Development from epi to meta linguistic ability

Although the reflective knowledge, what Gombert (1992) called the metalinguistic ability, is not considered as a prerequisite to reading, it evolves as the reading ability im-proves. This metalinguistic ability is presented by the conscious manipulation of the com-ponents of spoken words (Gough & Hillinger, 1980). It seems to appear from a very early age when children intend to correct their oral errors automatically. Some researchers con-sider this as the budding of metalinguistic ability¹²⁶. However, this proposition was quickly rejected by Tummer and Herriman (1984) who hierarchized the reflective knowledge as the epilinguistic and metalinguistic levels, the former may explain children’s early consciousness towards language control while the latter requires a higher and deeper reflection/control over language (Gombert, 1992, p. 176)¹²⁷. Gombert has explicitly defined it as part of the metacognition, which spread from metaphonological activity to metasyntactic,

126 cf. Clark and Anderson, 1979.

127 Their main divergence lies in the range of the definition of metalinguistic: Clark and Anderson adopted a more generalized concept, which includes what Tummer and Herriman called the epilinguistic stage. The two points of view are in essence of no substantial differences. In this thesis, we tend to introduce both concepts of epilinguistic ability and metalinguistic ability.

semantic and meta-pragmatic activities¹²⁸. He also believes that only when the epilinguistic ability solidates, a meta level could expect to be attained.

Metalinguistic ability: subfield of metacognition concerned with lan-guage and its use – in other words comprising: 1) activities of reflection on language and its use; 2) subjects’ ability intentionally to monitor and plan their own method of linguistic processing (in both comprehension and production). These activities and abilities may concern any aspect of language, whether phonological (in which case we speak of metaphono-logical activities), syntactic (metasyntactic activities), semantic (metase-mantic activities) or pragmatic (metapragmatic activities) (Gombert, 1992, p. 56).

Since the transition from epi to meta linguistic ability accompanies the process of reading, we wonder if this overlapping period involves certain corresponding age group.

Herriman (1986) has listed three stages: one or two words production refers to the first stage from the age of 8 months to 3 years old; the second stage is characterized by the sub-ject-verb-object constructions happened to children from 5 to 6; he believes that only the third stage from the age of 6 onwards concerns the reflection towards language (followed by the production and the comprehension) therefore initially unlock the meta-level. The age of six is also when most children are about to enter the primary school. This result echoes what we presented before concerning the mature age of computational knowledge.

It makes us wonder: whether school learning participates in the epi-meta transition? If yes, does preschool learning prepare this transition and how?

We seem to receive a direct response from Donaldson: he states that metalinguistic awareness is an effect of learning acquired at school, particularly learning to read (Perfetti, 1991, p.177). His opinion also echoes what we presented before concerning the necessity of intervention. That is to say, before school age, metalinguistic ability may lurk in the form of epilinguistic ability as linguistic potential in children. It could probably be awakened and upgraded by school learning, especially reading. Vygotsky pointed out similar view that around school age, children turn active and conscious from automatic and unconscious

128 Since our research concentrate on children between 5 to 8 years old when reading acquisition dominates, metaphonological ability weighs overwhelmingly among the metalinguistic ability during this age group. Other metalinguistic ability as metasyntactic, metasyntactic and pragmatic ability will be demonstrated in the analysis of the experiment in chapter four if found in our cases, however, will be considered secondary in this chapter. The main purpose to introduce them here is to help readers get their basic concepts and thus facilitate the following reading of chapter four.

learning before school age. They set out to be guided from a meta angle to observe what they have already obtained before as innocent language practitioners.

Children do not learn new grammatical or syntactic forms at school but, as a result of the teaching of grammar and writing, become conscious of what they are doing and learn to use these skills intentionally. In the same way that children, through learning how to write, realize for the first time that the word Moscow is composed of the sounds m-o-s-c-o-w and learn to pronounce them separately, they also learn to construct sen-tences, to do consciously what they have already done unconsciously when speaking (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 101)

The turning leap is described by Van Kleeck as to consider language both as a means of conveying meaning and as a separate object which allows them to perform comparisons of meaning (Van Kleeck, 1982, 1984; Gombert, 1992, p. 177-p.179). The double role of language operates in the distinguished levels of reflection towards language. When children possess a liberate control in-between, and meanwhile when they could take either role of language in distinct situations at will, they will be supposed to have accomplished the leap and elevated up to the meta level. In fact, certain children have already been brought close to the transition (promote phonemic awareness) when they practice and emphasize their speech sounds in word games such as Pig Latin and nursery rhymes (Gombert, 1992, p. 13).

Our case study in chapter four will depict a more detailed picture to see children’s epi-meta level transition aged 5 to 8 years old, followed by relevant intervention to possibly propel this transition.

To resume, learning to read is a man-made intellectual product based on word recog-nition. It serves as another crucial communicational means apart from speech for human beings. Children are supposed to systematically master reading skills from school age in preparation for both individual development and social activities. Although the main recognition methods differ, especially during various reading stages, they constitute the toolbox where readers could resort to when necessary. Therefore, we believe that both global method and analytic method run through the whole word recognition, their role on distinct stages varies: sometimes ascend to the primary role while sometimes descend as the secondary role. It will be readers’ choice to decide which method dominates depending on their actual needs and levels. The best method should never be absolute nor generalized, instead, it will always be relativized and individualized, and the decisive factor should always

fall on readers. Further success in reading should lean on the achievement of epi-meta transition. The practices of nursery rhymes before school age and appropriate intervention after the entrance to school could serve as a stepping-stone during the rising process. Final-ly, children’s metalinguistic ability will hopefully orient them all the way up to expert readers.

However, the success of each phase, especially from epi to meta level of language could hardly be accomplished without the guidance from the teacher. Their professional gestures play an indispensable role in distinguished manners according to pupils’ reading levels. Pu-pils would also present their postures correspondingly. Their interaction through poetry learning is considered as a crucial component of our construction of ecopoetry.