1. Form-focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation
Present by: Alfasy-Vaxcman Sara & Juma’a Tufool
Course: Vocabulary Teaching
Teacher: Pro. Penny Ur
Date: November, 25th, 2009
Laufer, B. & Girsai, N. (2008). Applied Linguistics, 29(4),

2. Introduction PART I - A Summary 2 types of FFI:
Focus on form- drawing attention to lexical item within a
communicative task environment.
Focus on forms- practicing vocabulary in isolation or in minimal context.
Both forms have been proven as beneficial to
lexical learning.

3. Contrastive FFI of vocabulary:
Leading to learners’ understanding of the
differences and similarities between the
words and the lexical system of their
L1 and L2.
Researchers’ preliminary hypothesis:
Cross-linguistic FFI will benefit L2
vocabulary teaching.

4. 3 hypotheses explaining the effectiveness in L2 learning: ‘noticing’
‘pushed out’
‘task-induced involvement load’
should be ‘pushed output’ not ‘pushed out’

5. The ‘noticing’ Hypothesis
Learning language forms is achieved by
consciously noticing forms and their meaning
in input.
For example, by a contrastive L2-L1
association.
‘noticing’ – upper-case N
you should give the reference here (Schmidt), because the name is closely associated with the theory.
Note that the original theory did not relate to use of L1: this is Laufer’s suggestion, so it’s not really ‘for example’, it’s more something like: By extension, this hypothesis could be applied to …etc

6. The ‘pushed output’ Hypothesis
Language production and language
development are improved by producing it and
stretching the linguistic resources.
For example, by translation into L2.
Pushed Output (upper case first letter)
Again, refer to Swain. And she, again, was not thinking of L1 use in her original theory, make it clear that this is Laufer’s extension of her ideas.

7. The ‘task-induced involvement load’ Hypothesis
Learning lexical items by performing tasks
with a high involvement load.
Such tasks combine three elements:
a ‘need’ motivational dimension of involvement
a ‘search’
cognitive dimension of involvement
an ‘evaluation’
For example, by translation tasks.
You’ll need to explain to your audience what is meant by ‘motivational dimension’ and ‘cognitive dimension’ in practical terms.
And show how Laufer applies these (at least the second two elements) to her ideas on L1 use.

8. Research in contrastive semantics, error analysis and
psycholinguistics justifies the effectiveness of cross-
linguistic FFI.
For example, the case of collocational errors.
Problem: relying too heavily on L1
collocational knowledge.
Solution: raising learners’ awareness of the L1-L2
differences and practicing them through contrastive
FFI would:
reduce interference errors of L1
have a more effective influence on vocabulary learning.
yes, you need to mention the key finding at the top of p.699, the sentence beginning ‘Dagut…’
You need to mention the two aspects of lexical items as such, and collocational connections – Laufer treats them as two separate aspects.

9. The study The researches’ additional hypothesis:
Contrastive FFI will be as beneficial as (if not
more) other types of FFI for the learning
of new vocabulary.
A comparison between 3 learning conditions:
MFI- meaning focused instruction
FFI- non-contrastive form-focused instruction
CAT- contrastive analysis and translation

10. Research questions Will CAT lead to a larger number of acquired
lexical items as opposed to the other two
learning conditions?
CAT’s effectiveness in lexical acquisition and learning of single words & collocations
Will the differences appear on a delayed test, a
week after performing the first test?

11. The tests examined knowledge of form- meaning relations of two kinds:
Passive recall- the ability to retrieve and provide the meaning (in L1) of the target words (in L2).
Active recall- the ability to retrieve and provide the form of the target words (L2) in response to their L1 translations.

12. Participants 75 10th graders, learners of EFL L1- Hebrew
‘5 point (advanced) stream’ of English
Teaching stresses communication, but also
occasional FonF
Teachers do not practice translation
The participants were divided into 3 classes.
Each class, randomly assigned to one learning
condition: The MFI group, the FFI group and the
CAT group.
were divided – the implication is that they were divided for the purposes of this study. Not so. They were already in three ‘intact’ (not tampered with or changed in any way) classes of roughly equal level.

13. Target Items 10 single, unfamiliar words and 10 verb-noun
collocation in L2, chosen after conducting a
pre-test and embedded in a reading passage.
The pre-tests examined knowledge of:
50 words in English (L2) and 41 collocations in
Hebrew (L1) which they had to translate from
one language to the other.
The purpose of the pre-test was to make sure that all the items to be used in the study were previously unknown.

14. Procedure An incidental acquisition design-
investigating the acquisition of the target words
and collocations without learners’ deliberate
attempt to remember them.
Treatment stages:
The 1st stage- the same in all 3 classes.
Read a passage and answer 13 true-false
statements.
and without learners knowing that they were going to be tested

15. The 2nd stage- 3 different treatments given,
on the following day.
Each one consisted of 2 tasks:
one was with the text and the other without it.
In both cases:
no dictionaries were allowed.
meaning of unknown words was inferred from context or provided by the teacher.
Teacher went over all the answers and verified the target words.

16. The MFI group - 2 communicative tasks:
a reading comprehension and a pair/group discussion.
Both (content-oriented) tasks did not require attention to
the target items.
The FFI group - 2 form-focused tasks:
meaning recognition of the target vocabulary (multiple
choice exercise) and a text fill-in with a ‘word bank’.
Both (text-based lexis) tasks focused on the target items.
The CAT group – 2 translation tasks and a brief contrastive instruction:
During Both (text-based translation) the teacher provided
a contrastive analysis+L1 traslation of the target items.
Go into more detail about the translation task: one was from hebrew into English, the other was the other way round.

17. Testing 2 unexpected tests (on target vocabulary) given a
day after the treatment:
Test 1- active recall: providing English words in
response to their Hebrew translation.
Test 2- passive recall: providing the meaning of L2
words in English or in Hebrew.
A week later the same tests again.

18. Results - no decrease of scores on the delayed test.
A comparison between tests:
- no decrease of scores on the delayed test.
- the passive recall in all tests- higher scores than the
active recall tests.
CAT group-highest scores.
CAT: learning 72% of new passive vocabulary, 51%- active
FFI: 50%- passive vocabulary, 27%- active
MFI: lowest scores, almost no new learnt vocabulary
The most difficult aspects of form-meaning
knowledge were acquired by the CAT group.

19. The effectiveness of CAT can be explained by 3 L2 learning hypotheses:
‘Noticing’- according to James (2005)
CA raises cross-language awareness
assists in learning L2.
‘Pushed out’- L1-L2 translation task cognitively
demanding task helps in remembering and
producing correct words and collocations.
‘Involvement load’- translation tasks a
search for meaning (L2 to L1) and form (L1 to L2),
choice of a translation acquired new vocabulary.
pushed output

20. Teaching Implications
Becoming familiar with learners’ L1 and
its linguistic structure.
Raising students’ awareness of interlingual
differences.
Devoting teaching & practice time for
lexical items which embody differences.

21. Conclusion Contrastive analysis and error analysis- vital
components of language teaching.
in other words
Contrastive FFI in selected L2 areas is a way
to achieve meaningful communication.
This page does not represent Laufer’s position very accurately: think again.

22. PART II - Reflection Having read the article, we now realize that:
L2 instruction seeks for meaningful communication,
But the means for achieving it are not necessarily
through communicative methods, this means that,
a certain amount of contrastive analysis and translation
activities should be incorporated in L2 vocabulary teaching.
A strategy which was proved to be good for promoting
vocabulary learning and ultimately for active recall (production)
is best achieved when learners’ are asked to translate from
L2 into L1 and later on from L1 into L2.
requires search for meaning requires search for form
The last sentence a bit odd: ‘a strategy … is best achieved?’
And I don’t like the use of ‘proved’ (Laufer doesn’t use it herself): better ‘indicate’ or ‘show’, or ‘support the hypothesis that…’

23. Some points to think about…
Will different L1’s in class lead to different
assumptions?
Perhaps a longer gap (more than a week) between
learning the target items and taking the
delayed test, would lead to other results…
Not clear what you mean by the first sentence: if students have lots of different L1s? or if the L1 isn’t Hebrew?