as I conducted the post-task interview, and their talk was recorded. The transcriptions of the recordings of the follow-up interviews (involving myself and a dyad) and written transcriptions of the students’ oral answers to the written follow-up questions (involving only a dyad) together comprised stimulated recall protocols. There are many reasons for treating introspective data with caution. Although I was unable to take all the steps Dörnyei (2007) suggests for maximizing the quality of such data, for example it was impossible to reduce the time period between task and recall to less than a week, the SR recordings contributed usefully to the analysis of the DG data. Their sole function was to act as an aid to coding.

Table 8.5  The dyads Dyad

Pseudonyms, Gender & Nationalities

R&T N&C A&B Be&M I&Ar

Ria (F, Algeria) & Tanya (F, Georgia) Nina (F, Korea) & Chen (F, Taiwan) Akiko (F, Japan) & Bilal (M, Algeria) Bernard (M, Belgium, French L1) & Mei (F, Japan) Imelda (F, Italy) & Armando (M, Spain)

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

179

Case study The study is framed as a case study. Case-study approaches constitute a growing body of research in applied linguistics (Duff, 2008). This case study is ‘instrumental’ (Stake, 2005) in that it aims to be generalizable, shedding light on wider issues, and also a ‘multiple case study’ in which several cases are studied ‘jointly in order to investigate a phenomenon or general condition’ (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 152). The definition of a case adopted is dyad-centred, i.e. a case is equivalent to one dyad’s performance over a sequence of four DG tasks. The main study is therefore a multiple case study, instrumental to a degree, which displays several of the key elements of case studies identified by Duff (2008). It is bounded, suitably contextualized, and employs multiple information sources upon which it adopts different observational perspectives. Detailed analysis and interpretation of each dyad’s process and product data (the texts they produced) enables a rich overall description of each case to be provided. These descriptions include the examination of correctness of LRE outcome, the knowledge sources employed, depth of engagement with form, whether or not an LRE is controversial (Eckerth, 2008),6 whose suggestion is adopted, and linguistic complexity and lexical diversity in the product texts. However, the focus of this chapter is exclusively on metalanguage, as the following research questions (RQs) suggest: RQ1. How frequently do the advanced learners in this study (i) focus on form in general, and on types of form in particular, and (ii) employ metalanguage in LREs, compared with the intermediate learners in the initial study? RQ2. How do the five cases compare in the extent to which they (i) focus on form and (ii) employ metalanguage, linguistic terminology and grammatical rules? RQ3. How do learners make use of linguistic terminology and grammatical rules in their collaborative dialogue?

Coding and the analytical framework The formal coding categories from the framework developed in the initial study were employed as a starting point for the analysis of the process data (the DG transcriptions). However, as the coding process unfolded, some changes were made to the coding categories themselves. To maximize reliability, a coding agreement with a co-coder was established. Some other COT studies make use of an independent coder and implement statistical procedures to measure inter-rater reliability. The independent coder looks at a representative sample of the data and inter-rater reliability is typically expressed as a percentage score (Basturkmen et al., 2002; Storch, 2007; Watanabe and Swain, 2007, 2008) for the identification of episodes. This approach has two obvious shortcomings. First, it only provides a measure of the extent to which the coders agree about the identification of LREs, not necessarily about their categorization and length, or whether they are recycled. Second, it does not appear to cater for the important contribution a second coder can make towards refining the codes and maintaining consistency in the coding process. My partnership-based approach involved the gradual establishment with

180

The Metalinguistic Dimension

my co-coder of a written coding agreement, which set out strict guidelines to be adhered to during the analysis of the entire dataset. Once the data were fully coded, quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out to address the research questions.

Findings Caution has to be exercised in comparing the two studies because of several important differences between them. First, the initial study involved ten triads in two separate classes (five triads in each) doing the same DG tasks under slightly different conditions as far as prior focus on form is concerned (Fortune and Thorp, 2001). Second, the two studies had three, not all four, DG tasks in common. Crucially, the two studies were procedurally similar, and the task types and instructions were exactly the same. During the detailed analysis and discussion involved in co-coding, the formal LRE taxonomy was amended slightly. It was found necessary to create a new category, the lexico-grammatical (LG) LRE, to describe the occasions when learner deliberations about grammatical and lexical forms are so intertwined that specific focus on either is difficult to pinpoint.

RQ1(i): Focus-on-form, intermediate versus advanced students Table 8.67 displays a clear tendency of the advanced learners in the main study to attend to form more often than their intermediate counterparts. In the main study both the overall number of LREs per task and the number of lexical LREs per task are more than double those in the initial study. There are also more than 50% more grammatical LREs per task. If the lexico-grammatical LREs were factored in then the above trends would become even more marked, as these episodes would have been coded either L or G had the coding system in the original study been employed and the new category LG not been developed. This comparison therefore provides considerable evidence that the advanced learners in the main study engaged more frequently with form than their intermediate counterparts. This applies to both principal formal categories of LRE, lexical and grammatical, especially the former. The figures in brackets represent the percentage of the total LREs in the study. The LREs per task are calculated on the basis of 10 triads doing 3 tasks (30 tasks) in the Table 8.6  Comparison of the number of LREs by category in the two studies LRE category L G LG D Total LREs

Total no. LREs in initial study

LREs/DG task in initial study

Total no. LREs in main study

LREs/DG task in main study

131 (34.4%) 236 (61.9%) – 14 (3.7%) 381

131/30 = 4.37 236/30 = 7.87 – 14/30 = 0.47 381/30 = 12.70

233 (40.1%) 246 (42.3%) 52 (9.0%) 50 (8.6%) 581

233/20 = 11.65 246/20 = 12.30 52/20 = 2.60 50/20 = 2.50 581/20 = 29.10

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

181

initial study (data for one task was ignored because of faulty recordings) and 5 dyads doing 4 tasks (20) in the main study. The emergence of the lexico-grammatical (LG) category in the main study does, of course, mean that a little caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the results of the above comparisons. Nonetheless it is evident that the advanced students display a greater tendency to focus on lexis than their intermediate counterparts (40.1% vs 34.3%), who in turn are more inclined to engage with grammatical matters (61.9% vs 42.3%).

RQ1(ii): Metalanguage, intermediate versus advanced students Comparison of metalanguage use in LREs in the two studies is more difficult. In the initial study, only grammatical episodes had been coded for metalanguage (see Table 8.3); however, the co-coding process gave rise to a new set of metalanguage codes which apply to all four formal categories of LRE. The new codes EXA (giving an example) and EXP (explaining the meaning) were first applied solely to lexical LREs but their presence was later noticed, along with codes G (with grammatical terminology) and R (citing a rule), to varying extents in all the four main formal LRE categories listed in Table 8.6. Hence their potential application was widened to all four. This, of course, meant that comparison could not be carried out quite so systematically. The new codes are listed and explained in Table 8.7. The categories in Table 8.7 are not mutually exclusive. For example, LREs coded M+G (92 instances) contain linguistic terminology (G) but if they also involve the mention of or allusion to a rule, they are coded M+G+R (44 instances). When Tables 8.3 and 8.7 are compared, it is evident a higher proportion of the LREs of the advanced students in the main study contains metalanguage than of the intermediate students in the initial study. If we can assume rough proportionality of metalanguage use across the formal LRE categories, then since 75.2% of the LREs in the main study (437 out of 581) contain metalanguage (Table 8.7), then at least 75.2% of the grammatical LREs are also likely to do so. I write ‘at least’ with some confidence because two common metalanguage codes, G and R, are more likely to appear in grammatical episodes than in other categories. We saw in Table 8.3 that only Table 8.7  Metalanguage codes in all LREs in the main study Total number of LREs Total number of LREs with metalanguage, i.e. the code includes (+M) LREs with M alone LREs with linguistic terminology (M+G) LREs with reference to a rule (M+R) LREs with both G and R (M+G+R) LREs with explanation of meaning of a lexical item (M+EXP) LREs which give examples to explain a lexical item (M+EXA) LREs with both EXP and EXA (M+EXP+EXA)

581 437 (75.2% of total) 256 (58.6% of 437) 92 (21.1% of 437) 63 (14.4% of 437) 44 (10.1% of 437) 66 (15.1% of 437) 17 (3.9% of 437) 11 (2.5% of 437)

182

The Metalinguistic Dimension

27.1% of grammatical LREs in the initial study contained metalanguage (coded +M), whereas in the main study only 24.8% of episodes are devoid of metalanguage. Since the criteria for coding LREs as +M remained the same, it demonstrates that the advanced learners were almost three times as likely as the intermediate learners to ‘metatalk’ when performing the series of four COTs, and provides strong support for the view that the advanced learners employ metalanguage in their negotiations of form far more often than intermediate level learners. As far as the main study alone is concerned, Table 8.7 shows that of the 437 LREs with metalanguage generated by the five dyads, metalinguistic terms (+G) occur in only 92 (21.1%) of the 437, reference or allusion to rules (+R) in only 14.4%, and both together (G+R) in 10.1%. This demonstrates again that some LREs include language output only, without any meta-comment about that output, although the proportion of such episodes is much lower than in the initial study with intermediate students. The new codes EXP and EXA, which appear mainly in lexical and lexico-grammatical LREs, occur respectively in 15.1% and 3.9% of the 437 LREs with metalanguage. There are eleven occurrences of these two codes EXP+EXA occurring in the same LRE, six of them in the interactions of one specific dyad. Although only 24.8% of episodes are devoid of metalanguage, a salient observation is that 256 (58.6%) of the 437 LREs with metalanguage contain no linguistic terminology, no grammar rules or explanations of the meanings of items. Altogether then, 400 out of the 581 LREs occurring in the main study contain none of these three features. This high proportion (68.9%) is perhaps surprising given the emphasis placed on the metalinguistic function of output in other studies, e.g. Swain (1998). However, other researchers’ conceptions of the nature of metalanguage are often not made clear, and the terminology they use regarding metalinguistic knowledge varies and is different from mine.

RQ2(i): Focus-on-form in the main study The formal categories of LRE were exhibited by the five dyads in different proportions. As Table 8.8 shows, of the total number of LREs engaged in by all five pairs (581), there are roughly equal proportions of lexico-grammatical and discourse LREs (9.0% and 8.6% respectively), and of lexical and grammatical LREs (40.1% and 42.3%). Over four fifths of the episodes are in the two most frequent categories, lexical and grammatical. The average overall number of LREs per dyad is 116.2 and the average overall number of LREs per DG task is 29.1. When we study the similarities and differences between the five dyads, we find that the amount of engagement shown by all the dyads in lexico-grammatical and discourse LREs is similar except for I&Ar’s relatively high proportion (14.2%) of lexico-grammatical episodes. Four of the dyads focused on grammatical issues a little more often than on lexical ones. This difference was never greater than R&T’s 10, which represents 8.7% of their total of 115 episodes. Be&M, on the other hand, displayed the opposite tendency by engaging in 67 lexical and only 48 grammatical LREs out of 141. The untypical behaviour of Be&M makes the difference between the overall numbers of lexical and grammatical episodes mentioned above smaller than it

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

183

Table 8.8  Formal categories of LRE dyad by dyad Dyad

Lexical (L)

Grammatical (G)

R&T

43 (37.4%) []

53 (46.1%) []

N&C

48 (41.7%) []

54 (47.0%) []

A&B

34 (37.8%) []

43 (47.8%) []

Be&M 67 (47.5%) []

48 (34.0%) []

I&Ar

41 (34.2%) 48 (40.0%) [] [] Totals 233 (40.1%) 246 (42.3%) [] []

Lexico-grammatical Discourse (D) (LG) 9 (7.8%) [] 6 (5.2%) [] 7 (7.8%) [] 13 (9.2%) [] 17 (14.2%) [] 52 (9.0%) []

10 (8.7%) [] 7 (6.1%) [] 6 (6.7%) [] 13 (9.2%) [] 14 (11.7%) [] 50 (8.6%) []

Total 115 [] 115 [] 90 [] 141 [] 120 [] 581 [] = percentage of LREs in a specific category, which are recycled

would otherwise be. Indeed, if we exclude Be&M’s data, the other four pairs together engage in 166 lexical and 198 grammatical LREs, a difference which represents 7.3% rather than 2.2% of the total. Two cases are particularly interesting, Be&M and A&B. The formal categories they focus on are presented in Tables 8.9 and 8.10 respectively. The number of LREs per task did not vary much for any of the dyads apart from A&B (see Table 8.10), who engaged with considerably more forms in the last two tasks than in the first two, and N&C’s small number of LREs (21) in the first task compared with the other three. Be&M’s consistency was particularly striking. On the one hand, this general consistency in the amount of focus on form per task might be predicted on the grounds of the similar length of the DG texts. On the other hand, one might expect the number of LREs to increase as learners become more familiar with the task type and potentially more confident about following the task exhortation to try to employ alternative forms. However, only A&B focused on form, particularly lexis, more in the final 2 tasks (55 LREs) than in the first two (35). Nonetheless, Be&M’s behaviour did change in the last two tasks. Overall this dyad attempted to use alternative lexis on more occasions than the other 4 pairs, and over 60% of these occasions occurred during DG3 and DG4. Increasing familiarity with the task instructions and task type appears to have prompted Be&M towards a greater inclination to test hypotheses in their output through using alternative vocabulary. We noted earlier that two coding categories, recycled and unrecycled, are used to signify whether or not an LRE is resolved at the first attempt. Table 8.8 displays

The Metalinguistic Dimension

184

Table 8.9  Be&M – Formal categories of LRE by DG task Dictogloss 1 2 3 4 Total LREs

Lexical (L)

Grammatical Lexico-grammatical Discourse (D) (G) (LG)

20 14 12 16 17 11 18 7 67 (47.5%) 48 (34.0%)

2 5 4 2 13 (9.2%)

0 2 3 8 13 (9.2%)

Total 36 35 35 35 141 (100 %)

Table 8.10  A&B – Formal categories of LRE by DG task Dictogloss 1 2 3 4 Total LREs

Lexical (L)

Grammatical Lexico-grammatical Discourse (D) Total (G) (LG)

7 5 5 13 11 12 11 13 34 (37.8%) 43 (47.8%)

4 0 3 0 7 (7.8%)

1 0 4 1 6 (6.7%)

17 18 30 25 90 (100%)

Key: < > = recycled LREs ( ) = percentage of total LREs

a noticeable similarity among the dyads in the proportion of recycled LREs over the four tasks. For four of the dyads, between 35 and 40% are recycled, the exception being Be&M, who engage in the most episodes, of which only just over a quarter (26.2%) are recycled. So Be&M not only focus on more forms, but they make their selection of form more often at the first attempt than the other pairs.

RQ2(ii): Metalanguage in the main study Table 8.11 allows us to compare the dyads’ tendencies to employ metalanguage. Be&M employ metalanguage considerably more than the other dyads. Although they have the largest number of ‘M alone’ codes, they also employ grammatical terminology [G], explain the meaning of lexical items to each other [EXP] and supply contextualized examples of lexical items [EXA]8 more than the others. They are also, followed by R&T, the most inclined to make reference to rules (+R). We shall see later how Ria especially refers regularly to the prior teaching of grammar in the negotiation of form with Tanya. Generally, there is about the same amount of variation among the dyads in the employment of metalanguage as there is in the number of LREs in general. If we rank order the dyads for the number of LREs with metalanguage and for the number of LREs

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

185

Table 8.11  Metalanguage codes per dyad9 Dyad +M M+G M+R M+G+R M +EXP M+G+EXP M+ EXA Other Total R&T 46 N&C 51 A&B 33 Be&M 66 I&Ar 60 Total 256

6 9 6 12 7 40

0 0 2 7 3 12

10 4 5 17 6 42

7 7 6 12 11 43

0 3 0 0 0 3

0 2 0 0 0 2

7 2 9 15 6 39

76 (66.1%) 78 (67.8%) 61 (67.8%) 129 (91.5%) 93 (77.5%) 437 (75.2%)

engaged in (Table 8.8), the result is almost exactly the same. The overall proportion of LREs with metalanguage, about two thirds, is similar for the first three dyads in Table 8.11, but over nine tenths of Be&M’s LREs contain metalanguage, as are about three quarters of I&Ar’s. Interestingly, Bernard (Be) and Armando (Ar) had the two lowest pre-test proficiency scores of the ten participants, so this measure of general language proficiency would appear not to be an indicator of likelihood to employ metalanguage. Scrutiny of the process data revealed a slightly greater tendency for the more proficient partner in each dyad (except R&T, see later) to employ metalanguage than the less proficient peer.

RQ3: Qualitative comments: Metalanguage use in collaborative dialogue It is difficult to select particular instances from the many fascinating examples of metalanguage use in the process data; that is, DG task transcriptions. Space constraints dictate that I focus on just a few of what I consider to be key metalanguage-related process data features, which I shall illustrate mainly, though not exclusively, by means of extracts from the LREs of one dyad, Ria and Tanya (R&T). This dyad is especially interesting because of the contrasting manner in which the two participants tap into their respective knowledge sources. Ria consistently draws upon her explicit knowledge of English grammar and in so doing often displays quite sophisticated metalingual knowledge.10 or ‘knowledge of metalanguage’ (Berry, 2005, p. 12) through her frequent recourse to the use of grammatical terminology. Her use of grammatical terms is often fundamental to this dyad’s decision-making processes, and is indicative of her reliance on declarative knowledge. She appears to be an analytic, or field independent,11 learner (Skehan, 1998), and trusts her explicit knowledge of language rules to help in the production of accurate output more than she does her linguistic intuitions, or implicit knowledge. In contrast, the pair’s negotiations of form reveal Tanya’s learning style probably to be further towards the other end of the analytic–holistic (field independent-dependent) spectrum. Despite scoring slightly higher in the discrete item pre-test of grammar, and generally being perceived by her teachers as the slightly more fluent and accurate English user, Tanya employs the formal terms of linguistic description much less often and relies on her intuitions more. Tanya’s slightly higher linguistic competence, mainly in the form of implicit knowledge, contrasts with Ria’s greater explicit and metalingual knowledge.

