Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Broadly speaking, the acquisition-related rationale behind the activities you’ve just
seen is that the underlying grammatical system of a second language is driven
forward and internalised through exposure to L2 input. In other words, people can
learn by listening and reading. One might wonder, then, to what extent Krashen’s
claim that comprehensible input is both an efficient and sufficient condition for
language acquisition (Krashen 1981) holds up. Personally, I don’t think it does
(particularly with adults and late teens) and that is so for two basic reasons. First,
there is ample research evidence that comprehensible output (Swain 1985) has a
major part to play in the acquisition process. In other words, we also learn to speak
by speaking. Second, input is by no means a monolithic construct. It is the latter
argument that I intend to develop now.
a. Left to their own devices, most learners are believed to process input for
meaning before they process it for form (Skehan 1998). Recent research
suggests that when decoding messages, listeners achieve effectiveness in fast
language processing by drawing heavily on schematic knowledge (remember
the listening session?), largely bypassing the underlying grammatical system. In
other words, a good comprehender may be an effective strategy user rather
than someone who extracts syntactic inferences from the input being
processed. Luiz Otavio Barros. A good task achiever but poor language
detective, as it were.
b. So, if top-down processing (for all its usefulness in comprehension) may leave
learners’ interlanguages (=their developing systems) unscathed, it seems
important that they should consciously attend to the linguistic features of the
©Luiz Otavio Barros. All rights reserved. Email me at luizotaviobarros@gmail.com
input, without which it is less likely to become intake. For example, when
students hear the fitness text for the first time, they’ll naturally process it for
meaning (i.e., pay attention to what was said). Then, having to listen and write
it down may prompt some students to attend to form as well. And finally, by
comparing their versions to the original it’s likely that students will notice a
linguistic gap between what they wrote and the original text.
c. Intake, then, from a processing-based perspective, is the part of the input that
learners notice (Schmidt, 1990). In short, no noticing (and re-noticing), no
acquisition (Ellis 1997).
There are, however, relatively few studies providing empirical support for the role of
noticing in language learning. The most comprehensive account was provided by
the well-known Schmidt and Frota study. Luiz Otavio Barros. The researcher Richard
Smith kept a diary of his experience learning Portuguese in Brazil. Initially, he had
enrolled in a language school where there was a heavy emphasis on grammar
instruction. When he subsequently left these classes to travel in Brazil (which he did
for nearly six months), his Portuguese improved considerably. Initially, he attributed
his progress to the fact that he was making use of the language. However, as he
interacted with Brazilians, he was aware that certain features of the talk seemed to
stand out more than others. In other words, he noticed (and re-noticed and re-
noticed) certain grammatical items. Interestingly, these items were also items he
had studied in his classes. Schmidt concluded that the grammar instruction he had
received previously, while insufficient in itself to turn him into a reasonably
competent Portuguese speaker, had primed him to notice what might otherwise
have gone unnoticed, and hence had indirectly influenced his learning. It had
acted as a kind of advance organiser (Thornbury 1999) for his later acquisition of
the language.
For present purposes, I would like to propose three different categories for
production-oriented grammar work: meaning-focused, form-focused, and form-
defocused. Let me discuss each one in turn.
Perhaps because of the inevitable association with the now largely discredited
audio-lingual model, it is hardly surprising that the engagement of learners in
practice has been “on the decrease in many classrooms” (Pica, 1994), many
Cultura classrooms for that matter. The criticism leveled against form-focused
practice is usually summarised as follows:
a. First, it is probably not a leap of logic to claim that drilling can be potentially
useful in the long run because of its input contributions rather than its production
value. In other words, practice may work because it helps students notice and re-
notice and re-notice certain language forms. Luiz Otávio Barros.
b. Drilling certainly has its place in the teaching of formulaic chunks of language
that are assembled and learned as wholes, e.g.: What’s the matter? Do you know
what I mean? How long does it take to get there? Could you do me a favour? If I
were you, I’d think twice etc.
Form-defocused grammar work operates on the premise that practice may lead
to future use as long as it bears some degree of resemblance to terminal