Linguistic factors presentation
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
26 gefällt mir•14,990 views
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Linguistic factors presentation
Ähnlich wie Linguistic factors presentation (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Linguistic factors presentation
- 1. Done by: Alemán, Pedro Mariscal, Aurora UNIVERSIDAD PEDAGÓGICA EXPERIMENTAL LIBERTADOR INSTITUTO PEDAGÓGICO DE CARACAS Subdirección de Investigación y Postgrado Subprograma de Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera
- 2. Second Language Acquisition The most salient component in SLA •The Language itself Page 2
- 3. Contrast L1 vs. L2 Page 3 Effect of L1 on L2 Error analysis: Interlanguage (learner language) Historical progression The effect on: input • Feedback • Interaction • Awareness • Acquisition of • Error treatment Effect of classroom instruction Focus on form
- 4. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Two languages in contrast Success in SLL involves master differences between L1 and L2 Page 4
- 5. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis rrors represent negative transfer from L1 to L2 Page 5
- 6. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis The patterns that caused difficulty could be predicted and described. (Lado, in Brown, 2007). Page 6
- 7. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Model of prediction of Practor (1967) Hierarchy of difficulty • 6 categories of difficulty in ascending order • applicable to both grammatical and phonological features of language. “Zero” = one-to-one 5 4 correspondence and transfer 3 2 “Fifth” = the height of 1 interference 0 Page 7
- 8. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Transfer • No difference or contrast is present between L1 and L2. • Positive transfer of a sound, structure or lexical item from L1 to L2. e.g. English & Spanish cardinal vowels Page 8
- 9. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Coalescence Two items in L1 become coalesced (come together) into essentially one item in L2. e.g. English 3rd-person possessives require gender distinction and in Spanish they do not 2 1 Page 9
- 10. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Underdifferentiation • An item in L1 is absent in L2. • The learner must avoid that item. e.g. adjectives in Spanish require gender (alto/alta) Page 10
- 11. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Reinterpretation An item that exists in L1 is given a new shape or distribution. e.g. new phonemes require new distribution of speech articulators -/r/, etc. Page 11
- 12. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Overdifferentiation A new item entirely, bearing any similarity to L1 item, must be learned. e.g. English speakers must learn the use of determiners in Spanish man is mortal / El hombre es mortal. Page 12
- 13. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis Split • One item in L1 becomes two or more in L2. • The learner has to make a new distinction. e.g. English speakers must learn the distinction between (ser) and (estar) Page 13
- 14. From the CAH to CLI From Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis to Cross-linguistic influence Page 14
- 15. From the CAH to CLI Wardhaugh (in Brown, 2007) Strong version of CAH differences in the between L1 language language structure behavior and culture can be change of a equated vs. foreign L2 language language student structure and culture Page 15
- 16. From the CAH to CLI Weak version of CAH Page 16
- 17. From the CAH to CLI Today Weak version = Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) Page 17
- 18. From the CAH to CLI Prior experience has a significant role in any learning act The influence of L1 as prior experience must not be overlooked Page 18
- 19. Markedness and Universal Gramar Eckman (in Brown, 2007) Method for determining directionality of difficulty Page 19
- 20. Markedness and Universal Gramar Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Markedness Theory) Explains relative degrees of difficulty principles by means of Universal of Grammar Page 20
- 21. Markedness and Universal Gramar Members of a pair of related forms or structures an marked a unmarked form form Contains at least one more feature Page 21
- 22. Markedness and Universal Gramar Eckman (in Brown, 2007) More Unmarked items difficult Less Marked difficult items Degrees of markedness = degrees of difficulty Page 22
- 23. Learner Language CAH ignored intralingual & strategic effects of SLL Page 23
