Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning

Applied Linguistics 29/4: 694–716 ß Oxford University Press 2008
doi:10.1093/applin/amn018 Advance Access published on 2 June 2008
Form-focused Instruction in Second

Language Vocabulary Learning:
A Case for Contrastive Analysis
and Translation
BATIA LAUFER and NANY GIRSAI

University of Haifa
The study investigates the effect of explicit contrastive analysis and translation
activities on the incidental acquisition of single words and collocations. We
compared three high school groups of learners of the same L1 and comparable
L2 (English) proficiency. Each group represented one instructional condition:
meaning focused instruction (MFI), non-contrastive form-focused instruction
(FFI), and contrastive analysis and translation (CAT). The target items consisted
of ten unfamiliar words and ten collocations in L2—English. The MFI group
performed content-oriented tasks which did not require attention to the target
items. The FFI group performed text-based vocabulary tasks which focused on
the target items. The CAT group was assigned text-based translation tasks: from
L2 into L1, and from L1 into L2. During the correction stage, the teacher
provided a contrastive analysis of the target items and their L1 translation
options. Time-on-task was kept constant in the three groups. After completing
the tasks, the three groups were tested on the retention of the target items by
two tests: active recall and passive recall. A week later, the participants received
the same tests. The CAT (contrastive analysis and translation) group significantly
outperformed the other two groups on all the tests. These superior results are
discussed in light of the ‘noticing’ hypothesis, ‘pushed output’, ‘task-induced
involvement load’, and the influence that L1 exerts on the acquisition of L2
vocabulary.
INTRODUCTION
The pedagogical approach of form-focused instruction to second language
teaching can be regarded as a modification of communicative language
teaching, whose proponents believed that comprehensible input and meaning-
oriented tasks were necessary and sufficient for language acquisition. When it
became evident that second language learners could not achieve high levels of
grammatical competence from entirely meaning-centred instruction (Swain
1988; Lyster 1994; Lightbown and Spada 1999), applied linguists suggested that
learners should also attend to form (Long 1991; De Keyser 1998; Norris
and Ortega 2000; Ellis 2001; Housen and Pierrard 2005). The term ‘form’
includes the function that a particular structure performs. For example,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

by Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Muenchen user
on 24 December 2017
BATIA LAUFER and NANY GIRSAI 695
attention to the ‘form’-ed subsumes the realization that -ed signals an

action performed in the past.
Form-focused instruction, henceforth FFI, can be of two types: Focus on
Form (FonF) and Focus on Forms (FonFs). The first is a pedagogical approach
defined by Long as drawing learners’ attention to linguistic elements during
a communicative activity. Focus on Forms, on the other hand, is an approach
equated with the ‘traditional’ method, which entails teaching discrete linguistic
structures in separate lessons in a sequence determined by syllabus writers.
According to Ellis (2001), in a FonFs approach, students view themselves
as learners of a language and the language as the object of study; in FonF, on
the other hand, learners view themselves as language users and language is
viewed as a tool for communication. The notion of FFI was developed in
the context of grammar learning, but it can be extended to vocabulary as well.
Thus, learners’ attention can be drawn to lexical items (single words and
multi-word units) within a communicative task environment if these lexical
items are necessary for the completion of a communicative, or an authentic
language task.
For example, when reading a text, or engaging in a group discussion,
learners may come across unfamiliar words and look them up in a dictionary.
This activity constitutes Focus on Form since the words attended to are
necessary tools for task completion. Conversely, learners’ attention can be
drawn to words in non-communicative, non-authentic language tasks, as in
the case of matching words that were taught and are listed in column A to
their definitions in column B, or filling in these words in given sentences,
one word in each sentence. These are examples of FonFs in the sense that
they entail teaching and practising discrete lexical items, which are treated as
the objects of study and not as tools of language use.
Empirical research of form-focused instruction has also been conducted
mainly in the context of the teaching of grammar, not vocabulary. Only
recently has FFI been explicitly linked to vocabulary instruction (Hill and
Laufer 2003; Laufer 2005, 2006; Peters 2006). However, many earlier studies
that examined the usefulness of various instructional techniques on vocabulary
learning (dictionary use, negotiation of meaning in the input or output, writing
original sentences, computerized exercises, etc.) investigated, in fact, the effect
of FFI in its own right, or in comparison with meaning-based approaches thus
providing indirect empirical support for the efficacy of FFI for lexical learning.
For example, Luppesku and Day (1993) and Knight (1994) studied the
incidental acquisition of new words, that is the acquisition of words without
learners’ deliberate attempts to commit them to memory. They compared
students who read a text and looked up unknown words in the dictionary with
students who read the text without a dictionary. The dictionary condition fared
better than the reading only condition. Ellis et al. (1994) found that
interactionally modified input, that is input that included clarifications, was
more beneficial for learning new words than pre-modified input (input
prepared on the basis of prior student interaction before the experimental task).

on 24 December 2017
696 FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION IN L2 VOCABULARY LEARNING
De la Fuente (2002) found that learners exposed to input during negotiated

interaction with or without production of pushed output learnt more words
than learners exposed to non-negotiated input. The FFI conditions in the
above examples could be classified as Focus on Form since they entailed
attention to vocabulary during communicative tasks. For additional examples
of FonF studies, see Hulstijn (1992), Newton (1993), Ellis and He (1999), and
Watanabe (1997).
There are numerous examples of studies that could be classified as Focus on
Forms studies, where vocabulary was practised in isolation, or in minimal
context. We will briefly describe two. Snellings et al. (2002) increased learners’
word retrieval speed through four types of exercises: sentence completion,
a decision about which of two supplied words make a given sentence incorrect,
a decision about which word will correct a given sentence, and a translation
of a Dutch word into English within an English sentence context. Horst et al.
(2005) investigated vocabulary learning through the use of word banks, on-line
dictionaries, concordances, cloze exercises, hypertexts, and self-quizzes. The
two studies found that many of the practised words were learnt both receptively
and productively. For additional examples of studies that include at least one
FonFs condition, see Prince (1996), Qian (1996), Paribakht and Wesche (1997),
Zimmerman (1997), Groot (2000), Kitajima (2001), Boers et al. (2004),
Mondria and Wiersma, (2004), and Webb (2005, 2007).
The evidence for the effectiveness of FFI in vocabulary is indirect since the
studies mentioned above were not designed to specifically contrast FFI and
non-FFI conditions. Nor did the authors intend to specifically advocate decon-
textualized vocabulary learning of FonFs type. And yet, the overall conclusion
of the studies is unambiguous: form-focused instruction, both of FonF and
FonFs kinds, is beneficial to vocabulary learning. The results (in terms of the
number of words retained after the FFI task) are usually superior to non-FFI
conditions in comparative studies. In non-comparative studies, on average,
two-thirds of the meanings of new words are recalled or recognized correctly on
the post-tests (for a survey of FFI vocabulary studies, see Laufer 2005).
The vocabulary studies mentioned above employ a variety of means to focus
on the words targeted for learning: glosses, dictionary use, negotiation of
meaning, vocabulary exercises involving comprehension or production of
words, and computer assisted learning devices (hypertexts, concordances,
on-line dictionaries). To our knowledge, no research has examined the value of
contrastive FFI of vocabulary, such as interlingual comparisons with learners’
L1, or translation. By contrastive FFI, we do not refer to bilingual glosses which
simply state the meaning of L2 words, but to the kind of instruction which leads
to learners’ understanding of the similarities and differences between their L1
and L2 in terms of individual words and the overall lexical system. For example,
in the case of French as L2, a bilingual gloss would translate the French word
‘savoir’ as ‘know’. Teachers using contrastive FFI, on the other hand, would
point out that ‘savoir’ and ‘know’ do not overlap semantically and would
provide explanation and practice of the difference between the two French

