The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching

Yıl 2015, , 1 - 12, 17.09.2015

Rod Ellis

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460611

Cited By: 16

Öz

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. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Form-focussed instruction, focus-on-forms, focus-on-form

Kaynakça

• 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