Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


An interest in investigating the effect of instruction on interlanguage development prompted me to conduct a study on a small group of adult migrant learners of English. As a first step, the learners were assessed for their stage of syntactic development. This assessment showed that a structure-do-fronted questions – had not been acquired by some of the learners but was one for which they were syntactically ready. Because questioning is an important and complex speech act, the learners were then given instruction which focused their attention on do-fronting. The follow-up assessment indicated that instruction can be successful because the learners acquired do-fronting. The study supports the claim that form-focused instruction can make a difference. It also lends weight to Pienemann’s claim that the effectiveness of instruction depends on whether a structure is learnable for an individual learner. The study shows that form-focused instruction can provide an innovative linguistic focus to communicative language teaching and give important assistance with the second language acquisition of the learners.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Clahsen, H. , J. Meisel and M. Pienemann
    (1983) Deutsch als zweitsprache: der Spracherwerb auslandischer Arbeiter. Gunter Narr, Tubingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, R.
    (1973) A first language. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674732469
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674732469 [Google Scholar]
  3. Dulay, H. and M. Burt
    (1973) Should we teach children syntax?Language Learning23: 245–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1973.tb00659.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x [Google Scholar]
  4. (1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning24: 37–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1974.tb00234.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x [Google Scholar]
  5. (1975) Creative construction in second language learning and teaching. In M. Burt and (eds.). H. Dulay On TESOL ‘75Washington DC, TESOL.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dulay, H. , M. Burt and S.D. Krashen
    (1982) Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Doughty, C.
    (1992) Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition13:431–69. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100010287
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010287 [Google Scholar]
  8. Johnston, M.
    (1985) Syntactic and Morphological Progressions in Learner English, Research Report. Canberra, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Commonwealth of Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1986) Second language acquisition research: a classroom perspective. NSW: Adult Migrant Education Service.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1994) Second Language Acquisition : a classroom perspective. ASLA 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Krashen, S. D.
    (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford, Pergamon Press Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York, Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (1992) Teaching issues: formal grammar instruction, TESOL Quarterly26,2:409–411. doi: 10.2307/3587020
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587020 [Google Scholar]
  14. Krashen, S.D. and T. Terrel
    (1983) The Natural Approach. New York, Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Larsen-Freeman, D. and M. Long
    (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York, Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lightbown, P. M.
    (1983) Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger and M. Long (eds) Classroom oriented research on second language acquisition. Rowley Mass., Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lightbown, P. M. and N. Spada
    (1990) Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition12: 429–448. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100009517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009517 [Google Scholar]
  18. Long, M. H.
    (1983) Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly17,3: 359–82 doi: 10.2307/3586253
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586253 [Google Scholar]
  19. (1991) Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste , C. Kramsch and R. Ginsberg (eds.) Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.2.07lon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2.07lon [Google Scholar]
  20. Pavesi, M.
    (1984) The acquisition of relative clauses in a formal and in an informal setting: further evidence in support of the markedness hypothesis. In D. Singleton , and D. Little , (eds) Language learning in formal and informal contexts. Dublin, IRAAL.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Pica, T.
    (1983) Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning33, 4: 465–497. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1983.tb00945.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00945.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Pienemann, M.
    (1984a) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition6, 2:186–214. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100005015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005015 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1984b) Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann . (eds) Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1987) Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics10,2: 83–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1989) Is Language Teachable? Psycholinguistic Experiments and Hypotheses. Applied Linguistic s10,1:52–79. doi: 10.1093/applin/10.1.52
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.52 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1992) Assessing Second Language Acquisition Through Rapid Profile. LARC Occassional Papers 3.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pienemann, M. and M. Johnston
    (1987) Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (ed). Applying Second Language Acquisition Research. Adelaide, NCRC.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pienemann, M. , M. Johnston and G. Brindley
    (1988) Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition10, 2:217–243. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100007324
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100007324 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pienemann, M. and A. Mackey
    (1992) An Empirical Study of Children’s ESL Development and Rapid Profile. In P. McKay ESL Development:: Language and Literacy in Schools. National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia: Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pienemann, M. A. Mackey and I. Thornton
    (1991) Rapid Profile. LARC Occasional Papers 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Spada, N. and P. Lightbown
    (1993) Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition15:205–221. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100011967
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011967 [Google Scholar]
  32. White, L. , N. Spada , P.M. Lightbown , and L. Ranta
    (1991) Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics12:416–432. doi: 10.1093/applin/12.4.416
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.4.416 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error