The Relationship Between“Form—focused Approach” and “Language Proficiency”

开篇：润墨网以专业的文秘视角，为您筛选了一篇The Relationship Between“Form—focused Approach” and “Language Proficiency”范文，如需获取更多写作素材，在线客服老师一对一协助。欢迎您的阅读与分享！

【Abstract】In recent years， language researchers and teachers are paying more attention to form-focused language teaching approach. Second language teaching developed from an extreme of Focus of Forms to another extreme of Focus on Meaning. After the failure of two extremes， researchers synthesize the advantages and disadvantages of both methods and show more interests in Focus on Form （Hereinafter referred to as "F on F"）. A lot of researches and practices prove that the method of F on F helps to improve teachers' teaching efficiency and develop students' fluency and accuracy in language using. A good deal of scholars from all over the world start doing further researches into F on F. However， related studies of the relationship between Fon F and Language Proficiency are deficient. Based on the previous theories and researches of F on F， this article talks about the definitions of F on F and Language Proficiency respectively and analyses the relationship between F on F and Language Proficiency. Moreover， the author comes up with some problems existing in language teaching in current China and throws a sprat to further researches.

【Key Words】Focus on form， Language Proficiency， Relationship

Introduction

In the research field of second language acquisition， more and more researchers shift their attention to second language teaching. They try to study the influence second language teaching has on learners' Language Proficiency and strive to find out the effective language teaching methods. Some theories and practices show that in communicative classrooms， F on F method can effectually promote the development of learners' interlanguage system and ensure the sound effects of acquisition. Hence， in recent years， F on F， the new model of teaching has been the main stream of current teaching researches. Michael Long first came up with the teaching principle of F on F， which is different from the methods of Focus on Forms（Hereinafter referred to as "F on FS"） and Focus on Meaning. F on F is a integration of the advantages of these two methods.

This article first analyses the definition of F on F and the difference between F on F and F on FS. Also， the classification of F on F is mentioned. Then， the author talks about the definition of Language Proficiency and its development. Finally， this article explores the relationship between F on F and Language Proficiency and come up with some problems existing in language teaching system in current China.

Focus on Form

Theoretical Background of F on F. The theoretical basis of F on F is from Interaction Hypothesis of Long. The Interaction hypothesis is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of Language Proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication （Long， 2001）. It also claims that comprehensible input is important for language learning. The effectiveness of comprehensible input is greatly increased when learners have to negotiate for meaning （Ellis&Rod， 1997）.

Cognitive psychology also provides theoretical basis for F on F. According to the cognitive psychologists， conscious noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input to intake （Schmidt， 1990）. According to the standard information-processing model for mental development， the mind's machinery includes attention mechanisms for bringing information in， working memory for actively manipulating information， and long term memory for passively holding information so that it can be used in the future（2010）. In 1990， Schmidt proposed and developed noticing hypothesis. Schmidt （1990） proposed the Noticing Hypothesis， according to which the emergence of new forms should be preceded by their being noticed in the input. In other words， the conscious noticing of a mismatch between one's language production and the target form is a necessary and sufficient condition for second language acquisition （Schmidt， 1990）.

Based on the theories mentioned above， Long defined F on F as： "in the context of a communicative interaction， the attention of learners learning a second language is drawn to the form of specific language features"（Long， 1998）. Obviously， this definition focuses on theoretical exploration， and does not give any specific suggestions for classroom teaching. Later， he gave a more practical definition which is convenient for classroom operation. F on F refers to "how focal attentional resources are allocated" to linguistic forms （Long and Robinson 1998）.

Differences between "Focus on Form" and "Focus on Forms". Long made a distinction between F on F and F on FS. According to Long， F on FS is nothing but the traditional structural syllabus， whose shortcomings have been discussed in the literature（Wilkins 1976， Yalden 1983）. On the other hand， F on F is a term that he reserves to refer to instruction that draws learners' attention to form in the context of meaningful communication （Long， 1991）. Based on the definition of F on F， we can say that it helps students pay more attention to the forms of input which they may have ignored. According to Schmidt（1990）， this attention is essential for acquisition. Hence， F on F is an effective tool influencing the process of interlanguage development. The most essential difference between F on F and F on FS is that the former one puts communication as a prerequisite， while the latter one separates linguistic forms from the communicative activity.

