Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T19:13:29.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meta Talk in FL Classroom Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Claus Færch
Claus Færch
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One way of characterizing communication in the FL classroom is in terms of what at a given time is in primary focus. Adopting a basic distinction between transactions with a focus on the FL code (meta transactions) and transactions with a focus on socio-literary or other non-linguistic content (content transactions), I argue that meta talk constitutes a largely neglected area of classroom research and address two aspects of this, each of which highlights significant aspects of meta talk: (1) The occurrence of scaffolded constructions, i.e., syntagms distributed over several turns at speech; and (2) the norms holding for talk about talk, i.e., what counts as an argument about the FL code. Following an exemplification from Danish classroom data (English and German as L2), I conclude by discussing the learning and pedagogical potential of each of these types of meta talk.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 184 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bialystok, E. 1981. The role of linguistic knowledge in second language use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4; 31–45.Google Scholar
Burt, M. K. and Kiparsky, C.. 1975. Global and local mistakes. In Schumann, J. & Stenson, N. (eds.), New frontiers in second language learning, pp. 71–80. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. A. 1977. A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning 27; 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. A. 1981. Vocabulary elaboration in teachers' speech to L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4; 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Miller, G. A.. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R. & Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol. 2, pp. 323–418. New York:Google Scholar
Clark, H. and Clark, E.. 1977. Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners' errors. IRAL 5; 161–69.Google Scholar
Davies, A., Criper, C. and Howatt, A. (eds.). 1984. Interlanguage. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S.. 1982. Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. 1978. Language learning studies: A survey of some recent research strategies. In Caie, G. D., Chesnutt, M., Christensen, L., and Færch, C., (eds.), Occasional Papers 1976–1977 (Publications of the Department of English, University of Copenhagen, Vol. 5), pp. 64–82. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. forthcoming. Focus-shifts in FL classroom discourse. In Lorscher, W. and Schulze, R. (eds.), Festschrift for Werner Hüllen. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Faerch, C.Haastrup, K. and Phillipson, R.. 1984. Learner language and language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Færch, C. and Kasper, G.. 1960. Processes and strategies in foreign language learning and communication. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin Utrecht 5;47–118.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. R. 1984. Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics 5;79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. 1982. Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4; 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. and Terrell, T.. 1983. The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kultusminister des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. 1981. Gymnasiale Oberstufe: Richtlinien Englisch. Cologne: Greven.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1977. Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In Brown, H. D. et al. , On TESOL 77, pp. 137–153. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. and Sato, C. J.. 1984. Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: an interactional perspective. In Davies, Griper and Howatt, pp. 253–279.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J. 1984. Reparative Handlungsmuster und ihre Verwendung im Frcmdsprachenunterricht.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. 1983. A new account of language transfer. In Gass, S. & Selmker, L. (eds.), Language transfer and language learning, pp. 98–111. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. 1976. Conversations with a one year old. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH. and Coulthard, M.. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swam, M. and Harley, B.. 1984. The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In Davies, Criper and Howatt, pp. 291–311.Google Scholar