See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/27338467

Research on Language and Learning: implications for Language Teaching

Article  in  International Journal of English Studies · June 2004

DOI: 10.6018/ijes.4.1.48241 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

3 11,103

1 author:

Eva Alcón Soler

Universitat Jaume I
61 PUBLICATIONS   830 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Analysis of the pragmatic component in the acquisition of English as an L3. A sociopragmatic perspective in the study of academic language in CLIL and EMEMUS
contexts. View project

A sociopragmatic analysis of English as an L3. Focus on oral and written production of early language learners. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eva Alcón Soler on 21 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal
of
English Studies
IJES
UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA www.um.es/engphil/ijes

Research on Language and Learning:

Implications for Language Teaching

EVA ALCÓN*
Universitat Jaume I

ABSTRACT
Taking into account several limitations of communicative language teaching (CLT), this paper
calls for the need to consider research on language use and learning through communication as
a basis for language teaching. It will be argued that a reflective approach towards language
teaching and learning might be generated, which is explained in terms of the need to develop a
context-sensitive pedagogy and in terms of teachers’ and learners’ development.

KEYWORDS: Language use, teaching, learning.

INTRODUCTION
The limitations of the concept of method becomes obvious in the literature on language teaching
methodology. This is also referred to as the pendulum metaphor, that is to say, a method is
proposed as a reform or rejection of a previously accepted method, it is applied in the language
classroom, and eventually it is criticised or extended (for a review see Alcaraz et al., 1993;
Alcón, 2002a; Howatt, 1984; Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Sánchez, 1993, 1997). Furthermore,

* Address for correspondence: Eva Alcón Soler, Dpto. Filología Inglesa y Románica, Facultat Ciències Humanes i
Socials, Universitat Jaume I, Avda. Sos Baynat, s/n, 12071 Castellón. Telf. 964-729605, Fax: 964-729261. E-mail:
[email protected]

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
174 Eva Alcón

as reported by Nassaji (2000), throughout the history of English language teaching methodology,
there seems to be a dilemma over focused analytic versus unfocused experiential language
teaching. While the former considers learning as the development of formal rule-based
knowledge, the latter conceptualises learning as the result of naturalistic use of language.
Experiential approaches have been dominant in language teaching since the appearance of the
communicative language teaching approach (CLT) in 1970 and its spread in the 1980s. However,
as suggested by Thompson (1996), the 1990s witnessed dissatisfaction with several aspects of
CLT, which calls for a further development of CLT, without questioning its goals and principles.
Besides, over the last decade, there seems to be some agreement on the argument that
second language acquisition (SLA) research mediates between the theory and practice of
language acquisition and use (Kramsch, 2000). Research on language learning includes a broad
range of perspectives and the pendulum metaphor also applies to it. According to Lazaraton
(2000), there has been a prominence of quantitative research as both a subject of theoretical
discussion and a method for conducting empirical work. This trend might explain why reference
books on research methodology in applied linguistics focus on quantitative research methods
while there are to date no qualitative research textbooks written by applied linguists. However,
based on work by linguistic anthropologists, ethnographers of communication and qualitative
researchers interested in language use, there also seems to be a trend to illustrate the ways in
which qualitative research can contribute to an understanding of second language acquisition and
use (see Brown & Rodgers, 2002; Cumming, 1994). In line with Reichardt and Cook (1979: 27),
we believe that, similar to the limitations of the concept of “method” and “approach”, it would
be a mistake to keep the pendulum swinging between research perspectives. In this sense, any
attempt to consider the contributions of research on language learning should see quantitative
and qualitative approaches as complementary research paradigms. This, in turn, might help
language teachers to apply the research on language learning in their teaching practices, and
maybe act as a challenge to conduct research in their own classrooms.
Taking into account that quantitative and qualitative research mediates between theory
and practice in language teaching and considering several limitations of CLT, the aim of this
chapter is, first, to illustrate how description of language in use and research on language
learning through communication provides teachers with a basis for language teaching. Secondly,
a reflective approach towards language teaching and learning is suggested as a way of
developing a context-sensitive pedagogy. Finally, we present new roles and new perspectives
for language teachers, which might result in learner and teacher development.

I.1. Principles and criticisms of communicative language teaching

As we have mentioned in the introduction, a similar pattern of development can be observed in
the different methods and approaches to language teaching. In this sense, CLT was proposed as
a reform or rejection of previously accepted methods and approaches, it was applied in the
language classroom, and eventually it has been criticised. In spite of these criticisms, Thompson

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 175
(1996) claims that CLT is accepted as the dominant paradigm in language teaching. In fact, two
guiding principles of CLT are widely accepted by the teaching profession: the need to develop
learners’ communicative competence, and the assumption that communication is both an end and
a means towards language learning. In relation to learners’ development of communicative
competence, it is widely recognised that communication is important for the needs of learners,
and for the processes of language learning (Widdowson, 1978, 1989). The second guiding
principle of CLT suggests that communication is both an end and a means to language learning.
Following this principle, and according to the interactive perspective, learning a language is a
function of social and meaningful interaction (Long, 1985), and the degree of success in
language learning depends on the quality of interaction in the educational setting (Long, 1983a,
1996).
In spite of accepting CLT as the dominant paradigm in language teaching, it is possible
to claim that the teaching profession remains confused when its main principles are translated
into classroom practice. Much of the confusion and the consequent dissatisfaction may be
summarised in the following criticisms:

a) The lack of linguistic guidelines, which results in problems to identify the linguistic
content of CLT.

b) Interactive tasks, which are supposed to focus on the comprehensibility of the

language, give priority to fluency over accuracy.

c) Language forms, although necessary in language learning, are not considered in CLT.

d) Conversational interaction may not match the learner’s view of learning.

