A Comparison between Focus on Meaning and Focus on Form Instruction

Abstract:In the research field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA)， how language input should be presented to language learners in the classroom has been an issue generating considerable discussion and experimentation. The recent debate is whether focus on form (FonF) instruction has more advantages over focus on meaning (FonM) instruction in foreign language teaching or vice versa. The purpose of the paper is to review the relevant previous literature and empirical researches for a detailed comparison and analysis of the two approaches and finally present a conclusion for further discussion.

Key words:Focus on form Focus on meaning SLA

1 Literature review

1.1 Defining FonM instruction

FonM instruction advocates that L2 is learned best by exposing learners to the target language through communication rather than formal classroom teaching. According to Corder (1967)， SLA takes place incidentally or implicitly to adolescents and adults from exposure to sufficient comprehensible input like it does to children who learn their first language naturally and successfully. Many proponents of meaning-based instruction even argue that it is superfluous to expose L2 learners to instruction that focuses on grammatical form. However， increasing evidence shows that learners continue to have difficulty with the basic structures of the language in programs which offer no form-focused instruction. Long Robinson (1998) put forth the most general picture of the existing problems of FonM instruction:1)Maturational constraint: Older learners no longer have the same capacity as young children to learn a language from mere exposure. 2) Lengthy natural exposure may encourage fluency， but not native-like proficiency. 3) Many L1-L2 contrasts are not learnable from positive evidence alone. 4) Rate disadvantage: Acquiring an L2 through experiencing its use is much less efficient than formal instruction on language and language use.

1.2 Defining FonF instruction

Long(1991)interprets FonF as lecturer’s deliberately directing learner’s attention to linguistic forms of the L2 meanwhile reserving an overriding focus on meaning and communication. Noticing is the intended outcome of FonF.

2 Similarity and difference between FonM and FonF instruction

2.1 Similarity

When comparing the similarity between FonM and FonF instruction， it is noteworthy that the language syllabi of FonM are analytic and the language syllabi of FonF are， likewise，basically analytic. Actually the language syllabi of FonF attempts to retain the strength of analytic syllabi and improve its deficiency (Long， 1991). Analytic syllabi are just as what Long and Robinson (1998， p.19) describe:

Analytic syllabi assume that adolescent and adult L2 learners are still capable， like young children， of 1) subconsciously analyzing linguistic input and inducing rules and/or forming new neural networks underlying what looks like rule-governed behavior...

A FonM approach is concerned with getting the L2 learner to concentrate solely on understanding the message being conveyed. A FonF approach consists of drawing the learner's attention to meaning. Obviously， both approaches hold up the significance of meaningful， authentic， spontaneous communication and student-centeredness in language teaching and learning process.

2.2 Difference

However， FonF instruction is different from the purely communicative instruction. When contrasting the difference， one essential distinction is that FonM instruction excludes attention to the formal elements of the language while a FonF approach allows for the L2 learner to concentrate on the grammatical rules and constructs of the language. Just as Long (1991) argues that FonM instruction is paramount to spending little time on the discrete parts of language; instead， the interest is on the use of language in real-life situations. FonF instruction， in comparison， values the occasional focus on the problematic L2 grammatical forms via overt study， negative feedback， direct explanations， recasts， etc..

In the previous sections， we have examined the similarity and difference between FonM and FonF instruction. The question arises is which type of focus is more beneficial for L2 learners. Recent experimental studies in the area of SLA will throw light on justified conclusion. Long and Robinson (1998) infer that attention to meaning plus formal features has advantage over attention of meaning alone， with the support of empirical evidence from the research conducted by Lightbown Spada (1990). In this study， the researchers examined the developing oral English of approximately 100 native French primary students in four classes. A large corpus of classroom observation data was collected and analyzed. Substantial differences between the classes were found in the accuracy with which students used English structures focused. The evidence indicates that the differences were due to different types of language form instruction and error correction teachers provided within a communicative context.

3 Conclusion

The FonM vs. FonF issue is important to consider for both language learners and teachers. Overemphasizing on grammatical forms will interfere with the communicative purposes. Overemphasizing on fluency will sacrifice learners' accuracy. FonF instruction， as a combination of the merits of grammar-based instruction and meaning-based instruction， calling on teachers and learners to attend to form when necessary yet within a communicative classroom environment， is certainly a preferable approach to adopt. We teachers should develop effective teaching strategies to find a proper balance between exercises that help EFL learners increase awareness of the target structures and rules and tasks for exploring the use of those forms to communicate effectively.

References:

[1]Corder， S. P. The significance of learners’ errors [J].International Review of Applied Linguistics，1967，9:149-59.

[2]Lightbown， P.， Spada， N.. Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning.Studies in Second Language Acquisition， 1990.429-448.

[3]Long， M.. 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，1991.39-52.

[4]Long， M.， Robinson， P.. Focus on form: Theory， research， and practice. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press，1998.