drever paper

7/26/2019 Drever Paper

1/15

Mina Drever, Training and Development Agency for Schools,UK

Interactional corrective feedback in first language !"# and second$foreign

language !%# ac&uisition and learning' does it have the same effect(

This paper reports on theoretical investigations into language learning and

teaching that spanned more than half a century, and empirical findings published

in my doctoral thesis in 2001. The empirical enquiry focused on the teaching of

English in multilingual classrooms in England, at a time of an apparent

acquisitional approach to language teaching before the ational !iteracy

"trategy #as introduced into the schools$ curriculum in 1%%&.

This paper suggests that corrective feedbac' permeates all aspects of language

teaching and learning that #ill be considered by the !anguage Education

(rame#or' #or'ing group. )hether language is taught as a discrete sub*ect +!",

or as language across the curriculum +!-, or as language of school education

+!E, there are implications for policy ma'ers, curriculum planners, teachers and

learners. "!/E 2. /n each of these three contets are implicated levels of

competence, #hich is at the core of questions related to social inclusion,

'no#ledge about language, dialect versus standard language and cognition.

!inguistic competence in these three language teaching contets is implicated

in all the domains of language use personal communication, social and formal

interactions, educational and professional performance, in #hich are in turn

implicated 'no#ledge about language, teaching approaches, assessment, standard

versus non3standard language and pronunciation. - central to all these

questions is assessment for learning, in #hich interactional corrective feedbac'

plays "!/E 4 3 a significant role, especially in the contet of language of

school education and in language across the curriculum. /n such contets the

questions of competence and learnability become crucial. (or eample, 5o# much

6ina rever, consultant, Training and evelopment -gencies for schools, !ondon

minadrever7aol.com1


2/15

language is necessary and by #hat stage in order to tac'le comple concepts such

as longitude and latitude in a geography contet8 "hould learners be allo#ed to

believe that their performance is, on the #hole, error3free8 )hat happens to the

learners #hen the linguistic demands of the curriculum become verysophisticated8 5o# does a fluent E!2 spea'er #or' out, #ithout intervention, the

subtle but important semantic difference bet#een 9to be frightened of$ and 9to be

frightened for$ in the analysis of the emotions of an army to#ards its general in a

history contet8 uring one of my teaching sessions #ith a group of 1:3year3olds

+one hinese #ho #as a fluent spea'er of English and three E!1 students, none

of the students had understood the tas'$s instruction, requiring them to discuss

#hy an army #as frightened forits general. -ll four students #rote about #hy the

soldiers #ere frightened oftheir general. either could they distinguish bet#een

these t#o questions; +a #hat do you thin' of the #eather today8 requiring

epressing an opinion< and +b #hat$s the #eather li'e today8 requiring a

statement of fact. The ans#er to both questions by all four students #as; it$s

raining, #hich is the appropriate ans#er to +b but not to +a. This eample leads

us to as' )*+ ) S*-U!D .-//.T //-/S 0 S!ID 1

"2 self0repair

ontroversy surrounds the issue of corrective feedbac', in the !1 and !2

literature, and much of it stems from the notion that errors are indications that

language learning is ta'ing place +order, 1%=>, 1%&1< ulay and ?urt, 1%>: of learners and on shared

metalanguage bet4een learners and teachers +arroll and "#ain, 1%%4.

%2 transitional competence

order +1%=> distinguished bet#een t#o types of errors made by both !1

adults and !2 spea'ers. 5e classified as performance mista'es 9unsystematic$

slips of the tongue, #hile errors, are 9systematic$ +order, 1%=>, p. 1== in the

sense that they result from inadequate 'no#ledge of the system of language. They

represent the 9transitional competence5+order, 1%=> p 1== italics in original

#hich is being acquired by learners both in !1 and !2 on the basis of

hypothesis testing. )hen errors occur during this process, they are evidence that

rules are being induced and language learning is ta'ing place +-ll#right and

?ailey, 1%%1< order, 1%=>< Tomasello and 5eron, 1%&&.

62 metalinguistic a4areness

The development of metalinguistic a#areness, though under the guise of

different terms, is the common ground bet#een the !1 and !2 studies revie#ed

and they suggested that it may not be attainable #ithout eplicit instruction and

corrective feedbac'. Eplaining #hy a sentence construction is not correct,

'no#ing #hy a verb is better suited to a particular intention, ma'ing

grammaticality *udgements involves metalinguistic reflection +Bratt et al., 1%&:

for #hich it is necessary to be metalinguistically a#are, to be able to reflect upon

and manipulate the structural features of spo'en language +Bratt et al., 1%&:, p.

