1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pedagogical Linguistics
  4. Volume 2, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Knowledge about Language (KaL) is an important part of L1 language education around the world. A controversial part of KaL is grammatical or syntactic knowledge, i.e., knowledge about the form, meaning and use of sentences and phrases. In the current international discourse on L1 grammar teaching, grammar is principally motivated by the desire to enhance students’ literacy development, befitting the communicative turn in mother tongue education and following high quality research which has shown that contextualized grammar teaching can impact on students’ writing development. However, there are also other potentially meaningful reasons to teach grammar, which remain underresearched and underdiscussed in curriculum discussions: (1) the general importance of language justifies that L1 speakers understand how their language works; (2) grammar teaching provides more insight into the workings of the human mind; (3) grammar teaching can be used to facilitate students’ reasoning and stimulate their critical thinking abilities. These reasons for teaching grammar do not necessarily relate to literacy development; rather, they pertain to a general conceptual importance of knowledge about grammar. This paper explores these arguments and argues, partly based on empirical evidence from recent research, that knowledge-related rationales deserve a more prominent place in curriculum discussions about grammar teaching.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pl.21008.van
2021-05-18
2024-12-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pl.21008.van
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/pl.21008.van.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/pl.21008.van&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alderson, J. & Hudson, R.
    (2013) The metalinguistic knowledge of undergraduate students of English language or linguistics. Language Awareness22(4), 320–337. 10.1080/09658416.2012.722644
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.722644 [Google Scholar]
  2. Assaraf, O., Dodick, J. & Tripto, J.
    (2013) High School Students’ Understanding of the Human Body System. Research in Science Education43, 33–56. 10.1007/s11165‑011‑9245‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9245-2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bateman, J.
    (2017) The place of Systemic Functional Linguistics as a linguistic theory in the twenty-first century. In: T. Bartlett & G. O’Grady (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp.11–27). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baumberger, C.
    (2019) Explicating Objectual Understanding: Taking Degrees Seriously. Journal for General Philosophy of Science50, 367–388. 10.1007/s10838‑019‑09474‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-019-09474-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumberger, C., Beisbart, C. & Brun, G.
    (2016) What is understanding? An overview of recent debates in epistemology and philosophy of science. In: S. Grimm, C. Baumberger, and S. Ammon (Eds). Explaining Understanding. New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (pp.1–29). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Behrens, S.
    (2018) Understanding Language Use in the Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/BEHREN9795
     https://doi.org/10.21832/BEHREN9795 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bell, P., Fortier, V. & Gauvin, I.
    (2020) Using L1 knowledge about language during L2 error correction: do students make cross-linguistic connections?Language Awareness29(2), 95–113. 10.1080/09658416.2020.1729783
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1729783 [Google Scholar]
  8. Benjamin, A. & Oliva, T.
    (2007) Engaging grammar. Practical advice for real classrooms. Urbana IL: NCTE.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bennis, H.
    (1991) Taalkunde in de bovenbouw. Levende Talen461, 235–242.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonset, H. & Rijlaarsdam, G.
    (2004) Mother-tongue education (L1) in the learning to-learn paradigm: Creative redevelopment of learning materials. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature4, 35–62. 10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033848.96679.e6
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033848.96679.e6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Boivin, M.-C.
    (2018) A review of the current empirical research on grammar instruction in the francophone regions. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature17, 1–48. 10.17239/L1ESLL‑2018.18.04.03
     https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.03 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bonset, H. & Hoogeveen, M.
    (2010) Taalbeschouwing. Een inventarisatie van empirisch onderzoek in basis- en voortgezet onderwijs. Enschede: SLO.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Borg, S.
    (1998) Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly32(1), 9–38. 10.2307/3587900
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587900 [Google Scholar]
  14. Butler, C. & Taverniers, M.
    (2008) Layering instructural-functional grammars. Linguistics46(4), 689–956. 10.1515/LING.2008.024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.024 [Google Scholar]
  15. Burgess, J., & Etherington, S.
    (2002) Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit. System30(4), 433–458. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(02)00048‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00048-9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bybee, J. & McLelland, J.
