DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/2409-7616.2021.4.45

UDC 372.881.111.1

Polunina L.N.¹ (Tula, Russian Federation) – E-mail: poluninaln@mail.ru

¹Tula State Lev Tolstoy Pedagogical University

Abstract. Globalization entailed two main trends developing now in world’s socio-cultural environment: the intensification of cross-cultural mobility and the dominance of English as global language that plays a crucial role in ensuring successful communication between members of different cultures. Due to the growing popular demand for teaching English as an additional language across the globe, modern linguodidactics further improves teaching methodology considering a changing sociolinguistic situation. Over the past few decades, researchers have developed several productive concepts within a bilingual approach including the concept of interaction of the first and target languages in learning process. The aim of the present paper is to define the structure of metalinguistic competence and the methods of its development as well as to reveal its influence on the progress in English language acquisition. The study is based on the sociolinguistic theory of translanguaging, theoretical ideas of cognitive science, communicative and sociocultural approaches to foreign language teaching and current research of bilingualism. In the context of the research problem metalinguistic competence is considered as a dynamic unity of the knowledge about the structure of the target language; the ability to use this knowledge for target language learning; and awareness defined as the ability to abstract away from the speech content to consciously reflect on the language itself and operate it. The structure of metalinguistic competence is related to the structural levels of a language system and combines phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical awareness. The research proposes an algorithm of metalinguistic competence development based on the contrastive analysis of language phenomena for identifying their convergence or difference, and the differentiation of language phenomena considering the type of knowledge (declarative or procedural) that facilitates their interiorization. This scheme allows determining the volume and content of language input depending on age, level of proficiency in target language, short-term and long-term tasks as well as promoting students’ conscious performance within an integrated environment of two languages.

Keywords: foreign language teaching, bilingual approach, metalinguistic competence, linguistic transference.

References:

1. Wierzbicka А. Semantic universals and the description of languages. Moscow, Languages of Russian Culture Publ., 1999. 776 с. (In Russian).
2. Safonova V. V. Sociocultural approach: retrospectives and perspectives. Studies of National society of applied linguistics, 2013, no. 4(4), pp. 53–72. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21611470
3. Shherba L. V. On bilingualism. Language system and speech production. Leningrad, 1974, pp. 313–318. (In Russian).
4. Baker C. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol, Multilingual Matters Publ., 2011. 498 p.
5. Baker D. L., Basaraba D. L., Polanco P. Connecting the Present to the Past: Furthering the Research on Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Review of Research in Education, 2016, vol. 40, pp. 821–883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16660691
6. Bialystok E. Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2001. 304 p. DOI:
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605963
7. Bialystok E. Bilingualism. Cognitive Science, 2010, vol. 1(4), pp. 559–572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.43
8. Bialystok E., Peets K.F., Moreno S. Producing bilinguals through immersion education: Development of metalinguistic awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2014, vol. 35, pp. 177–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000288
9. Canagarajah, S. Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern language Journal, 2011, vol. 95, pp. 401–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01207.x
10. Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume. Strasbourg, 2020. 278 p.
11. Crystal D. English as a Global Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2003, 228 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486999
12. García O. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, Wiley/Blackwell Publ., 2009. 496 p.
13. García O., Li Wei. Translaguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York, Polgrave Macmillan Publ., 2014, 175 р.
14. Houmanfar R., Hayes L.J., Herbst S.A. An Analog Study of First Language Dominance and Interference over Second Language. Analysis Verbal Behavior, 2005, vol. 21, pp. 75–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393011
15. Jenkins J. English as a Lingua Franca: interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes, 2009, vol. 28, pp. 200–207.
16. Kieffer M.J., Lesaux N. Development of morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in Spanish-speaking language minority learners: A parallel process latent growth curve model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2012, vol. 33(1), pp. 23–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000099
17. Krashen S. D. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, Pergamon Press Publ., 1981, 151 p.
18. Krashen S. D. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, Longman Publ., 1985. 128 p.
19. Lantolf J. P. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford, Oxford University Press Publ., 2013. 306 p.
20. Long M.H., Robinson P. Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty, J. Williams (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 1998, pp. 15–41.
21. Moore P. Becoming bilingual in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 2018, vol. 72, no 2, pp. 131–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx045
22. North B., Piccardo E. Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the Common European Framework of reference (CEFR), (2016). Available at https://rm.coe.int/developing-illustrative-descriptors-of-aspects-of-mediation-for-the-co/1680713e2c (accessed 15 November 2021)
23. Pennington M.C, Richards J.C. Teacher Identity in Language Teaching: Integrating Personal, Contextual, and Professional Factors. RELC Journal, 2016, vol. 47(1), pp. 5-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631219
24. Seltzer K. Reconceptualizing “home” and “school” language: Taking a critical translingual approach in the English classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 2019, vol. 53, issue 4, pp. 986-1007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.530
25. Joan K., Hall W.E The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching. Multilingual Matters Publ., 2000. 272 p.
26. Turnbull M., Arnett K. Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2002, vol. 22, pp. 204–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000119
27. Young J.W., Freeman D.C., Hauck M.C. Design Framework for the ELTeach Program Assessments. ETS Research Report Series, 2014, vol. 2014, issue 2pp. 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12036

For citation:

Polunina L.N. The development of students’ metalinguistic competence in foreign language classroom: a bilingual approach. CITISE, 2021, no. 4, pp.494-503. DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/2409-7616.2021.4.45