【网学提醒】：本文主要为网上学习者提供关于语言结构复杂度对“有意注意形式教学法”有效性的影响的调查，希望对需要关于语言结构复杂度对“有意注意形式教学法”有效性的影响的调查网友有所帮助，学习一下吧!
资料包括： 论文(85页29824字)
说明：摘 要：本研究旨在调查在我国中学英语教学（EFL）中，语言结构复杂性对‘有意注意形式教学法’有效性的影响，及采用‘有意注意形式教学’与传统教学法学习冠词、一般过去时和现在虚拟条件句三个语言形式结构的不同效果，并探索其制约因素。本研究提出如下三个研究问题： 1) ‘有意注意形式教学’是否对学习上述三个不同类型语言项目有效？ 2)‘有意注意形式教学’是否比传统教学更有效？ 3)语言结构复杂性是否对学习效果有显著影响？
‘有意注意形式教学’（FonF）始于80年代，当时交际法盛行，否认语法教学的系统作用,但交际法效果却不尽人意。‘有意注意形式教学’的提出，是对交际法不教语法的修正，但又与传统教学(FonFs)（即语法翻译法）不同，主张“在交际中将学习者的注意力公然引向语言形式”。对FonF的前期研究主要集中于讨论其有效性，对其有效性看法也不尽同。总体上认为有效，但研究结果各异。也有学者认为（Sheen，2003)两种教学之间没有不同。本研究根据VanPatten (1996, 2002) 输入加工理论，综合加工序列(Pienamann, 1998, 2003)、语义显性度、和交际值三项指标，对三个语言形式结构的复杂度进行了评估，并将其从难到易依次排列如下：冠词﹥现在虚拟条件句﹥一般过去时。
实验为2×3因子设计，由实验、前后、测试构成。60名八年级学生参加了实验，实验组 (n=30) 与控制组 (n=30) 分别采用‘有意注意形式教学’与传统教学两种不同方法，学习三个不同复杂度的语言结构形式；前、后测三次成绩为因变量。对三次实验数据，采用了重复测量方差分析、单因素方差分析和多因素方差分析后，得出如下结果：1）有意注意形式教学，对学习一般过去时和现在虚拟条件句有效，对学习冠词基本无效，其效果不如传统教学；2）学习现在虚拟条件句时，‘有意注意形式教学’比传统教学更有效；学习一般过去时，与传统教学的效果相同；学习冠词时，其效果不如传统教学；3）语言结构复杂性对用FonF 和FonFs学习三个不同形式结构的效果都具有显著影响。
分析上述结果得到以下启示：‘有意注意形式教学’只对学习部分语言形式结构有效，但并不对各种不同类型语言形式结构都有效。学习一项语言形式结构，首先应该按照语义显性度和交际值对其复杂度进行评判，然后再来确定选用‘有意注意形式教学’、还是语法翻译法。
本文由五部分构成：第一章为引言，介绍选题、研究目的及其意义；第二章对前期‘有意注意形式教学’研究中注意强化技巧及取得的不同研究成果进行了回顾，并指出了尚存问题；第三章为理论框架，根据注假设意理论及输入加工理论，建立了本研究假设；第四章报告了现行研究，包括研究假设，目标语选用，实验及其数据收集、整理、分析、讨论；第五章报告了研究结论：‘有意注意形式教学法’只对学习部分语言形式有效；学习某些语言形式时传统教学法更有效；语言结构复杂性对教学方法的有效性具有显著影响。
关键词：有意注意形式教学；传统教学；语言复杂性；交际值；语义显性度
1 Introduction
1.1 Selecting the topic
Formal instruction, i.e. grammar teaching (R. Ellis, 1994：611), is one of the important inter-functional components in the complicated foreign language teaching (FLT) system (Gui Shichun, 2005) and is always a controversial issue for its contribution to the learning of foreign language (FL)/second language (L2) (Ellis, 2002). It always draws great attention from language researchers and teachers of English for its great influence on the efficacy of L2/FL learning/acquisition.
Krashen (1982) claimed that conscious awareness does not help much in learning complex rules, and argued consistently (1981, 1982, 1993) that the effect of form-focused instruction (FFI) on acquisition is only peripheral. However, findings from a lot of studies on the effect of immersion (Harley & Swain, 1978, 1985; Hammerly, 1987; Harley, 1993) have shown that L2 learners in immersion classes often demonstrate weaknesses in grammatical accuracy. Swain (1985) argued that “comprehensible input,” although invaluable to the acquisition process, is not sufficient for learners to fully develop their L2 proficiency. Contra Krashen’s claim, Robinson (1996), suggested that complex rules are better learned in explicit conditions. Krashen’s non-interface position as well as his denial of the role of explicit instruction was thus challenged by Swain’s Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985; 1998 for), Sharwood Smith’s Consciousness-raising or Input Enhancement (1981), Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1990), and especially by the recent focus on form (FonF) approach (Doughty & Long, 1998).