12%. 6etalinguistic a#areness is considered important to the development of

cognitive skills +Ely, 1%%>< Bratt and Crieve, 1%&:a, 1%&:b, to reading+emont


minadrever7aol.com4


4/15

and Combert, 1%%=< onaldson, 1%>&< o#ning, 1%>>< Titone, 1%%4 and to all

learning+!ee, 1%%>< Bratt et al., 1%&:. Bratt and Crieve +1%&:a argued that as

children develop an a#areness of the nature of cognitive functions, they gain

7more control of 8 thinking5+Bratt and Crieve, 1%&:a, p. %.

12 fossilisation

9ossilisationis an interlanguage +!ong, 2004, )hite 2004 phenomenon and can

occur #hen learners receive no information as to the correctness or incorrectness

of their production and applies to both inappropriate and appropriate constructions

+Digil and ller, 1%>=. !2 children of primary school age have been observed to

display fossilisation errors +"elin'er et al., 1%>A previously associated only #ith

adult !2 learners +"elin'er, 1%>2, 5an and dlin, 200=.

)*AT //-/S S*-U!D : .-//.TD, S!ID ;, )*< and

*-)(

/t is clear that corrective feedbac' should focus on order$s systematic errors

#hich may fossilise thus affecting adversely the development of a correct

interlanguage.

The timing of error correction

The timing of corrective feedbac' depends on #hether it is a mista'e or an error in

order$s +1%=> sense. /n the case of competence errors, the decision #ill be

dictated by a number of factors; is it a ne# error or one that$s been encountered

before8 "hould it be dealt #ith immediately or should it be postponed +-ll#right

and ?ailey, 1%%1< !ong, 1%>>8 There are advantages and disadvantages to any

timing. /mmediate treatment interrupts learners$ flo# and may not be positively

effective +Digil and ller, 1%>=. Bostponing it to a future lesson #ill be less

effective, as time elapses bet#een the error and the treatment +haudron, 1%>>,


minadrever7aol.com:


5/15

1%&&< !ong, 1%>>. Fet this may be necessary, particularly if the error is common

to the #hole class +5olley and @ing, 1%>1.

*-) should errors be corrected(

-ccording to the literature corrective feedbac' should be varied +-ll#right and

?ailey, 1%%1. /t should facilitate monitor use, i.e. the ability to self3correct

resulting from learned 'no#ledge of grammatical forms +@rashen, 1%&A, 1%&>. /t

should be appropriately pitched #ith effective support +Tomasello and 5eron,

1%&%< Digil and ller, 1%>=. /t should emphasise content and communication of

meaning +5olley and @ing, 1%>1. These maims from the !2 literature suggest

fourdimensions "!/E = 3 to corrective feedbac';

1. Types and featuresof corrective feedbac' include recasts +repetitions and

epansions, clarification requests, confirmation chec's +haudron, 1%>>,

1%&&.

2. .ognitive orientation; focuses on linguistic devices that allo# learners to

develop their eplicit grammatical 'no#ledge necessary to self3monitoring

+@rashen, 1%&>< Digil and ller< 1%>=.

4. =sychological; corrective feedbac' can be negative, positive and neutral +Digil

and ller, 1%>=. Each must address the affective +i.e. appeal to emotional

attitudes as #ell as the cognitive nature of learning, but there must be balance

bet#een them +Ed#ards, 1%%Ac< Digil and ller, 1%>=. The most effective in

encouraging appropriate grammatical modifications in learners is the positive3

affective and negative3cognitive combination +Digil and ller, 1%>=, i.e. #hen

corrective feedbac' is accompanied by positive and encouraging tones of

voice, gestures and facial epressions.

:. ne super3dimension that encompasses all these aspects is the impliciteplicit

dichotomy. xplicit feedbackis any feedbac' that overtly states that a learner$s

output is not correct, #ith clear information about the state of the learner$s


minadrever7aol.comA


6/15

utterance. Implicit feedback consists of devices such as confirmation chec's

and requests for clarification, from #hich learners should infer that the form of

their utterance is responsible for the teacher$s comprehension problems

+arroll and "#ain, 1%%4 p. 4=1.The advantage of eplicit feedbac' can be out#eighed by the demands on

learners$ language processing abilities, li'e interpretation of the feedbac'. This in

turns requires 'no#ledge of 9specialised vocabulary and specialised genre G

H#hich may beI G beyond the comprehension of the untrained$ +arroll and

"#ain, 1%%4 p. 4=2. n the other hand, implicit feedbac' may not be very useful

in so far as it may 9fail to indicate the source of the error G Hand it requiresIG.

much inferencing on the part of the learners$ +arroll and "#ain, 1%%4 p. 4=2.

>ID


7/15

?ohannon /// et al., 1%%0< ?ro#n and ?ellugi, 1%=:< ?ro#n and 5anlon, 1%>0> analysed teachers$ feedbac' in si of this type of

classroom tal' +learners aged 141A and discovered that "!/E > 3 the most

effective corrective feedbac' first located errors and immediately re*ected them, in

the form of repetition of the error #ith emphatic tone. Then metalinguistic

eplanation for errors #as provided to encourage learners to self3correct. /n the


minadrever7aol.com>


8/15

absence of self3correction, the original question #as rephrased, and, if necessary,

other learners #ere as'ed to help. Teachers$ least successful "!/E & 3 responses

to learners$ errors #ere eact repetitions of grammatical errors and epansions

because they did not lead to correct responses by students.Epansions are a form of recasts that did not lead to learner upta'e in t#o

studies by !yster and Lanta +1%%> and !yster +1%%& #ith %311 year olds. !yster

found recasts ambiguous and ineffective in 9communicative classrooms$ +!yster,

1%%&, p. >: #here the line bet#een content and form is rather blurred. The most

successful type of feedbac', according to !yster and Lanta +1%%>, #as

metalinguistic.

!yster and Lanta +1%%> also found that teachers$ feedbac' #as highly

idiosyncratic and ambiguous. loser analysis by !yster +1%%& of !yster and

Lanta$s +1%%> data revealed that the intonation of teachers$ recasts rendered them

ambiguous. -mbiguity increased #hen recasts #ere accompanied by signs of

approval. -nd in 104 instances teachers responded affirmatively to the

substantive content of students$ ill0formedutterances. +!yster, 1%%& p. >0.

9eedback to !% adults

"imilar results on feedbac' #ere found in !2 studies #ith adults. Tomasello and

5eron$s +1%&&, 1%&% garden0path techni&ueoffered an interesting combination

of implicit instruction and eplicit metalinguistic feedbac', effective in arresting

!1 transfer errors +1%&% and !2 generalisation errors +1%&&.

arroll et al. +1%%2 conducted an eperiment #ith implicit feedbac' to

(rench !1 university students learning E!2 of intermediate and advanced

proficiency. They concluded that implicit feedbac' plus positive input affected

long3term leical learning but had no effect on morphological generalisation2

-nd arroll and "#ain$s +1%%4 eperiments tested the effects of implicit and

eplicit feedbac' on E!2 learning by "panish !1 spea'ers #ith intermediate

proficiency in E!2. They sho#ed that eplicit negative feedbac' #ith


minadrever7aol.com&


9/15

metalinguistic eplanation led to correct application of dative alternation rules +for

eample, 9Mohn sent a letter to 6ary$ can alternate #ith 9Mohn sent 6ary a letter$ p.

4=4 and understanding that there are verbs that cannot alternate.

MAI< 9I


10/15

covert feedbac' #as mentioned many more times, suggesting that covert feedbac'

#as li'ely to be selected by more teachers than overt or mied feedbac'. The latter

contained covert and overt feedbac', ma'ing it a recipe for confusion and

ambiguity, as already found in the literature.

Covert correction to speaking #as mentioned by an almost equal number of

questionnaire +1% and intervie# +1= teachers "!/E 11 3 . The predominant

mention of covert over overt feedbac' to spea'ing by both sets of teachers #as

confirmed by the highly significant results of t#o )ilcoon t#o3tailed signed

ran's tests. -mong the questionnaire teachers, covert feedbac' to spea'ing #as

mentioned by si times more teachers than those #ho gave overt feedbac'. -nd

more than three times the number of intervie# teachers said to give covert

feedbac' to spea'ing over those #ho did so overtly.

Summary of empirical results C ho4 teachers actually gave feedback

Eight video3recorded observation lessons #ere analysed to see if teachers taught

and corrected in reality as they claimed in the questionnaire. /n3depth analysis of

teacher responses to errors provides further insights into teacher feedbac'. The

first thing "!/E 12 to be said about the feedbac' given by the eight

observation teachers is that, overall, they corrected covertly #ith >=N of all

corrective feedbac' being covert. Secondly these & teachers corrected >1N of

children$s linguistic errors covertly "!/E 14 #hile 1&.:N #ent ignored,

because correction #ould brea' the flo# of the interaction.

