元语言意识

An Examination of the Relationship between Metalinguistic Awareness and Second-language Proficiency of Adult Learners of FrenchJanet RenouESADE-Escuela de Idiomas, 92-96 Esplugues Ave, Barcelona, SpainThis paper presents the results of a quantitative study investigating the relationship between metalinguistic awareness(MLA)and second-language proficiency(L2)of64 universitylevel learnersof French.The theoreticalframework driving this study posits that linguistic and metalinguistic proficiency are composed of two components–‘ana-lysed knowledge’and‘control’over that knowledge(Bialystok&Ryan,1985a). Learners’performances on two grammaticality judgement tests and on a test of L2 proficiency were examined in the context of the demands made upon these two compo-nents and according to whether the learners had been exposed to a communicative or grammar approach to L2learning.Significant differences were found in learners’performance depending upon task demands.Results showed a positive relationship between scores on the judgement tests,the operationalisation of MLA,and the test of L2proficiencyfor the entire sample.However,once learnerswere grouped according to learning approaches,there was no longer a positive relationship for the communicative group.IntroductionMetalinguistic awareness(MLA)is broadly defined here as conscious knowl-edge of the formal aspects of the target language(e.g.grammar).This paper reports an investigation of the metalinguistic abilities of university level French second-language learners.In particular,it reports on the use of grammaticality judgements as a measure of metalinguistic awareness,and explores the relation-ship between learners’ MLA and second-language (L2) proficiency.Interest in metalinguistic awareness stems from an increasing consensus among educators and researchers(Alderson&Steel,1994;Germain&Seguin, 1995;Hammerly,1991;Larsen-Freeman,1995)that a number of L2learners lack linguistic accuracy in performance,and research in MLA examines the relation-ship between MLA and learner competence in the Chomskian sense of the word (Alderson et al., 1996; Gass, 1983, 1994).Since the arrival of the communicative approach to teaching and learning a second language in the late1970s,a greater number of learners have been exposed to communicative activities considered to promote fluency,and where the emphasis is on meaning as opposed to form or grammar(Alderson&Steel, 1994;Germain&Seguin,1995;Hammerly,1991;Masny,1987;Mitchell& Hooper,1991).One of the prevalent theories lending support to de-emphasising grammar claims that providing comprehensible input,which is language that is within the learners’grasp of comprehension,is the only prerequisite for acquisi-tion of a second or foreign language(Krashen,1981).Such a view coincides with 0965-8416/01/04 0248-20 $20.00/0© 2001 J. Renou LANGUAGE AWARENESS Vol. 10, No. 4, 2001248An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency249 the general consensus that we learn our mother tongue without any emphasis being placed on an awareness or knowledge about grammar.However,in L2 learning,research has since shown that when second-language learners’atten-tion is focused mainly on meaning,without any attention being paid to gram-mar,linguistic accuracy suffers(Alderson&Steel,1994;Harley&Swain,1984; Lightbown&Halter,1993;Lyster,1987).Research which focuses on the role of formal instruction(DeKeyser,1995;Ellis,1993;Harley,1989;Long,1991;Robin-son,1996;Terrell,1991;White,1991)provides support for the growing concern of second-language educators and researchers about linguistic accuracy.Germain and Seguin(1995)claim that knowledge about grammar is impor-tant for the following reasons:(1)for students to succeed in various language tests based on explicit knowledge about the language(e.g.placement exams for second-language schools),knowledge of grammar is essential;(2)grammatical awareness enhances learners’comprehension because it can provide informa-tion that is helpful for deciphering input;and(3)in some cases,knowledge about the language enhances learner motivation and reduces stress related to L2learn-ing.Swain and Lapkin(1995)further state that grammatical analysis is essential to accurate production.Learners who lack explicit grammar knowledge will have difficulty understanding the structure of a language(e.g.sentences follow subject,verb,object order)and following discussions where linguistic terminol-ogy is used to render the grammar of the target language explicit(Bloor,1986). These two problems may affect students’desire to continue their L2studies,as well as their development in learning a L2,and their level of achievement in language courses.Some second-language research suggests that metalinguistic awareness is a reflection of developing second-language competence(Arthur,1980;Gass,1983, 1994;Masny,1991).MLA is often measured through learners’grammaticality judgements and particularly those which require error correction and justifica-tion(Alderson&Steel,1994;Alderson et al.,1996;Ellis,1991;Gass,1983,1994; Masny,1991).Judgement tasks are also frequently used–though not without debate–as a means of measuring learners’internalised knowledge(Coppieters, 1987;Masny&d’Anglejan,1985;Schachter,1989).The scope of this paper does not permit us to elaborate in an in-depth manner on the debate concerning the validity and reliability of grammatical judgement tests as a measure of compe-tence(see Ellis,1991;Gass,1994;Leow1996).Kellerman(1986)and Sharwood Smith(1988)claim that learners’ability to judge sentences as grammatically