English Language Teaching in its Social Context

184 MICHAEL H. LONGdcvelopmcnt now completed, not one shows either tutored or naturalistic learnersdeveloping proficiency one linguistic item at a time. On the contrary, all reveal complex,gradual and inter-related developmental paths for grammatical subsystems, such as auxiliaryand negation in ESL (Stauble 1981 ; Kelley 1983), and copula and word ordcr in GSL(Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann 1981). Moreover, development is not unidirectional;omission/suppliance of forms fluctuates, as does accuracy of suppliance.Although most syllabi and methods assume the opposite, learncrs do not move fromignorance of a form to mastery of it in one step, as is attested by the very existence ofdevelopmental scqucnces like that for ESL negation. Typically, when a form first appears ina learner’s IL, it is used in a non-target-like manner, and only gradually improves in accuracyof use. It sometimes shifts in function over time as other new (target-like and non-targetlike)forms enter (Huebner 1983). It quite often declines in accuracy or even temporarilydisappears altogether due to a change elsewhere in the IL (see, e.g. Meisel, Clahsen andPienemann 1981 ; Huebner 1983; Lightbown 1983; Neumann 1977), a phenomenonsometimes describable as U-shaped behavior (Kellcrman 1985). Further, attempts to teachisolated items one at a timc fail unless the structure happens to be one the learner can processand so is psycholinguistically ready to acquire. In Pienemann’s (1984) terminology,learnability determines teachability. Finally, as language teachers, employers and learnersalike will attest, there is a great difference between structural knowledge of a language,when that is achieved, and ability to usc that knowledge to communicative effect.As noted earlier, facts about IL development like these have led some to advocate thatteachers abandon not just a focus onforms, but a focus onform, i.e. any attention to languageas object, as well. Flaws in this reasoning are obvious. Further, reviews of studies of the effectsof instruction on IL dcvclopment (Harley 1988; Long 1988) find clear evidence of somebeneficial effects of a focus onform, and suggestive evidence of others. Briefly, while it is truethat instruction does not seem capable of altcring sequences of developmcnt, it does appcarto offer three other advantages over either naturalistic SLA or classroom instruction with nofocus on form. (1) It speeds up the rate of learning (for review, see Long 1983). (2) It affectsacquisition processes in ways possibly beneficial to long-term accuracy (Lightbown 1983; Pica1983). And most crucially, on the basis of preliminary data, (3) it appears to raise the ultimatelevel ofattainment. Further, as White (1987, 1989) has argued, incomprehensible input anddrawing learners’ attention to inadmissable constructions in thc L2 (two kinds of negativeevidence) may be necessary when learning from positive evidence alone will be inadequate.To illustrate, an L1 may allow placement of adverbs of manner more flexibly than an L2. “Hedrinks every day coffee” and “He drinks coffee every day” arc both acceptable in French, forexample, but not in English. Both will be communicatively effective in English, however,with the result that the French learner of English (hut not the English learner of French) willneed negative input (e.g. error correction) on this point.Whereas the content of lessons with a focus onforms is theforms themselves, a syllabuswith a focus onform teaches something else ~ biology, mathematics, workshop practice,automobile repair, the geography of a country where the foreign language is spoken, thecultures of its speakers, and so on ~ and overtly draws students’ attention to linguisticelements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning, orcommunication. Views about how to achieve this vary. One proposal is for lessons to bebriefly “interrupted” by teachers when they notice students making errors which are (1)systematic, (2) pervasive and (3) remediable. The linguistic feature is brought to learners’attention in any way appropriate to the students’ age, proficiency level, etc. before the classreturns to whatever pedagogic task they were working on when the interruption occurred.(For details and a rationalc, see Crookes and Long 1987; Long, in press).