Focuts
on
F o rn is R e se a rc h a n d
its applicatíon
Jessica W illiam s
U n iv e rsity o f Iliino is at C h ica g o
V ários estudos experim entais e em sala de aula sugerem que o Foco na F orm a (FonF) pode facilitar o desenvolvim ento d a interlíngua p ara que se atinja precisão na língua alvo. Porém , um a vasta gam a de definições, técnicas e term os sim ilares, às vezes, to m a difícil determ inar realm ente o que significa o term o FonF. E ste artigo explora, em detalhes, possíveis interpretações dos termos foco e fo rm a . A lém disso, revisita a taxonom ia a p r e s e n ta d a e m D o u g h ty e W illia m s (1 9 9 8 ) p a r a a n a l i s a r cuidadosam ente alguns dos itens chaves que têm sido sugeridos para atividades de FonF, p o r exem plo:
-planejam ento,
- aproxim ação da língua alvo, - interrupção do processo, - processos cognitivos.
Finalm ente, há um a consideração sobre com o o efeito do F onF pode variar, dependendo de quando ele acontece durante o desenvolvim ento d a interlíngua.
F o c u s o n F o rm (F onF ), a te rm firs t c o in e d b y L o n g ( 1 9 8 8 ,1 9 9 1 ) to
d e scrib e a b rie f, o fte n instruction al, fo c u s o n ling u istic fe atu re s e m b e d d e d in
m e a n in g fu l c o m m u n ic a tio n , s e e m s to h a v e s tr u c k a c h o rd a m o n g m a n y se c o n d la n g u a g e te a c h e r s 1. P e rh a p s th is is a re su lt o f th e in e v ita b le sw in g
o f th e p e n d u lu m : I n th e h e y d a y a n d a f te rm a th o f K r a s h e n ’s in flu e n c e ,
m a n y r e s e a r c h e r s a n d te a c h e r s w e r e p e r h a p s c lo s e t d o u b te r s o f th e
s tro n g e s t v e r sio n s o f c o m m u n ic a tiv e la n g u a g e te a c h in g a n d n o w se e F o n F a s p e r m is s io n to re in tr o d u c e g r a m m a r in to th e ir c la s s ro o m s , w h e r e it h a d
lo n g b e e n ta b o o o r e ls e in tro d u c e d s u rr e p titio u s ly . O f c o u r s e , m a n y te a c h e rs h a d n e v e r re a lly a b a n d o n e d s o m e fo rm a l fo c u s in th e ir c la s se s .
P e rh a p s b e c a u s e o f its p o p u la rity , th e r e is s o m e c o n fu s io n w ith re g a rd to
3 2 R e v . B r a s i l e i r a d e L i n g U i s t i c a A p l i c a d a , v . l , n . l , 2 0 0 1
v a r io u s c o m p e tin g te rm s , su c h as f o c u s o n
formS
a n d th e c lo s e ly r e la te d f o r m - f o c u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n , w h ic h is n o t s y n o n y m o u s w ith F o n F . S p a d a( 1 9 9 7 ) u s e s f o r m - f o c u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n as an u m b r e lla te r m f o r a ll
a p p r o a c h e s , in c lu d in g F onF , th a t d r a w le a rn e r a tte n tio n to f o rm a l a s p e c ts o f la n g u a g e . In p r in c ip a l, th is c o u ld in c lu d e a d e c o n te x tu a liz e d , h ig h ly
m e ta lin g u is tic , te a c h e r-c e n te re d g r a m m a r le s s o n , w h ic h , o f c o u rs e , is a n tith e tic a l to F o n F . T h is a rtic le is a n a tte m p t to c la rify w h a t I m e a n b y
F o n F a n d to e x p lo re s o m e o f th e im p o r ta n t fe a tu re s o f s u c h a n a p p ro a c h .
L o n g a n d R o b in s o n o p e ra tio n a liz e F o n F in te rm s o f th e a llo c a tio n o f th e le a rn e r's fo c a l attention. T h e ir d e lib e ra te ly n a rro w d e fin itio n re q u ire s
a p r o b le m - o r ie n te d trig g e r. T h is m e a n s th a t th e fo c u s o f a tte n tio n o n a p a r tic u la r ite m is b r o u g h t a b o u t b y a b re a k d o w n o f s o m e s o rt, so m e
p r o b le m in e ith e r p ro d u c tio n o r c o m p r e h e n s io n . T h is p re tty m u c h lim its
te a c h e r s to w a itin g f o r issu es to e m e rg e a n d re sp o n d in g to th e m a s n e e d e d . D o u g h ty a n d W illia m s (1 9 9 8 a ) o f f e r a p p r o a c h e s w h ic h a r e b ro a d e r,
a llo w in g fo r a p la n n e d , a n d e v e n s e p a ra te d , in s tr u c tio n a l fo c u s o n f o rm th a t n e e d n o t n e c e s s a rily in v o lv e a p ro b le m -trig g e r. H o w e v e r , D o u g h ty
a n d W illia m s (1 9 9 8 b ) c lea rly im p ly th a t a n o p tim a l F o n F te c h n iq u e w o u ld b e o n e in w h ic h m e a n in g a nd f o r m a r e p r o c e s s e d sim u lta n e o u s ly . G iv e n
th e s tr ic t d e fin itio n o ffe re d b y L o n g a n d R o b in s o n , a n d th e in c r e a s in g ly lo o s e o n e s b e in g o ffe re d in th e lite ra tu re , it is im p o rta n t to s p e c ify e x a c tly
w h a t is m e a n t b y F o n F .
T h e te r m F o c u s on F o r m c o n s is ts o f tw o im p o rta n t p a r ts , th e
f o c u s a n d th e f o r m . I n m y o w n v ie w , th e f ir s t F is th e h e a r t o f th e te r m b e c a u s e it g ets a t is s u e s o f c o g n itiv e e n g a g e m e n t a n d le a r n in g p ro c e s s e s .
I n D o u g h ty a n d W illia m s (1 9 9 8 b ), f o c u s is ta k e n to m e a n an y b r ie f tu rn in g
o r d iv id in g o f le a r n e r a tte n tio n f r o m a n a c t o f c o m m u n ic a tio n , s u c h as r e a d in g , c o n v e rs in g , liste n in g e tc ., to w a r d s o m e fe a tu re o f la n g u a g e . In
m o s t stu d ie s , f o r m is a s su m e d to b e a stru c tu ra l fe a tu re , th o u g h , in fa c t, it n e e d n o t b e lim ite d to th e se k in d s o f ite m s a n d c a n b e v ie w e d m o re
b ro a d ly . F o r in sta n c e , it c o u ld a ls o b e le x ic a l, as in th e u se o f a ty p o g ra p h ic e n h a n c e m e n t o r g lo s s in g in a r e a d in g , to h e ig h te n le a r n e r a tte n tio n to a w o r d ’s m e a n in g , n o t ju s t its stru c tu ra l fe atu re s. F o n F c o u ld e q u a lly in v o lv e
t h e d r a w in g o f l e a r n e r a t t e n t i o n to a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e p r a g m a t ic c o n v e n tio n , f o r in s ta n c e , th e u s e o f c e rta in k in d s o f h e d g e s to m a r k o r re in fo rc e social re latio n sh ip s (B a rd o v i-H a rlig a n d D o m y e i, 1998; C e lc e M u rc ia , D o m y e i, a n d T h u rrel, 1 997) o r to in d ic a te la c k o f c o m m itm e n t in
T h e c ru cia l th in g to re m e m b e r in F o n F is th a t a lth o u g h th e re is a b rie f o r sim u lta n e o u s fo c u s o n c o d e fe a tu re s: p ro n u n ciatio n , in fle c tio n a l m o rp h o lo gy , w o rd fo rm , w o rd d e fin itio n etc., the o v e rrid in g fo c u s is o n the
p ro c e ssin g o f m e a n in g in an a ct o f c o m m u n ic a tio n . T h is m a y b e th e ca se e v e n if th e in stru c tio n a l fo c u s is se p a ra te d in tim e fro m th a t c o m m u n ic a tiv e act. D o u g h ty (in p re ss) d isc u sses v a rio u s p o ssib ilitie s fo r c o m b in in g the p ro c e ss in g o f fo rm a n d m ea n in g . A p o te n tia l e x c ep tion to th e sim u lta n e o u s p ro c e ss in g id e a l is th e u se o f a d v a n c e p la n n in g. M e h n e rt (1 9 9 8 ), O rte g a
(1 99 9) a n d F o ste r a n d S k eh an (1 99 9) all re p o rt w a y s in w h ich o p p o rtu n ities to p lan p ro d u ctio n allow learners to fo c us on form spontaneously an d increase a ccuracy, as w e ll as try o u t m o re c o m p le x fo rm s at the fo rw a rd e d g e o f th eir
IL s. T h is p la n n in g o b vio u sly tak es p la c e p rio r to the actual c o m m u n ic a tio n , b u t c a n still re m a in part, o f a F o n F a p p ro ach .
