What should be explicit in explicit grammar instruction?

This article proposes an approach to explicit grammar instruction that seeks to develop metalinguistic knowledge of the L2 and raise L2 learners’ awareness of their L1, which is crucial for the success of second language acquisition ( , ). If explicit instruction is more effective than implicit inst...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	Language learning in higher education (Berlin, Germany) Jg. 5; H. 2; S. 375 - 396
Hauptverfasser:	Nagai, Noriko, Ayano, Seiki, Okada, Keiko, Nakanishi, Takayuki
Format:	Journal Article
Sprache:	Englisch
Veröffentlicht:	Berlin De Gruyter 01.10.2015 De Gruyter Mouton Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Schlagworte:	Adult Basic Education Adult Students Argument structure Consciousness Consciousness Raising Covert criterial features Debates Direct Instruction English (Second Language) English as a second language learning Error Patterns explicit grammar instruction Feedback Foreign Countries Grammar Grammar instruction Grammatical categories Grammaticality Japanese Japanese language Knowledge Language acquisition language-universal versus language-particular properties Languages Lexicon Linguistics Metalinguistic awareness Metalinguistics Property Second Language Learning Second language writing Semantics Sentences structure-based tasks Students Syntactic structures Teaching Teaching Methods Theoretical linguistics Verbs Writing (Composition) Japan
ISSN:	2191-611X, 2191-6128
Online-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:	This article proposes an approach to explicit grammar instruction that seeks to develop metalinguistic knowledge of the L2 and raise L2 learners’ awareness of their L1, which is crucial for the success of second language acquisition ( , ). If explicit instruction is more effective than implicit instruction ( ), the question is what is to be taught explicitly. Research in theoretical linguistics enables us to define what specific metalinguistic knowledge underlies certain lexical items and grammar constructions. The present study illustrates this by using simple sentential constructions that are regarded as A2 grammatical features according to Hawkins and Filipović ( ). B1-level Japanese learners of English tend to omit objects (Objs) of different types, when producing simple A2-level sentences. We attribute this problem to two linguistic factors. First, verbal argument structure that defines what elements, e.g., subject (Sbj), Obj and other obligatory sentential elements, are required to appear with a given verb. Second, English and Japanese differ with respect to the omission of required element(s). This study claims that metalinguistic knowledge of argument structure and overt versus covert realization of arguments in the two languages should be explicitly taught through structure-based tasks. We propose two different sets of such tasks: (i) instruction that focuses on lexical properties by presenting verbal argument structure and then requiring students to engage in grammaticality judgment and controlled written production tasks; (ii) instruction that focuses on language-particular features by giving students consciousness-raising tasks in L1, consciousness-raising tasks that compare and contrast L1 and L2, controlled-writing tasks, and free-writing tasks with corrective feedback.
Bibliographie:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14
ISSN:	2191-611X 2191-6128
DOI:	10.1515/cercles-2015-0018