In relation to meaning negotiations with regard to process syllabuses as discussed above, Long and Crookes (1993: 38) contend that the process syllabuses provide systematic support to L2 learners to direct their attention to focus on specific linguistic forms of the target language. Focus on linguistic form is essential because, according to Nassaji and Fotos (2011: 1), language is expressed in core dimensions through its forms (grammar). Therefore, Nassaji and Fotos (2011: 72) maintain that for learners to successfully acquire an L2, giving some attention to teaching the learners the language forms, rules and systems that underpin the grammar of a given language(s), is necessary. Similarly, Ur (2011: 507) holds the view that in the history of L2 teaching, the teaching of grammar has been an area of interest for language teachers. Nassaji and Fotos (2011: 1), for example, point out that grammar teaching in L2s has empirically and theoretically evolved into three different instructional approaches. The approaches include, (i) exclusive focus on grammar teaching, (ii) approaches that focus on meaningful communication in the target language. Lastly, (iii) the approaches that focus on both the meaning and grammatical forms of a given language. In support of the above views, Nassaji (2016: 39-62) attempts to explore studies on the evolution and manifestations grammar teaching and how such studies have continued to shape the discourse of focus on form as well as form-focused instruction as far as L2 teaching and learning is concerned.
In light of Ur’s views, Qian (2014: 129) and Nassaji (2016: 35) express their concerns that grammar teaching in L2 classrooms has taken a turn. According to Qian (2014: 129), this turn in reflected in the two major proposals regarding grammar teaching. On one hand, some researchers and teachers hold the views that suggest the option of teaching grammar as the only principle in L2 classrooms. On the other hand, according to Qian, there are views, such as ‘zero option’ as advanced by Ellis (2008), among others, that advocate for abandoning grammar teaching so that L2 learners are given chances to incorporate grammar naturally as they communicate in L2s. Based on the above situations, Qian (2014: 130) maintains that in L2 teaching and learning focus on form (FoF)is necessary thus Qian advocates the need to embed linguistic forms into learners’ communicative contexts aimed at facilitating learners’ achievements in effective communication and high levels of language performance (see further Nassaji 2016).
In developing the above views further, Keck and Kim (2014: 1) maintain that the teaching of grammar involves the following aspects. First, the description of language systems and rules;
secondly, the learning process, i.e. how grammar is taught. Lastly, the application and use of grammar in the contexts outside the L2 language classroom. Keck and Kim are of the view that the systematic application of the above three aspects is mainly based on language teachers’ beliefs and views on how grammar is learnt and what constitutes the teaching of grammar. In a similar way, Keck and Kim define pedagogical grammar as a discipline that concerns the effectiveness of two issues. Namely, (i) how language grammar is extended (taught) to learners and, (ii) how language grammar is learnt (processed) by L2 learners. Thus, in order to address the above concerns, with reference to Keck and Kim (2014: 1), Odlin (1994) contends that pedagogical grammar draws from a range of other disciplines, thus viewing pedagogical grammar as a ‘hybrid’ notion or discipline. In light of the above, with reference to Keck and Kim (2014: 1-2), Ortega (2003: 1) also refers pedagogical grammar as a ‘cross-fertilization’ field. That is to say, pedagogical grammar is explored from a range of disciplines within the field of ALs. Ortega states that the main disciplines which include, (i) linguistic description, (ii) second language instruction, lastly, (iii) second language acquisition. Keck and Kim (2014: 1-2) are of the view that Ortega’s (2003) views are more similar to those of Wang’s (2003: 73) list of needs that are required to improve grammar courses for teachers of grammar (see, for example, Keck & Kim 2014: 1-3).
Nevertheless, Keck and Kim (2014: 2) emphasise the point that in practice, the above three disciplines are inadequately incorporated mainly in the L2 grammar books. The main reason, according to Keck and Kim, is due to the “fragmented nature of grammar resources.” Thus, in order to strike a balance between the three aspects above, and in relation to Larsen-Freeman’s (2003) remarks on teachers’ beliefs on grammar teaching and how it can be extended to the learners (see also, Keck & Kim 2014: 4), Keck and Kim (2014: 4) synthesise the views of the above scholars (see, for example, Larsen-Freeman 2003; Ortega 2003; Wang 2003) to propose a framework that provides for language teachers to organise their present and future knowledge of grammar, SLA, and second language instruction and pedagogy. The framework (see, Keck & Kim 2014: 4, for its grammatical illustrations) is grounded to address the following questions that partly consider the examination of SLA;
How and when do L2 learners acquire particular grammar forms and systems? In what ways can instruction facilitate this process? Finally, the teacher must evaluate what they know about grammar and grammar acquisition in light of their own teaching contexts. How might a knowledge of pedagogical grammar help to inform the many decisions that teachers make, whether it be choosing a textbook, designing practice activities, or assessing student progress. (Keck &Kim 2014: 4)
According to Keck and Kim (2014: 3), the framework is flexible, based on empirical principles, it takes into considerations learners’ interests and needs of learning L2. The two scholars maintain
that, for example, teachers can redefine the framework with their own beliefs and experiences based on their instructional and institutional contexts and employ it in varying scales. Nassaji and Fotos (2011: 140) note that language teachers are more of professional decision makers rather than agents who only learn and apply teaching methods. Similarly, Keck and Kim (2014: 2-3) argue that classroom practices can hardly be defined in advance but in a “constant state of flux” that change from a moment to another based on the learning objectives and classroom contexts (see Chapter Five for some techniques for classroom grammar teaching).
