@article{oai:stars.repo.nii.ac.jp:00009488,
 author = {島田, 勝正 and SHIMADA, Katsumasa},
 journal = {人間文化研究, Journal of Humanities Research,St.Andrew's University},
 month = {Feb},
 note = {Linguistic knowledge can be categorized into implicit knowledge and
explicit knowledge. To explain the relationship between implicit knowledge
and explicit knowledge, there are three different positions: （1） the
non-interface position, in which explicit knowledge cannot directly transform
into implicit knowledge, （2） the strong interface position, in which
explicit knowledge can transform into implicit knowledge through practice,
and （3） the weak interface position, which sees explicit knowledge
as contributing indirectly to the acquisition of implicit knowledge by
assisting in the noticing of gaps and insufficiencies in the learner’s knowledge.
In this article, I will attempt to make a classification of grammar
instruction from the position of the weak interface.
　Grammar teaching, or Form-focused instruction （FFI）, can be classified
into three types: Focus on Form （FonF） vs. Focus on Forms
（FonFs）, implicit instruction vs. explicit instruction, and methodological
options regarding approaches to implementing the techniques and procedures
involved.
　FonF instruction is an approach that involves an attempt to induce
incidental learning through instruction by drawing learners’ attention to
linguistic forms while they are communicating. FonF contrasts with Fon-
Fs, which involves intentional learning on the part of the learners, and
the primary goal of which is to help learners to master grammatical features
listed in the structural syllabus, and the primary focus of attention
is code as opposed to message.
　As for the second type of classification, it is possible to make a distinction 
between implicit instruction and explicit instruction. The key difference
lies in whether the instruction attracts or directs attention to form.
Implicit instruction attracts learners’ attention to examples of linguistic
forms with the aim being the inferring of rules without conscious awareness
on the part of the learners. On the other hand, explicit instruction
directs learners to attend to grammatical forms and develop metalinguistic
awareness of their rules and constructions.
　As both FonF vs. FonFs and implicit vs. explicit instruction distinctions
are of theoretical interest and abstract, they are not adequate
as a basis for classifying FFI at the classroom level. The final type of
classification, which appears to be more concrete than the others, is a
methodological option-based framework, in which FFI can be divided
into proactive FFI and reactive FFI. Proactive FFI can further be categorized
into consciousness-raising tasks which are directed at developing
learners’ explicit knowledge, and input-based and output-based language
processing which have the aim of fostering implicit knowledge. It should
be noted, as the weak interface position claims, that explicit knowledge
can perform the function of working as monitor at all the stages from input
through output during language learning processes.},
 pages = {121--136},
 title = {文法指導の分類},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2022},
 yomi = {シマダ, カツマサ}
}