S om e im p o r ta n t fe a tu re s o f F o n F
T h e re a r e a v a rie ty o f te c h n iq u e s a n d a c tiv itie s th a t h a v e b e e n
s u g g e ste d to p ro m o te FonF, m a n y o f w h ich h a v e b e e n d isc u s se d in the lite ra tu re . B e c a u se o f th e d ive rsity o f th e s e ideas, it is u se fu l to situ a te th e m w ithin s o m e so rt o f taxonom y. A lth o u g h it seem s e v id e n t that, as a p a c k a g e ,
F o n F is w o rth p u rsu in g, it is n o t a lw a y s c le a r w h a t aspects o f th e v a rio u s a ctivities a n d te c h n iq u e s m a k e th e m effective, o r m o re likely, so m e tim e s e ffe ctive a n d so m e tim es not. A ta x o n o m y c a n h elp in so m e c ase s to iso la te th e fe a tu re s o f th e v ariou s in stru c tio na l tec h n iqu es, a n alyze th e m separately, and ultim ately, m an ip u la te th e m fo r m o re e ffe ctive instruction. D o u g h ty an d W illiam s (19 9 8b ) m a d e a first a ttem p t at this. I w ill re c o nsid e r an d re e v a lu a te sev eral o f th e s e features, sh ow n h e re in F ig u re 1.
® p ro a c tiv e <—> reactive
® ta rg e te d <-> g e n e ra l
• o b tru s iv e u n o b tru s iv e (in te rru p ts p ro c e s s in g ) • te a c h e r learner responsibility
F ig u re 1. S o m e fe atu re s in F o n F fo r re c o n sid e ratio n
D o ug h ty a n d W illiam s offer proactive versus reactive as a fundam ental
d istinc tion . H o w e v e r b a sic , this d istin c tio n m a y b e too b ro a d a n d is su b jec t to m isin te rp re ta tio n . F irst, it is p ro b a b ly b e s t to c o n sid e r it a c o n tin u u m .
3 4 R e v . B r a s i l e i r a d e L i n g ü í s t i c a A p l i c a d a , v . ] , n . l , 2 0 0 1
le a s t tw o specific features. In particular, it is im p o rtan t to distinguish b e tw e en
o v e ra ll plan n in g, w h ic h one h o p e s all g o o d tea ch e rs do, and th e sp ecific
fe a tu re s o f FonF, nam ely, (a) w h e th e r a te c h n iq u e o r approach is p ro a c tiv e or
re a c tiv e , and (b) th e d eg re e to w h ic h an a p p ro a c h o r tec hn iq u e h a s a sp ecific in stru c tio n a l target. F o r instance, re c a s tin g is clearly a reactive te c h n iq u e , y e t
th e d e c isio n to re c a st, as w ell as th e ta rg e t o f th e rec asting m a y w e ll b e
p la n n e d in advance. A lternatively, a g en e ral p ro active focus o n accuracy m ig ht
b e b u ilt in to an ac tiv ity in advance, as in the u se o f in creased le a rne r p la n n in g tim e , a n d in stru c tio n to attend to a cc u ra cy , w ith o u t targetin g a n y p a rtic u la r
form . Finally, it is p o ssib le to have a p ro a ctive and specifically targeted activity, su c h a s o ne in w h ic h th e form is ta s k -u se fu l (e.g., D a y and S ha p so n , 1991;
S p a d a an d L ig h tb o w n , 1999). T h u s, th e p ro a ctiv e-re ac tiv e c o n tin u u m is
re la te d to, bu t se p a ra te from , the ta rg e te d -g e n e ra l continu um . F ig u re 2 illustrates this idea graphically. Just o n e e xam p le for each quadrant is included,
b u t th e re are m a n y o th e r possibilities.
PRO A CTIV E
REA CTIV E
F ig u re 2. T w o re late d F o n tF fe a tu re s
A s e c o n d b a s ic fe a tu re d is c u s s e d in D o u g h ty a n d W illia m s is o btrusiveness. B o th th e proactive-reactive an d targetedness co n tin ua intera ct
w ith a c o n tin u u m o f obtrusiveness. T h e tea c h e r can p lan in adv an ce w h a t she h o p e s h e r stu den ts w ill focus on. In D o u g h ty a n d W illiam s, o b tru siv e n e ss sim p ly re fe rs to th e d eg re e to w h ich an a ctivity o r te c h n iq u e in te rru p ts the
flo w o f c o m m u n ic atio n . A m o re c rucial issu e fo r acquisition, p erh a p s, is
w h e th e r it in te rru pts th e p rocessin g o f m e a n in g . T h is is a c o g n itiv e ra th e r
T A R G E T E D G E N E R A L
T a sk u seful activities F o c u se d recasts
tha n c o m m u n ic a tiv e p e rsp e c tiv e . W h e th e r this in terru p tion o f p ro c e ss in g is
even p o ss ib le an d i f so, if it inh ib its se c o n d la n g u a g e le a rn in g is n o t y e t clear. D e B o t (2 0 0 0 ) argues th a t p ro c e ssin g , a n d in p articular, retriev al, c a n n o t b e in terru p te d . H o w ev er, m a n y p e d a g o g ic a l tec h n iqu es a p p e a r to b e p re d ic ated on the a ssum ption tha t so m e interruption is required to actively direct learners’ attention to th e fo rm in question, o r to e n g ag e learners in the d ee p e r processiqg
so m e c la im is n e c e ssa ry fo r tra n sfe r to lo n g -te rm m e m o ry sto rag e (see E llis, 1999, f o r d iscu ssio n ). S im ilarly, w e d o n o t k n o w w h e th e r sim ulta n e o u s p rocessing o f form an d m e an in g is p o ssib le (see D oughty, in press, fo r relevant re se a rc h o n this to pic fro m th e p sy c h o lo g y literature).
In p a rt, a n y d e te rm in a tio n re g a rd in g th e se d e b a tes w ill d e p e n d on w h e th e r a w a re n e ss is c o n s id e re d a re q u ire m e n t fo r the c o n v e rsio n o f in p u t
to in tak e, a q u estio n th a t re m a in s co n tro ve rsial. I f h ig h e r levels o f aw a ren e ss are re q u ire d , this c o u ld lim it the p o ssib ilitie s fo r sim u ltan eo u s p ro c e ssin g o f fo rm and m eaning. V anPatten (1996) has long m aintained that the sim ultaneous p ro c e ssin g o f fo rm a n d m e a n in g is unlikely, at le a s t in the in itial stag e s o f acquisition. T h e re is p relim ina ry e v id en ce th a t ev en su pp o sed ly u n o b trusiv e in te rv e n tio n s c an re su lt in a d im in u tio n o f p e rfo rm a n c e in the p ro c e ssin g o f m ean ing , e v e n as th e e n h a n c e m e n t m a y inc rea se noticing. O v e rstree t (1998), fo r instance, rep o rts lo w e r c o m p re h e n sio n scores fo r texts w ith m ultip le kinds o f ty p o g ra p h ic e n h a n c e m e n t th a n fo r u n e n h a n c e d texts.
O n th e o th e r h a n d , it h a s b e e n a rg u e d th a t g re a te r a w a re n e ss allow s
fo r m o re e la b o ra te fo rm s o f le a rn in g (see R o sa an d O ’N eill, 1999; S ch m idt, 1995, fo r discu ssio n) an d a v ariety o f ex p erim e n tal studies h a v e su g g este d an a d v a n ta g e fo r e x p lic it in stru c tio n fo r th e n o ticin g a n d /o r le a rnin g o f a t le a st
so m e ru le s o r stru ctures (e.g., C arro ll an d S w ain, 1993; D e K e y se r, 1995; E llis, 1993; K u p fe rb e rg a n d O lsh ta in , 1996; R o b in so n , 1996, 1997; R o sa and O ’N e ill, 1999; S p a d a a n d L ig h tb o w n , 1 9 9 3 ,1 9 9 9 ; L . W h ite, 1 9 9 1).E llis (1998) re fe rs to all o f th e s e p e d a g o g ic a l o p tio ns as e x p lic it
instruction
an d they w o u ld g en era lly b e c o n s id e re d o btru siv e. D e p e n d in g on w h e th e r this instruction is e m b e d d e d in so m e fo rm o f c o m m u n ica tio n o r the le n g th o f this3 6 R e v . B r a s i l e i r a d e L i n g ü í s t i c a A p l i c a d a , v . l , n . l , 2 0 0 1
w ritin g tasks u s e d b y S w ain a n d h e r c o llea g u es (1998, S w ain a n d L a pk in,
1995). In these ta sk s, too, the in te ra c tio n m a y fo c u s on form a l fe atu re s o f the
la n g u ag e, b u t th e d isc ussio n is in se rv ic e o f a w id e r c o m m u n ic a tiv e purpose. A less o b tru siv e , y e t p ro a c tiv e c a n d id a te is to e x p o se le a rn e rs to a
n e w fo rm (for w h ic h they are d e v e lo p m e n ta lly re a d y ), o r to a T L a lte rn a tive
to a n I L fo rm in in p u t, w ith th e fo rm h ig h lig h te d o r fla gg ed in so m e way,
w h a t E llis c a lls
structured input
(1 9 9 8 ). D e B o t (2 00 0) s u g g e s ts tha t fo rle a m in g to b e fa cilitated , in stru c tio n a l tasks m u s t m a k e T L c an d id a te s inth e inp u t m ore a ttra ctiv e fo r sele ctio n tha n n o n -T L candidates. V arious form s
o f typographic a n d o th e r textual e n h a n c e m e n t (e.g., flooding) o f w ritten input
h a v e b een d isc u sse d a t length in the lite ra tu re (e.g., Jo urden ais, O ta, Stauffer,
B o y s o n , and D o u g h ty , 1995; L e ow , 1997; J. W h ite , 1998). A stru ctured in p u t approach c a n also b e u se d in c om bination w ith m o re explicit instruction,
a s in th e p ro c e ss in g instru ction p ro c e d u re s o f V anP atten (1 9 96 ), in w h ich
le a r n e rs are e x p o s e d to flo o d s o f re le v a n t p ro b le m a tic structures an d also e x p lic itly in s tru c te d as to h o w th e structures sh o u ld b e p ro c e sse d , o r w ith
o th e r im p licit te c h n iq u e s (e.g., L ig h tb o w n an d S p ad a, 1999; W illia m s and
E v a n s , 1998). S o far, then F o n F a ctivities h a v e b e e n d e sc rib ed in te rm s o f th re e continua: p roactive-reactive, targetedness, an d obtrusiveness. H ow ever,
consideration o f these three features neglects one crucial elem ent in the learning p ro c e ss : w ho is d o in g the p la n n in g, rea cting , ta rg etin g an d in te rru p ting . F o r
th e m o st part, th e th re e c o n tin u a d e sc rib e d so fa r re fe r to th e ro le o f the
tea c h e r. S ince o n ly the le a n e r c an d o the lea rn in g , it seem s a p p ro p ria te to
fo c u s m o re on th e ro le o f the learner. In D o ug h ty a n d W illiam s, th is a sp ec t o f F o n F w as d e s c rib e d in e ith e r/o r term s: Is th e le a rn e r’s a tte n tio n d ra w n
(im p lic itly) o r d ire c te d (m ore fo rc e fu lly a n d d ire c tly)? D o e s th e le a rn e r o r
te a c h e r m a n ip u la te th e fo rm s? B o th o f the se e ssen tially p o in t to th e locu s o f
responsibility: Is it the teacher/m aterials o r the learner w ho takes responsibility
fo r initiating the co gn itiv e processes inv o lv ed in acquisition? (alw ays k ee p in g in m in d , o f co u rse, th a t ultim ately it is alw ays u p to th e learner).