Nassaji and Fotos (2011: 11) are, however, concerned that, in the literature concerning language learning and teaching, the concept of focus on form (FonF) is a widely advocated approach to grammar teaching. Nassaji and Fotos argue that the definition and the interpretation of the concept of FonF are inconsistent from one author to another. For example, as Ellis (2005b: 9) maintains that FonF facilitates in SLA, Ellis draws a distinction between three related but different senses of the same term, FonF. According to Ellis, these senses include, psycholinguistic, pedagogical as well as discourse-related sense. On one hand, Ellis argues that pedagogical FonF is related to an acquisition process that attempts to induce L2 learners to direct their attention to a particular linguistic form as learners the main goal is on communication and meaning exchange. Ellis maintains that pedagogical FonF is either incidental or planned.
For Ellis, planned FonF obtains when a specific form is selected for L2 learners to draw their attention to, whereas incidental FonF happens when there is a need for a particular linguistic form for L2 learners to attend to. On the other hand, Ellis views discourse-related focus on the form of the reactive as well as pre-emptive related devices that are used by interlocutors to focus on a given form during a conversation or while message exchange. According to Ellis, such devices, include, implicit and explicit feedback or through inquiries i.e. question about a given form. Furthermore, in relation to psycholinguistic-related perspective, Ellis points out that such a perspective is related to the mental processes that are involved in the selection of a linguistic form as the speaker attempts to communicate. Ellis argues that the psycholinguistic-related perspective is less similar to ‘noticing’, as discussed in Ellis (2005b: 7-9). Similarly, the notions of implicit and explicit feedback will be discussed in the subsequent section.
In support of the above views, Ellis (2005a: 212) states that focus on grammatical forms facilitates SLA. According to Ellis, the focus on form is based on three primary references. These are, (i) general orientation of language as a form to L2 learners, (ii) focus on the form might suggest to L2 learners to attend only to the graphic of phonetic instantiations of linguistic forms, lastly, (iii) the assumptions that refer to awareness of some underlying and abstract rule. In addition, Ellis is of the
view, the above references are incorporated within the pedagogical practices in three ways. These include, (i) through grammar lessons targeted to focus on the input and output processing of specific grammatical features. Ellis argues that such focus arrives at through inductive or deductive approaches. Ellis draws a distinction between the two approaches. According to Ellis, the former enhances the noticing of grammatical forms, while the latter attempts to create an awareness of the grammatical rules. (ii) Through focused tasks, i.e. tasks that necessitate L2 learners to comprehend and produce specific grammatical forms during task performance. Lastly, (iii) through methodological procedures that induce L2 learners’ attention to grammatical forms, such as corrective feedback et cetera. Corrective as a form of feedback will be discussed at length in the next section.
In light of the above, Long (2000: 179) suggests that the role of grammar (also known as, focus on form, or, FoF) or what Doughty (2001: 210) refers to ‘selective attention’, in SLA and language pedagogy, is part of the classroom activities even in the non-linguistic approaches to language learning and teaching. According to Long, grammar or FoF is presented to the L2 learner as a way of supplementing the lesson that focuses on meaning or communication. In justifying his own views, Long (2000: 179-185) argues that the teaching of meaning alone is limited to facilitate L2 learners to attain full-native like competencies in a target language. Therefore, Long proposes that whereas grammar supplements meaning on focused lessons, language teachers are bound to direct/shift learners’ attention to focus on form/grammar only when a communication gap exists (see also, Pica et al. 2009: 173-176), as regards to comprehension or production, during the lesson. In relation to the above views, Long (2000: 185) defines FoF as follows:
[Focus] on form refers to how attentional resources are allocated and involves briefly drawing students’ attention to linguistic elements (words, collocations, grammatical structures…) in context as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning, or communication. (Long 2000: 185)
Similarly, in relation to language forms, VanPatten, Williams and Rott (2004: 1) define a language form as a surface manifestation of the underlying representation of a given language. In other words, according to VanPatten et al. (2004: 1), a form is a surface feature of a language. VanPatten et al. (2004: 1) provide examples of language forms. Such examples include language lexemes, verbal and nominal inflections among others. VanPatten et al. (2004: 2) argue that most languages in the world hardly share similar surface features (forms). However, VanPatten et al. (2004: 2) maintain that even the few languages that share such features, such languages apply the shared features in different and varying degrees and scales.
VanPatten et al. (2004: 4) agree with, for example, other previous scholars on the view that perceive language forms after the meaning of such forms. In this context, VanPatten et al. (2004: 4) argue that there is a need to connect the meaning to their corresponding forms. Like Thomas (1995: 1-2), VanPatten et al. (2004: 2-3) also advance the view that meaning is related to a range of definitions. VanPatten et al (2004: 2-3) argue that meaning takes different perspectives in a range of discourse. According to VanPatten et al. (2004: 2-3), the notion of meaning can be defined in contexts, such as (i) sociolinguistics, (ii) pragmatics, (iii) abstract, or in (iii) concrete references.
VanPatten et al. (2004: 2-3) stress that the above meaning contexts can somehow be linked to their specific or corresponding forms. According to VanPatten et al. (2004: 2-3), such an exercise is done by the use of connectors, i.e. form-meaning connection (FMC) (see also Benati & Nuzzo 2017: 3). VanPatten et al. (2004: 2-3) maintain that FMC is a situation(s) where a language form is assigned or encoded to a referral meaning. These scholars point out that FMC is possibly presented as follows; i.e., for example, (i) one form is encoded to one meaning, (ii) one form is encoded more than one meaning. VanPatten et al. (2004: 2-3) argue that such a situation can happen either in different contexts or in a single context. Lastly, (iii) multiple forms encoding the same meaning. In their final remarks, VanPatten et al. (2004: 2-3) advance the view that FMC is a considerable aspect in L2 learning acquisition.