Second language acquisition (SLA) or second language learning is the process by which people of a la nguage can learn a s econd language in addition to their native language(s).. "Second language acquisition" refers to what the student does; it does not language(s) refer to what the teacher does (see "language " language education" education" for work on language teaching). "Second language acquisition research" studies the psychology and sociology of the learning process. S ometimes the terms "acquisition" and "learning" are not treated as synonyms and are instead used to refer to the subconscious and conscious aspects of this process process respectively (see second language learning). learning ).
"Second language", language", "target "target language", language", or "L2" are used to refer to t o any language language learned after the native language, which is a lso called "mother t ongue", ongue", "first language", "L1", or "source "source language". language". Second language acquisition also includes third language acquisition/ multilingualism and heritage language acquisition. Second language acquisition may be abbreviated as "SLA", or "L2A", for "L2 acquisition".
Second Language Acquisition and its premises Second language acquisition is the process of lear ning a new language after the acquisition of a learner's native language. It can also incorporate the learning of third, fourth or subsequent languages la nguages[1] as well as heritage language learning. learning .[2] Bilingualism is not usually seen to be within the field of second language acquisition. Most SLA researchers see bilingualism as being the end result of learning a language, not the process itself, and see the term t erm as referring to native-like native-like fluency, which second language learners rarely achieve. Writers in fields such as education and psychology,, however, often use bilingualism loosely to refer to all forms of psychology [3] multilingualism.. multilingualism [4][[ vague [4] vague]]
Cenoz and Genesee (1998) terms multilingual acquisition and multilingualism as complex phenomena phenomena and add a dd that they implicate all the factors and processes associated with second language acquisition and bilingualism as well as unique and potentially more complex factors and effects associated with t he interactions that are possible among the multiple languages being learned and the processes of learning [5][[broken citation] citation ] them. Valdés (2000) [5] defines heritage language as the t he language someone learns at home as a child which is a minority language in society, but because of growing up using the dominant language, the speaker seems to be more competent in the latter and feels more comfortable to communicate in that language. However, However, since heritage speakers are commonly alienated from their heritage language for a long time, and have limited or no exposure to that language, they seem to be in a state of language acquisition that differs greatly from monolinguals or second language speakers of that language.
[edit edit]] Related fields Second language acquisition is closely related to the fields of linguistics of linguistics,, psychology psychology,, neuroscience,, sociology neuroscience sociology,, and education education..
edit]] Learner language [edit
"Learner language" is the written or spoken language produced by a lear ner. It is also the main type of data used in second s econd language acquisition acquisition research. [6] Much research in second language acquisition is concerned with the internal r epresentations of a language in the mind of the learner, and in how those representations change over time. It is not yet possible to inspect these representations directly with brain scans or similar techniques, so SLA researchers are forced to make inferences about these [7] rules from learners' speech or writing. There are a number of different ways of gathering and interpreting learner language. Researchers may adopt an interlanguage perspective, perspective, regarding each learner language as a language in its own right, or they may study how a learner language compares to a natively spoken language. Much of the research has focused on the English language as the language la nguage being learned, because of the huge number of people around the world learning and teaching it. it.
[edit edit]] Error analysis ain M ain
article: Error article: Error analysis
Error analysis in SLA was established in the 1960s by Stephen Pit Pit Corder and [8] colleagues. Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis, analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism by behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict errors. Error analysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors, although its more valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study of language transfer . A key finding of error analysis has been that many learner errors are produced by learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new language. Although Although error analysis ana lysis is still used to investigate specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of learner errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s, Corder and others moved on to a more wide-ranging [citation needed ] approach to learner language, known as interlanguage interlanguage..
[edit edit]] Interlanguage M ain ain
article: Interlanguage article: Interlanguage
Interlanguage is a term t erm coined by Selinker.[9] Interlanguage scholarship seeks to understand learner language on its own terms, as a natural language with its own systematic rules. Interlanguage scholars reject, at least for heuristic purposes, purposes, the view of learner language as merely an imperfect version of the target language. Interlanguage work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics of linguistics.. It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to learners' underlying knowledge of the target language sound system (interlanguage phonology (interlanguage phonology), ), grammar gra mmar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and language-use norms found a mong learners (interlanguage pragmatics). pragmatics ). By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding understanding of linguistic universals in SLA. See below, under "linguis " linguistic tic universals universals". ".
edit]] Order of acquisition [edit
M ain
article: Order of acquisition
The order of acquisition is a concept in language acquisition that all learners of a given language will learn the grammatical features of that language in roughly the same order. This phenomenon has been confirmed for people learning their first language, and also, to some extent, for people learning a second language. The reason the order of acquisition is less stable in second language learners is not known, but is thought to be due either to the effects of language transfer or other interference by mental processes that second language learners have developed. Researchers have found a very consistent order in t he acquisition of first language structures by children, and this has drawn a gr eat deal of interest from SLA scholars. Considerable effort has been devoted to t esting the "identity hypothesis", which asserts that first-language and second-language acquisition conform to t he same patterns. This has not been confirmed, perhaps because second-language learners' cognitive and affective states are so much more advanced, and perhaps because it is not true. Orders of acquisition in SLA often resem ble those found in first language acquisition, and may have common neurological causes, but there is no convincing evidence for this. It is not safe to say that t he order of L1 acquisition has any easy implications for SLA.
[edit] Language transfer M ain
article: Language transfer
Language transfer typically refers to the learner's trying to apply rules (syntaxe) and forms (lexical) of the first or third language into the target second language. Contrastive analysis, discussed above, sought to predict all learner errors based on language transfer. Transfer is an important factor in language learning at all levels
On the syntactical side, subsequent researches in error analysis a nd interlanguage structure showed, this project was flawed: most errors are not due to transfer, but to faulty inferences about the rules of the target language. On the lexical side, typically learners begin by transferring word aspects : sounds ( phonetic transfer), meanings (semantic transfer), and orthography. As learners progress and gain more experience with the target language, the role of transfer typically diminishes. In the UG-based framework (see Linguistic universals below), "language transfer" specifically r efers to the linguistic parameter settings defined by the language universal. Thus, "language transfer" is defined as the initial state of second language acquisition rather than its developmental stage.
[edit] Second language acquisition theories [edit] Acquisition-learning hypothesis M ain
article: Acquisition-learning hypothesis
Stephen Krashen introduced the acquisition-learning hypothesis, which makes a distinction between conscious language learni ng and subconscious language [10] acquisition. Krashen argues that only subconscious acquisition can lead t o fluency. A distinction closely related to that made by Krashen (1982) between acquisition and [10] learning is one between implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Learners gain implicit knowledge by processing target-language input without consciously giving attention to acquiring the forms and structures of the language. On the other hand, learners get explicit knowledge of a language when they process language input with the conscious intention of discovering the structural rules of the language. A distinction between the implicit learning involved in acquiring a first la nguage (L1) and the mix of implicit and explicit learning that takes place in L2 acquisition has been one analytic route for understanding the virtually universal success of L1 acquisition versus the more limited success of L2 a cquisition among adult learners (Hulstijn, 2005). [11] Ellis has found empirical confirmation for the distinct constructs [12] of implicit and explicit language knowledge.
[edit] Input hypothesis M ain
article: Comprehensible input
Learners' most direct source of information about the target language is the tar get language itself. When they come into direct contact with the target language, this is referred to as "input." When learners process that language in a way that can contribute to learning, this is referred t o as "intake." Generally speaking, the amount of input learners take in is one of the most important factors affecting their learning. However, it must be at a level that is comprehensible to them. In his Monitor Theory, Krashen advanced the concept that language input should be at the "i+1" level, just beyond what the learner can fully understand; this input is comprehensible, but contains structures that are not yet fully understood. This has been criticized on the basis that there is no clear definition of i+1, and that factors other than structural difficulty (such as interest or presentation) can affect whether input is actually turned into intake. The concept has been quantified, however, in vocabulary acquisition research; Nation reviews various studies which indicate that about 98% of the words in running text should be previously known in order for [13] extensive reading to be effective. In his Input Hypothesis, Krashen proposes that language acquisition takes place only when learners receive input just beyond their current level of L2 competence. He termed this level of input ³i+1.´ However, in contrast to emergentist and connectionist theories, he follows the innate a pproach by applying Chomsky¶s Government and binding theory and concept of Universal grammar (UG) to second language acquisition. He does so by proposing a Language Acquisition Device that uses L2 input to define the parameters of the L2, within the constraints of UG, and to increase the L2 proficiency of the learner. In addition, Krashen (1982)¶s Affective Filter Hypothesis holds that the acquisition of a second language is halted if the leaner has a high degree of anxiety when receiving input. According to this concept, a part of the mind filters out L2 input and prevents uptake by the learner, if the learner feels
that the process of SLA is threatening. As mentioned earlier, since input is essential in Krashen¶s model, this filtering action prevents acquisition from progressing. A great deal of research has taken place on input enhancement, the ways in which input may be altered so as to direct learners' attention to linguistically important areas. Input enhancement might include bold-faced vocabulary words or marginal glosses in a reading text. Research here is closely linked to research on pedagogical effects, and comparably diverse.
[edit] Monitor model M ain
article: M onitor hypothesis
Other concepts have also been influential in t he speculation about the processes of building internal systems of second language information. Some thinkers hold that language processing handles distinct types of knowledge. For instance, one component of the Monitor Model, propounded by Krashen, posits a distinction [10] between ³acquisition´ and ³learning.´ According to Krashen, L2 acquisition is a subconscious process of incidentally ³picking up´ a language, as children do when becoming proficient in their first languages. Language learning, on the other hand, is studying, consciously and intentionally, the f eatures of a language, as is common in traditional classrooms. Krashen sees these two processes as fundamentally different, with little or no interface between them. In common with connectionism, Krashen [10] sees input as essential to language acquisition. Further, Bialystok and Smith make another distinction in explaining how learners build and use L2 and interlanguage knowledge structures. [14] They argue that the concept of interlanguage should include a distinction between two specific kinds of language processing ability. On one hand is learners¶ knowledge of L2 grammatical structure and ability to analyze t he target language objectively using that knowledge, which they term ³representation,´ and, on the other hand is the ability to use their L2 linguistic knowledge, under time constraints, to a ccurately comprehend input and produce output in the L2, which they call ³control.´ They point out that often nonnative speakers of a language have higher levels of r epresentation than their nativespeaking counterparts have, yet have a lower level of control. Finally, Bialystok has framed the acquisition of language in ter ms of the interaction between what she calls [15] ³analysis´ and ³control.´ Analysis is what learners do when they attempt to understand the rules of the target language. Through this process, t hey acquire these rules and can use them to gain greater control over their own production. Monitoring is another important concept in some theoretical models of learner use of L2 knowledge. According to Krashen, the Monitor is a component of an L2 learner¶s language processing device that uses knowledge gained from language learning to observe and regulate the learner¶s own L2 production, checking for accuracy and adjusting language production when necessary. [10]
[edit] Interaction hypothesis Long's interaction hypothesis proposes that language acquisition is strongly facilitated by the use of the target language in interaction. In partic ular, the negotiation of
meaning has been shown to contribute greatly to the acquisition of vocabulary.[16][broken citation] In a review of the substantial literature on this topic, Nation relates the value of negotiation to the generative use of words: the use of words in new contexts which stimulate a deeper understanding of their meaning.[17][vague]
[edit] Output hypothesis M ain
article: Comprehensible output
In the 1980s, Canadian SLA researcher Merrill Swain advanced the output hypothesis, that meaningful output is as necessary to language learning as meaningful input. However, most studies have shown little if any correlation between l earning [citation needed ] and quantity of output. Today, most scholars contend that small amounts of meaningful output are important to language lea rning, but primarily because the experience of producing language leads to more effective processing of input.
[edit] Competition model M ain
article: Competition model of language acquisition
Some of the major cognitive theories of how learners organize language knowledge are based on analyses of how speakers of various languages analyze sentences for meaning. MacWhinney, Bates, and Kliegl found that speakers of English, German, and Italian showed varying patterns in identifying the subjects of transitive sentences [18] containing more than one noun. English speakers relied heavily on word order; German speakers used morphological agreement, the animac y status of noun referents, and stress; and speakers of Italian relied on agreement and stress. MacWhinney et al. interpreted these results as supporting the Competition Model, which states that individuals use linguistic cues to get meaning from language, rather [18] than relying on linguistic universals. According to this theory, when acquiring an L2, learners sometimes receive competing cues and must decide which cue(s) is most relevant for determining meaning.
[edit] Connectionism and second language acquisition S ee
also: Connectionism
These findings also relate to Connectionism. Connectionism attempts to model the cognitive language processing of the human brain, using computer architectures that make associations between elements of language, based on frequency of co[19] occurrence in the language input. Frequency has been found to be a factor in [20] various linguistic domains of language learning. Connectionism posits that learners form mental connections between items that co-occur, using exemplars found in language input. From this input, learners extract the rules of the language through cognitive processes common to other areas of cognitive skill acquisition. Since connectionism denies both innate rules and the existence of any innate languagelearning module, L2 input is of greater importance than it is in processing models based on innate approaches, since, in connectionism, input is the source of both the units and the rules of language.
