A Comparison of Input Enhancement and Explicit Instruction of Mitigators.

Abstract

As the instructional shortcomings of Focus on FormS and Focus on Meaning have surfaced, Focus on Form (i.e., drawing brief attention to linguistic forms while learners engage primarily in meaning) has slowly but steadily gained the attention of researchers and teachers. The research question underlying this study was whether Focus on Form could be applied to the teaching of second language pragmatics. This study compared two instructional paradigms: Focus on FormS and Focus on Form. Provoked by the proposition that even advanced L2 learners cannot fully utilize pragmatic knowledge (e.g., mitigators), the researchers attempted to raise learners' consciousness about mitigators. Two questions were asked. First, to what extent does input enhancement (Focus on Form) affect learners' ability to recognize the appropriate use of mitigators? Second, does it affect their recognition ability as well as explicit instruction (Focus on FormS) does? In this study, each of three randomly assigned groups (Focus on Form, Focus on FormS and Control) of adult ESL students took two types of posttests: listening comprehension and pragmatic recognition. The researchers created two versions of a videotaped drama in which the characters performed mitigated requests. The Focus on Form group watched the version that contained typographical enhancement of mitigators in captions, whereas the Focus on FormS group watched the version that gave the participants explicit instruction on mitigators. The Control Group watched a different videotape that did not show any requests. The participants' task in each group was to comprehend the content of the drama. Although the statistical results were inconclusive, the empirical study itself provides considerable insight into the operationalization of Focus on Form for purposes of interlanguage pragmatics pedagogy.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 56 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.