correct or not is a relatively direct window into competence.Sorace(1985) showed that increases in learner judgement ability were proportional to improvement in L2proficiency,the observable manifestation of competence.In a similar vein,Leow’s(1996)study provides support for the view that learners’ability to judge grammaticality reflects their L2development.On the other hand,studies conducted by Alderson and Steel(1994)and Alderson et al. (1996)failed to show a statistically positive relationship between MLA and L2 proficiency.In a similar vein,studies carried out by Liceras(1983)and Ellis and Rathbone(1987)showed inconsistencies in the relationship between judgement tasks and learners’ production.Bialystok(1982)contends that research will continue to provide conflicting results until descriptions of MLA and L2proficiency are made in the light of what250Language Awareness L2learners are being asked to do;that is in consideration of underlying task demands.In the present study,the relationship between MLA and L2profi-ciency was examined according to the demands made on two cognitive process-ing components–analysed knowledge and control of linguistic processing (control).The Bialystok and Ryan (1985a) information-processing model The Bialystok and Ryan(1985a)model offers a theoretical framework for examining the relationship between MLA and L2proficiency.It posits that successfully meeting task demands,(e.g.conversation,literacy or metalinguistic tasks)is influenced by the development of analysed knowledge and control. Analysed knowledge and control over that knowledge are each considered to develop along continuous and orthogonal dimensions to one another.Each axis in Figure1,adopted from Bialystok and Ryan(1985a),represents a continuum and marks increments in demands placed upon the processing components. Analysed knowledge can be defined as conscious knowledge as opposed to knowing that is intuitive(Bialystok&Ryan,1985a).The control component can be defined in terms of three functions for which it is responsible:(1)the selection of items of knowledge or information;(2)the co-ordinationof these items;and(3) the extent to which selection and co-ordination can be carried out automatically. Because analysed knowledge and control are responsible for changes in mentalSource:Bialystok and Ryan, 1985a. Reprinted with permissionAn Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency251 representations which are the basis of learning,the functioning of these processes leads to learning (Bialystok, 1994).The theoretical notion of orthogonal dimensions serves to separate L2learn-ers’analysed knowledge of aspects of the language from their control over knowledge.According to Bialystok(1990),the two components are to an extent independent in that each is responsible for a different aspect of processing;yet neither one alone is sufficient for language processing.Analysed knowledge is required for accuracy,and control is required for fluency(Bialystok,1990,1994). It is possible that one could advance along one of the dimensions but not neces-sarily as much along the other or not at the same rate.In this sense,the develop-ment of each component is to a certain extent governed by different factors(e.g. learning approaches),and could result in learners having more analysed knowl-edge than control over that knowledge or vice versa;thus an individual could speak fluently but inaccurately or vice versa.Bialystok and Ryan(1985c)state that completing tasks usually requires that analysis and control be applied in an ordered fashion–analysis of knowledge preceding control.In this sense,the extent of analysed knowledge imposes a basic limitation on the range of control that is possible.No studies have been located where the metalinguistic abilities of adults from different learning approaches have been examined in relation to the two process-ing components.Therefore,in the present study,one of our goals was to analyse the judgement ability of learners from communicative and grammar approaches according to the demands that these judgement tasks placed on analysed knowl-edge and control.Metalinguistic tasksDifferent uses of language for different purposes require different levels of analysed knowledge and control.Bialystok and Ryan(1985a)claim that tasks can therefore be classified according to whether they require low or high levels of these components.As shown in Figure1,the model posits that conversation tasks,reading and writing tasks,and metalinguistic tasks,make increasing demands on one or both components.In every-day conversation which is contextualised,demands are low on analysis and on control because attention is focused on meanings and little control or manipulation of the forms is required (Bialystok&Ryan,1985a).Ricciardelli’s(1993)study,which carried out a detailed factor analysis involving eight metalinguistic tasks,provides support for the construct validity of the two processing components.In a similar vein, Cromdal’s(1999)study generally shows support for Bialystok and Ryan’s dual component model,with the strongest findings related to the controlcomponent.In the case of grammaticality judgement,simply deciding whether a sentence is grammaticalor not does not reflect analysed knowledge because it can be done without MLA,that is without being aware of the basis of judgement(Bialystok, 1991;Reber,1976).More demanding tasks,such as those that require correction and justification of correction,require learners to access and elaborate upon their linguistic knowledge which is a reflection of metalinguistic