Language Awareness in TESOL: A Discursive Essay

1. Introduction

Language Awareness (LA) has long been considered crucial to the learning process of

a second language (L2) (Jones and Chen, 2012). LA covers a large scope of cognitive

and sociocultural issues (Svalberg, 2007), and encompasses both the language

proficiency of the teacher and their knowledge about language (KAL) (Andrews,

2003). Because of this, teacher language awareness (TLA) directly affects student

achievement and language learning in the classroom (Andrews, 2007).

This essay will discuss the topic of language awareness in three ways: firstly, I will

consider the concepts and theory behind LA and reflect on the factors which affect

language use, such as register, users, time, and format. Secondly I will analyse in

more detail the ways in which LA can affect grammar teaching and learning, before

concluding with a reflection on the development of my own personal LA and the

impact it has on me both as a language user and a language teacher.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Definitions, Aims and Approaches

Thornbury famously defined LA as “the knowledge that teachers have of the

underlying systems of the language that enable them to teach effectively” (1997, in

Andrews, 2001). In this definition, LA refers solely to teachers’ knowledge.

However, the Association for Language Awareness (ALA) adds to this definition,

describing LA as “explicit knowledge about language, and conscious perception and

sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use”

(www.languageawareness.org, 2014). This therefore also includes an element of

judgment and choice; the selection of language is part of an individual’s sensitivity to

it. Although the definitions are similar in nature, because of the ALA’s increased

emphasis on sensitivity and the inclusion of language learners, in this essay I will

henceforth adhere to the ALA’s explanation.

1

As Andrews notes, LA encompasses both teachers’ language proficiency and their

KAL (Andrews, 2001; 2003). Knowledge about language does not only refer to

metalinguistics and explicit knowledge, but also includes knowledge about learners’

understanding of language systems, their perceptions of the target language and

their potential language learning problems (Hawkins, 1984; Andrews, 2001).

There is discrepancy amongst researchers as to the best way of conveying LA to

students (Borg, in Bartels, 2005). Morris believes that explicit teaching is useful, and

promotes the use of metalanguage in classrooms (2003). French and Rünger,

meanwhile, prescribe to the theory of implicit learning (2003). With this approach

one does not directly explain the patterns and functions of language; rather,

students acquire knowledge they cannot verbally describe (French and Rünger,

2003:13).

Whether teachers use their LA explicitly or implicitly in the classroom has been the

subject of many studies (Borg, 2003; Morris, 2003). What is clear however is that

TLA is vital for language learning; as Ellis notes, it is only when teachers have

sufficient KAL that they are able to impart it to their students (2006). The inference

of this is that teachers must be prepared to develop and increase their own LA;

indeed, Andrews labels LA acquisition a pedagogical responsibility (2001).

2.2 LA and Language Variation: Affecting Factors

An increased sensitivity to language means that one is more aware of issues

surrounding language choice and standards. The following sections will explore

factors which affect language use, variations, standards, and selections.

2.2.1. Spoken and Written Language

It is undeniable that spoken and written language are different in terms of grammar,

vocabulary, acceptability and cohesion (Arndt et al, 2000). Indeed, sometimes they

can seem so dissimilar that Scholes queries whether they ought to be taught as

separate languages, with different grammar and vocabulary (1997).

2

This is perhaps taking the matter a little far; however, it is true that grammar varies

widely between spoken and written language, with spoken language being far more

tolerant of errors and mistakes (Goh, 2009). Some users even choose to use

particular incorrect forms in order to emphasise a point, show identification with a

group, or extract a particular reaction from the listener (Hawkins, 1984).

Spoken language also often differs from written language due to the shared

knowledge of the speaker and listener (Hawkins, 1984). Written texts are more

likely to be addressing a wider or unknown audience, and the author thus cannot

take prior knowledge for granted (Hawkins, 1984). Similarly, in spoken language

much is conveyed through tone of voice, which cannot be understood through a

written text. Furthermore, spoken text makes great use of ellipsis and vague

language as information is instead conveyed through gestures and surroundings

(Carter, 1998). In written texts, the author does not traditionally have such freedom

to omit essential information. This is particularly true when referring to more

‘traditional’ written communications such as essays or books; however, it must be

admitted that with the advent of new technologies the roles of spoken and written

language are beginning to merge (Arndt et al, 2000). For example, texts and emails

are often written in the same ‘instantaneous’ fashion as spoken conversations, which

affects the choice of vocabulary, particularly when sent between individuals with a

close connection (Hawkins, 1984). Similarly, television and radio broadcasts, despite

being spoken communication, have to be more coherent than, for instance,

conversations between friends, as there are not one but many listeners, from a large

variety of backgrounds (Arndt et al, 2000).

One further difference between traditional forms of spoken and written language is

the ephemerality of the spoken form. Again, before recordings were commonplace

speech was lost once it had been produced. Consequently, written language

includes far less repetition than spoken, as readers can backtrack if necessary,

whereas listeners are more likely to need clarification or reminders (Hawkins, 1984).

3

2.2.2 Correctness and Acceptability

Another issue which is becoming increasingly important with the proliferation of

English speakers worldwide is that of acceptability and correctness. As Walker notes,

language varies according to factors such as geographical location, age, gender,

social class, workplace and ethnic background (2010). This means that English norms

differ greatly throughout the world, particularly with the advent of English as a

Lingua Franca and World Englishes (Sung, 2013). Consequently communities of

English speakers are all using different dialects, which differ from the ‘native speaker’

(NS) ideal often promoted in L2 environments (Walker, 2010). Furthermore,

deviations from these norms by L2 speakers are usually described as errors and

viewed as unacceptable ( Obaidul and Baldauf, 2013). Sung queries the justice of

this; if non-native speakers (NNSs) are more likely to communicate with other NNSs

than NSs, what is the use of them learning NS grammar and correctness (2013)?

Newman discusses the capriciousness of the term “correctness”, noting that the very

concept implies value judgements by a privileged elite (1996). He suggests instead

the use of the term “ungrammatical”, although it is important to note that even

traditionally ungrammatical sentences are not necessarily unacceptable. For

example, not only may politeness be more important than grammaticality (Dufva,

1994), but certain groups may deliberately manipulate grammar in order to achieve

individuality (Arndt et al, 2000). Moreover, notions of grammaticality can change

over time, meaning that a previously bemoaned ungrammatical sentence may soon

be accepted as normal due to the natural evolution of language (Langendoen et al,

1973).

Of course, it is not just ELF that differs from ‘standard English’. Many other dialects

of the language exist which pertain to social, ethnic or gendered differences (Arndt

et al, 2000). In these dialects, that which is acceptable is likely to differ in the

extreme from textbook usage. This is particularly true with slang or ‘street talk’,

where in fact members of these communities are required to speak in a specific

manner in order to belong. These variations are deemed correct in their context,

and a NNS who is not aware of these distinctions may well find it difficult to

communicate with the group (Newman, 1996).

4

2.2.3 Context, Register and Genre

Another aspect which greatly impacts the choice of language, and which is linked

with the issue of acceptability, is the context in which it is produced, which will affect

the register of the text. Indeed, as Walker notes, the context immediately reduces

the choice of vocabulary and grammar available (2010). He defines the context as

where or when language is produced; that is to say the environment surrounding the

text. According to Arndt et al, the sociocultural environment impacts not only the

syntax of a language but also the pragmatics and semantics of the words and phrases

(2000). It can be difficult for learners to fully comprehend the pragmatics of certain

expressions (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005), and this task is therefore made yet more

complicated by variations in these pragmatics due to contextual factors.

Consequently, it is important that teachers are aware of the semantics of a language

as well as simply of the forms and structures, and that they understand the fluidity of

these semantics (Svalberg, 2007).

