Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

System 39 (2011) 63e77

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship

in L2 learners
Guangwei Hu*
English Language and Literature, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk,
Singapore 637616, Singapore
Received 25 August 2010; revised 10 November 2010; accepted 2 December 2010

Abstract

This paper reports on a study designed to investigate the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge by L2 learners exposed to large
doses of explicit grammar instruction, their facility with metalanguage, and the relationship between metalinguistic and meta-
lingual knowledge. Seventy-six young adult Chinese learners of English as a foreign language completed an untimed rule ver-
balization task that involved 49 uses of 6 English target structures: the definite article, the indefinite article, the zero article, the
simple present, the simple past, and the present perfect. The rule verbalizations were rated for acceptability, and all the metalingual
terms used in the verbalizations were identified and coded for correct usage. Quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal that 1) the
participants amassed much explicit knowledge of the target structures; 2) their explicit knowledge was mostly consistent with
typical pedagogical rules; 3) they had a productive knowledge of a large number of metalingual terms; and 4) there was a positive
relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and facility with metalanguage.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Metalanguage; Metalinguistic knowledge; Metalingual knowledge; Explicit grammar instruction; Explicit knowledge; Pedagogical
grammar rules; Second language learner; Chinese learner of English

1. Introduction

Until fairly recently, metalinguistic knowledge (i.e., explicit knowledge about language; DeKeyser, 2009) and
metalanguage (i.e., terminology used to describe language; Ellis, 2004) appeared to be an indispensable and irre-
placeable component of second language (L2) teaching and learning (see Richards and Rodgers, 2001). They have
since suffered increasing marginalization and retreated from their former centrality in more and more L2 classrooms,
except those located in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas largely untouched by the global flow of L2 peda-
gogical practices and language teaching reforms. Among the many factors contributing to their downfall, two seem to
have played a very large role. One is the advent and spread of communicative language teaching (CLT); the other is the
great controversy over the usefulness of explicit processes and metalinguistic knowledge in L2 learning that has raged

* Tel.: þ65 6790 3484; fax: þ65 6896 9149.

E-mail address: guangwei.hu@nie.edu.sg.

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.01.011
64 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77

in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) in recent years (Berry, 2005; DeKeyser, 2003; DeKeyser and Juffs,
2005; Hu, 2002).
CLT has gathered great momentum in the last three decades and made significant inroads into language classrooms
around the world (Savignon, 2005). As a pedagogical approach, it sets great store on communicative competence e
the ability to use the target language to engage in meaningful and effective communication e and downplays linguistic
competence, which more traditional L2 teaching approaches have aimed to develop in language learners (Richards
and Rodgers, 2001). To foster communicative competence, CLT rejects the traditional, decontextualized, explicit
teaching of L2 grammar and replaces it with language tasks which prioritize meaning and communication and which
are believed to promote and support learning most effectively (Renou, 2001). Because of their natural affinity with
formal grammar instruction, explicit knowledge of L2 grammar and facility with metalanguage have been rejected by
some language educators (e.g., Garrett, 1986; Mohammed, 1996) as legitimate instructional means and/or ends in
CLT-oriented L2 classrooms.
The recent SLA debate on the relationship of explicit knowledge to L2 learning and use has also raised doubts
about the value of metalinguistic knowledge and the metalanguage that often accompanies it (see DeKeyser, 2003;
DeKeyser and Juffs, 2005; Ellis, 2006). Although some researchers (e.g., DeKeyser, 1998; Johnson, 1996) argue
that metalinguistic knowledge, once proceduralized and automatized, can be directly involved in real-time language
use, others (e.g., Ellis, 1994; Sharwood Smith, 1991) see such knowledge as making an indirect contribution “to the
acquisition of implicit knowledge by facilitating attention to form in the input” (Ellis, 2004, p. 228). Still others (e.g.,
Krashen, 1987; Paradis, 1994) contend that neither competence nor performance in an L2 can be affected in any
significant way by explicit grammar teaching and the so-called pseudo grip of metalinguistic knowledge. This view
has been very influential and joined forces with empirical studies (e.g., Alderson et al., 1997; Elder et al., 1999) that
found no or only tenuous relationships between L2 proficiency and metalinguistic knowledge in undergraduate
students. Together they have given rise to widespread beliefs among practitioners and methodologists that recognize
no use or only a very limited role in explicit knowledge of L2 grammar and the ability to command metalanguage.
Contrary to the dismissive view of metalinguistic knowledge, cumulative findings from more recent research on
adolescent and adult learners (e.g., Butler, 2002; DeKeyser, 1997; Elder and Manwaring, 2004; Han and Ellis, 1998;
Hu, 2002; Klapper and Rees, 2003; Macrory and Stone, 2000; Renou, 2000; Roehr, 2007) have suggested a much
greater role for such knowledge in L2 learning and use, especially for learners who learn a target language in
a classroom setting. Hu (2002), for example, produced empirical evidence in support of the mobilization of explicit
knowledge in L2 use by young adult learners, though real-time access to such knowledge seems subject to the
influences of several interacting psychological factors. Ellis (2006), Elder and Manwaring (2004), Renou (2000,
2001), and Roehr (2007) have all found substantial correlations between university students’ explicit knowledge of
various L2 structures and their L2 proficiency. Both de Jong (2005) and DeKeyser (1997) have also demonstrated that
cognitively mature learners’ explicit knowledge can be automatized to a considerable extent, enhancing its availability
in L2 use. In his recent review of empirical research on explicit and implicit knowledge, DeKeyser (2009) notes that
recent research has shown that “different tasks draw on the two kinds of knowledge to different extents” and that “just
about all tasks draw on both explicit and implicit or automatized knowledge to some extent” (p. 125).
The empirical evidence from the aforementioned studies constitutes a strong argument for recognizing the
importance of metalinguistic knowledge in L2 learning and use. It also points to the need for further research on the
development and transformation of metalinguistic knowledge and factors related to the processes. This paper reports
on a study which was part of a larger project designed to investigate the relationship of metalinguistic knowledge to L2
use and mediating psychological factors. The study focuses on L2 learners’ metalinguistic knowledge and its rela-
tionship to their knowledge of metalanguage, an area that has hitherto received only peripheral attention in research on
metalinguistic knowledge (see Berry, 1997, 2009; Carter, 2003; Ellis, 2004, 2006). Specifically, this study aims to
address the following research questions:

1. How do L2 learners exposed to much explicit grammar instruction fare in their acquisition of metalinguistic
knowledge?
2. To what extent does their metalinguistic knowledge resemble or deviate from the pedagogical rules commonly
taught?
3. Are they able to couch their metalinguistic knowledge in appropriate metalingual terms?
4. Is there a relationship between their metalinguistic knowledge and their knowledge of metalanguage?
 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77 65

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

The data for this study were collected from Chinese learners of English enrolled in a 6-month communication skills
program at a major university in Singapore. The intensive program was conducted to help newly arrived senior
secondary graduates from the People’s Republic of China to develop their English proficiency for their undergraduate
studies in Singaporean universities. The participants (N ¼ 76; 55 males, 21 females) came from thirteen provinces in
China, and their ages ranged from 18 to 21 years. Based on their scores on the Secondary Level English Proficiency
Test (Educational Testing Service, 1991), they were upper-intermediate learners. All the participants had had at least
six years of secondary English (about 930 contact hours). According to their responses to a background questionnaire
describing various instructional practices and learning activities, they had been exposed to large doses of explicit,
detailed instruction in English grammar. Such instruction had consisted mainly of teacher-fronted lessons conducted
almost entirely in Chinese. Deductive presentation of grammar rules, syntactic parsing, contrastive analysis, pattern
practice, error-correction, and translation had been some of the most frequently used instructional/learning strategies.
It should be clear from this brief description that the participants had been exposed to much metalinguistic information
and had studied English mainly in an acquisition-poor environment.

2.2. Target English structures/uses

Three criteria were used to select target structures for investigation in this study. First, the target structures should
be those known to be difficult for Chinese learners of English. Second, each target structure should be complex enough
to involve a range of uses. Third, the participants had been exposed to the target uses. These criteria were necessary to
investigate whether L2 learners exposed to detailed, explicit grammar instruction would be able to develop meta-
linguistic knowledge about complex target structures and acquire metalingual terms that they could use to verbalize
such knowledge. The criteria resulted in the selection of six target structures classified into two groups: the articles (a/
an, the, and Ø) and three tense/aspect structures (the simple present, the simple past, and the present perfect). There is
empirical evidence that these structures are difficult for Chinese learners of English (see Bayley, 1994; Master, 1995).
This difficulty seems to arise largely from cross-linguistic influences: Mandarin Chinese does not have a system of
articles or the grammatical category of tense (Li and Thompson, 1981). Although Mandarin Chinese grammaticalizes
aspectual distinctions, its aspectual system differs from the English one in complex ways (Smith, 1994). The target
structures are also notorious for the complexity inherent in their myriad uses (see Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman,
1999; Comrie, 1985; Master, 1990). Finally, the secondary school English syllabus (see Curriculum and Teaching
Materials Research Institute, 2001) followed in the participants’ English classes required that all the six structures
be covered at the junior secondary stage. It also required that the structures be recycled throughout the senior
secondary English course, with previously taught uses being constantly reviewed and consolidated, and new uses
introduced where feasible.
Based on Quirk et al. (1985), an initial list of target uses of the six structures was identified. The list was then
checked against Junior English for China and Senior English for China, a set of secondary school English textbooks
then used in about 70% of secondary schools throughout China. The list was also checked against a pedagogical
grammar (Zhang, 1995) that was widely used by secondary school teachers of English. The final list included 49 target
uses. Consistent with the textbooks and the pedagogical grammar, these uses are presented as prescriptive rules in the
Appendix. Although these prescriptive rules may not adequately describe current article and tense/aspect usage, they
reflect the input that the participants were exposed to.

2.3. Elicitation of metalinguistic knowledge and metalanguage

In SLA research, explicit knowledge is frequently elicited with tasks that require learners to explain target
grammatical features (e.g., Alderson et al., 1997; Green and Hecht, 1992; Hulstijn and Hulstijn, 1984; see Ellis, 2004,
for a comprehensive review). In line with this practice, a rule verbalization task was used to elicit the participants’
explicit knowledge of the target structures and their various uses. A written instrument was developed that consisted of
sentences exemplifying the target uses. Some examples are:
66 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77

1) Could you please shut the door?

2) A leopard is a very dangerous animal.
3) If he were here, he would be able to help us a lot
4) Who has broken the window?

The participants were asked to explain why the underlined structures were used. They were required to respond
only in Chinese so that no failure to verbalize a rule or ambiguity in a verbalization might arise from limited
competence in the medium language. There was no time limit for the task.
The verbalizations were coded independently by the author and an experienced secondary school teacher of
English from China. To avoid an overly restrictive definition of correct metalinguistic knowledge and to allow scope
for the participants to express their understanding, a verbalization was coded as acceptable if it expressed the essential
concept, though it did not match the pre-determined rule statement accurately (see Green and Hecht, 1992). Thus
a verbalization marked as correct might be expressed without using metalanguage (Berry, 2009; Ellis, 2006),
formulated to cover a somewhat broader or narrower scope than the pre-determined rule statement, or couched as
a rule of thumb known to Chinese teachers and learners. For example, a verbalization like “The is used to talk about
a person or a thing already mentioned” was considered just as good as the more precise statement “The definite article
is used before common nouns to indicate shared knowledge derived from direct or indirect anaphoric reference.” The
inter-rater agreement was good (95%), and the disagreements were resolved through discussion.
The rule explanations produced by the participants were also coded by the author and the secondary school teacher
for 1) all the metalingual terms used; 2) metalingual terms that were used appropriately; and 3) metalingual terms that
were used incorrectly. There was again very good agreement (98%). All the discrepancies were resolved through
discussion.

3. Results

3.1. Participants’ metalinguistic knowledge of the target uses

The analysis of the rule verbalizations revealed that the participants had much metalinguistic knowledge of the
target structures investigated in this study. Out of a possible total of 3724 (76  49), the 76 participants produced 2621
acceptable rules describing the target uses. There were 873 irrelevant or wrong rule explanations and 230 cases where
no rule verbalization was produced. This means that in more than 70% of the cases, the participants explicitly knew the
rules underlying the target uses of the English structures in question. The most and the least successful participants
were able to produce 41 and 27 correct rules, respectively. The group mean was 34.49 out of a maximum of 49, and the
standard deviation was 3.08, indicating reasonable homogeneity among the participants.
Table 1 provides detailed information about the correct verbalizations. The first column groups percentages of
correct rule verbalizations into 10 bands. The next two columns give the numbers and percentages of rules falling

Table 1
Profile of correct rule verbalizations.
Percentage correct Target use Specific rule involveda
n %
90e100 22 44.90 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47
80e89 2 4.08 21, 46
70e79 4 8.16 19, 24, 25, 38
60e69 6 12.25 11, 12, 14, 26, 37, 43
50e59 3 6.12 6, 32, 41
40e49 3 6.12 4, 8, 49
30e39 2 4.08 7, 35
20e29 1 2.04 20
10e19 5 10.20 17, 33, 34, 44, 48
0e9 1 2.04 36
a
The identifying numbers are those used in the Appendix.
 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77 67

within each band. The last column lists the specific target uses (see Appendix) falling within the different bands. As
can be seen from Table 1, nearly half (n ¼ 24) of the target uses were formulated correctly by at least 80% of the
participants. About one quarter (n ¼ 12) of the target uses, however, were verbalized correctly by less than 50% of the
participants. Rules 17, 33, 34, 44, 48, and 36 (see Appendix) were particularly hard: Less than 20% of the participants
came up with an acceptable rule verbalization in each case.
Fig. 1 shows the percentages of correct verbalizations by target structure. The participants were most successful
with the zero article, followed by the indefinite article, the definite article, the simple past, and the present perfect.
They were least successful with the simple present. Clearly, the participants fared better with the three articles than
with the three tense/aspect structures. They were able to get about 76% of the article rules right, but their overall
success rate for the tense/aspect structures was slightly less than 63%. Given the notorious complexity inherent in the
uses of the articles (Master, 1990; Pica, 1985; Quirk et al., 1985) and the tense/aspect structures (Celce-Murcia and
Larsen-Freeman, 1999), the participants attained a rather high level of metalinguistic awareness and acquired much
explicit knowledge of the target structures.

3.2. Degree of consistency between pedagogical and learner-formulated rules

Of the 2621 acceptable rule formulations produced by the participants, 64% are roughly isomorphic with the
corresponding pedagogical rules (see Appendix) in terms of explanatory scope. Here are some examples for this
category:

1. 单数可数名词前需用冠词。因上文已提及，故用定冠词。

(An article is required before a singular count noun. The definite article should be used with reference to what has
already been mentioned. Participant 19, Rule 2)

Fig. 1. Correct verbalizations by target structure.

68 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77

2. 一般现在时表示永远不变的规律。

(The simple present is used to express eternal regularities. Participant 22, Rule 29)

3. 用在复数或不可数名词前，泛指。

([The zero articles is] used before a plural noun or a mass noun to indicate indefinite reference. Participant 45,
Rule 19)

4. 现在一直保持的习惯性动作要用现在时。

(The simple present is needed to refer to habitual actions that obtain at present. Participant 60, Rule 31)
Of particular interest are those verbalizations that did not cover the same scope of generalization as the typical
formulations that one would find in pedagogical grammars or reference resources. Slightly more than 18% of the
acceptable rules were broader in their range of application, as shown in #5, #6, #7, #8, and #9:

5. 地点名词前无需加冠词。

(No article is needed before the name of a place. Participant 13, Rule 28)

6. 在双方都知道的事物前用定冠词。

(The definite article is used before an object or a thing of which both [the speaker and the listener] have shared
knowledge. Participant 38, Rule 1)

7. 与主句时态保持一致。

([The simple past is used] in agreement with the tense used in the main clause. Participant 41, Rule 43)

8. 从句中用现在时代替将来时。

(The present tense is used instead of a future tense in the subordinate clause. Participant 30, Rule 39)

9. 主句将来时，从句一般现在时。

(If the main clause is in the future tense, the subordinate clause should be in the simple present. Participant 74,
Rule 39)
Rule 28, as verbalized by Participant 13 in #5 above, applies to many more situations than does a typical peda-
gogical rule in which ⌀ is usually restricted to geographical names that refer to countries, cities, lakes, and mountains.
The formulation given by Participant 38 in #6, though a useful generalization about the definite article, extends over
a number of specific uses ranging from situational reference to anaphoric/cataphoric reference to sporadic and unique
reference, which are normally treated separately in pedagogical grammars. Similarly, the rule verbalized by Partic-
ipant 41 in #7 covers a much broader range than a typical pedagogical rule about the use of the simple past with present
reference in indirect speech. Finally, the use of the simple present with future reference in Participant 30’s and
Participant 74’s verbalizations reproduced in #8 and #9 respectively extends from temporal and conditional clauses to
the whole category of subordinate clauses.
Besides those broader rules, there were also many formulations (about 17% of the acceptable ones) that would
apply to a narrower range of situations, as is illustrated by #10, #11, and #12:

10. 用于表语中，表示职业。

([The indefinite article is] used in a predicative to indicate a profession. Participant 29, Rule 14)
 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77 69

11. 用于形容词前指一类人。

([The definite article is] used before an adjective to refer to a class of people. Participant 42, Rule 9)

12. 用来婉转地提出请求。

([The simple past is] used to make a polite request. Participant 10, Rule 44)
The rule given by Participant 29 in #10 above e the use of a/an to indicate a profession e describes only one of the
many situations that would be subsumed under a standard pedagogical rule about the non-referring descriptive use of
a/an before a complement. A typical pedagogical rule about the use of the definite article before an adjective head
would include reference to both a class of people and an abstract quality, rather than simply the former as found in
Participant 42’s formulation in #11. Similarly, the verbalization produced by Participant 10 in #12 states only one of
the several situations that are usually covered by a broader pedagogical generalization such as “The simple past is used
to indicate the speaker’s present volition or mental state in a more tentative or polite way.”
Clearly, there is considerable inconsistency between many of the learner-formulated rules and the rule statements
typically found in standard L2 textbooks and pedagogical grammars. The possible causes underlying the observed
inconsistencies are taken up later when the findings are discussed.

3.3. Participants’ use of metalanguage

As demonstrated by the examples presented in the previous section, although some rules were couched in
everyday language, the participants employed more or less technical language in most of their rule formulations.
The metalingual terms used ranged from basic ones labeling word classes and tenses/aspects to more arcane ones
designating different sentential constituents and types of clause. As only three metalingual terms e 零冠词 (zero
article), 句子 (sentence), and 时态 (tense/aspect) e appeared in the instructions for the verbalization task, the
terms used by the participants apparently had already been part of their metalanguage before the data collection.
These metalingual terms apparently were not the only ones that the participants knew, because the verbalization
instrument simply did not bring out every metalingual term in their repertoire (see Berry, 2009). A closer
examination of the metalingual terms in context revealed that some of these terms were occasionally misused in
that they did not correctly name the categories or relationships in question, as in #13 and #14. There were also
some cases where a metalingual term was used correctly but the resultant rule was simply irrelevant or wrong, as
in #15 and #16:

13. 由短语修饰的名词做非限定性定语从句时，不需冠词。

(No article is required before a noun modified by a phrase and functioning as a non-restrictive relative clause.
Participant 59, Rule 20)

14. 形容抽象名词用一般现在时的单数形式。

(The singular form of the simple present is used to describe an abstract noun. Participant 21, Rule 36)

15. 一词以上的专有名词前需加定冠词。

(The definite article is required before a proper noun that is made up of more than one word. Participant 3, Rule 11)

16. 因为是复数名词，指代一类动物，不需用冠词。

(No article is needed because the plural noun refers to a class of animals. Participant 2, Rule 19)
More often than not, however, the metalingual terminology was used appropriately to formulate acceptable rules,
as can be seen in #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, and #22:
70 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77

17. 形容词最高级前用定冠词。

(The definite article is used before the superlative form of an adjective. Participant 24, Rule 5)

18. A/an是不定冠词。这是很普通的用法，上文没提到的人或事物出现，又是单数时，加a/an。一般情况
下，不定冠词后首词以元音开始时，加an，其余加 a。

(A/an is the indefinite article. This is a very common usage: a/an is used before [a noun indicating] a person or
object that is singular and is not mentioned in the preceding sentences. If the first word after the indefinite article
begins with a vowel, an should be used; otherwise, a should be used. Participant 51, Rule 13)

19. 用在不可数名词或可数名词复数前，泛指某些人或事物。

([The zero article is] used before a mass noun or a plural count noun to express indefinite reference to some people
or things. Participant 39, Rule 19)

20. 条件和时间状语从句中，一般现在时表示将来。

(The simple present in an adverbial clause of condition or time has a future reference. Participant 10, Rule 39)

21. 构成虚拟语气，表示与现在事实相反的情况。

([The simple past is] used to form the subjunctive mood and to express a hypothetical situation contrary to the fact
at present. Participant 40, Rule 45)

22. 因主句的said用过去时，间接引语中用过去时表现现在的状态，与主句时态保持一致。

(Since said in the main clause is in a past tense, a past tense is used in the indirect speech to refer to the present state
so as to be in agreement with the tense in the main clause. Participant 67, Rule 43)
Although some rules can be verbalized without recourse to technical language (Berry, 2009), it is difficult to see
how some of the more complex rules above may have been expressed comprehensibly without using metalanguage
(see Ellis, 2006).

3.4. Relationship between metalinguistic and metalingual knowledge

Qualitative analyses of the rule verbalizations suggested that the participants who were more successful on the
verbalization task also seemed to have more metalingual terms at their disposal. Was there a statistical relationship
between the amount of correct metalinguistic knowledge available to the participants and their command of meta-
lingual terms? To test the hypothesis, a Pearson productemoment correlation was run on the verbalization and
metalanguage scores. A participant’s verbalization score was the total number of correct rules verbalized, and his or
her metalanguage score was the total number of different metalingual terms used in all his or her verbalizations, rather
than all the incidences of metalingual terms found in the verbalization data. In other words, the metalingual terms were
counted by type rather than by token. Thus, if a metalingual term was used, say, ten times, it was counted only once.
The highest and lowest metalanguage scores obtained by the participants were 37 and 18, respectively. The mean score
was 28.61, and the standard deviation was 4.61, indicating considerable variation between the participants. The
Pearson correlation coefficient obtained was .717 (df ¼ 74, p < .001, two-tailed), indicating a strong positive rela-
tionship between the two variables.
Fig. 2 represents the participants’ verbalization and metalanguage scores graphically. As can be seen from the
scatterplot, by and large, participants who scored high on metalinguistic knowledge also scored high on metalanguage.
That is, there was a positive linear relationship between the number of acceptable rules verbalized and the number of
different types of metalingual terms used. Although correlational analyses alone cannot establish causation, the
 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77 71

50

45

40

Verbalisation Scores
35

30

25

20

15
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Metalanguage Scores
Fig. 2. Metalanguage scores by verbalization scores.

strength of the correlation obtained in this case suggests that the relationship observed is an important one that merits
further research.

4. Discussion

The results reported in the previous sections indicate that the participants possessed a great deal of correct explicit
knowledge of the six target structures investigated in this study, whose complexity and difficulty are well recognized.
This finding challenges the expressly articulated objection to form-focused explicit instruction from Krashen (1987),
who claims that “even our best students will be able to learn and utilize [only] a small part of the grammar of
a language as a conscious Monitor” (p. 94) and that what they can learn are only “the simple rules that are easiest to
describe and remember” (p. 97). On the other hand, the finding supports Ellis’ (1994, p. 90) contention that “the
acquisition of explicit knowledge involves non-specialized mechanisms and processes [i.e., memorization and
problem solving]. in much the same way as the learning of any other type of declarative knowledge” and that formal
L2 learners are capable of learning a large number of explicit rules. Whether such knowledge can be brought into play
in real-time production, however, is an issue that has not been conclusively resolved in SLA (see DeKeyser, 2003,
2009; Ellis, 2004, 2008; Hu, 2002).
It is noteworthy that there is a marked discrepancy between the results of this study and some earlier studies on
metalinguistic knowledge. In Hulstijn and Hulstijn’s (1984) study, only 12 out of a sample of 32 learners demonstrated
explicit knowledge of one of the two simple word-order rules involved, and only eight knew the other target rule
explicitly. The German learners of English in Green and Hecht (1992) had, on average, correct explicit knowledge of
the 12 common target structures examined in only 46% of the cases. Sorace’s (1985) intermediate learners were also
only able to verbalize the six target rules under investigation in 46% of the cases (re-computed from Table 1, p. 245).
By contrast, the participants in this study achieved a much higher success rate: They were able to produce correct rules
for the uses of six difficult target structures in more than 70% of the cases. Differences in the learners’ instructional
backgrounds and learning objectives would seem to be an important factor contributing to the disparity in meta-
linguistic performance found between the other studies and this one. Hulstijn and Hulstijn (1984) did not provide
details about their participants’ learning background except that they were adult learners of Dutch living in the
Netherlands. Green and Hecht (1992), though mentioning that their learners had received explicit instruction in
grammar rules, stated that “German learners are encouraged to arrive at their rules by a largely inductive process, in
which the point of departure is the language not the rule” (p. 181). Although Sorace (1985) referred to her participants’
“exposure to detailed and repeated metalinguistic information” (p. 249) and described the instruction that they had
72 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77

received as “traditional”, with a “prevailing emphasis on literature” and “very explicit focus on grammar” (p. 242), the
intermediate learners had studied the target language only for an average of two years. In all probability, the learners in
these studies either had not received as much explicit instruction or had not been taught in a way as explicit, form-
focused, and knowledge-oriented as the participants in this study had.
This explanation of the observed differences in metalinguistic knowledge is consistent with views and findings
reported in previous research. Based on her empirical results, Sorace (1985) argued that learners in a formal setting in
acquisition-poor environments develop their explicit knowledge largely as a result of the form-focused instruction that
they receive (see Elder and Manwaring, 2004, for a similar view). In a recent study of the relationship between
metalinguistic reflections and L2 learning, Simard et al. (2007) also pointed to the potential influence of learners’
instructional background on their performance on a metalingugistic task that required them to verbalize L2 rules and
generalizations in a journal. The researchers concluded that “the lack of explicit training in reflecting about language
per se may have masked participants’ underlying metalinguistic ability” (p. 519). In another recent study, Roehr and
Gánem-Gutiérrez (2009) found that “length of exposure to form-focused language instruction in itself predicts to
a considerable extent the quality and quantity of metalinguistic knowledge” (p. 174). Ellis (2005a) also reported
a positive correlation between metalinguistic knowledge measured by an untimed grammaticality judgment task and
years of formal instruction.
The participants’ better metalinguistic performance notwithstanding, this study found clear differences in the
percentage of correct rule verbalizations across the target uses. The varying success rates can be plausibly explained
with reference to three factors. They are centrality (i.e., whether a rule describes a central or secondary use of a target
structure), salience (i.e., whether the use of a target structure described by a rule is frequent, hence salient, in the
language input for learners) and pedagogical emphasis (i.e., whether a rule has been given much pedagogical
attention). A majority of the rules that were correctly verbalized by at least 80% of the participants describe central or
“prototypical” (Hu, 2002) uses of the target structures. The best examples for this category include Rules 1, 2, 3, 13,
29, 30, 31, 40, 42 and 47. By contrast, all the 12 rules that were correctly verbalized by less than 50% of the
participants describe secondary or peripheral uses of the target structures. Although some of the most successfully
verbalized rules e for example, Rules 5, 15, 16, 23, 27, 28 and 46 e do not involve central uses, the uses in question
are nevertheless frequent enough in the language input to be very salient. Finally, among the most successfully
verbalized rules, Rules 21, 22, 39 and 45 are neither highly frequent in the input nor do they describe central uses, but
they are what most Chinese teachers of English would recognize as “key pedagogical items”, meaning structures
which are particularly difficult for Chinese learners and which call for repeated instruction and emphasis because of
the tenacity of errors found in using them.
It is not difficult to see that centrality, salience and pedagogical emphasis are closely related factors that interact
with one another. As the central uses of a target structure occur, as a rule, more frequently in language use than
secondary ones, they tend to be perceived by teachers and learners as core grammar that needs to be accorded
pedagogical priority. Secondary uses of considerable frequency may also catch teachers’ and learners’ attention
because of their relative salience and hence receive pedagogical emphasis. However, a secondary use of a relatively
low frequency structure is also likely to be given pedagogical prominence if it is deemed especially difficult for
a particular group of learners, for example, hypothetical past (Rule 45) in the case of Chinese learners of English
(Bloom, 1981). Thus, although it would be wrong to assume that only explicitly form-focused instruction can lead to
explicit knowledge (see Ellis, 2004; Schmidt, 1994), the analysis presented above suggests that pedagogical inter-
vention plays a key role in fostering development of explicit grammar. Notably, there does not seem to exist any fixed
developmental pattern or route, in the technical sense that the terms have come to acquire in the SLA literature (see
Mackey, 1999; Pienemann and Johnston, 1987), when it comes to the acquisition of explicit grammar. It appears that
L2 learners’ development of explicit metalinguistic knowledge is just as amenable to pedagogical intervention as their
acquisition of other types of declarative knowledge (Ellis, 2004) as long as such knowledge is communicated at a level
on which L2 learners are capable of understanding.
Amenability to pedagogical intervention, however, does not mean that L2 learners’ metalinguistic knowledge will
invariably mirror the pedagogical rules presented in classrooms. Although the participants’ explicit knowledge was
shown earlier to be characterized by a high degree of consistency with pedagogical grammar, about 36% of the
acceptable verbalizations were either broader or narrower than standard pedagogical rules, a finding consistent with
Sorace’s (1985). Three possibilities might account for the observed discrepancies: 1) that the verbalized rules were
actually teacher-formulations; 2) that they were a function of partial retrieval from memory; and 3) that a certain
 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77 73

amount of cognitive processing and reorganization had occurred to the rules initially stored. Without classroom data
closely documenting the actual teacher formulations, the first possibility cannot be ruled out definitively. However,
given the typical rule formulations provided in the textbooks and the accompanying teacher’s books as well as Chinese
teachers’ familiarity with some popular pedagogical grammars, there is reason to believe that many of the partici-
pants’ non-conforming rules were not teacher-formulated (see Sorace, 1985, for a similar view). In light of the
cognitive literature on memory retrieval and forgetting, the second possibility seems to be a plausible explanation.
Some of the rules in question are clearly complex enough to impose difficulty for full retrieval and comprehensive
formulations. It is likely that the participants simply recalled and put down what seemed to them the most salient or
important feature of a rule. The last explanation has a greater appeal because it is compatible with the widely accepted
notion of cognitive restructuring (Cheng, 1985; Karmiloff-Smith, 1986; McLaughlin, 1990). It can be argued that
although the participants initially internalized explicit rules in the form in which they were presented in their
classrooms, they subsequently embarked on a process of constant restructuring of their internal representations, as
their experience with the target language increased, new knowledge gained entry and was integrated into the existing
system, and pedagogical input/output predisposed them to perceive certain aspects of the stored rules but ignore
others. This interpretation is in line with Sorace’s (1988) observation that “certain areas of grammar may never
become determinate in interlanguages” (p. 185). It also accords with Chaudron’s (1985) view of intake as a series of
cognitive stages through which input passes before it is fully integrated and incorporated into the L2 learner’s
developing grammar.
Although in the absence of classroom data and other evidence it is not clear which of the explanations discussed
above best captures the true cause(s) underlying the observed differences between the participants’ verbalizations and
typical pedagogical rules, it is perhaps safe to suggest that learners do not just passively store the explicit rules
presented to them, as some researchers seem to think. They also process and reinterpret those rules to varying extents
(see Sharwood Smith, 1991). Such processing and reinterpretation, however, do not necessarily lead to further
approximations to the target system (Ellis, 2004).
As far as the relationship between metalingual and metalinguistic knowledge is concerned, the results reported in
the previous section indicate that the participants in general had a fairly large repertoire of metalingual terms and were
able to use them correctly in most of the cases to express their metalinguistic knowledge e a result that would compare
favorably with the performance of practicing and prospective English teachers studied by Andrews (1999). Previous
studies (Alderson et al., 1997; Elder et al., 1999; Elder and Manwaring, 2004; Ellis, 2005a) found substantial
correlations between L2 learners’ receptive knowledge of metalanguage (measured by asking them to match meta-
lingual terms to relevant exemplars) and their metalinguistic knowledge (typically measured by error correction and
rule explanation tasks). However, no research has been located that quantitatively analyzed the relationship between
productive knowledge of metalanguage and metalinguistic knowledge. This study has found a statistically significant
positive correlation between the two, showing that those participants who used more metalingual terms in their
verbalizations also tended to produce more correct grammar rules. A plausible explanation for the relationship can be
found in Ellis (2004). Ellis speculates that “it is possible that an increase in the depth of explicit knowledge will occur
hand in hand with the acquisition of more metalanguage, if only because access to linguistic labels may help sharpen
understanding of linguistic constructs” (p. 240).
Regardless of whether these metalingual terms had gained initial entry into their knowledge base as a result of rote
learning, adaptive transfer of L1 metalanguage, instant uptake, gradual infiltration from repeated exposure, or perhaps
all of these, the very fact that the participants were able to use them correctly in most of the cases is an unmistakable
indication that they had a demonstrable understanding of these terms and had acquired them as part of their L2
knowledge. Furthermore, when interpreted in conjunction with the advantages that technical language may offer to
grammar instruction, the significant correlation identified between command of metalanguage and success in
verbalizing the target rules may well suggest that the availability of a working metalanguage was an aid to, rather than
a distracting influence on, the participants’ internalization of explicit grammar. In other words, metalanguage “may
assist learners in developing explicit knowledge that has greater precision and accuracy” (Ellis, 2004, p. 261). In
recent years, a growing number of researchers have adopted the view that explicit discussion of and metalinguistic
reflection on structural patterns and properties contribute to L2 learners’ development of an essential knowledge of the
underlying regularities and relationships in the target linguistic system (see Ellis, 2005b; Shin, 2009; Simard et al.,
2007; Swain, 2005; Swain and Lapkin, 1995). To the extent this view is tenable and consistent with empirical
evidence, a certain amount of metalanguage can get the job done in a more efficient manner, because metalingual
74 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77

terms are essentially succinct ways of categorizing patterns and relationships found in a language, and to understand
and learn these terms is a useful step to understanding and learning the patterns and relationships that they label. It
would seem that a judicious selection of metalingual terms is useful to L2 learners who are cognitively mature and
developmentally ready.