The Metalinguistic Dimension

186

Evidence of this difference in styles is visible in Extract 8.1, part of an elaborate lexico-grammatical LRE. Tanya (T146) responds to Ria’s initial ‘nausea’ by supplying the alternative ‘nauseated’. Ria challenges this on grounds of word class (T147), her use of ‘past participle’ being the first of several instances of her using grammatical terminology, for example, see also ‘adjective’ and ‘noun’ (T151). However, Tanya’s use of ‘feverish’ (T154) is an attempt to recast Ria’s tentative ‘feveried’ (T153). Ria’s knowledge of the metalinguistic terms for word classes plays a crucial role in her rejection of Tanya’s suggestions and in the eventual adoption of a correct outcome ‘get nausea’ in T168 (not shown here). Tanya would also appear to understand the terms; otherwise she might not supply ‘feverish’. Ria supplies the outcomes of over two thirds of the controversial LREs like Extract 8.1. This tendency of Tanya to defer to Ria may be connected with a respect for the latter’s greater explicit knowledge. Tanya appears impressed by Ria’s command of metalinguistic terminology and knowledge of grammar rules, and may not realize that Ria’s reliance on rules to support decision-making may be misplaced; sometimes the rules are inaccurate or the form under focus is not a rule-governed item. The next few LRE extracts demonstrate Ria’s reliance on explicit knowledge in LREs with both correct and incorrect outcomes. These examples also illustrate how R&T attend to grammatical features which both have and have not been the subject of pre-task instruction. In the process data for all five dyads, less than a fifth of all grammatical LREs are based on pre-taught grammatical features, i.e. syllabus-driven. In other words, the dyads are, overall, at least four times more likely to focus on items which have not been the subject of pro-active focus-on-form but which crop up unplanned as the learners co-construct their texts. However, R&T attend to seeded, pre-taught grammatical forms far more than the other dyads; 28.3% of their grammatical LREs focus on seeded Extract 8.1  (from R&T, DG1, LG1, word class+collocation, M+G) 145 146 147

R T R

148

T

149 150 151 152 153

R T R T R

154 155 156 157 158

T R T R T

em and feel and feel nausea and feel feel naus- em nauseate feel nauseated (no) it’s not a verb . . . to nauseate . . . it’s not so if you say em nauseated you mean the past participle of the verb to nausea and I think it’s a noun so you can’t . . . so I’m I’m because I’m speaking general they feel nauseated . . . excuse me? (to teacher) can we say people feel nauseated? (Teacher – that’s for you to decide. I’ll tell you later) you can’t I think because when you say I feel . . . it’s not like it’s not an adjective I feel sick [I feel nauseated] [I feel ill] it’s not an adjective it’s a noun . . . the nausea . . . it’s not it’s a medical noun yeah I know nausea and Nauseated . . . it’s like you say it’s like em it’s like you are saying the noun em fever em I feel feveried or fever feverish I feel feverish you can say feverish? Yeah oh I didn’t know . . . don’t know (laughter) and feel . . . nausea . . . okay let’s ( )

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

187

forms. Since the DG texts to be reconstructed contain many other grammatical features besides the targeted ones, this would indicate a predilection on the part of R&T for focusing on these forms, and a possible keen joint awareness of the ‘syllabus agenda’. The influence of a pre-taught grammatical feature is evident in Extract 8.2. The seeded, grammatical feature in DG3 is ‘if ’ sentences and the tense in the dependent clause is the focus of this episode. Between T271 and T278 R&T gradually work their way towards the selection of an appropriate tense by articulating different possibilities without overt metalinguistic reflection (see Gutiérrez, 2008). In T279, Ria alludes to a rule from the previous lesson about ‘if ’ sentences, and also compares it with the tense in the ‘if ’ clause of the previous sentence in their product text, pointing out the desirability (‘it’s the same thing’, T281) of using the past tense again. In the stimulated recall, Ria commented ‘you have to use the past because they did not yet went there . . . we can’t say “they had been prevented” because they didn’t go yet . . . it would mean that they went’. This suggests a more sophisticated understanding of the reason – a rule for the so-called second conditional – for the correct choice of form, and makes explicit what can only be inferred from T279. This LRE would probably not have occurred without the pre-teaching and seeding of this targeted form; the influence of prior instruction enabled Ria to take on the expert role in the scaffolding of the correct outcome ‘knew’. The employment of metalinguistic terminology in LREs can play both a positive and a negative role in the co-construction of knowledge. We have seen it used to positive effect in Extracts 8.1 and 8.2. In Extract 8.3, even though it may not be essential in establishing a correct outcome, it certainly aided the process. Even though Ria uses ‘future clause’ instead of ‘main clause’ she makes it clear in T255 that the clauses in the ‘if ’ sentence being constructed are interchangeable. The essence of Bernard and Mei’s negotiations of form in Extract 8.4, from a lexico-grammatical LRE, is about whether to use the collocation ‘how + adjective’ or

Extract 8.2  (R&T, DG3, G11, tense in ‘if ’ clause, M+G+R) 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279

R T R T R T R T R

280 281

T R

282

T

they if they mm if they warned . . . to warn somebody . . . they warned yeah yeah if they been warned Warned if they had have been had been if they’d . . . they had Have have been warned no it’s the present so they can’t . . . they may avoid embarrassing situations if they we have to use the past if they . . . are no if they were Informed no . . . the same thing if they knew whether to tip or not . . . okay if they knew that . . . they may avoid embarrassing situations if they knew whether to tip or not

The Metalinguistic Dimension

188

Extract 8.3  (R&T, DG3, G10, syntax-clause order, M+G+R) 255

R

256 257 258 259 260 261 262

T R T R T R T

ah! why not do start with the future clause . . . no I mean erm the same thing the same no . . . and they may avoid embarrassing situations if they knew whether to I mean we start with the second half of the sentence . . . you want to start with what? yes I wanted to change the order of the sentence yeah like? erm they may avoid embarrassing situations if they knew yeah yeah [yeah] [whether] or not it (fits) because you know all these uhu

Extract 8.4  (from Be&M, LG5, word class ‘adj./noun’ + lexical ‘think/consider’, M+G) 417.

M

418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434.

Be M Be M Be M Be M Be M Be M Be M Be M Be

no how thoughtful . . . by mother by the mother so with the showing that she is thoughtful Mmuhu before we write but I I think with showing how thoughtful how thought how thoughtful or showing a sort of thoughtful . . . a kind of showing (good or) oh I put (a) . . . er yes okay it’s an adjective and it’s a noun I don’t know it’s the same thoughtful I think noun (long pause) okay? ah thought . . . thought is noun . . . no it’s not a noun (okay) (. .). . .(long pause) . . . so . . . you think that thought . . . ah okay her consideration and that Consideration okay . . . consideration . . . okay

‘show + noun’, and, if the latter, whether the noun should be ‘thought’ or ‘consideration’. The use of metalinguistic terms for word class by both Bernard and Mei in T424-T428 plays a positive role in the eventual scaffolding of a correct outcome, ‘show consideration’. Extract 8.5, in contrast, exemplifies how accurate explicit knowledge can play a role in negotiating an incorrect outcome. After equivocation on the part of both learners in T111–18, Ria refers to previous work on the different verb forms which can express future time, carried out in the same grammar course in an earlier lesson, but not as part of the research study. This work

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

189

Extract 8.5  (from R&T, DG3, , Tense, M+G+R) 111

R

112 113

T R

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121

T R T R T R T R

(they take the) or whether to tip or not . . . if they knew what kind of weather they’ll exp- . . . they they will expect or they expect? what kind of weather they expect no will I think if they knew what kind of weather they expect . . . they’ll expect there . . . [what do you think?] [I’m not sure] if they knew what kind of weather they . . . will expect they will [(expect)] they (aren’t there) they would have he said that Alan said that we can use the present for future ac[tions] [act]ion . . . yeah yeah yeah so they expect what kind of weather they expect they would take the suitable clothes or if . . . or if to tip . . . whether to tip or not so that they [avoid]

Extract 8.6  (from R&T, DG2, G, Tense) 646 647 648 649 650 651

R T R T R T

if they (coughs) if they had if they followed or if they had followed? if they had followed Had because it takes a long time . . . they had followed Yeah

focused on a range of verb forms, one of which was the use of the present simple to describe future scheduled events. Ria’s comment (T119), ‘. . . Alan said that we can use the present for future ac[tions]’, refers to that lesson, and she applies the form-meaning generalization inaccurately both semantically (weather can never be scheduled) and formally (a finite verb is not required). Nevertheless, her suggestion is adopted and an incorrect LRE outcome results. So here we have a sound generalization applied in the wrong context to produce an incorrect outcome. The reverse may also occur. Correct outcomes may be negotiated despite employing incorrect knowledge about language. Several examples of this phenomenon exist in the overall data set, one of which is Extract 8.6, the concluding part of a long, four-stage LRE about the targeted form in DG2, the past perfect. Even though Tanya accedes (T649 & T651) to Ria’s correct preference for ‘had followed’, Ria’s grammatical knowledge, which appears to be the key knowledge source underpinning the outcome, is inaccurate. It is certainly not because of the length of time an action takes (T650) that the past perfect is a correct outcome. The six process data extracts demonstrate the role that metalingual knowledge and explicit knowledge of grammatical rules may play in the negotiation of LRE outcomes and the co-construction of knowledge about language. The rules the learners employ

190

The Metalinguistic Dimension

or allude to may or may not be based on pre-task classroom focus on the grammatical forms seeded in the Dictogloss texts; the dyads varied considerably in the degree to which they attended to these forms. Occasionally, as in Extract 8.5, a perfectly sound linguistic ‘fact’ may be misapplied in the scaffolding of an incorrect outcome. On other occasions, the correct outcome may arise for the ‘wrong reasons’, as in Extract 8.6.12

Concluding remarks This multiple case study included the investigation of a large number of features of the learners’ on-task interactions and the texts and knowledge about language that they co-constructed. Metalanguage was just one of many features investigated, but one of especial interest because of the role of metalinguistic reflection in the third function of output in the OH (Swain, 1998). The study gave rise to amended taxonomies for the formal classification of LREs in general and for LREs with metalanguage in particular. These taxonomies are potentially applicable in future COT studies and, if applied, may help researchers in the field move towards the adoption of a common framework rather than continue to use diverse frameworks, some of which were summarized in Table 8.1. There are several other ways in which the study may contribute to our knowledge about students’ use of metalanguage during COTs. First, there is strong evidence that advanced learners not only attend to form more often than their intermediate counterparts while engaged in a similar series of tasks, but also that they employ metalanguage far more often when jointly reflecting about their output. Despite this, a high proportion of the episodes with metalanguage contain no metalinguistic terminology or reference to grammar rules. Second, the dyads differ considerably in the extent to which they employ metalanguage in general, and, more specifically, use metalinguistic terminology, refer to grammar rules and explain and exemplify the meanings of vocabulary items. Finally, qualitative analysis of LRE interactions yielded much information about how differently the dyads employ metalanguage and the varying degrees to which they are influenced by knowledge of grammar rules, whether recently attended to or encountered long ago. The LRE extracts in this chapter exemplify the often crucial roles of metalinguistic terminology and grammatical generalizations in scaffolding LRE outcomes. This suggests that metalingual knowledge can play a significant role in L2 development (e.g. Hu, 2010) and that learner metalanguage awareness training (Berry, 2009) may be worthwhile. As some of the extracts show, however, the relationship between accurate generalizations and correct LRE outcomes is not always as straightforward as we might expect.

Notes 1 One exception is Swain and Lapkin’s (1995) study. Individual students articulated their thoughts while writing an essay. Transcriptions of their utterances (think-aloud protocols) contained evidence of the learning processes described in the OH.

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

191

  2 Long (1991) differentiates focus-on-form from focus-on-formS. His use of the upper case ‘S’ emphasizes that it is an approach which involves focus on individual forms, often introduced in a sequence prescribed in a syllabus of language items.   3 In other studies of similar collaborative tasks, different approaches to coding exist. For example, Swain (1998) excludes self-corrections while Swain and Lapkin (2001) include them.   4 From now on the terms metatalk and metalanguage are used interchangeably.   5 However, Eckerth (2008) widens the scope of the term C-R to include COTs, Dictogloss and text editing.   6 In a controversial LRE (Eckerth, 2008) the members of a dyad negotiate an outcome after each having initially proffered different language forms. In uncontroversial episodes only one learner proffers a form or forms, but the other is involved in deciding whether or not to adopt the form(s).   7 The interaction data was coded for orthographic and punctuation LREs but these have been excluded from analysis in this chapter. Most of these LREs involve one learner, for example, reciting out loud how to spell a word, and involve little or no negotiation of form.   8 Although not visible in Table 8.11, there are eight instances of the [EXA] code in Be&M’s interactions. They number among the 15 entries in the penultimate column under ‘Other’, and are instantiated by such code combinations as [M+EXP+EXA] and [M+G+R+EXA].   9 In contrast with Table 8.7, M+G refers to LREs which contain linguistic terminology, but none of the other examined features, e.g. R and EXA. 10 There is mixed evidence as to whether or not there is a strong relationship between knowledge of metalanguage and L2 competence. Alderson et al. (1997) suggest that there is not whereas Berry (2009) found a strong correlation between the two, though not necessarily a causal relationship, with English first-year majors in Hong Kong. 11 Field dependent learners tend to be ‘less analytic, to perceive situations as wholes’ whereas field independent learners are more analytic and have a greater capacity to ‘notice important aspects of language’ (Skehan, 1998, p. 238). 12 86.1% of LRE outcomes overall were rated correct.

References Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. and Steel, D. (1997), ‘Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency’. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. and Ellis, R. (2002), ‘Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom’. Language Awareness, 11, (1), 1–13. Batstone, R. (1994), Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berry, R. (2005), ‘Making the most of metalanguage’. Language Awareness, 14, (2), 21–38. — (2009), ‘EFL major’s knowledge of metalinguistic terminology: A comparative study’. Language Awareness, 18, (2), 113–28. Bygate, M. (1996), ‘Effects of task repetition: Appraising the development of second language learners’, in J. Willis and D. Willis (eds), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann, pp. 136–48. — (2001), ‘Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language’, in M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 23–48.

192

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Camps, A., Guasch, O., Milian, M. and Ribas, T. (2000), ‘Metalinguistic activity: The link between writing and learning to write’, in A. Camps and M. Milian (eds), Metalinguistic Activity in Learning to Write. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 103–24. Doughty, C. (2001), ‘Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form’, in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–57. Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds) (1998), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2007), Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duff, P. A. (2008), Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eckerth, J. (2008), ‘Investigating consciousness-raising tasks: Pedagogically targeted and non-targeted learning gains’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, (2), 119–45. — (2009), ‘Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom’. Language Teaching, 42, (1), 109–30. Ellis, R. (2003), Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, R. and Loewen, S. (2002), ‘Doing focus-on-form’. System, 30, 419–32. Fortune, A. and Thorp, D. (2001), ‘Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks’. Language Awareness, 10, (2 and 3), 143–60. Gutiérrez, X. (2008), ‘What does metalinguistic activity in learners’ interaction during a collaborative L2 writing task look like?’ Modern Language Journal, 92, (4), 519–37. — (2011), ‘Knowledge representations underlying covert metalinguistic activity: A working hypothesis’. Language Awareness, 20, (3), 239–54. Hu, G. (2010), ‘Revisiting the role of metanguage in L2 teaching and learning’. English Australia, 26, (1), 61–70. Hwang, J.-H. (2009), Collaborative Output Tasks, and their Effects on Noticing, Student– Student Interaction, and Second Language Learning, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of London Institute of Education. Izumi, S. (2003), ‘Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis’. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–96. Kowal, M. and Swain, M. (1994), ‘Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness’. Language Awareness, 3, (2), 73–93. Leeser, M. J. (2004), ‘Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue’. Language Teaching Research, 8, (1), 55–81. Long, M. (1991), ‘Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology’, in K. De Bot, R. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (eds), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–52. Rutherford, W. (1987), Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. Harlow: Longman. Skehan, P. (1998), A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stake, R. E. (2005), ‘Qualitative case studies’, in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edn). London: Sage, pp. 443–66. Storch, N. (1997), ‘The editing talk of adult ESL learner’. Language Awareness, 6, (4), 221–32.

Metalanguage in Collaborative Output Tasks

193

— (1998), ‘Comparing second language learners’ attention to form across tasks’. Language Awareness, 7, (4), 176–91. — (2002), ‘Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work’. Language Learning, 52, (1), 119–58. — (2007), ‘Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes’. Language Teaching Research, 11, (2), 143–59. Swain, M. (1985), ‘Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development’, in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House, pp. 235–53. — (1995), ‘Three functions of output in second language learning’, in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds), Principles and Practice in the Study of Language: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 125–44. — (1998), ‘Focus on form through conscious reflection’, in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–81. — (2000), ‘The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue’, in J. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–114. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995), ‘Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning’. Applied Linguistics, 16, (2), 371–91. — (2001), ‘Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects’, in M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 99–118. Wajnryb, R. (1990), Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watanabe, Y. and Swain, M. (2007), ‘Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners’. Language Teaching Research, 11, (2), 121–42. — (2008), ‘Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners’. Language Awareness, 17, (2), 115–30.

9

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance through Dynamic Assessment: Focusing on the Metalinguistic Dimension Gabriela Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez University of Essex

Cristina Nogués Meléndez

Universitat Politècnica de València

Abstract This chapter reports on a case study which investigated the potential of Dynamic Assessment (DA) as a pedagogical approach aiming to improve oral performance in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context. At the core of the pedagogical procedure was the enhancement of metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness. The study involved undergraduates (N = 30) at a lower intermediate level of proficiency studying English for academic and professional purposes at Universitat Politècnica de València. Drawing on Sociocultural theory constructs, a nine-week pedagogical treatment based on DA principles was designed and implemented to pursue the following aims: (a) to assess its value in relation to the participants’ oral performance; and (b) to investigate the participants’ thoughts and perceptions regarding various aspects of DA. In this chapter we focus on the metalinguistic dimension of the pedagogical treatment. The results suggest that there was overall improvement in the participants’ oral performance although there were differences across measures. The statistical analyses are discussed in the light of DA as an approach to L2 development. The chapter provides an analysis of the metalinguistic dimension which was an integral aspect of the DA procedure; the participants focused on a wide range of morphosyntactic, lexical and discourse features reflecting the students’ emerging language capacities. Finally, the rich data gathered through a variety of instruments, i.e., tests, transcripts of videotaped oral performance, interviews and questionnaires, allowed us to gain valuable insights into the participants’ thoughts and perceptions regarding DA. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of the feasibility of implementing group DA in an L2 context and some pedagogical implications of our findings.

The Metalinguistic Dimension

196

Introduction Within Sociocultural theory (SCT) studying and facilitating second language (L2) development are part of the same interrelated activity. This stance towards language learning, language teaching and research constitutes the essence of what Vygotsky conceptualized as praxis: ‘the dialectical [bidirectional] unit of theory and practical activity as an instrument of change’ (Lantolf and Beckett, 2009, p. 459). In this context, Dynamic Assessment (henceforth DA) represents a pedagogical approach which aims at actively mediating development while assessing learners and responding to their individual and/or collective needs. DA is an emerging area in the field of L2 learning and teaching, hence published research is still scarce. The study presented in this chapter is part of a wider empirical investigation; for reasons of space and thematic interest we focus here on DA and its metalinguistic component which was a pivotal aspect of our implementation of this pedagogical approach. The chapter provides a detailed analytical account of how DA was carried out in this study as well as an analysis of its contribution towards the participants’ oral development through both quantitative and qualitative measures. The participants’ views on DA are also investigated.

Theoretical background: Dynamic Assessment and metalinguistic awareness Dynamic Assessment Dynamic Assessment refers to a pedagogical application based on the Vygotskian construct known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD). For Vygotsky (1978), an accurate assessment of ability requires considering both actual and potential development. Self-regulation, or what the individual can do independently, represents the essence of actual development while potential development is what is beyond the independent capabilities of the individual as evident during mediated performance. Vygotsky argued (1978, p. 86) that effective instruction should simultaneously identify and target the ZPD; that is, the distance between what the individual can do independently and what he/she can do with assistance. More specifically, DA, where instruction and assessment are seen as two complementary aspects of the same educational activity, aims at fully capitalizing on the ZPD by using the construct as Vygotsky intended: to promote change by helping practitioners to diagnose and understand poor performance in order to tackle those aspects within the learners’ reach (Lantolf and Poehner, 2011, pp. 12–13). It is this sensitivity to the learners’ ZPD which distinguishes DA from other types of formative assessment where learning objectives are pre-established and fixed. In DA the active role of the learner and his/ her responsiveness to mediation represent the force for redirecting and reorienting pedagogical activity. DA is therefore mediated activity where learner and expert work together to ascertain the learner’s needs and where both the amount and quality of assistance required by the learner are considered as part of assessment (see Aljaafreh and Lantolf, 1994; del Río and Álvarez, 2007; Lund, 2008).

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

197

Lantolf and Thorne (2006, pp. 327–56) describe two broad approaches to DA: interventionist and interactionist. Interventionist DA favours standardized mediation where pre-established hints and prompts are given to the learners in response to the level of success demonstrated in a particular task. This help ranges from implicit to explicit, but because the specific clues and hints have been predetermined by the teacher/assessor, it might not necessarily respond to a particular learner’s source of difficulty. By contrast, interactionist DA tends to be a more contingent, negotiated process where mediation is more sensitive to a particular learner’s problem and his/her response to that mediation; interactionist DA is, therefore, open-ended and flexible and relies on a dialogic cycle where constant adjustments are made in relation to the learner’s responsiveness to mediation (Lantolf, 2009, p. 360). Following these two broad conceptualizations of DA, practitioners have begun to design and develop their own specific models of implementation to suit their learners’ needs and particular contexts. As Poehner explains, DA can be conceptualized as a whole programme of assessment-instruction to be implemented throughout an academic cycle where a non-dynamic assessment pre-test is used as the basis for tailormade assistance and dynamic assessment tasks and where the learner eventually takes a non-dynamic assessment post-test as a means to establish the effectiveness of the pedagogical treatment. Alternatively, DA can be implemented as a series of ‘procedures in which mediation is offered during the administration of the assessment, usually whenever problems arise’ (Poehner, 2008, p. 19). Although the theoretical basis and procedures of DA have been substantially developed in the fields of cognitive psychology and general education (see for example Feuerstein et al., 1987; Lidz, 1991; Lidz and Elliott, 2007; Tzuriel, 2000), DA is a relatively new area of research and interest in L2 learning, hence published research is limited. Some notable examples include Poehner (2008) who carried out a study on L2 French morphology regarding the use of perfective and imperfective aspect by six advanced L2 French university students. The research procedure and DA implementation consisted of four stages: 1. pre-tests, dynamic and non-dynamic; 2. intervention, on a one-to-one tutoring basis for eight weeks; 3. post-tests, dynamic and non-dynamic; and 4. two transfer sessions. Transfer of mediated performance to similar tasks to those where DA is implemented is regarded as an important element of this pedagogical procedure (see Lantolf and Poehner, 2004, 2011; Poehner, 2007, 2008, 2009). His analysis demonstrated improvement in the participants’ ability to use the target forms and, importantly, their decreased reliance on assistance. Following a similar research design, Ableeva (2008) carried out a pilot study to investigate the potential contribution of DA to listening comprehension of six L2 French undergraduate students who engaged in DA for a week (six sessions in total). Despite the fact that the pre-test results suggested all the participants shared a similar listening comprehension level, DA enabled the researcher to unravel individual differences regarding the specific sources of difficulty of her participants as well as differences in the type and amount of mediation needed by each of them. In other words, their ZPDs were different and therefore the various participants were offered contingent, individualized assistance, tailored to their individual potential developmental levels.

198

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Other work has presented case studies aiming at the training of EFL teachers in the use of DA (Erben et al., 2008; Lund, 2008) as well as studies where metacognition is considered a core component of L2 development. For example, Schneider and Ganschow (2000) propose a series of strategies to enhance metalinguistic awareness as part of DA to support dyslexic L2 learners and Kozulin and Garb (2002) successfully demonstrate the value of DA both as an intervention and a planning tool for the provision of individualized tutoring to enhance reading comprehension in an EFL context. They also emphasize the importance of strategy training for teaching students ‘how to learn’ (p. 123). Finally, some work is beginning to appear on implementation of group DA in the L2 context; for instance, Lantolf and Poehner (2011) report on the efforts of a Spanish teacher in a US elementary school classroom whose main interest was to develop a model for carrying out group DA (see also Poehner, 2009). To this end, a ‘mediation inventory’ ranging from implicit to increasingly more explicit interventions was designed to systematically document and track the students’ progress. The project provides some evidence of students gaining self-regulation as a result of the pedagogical treatment. To summarize, DA refers to an instructional approach which considers assessment and instruction as two inextricably linked aspects of the same pedagogical event. Based on Swain, Kinnear, and Steinman (2011) and Poehner (2008), we hereby highlight the principles of Dynamic Assessment in the L2 learning context as follows: ll ll

ll ll

ll

ll

The focus of DA is on process rather than product. The expert (teacher/examiner) knows the goals of a given activity and acts as the guide of the novice so that he/she can achieve those goals. Support in DA is offered along an implicit to explicit continuum. Quality and quantity of mediation are provided in accordance with the learner’s responsiveness to assistance. The expert’s job is to push the learner and help him/her gain confidence to achieve his/her goals; in other words, the learner is scaffolded into making use of metacognition, i.e., ‘the ability to consciously monitor one’s own cognitive strategies in order to be able to orchestrate them more effectively in pursuit of a given objective’ (Roberts, 2011, p. 17). Ability is ultimately determined by considering performance, quality and amount of mediation needed as a holistic unit throughout assessment procedures.

The metalinguistic dimension in L2 DA Enhancing metalinguistic awareness (henceforth MLA) was an integral aspect of the DA cycle detailed below. This cycle involved the creation of opportunities for learners to focus on language in general and on the specific linguistic demands required for the tasks they were expected to perform as part of their course requirements in particular. Metalinguistic awareness is understood here as ‘the ability to focus attention on language as an object in itself or to think abstractly about language and, consequently, to play with or manipulate language’ (Jessner, 2006, p. 42). MLA can manifest itself at a basic level, as in noticing, or at increasing levels of linguistic understanding,

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

199

ranging from comparisons and hypothesis-testing to analysis (Schmidt, 2001; see also Ellis, 2006, 2009; Roberts, 2011). In the wake of the Output Hypothesis, which suggests that producing language may stimulate learners to move from semantic to syntactic processing (Swain, 1995), the potential benefits of MLA have been discussed in relation to output-based pedagogic tasks. According to Swain (1995), noticing, hypothesis-testing and metalinguistic reflection, play an important role in the language learning process. Reflecting on language is believed to enable learners to gain a deeper understanding of the L2 (Swain and Lapkin, 1995, 2001). Fostering both metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness; that is, helping learners become aware of task-related linguistic and cognitive demands, was then at the heart of our project, ‘not simply to help learners to master a specific task but to help them to develop a principled understanding of the object of study that will enable them to transfer from the given activity to other activities’ (Poehner and Lantolf, 2005, p. 257). Scaffolded reflection on language represented the basis of the DA cycle described below, a cycle which also represents our attempt to build upon the empirical studies informed by DA published to date. The available studies are scarce and primarily small-scale, short-term investigations; furthermore, and understandably given the practical demands of this pedagogical procedure, DA in the L2 context has mainly been implemented on a one-to-one basis (see Lantolf and Poehner, 2011 for an exception). By contrast, our study investigated the feasibility and potential of carrying out group DA during a whole, twelve-week, academic term.

The study Our study was primarily informed by an interactionist perspective to DA (see Theoretical background above). However, practitioners and researchers are still exploring how to best operationalize the theoretical principles behind the procedure on the one hand, and how to apply those principles in practice, on the other. What is essential about this pedagogical practice is to keep in mind that at its core lies ‘the intersection of the individual and the collective, mediated by cultural tools’ (Lund, 2008, p. 32). In order to examine the metalinguistic dimension as an intrinsic aspect of our implementation of group DA as well as to investigate the pedagogical value of the procedure and the students’ thoughts about it, it was necessary to draw on descriptive as well as objective measures. To this end, the following research questions were addressed: RQ1: How was MLA enhanced through DA? RQ2: What was the effect of the pedagogical treatment (DA) on the participants’ oral performance? RQ3: What did the participants think about the various aspects involved in DA as implemented in this study?

Context and participants The study involved an intact class of undergraduate students of English for academic and professional purposes (N=30) at lower intermediate level in the Universitat

200

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Politècnica de València (UPV), Spain. The participants in the study were School of Building Engineering students and had been learning English as a foreign language for ten years on average, in most cases in pedagogical contexts that emphasized grammar and vocabulary-building rather than communicative practice. In this class, students received 4.5 contact hours (1.5 hours 3 times a week) for 9 weeks. The teaching approach aimed to support communicative language development with a specific focus on tasks and topics related to the field of building engineering. The DA component described in this chapter represented approximately one-third of the total class time during the academic term.

DA implementation and data collection procedures Based on the general foundations of DA discussed in the Theoretical background section above, our implementation of DA observed the following principles: the purpose of mediation is to help students co-construct a ZPD; in the case of group DA the group’s ZPD is also taken into account; the focus of DA is on process rather than product; the role of the teacher is to guide students throughout the procedures in order to help them achieve their goals and gain confidence in their own capacities; support is offered along an implicit to explicit continuum, and quality and quantity of mediation are provided in accordance with the learners’ responsiveness to assistance. Ability is ultimately determined by considering performance, quality and amount of mediation needed throughout assessment procedures. The pedagogical treatment schematized in Figure 9.1 was provided during the winter academic term of 2010. The pedagogical procedures were carried out in three modes of implementation; that is, whole group, small group and individually, depending on the nature of the task. For the first stage (ORAL PRE-TESTS), students worked in trios and took turns to each perform three meaning-oriented oral tasks involving two monologues, i.e., a narrative and a description based on visual prompts, and a dialogic task where the three students interacted together. All the sessions were VIDEO-RECORDED with the students’ consent; these recordings served a dual purpose: they were an intrinsic part of DA on the one hand and a source of data for our investigation on the other hand. Each participant’s contribution lasted an average of 4 minutes. The videotaped files were then used as the basis for subsequent work on the co-construction of individual and collective zones of proximal development focusing on metalinguistic (MLA) and metacognitive (MCA) awareness as outlined in what follows. Each student was asked to produce a verbatim TRANSCRIPT of their videotaped performance. Once the files had been transcribed, students were asked to identify and self-correct any language errors apparent in their transcriptions. At this stage, each student also completed a reflective questionnaire (1a) on their oral performance (see questions in Appendix A) based on the insights gained from having transcribed their videotaped files. The self-corrected transcripts and the completed questionnaires were then handed in to the teacher who proceeded to provide individual mediation and orientation to further enhance MLA and MCA by

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

Session 1 (videotaped) PRE-TESTS Oral tasks (narration, description, discussion)

201

Identifying ZPDs

MLA + MCA Mediation

MLA + MCA Mediation

Self-transcript of oral tasks Self-correction (editing)

Teacher-correction &

Reflective questionnaire 1a

Feedback

Targetting ZPDs collectively

Session 4

Session 3

MLA + MCA Mediation Wholeclass tutorial based on oral assessment criteria (CEFR)

Session 2

MLA Mediation

MLA + MCA Mediation

Dyadic error correction task based on students’ transcript samples

Wholeclass tutorial based on video tapes & transcripts

Targetting individual ZPDs Session 5 MLA + MCA Individualized orientation One-to-one teacher-student orientation

MLA + MCA Mediation Individual work based on teacher-mediated orientation

Reflective questionnaire (DA)

Session 6 (videotaped) PRE-TESTS Oral tasks (narration, description, discussion) Reflective questionnaire 1b

MLA + MCA Mediation Final teacher & students’ feedback on overall treatment

Figure 9.1  Dynamic Assessment cycle

adding corrections, feedback and comments to each of the student’s transcriptions and questionnaires. A subsequent series of sessions involving whole-class, dyadic and individual work was carefully designed by the teacher based on (a) her analysis of students’ videotaped oral performance; (b) her analysis of the students’ self-corrected TRANSCRIPTS and REFLECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRES; and (c) relevant documentation from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). As emphasized above, the overarching aim of the DA sessions was to facilitate the co-construction

202

The Metalinguistic Dimension

of ZPDs by providing theoretical and practical support based initially on individual, and subsequently collective, responsiveness to mediation. Taking samples from the students’ videotaped performance and transcripts, the teacher designed tutorials and tasks, for example, dyadic error correction, to guide students on aspects of grammar and communication including morphosyntactic, lexical, discourse features, pronunciation and pragmatic appropriacy. The students also became familiar with the notions of range, accuracy, fluency, interaction and coherence as outlined by the CEFR. Further individualized orientation was provided in sessions where problematic language features identified by both the teacher and the students in the transcripts and reflective questionnaires served as the basis for teacher–student negotiation of individual work plans. The materials for this practice stage were primarily Web-based; for example, a student who showed inconsistent use of past forms was directed to exercises that reinforced that area of grammar; a student feeling that he/she lacked discussion skills was guided to exercises that focused on skill development in that particular area and so forth. Having worked on the co-construction of individual and collective ZPDs throughout the various treatment sessions, the ORAL POST-TESTS took place. The topics which served as prompts for the tasks were similar, but not identical, to the ones used for the pre-tests; the format and procedures were the same as those of the oral pre-test tasks, i.e., students worked in trios and took turns to each perform three meaning-oriented oral tasks involving two monologues, a narrative and a description, and a dialogic task where they interacted. Each participant’s contribution was VIDEO-RECORDED and lasted an average of 4 minutes. A second REFLECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRE 1b (Appendix A) was completed by the students to gather information about their thoughts in relation to their oral performance. Verbatim TRANSCRIPTIONS of the recordings were produced by the teacher for the purposes of analysis and assessment of students’ oral performance. As a final step in the DA cycle, students received individual feedback from the teacher based on their oral post-test performance. To gather information about thoughts and feelings regarding the overall DA cycle as well as oral performance, students were asked to complete a REFLECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRE (DA) with items on a five-point Likert scale two weeks after the end of term (Appendix B). To summarize, data for analysis presented in this study were gathered from the following sources: documents describing our DA procedures and transcripts of oral pre- and post-tests (RQ1); oral pre- and post-tests, video-recorded (RQ2); DA reflective questionnaire1 (RQ3). Reflective questionnaires 1a and 1b were part of the overall DA cycle and also supported various aspects of data analysis and interpretation.

Data analysis procedures Quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out to address the three research questions. The first research question (RQ1) was addressed through an analytical account of key components of the DA cycle where MLA played an essential role. Metalinguistic awareness episodes brought into focus by the students themselves were considered a launching opportunity for the co-construction of ZPDs, therefore, all the students’ oral pre-test transcripts were analysed in terms of MLA episodes

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

203

operationalized as error noticing including self- (and other) repair. All MLA episodes were quantified and categorized based on their foci, i.e., morphology, syntax, lexis, discourse. Management and analysis of data were carried out in ATLAS.ti (v6.2). The following are representative coding examples of the four categories identified in the data: Morphosyntax: The families were more *bigs. I don’t *bought. Lexis: You can *make sports (meaning ‘play’ sports). Discourse: And you can go to Gulliver Park. (Student subsequently changed this to: Another important place is Gulliver Park.)

In order to ascertain the effect of the pedagogical treatment (DA) on the participants’ oral performance (RQ2) the oral pre- and post-tests were subjected to two independent stages of analysis. In the first instance, the tests were independently scored by two accredited raters based on CEFR oral assessment scales; the scales include five notions: range, accuracy, fluency, interaction and coherence.2 In the second instance the tests were analysed according to the CAF set of measures, i.e., complexity, accuracy and fluency (see Housen and Kuiken, 2009). A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was then carried out to establish whether students made any significant gains between pre-test and post-test in terms of CEFR-based and CAF-based scores. The third aspect of the present investigation (RQ3) focused on the participants’ thoughts and opinions regarding various aspects of DA in general and metalinguistic awareness in particular. Data to address this issue were gathered by means of a reflective questionnaire (DA) (see Appendix B) which was analysed quantitatively (Likert scale items) and qualitatively (open-ended questions).

Results and discussion RQ1: How was MLA enhanced through DA? The main purpose of this section is to provide an analytic account of how the co-construction of ZPDs, with specific reference to MLA, was actually mediated through the mechanisms and interactions outlined in Figure 9.1 above. The focus of this analysis is on the data and the activity which emerged as part of the various sessions aiming at identifying and targeting both individual and collective ZPDs through the DA cycle. Although for analysis purposes data, procedures and activity, i.e., what actually happened, are presented and discussed as separate components, it must be kept in mind that in DA all these are part of a unit. Identifying ZPDs The first step in the DA cycle was to set in motion the procedures, and generate the data, which would enable the co-creation of both individual and collective ZPDs. As mentioned in ‘The Study’ section above, the first instance of mediation took place between tutor and each individual student through reflective tools in the form

204

The Metalinguistic Dimension

of a self-transcription task and a questionnaire. The students’ transcripts of their oral pre-test were then analysed in terms of metalinguistic awareness (MLA) episodes (see ‘Data analysis procedures’). Table 9.1 provides an overview of the metalinguistic awareness episodes (MLEs) which formed the basis for the subsequent DA procedures. The main objective of this analysis, and classification, was twofold: (a) to gain a general overview of what we considered the students’ emerging opportunities for L2 development and which (b) therefore informed and guided the various procedures associated with the implementation of DA as conceived and carried out in this study. At the core of this position towards pedagogical research and practice lies the concept of praxis, defined as ‘the dialectical [bidirectional] unity of theory and practical activity as an instrument of change’ (Lantolf and Beckett, 2009, p. 459). As can be seen in Table 9.1, the four largest amounts of MLA episodes focused on ‘lexis’ (150), ‘tense/aspect marking’ (91), ‘subject drop’ (55) and ‘determiners’ (50). It is of particular interest to note the balance of repair (student vs teacher-initiated)

Table 9.1  Classification of metalinguistic awareness (MLA) episodes Students Total Teacher Total MORPHO-

Derivation Inflection SYNTAX Determiners Comp-sup Pronouns Noun form S-V agr Infinitive/ Gerund Tense/ aspect Word class Word missing, e.g., sub-drop Word redundant Word order Connectors Negation Complement Preposition LEXIS Single words Phrases DISCOURSE Discourse

5 7 31 6 11 8 20 8 73 4 21 11 13 16 6 14 8 75 22 17

12 (3%) 250 (66%)

97 (26%) 17 (4%) 376

2 2 19 8 4 6 16 9 18 5 34 9 3 4 4 12 4 36 17 0

4 (2 %)

T&S Total

7 9 155 50 (73%) 14 15 14 36 17 91 9 55 20 16 20 10 26 12 53 111 (25%) 39 0 17 212

16 (3%) 405 (69%)

150 (25%) 17 (3%) 588

Note: numbers represent raw frequencies with overall percentage amounts of learner – and teacher – generated repairs in parenthesis. The last two columns show the grand totals adding up all the episodes, i.e., regardless of who initiated them, identified in the data.

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

205

as an indication of specific areas to target in both individual and collective ZPDs for this cohort of students. Tense/aspect marking was the single most problematic morphosyntactic area for the learners in this study when producing speech. However, when given the opportunity to reflect on their performance as an object of study (see Swain, 2000), our participants were highly successful in identifying and repairing their errors (73 out of 91 episodes); the remaining 18 episodes were corrected by the teacher. Use of ‘determiners’ was the third most problematic area in morphosyntax; similar patterns of regulation as highlighted above were observed in this area. Learners were generally successful at self-correction and were able to take advantage of a minimal level of mediation. Lexis-related episodes accounted for 25% of all MLA episodes. Judging by the kind of creative strategies, e.g., approximation, circumlocution, which learners appeared to have deployed to avoid breakdown in communication, it is probable that some level of metalinguistic awareness was at play during oral performance as the following examples suggest: (a) They work of foot (Using the Spanish phrase de pie to convey ‘they work on their feet’). (b) People who work to sat (sentados to express ‘people who sit at work’). (c) I buy it all the days (todos los días instead of ‘I buy it every day’). In the majority of cases (97 out of 150) learners were able to self-correct their errors aided by the transcription task. For the remaining 53 episodes, however, the teacher had to correct the errors. Finally, a small number of episodes (17) related to ‘discourse’ and they were all modified by the students themselves based on their transcriptions (see Table 9.1). In general, MLA episodes at the level of discourse occurred when the learners attempted to improve the structure and organization of their output so that the communicative purpose for that particular context was achieved. In sum, the transcription task proved to be a particularly useful mechanism for enhancing metalinguistic awareness which, in turn, formed the basis for teacher and students’ work in the DA cycle. Once individual and collective emerging capacities were identified (see also Figure 9.1), the teacher’s role was to further enable the continuous diagnosis and understanding of poor performance and to respond to the students’ needs in an effort to target those emerging capacities as described below.

