Cover not available
Part of
Second Language Acquisition Theory: The legacy of Professor Michael H. Long
Edited by Alessandro G. Benati and John W. Schwieter
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 14] 2022
► pp. 257–272

Chapter 13
Can focus on form have an effect on language development?

| University of Hong Kong
This chapter is intended to provide an overview of the term/concept focus on form. We are grateful to Mike Long for providing the original definition of this construct, setting up the debate and actively stimulating more theoretical and empirical research on the role and nature of focus on form. The chapter highlights some of the shortcomings of the current research on the effects of focus on form on language development and provides suggestions for future research in this field of enquiry.
Article outline
  • 1.Focus on form
    • Focus on forms vs. focus on form
    • The nature of language development and the role of focus on form
      • A distinction to be made between explicit and implicit knowledge
  • 2.The effects of focus on form
    • Route, rate and ultimate attainment in language development
  • 3.How focus on form might interact with development: An input processing perspective
    • An input processing perspective
    • Structured input
  • 4.Focus on form: An agenda for future research
    • Limitations of current data and further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 11 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.14.13ben
References
Benati, A. G.
(2019) Classroom-oriented research: Processing Instruction. Language Teaching, 52, 343–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a) The effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of the English causative passive forms: An eye-tracking study measuring accuracy in responses and processing patterns. Language Teaching Research, 24, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021a) Focus on form. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming) Structured input and structured output on the acquisition of English passive constructions: A self-paced reading study measuring accuracy, response and reading time.
Benati, A. G., & Lee, J. F.
(2008) Transfer of training effects for processing instruction: Research and practice. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Benati, A. G., & Batziou, M.
(2019) Discourse and long-term effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative form. Language Awareness, 28, 77–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiucchiu, G., & Benati, A. G.
(2020) The effects of structured input and textual enhancement on the acquisition of Italian subjunctive: A self-paced reading study. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 4, 235–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J.
(Eds.) (1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H.
(Eds.) (2003) The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyson, B. P., & Håkansson, G.
(2017) Understanding second language processing: A focus on processability theory. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2016) Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M.
(2015) Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris and Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S.
(1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B.
(1995) Making communicative teaching happen. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
(2003) Making communicative teaching happen (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lichtman, K., & VanPatten, B.
(2021) Krashen forty years later: Final comments. Foreign Language Annals, 54, 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1983) Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M.
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413–468). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S.
(2011) Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
(2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and L2 development. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y.
(2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terrell, T.
(1991) The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 52–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J.
(2016) The effectiveness of error correction: Why do meta-analytic reviews produce such different answers? In Y.-n. Leung (Ed.), Epoch making in English teaching and learning: A special monograph for celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th anniversary (pp. 129–141). Crane.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B.
(1996) Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.Google Scholar
(2016) Why explicit knowledge cannot turn into implicit knowledge. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 650–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.113–135). Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015b) Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 53, 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Fernández, C.
(2004) The long-term effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 273–289). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Rothman, J.
(2014) Against “rules.” In A. G. Benati, C. Laval, & M. J. Arche (Eds.), The grammar dimension in instructed SLA: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 15–36). Continuum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Smith, M., & Benati, A. G.
(2019) Key questions in second language acquisition: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, W.
(2005) Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B.
(2003) The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 403–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, W., & Ito, K.
(2018) The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 241–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar