2. 1. Does the writer endorse or disendorse the following views?
the usual assumption in this literature has been that a new language is best taught and learned monolingually, without use of the students’ own language for explanation, translation, testing, classroom management or general communication between teacher and student. The belief – sometimes explicit, but more often implicit – has been that everything that happens during a language class should be in the language being taught, and that students should be discouraged or even banned from making any use of the language(s) they already know. […]
More recently, however, this MONOLINGUAL ASSUMPTION has been increasingly challenged alongside a reassessment of the merits of relating the language being taught to students’ own languages.

3. 1. Does the writer endorse or disendorse the following views?
the usual assumption in this literature has been that a new language is best taught and learned monolingually, without use of the students’ own language for explanation, translation, testing, classroom management or general communication between teacher and student. The belief – sometimes explicit, but more often implicit – has been that everything that happens during a language class should be in the language being taught, and that students should be discouraged or even banned from making any use of the language(s) they already know. […]
More recently, however, this MONOLINGUAL ASSUMPTION has been increasingly challenged alongside a reassessment of the merits of relating the language being taught to students’ own languages.
So far we don’t know: examples of deferred evaluation

4. 1. Identify items of interactive metadiscourse
The issue of how to teach or learn a new language has generated an immense literature in English, based upon varying mixtures of assertion, theory, observation and experiment, and written from a variety of perspectives: psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, pedagogic, educational and political. Since the late nineteenth century, the usual assumption in this literature has been that a new language is best taught and learned monolingually, without use of the students’ own language for explanation, translation, testing, classroom management or general communication between teacher and student. The belief – sometimes explicit, but more often implicit – has been that everything that happens during a language class should be in the language being taught, and that students should be discouraged or even banned from making any use of the language(s) they already know. Since this notion became accepted wisdom in the late nineteenth century, it has been largely taken for granted in the language teaching literature throughout the twentieth century, with only isolated voices of dissent. More recently, however, this MONOLINGUAL ASSUMPTION has been increasingly challenged alongside a reassessment of the merits of relating the language being taught to students’ own languages. This article surveys and assesses this new and growing literature.

5. 1. Identify items of interactive metadiscourse: evidentials
The issue of how to teach or learn a new language has generated an immense literature in English, based upon varying mixtures of assertion, theory, observation and experiment, and written from a variety of perspectives: psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, pedagogic, educational and political. Since the late nineteenth century, the usual assumption in this literature has been that a new language is best taught and learned monolingually, without use of the students’ own language for explanation, translation, testing, classroom management or general communication between teacher and student. The belief – sometimes explicit, but more often implicit – has been that everything that happens during a language class should be in the language being taught, and that students should be discouraged or even banned from making any use of the language(s) they already know. Since this notion became accepted wisdom in the late nineteenth century, it has been largely taken for granted in the language teaching literature throughout the twentieth century, with only isolated voices of dissent. More recently, however, this MONOLINGUAL ASSUMPTION has been increasingly challenged alongside a reassessment of the merits of relating the language being taught to students’ own languages. This article surveys and assesses this new and growing literature.

6. 1. Identify items of interactive metadiscourse: transitions
The issue of how to teach or learn a new language has generated an immense literature in English, based upon varying mixtures of assertion, theory, observation and experiment, and written from a variety of perspectives: psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, pedagogic, educational and political. Since the late nineteenth century, the usual assumption in this literature has been that a new language is best taught and learned monolingually, without use of the students’ own language for explanation, translation, testing, classroom management or general communication between teacher and student. The belief – sometimes explicit, but more often implicit – has been that everything that happens during a language class should be in the language being taught, and that students should be discouraged or even banned from making any use of the language(s) they already know. Since this notion became accepted wisdom in the late nineteenth century, it has been largely taken for granted in the language teaching literature throughout the twentieth century, with only isolated voices of dissent. More recently, however, this MONOLINGUAL ASSUMPTION has been increasingly challenged alongside a reassessment of the merits of relating the language being taught to students’ own languages. This article surveys and assesses this new and growing literature.

