Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T05:31:25.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems in Studying the Communicative Effect of Learner's Errors1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Stig Johansson
Stig Johansson
Affiliation:
Lund University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The growing interest in error analysis shows a concern with errors as evidence of learner language systems. A study of errors becomes a means of revealing what the learner has yet to know. However, the analyst takes a lenient view of errors as such. What has to be remedied is the system, not the symptoms. Nevertheless, the errors produced may be more or less serious. As the analysis will normally reveal a host of deficiencies in the learner system, it may be difficult to know where to start and what to emphasize in applying the results. This is where error evaluation fits in, i.e. the study of error gravity (see Fig. 1.).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , Fall 1978 , pp. 41 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

Bailey, B. L. 1971. “Jamaican Creole: Can dialect boundaries be defined?,” in Hymes, D. (ed.): Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, Cambridge, 341–48.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics, Penguin Books.Google Scholar
James, C. 1974. “Linguistic measures for error gravity,” Audio-visual Journal 12, 3–9.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 1975. Papers in Contrastive Linguistics and Language Testing, Lund Studies in English 50, Lund.Google Scholar
Levenston, E. A. 1971. “Over-indulgence and under-representation -- Aspects of mother-tongue interference,” in Nickel, G. (ed.): Papers in Contrastive Linguistics, Cambridge, 115–21.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. and Svartvik, J. 1966. Investigating Linguistic Acceptability, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Váradi, T. 1973. “Strategies of target language learner communication: Message-adjustment.” Paper presented at the Sixth Conference of the Roumanian-English Linguistic Project in Timisoara, 28–29 May, 1973.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact - Findings and Problems, Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York 1, New York.Google Scholar