awareness(Bialystok &Ryan,1985a;Gass,1983;Sorace,1985).Grammaticalityjudgement tasks which make greater demands on analysed knowledge are those in which learners must perform the three steps of detecting,correcting and explaining the detected252Language Awareness errors(Bialystok&Ryan,1985a,1985b;Bialystok1994).Tasks which require paying attention to some aspect of input which may not be salient,usual or expected make high demands on control because they involve selecting where to focus one’s attention(Bialystok,1992).For example,in situations where language is presented outside the context to which it refers,either orally or writ-ten,demands are higher on control.Since meaning is usually the salient aspect of an orally presented linguistic message,focusing on the form of the message,as in the oral judgement task,is an example of task which requires greater control. Furthermore,the grammaticality judgement task when presented orally also makes high demands on control because of having to produce an automatic response(Bialystok,1982).Leow(1996)claims that the role of modality in grammaticality judgement tasks should be taken into consideration when exam-ining the relationship between judgement ability and performance on produc-tion tasks.Murphy(1997)also found significant differences in modality where subjects were doing a grammaticality judgement task.To my knowledge,no work has been carried out where the same learners are required to perform the three steps of the grammaticality judgement task in both a written and oral mode of presentation of items.This,then is the aim of the pres-ent study.StudyThis study addresses the following research questions:(1)What is the relationship between advanced-level French L2learners’metalinguistic awareness and L2 proficiency?(2)What is the relationship between MLA and L2proficiency when learnershave been exposed to different learning approaches?HypothesesBecause it seems reasonable to hypothesise that learners with linguistic insights may be more proficient in the target language,we would expect some degree of relationship between conscious knowledge(MLA)and L2proficiency. Consequently,it was first hypothesised that there is a significant correlation between judgement ability and French proficiency for advanced-level French L2 learners.Based on the Bialystok and Ryan(1985a)model,which posits that only tasks which make similar underlying demands on the processing components should be significantly related,the second hypothesis claims that the correlation between tasks which measure MLA and those which measure L2proficiency depends on their underlying cognitive demands.Examining tasks in terms of their cognitive demands may shed light on why L2learners do well on some tasks but not on others.As a result of Bialystok and Ryan’s(1985a)claim that increases in analysed knowledge and control are related to different kinds of learning experiences,we would expect learners from a communicative approach to do better on the judgement test that makes higher demands on control,while learners from the grammar approach would do better on the judgement test which makes lower demands on control.It shoud be noted that one of the limita-tions of the present study is that the three-step judgement task makes highAn Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency253 demands on analysis whether it is presented in oral or written form.In fact,in the present study,MLA could only be demonstrated by a task which required correction and/or justification.Consequently,the written and oral judgement tests differ only in level of control.I do not feel that this reduces the value of one investigating whether learners from one approach perform differently from learners from another approach on the judgement tests.Consequently,the third hypothesis claims that students excel in different kinds of tasks as a function of their learning experiences (i.e. learning approaches).DesignA between-groups matrix was used to compare correlations between tasks which made demands on analysed knowledge,control,or both,for two groups of learners.The demands which the judgement tasks made on analysed knowl-edge and control(see Table3)are those outlined by Bialystok(1982).These task demands were further verified by five well-experienced university second language instructors who were asked,after having read a three-page summary of the theoretical framework,to assign levels of analysis and control to the steps of each judgement test.Their assessment of the demands of the judgement tasks in terms of the two processing components was congruent with Bialystok.In the case of the sub-tests of the French Proficiency Test,the demands made on the processing components(see Table3)are in keeping with the claim of the model (Bialystok & Ryan, 1985b).SubjectsSixty-four(59females/5males)university advanced-level French L2learners whose native language is English participated in the study.They came from seven intact classes and ranged between20and26years of age with a mean age of 21.The class sizes ranged between12and23students,and occasionally the same students were enrolled in more than one of the participating classes.The French classes in question covered vocabulary acquisition,grammar review,oral expression, listening and reading comprehension.Students in these courses are considered by the Second Language Institute of the University of Ottawa(SLI)to represent a high-intermediate to advanced level of proficiency.This classification stems from the fact that they have either successfully completed certain prerequisite