Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-04T14:06:07.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2015

Diane Larsen-Freeman
Diane Larsen-Freeman*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, USAdianelf@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This selective review of the second language acquisition and applied linguistics research literature on grammar learning and teaching falls into three categories: where research has had little impact (the non-interface position), modest impact (form-focused instruction), and where it potentially can have a large impact (reconceiving grammar). Overall, I argue that not much second language acquisition or applied linguistics research on grammar has made its way into the classroom. At the conclusion of the discussion of each of the three categories, I speculate on why this is so. I also find misguided the notion that research should be applied to teaching in an unmediated manner. This is not to say that research should have no impact on pedagogy. In concluding, I offer some ways that I believe it could and should.

Information

Type
Thinking Allowed
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 263 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R. & Cumo-Johanssen, P. (2005). Using a story-based approach to teach grammar. In Shrum, J. L. & Glisan, E. W. (eds.), Teacher's handbook: Contextualizing language instruction (3rd edn). Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 189–213.Google Scholar
Ammar, A., Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: Does it matter? Language Awareness 19.2, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. (1984). The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning 34, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2004). Monopolizing the future or How the go-future breaks into will's territory and what that tells us about SLA. In Foster-Cohen, S. (ed.), EuroSLA Yearbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–201.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2007). One functional approach to second language acquisition: The concept-oriented approach. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 57–75.Google Scholar
Bartels, N. (ed.) (2005). Applied linguistics and language teacher education. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 25.2, 243–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batstone, R. (2002). Making sense of new language: A discourse perspective. Language Awareness 11.1, 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batstone, R. & Ellis, R. (2009). Principled grammar teaching. System 37, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, S. (1999). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom. Applied Linguistics 20.1, 95–126.Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching 43.4, 391–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J. & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit? System 30, 433–458.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education 20, 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (forthcoming), The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course (3rd edn). Boston: Heinle/Cengage.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 160–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 249–297.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–63.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. & Prieto Botana, G. (2014). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, Advanced Access, published 8 December 2014.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P. & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten's processing instruction: An update. Language Learning 52.4, 805–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 256–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 305–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. with Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning 59, Special issue 1, 90–125.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review 19, 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19.3, 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language Teaching 43.2, 182–201.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly 35.3, 407–432.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Gaies, S. (1999). Impact grammar: Grammar through listening. Hong Kong: Longman Asia.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal 87, 242–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 135–154.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 283–302.Google Scholar
Gatbonton, E. & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review 61.3, 325–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haight, C. (2008). The effects of guided inductive, deductive, and garden path instructional approaches and techniques on the learning of grammatical patterns and deviations in the beginning-level foreign language classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Emory University, Georgia.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edn). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. & Odlin, T. (eds.) (2006). Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Harley, B. & Swain, M.. (1984).The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In Davies, A., Criper, C. & Howatt, A. (eds.), Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 291–311.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Apply with caution. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2, 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2012). Language teaching and construction grammar. Applied Linguistics Forum. Arlington, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Pierrard, M. & Van Daele, S. (2005). Rule complexity and the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction. In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (eds.), Investigation in instructed language acquisition. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 235–269.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 349–382.Google Scholar
Jean, G. & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals 44.4, 465–492.Google Scholar
Jensen, E. & Vinther, T. (2003). Exact repetition as input enhancement in second language acquisition. Language Learning 53, 373–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (2009). Trends in language teacher education. In Burns, A. & Richards, J. (eds.), Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, R. (2004). Language teacher education. In Davies, A. & Elder, C. (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 649–671.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly 27, 717–725.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (2011). Seeking a justification for skill-building. KOTESOL Proceedings 2011, 13–20.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2009). Knowledge of language in foreign language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal 93, 270–274.Google Scholar
Lee, J. & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1990). On the need for a theory of language teaching. In Alatis, J. (ed.), The interdependence of theory, practice and research; Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 261–270.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Research on language teaching methodologies: A review of the past and an agenda for the future. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Grammar: Rules and reasons working together. ESL/EFL Magazine January/February, 10–12.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The grammar of choice. In Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 103–118.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Thomson/Heinle.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27.4, 590–619.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Grammar dimensions: Form, meaning, and use (4th edn). Boston: Heinle/Cengage.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009a). Prediction or retrodiction?: The coming together of research and teaching. In Losey, K. & Pearson, C. (eds.), Spotlight on re-search: A new beginning. The selected proceedings of the 2008 MITESOL Conference. Raleigh, NC: LuLu Press, 5–16.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009b). Teaching and testing grammar. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), The handbook of language teaching. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 518–542.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012a). The emancipation of the language learner. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 2.3, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012b). On the roles of repetition in language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics Review 3, 195–210.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning 63. Special Issue, 107–129.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014a). Teaching grammar. In Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M. & Snow, M. A. (eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th edn). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage Learning, 256–270.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014b). Interlanguage: Another step to be taken. In Han, Z.-H. & Tarone, E. (eds.), Interlanguage 40 years later. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Tedick, D. J. (forthcoming). World language teaching. Handbook of Research on Teaching (5th edn). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching 46.1, 108–119.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (2001). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning 51, 113–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liamkina, O. & Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2012). Grammar dilemma: Teaching grammar as a resource for making meaning. The Modern Language Journal 12, 270–289.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for successful language acquisition. In Han, Z.-H. (ed.), Understanding second language process. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 27–44.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching 40.3, 243–249.Google Scholar