Interesting results from a finer analysis of teachers$ observed feedbac'

included the follo#ing; orrective feedbac' #as often confusing "!/E 1: 3.

"ometimes utterances in teachers$ corrective response #avered bet#een overt and

covert negative, and / categorised it as covertJovertJnegative feedbac'. -t other

times it #avered bet#een covert negative, implying re*ection of pupils$


minadrever7aol.com10


11/15

productions, and covert positive, as if teachers could not ma'e up their mind about

the appropriateness of pupils$ contributions. / categorised this feedbac' as

covertJpositiveJnegative. !yster +1%%& also found ambiguity in the #ay teachers

used recasts, often accompanied by signs of approval #hen they respondedsimultaneously to content and language errors. This is a problem specific to

communicative classrooms, suggested !yster; 3 "!/E 1A 3

This reveals #hat must be a source of ambiguity for young !2

learners as #ell as a dilemma for teachers #hose mandate is to

teach both language and content; namely, ho# to reinforce the

substantive content of student messages #hile giving them clear

messages about language form +!yster, 1%%& p. >1.

-n eample of a covertJnegativeJpositiveJfeedbac' is this teacher$s sequence

of responses "!/E 1= 3 . - group of pupils and teacher #ere discussing the

meaning of #ords #ith ch+pronounced as k in them. -t this point in the lesson it

#as the #ord Christmas. The teacher had as'ed for a sentence #ith this #ord in it.

(irst she covertly approved +cvp of it by repeating +rcr a pupil$s correct response,

line 2. "he overtly accepted it +ovp in the net three utterances. Then she changed

her mind and she #anted more information +line = and as'ed a referential +rfl

question. -t this point the feedbac' reverted to covert, but / #as no longer sure

#hether it #as covertJnegative or covertJpositive and categorised it as

covertJnegativeJpositive +cnp. )hen she said 9that doesn$t eplain a lot$ +line &

she implied that the eplanation given in line 1, #hich had already been accepted

as correct in lines 4, :, A, #as no# only partially correct. This confusion is

compounded by the use of tones 1 #hich denotes certainty in line : +very good

and line & +that doesn$t eplain a lot< also tone 4 is neutral and could denote

certainty or uncertainty +lines 2 and >, eact repetition of child$s utterance.

/ntonation contributed highly to all eight teachers$ idiosyncratic feedback. (or

eample one teacher gave eact repetitions in tone A, #hich can epress positive




12/15

and *oyful surprise, as #ell as negative surprise epressing doubts. -nother

teacher prompted mostly in tone 4, a very neutral tone #ith no indication to pupils

as to #hy the teacher #as prompting, #hether pupils had made an error or not.

Do learners 4ant corrective feedback(

The #or'ing group considering these findings may also #ish to consider #hat

learners #ant. -s part of my research / as'ed si bilingual children, over a period

of 10 #ee's of teaching programme ho# they felt about being corrected. They

#ere almost unanimous in saying that they did not mind ho# they #ere corrected

"!/E 1> 3 so long as teachers stuc' to their method of doing so. ver a period

of 10 lessons / as'ed the children on three occasions if they #anted to be

corrected, ho# and #hy8 Ecept for one occasion, #hen one child said that shed

did not li'e #ritten errors being corrected, there #as a %:N consistency to #anting

to be corrected, in any #ay the teachers chose, so that they could learn.

I< .-


13/15

grammatical internalisation, fossilisation #ill become engrained and learners #ill

never 'no# #hen they are ma'ing #rong inferences. ombining content and

language teaching in language across the curriculum and in language for school

education, as the European !anguage (rame#or' aims to do, must give seriousconsiderations to these issues. ther#ise many students in European classrooms

#ill run the ris' of failing eamination and tests as a result of linguistic

misconceptions, because maybe they do not understand the linguistic structure of a

question, as my 1: year old students did in their history tas's. /ndeed this is going

to be the biggest challenge for curriculum planners and language teachers.

