Second language acquisition (SLA) or second language learning is the process by which people of a language can learn a second language in addition to their native language(s). "Second language acquisition" refers to what the student does; it does not refer to what the teacher does (see "language education" for work on language teaching). "Second language acquisition research" studies the psychology and sociology of the learning process. Sometimes 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 respectively (see second language learning).

"Second language", "target language", or "L2" are used to refer to any language learned after the native language, which is also called "mother tongue", "first language", "L1", or "source 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 learning a new language after the acquisition of a learner's native language. It can also incorporate the learning of third, fourth or subsequent languages[1] as well as heritage language 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 as referring to 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 multilingualism.[3]

Cenoz and Genesee (1998)[4][vague] terms multilingual acquisition and multilingualism as complex phenomena and add 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 the interactions that are possible among the multiple languages being learned and the processes of learning them. Valdés (2000)[5][broken citation] defines heritage language as the 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, 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] Related fields

Second language acquisition is closely related to the fields of linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, sociology, and education.

[edit] Learner language

"Learner language" is the written or spoken language produced by a learner. It is also the main type of data used in second language acquisition research.[6] Much research

in second language acquisition is concerned with the internal representations 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 rules from learners' speech or writing.[7] There are a number of different ways of gathering and interpreting learner language. Researchers may adopt an interlanguage 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 being learned, because of the huge number of people around the world learning and teaching it.

[edit] Error analysis

Main article: Error analysis

Error analysis in SLA was established in the 1960s by Stephen Pit Corder and colleagues.[8] Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced 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 error analysis 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 approach to learner language, known as interlanguage.[citation needed]

[edit] Interlanguage

Main article: Interlanguage

Interlanguage is a term 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, the view of learner language as merely an imperfect version of the target language. Interlanguage work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics. It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to learners' underlying knowledge of the target language sound system (interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics).

By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in SLA. See below, under "linguistic universals".

[edit] Order of acquisition

Main 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 the acquisition of first language structures by children, and this has drawn a great deal of interest from SLA scholars. Considerable effort has been devoted to testing the "identity hypothesis", which asserts that first-language and second-language acquisition conform to the 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 resemble 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 the order of L1 acquisition has any easy implications for SLA.

[edit] Language transfer

Main 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 and 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 refers 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

Main article: Acquisition-learning hypothesis

Stephen Krashen introduced the acquisition-learning hypothesis, which makes a distinction between conscious language learning and subconscious language acquisition.[10] Krashen argues that only subconscious acquisition can lead to fluency.

A distinction closely related to that made by Krashen (1982) between acquisition and learning is one between implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge.[10] 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 language (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 acquisition among adult learners (Hulstijn, 2005).[11] Ellis has found empirical confirmation for the distinct constructs of implicit and explicit language knowledge.[12]

[edit] Input hypothesis

Main article: Comprehensible input

Learners' most direct source of information about the target language is the target 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 to 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 extensive reading to be effective.[13]

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 “i+1.” However, in contrast to emergentist and connectionist theories, he follows the innate approach 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

Main article: Monitor hypothesis

Other concepts have also been influential in the 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 between “acquisition” and “learning.”[10] According to Krashen, L2 acquisition is a subconscious process of incidentally “picking 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 features 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 sees input as essential to language acquisition.[10]

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 the target language objectively using that knowledge, which they term “representation,” and, on the other hand is the ability to use their L2 linguistic knowledge, under time constraints, to accurately comprehend input and produce output in the L2, which they call “control.” They point out that often non-native speakers of a language have higher levels of representation than their native-speaking counterparts have, yet have a lower level of control. Finally, Bialystok has framed the acquisition of language in terms of the interaction between what she calls “analysis” and “control.”[15] Analysis is what learners do when they attempt to understand the rules of the target language. Through this process, they 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 particular, 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

Main 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 learning and quantity of output. Today, most scholars[citation needed] contend that small amounts of meaningful output are important to language learning, but primarily because the experience of producing language leads to more effective processing of input.

[edit] Competition model

Main 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 containing more than one noun.[18] English speakers relied heavily on word order; German speakers used morphological agreement, the animacy 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 than relying on linguistic universals.[18] 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

See 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-occurrence in the language input.[19] Frequency has been found to be a factor in various linguistic domains of language learning.[20] 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 language-learning 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

Main article: Noticing hypothesis

Attention is another characteristic that some believe to have a role in determining the success or failure of language processing. Schmidt states that although explicit metalinguistic knowledge of a language is not always essential for acquisition, the learner must be aware of L2 input in order to gain from it.[21][broken citation] In his “noticing hypothesis,” Schmidt posits that learners must notice the ways in which their interlanguage structures differ from target norms. This noticing of the gap allows the learner’s internal language processing to restructure 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 the ongoing process of rule formation found in emergentism and connectionism.