on 24 December 2017
translations of ‘know’: ‘savoir’ and ‘connaı̂tre’. Lack of contrastive FFI studies is

rather surprising. With the growth of interest in transfer studies and cross-
linguistic influence since the 1980s (e.g. Gass and Selinker 1983; Odlin 1989),
we could have expected to see an increased interest in researching the
connection between overcoming learning difficulties and heightening the
learners’ awareness to the differences between L1 and L2 that were causing
them. Moreover, since providing cross-linguistic information is a clear case of
focus on form, or forms (depending on whether it is provided within a
communicative task, or not), it seems natural that FFI research should extend
to cross-linguistic instruction.1 Such research has been conducted in the area of
grammar. The results showed that providing learners with cross-linguistic
information proves to be effective in the instruction of some selected structures
(Kupferberg and Olshtain 1996; Sheen 1996; Kupferberg 1999; Ammar and
Lightbown 2005).
We hypothesize that, similarly to grammar, L2 vocabulary teaching will
benefit from cross-linguistic form-focused instruction which entails compar-
ison with L1 and translation. Such an approach to vocabulary teaching can be
justified in terms of several hypotheses that explain effectiveness in L2 learning
in general: ‘noticing’, ‘pushed output’, and ‘task-induced involvement load’.
It can also be justified by work in contrastive semantics, psycholinguistics, error
analysis, and corpus analyses of learner language, work that demonstrates the
pervasive influence of L1 on L2 vocabulary learning.
The ‘noticing’ hypothesis, which provided the theoretical underpinning of
FFI, states that learners must consciously notice forms and the meanings
these forms realize in the input in order to convert input into intake for
learning (Schmidt 1990, 1994). Schmidt (2001) defines ‘noticing’ as the
subjective correlate of what psychologists call attention, and concludes, on the
basis of psychological literature, that although there may be some forms of
learning without attention, in general, intentionally focused attention may
be a practical necessity for successful language learning. Since many features
of L2 input are likely to be infrequent, non-salient, and communicatively
redundant, they may go unnoticed unless attention is drawn to them.
According to Robinson (1995), noticing entails detecting and then rehearsing
the linguistic feature in short-term memory before storing it in long-term
memory.
One way to make a foreign language feature noticeable or salient in the input
is to enhance it by providing contrastive association with the corresponding L1
item. Such associations are the essence of explicit contrastive instruction. As
mentioned earlier, empirical evidence can be found for the effectiveness of this
approach in grammar. Since vocabulary can be enhanced in the same way, we
can expect a similar beneficial influence of contrastive FFI on vocabulary
learning.
The ‘pushed output’ hypothesis claims that when learners produce
language and stretch their linguistic resources in the process, they improve
their language production and their language development (Swain 1985;

on 24 December 2017
Swain and Lapkin 1995). There is empirical evidence that output tasks have
been more effective than input tasks for learning new words (Ellis and He
1999; De la Fuente 2002). Translation into L2 is a manifestation of pushed
output. In order to translate, the learner is required to produce language, but
unlike in the case of free production, the learner cannot produce a good
translation if s/he avoids problematic words or structures. Hence, translation
should be at least as effective as other pushed output tasks for learning
vocabulary.
The ‘task-induced involvement load’ hypothesis (Laufer and Hulstijn 2001)
postulates that the learning of words is best achieved by means of tasks with a
high involvement load, that is tasks which combine three elements with regard
to the words being practiced: ‘need’, ‘search’, and ‘evaluation’. The ‘need’
component is the motivational dimension of involvement. Search and
evaluation are the two cognitive dimensions of involvement. ‘Need’ is present
in the task when the word is perceived as necessary for task completion.
‘Search’ is the attempt to find the meaning of an unknown L2 word or,
conversely, to find the L2 word form expressing a given concept. Examples of
‘search’ are: trying to find the L2 translation of an L1 word by consulting a
dictionary, or trying to infer the meaning of an L2 word from context.
‘Evaluation’ implies some kind of selective decision about the word’s meaning,
or form, in which the word’s context is taken into account. It entails a
comparison of a given word with other words, a specific meaning of a word
with its other meanings, or comparing the word with other words in order to
assess whether a word does or does not fit its context. Two degrees of
prominence have been suggested for ‘evaluation’: moderate and strong. A
‘moderate evaluation’ entails recognizing differences between words (as in a
fill-in task with words provided in a list), or differences between several senses
of a word in a given context (as in the decision of the meaning of a homonym
in a particular text context). ‘Strong evaluation’ requires a decision as to how
additional words will combine with the new word in an original, as opposed to
given, L2 sentence. The involvement hypothesis was proposed as an attempt to
operationalize the concepts that have been used in connection with good
retention: depth of processing, degree of elaboration, quality of attention,
richness of encoding (see, for example, Craik and Lockhart 1972; Baddeley
1997). Empirical evidence was found to support the involvement load
hypothesis fully, or partially (Laufer and Hulstijn 2001; Hill and Laufer 2003;
Webb 2005). Translation tasks embody the element of need since the words
that have to be understood (when translating into L1), or produced (when
translating into L2) are predetermined by the source text. The element of
search is present as well. If an L2 word is unfamiliar, learners have to conduct a
search for its meaning when translating into L1, or a search for its form when
translating into L2. Most importantly, an element of evaluation is necessary to
carry out a translation activity. There is usually more than one translation
alternative for a given sentence. Therefore, when translating, learners have to
make a decision as to how each alternative fits the text they create. When the

on 24 December 2017
translation is into L2, this decision will be based on the way other words in L2
combine with the new word. Hence, according to the model of involvement,
the evaluation is strong. Since translation is a task with a high involvement
load, it can be assumed that it will be effective in vocabulary learning.
Additional justification for incorporating translation tasks into vocabulary
learning is provided by earlier research in contrastive semantics and error
analysis, and later corpus studies and psycholinguistic experiments. Dagut
(1977) suggested that learners do not attach new L2 words directly to the
concepts that they represent, but to L1 words which represent L1 concepts that
learners possess. A similar view was expressed by Blum and Levenston (1978),
Ringbom (1983), and later by Ellis (1997), Hall (2002), and Jiang (2004).
Sometimes L1 concepts are identical to the concepts represented by the new L2
words, resulting in a correct translation of the learner. However, since different
languages do not have entirely identical conceptual systems, many L2 words
based on L1 meanings may not be identical in all semantic properties, that is
have no exact translation equivalents. For example, even though ‘home’ is
translated as ‘maison’ in French, the two are not totally equivalent since
‘home’ has a specific feature of comfort and safety (as opposed to ‘house’) and
this feature is not obvious in the French translation. In order to use the L2 word
with its correct specifications, a process of semantic restructuring must occur in
which the learner readjusts the semantic knowledge of the word that s/he
possesses to that of the native speaker.
Wolter (2001, 2006) extends the idea of relating L2 words to L1 concepts to
the issue of lexical combinations. He suggests that learners draw upon L1
conceptual knowledge when making assumptions about connections between
L2 words and that this knowledge will sometimes provide learners with
misinformation about allowable combinations of L2 words. Thus, a learner
who produces unusual collocations or combinations of words in the L2 is
probably relying too heavily on L1 collocational knowledge. Collocational
errors can occur even when learners are familiar with both of the words that
comprise the correct collocation. Wolter gives an example of the Japanese
learner who produces the collocation narrow room even though s/he knows the
word small. Learning to connect words correctly requires restructuring of
the existing network. Since word combinations cannot be easily predicted from
the knowledge of individual words, the task of second language vocabulary
learning is even greater than was thought when vocabulary was considered in
terms of single words (Lewis 2000).
It may be argued that semantic restructuring of single concepts and lexical
networks may occur with continued exposure to L2 vocabulary in a variety
of contexts. Even if we agree to this position, an important question is
whether a foreign language classroom can provide enough exposure to L2
lexis for such restructuring to take place. Judging by the available empirical
evidence on learner lexis, it is doubtful whether this is the case. Early error
analysis studies showed that lexical errors resulting from L1 influence
persisted with advanced learners, particularly where the concepts in L1 and