The Classification of "Focus on Form". Ellis（2002） gave a comprehensive classification of F on F： planned F on F and incidental F on F.

Planned F on F. Planned F on F is used in focused tasks like communicative tasks designed to use specific meaning-centered languages. It requires teachers to know well about the development rules of Language Proficiency and interlanguage， as well as learners' language levels. However， there are two disadvantages. Firstly， teachers should use their own experiences or instincts to grasp those rules. Secondly， it is really difficult to design a output-oriented communicative activity.

Incidental F on F. Incidental F on F is considered to be a potential way to achieve an integration of meaning-focused and form-focused activities in the second language （L2） classroom （Ellis， 2001）. It is always used in unfocused tasks communicative tasks designed to use general language samples instead of specific languages. In the process of language learning， learners may focus on the language forms extensively.

Hence， we should notice that both methods require the using of communicative task. Just as Ellis summarized： "In the case of planned focus-on-form， the teacher elects to use a task to target a specific linguistic feature and this then influences how the task is performed in the classroom. In the case of incidental focus on form， the forms attended to are not pre-determined but rise naturally out of the performance of the task. Even when the focus on form is planned， incidental attention to a range of forms in addition to the targeted form can occur."（Ellis & Basturkmen & Loewen， 2002）.

Development of Language Proficiency

Language Proficiency is a complicated concept， which is related to a series of factors including learning environment， learners' characteristics， learning process， learning results， learning conditions and so on. According to Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching&Applied Linguistics， Language Proficiency is defined as the skills of using a language for certain purposes. Proficiency means the degree of competence， like reading， writing， speaking， listening or understanding a language.

As Lado defined， Language Proficiency is a complex system of communication with various levels of complexity involving intricate selection and ordering of meanings， sounds， and larger units and arrangements （Lado 1961， p. 2）. He held that language is composed of components called phonemes， morphemes， phrases， clauses， and sentences. Lado's definition of Language Proficiency is a great improvement towards previous ones. The four basic skills of listening， speaking， reading and writing focus on language knowledge as well as communicative activities. As the most indispensable factors of oral communication， listening and speaking have been the most essential indexes of measuring a learner's language level. Moreover， the four skills are the main literary courses for second language teaching in China.

Later， Stern came up with the idea that Language Proficiency includes language competence and communicative competence. Nowadays， the concept of Language Proficiency focuses on the communicative competence of learners rather than language competence. Also， Stern held that language equivalence can be explained as communicative competence which is generalized communicative competence including language competence（Stern， 2000）. Therefore， when using language， learners do not have to consider about the forms， rules or meanings deliberately. Stern made the definition of Language Proficiency materialization. Language Proficiency includes language knowledge as well as some communicative factors， like communicators， communication environment and so on.

The relationship between F on F and Language Proficiency

Theoretical Support

Long & Robinson （1998） believe that the theoretical support of F on F comes from the comparative study between F on F and Focus on Meaning（Hereinafter referred to as "F on M"） . Language teaching practice has proved that F on FS and F on M cannot achieve the expected effects in the development of interlanguage. F on FS helps language learners acquire language competence quickly and accurately. However， communicative competence is ignored. By contrast， F on M effectively develops language learners' communicative competence and ignores language forms. Hence， Long came up with F on F to exploit the advantages to the full and make up for the deficiency.

The premise of F on F is that language learners should have the opportunity to use meaning focused language to successfully use new language forms. That is to say， communication has a basic effect on the cultivation of pragmatic competence. Meanwhile， F on F emphasizes the necessity of form consciousness in the process of communication. Nevertheless， language learners' Language Proficiency so limited that it is difficult for them to give consideration to both of meaning and forms. In communicative activities， learners always give priority to meaning rather than forms. For this reason， it is necessary to take steps to draw language learners' attention to language forms.

The influence F on F has on Language Proficiency

Does F on F influence language equivalence？ What kind of influence it is？ What kind of language teaching methods are effective？ More and more scholars try to study the relationship between F on F and Language Proficiency to answer those questions.

The influence F on F has on overall Language Proficiency. In Long's opinion， a lot of researches prove that language teaching makes a difference in Language Proficiency. When language learners combine language learning in class with communicative language in society and pay attention to language forms and language meanings simultaneously， their Language Proficiency may improve rapidly.

The influence F on F has on the accuracy of language output. The influence F on F has on the accuracy of language output reflects whether Form focused approach has direct effects on language teaching. Pica's research is a typical one. He divided 18 English learners whose mother tongue is Spanish into 3 groups according to their English learning experiences. The first group learned English naturally. The second group learned English in class. The third group learned English both in and out of class. She found that there were interesting differences between three groups. She asserted that the influence F on F has on Language proficiency relies on the language structure. If the language being taught is simple in grammar structure and transparent in function， form focused approach will help to improve the accuracy of language using. By contrast， if the grammar structure is simple while function is complicated， F on F will make language learners acquire language forms but make mistakes when using it. However， if the grammar structure is not prominent and the function is simple， language teaching does not make any differences. Pica's research shows that classroom teaching makes the language output different between language learners in and out of class. When the structure of target language is easy to be acquired， the influence classroom teaching has on language output accuracy is obvious. Therefore， we can conclude that F on F can help to improve the accuracy of language output. Nevertheless， an essential factor is learners' development stage of interlanguage.

The influence F on F has on the route of language acquisition. Can F on F change the natural order or sequence of acquisition？ According to Pienemann's previous researches， he came up with the famous "Teachability Hypothesis"， which states that F on F cannot make language learners step over a certain acquisition stage. When a learner is able to acquire grammar structures naturally， F on F can help to promote the acquisition.

Therefore， language learners in class have the same acquisition sequence of morpheme and grammar as language learners out of class. F on F could never change the natural acquisition sequence. Precocious form focused approach make language learners avoid grammar structure and obstruct acquisition. Nonetheless， F on F is effective in accelerating the process of acquisition and improves learners' understanding of language structure.

From the above discussion， we can conclude the significance of studying the relationship between F on F and Language Proficiency into two aspects. First of all， teachers can inspire students pay more attention to language forms in the process of learning， thus achieving a better effect. Then， language teachers can make better use of F on F in class and improve the accuracy of learners' language using. However， because of the college entrance examination system， in preparation for the exam， English teachers always pay more attention to language forms instead of communicative functions in China. Thus， the phenomenon of "Dumb English" appears in Chinese classrooms. Therefore， the method of F on F may have a instructional significance for English teachers in China to study about and to improve their teaching methods

Conclusions

F on F can help to improve language learners' overall Language Proficiency， accelerating the process of language acquisition and promoting the accuracy of language using. It has a direct guiding significance on second language teaching. F on F makes language learners pay more attention to language forms and provides them with communicative circumstance to achieve the language form significance.

The method of F on F in this article is totally different from the traditional teaching methods in China like cramming education， spoon-feeding method and so on. It is a new teaching principle integrating with communicative thoughts. It regards language learners as language users instead of learners simply. This article tries to find out the relationship between F on F and Language Proficiency and concludes that F on F is indispensable in overall Language Proficiency， accuracy of language output and the route of language acquisition. Hence， the author holds that F on F and Language Proficiency are auxiliary to each other. The author hopes that this article will give language learners some instructions and inspire language teachers to improve teaching methods.

【References】

[1]Ellis， R （2001）. Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning， 1–46.

[2]Ellis， Rod （1997）. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford， New York： Oxford University Press， 47–48.

[3]Harley， B. （1998）. The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition[C]// In C. Doughty & E. Varela （Eds.）. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

[4]Lado， R. （1961）. Language Testing. New York： McGraw-Hill.

[5]Long， M. H.， & Robinson， P. （1998）. Focus on form： Theory， research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams （Eds.）. Focus on form in second language acquisition. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.， 15-41.

[6]Richard W. Schmidt （1990）. The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Oxford Journals Humanities， Applied Linguistics， Volume 11， Number 2， 129-158.

[7]Rod Ellis， Helen Basturkmen， &Shawn Loewen. （2002）. Doing focus-on-form， 419- 432.

[8]Stern， H H （1992）. Issues and Options in Language Teaching （edited posthumously by Patrick Allen & Birgit Harley）. Oxford： Oxford University Press.

[9]Wilkins， D. （1976）. Notional syllabuses. Oxford： Oxford University Press， 33-39.

[10]Yalden， J. （1983）. The communicative syllabus： Evolution， design and implementation. Oxford： Pergamon.