    (2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review22, 381–410. 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.381
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.381 [Google Scholar]
  17. Camps, A. & Fontich, X.
    (2019) Teachers’ concepts on the teaching of grammar in relation to the teaching of writing in Spain: A case study. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature19, 1–36. 10.17239/L1ESLL‑2019.19.02.02
     https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.02 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carter, R.
    (2003) Language Awareness. ELT Journal57(1), 64–65. 10.1093/elt/57.1.64
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.1.64 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chamalaun, R.
    (2019) Het onderwijzen van werkwoordspelling: de rol van grammatica. In: S. Vanhooren & A. Mottart (Eds.) 33ste HSN-conferentie Onderwijs Nederlands (pp.40–44). Gent: Scribis.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Chipere, N.
    (2003) Understanding complex sentences. Native speaker variation in syntactic competence. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230005884
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230005884 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  22. (1966) Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: H. & Row.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (1975) Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2002) On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613876
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613876 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2010) Some simple evo-devo theses: how true might they be for language?In: R. Larson (Eds.) The Evolution of Human Language (pp.54–62). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511817755.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817755.003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N.
    (2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral & Brain Sciences31, 489–558. 10.1017/S0140525X08004998
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08004998 [Google Scholar]
  27. Chu, S., Reynolds, R., Tavares, N., Notari, M. & Lee, C.
    (2017) Twenty-First Century Skills and Global Education Roadmaps. In: Chu, S., Reynolds, R., Tavares, N., Notari, M. & Lee, C.21st Century Skills Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning (pp.17–32). Singapore: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑2481‑8_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2481-8_2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Clark, H.
    (1996) Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  29. Collins, M., Knutti, R., Arblaster, J., Dufresne, J-L., Fichefet, T., Friedlingstein, P., … Booth, B. B. B.
    (2013) Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. InT. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G-K. Plattner, M. M. B. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, … P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp.1029–1136). New York NY USA: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Comrie, B.
    (1989) Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Curriculum.nu
    Curriculum.nu (2019) Conceptvoorstellen leergebied Nederlands 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Connelly, F. M., He, M. F. and Phillion, J.
    (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. Los Angeles: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Coppen, P.-A.
    (2013) Wat is de zin van de schoolgrammatica? Over zinsontleding en woordsoorten. In: Boogaard, M. & Jansen, M. (Eds.) Alles wat je altijd al had willen weten over taal. De Taalcanon (pp.57–60). Amsterdam: Meulenhoff bv.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Croft, W. & Cruse, D.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  35. Crystal, D.
    (1997) Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. (1998) Language Play. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Deacon, T.
    (1997) The symbolic species. Harmondworth, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Deng, Z.
    (2015) Michael Young, knowledge and curriculum: an international dialogue. Journal of Curriculum Studies47(6), 723–732. 10.1080/00220272.2015.1101492
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1101492 [Google Scholar]
  39. Denham, K. & Lobeck, A.
    (2010) (Eds.). Linguistics at School: Language Awareness in Primary and Secondary Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511770791
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770791 [Google Scholar]
  40. Denham, K.
    (2020) Positioning students as linguistic and social experts: teaching grammar and linguistics in the United States. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature20, 1–16. 10.17239/L1ESLL‑2020.20.03.02
     https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2020.20.03.02 [Google Scholar]
  41. De Regt, H.
    (2009) The epistemic value of understanding. Philosophy of Science76(5), 585–597. 10.1086/605795
     https://doi.org/10.1086/605795 [Google Scholar]
  42. Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M.
    (Eds.) (2013) The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available atwals.info
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Eisenstein Ebsworth, M., & Schweers, C.
    (1997) What researchers say and practitioners do: Perspectives on conscious grammar instruction in the ESL classroom. Applied Language Learning8(2), 237–260.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Elsner, D.
    (2020) Grammar is irrelevant. The role of Epistemological Beliefs in Students’ Learning Succes. In: Trotzke, A. & Kupisch, T. (Eds.). Formal Linguistics and language Education. New Empirical Perspectives. (pp.69–90). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑39257‑4_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39257-4_5 [Google Scholar]
  45. Evans, V.
    (2014) The Language Myth. Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107358300
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107358300 [Google Scholar]
  46. Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences32, 429–492. 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X [Google Scholar]
  47. Evans, V. & Green, M.
    (2006) Cognitive Linguistics. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Fontich, X. & Camps, A.