A g ain, th e re is a w id e ra n g e , b u t w e c a n th in k o f th re e p o in ts o n a c o n tin u u m . F irst, th ere are tra d itio na l activities, in w h ich th e te a c h e r o r
m ateria ls take p rim ary responsibility fo r focusing on form S. T h o se techniques,
in w h ic h the te a c h e r controls the p ro c e ss, such as the pro v isio n o f ex p licit ex p lan a tio n s, a n d p re se n t-a n d -p ra c tic e activities, also ten d to b e th e m o st o btru siv e ; ind eed , m o st c o u ld n o t b e c o n sid e red FonF. T h us, th e ex tre m e
e n d -te a c h e r re sp o n sib le -o v e rla p s w ith a h ig h le v e l o f o b tru siv en ess, th a t is,
A second, in te rm ed ia te p o sitio n w o u ld include th o se tec h n iqu es that, th o u g h still tea c h e r/m a te ria ls-d ire c te d , p la c e m o re re sp o n sib ility w ith the le a rn e r in th a t the y p ro v id e le a rn e rs w ith a g uided o p p o r tu n i ty to e n g a g e in
s o m e c o g n itiv e p ro c e ss th a t are s a id to facilitate ac q u isition o f a targ e te d fo rm . T h is w o u ld inc lu d e , fo r in sta n c e , tho se tec h n iqu es a n d activities th a t e n c o u ra g e lea rn e rs to n o tic e t h e g a p , th a t is, to se e th a t th e ir IL fa lls short o f th e target. S o m e e x a m p le s o f th e se w o u ld b e the u se o f re c a s tin g a n d a gain, v ariou s structured in p u t activities. A n o th e r possibility is that co g nitiv e
p ro c e ss e s m ig h t b e trig g e re d b y le a rn e rs ’ sim ply n o t k n o w in g , b u t n ee d in g , th e T L fo rm , re su ltin g in th e ir n o tic in g a so-ca lled h o le in th e ir IL . T h is is p a rtic u la rly e v ide nt in dialogic activities, as reported in S w a in ’s w o rk (Sw ain,
1998; in p re ss; S w ain a n d L a p k in , 1998).
T a sk fe a tu re s a n d F o c u s o n F o r m
M o st o f the activities d e sc rib e d h ere w ould b e targeted at the noticing/
u se o f a specific fo rm . T h e re is a lso th e possibility th a t lea rne rs m ig h t b e g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ity to in c re a se fo c u s on fo rm in a n a ctivity th a t d o es n o t target specific form s. O n e prom ising possibility already m entioned is advanced planning. A w idely h eld assum ption is tha t the hum an m in d is a lim ited capacity p rocessor. V anP atten (1996) h a s a rg u e d tha t learners h a v e a n a tu ra l ten de nc y to p ro c e ss m e a n in g b efo re fo rm . O n e w ay o f allow ing learners to m a n a g e the c o g n itiv e lo a d o f b o th ty p e s o f p ro c e ss in g sim ultan eo u sly is to allow th em m o re tim e a n d attention to p lan th e ir production. Specifically, M e h n e rt (1998) f o u n d th a t, w ith e v e n a m in u te o f p la n n in g tim e , a c c u ra c y in c re a s e d
3 8 R e v . B r a s i l e i r a d e L i n g U i s t i c a A p l i c a d a , v . l , n . l , 2 0 0 1
f o r p la n n in g tim e on accu racy in a sto ry re te ll task. O verall, th e resu lts fo r
e ffe c t o f planning tim e on accuracy are m ix ed and difficult to co m p are b ecause th e y in vo lv e d iffe re n t tasks, p la n n in g c o n d itio n s an d p ro fic ie n c y levels. H o w e v e r, O rteg a n o te s that th e re is e n o u g h e v id e n c e o f in c re a s e d fo c u s on f o r m w ith additional p la n n ing tim e to m a k e it a p ro m isin g a v e n u e fo r fu rth er r e s e a r c h . B e y o n d p la n n in g tim e , o n e c a n s p e a k m o re b ro a d ly o f th e m a n ip u la tio n o f ta sk features, w h ic h can h elp fre e u p le a rn e rs’ a tte n tio n so
th a t th e y can fo c u s o n form in d e p e n d e n tly an d a s n eeded. S k e h a n (1996) su g g e sts , for in sta n c e , tha t if ta s k fa m ilia rity o r c o m p lex ity a re dec rea se d , le a rn e rs m ay b e m o re ab le to fo c u s o n accuracy. In fact, h o w e v e r, S k eh an a n d F o ste r (1999) fo u n d that flu e n c y w a s m o re lik ely to b e in flu e n c e d b y the p re d ic ta b ility o f a ta sk th a n accuracy. In a n o th e r re c e n t study, G ass, M ackey, A lva re z -T o rre s a n d F e m a n d e z -G a rc ia (1 99 9 ) e x a m in e d the e ffe c t o f task
re p etitio n on accuracy, w ith the u nd erly in g assum ption that, w ith the increased c o n te n t fam iliarity w hich accom panied the repeated task, m ore attention m ight b e a v a ila b le to im p ro v e accuracy. T h e y fo u n d so m e m o d e st su p p o rt fo r this,
th o u g h they fo u n d th a t im p ro v e m e n ts d id n o t ca rry o v e r to n ew task s. Izum i, B ig e lo w , F u jiw a ra a n d F e a m o w (1 9 9 9 ) re p o rt s im ila r e ffe c ts fo r ta sk re p e titio n , in this c ase , on n o ticing . T h is m a n ip u la tio n o f ta s k fe a tu re s m ay p r o v e a useful p e d a g o g ic a l tool, p artic u la rly fo r non-ta rgeted p roa c tiv e FonF, o n e w h ic h is b o th u n ob tru siv e an d p la c e s a la rge d eg re e o f the re sp o n sib ility o n th e learner.
N o tic in g th e g a p /n o tic in g th e h o le a n d stag es o f EL a c q u isitio n
Tw o types o f activities that are often suggested as facilitative o f second la n g u a g e le a rnin g are n o tic e -th e -g a p a n d n o tice -th e -h o le activities. In the
d isc u s s io n above, th e y w ere c o n s id e re d together. Indeed, they a p p e a r to b e re la te d p h e n o m e n a (S w ain, 1995; 1998), b u t they d iffer in crucial w a y s tha t p o in t to a no ther a re a o f n ee d e d re se a rc h in FonF.
Noticing
th e g a p occu rs w h e n learn ers n o tice tha t th e ir IL d iffe rs fro m th e target. T h is is a n o th e r w ay o f sa y in g tha t th e y fig u re o u t th a t th e y are m a k in g an error; p e rh a p s th a t they a re u sin g a stabilized IL form . It n ec e ssa rily involves noticing b o th th e IL and T L fo rm s, p re su m a b ly in pu t an d o u tp u t form s. T h e second, n o tic in g th e h o le , ta kes p la c e a t th e p o in t a t w h ic h lea rn e rs rea lize tha t th ey d o n o t h a v eth e m e a n s to sa y so m e th in g th a t th e y w a n t to say. T h is differs fro m n o tic in g th e g a p , in th a t lea rn e rs m a y n o th a v e y e t d e v e lo p e d a n IL fo rm to ex p ress w h a t th ey w ant. A ctivities that p ro m o te n o tic in g the h o le seek to in te rv e n e at
th a t th e h o le w ill b e fille d b y a T L fo rm . In contrast, activities th a t fa c ilitate n o tic in g t h e g a p a tte m p t to d e s ta b iliz e th e IL a n d m o v e it to w a rd m o re ta rg e t-lik e accuracy, w ith a c o m b in a tio n o f p o sitive a n d n e g a tiv e ev id en ce . B y d e fin itio n , n o tic in g th e g a p su g g ests an IL fo rm to w h ic h th e T L fo rm
can b e c o m p a re d . L e a rn ers m a y b e lie v e the y already k n o w the w o rd o r fo rm an d th e y m u s t n o w n o tic e th a t th e y d o n o t, at le a st n o t e x a ctly o r com pletely. In sum , in th e id eal w orld, h o les g e t fille d a n d g ap s g et closed. F ig u re 3 is an
atte m pt to illu stra te this idea.
Noticing the hole
B e f o r e n o t i c i n g A f t e r n o t i c i n g ( i d e a l l y )
Noticing the gap
B e f o r e n o t i c i n g A f t e r n o t i c i n g ( i d e a l l y )
4 0 R e v . B r a s i l e i r a d e L i n g i i i s t i c a A p l i c a d a , v . l , n . l , 2 0 0 1
It is im p o rtan t to b e precise a b o u t this issue. M a n y techniques involving
e x p lic it instruction a n d structured in p u t are attem p ts to m odify IL in th e early
s ta g e s o f ac q u isition . In o th er w o rd s, th e y are a ttem p ts to im p a c t th e c o u rse o f a cquisition at th e initial p oint o f intak e, e ithe r to en su re tha t in p u t b e c o m es
in ta k e , o r tha t in ta k e is target-like b y stru c tu rin g in p u t appropriately. T h is is
o n e o f the central c la im s o f V an P atten ’s in p u t p ro cessin g : th a t th is is th e only
p o in t at w hich c la s sro o m activities c a n h a v e an im p a c t on the d e v e lo p in g EL.
H e a rgu es tha t o u tp u t practice o n ly im p a c ts c o n trol; it can sp e e d u p access to I L form s, in c re a sin g fluency, b u t w ill h a v e n o effect on th e d e v e lo p in g
sy s te m . O nly in p u t d u rin g th e p ro c e ss o f c o m p re h e n d in g m e a n in g c a n do
that. It is, o f c o u rse , p o ssib le fo r th e se a ctivities ta k e p lace p rio r to th e le a rne r d e v e lo p in g a n y I L fo rm a n d th is s e e m s to b e the in te n tio n , b a s e d on
V a n P a tte n ’s m o d e l (1996). H o w e v e r, it se e m s likely th a t m u ch o f th e in p u t p ro c e s s in g w o rk in rea l c la s sro o m s o c c u rs w h e n lea rne rs h a v e a lre a d y
d e v e lo p e d s o m e w h a t stabilized EL fo rm s , w h ich the tea ch er h o p e s c a n b e d e s ta b iliz e d th o u g h this p ro c e ssin g p ra ctice .
T h e p o in t is th a t very little w o rk h a s e x p licitly a dd ressed th e n e e d to
d iffe re n tiate the e ffe c t o f F o n F at v a rio us p o ints o f IL dev elop m en t, alth o u gh
s o m e h a v e e x a m in e d the d ifferential e ffe c t o f d ra w ing /a ttra cting a tten tio n to f o rm at d ifferent le v els o f p ro fic ie n c y o r d e v e lo p m e n ta l re ad ine ss (M ackey,
1 999; M a c k ey a n d P hilp, 1998; N a s s a ji an d S w ain , in p re ss; S p a d a an d L ig h tb o w n , 1999). O n e stage o f a cq u isitio n tha t h a s b een the su b jec t o f m u ch
re s e a rc h is n o tic in g . Several stu d ies h a v e a tte m p te d to m e asu re n o tic in g o r
in s o m e cases, sim p ly m em ory, a ssu m in g th a t this is the first step o n th e w ay to a cq uisition . In o th e r w ords, do le a rn e rs re m e m b e r a w o rd o r fo rm fro m a
p re v io u s activity, te x t etc.? A s y et, th o u g h , w e d o n o t h a v e a c le a r id e a o f
h o w dire ctly this rela te s to their a cq u isitio n. O n e stu dy o f intere st, a ga in , is
I z u m i e t al. (1 9 99 ), w h o n ote th a t th e ir F o n F a ctivity h a d a fa cilita ting effect o n noticing, b u t apparently no t on acquisition, as m easured by gram m a tica lity
ju d g m e n t and p ro d u ctio n tests. T he y attribute this re su lt to the heavy cognitive d e m a n d o f the ex perim ental tasks a n d su g g e st tha t the form s that w ere noticed
m a y n o t h a v e m a d e it b e y o n d sh o rt te rm m em ory. T h is is an im p o rta n t fa c to r to c o n s id e r in d e sig n in g F o n F a c tiv itie s sin c e th e u ltim a te g o a l is lo n g -te rm sto ra g e .
In term s o f G a s s’s m o d e l o f S L A (1 9 97 ), n o tic e-th e -h o le activities m ig h t e n g a g e le a rn in g processes a t the p o in t o f a p p erc e ptio n or, s o m e w h a t later, at intake. T h e difference b e tw e e n n o tic in g the h o le and n o ticin g th e gap
p r o c e ss e s in v o lv e d . N o tic in g th e g a p re q u ire d c o g n itiv e co m p a riso n . T h is m e a n s in c o m in g in p u t w o u ld h a v e to b e c o m p a re d e ith e r to re prese n ta tio n s
sto red in lo n g -te rm m e m o ry o r to tra c e s le ft in sh o rt-te rm m em ory. P re cise ly h o w th is w o rk s is n o t c le a r (th o u g h se e D oughty, in p re ss). D e B o t (2000), fo r in sta n c e , m ain ta in s th a t d ire c t c o m p a riso n is unlikely, in th a t in c o m in g in p u t is a lw a y s p ro c e ss e d b e fo re it is sto red and any c o m p a riso n to it c a n b e
m ad e. N o tic in g the hole, on the o th e r han d , w o uld se e m to b e a sim p le r p ro c e ss in th a t it d o e s n o t re q u ire c o m p a riso n to re p re se n ta tio n s th a t h a v e b e e n p re v io u sly sto re d (e x c e p t p o s sib ly L I re presen tation s).
O pportunities fo r noticing the h ole occur in activities in w h ich learners fee l th e n e e d to u se a fo rm tha t th e y lack , p re su m a b ly a ta sk -u se fu l or, b e tte r
still, the ever-elusive task-essential activity (L oschky and B ley-V rom an, 1993). Possibilities fo r this c a n b e found in a n u m b er o f studies (e.g., D ay and Shapson, 1991, H arle y, 1998; L o s c h k y an d B ley -V ro m a n , 1993). A n o th e r fa m ilia r e x a m p le is S w a in ’s u se o f th e d ic to g lo ss o r o th e r ty p es o f te x t re c re a tio n (1 998, in p re ss). T h e im p o rta n t d iffe re n c e b e tw e en so m e o f th e se activities a n d th o s e u s in g stru c tu re d in p u t is th a t th e n oticing p ro c e ss is trig g e re d b y an o u tp u t activity. L e a rn e rs are a sk e d to re co n stru c t a p a s sa g e th a t is fairly e asily u n d e rsto o d . H o w ev er, a ctu a lly re c re a tin g it re q u ire s th a t th e y d o so w ith a g o o d d e al o f p rec isio n . T h e n e e d to do this p ro m p ts th e m to fo c u s on
fo rm s th e y m a y n o t h a v e in th e ir IL.
Iz u m i, e t al. (1 9 9 9 ), d e sc rib e an in te re stin g v aria tio n o n this m e th o d
o f u s in g o u tp u t to e n c o u ra g e n o tic in g th e g a p o r hole. In th e ir study, lea rn e rs w e re a lso re q u ire d to re c o n stru c t a text, b u t h a d a su b se q u e n t o p p o rtu n ity to stu d y r e le v a n t in p u t. T h e in te n tio n h e re w as to fo c us th e le a rn e rs ’ atten tion m o re n a r ro w ly on th e su b s e q u e n t in p u t th a t they w o u ld n e e d fo r th e n e x t o u tp u t ta sk . In c o n trast, in S w a in 's task s, learners c o n su lte d o n e a n o th e r in d ialog ic re co n stru c tio n s o f m ea n in g , b u t h a d no re c ou rse to th e o rig inal input,
thus a llo w in g fo r th e p o ssib ility th a t th e ta rge t fo rm s w o u ld b e re c o n stru c te d in co rrectly. In d e e d th is d id h a p p e n , th o u g h rarely. In th e Iz u m i e t al. (1999) study, le a rn e rs w e re a llo w e d to r e c h e c k th e ir h y p o th e se s a g a in st th e target b e fo re re a tte m p tin g ou tp u t.
A b r o a d e r view o f fo rm
4 2 R e v . B r a s i l e i r a d e L i n g U f s t i c a A p l i c a d a , v . l , n . l , 2 0 0 1
ite m s and in partic ular, their m e a n in g , ra th e r than a g ra m m a tic a l fo rm , is a b ro a d e r view o f F o n F in that, in ste a d o f p ro c essin g fo rm alon g w ith m eaning, th e le a rne r is p ro c e ss in g w o rd m e a n in g in the c o n tex t o f c o m p re h e n d in g sp o k e n o r w ritten text. Still, it falls w ith in a general discussion o f sim ultaneous o r d u a l p roc essin g, w hich is at th e h e a rt o f FonF.
A n e x a m p le o f this c an b e fo u n d in an o n g o in g stu d y w h ic h tries to a p p ly som e o f th e s e ideas to lex ic a l ac q u isition , in a tre a tm e n t th a t c om b in es
th e possibilitie s o f structured in pu t, n o tic in g the hole, an d su b se q u e n t access to in p u t (Rott, W illia m s and C a m e ro n , 2 0 00). O n e o f the g o als o f th e study is to te st the e ffe ct o f o n e type o f g lo s s in g as a F o n F te ch niqu e . G lo s se s h av e lo n g b e e n u se d in an effort to im p ro v e re a d in g c o m pre h e n sio n a n d to foster le x ic a l d e v e lo p m e n t (D avis, 1989; H o lly an d K ing , 1971; H u ls tijn , 1992;
H u ls tijn , et a l , 1996; Jacobs, 199 4; Ja c o bs, D u fo n an d F o n g , 1994; K o, 1995; W atabe, 1997). M arginal g lo sse s allow learners to attend to th e m eaning o f a n ew w ord w ith o u t d iv erting a ll a tte n tio n fro m the task o f re a d in g . R ott, e t al., includes tw o in te rv e n tio n s w ith an a im o f g ettin g lea rn e rs to attend m o re close ly to w o rd m eaning. T h e firs t in terve n tio n is the u s e o f a m u ltiple c h o ic e m argina l g losses. M u ltip le c h o ic e g losses ra th e r th a n stra ig h t L I d e fin itio n s w e re u se d , b a sed on w o r k b y H ulstijn (1992). H e su g g e ste d that p ro v id in g m ultiple ch oice glosses is su p e rio r to sim ply giving w o rd m eanings b e c a u s e it re q u ire s greater e ffo rt o n th e le a rn e rs’ p a rt a n d th e re fo re , it is h o p e d , leads to d e e p e r p ro c essin g . D e e p e r p ro c essin g is a sso c ia te d w ith g r e a te r reten tio n. T h e seco nd in te rv e n tio n inv olves in p u t-o u tp u t c ycles. T h e te x t is d ivide d in to fo u r sections a n d , a fte r ea ch section, lea rne rs are a sk e d to re c o n s tru c t th a t sectio n o f the te x t in the L 2. R esu lts su g g e st th a t lexical a cq u isitio n is h ig h e st w hen lea rne rs a re p ro v id e d w ith glosses a n d w h e n they a re re q uire d to e n g a g e in these re p e a te d in p u t-o u tp u t cycles. T h e id e a b eh in d
th e d e sig n is th a t th e interv e n tio ns p r o v id e b oth the o p po rtu n ity to n o tic e the h o le an d the m e a n s to fill the h o le. In o th e r w o rd s, learners, in th e p ro c e ss o f re c o n stru c tin g te x t in the L 2, m a y re a liz e th a t th ey do n o t h a v e th e re q u ired w o rd in th eir le xico n , and s u b se q u e n tly re tu rn to the input, p rim e d to focus o n th e w o rd m e a n in g . In still a n o th e r tw ist, in th e ir study o f th e e ffe ct o f ta sk rep etition , G a ss et al. (1 99 9 ) e x a m in e the p ossibility that, d u rin g the e x e c u tio n o f a ta sk w ith fa m iliar c o n te n t and structure, le arn ers m ig h t h av e m o re o p p o rtu n ity to recheck, n o t th e in p ut, b u t th e ir o w n L 2 re so u rc e s and co n se q u en tly , m o d ify their o u tp u t in th e dire ctio n o f the target. T h is is an in tere stin g e x a m p le b ecau se it c a n n o t re a lly b e describ ed as n o tic in g the hole
s in c e th e p a rtic ip an ts u se so m e EL fo rm e v e n in the first ite ra tion o f th e task.
are n o t c o m p a rin g th e ir o u tp u t to th e T L . Instead , th e y a re c o m p a rin g th e ir IL p ro d u c tio n to a n a sp e c t o f th e ir IL k n o w le d g e th a t th ey d o n o t y e t fu lly co ntro l b u t c a n access w h e n th e y d e v o te m o re a ttention to th e re trie v in g it.
N e g o tia tio n a n d fe e d b a c k
T h e re are also other, fam iliar w a y s o f in w hich learners are en c o u rag ed to n o tic e th e gap. P e rh a p s th e tw o m o s t fa m ilia r are (1) im plicitly, in th e b re a k d o w n in c o m m u n ic atio n fo llo w e d b y n eg o tia tion an d (2) m o re directly, th ro u g h fe e d b a c k o n error, w h ic h m a y ta k e a v ariety o f fo rm s. W h e re d o th ese fit in to th e a rse n a l o f F o n F te c h n iq u e s ? N e g o tia tio n h a s tra d itio n a lly b e e n u n d e r sto o d as re su ltin g fro m p ro b le m s o f m e ssa g e c o m p reh en sib ility , that is, w h e n interlocutors restructure th eir utterances in an effort to u n d erstan d
o r to b e u n d e rsto o d (e.g., E llis, 1999; M ac k e y ,1 9 9 9 ; O liver, 1995, 2 0 0 0; P e lle ttieri, 2 0 00 ; P ica , 1994, 1997; P ic a e t al., 1996; S h e h a d e h , 1999; V an den B ra n d e n , 1997). G ass an d V aronis (1991) d istin g u ish a m o n g se v eral types o f p ro b le m s w ith m essag e com prehensibility, only so m e o f w h ic h re su lt
in n e g o tia tio n . O n ly w h a t th ey call
incomplete understanding
is lik e ly to le ad to n e g o tia tio n b e c a u s e it is o nly in th e se circ um sta nc es th a t a p ro b le m in c o m p re h e n sib ility is rec o g n ize d . T h is in c o rpo ra tes th e p ro b le m a tic ity th a t is central to L o n g a n d R o b in so n ’s o rig inal definition o f FonF. P ic a m o s t c learly delineates th a t w ays in w hich negotiation c a n focus learner attention on aspects o f language: b y m aking target input m o re noticeable and b y providing fee db ac k on o u tp u t, a n d in th e pro c ess, c a llin g atten tio n to d isc re p a n c ie s b e tw e e n th e IL a n d t h e T L . W h a t is n o t c l e a r , h o w e v e r , is e x a c t l y w h a t th e c o g n itiv e c o n se q u e n c e s o f b re a k d o w n fo llo w e d b y n e g o tia tio n m ig h t b e. Tow h a t d e g re e d o e s it c o n stitute an in te rru p tio n in the p ro c e ss in g o f m e a n in g ? O n e th e o n e h an d , th e m a in v irtu e o f n e g o tiation , it is said, is th a t it c a n o ffer
a s im u lta n e o u s fo c u s o n fo rm a n d m e a n in g , th u s s tr e s s in g th e fo rm - m e a n in g c o n n e c tio n . O n the o th e r h a n d , a b re a k d o w n d o e s im p ly s o m e sort o f in te rru p tio n o f c o m m u n ic a tio n a n d the refore , p e rha p s, also o f p ro c e ssin g. A g ain , it is n o t c le a r w h e th e r a n d h o w this in te rru p tion p ro v id e s a fa v o ra b le c o n d itio n fo r acquisition.
4 4 R e v . B r a s i l e i r a d e L i n g ü í s t i c a A p l i c a d a , v . l , n . l , 2 0 0 1
b e a ra th e r b roa d . I t w o u ld b e d iffic u lt to do any targeted in stru c tio n in this w ay , a t least w ith th e tools w e h a v e now . T h e re is a m p le e v id e n c e in the lite ra tu re on in te ra c tio n that the lo c u s o f nego tiation is m o st o fte n th e lexicon a n d n o t m o rp h o sy n ta c tic fe a tu re s. P ic a (1 99 7 ) no te s, h o w e v e r, th a t th e fa c t th a t lea rne rs ra re ly n eg o tiate m o rp h o s y n ta c tic a n d o th e r less sa lie n t features is n o t b e c a u se it is n o t p ossib le to d o so, b u t b e c a u se the k in d s o f activities
ty p ic a l o f c o m m u n ic a tiv e c la ssro o m s ra re ly re q u ire th em to. T h is w o u ld b e a n in te re stin g a v e n u e to pursue: to g e t lea rn e rs to fo c us th eir n e g o tia tio n s on a w id e r v ariety o f p red e te rm in e d fe a tu re s. O n e in tere sting re c e n t e x a m p le is p re lim in a ry stu d y o f n egotiation in n e tw o rk -b a se d c o m m un ica tio n, in w h ich P e lle ttie ri (2 00 0) fin d s sig nific an t d iffere nc es acro ss tasks in th e a m o u n t o f n e g o tia tio n su rro u n d in g m o rp h o sy n ta c tic form s.
L y ster (1 99 8; L y ster a n d R a n ta 1997) h a s d isting u ish e d b e tw e e n the n e g o tia tio n o f m e a n in g ju s t d e s c rib e d , an d th e nego tiation o f fo rm , w hich h a s th e m ore p e d a g o g ic a l p u rp o s e o f in c re a sin g accuracy a n d p re c isio n o f m e s s a g e form , a n d is usually in itia te d b y th e teacher. In this c a se, m e ssa g e c o m p re h e n sib ility is n o t u sua lly a t issu e ; it is essentially v a rio u s fo rm s o f fe e d b a c k on e rro r in m essag e fo rm . T h e re is a c o n tin u in g c o n tro v e rs y o v e r th e effe ctive n e ss o f this tech n iq ue, sin c e it is n o t a lw ay s c erta in th a t w h a t the te a c h e r (o r o th e r interlo cu tor) p o in ts o u t as a n e rro r w ill a c tu a lly b e n o tic ed as a n eixor or, e v e n i f this hap pen s, th a t th e le arn er w ill b e ab le to d o any thing a b o u t it. L y ster a n d R a n ta d istin g uish a m o n g v ariou s types o f fe e d b a c k , and in d e e d there has b e e n a proliferation in the literature o f term s fo r this. M u ran o i (to appear) uses the te rm in te r a c tio n e n h a n c e m e n t to describe a ped ag og ical te c h n iq u e th a t in te rw ea v e s in p u t a n d o u tp u t en h an ce m e n t. In re sp o n s e to T L
u s e , th e tea c h e r re p e a ts learn er o u tp u t, h e lp in g to c o n firm th e ir h y p o th e se s. In re sp o n se to n o n T L output, the te a c h e r req ue sts repetition, an d i f necessary, re c a s ts le a rn e r o u tp u t. M u ra n o i fo u n d this te c h n iqu e to b e e ffe c tiv e in in c re a s in g a c c u ra c y in article use. S im ila r results c a n b e fo u n d in N o b o y u s h i a n d E llis (19 93 ) a n d T a kashim a a n d E llis (1999).
R ec asts, th a t is, m o difica tio ns o f le a rn e r o u tp ut to w a rd th e ta rg e t by an interlocutor/teacher, have b een fou n d to b e an effective m etho d o f providing fo c u s e d fe e d b a c k o n errors in fo rm , b o th in experim en tal (M a ck e y a n d P hilp, 1 998; L o n g , In a g ak i an d O rtega, 1998) an d cla ssro o m studies (D o u g h ty and V arela, 1998). H o w e v e r, L y ste r (1 9 9 8 ) a rgu es th a t o nly th o se fo rm s o f fe e d b a c k that p u s h learners to u se th e ir o w n resources in refo rm u lating output are e ffe c tiv e in d e sta biliz ing IL , a n d th us h e d isco u n ts the v alu e o f re c a sts as an c la s sro o m te ch niqu e. H e c la im s th a t learners m a y n o t k n o w th a t th eir
any c h a n g e s m a d e in th e te a c h e r’s re c a s t (see also S eed h ou se, 1997), I t is
possible th a t Ly ster fou n d little effect fo r recasts in his classroom study b ecau se
the re c a sts w e re n e ith e r fo c u se d n o r n arro w . T eachers in his stu d y w e re n o t
sy stem atic in th e ta rg e t o f th e ir c o rre c tio n , in c o n tra st to th e D o u g h ty a n d
Varela study, in w h ich the te ac h e r targeted ju s t tw o form s on w hich to p ro v id e fe ed ba ck . In a d ditio n, in th e ir study, th e erro rs w ere a lw ay s re c a s t in the
sam e w ay, b y ris in g in to n atio n to sig n a l th e error, fo llo w e d b y a ta rg e t-lik e
rec ast o f th e e rro r i f th e le a rne r c o u ld n o t p ro v id e th e T L form . U n lik e L y ster,
they fo u n d a s ig n ific a n t e ffe ct fo r re c a s tin g on th e a c c u ra c y o f th e fo rm s in focus. T h e re c a sts in L y s te r’s stu d y m ig h t b e c h a rac te riz e d as re a c tiv e a n d
u ntargeted , th o se in D o u g h ty an d V are la ’s study, as re ac tiv e a n d targ eted ,
p erh ap s su g g e s tin g so m e p r o m in e n c e fo r th e
targetedness
feature.T h e re is, o f c o u rse , a v o lu m in o u s lite ra tu re on the e ffe c t o f e rro r
co rrection m o re generally, b e y o n d th e n a rro w co n sid e ra tio n s o f re c a sting . T h e re a re c o n tin u in g h e a te d a rg u m e n ts o n the sub jec t an d w h ile b e y o n d the
scope o f th is artic le , th e re a pp ears to b e a n e v e r-g ro w in g b o d y o f e v id e n c e fro m stu d ie s in a n d o u t o f th e c la ssro o m th a t suggests tha t n e g a tiv e fe e d b a c k
o f v a rio u s k in d s c a n h e lp lea rn e rs to n o tic e th e g ap b e tw e e n th e ir o w n
p ro d u c tio n a n d the targ et (e.g., N o b o y u sh i an d E llis, 1993; O liver, 1995,
2 000; P ic a e t al., 1989, P ic a e t al, 1996, T a k a sh im a an d E llis, 1999; V an d en
B ran d e n , 1997).
C onclusion
In su m m a ry th e n , a m a jo r ro le fo r F o n F a pp ears to b e in th e a re a o f
n oticing , (1) o f a fo rm /w o rd fo r the firs t tim e in the input, p o ten tially le a d in g to a c o n v e rsio n to in ta k e o r (2) o f th e fa c t th a t an IL fo rm is at o d d s w ith th e input, le a d in g to d e s ta b iliz a tio n o f th a t fo rm . P erh a p s th e se are tw o p o in ts at
w h ic h F o n F a c tiv itie s w o u ld b e th e m o s t u s e fu l. In a d d itio n , in o u r consideration o f th e effectiveness o f F o n F at various points in IL developm ent, th ere is th e p o ssib ility o f F o n F a c tiv itie s’ in c re a sin g le a rn e r c o n tro l o v e r IL k n o w le d g e , th a t is, th e sp ee d a n d e ffic ie n c y w ith w h ich lea rne rs c an access th e ir k n o w le d g e , m ig h t b e in c re a se d w ith th e u se o f F o n F ac tivitie s. T h is p o ssib ility is d isc u s se d in a re c e n t a rtic le b y G ass e t al. (1999), sp e cifica lly re g a rd in g th e u s e o f ta sk re p e titio n to fre e u p le a rn e r attention. In d e e d , any o f the possibilities already m en tion ed th a t involve m anipulation o f task features
4 6 R e v , B r a s i l e i r a d e L i n g ü í s t i c a A p l i c a d a , v . l , n . l , 2 0 0 1
a n d in c re asin g c o n tro l at m a n y sta g e s o f d ev elop m en t. A lo n g w ith all the
s u p p o rtiv e e v id e n c e , h o w e v e r, th e r e is e n o u g h c o u n te r-e v id e n c e , b o th
e x p e rim e n ta l a n d a ne cd o ta l to w a rra n t c o n tin u in g c a re fu l a n d sk e p tic al c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e effect o f F onF . S o m e su g g e st tha t F o n F is m o re u se fu l in
la te r stages o f d e v e lo p m e n t (V an P atten , 1996; W illiam s, 1 999) b e c a u se in
th e e arly s ta g e s, lea rn e rs c o n c e n tr a te a lm o st e n tire ly o n d e c o d in g an d
ex p ressing m e a n in g . H ow ever, fu rth e r critical discussion o f the effectiveness
o f F o n F even a t la te r stages is also indicated, specifically, on the destabilization o f IL form s th a t h a v e b een u s e d b y th e le a rn e r fo r a e x ten d ed p e rio d o f tim e.
O bviously, so m e tim e s F o n F w o rk s; so m e tim e s it does not. T h e m o re w e
k n o w ab ou t th e factors in v o lv e d in the activities d esc rib ed h e r e an d ab o u t th e c o g n itiv e p ro c e sse s th ey e n g a g e , th e m o re lik ely w e w ill b e to fin d the
re a so n s fo r th e v aria b le resu lts fo r F o n F re p o rte d in the literature, k n o w le d g e
th a t can b e tu rn e d to in c re a sin g p e d a g o g ic a l effectiveness.
R efe re n c e s
J E N S E N , J.B . A in v e s tig a ç ã o d e fo rm a s d e tra ta m e n to e a te le n o v e la : a
e s c a la d a , p a r te 1.
Revista Brasileira de Lingüística
, P e tró p o lis , v.4, n.2 , p .4 3 -7 3 , 197 7 .F R E E M A N , D . R e d e fin in g th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n r e s e a r c h a n d w h a t
te a c h e rs k n o w . In : B A IL E Y , K .M ., N U N A N , D . (E d .).
Voices from the
language classroom.
C a m b rid g e : C a m b rid g e U n iv ersity P re ss, 1996. p .8 8 - 115.B A R D O V I - H A R L I G , K .; D Õ R N Y E I , Z . D o l e a r n e r s r e c o g n i z e p ra g m a tic v io la tio n s ?
TESOL Quarterly
, B lo o m in g to n , v .3 2 , n .2 , p. 2 3 3 - 2 6 2 , 1998.C A R R O L L , S .; S W A IN , M . E x p lic it a n d im p lic it n e g a tiv e fe e d b a c k : A n e m p ir ic a l s tu d y o f th e le a r n in g o f lin g u is tic g e n e ra liz a tio n s .
Studies in
Second Language Acquisition,
v . l 5 , p . 3 5 7 -8 6 , 1993.C E L C E - M U R C I A , M .; D Õ R N Y E I , Z .; T H U R R E L L , S . D i r e c t a p p ro a c h e s in L 2 in stru c tio n : A tu rn in g p o in t in c o m m u n ic a tiv e la n g u a g e te a c h in g ?
TESOL Quarterly
, B lo o m in g to n , v .31, n. 1, p. 1 4 1 - 1 5 2 ,1 9 9 7 . D A V IS , J. F a c ilita tin g e ffe c ts o f m a rg in a l g lo ss e s o n fo re ig n la n g u a g e r e a d in g .Modern Language Journal
, v. 73 , p. 4 1 -4 8 , 1989.D E B O T , K . P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s in a p p lie d l i n g u is t ic s : T r e n d s a n d
p e rs p e c tiv e s .
Annual Review o f Applied Linguistics
, v. 20, p. 2 2 4 -2 3 7 ,2 0 0 0 .D E K E Y S E R , R . L e a rn in g se c o n d la n g u a g e g ra m m a r rules: A n e x p e rim e n t
w ith a m in ia tu re lin gu istic sy stem .
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
v. 17, p. 3 79 -4 1 0 , 1995.
D O U G H T Y , C. C ognitive u n d erp in n in g s o f focus on form . In: R O B IN S O N ,
P. (Ed.).
Cognition and second language instruction
. C am b ridg e: C a m b rid g eU n iv e rsity P ress. (N o p relo)
D O U G H T Y , C.; W IL L IA M S , J. (E d.).
Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition.
