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
1

includes an element of judgment and choice; the selection of

language is part of an individuals sensitivity to it. Although the
definitions are similar in nature, because of the ALAs increased
emphasis on sensitivity and the inclusion of language learners, in
this essay I will henceforth adhere to the ALAs explanation.
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 Rnger,
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 Rnger, 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).
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
3

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).

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
4

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).

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
5

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 preferences, they may produce text inappropriate
for the genre or register, which reflects poorly on their proficiency
levels (Feng, 2013).
6

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
7

accessible to students (2003). This is particularly true for students

with little metalinguistic awareness, for whom terminology becomes
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 Borgs 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 Andrews 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
8

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). 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 teachers 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
9

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). Although this may confuse
the pragmatic meaning of the sentence and perplex NSs (EslamiRasekh, 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
10

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).
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

11

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 learners 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 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
12

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).
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
13

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.

14

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
15

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.
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 Dont
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.

16

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 Beitrge 2, pp.
19-32.
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, Tzel, 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 Rnger, 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
17

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.
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. 451477.
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.
18

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 ML., (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. 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.

19