Mina Drever, Training and Development Agency for Schools, UK
Interactional corrective feedback in first language (L1) and second/foreign
language (L2) acquisition 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 National Literacy
Strategy was introduced into the schools’ curriculum in 1998.
This paper suggests that corrective feedback permeates all aspects of language
teaching and learning that will be considered by the Language Education
Framework working group. Whether language is taught as a discrete subject (LS),
or as language across the curriculum (LAC), or as language of school education
(LE), there are implications for policy makers, curriculum planners, teachers and
learners. SLIDE 2. In each of these three contexts are implicated levels of
competence, which is at the core of questions related to social inclusion,
knowledge about language, dialect versus standard language and cognition.
Linguistic competence in these three language teaching contexts is implicated
in all the domains of language use – personal communication, social and formal
interactions, educational and professional performance, in which are in turn
implicated knowledge about language, teaching approaches, assessment, standard
versus non-standard language and pronunciation. AND central to all these
questions is assessment for learning, in which interactional corrective feedback
plays – SLIDE 3 - a significant role, especially in the context of language of
school education and in language across the curriculum. In such contexts the
questions of competence and learnability become crucial. For example, How much
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
1
language is necessary and by what stage in order to tackle complex concepts such
as longitude and latitude in a geography context? Should learners be allowed to
believe that their performance is, on the whole, error-free? What happens to the
learners when the linguistic demands of the curriculum become very
sophisticated? How does a fluent EL2 speaker work out, without intervention, the
subtle but important semantic difference between ‘to be frightened of’ and ‘to be
frightened for’ in the analysis of the emotions of an army towards its general in a
history context? During one of my teaching sessions with a group of 14-year-olds
(one Chinese who was a fluent speaker of English and three EL1 students), none
of the students had understood the task’s instruction, requiring them to discuss
why an army was frightened for its general. All four students wrote about why the
soldiers were frightened of their general. Neither could they distinguish between
these two questions: (a) what do you think of the weather today? – requiring
expressing an opinion; and (b) what’s the weather like today? – requiring a
statement of fact. The answer to both questions by all four students was: it’s
raining, which is the appropriate answer to (b) but not to (a). This example leads
us to ask WHY WE SHOULD CORRECT ERRORS - SLIDE 4
1. self-repair
Controversy surrounds the issue of corrective feedback, in the L1 and L2
literature, and much of it stems from the notion that errors are indications that
language learning is taking place (Corder, 1967, 1981; Dulay and Burt, 1974;
Tomasello and Heron, 1989) and they should not be corrected. Furthermore it is
often posited that learners will spontaneously self-repair (Karmiloff-Smith, 1985;
Krashen, 1985, 1987), and error correction can be harmful to L2 development
(Holley and King, 1971) as well as counterproductive in the young child’s L1
acquisition (Braine, 1971; McNeil, 1966).
Ideally, said Long, once the feedback has been given, students should make
the ‘correcting move’ (Long, 1977, p. 279) before teachers provide the correction.
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
2
And this premise implies that learners must understand the feedback, and possess
the appropriate linguistic knowledge to self-repair (Karmiloff-Smith, 1985; Carroll
and Swain, 1993). Self-repair also depends on the types of errors that have been
produced (Corder, 1967), on implicit (Karmiloff-Smith, 1985) and explicit
linguistic knowledge (Krashen, 1985, 1987) of learners and on shared
metalanguage between learners and teachers (Carroll and Swain, 1993).
2.
transitional competence
Corder (1967) distinguished between two types of errors made by both L1
adults and L2 speakers. He classified as “performance” mistakes ‘unsystematic’
slips of the tongue, while errors, are ‘systematic’ (Corder, 1967, p. 166) in the
sense that they result from inadequate knowledge of the system of language. They
represent the ‘transitional competence’ (Corder, 1967 p 166 – italics in original)
which is being acquired by learners – both in L1 and L2 – on the basis of
hypothesis testing. When errors occur during this process, they are evidence that
rules are being induced and language learning is taking place (Allwright and
Bailey, 1991; Corder, 1967; Tomasello and Heron, 1988).
3. metalinguistic awareness
The development of metalinguistic awareness, though under the guise of
different terms, is the common ground between the L1 and L2 studies reviewed
and they suggested that it may not be attainable without explicit instruction and
corrective feedback. Explaining why a sentence construction is not correct,
knowing why a verb is better suited to a particular intention, making
grammaticality judgements involves metalinguistic reflection (Pratt et al., 1984)
for which it is necessary to be metalinguistically aware, to be able “to reflect upon
and manipulate the structural features of spoken language” (Pratt et al., 1984, p.