7. 1. Identify items of interactive metadiscourse: frame markers
The issue of how to teach or learn a new language has generated an immense literature in English, based upon varying mixtures of assertion, theory, observation and experiment, and written from a variety of perspectives: psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, pedagogic, educational and political. Since the late nineteenth century, the usual assumption in this literature has been that a new language is best taught and learned monolingually, without use of the students’ own language for explanation, translation, testing, classroom management or general communication between teacher and student. The belief – sometimes explicit, but more often implicit – has been that everything that happens during a language class should be in the language being taught, and that students should be discouraged or even banned from making any use of the language(s) they already know. Since this notion became accepted wisdom in the late nineteenth century, it has been largely taken for granted in the language teaching literature throughout the twentieth century, with only isolated voices of dissent. More recently, however, this MONOLINGUAL ASSUMPTION has been increasingly challenged alongside a reassessment of the merits of relating the language being taught to students’ own languages. This article surveys and assesses this new and growing literature.

8. 1. Identify items of interactional metadiscourse:
The issue of how to teach or learn a new language has generated an immense literature in English, based upon varying mixtures of assertion, theory, observation and experiment, and written from a variety of perspectives: psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, pedagogic, educational and political. Since the late nineteenth century, the usual assumption in this literature has been that a new language is best taught and learned monolingually, without use of the students’ own language for explanation, translation, testing, classroom management or general communication between teacher and student. The belief – sometimes explicit, but more often implicit – has been that everything that happens during a language class should be in the language being taught, and that students should be discouraged or even banned from making any use of the language(s) they already know. Since this notion became accepted wisdom in the late nineteenth century, it has been largely taken for granted in the language teaching literature throughout the twentieth century, with only isolated voices of dissent. More recently, however, this MONOLINGUAL ASSUMPTION has been increasingly challenged alongside a reassessment of the merits of relating the language being taught to students’ own languages. This article surveys and assesses this new and growing literature.

9. Activities I
One way to encourage an appreciation of how metadiscourse functions is through the examination of text fragments. Here students can explore the interactional and interactive effects of particular metadiscourse items through tasks such as the following:
• scanning a text to identify its interpersonal tenor and the kinds of relationships that are being expressed, then searching for the items through which these relationships are realized;
• comparing two texts on a similar topic written for different audiences (e.g. a textbook and a research paper) and discussing how each audience is accommodated by textual choices;

10. identifying all examples of interactive metadiscourse in a text, circling the forms used, and assigning a meaning to them; • distinguishing statements in a text which report facts and those which are unproven; • locating all transitions in a text, classifying them as either addition (and, furthermore), comparison (similarly, on the other hand) or consequence (therefore, nevertheless) and seeing which categories and forms are most common. Comparing these with another text to draw conclusions about the type of argument or audience expectations; • distinguishing statements in a text where the author asserts a statement as a personal view and those attributed to another source; • identifying all hedges, boosters or attitude markers in a text, stating what they are referring to in each case and deciding if there is a consistent position being taken;

11. Activities II – manipulating texts
completing a gapped text from which metadiscourse items have been removed and considering the effect of including them; • locating and removing all cases of a particular feature and discussing the effect this has on the comprehensibility, impact and reader-orientation of the text; • identifying all hedges in a text, substituting a statement of certainty and discussing the effect this has on the negotiability of statements; • rewriting a text for a different audience by varying their likely reception of the argument (agreement vs hostility), their relative knowledge of the subject (experts or novices) or their relative power or status (equal or superior to the writer); • rewriting a text as a letter to a newspaper, a poster for display, or for children; • summarizing and rewriting a science text for a popular science journal and considering what metadiscourse changes are needed; • transforming a spoken text, such as a lecture, into an essay, attending particularly to engagement markers and self mention; • adding or removing all frame markers from a text and commenting on the effect this has on its cohesion and readability;