- 24. Learner Language sources of Creative knowledge construction of a About L2 system learners test Page 24 hypothesis
- 25. Learner Language Terms Interlanguage Approximative system Idiosyncratic dialect Second language learners form their own self-contained linguistic systems Page 25
- 26. Learner Language Interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) systematic knowledge of an L2 independent of learner’s L1 and the target language L2 I L1 Page 26
- 27. Learner Language Approximative system (Nemser, 1971) Interlanguage + a successive approximation to the target language L2 I Page 27 L1
- 28. Learner Language Idiosyncratic dialect (Corder, 1971) learner’s language is unique to a particular individual Page 28
- 29. Learner Language Learner language (James, 1990; Lightbown & Spada, 1993) to study the speech and writing of learners Page 29
- 30. Learner Language Production data is observable • reflective of a learner's underlying competence Comprehension is not directly observable Page 30
- 31. Learner Language errors errors Page 31 The study of the errors of learners
- 32. Error Analysis Learning or Errors acquiring information Erroneous mistakes assumptions misjudgments Miscalculations Page 32
- 33. Error Analysis feedback errors Language acquisition Page 33
- 34. Error Analysis Corder (1967) Learner’s errors what strategies or how language is procedures the learned or learner is acquired employing Page 34
- 35. Error Analysis Mistakes and errors Mistake a performance error that is either a random guess or a “slip”. Native speakers make mistakes Error a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker. Reflects learner’s competence Page 35
- 36. Error Analysis study of learners’ learners do these errors can errors, called make errors be analyzed error analysis Page 36
- 37. Error Analysis Differences between EA & CA Examination of errors attributable to all possible Examination of sources errors resulting from negative transfer of the L1 Page 37
- 38. Error Analysis Errors in Error Analysis Shortcomings too closely too much focused on overemphasis specific languages attention to rather than on production learner’s errors. viewing universal data aspects Page 38
- 39. Error Analysis Identifying and Describing Errors to understand L2 L1 complicated because such systems cannot be directly observed Page 39
- 40. Error Analysis Identifying and Describing Errors Linguistic systems of L1 and L2 must be…. Inferred Production & Comprehension data Page 40
- 41. Error Analysis Identifying and Describing Errors Identification Description of Determination 3 1 2 of errors errors of the source of errors Page 41
- 42. Error Analysis Identifying and Describing Errors Corder (1971) Provided a model erroneous or idiosyncratic utterances in a SL Page 42 Identification of errors
- 43. Error Analysis overt vs. covert errors. a. overt –erroneous utterances ungrammatically at the sentence level. e.g. Does John can sing? Page 43
- 44. Error Analysis Identifying and Describing Errors b. covert –grammatically well-formed but not according to context of communication (discourse level). e.g. I’m fine, thank you. Grammatically correct What if it is a response to: “Who are you?” Page 44
- 45. Error Analysis Levels of language: Generalized: phonology or addition, omission, su orthography, lexicon, bstitution and grammar and ordering discourse Categories for description of errors Dimensions: domain Global (hinds (from phoneme to communication) or discourse) and local (allows to make extend (linguistic unit a guess) to be corrected) Page 46
- 46. Error Analysis Sources of Error Why are certain errors made? What cognitive strategies and styles or even personality variables underlie certain errors? Page 47
- 47. Error Analysis Interlingual transfer from the native language (L1) to the L2 by sheep Interference Page 48
- 48. Error Analysis Intralingual transfer (within the target language itself) Overgeneralization e.g. “He goed” Page 49
- 49. Error Analysis Context of learning e.g. in a classroom context lead the learner to make faulty hypothesis about the language Page 50
- 50. Error Analysis Page 51
- 51. Stages of Learner Language Development Corder (1973) Progression of language learners 4 stages Title in here 4th and final stage stabilization stage; 3rd stage Title in here post systematic stage truly 2nd stage systematic stage emergent 1st stage Title in here random errors, pre-systematic stage Based on observations of what the learner Page 52 does in terms of errors alone.
- 52. Variation in Learner Language Not all learner language is orderly and systematic Page 53
- 53. Variation in Learner Language It has to be you It must be you Page 54
- 54. Variation in Learner Language Gatbonton (1983) (in Brown, 2007) “Gradual Diffusion” First, incorrect forms coexist with correct forms Then, the incorrect Page 55 forms are delete
- 55. Variation in Learner Language Variation‟s sources • Context • Style • Gender • Type of task Second Language Learners Page 56
- 56. Variation in Learner Language One of the current debates in SLA theory: Can variability be systematically explained? Page 57
- 57. Variation in Learner Language Learners can exhibit a tremendous degree of variation Page 58
- 58. Variation in Learner Language Ellis (1984) 'Variable Competence Model' Of SLA Learners, like native speakers, have a number of different overlapping language systems Page 59
- 59. Variation in Learner Language Elaine Tarone‟s “Capability Continuum Paradigm” Any linguistic system must be viewed as consisting of a continuum of styles grammatical intuition data attended speech data Vernacular Careful style style (more Style 2 Style 3 Style 4 Style n (more TL/NL pidgin like) like) various elicitation tasks: elicited imitation, sentence combining, etc. unattended speech data Page 60
- 60. Variation in Learner Language Tarone (1988) Linguistic context Contextual variability Situational context Page 61
- 61. Variation in Learner Language Tarone (1988) linguistic context psychological language Categories processing function of Variation factors social context Page 62
- 62. Fossilization or Stabilization Fossilization Process in which incorrect language becomes a habit and cannot easily be corrected. Page 63
- 63. Fossilization or Stabilization Fossilization Normal and natural stage for many learners Should not be seen as a terminal illness Page 64
- 64. Fossilization or Stabilization Stabilization Steady state in which there is no change occurring Selinker (in Cui-lian, 2003) • temporary stage of “getting stuck” • a natural stage in learning process. Page 65
- 65. Fossilization or Stabilization Vigil and Oller (in Brown, 2007) Model of Fossilization Interactive feedback focused on the role of extrinsic Interactive feedback Interactive feedback feedback the interactive feedback Interactive Interactive feedback feedback received by a learner has a controlling influence on Page 66 fossilization
- 66. Fossilization or Stabilization Vigil and Oller (in Brown, 2007) Certain types of feedback prompt learners to modify their knowledge of the L2 While other types encouraged learners to oppose or resist change. Page 67
- 67. Fossilization or Stabilization Vigil and Oller (in Brown, 2007) Positive (+) Negative (-) Modify Cognitive Promote linguistic feedback fossilization knowledge Modify Affective Promote linguistic feedback fossilization knowledge Page 68
- 68. Fossilization or Stabilization 'Cognitive' and 'Affective' feedback • actual understanding • gives information about the use of the language 'Cognitive„ feedback • motivational support interlocutors provide each other with during an interaction • emotional reactions as response to the interaction itself Page 69 'Affective' feedback
- 69. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History Should errors be treated? How should they be treated? When? Page 70
- 70. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History Vigil and Oller (in Brown, 2007) Abort Red (–) Recycle Message Yellow () Continue Continue Green () 'Affective' 'Cognitive„ feedback feedback Page 71
- 71. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History e. g. Does John can sing? Affective Cognitive () Keep talking; I’m () I understand your listening message; it’s clear. () I’m not sure I want to () I’m not sure if I correctly continue this understand you or not. conversation. (–) I don’t understand what (–) This conversation is you are saying; it’s not over clear. Page 72
- 72. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History Hendrickson (in Brown 2007) Advices Differentiate between global & local errors. Page 73
- 73. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History Global errors • hinder communication • prevent the learner from comprehending some aspects of the message. (Burt, 1975) Hendrickson (in Brown 2007) “They need to be treated” Page 74
- 74. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History Local errors • only affect a single element of a sentence • do not prevent a message from being heard Hendrickson (in Brown 2007) “They do not need to be corrected” Page 75
- 75. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History How to correct errors? Overpoliteness Expectations: of the real every error world Language classroom: corrected a happy optimum Page 76
- 76. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History How to correct errors? Bailey’s taxonomy for error treatment classification 7 basic options complemented by 7 possible features Page 77
- 77. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History How to correct errors? Basic Options 1. To treat or to ignore 2. To treat immediately or delay 3. To transfer treatment (other learners) or not 4. To transfer to another individual, subgroup or the whole class 5. To return , or not, to original error maker after treatment 6. To allow other learners to initiate treatment 7. To test for efficacy of the treatment Page 78 Bailey’s taxonomy for error treatment classification
- 78. Errors in the Classroom: A Brief History How to correct errors? Possible Features 1. Fact or error indicated 2. Location indicated 3. Opportunity for new attempt given 4. Model provided 5. Error type indicated 6. Remedy indicated 7. Improvement or praise indicated Page 79 Bailey’s taxonomy for error treatment classification
