Metalinguistic Knowledge Is Distinct From Both Language-learning Aptitude And Working Memory For Lan

By Author: peter
Total Articles: 191
Comment this article

The multiple regression analysis showed that in addition to the strongest predictors of metalinguistic knowledge cumulative years of study of other L2s and years of formal study of the L2s under investigation MLAT 4 and MLAT 5 were significant predictors as well, accounting for nine percent and six percent of the variance, respectively. Hence, LI language-analytic ability (tapped by MLAT 4) and associative memory (tapped by MLAT 5), i.e. an analytic subcomponent of aptitude and a memory-based subcomponent of aptitude, had predictive value for the level of metalinguistic knowledge achieved by learners. Indeed, MLAT 4 and MLAT 5 appear to Juicy Couture Jewelry cover the two key skills involved in attaining (aspects of) written L2 proficiency that is the modality strongly associated with metalinguistic knowledge (Alderson et al., 1997; Elder & Manwaring, 2004; Elder et al., 1999; Roehr, 2008b). Unlike the other three MLAT test sections, MLAT 4 and MLAT 5 incorporate no phonetic elements, respectively requiring the identification of the grammatical role of parts of speech in written ...
... English sentences and the learning of L1-L2 vocabulary pairings presented in written format.

A further result emerging from the principal components analysis deserves consideration, since it is of indirect relevance to the status of metalinguistic knowledge in relation to language-learning aptitude and working memory for language: The two reading span measures and the various subcomponents of aptitude clearly loaded on distinct components, indicating not only that working memory for language and language-learning aptitude do not overlap with metalinguistic knowledge, but also that they each constitute a separate construct.
It must be admitted that the MTS Questionnaire is not a precise measurement of learner knowledge of metalinguistic terminology, the main reason being that learner knowledge of terminology is not precise in itself. Learners' awareness of a term's meaning may be rather vague, and one should not expect as precise an understanding as that possessed by grammarians. Nevertheless, the Questionnaire does attempt to replicate the way in which terminology is deployed in classroom situations, as when a teacher says, 'You need to use an infinitive here'.

While it requires learners to produce examples, it is receptive knowledge of the terms that is required rather than productive knowledge (which would be more appropriate for teachers). A similarly receptive technique, that of asking respondents to identify exemplars of the terms cheap Cartier jewelry in a text, was used by some of the studies discussed above, for example Alderson et al., 1997; Andrews, 1998; Steel and Alderson, 1994, but this is considered to be a more appropriate task for teachers than for learners. The questionnaire was administered at the start of their university study before they had started any formal grammar courses.5 be automatically assumed that the Polish group knows the most, and the Austrian group the least, about terminology. A number of possible factors may be involved. In particular, the MTS does not aim to be comprehensive and may favor one group over another in its choice of items. Nor should it be assumed that the Polish students are somehow better, and the Austrians weaker, at terminology (still less at grammar). In addition, it must be pointed out that the figures for the three institutions should not be taken as representative of their countries.6

Nevertheless, it would seem safe to assume that the Austrian students had been least exposed metalinguistic terminology in their secondary studies, probably as a result of a curriculum that deemphasizes focus on form (or rather, the more successful implementation of such a curriculum). But the most significant finding is that all three groups have in general been exposed to a fair amount of terminology; and it must be remembered that the MTS Questionnaire represents only a sample of what students might know. A rough guess might be that knowledge of terms could be at least twice what is exposed by the survey, given the number of pedagogic terms that are not included.