on 24 December 2017
L2 did not overlap (Myint Su 1971; Laforest 1980; Ringbom 1982). Recent
psycholinguistic studies confirmed this finding. Jiang (2002, 2004) found that
advanced Chinese learners of English had difficulty distinguishing between
pairs of English words that were translated by a single Chinese word, for
example criterion-standard, accurate-precise, safe-secure, etc. He concluded that
the semantic restructuring that is necessary for acquiring the meaning of
words different from L1 is a slow process, which is relatively unaffected by
the quantity of input that L2 learners receive in their learning context.
Collocational errors persist in the learner language as well, thus showing
resistance to language input and teaching. When encountered in the input,
collocations are usually semantically transparent, for example make a decision,
send a message, offer help, submit an application, hand in a paper, etc. Therefore
they may not be noticed by learners and teachers as problematic. However,
producing correct collocations is often difficult since ‘equivalent’ collocations
in L1 may include at least one word which is different from L2. For example,
English make a decision is lakaxat haxlata ‘take a decision’ in Hebrew; give
examples is lehavi dugmaot ‘bring examples’, practice law is laasok be-mishpat
‘deal in law’. Biskup (1992) conducted an error elicitation study and found
that advanced Polish-speaking learners of English made L1 based collocation
errors. More recently, the same conclusion has been reached in a series of
corpus studies (Bahns 1993; Granger 1998; Nesselhauf 2003, 2005). For
example, Nesselhauf (2003) analysed the use of verb–noun collocations such
as take a break or shake one’s head by advanced German-speaking learners of
English in free written production and concluded that the learners’ L1 had a
much stronger influence than earlier studies had predicted. Xiao and
McEnery (2006) performed a cross-linguistic analysis of collocation, semantic
prosody, and near synonymy, drawing upon data from English and Chinese.
They concluded that teachers should compare the collocational behaviour in
L1 and L2 since learners’ awareness of L1–L2 differences should considerably
reduce the number of L1 interference errors.
The pervasive influence that L1 has on the learner lexis and the
persistence of L1-based errors at advanced levels of learning suggest that
contrastive form-focused instruction, which raises the learners’ awareness of
the L1–L2 differences and provides practice in the areas of these differences,
may prove more effective than teaching methods that ignore the cross
linguistic influence on lexical learning.
We started investigating the effectiveness of contrastive FFI in a preliminary
study (Laufer and Girsai 2008), where two groups of high school learners had
been taught unfamiliar words and collocations in English as a foreign language.
One group was exposed to the target items (the unfamiliar words and
collocations) by reading a text and answering comprehension questions.
Another group of the same L1 and the same English proficiency level read the
text as well, but was also given two translation activities during which the target
items were compared with their L1 equivalents. After the completion of the
tasks, the two groups were tested on the retention of the target items by two

on 24 December 2017
tests. The ‘reading þ translation group’ outperformed the ‘reading group’ on

both tests. In this study we did not include a group performing a non-
contrastive form-focused activity. Hence, we could only conclude that
contrastive FFI was superior to message based instruction, but not that it was
any different from FFI in general. The study in this paper was designed to find
out whether this is the case.
THE STUDY
Having shown in our preliminary work that vocabulary teaching will benefit
from cross linguistic form-focused instruction, we now hypothesize that
contrastive FFI will be at least as beneficial as, if not more than, other types
of FFI for the learning of new vocabulary. To this effect, we set up three
learning conditions for comparison:
1 MFI—message-focused instruction
2 FFI—non-contrastive form-focused instruction
3 CAT—contrastive analysis and translation
Detailed description of the conditions will be presented in the ‘procedure’
section.
Research questions
1) Will contrastive form-focused tasks lead to the acquisition of a significantly
larger number of lexical items than non-contrastive form-focused tasks
and than message-focused tasks?
(a) in the case of single words;
(b) in the case of collocations.
2) Will the above differences (if any) be retained on a delayed test taken one
week after performing the first post-test?
Acquisition was operationalized as the ability to provide the form of the
target words in response to their L1 translation equivalents (active recall),
and the ability to provide the meaning of the target words (passive recall).2
Word knowledge consists of many components of knowledge: the word’s
pronunciation, spelling, morphology, syntax, meaning, lexical relations, etc.
(Nation 2001). Yet we contend that the most important component of word
knowledge is the knowledge of the form–meaning relation, that is the ability
to retrieve the meaning of a given word form, and the ability to retrieve the
word form of a given concept. (For a justification of this position, see Laufer
et al. 2004). This is why we chose to test recall of meaning and recall of form.
Each main research question was subdivided into four secondary questions,
depending on the type of vocabulary items tested (single words or collocations)
and depending on the type of knowledge elicited (passive recall or active

on 24 December 2017
recall). Thus, each secondary question asked whether there would be a

difference between the three conditions (MFI, FFI, CAT) regarding the
following results:
1 the number of the single target words recalled passively;
2 the number of the single target words recalled actively;
3 the number of target collocations recalled passively;
4 the number of target collocations recalled actively.
Participants
Seventy-five 10th graders (aged 15–16) learning English as a foreign
language participated in the experiment. They were Hebrew native speakers,
who had studied English for six years prior to the experiment. Within the
framework of the Israeli curriculum, such students are at the last stages of
intermediate level. Native speakers of English, pupils who had lived abroad
for a period of time, and students with learning disabilities were not included
in the experiment. The participants studied in three parallel intact classes and
were comparable in terms of proficiency in English. During their years of
study, they followed the same curriculum prescribed by the Ministry of
Education, had the same teachers, had been preparing for the same
governmental exam and were all placed in the ‘5 point stream’ of English,
that is the advanced stream of the Israeli curriculum.3 They were also from
comparable socio-economic backgrounds. The teaching in these classes
stresses communication, but occasional FonF happens as well. Teachers
conduct the lessons in English and do not practise translation. Each class was
randomly assigned to one condition: the message focused instruction (MFI)
group, which consisted of 26 learners, the non-contrastive form-focused
instruction (FFI) group, which had 23 participants, and the contrastive form-
focused instruction (CAT) group, which comprised 26 learners.
Target items
The target vocabulary to be taught and tested included single words and
collocations. Collocations were defined here as habitually occurring set
semantic phrases. The target items were selected after pre-testing all the
participants.
Selection and presentation of target items

Two weeks prior to the beginning of the treatment phase, two written pre-
tests were administered to the groups during regular class time in order to
determine whether the target vocabulary was indeed unknown to the
participants. The tests consisted of 50 single words and 41 collocations. Some
of these items were taken from reading material which we intended to use
in the experiment. Others served as distracters. The distracters included

on 24 December 2017
vocabulary which was supposed to be familiar to the learners as it had been

previously taught. Each pre-test took about 10 minutes.
Pre-test 1 contained 50 single English words. The learners were asked to
supply in writing the Hebrew translation for as many words as they knew.
Pre-test 2 was intended to check active collocational knowledge. The test
consisted of 41 Hebrew phrases to be translated into English. Passive
knowledge of collocations was not tested, because, as mentioned earlier in
the Introduction, many collocations are semantically transparent and
therefore easily comprehended. The particular difficulty associated with
collocational knowledge lies in their production. For example, the meaning
of hit the headlines would probably have been clear to many participants.
However, in production, we often observed a word-for-word translation
from Hebrew ( ‘to break into headlines/titles’, for Hebrew ‘lifrotz
la’kotarot’). On the basis of these pre-tests, we selected 10 single words
and 10 verb–noun collocations that were unknown to all the participants.
The single words were:

Relish, glean, candid, laudable, opulent, plague, account, detractor,
gregarious, lavish.
The collocations were:

Settle scores, present a problem, derive pleasure, hold a vote, fulfil an
ambition, launch a campaign, reclaim the trust, hit the headlines, meet
the expectations, place orders.
The target vocabulary was embedded in a reading passage compiled by the
second author and entitled ‘Clinton’s biography’. The text was based on six
articles which dealt with Clinton’s book My Life and were available on the
Internet. It consisted of 536 word tokens. The grammar of the text was kept
simple in order to minimize grammar-related comprehension difficulties of
the text. Moreover, the authors inserted textual clues into the text so that
the meaning of the target words could be inferred from context without too
much difficulty.
Procedure
The study adopted an incidental acquisition design, that is we investigated
whether the target words and collocations were acquired without learners’
deliberate attempt to commit them to memory. Hence the learners were not
told they were participating in an experiment at the end of which they
would be tested. Each step of the study was conducted during regular class
time and took the same amount of time in the three parallel classes that
represented the three conditions.
The first stage of the treatment was identical in the three groups.
They were asked to read the passage ‘Clinton’s biography’ and to answer

on 24 December 2017
13 True-or-False text-based statements. The learners had no dictionaries and

no marginal glosses for the unknown vocabulary. However, whenever a
learner wanted to ask the meaning of a word, the teacher would provide the
necessary information.4 When the exercise had been completed, the teacher
went over the answers with the class. Each true or false statement was
checked against the relevant section of the text and any questions or
comments from the learners were addressed by the teacher. This activity
took about 40 minutes. All the materials were collected at the end of the
session.
The next stage of the study was conducted on the following day, during
a double lesson (90 minutes). Each group received a different treatment, in
accordance with the experimental condition it was assigned to. The treatment
consisted of two tasks. The first one was performed with the text, which the
learners received again, the second one without it. As in the first stage, the
learners had no dictionaries and no marginal glosses for the unknown
vocabulary. Whenever the new words were deemed necessary for a task by
learners, they could infer them from context, or ask the teacher for the words’
meaning. Since the teacher went over all the answers in the three groups, the
meaning of the target words used in the tasks was verified by her.
The MFI (meaning-focused instruction) group received two communicative
tasks: reading comprehension and pair/group discussion. Here are two
examples of reading comprehension questions:
1 Why is Arkansas mentioned in the text?
2 Complete the sentence:
Although Clinton finally felt free, the affair _______________________
Upon completion of the exercise, the teacher went over the answer with the
active participation of the learners. Then the texts were taken away once
more and the discussion task followed. Here is one of the two discussion
topics:
With your partner, discuss the following:
A president’s love affair is his own personal business and should not
concern the public; it is a private matter between him and his wife and
has nothing to do with his position as president.
Agree or disagree.
First, learners worked in pairs. The teacher would join a different pair each
time to provide feedback. Following pair work, the entire group discussed the
topic. During these activities, some of the target words may have been used
by some learners. However, they were not singled out for teaching. The
language of interaction in this group was English only.
The FFI (non-contrastive form-focused instruction) group received two
form-focused tasks: meaning recognition of the target vocabulary (a multiple
choice exercise), and a text fill-in activity with the target words provided in
a ‘word bank’ at the end of the text. Here is an example of meaning

on 24 December 2017
recognition, where learners were required to select the correct meaning of a

collocation in the text.
Hit the headlines (paragraph 1)
(a) became hot news
(b) caused headaches
(c) was first in line
Here are the first two sentences of the fill-in exercise. The missing phrases
are ‘hit the headlines’ and ‘launched a campaign’
Bill Clinton has 1. _______________ again. He has 2. __________ for
his autobiography.
Upon the completion of each task, the teacher went over the answers with
the class and provided the necessary feedback, including verifications and
clarifications of the meaning of the target items. The interaction was in
English only.
The CAT (contrastive analysis and translation) group received two
translation tasks and brief explicit contrastive instruction. Here is an example
of the first task in which learners were asked to translate the given sentences
from L2 to L1. The target items are in bold font.
Will the book meet the expectations of the publishers? ____________
Scandals plagued Clinton’s administration. ______________________
The sentences were nearly identical to the sentences in the original text.
In the second task, after the L2–L1 translations had been collected, learners
translated the same sentences from Hebrew into English. They could carry
out the two tasks alone, or with their peers. As in the other two groups, on
task completion, the teacher checked the answers and provided corrective
feedback. During the second task, she also supplied a brief explicit contrastive
instruction. For example, in the case of collocations, she pointed out that
although the nouns had equivalent translations in Hebrew, the verbs that
collocated with them were totally different (e.g. hit the headlines is ‘break into
headlines’ in Hebrew, meet expectations is ‘answer expectations’). She
suggested that learners should be cautious not to provide automatic verb
translations, as this would result in unacceptable English collocations.
Testing
The day after the treatment, all the learners were unexpectedly tested on the
target vocabulary. They were first tested on their ability to provide the words
in response to their Hebrew translations, that is on active recall. Here is an
example of two test items: a single word and a collocation:
Translate the following Hebrew words and phrases into English:
jb?l ywar (raui le-shevach) ______________________
twypych lu twnul (laanot al tzipiyot) _________________________

on 24 December 2017
The test sheets were collected and a 20-minute delay followed, during which the
learners were engaged in an activity that did not include the target vocabulary.
After the delay, the second test was administered. The target words were given
in a different order than in the first test, and the learners were required to
provide their meaning in Hebrew, or in English, that is to demonstrate passive
recall. Here is an example of two test items: a single word and a collocation:
Translate the following English words and phrases into Hebrew or
explain them in English:
Meet the expectations _________________________
Laudable_________________________
A week later the same tests were administered in the same manner in order
to check how much of the target vocabulary was still remembered.
The answers were scored dichotomously. A correct answer received one
point, an incorrect answer or a blank received a zero. In the test of active
recall, minor spelling errors that did not distort the word’s pronunciation
considerably were not taken into account. For example, the answer opulant
for ‘opulent’ received a point, but gragirious for ‘gregarious’ did not. Since
the focus of the test was the knowledge of the meaning–form link and such
errors did not distort the word’s form greatly, the answer received one point.
We decided not to accept non-target synonyms for the Hebrew prompts, for
example ‘honest’ instead of ‘candid’. Therefore, learners were specifically told
to provide words from the text they had studied and they did so. In the test
of passive recall, any Hebrew translation or English explanation that reflected
the semantic content of the word was considered correct. The maximum
score for single words was 10 and 10 for collocations.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
We will present the descriptive statistics first. Table 1 presents the means and
standard deviations (in brackets) of the tests measuring passive and active
recall of the target vocabulary immediately after the instruction. Table 2
presents the results of the delayed tests.
The figures in both tables show that the lowest scores were received in the
MFI group and the highest in the CAT group. Moreover, the scores did not go
down on the delayed tests 1 week after the instruction. Some tests even yielded
slightly higher scores. This can be explained by the interest that the tests
generated in learners. They reported that even though all the materials were
collected after the immediate tests, some items could be remembered,
particularly if they had previously been practised in form-focused activities,
both contrastive and non-contrastive. Hence, some learners checked them with
their peers, or in the dictionary. The only results of the MFI group that are not
lower than 1 are those of the passive collocation tests. Yet this has very little to

on 24 December 2017
Table 1: Immediate recall scores

Condition Passive recall Active recall
Single words Collocations Single words Collocations

Max. ¼ 10 Max. ¼ 10 Max. ¼ 10 Max. ¼ 10
MFI 0.31 3.69 0.12 0.27

N ¼ 26 (0.68) (2.40) (0.33) (0.53)
FFI 4.04 5.70 2.30 2.91

N ¼ 23 (2.64) (2.85) (2.18) (2.79)
CAT 5.81 8.58 4.31 5.81

N ¼ 26 (2.48) (1.72) (2.51) (2.61)
Table 2: Delayed recall scores

Condition Passive recall Active recall

Max. ¼ 10 Max. ¼ 10 Max. ¼ 10 Max. ¼ 10
MFI 0.15 4.54 0.12 0.35

N ¼ 26 (0.37) (2.30) (0.33) (0.69)
FFI 3.52 6.00 2.13 3.00

N ¼ 23 (2.94) (3.01) (2.71) (2.84)
CAT 6.27 8.73 4.12 6.12

N ¼ 26 (2.89) (1.61) (2.45) (2.84)
do with L2 learning, but it is concerned with the ability to detect the meaning of
collocations as they are often transparent, as mentioned earlier. The active test
of the same collocations, however, which required demonstration of L2
knowledge, yielded a result close to zero. On all the tests, the scores of passive
recall are higher than the corresponding scores of active recall, which is not
surprising. Vocabulary learning is an incremental process and learners usually
acquire passive knowledge of a word before they acquire its active knowledge
(except in the case of cognates) (Laufer 1998; Laufer et al. 2004; Webb 2005).5
Inferential statistics
In order to answer the research questions regarding the difference between
the three instructional conditions, we carried out eight one-way ANOVAs,

on 24 December 2017
four with the immediate tests, and four with the delayed tests. Each ANOVA
compared the difference of means between the three conditions as follows:
in the case of the single words–passive recall, single words–active recall,
collocations–passive recall, collocations–active recall. The F values of the
eight ANOVAs are presented in Table 3. Since the differences of all eight
comparisons were significant, we carried out Tukey’s post-hoc tests to check
the differences between each pair of conditions for each ANOVA. Table 4
presents the differences between the means (standard error is provided in
Table 3: Differences between the three conditions (ANOVA results)

Test time Passive recall F value Active recall F value
Immediate 46.02 28.43 31.05 41.16

(df 2.72) (df 2.72) (df 2.72) (df 2.72)
Delayed 43.65 21.27 23.70 39.76

(df 2.72) (df 2.72) (df 2.72) (df 2.72)

p 5 .001.
Table 4: Differences between pairs of conditions (Tukey post hoc tests).

Immediate recall
Condition Condition Passive recall Active recall
Difference in means Difference in means
MFI FFI 3.74 2.00 2.19 2.64

(0.60) (0.65) (0.55) (0.61)
CAT 5.50 4.88 4.19 5.54
(0.58) (0.67) (0.53) (0.63)
FFI MFI 3.74 2.00 2.19 2.64
(0.60) (0.67) (0.55) (0.63)
CAT 1.76 2.88 2.00 2.89
(0.60) (0.67) (0.55) (0.63)
CAT MFI 5.50 4.88 4.19 5.54
(0.58) (0.65) (0.53) (0.61)
FFI 1.76 2.88 2.00 2.89
(0.60) (0.67) (0.55) (0.63)

p 5 .01; p 5 .001.

on 24 December 2017
Table 5: Differences between pairs of conditions (Tukey post hoc tests). Delayed
recall
Condition Condition Passive recall Active recall
Difference in means Difference in means
MFI FFI 3.37 1.46 2.65 2.64

(0.68) (0.67) (0.60) (0.67)
CAT 6.12 4.19 5.57 5.54
(0.66) (0.65) (0.58) (0.65)
FFI MFI 3.37 1.46 2.65 2.64
(0.68) (0.67) (0.60) (0.67)
CAT 2.75 2.73 3.12 2.89
(0.68) (0.67) (0.60) (0.67)
CAT MFI 6.12 4.19 5.57 5.54
(0.66) (0.65) (0.58) (0.65)
FFI 2.75 2.73 3.12 2.89
(0.68) (0.67) (0.60) (0.67)

p 5 .001.
brackets) of each pair of conditions in the immediate recall test; Table 5

presents the results for the delayed recall test.
On the immediate tests, the differences between all pairs of conditions
were significant. On the delayed tests, the only non-significant difference
was between FFI and MFI in the passive recall of collocations. As mentioned
earlier, this is a relatively easy test as most collocations are semantically
transparent. But even here, the CAT condition yielded a significantly higher
score than the other two conditions.
DISCUSSION
The study investigated whether incorporating contrastive analysis and
translation activities into a text-based communicative lesson would make a
significant difference in acquiring new vocabulary by comparison with a
reading comprehension task alone, and by comparison with other form-
focused activities following the reading task. The results revealed that the
CAT (Contrastive Analysis þ Translation) group scored significantly higher
than the two other groups on all eight tests: four immediate tests—passive recall
of single words and of collocations, active recall of single words and of
collocations, and four identical delayed tests. The group that did not receive any
form-focused instruction learnt almost no vocabulary. (As mentioned earlier,
the scores on passive collocation show, at least in part, comprehension of

on 24 December 2017
transparent meaning, not of learning new forms.) Non-contrastive form-

focused instruction resulted in learning about 50 per cent of passive new
vocabulary and 27 per cent of active vocabulary on both the immediate and
delayed tests. The CAT group learnt approximately 72 per cent of passive and 51
per cent of active vocabulary, much more than the other two groups6.
It is difficult to compare these results with the results of other studies
which investigated FFI together with a communicative task. Different studies
use different numbers of target words, different numbers of form-focused
activities and use different ways to measure learning. (For description and
comparison, see Laufer 2005). However, to our knowledge, almost none of
the studies which investigated incidental vocabulary acquisition resulting
from FFI, have yielded figures as high as our CAT group. It is remarkable that
learners received these high scores when tested on the most difficult aspects
of form–meaning knowledge: recall of word form and recall of word
meaning. We did not test recognition of meaning or recognition of form. Nor
did we ask for learners to provide a self-evaluation of whether they were
familiar with the word or not. Since the acquisition of word knowledge is
incremental and the more difficult aspects, such as active recall, are learnt
last, we can say with confidence that since learners’ passive and active recall
were enhanced by CAT, the easier aspects of word knowledge were acquired
as a result of CAT activities as well. As for other aspects of word knowledge,
which were not investigated here, our teaching experience and our
experience as foreign language learners suggest that CAT could enhance
them all. This is an empirical question worthy of further investigation.
As we suggested earlier, in the introductory part of the paper, the
effectiveness of cross-linguistic form-focused instruction can be explained by
the hypotheses of ‘noticing’, ‘pushed output’, and ‘task-induced involvement
load’ and further supported by findings which show the pervasive influence
of L1 in vocabulary learning. Learners were forced to notice the target items
by receiving cross-linguistic instruction. These items became salient in the
input when learners were taught the corresponding L1 forms and received
information about the particular difficulties resulting from L1–L2 differences.
As James (2005) points out, in the CLI (cross-linguistic influence)
framework, the role of CA is to define salient foreign language input
which may assist L2 learners by raising their cross-language awareness.
CA can now come out of the closet and cross-language Awareness
can be practised in classrooms as a legitimate activity, for it will at
the very least sensitise learners to the decisions to be made in their
FL [foreign language] production, advising them when they can
and can not resort with profit to the MT [mother tongue] (James
2005: 11).
Translation into L2 is a perfect ‘pushed output’ task that requires stretching

one’s linguistic resources. To produce a good translation, learners cannot

on 24 December 2017
avoid problematic words or structures since they are predetermined by the

source language. The CAT group in our study was submitted to pushed
output, which may have contributed to the success in learning in general,
and to good active recall, in particular. Active knowledge implies a better
memory trace than passive knowledge and is more difficult to achieve. In the
specific case of collocations, correct production can be considered a special
accomplishment, as active collocational knowledge is not readily attained
even by advanced learners. We ascribe the superior results of active
knowledge to the L1–L2 translation task, which entailed recalling and using
the target word forms. This task is more demanding than any other
vocabulary task which requires recall of word meaning, recognition of word
form, or recognition of word meaning (Laufer et al. 2004; Laufer and
Goldstein 2004). The participants’ engagement in a cognitively demanding
task may have enabled them to remember and later produce the correct
lexical items and collocations.
In terms of the involvement load hypothesis, the translation tasks had a
higher involvement load than the tasks in the other two conditions. Let us look
at the involvement load in each condition. In the MFI condition, one task
required answering comprehension questions; the other was a general
discussion of a topic related to the text. In both of them, learners could have
used the target words, but they could also have used different vocabulary
as well, particularly in the general discussion. (This was indeed the case
reported by the teacher.) Hence, each task in this condition could be described
as þ/ need, þ/ search, and þ/ evaluation. If a learner perceived a need to
use a particular word, s/he would search for its meaning and make some
decisions pertaining to its context. In this case, each of the three elements
would receive a plus (þ). But the learner could also convey the intended
meaning using different words, in which case the involvement load in the case
words not used would be a zero (0).
The first task in the FFI condition was a multiple choice exercise that
required learners to choose the meaning of the target words from three
alternatives. The involvement components included in it were ‘need’ (the word
had to be focused on to complete the task) and ‘search’ (search for meaning). As
there was no context in this task, there was no ‘evaluation’. The second task,
which required filling in the correct target words in given sentences,
included the element of evaluation as well, as a decision had to be made as
to which word fitted which context. Hence the involvement load of the FFI
condition was: task 1: þ need þ search evaluation, task 2: þ need þ search þ
evaluation.
In the CAT condition, the learners were asked to translate sentences with
the target words, first from L2 to L1, and then from L1 to L2. The ‘need’
element was present as there was no escape from focusing on the target
words. Translation into L1 required a search for meaning whereas translation
into L2 required a search for form. Hence the element of ‘search’ was present

on 24 December 2017
in both translation tasks. Usually, a sentence can be translated in more than

one way. The final choice of the translation must have been made after
an evaluation of several translation alternatives. In each option, the target
word was evaluated against the other words surrounding it. Moreover, in
L1–L2 translation, the entire L2 context was created by the learner. Hence,
the element of ‘evaluation’ was moderate in the L2–L1 translation task and
strong in the L1–L2 translation. The involvement load in the CAT condition
was therefore: task 1: þ need þ search þ evaluation, task 2: þ need,
þ search, þþ evaluation. The different involvement loads of the three
conditions are reflected quite accurately in our results. The participants in
MFI condition learnt hardly any vocabulary at all, the FFI condition fared
much better, and the CAT condition yielded the highest scores.
On the basis of our results, some teaching implications are evident,
mainly for classes where learners share a common L1. In order to perform
a contrastive analysis of selected L1 and L2 areas and subsequent transla-
tion, teachers should be familiar with learners’ L1 and with its linguistic
structure. Since learners draw upon L1 conceptual knowledge when
making assumptions about L2 words and connections between them,
teachers should make them aware of interlingual differences which may
result in errors. Since words and word combinations which embody such
differences are more difficult to learn, teachers should devote more teaching
and practice time to these lexical items than to vocabulary which is
similar in L1. This can take the form of additional exposure, use in
communicative tasks, or in form-focused activities of a contrastive or non-
contrastive nature.
CONCLUSION
James (1994) showed that both contrastive analysis and error analysis
remained vital components of applied linguistics and language teaching.
Neglecting the L1 would amount to ‘burying your head in the sand and
hoping that effortless acquisition will take place in time’ (James 2005: 11).
The evidence from the present research, together with evidence from
grammar studies, suggests that there is indeed a place for contrastive analysis
and translation activities in L2 teaching. This does not mean that we should
abandon the communicative classroom and return to the ‘grammar–
translation’ method, nor does it mean that we should teach the skill of
translation at the expense of the ability to function in a foreign language.
Meaningful communication has been the goal of communicative language
teaching, but the best method for achieving this goal may not be identical to
the goal itself. The research presented here suggests that second language
learners may benefit from contrastive form-focused instruction in selected L2
areas through raising their awareness of interlingual difficulties, stretching
their linguistics resources, and engaging in involving tasks.

on 24 December 2017
NOTES
1 One reason for the relative paucity of were in a different order. Furthermore,
contrastive FFI studies may be that in all vocabulary studies we are familiar
researchers of a Second Language con- with, passive knowledge proved to be
text did not find L1-based tasks relevant better than active knowledge. Most
to the teaching of multilingual classes. importantly, even though the possibility
However, contrastive FFI is of relevance of a learning effect cannot be excluded,
in a Foreign Language context and is of it does not invalidate the main findings
theoretical interest to the Language of the study which pertain to the
Learning field. differences between different instruc-
2 The distinction between passive and tional tasks. These were investigated
active knowledge is not as simple as it separately for each type of vocabulary
may appear. Read (2000) points out that knowledge: passive and active.
different people have made this distinc- 6 One reviewer suggested that the test
tion differently, which has created instruments were close to the practice
problems in comparing passive and tasks of the CAT group and therefore
active knowledge across studies. Here, might have favoured it. First, in the
we follow the distinctions of Nation translation tasks, participants were
(2001) and Laufer et al. (2004) and refer required to translate sentences, while
to the ability to supply the word form as in the tests they were required to
active knowledge and to the ability to translate isolated words. Second, in the
supply the word meaning as passive passive recall test learners had the
knowledge. option of providing English explana-
3 In the Israeli educational system, each tions for the target words. Since the
class in high school is further sub- target words were explained in English
divided into three proficiency groups: in the other two groups, the test
3 points, 4 points, 5 points on the basis requirement was not unfamiliar to
of an internal school test. them. Most important, however, is the
4 The second author was the teacher argument that adolescent and adult
who carried out the study in the three learners do not need to be taught to
groups of learners. link L2 words to L1 words. They do this
5 It was suggested by one reviewer that instinctively, as explained in the Intro-
learners saw the target L1 meanings on duction. This is also supported by our
the test of active recall and that may data. Even though English explanations
have aided them on the test of passive were allowed in the passive recall test,
recall. We cannot know for sure most of the answers of the non-CAT
whether there was a learning effect or learners were translations into L1 even
not. The passive test was given after a 20 though no translation was practised in
minute distracting task and the words class.
REFERENCES
Ammar, A. and P. M. Lightbown. 2005. Acquisition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
‘Teaching marked linguistics structures–more Gruyter, pp. 167–98.
about the acquisition of relative clauses by Arab Baddeley, A. 1997. Human Memory:
learners of English’ in A. Housen and M. Pierrard Theory and Practice, rev edn. Hove: Psychology
(eds): Investigations in Instructed Second Language Press.