[edit] Processability

Main article: Processability theory

Some theorists and researchers have contributed to the cognitive approach to second 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 determine this order of restructuring.[23] 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 same way that people acquire other complex cognitive skills. Automaticity is the performance of a skill without conscious control. It results from the gradated process 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 order to solve problems.[24] On repeated practice, these procedures develop into production rules that the individual can use 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 model to L2 language automaticity.[25] He found that subjects developed increasing proficiency in performing tasks related to the morphosyntax of an artificial language, Autopractan, and performed on a learning curve typical of the acquisition of non-language 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 “learning” cannot be used to 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 model.[26]

[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 grammar learning success for his subjects.[27] 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: Why do some learners do better than others? A flurry of studies in the 1970s, often labelled the "good language learner studies", sought to 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

Main 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 concept, 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 from general aptitude or intelligence, as measured by various tests, and is itself fairly consistently measurable by different tests.

Language aptitude research is often criticized for 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 addition, 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 States Defense Language Institute continue to use language aptitude testing as part of applicant screening.

[edit] Age

Main article: critical period hypothesis

How children acquire native language (L1) and the relevance of this to 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 ‘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 acquisition (SLA).[28] 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 adults 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 SLA may be affected by age, though others remain intact.[29]

[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" among the four components of communicative competence.[30] 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.

Learners from different cultures use strategies in different ways,[31] 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 female learners enjoy in language learning.[citation needed]

[edit] Affective factors

Affective factors relate to the 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

Main article: Affective filter

Furthermore, researchers believe that language learners all possess an affective filter which affects language acquisition. If a student possesses a high filter they are 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 to 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 self-concept 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).

One particular study done by Naiman[vague] 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. students after their study abroad program in France in 2003.[broken citation] They found that many of the students would avoid interaction 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 practice 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 critical. 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 the 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 confirmed 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 toward language study, and the nature of group dynamics in the language classroom. Additionally, early attitudes may strengthen motivation and facility with language in general, particularly with early exposure to the language.

[edit] Motivation

Main article: Motivation 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 motivation."[33] 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 and 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, learners may be highly motivated yet remain unwilling to communicate.[34]

The European Union Lifelong learning programme 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 language 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 levels 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, to 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) to 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 target 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, whether on formal accuracy or on communication of meaningful content.[38][39][40] 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 research 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 interlanguage development.[43]

Horwitz summarises findings of SLA research, and applies to L2 teaching some principles of L2 acquisition honed from a vast body of relevant literature.[44] Like Asher,[vague] 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;

‘[m]uch class time should be devoted to the development of listening and reading abilities’, and ‘[t]eachers should assess student interests and supply appropriate…materials’.[45] The ‘audio-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: What 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 realization 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

Autonomous Technology-Assisted Language Learning (ATALL Wikibook) Computer-assisted language learning Education Error analysis Foreign language anxiety 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. ̂ Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 7 2. ̂ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 21-24 3. ̂ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 24-25. 4. ̂ Cenoz & Genesee 1998. 5. ̂ Valdés 2000. 6. ̂ Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 4. 7. ̂ Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 6. 8. ̂ Corder 1967. 9. ̂ Selinker 1972. 10. ^ a b c d e f Krashen 1982. 11. ̂ Hulstijn 2005. 12. ̂ Ellis 2005. 13. ̂ Nation 2001. 14. ̂ Bialystok & Smith 1985. 15. ̂ Bialystok 1994. 16. ̂ Long 1990. 17. ̂ Nation 2001. 18. ^ a b MacWhinney, Bates & Kliegl 1984. 19. ̂ Christiansen & Chater 2001. 20. ̂ Ellis 2002a. 21. ̂ Schmidt 1990. 22. ̂ Pienemann 1998. 23. ̂ Clahsen 1984. 24. ̂ Anderson 1992. 25. ̂ DeKeyser 1997. 26. ̂ Ullman 2001. 27. ̂ Williams 1999. 28. ̂ Lenneberg 1967. 29. ̂ Mayberry & Lock 2003. 30. ̂ Canale & Swain 1980. 31. ̂ Hadzibeganovic & Cannas 2009. 32. ̂ Doman 2006. 33. ^ a b Dörnyei 2001, p. 1. 34. ̂ MacIntyre et al. 1998. 35. ̂ Lightbown 1990 cited in Ellis 1994. 36. ̂ Doughty & Williams 1998. 37. ̂ Ellis 2002b. 38. ̂ Lightbown & Spada 1990. 39. ̂ Lyster & Ranta 1997. 40. ̂ Lyster & Mori 2006. 41. ̂ Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen 2009. 42. ̂ Allwright & Hanks 2009. 43. ̂ Tarone & Swierzbin 2009. 44. ̂ Horwitz 1986. 45. ̂ Horwitz 1986, pp. 685-686. 46. ̂ Pfeffer 1964.

[edit] References

Allwright, Dick; Hanks, Judith (2009). The 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". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16 (2): 157–168. doi:10.1017/S0272263100012857.

Canale, M.; Swain, M. (1980). "Theoretical bases of communicative 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: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education. Levittown, PA: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 1-85359-420-2.

Christiansen, M. H.; Chater, N. (2001). "Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (2): 82–88. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(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. Second languages: a cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp. 219–242. ISBN 9780883774403.

Corder, S. P. (1967). "The significance of learners' errors". International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 160–170.

DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). "Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 195–222.

Doman, E. (2006). "Current Debates in SLA". The Asian EFL Journal 7 (4). http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_05_ed.php. Retrieved 2010-12-01.

Dörnyei, Zoltan (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521793777.

Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica, eds (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62390-2.

Ellis, Rod (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0194371891.

Ellis, N. (2002a). "Frequency effects in language processing". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2): 143–188.

Ellis, R. (2002b). "Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge?". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2): 223–236.

Ellis, R. (2005). "Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study". Studies in Second 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). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-805-85497-8.

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". Hispania 69 (3): 684-689.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). "Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (2): 129–140.

Krashen, Stephen (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-028628-3. http://www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/index.html. Retrieved 2010-11-25.

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. The Development of Second 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". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12 (4): 429-48.

Lyster, R.; Ranta, L. (1997). "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 37–66.

Lyster, R.; Mori, H. (2006). "Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance". Studies in Second 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". The Modern 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.

Pfeffer, J. A. (1964). Grunddeutsch: Basic (Spoken) German Word List. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall. OCLC 475772972.

Pienemann, Manfred (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. 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 Second 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 lexicon and grammar". Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30 (1): 37–69. doi:10.1023/A:1005204207369. PMID 11291183.

Williams, J. (1999). "Memory, attention and inductive learning". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 1–48.

[edit] Further reading

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 Language 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). How 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 Speaking Skills, CAELA Network Briefs, CAELA and 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.). Synthesizing 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). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[edit] External links

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 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 much to the work

of Corder". Before Corder, linguists observed learners' errors, divided them into

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 major 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 existence and would be systematic.

4) Corder introduced the distinction between systematic and non-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 language

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 language 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 some 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; this 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 error categorization and analysis, various studies

concentrated on these three different 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 analysis can be used to

improve writing skills. They analyze possible sources of error in non-native-English

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 themselves 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 child that is in the process of acquiring a

second language will subconsciously invent structures influenced 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, namely 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 function of age, time of exposure to English, and

place and purpose of learning 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 language 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 teach 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 notes that it is useless, if not harmful, to treat

errors as if they were “diseases or pathological situations which must be

eliminated”, especially if this treatment 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; after 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 sequence 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 for error correction in the classroom. These criteria are: exposure,

seriousness, and students' needs.

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 factor 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 self-

confidence will be "stigmatized" to a greater degree than confident students.

The teacher's second task, according to Freiermuth, is to listen 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 suggested 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 it 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 time 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 fourth 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 specific 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 classify

students' errors, as well as helping them construct correction techniques.

REFERENCES

Corder, S. P. 1967. "The significance of learners’ errors”. International Review of

Applied Linguistics 5: 161-9.

Dulay, H., and Burt, M., “Errors and strategies in child second language

acquisition”, TESOL Quarterly 8: 129-136, 1974.

Ellis, R., “The Study of Second Language Acquisition”, Oxford University Press,

1994.

Esser, U., “Fremdsprachenpsychologische Betrachtungen zur Fehlerproblematic im

Fremdsprachenunterricht”, Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 4:151-159, 1984, (cited in

Hagège 1999).

Freiermuth, M. R., “L2 Error Correction: Criteria and Techniques”, The Language

Teacher Online 22.06,

http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/sep/freiermuth.html, 1997.

Hagège, C. “L’enfant aux deux langues” (The child between two languages), Greek

translation, Polis editions, Athens 1999. (Original publication: Editions Odile Jacob,

1996).

Kroll, Barry, and John C. Schafer. "Error-Analysis and the Teaching of Composition",

College Composition and Communication 29: 242-248, 1978

Lakkis, K. and Malak, M. A.. “Understanding the Transfer of Prepositions”. FORUM,

Vol 38, No 3, July-September 2000. (Online edition:

http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol38/no3/p26.htm)

Mager, R.F. “Preparing Instructional Objectives”, Fearon Publishers, Palo Alto, CA

1962.

Nguyen, Thanh Ha. “First Language Transfer and Vietnamese Learners' Oral

Competence in English Past Tense Marking: A Case Study.”, Master of Education

(TESOL) Research Essay, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia1995.

Porte, G. K., “Mistakes, Errors, and Blank Checks”, FORUM, Vol 31, No 2, p. 42,

January-March 1993. (Online edition:

http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol31/no1/p42.htm)

Richards, J., “A non-contrastive approach to error analysis”, English Language

Teaching 25: 204-219, 1971.

Stenson, N. “Induced errors” in Shumann and Stenson (eds.), 1974, cited in Ellis (p.

60).

Taylor G., “Errors and explanations”, Applied Linguistics 7: 144-166, 1986.

http://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/633/