The term “register” refers to the formality of the text. Hawkins suggests a five-tier

system of formality: oratorial, deliberative, consultative, casual and intimate (1984,

p.157

Register is therefore also closely linked to appropriacy, as previously discussed; the

formality of the situation will dictate which language choices are acceptable, and

effective, for the purposes of production.

Similarly, ‘genre’ refers to the medium in which language is produced (Feng, 2013).

Often, mediums are used for a specific purpose; thus newspapers are used to inform,

recipe books to instruct whereas telephone conversations are usually a two-way

interaction, and so forth (Arndt et al, 2000). Not only will the purpose have a

bearing on the lexis chosen, but also certain genres are associated with certain

registers and styles of language (Newman, 1996). Thus, for instance, one would

expect a news report to be delivered in a relatively formal style, with little slang and

with grammatical sentences (Arndt et al, 2000). If learners are not taught these

5

preferences, they may produce text inappropriate for the genre or register, which

reflects poorly on their proficiency levels (Feng, 2013).

2.2.3 Time and Change

Finally, it is an inevitable and accepted fact that languages change over time

(Hawkins, 1984). As Arndt et al note, English has changed to the extent that it is

almost impossible to understand texts from the Middle Ages (2000); although

change is slow and gradual, structures which are not officially recognised now could

well be so in fifty years time. Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)

publishes an annual list of ‘new’ official words, which have been so widely accepted

as to be newly included in the dictionary (http://public.oed.com, 2014). This can be

problematic for learners, as it means that structures or words which they were once

taught to be erroneous could change to be accepted.

Moreover, Carter notes that language changes far more quickly in colloquial varieties

(1998). Consequently, a student who learns slang items but then does not keep up

with the evolution of this variety is likely to find their language old-fashioned and

inappropriate far more quickly than would be the case for standard English

(Hawkins, 1984).

3. Grammar and Language Awareness: An Application of the Issues

3.1 Awareness of Grammar Approaches

In this section I will analyse the ways in which the issues mentioned in section one

could impact and affect the teaching and acquisition of grammar. The first question

which necessitates discussion is which approach to grammar teaching is most

beneficial for students. Grammarians nowadays are questioning the advantages of

traditional grammar teaching, with many leaning towards a functional grammar

instead (Feng, 2013; Jones and Chen, 2012). Borg argues that teachers often do not

impart knowledge in ways accessible to students (2003). This is particularly true for

students with little metalinguistic awareness, for whom terminology becomes

6

confusing. Nonetheless, Al-Mekhlafi and Nagaratnam found that their Omani

students appreciated the explicit teaching of grammar (2011), and Morris’ research

found that lexical knowledge and terminology helps with academic success in an L2

(2003). The teachers in Borg’s study were more wary of metalanguage, although in

certain contexts they deemed it useful (in Bartels, 2005). For example, a Hungarian

teacher used explicit grammar teaching and metalanguage to describe structures

which did not exist in the Hungarian language, but left structures that were similar in

both languages unexplained, as she believed they could be learnt implicitly. This is in

line with Andrew’s view that some grammatical forms are more easily acquired than

others, and teachers should therefore judge which structures to teach based on the

specific difficulties of the learners and their prior conceptions of the target language

(2007). We can therefore surmise that the teaching method must fit the context

and the individual students, and teachers should centre their decision around the

learners and their desires (Petraki and Hill, 2010).

3.2 Spoken and Written Grammar

As mentioned above, the rules of spoken and written grammar differ vastly (Goh,

2009). This presents a problem for language teachers as they select which rules and

patterns to teach. Furthermore, the rules of spoken grammar are much more

flexible than the written variety, which means that learners cannot be given absolute

rules (Carter, 1998). Indeed, Svalberg notes that language teachers can leave

students confused by teaching steadfast rules, which are often simplified for

pedagogical purposes (2001). When students are then confronted with different

usages in real-life interactions, this can be confusing. It also means that students are

likely to regard such aberrations of the rule as incorrect, whereas NSs have been

proven to have a far higher tolerance for both variations from the norm and high-

frequency errors (Derwing et al, 2002). It is important, however, that Svalberg still

supports the teaching of rules as guidelines, merely cautioning against an absolutist

approach (2001).

As Carter notes, textbooks and academic courses almost always feature the rules of

written grammar, with very little attention given to spoken discourse (1998).

7

Although this may seem counterintuitive given that many classroom and real-life

interactions will inevitably involve speaking, Arndt et al suggest that this course of

action is in fact logical, as one still usually sounds correct – if slightly over-formal –

using written rules in spoken language, whereas the reverse cannot be said to be

true (2000).

Similarly, Andrews highlights the way in which most languages resemble English in

following different rules for written and spoken grammar (2007). He therefore

proposes that it may not be necessary to teach these rules, as learners may be able

to transfer knowledge from their L1 to their L2.

3.3 Correctness, Acceptability, and Grammaticality

Another important point to consider in the teaching of grammar is the

aforementioned concept of acceptability and correctness. As Newman notes,

correctness is a subjective judgement (1996). Obviously, as teachers we need to set

certain standards, but these standards cannot be said to be appropriate for all

contexts, solely for the classrooms in which we teach (Hamid and Baldauf, 2013). It

is therefore the teacher’s responsibility to decide which registers, genres and

grammatical structures are acceptable in their specific classroom (Borg, in Bartels,

2005). This may well be linked to the goal of the learners; whether they wish to

communicate with NSs or NNSs. Moreover, if the goal is for NS fluency this does not

necessarily mean grammaticality is more important. Derwing et al found that NNSs

were more likely to be critical of high frequency errors even than linguistically aware

NSs, who accepted them as part of a more informal grammar (2002). To give a

personal example, in my classroom I would accept the use of “their” to refer to a

third person possessive, and I would also allow hanging participles at the ends of

sentences, as these deviations from the traditional norm are nowadays both

commonplace and used in both spoken and written communication. However,

traditionally these constructions would both have been regarded as erroneous

(Parrott, 2000).

Despite this, there are many errors that may be accepted by NNSs but not NSs, such

as word order issues that generate from L1 interference (Langendoen et al, 2003).

8

Although this may confuse the pragmatic meaning of the sentence and perplex NSs

(Eslami-Rasekh, 2005), it may well not impede two NNSs. If this is the case, one

must ask whether such non-native constructions can truly be deemed ‘errors’ or

merely variations, and also whether they should be corrected, ignored, or even

taught, if learners are likely to come across such instances in real-life interactions

(Sung, 2013; Arndt et al, 2000).

3.4 Grammar in Context

It is worth considering again the aspect of context and register when discussing

grammar. It is misleading to claim that spoken language is always less formal, when

considering the role of formal lectures, speeches, or factual media shows such as

news broadcasts (Arndt et al, 2000). Nonetheless, students are often taught that

written language is always more formal than spoken (Brown, 2012). Moreover,

when one considers more modern means of communication, such as emails and text

messages, this claim again appears untrue (Arndt et al, 2000). Emails in particular

present a problem for teachers, as the formality and accompanying adherence to

grammar rules change vastly across a spectrum, depending on the relationship of the

two parties involved. One cannot teach the same need for grammatical structure

when writing to a family member as when writing to a supervisor (Arndt et al, 2000);

indeed, doing so would appear inappropriate and even incorrect contextually.

Furthermore, emails are beginning to imitate the instantaneous nature of spoken

language (Anrdt et al, 2000). Due to this, they are not required to be so ‘perfect’ in

terms of grammaticality, politeness, or the giving of contextual information. I have

received emails from a previous employer with simply the word “St. Pancras” in the

subject line, but I have yet to hear of a teacher who would advocate simply filling the

subject line of an email. Furthermore, this email would make no sense to a learner

who did not know the background of myself and my superior, or the prior

conversations which had taken place, which again is a problem more usually found in

spoken language (Hawkins, 1984).

9

This discussion leads inevitably to the conclusion that the necessary approaches and

methods for grammar teaching depend entirely on the context in which English is

being taught (Feng, 2013). It is also evident that teachers need a certain amount of

subject-matter knowledge and KAL in order to select the most appropriate methods

and methodology (Borg, 2003). Furthermore, as Andrews maintains, students’

achievement is directly related to the LA and proficiency of their teachers (2001).

For this reason teachers should strive to increase their grammatical knowledge and

confidence, in order to equip learners with the necessary skills and awareness to

understand the vagaries of grammar as discussed in this essay.

4. Personal Reflection: Developing Awareness as a Language User and a Language

Teacher

As a UK national, I have grown up in an environment which fostered the

development of LA. The importance of LA has been recognised officially in the UK,

with the establishment of the Association for Language Awareness (ALA) and the

introduction of Language Awareness courses into schools

(http://www.languageawareness.org, 2014).

I was privileged to attend the Henry Box School in Oxfordshire, which pioneered a

language awareness course in its foreign language department (for more details see

Hawkins, 1984:43). Consequently I was conscious from an early age of the theories

behind language awareness and the vast impact it could have on language learning,

albeit from a learner’s perspective.

However, it must be admitted that almost the entirety of my LA originally came from

foreign language study as opposed to study of my own L1. Secondary school studies

in French and German afforded me a good level of metalinguistic awareness, which

was compounded both by tertiary studies in these two languages and the learning of

Italian, Arabic and Chinese for pleasure. Although I only studied the latter two at

beginner level, I believe that they were incredibly instrumental in developing my LA

as the differences in origin (not being Latin-based) from my other languages forced

me to engage with new concepts of the relationship between spoken and written

language; of which parts of speech were necessary for grammaticality in a specific

10

language; and of the idea of intelligibility in a more general sense (Hawkins, 1984;

Arndt et al, 2000). This has impacted my teaching as I am more aware of problems

that students may have with literacy. Many of my current students are from

illiterate backgrounds, and so having a better understanding of the difficulties of

learning a foreign alphabet has been extremely helpful.

Similarly, I developed a better understanding of phonological issues through my own

pronunciation difficulties in foreign languages. Although this essay has not focussed

on phonology in depth, Walker notes that it is often the area which students

concentrate on most (2010). Realising the difficulties certain sounds can produce

and being able to sympathise with this has again made me a more sympathetic

language teacher.

Nevertheless, these differences were all inter-language as opposed to intra-

language, and it was only when I enrolled upon a CertTESOL course that I began to

think about the issues contained within English itself. This was also the first time I

had been explicitly taught the English grammatical system. It has been very useful to

me as a teacher to be able to verbalise my knowledge of grammar in a classroom

context, especially as NSs sometimes struggle with this aspect (Andrews, 2001).

Although I often subscribe to a functional or implicit approach to teaching grammar

(Petraki and Hill, 2010), I use metalanguage when asked by students, or for teaching

something which conflicts with learners’ L1 or prior linguistic understanding (Borg, in

Bartels, 2005).

Despite this, it was not until commencing my current Masters course that I truly

began to question the notion of correctness and acceptability; the teachers on my

CertTESOL course, which I completed in Oxfordshire, England, had been teaching

under the assumption that learners would expect and want to become similar to NSs

of British English in their language proficiency. Although aware of the discrepancies

between American and British English, I had never considered the implications of

speaking English as a second language, such as is the case in India, or the

implications that ELF could have for learners whose reason for studying English is not

to interact with NSs, but other NNSs, who may in fact find the pragmatics of NNS

norms more easily comprehensible (Walker, 2010).

11

I also used the poster task which we undertook as part of our Language Awareness

module as a tool for personal development and reflection. Having looked at the area

of discourse in our lessons, I was interested in the way that teachers could use both

examples of authentic discourse and classroom discourse as teaching tools, and so

explored this for my contribution. Due to both time limitations and the need for

compromise in group decisions, I do not believe that the poster task increased my

awareness greatly (I personally would have benefited more from studying phonology

or grammar, my two weakest LA areas). However, it did demonstrate to me how

many issues are involved in LA, and through examining potential learner problems as

a group I realised once again how many pedagogical implications LA can have for

both learners and students. It has also encouraged me to further my personal LA

research in other language domains. Finally, this task also demonstrated the fluid

and constant nature of LA; as English changes in both terms of the language itself

and the role it has in the world, it will be vital to continue updating my LA, in order to

present the current state of English to my learners as competently as possible.

5. Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, this essay has sought to discuss some of the most controversial and

crucial aspects of LA, before relating these aspects more specifically to the field of

grammar. In doing so I have identified many ways in which the LA of the teacher can

impact on the learning experience of the students. In my own experience I have

used LA as a tool for my own second language acquisition, and I have also used LA

skills in the classroom, both implicitly and explicitly. In both situations, the learning

outcomes were positively advanced by the inclusion of LA techniques. I therefore

remain convinced that all responsible language teachers should perpetuate a habit

of LA acquisition, in order to achieve the greatest degree of competency for both

themselves and their students.

12

Bibliography

Al-Mekhlafi, Abdu Mohammed, and Nagaratnam, Ramani Perur. (2011). Difficulties

in Teaching and Learning Grammar in an EFL Context. International Journal of

Instruction 4(2), pp.69-92.

Andrews, Stephen. (1999). ‘All These Like Little Name Things’: A Comparative Study

of Language Teachers’ Explicit Knowledge of Grammar and Grammatical

Terminology. Language Awareness 8(3&4), pp. 143-159.

Andrews, Stephen. (2001). The Language Awareness of the L2 Teacher: Its Impact

Upon Pedagogical Practice. Language Awareness 10(2&3), pp. 75-90.

Andrews, Stephen. (2003). Teacher Language Awareness and the Professional

Knowledge Base of the L2 Teacher. Language Awareness 12(2), pp. 81-95.

Andrews, Stephen. (2007). Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Arndt, Valerie, Harvey, Paul and Nuttall, John. (2000). Alive To Language:

Perspectives on language awareness for English Language Teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Association for Language Awareness. (2014). Retrieved January 18th, 2014, from

http://www.languageawareness.org.

Bartels, Nat. (2005). Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education: What We

Know. In Nat Bartels (ed.), Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education. Pp.

405-424. New York: Springer.

Borg, Simon. (2003). Teacher Cognition in Grammar Teaching: A Literature Review.

Language Awareness 12(2), pp. 96-108.

13

Borg, Simon. (2005). Experience, Knowledge About Practice and Classroom Practice

in Teaching Grammar. In Nat Bartels (ed.), Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher

Education. Pp. 325-340. New York: Springer.

Borg, Simon. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and

Practice. London: Continuum.

Brown, James Dean (ed). (2012). New Ways in Teaching Connected Speech.

Alexandria: TESOL International Association.

Carter, Ronald. (1998). Orders of Reality: CANCODE, communication, and culture.

ELT Journal 52(1), pp. 43-56.

De Castro, Maria Cristina Lana Chavez. (2005). Why Teachers Don’t Use Their

Pragmatic Awareness. In Nat Bartels (ed.), Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher

Education. Pp. 281-294. New York: Springer.

Derwing, Tracey M., Rossiter, Marian J., and Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen. (2002).

‘They Speaked and Wrote Real Good’: Judgements of Non-native and Native

Grammar. Language Awareness 11(2), pp. 84-99.

Domnall, Gillian. (1984). The Developing Role of Language Awareness in the UK as a

Response to Problems Posed by Linguistic Diversity. European Journal of Education

19(1), pp. 25-37.

Domnall, Gillian (ed). (1985). Language Awareness: NCLE Papers and Reports 6.

London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.

Dufva, Hannele. (1994). Language Awareness and Cultural Awareness for Language

Learners. Hungarologische Beiträge 2, pp. 19-32.

14

Ellis, Rod. (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective.

TESOL Quarterly 40(1), pp.83-107.

Ellis, Elizabeth M. (2012). Language Awareness and its relevance to TESOL. University

of Sydney Papers in TESOL 7, pp. 1-23.

Eser, Ayse, Tüzel, Basyurt and Akcan, Sumru. (2009). Raising the language awareness

of preservice English teachers in an EFL context. European Journal of Teacher

Education 32(3), pp. 271-281.

Feng, Zhiwen. (2013). Functional Grammar and its Implications for English Teaching

and Learning. English Language Teaching 6(10), pp. 86-94.

Frensch, Peter A. and Rünger, Dennis. (2003). Implicit Learning. Current Directions in

Psychological Science 12(1), pp. 13-18.

Goh, Christiine. (2009). Perspectives on spoken grammar. ELT Journal 63(4), pp. 303-

310.

Hamid, M. Obaidul and Baldauf, Richard B. Jr. (2013). Second language errors and

features of world Englishes. World Englishes 32(4), pp. 476-494.

Hawkins, Eric. (1984). Awareness of Language: An Introduction.Cambridge:

University of Cambridge.

Jacobsen, Bent. (1992). Remarks on Acceptability and Grammaticality. Hermes,

Journal of Linguistics 8, pp. 7-23.

Jones, Pauline and Chen, Honglin. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge about language:

Issues of pedagogy and expertise. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 35(1),

pp. 147-168.

15

Langendoen, D. Terence, Kalish-Landon, Nancy, and Dore, John. (1973). Dative

Questions: a study in the relation of acceptability and grammaticality of an English

sentence type. Cognition 2(4), pp. 451-477.

Morris, Lori. (2003). Linguistic Knowledge, Metalinguistic Knowledge and Academic

Success in a Language Teacher Education Programme. Language Awareness 12(2),

pp. 109-123.

Newman, Michael. (1996). Correctness and its conceptions: the meaning of language

form for basic writers. Journal of Basic Writing 15(1), pp. 23-38.

Parrott, Martin. (2000). Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Petraki, Eleni and Hill, Deborah. (2010). Theories of grammar and their influence on

teaching practice: Examining language teachers’ beliefs. University of Sydney Papers

in TESOL 5, pp. 65-99.

Popko, Jeff. (2005). How MA-TESOL Students Use Knowledge About Language in

Teaching ESL Classes. In Nat Bartels (ed.), Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher

Education. Pp. 387-404. New York: Springer.

Scholes, Robert J. (1997). Spoken and Written English: The Case for Distinct

Languages. Interchange 28(1), pp. 1-14.

Sung, Chit Cheung Matthew. (2013). English as a Lingua Franca and English language

teaching: a way forward. ELT Journal 67(3), pp. 350-353.

Svalberg, Agneta M’L., (2001). The Problem of False Language Awareness. Language

Awareness 10(2&3), pp. 200-212.

Svalberg, Agneta M-L. (2007). Language Awareness and Language Learning.

16

Language Teaching 40, pp. 287-308.

The Oxford English Dictionary (2014). Retrieved January 18th from

http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/

Walker, Robin. (2010). Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright, Tony and Bolitho, Rod. (1993). Language awareness: a missing link in

language teacher education? ELT Journal 47(4), pp. 292-304.

Zakeri, Azadeh and Alavi, Mohammed. (2011). English Language Teachers’

Knowledge and their Self-Efficacy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2(2),

pp. 413-419.

17