courses,or in the case of new students,have obtained a score representative of the advanced proficiency level according to the French Proficiency Test of the SLI.Initially,ninety students agreed to participate in the study.Only those students whose native language was English and whose scores on the French Proficiency Test fell into the cate-gory of advanced-level learners could be included in the study.Once the French Proficiency Test scores and the students’profile according to a questionnaire(see Appendix A)were examined,26students were eliminated for either one or a combination of the following reasons:(1)not having scored high enough on the French Proficiency Test to be considered part of an advanced group,(2)failing to take both the grammaticality judgement test and the French Proficiency Test,(3) not meeting the criterion of coming from a communicative or grammar approach to learning French as a second or foreign language.254Language Awareness InstrumentsThe grammaticality judgement test (judgement test)The judgement test requires subjects to make grammaticality judgements about two sets of lexically different sentences;the first set is presented in written form,and the second set in oral form.Subjects first had to identify and correct the error, then provide the rule which the correction entailed.The judgement tests consisted of9grammatically correct and21grammati-cally incorrect French sentences of approximately15syllables in length for each modality(written and oral).A test of reliability of the scores on the judgement tests produced a Cronbach alpha of0.87for the written judgement test and an alpha of0.77for the oral judgement test.Eighteen of the21sentences(see Appen-dix A)were taken from Bialystok(1979)and three sentences were created for the purpose of the present study.The sentences were presented in a fixed random order.Learners’ability to judge correct sentences was not taken into consider-ation in the analyses of the study since MLA was not measured simply by learn-ers’ability to judge a sentence grammatical or not,but rather by their ability to demonstrateanalysed knowledge by correcting the error and providing the rule.Incorrect sentences contained only one error of a type which research has shown to be representative of errors frequently committed by L2learners (Naiman et al.,1978;Swain,1976).Seven sentences contained an error related to the adjective;seven sentences contained an error related to the direct or indirect object pronoun;and seven sentences contained an error related to the verb(see Appendix B).I am following Bialystok’s lead in selection of type of error.This is not to say,however,that these errors measure one single construct of MLA.The fact that they are disparate does not detract from the interest of the present study. Although the grammarpoints were all considered to have been covered in earlier French courses,participants had not been re-taught the grammar rules for the purpose of the study.A questionnaire verifying course content was sent to the instructors of the two participating French classes which included grammar revi-sion.The instructors confirmed that generally the grammar points in the judge-ment tests had not been re-taught in the classes in question,but that some may have been encountered through exercises or writing assignments.In the ques-tionnaire section below,further information is provided about the composition of the group of students and their participationin grammar-oriented instruction. The French proficiency testThe French Proficiency Test1of the University of Ottawa was developed as a placement test for the university population,and its standards were used in the present study as a means of determining the advance proficiency level of partici-pants.The skills tested are listening comprehension(three texts with18items), reading comprehension(three texts with18items),and general knowledge of vocabulary,grammar,and structure as measured by a cloze text(28to32items). Although these skills are receptive,the test has proven to be an excellent measure of L2proficiency in that it effectively places students in an L2academic language-learning environment where they have been shown to successfully function and meet course demands.In carrying out the French Proficiency Test, learners first have to listen to and read different texts in French,and then select appropriate anwsers to the questions presented in writing from a multi-An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency255 ple-choice format,appropriate answers to the questions presented in writing. This is followed by a cloze text using a multiple-choice format.With respect to the cognitive demands that the sub-tests place on analysis and control,the listening and reading tests are considered to place high demands on both components.This is so because learners have to both listen for detail and read questions on the listening passage,therefore alternating between the message and form.In the reading test,demands are high on analysis because meaning is conveyed and interpreted through the language,while demands are high on control because the learner must shift attention back and forth between the formal features of the printed text and the emerging meaning that is being constructed(Bialystok&Ryan,1985a).The cloze test,because of its focus on form is considered to make high demands on analysis and low demands on control. QuestionnaireParticipants completed a questionnaire which provided information about the L2learning approaches to which they had been exposed in junior high