Individual dialogues Interactions between the teacher and individual students in class aimed at targeting the students’ developing metalinguistic and metacognitive abilities attending to their responsiveness to help by: tapping into their present abilities and behaviour; further mediating development through additional resources (e.g. online materials); and by facilitating access to a community of practice and knowledge (e.g. the language experts authoring pedagogical websites, dictionaries and online resources). The support

206

The Metalinguistic Dimension

provided was also intended to equip the students with cognitive and practical tools they would be able to use autonomously in the future (see Poehner, 2008, p. 105).

Collective dialogues (a) Mediation through reflective tools and collective practice Collective interactions during DA, i.e., between teacher and whole class and between students themselves, also served as a mediational mechanism for the teacher to provide contingent, adaptable assistance. The aim of these collective dialogues was to enhance MLA by helping learners create connections between their individual abilities, as reflected in their videotaped performance and self-transcripts, and the wider contexts of communication and assessment. The following are two examples of how these interactions emerged: (i) In order to begin the collective dialogue, the teacher drew attention to the aspects of speaking described in a document ‘Improving your speaking’, which was available on the class website. Those aspects included: communicative purpose, grammar, vocabulary, discourse, production, interaction and communication strategies and each served as a signpost to guide the discussion. Throughout the session the students were encouraged to ask questions and to make comments and suggestions on ways for improving their oral skills. The students felt comfortable speaking about how they had felt and what they did or what they wished they had done during their oral performance. However, responsiveness was low for some students. The teacher asked those students why they would not speak. One student said she knew how to explain things in Spanish, but not in English. Other responses emerged as the class watched and discussed some fragments of the videotaped tasks, which the teacher used to illustrate key points. Here the teacher struggled to get the students to assess the performance of their peers. Several students argued that they did not feel comfortable ‘judging’ their classmates. It was apparent that, added to the language problem, i.e., their selfexpression, these students were in need of training in expressing balanced views based on analytical reasoning, and in overcoming emotional and social hindrances to the expression of their thoughts and ideas. The teacher, then, focused on the concept of assessment. She elicited contexts in which the students would be scrutinized for their ability to use their spoken English effectively, e.g., oral presentations at university, job interviews, meetings at work, etc. The most immediate context for these students would be the English language assessment they would have to undergo at some point during their studies, as students at this university have to demonstrate a CEFR B2 level of English for the attainment of their university degree. This argument was used as a rationale for introducing the CEFR analytic criteria for oral ability, i.e., range, accuracy, fluency, interaction and coherence. The students were given these criteria and were then asked to discuss the various parameters in dyads. Finally, the class discussed their ideas collectively, comparing their explanations to the descriptors in the CEFR scale. This dialogue helped create awareness of relevant dimensions involved in speaking English in the L2 context.

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

207

(ii) Based on language errors from the students’ oral pre-test transcripts, the teacher created a worksheet which served as the basis for a dyadic error correction task. The dyads were given a handout listing sentences which included errors and were asked to both correct the sentences and classify them under various error categories such as pronouns and determiners, adverbs and adverbials, prepositions, verbs, word order, subject missing or redundant, comparatives and superlatives, choice of word or expression, among others. Whole class discussion followed to check answers and tackle questions. These examples demonstrate a collective endeavour and an attempt to make the group’s ZPD visible (Lund, 2008) by involving the tutor and students in ‘an interactive, reciprocal dialogue’ (Schneider and Ganschow, 2000, p. 80). One useful contribution of this approach was that the teacher and the whole group were able to examine together the experiences of individual students using the class itself as a case from which everyone could learn. Considering both the demands and constraints of having to adhere to a syllabus as well as time limitations, i.e., nine weeks, part of the teacher’s effort centred around creating opportunities for maximizing learners’ exposure to instances of the language used by their peers in their communicative activities.

(b) Mediation through situated activity Enhancing MLA within the framework of DA was conceived as ‘a collective practice involving learners, teachers, and institutional tools’ (Lund, 2008, p. 34). A simulation (see García-Carbonell et al., 2003) was used as a springboard for mediating the co-construction of oral assessment skills. In the scenario proposed, the students prepared their role, which was that of a student opting for an Erasmus grant. They were asked to prepare for an interview in which they would be competing against other candidates wishing to spend a semester at a European university. The purpose of the interview was to select the best candidates, based on their English language skills and on their preparedness, motivation and academic credentials. This was a realistic scenario appealing to a number of students in the class who would have to undergo external assessments similar to these in the near future. The class was divided into three groups: the panel of interviewers, the candidates and the English language experts. This latter group was given the task of assessing the candidates’ oral skills. They were asked to use the CEFR global assessment and analytic criteria for range, accuracy, fluency, interaction and coherence, with each ‘assessor’ attending only to one of these criteria; they then pooled their ideas before coming to an agreed decision. The goal was to find the best candidate on the basis of the assessment generated by the assessment team. After the interviews took place between candidates and interviewers, the ‘English language experts’ commented on performance; some comments leading to their assessment included: ‘He was not fluent’, ‘He took a long time to answer’, ‘He gave lots of reasons’, ‘She couldn’t keep going comprehensively.’ These comments suggest that the simulation also offered opportunities for students to reflect on metalinguistic and metacognitive aspects involved in the development of L2 oral competence, for instance, by allowing learners to reflect on what being, or becoming, fluent and accurate entails.

The Metalinguistic Dimension

208

The simulation mediated the appropriation of the official assessment tools, i.e., the CEFR scales, by enabling a dialogue between learners, instructor, and, through the materials, with those experts who developed the CEFR scales and who, in effect, were all active in determining the communicative competence of this group of students. In this way, the students’ act of assessing their peers generated an immediate product (marks) through a future-oriented process. Through the simulation, students either gained or gave a mark and in so doing they advanced their understanding of current institutional assessment practices; they were given the opportunity to experience assessment as inextricably linked to development: ‘By taking part in a practice usually reserved for teachers, these learners are in the process of developing assessment expertise by being collectively involved and by being given access to the same cultural tools as those of the teachers’ (Lund, 2008, p. 45). Having provided an analytic overview of how MLA was enhanced through the various dialogues between learners and teacher, between peers in the classroom, and among the individual, the collective, and the various material and institutional tools, we will now focus on the ‘product’ of those interactions. The following section will therefore report and discuss the effect of the pedagogical treatment based on DA on overall oral performance.

RQ2: What was the effect of the pedagogical treatment (DA) on the participants’ oral performance? In order to examine whether or not the participants had improved their oral performance after having participated in the DA cycle, the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (alpha level of .01) was used to compare the results of the oral preand post-tests for both sets of measures, CEFR and CAF. As shown below, the answer to this question is not clear cut, but overall, improvement was observed. Table 9.2 presents the results for the CEFR measures, which show that there was improvement for the group across the five variables. Furthermore, the global scores between preand post-tests were significantly different, confirming an overall improvement in the participants’ oral performance. More specifically, the results show significant improvement in the following categories: range, fluency and interaction, but not in relation to coherence or accuracy; the latter category being particularly relevant in relation to metalinguistic awareness. The pre- and post-tests were also analysed based on CAF measures. Table 9.3 shows the p values for complexity, which includes grammatical complexity (p = .33), measured Table 9.2  Statistics for oral performance based on CEFR variables Range Pre mean SD p value

Post

2.12 2.94 2.06 1.71 0.00*

* significant at the .01 level

Accuracy

Fluency

Interaction

Coherence

Pre

Pre

Pre

Pre

Post

2.00 2.33 1.84 1.73 0.12

Post

2.18 2.79 1.93 1.96 0.01*

Post

2.27 2.82 2.07 1.86 0.00*

Post

2.27 2.61 2.08 1.90 0.18

Global Pre

Post

2.09 2.70 1.99 1.74 0.00*

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

209

Table 9.3  Statistics for oral performance based on CAF variables Complexity CperAS mean SD p value

Accuracy

Fluency

EfreeC

WordsMin

TTR

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

1.61 0.40

1.66 0.38

0.47 0.09

0.46 0.07

0.45 0.32

0.50 0.17

0.82 0.36

0.86 0.33

0.33

0.45

0.03

0.13

in terms of amount of subordination (mean number of clauses per AS-unit3) and lexical complexity (p = .45), measured by type-token ratio (the number of word types in a text divided by the total number of words). Accuracy (p = .03) was interpreted as the ability to produce error-free speech, operationalized as the percentage of error-free clauses per AS-unit. Fluency (p = .13) was operationalized here as number of words per minute although Ellis (2009) also includes repair phenomena, i.e., false starts, repetitions and reformulations (see Ellis, 2009, pp. 492–5). The descriptive statistics show improvement for accuracy and fluency, but not for complexity. None of the variables resulted in significant differences at the .01 level although accuracy (p = .03) is significant at the .05 level. Despite the fact that there is some variation across variables and between sets of measures, i.e., CEFR and CAF, it can be concluded that overall, the participants benefited from the treatment. The contrast between accuracy and fluency is of particular interest with regard to the differences between the results across measures. While the raters following CEFR guidance did not find improvement in accuracy between pre- and post-tests, the results based on the CAF measures, which might be seen as a more accurate representation of the students’ ability given their strictly ‘quantifiable’ nature (although see Norris and Ortega, 2009), showed improvement in the amount of errorfree speech. It is precisely regarding the matter of how we ‘measure’ and account for (lack of) development where the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of DA are particularly  relevant, as highlighted throughout this chapter. We would, therefore, like to consider these results in relation to the ZPD which is regarded as the essential construct to actively guide change and development and is, therefore, at the heart of DA (Lantolf and Poehner, 2008, 2011). To this end, we will conclude this section with a discussion of some ‘mismatches’ apparent in the data. In our view, these must be considered to gain a broader understanding of development since this might not necessarily be fully, or even accurately, reflected in ‘objective’ results of assessment; in this case, the oral pre- and post-tests.

Mismatches: Same (bad) numbers, different needs Mismatches, both between final grades and what we consider development on the one hand, and between shared grades and individual needs, on the other, highlighted two important issues apparent in our data. In the first instance, there were a number of

210

The Metalinguistic Dimension

cases where individual students did not gain higher scores in their oral post-tests than in their oral pre-tests. However, closer examination of the relevant data through genetic or historical analysis, i.e., ‘analysis that returns to the source and reconstructs all the points in the development of a given structure’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 65), unravelled instances of development understood as the ability to appropriate and reshape the L2 meaning-making tools and in so doing, enhancing one’s linguistic repertoire (see Lantolf, 2005, p. 349). Examples of this were found at all levels, but particularly with regard to morphosyntax and lexis: Tense marking was a problematic area for some participants who, having consistently used simple present when simple past was required in their pre-test, managed to successfully overcome the trend in their post-test as illustrated below: Case 1 (pre-test) . . . in the past people *have a lot of childrens . . . . . . (children) didn’t have anything but they *are happy . . . . . . in the past it *is. . . (post-test) . . . we lived together two years . . . . . . she studied the same like me . . . we went together (to) a lot of parties . . .

Development at the lexical level can be exemplified in the following instance where producing language led this student to test hypotheses (see Swain, 1995) in relation to the use of affixation: Case 2 In the pre-test, the student in question tried to repair the word in real time by trying out various alternatives: . . . now people travel more but in the past that was (.) *impensable (.) *inthinking? (.) *unthinking?

The regulatory affordances provided by the subsequent transcription task gave her the opportunity, time and probably resources, e.g., a dictionary, to reflect on the choices, which led to a successful self-correction in the written mode. Importantly, she was able to then use the targetlike form successfully twice in her post-test, thus demonstrating her ability to transfer the mediated performance, i.e., demonstrating self-regulation (see Lantolf and Poehner, 2011; Poehner, 2007, 2008, 2009): I like to live in a house with my pets and in a flat that is unthinkable . . . Travelling by globo (hot-air balloon) unthinkable!

In the video-recorded performance of her post-test it is possible to appreciate the fact that her face literally brightened up when she produced the correct form for the first time. This suggests that she had felt proud of her achievement and, crucially, that the pedagogical procedure had enhanced her metalinguistic awareness in this instance, a

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

211

fact she herself acknowledged in the post-treatment reflective questionnaire: ‘I have learned the word unthinkable, which I didn’t know how to use and which I was able to use correctly twice in my interview’ (referring to the oral post-test). We now turn our attention to what we consider mismatches between shared grades (inter- and/or intra-subjectively) and individual needs. In other words, the fact that two individuals have similar grades does not necessarily mean that their developmental scope – as evident in the amount of mediation required – is also similar. By the same token, and perhaps more self-evidently, an individual student’s grade does not necessarily reflect accurate developmental levels with respect to distinct lexical or grammatical features. That is, the amount and type of mediation required by an individual to become self-regulated in relation to tense/aspect marking can easily differ from the amount and type of mediation required by that same individual in relation to the use of determiners, for example. However, this developmental subtlety is not necessarily reflected in the ‘grades’ or ‘level’ given to that student which, in effect, results in masking a case of intra-subjective mismatch. In the case of inter-subjective mismatches, individuals can  – and often are  – grouped in classes where they are deemed to share the same L2 ‘level’ as their classmates when they do not if, as argued here, type and amount of mediation, i.e., ZPDs, are also taken into consideration. This type of mismatch has also been demonstrated by Antón (2009). Finally, mismatches regarding self-perception and actual performance were also in evidence in our data. An example illustrating this point was observed when a student demonstrated metalinguistic awareness both in her questionnaire (see below) and in real-time speaking: I laugh a lot with him (.) his (.) him He was, he was studied, no he studied tourism and he talk at me in English . . .

In her post-treatment reflective questionnaire she mentioned her L2 ability had improved: ‘I have corrected the use of the adverb “very” and all “personal pronouns”. I have also learnt that “children” is a plural form and that there is no need to add a final –s.’ However, in the oral post-test she said: . . . the families have very childrens . . .

Besides the issue of perception and actual performance, examples such as this also bring into the spotlight the much debated matter of how useful metalinguistic instruction, and by extension, awareness, in the L2 context is (Ellis, 2006; Macaro and Masterman, 2006). Although we must be cautious since our findings cannot be generalized, cases such as the one highlighted above remind us of the need to take into account task implementation and mode, e.g., written versus oral for theory-building, but also in terms of pedagogical practice when discussing transferability and usefulness of MLA. In sum, our pedagogical treatment; that is, DA, relied heavily on use of metalinguistic awareness through error correction, self-reflection, feedback and scaffolded assistance; the overall findings in our case study showed improvement in our participants’ oral performance. While the non-experimental nature of our research design limits the scope for any claims regarding cause and effect, our findings can nonetheless be read

212

The Metalinguistic Dimension

in the context of experimental studies such as White and Ranta (2002) where it is reported that metalinguistic instruction had an impact on oral performance (see also Serrano, 2011). The next section addresses the final research question which focused on the learners’ assessment of the pedagogical treatment.

RQ3: What did the participants think about the various aspects involved in DA as implemented in this study? The analysis of results summarized in this section was based on responses by 20 students (see note 1). Figure 9.2 shows the results of the first part of the questionnaire. In questions 1 to 9 (see Appendix B), students were asked to assess to what degree on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (a great deal) the various DA procedures and tasks had helped them improve different aspects in relation to speaking in English. As the figures indicate, the overall perception of DA among the participants was positive, but there is room for reflection regarding some aspects. Given the emphasis on metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness during DA procedures in general, and on accuracy in particular for the transcription and error correction tasks, for example, it is not surprising that the students rated ‘fluency improvement’ the lowest (2.0). By the same token, we would have expected a higher mean rating than 2.3 for grammatical accuracy and vocabulary. Interestingly, they found the procedures helpful to improve pronunciation (2.4). The skills found to be particularly supported by DA were metacognitive, i.e., understanding what is involved in speaking English as a foreign language, gaining self-confidence, as well as being able to learn about their strengths and weaknesses as speakers. It is likely, and indeed evident in some of the comments made in response to the open-ended questions, that having the opportunity to watch their own performance was considered particularly useful by some participants, e.g., ‘I think [watching the video] is very interesting in that it helps you to see how you speak English so you can correct your mistakes and improve your oral expression’.

Aspects involved in speaking English

2.7

Strengths as a speaker of English

2.9

Weaknesses as a speaker of English Improving fluency

3.5 2.0

Improving grammatical accuracy

2.3

Improving vocabulary

2.3

Improving self-confidence speaking English

2.6

Improving ability to structure discourse Improving pronunciation

2.7 2.4

Figure 9.2  Overall perceived usefulness of DA to improve oral skills (figures represent mean)

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

Oral tasks and video session

213

2.7

Transcription and self-correction task

3.0

Teacher’s corrections and feedback

3.2

Error correction task

2.6

Group tutorial ~ feedback session Theory on improving speaking Individualized orientation session

2.8 2.1 2.3

Figure 9.3  Perceived usefulness of specific tasks and sessions for improving oral performance (figures represent mean)

We believe that both watching their performance and having been asked to transcribe their own speech had an impact in the students’ judgement regarding the usefulness of DA to help them improve the ability to structure discourse (2.7) because these tasks gave them an opportunity to analyse the product of their performance holistically. The seven items included in the second part of the questionnaire (questions 10–16 in Appendix B) gathered information about the participants’ thoughts regarding the usefulness of specific mediational sessions and tasks. The same five-point Likert scale, 0–4, was used; Figure 9.3 shows the results. The sessions and tasks which focused primarily on identifying and targeting participants’ ZPDs were the ones perceived as most useful by the students, i.e., transcription and feedback sessions and tasks. Although individual feedback sessions got slightly higher rates (3.0 and 3.2), group tutorial and feedback was also deemed highly useful (2.8). As reflected in Figure 9.3, students found DA in general useful to help them with metacognitive skills related to oral performance; interestingly, an important mediational means for targeting those skills was precisely the session which included ‘theory on improving speaking’, the task which got the lowest score, 2.1.