- 79. Form-Focused Instruction Ellis (2001) any planned or spontaneous instructional activity either implicitly or explicitly to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic form Page 80
- 80. Form-Focused Instruction Pronunciation Spelling Intonation FFI Grammar all formal etc. aspects of language Page 81
- 81. Form-Focused Instruction Implicit 1. Incidental references to Explicit form 2. Students paying attention Metalinguistic to specific linguistic explanations features in input Rules & exceptions 3. Incorporation of forms into Grammatical or communicative tasks phonological categories Page 82
- 82. Form-Focused Instruction Specific classes focused on predefined grammar, pronunciation o vocabulary points “Planned” Spontaneous focus on form “Spontaneous” from to reactive, teacher- preemptive comments initiated feedback made in anticipation Page 83 about students’ errors
- 83. Form-Focused Instruction Categories of Error Treatment Recast • T reformulates or expand the ill-formation Clarification request • T elicits the reformulation Metalinguistic • T provides comments related to the well- feedback formedness Elicitation • T prompts the learner to self-correct Explicit correction • A clear indication of the error • T echoes the student’s error changing the Repetition intonation Page 84 Panova & Lyster (in Brown, 2007)
- 84. Form-Focused Instruction Responses to feedback • Response that Uptake follows teacher’s feedback • self-repair Repair • Peer repair • Repetition of the Repetition correct form Page 85
- 85. Any question? Page 86
- 86. Thank you!!!!! Page 87
- 87. References Brown, H (2007) Principles of Language Learning and teaching, Fifth Edition. San Francisco State University: Longman. Cui-lian, W. (2003). Fossilization or Stabilization. Retrieved on July 04, 2010 from http://www.modlinguistics. com/PAPERS /2003/ Wang%20 Cuilian.htm Lightbrown, P. & Spada, N. (2006) How Languages Are Learned. Lightbrown/Spada. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 88
Hinweis der Redaktion
- In the next slides, we will discuss it in an historical progression….
- According to this theory, the errors represent a negative transfer from the native language to the target language.
- According to Lado in 1957 (in Brown, 2007), the patterns that caused difficulty could be predicted and described
- Clifford Practor (1967) captured the essence of the grammatical hierarchy (Stockwell, Bowen, and Martin, 1965) in six categories of difficulty –it was applicable to both grammatical and phonological features of language. Most of the examples are taken from English and Spanish
- Level 0. No difference or contrast is present between the two languages. The learner can simply transfer a sound, structure, or lexical item from the native language to the target language.
- Level 1 –coalescence two items in the native language become coalesced into essentially one item in the target language. Example: English 3rd p. possessives require gender distinction (his/her) and in Spanish they do not (su)
- Level 2 Underdifferentiation –an item in the native language is absent in the target language. The learner must avoid that item. Example: (adjectives in Spanish require gender (alto/alta)
- Level 3 Reinterpretation –an item that exists in the native language is given a new shape or distribution. Example: new phonemes require new distribution of speech articulators -/r/, etc.
- Level 4. Overdifferentiation –a new item entirely, bearing any similarity to the native language item, must be learned. Example: English speakers must learn the use of determiners in Spanish –man is mortal/El hombre es mortal.
- Level 5. Split –one item in the native language becomes two or more in the target language requiring the learner to make a new distinction. English speakers must learn the distinction between (ser) and (estar)
- Wardhaugh called the attempt to predict difficulty by means of contrastive analysis as “strong version of CAH” a version that he believed was unrealistic and impracticable. He said that there is not a overall contrastive system in which linguistics can relate the two languages in terms of merges, splits, zeroes, over-differentiations, etc.
- Nevertheless, Wardhaugh noted that CA had intuitive appeal and that teachers and linguistics had successfully used the best linguistic knowledge available in order to account for observed difficulties in SLL. He termed such observational use of CA the weak version. Linguistic difficulties can be more profitably explained a posteriori by utilizing and intuitively contrasting a general knowledge of L1 and L2to understand the sources of learner’s errors
- The so-called weak version of the CAH is what remains today under the label cross-linguistic influence (CLI)
- Ccross-linguistic influence (CLI) –suggests that we all recognize the significant role that prior experience plays in any learning act, and the influence of the native language as prior experience must not be overlooked.
- It accounted for degrees of principles of universal grammar.
- Celse-Murcia and Hawkins (in Brown, 2007) sum up markedness theory: “It distinguishes members of a pair of related forms or structures by assuming that the marked member of a pair contains at least one more feature than the unmarked one. In addition, the unmarked (neutral) member has a wider range of distribution than the marked one. In the English indefinite articles (a and an) an is the more complex or marked form. Verbs are the classic example for this pattern”.
- Eckman showed that marked items in a language will be more difficult to acquire than unmarked, and that degree of markedness will correspond to degrees of difficulty.
- In recent years, researchers and teachers have come more to understand that SLL is a process of the creative construction of a system in which learners are consciously testing hypothesis about the target language from a number of possible sources of knowledge: knowledge of the native language, limited knowledge of the target language itself, knowledge of the communicative functions of language, knowledge about language in general, and knowledge about life, people, and the universe around them.
- A number of terms have been coined to describe the perspective that stresses the legitimacy of learners’ second language systems.Interlanguage (Selinker, 1972)Approximate system (Nemser, 1971) refers to the same phenomenon but stresses the sussesive approximation to the target language
- Interlanguage refers to the separateness of a second language learner’s system, a system that has a structurally intermediate status between the native and target language Interlanguage is neither the system of the native language nor the system of the target language, but instead falls between the two; it is a system based upon the best attempt of learners to provide order and structure to the linguistic stimuli surrounding them. By a gradual process of trial and error and hypothesis testing, learners slowly and tediously succeed in establishing closer and closer approximations to the system used by native speakers of the language.
- Approximate system (Nemser, 1971) refers to the same phenomenon (interlanguage) but stresses the successive approximation to the target language
- Idiosyncratic dialect (Corder, 1971) learner’s language is unique to a particular individual
- The interlanguage hypothesis led to a whole new era of a second language research and teaching and presented a significant breakthrough from the shackles (confines) of the CAHThe most obvious approach to analyzing interlanguage is to study the speech and writing of learners, or what is sometimes called “learner language”.
- This is due to production data is publicly observable and is presumably reflective of a learner’s underlying competence.
- It follows that the study of the speech and writing of learners is largely the study of the errors of learners. “Correct” production yields little information about the actual linguistic system of learners
- Errors, mistakes, misjudgments, miscalculations and erroneous assumptions form an important aspect of learning virtually any skill or acquiring information.
- Corder (1967) noted: “learner’s errors are significant in that they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language.”
- The fact that learners do make errors, and these errors can be analyzed, led to a surge of study of learners’ errors, called error analysis
- But, there are serious shortcoming in Error Analysis1.- A classroom teacher can become so preoccupied with noticing errors that the correct utterances in L2 go unnoticed.2.- EA can keep us too closely focused on specific languages rather than viewing universal aspects of language.3.- Another shortcoming in EA is an overemphasis on production data. Language is speaking and listening, writing and reading. Comprehension is as important as production.
- One of the most common difficulties in understanding the linguistic systems of both L1 and L2 is the fact that such systems cannot be directly observed.
- The errors must be inferred by means of analyzing production and comprehension data.
- The first step in the process of analysis is the identification and description of errors and then, the determining of the source of errors.
- Corder (1971) provided a model for identifying erroneous or idiosyncratic utterances in a second language.
- A major distinction is made between overt and covert errors.a. overt –erroneous utterances ungrammatically at the sentence level
- b. covert –grammatically well-formed but not according to context of communication.
- Example
- Once an error is identified, the next step is to describe it adequately. A number of different categories for description of errors have been identifies in research on learner language.
- Being indentified and classified errors in SL learners production data, the final step is to determine the source of error.
- Why are certain errors made?Interlingual (L1 and L2) transfer is a significant source of error for all learners. The first stages of learning a SL are vulnerable to interlingual transfer from the native language or interference. For example, we have all heard English learners say sheep for ship.
- It is now clear that intralingual transfer (within the target language itself) is a major factor in L2 learning. It is referred to as overgeneralization.
- A third major source of error, although it overlaps both types of transfer, is the context of learning.Context refers, for example, to the classroom with its teacher and its materials in the case of school learning or the social situation in the case of untutored second language learning.In a classroom context the teacher or the textbook can lead to the learner to make faulty hypotheses about the language. Richards (1971) called it “false concepts”
- Learners obviously use production strategies in order to enhance getting their messages across, but at times these techniques can themselves become a source of error.
- But not all learner language is orderly and systematic. There are variations in learner language.
- Just like native speakers vacillate between expressions like “It has to be you” or “It must be you” (in their own language), L2 learners also exhibit variation, sometimes within the parameters of acceptable norms, sometimes not.
- Some variation in learner language can be explained by what Gatbonton (1983) (in Brown, 2007) described as the “gradual diffusion” of incorrect forms of language in emergent and systematic stages of development. First, incorrect forms coexist with correct forms, then the incorrect forms are expunged.
- There are may sources of variation: context and style along with gender-based variation. In classrooms, the type of task can affect variation.
- One of the current debates in SLA theory centers on the extent to which variability can indeed be systematically explained
- The essence of the problem is that learners can exhibit a tremendous degree of variation in the way they speak and write second languages. Is that variation predictable? Can we explain it?
- Ellis (1984) proposes what he calls a 'variable competence model' of second language acquisition. He points out that native speakers do not have just one single language system, but a number of overlapping language systems. This is a notion that all language users are familiar with. In other words learners, like native speakers, have a number of different language systems. There are times when they are careful about how they express themselves and times when they are not so careful.The variable competence model of second language acquisition proposes that the ability to use language varies systematically within functional domains and linguistic contexts, and that such variability is inherent in interlanguage as well.
- Another notable model of variability is Tarone’s Capability Continuum Paradigm. According to her, the Interlanguage is systematic in two senses: 1) it is describable and ultimately continuum in terms of a set of variable and categorical rules; and 2) it has internal consistency.
- Tarone (1988) focused her work on contextual variability, that is, the extent to which both linguistic and situational contexts may help to systematically describe what might otherwise appear simply as unexplained variation.
- Tarone suggested four categories of variation: 1. according to linguistic context 2. according to psychological processing factors 3. according to social context 4. according to language function
- But, according to Brown (2007), it is a normal and natural stage for many learners and should not be viewed as some sort of terminal illness.
- Long 2003 (in Brown, 2007) states that stabilization is a more appropriate construct to apply to learners whose language development has reached an apparent “plateau”. Stabilization refers to the steady state in which there is no change occurring. As Selinker says, stabilization is a temporary stage of “getting stuck”, a natural stage in learning process. “Stabilization,” a stage in a learner’s ILsystem preceding the fossilization process and characterized by all features of fossilizationexcept for its “unchangeable” character. In other words, while a stabilized deviant form maystill be corrigible; a fossilized form is believed to be incorrigible. Brown leans towards the concept of stabilization.
- A number of different models to account for the development of fossilization in an L2 learner’s interlanguage have been proposed. Vigil & Oller (1976) presented an early model of fossilization which focused on the role of extrinsic feedback (described by Selinker & Lamendella 1979). Vigil & Oller argued that the interactive feedback received by a learner has a controlling influence on fossilization.
- Certain types of feedback were said to prompt learners to modify their knowledge of the L2, while other types encouraged learners to stand pat.
- Vigil & Oller suggested that there were cognitive and affective dimensions to feedback. In this scheme, a combination of positive cognitive feedback and negative affective feedback was most likely to promote fossilization, while negative cognitive and positive affective feedback combined to cause learners to modify their linguistic knowledge.
- It is useful to distinguish 'cognitive' and 'affective' feedback; the former relates to actual understanding while the latter concerns the motivational support that interlocutors provide each other with during an interaction. – cognitive feedback that gives information about the use of the language, andaffective feedback, which relates to emotional reactions as response to the interactionitself
- But, Should errors be treated?How should they be treated?When?
- The task of the teacher is to discern the optimal tension between positive and negative cognitive feedback: providing enough green lights to encourage continued communication, but not so many that crucial errors go unnoticed, and providing enough red light to call attention to those crucial errors, but not so many that the learner is discouraged from attempting to speak at all.
- Then, Hendrickson advices teachers to differentiate between global and local errors.
- What is a global error? Should it be corrected?
- What is a local error? Should it be corrected?
- It seemed quite clear that students in the classrooms generally want and expect errors to be corrected.A sensitive and perceptive teacher should make the language classroom a happy optimum between some of the overpoliteness of the real world and the expectations that learners bring with them to the classroom, namely, that every error should be corrected.
- Bailey (1985) recommended a useful taxonomy for error treatment classification; 7 basic options complemented by 7 possible features
- Kathleen Bailey suggested that language teachers have a number of “basic options” when confronted with a student error.
- And Bailey noted that teachers then had several “features” within those options.But, research on error correction methods is not at all conclusive about the most effective method or technique for error correction.
- And then, the learner’s responses to feedback.