/eferences

-ll#right, ., O ?ailey, @. 6. 1%%1. Focus on the language classroom: an introduction

to classroom research for language teachers. ambridge; ambridge Pniversity Bress?a'er, . ., O elson, @. E. 1%&:. Lecasting and related conversational techniques for

triggering syntactic advances by young children.First Language, A, 4321

?ohannon ///, M. ., O ?onvillian, M. . 1%%>. Theoretical approaches to languageacquisition. /n M. ?. Cleason +ed., The development of language. ?oston; -llyn and

?acon 2A%341=

?ohannon ///, M. ., 6ac)hinney, ?., O "no#, . 1%%0. o negative evidence revisited;

beyond learnability or #ho has to prove #hat to #hom. Developmental Psychology,2=, 221322=

?ohannon ///, M. ., O "tano#icK, !. 1%&&. The issue of negative evidence; adult

responses to children$s language errors.Developmental Psychology, 2:, =&:3=&%?ohannon ///, M. ., O "tano#icK. 1%&%. ?idirectional effects of imitation and repetition

in conversation; a synthesis #ithin a cognitive model. /n C. E. "peidel O @. E. elson

+eds. The many faces of imitation in language learning. e# For'; "pringer3Derlag12131A0

?raine, 6. . ". 1%>1. n t#o types of models of the internaliKation of grammars. /n .

/. "lobin +ed. The ontogenesis of grammar. theoretical symposium. e# For';

-cademic Bress 1A431&=?ro#n, L. O ?ellugi, P. 1%=:. Three processes in the childQs acquisition of synta.

!arvard "ducational #evie$, 4:, 14431A1

?ro#n, L. O 5anlon, . 1%>0. erivation compleity and order of acquisition in childspeech. /n M. L. 5ayes +ed. Cognition and the development of languagee# For';

Mohn )iley O "ons /nc, 113A4

arroll, "., Loberge, F., O "#ain, 6. 1%%2. omprehension of grammatically modifiedand nonmodified sentences by second language learners. pplied Psycholinguistics,

14, 1:>31%&

arroll, "., O "#ain, 6. 1%%4. Eplicit and implicit negative feedbac'. -n empiricalstudy of the learning of linguistic generaliKations. %tudies in %econd language




14/15

c&uisition, 1A, 4A>34&=

haudron, C. 1%>>. - descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of

learners$ errors.Language learning, 2>, 2%3:=haudron, C. 1%&&. %econd language classrooms. #esearch on teaching and learning.

ambridge; ambridge Pniversity Bress

order, ". B. 1%=>. The significance of learner$s errors.'#L, D, 1=131>0order, ". B. 1%&1."rror analysis and interlanguage. ford; ford Pniversity Bress

emont, E., O Combert, M. E. 1%%=. Bhonological a#areness as a predictor of recoding

s'ills and syntactic a#areness as a predictor of comprehension s'ills. (ritish )ournalof "ducational Psychology, ==, 41A3442

onaldson, 6. 1%>&. Children*s minds. !ondon; (ontana Bress

o#ning, M. 1%>>. !inguistics for infants.#eading11, 4=3:A

rever, 6. 2001.'nvestigating the role of an e+plicit pedagogic focus on grammaticalforms and corrective feedback in multilingual classroom in "ngland. Pnpublished

Bh thesis, the university of Leading.

ulay, 5. ., O ?urt, 6. @. 1%>:. Fou can$t learn #ithout goofing. -n analysis of

children$s second language 9errors$. /n M. . Lichards +ed., "rror analysis.Perspectives on second language ac&uisition.!ondon; !ongman %A3124

Ed#ards, D. 1%%Ac. riting in multilingual classrooms. Leading; Leading and !anguage/nformation entre

Ely, L. 1%%>. !anguage and literacy in the school years. /n ?er'o3Cleason, M. +ed. The

development of language. ?oston; -llyn and ?acon 4%&3:4%(arrar, 6. M. 1%%2. egative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition.

Developmental Psychology, 2&, %03%&

Cordon, B. 1%%0. !earnability and feedbac'.Developmental Psychology, 2=, 21>3220

5an, R., O dlin, T. 200=. "tudies of fossiliKation in second language acquisition.-ultilingual -atters.

5olley, (. 6., O @ing, M. @. 1%>1. /mitation and correction in foreign language learning.

The modern language ournal, &, :%:3:%&@armiloff3"mith, -. 1%&A. !anguage and cognitive processes from a developmental

perspective.Language and Cognitive Processes,1, =13&A

@rashen, ". . 1%&A. The 'nput !ypothesis: issues and implications. !ondon; !ongman@rashen, ". . 1%&>.Principles and practice in second language ac&uisition. !ondon;

Brentice 5all /nternational

!ee, B. 1%%>. !anguage in thin'ing and learning; pedagogy and the ne# )horfian

frame#or'.!arvard "ducational #evie$, =>, :403:>1!ightbo#n, B. 6., O "pada, . 1%%0. (ocus3on3form and corrective feedbac' in

communicative language teaching. Effects on second language learning. %tudies in

%econd Language c&uisition, 12, :2%3::&!ong, 6. 5. 1%>>. Teacher feedbac' on learner error; mapping cognitions. /n 5. .

