ABSTRACT
Several experts have claimed that the explicit teaching of grammatical structure plays little or no role in the classroom-based acquisition of a second or foreign language (Felix, 1981; Krashen, 1981, 1982). However, although naturalistic approaches may lead to fluency and communicative ability, others have argued that such approaches cannot carry a learner to the point of grammatical accuracy (Ellis, 1990; Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Others further claim that activities leading to grammatical consciousness on the part of the learner may be the only way to overcome certain types of syntactic deficits in the second language (Fotos, 1993, 1994; Rutherford, 1987; Rutherford & Sharwood Smith, 1988; Sharwood Smith, 1981; White, 1989). One reason for these conflicting opinions is that there is little if any solid evidence to support either side. As Long (1983) pointed out, most studies dealing with this issue have focused on the effects on learning through formal instruction as contrasted with learning through language contact, and it is not known what, if any, role the explicit teaching of grammatical rules played in these studies. A few recent studies have addressed this issue head on (Doughty, 1991; White, 1991; White, Spada, Lightbown, & Ranta, 1991).