Liu, D. & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach to grammar instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. The Modern Language Journal 93, 61–78.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S. & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal 93.1, 91–104.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 39–52.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 123–167.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral language feedback in the second language classrooms. Language Teaching 46.1, 1–40.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. New York: Oxford University Press, 379–452.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J. & Sandiford, H. (2005/2006). Touchstone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. & Keeffe, A. O. (2014). Spoken grammar. In Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M. & Snow, M. A. (eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. (4th edn). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage Learning, 271–287.Google Scholar
McGarrell, H. (2011). Corpus-based/corpus-informed English language learner grammar textbooks: An example of how research informs pedagogy. In Lee, D. & McGarrell, H. (eds.), Contact: Teachers of English as a second language of Ontario. Research Symposium Annual Edition 78–100.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28, 309–332.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. & Chen, H.-Y. (2011). The roles of structured input activities in processing instruction, and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning 61.4, 1058–1098.Google Scholar
Mercer, S., Smith, R. & Ushioda, E. (2012). How to combine teaching and researching: Focus on learners and classroom language learning. IATEFL Research SIG Pre-conference event, 19 March.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. (2000). Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics 21, 281–303.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K. & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28.1, 31–65.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 126–145.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2011). Research into practice: Vocabulary. Language Teaching 44.4, 529–539.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. (2014). The acquisition of formulaic sequences in high-intermediate ESL learners, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal 41, 136–145.Google Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50.3, 417–528.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Language acquisition research for language teaching: Choosing between application and relevance. In Hinger, B., Unterrainer, E. M. & Newby, D. (eds.), Sprachen lernen: Kompetenzen entwickeln? Performanzen (über)prüfen. Wien: Präsens Verlag. [Published keynote address for the 2010 Annual Conference of the Austrian Society for Language Pedagogy], 24–38.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2007). Comparing the effect of focus on form and focus on forms in teaching English third conditional. In Pawlak, M. (ed.), Exploring focus on form in language teaching. Poznan-Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz University, 5–26.Google Scholar
Pedrazinni, L. & Nava, A. (eds.) (2012). Learning and teaching English: Insights from research. Monza, Italy: Polimetrica.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kang, H.-S. & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 301–338.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics 10, 52–79.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. (2012). Grammar and beyond. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, J. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC Journal 39.2, 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 233–247.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 235–268.Google Scholar
Römer, U. (2011). Corpus research applications in second language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 205–225.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Swain, M. & Skehan, P. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. Harlow: Longman, 119–134.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning 54, 35–78.Google Scholar
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal 83, 494–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, P. (2012). Theories pass. Learners and teachers remain. Applied Linguistics 33.5, 603–607.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M., Achugar, M. & Oteíza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly 38.1, 67–93.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11.2, 129–158.Google Scholar
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals 29.3, 343–364.Google Scholar
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA–Colombia. The Modern Language Journal 85.2, 244–258.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 382–408.Google Scholar
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal 73, 395–403.Google Scholar
Sharkey, J. & Johnson, K. E. (eds.) (2003). The TESOL Quarterly dialogues: Rethinking issues of language, culture, and power. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 165–179.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (2005). Focus on forms as a means of improving accurate oral production. In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 271–310.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning 52.3, 597–647.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Li, S. & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning 63, 296–329.Google Scholar
Simard, D. & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning 61.3, 759–785.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sokolik, M. (ed.) (2007). Grammar connections. Boston: Heinle/Cengage.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching 30, 73–87.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching 44.2, 225–236.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly 42.2, 181–207.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60.2, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, S., Lee, J. & Ahn, K. (2006). Applying conceptual grammar to advanced level language teaching: The case of two completive aspect markers in Korean. The Modern Language Journal 90, 185–209.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. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion learners working together. The Modern Language Journal 82.3, 320–337.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 26, 376–401.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. & Bigelow, M. (2005). Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for SLA research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 77–97.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S. (1998). Grammar, power and bottled water. IATEFL Newsletter, December 1997–January 1998, 19–20.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics 9, 237–246.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonkyn, A. (1994). Introduction: Grammar and the language teacher. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A. & Williams, E. (eds.), Grammar and the language teacher. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall, 1–14.Google Scholar
Toth, P. (2006). Processing instruction and the role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning 56, 319–385.Google Scholar
Trahey, M. & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 181–204.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 287–301.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing the content of input-processing and processing instruction research: A response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson & Harrington. Language Learning 52.4, 825–831.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 225–243.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Williams, J., Rott, S. & Overstreet, M. (2004). Form-meaning connections in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S. & York, H. (2011). Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate-level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals 44.2, 353–380.Google Scholar
Waters, A. & Vilches, M. L. C. (2005). Managing innovation in language education. RELC Journal 36.2, 117–136.Google Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical enhancement study. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–113.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics 8, 95–110.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2010). Initial incidental acquisition of word order regularities: Is it just sequence learning? Language Learning 60, Supplement 2, 221–244.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2003). The effects of textual enhancement and simplified input on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning 14.2, 109–132.Google Scholar
Wong, W. & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals 36, 403–423.Google Scholar