C am brid g e: C a m b rid g e U n iv e rsity P ress, 1998a. D O U G H T Y , C.; W IL L IA M S , J. P e d a g o g ic a l choices in fo c us on fo rm . In:D O U G H T Y , C .; W IL L IA M S , J. (E d .).
Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition.
C am bridge: C a m b ridg e U niversity Press, 1998b. p. 197- 261.E L L IS , N . R u le s and in sta nc e s in fo re ig n la n g u a g e le arn ing : In te ra c tio n s o f
im p lic it a n d e xp licit k now ledge.
European Journal o f Cognitive Psychology
,
v. 5, p. 2 8 9 -3 1 9 ,1 9 9 3 .E L L IS , R . T e a ch ing a n d re sea rch : O p tio n s in g ra m m a r te ac h in g.
TESOL
Quarterly
, v. 32, n . l , p. 3 9-60, 1998.E L L IS , R . T h e o re tic a l p e rsp e c tiv e o n in te ra c tio n an d la n g u a g e le arn in g . In:
E L L I S , R . (E d .).
Learning a second language through interaction.
A m ste rd a m : Jo h n B en jam ins, 1999.
F O S T E R , P. A classro o m p ersp e c tiv e o n th e n egotiation o f m ea n in g .
Applied
Linguistics
, v. 19, p. 1 -2 3 ,1 9 9 8 .F O S T E R , P.; S K E H A N , P. T h e in flu e n c e o f sou rce o f p la n n in g a n d fo c u s o f
p la n n in g o n task -b a se d p e rfo rm a n c e .
Language Teaching Research
, v. 3, p.2 1 5 -2 4 5 , 1999.
F O T O S , S. C o n s c io u sn e ss -ra isin g a n d n o tic in g th ro u g h fo c u s o n form :
g ra m m a r ta sk p erfo rm a n c e vs. fo rm a l instru ction .
Applied Linguistics,
v. 14,p. 3 8 5 -4 0 7 , 1993.
F O T O S , S. In te gratin g g r a m m a r in stru c tio n a n d c o m m u n ic a tiv e la n g u a g e
u se th ro u g h g ra m m a r c o n sc io u sn e ss-ra isin g tasks.
TESOL Quarterly
, v. 28,p. 3 2 3 -5 1 , 1994.
F O T O S , S .; E L L IS , R . C o m m u n ic a tin g a b o u t g ra m m a r: a ta sk -b a s e d
a p p ro a ch .
TESOL Quarterly
, v. 2 5, p. 6 0 5 -6 2 8 , 1991.G A S S , S.
Input, interaction and the second language learner
. M a h w a h :4 8 R e v . B r a s i l e i r a d e L i n g u i s t i c a A p l i c a d a , v . l , n . l , 2 0 0 1
G A S S , S .; V A R O N IS , E . M is c o m m u n ic a tio n in n o n n a tiv e s p e a k e r
d i s c o u r s e . In: C O U P L A N D , N ., G I L E S , H .; W E IM A N N , J. (E d .).
Miscommunication and problematic talk.
N e w b u ry P ark, C A : S a g e , 1991. p. 1 2 1 -1 4 5 .G A S S , S .; M A C K E Y , A .; A L V A R E Z -T O R R E S , M . J.; F E R N A N D E Z - G A R C ÍA , M . T h e e f fe c ts o f ta sk re p e titio n o n lin g u istic outpu t.
Language
Learning
, v. 4 9 , p . 5 4 9 -5 8 1 , 1999.H A R L E Y , B . T h e r o le o f fo c u s - o n -f o r m ta sk s in p ro m o tin g c h ild L 2 a c q u is itio n . In: D O U G H T Y , C .; W I L L IA M S , J. (E d .).
Focus on form in
classroom second language acquisition.
C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n iv e r s ity P re ss, 1 9 98 . p. 1 5 6 -1 7 4 .H O L L Y , F., K IN G , J. V o c a b u la ry g lo s s e s in fo re ig n la n g u a g e le a r n in g m a te r ia ls .
Language Learning
, v. 2 1 , p . 2 1 3 -2 1 9 , 1971.H U L S T I J N , J . R e t e n t i o n o f i n f e r r e d a n d g iv e n w o r d m e a n i n g s : E x p e r im e n ts in in c id e n ta l v o c a b u l a r y le a r n in g . In . A R N A U D , P.; B E J O I N T , H . ( E d .) .
Vocabulary and applied linguistics
L o n d o n : M a c M illa n , 1 9 9 2 . p . 1 1 3-125.H U L S T IJ N , J. W h e n d o fo re ig n la n g u a g e le a rn e rs lo o k u p th e m e a n in g o f u n f a m ilia r w o rd s ? T h e in flu e n c e o f ta s k a n d le a rn e r v a ria b le s.
Modem
Language Journal
, v. 7 7 , p . 1 3 9 -1 4 7 , 1993.H U L S T I J N , J .; H O L A N D E R , M .; G R I E D E N U S , T. I n c i d e n t a l v o c a b u la ry le a rn in g b y a d v a n c e d fo re ig n la n g u a g e students: T h e in flu e n c e o f m a rg in a l g lo ss e s , d ic tio n a ry u se , a n d re o c c u rre n c e o f u n k n o w n w o rd s.
Modern Language Journal
, v. 8 0 , p . 3 2 7 - 3 3 9 , 1996.H Y L A N D K . W ritin g w ith o u t c o n v ic tio n ? H e d g in g in s c ie n c e re s e a rc h a rtic le s .
Applied Linguistics
, v. 17, p . 4 3 3 - 4 5 4 , 1996.IZ U M I, S .; B IG E L O W , M .; F U J IW A R A , M .; F E A R N O W , S. T e stin g th e o u tp u t h y p o th e s is : E ffe c ts o f o u tp u t o n n o tic in g a nd se c o n d la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n .
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
v. 2 1 , p . 4 2 1 - 4 5 2 , 1999J A C O B S , G . W h a t lu rk s in th e m a rg in : U s e o f v o c a b u la ry g lo s s e s as a s tr a te g y in s e c o n d la n g u a g e re a d in g .
Issues in Applied Linguistics
, v. 5,p. 1 1 5 -1 3 7 , 1994.
in foreign language learning.
H o n o lulu : U niversity o f H a w a i’i P ress, 1995. p. 183-216.K U P F E R B E R G , L; O L S H T A IN , E. E x p lic it contrastive instruction facilitates
th e a c q u isitio n o f d ifficu lt L 2 form s.
Language Awareness,
v. 3, p. 149-165, 1996.K O , M . G lo s sin g in in c id e n ta l an d in te n tio n a l le a rnin g o f fo re ig n la n g u a g e
v o c a b u la ry a n d rea ding .
University o f Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL
, v.13, p. 4 9 -9 4 ,1 9 9 5 .
L E O W , R . T h e effects o f in pu t e n h a n c e m e n t and tex t length on a d u lt re a d e rs ’
co m p reh en sio n and intake in seco n d lan g u ag e acquisition.
Applied Language
Learning
, v. 8, p. 1 5 1 -1 8 2 ,1 9 9 7 .L I G H T B O W N , P. T h e im p o r ta n c e o f tim in g in fo c u s o n fo rm . In :
D O U G H T Y , C .; W IL L IA M S , J. (Ed.).
Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition.
C am bridge: C am b rid g e U niversity Press, 1998. p. 177- 196.L O N G , M . H . In stru c te d in te rla n g u a g e d e v elo p m e n t. In: B E E B E , L . (E d.).
Issues in second language acquisition.
N e w York: N e w b u ry H o u se , 1998. p.1 1 3-14 1.L O N G , M . H . F o c u s o n fo rm : A d e s ig n fe a tu re in la n g u a g e te a c h in g
m etho do log y. In: D E B O T , K ., G IN S B E R G , R .; K R A M S C H , C . (Ed.).
Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective.
A m sterd am : Jo h n B e n ja m in s, 1991. p. 39-52.L O N G , M . H . T h e ro le o f th e lin gu istic e n v iro n m e n t in se c on d la n g u a g e
acquisition. In: R IT C H IE , W. & B H A T IA , T. (E d.).
Handbook o f research
on second language acquisition.
N e w Y ork: A c a d e m ic P re ss, 1996. p. 41 3 - 468.L O N G , M . H .; IN A G A K I, S.; O R T E G A , L . T h e ro le o f im p lic it n e g a tiv e
fe e d ba ck in S L A : M o d e ls a n d re c a sts in Ja p a n e se a n d S panish.
Modem
Language Journal
, v. 8 2 , p . 3 5 7 - 3 7 1 ,1 9 9 8 .L O N G , M .; R O B IN S O N , P. T heory, re se a rc h an d p ractice. In: D O U G H T Y ,
C .; W IL L IA M S , J. (E d.).
Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition.
C am b rid g e : C am b rid g e U n iv e rsity P re ss, 1998. p. 15-41. L O S C H K Y , L .; B L E Y - V R O M A N , R . G r a m m a r a n d t a s k - b a s e dL Y S T E R , R .; R A N T A , L . C o r r e c tiv e f e e d b a c k a n d le a r n e r u p ta k e : N e g o tia tio n o f f o r m in c o m m u n ic a tiv e c la s s ro o m s .
Studies in Second
Language Acquisition,
v. 19, p. 3 7 -6 6 , 1997.M A C K E Y , A . I n p u t, in te ra c tio n a n d s e c o n d la n g u a g e d e v e lo p m e n t: A n e m p iric a l study o f q u e s tio n fo rm a tio n in E S L .
Studies in Second Language
Acquisition
, v. 2 1 , p . 5 5 7 -5 8 7 . 199 9 .M A C K E Y , A .; P H I L P , J, R e c a s t s , i n t e r a c t io n a n d i n t e r l a n g u a g e d e v e lo p m e n t: A re re s p o n s e s re d h e r rin g s ?
Modem Language Journal,
v.8 2 , p . 3 3 8 -3 5 6 , 1 9 9 8 .
M E H N E R T , U . T h e e f fe c ts o f d iff e r e n t le n g th s o f tim e fo r p la n n in g on s e c o n d la n g u a g e p e rfo rm a n c e .
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
V. 2 0 , p . 8 3 - 1 0 8 ,1 9 9 8 .
M U R A N O I , H . F o c u s on f o r m th r o u g h in te r a c t io n e n h a n c e m e n t: I n t e g r a t i n g f o r m a l in s tr u c t io n in to a c o m m u n ic a ti v e t a s k in E F L c la s s ro o m s .
Language Learning
, v. 5 0 , n. 4 , p. 6 1 7 -6 7 3 , 2 0 0 0 .N A S A J I , H .; S W A IN , M . A V y g o ts k ia n p e r s p e c t iv e o n c o r r e c tiv e f e e d b a c k in L 2: T h e e ffe c t o f ra n d o m v s. n e g o tia te d h e lp on th e le a rn in g o f E n g lis h a rtic le s.
Language Awareness.
(N o p re lo ).N O B U Y O S H I, J.; E L L IS , R . F o c u s e d c o m m u n ic a tio n ta sk s a n d s e c o n d la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n .
ELT Journal
, v. 4 7 , p. 2 0 3 -2 1 0 , 1993.O L IV E R , R . N e g a tiv e f e e d b a c k in c h ild N S -N N S c o n v e rs a tio n .
Studies
in Second Language Acquisition,
v. 17, p. 4 5 9 -8 2 , 1995.O L IV E R , R . A g e d iffe re n c e s in n e g o tia tio n a n d fe e d b a c k in c la s s ro o m a n d p a irw o rk .
Language Learning,
v. 5 0 , p. 1 1 9-1 5 1 , 2 0 0 0 .O R T E G A , L. P la n n in g an d fo c u s o n fo rm in L 2 o ra l p e rfo rm a n c e .
Studies
in Second Language Acquisition,
v. 21 , p. 1 0 9 -1 4 5 , 1999.O V E R S T R E E T , M . T e x t e n h a n c e m e n t a n d c o n te n t fa m ilia rity : T h e fo c u s
o f le a r n e r a tte n tio n .
Spanish Applied Linguistics,
v. 2, p . 2 2 9 - 2 5 8 ,1 9 9 8 . P E L L E T T IE R I , J. N e g o tia tio n in c y b e rs p a c e : T h e r o le o f c h a ttin g in th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f g ra m m a tic a l c o m p e te n c e . In : W A R C H A U E R ; K E R N , R . (E d .).Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice
.
C a m b rid g e : C a m b rid g e U n iv e rs ity P re s s , 2 0 0 0 . p . 5 9 -8 6 .P I C A , T. R e s e a rc h o n n e g o tia tio n : W h a t d o e s it re v e a l a b o u t s e c o n d
la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n ?
Language Learning,
v. 4 4 , p. 4 9 3 -5 2 7 , 199 4 . P I C A , T. S e c o n d la n g u a g e te a c h in g a n d re s e a r c h re la tio n s h ip s : A N o rth A m e r ic a n view .Language Teaching Research
, v. 1, p. 4 8 -7 2 , 1997. R O B IN S O N , P. L e a rn in g sim p le a n d c o m p le x se c o n d la n g u a g e ru le s u n d e r im p lic it, in c id e n ta l, r u le -s e a rc h a n d in s tr u c te d c o n d itio n s .Studies in
Second Language Acquisition,
v. 18, p . 2 7 -6 8 , 1996.R O B IN S O N , R A utom aticity and generalizability o f second language learning
u n d e r im p lic it, inc id e nta l, e n h a n c e d , a n d in stru cted co nd itio n s.
Studies in
Second Language Acquisition,
v. 19, p. 2 33 -2 4 7 , 1997.R O S A , E .; O ’N E IL L l, M . E x p lic itn e ss, in ta k e and th e issu e o f a w aren ess: A n o th e r p ie c e o f the pu zzle.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
v. 21,p. 5 1 1 -5 5 3 , 1999.
SC H M ID T , R . T h e role o f consciousness in second language learning.
Applied
Linguistics
, v. 11, p. 17-46, 1990.S C H M ID T , R . C onsciousness a n d fo re ig n lang u ag e learning. In: S C H M ID T ,
R. (Ed.).
Attention and awareness in foreign language learning.
H o no lulu : U n iv e rsity o f H a w a i’i P ress, 1995. p. 1-63.S E E D H O U S E , P. T h e c ase o f th e m is s in g “n o ” : T h e re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n p e d a g o g y a n d intera ctio n.
Language Learning
, v. 47, p. 5 4 7 -5 8 3 , 1997. S H E H A D E H , A . N o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s ’ p r o d u c t i o n o f m o d i f i e d c o m p re h e n sib le o u tp u t a n d se c o n d la n g u a g e learning.Language Learning,
v. 49 , p . 6 2 7 -6 7 5 ,1 9 9 9 .S K E H A N , P. A fra m e w o rk fo r th e im p lem en tatio n o f task-b ased instruction.
Applied Linguistics,
v. 17, p. 3 8 -6 2 , 1996.S K E H A N , P.; F O S T E R , P. T h e in flu e n c e o f task structure a n d p ro c e ssin g cond ition s o n narrative retellings.
Language Learning,
v. 49, p. 9 3 -1 2 0 ,1 9 9 9 . S P A D A , N . F o rm -fo c u sse d in stru c tio n a n d seco nd la n g u a g e ac q u isition : A re v iew o f c la s sro o m and la b ora to ry re se a rc h .Language Teaching Abstracts,
v. 30 , p. 7 3 -8 7 ,1 9 9 7 .
SPA D A , N .; L IG H T B O W N , P. In stru ctio n and the d ev elop m en t o f questions in th e L 2 c la ssro o m .
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
v. 15, p. 2 05- 21, 1993..SP A D A , N .; L IG H T B O W N , P. In stru c tio n , first la n g u a g e in flu e n c e an d d e v e lo p m e n ta l re ad ine ss in se c o n d la n g u a g e acquisition.
Modem Language
Journal
, v. 83, p. 1 -2 2 ,1 9 9 9 .SW A IN , M . T h ree functions o f o u tp u t in second language learning. In: C O O K ,
G .; S E E F L H O F E R , B . (E d.).
Principle and practice in applied linguistics.
O xfo rd: O x fo rd U n iv ersity P re ss, 1995. p. 125-44.S W A IN , M .; L A P K IN , S. P ro b le m s in o u tp u t a n d th e c o g n itiv e p ro c e ss e s th e y g e n e r a te : A s t e p to w a r d s s e c o n d l a n g u a g e le a r n in g .
Applied
Linguistics
, v. 16, p . 3 7 1 -3 9 1 , 1 995.S W A IN , M .; L A P K IN , S. In te ra c tio n a n d s e c o n d la n g u a g e le a rn in g : T w o
a d o l e s c e n t F r e n c h im m e r s io n s tu d e n t s w o r k i n g to g e th e r .
Modern
Language Journal
, v. 8 2 , p. 3 2 0 -3 3 7 , 1998.T A K A S H IM A , H .; E L L I S , R . O u tp u t e n h a n c e m e n t a n d th e a c q u is itio n
o f p a s t te n se . In: E L L I S , R . (E d .).
Learning a second language through
interaction.
A m s te rd a m : J o h n B e n ja m in s , 1999. p. 1 73-188.V A N D E N B R A N D E N , K . E ffe c ts o f n e g o tia tio n on la n g u a g e le a r n e r s ’
o u tp u t.
Language Learning
, v. 4 7 , p . 5 8 9 -6 3 6 , 1997.V A N P A T T E N , B .
Input processing and grammar instruction
. N e w Y ork:A b le x . 1996.
W A T A N A B E , Y. I n p u t, in ta k e , a n d r e te n tio n : E f f e c ts o f in c r e a s e d p r o c e s s in g on in c id e n ta l le a rn in g o f fo re ig n la n g u a g e v oc ab ulary .
Studies
in Second Language Acquisition
, v. 19, p . 2 8 7 -3 0 7 , 1997.W H I T E , J. G e ttin g th e l e a r n e r s ’ a tt e n tio n : A ty p o g r a p h ic a l in p u t
e n h a n c e m e n t study. In : D O U G H T Y , C .; W IL L IA M S , J. (E d .).
Focus on
form in classroom second language Acquisition.
C a m b rid g e : C a m b rid g eu n iv e r s ity P re ss, 1 9 9 8 . p. 85-113.
W H I T E , L . A d v e rb p la c e m e n t in s e c o n d la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n : S o m e
p o s itiv e a n d n e g a tiv e e v id e n c e in th e c la s s r o o m .
Second Language
Research
, v. 7, p. 1 3 3 -6 1 , 1991.W IL L IA M S , J. L e a rn e r-g e n e ra te d a tte n tio n to fo rm .
Language Learning
,
v. 4 9 , p . 5 8 3 -6 2 5 , 1 99 9 .W IL L IA M S , J.; E V A N S , J. W h a t k in d o f fo c u s o n w h ic h f o rm s ? In:
D O U G H T Y , C .; W I L L IA M S , J. (E d .).
Focus on form in classroom
second language Acquisition
. C a m b rid g e : C a m b rid g e U n iv e rsity P re ss ,1 998. p . 1 3 9 -1 5 5 .