[edit] Noticing hypothesis M ain
article: Noticing hypothesis
Attention is another characteristic that some believe to have a role in determining the success or failure of language processing. Schmidt stat es that although explicit metalinguistic knowledge of a language is not always essential for a cquisition, the learner must be aware of L2 input in order to gain from it. [21][broken citation] In his ³noticing hypothesis,´ Schmidt posits that learners must notice the wa ys in which their interlanguage structures differ from target norms. This noticing of the gap a llows the learner¶s internal language processing to r estructure the learner¶s internal representation of the rules of the L2 in order to bring the learner¶s production closer to the target. In this respect, Schmidt¶s understanding is consistent with t he ongoing process of rule formation found in emer gentism and connectionism.
[edit] Processability M ain
article: Processability theory
Some theorists and researchers have contributed to the cognitive approach to s econd language acquisition by increasing understanding of the ways L2 learners restructure their interlanguage knowledge systems to be in greater conformity to L2 structures. Processability theory states that learners restructure their L2 knowledge systems in an order of which they are capable at their stage of development. [22] For instance, In order to acquire the correct morphological and syntactic forms for English questions, learners must transform declarative English sentences. They do so by a series of stages, consistent across learners. Clahsen proposed that certain processing principles [23] determine this order of restructuring. Specifically, he stated that learners first, maintain declarative word order while changing other aspects of the utterances, second, move words to the beginning and end of sentences, and third, move elements within main clauses before subordinate clauses.
[edit] Automaticity Thinkers have produced several theories concerning how learners use their internal L2 knowledge structures to comprehend L2 input and produce L2 output. One idea is that learners acquire proficiency in an L2 in the sa me way that people acquire other complex cognitive skills. Automaticity is the performance of a skill without conscious control. It results from the gradated proc ess of proceduralization. In the field of cognitive psychology, Anderson expounds a model of skill acquisition, according to which persons use procedures to apply their declarative knowledge about a subject in [24] order to solve problems. On repeated practice, these procedures develop into production rules that the individual can us e to solve the problem, without accessing long-term declarative memory. Performance speed and accuracy improve as the learner implements these production rules. DeKeyser tested the application of this [25] model to L2 language automaticity. He found that subjects developed increasing proficiency in performing tasks related t o the morphosyntax of an artificial language, Autopractan, and performed on a learning curve typical of the acquisition of nonlanguage cognitive skills. This evidence conforms to Anderson¶s general model of cognitive skill acquisition, supports the idea that declarative knowledge can be
transformed into procedural knowledge, and tends to undermine the idea of Krashen[10] that knowledge gained through language ³learning´ cannot be used t o initiate speech production.
[edit] Declarative/procedural model Michael T. Ullman has used a declarative/procedural model to understand how language information is stored. This model is consistent with a distinction made in general cognitive science between the storage and retrieval of facts, on the one hand, and understanding of how to carry out operations, on the other. It states that declarative knowledge consists of arbitrary linguistic information, such as irregular verb forms, that are stored in the brain¶s declarative memory. In contrast, knowledge about the rules of a language, such as grammatical word order is procedural knowledge and is stored in procedural memory. Ullman reviews several psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic studies that support the declarative/procedural [26] model.
[edit] Memory and second language acquisition Perhaps certain psychological characteristics constrain language processing. One area of research is the role of memory. Williams conducted a study in which he found some positive correlation between verbatim memory functioning and gra mmar [27] learning success for his subjects. This suggests that individuals with less short-term memory capacity might have a limitation in performing cognitive processes for organization and use of linguistic knowledge.
[edit] Individual variation Research on variation between individual learners seeks to address the question: W hy do some learners do better than others? A flurry of studies in the 1970s, often labelled the "good language learner studies", sought t o identify the distinctive factors of successful learners. Although those studies are now widely regarded as simplistic, they did serve to identify a number of factors affecting language acquisition. More detailed research on many of these specific factors continues today.
[edit] Language aptitude M ain
article: Language learning aptitude
Tests of language aptitude have proven extremely effective in predicting which learners will be successful in learning. However, considerable controversy remains about whether language aptitude is properly regarded as a unitary c oncept, an organic property of the brain, or as a complex of factors including motivation and short-term memory. Research has generally shown that language aptitude is quite distinct fr om general aptitude or intelligence, as measured by various tests, and is itself fairly consistently measurable by different tests. Language aptitude research is often criticized f or being irrelevant to the problems of language learners, who must attempt to learn a language regardless of whether they
are gifted for the task or not. This claim is reinforced by research findings that aptitude is largely unchangeable. In a ddition, traditional language aptitude measures such as the Modern Language Aptitude Test strongly favor decontextualized knowledge of the sort used in taking tests, rather than the sort used in conversation. For this reason little research is carried out on aptitude today. However, operators of selective language programs such as the United Sta tes Defense Language Institute continue to use language aptitude testing as part of applicant screening.
[edit] Age M ain
article: critical period hypothesis
How children acquire native language (L1) and the relevance of this t o foreign language (L2) learning has long been debated. Although evidence for L2 learning ability declining with age is controversial, a common notion is that children learn L2s easily and older learners rarely achieve fluency. This assumption stems from µ critical period¶ (CP) ideas. A CP was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 for L1 acquisition, but considerable interest now surrounds age effects on second language [28] acquisition (SLA). SLA theories explain learning processes and suggest causal factors for a possible CP for SLA, mainly attempting to explain apparent differences in language aptitudes of children and a dults by distinct learning routes, and clarifying them through psychological mechanisms. Research explores these ideas and hypotheses, but results are varied: some demonstrate pre-pubescent children acquire language easily, and some that older learners have the advantage, and yet others focus on existence of a CP for SLA. Recent studies have recognised that certain aspects of [29] SLA may be affected by age, though others remain intact.
[edit] Strategy use The effective use of strategies has been shown to be critical to successful language learning, so much so that Canale and Swain (1980) included "strategic competence" [30] among the four components of communicative competence. Research here has also shown significant pedagogical effects. This has given rise to "strategies-based instruction." Strategies are commonly divided into learning strategies and communicative strategies, although there are other ways of categorizing them. Learning strategies are techniques used to improve learning, such as mnemonics or using a dictionary. Learners (and native speakers) use communicative strategies to get meaning across even when they lack access to the correct language: for example, by using pro-forms like "thing", or non-spoken means such as mime. Communicative strategies may not have any direct bearing on learning, and some strategies such as avoidance (not using a form with which one is uncomfortable) may actually hinder learning. [31]
Learners from different cultures use strategies in different ways, as a research tradition led by Rebecca Oxford has demonstrated. Related to this are differences in strategy use between male and female learners. Numerous studies have shown that female learners typically use strategies more widely and intensively than males; this may be related to the statistical advantage which f emale learners enjoy in language [citation needed ] learning.
