Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching

Year 2015, , 1 - 12, 17.09.2015
https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460611

Abstract

Long (1991) distinguished two approaches to language teaching, which he called ‘focus-on-forms’ and
‘focus-on-form’. In this article I discuss ‘focus-on-form’ from both a theoretical perspective by outlining
the psycholinguistic rationale for this type of instruction and from a practical perspective by identifying
the strategies that students and teachers can use when doing focus-on-form. I conclude by emphasizing
the importance of including a focus-on-form in communicative language teaching in order to facilitate
incidental language learning and thus reject the commonly held view that teachers should not ‘interfere’
when students are performing a communicative task. I also suggest that ‘focus-on-forms’ and ‘focus-onform’
should be seen as complementary rather than oppositional approaches to teaching. 

References

  • Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25-58. http://doi.org/cs4b3n
  • De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263- 295. http://doi.org/ck93nk
  • Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 305- 328. http://doi.org/dnfm75
  • Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419-432. http://doi.org/fmr2tm
  • Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
  • Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics 10, 331-360. http://doi.org/cshqc3
  • Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57-79)ç Skikie, IL: National Textbook Company.
  • Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. English Language Teaching Journal, 42, 89-101. Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Lightbown, P. (1992). Can they do it themselves? A comprehension-based ESL course for young children. In R. Courchene, J. Glidden, J. St. John, & C. Therien (Eds.), Comprehension-based second language teaching: Current trends (pp. 353-370). Ottowa: University of Ottawa Press.
  • Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
  • Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287. http://doi.org/fdfmjh
  • Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465-497. http://doi.org/bb74wr
  • Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79. http://doi.org/chsm8g
  • Pinker, S.(1989). Resolving a learnerability paradox in the acquisition of the verb lexicon. In M. Rice, & R. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The teachability of language (pp. 13-62). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
  • Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. Oxford: MacMillan Education.
  • Sheen, R. (2006). Focus on formS as a means of improving accurate oral production. In A. Housen, & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 271-310). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 115-140. http://doi.org/4rg
  • Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-252). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301. http://doi.org/brv3qh
Year 2015, , 1 - 12, 17.09.2015
https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460611

Abstract

References

  • Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25-58. http://doi.org/cs4b3n
  • De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263- 295. http://doi.org/ck93nk
  • Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 305- 328. http://doi.org/dnfm75
  • Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30, 419-432. http://doi.org/fmr2tm
  • Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
  • Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics 10, 331-360. http://doi.org/cshqc3
  • Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57-79)ç Skikie, IL: National Textbook Company.
  • Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. English Language Teaching Journal, 42, 89-101. Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Lightbown, P. (1992). Can they do it themselves? A comprehension-based ESL course for young children. In R. Courchene, J. Glidden, J. St. John, & C. Therien (Eds.), Comprehension-based second language teaching: Current trends (pp. 353-370). Ottowa: University of Ottawa Press.
  • Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
  • Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287. http://doi.org/fdfmjh
  • Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465-497. http://doi.org/bb74wr
  • Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79. http://doi.org/chsm8g
  • Pinker, S.(1989). Resolving a learnerability paradox in the acquisition of the verb lexicon. In M. Rice, & R. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The teachability of language (pp. 13-62). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
  • Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. Oxford: MacMillan Education.
  • Sheen, R. (2006). Focus on formS as a means of improving accurate oral production. In A. Housen, & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 271-310). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 115-140. http://doi.org/4rg
  • Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-252). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301. http://doi.org/brv3qh
There are 29 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Linguistics
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Rod Ellis This is me

Publication Date September 17, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015

Cite

APA Ellis, R. (2015). The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460611

Cited By