Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T07:26:53.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explicit and Implicit Negative Feedback

An Empirical Study of the Learning of Linguistic Generalizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Susanne Carroll  and
Merrill Swain
Susanne Carroll
Affiliation:
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Merrill Swain
Affiliation:
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relative effects of various types of negative feedback on the acquisition of the English dative alternation by 100 adult Spanish-speaking learners of English as a second language were investigated. Our objective was to determine empirically whether feedback can help learners learn the appropriate abstract constraints on an overgeneral rule. All subjects were trained on the alternation, which was presented in terms of a simple structural change. Subjects were divided into groups according to the type of feedback they received when they made an error. Specifically, upon making an error, Group A subjects were given explicit metalinguistic information about the generalization we hoped they would learn. Group B subjects were told that their response was wrong. Group C subjects were corrected when they erred, giving them a model of the response desired along with implicit negative evidence that their response was incorrect. Group D subjects, having made an error, were asked if they were sure about their response. The comparison group received no feedback.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 357 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teachers' treatment of learner error. In Burt, M. & Dulay, H. (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google 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. C., & Weinberg, A. S. (1984). The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: Language use and acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 274–353). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. Berlin: 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, 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 11–53). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (1990, December). Prolegomena to a theory of feedback in language acquisition. Colloquium to the Curriculum Department, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., & Swain, M. (1990, March). Error correction and the acquisition of word formation rules. Paper presented at the 10th Second Language Research Forum, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., & Swain, M. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learner learner's errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 32–75). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chun, A., Day, R., Chenoweth, N., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native–nonnative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. (1988). Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Courchene, R. (1980). The error analysis hypothesis, the contrastive analysis hypothesis, and the correction of error in the second language classroom. TESL Talk, 11(2), 3–13 and 11 (3), 10–29.Google Scholar
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookes, G., & Rulon, K. (1988). Topic continuation and corrective feedback in native–nonnative conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 675–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R., Chenoweth, N., Chun, A., & Luppescu, S. (1984). Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse. Language Learning, 34, 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1979). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In Pinker, S. & Mehler, J. (Eds.), Connections and symbols (pp. 3–72). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gaskill, W. H. (1980). Correction in native–non native speaker conversation. In Larsen-Freeman, D. (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 125–137). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Glass, A. L., Holyoak, K. J., & Santa, J. L. (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 16, 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gombert, E. (1989). Le developpement metalinguistique. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France.Google Scholar
Green, G. (1974). Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. (1991, October). Taking explanation seriously; or, let a couple of flowers bloom. Paper presented at the Conference on Theory Construction and Methodology in Second Language Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1985, October). Remarks on dative verbs and universal grammar. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (1987). Markedness and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 3, 20–55.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 & Hanlon revisited: Mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language, 11, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. (1971). Imitation and correction in foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal, 55, 494–498.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 9–31). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. II (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991, October). Assessment strategies for second language acquisition theories. Paper presented at the Conference on Theory Construction and Methodology in Second Language Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1984a). The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning, 34, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1984b). Dative questions and markedness. In Eckman, F. R., Bell, L. H., & Nelson, D. (Eds.). Universals of second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I., & White, L. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16, 261–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeill, D. (1966). Developmental psycholinguistics. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. A. (Eds.), The genesis of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, R. (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
O' Grady, W. (1984). Principles of grammar and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Osherson, D., Stob, M., & Weinstein, S. (1984). Learning theory and natural language. Cognition, 17, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 1, 217–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. In Pinker, S. & Mehler, J. (Eds.), Connections and symbols (pp. 73–193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porquier, R. (1977). L'analyse des erreurs: Problèmes et perspectives. Études de linguistique appliquée, 25, 23–41.Google Scholar
Ramirez, A. G., & Stromquist, N. P. (1979). ESL methodology and student language learning in bilingual elementary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle 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
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & the PDP Research Group, Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the micro-structure of cognition: Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1987). Learning the past tenses of English verbs: Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing? In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1984). A universal input condition. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 167–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1986). The epistemological status of second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 2, 120–159.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1987). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Gubala-Ryzak, M. (1992). Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2 A: Against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research, 8, 1–38.Google Scholar
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, R., Bereiter, C., Burtis, J., & Bertrand, D. (1988). Student response to feedback on written composition: The role of intentional learning. Year-end report to the Ontario Ministry of Education. Toronto: Applied Cognitive Science Centre, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Carroll, S. 1987. The immersion observation study. In Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (Eds.), The development of bilingual proficiency final report: Classroom treatment (Vol. 2 pp. 190–342). Toronto: Modern Language Centre, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.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., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 384–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. (in press). Repetition in second language acquisition. In Johnstone, B. (Ed.), Repetition in discourse (Vol. 1). New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.Google Scholar
Zock, M., Francopoulo, G., & Laroui, A. (1989). SWIM: A natural interface for the scientifically minded language learner. Computers and the Humanities, 23, 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar