Introduction

Applied Linguistics is a relatively new academic discipline and, as such, is characterized by the invention of a large number of technical terms to label constructs of importance to the field. These constructs are, however, not stable, evolving as a result of research and accompanying theory development. However, even though the constructs themselves are not stable, the original labels stick. The result is uncertainty as to the reference of a specific term. There is perhaps no term in Applied Linguistics that this applies to more than ‘focus on form’, whose meaning has morphed quite remarkably since it was first introduced.

In this chapter I will use the terms ‘focus on form’, ‘focus on forms’, ‘FonF’, ‘and ‘FonFs’. I will use the terms FonF and FonFs to refer to general approaches to teaching and ‘focus on form’ and ‘focus on forms’ to refer to specific instructional procedures.

I will begin by considering the early use of ‘focus on form’ by Michael Long and how his definition of it has stretched over time. I will then offer my own definition of the construct, at the same time presenting a classification of different types of focus on form. In the next two sections I will examine the psycholinguistic and discursive dimensions of focus on form. This will prepare the way for a review of the research that has investigated different realizations of focus on form. Next, I take a look at the criticisms that have been levelled against focus on form followed by a review of studies that have compared FonF and FonFs. Finally, I draw the various threads of this review together in the conclusion section and argue that little is to be gained by disputing the relative merits of FonF and FonFs as what is important is to examine how ‘focus on form’ procedures can occur in both approaches and what effect these have on acquisition.