Gombert's stage model: metalinguistic awareness develops after linguistic competence, via epilinguistic awareness¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 2 studies (1 qualitative, 1 theoretical), q2 · 0 of 2 report an effect size

Description¶

The paper adopts Gombert's (1992) account in which children pass from an initial stage of epilinguistic awareness, which "does not involve conscious awareness or intentional manipulation of language as an object", to metalinguistic awareness and finally automation of metaprocesses. Because metalinguistic ability "develops after linguistic competence has been established, since one cannot use knowledge which one does not have", the author argues that pedagogical proposals requiring conscious attention to form presuppose metalinguistic abilities that cannot build linguistic competence before it exists.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Linguistic competence must already be established before metalinguistic ability can emerge

Constraints¶

• Epilinguistic awareness data come mostly from children in literate societies, which the author notes is problematic for claims it emerges without schooling

Target Learners¶

• children acquiring a first language
• adult second language learners

Target Learning Objectives¶

• development of linguistic competence
• metalinguistic awareness

Claims¶

• Fluent bilingualism is linked to metalinguistic awareness of how the two languages relate [+W]

Related Theories¶

• Metacognition
• Affordance-based assessment framework: linguistic ability as emergent property of organism-environment interaction

Examples¶

• Phonological and Metalinguistic Awareness Exercises
• Morphological Awareness Instruction

Key Sources¶

• Young-Scholten, M. (1999). Focus on Form and Linguistic Competence: Why Krashen Is Still Right about Acquisition. Paper presented at AAAL, Stamford. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED432919