What does metalinguistic activity in learners' interaction during a collaborative L2 writing task look like?

Modern Language Journal

Volumn 92, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 519-537

  Gutiérrez, Xavier ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 56849097663     PISSN: 00267902     EISSN: 15404781     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00785.x     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86, 525-545.
2. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
3. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11, 1-13.
4. Benveniste, É. (1974). Problèmes de linguistique générale [Problems of general linguistics] (Vols. I and II). Paris: Gallimard.
5. Berger, V. (1990). The effects of peer and self-feedback. CATESOL Journal, 3, 21-35.
6. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Blain, S., & Painchaud, G. (1999). L'impact de la rétroaction verbale des pairs sur l'amélioration des compositions des élèves de 5 année en immersion française [The effect of verbal peer feedback on the improvement of written compositions of Grade 5 French immersion students]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 73-98.
8. Bronckart, J. P. (1998). Activités métalangagières et enseignement de l'expression écrite: Discussion [Metalinguistic activities and the teaching of written expression: A discussion]. In J. Dolz & J. C. Meyer (Eds.), Activités métalangagières et enseignement du français. Actes des journées d'étude en didatique du français (Cartigny, 29 février-1 mars 1997) (pp. 165-168). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
9. Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10. Camps, A., Guasch, O., Milian, M., & Ribas, T. (2000). Metalinguistic activity: The link between writing and learning to write. In A. Camps & M. Milian (Eds.), Metalinguistic activity in learning to write (pp. 103-124). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
11. Camps, A., & Milian, M. (2000). Metalinguistic activity in learning to write: An introduction. In A. Camps & M. Milian (Eds.), Metalinguistic activity in learning to write (pp. 1-28). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
12. Camps, A., Ribas, T., Guasch, O., & Milian, M. (1997a). Activitat metalingüística durant el procés de producciód'un text argumentatiu [Metalinguistic activity during the production process of an argumentative text]. Articles de Didàctica de la Llengua i de la Literatura, 11, 13-28.
13. Camps, A., Ribas, T., Guasch, O., & Milian, M. (1997b). Dialogue d'élèves et production textuelle: Activitémétalinguistique pendant le processus de production d'un text argumentatif [Student dialogue and text production: Metalinguistic activity during the process of producing an argumentative text]. Recherches, 27, 133-156.
14. Culioli, A. (1990). Pour une linguistique de l'énonciation: Opérations et représentations [The case for enunciation linguistics: Operations and representations]. Paris: Ophrys.
15. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511.
16. DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
18. Dolz, J. (1998). Activités métalangagières et enseignement du français [Metalinguistic activities and the teaching of French]. In J. Dolz & J. C. Meyer (Eds.), Activités métalangagières et enseignement du français. Actes des journées d'étude en didatique du français (Cartigny, 29 février-1 mars 1997) (pp. 7-19). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
19. 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.
20. Donato, R., & Lantolf, J. P. (1990). The dialogic origins of L2 monitoring. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 1, 83-97.
21. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
23. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choice in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227-275.
27. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
28. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
29. Fortune, A. (2005). Learners' use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output tasks. Language Awareness, 14, 21-38.
30. 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, 143-160.
31. García Mayo, M. P. (2002). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323-341.
32. Gombert, J. -É. (1992). Metalinguistic development. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
33. Goss, N., Ying-Hua, Z., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Two heads may be better than one: Mental activity in second-language grammaticality judgments. In E. Tarone, S. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 263-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. New York: Elsevier.
35. Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
36. Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155-175). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 347-386.
38. Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350-377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343-358.
41. Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55-81.
43. Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153-188.
45. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
48. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
49. Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.
50. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
52. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
53. Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303.
54. Renou, J. (2001). An examination of the relationship between metalinguistic awareness and second-language proficiency of adult learners of French. Language Awareness, 10, 248-267.
55. Rey-Debove, J. (1978). Le métalangage [Metalanguage]. Paris: Armand Colin.
56. Richards, J. C. (2002). Accuracy and fluency revisited. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 35-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Manchon, R. (1999). The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 13-44.
58. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol 2. Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed., pp. 679-744). New York: Wiley.
59. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
60. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness: In search of useful definitions for Applied Linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
61. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Schneuwly, B. (1998). Tout n'est pas métalangagier dans l'enseignement du français. La grammaire doit-elle être utile?[Not everything is metalinguistic in the teaching of French: Should grammar be useful?]. In J. Dolz & J. C. Meyer (Eds.), Activités métalangagières et enseignement du français. Actes des journées d'étude en didactique du français (Cartigny, 29 février -1 mars 1997) (pp. 267-272). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
63. Simard, D. (2004). Using diaries to promote metalinguistic reflection among elementary school students. Language Awareness, 13, 34-48.
64. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
66. Storch, N. (1998). Comparing second language learners' attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 5, 176-191.
67. Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one?Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363-374.
68. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
71. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251-274.
72. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99-118). London: Longman.
73. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-304.
74. van Lier, L. (1998). The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning. Language Awareness, 7, 128-145.
75. Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 491-514.
76. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
77. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
78. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79. Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325-340.