Conclusion The overall aims of this study were to describe the implementation of group DA and to investigate its feasibility and effectiveness in relation to oral performance. More specifically, this chapter focused on three issues: First, given the challenges of implementing DA in a group context, and the scarcity of studies reporting on group DA, it was our goal to demonstrate how this was achieved in a real EFL context over a whole academic term; in this chapter our primary focus was on the metalinguistic

214

The Metalinguistic Dimension

dimension; second, we evaluated the improvement of the students’ oral performance after completion of the pedagogical treatment; and third, we investigated the participants’ thoughts and perceptions regarding key aspects of DA as implemented in this study. Our investigation demonstrated that it is possible to successfully implement DA on a group basis; the individual and the collective became part of an organic and dynamic system where multiple mediational means; that is, physical, e.g., assessment instruments; psychological, e.g., language; and human, the teacher and peers, enabled the co-construction of ZPDs in this L2 context. The statistical analysis of two different sets of measures, CEFR scales and CAF components, rendered different results regarding the participants’ level of oral performance with only the former set showing significant improvement. In this chapter, however, we argue that looking at development from a DA perspective adds an important dimension, a dimension which allows for a more ‘organic’ (Norris and Ortega, 2009, p. 556) view of L2 oral performance and its measurement; a view where other factors such as ‘the role of context, individual differences and human agency’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2009, p. 582) need to be entered into the equation. The DA treatment was, in our view, particularly successful in helping participants and teacher identify and work on specific language features which were problematic for individuals on the one hand, and for the whole group on the other, as the analysis of MLA episodes demonstrates. Finally, the post-treatment questionnaires enabled us to gain insights into the participants’ thoughts and evaluation of DA; based on their questionnaire responses, it is possible to conclude that, overall, the students found the treatment useful. Within the framework of Sociocultural theory, what one can learn from an individual event or case is as valuable as what one can learn from the collective since cognition is ultimately seen as socially constructed and shared. In this context, DA embodies mediated activity where learner and expert work together to identify and capitalize on the learners’ ZPDs in order to promote both individual and collective change (Lantolf and Poehner, 2011; Poehner, 2009, pp. 476–7). In this study, we set out to investigate the feasibility and value of DA as a pedagogical approach in an EFL classroom as well as the value of metalinguistic awareness as an intrinsic aspect of the approach. Our work demonstrates that it is possible to successfully implement DA in a group basis as a more realistic alternative to one-to-one DA for many L2 tutors. Undoubtedly, compromises had to be made but even so, as with any thorough L2 approach to teaching, the task was challenging for those involved, not least for the class tutor. Notwithstanding, the findings reported in this chapter suggest it is a task worth embarking upon. However, other studies will have to be carried out which aim to compare the relative gains between DA and other types of instruction, the sustainability of any observed effects in the long term, and the relative effectiveness of group DA compared to individually implemented DA. The latter comparison could also generate valuable information in relation to the role of individual differences. We also provided evidence of the value of DA for tapping into what we (and others) regard as learners’ emergent abilities as reflected in the amount and quality of assistance required by individual students, in relation to individual language features. We would

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

215

like to emphasize the key role of the transcription task as a useful mechanism acting as a springboard for enhancing MLA and for starting the process of co-constructing ZPDs (see Lynch, 2007; Mennim, 2007). We found that metalinguistic awareness played a positive role as a mechanism for increased self-regulation, particularly in written tasks such as the transcription activity, but to an extent in relation to oral performance as well. We are, however, aware that given the differences between the two sets of measures taken into account for assessing oral performance on the one hand and the fact that students were naturally engaged in additional L2 activity as part of their whole language programme, on the other, neither causal nor conclusive claims can be made on the basis of our study. We trust, however, that by providing a detailed account of the way in which DA was operationalized and implemented in this study, we have contributed to the community’s increasing efforts to find ways in which individual and collective ZPDs can be constructed in the L2 classroom.

Appendix A: Questions in reflective questionnaires 1a and 1b (The questions were adapted from Brook-Hart, 2004) Dealing with questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Did you understand and answer the questions? Did you ask to repeat questions you didn’t understand? Did you give quite long answers to the questions? When appropriate, did you give reasons for your answers? Did you support your answers with examples? Did you express your opinions and ideas clearly?

Body language and voice 7. Did you look positive, confident and friendly? 8. Did you look at your interlocutor directly when speaking? 9. Did you speak clearly, so the interlocutor could hear you? Dealing with problems 10. When you made a mistake, did you ever try to correct it? 11. When you couldn’t think of the correct word, did you find other ways of expressing the idea in English? 12. Did you answer completely in English? Managing interaction (dialogic task) 13. Did you participate actively in the discussion, contributing and exchanging ideas with the other speakers? Please write a personal comment about the oral tasks.

216

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Appendix B: Questions in reflective questionnaire DA Students were asked to rate the perceived usefulness of the overall treatment procedure (0 = not at all – 4 = a great deal): 1. Do you think the tasks have improved your understanding of the aspects involved in speaking English as a foreign language? 2. Do you think the tasks have helped you to learn about your strengths as a speaker of English? 3. Do you think the tasks have helped you to learn about your weaknesses as a speaker of English? 4. Do you think the tasks have helped you to improve your fluency? 5. Do you think the tasks have helped you to improve your grammatical accuracy? 6. Do you think the tasks have helped you to improve your vocabulary? 7. Do you think the tasks have helped you to improve your self-confidence speaking English? 8. Do you think the tasks have helped you to improve your ability to structure your discourse? 9. Do you think the tasks have helped you to improve your pronunciation? Students were also asked to rate the perceived usefulness of specific tasks (0 = not at all – 4 = a great deal): 10. The oral interview and viewing the video. 11. The transcript and your corrections. 12. The teacher’s corrections and comments. 13. The error correction task based on examples from your interviews. 14. The feedback session we did in class based on your interviews. 15. The document entitled ‘Improving your speaking – Theory’ that guided the feedback session. 16. The website resource ‘Improving your speaking – Links’ I proposed for further practice.

Open-ended items In this questionnaire, students were also asked to provide a specific item of grammar, vocabulary, etc. which they had used incorrectly in the oral tasks and which they thought they were currently able to use correctly as a result of the DA cycle. Finally, they were asked to write a paragraph (100–50 words) describing their experience, for example in relation to the oral tasks and the transcript task.

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

217

Notes 1 Due to reasons beyond the teacher’s control, this questionnaire was only completed by 20 out of 30 participants. 2 For a description of the scales please refer to: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (2001). CUP / Council of Europe. 3 The AS-unit (Analysis of Speech) is defined as ‘a single speaker’s utterance consisting of an independent clause, or subclausal unit, together with any subordinate clause(s) associated with either’ (Foster et al., 2000, p. 365).

References Ableeva, R. (2008), ‘The effects of Dynamic Assessment on L2 listening comprehension’, in J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (eds), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. London: Equinox Press, pp. 57–86. Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. P. (1994), ‘Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development’. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–83. Antón, M. (2009), ‘Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners’. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 576–98. Atlas.ti. (2004), Software for Qualitative Data Analysis. Berlin: Scientific Software Development. Brook-Hart, G. (2004), Instant IELTS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press /Council of Europe. Ellis, R. (2006), ‘Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective’. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107. — (2009), ‘Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction’, in R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp and H. Reinders, Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–25. Erben, T., Ban, R. and Summers, R. (2008), ‘Changing examination structures within a college of education: The application of dynamic assessment in pre-service ESOL endorsement courses in Florida’, in J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (eds), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. London: Equinox Press, pp. 87–114. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Jensen, M., Kaniel, S. and Tzuriel, D. (1987), ‘Prerequisites for assessment of learning potential: The LAPD model’, in C. Lidz (ed.), Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 35–51. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A. and Wigglesworth, G. (2000), ‘Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons’. Applied Linguistics, 21, (4), 354–75. García-Carbonell, A., Watts, F. and Montero, B. (2003), ‘Playing to communicate effectively “know-it-all Linguists”’, in F. Percival, H. Godfrey, P. Laybourn and S. Murray (eds), The International Simulation & Gaming Yearbook. Edinburgh: SAGSET, pp. 190–5.

218

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2009), ‘Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition’. Applied Linguistics, 30, (4), 461–73. Jessner, U. (2006), Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals. English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kozulin, A. and Garb, E. (2002), ‘Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension’. School Psychology International, 23, 112–27. Lantolf, J. P. (2005), ‘Sociocultural and second language learning research: An exegesis’, in E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 335–53. — (2009), ‘Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment’. Language Teaching, 42, (3), 355–68. Lantolf, J. P. and Beckett, T. G. (2009), ‘Research timeline: Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition’. Journal of Language Teaching, 42, (4), 459–75. Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2004), ‘Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future’. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49–74. — (2008), ‘Introduction’, in J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (eds), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. London: Equinox, pp. 1–30. — (2011), ‘Dynamic Assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for L2 development’. Language Teaching Research, 15, 1–23. Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006), Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009), ‘Adjusting expectations. The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition’. Applied Linguistics, 30, (4), 579–89. Lidz, C. S. (1991), Practitioners’ Guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York: Guilford. Lidz, C. S. and Elliott, J. G. (eds) (2000), Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lund, A. (2008), ‘Assessment made visible: Individual and collective practices’. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15, 32–51. Lynch, T. (2007), ‘Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task’. ELT Journal, 61, (4), 311–20. Macaro, E. and Masterman, L. (2006), ‘Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference?’. Language Teaching Research, 10, 297–327. Mennim, P. (2007), ‘Long-term effects of noticing on oral output’. Language Teaching Research, 11, (3), 265–80. Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2009), ‘Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity’. Applied Linguistics, 30, (4), 555–78. Poehner, M. E. (2007), ‘Beyond the test: L2 Dynamic Assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning’. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 323–40. — (2008), Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting Second Language Development. Berlin: Springer. — (2009), ‘Group Dynamic Assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom’. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471–91. Poehner, M. E. and Lantolf, J. P. (2005), ‘Dynamic assessment in the language classroom’. Language Teaching Research, 9, 1–33. Río del, P. and Alvarez, A. (2007), ‘Inside and outside the zone of proximal development: An ecofunctional reading of Vygotsky’, in H. Daniels, M. Cole, and J. V. Wertsch (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 276–303.

Mediating the Development of L2 Oral Performance

219

Roberts, A. D. (2011), The Role of Metalinguistic Awareness in the Effective Teaching of Foreign Languages. Oxford: Peter Lang. Schmidt, R. (2001), ‘Attention’, in P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–32. Schneider, E. and Ganschow, L. (2000), ‘Dynamic Assessment and instructional strategies for learners who struggle to learn a foreign language’. Dyslexia, 6, 72–82. Serrano, R. (2011), ‘From metalinguistic instruction to metalinguistic knowledge, and from metalinguistic knowledge to performance in error correction and oral production tasks’. Language Awareness, 20, (1), 1–16. Swain, M. (1995), ‘Three functions of output in second language learning’, in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–56. — (2000), ‘The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue’, in J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–114. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995), ‘Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning’. Applied Linguistics, 16, (3), 371–91. — (2001), ‘Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects’, in M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. London: Longman, pp. 99–118. Swain, M., Kinnear, P. and Steinman, L. (2011), Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, J.and Ranta, L. (2002), ‘Examining the interface between metalinguistic task performance and oral production in a second language’. Language Awareness, 11, (4), 259–90.

10

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge: Rules and Categories of Grammatical Description as Functional Tools of the Mind Eduardo Negueruela Azarola University of Miami

Abstract In this chapter, I take the view that metalinguistic knowledge has the potential of becoming functional knowledge for second language (L2) learners. From a sociocultural psychology perspective, the functionality of knowledge depends on internalizing genuine conceptual categories in a Vygotskyan sense. Genuine conceptual categories are not only for metalinguistic reflection; they orient oral and written communicative performance. Based on Vygotsky’s (1986) work on the development of verbal thinking as the essence of mediated consciousness, I argue that functional knowledge of and about language is relevant for L2 development if, and only if, it is used as a tool for conceptual reflection in/on communicative activity. Promoting the potential role of metalinguistic knowledge as a conceptual tool requires researchers to consider that: (1) the goal of L2 grammar teaching is also conceptual development; (2) the semantic/pragmatic component of grammar is a critical component to be conceptually presented to learners in a coherent, accessible and complete manner in instructed L2 learning; and (3) the transformation of metalinguistic knowledge into conceptual tools for verbal thinking is not only about explaining linguistics, or practising grammatical forms, but about promoting communicative interactions and using concepts as tools for understanding performance in pedagogical tasks that promote conceptual manipulation. Data from two intermediate university learners of Spanish as a second language are used to illustrate a conceptual approach to teaching metalinguistic knowledge as functional tools for thinking when communicating with the self through others. It is misleading then to talk of thinking as of a ‘mental activity’. We may say that thinking is essentially the activity of operating with signs. This activity is performed by the hand, when we think by writing; by the mouth and larynx, when we think by speaking; and if we think by imagining signs or pictures, I can give you no agent that thinks. If then you say that in such cases the mind thinks, I would only draw

222

The Metalinguistic Dimension

your attention to the fact that you are using a metaphor, that here the mind is an agent in a different sense from that in which the hand can be said to be an agent in writing. (Wittgenstein, Blue Book, pp. 6–7)

Introduction: Metalinguistic knowledge becoming conceptual tools for L2 development1 According to Ellis (2004) metalinguistic knowledge is explicit, can be brought into awareness and verbalized and is declarative (see also Roehr and Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2009, p. 165). In the following pages, the goal is to explore how metalinguistic knowledge can also become part of thinking activity for second language (L2) learners, if properly presented to, and manipulated by, learners. The underlying rationale for this proposal is that thinking about language ‘through language’ in a sophisticated, yet accessible and coherent, fashion can improve L2 mastery (Negueruela Azarola, 2003). Consequently, metalinguistic awareness is not pursued as a means to explain language or to place words into taxonomies, or even to know that a particular ending marks a grammatical meaning, all of which is indeed relevant from a L2 learning perspective. However, a sociocultural perspective on human thinking goes beyond L2 learning. The issue is development, which is defined as conscious awareness through semiotic means that leads to control (Vygotsky, 1978).2 This use of semiotic means (music, mathematics, geometry, but mainly language through conceptual categories) as meditational tools for thinking is the essence of the cultural origins of human consciousness. In the classroom, language, through the internalization of conceptual categories (Vygotsky, 1986), provides learners with coherent ideas that have functional relevance in concrete activity (Kozulin, 1998). In L2 development, the point from a sociocultural perspective is to conceptually control our communicative choices when writing and speaking in another language. This implies that L2 learners should internalize a systematic understanding of coherent categories of meaning with functional significance in communicative activity (Negueruela Azarola, 2003). From this perspective, a static view of metalinguistic knowledge needs to be complemented by a ‘dynamic’ take on metalinguistic knowledge as functional meaning that potentially transforms language use. By focusing on metalinguistic knowledge as a conceptual tool for L2 teaching and learning, I ultimately discuss L2 development as a contradictory dialectical process highlighted by a sociocultural theory perspective. To explain the transformative implications of this theoretical proposal for the L2 classroom, I first discuss two dialectics: (1) the communication and conceptualization connection, and (2) the learning and development relationship. Next, I consider the role of metalinguistic knowledge and pedagogical grammars in the L2 classroom. I also review the inconsistent quality of grammatical explanations provided to L2 learners of Spanish in most textbooks. I then provide a conceptual task designed to promote conceptual development based on the notion of semiogenesis (Negueruela Azarola, 2011), which, I argue, should provide

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

223

researchers and teachers with a model for promoting metalinguistic conceptualization in the L2 classroom. Finally, I illustrate the potential transformative power of conceptual instruction for the development of metalinguistic knowledge.

Background A Sociocultural approach to metalinguistic knowledge Inspired by a sociocultural understanding of human thinking (Vygotsky, 1986) applied to the field of second language (L2) learning and teaching (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006; Lantolf and Poehner, 2008), this chapter argues that metalinguistic knowledge, and more concretely metalanguage terms and grammatical rules, needs to be – and become – more than just language to describe or even explain language to learners in L2 classrooms. From the present perspective, metalinguistic knowledge must become language to think about language ‘through’ language. Hence, the critical issue is not promoting learning of grammatical rules and metalinguistic terms in the L2 classroom, but fostering L2 development from a conceptual perspective. Conceptual development of metalinguistic knowledge requires transforming explicit knowledge into conceptual categories for thinking and communicating. The critical proposal I develop here is that metalinguistic knowledge needs to be verbalized through conceptualization tasks in order to become a psychological tool for orienting communicative performance. In a sociocultural sense, metalinguistic knowledge is declarative knowledge which may also support activity: the activity of operating with metalinguistic concepts as signs with transformative potential. Transformative potential is the ability of learners to ‘operate’ with signs, and not simply study them. Metalinguistic knowledge has to become a mediator of communicative activity. Along the same lines, Wittgenstein (1960) hints to the essential mediated quality of human thinking when arguing that thinking is not a mental activity. Thinking is the activity of operating with signs, thinking is a mediated activity. Conceptual pedagogy, any design and implementation of conceptual tasks in the classroom, needs to emerge from understanding mediation as the basic principle of human social and psychological activity. In a sociocultural view of human cognition, mediation is the theoretical insight that grounds Vygotsky’s understanding of verbal thinking as the essence of human consciousness (Vygotsky, 1986). Furthermore, Vygotsky’s understanding of mediation is philosophically grounded in dialectics. Dialectics is a system of logic, which sharply differs from a positivist logic of identity (Newman and Holzman, 1997, p. 22). Dialectics is a form of reasoning, a system to make sense of reality. It is based on the principle that change is always happening. Life is about processes that emerge out of contradictions. Understanding the basis of the logic of dialectics (Ilyenkov, 1977) as defined above is the key for appreciating the philosophy of science behind the theoretical and pedagogical proposals developed in this chapter. By applying the logic of dialectics as a form of reasoning to make sense of L2 learning, researchers may appreciate how continuous change and contradition are the essence of L2 development, that is, the defining quality of human ontology (in philosophical terms).

224

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Learners as human beings are always in a process of becoming: changing, promoting change and attempting to stop change to make sense of our world by creating representations through symbolic systems. Learners and teachers as human beings ‘freeze’ change through semiotic representations, mainly through language but also mathematics, geometry, drawing and painting, music or any other type of artistic manifestation. This universe of meaning is what Lotman (1990) calls the semiosphere. This temporary ‘freezing’ of reality through mediation, this suspension of time through semiotic representation, in the present case in teaching/learning contexts, creates simplifications and contradictions. These contradictions create tensions, which explain successive changes. And these new changes create new tensions and the emergence of new contradictions (ad infinitum). In this very real sense, humans are not beings but becomings. To be sure, from a dialectical perspective on L2 teaching, human ontology is not explained by the verb ‘being’ but by the verb ‘becoming’. The pedagogical challenge is to orient change in meaningful directions. The research challenge is to capture and explain socio-historical change in people, or what Vygotsky calls genesis (Vygotsky, 1978), through the use of cultural artefacts (tools, objects and also concepts/ideas). The goal is not to explain and define categories (what human beings are, what language is, what working memory is) as in a conventional philosophy of scientific method, nor is it to create taxonomies and distinguish between different types of objects, for instance, different types of grammars or input leading to L2 acquisition. Rather, the goal for sociocultural researchers, who recognize the contradictory and changing quality of human life, is to capture change through culture. This goal is made manifest in the notion of semiogenesis, which will be discussed later on in the chapter.

The dialectics of L2 communication and conceptualization The dialectical, contradictory relationship between processes of communication and conceptualization lies at the heart of a conceptual approach to L2 development. This relationship is also the implicit philosophical basis for understanding metalinguistic knowledge as a conceptual tool. As mentioned above, the goal of teaching metalinguistic knowledge in the L2 classroom is promoting the development of conceptual categories. This requires merging communication and conceptualization through verbal thinking. The activity of thinking and the activity of communicating need to come together in meaningful pedagogical tasks in the L2 classroom. The merging of conceptualization and communication (with the self and others) is the essence of development within a sociocultural framework. On one hand, conceptual meanings do not determine communicative choices but orient development. On the other, communicative choices are not simply directed by conceptual categories. The internalization of meaning is not a cause/effect process based on evolution and incrementally acquired knowledge. I argue that conceptual development is not linear or evolutionary, but rather a revolutionary process (cf. Negueruela Azarola, 2008) because at its core is the radical, non-linear transformation and alteration of understandings in the process of making sense of communicative choices. In L2 development, the internalization of new conceptual categories is revolutionary in at least two basic senses: (1) each category grows, transforming the nature of its own

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

225

meaning through solving and creating new contradictions when explaining concrete linguistic choices; and (2) each emergent category changes the relationships to previous categories of meaning. Words and meanings change – sometimes drastically – in relation to each other, to other words, and to other meanings. It is in this sense that conceptual formation is not about inert meanings, but about establishing new relationships that change other meaning relationships. In the process of establishing new categories of meaning, formal education is a privileged site for making concepts visible and conceptual networks more systematic (Kozulin, 1998). For the L2 classroom, the key is to develop pedagogical tasks that promote the type of conceptual manipulation I am referring to here. This represents the critical moment in the development of concepts as tools of the mind, as Bodrova and Leong (1996) call them. Conceptual manipulation by learners in self-explaining activity is the source, origin and result of L2 development. In sum, the dialectic of communication and conceptualization can help researchers and teachers appreciate how learners make sense of their communicative development in conceptually based, contradictory and complex ways. Out of discovering contradictions and incoherence between communicative choices and conceptual ideas, systematic and sophisticated conceptualizations with functionality in communicative activity may begin to emerge. This proposal is grounded in Vygotsky’s research on children’s conceptual development as the essence of verbal thinking. Vygotsky (1986) explains the origins and development of verbal thinking in ontogenesis as the essence of human mediated consciousness. Central to the emergence of mediated consciousness is the use of concepts – as tools for making sense of the world – in concrete, properly organized learning activity that promotes development (Vygotsky, 1978).

The dialectics of learning and development in the L2 classroom Learning creating development, not learning waiting for development, is a dialectical process based on the ability of learners to discover and find contradictions between what they do in communication and the reasons they articulate to understand their communicative choices. The development of new conceptual meaning is promoted through engaging in verbal thinking. It is not just about learning forms or inert implicit meanings, but about thinking differently and more completely when communicating in a language. The internalization of major textual concepts (genre, text, coherence) and complex grammatical notions (such as aspect, tense, modality, motion) are at the core of this pedagogical transformative project for the L2 classroom. Learning and development are also dialectically understood in sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). The two processes are related in contradictory ways. Learning activity is the origin and the result of development. Internalizing complex ideas with functional capabilities, or concepts as meant here, is a developmental transformative activity that is part of learning. Properly organized learning activity promotes conceptual development. As mentioned above, the critical moment for learners is conceptualization activity, which potentially creates development. Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) articulates the connection between learning and development in children’s ontogenesis. The ZPD is the distance between

226

The Metalinguistic Dimension

what a learner can do by herself and what she can do with assistance. For Vygotsky (1978), properly organized learning activity anticipates and creates development in children. In this respect, Arievitch and Stetsenko (2000) comment on how approaches to education based on simplifications do not foster the development of systematic conceptualizations as tools for thinking. The notion of the Zone of Potential Development (ZPOD), articulated in Negueruela Azarola (2008), is meant to capture the dialectics of learning and development through conceptual internalization in the L2 classroom. ZPOD is the ability of learners to explore potential areas of conceptual development through engaging in verbal thinking through conceptual manipulation in their L2 development. Again, and to be sure, since this is a critical point to make sense of the proposals I put forth in this chapter, L2 development is here defined as the internalization of functional conceptual meanings to orient practical, concrete oral and written communicative activity. This is an understanding that is unique to a sociocultural view of human consciousness in L2 learning, especially when compared to other paradigms in the field of L2 learning (see Mitchell and Myles, 2004). Placing conceptual development and not learning at the centre of instructed L2 learning is based on understanding that meaning mediation is the essence of human consciousness (Vygotsky, 1986). From a sociocultural perspective, the key to the ZPOD in the L2 classroom is to understand that semantic and pragmatic knowledge is one of the critical components to be presented to learners in a coherent, systematic and complete manner. Such understanding is grounded in a functionalist view of language, where the essence of human communication is symbolization and meaning making in specific contexts (Tomasello, 2003). L2 development is not only about communicative abilities, but also about internalizing conceptual meanings with functional relevance in communicative contexts. In the L2 classroom, the development of functional and sophisticated understandings of language is not necessarily part of learning activity. The potential for the development of sophisticated and coherent conceptual categories in adult L2 teaching and learning is always a possibility. However, instruction that is based on incomplete presentations or explanations, unsystematic representations of grammatical knowledge or lack of properly organized and guided conceptual reflection by learners does not lead to development of coherent and complete conceptual understandings.

Metalinguistic knowledge and the L2 classroom From a teaching/learning perspective, metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage terms (constructs to explain or talk about language) and grammatical rules (language to describe regularities in morphosyntax and language use), are beneficial for classifying words in a language and for describing basic uses of linguistic features. However, not all metalanguage contains metalanguage terms. Rules of grammatical use do not always need grammatical categories. In most university contexts, metalinguistic knowledge is used by teachers and studied by learners in L2 grammar manuals and textbooks. Metalinguistic knowledge used in L2 metalanguage grammars is mostly based on ideas whose origins can be

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

227

traced to grammarians from classical antiquity. Dyonisus Trax is credited with articulating the canonical categories for classifying words into different kinds (noun, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions) (Odlin, 1994, p. 7). By organizing words into kinds (the parts of speech distinctions), we order the world of infinite words into a few categories. Classical linguists realized that any utterance can be parsed into words which belong to different categories because they do not behave in the same way, have the same properties or forms, or function in the same linguistic contexts. In short, metalanguage grammar explains language through taxonomies. This classification of words through descriptive features may not account for the fundamental essence of language, but it certainly constitutes a powerful means of understanding words and basic grammatical relationships with order and rigor. Since classical antiquity, grammatical terms have been applied to explaining languages, for contrastive analysis, translation and for L2 teaching. Basic metalanguage terms and grammatical rules are utilized in L2 grammars, often through contrastive analysis and descriptions of basic contexts of use, to explain why words in sentences construct meaning differently in different languages. Metalanguage grammar is then used in pedagogical grammars for L2 teaching in the hope that it will become part of learners’ metalinguistic knowledge. L2 grammatical rules of use referring to particular grammatical points to explain the meaning of complicated grammatical issues are often based on metalanguage terms. The presentation of metalinguistic knowledge – both metalanguage terms and grammatical rules  – is quite common in L2 classrooms, if only through textbook explanations of canonically complex grammatical issues. Despite the importance of foregrounding communication in the L2 classroom, in most L2 courses there is still a tendency to teach grammatical notions such as subject, object, transitivity, reflexivity, modality, aspect and tense through simplistic rules of thumb (Blyth, 2000; Frantzen, 1996; Whitley, 2002). Instructors in university programmes often report that adult learners like to have vocabulary and rules to describe the language they are studying. Adult learners, as conscious beings, generally prefer to understand what they are attempting to learn through some type of grammatical description, even if it is brief and not central to classroom activities. Therefore, in this context, promoting the teaching of communication in the L2 classroom does not need to exclude presenting explicit metalinguistic knowledge to learners. Most researchers and teachers also understand that metalanguage grammar should not be the centre of classroom instruction. The critique against teaching metalinguistic knowledge in the L2 classroom, or any overt teaching of grammar for that matter, emerges when grammar (metalanguage, forms, rules of use) becomes the main, and sometimes exclusive, focus of classroom time (Omaggio Hadley, 1997, p. 490). Classroom time focused on metalinguistic knowledge tends to be monopolized by complex linguistic elaborations that have little application to communicative contexts. A language classroom is not a linguistics classroom. Excessive foregrounding of metalinguistic knowledge tends to take away time from meaningful communication in the target language. L2 practitioners tend to agree that the majority of classroom time in basic L2 classrooms should be used for meaningful and engaging communicative interactions, interpretations and presentations (see Hall, 2002), for appreciating and producing

228

The Metalinguistic Dimension

complex texts when reading and writing (Swaffar and Arens, 2005), and for conscious reflection on culture which, in the end, is essential to understanding the communicative relevance and pragmatic significance of another language (Kramsch, 1993).

Metalinguistic knowledge, L2 mastery and teaching meaning The connection between metalinguistic knowledge and language learning is still a widely debated issue in the field of instructed L2 learning. The critical issue is to assess to what extent metalinguistic knowledge is beneficial for L2 mastery. Teaching learners grammatical categories, functions and rules of grammatical use is generally justified because it seems to be helpful for learners. Metalinguistic knowledge should lead students to appreciate and understand the language under study. The evidence to support the usefulness of presenting metalinguistic knowledge for improving actual language use is not definitive. The issue of teaching metalinguistic knowledge, in this case grammar, is a complex one, and goes beyond a simplistic ‘in favor or against’ grammar teaching debate (Van Lier, 2001). Norris and Ortega (2000) in a meta-analysis of research published between 1980 and 1998 reach the conclusion that explicit is more effective than implicit L2 grammar instruction. Nassaji and Fotos (2011, p. 136) remind us that ‘not all learners benefit equally from similar instructional strategies, nor do all features respond equally to instruction’. Explicit teaching does not imply teaching explicit metalinguistic knowledge of all types for all grammatical features. Furthermore, in relation to the debate around explicit grammar teaching in SLA, one must bear in mind that researchers use the terms ‘grammar’ and ‘process of L2 acquisition’ in different ways (Byrnes, 2013, p. 29). Specific studies in SLA are framed within very concrete theoretical paradigms. For instance, computational paradigms in SLA (such as universal grammar or processing approaches) define language as syntax and acquisition as processing. This computational, processing and syntax-based approach to SLA is incommensurable with what I am proposing in this chapter because present proposals are based on a sociocultural understanding of mind, in which language is about symbolization and meaning making in concrete contexts, and learning and development are about communicative abilities and conceptual mediation. A sociocultural understanding is more compatible with sociocognitive approaches to SLA (see Batstone, 2010). In any case, there seems not to be a direct relationship between explicit knowledge about language and our actual ability to use the language. As I have already stated, explicit knowledge about language is defined in quite different terms. It is not about rules or regularities but about concepts as categories of meaning. Metalinguistic knowledge is mediated by categories of meaning that emerge through contradictions found between communicative performance and conceptual ideas. There is evidence in the sociocultural psychology literature in SLA of the negative effects of explicitly teaching grammatical rules on issues such as preterite and imperfect through isolated, discrete and simplified rules of thumb (see Negueruela Azarola, 2003). Seliger (1979) cautioned against teaching inappropriate grammatical rules and highlighted their lack of relevance in L2 learning. DeKeyser (1998) argued for a strong

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

229

connection between explicit teaching of grammar rules which eventually lead to L2 learning and spontaneous communication. However, for DeKeyser (2003) the level of rule difficulty is critical in the usefulness of the rule, in that difficult rules are not helpful to learners in L2 instruction. He argues that the more complex the rule, the less useful it is for teaching. Still, complex rules are quite common in L2 textbooks despite their potential inefficiency from a ‘learning-to-use the language’ perspective. In the case of the Spanish L2 classroom, teaching the Spanish preterite and imperfect distinction, for example, is done through rules such as this one: When narrating in the past, the imperfect describes what was happening, while the preterite describes the actions that interrupt the ongoing activity. The imperfect provides background information, while the preterite indicates specific events that advance the plot. (Blanco, 2007, p. 65)

This paragraph illustrates an abbreviated version of the canonical explanation for Spanish preterite and imperfect given to learners in the L2 classroom. Students are taught these or similar rules as if they were conceptually transparent and easily applicable. Developing a conceptual understanding of rules such as the above requires that learners develop understandings of notions such as description, narration, interruption, completed action, background and advancing the plot. This is not a small conceptual matter, although it seems to be taken for granted in most L2 classrooms. In L2 classrooms, insufficient attention is still paid to the quality of conceptual teaching as a type of explicit teaching. Conceptual meanings provided to learners in explanations are taken for granted. Learners are not encouraged to discover themselves if they can indeed use conceptual categories to make sense of their own communicative choices. Internalization processes are not documented explicitly, which from the present perspective is one of the critical research issues: the pedagogical documentation of internalization through conceptualization tasks. In sum, the argument made here is that in most teaching contexts explanations of meaning are a given. Meaning is taught either through conceptually unfocused tasks or through simple transmission of information and explanation of grammatical rules in textbooks. Meaning as concept is not theorized in grammar teaching. In this sense, the common approach to grammatical explanations in L2 classrooms is basic presentation and illustration of grammatical points through a few examples. For instance, Nassaji and Fotos (2011) reviewed current approaches to grammar teaching in the communicative classroom. However, none of the approaches reviewed in their comprehensive and well-written treatment of grammar in the communicative classroom included a conceptual understanding of grammar. From a sociocultural perspective, the quality of explanations and their precise presentation and application by learners is at the crux of the matter (Kozulin, 1998). The application of concepts to self-generated discourse is not a practice-and-drill matter. Complex and functional conceptual categories grow as they are applied. They are not ready-made. This is the basis for arguing in favour of a conceptual approach to L2 teaching, and in the present case, a conceptual approach to grammar teaching.

230

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Metalinguistic knowledge and simplified rules of thumb in L2 pedagogical grammars To complicate matters, most grammatical explanations presented in L2 grammar through textbooks for the L2 classroom have simplified grammatical rules excessively. This is a pedagogical and research issue that has been noted in the literature on Spanish pedagogical grammar from quite some time (see Bull, 1966; Frantzen, 1996; Whitley, 2002 among others). The quality of explanations available to learners through textbooks is not consistent or systematic. In university settings, the importance of this point should not be underestimated. Most L2 teachers and learners study and construct their understanding of language starting from textbooks. However, even if we were to find sophisticated while pedagogically adequate explanations of language for the L2 classroom (which we do for many complex grammatical semantic and pragmatic issues in Spanish SLA, thanks to the work of linguists such as Bolinger, 1991), the transformation of metalinguistic knowledge into conceptual tools for verbal thinking is certainly not about presenting the perfect grammatical explanation and then practising forms. The result of teaching simplistic rules of thumb is conceptual confusion among L2 learners. It is documented, for instance in Liskin-Gasparro (2000), that advanced speakers of L2 Spanish and even instructors of Spanish at university level justify complex grammatical choices by improvising criteria and rules. The following excerpt illustrates this point nicely: S: I guess because running is faster than walking . . . And when I think about it now, it also makes sense that the running was interrupted. I guess the speed of it makes it a preterite. (Liskin-Gasparro, 2000, p. 839)

What is remarkable about the above quote reported in Liskin-Gasparro (2000) is that even an advanced speaker of L2 Spanish, married to a native speaker of Spanish, teaching Spanish at university level, does not have a coherent enough conceptual understanding to explain his own use of preterite and imperfect morphology in a narrative task. The participant concludes that preterite is used in a particular context because of the speed of an action. In this respect, it is evident from his response that the rules presented in textbooks to this L2 advanced speaker, and even the rules that he, as a Spanish instructor, has explained to students in his classes, are not effective thinking tools to make consistent sense of his linguistic choices. In this case, it seems that any overt metalinguistic knowledge of preterite/imperfect that this speaker may have studied as a learner, or even taught as an instructor, represents non-functional explicit knowledge, which does not have any significance in communication and conceptualization. Rules of thumb may be helpful some of the time in relation to mechanical aspects of language. However, most grammatical rules of thumb which attempt to explain meaning do not become thinking aids that could help learners to coherently make sense of their communicative choices. From a sociocultural perspective, and as mentioned above, what we have not looked at carefully when researching instructed L2 acquisition is the quality of pedagogical

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

231

explanations. Incomplete and simplistic presentations of pedagogical issues lead to what some educators have called synthetic stupidity (Engestron, 1996). Synthetic stupidity is the use of illogical explanations to make sense of phenomena. One of the sources of those illogical explanations does not reside in the learner, but in simplified explanations and incomplete pedagogical models and diagrams. Models and explanations that are simplified in excess cannot orient the learning process systematically and coherently. Hence, learners end up reaching conclusions that are illogical, based on the models they have internalized in formal learning settings. To be sure, the illogical bases for reasoning are not the fault of students but the fault of the simplistic representations which are used to explain and make sense of the world, or in this case, to make sense of L2 communicative interactions. In the end, the quality of grammatical explanations present in most textbooks on grammatical issues such as preterite and imperfect is problematic (see Frantzen, 1996). The reason is that rules of thumb are not systematic in explaining meaning and grammar use. For instance, in the case of preterite/imperfect we generally find: grammar-based meanings (such as an action being complete or incomplete), functional uses of language (such as the imperfect providing for background information) or concrete contexts of use (the imperfect to tell the time). Grammatical explanations do not address the semantic notion of aspect (both lexical and grammatical), which underlies the preterite and imperfect (Comrie, 1976). In the end, what complicates a conceptual understanding and application even further is that the canonical rules of thumb for teaching preterite and imperfect do not hold (see Whitley, 2002). To develop a conceptual understanding of aspect for using preterite and imperfect, the critical pedagogical element is that students begin to appreciate their grammatical choices based on the meaning they deploy by using language. Common simplistic grammatical rules lead students to believe that linguistic choices are determined by fixed rules of grammar. However, language is about what the speaker wishes to say and not about following a rule. As Ganém-Gutiérrez and Harun (2011, p. 114) remark, we need to ‘move away from seeing grammar as a series of discrete pedagogical rules to be memorised and into an understanding of how the system works in order to convey meaning’. In the case of the Spanish preterite/imperfect, the goal is that learners understand and appreciate a Spanish grammatical point through a semantic notion: aspect (Comrie, 1976). When teaching Spanish preterite and imperfect in the L2 classroom, the conventional hope is that students learn to use Spanish past morphology with accuracy. If the student learns to use appropriate verbal endings in simplified linguistic contexts, the work is done from a teaching perspective. However, from a sociocultural developmental perspective, the point is not only to simply use morphology in canonically correct ways, but also to use morphology oriented by sophisticated understandings of language, which on occasion may break the conventional rules of prescribed language use (for instance, using imperfect for narration in a story when the canonical aspect to be used is preterite). To conclude, the common problem with teaching grammar rules as part of metalinguistic knowledge is that explanations are presented to learners as transparent statements, when in fact even simplified grammatical rules contain conceptual

232

The Metalinguistic Dimension

notions such as ‘description’, ‘narration’, ‘interruption’, ‘recording’, ‘reflexivity’, ‘assertion’, ‘completed action’, which are not conceptually transparent, are not clear to learners and are much less easily applicable in open-ended communicative situations. L2 learners in most communicative classrooms are confronted with these rules in textbooks. Well-intentioned but excessive simplification impedes a complete and coherent understanding of the communicative agency exerted by speakers through language use. This is even more critical for metalinguistic knowledge that describes unique meaning categories that are grammaticalized differently in different languages (see Slobin, 1996). Without overt sophisticated explanations, it is quite hard to appreciate grammatical features which grammaticalize complex linguistic meanings such as aspect, tense, modality and motion (Han and Cadierno, 2010), and which may be different or even completely absent from one’s first language thinking-for-speaking patterns as discussed below.