目录：独创性声明.i
Abstract.ii
摘 要.iv
Lists of Tables …………..i
Lists of Figures..vi
Lists of Abbreviations..vii
. Introduction .. 1
1.2 The purpose of this study.4
1.3 Significance of this study.4
2. Literature review..…..5
2.1 The definition of FonF …………………………. .5
2.2 The classification of FonF..….5
2.3 The background of the development of FonF.5
2.4 Previous studies on FonF………………………………….7
2.4.1 Noticing enhancement..…..7
2.4.2 Empirical studies on the effects of noticing enhancement.….8
2.5 The mixed results and linguistic complexity issue..11
3. Theoretical framework..…..13
3.1 Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis….13
3.2 Robinson’s Proposal….13
3.3 VanPatten’s input processing principles..14
3.4 Linguistic complexity issue15
4. The present study.…..20
4.1 Research hypotheses..….20
4.2 Operational definition of the main variables..20
4.3 Subjects21
4.4 Target language forms..…..21
4.5 Research design.…..22
4.6 Research procedures..…..24
4.7 Research instrument…27
4.8 Data collection and analysis.….28
4.8.1 Scoring.28
4.8.2 Data Analysis29
4.9 Discussion..….41
5 Conclusions.…..47
5.1 Major findings …..47
5.2 Implications findings …..48
5.3 Limitations of the present study ..…..49
References…….viii
Appendixes ..…xiii
Appendix 1 Reading passages in Phase 1..…..xiii
Appendix 2 Phase 2 Writing topic prompts for EG……………………………………………….xv
Appendix 3 Model Compositions…………………………………………………………………xvii
Appendix 4 Grammaticality judgment test ………………………………………………………..xx
Appendix 5 八年级学生英语学习问卷…………………………………………………………..xxii
Appendix 6 Pretest…………………………………………………………………………………xxiv
Acknowledgementsxxvii
参考文献：Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347-376.
Bradai, S. M. (2002). Re-examining the role of recasts in native speaker-nonnative speaker interaction. Language Learning, 52, 1-42.
Bresnan, Joan. (1995). Lexicality and argument structure. Paper downloaded at http: //www-lfg. stanford.edu/lfg/.
Carroll, S. E. (1999). Putting ‘input’ in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337-388.
Carroll, S. E. (2002). Induction in a modular learner. Second Language Research, 18, 224-249.
DeKeyser, R. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “processing instruction: an update”. Language Learning, 52, 805-823.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell, 313-348.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Eds.). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 206-257.
Doughty, C. & Long, M. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998a). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1-11.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998b). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 197-261.
Driver, John. (2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 53-77.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 4, 193-220.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. et al, (2001). Preemptive Focus on Form in the ESL Classroom [J] TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 35, No.3 Autumn.
Ellis. R., Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S. (2002-30): 419-432. Doing focus on form [J] System.
Ellis, R. (2002a). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? [J] Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24:223-236.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching [M].Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foster, P. (1998-19): 1-23.A Classroom Perspective on the Negotiation of Meaning [J]. Mahawh NJ: Applied Linguistics.
Fotos, S. (2003). Shifting the focus from form to form in the EFL classroom [J], ELT Journal 52:301-307.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Gass, S & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Gass, S; Svetic, I. & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53, 497-545.
Geeslin, K. (2002). Semantic transparency as a predictor of copula choice in second language acquisition. Linguistics 40, 439-468.
Han Zhaohong. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543-572.
Hatch, E. & Farhady, H. (1982) Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley: Newsbury House Publishers, INC.
Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M.(2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: an experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 24, 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulties of relativization. Language Learning 53, 285-323.
James, William. (1890/1999). The Principle of Psychology. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House.
Kowal, M & Swain, M. (1994-3). Using Collaborative Language Production Tasks to Promote Students’ Language Awareness. [J] Language Awareness.
Krashen, D. S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Leow, R. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467-505.
Leow, R. (1998). Towards operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133-159.
Leow, R. (2002). Models, attention, and awareness in SLA: a response to Simard and Wong’s “Alertness, Orientation, and Detection: the conceptualization of attentional functions in SLA.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 113-119.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Ed.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 177-196.
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
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.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of Language Acquisition. Vol. 2: Second Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press. 413-468.
Long M. H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, process. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds), Focus on form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 15-41.
Mackey, A. Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T. Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.181-209.
Master, P. (1990). Teaching the English articles as a binary system. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 461-478.
McLaughlin, B, Rossman, T. & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: an information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135-157.
Marainne Celce-murcia, (1991). Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching, TESOL Quarterly Vol.25 No. 3 Autumn.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617-673.
Norris J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417-528.
Lightbown, P. M; & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning [J]. Studies of Second Language Acquisition (12): 429-448
Pienemann, M. (1987). ‘Psychological constraints on the teachability of language’.. In C, Pfaff (Eds), First and Second Language Acquisition Processes. Cambridge: Newsbury House Publishers.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: processibility theory. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pienemann, M. (2003). Language processing capacity. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds), The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell. 679-714.
Radford, A. (2000). Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45-99.
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 17, 368-392.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds), The handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell. 631- 678.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-153.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.). Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre Technical Report No. 9. Honolulu: University of Hawai’I Press, 1-64.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Eds.). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp3-32.
Sharwood, Smith. M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 11, 159-168.
Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form-a myth in making. ELT Journal Volume 57/3, July, 2003, Oxford University Press
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: an agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52, 597-647.
Silva-Corvala´n, Carmen. (1994). Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon.
Simard, D. & W. Wong. (2001). Alertness, orientation, and detection: the conceptualization of attentional functions in SLA. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 23, 103-124.
Steven, J. et al. (2003). Longman English Course (Side by Side), Shanghai: Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education 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.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 64-81.
Tomlin, R. & Villa, H. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
Truscott, John. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: a critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103-135.
VanPatten B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
VanPatten B. (2002a). Processing Instruction: an update, Language Learning, 52, 755-803.
VanPatten. B. (2002b) Processing the content of input-processing and processing instruction research: a response to Dekeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, and Harrington, Language Learning, 52, 825-831.
VanPatten B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: a typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams. (Eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 85-113.
Williams, Jessica. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583-625
Williams, J. N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1-48.
Ying, Hongguang. (1995). What sort of input is needed for intake? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 33, 175-195.
陈琳等，(2002). 英语课程标准解读[M]，北京：北京师范大学出版社。
戴炜栋，(2005). 二语语法教学综述[J]，《外语教学于研究》第2期。
桂诗春，(1997). 实验心理语言学纲要[M] 长沙：湖南教育出版社。
桂诗春，(2005). 外语教学的认知基础[J].《外语教学与研究》第7期。
何莲珍，(2004). 交际课堂中的形式教学[J]，《外语与外语教学》第1期。
黄国文，(1993). 交际能力与交际语言教学[J]，《现代外语》第3期。
孔燕平，(2004). 外语教学中交际式读写的运用[J].《外语与外语教学》第1期。
龙献平，(2005). 论交际法的教学效应[J]《西安外国语学院学报》第3期
束定芳，(1996). 现代外语教学[M]，上海：上海教学于研究出版社。
夏章洪，(2005). 不同英语语法效果对比[J]，《国外外语教学》第4期。
王蔷等，(2000). 英语教学法教程[M] 北京: 高等教育出版社。
作者点评：5.1 Major findings
The present study set out to investigate 1) whether FonF facilitates EFL learners’ learning of the three linguistic forms, 2) whether FonF approach produce better results than FonFs, and 3) whether linguistic complexity exert significant impact upon EFL learners’ learning of a linguistic form. The major findings of it are as follow:
Firstly, FonF is very effective in facilitating the learners’ learning of English conditional if, and almost equally effective with FonFs in facilitating the learners’ learning the past tense, but not effective enough in facilitating the learners’ learning of the English article system. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is partially supported.
Secondly, FonF is more effective than FonFs in facilitating the learners’ learning of English conditional if, but less effective than FonFs in learning article. As to the learning of the past tense, FonF and FonFs are equally effective. Thus, Hypothesis 2 that FonF is more effective than FonFs in facilitating the learners’ learning of the three target structures is also partially supported.
Thirdly, there is significant difference between complex structure and simple structures, between complex structure and the structure of moderate complexity, and between the structure of moderate complexity and simple structure in both posttests. The overall results of MANOVA (see Table 18) suggest that structural complexity has significant impact upon the efficacy of FonF and FonFs in terms of both short-term and long-term effects. The differential results of FonF in facilitating the learners’ learning of the three linguistic forms have a close relationship with the MT and CV features of them. A form with lower MT in terms of its inherent semantic value is more attention- demanding than a form with higher CV. In short, the high CV a form has, the more effective FonF is in facilitating students’ learning of it, and vice versa. This is consistent with van Patten’s proposal that a structure of high communicative value is more likely to be noticed than a structure of lower communicative value.
Furthermore, the results of MANOVA also indicates that the interactive effects of complexity*method is statistically significant, F (2, 174) =3.988, P<.004. It is generally acknowledged that when we have a strong interaction effect, we cannot consider the main effects as important (Hatch & Farhady, 1981). In this particular research, we cannot make the claim that FonF works better than FonFs though there is a significant difference between the two methods. Most of the difference for methods (see Figure 5 and Figure 6) is attributable to the better performance of the learners when instructed via FonF in learning conditional if. There is virtually no significant difference between the gains the FonF group and FonFs group separately made in both posttests of past tense. In addition, FonFs produced better results than FonF in facilitating the learners’ learning of the English article in Posttest1, but no significant difference was found between the two groups in Posttest 2. Hypothesis 3 that linguistic complexity exerts significant impact upon EFL learners’ learning of a linguistic form is, thus, supported.