on 24 December 2017
Bahns, J. 1993. ‘Lexical collocations: A contrastive Gass, S. M. and L. Selinker (eds). 1983. Language
view,’ English Language Teaching Journal 47: Transfer in Language Learning. Issues in Second
56–63. Language Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Biskup, D. 1992. ‘L1 influence on learners’ render- Granger, S. 1998. ‘Prefabricated patterns in
ing of English collocations: A Polish/German advanced EFL writing: Collocations and lexical
empirical study’ in P. J. L. Arnaud and H. Bejoint phrases’ in A. P. Cowie (ed.): Phraseology: Theory,
(eds): Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics. London: Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Clarendon
Macmillan, pp. 85–93. Press/Oxford University Press, pp. 145–60.
Blum, S. and E. A. Levenston. 1978. ‘Universals Groot, P. J. M. 2000. ‘Computer assisted second
of lexical simplification,’ Language Learning 28: language vocabulary acquisition,’ Language
399–415. Learning and Technology 4: 60–81. http://
Boers, F., M. Demecheleer, and J. Eyckmans. llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/groot/default.html.
2004. ‘Etymological elaboration as a strategy for Hall, C. J. 2002. ‘The automatic cognate form
learning idioms,’ in P. Bogaards and B. Laufer assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of
(eds): Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, vocabulary acquisition,’ International Review of
Acquisition, and Testing. Amsterdam: Benjamins, Applied Linguistics 40: 69–87.
pp. 53–78. Hill, M. M. and B. Laufer. 2003. ‘Type of task,
Craik, F. I. M. and R. S. Lockhart. 1972. ‘Levels of time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in
processing: A framework for memory research,’ incidental vocabulary acquisition,’ International
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: Review of Applied Linguistics 41: 87–106.
671–84. Horst, M., T. Cobb, and H. Nicolae. 2005.
Dagut, M. 1977. ‘Incongruencies in lexical gridd- ‘Expanding academic vocabulary with an
ing—an application of contrastive semantic anal- interactive on-line database,’ Language Learning
ysis to language teaching,’ International Review of and Technology 9: 90–110. http://llt.msu.edu/
Applied Linguistics 15: 221–9. vol9num2/horst/default.html.
DeKeyser, R. M. 1998. ‘Beyond focus on form: Housen, A. and M. Pierrard (eds). 2005. Investiga-
Cognitive perspective on learning and practical tions in Instructed Second Language Acquisition.
second language grammar’ in C. Doughty and Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
J. Williams (eds): Focus on Form in Classroom Hulstijn, J. H. 1992. ‘Retention of inferred and
Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cam- given word meanings: Experiments in incidental
bridge University Press, pp. 42–63. vocabulary learning’ in P. J. L Arnaud and
De la Fuente, M. J. 2002. ‘Negotiation and oral H. Bejoint (eds): Vocabulary and Applied Linguis-
acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The roles of input tics. London: Macmillan, pp. 113–25.
and output in the receptive and productive Hulstijn, J. H. and B. Laufer. 2001. ‘Some empiri-
acquisition of words,’ Studies in Second Language cal evidence for the Involvement Load Hypoth-
Acquisition 24: 81–112. esis in vocabulary acquisition,’ Language Learning
Ellis, N. 1997. ‘Vocabulary acquisition: Word 51: 539–58.
structure, collocation, word-class, and meaning’ James, C. 1994. ‘Don’t shoot my dodo: On the
in N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds): resilience of contrastive and error analysis,’
Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. International Review of Applied Linguistics 32:
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179–200.
pp. 122–39. James, C. 2005 ‘Contrastive analysis and the
Ellis, R. (ed.). 2001. Form-focused instruction and language learner: A new lease of life?’ in D. J.
second language learning. A supplement to Allerton, C. Tshichold, and J. Wieser (eds):
Language Learning 51: supplement 1. Linguistics, Language Learning and Language Teach-
Ellis, R. and X. He. 1999. ‘The roles of modified ing: The International Cooper Series on English
input and output in the incidental acquisition Language and Literature (ICSELL) 10. Seiten:
of word meanings,’ Studies in Second Language Broschiert, pp. 1–20.
Acquisition 21: 285–301. Jiang, N. 2002. ‘Form–meaning mapping in voca-
Ellis, R., Y. Tanaka, and A. Yamazaki. 1994. bulary acquisition in a second language,’ Studies
‘Classroom interaction, comprehension and the in Second Language Acquisition 24: 617–37.
acquisition of L2 word meanings,’ Language Jiang, N. 2004. ‘Semantic transfer and develop-
Learning 44: 449–91. ment in adult L2 vocabulary acquisition’ in

on 24 December 2017
P. Bogaards and B. Laufer (eds): Vocabulary in a Lightbown, P. M. and N. Spada. 1999. How
Second Language: Selection, Acquisition, and Testing. Languages Are Learned, rev edn. Oxford: Oxford
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, University Press.
pp. 101–26. Long, M. 1991. ‘Focus on Form: A design feature in
Kitajima, R. 2001. ‘The effects of instructional language teaching methodology’ in K. de Bot,
conditions on students’ vocabulary retention,’ R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds): Foreign
Foreign Language Annals 34: 470–82. Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective.
Knight, S. M. 1994. ‘Dictionary use while reading: Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–52.
The effects on comprehension and vocabulary Luppesku, S. and R. R. Day. 1993. ‘Reading,
acquisition for students of different verbal abil- dictionaries and vocabulary learning,’ Language
ities,’ Modern Language Journal 78: 285–99. Learning 43: 263–287.
Kupferberg, I. 1999. ‘The cognitive turn of con- Lyster, R. 1994. ‘The effect of functional-analytic
trastive analysis: Empirical evidence,’ Language teaching on aspects of French immersion
Awareness 8: 210–222. learners’ sociolinguistic competence,’ Applied
Kupferberg, I. and E. Olshtain. 1996. ‘Explicit Linguistics 15: 263–87.
contrastive instruction facilitates the acquisition Mondria, J.-A. and B. Wiersma. 2004. ‘Recep-
of L2 forms,’ Language Awareness 5: 149–65. tive, productive, and receptive þ productive L2
Laforest, M. H. 1980. ‘Towards a typology of vocabulary learning: What difference does it
lexical errors,’ Anglistika 23: 1–30. make?’ in P. Bogaards and B. Laufer, (eds):
Laufer, B. 1998. The development of passive and Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisi-
active vocabulary in a second language: Same or tion and Testing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
different?’ Applied Linguistics 12: 255–71. Benjamins, pp. 79–100.
Laufer, B. 2005. ‘Focus on Form in second lan- Myint Su. 1971. The Analysis of Lexical Errors.
guage vocabulary acquisition’ in S. H. Foster- M. Litt. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Cohen, M. P. Garcia-Mayo, and J. Cenoz (eds): Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another
EUROSLA Yearbook 5. Amsterdam: John Benja- Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
mins, pp. 223–50. Press.
Laufer, B. 2006. ‘Comparing focus on Form and Nesselhauf, N. 2003. ‘The use of collocations
Focus on FormS in second language vocabulary by advanced learners of English and some impli-
learning,’ Canadian Modern Language Review 63: cations for teaching,’ Applied Linguistics 24:
149–66. 223–42.
Laufer, B. and N. Girsai. 2008. The use of Nesselhauf, N. 2005. Collocations in a Learner
native language for improving second language Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
vocabulary’ in A. Stavans and I. Kupferberg Newton, J. 1993. ‘Task based instruction
(eds): Studies in Language and Language Education. among adult learners of English and its role in
Essays in Honor of Elite Olshtain. Jerusalem: second language development’, Unpublished
The Hebrew University Magnes Press, PhD thesis, Victoria University, New Zealand.
pp. 261–75. Norris, J. and L. Ortega. 2000. ‘Effectiveness of L2
Laufer, B. and Z. Goldstein. 2004. ‘Testing instruction: A research synthesis and quantita-
vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and tive meta-analysis,’ Language Learning 50:
computer adaptiveness,’ Language Learning 54: 417–528.
469–523. Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer. Cross-Linguistic
Laufer, B. and J. Hulstijn. 2001. ‘Incidental Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge:
vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Cambridge University Press.
The construct of task-induced involvement,’ Paribakht, T. S. and M. Wesche. 1997. ‘Vocabu-
Applied Linguistics 22: 1–26. lary enhancement activities and reading for
Laufer, B., C. Elder, K. Hill, and P. Congdon. meaning in second language vocabulary acquisi-
2004. ‘Size and strength: Do we need both to tion’ in J. Coady and T. Huckin (eds): Second
measure vocabulary knowledge?’ Language Test- Language Vocabulary Acquisition. A Rationale for
ing 21: 202–26. Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Lewis, M. (ed.). 2000. Teaching Collocation: Further Press, pp. 174–200.
Developments in the Lexical Approach. Hove: Peters, E. N. 2006. ‘Vocabulary acquisition in a
Language Teaching Publications. foreign language. The influence of task and text

