Abstract
This chapter sets the scene for further discussion by outlining the universal character of the form-function dichotomy in L2A/FLL research. Section 1.2 discusses the roots and manifestations of the form-function dialectic, as present in L1A research. Section 1.3 shows how the dichotomy translates into L2A/FLL studies. Section 1.4 gives the rationale for trying to reconcile both foci in L2A/FLL at the level of theory construction and teaching practice. Section 1.5 provides epistemic and utilitarian justification for introducing formal aspects into L2A/FLL pedagogy, thus further validating the need for the form-function reconciliation.
Now you may be thinking that the form-function dichotomy is a false one…
(Larsen-Freeman, 2003, p. 7)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For reasons elaborated later on (see Sect. 3.3.1 ) this book draws a distinction between child and adult L2/FL learning.
- 2.
The concept of I-language echoes Saussure’s concept of langue , which emphasizes the need to study the linguistic system, however—an aspect not adopted by formalists—locates the system outside the individual, in the speech community (Anderson & Lightfoot, 2002, pp. 12–13).
- 3.
The concept of E-language is reminiscent of Saussure’s concept of parole —the concrete acts of language use (Anderson & Lightfoot, 2002, p. 12).
- 4.
The fact that Ninio, although adopting the minimalist program (e.g., Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002), rejects the role of UG in favor of the connectionist account of acquisition, makes her claim of the primacy of form no less forceful, and thus I locate her research within the formalist strand.
- 5.
To exemplify, children pay no attention to the semantic properties of the subject noun phrase when acquiring the auxiliary inversion structure (Newmeyer, 1998, p. 48).
- 6.
According to the generative framework, properties of language are captured in universal principles encoded in the linguistic genome, while parameters—set via exposure to the target language input—account for cross-linguistic variation (Schachter, 1996a, p. 71; Smith, 2004, p. 79).
- 7.
The emphasis on interaction is at times caricatured by the formal L2A camp as “do[ing] nothing but chat” (Gregg, 2000).
- 8.
A few attempts at merging cognitive functionalism (e.g., Langacker, 2008) with L2A/FLL have also been made (e.g., Bielak, Pawlak, & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2013; Turewicz, 2000), yet their analysis exceeds the scope of this book.
- 9.
See further discussion for the clarification of the capitalized S.
- 10.
Unless, in a manner proposed by Gozdawa-Gołębiowski (2013) or Hirsh-Pasek and Golinkoff (1999), one interprets top-down as rule-based (and bottom-up as lexically-based)—this time naturally locating top-down within the formal, and bottom-up within the functional orientation.
- 11.
The issue of implicit/incidental learning resurfaces in Chap. 3, where the psycholinguistics of L2A/FLL are zoomed in on.
- 12.
Therefore being sometimes categorized (e.g., Gozdawa-Gołębiowski, 2013) as a utilitarian method.
- 13.
Thus, the CTP may be seen as the forerunner of task-based instruction (TBI) (Pawlak, 2006, p. 153).
- 14.
Why the L2/FL learner needs both—grammar and communicative effectiveness—is explained in Sect. 1.5.
- 15.
Links with Swain’s output hypothesis (1985) are visible here but—the latter being associated with bilingual education—I postpone its presentation till Chap. 2.
- 16.
Close (1992, pp. 1–2) qualifies the meaning and use dimension as grammar as choice , as opposed to the formal dimension, which he qualifies as grammar as fact .
- 17.
This book leans toward Close’s (1992) two-tier distinction, on the grounds that propositional choices entail pragmatic distinctions and it is often difficult to tear them neatly apart (see also 4.5.3.2).
- 18.
The term IE was introduced by Smith (1993) to replace C-R, in order to avoid the assumption that it necessarily alters the learner’s mental state. However, the term IE is typically used to refer to typographical input enhancement (e.g., Reinders & Ellis, 2009, p. 282; VanPatten, 1996, p. 84).
- 19.
Recasting involves implicit, target-like reformulations of ill-formed learners’ utterances, provided by the teacher (e.g., Lyster, 2004, p. 404).
- 20.
- 21.
Prompts—unlike recasts—withhold correct forms and offer learners an opportunity to self-repair (Lyster, 2004, p. 405).
- 22.
The study also demonstrated that prompts were more effective than recasts in shaping learners’ knowledge of the target feature—a point to be returned to in Sect. 3.4.1.3.
- 23.
Obviously, this is an oversimplification, not doing justice to the complexity of the ELF research—the latter remaining beyond the scope of this book (for more see e.g., Seidlhofer, 2011).
- 24.
Having over ten years of EFL teaching experience, I am actually surprised how many of my students—in the context of vocational education, unrelated directly to English—express interest in the intricacies of English grammar.
- 25.
This is what actually happened to one of my friends—and there was no happy ending.
- 26.
Horwitz (2013) compares the experience to wearing frilly pink dresses, totally not to her taste, yet a gift from a close relative whose feelings she did not wish to hurt.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walenta, M. (2019). A Broader Design Context—The Form/Function Debate in L2A/FLL Research. In: Form-Function Mapping in Content-Based Language Teaching. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04699-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04699-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04698-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04699-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)