    (2014) Towards a rationale for research into grammar teaching at schools. Research Papers in Education29(5), 598–625. 10.1080/02671522.2013.813579
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2013.813579 [Google Scholar]
  49. Fontich, X. & García-Folgado, M.
    (2018) Grammar instruction in the Hispanic area: The case of Spain with attention to empirical studies on metalinguistic activity. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature18, 1–39. 10.17239/L1ESLL‑2018.18.04.02
     https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.02 [Google Scholar]
  50. Frijns, C., Sierens, S., Van Avermaet, P., Sercu, L., & Van Gorp, K.
    (2018) Serving policy or people? Towards an evidence-based, coherent concept of language awareness for all learners. In: C. Hélot, C. Frijns, K. Van Gorp, & S. Sierens (Eds.), Language awareness in multilingual classrooms in Europe. From theory to practice (pp.87–116). Walter de Gruyter Inc. 10.1515/9781501501326‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501326-003 [Google Scholar]
  51. Funke, R.
    (2018) Working on grammar at school: empirical research from German-speaking regions. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature18, 1–39. 10.17239/L1ESLL‑2018.18.04.05
     https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.05 [Google Scholar]
  52. Funke, R., Wieland, R., Schönenberg, S., & Melzer, F.
    (2013) Exploring syntactic structures in firstlanguage education: effects on literacy-related achievements. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature13, 1–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Gallistel, C.
    (2007) Learning organs. In: J. Bricmont & J. Franc (Eds.) Cahier No 88: Noam Chomsky. (pp.181–7). Paris: L’Herne.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Gibbs, R.
    (2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Goldberg, A.
    (2003) Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach To Language. Trends In Cognitive Science7(5), 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2006) Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U.
    (2008) Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. The Journal of the Learning Sciences17, 465–516. 10.1080/10508400802394898
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802394898 [Google Scholar]
  58. Graham, S. & Perin, D.
    (2007) A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Adolescent Students. Journal of Educational Psychology99(3), 445–476. 10.1037/0022‑0663.99.3.445
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 [Google Scholar]
  59. Grimm, S.
    (2012) The Value of Understanding. Philosophy Compass7, 103–117. 10.1111/j.1747‑9991.2011.00460.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00460.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Hagoort, P.
    (Ed.) (2019) Human language: From genes and brains to behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Halliday, M. & Matthiessen, C.
    (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Hendrix, T.
    (1997) Taalkunde getoetst. De validatie van een vakonderdeel taalkunde in het schoolvak Nederlands. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: KUN.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Harley, T.
    (2008) The Psychology of Language. From Data to Theory. Third edition. New York: Psychology press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Havekes, H.
    (2015) Knowing and Doing History. Learning Historical Thinking in the Classroom. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Hirsch, E.
    (2016) Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children from Failed Educational Theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G.
    (2004) Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science28, 127–138. 10.1207/s15516709cog2801_7
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2801_7 [Google Scholar]
  67. Hocket, C.
    (1966) The problem of universals in language. In: J. Greenberg (Ed.) Universals of Language (pp.1–29). Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  69. Honda, M.
    (1994) Linguistic inquiry in the science classroom. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Honda, M. & O’Neil, W.
    (1993) Triggering science-forming capacity through linguistic inquiry. InHale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (Eds.), The view from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp.229–255). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. (2007) Thinking Linguistically. A scientific approach to language. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Hudson, R.
    (2004) Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics40(1), 105–130. 10.1017/S0022226703002342
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226703002342 [Google Scholar]
  73. (2008) Linguistic theory. InB. Spolsky & F. Hult. (Eds.) The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp.53–65). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470694138.ch5
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470694138.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  74. Hulshof, H.
    (2002) Vormen van taalkennis. Over grammatica, taalbeschouwing en taalkundige vorming in het onderwijs Nederlands. Inaugural address. Leiden: Leiden.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. (2013) Onderzoek naar taalkundeonderwijs: geloof en empirie. In: T. Janssen & T. van Strien (Eds.). Neerlandistiek in beeld (pp.263–272). Amsterdam: Stichting neerlandistiek VU.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. (2014) De ‘triviale’ herkomst van het redekundig ontleden. Uit de geschiedenis van de schoolgrammatica in Nederland. Levende Talen Magazine101(7), 22–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Hulshof, H. & Hendrix, T.
    (1996) Kennis over taal en taalverschijnselen. Omgaan met taalkundige onderwerpen in de klas. Bussum: Coutinho.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. (2010) Ten geleide. Het schoolvak Nederlands inhoudelijk aanvullen. Levende Talen Magazine97, 5–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Hulshof, H. & Van Rijt, J.
    (2020) Is het schoolvak Nederlands inspirerender geworden? De relatie tussen taalkunde en het schoolvak Nederlands opnieuw bekeken. Nederlandse Taalkunde25(2–3), 437–445. 10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2‑3.026.HULS
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.026.HULS [Google Scholar]
  80. Hurford, J.
    (2007) The origins of meaning. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. (2012) The origins of grammar. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Janssen, F., Hulshof, H. & Van Veen, K.
    (2019) Wat is echt de moeite waard om te onderwijzen? Een perspectiefgerichte benadering. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Klafki, W.
    (1957) Das pädagogische Problem des Elementaren und die Theorie der kategorialen Bildung. Weinheim. Beltz.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Kraak, A.
    (2006) Homo loquens en homo scribens. Over natuur en cultuur bij de taal. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. 10.5117/9789053569542
     https://doi.org/10.5117/9789053569542 [Google Scholar]
  85. Kuiper, K. & J. Nokes
    (2014) Theories of Syntax. Concepts and Case Studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillian. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑38242‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-38242-9 [Google Scholar]
  86. Locke, T.
    (Ed.) (2010) Beyond the grammar wars. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203854358
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854358 [Google Scholar]
  87. MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J.
    (2016) Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Macken-Horarik, M., K. Love, and S. Horarik
    (2018) Rethinking Grammar in Language Arts: Insights from an Australian Survey of Teachers’ Subject Knowledge. Research in the Teaching of English52(3): 288–316.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Meijerink e.a.
    Meijerink e.a. (2009) Over de drempels met taal en rekenen – Hoofdrapport van de Expertgroep Doorlopende Leerlijnen Taal en Rekenen. Enschede.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. & Leap, W.
    (2013) Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L.
    (1999) Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Mithen, S.
    (1996) The prehistory of the mind: A search for the Origins of Art, Science and Religion. London: Phoenix.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Moesker, M. & Das, H.
    (2010) Leerlingen stellen vragen aan taal. Levende Talen Magazine97, 38–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Moore, A.
    (2004) The Good Teacher: Dominant Discourses in Teaching and Teacher Education. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203420270
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203420270 [Google Scholar]
  95. Montgomery, M.
    (2008) An Introduction to Language and Society. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203130292
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203130292 [Google Scholar]
  96. Mulder, J.
    (2007) Establishing Linguistics in Secondary Education in Victoria, Australia. Language and Linguistics Compass1(3), 133–154. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00010.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00010.x [Google Scholar]
  97. (2011) Grammar in English curricula: Why Should Linguists Care?Language and Linguistics Compass5(12), 835–847. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00316.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00316.x [Google Scholar]
  98. Myhill, D.
    (2016) The Effectiveness of Explicit Language Teaching: Evidence from the Research. In: M. Giovanelli & D. Clayton (Eds.) Linguistics and the Secondary English Classroom, (pp.36–49). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. (2018) Grammar as a Meaning-Making Resource for Improving Writing. L1- Educational Studies in Language and Literature18, 1–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Myhill, D., Jones, S. & Lines, H.
    (2018) Supporting less proficient writers through linguistically aware teaching. Language and Education, 32(4), 333–349. 10.1080/09500782.2018.1438468
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1438468 [Google Scholar]
  101. Myhill, D., Jones, S., Lines, H. & Watson, A.
    (2012) Re-thinking grammar: the impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education27(2), 151–163. 10.1080/02671522.2011.637640
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640 [Google Scholar]
  102. Piketty, T.
    (2014) Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2014 10.4159/9780674369542
     https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674369542 [Google Scholar]
  103. Phipps, S. & Borg, S.
    (2009) Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System37, 380–390. 10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  104. Pinker, S.
    (1994) The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow. 10.1037/e412952005‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1037/e412952005-009 [Google Scholar]
  105. Perini, M.
    (2015) Describing verb valency. Practical and theoretical issues. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20985‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20985-2 [Google Scholar]
  106. Pronk, D. & Sweep, J.
    (2019) In teken van taal; schrijven en spreken over taal, een goed idee. Levende Talen Tijdschrift20(4), 37–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Renkema, J.
    (2004) Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.124
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.124 [Google Scholar]
  108. Rastle, K., & Davis, M.
    (2008) Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes23(7), 942–971. 10.1080/01690960802069730
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802069730 [Google Scholar]
  109. Renaud, R. & Murray, H.
    (2008) A comparison of a subject-specific and a general measure of critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity3, 85–93. 10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  110. Riggs, W.
    (2003) Understanding ‘Virtue’ and the Virtue of Understanding. In: M. DePaul & L. Zagzebski (Eds.) Intellectual Virtue (pp.203–226). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252732.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252732.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  111. Sangster, P., Anderson, C. & O’Hara, P.
    (2013) Perceived and actual levels of knowledge about language amongst primary and secondary student teachers: do they know what they think they know?Language Awareness22(4), 293–319. 10.1080/09658416.2012.722643
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.722643 [Google Scholar]
  112. Sapir, E.
    (1933) Language. Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York): 155–169.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Sawyer, W., & Van den Ven, P.-H.
    (2007) Starting points. Paradigms in mother tongue education. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature7(1), 5–20. 10.17239/L1ESLL‑2007.07.01.06
     https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2007.07.01.06 [Google Scholar]
  114. Schultink, H.
    (1969) Taalwetenschap en school. In: A. van Dam (Ed.) Onderwijs en wetenschap. De school vraagt aan de wetenschap. Gorinchem, 33–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Seuren, P.
    (1998) Western linguistics. An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Campbell, D.
    (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Belmont: Wadsworth.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau
    Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (2019) Denkend aan Nederland. Sociaal en Cultureel Rapport. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Strickland, B.
    (2017) Language Reflects “Core” Cognition: A New Theory About the Origin of Cross- Linguistic Regularities. Cognitive Science41, 70–101. 10.1111/cogs.12332
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12332 [Google Scholar]
  119. Svalberg, A.
    (2016) Language Awareness research: where are we now. Language Awareness25(1–2), 1–13. 10.1080/09658416.2015.1122027
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1122027 [Google Scholar]
  120. Talmy, L.
    (1978) Figure and Ground in complex sentences. InJ. Greenberg (Ed.) Universals of human language. Vol.4. Syntax (pp.625–649). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Tiede, H. & Stout, L.
    (2010) Recursion, infinity and modelling. InH. van der Hulst (Ed.), Recursion and Human Language (pp.147–58). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219258.147
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219258.147 [Google Scholar]
  122. Thornbury, S.
    (1997) About Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. (2005) Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review22, 183–97. 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.183
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.183 [Google Scholar]
  125. Tordoir, A. & Wesdorp, H.
    (1979) Het grammaticaonderwijs in Nederland. Een overzicht betreffende de effecten van grammaticaonderwijs en een verslag van een onderzoek naar de praktijk van dit onderwijs. Den Haag: SVO.
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Van Bergen, G.
    (2011) Who’s first and what’s next. Animacy and word order variation in Dutch language production. Doctoral doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Van den Broek, E.
    (2020) Language awareness in foreign language education. Exploring teachers’ beliefs, practices and change processes. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Van der Aalsvoort, M.
    (2016) Vensters op vakontwikkeling. De betwiste invoering van taalkunde in het examenprogramma Nederlands havo/vwo (1988–2008). Doctoral dissertation. Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Van der Aalsvoort, M., & Kroon, S.