In relation to the linguistic content of CLT, several attempts have been made to specify the
content of a communicative language syllabi (van Ek, 1977; van Ek & Trim, 1991; Wilkins,
1976), but these functional approaches have not taken into account the nature of interaction or
the features of natural conversation. However, nowadays, and due to research findings in areas
such as discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and interlanguage analysis, language
teachers are provided with descriptions of language in use, which may be used in designing
language syllabi, instructional materials and assessment instruments. Besides, there have been
different attempts to specify the content of CLT, taking into account models of communicative
competence (Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia & Dörnyei,
1995). These models, despite their limitations (see Celce-Murcia & Dörnyei, 1995), offer
language teachers the possibility of adapting the linguistic content of their syllabus according
to the learners’ communicative needs. In a similar vein, there has been an increasing interest in
considering various dimensions of the communicative competence in designing language syllabi.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
176 Eva Alcón

In this sense, as reported by Alcón (2000a), the teaching of linguistic competence (i.e. the
teaching of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation) has been proved to be insufficient to
develop learners’ communicative competence. As a consequence, focusing on pragmatics,
discourse, and strategic competence are also considered as goals in language teaching. The
problem seems to be that, although studies of the nature of language from a discourse perspective
have (i) increased our knowledge of native and non-native language use, and (ii) have influenced
the selection of the linguistic content, questions remain about how to apply this knowledge in
language teaching.
The second and third criticisms are related to the second guiding principle of CLT, which
suggests that communication is both an end and a means to language learning. According to the
interactive perspective (Long, 1985, 1996), learning a language is a function of social and
meaningful interaction, and the degree of success in language learning depends on the quality
of interaction in the acquisitional setting (Long, 1983a). From a communicative perspective, it
is argued that communicative tasks encourage talk, providing learners with opportunities to share
ideas or to achieve a communicative goal. From a learning point of view, it is widely accepted
that in a task-based learning pedagogy learners do not acquire the target language in the order
it is presented to them. In this sense, engaging learners in meaningful activities, such as
information gaps, problem solving or discussions was claimed to promote the natural language
learning process. The problem is that on the one hand, and especially in foreign language
contexts, the amount and quality of interaction is limited (García Mayo & Pica, 2000). On the
other hand, in a task-based pedagogy, language teachers observe how learners are mainly
encouraged to focus on the comprehensibility of the language using ill-formed language. The
danger is that learners give priority to a focus on fluency over accuracy, and, as a result,
linguistic forms may go unnoticed.
The fourth criticism is related to the accepted claim that learners’ participation in
conversation provides them with opportunities for learning. Although empirical research on the
effect of interaction on language learning shows that conversational interaction sets the scene
for language learning, it is also true that it is not a cause for acquisition (see Gass et al., 1998).
Besides, as reported by Alcón (1994) and Allwright and Bailey (1991), although risk-taking is
favourably viewed in second language acquisition, verbal passivity on the part of the learner can
mask greater attention than conversational participation. In this sense, it seems that some
cognitive and affective factors may determine the role of conversation participation in relation
to learning outcomes.
In spite of the criticisms mentioned above, we agree with Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and
Thurrell (1997) and Thompson (1996) on the fact that the two guiding principles of CLT (i.e. the
need to develop learners’ communicative competence and the assumptions that communication
is both an end and a means towards language learning) are valid to set the goals in language
learning. However, one also has to admit that teachers’ concern about these limitations requires
finding alternative methodological options in different learning contexts (Bax, 2003;

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 177
Kumaravadivelu, 1994; Pica, 2000). Taking into account Kramsch’s (2000) suggestion, we will
now turn to consider how research on the nature of language and language learning has dealt
with the criticisms towards CLT. This analysis will lead us to suggest some pedagogical
implications of the research reviewed.

I.2. Describing language in use as a basis to identify the linguistic content of CLT
Kramsch (2000) suggests the need to consider research on applied linguistics as a way to help
language teachers to translate theory into practice. In this vein, we also believe that language
teaching methodology should be implicitly or explicitly informed by linguistic research on the
nature of language and by insights from second language acquisition research. With regard to
the nature of language, discourse analysis and communicative language teaching share a
consensus about the importance of communication. From this perspective, describing language
in use in naturally occurring contexts has been applied to the different levels of linguistic
analysis and this has helped to identify the linguistic content of CLT. In relation to phonology,
studies such as the ones by Brown and Yule (1983a, 1983b), Cruttenden (1986) and Hewings
(1990) have provided us with new insights for the teaching of pronunciation and prosodic aspects
(see Dalton & Seidlhofer, 1994; among others). Discourse analysis has also analysed grammar
from various perspectives relevant to language teaching. Thus, several studies have examined
the notion of cohesion and coherence and have illustrated the grammatical connexions between
clauses and utterances, segments of discourse, and how information is selected and presented in
discourse. The analysis of grammar as an aspect of discourse rather than a set of units detached
from discourse has influenced current approaches to the teaching of grammar (see Batstone,
1996; Hughes & McCarthy, 1998; Leech, 2000). Taking into account the view of grammar as
a set of discourse choices, learners are provided with activities which focus on either awareness
of the grammatical system of the language used, or on the production of language choices in
particular contexts.
The study of language use in particular contexts has also focused on the analysis of
vocabulary above the sentence level and has shed light on the nature of vocabulary; more
specifically, it has shown the relationship between context, grammar and vocabulary. This is
explicitly stated by Halliday (1978: 43):

The lexical system is not something that is fitted in afterwards to a set of slots defined by the
grammar. The lexicon ... is simply the most delicate grammar ... as things become more and more
specific, they tend more and more to be realised by the choice of a lexical item rather than the
choice of a grammatical structure.

