Focus on form

[sfuqua]

Some people get a lot of comprehensible input and reach native-like production skills.
Other people get a lot of comprehensible input and fossilize far short of native-like production.

One idea that used to be knocking around SLA circles was that the more successful learners pay more attention to the form of the language in addition to simply comprehending the meaning of the input. This does not mean formal instruction with a teacher, or grammar drills, or even practice -- it means that the learner pays attention to how the language is put together, as well as paying attention to what it means.

According to this idea, attention only to meaning leads to comprehension and flawed production. At least occasional attention to the form of the language leads to more native-like production. Many features of language are redundant, and may not be needed for comprehension, but these same redundant features are needed for native-like production. A focus on form may make these redundant features of the language salient and facilitate their acquisition.

Of course like many ideas about language it is difficult operationalize this, you can't just look at unsuccessful learners and say that they didn't focus on form.

I think it would be surprising to find an adult language learner who speaks a language well who never paid attention to the form of the language.

[Serpent]

Totally agree. That's probably ridiculous but I always feel bad missing individual words, even in L1. (Unless I've decided that something is not worth reading properly and I'll just skim it) This probably accounts for my atrocious reading speed.
That's exactly what I love lyricstraining for, and why I also recommend GLOSS and making your own exercises.

[emk]

One idea that used to be knocking around SLA circles was that the more successful learners pay more attention to the form of the language in addition to simply comprehending the meaning of the input. This does not mean formal instruction with a teacher, or grammar drills, or even practice -- it means that the learner pays attention to how the language is put together, as well as paying attention to what it means.

One of the skills I needed to develop in order to progress from A2 to B2 was to pay attention what people were actually saying, and not just some approximate version that only existed in my head. This is really hard to describe. But when I'm reading, I'll briefly pause 5 or 6 times a page to quickly notice an interesting detail: the gender of a word, the choice of a preposition, a new use of a word that I already knew. This takes only a couple of seconds. Similarly, when I'm watching TV, sometimes I'll blink in surprise and say, "Une cible? I thought it was un." Or when I'm listening to Avatar in Spanish, I might hear Tu prueba final será un duelo and say, "Huh. Será and not some form of estar? Interesting." I couldn't explain the rules for ser and estar at all, or even identify many of their conjugated forms. But I try to at least be aware of which words are used when, at least some of the time.

This awareness didn't come naturally; I had to cultivate it

In theoretical terms, I strongly suspect that the brain probably does contain a language acquisition device, a specialized bit of machinery for learning languages. I also believe that this machinery exists in adults, but that it's a little creaky and not quite operating up to spec. And most adults are trying to operate this machinery under conditions where it wouldn't work reliably even in children—too little input, not enough need to speak. And one of the known problems with this machinery is that it may try to jam unfamiliar input into familiar categories. Happily, it's possible to work around these weaknesses to a certain extent by occasionally paying attention to which words are used when.

[iguanamon]

I've been translating Haitian Creole, Lesser Antilles French Creole, and Ladino folktales into English in my log. I don't do this as an exercise but to share what I'm reading so others can get a flavor of it and maybe, perhaps, see some connections with French and, in the case of Ladino- Spanish/Turkish/Hebrew/Arabic. I always find that I have to really concentrate when I do this. I know what the passage means but finding the right way to say it in English... sometimes the words just don't sound right even after several attempts. This is, to me, because of the way these languages are put together. It has given me a much greater respect for good professional translators who can make an author's writing come alive in another language.

This is one reason why I do a multi-track approach to learning. Because I am getting all the grammar at once, I have to pay attention to it and figure out why a stretch of text may be done in a particular way. Because I am paying attention to it more, I seem to incorporate it in a deeper way than just having a textbook tell me,

I believe that learning a language well is composed of so many little things that it can be really hard to sum it up in just a few sentences- or, as emk says, to even explain it. These "little things", while individually may not be all that important, in aggregate they can make the difference between progressing to a high level or getting stuck at a lower one.

[s_allard]

In another thread I said that productive knowledge is analytical and metalinguistic. This is exactly what I was referring to. Adult learners do not have the luxury of time and immersion that children have. Therefore we have to use grammar books and dictionaries among other tools that focus on language.

But there's more to the issue than focussing on form. What is also very important, especially in the spoken language, is appropriateness, that is saying something right in the context. This includes register, of course, but also things like politeness, cultural references, style, puns, jokes, etc.

It should be remembered that the CEFR assessment models speaks of 5 criteria and not four, as many people think: oral production, written production, oral reception, written reception and spoken interaction. This oft-neglected criterion covers precisely this idea of appropriate discourse.

[sfuqua]

I bring up a focus on form, because in a couple of threads people have expressed dissatisfaction with the results of extensive reading and listening. The thread on "activating passive knowledge" and the thread on "the way of the lazy fist" both imply that even massive input leaves some learners dissatisfied with their production.
Focusing on form may be something that helps some learners, but I think that there are a huge number of ways a user might do this. I meant to keep the term general in that it might help learners see why a large number of superficially dissimilar activities might all be effective because they all encourage the learner to do more focus on form.

I would guess that focus on form need be nothing more complex than what emk mentioned.

I think that many researchers might question whether a focus on form is necessary for advanced production. Krashen, for instance, explicitly rejects this. He may have adjusted his opinion on this; I haven't read everything he has written lately, he can be a slippery fellow about what some of his terms mean

I believe this is an open question. I do know some advanced learners who claim that they never studied grammar, which I think means that they never studied a grammar book or took a course. I guess you might not call getting drunk with a bunch of friendly native speakers a form of study, but if the drunken conversation includes repeating sentences the native speakers say, and getting laughed at and repeating corrections is a part of the drinking session, I think it is activity that focuses at least partially on form, despite the laughter, singing, and bad jokes involved. I suspect that this kind of interaction and many others can replace the need for explicit study for some learners.

[garyb]

This is the point I was trying to make on the Activating Passive Knowledge thread - hope nobody minds me quoting myself:

Perhaps the people whom corrections don't help are also the people whom input doesn't help, because they aren't paying adequate attention? Just speculating, but I know many non-native English speakers who've been living in the UK for years, who express themselves fluidly and must have had thousands of hours of listening by now, but still make very basic mistakes like "an person" instead of "a person". Which seems about as egregious as the "mon fille" example. Massive input hasn't fixed the error, and I also doubt that in all these years they've never been corrected. This seems like a question of the learner's attitude and mindset, rather than the methods they're using: they don't see correctness as important as long as they're understood. I reckon that someone who does value correctness more would get far more benefit from both input and corrections.

So I completely agree, that just hearing correct language isn't enough and you also need to pay attention to the form. Of course this is just based on my observation and speculation and it's hard to say how significant this is compared to other factors.

[s_allard]

Last night at the end class a student came up to me to talk about another lecture I would be giving and said at one point: "I'm very interesting." I was slightly taken aback but I then corrected her with "I'm sure you're interesting but you probably meant 'interested.'" We had a good laugh as she told me that all these years she never noticed the distinction between interested and interesting. Now she'll probably never make this mistake again.

I mention this anecdote to make the point that correction is extremely important in the march towards native-lke production. By the way, I think that native-like production is a very tall order. Usually this means great phonology that is close to that of a native speaker. When you add to that grammar, lexis and discourse skills there's a huge amount of effort.

What this also means is massive output. Comprehensible input is a given, no doubt about that. But performance requires output. Speaking a language has a mechanical component and the more you speak the better you get. Something like phonology is all mechanics and correction. Listening to tons of recordings is great but add to that some time with a voice teacher and the results will be fantastic.

Another factor in high-level production is interaction with native speakers. My observation is that great speakers of a language - I see it in French, English and Spanish daily - have spent a lot of time around native speakers. This can take many forms, of course, such as living in the country, romantic relationships, immersion in school, etc. This really makes a huge difference between the person who sounds naturally fluent and the person who may know a lot of the language but is hesitant and constantly searching for words.

[Elenia]

I agree that focus on form is important. My output in Swedish is far from native-like, but paying close attention to input does help me a lot. I talked about attention in my post in The Way of the Lazy Fist. I wrote that I find paying attention to certain details helps me remember them better than simply writing them down. This attention can be as simple as what emk suggests - just taking the time out to notice constructions. Personally, I find I do better when I hand write these constructions on a sheet of blank paper. I'm more likely to recognise it when I come across it later, to understand what it is doing in the sentence, and to be able to reproduce it in my own output.

I also agree with s_allard about the importance of massive output. While I can't speak for the benefits of spoken output, I can certainly see improvements from written output. One example in particular: I would often get corrected about my placement of 'inte' in certain clauses, but I couldn't begin to understand why I was wrong, and so I didn't know how to fix it. It wasn't until I started writing for the output challenge that I started seeing the pattern emerging, and understood that 'inte' behaves differently in subordinate clauses. I later read up on a little more grammar about clause construction, and found out that the conclusion I had reached was absolutely right.

[sfuqua]

I should have put this link in my first post http://web.iaincirebon.ac.id/ebook/Indrya/Attention/SCHMIDT%20A%20tutorial%20on%20the%20role%20of%20attention%20and%20awareness%20in%20learning.pdf

I was lucky enough to have several courses with Richard Schmidthttp://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/aboutus/schmidt/, and I can tell you he is a great teacher. He is an adult second language learner as well as a second language acquisition professor.