Considering that each pedagogical technique has its value, in order to probe
deeper into the efficacy of application in writing training, the limitations are to be
examined as well. To decide which FonF technique should be used for a specific
target structure, it should be clarified first which target forms are more amenable to
FonF than others. There are certain constraints when considering the target structure
for FonF intervention.
First of all, there is the issue of the nature of enhanced form—“not all linguistic
elements are created equal” (Han et al., 2008, P607). Some elements are more
amenable to FonF than others. As DeKeyser (1998) indicated, among the many facets
of language learning, morphosyntax is a complex area of concern when applying FonF.
As some researchers indicated, for example, Hulstijn and De Graaff (1994), simple
rules are not necessarily the best candidates for FonF, because they assume that the
easier rules are precisely the ones that students can discover for themselves. DeKeyser
also suggested, “…instead of giving up on more difficult rules, teachers may have to
put the most emphasis on them” (1998, p. 44). Where positive evidence alone is not
sufficient for the learners, FonF comes in. He identified that there are a few issues to
discuss when considering significance of linguistic variables. One of them is the
degree of complexity.
On degree of complexity, different researchers brought up issues like
formal/functional complexity (Krashen, 1982), underlying rules (DeKeyser, 1994),
and communicative value (VanPatten, 1996), to name just a few.
Krashen (1982) highlighted the division of formal and functional complexity and
categorized certain rules as easy to learn but hard to acquire. This principle can serve
as a basic guideline for selecting structure to undergo FonF. The past tense would then
be a candidate for FonF intervention in that it is taught in early English education and
yet is not easy to master even after years of instruction.
Addressing the complexity issue from a different perspective, VanPatten (1996)
introduced the concept of communicative value, which can be classified into high,
medium and low, based on semantic value and structural redundancy. The semantic
value that the past tense possesses varies in different contexts. In contexts where time
clue is clear, the semantic value of the past tense is low and it would be structurally
redundant. For instance:
“Last night, Ginger played computer games.”
The time clue “last night” clearly indicates that the action is in the past.
Listeners/readers do not have to rely on the past tense to understand the time frame.
However, in contexts where there is vague or even no time clue, the past tense would
be necessary for time reference, and thus structurally non-redundant. For example:
“Ginger stayed up late and thus dozed off in class this morning.”
There is no time clue in this sentence. Listeners/readers are pushed to interpret
the time of the action with the aid of the past tense marker. The semantic value of the
past tense thus differs, depending on the context. Due to this complexity, the past
tense is not easy to acquire.
The complexity can be further discussed from the following perspective. A
structure might be formally simple, and yet functionally complex, as the formal
simplicity and functional complexity of third person singular –s, indicated by
DeKeyser (1998):
…one morpheme expresses several semantic concepts at the same time (the present tense, singular, third person), and the rule has a number of high-frequency exceptions (modals). Many inflectional morphemes (at least in inflectional as opposed to agglutinative languages) show such complexity in their form-function relationship.
Similarly, the past tense can be viewed as functionally complex, despite the fact
that it appears simple. Specifically, the form of the past tense implies many concepts.
“[I]t is the complexity of the rule and not its surface realization that will determine
how hard it is to learn” (DeKeyser, 1998). In the learning of English the past tense
involves many concepts, like the semantic value of time reference, and the relevant
linguistic knowledge that it should be the main verb in the sentence and there should
be no auxiliary (modals) verbs. The regular and irregular forms of the past tense are
another possible source of confusion for the students; their confusion is further
complicated by the fact that the passive voice and perfect tense share the same form.
Besides constraints that influence what target is amenable to FonF, there are also
constraints that determine the efficacy of FonF: the learners’ prior knowledge, learner
readiness (developmental readiness) and attention allocation mechanism.
The prior knowledge (or lack thereof) of the enhanced form would make it more
or less salient for the learners to notice. As Han et al. reviewed, three main findings
have been offered in this respect:
First, simple enhancement is more effective for learners with some prior knowledge of the form in question (Park 2004) than for learners without (Alanen 1995). Second, simple enhancement may induce noticing (i.e. low-level awareness, following Schmidt 1990) but not understanding (i.e. high-level awareness) in learners with little prior knowledge (Shook 1994); however, it may incite understanding as well as noticing in learners with some prior knowledge (Lee 2007). Third, compound enhancement (i.e. TE in combination with other attention-getting strategies such as CF) is more effective than simple enhancement in inducing noticing, and further processing of, the target form in both types of learners.
It has been brought forth by researchers that learners tend to notice forms that
they are ready to learn. This learner readiness, or developmental readiness (Park,
2004), is similar to “internally generated input enhancement” (Han et al., 2008). Han
et al. (2008) pointed out that learners possess their own natural learning agenda and
processing mechanisms which decide what to focus on when processing input
information. When exposed to externally enhanced input, learners may or may not
notice the target form, or may even notice it partially, all contingent on whether or not
they are developmentally ready for it (Han et al. 2008).
Relevant to the issue of developmental readiness, learners’ attention allocation
mechanism also affects whether a given structure will be further attended and
processed in the Working Memory. As Park suggested, learners are more likely to
notice forms that they are ready to learn and internalize, and that aiming at target
structures which are too advanced for learners may not be effective. Besides,
…how focal attention is allocated is something that is negotiated by the teacher and the students and not directly observable. The intended outcome of focus on form is what Schmidt (1993b and elsewhere) calls noticing. (Long, 1998)
Noticing concerns learners’ consciousness, and “questions concerning the role of
consciousness in learning, however difficult to answer, are important to all” (Schmidt,
1995). Noticing and subsequent processing of target form influence the efficacy of
FonF to a great extent, since learners have to go through a procedure of exposure
(input), registering (intake), and analysis of the form, before they achieve the
linguistic competence (uptake). To have a clear picture of what essential differences
there are, if any, among the three FonF techniques mentioned above (CF, IE and PI),
issues concerning attention and awareness have to be examined.