Metacognitive awareness in third language learners: Conceptual Framework

Juan Pablo Hincapié

Valentina Bedoya
Juan Esteban Gallego Cano

Multilingualism

Although multilingualism is not a recent phenomenon, it has received a

significant increase of attention during the 21st century considering the more than 7,000

languages are spoken around the world (Lewis, 2009, as cited by Cenoz, 2013) as well

as the imperative necessity globalization has created to speak other languages (Edwards,

2004, as cited by Cenoz, 2013). As a matter of fact, different countries and

international bodies arouse the teaching and learning of using multiple languages

through language policies; for example, the Article 165(2) of the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) dictates that ‘Union action shall be aimed

at developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching

and dissemination of the languages of the Member States’. It is not surprising, therefore,

the interest of applied linguists to conduct research in this field.

As Kemp (2009) cautions multilingual research is an ‘undergoing process’ (p.

12) where definitions and agreements among scholars are yet necessary to reach.

Authors as Li (2008), for example, asserts that a multilingual is someone who can

accomplish active or passive communication; in contrast, de groot (2011) speaks of

multilingualism as the use of three or more languages (p.2). I agree with de groot when

referring to the number of languages that the term multilingualism encompasses;

however, I would add to the discussion the contribution made by Baker (2011, in cenoz,

2013) in relation to the proficiency expected in the case of bilingualism:

‘A maximalist definition requiring native control of two languages is too extreme, but

that a minimalist definition that considers incipient bilingualism with minimal

competence to be considered bilingual is also problematic.’(p.6)

Indeed, the user of multiple languages must possess some degree of proficiency

in order to be regarded as a multilingual. Thus, my own definition of multilingualism

involves the user’s ability to rely on multiple codes/languages to engage successfully in

communicative tasks.

Metalinguistic awareness

In order to learn any foreign language, people need to develop a certain level of

awareness that let them to grab the linguistic knowledge more easily and rapidly. This

awareness may occupy a central part in ELT due to the continous growth of interest

people have not only on learning and as well on teaching English. The concept of

metalinguistic awareness may have multiple perspectives and points of view to consider

what it implies; one of them comes from Gombert (1992) who states that this awareness

corresponds to the ability to see words as decontextualized objects and being able to do

two major tasks with them: manipulate and analyse them apart from content and

production. The manipulation and analysis of words out of the context allow students to

expand the possibilities to reorganize concepts and come up with brand-new manners of

molding language. Roehr (2007) complements Gombert´s (1992) definition when

referring to the conscious ability to think (in Gombert´s words see) about language and

it´s nature that encompasses according to Chomsky (1976) structure and characteristics.
 Thinking about language is not limited only to its structure and characteristics,

but as well about how it may work and the possible relationships among different

linguistic and non-linguistic objects inside and outside context. The latter can be

considered as a new definition that broadens what linguistic awareness implies.

Interlanguage

Interlanguage is a technical term that alludes to foreign language learners´

linguistic ability that does not match that of native speakers, but behaves as a systematic

knowledge of language (Selinker, 1972). It means that this ability is an intermediate

stage between the L1 and the L2 that works as an organized and systematic way of

organizing the new knowledge. It is independent of both the learners´ native language

and the target language. As a consequence, Nemser (1971) points out that it is merely a

successive approximation to the target language that takes place when learning a new

language. The approximation fits the necessity of the new language, providing students

the tools to fulfil communicative tasks by an approximative system.

As part of this approximative system, Richards (2002) encounters 3 major

elements that constitute interlanguage: borrowing patterns from the mother tongue;

extending patterns from the target language; and expressing meanings using words and

grammar already known. These three compound the new definition can be best describe

what interlanguage is. We could, so say that interlanguage is an approximative and

systematic scheme that L2 learners use to approach the new language using the tools

they already know.

Third Language acquisition.