The analysis of lexical cohesion, the research on the role of vocabulary in signalling
textual patterns in discourse, and on the relationship between lexical selection and register have
offered the teaching profession insights into the teaching of vocabulary. Thus, studies such as
the ones by Guzman et al. (2000) and Norment (1995) analyse differences in lexical cohesion

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
178 Eva Alcón

in native and non-native written production. By examining the transferability of lexical features
from one language to another, these authors call for a discourse approach towards teaching
discourse competence in language learning. In addition, the analysis of vocabulary above the
sentence level has influenced the design of discourse-based activities which promote awareness
of lexical choice and the relationship between grammar and vocabulary (see Bygate et al., 1994;
McCarthy, 1990; Taylor, 1990; among others).
Moreover, the increasing understanding of language use in speech and writing has
undoubtedly influenced the teaching of oral and written skills. As far as the teaching of oral
skills is concerned, and taking into account the dynamic and interactive nature of oral
communication, research on discourse analysis has examined the skills used by interlocutors in
oral interaction, that is to say, how interlocutors participate in the managing of discourse. From
observations of how people behave in spoken discourse, we have gained a better understanding
of some conversational features such as turn-taking organisation (Power & Dal Martello, 1986;
Sacks et al., 1974; Starkey, 1973), adjacency pairs (Gibbs & Mueller, 1988; Schegloff & Sacks,
1973), topic development (Kneenan & Schieffelin, 1975; Levinson, 1983; Stech, 1982), and
pragmalinguistic aspects of spoken discourse such as the use of back channels (Duncan 1972;
Yngve, 1970) and polite and indirect speech acts (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Leech, 1983).
Research has also provided us with information about non-native speakers’ language use
in the spoken mode both in and outside the institutional classroom setting (García Mayo, 2001a,
2001b, 2002a, 2002b; Lörscher, 1986; McHoul, 1978; Van Lier, 1988). Similarly, developmental
issues have been discussed in interlanguage pragmatics (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Kasper
& Schmidt, 1996) from the perspective of pragmatic transfer (Bou-Franch, 1998; Olshtain, 1983;
Takahashi, 1996) or of contrastive pragmatics (Cenoz & Valencia, 1996; House, 1993; Oleksy,
1989). This body of knowledge has contributed to increasing our understanding of native/non-
native and non-native/non-native communication, although questions remain about how to apply
this knowledge in language teaching. The analysis of the role of instruction in acquiring
pragmatic competence (House, 1996; Martínez et al., 2003; Safont, 2003) and the study of
pragmatic competence and second language development and teaching has also moved research
into the acquisition of pragmatic competence in instructional settings (Bou-Franch & Garcés-
Conejos, 2003; Kasper & Rose, 2002).
With regard to the teaching of written skills, the analysis of written language has
contributed to a better understanding of the texture and structure of texts and how both texture
and structure illustrate the interactive nature of reading and writing. Such analysis of written
discourse has also illustrated the different mechanisms we have at our disposal for teaching
reading and writing (see Hudson, 1998 and Wallace, 1992 for a review on teaching reading and
Cumming, 1998; Manchón, 1999, Raimes, 1998 and Tribble, 1996 for a review on teaching
writing). However, as we have mentioned in relation to spoken discourse, although the analysis
of language in use has provided us with insights into the linguistic resources which show the
interactive nature of written discourse, there is also a need for further research into the role of

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 179
intervention in helping language learners to recognise those resources and to use them in
comprehension and production of written texts.

I.3. Research on language learning through communication as a basis for language

teaching
There is a growing interest in the SLA field to understand the second guiding principle of CLT,
that is to say, to explain language learning through interaction (see the special issues on
interaction and second language learning by García Mayo & Alcón, 2002; and Gass et al., 1998).
Since Hatch illustrated in 1975 how learners’ participation in conversations provided them with
opportunities for language learning, it has been widely admitted that some type of input is
essential for language learning. Research then focused on the type and amount of input necessary
for SLA, and on the consequences derived from a lack of understanding of the input. Krashen’s
theory of comprehensible input (1985) and Long’s interactional hypothesis (1980, 1983a, 1985,
1996) were empirically tested in studies on the effect of input modifications (Chaudron, 1983;
Long, 1985) and interaction modifications (Pica, 1991; Pica, Doughty & Young, 1986; Pica,
Young & Doughty, 1987) on second language comprehension. The pedagogical implication of
research on learners’ need for comprehensible input resulted in accepting the concept of
communicative tasks as a basic unit to analyse classroom interaction and as an essential
component of curriculum design.
However, both teachers and researchers have become aware of the second criticism of
CLT we have mentioned above, that is to say, that communicative tasks are meaning-based
classroom activities with a focus on fluency over accuracy. Learners’ involvement in interactive
tasks was seen as a way to provide them with comprehensible input and with opportunities to
practice existing knowledge. Based on the fact that students in immersion programmes in Canada
failed to acquire proficiency competence, Swain (1985) introduced the Comprehensible Output
Hypothesis, which suggests that learners need opportunities for pushed output, that is to say, they
need demands for correct and appropriate use of their production. Swain (1995), in explaining
second language acquisition from an output perspective, suggested that the verbal behaviour of
teacher and students triggers the theoretical conditions for language learning. In other words, it
is claimed that through interaction language learners notice linguistic problems (the noticing
function), solve them through dialogue (the hypothesis-testing function) and reflect about
language (the metalinguistic function). Empirical evidence supporting Swain’s hypothesis
illustrates that language learners can be pushed by their interlocutors to produce more
appropriate and correct target language in meaning-centred instruction (Alcón, 2002; Ellis & He,
1999; Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). In this sense, although as reported by
Shehadeh (2000) the way in which students’ output contributes to language learning requires
further empirical evidence, communicative tasks with a focus on form are encouraged. SLA
research illustrates that communicative activities with a focus on meaning alone are not adequate
for language learning and special attention is paid to the need to focus on linguistic forms, an

