Abstract
Referring to critical ecological language awareness (Lankiewicz, 2015), autonomy in language learning (Benson, 2011) as well as the non-fixity of the linguistic code manifested by sociocultural and ecological studies (Harris, 1981; Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010), I put forth the need of applying the idea of a variable pedagogical norm, as postulated by Valdman (1989; 1992). The principal objective of the article is to present research elucidating the fact that the use of classroom activities respecting the pedagogical variable norm may contribute to the raising of students’ language awareness in respect to social and cultural linguistic diversity. Ultimately, this new awareness may contribute to the shift of attitudes towards language learning. The application of the variable pedagogical norm is indicative of critical language awareness of the teacher and helps develop a similar equivalent among students. Concluding, I dare say that developing autonomy in language learning seems impossible without the application of the pedagogical variable norm.References
Belczyk, A. 2009. Poradnik tłumacza. Kraków: Idea.
Benson, P. 2011. Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Second edition. Harlow: Pearson.
Benson, P. i P. Voller (red.). 1997. Autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.
Brumfit, C. 2001. Individual freedom in language teaching: helping learners to develop a dialect of their own. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, S. 2007. „The ecology of Global English”. International Multilingual Research Journal 1(2): 89-100.
Canagarajah, S. 2013. Translingual practice. Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Routledge.
Cook, V. 1999. „Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching”. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2): 185-209.
Cook, V. 2014. „Multi-competence”. [online: homepage, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/MCentry.htm, ED 9.01.2017].
Cowie, A. 1992. „Multiword lexical units and communicative language teaching”. (w) Vocabulary and applied Linguistics. P. Arnaud i H. Bejoint (red.). Basingstoke UK: MacMillan, str. 1-12.
Danilewicz, T. 2011. Language awareness and second language teacher. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
Donato, R. 1994. „Collective scaffolding”. (w) Vygotskyan approaches in second language research. J. P. Lantolf i G. Appel (red.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, str. 33-56.
Ellis, R. 1997. Second language acquisition. Oxford introductions to language study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ESOKJ (Europejski System Opisu Kształcenia Językowego). http://jows.pl/sites/default/files/ESOKJ_interaktywny.pdf [ED 09.01.2017].
Fairclough, N. 1992. Critical language awareness. London and New York: Longman.
Firth, A. i J. Wagner. 1997. „On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA”. Modern Language Journal, 81 (3): 285-300.
Gramsci, A. 1971/1991. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Harris, R. 1981, The Language Myth. London, Duckworth.
Howarth, P. 1998. „Phraseology and second language proficiency”. Applied Linguistics, 19(1): 24-44.
Hutchins, E. 1991. „The social organization of distributed cognition”. (w) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine i S. D. Teasley (red.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, str. 283-307.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jones, M i S. Haywood. 2004. „Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context”. (w) Formulaic sequences. Acquisition, processing and use. N. Schmitt (red.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, str. 269-300.
Kramsch, C. 2002. “Standard, norm and variability in language leanring: A view from foreign language research”. (w) Pedagogical norms for second and foreign language learning and teaching. S. Gass, K. Bardovi-Harlig, S. Sieloff Maganan, J. Waltz (red.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, str. 59-80.
Kotowska, A. i H. Lankiewicz 2015. „Defiing attitudes towards language learning: Autonomy and second language major”. Forum Filologiczne Ateneum, 1/3, 47-64.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2012. Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing and seeing. New York and London: Routledge.
Lankiewicz, H. 2013. „Dialekt w klasie językowej w świetle podejścia ekologicznego do nauczania języka”. (w) Rola dyskursu edukacyjnego w uczeniu się i nauczaniu języka obcego. M. Pawlak (red.). Kalisz–Poznań: Wydział Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny UAM w Kaliszu, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicz w Poznaniu, str. 9-29.
Lankiewicz, H. 2015. Teacher language awareness in the ecological perspective. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
Otsuji, E. i A. Pennycook. 2010. „Metrolingualis: fixity, fluidity and language in flux”. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3): 240-254. [online: http://www.academia.edu/4889733/Metrolingualism_fixity_fluidity_and_language_in_flux, ED 9.01.2017].
Smuk, M. 2016. Od cech osobowości do kompetencji savoir-être. Rozwijanie samoświadomości w nauce języków obcych. Lublin, Warszawa: Werset.
Swain, M. 1997. „Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 34: 115-32.
Valdman, A. 1989. „Classroom foreign language learning and language variation: The notion of pedagogical norms”. (w) The dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language acquisition. M. R. Eisenstein (red.). New York: Plenum Press, str. 261-277.
Valdman, A. 1992. „Authenticity, variation, and communication in the foreign language classroom”. (w) Text and Context. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study. K. Kramsch, C. i S. McConnell-Ginet (red.). Lexington MA: D.C. Heath, str. 79-97.
van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Widła, H. 2007. L'acquisition du français – langue troisième: problèmes méthodologiques et implications pratiques. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Widła, H. 2016. „Zmierzch bilingwizmu i jego skutki”. Neofilolog, 47/1: 9-20.
Wilczyńska, W. 2002. „Podmiotowość i autonomia jako wyznaczniki osobistej kompetencji komunikacyjnej”. Autonomizacja w dydaktyce języków obcych. Doskonalenie w komunikacji ustnej. (w) W. Wilczyńska (red.). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, str. 51-67.
Wolfram, W., T. C. Adger i D. Christian. 1999. Dialects in schools and communities. Mahwah. NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Wygotski, L. S. 1971. „Problem nauczania i rozwoju umysłowego w wieku szkolnym”. (w) L. S. Wygotski,Wybrane prace psychologiczne. Warszawa: PWN, str. 531-547.
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Hadrian Lankiewicz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors
Authors of texts accepted for publication in Neofilolog are required to complete, sign and return to the Editorial team’s office the Agreement for granting a royalty-free license to works with a commitment to grant a CC sub-license.
Under the agreement, the authors of the texts published in Neofilolog grant Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań a non-exclusive, royalty-free license and authorize the use of Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license.
The authors retain the right to the free disposal of the work.
Users
Interested Internet users are entitled to use works that have been published in Neofilolog since 2017, under the following conditions:
▪ attribution – obligation to provide, together with the distributed work, information about the authorship, title, source (link to the original work, DOI) and the license itself.
▪ no derivatives – the work must be preserved in its original form. Without the author's consent, it is not possible to distribute the modified work in the form of translations, publications, etc.
Copyrights are reserved for all texts published since 2017.
Miscellaneous
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań retains the property right as a whole (layout, graphic form, title, cover design, logo etc.).