?ro#n, . -. Forio and L. 5. rymes +eds. Teaching and learning "nglish as a

second language: trends in research and practice./n T"%/L *00. )ashington, . .;Teachers of English to "pea'ers of ther !anguages 2>&32%A

!ong, 6. 5., 2004. "tabiliKation and fossilliKation in interlanguage development. /n M.

oughty and 6. 5. !ong +eds, 2004. The handbook of second language ac&uisition.

ford; ?lac'#ell Bublishing :&>3A4=


minadrever7aol.com1:


15/15

!yster, L. 1%%&. Lecasts, repetition, and ambiguity in !2 classroom discourse. %tudies in

%econd Language c&uisition, 20, A13&1

!yster, L. O Lanta, !. 1%%>. orrective feedbac' and learner upta'e; negotiation of formin communicative classrooms. %tudies in %econd Language c&uisition, 4>3=>

6arcus, C. (. +1%%4. egative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, :=, A43&A

6ceil, . 1%==. evelopmental Bsycholinguistics. /n (. "mith O C. -. 6iller +eds.The genesis of language. psycholinguistic approach. ambridge, 6assachusetts;

The 6/T Bress 1A3&:

elson, @. E. 1%>>. (acilitating children$s synta. Developmental Psychology, 14, 101310>

elson, @. E., ars'addon, C., O ?onvillian, M. . 1%>4. "ynta acquisition; impact of

eperimental variation in adult verbal interaction #ith the child. Child Development,

::, :%>3A0:Bratt, ., Tunmer, ). E. O ?o#ey, M. -. 1%&:. hildrenQs capacity to correct grammatical

violations in sentences.)ournal of Child Language, 11, 12%31:1

Bratt, . O Crieve, L. 1%&:a.The development of metalinguistic a#areness; an

introduction. /n ). E. Tunmer, . Bratt O 6. !. 5erriman +eds., -etalinguistica$areness in children: theory, research and implications. ?erlin; "pringer3Derlag 2311

Bratt, . O Crieve, L. 1%&:b. 6etalinguistic a#areness and cognitive development. /n ).E. Tunmer, . Bratt O 6. !. 5erriman +eds.,-etalinguistic a$areness in children:

theory, research and implications. ?erlin; "pringer3Derlag 12&31:4

"aton, 6., ?ac'ley, B., O Calla#ay, . 200A. egative input for grammatical errors;effects after a lag of 12 #ee's.)ournal of child language 42, =:43=>2

"aton, 6., 5ouston3Brice, ., O a#son, . 200=. The prompt hypothesis; clarification

requests as corrective input for grammatical errors.pplied Psycholinguistics2>, 4%:3

:1:."elin'er, !. 1%>2. /nterlanguage.'#L, S; 20%3241

"elin'er, !., "#ain, 6., and umas, C. 1%>A. The /nterlanguage hypothesis etended too

children.Language Learning, 2A, 14%31A1"peidel, C. E. 1%&>. onversation and language learning in the classroom. /n @. E.

elson O -. van @leec' +eds. Children*s language. 1olume 2. 5illsdale, e# Mersey;

!a#rence Erlbaum -ssociates, Bublishers %%314ATitone, L. 1%%4. - crucial psycholinguistic prerequisite to reading; childrenQs

metalinguistic a#areness. %cientia Paedagogica "+perimentalis, 40, &13%=

Tomasello, 6., O 5erron, . 1%&&. o#n the garden path; inducing and correcting

overgeneraliKation errors in the foreign language classroom. ppliedPsycholinguistics, %, 24>32:=

Tomasello, 6., O 5erron, . 1%&%. (eedbac' for language transfer errors. The Carden

Bath technique. %tudies in %econd Language c&uisition, 11, 4&A34%ADigil, . -., and ller, M. ). 1%>=. Lule fossilisation; a tentative model. Language

Learning, 2=, 2&132%A

)hite, !. 2004. n the nature of interlanguage representation; universal grammar in thesecond language. /n M. oughty and 6. 5. !ong +eds. The handbook of second language

ac&uisition.ford; ?lac'#ell Bublishing 1%3:2


minadrever7aol.com1A

drever paper

Documents