The development of secondary discourse ability and metalinguistic awareness in second language learners

Abstract

Research on the development of language proficiency associated with academic discourse and literacy learning is reviewed. Bilingualism and L2 learning are considered as a point of reference to help formulate the following research questions for future investigation: What are the components that together make up literacy‐related academic proficiency? Sequential bilingualism provides for a useful perspective on this question because in L2 learning the different components appear to develop at varying rates in relation to each other, revealing imbalances that shed light on how aspects of language knowledge and information processing might be represented and on how they are deployed in actual language use. Which aspects of literacy‐related academic proficiency are not language‐specific, and how do bilinguals access requisite knowledge and processing components in L2 literacy learning?

<b>Can metalinguistic awareness explain a connection between L1 literacy and L2 proficiency level in literate adults?</b><br>DOI:10.5007/2175-8026.2011n60p189

“…According to Bialystok (2007), the empirical evidence we have nowadays as regards the transfer of PA seems to support the view that PA relies mostly on general cognitive abilities and, thus, can easily transfer across languages. According to Francis (2006), apparently, the mechanism responsible for linking phonological structures to their orthographic representations is readily available to be used, irrespective of the language of the text (at least when the two languages have the same type of orthography, e.g., alphabetic) and this is what the results for the transfer of PA in the present study seem to be confirming.…”

“…As mentioned above, it might be that there is a strong connection between all the three metalinguistic abilities in the 2 languages but that, due to some limitations in the instruments used for data collection, such connection was not always perceived. Another possibility is that, as Siegel (2000 in Francis, 2006) argued, perhaps systems such as syntax and morphology do not transfer so effortlessly across languages as is the case with phonology.…”

“…According to Ranta (2008), metalinguistic skills arise as a function of age and it is normal that children start analyzing language (and correcting themselves) as soon as they have established the connections between the symbols of the language and the reality (Karmiloff-Smith, 1979in Kato, 1993. However, the process of detaching oneself from language, manipulating it and reflecting upon it does not happen naturally for all (Francis, 2006) and children of the same age have been known to vary in their degree of metalinguistic knowledge. Thus, there must be external factors at play.…”

Effects of language proficiency and contextual factors on second language learners’ written narratives: A corpus-based study

“…An interesting distinction for the purposes of the current study is the one between primary and secondary discourse ability (Francis, 2006). Primary discourse ability underlies children's everyday narrations that are generated in a specific context and are, thus, built on shared background knowledge with the interlocutor.…”

“…Apart from the increase in the use of cohesive mechanisms, this kind of discourse demands a high effort to maintain the narration as clear and unambiguous to the interlocutor as possible (Bongartz & Torregrossa, 2017). Additionally, late (Francis, 2006) or schooled (Fang, 2001) narratives, requiring developed competencies (or knowledge structures) in the level of discourse, are largely interdependent with advanced information-processing skills and metalinguistic awareness (Francis, 2006). Since the latter is primarily fostered in school setting, secondary discourse ability is said to be considerably prone to growing variation in typically developing children.…”