[edit] Affective factors Affective factors relate to t he learner's emotional state and attitude toward the target language. Research on affect in language learning is still strongly influenced by Bloom's taxonomy, which describes the affective levels of receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and self-characterization through one's value system. It has also been informed in recent years by research in neurobiology and neurolinguistics. [edit] Affective Filter M ain
article: Affective filter
Furthermore, researchers believe that la nguage learners all possess a n affective filter which affects language acquisition. If a student possesses a high filter they ar e less likely to engage in language learning because of shyness, concern for grammar or other factors. Students possessing a lower affective filter will be more likely t o engage in learning because they are less likely to be impeded by other factors. The affective filter is an important component of second language learning. [edit] Anxiety
Although some continue to propose that a low level of anxiety may be helpful, studies have almost unanimously shown that anxiety damages students' prospects for successful learning. Anxiety is often related to a sense of threat to the learner's selfconcept in the learning situation, for example if a learner fears being ridiculed for a mistake. [edit] Personality Factors
Second language acquisition is defined as the learning and adopting of a language that is not your native language. Studies [vague] have shown that extraverts (or unreserved and outgoing people) acquire a second language better than introverts (or shy people). [vague]
One particular study done by Naiman reflected this point. The subjects were 72 Canadian high school students from grades 8, 10 and 12 who were studying French as a second language. Naiman gave them all questionnaires to establish their psychological profiles, which also included a French listening test and imitation test. He found that approximately 70% of the students with the higher grades (B or higher) would consider themselves extroverts. Extroverts will be willing to try to communicate even if they are not sure they will succeed. Two scientists, Kinginger and Farrell, conducted interviews with U.S. [broken citation] students after their study abroad program in Fra nce in 2003. They found that many of the students would avoid int eraction with the native speakers at all costs, while others jumped at the opportunity to speak the language. Those who avoided interaction were typically quiet, reserved people, (or introverts).
Logically, anxiety will cause students not to try and advance their skills, especially when they feel they are under pressure. Just the lack of pra ctice will make introverts less likely to fully acquire the second language. [edit] Social effects
The process of language learning can be very stressful, and the impact of positive or negative attitudes from the surrounding society can be cr itical. One aspect that has received particular attention is the relationship of gender roles to language achievement. Studies across numerous cultures have shown that women, on the whole, enjoy an advantage over men. Some have proposed that this is linked to gender roles. Doman notes in a journal devoted to issues of Cultural affects on SLA, "Questions abound about what defines SLA, how far its borders extend, and what t he attributions and contributions of its research are. Thus, there is a great amount of heterogeneity in the entire conceptualization of SLA. Some researchers tend to ignore certain aspects of the field, while others scrutinize those same aspects piece by piece."[32] Community attitudes toward the language being learned can also have a profound impact on SLA. Where the community has a broadly negative view of the target language and its speakers, or a negative view of its relation to them, learning is typically much more difficult. This finding has been c onfirmed by research in numerous contexts. A widely-cited example is the difficulty faced by Navajo children in learning English as a second language.[citation needed ] Other common social factors include the attitude of parents t oward language study, and the nature of group dynamics in the language classroom. Additionally, early attitudes may strengthen motivation and facility wit h language in general, particularly with early exposure to the language. [edit] Motivation M ain
article: M otivation in second language learning
The role of motivation in SLA has been the subject of extensive scholarship, closely influenced by work in motivational psychology. Motivation is internally complex, and Dörnyei begins his work by stating that "strictly speaking, there is no such thing as [33] motivation." There are many different kinds of motivation; these are often divided into types such as integrative or instrumental, intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation refers to the desire to do something for an internal reward. Most studies have shown it to be substantially more effective in long-term language learning than extrinsic motivation, for an external reward such as high grades or praise. Integrative and instrumental orientations refer to the degree that a language is learned "for its own sake" (integratively) or for instrumental purposes. Studies have not consistently shown either form of motivation to be more effective than the other, and the role of each is probably conditioned by various personality and cultural factors. Some research has shown that motivation correlates strongly with proficiency, indicating both that successful learners are motivated a nd that success improves motivation. Thus motivation is not fixed, but is strongly affected by feedback from
the environment. Accordingly, the study of motivation in SLA has also examined many of the external factors discussed above, such as the effect of instructional techniques on motivation. An accessible summary of this research can be found in Dörnyei (2001a). [33] In their research on Willingness to communicate, MacIntyre et al. have shown that motivation is not the final construct before learners engage in communication. In fact, [34] learners may be highly motivated yet remain unwilling to communicate. The European Union Lifelong learning progra mme has funded a project to research and build a set of best practices to motivate adult language learners, called Don't Give Up
[edit] Pedagogical effects Efforts have been made to systematically measure or evaluate the effectiveness of language teaching practices in promoting second la nguage acquisition. Such studies have been undertaken for every level of language, from phonetics to pragmatics, and for almost every current teaching methodology. It is therefore impossible to summarize their findings here. However, some more general issues have been addressed. Research has indicated that many traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely inefficient.[35] One issue is the effectiveness of explicit teaching: can language teaching have a constructive effect beyond providing learners with enhanced input? Research on this at different l evels of language has produced quite different results. Traditional areas of explicit teaching, such as phonology, grammar and vocabulary, have had decidedly mixed results. It is generally agreed that pedagogy restricted to teaching grammar rules and vocabulary lists does not give students the ability to use the L2 with accuracy and fluency. Rather, t o become proficient in the L2, the learner must be given opportunities to use the L2 for communicative purposes, learning (as for example, through a teacher's corrective feedback) t o attend to both meaning and formal accuracy.[36][37] There is considerable promising research in the classroom on the impact of corrective feedback on L2 learners' use and acquisition of tar get language forms. The effectiveness of corrective feedback has been shown to vary depending on the technique used to make the correction, and the overall focus of the classroom, [38][39][40] whether on formal accuracy or on communication of meaningful content. However, it appears that a learner's ability to focus on corrective feedback on grammatical features that do not affect meaning is considerably altered when the learner has low alphabetic literacy. [41] There is considerable interest in supplementing published research with approaches that engage language teachers in action r esearch on learner language in their own classrooms.[42] As teachers become aware of the features of learner language produced by their students, they can refine their pedagogical intervention to maximize [43] interlanguage development.