Metalinguistic knowledge and conceptual categories related to thinking-for-speaking L2 learners, as people, are sense-making beings. Learners create understandings  – concepts – to be able to apprehend the complexities of learning a new language. When faced with the task of making sense of new complex grammatical forms, learners create ad hoc meanings. Some of them are simple enough, e.g. the morpheme –s marks plural in Spanish (e.g. casa vs casas). Most intermediate learners participating in grammatically unfocused communicative tasks may be able to notice this type of basic grammatical meaning. Meaning is conveyed by formal resources (morphology and syntax) at the textual and sentential level. Mastering basic morphology and even certain syntactical constructions in Spanish may be challenging given the need to automatize and use a large inventory of morphemes in different contexts. This large amount of grammatical forms needs to be internalized in concrete communicative activity. In this respect, communicative development is quite complex and it needs to be promoted through communicative interaction. However, not everything that needs to be learned in the L2 classroom is conceptually complex in the same sense. Some conceptual meanings help to orient communicative activity. They are critical to improve our oral and written communicative performance. For instance, understanding the notion of genre for writing is quite challenging. Genre as a functional concept is needed for writing appropriately in different contexts (see Ferreira and Lantolf, 2008 for a concept-based approach to teaching the notion of genre). The notion of genre needs to become functionally relevant for learners in guiding their written performance. Still, some other categories of meaning are even more challenging because they are more integrally connected to our verbal thinking, and are quite invisible to introspection for most learners. This connection to verbal thinking makes the internalization of these meanings even harder, if not impossible, to internalize unless there is adequate conceptual mediation. This is the case when trying to help L2 learners appreciate how speakers convey aspectual differences through morphology in Spanish (see also Gánem-Gutiérrez and Harun, 2011 for a conceptual study of tense-aspect marking in L2 English).

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

233

As seen in Negueruela Azarola (2003), grammatical categories related to thinking through language-specific meanings will not be internalized unless one consciously focuses on them in appropriate conceptual tasks. This is the case with grammaticalized categories such as tense, aspect, motion or modality, which orient our thinking when speaking a first language (Slobin, 1996). These are hard to appreciate and even notice at all when learning a language that is typologically different from the L1. However, the systematic study of categories of meaning is rarely presented in the L2 classroom. The key from a sociocultural theory perspective, in my view, is to teach meaning to understand meaning so as to internalize concepts in complete and coherent ways.

Semiogenesis: The emergence of conceptual meanings in sense-making tasks To promote and capture the development of conceptualizations as tools for internalizing hard-to-appreciate grammatical categories such as aspect in Spanish, researchers and teachers need to design tasks that promote L2 conceptual manipulation. This is the essence of what I call semiogenesis (Negueruela Azarola, 2011). Semiogenesis is based on documenting the emergence of conceptual meanings as signs with functional capabilities in concrete communicative activity. Semiogenesis is a type of microgenesis; that is, documenting the development of verbal thinking in short periods of time as described by Wertsch (1985, p. 54). Semiogenesis is made methodologically and pedagogically concrete through conceptualization tasks. I now avoid the term verbalization because this is generally used to refer to the act of vocalizing one’s thought. Conceptualization tasks are more specific. They involve using ideas/concepts as tools to make sense of language and meaning-making activity oriented towards self-understanding through categories of meaning for reflecting on meaning per se (Negueruela Azarola, 2011). To be sure, conceptualization is not simply verbalizing in the sense of overtly speaking about what we do while we do it, which is indeed more connected to Gal’perin’s (1969) original idea of verbalization (speaking aloud in describing one’s actions while performing a task). For Gal’perin and his research group, verbalization was more about the procedural realization of ideal actions through the materiality of words. Gal’perin’s sense is also similar to the recent research in SLA, see for instance, Swain, Lapkin, Knouzi, Suzuki, and Brooks (2009), which is inspired by Negueruela Azarola (2003). In the present view, the issue is not verbalization in a general sense, but conceptualization: promoting mediated thinking and taking it as the central evidence of the development of conceptual categories. Understanding that mediated thinking is the essence of conscious minds and of higher forms of human thinking (e.g. intentional memory, voluntary attention, categorization problem solving and intentional planning) requires us to look at the mediational tools used in activity. The very use and development of a psychological tool – conceptualization  – to complete a task is indeed semiogenesis: the revolutionary, transformative, contradictory and dialectical emergence of signs as meaning-making tools with functional capabilities. In sum, this is what I propose as the essence of

234

The Metalinguistic Dimension

semiogenesis: sense-making in communication with others, but mainly with the self. This will be described based on a study of L2 learners of Spanish (for a full account see Negueruela Azarola, 2003). The following is a basic conceptualization task, also adapted from Negueruela Azarola (2003), based on the notion of semiogenesis in the L2 classroom. It was designed to foster the emergence of conceptualization of aspect in an intermediate Spanish classroom at a North American university. COMMUNICATION AND CONCEPTUALIZATION TASK (1)  COMMUNICATION Tell your instructor a personal and interesting story about how you and your family spent Thanksgiving Holidays last year. Use pretérito or imperfecto for your narrative. Steps: (1.1) First, record yourself telling your instructor your story. Do not prepare anything. Improvise. (1.2) Listen to your own recording. Write down your story for analysis. (2)  CONCEPTUALIZATION Reflect, using the notion of aspect, on the meaning that you construct by using pretérito or imperfecto. (2.1) Analyse 8 utterances. Explain each utterance and your use of preterite or imperfect using the grammatical category of ASPECT. Use ABSTRACT reasons studied so far. These reasons need to be based on abstract grammatical meaning (I present the action as completed because . . . I use lexical aspect and grammatical aspect to convey the following meaning . . .). IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not use simple grammatical rules to justify your linguistic choices: such as an expression like ‘De repente’ requires pretérito in Spanish. (2.2) Explain the connection between lexical and grammatical aspect in each sentence. (2.3) Explain why for you a particular form is appropriate and meaningful in each context. Is the other option coherent or appropriate for the meaning you want to convey? (2.4) Point out how you use each verb to either set the background of the story, or the foreground. In the above communication and conceptualization basic task, learners first create their own text and then reflect on it using explanations of language that are based on abstract grammatical meaning. Learners in this class were asked to reflect by themselves on the reasons for using preterite and imperfect. They were specifically asked to avoid mechanical rules. This type of conceptualization task is designed to help learners connect communication and conceptualization by reflecting on discourse that they themselves produce. Pedagogically, there are probably other creative ways in which conceptualization tasks may be implemented in the classroom. However, one aspect that seemed to be critical in this conceptualization task was self-recording. New technologies (online

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

235

forums, voice boards, wikis and blogs) may prove to be quite fruitful as mediums for designing individual and group tasks. Other more sophisticated conceptual tasks could be devised based on the principle of conceptual manipulation illustrated above. The following section will discuss some representative data samples from learners who completed the task.

Discussion of sample data The study: Negueruela Azarola (2003) In Negueruela Azarola (2003), based upon the notion of semiogenesis, students of L2 Spanish were asked to apply sophisticated grammatical notions as tools through which they had to explain their own linguistic choices when writing and speaking in Spanish. The attempt to apply grammatical notions uncovered a lack of coherence in students’ thinking and beliefs when understanding their own linguistic choices. This attempt also promoted both the development of more systematic, visible understandings of complex grammatical notions and a more consistent use of Spanish morphology in open written and oral performance. The very act of trying to apply a sophisticated concept such as verbal aspect to understand the use of preterite and imperfect verb forms in Spanish improved performance in open written discourse (see also Negueruela and Lantolf, 2006). Data reported, in what follows, shows the conceptualization tasks of two intermediate learners. Before these two learners were asked to conceptualize the meaning of preterite/imperfect they were presented with a grammatical explanation based on the notion of aspect: both lexical and grammatical, and its relevance for understanding the meaning of preterite/imperfect in Spanish. Part of the teaching sequence was also to provide learners with a pedagogical representation of aspect that could be utilized by learners as a didactic model. A flow chart of options was designed to make concrete the complex notion of aspect. Other options are possible. Yañez Prieto (2008) designed a series of drawings to capture the meaning of preterite/imperfect. In the end, the development of pedagogical representation with functional significance in conceptual development is itself a critical research task in order to develop a conceptual approach for the L2 classroom.

Data The three excerpts below are from a learner in the sixth semester of study of L2 Spanish at university level in a North American institution. This particular student was able to make coherent connections between accurate performance using preterite and imperfect and conceptualization of the meaning of preterite and imperfect through the notion of verbal aspect. As mentioned above, the notion of verbal aspect was presented to learners through conceptual explanations, diagrams and group work (see Negueruela, 2003 for a full account of the study). Sample data (1) and (2) below illustrate how student A reflected on aspectual meaning, points in time and completion. She was

236

The Metalinguistic Dimension

able to construct an understanding of the notion of aspect that is quite complete, and not based exclusively on simplistic textbook grammatical rules. Sample data (1): Student A ‘Cuando ellos volvieron a la casa, nosotros tomamos el postre’. [When they came back (preterite) home, we had (preterite) dessert]3 I chose the preterite ‘volvieron’ because it is something in the foreground. It’s an action that was completed; it basically signifies the end of an action I would say. ‘Tomamos’ I believe would signify the beginning of an action and because it’s not an ongoing thing that is why I chose the preterite. Sample data (2): Student A ‘La primera noche que estábamos allí comimos en un restaurante en el centro comercial que estaba muy cerca de nuestro hotel’. [The first night that we were (imperfect) there we ate (preterite) in a restaurant in the the shopping center that was (imperfect) very close to our hotel]. ‘Estábamos’, again signifies the middle of an action, in the middle of our being there. ‘Comimos’, that is the preterite because in a sense signifies the end of an action, because I’m talking about in the story what happened after we eat. So, that emphasizes the completion of the action. ‘Estaba’ was used because that represents something ongoing in the action that is going on in the middle of action. Sample data (3): Student A ‘Esas personas no tenían que pagar’. [Those people did not (imperfect) have to pay]. I chose the imperfect because that wasn’t a completed action or an action of the beginning. It was something that was ongoing when other things were happening in the middle of it.

These three samples of data reflect how learner A is using the notion of aspect to make sense of preterite and imperfect. Reflecting on her experience of the conceptualization task, student A reported the following: Personal reflection (1): Student A I found that listening to my own recordings helped me notice many errors and made me less likely to repeat them in the re-recordings. [. . .] With newer concepts, in cases where I wasn’t sure of a construction in the first place, [. . .] I used the step of explaining things to myself more than when I recognized a mistake I had already made. Explaining things to myself helps me a lot.

Learners who participated in conceptualization tasks in Negueruela Azarola (2003) reported that explaining complex grammatical points to themselves using conceptual categories improves both their understanding of grammar and their performance in communicative tasks. Samples (4), (5) and (6) are from a learner (student B) from the same class who was not as consistent in her use of morphology and as complete in her conceptual

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

237

reasoning in recordings. The reasons she gave for choosing preterite and imperfect are quite brief. Her reflections are shorter, and her reasoning emphasizes more the notion of rule requirement. Sample data (4): Student B ‘También mis hermanos y yo miramos el fútbol americano en la televisión y hablamos sobre nuestras vidas’. [Also mi brothers and I watched (preterite) American football on television and we talked (preterite) about our lives] Both verbs are completed actions; therefore requiring the preterite.

Sample data (5): Student B ‘Durante la cena mi cuñada anunció que estaba embarazada otra vez’. [During dinner my sister in law announced (preterite) that she was (imperfect) pregnant again.] ‘Anunció’ is a completed action and I used the imperfect for ‘estaba embarazada’ because at the time it was an ongoing action. She wasn’t just pregnant that day; she had been pregnant for a month or two and would continue to be pregnant for another couple of months.

Sample data (6): Student B ‘Entonces mis hermanos y yo lavamos los platos antes del postre’. [Then my brothers and I washed (preterite) the plates before dessert.] ‘Lavamos’ is a completed action. It was the next thing that happened in my story.

Her reasoning in these cases was partly based on the notion of verbal aspect. She mentions the idea of ‘completed action’ versus ‘ongoing action’ with some coherence. However, she does not seem to be aware of the flexibility of the concept of aspect when narrating in Spanish. Some uses of the preterite in samples (4) (5) and (6) could have also been narrated in the imperfect, but student B did not seem to be aware of it from these recordings. In the personal reflections of student B, we find some explanations for the lack of elaboration in her conceptualizations. She reported that recording herself and verbalizing her explanation was useful. However if she ‘thought she was right in the first place’, self-explaining did not help: Personal reflection: Student B I thought the idea of verbalizing different sentences and acting out various situation was great. It allowed me to go back and listen to the mistakes I made and then correct them in order to become more conscious of the way I speak. I did silently explain my reasoning for using a certain tense, which helped if I found any mistakes, but the explanation didn’t necessarily help me if I thought I was right in the first place.

Student B also found conceptualization tasks and self-explanations beneficial. However, she was not as thorough in her reflections as student A. As student B mentions, if she

238

The Metalinguistic Dimension

thought she was right in the beginning, the self-explanations did not help as much. This comment leads us to believe that she was not as critical in her thinking. Interestingly enough, her conceptualization tasks were not as complete. This fact is quite revealing in itself from a sociocultural theory perspective because from a developmental point of view, student A seems to have developed more than student B, because recordings from student A revealed a more complete and thorough understanding of aspect and the flexibility of its application. By contrast, student B was much more constrained in her choices and her reasoning in conceptualization tasks reveals a more mechanical understanding of language. Her recordings revealed that she transforms the concept of aspect into a basic rule: completed action is preterite and ongoing action is imperfect. In the end, both students learned from the task and developed conceptual understanding. However, student A appears to have developed a more complete and flexible understanding of preterite and imperfect.

Conclusion: Metalinguistic concepts as agents for thinking From a sociocultural perspective a first critical step in transforming metalinguistic knowledge into functional tools for thinking is the teaching of grammar conceptually. This requires going beyond simplistic rules of grammatical use. L2 teachers need better explanations of language to be presented and used by L2 learners in classrooms. There is already accessible and sophisticated research in pedagogical grammars in languages such as Spanish (see Whitley, 2002). Grammatical issues that are traditionally complex and hard to master for L2 learners are precisely semantic/pragmatic points related to thinking-for-speaking (Slobin, 1996). Any grammatical meaning related to conceptual categories based on semantics (e.g. modality, aspect, tense, motion) or pragmatics (e.g. normativity, coherence, evidentiality, mutual knowledge) cannot be appropriately captured and explained through simplistic rules of grammar that describe a few contexts of use. These are categories that are at the core of our thinking for speaking patterns when we learn a first language (Slobin, 1996); they are resistant to change. For instance, in the case of Spanish SLA, preterite/imperfect, indicative/subjunctive or ser/estar are three canonically challenging distinctions for learners. Even if we produce a long, elaborate description of such complex grammatical issues as some advanced level textbooks do, the issue is not having an extensive detailed explanation of all possible contexts of use. The key is to provide learners with a conceptual meaning with functional significance so that learners may use it to make sense of their communicative choices in concrete communicative contexts. The issue is creating a representation that can be used as a thinking tool, so as to provide learners with solid metalinguistic explanations of meaning categories. The point of reflection when learners engage in conceptual manipulation is not meta-consciousness but transformative consciousness: the merging of conceptualization and communication. The goal is to help L2 learners to consciously use conceptual categories of meaning to orient linguistic choices (Negueruela Azarola, 2011). This understanding certainly goes beyond knowing metalinguistic terms or even following

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

239

and applying rules of grammar. It also surpasses defining grammatical categories so as to be able to identify types of words or parts of a sentence. Transforming metalinguistic knowledge into conceptual categories with functional relevance in communicative activity requires the merging of communication with conceptualization. This is made pedagogically concrete in four steps: (1) Complete grammatical explanations: finding complete but accessible conceptual explanations for challenging grammatical issues based on explaining meaning not only at the sentential level but at the textual and contextual levels; (2) Adequate representations: representing these explanations through adequate didactic materials that can serve as aids to internalization (long linguistic elaborations are impossible to use as thinking tools); (3) Coherent conceptualizations: introducing pedagogical tasks in the L2 classroom to promote coherent conceptual manipulation: thinking about meaning through meaning; (4) Consistent articulation: connecting conceptual meanings with other conceptual meanings through courses and curricula. In sum, in this chapter I have illustrated the pedagogical relevance of conceptualization tasks for communicative development in the L2 classroom. Space has only allowed me to present four brief samples of data. However, evidence in the field of SLA is beginning to point to the critical importance of promoting conceptual thinking in the language classroom (Negueruela Azarola, 2003; Lantolf and Poehner, 2008). From a Vygotskyan perspective, metalinguistic knowledge is critical for promoting L2 development. However, for metalinguistic knowledge to be of functional value for L2 learners, teachers need to find quality explanations. It also requires creating the dynamics to promote conceptual manipulation. Having a perfect explanation is not enough to internalize conceptual categories. Learners need to work with conceptual representations and engage in conceptual manipulation. Learners have to operate with signs. This is the real agent for change in conceptual development, even though Wittgenstein (1960) reminds readers that talking about agents when explaining thinking is, after all, only using metaphors.

Notes 1 I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Adela Gánem-Gutiérrez for their helpful suggestions in this chapter. Andrew Lynch also provided detailed feedback in an earlier version of this manuscript. 2 I am only making claims about L2 development as a conceptual process, that is, L2 development as defined in this chapter from a sociocultural psychology perspective. To be sure, L2 development is defined as conscious awareness through the internalization of conceptual categories. Hence, L2 development is defined in quite different terms when compared to other paradigms in the field of SLA. Before making connections to other claims about L2 development in the field, one should make sure that central categories such as language, learning, or mind are understood and defined in similar ways. In most cases, these central research categories are defined in incommensurable ways in different SLA theories. 3 Translations of Spanish utterances in square brackets are by author.

240

The Metalinguistic Dimension

References Arievitch, I. and Stetsenko, A. (2000), ‘The quality of cultural tools and cognitive development: Galp’perin’s perspective and its implications’. Human Development, 43, 69–92. Batstone, R. (2010), Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blanco, J. (2007), Imagina. Boston: Vista Higher Learning. Blyth, C. (1997), ‘A constructivist approach to grammar: Teaching teachers to teach aspect’. Modern Language Journal, 81, 50–66. Bodrova, E. and Leong, D. J. (1996), Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Bolinger, D. (1991), ‘Essays on Spanish: Words and grammar’, in J. H. Silverman (ed.), Essays in Spanish: Words and Grammar. Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta Hispanic Monographs, pp. 207–10. Bull, W. (1966). Spanish for teachers: applied linguistics. New York: Ronald Press Company. Byrnes, H. (2013), ‘Reconsidering graduate students’ education as scholar-teachers: Mind your language!’, in H. W. Allen and H. M. Maxim (eds), Educating the Future Foreign Language Professoriate for the 21st Century. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage, pp. 174–92. Comrie, B. (1976), Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. M. (1998), ‘Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar’, in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 114–38. — (2003), ‘Implicit and explicit learning’, in C. Doughty and M. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 313–48. Ellis, R. (2004), ‘The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge’. Language Learning, 54, 227–75. Engeström, Y. (1991), ‘Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning’. Learning and Interaction, 1, 243–59. Ferreira, M. and Lantolf, J. P. (2008), ‘A concept-based approach to teaching: Writing through genre analysis’, in J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (eds), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. London: Equinox, pp. 285–320. Frantzen, D. (1996), ‘Preterite/Imperfect half-truths: Problems with Spanish textbooks rules for usage’. Hispania, 78, (1), 144–58. Gal’perin, P. I. (1969), ‘Stages in the development of mental acts’, in M. Cole and I. Maltzman (eds), A Handbook of Contemporary Soviet Psychology. New York: Basic Books, pp. 249–73. Ganém-Gutiérrez, G. A. and Harun, H. (2011), ‘Verbalisation as a meditational tool for understanding tense-aspect marking in English: An application of concept-based instruction’. Language Awareness, 20, (2), 99–119. Hall, J. K. (2002), Methods for Teaching Foreign Languages. Creating a Community of Learners in the Classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Han, Z. and Cadierno, T. (2010), Linguistic Relativity in SLA. Thinking for Speaking. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ilyenkov, E. V. (1977), Dialectical Logic. Moscow: Progress Press. Kozulin, A. (1998), Psychological Tools. A Sociocultural Approach to Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

The Being and Becoming of Metalinguistic Knowledge

241

Kramsch, C. (1993), Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) (2000), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. (eds) (2008), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Foreign Languages. London: Equinox. Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006), Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liskin-Gasparro, J. (2000), ‘The use of tense-aspect morphology in Spanish oral narratives: Exploring the perceptions of advanced learners’. Hispania, 83, 830–44. Lotman, Y. (1990), Universe of Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004), Second Language Learning Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nasajji, H. and Fotos, S. (2011), Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms. New York: Routledge. Negueruela Azarola, E. (2003), Systemic-Theoretical Instruction and L2 Development: A Sociocultural Approach to Teaching-Learning and Researching L2 Learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. — (2008), ‘Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads development in the second language classroom’, in J. P. Lantolf and M. Poehner (eds), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Teaching. London: Equinox, pp. 189–227. — (2011), ‘Beliefs as conceptualizing activity. A dialectical approach for the second language classroom’. System, 39, (3), 359–69. Negueruela, E. and Lantolf, J. P. (2006), ‘Concept-based pedagogy and the acquisition of L2 Spanish’, in R. M. Salaberry and B. A. Lafford (eds), The Art of Teaching Spanish: Second Language Acquisition from Research to Praxis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 79–102. Newman, F. and Holzman, L. (1997), The End of Knowing. A New Developmental Way of Learning. New York: Routledge. Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000), ‘Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis’. Language Learning, 50, (3), 417–528. Odlin, T. (1994), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Omaggio Hadley, A. (1997), Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Roehr, K. and Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2009), ‘The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning’. Language Awareness, 19, (2), 165–81. Seliger, H. W. (1979), ‘On the nature and function of language rules in language teaching’. Tesol Quaterly, 13, (3), 359–69. Slobin, D. (1996), ‘From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”’, in S. Gumperz and S. Levinson (eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–96. Swaffar, J. and Arens, K. (2005), Remapping the Foreign Language Curriculum: An Approach through Multiple Literacies. New York: Modern Language Association. Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W. and Brooks, L. (2009), ‘Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French’. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 5–29. Tomasello, M. (2003), Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

242

The Metalinguistic Dimension

Valsiner, J. (2001), ‘Process structure of semiotic mediation in human development’. Human Development, 44, 84–97. van Lier, L. (2001), ‘The role of form in language learning’, in M. Bax and I. Zwart (eds), Reflections on Language and Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 287–300. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), Mind in Society, M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman (eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Original work published 1930, 1933, 1935). — (1986), Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Original work published 1934). Wertsch, J. (1985), The Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Whitley, M. S. (2002), Spanish/English Contrasts. A Course in Spanish Linguistics (2nd edn). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1960), The Blue and Brown Books. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Yañez Prieto, C. (2008), On Literature and the Secret Art of (Im)possible Worlds: Teaching/ Learning Literature through Language. The Pennsylvania State University: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.

Index Page numbers in bold refer to figures/tables.  Ableeva, R.  197 Abu-Rabia, S.  46 acceptability  17–18 Adams, A.-M.  61 Alderson, J. C.  6, 15, 95, 96, 97, 122, 148 Alexiou, T.  17, 19, 27, 33 Aljaafreh, R.  196 Álvarez, A.  196 ambiguity  17–18, 20 analytic skills  19 Andersen, R.  77–8 Andrade, J.  61 Antón, M.  211 applied linguistics  3, 81 Arens, K.  228 Arievitch, I.  226 Armand, F.  45 Bachman, L.  20 BALLI studies  97–8 Bardel, C.  135 Basturkmen, H.  179 Bates, E.  61 Batstone, R.  177, 228 Beckett, T. G.  196, 204 Benson, P.  97, 123 Berry, R.  5, 72, 74, 171, 185, 190 Bialystok, E.  4, 16, 18, 19, 25, 27, 31, 33, 45, 48, 50, 60, 96, 121, 122 bilingualism  16, 19, 34 Birdsong, D.  16, 17, 48 Blanco, J.  229 Bley-Vroman, R.  81 Blyth, C.  227 Bodrova, E.  225 Bolinger, D.  230 Bouffard, L. A.  15 Bourque Richard, J.  52 Bower, G. H.  52

Bowey, J. A.  4, 46, 49 Brooks, L.  233 Bull, W.  230 Bygate, M.  177 Byrnes, H.  228 Cadierno, T.  232 Cain, K.  46, 47, 48, 51, 61 Camps, A.  96, 150, 151, 163, 176 Carlisle, J. F.  45 Carr, T. H.  47 Cataldo, M. G.  52 Celce-Murcia, M.  76 Cenoz, J.  121, 122, 135, 136 Chaikitmongkol, W.  100 Chaudron, C.  81 Chiappe, P.  46, 60 Clay, M. M.  51 cognitive skills  16, 19 see also metacognitive skills Cohen, A.  82, 124, 127, 134, 151 Cohen, L.  104 Collaborative Output Tasks, performance of,  LRE categories in COT studies  173 metalanguage in, role of  171–90 Comblain, A.  46 communicating in the L2,  usefulness of grammar for  6 Comrie, B.  231 Cotterall, S.  95, 97 Cummins, J.  16, 18, 19, 32 Da fontoura, H.  46 Daneman, M.  61 De Angelis, G.  121, 122, 132, 133, 136, 138 de Villiers, J. G.  48 DeKeyser, R.  16, 73, 74, 75, 88, 90, 96, 148, 228, 229

244

Index

Demont, E.  48, 49 Denhiere, G.  51 dialectics  223 Diaz, R. M.  18 Dörnyei, Z.  16, 22, 97, 103, 178, 179 Doughty, C.  123, 148, 172, 176 Duff, P. A.  179 Dunn, L. M.  52 dynamic assessment (DA)  8, 196–8 Dynamic Assessment cycle  201 Dynamic Model of Multilingualism, the  121 Eckerth, J.  177, 179 Egi, T.  152, 153 Elder, C.  5, 6, 72, 73, 75, 88, 90, 96, 97, 148 Elliott, J. G.  197 Ellis, N. C.  96, 148 Ellis, R.  4, 5, 7, 16, 20, 33, 50, 72, 73, 74, 75, 96, 101, 148, 151, 163, 164, 165, 172, 176, 199, 209, 211, 222 Enever, J.  15 Engeström, Y.  231 English as a foreign language (EFL)  195 epilinguistic awareness  120 see also metalinguistic awareness Erben, T.  198 Ericsson, K.  151 Erlam, R.  3, 5, 6, 78, 81, 82 explicit knowledge  16, 20, 33, 96, 99, 148, 185, 222, 223 definition of  148 and implicit knowledge  72 explicit learning  16 explicit teaching  96 Falk, Y.  135 Feuerstein, R.  197 Flavell, J. H.  97 Flynn, S.  121 Fortune, A.  7, 8, 147, 149, 150, 151, 164, 165, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180 Fotos, S.  228, 229 Foucambert, D.  3, 5, 6, 51 Frantzen, D.  227, 230, 231 French, L. M.  61 functional knowledge  9 Negueruela Azarola on  9

Gal’perin, P. I.  233 Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A.  5, 8, 72, 97, 101, 102, 122, 148, 222, 231, 232 Ganschow, L.  198, 207 Garb, E.  198 García Mayo, M. P.  148, 150, 151, 163, 164, 165 García-Carbonell, A.  207 Gass, S.  75, 122, 124, 147, 151, 152, 153 Gathercole, S. E.  53 Gaux, C.  4, 46, 48, 49, 50 genesis  224 Geva, E.  46 Goff, D. A.  46, 47 Gombert, J.-E.  4, 17, 45, 46, 50, 60, 119, 120, 126 Goss, N.  152 Goswami, U.  46 Gower, R.  78 Graaff, R. de  22 Graesser, A. C.  51 Grammaticality Judgement test (GJT)  71–2, 74–6, 78–9 Green, P.  72, 138 Gut, U.  121 Guthrie, J. T.  52 Gutiérrez, X.  7, 8, 147, 148, 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 174, 175, 176, 187 Haberlandt, K.  51 Hacker, D. J.  97 Hakes, D.  16, 17, 19, 20, 27, 33, 46 Hakuta, K.  18, 20, 29 Hall, J. K.  227 Hammarberg, B.  121, 122, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140 Han, Z.  232 Harley, B.  16 Harris, V.  31 Hart, D.  16 Harun, H.  231, 232 Hecht, K.  72 Herdina, P.  119, 121 Holzman, L.  223 Horwitz, E. K.  95, 97, 98, 114 Housen, A.  203 Hsieh, P. P.-H.  111 Hu, G.  72, 73, 74, 77, 87, 90, 96, 148, 190 Hu, L.-T.  55

Index Huberman, A. M.  104 Hufeisen, B.  121 Hulstijn, J. H.  6, 96 Hwang, H.  54, 57, 172 Ilyenkov, E. V.  223 implicit language knowledge  71, 96, 148, 155 Izumi, S.  73, 88, 90, 172 James, C.  120 Jessner, U.  4, 6, 8, 15, 16, 18, 20, 32, 33, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 135, 139, 141, 198 Johnson-Laird, P. N.  51 Just, M. A.  47 Kang, H.-S.  111 Karmiloff, K.  16, 17 Karmiloff-Smith, A.  16, 17, 60 Kellerman, E.  122, 136 Kennedy, S.  123 Kinnear, P.  198 Kintsch, W.  51, 52 Knouzi, I.  233 Koda, K.  47 Kowal, M.  8, 172, 173, 174 Kozulin, A.  198, 222, 225, 229 Kramsch, C.  228 Krashen, S.  73 Kuiken, F.  147, 149, 150, 163, 203 Kunnan, A. J.  54 L2 acquisition  74, 121, 138, 224, 228, 230 explicit learning on, influence of  16 role of metalinguistic knowledge in  74–5 L2 classroom,  dialectics of learning and development in, the  225–6 metalinguistic knowledge and the  226–8 conceptual categories related to thinking-for-speaking  232–3 L2 communication and conceptualization,  dialectics of, the  224–5 L2 development,  metalinguistic knowledge as conceptual tools for  222–39

245

L2 dynamic assessment,  metalinguistic dimension in, the  198–9 principles of dynamic assessment  198 L2 grammar  100, 104, 107, 113 L2 learning  3, 99, 100, 109 relevance of metalinguistic awareness in  16 L2 learning, adult,  metalinguistic knowledge in  96–7 L2 metalinguistic knowledge test  101–4 results  104–9 L2 oral performance  9 Dynamic Assessment, development through  195–215 study, a  199–215 L2 proficiency  16–17, 89, 95–9, 101, 113, 122, 150 written  97 L3 acquisition  6–7, 121, 133, 136–7, 140 cross-linguistic influence  132–3 L3 performance  7, 119, 122, 130, 139–40 L3 phonological acquisition,  metalinguistic awareness in  119–41 study, a  124–40 L3 phonology  6, 126, 132–8, 140–1 L3 proficiency  7, 125, 128, 130, 134 L3 pronunciation  6–7, 119, 128–9, 140–1 Labelle, M.  3, 5, 6 LaBerge, D.  47 Lambert, W.  121 Lantolf, J. P.  8, 9, 196, 197, 198, 199, 204, 209, 210, 214, 223, 232, 235, 239 Lapkin, S.  8, 147, 149, 163, 164, 172, 173, 174, 177, 199, 233 Larsen-Freeman, D.  76, 214 Larson-Hall, J.  16 learner confidence  6 Leeser, M. J.  8, 149, 173 Leong, D. J.  225 Leow, R. P.  96 Lesaux, N. K.  46, 60, 61 Levis, J. M.  123 lexical semantics  20 Lidz, C. S.  197 linguistic knowledge  4 Lipka, O.  46, 60 Liskin-Gasparro, J.  230 Llama, R.  121, 133 Loehlin, J. C.  54, 72

246 Loewen, S.  75, 90, 98, 99, 103, 104, 110, 111, 112 Long, M.  173, 176 Lor, W.  97, 123 Lotman, Y.  224 Low, P. B.  46, 60 LREs  7–8, 173 LREs with metalinguistic knowledge,  language aspects in  156 LREs without metatalk,  types of knowledge representations in  155, 156 Luk, G.  52 Lund, A.  196, 198, 199, 207, 208 Lust, B.  51 Lynch, T.  215 McDade, H.  82 McDonough, K.  100 McKay, P.  20 Mackey, A.  124, 147, 151, 152, 153 Malakoff, M.  18, 20, 29 Manwaring, D.  6, 97, 148 Martohardjono, G.  47 mediation  196–8, 200, 202–3, 205–7, 211, 223–4 Mennim, P.  215 metacognition  97, 99, 120, 198 metacognitive awareness (MCA)  199–200 metacognitive skills  48, 213 metalingual competence  5, 71–2 metalinguistic ability  4, 5, 16–17 definitions  45 metalinguistic activity  8 metalinguistic awareness  4, 6, 119–21, 198–200, 222 definition of  16 developing a new measure of  20–33 analyses by year group  27–33 conceptual analysis of the new measure  21 data collection and analysis  23–4 participants of the pilot studies  23 test and its components  25–7 dynamic assessment and  196–8 measures of  17–19 in multilinguals  120–1 metalinguistic judgement  71

Index metalinguistic knowledge,  definitions  6, 72 functionality of, the  221 and implicit language knowledge  72 learner beliefs about  97–9 and actual metalinguistic knowledge  112–13 negative beliefs  111–12 positive beliefs  110–11 research issues and questions  99–100 semi-structured interviews  104 in LREs with Covert Metalinguistic Activity  147–65 measuring  75 sociocultural approach to, a  223–4 metalinguistic knowledge acquisition,  effect of instruction on  75–90 see also Grammaticality Judgement test; Metalinguistic Knowledge test; Oral Elicited Imitation Test study, a  76–90 Metalinguistic Knowledge test (MKT)  71, 76, 79–81 limitations  89 metalinguistic performance  6, 90, 112–13 metalinguistic problems  4, 16 metalinguistic thinking  30–1, 34 metaphonological awareness  140–1 metasyntactic ability  4–5, 45–6 metatalk  7, 147, 149–52, 158, 164–5, 172, 174–5, 182 Miles, M. B.  104 Milton, J.  17, 19, 27, 33 Mitchell, R.  226 morphosyntax  20 multilingual proficiency  120–1, 141 multilingualism  121, 124, 138 Muñoz, C.  16 Muranoi, H.  73 Murphy, R.  101 Myles, F.  226 Nassaji, H.  228, 229 Nation, K.  46, 61 Negueruela Azarola, E.  7, 9, 222, 224, 226, 228, 233, 234, 235, 238, 239 Newman, F.  223 Nocus, I.  50 Nogués Meléndez, C.  7, 8

Index Norris, J. M.  71, 72, 73, 83, 96, 209, 214, 228 noticing hypothesis  120 Oakhill, J. V.  54 Odlin, T.  227 Omaggio Hadley, A.  227 O’Neill, M. D.  96 Oral Elicited Imitation Test  76, 81–2 Ortega, L.  71, 72, 73, 83, 96, 209, 214, 228 Osborne, A.  124 Output Hypothesis, the  73, 149, 171–2, 199 Palmer, A.  20 Parrott, M.  77 Pearl, E.  121 pedagogy  9 Perfetti, C. A.  47 Philp, J.  152, 153 phonemic segmentation  17–18 phonological awareness,  literature on  123 tests of  123 Piaget, J.  18 Pienemann, M.  73 Pinto, M. A.  16, 17, 20 Poehner, M. E.  196, 197, 198, 199, 206, 209, 214, 223, 239 Poncelet, M.  52, 54 Pyun, K.-S.122  Qi, D.  147, 149, 163, 164 Ranta, L.  89, 212 reading comprehension,  correlational study, a  48–62 aim of the study  48 data analysis  54 metasyntactic measures  49–50 participants  49 phonological memory  52–3 procedure, the  53–4 receptive vocabulary  52 results  54–62 structural models  56 syntactic measures  50–1 syntactic and metasyntactic abilities to, contribution of  45–62

247

Reinders, H.  72 Renou, J.  122 Ringbom, H.  122, 136 Río del, P.  196 Roberts, A. D.  198, 199 Roehr, K.  3, 5, 6, 15, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 80, 90, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 105, 122, 124, 127, 129, 148, 165, 222 Roman, A. A.  53 Rosa, E.  96 Rothman, J.  49, 121 Rutherford, W.  176 Ryan, E. B.  4, 16, 33 Sachs, J.  82 Samuels, S. J.  47 Sansavini, A.  61 Sarkar, M.  16 Scheffler, P.  99, 103, 112, 113 Schmidt, R. W.  8, 20, 120, 123, 199 Schneider, E.  198, 207 Schoonen, R.  61 Schulz, R. A.  98, 99, 110, 114 self-correction  6, 113, 126, 127–9, 173, 205, 210 Seliger, H. W.  228 Selinker, L.  122, 136, 138 semiogenesis  9, 233–5 study, a  235–8 semiosphere  224 Serrano, R.  212 Siegel, L. S.  46, 60 Silverman, D.  104 Simard, D.  3, 5, 6, 48, 50, 62, 150 Simon, H.  151 Skehan, P.  97, 185 Slobin, D.  232, 233, 238 Smith-Lock, K. M.  46 Snow, C. E.  45 Sociocultural theory (SCT)  196, 214, 225, 233, 238 Someren, M. van  151 Sorace, A.  95 Spolsky, B.  22 Stake, R. E.  179 Stankov, L.  20 Stanovich, K. E.  47 Steinman, L.  198 Stetsenko, A.  226

248 Storch, N.  148, 149, 150, 151, 163, 164, 173, 177, 179 Suzuki, W.  233 Svalberg, A. M.-L.  4, 15, 16 Swaffar, J.  228 Swain, M.  7, 8, 73, 149, 164, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 179, 182, 190, 198, 199, 205, 210, 233 see also Output Hypothesis Swan, M.  101 synonymy  17–18 syntactic ability  4–5, 45–7, 60 synthetic stupidity  231 Tellier, A.  3, 4, 6 Thepseenu, B.  3, 6 Thorne, S. L.  8, 9, 197, 223 Thorp, D.  8, 147, 149, 150, 151, 164, 165, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180 Tocalli-Beller, A.  149, 164 Tomasello, M.  226 Toth, P. D.  74, 88 translation,  as a bilingual skill  20 Trofimovich, P.  123 Tunmer, W. E.  46, 60 Tzuriel, D.  197 Valdés, G.  49 van Dijk, T. A.  51 Van Gelderen, A.  47, 48, 60 Van Lier, L.  228 VanPatten, B.  73, 74, 78

Index Vedder, I.  147, 149, 150, 163 Venkatagiri, H. S.  123 verbal thinking  9, 221, 223–6, 230, 232–3 Verhoeven, L.  47, 51, 60 Vygotsky, L. S.  9, 196, 210, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226 see also dialectics; genesis; mediation; zone of proximal development Wajnryb, R.  8, 173 Walters, S.  78 Watanabe, Y.  149, 179 Weir, C.  20 Wenden, A. L.  97 Wertsch, J.  233 White, C.  89, 96, 97, 212 Whitley, M. S.  227, 230, 231, 238 Williams, J.  149, 176 Williams, S.  122, 123, 135, 137 Wittgenstein, L.  222, 223 Wrembel, M.  3, 6, 7, 121, 123, 132, 133, 136 Yañez Prieto, C.  235 Yang, N.-D.  97 Yelland, G. W.  19 Ziętek, A. A.  101, 102, 105 Zone of Potential Development (ZPOD)  226 zone of proximal development (ZPD)  9, 196–7, 200, 202–3, 207, 209, 211, 213, 225 Zwaan, R. A.  51