 Although scholars’ interest in third language acquisition has seemed to sprung

throughout the last decades. The earliest glances on this concept come from Braun

(1937) and Vildomec (1963) who were the first authors to express the positive aspects

of the coexistence of multiple languages in the learners repertoire, such as possessing a

broader cultural awareness. In contrast, Singh & Carroll (1979) concluded that third

language acquisition is no different from second language acquisition since second

language was ‘any language acquired after the first’. Some of the most recent insights

into the field come from Cenoz (2013), a recurrent author in the TLA, who recognizes

the multiple advantages third language learners have over second language learners

such as having access to a broader metalinguistic awareness and mental repertoire.

Language proficiency:

In matters of language learning, the role of Language proficiency has been

surrounded by controversy, for it has been questioned by several authors that constantly

debate the parameters in which it should be measured, making the a simple definition

difficult to draw out; for instance, Verhoeven (1992) defines language proficiency as the

scale measurement of fluency where the language produced by non-native users of the

language is contrasted against the idealized edge of native speakers of a specific

language.

Contrasting this idea, Rao (2016) sees language proficiency as the elementary

focus on the aspects of comprehension and communication as the main portrayal of

capacity in a specific language, yet, making the distinction between the concepts of

proficiency and fluency: where proficiency refers to the mastery of one’s performance

in the different skills comprehended by the language being evaluated, whereas fluency

is rather intended as the eloquence and smoothness reflected by one’s performance of

the language in the production aspects of it; hence, reassuring that it is possible to be

proficient without being fluid.

Both authors considered, it can be concluded that language proficiency refers to

the level of dexterity shown by an individual’s performance on a language taken from

two different perspectives: one that evaluates the performance of the non-native

speakers as opposed to the standardized prospects of fluency for native speakers of such

language; and a comprehensive perspective where proficiency level is determined by

the individual’s competence in the target language.

Metacognition:

An aspect that has proven itself to be very effective in facilitating learning is

Metacognition, often referred to as “thinking about thinking”, and its applicability does

not shy away from the learning process for a foreign language. The definition of

metacognition has expanded massively into numerous different aspects through the

years, making the definition on its own lose coherence. Veenman (2006) offers a more

concise definition for this process, explaining it as the higher-order thinking processing

skill that enables the knowledge about and regulation-control of one’s own cognitive

activities as these are performed in the learning process, whether this “self-knowledge”

is correct or incorrect and must be submitted to constant, objective feedback for it to be

of benefit to the learning process. With a different perspective to this idea, Dunlosky

(1992) refers to metacognition as an introspective task to review one’s thought process,

even though not specifically on the learning process, but in any cognitive exercise that

must lead to the adjustment of said process in the search of personal growth. We could

say then that metacognition is the inner-directed task that allows an individual to

evaluate and his own thought process and properly assess and regulate it in order to

improve the outcome of the task in question.

 References

Çankaya, Pınar. (2015). The Exploration of Multilingualism: Development of

Research on L3, Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition.

Cenoz, J. (2001). Chapter 1. The Effect of Linguistic Distance, L2 Status and

Age on Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition:
Psycholinguistic Perspectives.

Cenoz, J. & Hoffmann, C.(2003) Acquiring a third language: what role does
bilingualism play? The International Journal of Bilingualism 7, 1-5.

Cenoz, J. (2004) Teaching English as a third language: the effect of attitudes and
motivation. In C. Hoffmann & J. Ytsma (eds) Trilingualism in Family,
School and Community (202-218). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cenoz, Jasone. (2013). Defining Multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics. 33. 3-7.

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon

De groot, A. M. B. (2011) Language and cognition in bilinguals and

multilinguals: An introduction. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Dunlosky, J. Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

publications.

.Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. London, UK: Harvester

Weatsheaf.

Li, W. (2008). Research perspectives on bilingualism and multilingualism.

Nemser W. (1971). Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 92, 115-123

Rao, V. (2016). A brief study of English Language proficiency: Employability.

Ambedkar Nagar, Bapughat, India: Langar House.

Roehr, K. (2007). Metalinguistic Knowledge and Language Ability in

University-Level L2 Learners. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 173-199
Richards, J. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. New York: Longman.

Selinker L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics,

10, 209-241

Veenman, M.V. J. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and

methodological considerations. Published online: Springer science.

Verhoeven, L. Dejong, J. (1992). The construct of language proficiency.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.