Horwitz summarises findings of SLA research, and a pplies to L2 teaching some principles of L2 acquisition honed from a vast body of relevant literature. [44] Like [vague] Asher, Horwitz highlights the importance of naturalistic experience in L2, promoting listening and reading practice and stressing involvement in life-like conversations. She explicitly suggests teaching practices based on these principles; µ[m]uch class time should be devoted to the development of listening and rea ding abilities¶, and µ[t]eachers should assess student interests and supply [45] appropriate«materials¶. The µaudio-lingual¶ teaching practices used in the present study are based on principles explicated by Asher and Horwitz; listening featured heavily, closely followed by reading and speaking practice. The vocabulary items taught were deemed relevant for all learners, regardless of age, and, according to Pfeffer, they are among the most commonly used nouns in everyday German language. [46]
[edit] Understanding SLA The systematic modelling of SLA is concerned with the question: W hat are the most important overall factors in language acquisition? Models of SLA have played an important role in laying out directions for future research, and also for informing practice in language teaching. Different models of SLA have focused on different aspects of SLA and general linguistic research. For example, Schumann's Acculturation Model, which viewed second language acquisition as just one part of adapting to a new culture, emphasized findings related to language socialization. Krashen's Monitor Model prioritized research on input and affective factors. Long's Interaction Hypothesis took a social constructivist view of research on input. Caleb Gattegno based The Silent Way on the principle of the education of awareness. No single model of SLA has gained wide acceptance. Given that the field is complex and interdisciplinary, few scholars expect that any model will do so in the foreseeable future.
[edit] Concepts of ability Numerous notions have been used to describe learners' ability in the target language. The first such influential concept was the competence-performance distinction introduced by Chomsky. This distinguishes competence, a person's idealized knowledge of language rules, from performance, the imperfect reali zation of these rules. Thus, a person may be interrupted and not finish a sentence, but still know how to make a complete sentence. Although this distinction has become fundamental to most work in linguistics today, it has not proven adequate by itself to describe the complex nature of learners' developing ability.
[edit] See also y y y y y
Autonomous Technology-Assisted Language Learning (ATALL Wikibook) Computer-assisted language learning Education Error analysis Foreign language anxiety
y y y y y y y y
Glossary of language teaching terms and ideas Hardest language Interlanguage Language acquisition Language exchange Learning by teaching (LdL) Metalinguistic awareness Second language attrition
[edit] Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.
^ Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 7 ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 21-24 ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 24-25. ^ Cenoz & Genesee 1998. ^ Valdés 2000. ^ Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 4. ^ Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 6. ^ Corder 1967. ^ Selinker 1972. a b c d e f ^ Krashen 1982. ^ Hulstijn 2005. ^ Ellis 2005. ^ Nation 2001. ^ Bialystok & Smith 1985. ^ Bialystok 1994. ^ Long 1990. ^ Nation 2001. ^ a b MacWhinney, Bates & Kliegl 1984. ^ Christiansen & Chater 2001. ^ Ellis 2002a. ^ Schmidt 1990. ^ Pienemann 1998. ^ Clahsen 1984. ^ Anderson 1992. ^ DeKeyser 1997. ^ Ullman 2001. ^ Williams 1999. ^ Lenneberg 1967. ^ Mayberry & Lock 2003. ^ Canale & Swain 1980. ^ Hadzibeganovic & Cannas 2009. ^ Doman 2006. a b ^ Dörnyei 2001, p. 1. ^ MacIntyre et al. 1998. ^ Lightbown 1990 cited in Ellis 1994. ^ Doughty & Williams 1998. ^ Ellis 2002b. ^ Lightbown & Spada 1990. ^ Lyster & Ranta 1997. ^ Lyster & Mori 2006. ^ Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen 2009. ^ Allwright & Hanks 2009.
43. 44. 45. 46.
^ ^ ^ ^
Tarone & Swierzbin 2009. Horwitz 1986. Horwitz 1986, pp. 685-686. Pfeffer 1964.
[edit] References y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Allwright, Dick; Hanks, Judith (2009). T he Developing Language Learning: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 9781403985316. Anderson, J. R. (1992). "Automaticity and the ACT* theory". American Journal of Psychology 105 (2): 165±180. doi:10.2307/1423026. PMID 1621879. http://jstor.org/stable/1423026. Bialystok, E.; Smith, M. S. (1985). "Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition". Applied Linguistics 6 (2): 101±117. doi:10.1093/applin/6.2.101. Bialystok, E. (1994). "Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency". S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 16 (2): 157±168. doi:10.1017/S0272263100012857. Canale, M.; Swain, M. (1980). "Theoretical bases of communicativ e approaches to second language teaching and testing". Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 1±47. doi:10.1093/applin/1.1.1. Cenoz, Jasone; Genesee, Fred, eds (1998). Beyond Bilingualism: M ultilingualism and M ultilingual Education. Levittown, PA: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 1-85359-420-2. Christiansen, M. H.; Chater, N. (2001). "Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data". T rends in Cognitive S ciences 5 (2): 82±88. doi:10.1016/S13646613(00)01600-4. PMID 11166638. Clahsen, Harald (1984). "The acquisition of German word order: a test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition". In Andersen, Roger. S econd languages: a cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp. 219± 242. ISBN 9780883774403. Corder, S. P. (1967). "The signi ficance of learners' errors". International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 160±170. DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). "Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax". S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 19: 195±222. Doman, E. (2006). "Current Debates in SLA". T he Asian EFL Journal 7 (4). http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_05_ed.php. Retrieved 2010-12-01. Dörnyei, Zoltan (2001). M otivational S trategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ ersity Press. ISBN 0521793777. Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica, eds (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom S econd Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521-62390-2. Ellis, Rod (1994). T he S tudy of S econd Language Acquisition. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0194371891. Ellis, N. (2002a). "Frequency effects in language pr ocessing". S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 24 (2): 143±188. Ellis, R. (2002b). "Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisitio n of implicit knowledge?". S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 24 (2): 223±236. Ellis, R. (2005). "Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study". S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 27 (2): 141±172. Ellis, Rod; Barkhuizen, Gary (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0194316347. Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). S econd Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-805-85497-8.
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Hadzibeganovic, Tarik; Cannas, Sergio A. (2009 ). "A Tsallis' statistics based neural network model for novel word learning". Physica A 388 (5): 732±746. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2008.10.042. Horwitz, E. K. (1986). "Some Language Acquisition Principles and their Implications for Second Language Teaching". H ispania 69 (3): 684-689. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). "Theoretical and empirical issues in th e study of implicit and explicit second-language learning". S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 27 (2): 129±140. Krashen, Stephen (1982). Principles and Practice in S econd Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-028628-3. http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/index.html. Retrieved 2010-1125. Lenneberg, Eric (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. OCLC 557223. Lightbown, Patsy (1990). "Chapter 6: Process-product research on second language learning in classrooms". In Harley, Birgit. T he Development of S econd Language Proficiency. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 82-92. ISBN 9780521384100. Lightbown, Patsy; Spada, Nina (1990). "Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning".S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 12 (4): 429-48. Lyster, R.; Ranta, L. (1997). "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms". S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 19: 37± 66. Lyster, R.; Mori, H. (2006). "Interactional feedback and instru ctional counterbalance". S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 28: 269±300. MacIntyre, P.D.; Clément, R.; Dörnyei, Z.; Noels, K.A. (1998). "Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in an L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation". T he M odern Language Journal 82 (4): 545±562. doi:10.2307/330224. http://jstor.org/stable/330224. MacWhinney, B.; Bates, E.; Kliegl, R. (1984). "Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23 (2): 127±150. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90093-8. Mayberry, R. I.; Lock, E. (2003). "Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and Epigenesis". Brain and Language 87: 369-384. Nation, Paul (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80498-1. German W ord List Pfeffer, J. A. (1964). Grunddeutsch: Basic ( S poken) . Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall. OCLC 475772972. Pienemann, Manfred (1998). Language Processing and S econd Language Development: Processability T heory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 9781556195495. Selinker, L. (1972). "Interlanguage". International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209±241. doi:10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209. Tarone, Elaine; Bigelow, Martha; Hansen, Kit (2009). Literacy and S econd Language Oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780194423007. Tarone, Elaine; Swierzbin, Bonnie (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780194422918. Ullman, M. T. (2001). "The declarative/procedural model of l exicon and grammar". Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30 (1): 37±69. doi:10.1023/A:1005204207369. PMID 11291183. Williams, J. (1999). "Memory, attention and indu ctive learning". S tudies in S econd Language Acquisition 21: 1±48.
[edit] Further reading y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4th ed). London: Hodder Arnold. Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod. (2007). Educational Settings and Second La nguage Learning. Volume 9 Asian EFL Journal. [1] Ellis, Rod. (2005). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. Volume 7 Asian EFL Journal. [2] Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2006). H ow Languages are Learned . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2nd edition. [ ISBN 0-19-442224-0] Lin, G. H. C. (2008). "Lin, G. H. C. (2008). Pedagogies proving Krashen¶s theory of affective filter , Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, Vol, 14, pp.113-131 ERIC Collection as ED503681 [3] Long, Michael H. (1980's) authored several papers on the Interaction hypothesis (Rod Ellis's overview)}} Ellis, Rod (1991). "The Interaction Hypothesis A critical evaluation". pp. 37. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet? accno=ED338037 - on Michael H. Long's Interaction Hypothesis Mangubhai, F. (2006). "What do we know about learning and teaching second languages: Implications for teaching " Asian EFL Journal Vol 8. 2006 [4] McKay, Sharon; Schaetzel, Kirsten, Facilitating Adult Learner Interactions to Build Listening and S peaking S kills, CAELA Network Briefs, CAELA a nd Center for Applied Linguistics Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (2nd ed). London: Hodder Arnold. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2006). (Eds.). S ynthesizing research on language learning and teaching . John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold. Ortega, L. (2010). Second language acquisition. Critical concepts in linguistics. London: Routledge. [ ISBN 978-0-415-45020-1] Oxford, R,. & Lee, K. (2008). Understanding EFL Learners¶ Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness.[5] Robertson, P. & Nunn, R. (2007). The Study of Second Language Acquisition in the Asian Context [6] Tarone, E. & Swierzbin, B. (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. White, L. (2003). S econd Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[edit] External links y
y
Second Language Acquisition Topics by Vivian Cook : information on SLA, applied linguistics and language teaching research, including a large bibliography. Center for Applied Linguistics homepage
y
One Language or Two: Answers to Questions about Bilingualism in Language-Delayed Children: Information for Parents and Speech-Language Pathologists
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition
» Articles Overview » Art of Translation and Interpreting » Translator Education » Second Language Acquisition: Learners' Errors and Error Correction in Language Teaching » Articles Overview » Art of Translation and Interpreting » Translation Theory » Second Language Acquisition: Learners' Errors and Error Correction in Language Teaching
Second Language Acquisition: Learners' Errors and Error Correction in Language Teaching By Maria Karra | Published 03/29/2006 | Translation Theory , Translator Education | Recommendation: Contact the author
Quicklink: http://www.proz.com/doc/633
Author: Maria Karra United States Greek to English translator
Became a member: Sep 2, 2000.
View all articles by Maria Karra See this author's ProZ.com profile
It is to S.P. Corder that Error Analysis owes its place as a scientific method in linguistics. As Rod Ellis cites (p. 48), "it was not until the 1970s that EA became a recognized part of applied linguistics, a development that owed m uch to the work of Corder". Before Corder, linguists observed learners' errors, divided them i nto categories, tried to see which ones were common and which were not, but not much attention was drawn to their role in second language acquisition. It was Corder who showed to whom information about errors would be helpful ( teachers, researchers, and students) and how. There are many m ajor concepts introduced by S. P. Corder in his article "The significance of learners' errors", among which we encounter the following: 1) It is the learner who determines what the input is. The teacher can present a linguistic form, but this is not necessarily the input, but simply what is available to be learned. 2) Keeping the above point in mind, learners' needs should be considered when teachers/linguists plan their syllabuses. Before Corder's work, syllabuses were based on theories and not so much on learners¶ needs. 3) Mager (1962) points out that the learners' built-in syllabus is more efficient than the teacher's syllabus. Corder adds that if such a built-in syllabus exists, then learners¶ errors would confirm its exi stence and would be systematic. 4) Corder introduced the distinction between systematic and no n-systematic errors. Unsystematic errors occur in one¶s native language; Corder calls these "mistakes " and states that they are not significant to the process of l anguage learning. He keeps the term "errors" for the systematic ones, which occur in a second language. 5) Errors are significant in three ways: - to the teacher: they show a student¶s progress - to the researcher: they show how a language is acquired, what strategies the
learner uses. - to the learner: he can learn from these errors. 6) When a learner has made an error, the most efficient way to teach him the correct form is not by simply giving it to him, but by letting him discover it and test different hypotheses. (This is derived from Carroll's proposal (Carroll 1955, cited in Corder), who suggested that the learner should find the correct linguistic form by searching for it. 7) Many errors are due to that the learner uses structures from his native language. Corder claims that possession of one¶s native l anguage is facilitative. Errors in this case are not inhibitory, but rather evidence of one¶s learning strategies.
The above insights played a significant role in linguistic research, and in particular in the approach linguists took towards errors. Here are som e of the areas that were influenced by Corder's work:
STUDIES OF LEARNER ERRORS
Corder introduced the distinction between errors (in competence) and mistakes (in performance). This distinction directed the attention of researchers of SLA to competence errors and provided for a more concentrated framework. Thus, in the 1970s researchers started examining learners¶ competence errors and tried to explain them. We find studies such as Richards's "A non-contrastive approach to error analysis" (1971), where he identifies sources of competence errors; L1 transfer results in interference errors; incorrect (incomplete or over-generalized) application of language rules results in intralingual errors; construction of faulty hypotheses in L2 results in developmental errors. Not all researchers have agreed with the above distinction, such as Dulay and Burt (1974) who proposed the following three categories of errors: developmental, interference and unique. Stenson (1974) proposed another category, that of induced errors, which result from incorrect instruction of the language. As most research methods, error analysis has weaknesses (such as in methodology), but these do not diminish its importance in SLA research; thi s is why linguists such as Taylor (1986) reminded researchers of its importance and suggested ways to overcome these weaknesses.
As mentioned previously, Corder noted to whom (or in which areas) the study of errors would be significant: to teachers, to researchers and to learners. In addition to studies concentrating on err or categorization and analysis, various studies concentrated on these three dif ferent areas. In other words, research was conducted not only in order to understand errors per se, but also in order to use what is learned from error analysis and apply it to improve language competence. Such studies include Kroll and Schafer's "Error -Analysis and the Teaching of Composition", where the authors demonstrate how error analysi s can be used to improve writing skills. They analyze possible sources of error in non -nativeEnglish writers, and attempt to provide a process approach to writing where the error analysis can help achieve better writing skills. These studies, among many others, show that thanks to Corder's work, researchers recognized the importance of errors in SLA and started to examine them in order to achieve a better understanding of SLA processes, i.e. of how learners acquire an L2.
STUDIES OF L1 INFLUENCE ON SLA
Various researchers have concentrated on those errors which demonstrate the influence of one¶s native language to second language acquisition. Before Corder¶s work, interference errors were regarded as inhibitory; it was Corder who pointed out that they can be facilitative and provide information about one¶s learning strategies (point 7, listed above). Claude Hagège (1999) is a supporter of this concept and he mentions it in his book "The child between two languages", dedicated to children¶s language education. According to Hagège, interference between L1 and L2 is observed in children as well as in adults. In adults it is more obvious and increases continuously, as a monolingual person gets older and the structures of his first language get stronger and impose thems elves more and more on any other language the adult wishes to learn. In contrast, as regards children, interference features will not become permanent unless the child does not have sufficient exposure to L2. If there is sufficient exposure, then instead of reaching a point where they can no longer be corrected (as often happens with phonetics features), interference features can be easily eliminated. Hagège stresses that there is no reason for worry if interference persists more than expected. The teacher should know that a chi ld that is in the process of acquiring a second language will subconsciously invent structures i nfluenced by knowledge he already possesses. These hypotheses he forms may constitute errors. These
errors, though, are completely natural; we should not expect the child to acquire L2 structures immediately (p. 81). In addition to studies of L1 transfer in general, there have been numerous studies for specific language pairs. Thanh Ha Nguyen (1995) conducted a case study to demonstrate first language transfer in Vietnamese learners of English. He examined a particular language form, namel y oral competence in English past tense making. He tried to determine the role of L1 transfer in the acquisition of this English linguistic feature as a func tion of age, time of exposure to English, and plac e and purpose of lear n i ng English. The influence of L1 on L2 was also examined by Lakkis and Malak ( 2000) who concentrated on the transfer of Arabic prepositional knowledge to English (by Arab students). Both positive and negative transfer were examined in order to help teachers identify problematic areas for Arab students and help them understand where transfer should be encouraged or avoided. In particular, they concluded that "an instructor of English, whose native language is Arabic, can use the students' L1 for structures that use equivalent prepositions in both languages. On the other hand, whenever there are verbs or expressions in the L1 and L2 that have different structures, that take prepositions, or that have no equivalent in one of the languages, instructors should point out these differences to their students". Not only was L1 influence examined according to language pair, but according to the type of speech produced (written vs. oral). Hagège (p. 33) discusses the influence of L1 on accent; he notes that the ear acts like a filter, and after a critical age (which Hagège claims is 11 years), it only accepts sounds that belong to one¶s native language. Hagège discusses L1 transfer in order to convince readers that there is indeed a critical age for language acquisition, and in particular the acquisition of a native-like accent. He uses the example of the French language, which includes complex vowel sounds, to demonstrate that after a critical age, the acquisition of these sounds is not possible; thus, learners of a foreign language will only use the sounds existing in their native l anguage when producing L2 sounds, which may often obstruct communication.
STUDIES OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
Corder elaborated on Carroll¶s work to show that the most efficient way to teac h a student the correct linguistic form is to let him test various hypotheses and eventually find the right form (point 6, listed above). In these steps, Hagège points out the importance of self correction (p. 82-83). According to Hagège, it is
useful to always perform an error analysis based on written tests administered by the teacher, but without informing the student of the purpose of the test. On that basis, self-correction is preferable to correction by the teacher, especially if the latter is done in a severe or intimidating way. Self correction is even more efficient when it is done with the help of children¶s classmates. According to teachers, the younger the children, the greater the cooperation among them and the less aggressive or intimidating the corrections. Hagège dedicates a section in his book to the importance of treating errors in a positive way. In this section, titled "The teacher as a good listener", he no tes that it is useless, if not harmful, to treat errors as if they were ³diseases or pathological situations which must be eliminated´, especially if this treatm ent becomes discouraging, as occurs when teachers lose their patience because of children¶s numerous errors. This, of course, does not mean that corrections should be avoided; af ter all it is the teacher¶s duty to teach the rules of the L2. But the correction of every error as soon as it occurs is not recommended. The justification that Hagège offers is the following: the linguistic message that the child tries to produce is a seq uence of elements which are interdependent; immediate corrections which interrupt this message tend to produce negative consequences, even to the less sensitive children; such consequences include anxiety, fear of making an error, the development of avoidance strategies, reduced motivation for participation in the classroom, lack of interest for learning, reduced will for self correction, and lack of trust towards the teacher. Esser (1984, cited in Hagège) also made a similar point: repetitive and immediate corrections, he noted, may cause sensitive children to develop aggressive behavior towards their classmates or teacher. Thus, Hagège concludes, correction must not be applied by the teacher unless errors obstruct communication. This is the main criterion for error correction (i.e. obstruction of communication) presented by Hagège; however there have been studies which examined such criteria in greater detail, such as Freiermuth's "L2 Error Correction: Criteria and Techniques" (1997). Freiermuth accepts Corder's view (point 6) and proposes criteria f or error correction in the classroom. These criteria are: exposure, seriousness, and st ud ents' need s. In the case of exposure, Freiermuth claims that when a child creates language (for example, when he tries to express an idea by using a linguistic form he has not yet acquired), he will most likely make errors; correcting these errors will be ineffective because the learner is not aware of them. Thus, error correction would result in the acquisition of the correct form only if the learner has been previously exposed to that particular language form. As regards the seriousness criterion, Freiermuth claims that the teacher must determine the gravity of an error before deciding whether he should correct it or
not. Here Freiermuth sets a criterion which agrees with that of Hagège's: "the error, he states, must impede communication before it should be considered an error that necessitates correction". But what constitutes a serious error? Which errors are those which should not be corrected? As an examples of non-serious errors, Freiermuth mentions those errors which occur due to learners¶ nervousness in the classroom, due to their stress or the pressure of having to produce accurately a linguistic form in the L2. These errors can occur even with familiar structures; in that case, they are not of serious nature and are similar to what Corder called "mistakes". Here again we see Corder¶s influence in error analysis, and in particular in the distinction between errors and mistakes. Freiermuth goes on to suggest a hierarchy of errors (according to seriousness) to help teachers decide which errors should be corrected: "Errors that significantly impair communication [are] at the top of the list, followed by errors that occur frequently, errors that reflect misunderstanding or incomplete acquisition of the current classroom focus, and errors that have a highly stigmatizing effect on the listeners". He also clarifies what can cause stigmatization: profound pronunciation errors, or errors of familiar forms. Another important criterion that must be considered by the teacher is individual students' needs. The importance of this f actor is mentioned in Corder, who in turn notes that this idea had been suggested previously by Carroll ( 1955, cited in Corder 1967) and Ferguson (1966, cited in Corder 1967). Each student is different and thus may react differently to error correction. We infer from Freiermuth's claim that the teacher must perform two main tasks: first, assess some specific character traits of students, such as self-confidence and language acquisition capability. Freiermuth agrees with Walz (1982, cited in Freiermuth) that self-confident, capable students can profit from even minor corrections, while struggling students should receive correction only on major errors. This claim agrees with Esser and Hagège's claim that repetitive corrections are likely to decrease motivation; it is reasonable to accept that students who lack selfconfidence will be "stigmatized" to a greater degree than confident students. The teacher's second task, according to Freiermuth, is to li sten to learners' L2 utterances in order to determine where errors occur (i.e. which linguistic forms cause students difficulties), their frequency, and their gravity (according to the severity criteria mentioned above). Then the teacher can combine the outcome of these tasks and decide on correction techniques for individual students. A different approach to error correction was suggest ed by Porte (1993), who stressed the importance of self-correction. Porte refers to Corder's distinction of errors and mistakes and points out that many students do not know the
difference. It is important, Porte notes, that students know how to identify an error in order to avoid i t in the future. She agrees with Corder that it is more efficient for learners to correct themselves than be corrected by the teacher, and goes on to suggest a four -step approach for self-correction. This approach consists of questions that the teacher provides to students. After writing an essay, students should read it four times, each ti me trying to answer the questions included in each of the four steps. Thus, in each re-reading task (each step) they concentrate on a different aspect of their essay. In brief, the first task asks them to highlight the verbs and check the tenses; in the second task students concentrate on prepositions; the third task requires them to concentrate on nouns (spelling, agreement between subject and verb); finally in the fou rth task students should try to correct potential personal mistakes. Porte also offers some clarification of what is meant by personal mistakes, in order to help the students identify them. The studies mentioned above are only a few examples that demonstrate how S. Pit Corder's work influenced the area of error analysis in linguistics. The concepts that Corder introduced directed researcher¶s attention to specifi c areas of error analysis; they helped linguists realize that although errors sometimes obstruct communication, they can often facilitate second language acquisition; also they played a significant role in training teachers and helping them identify and cl assify students' errors, as well as helping them construct correction techniques.
REFERENCES Corder, S. P. 1967. "The significance of learners¶ errors´. I nter national Review of A pplied Li nguisti cs 5 : 161-9.
Dulay, H., and Burt, M., ³Errors and strategi es in child second language acquisition´, TESOL Quarterly 8: 129-136, 1974. Ellis, R., ³The Study of Second Language Acquisition´, O x f or d University P ress, 1994. Esser, U., ³Fremdsprachenpsychologische Betrachtungen zur Fehlerproblematic im Fremdsprachenunterricht´, Deutsch als F remd sprache, 4:151-159, 1984, (cited in
Hagège 1999). Freiermuth, M. R., ³L2 Error Correction: Criteria and Techniques´, The Language T eacher Onli ne 22.06 ,
http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/sep/freiermuth.html, 1997. Hagège, C. ³L¶enfant aux deux langues´ (The child between two languages), Greek translation, Polis editions, Athens 1999. (Original publication: Ed itions Od ile J ac ob, 1996).
Kroll, Barry, and John C. Schafer. "Error -Analysis and the Teaching of Composition", College Composition and Communi ca tion 29 : 242-248, 1978 Lakkis, K. and Malak, M. A .. ³Understanding the Transfer of Prepositions´. FORUM, V ol 38, N o 3, July -September 2000 . (Online edition:
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol38/no3/p26.htm) Mager, R.F. ³Preparing Instructional Objectives´, F earon Publishers, Palo Alto, CA 1962. Nguyen, Thanh Ha. ³First Language Transfer and Vietnamese L earners' Oral Competence in English Past Tense Marking: A Case Study.´, M aster of Educ ation (TESOL) Resear ch E ssay , La T robe University , Victoria, Australia1995.
Porte, G. K., ³Mistakes, Errors, and Bl ank Checks´, FORUM, V ol 31, N o 2, p. 42, J anuary-M ar ch 1993. (Online edition:
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol31/no1/p42.htm) Richards, J., ³A non-contrastive approach to error analysis´, English Language T eachi ng 25 : 204-219, 1971.
Stenson, N. ³Induced errors´ in Shumann and Stenson (eds.), 1974, cited in Ellis (p. 60). Taylor G., ³Errors and explanations´, A pplied Li nguisti cs 7 : 144-166, 1986. /http://www.proz.com/translation -articles/articles/633
