• Nie Znaleziono Wyników

PART I: ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF READING –

4. Language-independent factors

4.2. Metalinguistic knowledge

4.2.1. Defi nition of the term

Metalinguistic knowledge is defi ned in many diff erent ways. According to Bialystok (2001), the term “metalinguistic” has been used as a qualifi er for three entities: knowl-edge, ability and awareness. Although these terms are often used interchangeably, Bia-lystok suggests diff erentiating between them. BiaBia-lystok (2001: 124) claims that “me-talinguistic knowledge is the explicit representation of abstract aspects of linguistic

structure that becomes accessible through knowledge of a particular language.” In other words, it is knowledge of universal linguistic principles which becomes ex-plicit during language acquisition. Bialystok emphasises the fact that metalinguistic knowledge is diff erent from linguistic knowledge related to a particular language. Th e content of metalinguistic knowledge is broader and has a more general character.

To understand the concept of metalinguistic ability, let us look at the concep-tualisation suggested by van Lier (1999). Drawing on the examples described by Polanyi (1958), van Lier emphasises the role of attention in language learning. He claims that in successful communication only limited attention to the language is suffi cient. However, when communication breaks down, either due to comprehen-sion or production problems, the attention of participants to the language involved in this communication rises. Participants look at the linguistic resources they use as if from the outside, not for what they mean but in order to control and manipulate them. Van Lier calls these repair attempts “construction work.” “Th e function of metalinguistic abilities, whether of an intuitive or explicit kind, is to assist in such construction work” (van Lier 1999: 75). In other words, metalinguistic abilities are experiences (similar to metacognitive experiences involving regulation of cognition;

cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1., in this part) that may occur, e.g., during communica-tion problems and which may facilitate language users’ attempts to solve these problems. Th e example of a communication breakdown indicates a link between a linguistic and a metalinguistic domain. It illustrates well the meaning of Bialystok’s (2001: 127) words: “Metalinguistic ability must be continuous with linguistic abil-ity; it cannot be isolated from it and operate according to independent principles of development and use.”

To defi ne metalinguistic awareness, it is useful to refer to Cazden’s (1976, cited in van Lier 1999) distinction between transparent and opaque language use.

In transparent language use, the focus is on meaning; in opaque language use, lan-guage becomes an object of observation and analysis. Cazden was one of the fi rst to defi ne metalinguistic awareness. She defi nes it as follows: “Th e ability to make language forms opaque and attend to them in and for themselves, is a special kind of language performance” (Cazden 1974: 29, cited in Bialystok 2001: 121). Van Lier (1999) suggests a similar defi nition; he views metalinguistic awareness as a result of the ability to see language as something that can be controlled and manipulated (which is possible when language use becomes opaque). From what Cazden and van Lier suggest, it may be concluded that with the rise of metalinguistic aware-ness language becomes opaque and language users become conscious of language forms, their meaning and use. Th is happens when, e.g., they encounter failures in communication and exercise metalinguistic abilities.

It is useful to refer to two other conceptions of metalinguistic awareness. Mora (2007) claims that metalinguistic awareness involves the ability not only to think about but also to talk about language as an abstract “thing” or process. She also em-phasises the ability to analyse language as a characteristic of metalinguistic aware-ness. Mora (2007) claims that metalinguistic awareness has “various components that refl ect the complexities, dimensions and forms of language.” Th is

character-istic of metalingucharacter-istic awareness has been observed in research which focuses on phonological awareness, morphological awareness, intraword awareness and the components of reading analysed in the earlier sections of this book.

4.2.2. Interrelations among metalinguistic knowledge, metalinguistic awareness and metalinguistic ability

Th e discussion presented above suggests that metalinguistic knowledge, meta-linguistic awareness and metameta-linguistic ability are somehow interrelated. Below, interrelations among the three concepts are discussed.

Mora (2007) claims that metalinguistic awareness leads to metalinguistic knowl-edge. Implicit and unarticulated awareness, present in a L1 and developing in a FL/L2, is made explicit through structured experiences, such as the purposeful uses of text and discussions of learners’ insights and understandings. Th is growth of metalinguistic awareness leads to explicit knowledge of language form and function and the ability to articulate this knowledge, i.e., metalinguistic knowledge. We may ask the question:

what is the role of metalinguistic ability in this development? I would assume that me-talinguistic ability, which as Bialystok claims is parallel to linguistic ability, accompanies the growth of awareness, i.e., the change from implicit awareness to explicit knowledge of the language and the ability to verbalise this knowledge. At the fi rst stages of this change, metalinguistic ability is of a more intuitive character; at the later stages – of a more explicit kind. Mora underlines the role of metalinguistic knowledge in linguis-tic performance. Raising awareness results in increased self-regulatory control over language production and enhanced use of language in cognitive performance.

Th e process of developing linguistic control described above underscores the role of metacognition. An ability to regulate one’s control is the outcome of the whole

“metalinguistic” development leading to improved language performance. Th is shows that metacognition and metalinguistic phenomena intertwine and both are indispensable in successful FL/L2 learning.

At the end of this discussion, it is useful to note the role of attention in FL/L2 learning, as emphasised in by Schmidt (1994) in his noticing hypothesis. Drawing on his own experiences while learning Portuguese as a FL, the researcher claimed that “more noticing leads to more learning” (Schmidt 1994: 18). Th is aspect of FL/L2 learning, based on “structuring” learners’ linguistic experiences, raising their awareness and consequently enhancing knowledge about language, has been recently considered an important part of FL/L2 education (see e.g., Th ornbury 1997 and Pawlak 2003 for discussions on consciousness raising and enhancing FL learners’ language awareness).

4.2.3. Metalinguistic phenomena in bilingual learners’ reading

Th eoreticians and researchers have analysed the nature of the three metalinguistic phenomena in relation to L1 and FL/L2 in bilingual learners. Let us look at how me-talinguistic phenomena have been operationalised in cross-linguistic reading research.

Bialystok (2001: 127) discusses metalinguistic knowledge in relation to L1 and L2 acquisition. She writes that

[s]econd-language learners need not relearn the fundamental principles of language struc-ture because these are already known from the metalinguistic knowledge that grew out of fi rst-language acquisition. To the extent that a learner has metalinguistic knowledge, second-language acquisition is facilitated because a language template is available.

Th e importance of L1 knowledge was confi rmed by Morris (2003) and Butler (2002), whose studies are discussed below.

Morris (2003) investigated correlations between the diff erent forms of linguis-tic and metalinguislinguis-tic knowledge and academic performance of TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) trainees in the Canadian province of Quebec. Th e initial aim of the research was to identify criteria for TESL candidates. Th e skill of reading sophisticated texts was considered a component of the academic per-formance measured in the research. Th e study looked at the extent to which the metalinguistic knowledge of L2 students, measured by a grammatical explanation task involving correcting English sentences, correlated with the academic results the students achieved. Linguistic knowledge was measured by means of the expressive vocabulary used by the subjects in academic writing in their L1 (French) and L2 (English). Th e results showed that both L1 vocabulary and L2 vocabulary knowl-edge correlated to a signifi cant degree with academic success, with L1 vocabulary indicating stronger correlation with academic performance. Also metalinguistic knowledge correlated signifi cantly with academic performance. Th e bilingual stu-dents who demonstrated better L1 vocabulary achieved higher grades than those who were less literate in their L1 – even when the L1 of those students was English, which was the language of instruction on TESL courses. However, the comparison of the predictive strength of all the three factors pointed to metalinguistic knowl-edge as the only signifi cant predictor of academic performance. Morris (2003: 121) concluded that “fi ndings indicate that metalinguistic knowledge, or skills directly related to metalinguistic knowledge, could correlate more strongly with academic performance … than pure linguistic knowledge.”

Butler (2002) investigated the metalinguistic knowledge of Japanese students employed in reading gapped texts and selecting English articles. She was interested whether students’ hypotheses on English articles depend on their level of language profi ciency. Butler (2002: 451) refers to metalinguistic knowledge as to “linguistic knowledge accessible at the conscious level with regard to the use of articles.” In the context of her study, it means the students’ mental representation of the English ar-ticles that the students were asked to fi ll in and about which they were interviewed.

Butler also looked at the students’ metalinguistic strategies, which after Bialystok (2001) we may be called metalinguistic ability. Butler defi ned these strategies as techniques that the students applied to execute their metalinguistic knowledge concerning English articles. Th e results showed that the learners’ explicit knowl-edge of the English article system depends on their language profi ciency. Lower profi ciency learners were infl uenced by pedagogic rules they thought had been given by their teacher and textbooks; higher profi ciency students were more

sensi-tive to contextual clues. Th e fi ndings also revealed the infl uence of L1 (Japanese) on the students’ choice of English articles.

Whyatt (2007) looked at the use of metalinguistic knowledge in the process of translation as refl ected in metalinguistic comments reported by Polish EFL students. After Paradis (2004), she hypothesised that metalinguistic knowledge is used by translators as an expression of some internal control mechanism. Her study confi rmed her prediction. Th e students made metalinguistic comments while working on a specifi c problem, thereby attempting to tap into their im-plicit linguistic knowledge. Th e students’ metalinguistic comments indicated that the students had made use of their metalinguistic knowledge. Additionally, the comments signalled the students’ growing linguistic awareness and control over both L1 and FL linguistic systems. Drawing on the defi nitions of the metalin-guistic phenomena presented above, it can be suggested that along with meta-linguistic knowledge Whyatt investigated metameta-linguistic awareness (an ability to see language as something that can be controlled) and metalinguistic ability (dem-onstrated as the students’ experiences during translation problems). Th e results of the study point to the close relationship of metalinguistic knowledge with meta-cognition, especially metacognitive knowledge concerning the task the students performed (called task knowledge) and regulation of cognition (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1. in this part). Th e study also underscores the close link between metalinguistic and linguistic knowledge, confi rming thereby Bialystok’s (2001) assumption, which has been discussed above.

Mora (2001) investigated the transfer of metalinguistic knowledge of Spanish students developing reading in English. She analysed in detail the alphabetic prin-ciples of Spanish (L1) orthography that Spanish learners transfer to their FL, i.e., English. Th e researcher found that bilingual students had applied Spanish spellings to English words and had used Spanish approximations for English phonemes that do not exist in Spanish. Mora concludes that metalinguistic transfer involves trans-fer of phonemic awareness and phonological processes, knowledge of phoneme-grapheme relationships and recognition of syntactic features.

4.2.4. Summary

Th e studies described above looked at various aspects of metalinguistic phenom-ena involved in diff erent types of reading. Butler (2002) investigated the role of metalinguistic awareness related to lower-level components of reading. Th e nature of Japanese learners’ metalinguistic knowledge was viewed as students’ mental representation of the English article system during the completion of gapped texts.

Whyatt (2007) examined the use of metalinguistic knowledge as refl ected in me-talinguistic comments during translation from English (FL) into Polish (L1) and from Polish into English. Mora (2001) looked at the transfer of the metalinguistic knowledge of Spanish students developing reading in English (FL) as demonstrated in phonemic awareness, phonological processes and syntactic knowledge. Morris (2003) explored the correlations between linguistic knowledge (represented as L1

vocabulary and L2 vocabulary knowledge), metalinguistic knowledge (measured by means of a grammar explanation task) and the academic performance of French TESL trainees (which was measured by the skill of reading sophisticated texts).

On the basis of the fi ndings of the studies discussed above, the following can be suggested about metalinguistic knowledge in relation to reading in FL/L2:

– Metalinguistic knowledge related to lower-level reading skills, such as pho-nological and syntactic skills, can be transferred between L1 and FL (Mora 2007).

– Th e nature of metalinguistic knowledge depends on students’ level of FL profi ciency (Butler 2002).

– Metalinguistic knowledge can be a more important predictor of students’

academic success than linguistic knowledge (Morris 2003).

– Metalinguistic knowledge becomes explicit when readers encounter compre-hension problems and during their “construction work” look at the language resources involved in their reading tasks as objects (Whyatt 2007). Th is seems to provide evidence for van Lier’s (1999) assumption about the role of metalinguistic abilities in learners’ endeavours to solve communication breakdowns.

– Metalinguistic and linguistic phenomena intertwine with each other (Whyatt 2007), which confi rms Bialystok’s (2001) argument that metalinguistic ability interacts with linguistic ability.

To summarise, the studies demonstrate the complex nature of metalinguistic knowledge, which seems to be related to various aspects of language, such as pho-nological and syntactic. As regards reading, the studies indicate the “omnipresent”

character of metalinguistic knowledge in text-information processing. Metalinguis-tic knowledge plays an important role in FL/L2 learners’ reading, interacting with students’ linguistic knowledge and metacognition. More cross-linguistic research is needed to explore the interplay of this component with other reading aspects.