on 24 December 2017
variables’, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Swain, M. 1985. ‘Communicative competence:

Leuven. Some roles of comprehensible input and com-
Prince, P. 1996. ‘Second language vocabulary prehensible output in its development’ in S. Gass
learning: The role of context versus translation and C. Madden (eds): Input in Second Language
as a function of proficiency,’ The Modern Language Acquisition. New York: Newbury House,
Journal 80: 478–93. pp. 235–53.
Qian, D. D. 1996. ‘ESL vocabulary acquisition: Swain, M. 1988. ‘Manipulating and complement-
Contextualization and decontextualization,’ ing content teaching to maximize second lan-
The Canadian Modern Language Review 53: guage learning,’ TESL Canada Journal 6: 68–83.
120–42. Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1995. ‘Problems in
Read, J. 2000. Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: output and the cognitive processes they gener-
Cambridge University Press. ate: A step towards second language learning,’
Ringbom, H. 1982. ‘The influence of other lan- Applied Linguistics 16: 371–91.
guages on the vocabulary of foreign language Watanabe, Y. 1997. ‘Input, intake and retention.
learner’ in G. Nickel and D. Nehls (eds): Errors Effects of increased processing on incidental
Analysis, Contrastive Analysis and Interlangauge. learning of foreign language vocabulary,’ Studies
Heidelberg: Gross Verlag, pp. 85–96. in Second Language Acquisition 19: 287–307.
Ringbom, H. 1983. ‘Borrowing and lexical trans- Webb, S. 2005. ‘Receptive and productive
fer,’ Applied Linguistics 4: 207–12. vocabulary learning: The effects of reading
Robinson, P. 1995. ‘Attention, memory and the
and writing on word knowledge,’ Studies in
‘‘noticing’’ hypothesis,’ Language Learning 45:
Second Language Acquisition 27: 33–52.
283–331.
Webb, S. 2007. ‘Learning word pairs and glossed
Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness in
sentences: The effects of single context on vocab-
second language learning,’ Applied Linguistics 11:
ulary knowledge,’ Language Teaching Research 11:
17–45.
63–81.
Schmidt, R. 1994. ‘Deconstructing consciousness
Wolter, B. 2001. ‘Comparing the L1 and L2 mental
in search of useful definitions for applied linguis-
lexicon: A depth of individual word knowledge
tics’ in J. H. Hulstijn and R. Schmidt (eds):
model,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23:
Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Special
49–69.
issue of AILA Review 11: 11–26.
Wolter, B. 2006. ‘Lexical network structures and
Schmidt, R. 2001. ‘Attention’ in P. Robinson (ed.):
L2 vocabulary acquisition: The role of L1 lexical/
Cognition and Second Language Instruction.
conceptual knowledge,’ Applied Linguistics 27:
New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–33.
Sheen, R. 1996. ‘The advantage of exploiting 741–7.
contrastive analysis in teaching and learning a Xiao, R. and McEnery, T. 2006. ‘Collocation,
foreign language,’ International Review of Applied semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-
Linguistics 24: 183–97. linguistic perspective,’ Applied Linguistics
Snellings, P., A. van Gelderen, and 27:103–29.
K. de Glopper. 2002. ‘Lexical retrieval: An Zimmerman, C. 1997. ‘Do reading and inter-
aspect of fluent second language production active vocabulary instruction make a
that can be enhanced,’ Language Learning 52: difference? An empirical study,’ TESOL Quarterly
723–54. 31: 121–40.

on 24 December 2017

Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Applied Linguistics 29/4: 694–716 ß Oxford University Press 2008

doi:10.1093/applin/amn018 Advance Access published on 2 June 2008

Form-focused Instruction in Second

BATIA LAUFER and NANY GIRSAI

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

attention to the ‘form’-ed subsumes the realization that -ed signals an

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

De la Fuente (2002) found that learners exposed to input during negotiated

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

translations of ‘know’: ‘savoir’ and ‘connaı̂tre’. Lack of contrastive FFI studies is

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

tests. The ‘reading þ translation group’ outperformed the ‘reading group’ on

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

recall). Thus, each secondary question asked whether there would be a

Selection and presentation of target items

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

vocabulary which was supposed to be familiar to the learners as it had been

The single words were:

The collocations were:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

13 True-or-False text-based statements. The learners had no dictionaries and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

recognition, where learners were required to select the correct meaning of a

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Table 1: Immediate recall scores

Single words Collocations Single words Collocations

MFI 0.31 3.69 0.12 0.27

FFI 4.04 5.70 2.30 2.91

CAT 5.81 8.58 4.31 5.81

Table 2: Delayed recall scores

Single words Collocations Single words Collocations

MFI 0.15 4.54 0.12 0.35

FFI 3.52 6.00 2.13 3.00

CAT 6.27 8.73 4.12 6.12

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Table 3: Differences between the three conditions (ANOVA results)

Single words Collocations Single words Collocations

Immediate 46.02 28.43 31.05 41.16

Delayed 43.65 21.27 23.70 39.76

Table 4: Differences between pairs of conditions (Tukey post hoc tests).

Single words Collocations Single words Collocations

MFI FFI 3.74 2.00 2.19 2.64

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Single words Collocations Single words Collocations

MFI FFI 3.37 1.46 2.65 2.64

brackets) of each pair of conditions in the immediate recall test; Table 5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

transparent meaning, not of learning new forms.) Non-contrastive form-

Translation into L2 is a perfect ‘pushed output’ task that requires stretching

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

avoid problematic words or structures since they are predetermined by the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

in both translation tasks. Usually, a sentence can be translated in more than

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/29/4/694/183330

variables’, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Swain, M. 1985. ‘Communicative competence: