Abstract
Recently, Bigelow, Delmas, Hansen, and Tarone (2006) arguedthat the differences in the oral performance of their L2 speakers(favoring the more literate ones) were probably due to their lowlevel of metalinguistic awareness (which would be a consequenceof their limited literacy). So as to contribute with evidence for thishypothesis, we collected data from 11 Brazilians, who performedtests of L1 literacy, L2 proficiency and L1 and L2 metalinguisticawareness (phonological, morphological, and syntactic) and arelationship between their L1 literacy and their L2 proficiencylevels was, indeed, found. However, the role metalinguisticawareness (either in the L1 or the L2) plays in this relationshipis not clear. While phonological awareness (in the L1 and in the L2) was related to L1 literacy and L2 proficiency, morphologicalawareness (in the L1, only) and syntactic awareness (in theL2, only) were only related to L2 proficiency. Though theseinconclusive results might be the artifact of limitations in someof the instruments used to collect data, this seems to be a fruitfulline of research.
Highlights
As Doughty and Long (2003) observed, with the acquisition1 of a second language (L2) becoming more and more common, monolingualism is starting to be the exception
Linear regressions were run to verify whether the scores participants got in the L1 literacy test (PISA) were good predictors of their level of L1 metalinguistic awareness
There have been a number of studies addressing the relationship between metalinguistic abilities and literacy, so far research has concentrated mostly on the importance of metalinguistic awareness for literacy acquisition and, data has been usually collected from children and/or illiterate or little-literate participants and mostly using tasks in the L1 only
Summary
As Doughty and Long (2003) observed, with the acquisition of a second language (L2) becoming more and more common, monolingualism is starting to be the exception. Martha Bigelow and Elaine Tarone (e.g., Bigelow, Delmas, Hansen, & Tarone, 2006; Tarone & Bigelow, 2005; Tarone, Bigelow, & Swierzbin, 2007) have proposed, based on theory and on empirical research, that one variable that might impact L2 learning is one’s level of L1 literacy. This would be due to the fact that people with a limited level of L1 literacy will probably have lower levels of metalinguistic awareness and this would impede them from, for example, noticing (Schmidt, 1990) the gap between their utterances and the recasts they receive from a native interlocutor. Since the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1991) proposes that this kind of feedback is one of the ways for a learner to restructure his/her interlanguage, these low-literacy learners would be disadvantaged when coming to learn an L2.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