and high school.2A Core French programme generally consists of approximately200 minutes of French grammar-based instruction per week.A French Immersion programme is considered to be more communication oriented than grammar based.Typically,in French Immersion most of a student’s education takes place in French,although the exact amount of instruction carried out in the target language can vary depending on year of study.Although no attempt was made to draw a comparable portion of post-immersion and post-core students from the original pool,responses to the questionnaire resulted in the formation of a Communicative Group(n=33)and a Grammar Group(n=31).Since the Univer-sity of Ottawa prides itself on attracting both Core and Immersion high school graduates, this finding came as no surprise.The questionnaire provided information on the number of years of study and type of French programme,the number of hours per week of French instruction and the percentage of time spent on French grammar and communicative activi-ties.Classifying a learner as having come from a communicative approach or from a grammar approach to learning French stemmed from the responses to detailed questions concerning the learning approaches to which they had been exposed.For example,when a learner circled more years of Core French study than French Immersion follow-up questions provided characteristics of an approach where grammar was emphasised(e.g.50%–75%of class time spent on grammar instruction),and learners had to state if this was reflective of their schooling.In cases where participants’responses did not clearly reflect one programme or the other,a follow-up telephone interview was used to clarify their learning backgrounds.For example,a learner may have circled more years of French Immersion than Core French study,but claimed that50%–75%of time was spent on grammar.This amount of time spent on grammar is more in keep-ing with a grammar approach to learning.An examination of the group membership of those participants who were taking a French course dealing with grammar showed that they were almost evenly divided between the Communicative Group and Grammar Group(e.g., seven in one group and nine in the other).Consequently,subject enrolment in256Language Awareness French grammar-oriented university courses did not provide more of an advan-tage to one group over the other.ProceduresParticipants first completed the questionnaire,then the written judgement test followed by the oral judgement test.Instructions were provided orally by the researcher who drew participants’attention to a sample sentence on the test sheet,and who informed them that sentences could either be correct or contain one error.The students were told to decide whether the written sentence,and later the orally presented sentence,was correct or incorrect.In the written judge-ment test,they had to place a check mark in a box to indicate that the sentence was correct or incorrect.They then had to circle the error,correct it and provide the rule that the correction entailed.In the oral judgement test,students had to indicate whether the sentence was correct or incorrect,write down the error, correct it and provide the rule.The maximum score for each sentence was three points.One point was given for correctly identifying the error.Two points were given for identifying and correcting the error,and three points were given for identifying and correcting the error,and providing the rule.A wrong correction or incorrect rule did not receive any points.The grammaticality judgement tests were administered together during normal scheduled French classes.To ensure that demands on the control compo-nent were low,fifty minutes were allowed for completion of the items on the written judgement test.The oral judgement test consisted of listening to a tape recording of each sentence.Participants heard the sentences three times.There was a three-second pause between the first and second reading,a ten-second pause between the second and third reading,and a fifteen-second pause between the third reading and the next sentence.In keeping with tasks which make high demands on the control component,the oral presentation of items and comple-tion of the test took25minutes.3The prescribed amount of time allowed for completion of the judgement tasks is consistent with similar tasks in earlier stud-ies (Bialystok & Fröhlich, 1978; Bialystok, 1982).The French Proficiency Test was administered on campus to groups of3–8 participants within three weeks of the data collection.A few subjects who had taken the proficiency test at the beginning of the academic year,but who had not been enrolled in a French class,were exempt from writing the test for the purpose of the study. In these cases, their previous scores were used.Data analysisThe variables which are part of the analyses described below correspond to the scores on the French Proficiency Test and the judgement tests.Descriptive statistics are presented in Table1.In order to test Hypothesis1and Hypothesis2, Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients were calculated.An alpha level of0.05was set as the required level of significance.To test Hypothesis3,a test of interaction(ANOVA)between groups and judgement tests was carried out.To briefly summarise Table1,the Communicative Group and the Grammar Group performed evenly on the cloze,listening and reading sub-tests of the French Proficiency Test.The means are homogeneous,their respective differ-ences being:-0.61for the cloze test,1.64for the listening test,-0.55for the reading。