Metalinguistic Awareness and Second Language Acquisition

Karen Roehr-Brackin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317338802
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Metalinguistic Awareness and Second Language Acquisition is the first book to present an in-depth overview of metalinguistic awareness as it relates to SLA. In this volume, Roehr-Brackin discusses metalinguistic awareness in the context of both child and adult language learning, and outlines the various methods that can be used to measure metalinguistic awareness. The author presents different approaches to metalinguistic awareness, including a cognitive-developmental perspective that explains how the concept relates to literacy, and an applied linguistics perspective that understands metalinguistic awareness as explicit or conscious knowledge about language. Roehr-Brackin explores the role of metalinguistic awareness in language education aimed at young learners, as well as in instructed adult SLA. This book is an excellent resource for those researching or taking courses in second language acquisition, bi- and multilingualism, and language teaching.

1

Introduction

1.1 Terminology and Definitions

The present volume is concerned with the role of metalinguistic awareness in second language acquisition (SLA). In the SLA literature, the adjective metalinguistic not only appears in combination with the noun awareness, but also in combination with knowledge, ability, capacity and skill, among others. Therefore, it is important to be clear about the meanings of these terms right from the beginning. It is possible to treat some of the terms just listed as synonymous, and indeed it is often difficult to make distinctions in practice. From a theoretical angle, however, precise definitions are both desirable and helpful because they enable us to formulate explanatory accounts and specify suitable measures for the properties described, as we shall see in later chapters.

Taking metalinguistics on its own, it has been suggested that it is “concerned with linguistic activity which focuses on language” (Gombert, 1992, p. 2), in the sense that attention is focused on language as an object in its own right. Accordingly, metalinguistic development can be defined as a growing awareness of certain properties of language and the ability to analyse linguistic input, that is, “to make the language forms the objects of focal attention and to look at language rather than through it to the intended meaning” (Cummins, 1987, p. 57, emphasis added).

Bialystok (2001) discusses the terms metalinguistic knowledge, ability and awareness in an attempt to identify the commonalities and distinctions characterising these concepts. She equates metalinguistic knowledge with knowledge about language. Metalinguistic knowledge is distinguished from linguistic knowledge by means of its greater level of generality; metalinguistic knowledge is considered broad and abstract in that it includes knowledge of general principles applicable to more than one language. It is noted, however, that such abstract knowledge becomes accessible to a speaker/learner through their knowledge of a specific language.

Metalinguistic ability is defined as “the capacity to use knowledge about language as opposed to the capacity to use language” (Bialystok, 2001, p. 124), and it can thus be regarded as synonymous with metalinguistic capacity and metalinguistic skill. Bialystok argues convincingly that in order to be a meaningful concept, metalinguistic ability has to be both distinct from and related to linguistic ability. Hence, metalinguistic ability is regarded as sufficiently unique to be detectable and distinguishable from linguistic ability, while at the same time it is accepted that the two types of ability have a common origin and can be related to each other. Finally, metalinguistic awareness can be defined in terms of attentional focus, since the term “implies that attention is actively focused on the domain of knowledge that describes the explicit properties of language” (Bialystok 2001, p. 127). Importantly, Bialystok favours a process-oriented, continuous view over binary, categorical divisions between constructs, so linguistic/cognitive processes are characterised as more or less metalinguistic rather than as either linguistic or metalinguistic.

In applied linguistics research concerned with SLA in instructed learners, researchers tend to conceptualise metalinguistic awareness in terms of explicit knowledge about language. In this research tradition, a categorical distinction between explicit knowledge on the one hand and implicit knowledge on the other hand is favoured, although the limitations of such a dichotomous view have been highlighted (Hulstijn, 2015; Sanz & Morgan-Short, 2005). Nevertheless, it remains common practice in this paradigm to distinguish between explicit and implicit knowledge, explicit and implicit memory, and explicit and implicit learning. There is relative consensus, at least with regard to the theoretical definitions of these constructs. Explicit knowledge about language refers to “the conscious awareness of what a language or language in general consists of and/or of the roles that it plays in human life”; in other words, “explicit knowledge is knowledge about language and about the uses to which language can be put” (R. Ellis, 2004, p. 229, emphasis in original). Explicit knowledge is knowledge an individual is consciously aware of, and it is potentially available for verbal report (R. Ellis, 2004). Explicit knowledge is represented declaratively (Hulstijn, 2005), subject to controlled processing and is considered symbolic in nature (R. Ellis et al., 2009). Implicit language knowledge, on the other hand, has directly opposing characteristics. It is tacit, intuitive and non-conscious, reflecting the speaker/learner’s sensitivity to the statistical structure of learned material; it is knowledge an individual makes use of via automatic processing, but it is not subject to awareness and cannot be articulated (R. Ellis, 2004; R. Ellis et al., 2009).

Along similar lines, explicit and implicit memory refer to “memory of a past event with or without conscious awareness, respectively” (Hulstijn, 2005, p. 130). Put slightly more technically, explicit memory refers to “situations where recall involves a conscious process of remembering a prior episodic experience”, while implicit memory refers to situations “where there is facilitation of the processing of a stimulus as a function of a recent encounter with the same stimulus but where the subject at no point has to consciously recall the prior event” (N. C. Ellis, 1994, pp. 38–39). Explicit long-term memory includes declarative facts, episodes (i.e. memories of experiences), and semantic memory, including vocabulary knowledge (Hulstijn, 2005). Finally, explicit learning describes situations “when the learner has online awareness, formulating and testing conscious hypotheses in the course of learning”, while implicit learning “describes when learning takes place without these processes; it is an unconscious process of induction resulting in intuitive knowledge that exceeds what can be expressed by learners” (N. C. Ellis, 1994, pp. 38–39). Put more simply, then, explicit learning is learning with conscious awareness, whereas implicit learning is learning without conscious awareness of what is being learned (DeKeyser, 2003).

Throughout this book, L1 is used to refer to a speaker’s first language or, in more traditional terms, a speaker’s native language, while L2 is used to refer to any additional language(s) beyond the L1. The terms L2 learning and SLA are used as synonyms. L3, L4, Lx are used only when it is necessary to make a distinction between various additional languages. No principled conceptual distinction between bilingualism and L2 learning or trilingualism/multilingualism and L3/L4/Lx learning is attempted. Instead, these terms are used in a way that reflects the sources that are being referred to. By the same token, it is acknowledged that speakers may have more than one L1 as defined here.

1.2 Outline of the Book

Chapters 2 and 3 focus on research that conceptualises metalinguistic awareness as situated on a continuum, with knowledge and abilities being considered more or less (meta)linguistic in nature. Chapter 2 is concerned with a cognitive-developmental perspective on metalinguistic awareness and takes the emergence of metalinguistic abilities in children learning their L1 as its starting point. The relationship between the development of metalinguistic awareness and literacy skills is explained, and Bialystok’s influential theoretical framework of analysis of (linguistic) knowledge and control of (linguistic) processing is introduced. The chapter includes a review of research into bilinguals’ metalinguistic awareness, and the issue of potential cognitive advantages arising out of long-term bilingualism is considered. In addition, the question of whether L2 learners can expect to gain similar advantages is addressed. Chapter 3 takes a language-educational perspective and discusses the concept of multilingualism and possible advantages arising out of knowing and being able to use three or more languages. School-based initiatives aimed at fostering children’s language awareness are highlighted, and research into the role of metalinguistic awareness in children’s language learning at primary level is considered.

Chapters 4 and 5 focus on applied linguistics research that conceptualises metalinguistic awareness in terms of explicit knowledge about language and relies on a categorical theoretical distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge, memory, learning and teaching. Chapter 4 explores the theoretical assumptions of this approach and includes a discussion of the interface between explicit and implicit knowledge and processes as well as the cognitive mechanism of attention and the construct of conscious awareness. Explicit knowledge and learning are then discussed in relation to learning difficulty in SLA. The chapter concludes with an exploration of the theoretical connections between metalinguistic awareness and language learning aptitude. Chapter 5 is concerned with empirical evidence. Findings from experimental research into the impact of explicit learning and teaching on SLA are reviewed, and the relationship between learners’ metalinguistic knowledge and their success in L2 learning is taken into consideration. Finally, findings pertaining to the interplay between explicit knowledge and learning on the one hand and individual difference variables such as learner beliefs and language learning aptitude on the other hand are presented.

Chapter 6 focuses on the measurement of metalinguistic awareness. It begins with a review of measures used in research taking an applied linguistics approach and conceptualising metalinguistic awareness in terms of explicit knowledge about language. The focus then shifts to measures used by researchers working in a cognitive-developmental approach who conceptualise metalinguistic awareness as situated on a continuum of analysis of knowledge and control of processing. The chapter concludes with a brief look at non-linguistic measures of executive function as the general cognitive component underlying control of linguistic processing. Finally, Chapter 7 offers concluding remarks which summarise key theoretical work and empirical findings to date and put forward suggestions for future research on metalinguistic awareness and SLA.

2

A Cognitive-Developmental Perspective on Metalinguistic Awareness

2.1 Metalinguistic Awareness in Development

A monograph by Gombert (1992) comprises one of the most thorough and perhaps also most widely cited discussions of the development of metalinguistic awareness in children. In his work, Gombert is above all concerned with the notion of metalinguistic awareness itself rather than any connection of metalinguistic awareness with bilingualism or L2 learning, so the focus is firmly on L1. Gombert considers conscious awareness as a defining criterion of the concept of metalinguistic awareness, with metalinguistic activity referring to reflection on language, its nature and its functions. The notion further encompasses the intentional monitoring of the processes of attention and selection during language processing, e.g. stopping to search for a word, or shifting one’s attention from the content of language to the properties of language. Gombert also makes a distinction between declarative and procedural aspects of metalinguistic activity. In particular, metalinguistic knowledge is seen as a pre-condition for any metalinguistic activity, since we cannot use knowledge we do not have. Metalinguistic capacities are regarded as an integral part of metacognition, with metacognition defined as “all knowledge which has as its object, or regulates any aspect of, any cognitive task” (Gombert, 1992, pp. 5–6). In short, metacognition is cognition about cognition (see also N. J. Anderson, 2008; Dunlosky, 1998; Flavell, 1979; Hacker, 1998; Hunt & H. Ellis, 2004). Metacognition is characterized by introspective awareness of cognitive states and their operations as well as the individual’s ability to control and plan their thought processes. According to Gombert (1992), the set of meta-abilities that is available to an individual includes metalinguistic ability, meta-learning, or knowledge and control of the learning process, meta-attention, or the ability to pay attention voluntarily, social metacognition, or knowledge of the cognitive processes at work in other people and their behavioural implications, and meta-memory, or the ability to control one’s own memory. In summary, then, meta-learning is cognition about learning, meta-attention is cognition about attention, etc., and metalinguistic ability is cognition about language.

If metalinguistic activities are by definition performed consciously, their emergence presupposes that a child has the capacity for reflection and intentional self-monitoring. As the capacity for conscious reflection develops slowly and gradually as the child matures, Gombert makes a qualitative distinction between spontaneous, non-conscious behaviour such as self-repair, which he considers to be epilinguistic, and conscious knowledge intentionally applied in the context of reflective activity, which is metalinguistic. Epilinguistic behaviour is typically situated in a rich communicative context, while metalinguistic behaviour is possible with decontextualized tasks. In developmental terms, epilinguistic abilities precede metalinguistic abilities. It is accepted that the failure on the part of an individual to provide an explanation for their behaviour does not necessarily imply the absence of consciousness, but verbalisation certainly implies the presence of consciousness.

The development from epilinguistic to metalinguistic behaviour can be observed in all linguistic domains, though epilinguistic and subsequently metalinguistic abilities emerge earlier in some domains than others. Metaphonological activities, for instance, are in evidence even in quite young children. Thus, at around ages 2–3, children start experimenting spontaneously with the morpho-phonological characteristics of language, e.g. in speech games and with rhymes. They might play with alliterative sound patterns and manipulate morphemes to invent new compounds, e.g. ‘rainbrella’ for ‘umbrella’ (Birdsong, 1989, p. 16). Between ages 3 and 5, the first instances of phonological segmentation ability appear, i.e. words can be segmented into syllables. Gombert (1992) considers all this to be evidence of epiphonological behaviour, that is, behaviour which is based on intuition rather than reflection. However, such epiphonological behaviour, or phonological sensitivity (Geudens, 2006), is regarded as a necessary precursor of metaphonological behaviour. From ages 6–7 onwards, children are able to count and then to segment phonemes – the first evidence of metaphonological behaviour proper, which is important for and coincides with learning to read and write in children receiving school education in an alphabetic language (see also Birdsong, 1989). Metasyntactic development can also be observed relatively early (Gombert, 1992). Episyntactic behaviour is evident in children’s first intuitions about acceptability and their early self-corrections. These instances of behaviour are situation-specific and tied to particular utterances and their contexts, however, so they are not yet abstract or generalizable. As in the case of metaphonological development, episyntactic ability is seen as preceding metasyntactic ability. The latter emerges at ages 6–7, when children are first able to make seemingly rule-based acceptability judgements. Metasyntactic behaviour becomes useful and necessary through school education, especially in the context of explicit instruction and exercises drawing on grammatical rules as well as reading comprehension tasks.

Gombert notes that ages 6–7 appear to mark a critical transitional phase in children’s metalinguistic development, with true metalinguistic behaviour in the sense of a child being able to use decontextualized knowledge about language becoming possible. Once children are able to separate words from their referents (see also Karmiloff & Karmiloff-Smith, 2002), i.e. once they grasp that words are essentially arbitrary labels for objects, actions, etc., the first appreciation of synonymy and simple metaphor appears, thus indicating the beginnings of metalexical or metasemantic behaviour. Conceptual understanding of metaphor and a full understanding of concepts such as ‘word’ or ‘sentence’ do not develop until later at around ages 10–12, however.

Metapragmatic awareness refers to an understanding of the use of language in different contexts and the ability to monitor messages for their referential adequacy in different contexts. Children’s early and incidental adaptation of language to different contexts is considered as epipragmatic because their behaviour is still situation-specific at this stage. From around ages 6–7, metapragmatic behaviour proper that is indicative of reflection and monitoring is beginning to emerge, though. Children become increasingly aware of referential ambiguities and can take into account the characteristics of their interlocutor. Metapragmatic behaviour is established only gradually, however, and its development continues into adolescence.

At the level of connected discourse, Gombert argues that it is difficult to identify epitextual behaviour, i.e. behaviour that is based on intuition rather than reflection. Early metatextual behaviour refers to the ability to distinguish text from non-text, to identify contradictions and to note violations of prior knowledge. Children aged 8–9 begin to accept that a text can be summarised, but it is not until the ages of 9–10 that they can detect ambiguous anaphora or identify sentences in a paragraph that are thematically misplaced. From ages 12–13 onwards, children can define the notion of ‘paragraph’, and it is even later that they appreciate the hierarchy of information in a text. These metatextual activities are closely linked to schooling and are not normally implemented spontaneously even by adults.

Gombert (1992) proposes a model of metalinguistic development that comprises four successive phases. The same developmental phases apply to each linguistic domain, but initially the various domains develop independently of each other and not necessarily at the same time. The four phases refer to (1) the acquisition of the first linguistic skills, (2) the acquisition of epilinguistic control, (3) the acquisition of metalinguistic awareness, and (4) the automatization of metaprocesses. In Phase (1), the child acquires their first linguistic skills on the basis of the input s/he is exposed to, with negative and positive feedback aiding development. Implicit or explicit negative feedback, e.g. as a consequence of a failure to communicate successfully in certain circumstances, trigger Phase (2), which involves organising the implicit knowledge acquired during Phase (1). In terms of the mental representation of language, multifunctional forms substitute the initial accumulation of simple form-function pairings. Epilinguistic control over language activities involves the application of increasingly general rules that progressively constitute a system. This achievement leads to a stable system and marks the end of Phase (2).

In Phase (3), the s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Series Editor’s Preface
• 1. Introduction
• 2. A Cognitive-Developmental Perspective on Metalinguistic Awareness
• 3. Metalinguistic Awareness in Language Education
• 4. Metalinguistic Awareness as Explicit Knowledge and Learning: Theoretical Premises
• 5. Metalinguistic Awareness as Explicit Knowledge and Learning: Empirical Evidence
• 6. Measuring Metalinguistic Awareness
• 7. Concluding Remarks
• References
• Index