    (2015) The contested introduction of linguistics in the Dutch exam. A historical curriculum study on the relationship between school subjects and academic disciplines. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature15, 1–20. 10.17239/L1ESLL‑2015.15.01.09
     https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2015.15.01.09 [Google Scholar]
  130. Van Gelderen, A.
    (2010) Does explicit teaching of grammar help students to become better writers? Insights from empirical research. InT. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the grammar wars (pp.109–128). New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Van Rijt, J.
    (2016) Meer grip op taalkundige structuren. De meerwaarde van valentie als taalkundig concept binnen het grammaticaonderwijs. Levende Talen Magazine103(7), 7–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Van Rijt, J.
    (2020) Understanding grammar: the impact of linguistic metaconcepts on L1 grammar education. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Van Rijt, J., De Swart, P. & Coppen, P.-A.
    (2019a) Linguistic concepts in L1 grammar education: a systematic literature review. Research Papers in Education34(5), 621–648. 10.1080/02671522.2018.1493742
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1493742 [Google Scholar]
  134. Van Rijt, J., De Swart, P., Wijnands, A. & Coppen, P.-A.
    (2019b) When students tackle grammatical problems: Exploring linguistic reasoning with linguistic metaconcepts in L1 grammar education. Linguistics and Education52, 78–88. 10.1016/j.linged.2019.06.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  135. Van Rijt, J., Wijnands, A. & Coppen, P.-A.
    (2019c) Dutch teachers’ beliefs on linguistic concepts and reflective judgement in grammar teaching. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature19, 1–28. 10.17239/L1ESLL‑2019.19.02.03
     https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.03 [Google Scholar]
  136. Van Rijt, J., Wijnands, A. & Coppen, P.-A.
    (2020a) How secondary school students may benefit from linguistic metaconcepts to reason about L1 grammatical problems. Language and Education34(3), 231–248. 10.1080/09500782.2019.1690503
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1690503 [Google Scholar]
  137. (2020b) Investigating Dutch teachers’ beliefs on working with linguistic metaconcepts to improve students’ L1 grammatical understanding. Research Papers in Education, 1–30. Advance online publication.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Van Rijt, J., Hulshof, H. & Coppen, P.-A.
    (2021) ‘X is the odd one out, because the other two are more about the farmland’ – Dutch L1 student teachers’ struggles to reason about grammar in odd one out tasks. Studies in Educational Evaluation70, 1–13. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101007 [Google Scholar]
  139. Watson, A. & Newman, R.
    (2017) Talking grammatically: L1 adolescent metalinguistic reflection on writing. Language Awareness26(4), 381–398. 10.1080/09658416.2017.1410554
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1410554 [Google Scholar]
  140. Wijnands, A., Van Rijt, J., & Coppen, P.-A.
    (2021) Learning to think about language step by step. A pedagogical template for the development of cognitive and reflective thinking skills in L1 grammar education. Language Awareness. 10.1080/09658416.2021.1871911
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1871911 [Google Scholar]
  141. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K.
    (2006) Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories – an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction24, 171–209. 10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1 [Google Scholar]
  142. Wolf, H.
    (2019) Leren ontleden: het moet en kan anders. In: S. Vanhooren & A. Mottart (Eds.) 33ste HSN Conferentie Onderwijs Nederlands (pp.282–284). Gent: Skribis.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Young, M.
    (2013) Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies45(2), 101–118. 10.1080/00220272.2013.764505
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.764505 [Google Scholar]
  144. Young, M., & Muller, J.
    (2010) Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education45. 10.1111/j.1465‑3435.2009.01413.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01413.x [Google Scholar]
  145. Zuurmond, A.
    (2020) Critical Thinking, Citizenship, and Vocational Training: Creating a Space for Bildung. In: Monteressori, M. & Lengkeek, G. (Eds.) Opening up spaces for meaningful engagement in educational praxis (pp.19–42). Utrecht: Edubron.
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Zwart, J. W.
    (2010) Levende taalkunde. In: H. Hulshof & T. Hendrix (Eds.). Taalkunde en het schoolvak Nederlands. (pp.51–54). Amsterdam: Levende Talen.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.21008.van
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual importance; critical thinking; grammar education; grammatical understanding; knowledge-related rationales; literacy-related rationales

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error