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
180 Eva Alcón

aspect which has been mentioned in the third criticism of CLT. In this vein, recent studies
coincide in the need to include a focus on form approach in the classroom (Doughty & Varela,
1998; García Mayo, 2002a, 2002b; Muranoi, 2000), since research findings show that
negotiation of meaning and successful communication may result in “understanding” but not
necessary in “acquisition”.
Theoretical explanations for the need to focus on form derive from research which claims
that instruction makes a difference in language learning (see Long, 1983b; and Norris & Ortega,
2001 for a review of research on the effectiveness of L2 instruction published between 1980 and
1998). In addition, information processing models posit that learners’ limited processing capacity
is limited to attend simultaneously to form and meaning. In this sense and according to
Schmidt’s (1990, 1994) Noticing Hypothesis, unless learners attend to form in meaning-focused
instruction, acquisition will not take place. Following this assumption, a focus on form
instruction (Long, 1991; Doughty, 2001) is suggested in CLT methodology. In contrast to “focus
on forms” where there is a focus on grammar teaching, in “focus on form” the emphasis is on
meaning but the learner’s attention is briefly shifted to form (example a).

Example a:
T: What are they doing?
S: He ate the cake.
T: Yes, but ate, is that correct?, ate?
S: Uhmm... eat... are eating.
T: They are eating the cake, right.
S: and they are happy
T: umm
S: because they are on holidays
(Alcón, 1993)

In relation to the procedures for form-focused instruction in the context of a

communicative activity, Ellis (2001) and Ellis et al. (2002), distinguish between “planned”
versus “incidental” focus on form. Both types of focus on form require the use of communicative
tasks. However, the former involves the use of communicative tasks designed to elicit forms
which have been pre-selected by the teacher, while the latter tasks are designed to elicit and use
language without any specific attention to form. Planned task proposals can be found in Loschky
and Bley-Vroman (1993), Fotos (1993, 1994, 1997) and Fotos and Ellis (1991). Although these
authors claim that planned tasks are effective because learners are forced to focus on form while
they are communicating, the actual design of the tasks may be problematic. Loschky and Bley-
Vroman (1993) claim that in designing form-focused communicative tasks the relationship
between the form selected and the completion of the task is central. The authors distinguish three
types of relationship: naturalness, utility and essentialness. While in the task-naturalness and
utility relationship the form selected is not an obligatory part of the task, in the task-essentialness

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 181
relationship the use of the form selected is necessary to complete the task content. Although
Loschky and Bley-Vroman’s (1993) classification might be useful in order to design form-
focused communicative tasks, further classroom research is needed to examine the extent to
which the tasks generate form-focus interaction versus meaning-focus interaction.
Fotos (1993, 1994, 1997) and Fotos and Ellis (1991) emphasise the pedagogical
advantages of using grammar awareness-raising tasks as a way to integrate focus on form within
a communicative framework. In this case, learners are presented with grammar problem tasks
and, in pairs or small groups, they are asked to discover or analyse a selected form. In the same
vein, Lyster (1998a) points out that planned focused tasks provide learners with negotiation on
form, that is to say, they provide metalinguistic information about pre-selected forms. However,
further research is needed before generalising the pedagogical implications of these studies. First
of all, studies on the task-based approach to focus on form directed at all linguistic levels are
needed. Secondly, observational and experimental studies on participants’ role in performing the
tasks should be conducted in order to determine whether a focus on accuracy could be achieved
in unplanned tasks through methodology rather than task design. Collaborative tasks such as
dictogloss, where learners are asked to reconstruct a text previously listened to, are good
candidates to evaluate that task design and process are key issues in a focus on form instruction.
As illustrated in example b, in the task design, the focus is on conditional clauses, but it is
learners’ participation in the task that results in productive use of the selected form.

Example b:
S1: And then I would say if I was last year I wouldn’t
S2: If I were
S1: If I were
S3: But it was last year then ...
S1: OK. If I have been last year in the committee I would suggest
S3: Shouldn’t we say If I had been last year in the committee?
S2: Yes, because it’s the third type of conditional
S1: Oh. If I had been last year
S3: I would have consider alternative four
S2: Consider or considered?
S1: Considered, third type of conditional. OK. If I had been last year on the committee I would
have considered
S2: Alternative four because the teacher is not enough
S3: Because the opinion of a teacher, you mean?
S1: Yes, because the opinion of a teacher is not enough
(Alcón, 2001)

In the case of unplanned tasks, the role of participants in performing the task will
determine the accomplishment of a focus on form. On the one hand, a reactive focus on form
takes place when the teacher or another student responds to an error in the context of a
communicative activity. As reported by Long and Robinson (1998), this negative evidence can

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
182 Eva Alcón

be provided by explicit or implicit feedback. Explicit feedback is performed by giving

metalinguistic information (example b), indicating directly that an error has been made (example
c) or by eliciting the correct form (example d). If negative feedback is provided by implicit
feedback, such as in Doughty and Valera’s (1998) or Mackey and Philp’s (1998) studies, the
learner’s utterance is recasted in the target language form (example e).

Example c:
S1: Then, you have to say if I was there I ...
T: If I were
S1: If I were there I wouldn’t have accept
T: I wouldn’t accept. Remember that we have a second conditional, past in the if clause plus
simple conditional
(Alcón, 2001)

Example d:
Learner: Last weekend, a man painting, painting ‘Beware of the dog’
Teacher: Sorry?
Learner: A man painted, painted, painted on the wall ‘Beware of the dog’
(Nobuyoshi and Ellis, 1993: 205)

Example e:
S: Can I to the cinema?
T: Can you go to the cinema? Yes, that’s an option
(Alcón, 1993)

There seems to be agreement on viewing corrective feedback as a theoretical condition

for language learning (Alcón, 2000b), in the sense that it is a way to inform learners about their
output and to provide them with opportunities to test their hypotheses about the target language.
Descriptive and experimental studies have illustrated that explicit corrective feedback may vary
in terms of its explicitness, ranging in a continuum from more direct to more indirect techniques.
These studies also suggest that further research is required to determine the effectiveness of
explicit feedback techniques and their contribution to SLA. As far as implicit feedback is
concerned, Nicholas, Lightbown and Spada (2001) review observational and experimental
studies on recasts to conclude that these appear to be effective when the learner understands that
the recast is a reaction to the accuracy of the form, not to the content of the original utterance.
Instead of adopting a reactive focus on form, the teacher or a student can also choose a
pro-active focus on form by making a linguistic form the topic of discourse, even though no error
has been committed. In this case, an explicit focus on form is achieved either by students’
questions about linguistic forms (example f) or by teachers’ display questions and information
about the linguistic code (example g). As reported by Ellis et al. (2001), although pro-active
focus on form has been little studied to date, researchers and teacher educators should pay

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 183
attention to it as another discourse device to achieve form-focused instruction.

Example f:
S: what’s sacked?
T: sacked is, when you lose your job, you do something wrong maybe, you steal something, and
your boss says, right, leave the job
(Ellis et al. 2001)

Example g:
T: What’s the opposite of landing?
S: Take off
T: Take off
SS: Take off
(Ellis et al. 2001)

If the theoretical and empirical research on focus on form are taken together, it is clear
that they have aroused a lot of interest in the field of SLA. As a matter of fact, in 2001 the
journal Language Learning dedicated a special supplement defining and presenting experimental
and descriptive research on form-focused instruction. In the annual review on research on
language teaching and learning, Johnstone (2002) also chooses “focus on form” as a theme that
seems to be of particular interest in 2001. Earlier research on focus on form instruction focused
on conceptualising and describing its various manifestations, but current research focuses on
how it is accomplished in different educational settings (Ellis, 2001; García Mayo & Alcón,
2002; Williams, 1999; among others), and the effect of different types of focus on form on
second language acquisition (Ellis et al. 2001, 2002; Sheen, 2003). Moreover, there seems to be
a trend towards data-driven and interpretative studies that might provide us with detailed
information about how focus on form is accomplished in actual language classrooms. There is
also a need for hybrid research, which combines the description of intact classroom discourse
and the processes that might have an effect on learners’ outcomes. This research would offer
language teachers useful information about the way to incorporate focus on form in
communicative language classrooms. It will then be necessary to consider teachers’ reflections
and actions in particular learning contexts to validate the effect of focus on form in language
learning and its pedagogical possibilities. This is particularly relevant in order to explain the last
limitation of CLT we have mentioned above. The question would be to consider whether the
CLT approach, where emphasis is placed on language learning through communication, matches
learners’ view of learning. In other words, do individual and cognitive factors play a role in
language learning? So far we have mentioned that factors such as input, task design and focus
on form may facilitate the acquisition of a second language. However, given that these factors
are external to the learner, language teaching must also take into account learners’ individual
factors and adjust language teaching to learners’ needs and goals. In line with Kumaravadivelu

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
184 Eva Alcón

(1994) and Pica (2000), we believe that teachers should seek alternative methods in response to
particular situations. That is to say, the role of teachers should now be extended towards
developing a reflective approach towards language teaching and learning.

I.4. A reflective approach towards language teaching and learning and its contributions to
a context-sensitive pedagogy
In reflective teaching, the teachers’ roles should be extended in two respects. First, they should
reflect about the research on the nature of language and learning and, secondly, they should
conduct their own research to further understand what goes on in particular settings. In this
sense, any pedagogical implication from research on language learning must be understood in
particular language learning contexts, since differences might emerge depending on whether
learning contexts (second or foreign language environments), educational and social concerns,
age of learners, etc. Teachers might undertake research on the nature of language and language
learning as a starting point to apply the results of this research into their own classroom. They
should also consider the dichotomy of the product and process approach to research on language
learning. The former had its origins in the methods comparison studies of the 1960s and is
represented by experimental research aimed at testing learning outcomes. In reaction to this
tendency, studies in the 1970s and 1980s focus on developing adequate and reliable systems for
observing and describing classroom behaviours (see Allwright, 1988; Chaudron, 1988 for a review
of these observation schemes), and have influenced descriptive and interpretative research
orientations. Although the dichotomy between product and process approaches is not so simple
when it comes to data collection (quantitative versus qualitative) or research strategies (non-
participant versus participant observation), results of published research offer language teachers
the opportunity to connect researchers’ knowledge on language learning to the particularities of
specific contexts. More specifically, teachers can exploit some of the insights from research on
language use and learning to improve their methodological options by:

• Examining learners’ reaction towards real language in use materials versus pedagogical
materials. Awareness-raising tasks or grammatical judgement tasks are claimed to be
effective to develop learners’ knowledge of how language works in context. However,
learners’ reaction towards these tasks may differ in different contexts or may vary across
learners.

• Exploring the use of tasks designed with a planned focus on form. The analysis of the
interaction triggered by awareness-raising tasks or through the use of dictoglos can
illustrate whether they are useful to promote some of the theoretical conditions for
language learning, i.e. the noticing function, the hypothesis testing function and the
metalinguistic function.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 185
• Evaluating learners’ response to unplanned focus on form in communicative activities
in the classroom. By so doing, they can assess the value of focusing on form as part of
natural communication, paying attention to teachers’ types of feedback (explicit versus
implicit devices) or students’ feedback.

Teachers’ research can also be initiated with the aim to explore learners’ factors in
particular situations with the aim of understanding their effect on their teaching practices and of
improving language instruction. That is to say, language teachers know that language teaching
must be sensitive to a particular group of learners in particular educational contexts. This can
first be achieved by taking into account variables such as motivation, anxiety, extroversion, or
aptitude, which have been shown to be related to language learning in various ways (see Arnold,
1999), and adjusting language teaching to learners’ individual factors. Secondly, teachers might
carry out research to evaluate the outcomes of learners’ strategy training. In this sense, research
might be used to decide how to cope with learners’ diversity by improving L2 students’ learning
strategies. Besides, teachers can be challenged with questions that can only be answered with
a focus on learners and their learning. For instance:

1. Do individual differences play a role in strategy instruction?

2. Do explicit instruction and awareness of learning strategy have an effect on learners

with different learning styles?

3. Does training learners towards strategy use result in effective learning?

4. How do different cognitive processes influence learners’ development of the target

language?

Furthermore, reflective teaching which is integrated with day to day teaching and which
emphasises the demands of the context encourages reflective learning. This means an increased
awareness of learning styles and preferences, as well as a conscious reflection in the light of
learning objectives and tasks demands. In other words, in reflective learning learners need to
plan, carry out and evaluate their own learning process in an effort to become autonomous
learners. According to Holec (1987), in order to engage in autonomous learning, the learners
must review their representation of what a language is and what learning a language is, so that
they can shift from the role of consumer to the role of producer of their own learning
programme. In this line, Nunan (1997) considers that autonomy is not an absolute concept as it
involves different stages, namely those of awareness, involvement, intervention, creation and
transcendence. In the first stage, learners become aware of the aims, content and strategies involved
in the tasks they are performing. The second stage allows learners to be involved in choosing from

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
186 Eva Alcón

a range of alternative contents and options. The next step, that of intervention, involves encouraging
learners to participate in the modification and adaptation of their own learning programme. Creation
refers to the step in which learners establish their own goals and create their own learning tasks.
Finally, autonomous learners make links between the classroom and the real world by moving
beyond the formal instructional context to real life; this last step is called transcendence.
Considering that the degree of autonomy is gradual, we can talk about the concept of
autonomization for learners and teachers. This process, which provides them with opportunities to
be involved in learning to learn what goes on in the language classroom, means:

1. Learning to reflect on attitudes towards learning and personal learning experiences.

2. Learning to select learning and communicative goals.
3. Learning to select specific tasks related to the goal.
4. Learning to organise time and materials to achieve the goals.
5. Learning to select and use appropriate learning and teaching strategies
6. Learning to assess and monitor the learning and teaching progress regularly.
7. Learning to understand that reflective learning and teaching are necessary in a context
sensitive pedagogy.

Finally, a reflective approach towards language teaching and learning will result in accepting
the need for language teachers to undergo professional preparation to enable them to conduct
research in their classrooms. Before conducting classroom research it will be necessary to prepare
language teachers to conduct observational research using methods from observational schemes, to
action research projects or to develop classroom interaction analysis in collaboration with university
researchers. Such professional preparation will help language teachers to explore language teaching
and learning in their own classrooms. In this sense, participants’ engaging in pedagogic exploration
either individually or collaboratively is crucial. Individually, teachers might engage in action
research for the purpose of improving their own classroom practices and in terms of obtaining
pedagogical changes. Additionally, teachers and learners can also be involved in participatory
classroom research, by identifying researchable questions, using investigative methods, interpreting
the results, and deciding how they should be used. Both action research and participatory classroom
research share a concern for observation, reflection and action in educational contexts as essential
elements towards pedagogic exploration and improvement. Both approaches might be questioned
about their objectivity and generalisability. However, this cannot be considered to be a limitation
in a context sensitive pedagogy, since there is no attempt to generalise the results to other contexts.
On the contrary, reflective teaching aims to combine teachers’ professional development to cope
with particular teaching situations with learners’ improvement in their performance of their learning
tasks. Besides, a reflective approach towards language teaching and learning might illustrate the
value of qualitative research and its contributions to a better understanding and interpretation of
experimental studies on language teaching and learning. To achieve this, the challenge would be to

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 187
develop classroom research into a sustained and systematic activity where small-scale research
studies could be carried out, using alternatives to parametric statistics.

CONCLUSIONS
Taking into account that applied linguistics mediates between theory and practice in language
learning, this paper calls for the need to consider research on language use and learning through
communication as a basis for language teaching. It is argued that, in spite of the criticisms of CLT,
research on the nature of language and language learning has provided language teachers the
opportunity to further understand the principles of CLT, and to translate them into their teaching
practice. In relation to research on language in use in naturally occurring contexts, it has helped to
define the concept of communicative competence and to identify the linguistic content of CLT. In
the same vein, the increasing understanding of language use in speech and writing has influenced
the teaching of oral and written skills.
Research on language learning has analysed whether the CLT approach, where emphasis
is placed on language learning through communication, is valid when its main principles are
translated into classroom practice. In this sense, research has shown that factors such as input, task
design and focus on form may facilitate the acquisition of a second language. Besides, it has also
been suggested that language teaching must take into account individual factors and adjust language
teaching to learners’ needs and goals.
In conclusion, we claim that CLT is valid to set the goals in language learning, but we also
suggest the need to find alternative methodological options for specific educational contexts.
Secondly, we believe that these options should be based on research in applied linguistics and
adjusted to cope with the realities in the classroom. Thirdly, we point out that such adjustment must
be based on reflective teaching whose focus is on teacher development. In other words, in reflective
teaching teachers are no longer simply instructors but also consultants and researchers of what
happens in particular classroom settings. Reflective practice involves, on the other hand, taking into
account research on language learning and, on the other hand, making possible for teachers to
investigate their own research questions in their classrooms. This might also result in critical
reflection on learning by encouraging language learners to further understand their beliefs and
assumptions on language learning. Finally, exploring language classrooms offers new roles for
teachers and learners, since it might be understood as a challenge for professional and learning
development.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Rosa M. Manchón, Alicia Martínez, Patricia Salazar and Pilar Safont for their suggestions on
an earlier version of this paper.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
188 Eva Alcón

NOTES

1. This study is part of a research project funded by a grant from Fundació Universitat Jaume I and Caixa Castelló-
Bancaixa (P1.1B2002-05).

REFERENCES

Alcaraz, E., Ceular, C., Nicholas, M. Echevarría, C., Cantera, J. González, M.P., Montes, P., Santamaría, C.
& Pérez, M.L. (1993). Enseñanza y aprendizaje de las lenguas modernas. Madrid: Ediciones Rialp.

Alcón, E. (1993). Análisis del discurso en contexto académico: la interacción como estrategia de adquisición
de la L2. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Universitat de Valencia, Spain.

Alcón, E. (1994). Practise opportunities and learning outcomes in the foreign English classroom.
Communication & Cognition, 27, 429-439.

Alcón, E. (2000a). Desarrollo de la competencia discursiva oral en el aula de lenguas extranjeras:

Perspectivas metodológicas y de investigación. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Segundas lenguas: Adquisición
en el aula (pp. 259-276). Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística.

Alcón, E. (2000b). Learner-training towards autonomy in the Spanish university context. In Ribé, R. (Ed.),
Developing learner autonomy in foreign language learning (pp. 109-118). Barcelona: Promociones
y Publicaciones Universitarias.

Alcón, E. (2001). Interacción y aprendizaje de segundas lenguas en el contexto institucional del aula. In S.
Pastor Cesteros & V. Salazar García (Eds.), Estudios de Lingüística (pp. 271-287). Alicante:
Universidad de Alicante.

Alcón, E. (2002a). Bases lingüísticas y metodológicas para la enseñanza de la lengua inglesa. Castelló:
Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.

Alcón, E. (2002b). The relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of
pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 359-377.

Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. New York: Longman.

Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 189
Arnold, J. (Ed.) (1999). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Batstone, R. (1996). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57, 278-287.

Bou-Franch, P. (1998). On pragmatic transfer. SELL: Studies in English Language and Linguistics, 0, 5-20.

Bou-Franch, P. & Garcés-Conejos, P. (2003). Teaching linguistic Politeness: A Methodological Proposal.

International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 1-22.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Brown G. &Yule, G. (1983a). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983b). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J.D. & Rodgers, T.S. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A. & Williams, E. (Eds.) (1994). Grammar and the language teacher. Hemel
Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.C. Richards
& R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point
in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 141-152.

Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J.F. (1996). Las peticiones: una comparación entre hablantes europeos y americanos.
In J. Cenoz & J.F. Valencia (Eds.) La competencia pragmática: Elementos lingüísticos y
psicosociales (pp. 225-267). Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.

Chaudron, C. (1983). Simplification of input: Topic reinstatements and the effect on L2 learners’ recognition
and recall. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 437-458.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge:

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
190 Eva Alcón

Cambridge University Press.

Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 61-78.

Dalton, C. & Seidlhofer, B. (1994). Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus
on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 23, 283-292.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating Form-Focused Instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46.

Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The role of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word
meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 35, 407-432.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, 419-432.

Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance
versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 384-402.

Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar
consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.

Fotos, S. (1997). Communicative task performance and second language acquisition: Do task features
determine learner output? Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 51-67.

Fotos, S. & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25,
605-628.

García Mayo, M.P. (2001a). Repair and completion strategies in the interlanguage of advanced EFL learners.
ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 131/132, 139-168.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 191

García Mayo, M.P. (2001b). Focus on form tasks in EFL grammar pedagogy. In D. Lasagabaster & J. Sierra
(Eds.), Language Awareness in the EFL Classroom (pp. 221-236). Bilbao: Universidad del País
Vasco.

García Mayo, M.P. (2002a). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156-175.

García Mayo, M.P. (2002b). Interaction in advanced EFL grammar pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused
activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323-341.

García Mayo, M.P. & Alcón, E. (Eds.) (2002). International Journal of Educational Research. Special Issue
on the role of interaction in instructed language learning, 37.

García Mayo, M.P. & Pica, T. (2000). L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs
addressed? IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 35-58.

Gass, S. M., Mackey, A. & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition.
The Modern Language Journal, 82, 299-305.

Gibbs, R.W. & Mueller, R.A. (1988). Conversational sequences and preference for indirect speech acts.
Discourse Processes, 11, 101-116.

Guzman, J.R., García, I. & Alcón, E. (2000). Cohesión léxica y textos narrativos: análisis cuantitativo en el
contexto de la enseñanza de la L1, la L2 y la LE. In Actas del XVI Congreso Nacional de la
Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada, pp. 1761-1768.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold.

Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second Language
Acquisition. A book of readings. (pp. 401-435). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Hewings, M. (Ed.) (1990). Papers in discourse intonation. Birmingham: University English Language
Research.

Holec, H. (1987). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and
metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252.

Howatt, A.P.R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
192 Eva Alcón

Hudson, T. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 43-60.

Hughes, R. & McCarthy, M. (1998). From sentence to discourse: Discourse grammar and English language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 263:287.

Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL
Quarterly, 34, 239-279.

Johnstone, R. (2002). Research on language teaching and learning: 2001. Language Teaching, 35, 157-181.

Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.) (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies on Second
Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.

Keenam, E.O. & Schieffelin, B.B. (1975). Topic as a discourse notion: A study of topic in the conversation
of children and adults. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 335-384). New York: Academic Press.

Kramsch, C. (2000). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of foreign languages.
The Modern Language Journal, 84: 311- 326.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537- 560.

Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL
Quarterly, 34, 175-181.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Leech, G. (2000). Grammars of Spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented research. Language
Learning, 50, 675-724.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M.H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.

Long, M.H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 193

Long, M. (1983b). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL
Quarterly, 17, 359-382.

Long, M.H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R.
Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie
& T.K. Bathia (Eds.) Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic
Press.

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

Lörscher, W. (1986). Conversational structures in the foreign language classroom. In G. Kasper (Ed.),
Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom (pp. 11-22). Aarhus:
Aarhus University Press.

Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task based methodology. In G. Crookes & S.M. Gass
(Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-167). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner
repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.

Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts,
responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.

Manchón, R.M. (1999). La investigación sobre la escritura como proceso. Algunas implicaciones para la
enseñanza de la composición en una lengua extranjera. In M.S. Salaberri (Ed.), Lingüística aplicada
a la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras (pp. 439-478). Almería: Servicio de Publicaciones de la
Universidad de Almería.

Martínez, A., Usó, E. & Fernández, A. (2003). Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching.
Castelló: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.

McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
194 Eva Alcón

McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183-
213.

Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a
communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617-673.

Nassaji, H. (2000). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the
second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84,
241-250.

Nicholas, H. Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language
Learning, 51, 719-758.

Nobuyoshi, J. & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT
Journal, 47, 203-210.

Norment, N. (1995). Quantitative analysis of cohesive devices in Spanish and Spanish ESL in narrative and
expository written texts. Language Quarterly, 33, 133-159.

Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-
analytic review. Language Learning, 51, 157-213.

Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P.
Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 192-203). London: Longman.

Olesky, W. (Ed.) (1989). Contrastive pragmatics. London: Longman.

Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer: The case of apology. In S. Gass & L.
Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 232-249). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.

Pica, T. (1991). Classroom interaction, participation, and comprehension: Redifining relationships. System,
19, 437-452.

Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology. System, 28, 1-18.

Pica, T. Doughty, L. & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications
help? ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1-25.

Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension, TESOL Quarterly,
21, 737-758.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
Research on Language Learning and Use 195

Power, R.J. & Martello, M.F. (1986). Some criticisms of Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson on turn-taking.
Semiotica, 58, 29-40.

Raimes, A. (1998). Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 142-167.

Reichardt, C.S. & Cook, T.D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T.D. Cook & C.S.
Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking
for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

Safont, M.P. (2003). The influence of explicit instruction in EFL learners’ pragmatic production: a focus on
request acts formulae. Paper given at XXI Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Española de
Lingüística Aplicada (AESLA). Lugo: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.

Sánchez, A. (1993). Hacia un método integral en la enseñanza de idiomas. Madrid: SGEL.

Sánchez, A. (1997). Los métodos en la enseñanza de idiomas. Evolución histórica y análisis didáctico.
Madrid: SEGL.

Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-46.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit
learning of languages (pp. 165-209). New York: Academic Press.

Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form- a myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57, 225-233.

Shehadeh, A. (2000). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for acquisitional
research. Language Learning, 52, 597-647.

Starkey, D. (1973). Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica, 9: 29-46.

Stech, E.L. (1982). The analysis of conversational topic sentence structure. Semiotica, 39, 75-91.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196
 196 Eva Alcón

output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and Second Language Acquisition
(pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.),
Principles and practise in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards
second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.

Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189-223.

Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 51, 9-15.

Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van Ek, J.A. (1977). The Threshold Level for modern language learning in schools. London: Longman.

van Ek, J.A. & Trim, J.L.M. (1991). Threshold Level 1990. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Press.

van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. New York: Longman.

Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H.G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10, 128-137.

Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583-625.

Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the sixth regional meeting, Chicago, 567-
577.

© Servicio de Publicaciones. Universidad de Murcia. All rights reserved. IJES, vol. 4 (1), 2004, pp. 173-196

View publication stats