Pedagogical Interventions to L2 Grammar Instruction

doi:10.1017/9781108333603.021

20 - Pedagogical Interventions to L2 Grammar Instruction

from Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019

Alessandro Benati and

John W. Schwieter

Edited by

John W. Schwieter and

Alessandro Benati

Show author details

John W. Schwieter: Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati: Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The role of instruction in L2 acquisition has been a key question and a theoretical issue in the field. It was directly addressed by Long (1983) in a paper in which he presented the results of several classroom-based empirical studies, all addressing the question of whether instruction can be beneficial for L2 learners. In his review, he considered eleven studies which examined whether the learners receiving instruction achieved a higher level of proficiency than those learners who did not. In these eleven studies, classroom only, naturalistic exposure only, and classroom plus naturalistic exposure were compared. Long concluded that the overall findings indicate that instruction is beneficial for adults (intermediate and advanced stages) as well as for children. It is beneficial both in acquisition-rich contexts (i.e., in which learners are exposed to the target language outside the classroom context) and acquisition-poor environments (i.e., in which learners are exposed to the target language only in a classroom context). Such benefits emerge despite the way proficiency is measured. Long concluded that a combination of instruction and naturalistic exposure to the input were optimal conditions as instruction seems to have an effect on the rate of and ultimate success in L2 acquisition.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 477 - 499

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.021 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 65–88.CrossRef Google Scholar

Benati, A. (2017a). Classroom-oriented research: Processing Instruction (findings and implications). Language Teaching.CrossRef Google Scholar

Benati, A (2018). Structured input. In Liontas, J. I. (ed.), TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Benati, A. (forthcoming). Key issues in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Benati, A., & Batziou, M. (2017). The effects of structured-input and structured-output tasks on the acquisition of English causative. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching.Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2001). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill Acquisition Theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1991). Grammar teaching practice or consciousness raising? In Ellis, R. (ed.), Second language acquisition and second language pedagogy (pp. 232–241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 75–93). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hinkel, E. (2002a). Grammar teaching in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 181–198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hinkel, E. (2002b). Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn). In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 233–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hinkel, E. (ed.) (2005). The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J., Thorne, S., & Poehner, M. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 207–226). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013) How languages are learned (4th edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.CrossRef Google Scholar

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K. (ed.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Long, M., & Doughty, C. (eds.) (2009). The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 159–179). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar

Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.Google Scholar

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.Google Scholar

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.CrossRef Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274.Google Scholar

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar

Thornbury, S. (2006). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (ed.) (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd edn., pp. 113–134). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (2016). Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. (2015). Key terms in second language acquisition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition (2nd edn.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar