Chapter published in:
Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies
Edited by Wataru Suzuki and Neomy Storch
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 55] 2020
► pp. 176–195

Talking about language

L2 learners’ use of metalinguistic knowledge on contrasting pedagogic tasks

| University of Essex
| University of Essex
This qualitatively oriented study investigated the role of second language (L2) metalinguistic knowledge in languaging during performance on two pedagogic tasks – a gap-fill and a dictogloss. It involved 14 L1 English university-level learners of L2 Spanish (N = 8) and L2 German (N = 6). Drawing on individual think-aloud protocols and learners’ pair-work interactions, we investigated the extent to which metalinguistic knowledge was used during task completion, its purposes, and whether it was associated with successful task performance. Although considerable inter-learner variation was in evidence, we identified a relationship not only between the use of metalinguistic knowledge and successful task completion but also between the purpose for which metalinguistic knowledge was employed during languaging and the balance of expertise between partners.
Keywords: metalinguistic knowledge, gap-fill, dictogloss, languaging
Published online: 14 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.08gan
References

References

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D.
(1997) Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1 (2), 93–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M.
(2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M.
(Eds.) (2001) Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Chen, W.
(2018) Patterns of pair interaction in communicative tasks: The transition process and effect on L2 teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 72 (4), 425–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collentine, J.
(2000) Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided by user-behavior tracking technologies. Language Learning & Technology, 3 (2), 44–57.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A.
(1994) Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLA task from and Activity Theory perspective. In P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Damon, W., & Phelps, E.
(1989) Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58 (2), 9–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donato, R.
(1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2000) Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elder, C., & Manwaring, D.
(2004) The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness, 13 (3), 145–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2001) Non-reciprocal tasks, comprehension and second language acquisition. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 49–74). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
(2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54 (2), 227–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 83–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27 (3), 431–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortune, A.
(2005) Learners’ use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output tasks. Language Awareness, 14 (1), 21–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortune, A., & 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 (2-3), 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, P., & Hecht, K.
(1992) Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13 (2), 168–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, X.
(2016) Analyzed knowledge, metalanguage, and second language proficiency. System, 60 (1), 42–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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), 129–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knouzi, I., Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(2010) Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging: Microgenetic analysis of high and low performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 23–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M.
(1997) From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G.
(Eds.) (1994) Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J.
(2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 55–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohan, B.
(1992) Models of the role of the computer in second language development. In M. C. Pennington & V. Stevens (Eds.), Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective (pp. 110–126). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mozaffari, S. H.
(2017) Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21 (4), 496–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, K.
(2018) Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roehr, K.
(2006) Metalinguistic knowledge in L2 task performance: A verbal protocol analysis. Language Awareness, 15 (3), 180–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008a) Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29 (2), 173–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (1), 67–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roehr, K., & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A.
(2009a) The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning. Language Awareness, 18 (2), 165–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Metalinguistic knowledge: A stepping stone towards L2 proficiency? In A. G. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 79–94). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
(2001) Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 167–185). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Storch, N.
(2001) How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5 (1), 29–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52 (1), 119–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(1995) Problems of output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 371–391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 83 (3), 320–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effect. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R.
(1990) Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & 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), 121–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar