Teacher Discussion Forums

Is it a good idea for language students to learn a metalanguage for talking about language structure and use?

Unless they are doomed to become linguists.

Yes, if they are talking with Stephen Jones.

I'll try to get back soon with some serious suggestions.

Anuradha Chepur wrote:Unless they are doomed to become linguists.

Are you saying that you don't think it necessary for students to learn a metalanguage?

YYYYYeah.

Anuradha Chepur wrote:YYYYYeah.

Why?

Because teaching metalanguage is a precriptivist policy.
I am not one.

Sorry, AC, but the "it's prescriptivist" argument smacks of putting a label on something, then saying "I don't like the label".

I think it helps for students to know metalanguage, but the teacher should avoid getting so caught up with it that it becomes confusing. Here in France they seem to love unnecessary, complicated grammatical terminology (the more complicated the better, in fact) and sometimes don't feel they really understand something until they have a long name for it. I don't know how far students can get without knowing the terms "noun", "verb" and "adjective", for example, but do they really need to know about "predicates" and "the saxon genitive"?

I agree, a little bit of metalanguage is helpfully unavoidable.
But I am against the use of heavy metalanguage all the time,
whereby students end up learning only metalanguage
and hardly any language.

In my teacher training course, we were categorically insisted to
avoid metalanguage as much as we can.

Because teaching metalanguage is a precriptivist policy.

How can I understand descriptivists if I don't have the metalanguage? Or don't such people use metalanguage?

I don't know how far students can get without knowing the terms "noun", "verb" and "adjective", for example, but do they really need to know about "predicates" and "the saxon genitive"?

For some strange reason, when I see the term "saxon genitive", I always read "saxon genitals".

I think that very young learners don't really need metalanguage to start producing the second language and understanding basic structure. However, older learners , and I don't only mean adults but also those who have a higher grammar knowledge in their own language, can be helped by some basic metalanguage. I'm not sure, however, that knowing grammar terms will help them in their fluency; rather in understanding how language works and even compare them to their mother tongue.

Language learning is like learning to drive a car. It's useful to know how the different parts are called(especially when you take the test) but when it comes to actual driving you make little use of that knowledge. And I say this because I got a little philosophical yesterday that I took my first drive with my car out in the open road.

I'm not sure, however, that knowing grammar terms will help them in their fluency; rather in understanding how language works and even compare them to their mother tongue.

I think the idea of teaching a metalanguage should be to help students talk about language, but may not help them, in any major way, to use that language.

I think the idea of teaching a metalanguage should be to help students talk about language, but may not help them, in any major way, to use that language.

It depends. When students are doing written homework, they may well want to consult a grammar book for reference, and they won't be able to make much sense of it without knowing some metalanguage. Others feel more secure of they know some rules, which can actually give them the confidence they need to start using the language.

As a rule, I keep metalanguage to a minimum and keep it as simple as possible. Why talk about "gerunds" when you can say "-ing form"? And I totally agree with Miss Elenious that young learners don't need it, older learners will often ask "what's the rule?".

Problems arise when students think that knowing metalanguage is the same as knowing the language; I knew students who insisted that they should be in a higher level group when all they'd learned back home was how to conjugate verbs - they then turned to the grammar section in the back of the book and protested that they "knew" present perfect continuous and so should go up, while others insisted they didn't "know" a structure because they didn't know the correct "name" for it.

Why talk about "gerunds" when you can say "-ing form"?

I think one should at least make students aware that there are two terms for "the same" thing. They will come across the term "gerund" somewhere, anyway.

they then turned to the grammar section in the back of the book and protested that they "knew" present perfect continuous and so should go up, while others insisted they didn't "know" a structure because they didn't know the correct "name" for it.

All very familiar.