Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T18:32:07.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Susanne Carroll ,
Merrill Swain  and
Yves Roberge
Susanne Carroll*
Affiliation:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Merrill Swain
Affiliation:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Yves Roberge
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Susanne Carroll, Modern Language Centre, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study looked at the effects of feedback (explicit correction) on the learning of morphological generalizations in an experimental setting. Subjects Were 79 adult native speakers of English with intermediate (39) and advanced (40) levels of proficiency in French. All subjects were individually trained on two rules of French suffixation. Experimental subjects received correction if they gave erroneous responses to stimuli in a “feedback” session. Afterward, all subjects “guessed” responses to novel stimuli and were retested (twice) on the feedback items. Comparison subjects dealt with the same stimuli but were never corrected. Analyses of feedback responses indicated differences in favor of the experimental groups, but comparisons of guessing responses between experimental and comparison groups showed no evidence of learned generalizations. The learning of absolute exceptions was more likely among advanced learners.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 173 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L., & McCarthy, J. (1981). The logicaiproblem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barringer, C., & Gholson, B. (1979). Effects of type and combination of feedback upon conceptual learning by children: Implications for research in academic learning. Review of Educational Research, 49(3), 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J. N., III, & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1987). What is learned in acquiring word classes – A step toward an acquisition theory. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition: The 20th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Burt, M., & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The Gooficon: A repair manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: A Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (1980). Rules and representations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freed, B. (1980). Talking to foreigners vs. talking to children: Similarities and differences. In Scarcella, R. & Krashen, S. (Eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Furrow, D., Nelson, K., & Benedict, H. (1979). Mothers' speech to children and syntactic development: Some simple relationships. Journal of Child Language, 6, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskill, W. H. (1980). Correction in native speaker–non-native speaker conversation. In Larsen-Freeman, D. (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Madden, C. G. (Eds.). (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of non-native speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, H. V. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., Landau, B., & Wanner, E. (1988). Where learning begins: Initial representations for language learning. In Newmeyer, F. J. (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Vol. 3. Language: Psychological and biological aspects (pp. 150–193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Newport, E. L., & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current status of the motherese hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 11, 43–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gougenheim, G., Michea, R., Rivenc, P., & Sauvageot, A. (1964). L'élaboration du français fondamental (ler degré): Étude sur l'établissement d'un vocabulaire et d'une grammaire de base. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398.Google Scholar
Herron, C. (1981). The treatment of errors in oral activities: Developing instructional strategies. The French Review, 55(1),6–16.Google Scholar
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1988). Learning grammatical structures in a foreign language: Modelling versus feedback. The French Review, 61, 910–923.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon revisited: Mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language, 11, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M., & Freedle, R. (1972). Mother-infant dyad: The cradle of meaning. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1989, 05 28). The mechanics of feature percolation: Diacritics, argument structures, and multiply marked features. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Université Laval.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1982). The language lottery: Toward a biology of grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 259–278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lysakowski, R. S., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Instructional effects of cues, participation and corrective feedback: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, H. (1965). The effect of punishment on children: A review of the literature and a suggested hypothesis. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 106, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1966). Development psycholinguistics. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. (Eds.), The genesis of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Morin, Y-C. (1984). Remarques sur l'organisation de la flexion des verbes français. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 77–78, 13–91.Google Scholar
Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N., & McLaughlin, B. (1990). Language-learning strategies in mońolingual and multilingual subjects. Language Learning, 40(2), 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (1976). Facilitating children's syntax. Developmental Psychology, 13, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1977). Motherese: The speech of mothers to young children. In Castellan, N. J., Pisoni, D. B., & Potts, G. (Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Enbaum.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R. (1977). Mother, I'd rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217–283.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1987). Resolving a learnability paradox in the acquisition of the verb lexicon (Lexicon Project Working Papers 17). Cambridge, MA: Lexicon Project, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT. (Also in Rice, M. L. & Schiefelbusch, R. L. [Eds.], The teachabilisy of language. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1989.)Google Scholar
Richards, J. C. (1972). Social factors, interlanguage, and language learning. Language Learning, 22(2), 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. (1973). Error analysis and second language strategies. In Oller, J. W. Jr, & Richards, J. C. (Eds.), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher (pp. 114–135). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1986). The epistemological status of second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 2(2), 120–159.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1987). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, K. H. (1966). Grammatical intrusions in the recall of structured letter pairs: Mediated transfer or position learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 580–588.Google Scholar
Smith, K. H. (1969). Learning co-occurrence restrictions: Rule learning or rote learning? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 319–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, C. E. (1972). Mother's speech to children learning language. Child Development, 43, 549–566.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E., & Ferguson, C. A. (1977). Talking to children: Language input and acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sokolik, M. E., & Smith, M. E. (1989, 03). French gender recognition: A network model and implications for second language acquisition. Paper presented to the Ninth Second Language Research Forum, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), 384–395.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989, 10). Resetting the verb-movement parameter in SLA: Some effects of positive and negative evidence. Paper presented to the Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
White, L. (1990, 03). The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the University of Toronto Colloquium.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1990, 05 1–4). “Consciousness raising” and syntactic accuracy in L2 acquisition. Paper presented to the 10th Second Language Research Forum, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions “Lexically Related” and “Head of a Word.” Linguistic Inquiry, 12(2), 245–274.Google Scholar