5. Conclusion

Overall, the participants in this study, who had been exposed to detailed and repeated metalinguistic information in
their secondary school English classes, acquired much explicit knowledge of the target structures investigated. A
preponderance of the rules they verbalized was consistent with standard pedagogical rules, though a sizeable
proportion also differed more or less from textbook grammar rules. They had a productive knowledge of a large
number of metalingual terms, and their metalinguistic knowledge and facility with metalanguage were positively
related. These findings add to the growing evidence that metalinguistic awareness has an important role to play in L2
learning and use. They should not, however, be interpreted as supporting a return in the L2 classroom to the traditional,
teacher-fronted type of grammar instruction which has been found to fare poorly in developing L2 learners’ ability to
use their target language. Rather, they point to the need for further research that explores how metalinguistic and
metalingual knowledge can be fruitfully integrated into meaning-focused, communication-oriented L2 instruction.

Appendix. Target structures/uses

A. The definite article

1. Used before common nouns to indicate shared knowledge derived from immediate situational reference
2. Used before common nouns to indicate shared knowledge derived from direct or indirect anaphoric reference
3. Used before common nouns to indicate shared knowledge derived from cataphoric reference
4. Used before common nouns to indicate shared knowledge based on sporadic reference, that is, reference to an
institution of human life that may be observed recurrently at various places and times
5. Used before common nouns to indicate shared knowledge based on logical interpretation of words (such as
ordinals and superlative adjectives) whose meaning is inalienably associated with uniqueness
6. Used between prepositions and common nouns that name parts of the body
7. Used before common nouns to indicate shared general knowledge of larger situations (i.e., unique reference)
8. Used before a singular count noun to refer to members of a class in toto (i.e., generic reference)
9. Used before an adjective head to refer to a class of people or an abstract quality
10. Used before a surname in the plural to refer to all the members of a family
11. Used before proper nouns that name groups of islands, ranges of mountains or hills, rivers, seas, oceans,
canals and other geographic features
12. Used before a nationality noun to refer to the people of that nationality as a whole
B. The indefinite article
13. Used before a singular count noun to indicate that the referent is not identifiable in the shared knowledge of
the speaker and the hearer
14. Used before a complement, especially a noun phrase in a copular relationship (i.e., non-referring descriptive
use)
15. Used as an unstressed form of the numeral one
16. Used before a singular count noun to refer to a class of thing as a whole (i.e., generic reference)
17. Used before a premodified and/or postmodified abstract mass noun to refer to a quality or other abstraction
that is attributed to a person
18. Used with a proper noun reclassified as a common noun to mean a certain or a person like.
C. The zero article (Ø)
19. Used with mass nouns/plural count nouns to indicate an indefinite amount of material or an indefinite number
of objects, people, etc. that are referred to (i.e., indefinite specific reference)
20. Used with noun phrases in a copular or appositive relation to denote a unique role or task (i.e., unique
reference)
 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77 75

21. Used with some “institutions” of human life and society to form idiomatic usage (i.e., sporadic definite
reference)
22. Used after the preposition by to refer to means of transport and communication
23. Used with times of day and night, especially after prepositions at, by, after, before; with seasons when general
reference is made; with festivals, names of months, and days of the week when they refer to a recurrent
period in the calendar (i.e., unique reference)
24. Used with meals when general reference is made
25. Used with parallel structures or idiomatic phrases involving prepositions
26. Used with plural nouns/mass nouns to identify a class considered as an undifferentiated whole
27. Used with personal names with or without titles to have unique denotation (i.e., unique reference)
28. Used with names of continents, countries (single words), cities, lakes, mountains, and other geographical
places
D. The simple present
29. Used without reference to specific time and to make general timeless statements, or so-called eternal truths
30. Used to refer to a state that obtains in the present period as distinct from the past
31. Used with dynamic verb senses to refer to the habitual present, that is, a whole sequence of events repeated
over the unrestricted time span in question
32. Used with dynamic verb senses to refer to a single action begun and completed approximately at the moment
of speaking
33. Used in reference to the past in a popular narrative style to convey dramatic immediacy as if the past actions
were happening now
34. Used with communication verbs such as tell, hear, learn, and write to express the persistence in the present of
the effect of a past communication
35. Used in photographic captions and newspaper headlines to report past events
36. Used in a synopsis of a play or a novel
37. Used in stage directions
38. Used in reference to the future in main clauses with temporal adverbials to suggest that an event is unal-
terably fixed in advance and sure to take place in the near future
39. Used in conditional and temporal clauses in reference to the future
E. The simple past
40. Used with dynamic verb senses to refer to a single definite event in the past
41. Used with stative verb senses to refer to a definite state in the past
42. Used to refer to a sequence of definite events repeated in the past
43. Used in indirect speech with reference to the present, when the reporting verb in the main clause is in the past
tense.
44. Used to refer to the speaker’s present volition or mental state in a more tentative or polite way.
45. Used in certain subordinate clauses to express a hypothetical state/event in the present or future.
F. The present perfect
46. Used, often with duration adverbials, to refer to a state or event leading up to the present.
47. Used to refer to an indefinite event in the past whose result still obtains
48. Used to refer to a habit, that is, a recurrent event, in a period leading up to the present
49. Used in a temporal or conditional clause for a future event that precedes the future event referred to in the
matrix clause

References

Alderson, J.C., Clapham, C., Steel, D., 1997. Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research
1, 93e121.
Andrews, S., 1999. ‘All these little name things’: a comparative study of language teachers’ explicit knowledge of grammar and grammatical
terminology. Language Awareness 8, 143e159.
Bayley, R., 1994. Interlanguage variation and the quantitative paradigm: past tense marking in ChineseeEnglish. In: Tarone, E., Gass, S.,
Cohen, A. (Eds.), Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 157e181.
Berry, R., 1997. Teachers’ awareness of learners’ knowledge: the case of metalinguistic terminology. Language Awareness 6, 136e146.
76 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77

Berry, R., 2005. Making the most of metalanguage. Language Awareness 14, 3e20.
Berry, R., 2009. EFL majors’ knowledge of metalinguistic terminology: a comparative study. Language Awareness 18, 113e128.
Bloom, A.H., 1981. The Linguistic Shaping of Thought: A Study in the Impact of Language on Thinking in China and the West. Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Butler, Y.G., 2002. Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles: an analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese
students in acquiring the English article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 451e480.
Carter, R., 2003. Key concepts in ELT: language awareness. ELT Journal 57, 64e65.
Celce-Murcia, D., Larsen-Freeman, D., 1999. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Heinle & Heinle, Boston.
Chaudron, C., 1985. Intake: on models and methods for discovering learners’ processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7,
1e14.
Cheng, P.W., 1985. Restructuring versus automaticity: alternative accounts of skill acquisition. Psychological Review 92, 414e423.
Comrie, B., 1985. Tense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Curriculum and Teaching Materials Research Institute, 2001. An Anthology of Primary and Secondary English Syllabuses in the 20th Century.
People’s Education Press, Beijing.
de Jong, N., 2005. Can second language grammar be learned through listening? An experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
27, 205e234.
DeKeyser, R., 1997. Beyond explicit rule learning: automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19,
195e221.
DeKeyser, R., 1998. Beyond focus on form: cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In: Doughty, C.J.,
Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 42e63.
DeKeyser, R., 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In: Doughty, C.J., Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell,
Oxford, UK, pp. 313e348.
DeKeyser, R., 2009. Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In: Long, M.H., Doughty, C.J. (Eds.), The Handbook of
Language Teaching. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 119e138.
DeKeyser, R., Juffs, A., 2005. Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching
and Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 437e454.
Educational Testing Service, 1991. The Secondary Level English Proficiency Test. ETS, Princeton, NJ.
Elder, C., Manwaring, D., 2004. The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of
Chinese. Language Awareness 13, 145e162.
Elder, C., Warren, J., Hajek, J., Manwaring, D., Davies, A., 1999. Metalinguistic knowledge: how important is it in studying a language at
university? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 81e95.
Ellis, R., 1994. A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In: Ellis, N.C. (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 79e114.
Ellis, R., 2004. The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning 54, 227e275.
Ellis, R., 2005a. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: a psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
27, 141e172.
Ellis, R., 2005b. Principles of instructed language learning. System 33, 209e224.
Ellis, R., 2006. Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: the differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge.
Applied Linguistics 27, 431e463.
Ellis, R., 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition, second ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Garrett, N., 1986. The problem with grammar: what kind can the language learner use? The Modern Language Journal 70, 133e148.
Green, P.S., Hecht, K., 1992. Implicit and explicit grammar: an empirical study. Applied Linguistics 13, 168e184.
Han, Y.J., Ellis, R., 1998. Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research 2, 1e23.
Hu, G.W., 2002. Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 24, 347e386.
Hulstijn, J.H., Hulstijn, W., 1984. Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning 34,
23e43.
Johnson, K., 1996. Language Teaching and Skill Learning. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Karmiloff-Smith, A., 1986. Stage/structure versus phase/process in modelling linguistic and cognitive development. In: Levin, I. (Ed.), Stage and
Structure: Reopening the Debate. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 164e190.
Klapper, J., Rees, J., 2003. Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language learning context. Language
Teaching Research 7, 285e314.
Krashen, S.D., 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Li, C.N., Thompson, S.A., 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Mackey, A., 1999. Input, interaction and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 557e587.
Macrory, G., Stone, V., 2000. Pupil progress in the acquisition of the perfect tense in French: the relationship between knowledge and use.
Language Teaching Research 4, 55e82.
Master, P., 1990. Teaching the English articles as a binary system. TESOL Quarterly 24, 461e478.
Master, P., 1995. Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In: Belcher, D., Braine, G. (Eds.), Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays
on Research & Pedagogy. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 183e204.
McLaughlin, B., 1990. Restructuring. Applied Linguistics 11, 113e128.
Mohammed, A.M., 1996. Informal pedagogical grammar. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 34, 283e291.
 G. Hu / System 39 (2011) 63e77 77

Paradis, M., 1994. Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: implications for bilingualism and SLA. In: Ellis, N.C. (Ed.), Implicit
and Explicit Learning of Languages. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 393e419.
Pica, T., 1985. Linguistic simplicity and learnability: implications for language syllabus design. In: Hyltenstam, K., Pienemann, M. (Eds.),
Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK, pp. 137e151.
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., 1987. Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In: Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying Second
Language Acquisition Research. National Curriculum Research Center, Adelaide, Australia, pp. 45e141.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J., 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London.
Renou, J., 2000. Learner accuracy and learner performance: the quest for a link. Foreign Language Annals 33, 168e180.
Renou, J., 2001. An examination of the relationship between metalinguistic awareness and second-language proficiency of adult learners of
French. Language Awareness 10, 248e267.
Richards, J.C., Rodgers, T.S., 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, second ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Roehr, K., 2007. Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics 29, 173e190.
Roehr, K., Gánem-Gutiérrez, G.A., 2009. The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning. Language Awareness 18,
165e181.
Savignon, S.J., 2005. Communicative language teaching: strategies and goals. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language
Teaching and Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 635e651.
Schmidt, R., 1994. Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review 11, 11e26.
Sharwood Smith, M., 1991. Speaking to many minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second
Language Research 7, 118e132.
Shin, S.J., 2009. Negotiating grammatical choices: academic language learning by secondary ESL students. System 37, 391e402.
Simard, D., French, L., Fortier, V., 2007. Elicited metalinguistic reflection and second language learning: is there a link? System 35, 509e522.
Smith, C.S., 1994. Aspectual viewpoint and situation type in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 107e146.
Sorace, A., 1985. Metalinguistic knowledge and language use in acquisition-poor environments. Applied Linguistics 6, 239e254.
Sorace, A., 1988. Linguistic intuitions in interlanguage development: the problem of indeterminacy. In: Pankhurst, J., Sharwood Smith, M., Van
Buren, P. (Eds.), Learnability and Second Languages: A Book of Readings. Foris, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp. 167e190.
Swain, M., 2005. The output hypothesis: theory and research. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 471e483.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied
Linguistics 16, 371e391.
Zhang, D.Z., 1995. A Practical Grammar of English, second ed. Commercial Press, Beijing.