129). Metalinguistic awareness is considered important to the development of
cognitive skills (Ely, 1997; Pratt and Grieve, 1984a, 1984b), to reading (Demont
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
3
and Gombert, 1996; Donaldson, 1978; Downing, 1977; Titone, 1993) and to all
learning (Lee, 1997; Pratt et al., 1984). Pratt and Grieve (1984a) argued that as
children develop an awareness of the nature of cognitive functions, they gain
‘more control of … thinking’ (Pratt and Grieve, 1984a, p. 9).
4. fossilisation
Fossilisation is an interlanguage (Long, 2003, White 2003) phenomenon and can
occur when learners receive no information as to the correctness or incorrectness
of their production and applies to both inappropriate and appropriate constructions
(Vigil and Oller, 1976). L2 children of primary school age have been observed to
display fossilisation errors (Selinker et al., 1975) previously associated only with
adult L2 learners (Selinker, 1972, Han and Odlin, 2006).
WHAT ERRORS SHOULD BE CORRECTED,
SLIDE 5, WHEN and
HOW?
It is clear that corrective feedback should focus on Corder’s systematic errors
which may fossilise thus affecting adversely the development of a correct
interlanguage.
The timing of error correction
The timing of corrective feedback depends on whether it is a mistake or an error in
Corder’s (1967) sense. In the case of competence errors, the decision will be
dictated by a number of factors: is it a new error or one that’s been encountered
before? Should it be dealt with immediately or should it be postponed (Allwright
and Bailey, 1991; Long, 1977)? There are advantages and disadvantages to any
timing. Immediate treatment interrupts learners’ flow and may not be positively
effective (Vigil and Oller, 1976). Postponing it to a future lesson will be less
effective, as time elapses between the error and the treatment (Chaudron, 1977,
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
4
1988; Long, 1977). Yet this may be necessary, particularly if the error is common
to the whole class (Holley and King, 1971).
HOW should errors be corrected?
According to the literature corrective feedback should be varied (Allwright and
Bailey, 1991). It should facilitate monitor use, i.e. the ability to self-correct
resulting from learned knowledge of grammatical forms (Krashen, 1985, 1987). It
should be appropriately pitched with effective support (Tomasello and Heron,
1989; Vigil and Oller, 1976). It should emphasise content and communication of
meaning (Holley and King, 1971). These maxims from the L2 literature suggest
four dimensions – SLIDE 6 - to corrective feedback:
1. Types and features of corrective feedback include recasts (repetitions and
expansions), clarification requests, confirmation checks (Chaudron, 1977,
1988).
2. Cognitive orientation: focuses on linguistic devices that allow learners to
develop their explicit grammatical knowledge necessary to self-monitoring
(Krashen, 1987; Vigil and Oller; 1976).
3. Psychological: corrective feedback can be negative, positive and neutral (Vigil
and Oller, 1976). Each must address the affective (i.e. appeal to emotional
attitudes) as well as the cognitive nature of learning, but there must be balance
between them (Edwards, 1995c; Vigil and Oller, 1976). The most effective in
encouraging appropriate grammatical modifications in learners is the positiveaffective and negative-cognitive combination (Vigil and Oller, 1976), i.e. when
corrective feedback is accompanied by positive and encouraging tones of
voice, gestures and facial expressions.
4. One super-dimension that encompasses all these aspects is the implicit–explicit
dichotomy. Explicit feedback is any feedback that overtly states that a
learner’s output is not correct, with clear information about the state of the
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
5
learner’s utterance. Implicit feedback consists of devices such as confirmation
checks and requests for clarification, from which learners should infer that the
form of their utterance is responsible for the teacher’s comprehension problems
(Carroll and Swain, 1993 p. 361).
The advantage of explicit feedback can be outweighed by the demands on
learners’ language processing abilities, like interpretation of the feedback. This in
turns requires knowledge of ‘specialised vocabulary and specialised genre …
[which may be] … beyond the comprehension of the untrained’ (Carroll and
Swain, 1993 p. 362). On the other hand, implicit feedback may not be very useful
in so far as it may ‘fail to indicate the source of the error … [and it requires]….
much inferencing on the part of the learners’ (Carroll and Swain, 1993 p. 362).
EVIDENCE IN THE LITERATURE - Feedback to children and adults in LA
and SLA literature
My literature investigation focused on primary classrooms with first and second
speakers of English. My search for guidelines on corrective feedback revealed no
study, up to 2001, on corrective feedback, in L1 primary classrooms. [Indeed up
to 2004, there was no evidence that anyone was looking at corrective feedback in
the primary language classroom, according to Black, speaking at a primary
languages conference in Cambridge.] I thus searched the language acquisition
literature of very young children for any evidence for and/or against corrective
feedback in L1 learning.
Language acquisition and corrective feedback in young children
There is controversy in the L1 literature on whether adults provide corrective
feedback to young children, and if they do, whether children a) notice it and b) are
capable of learning from it (Bohannon III and Stanowicz, 1988, 1989, 1997;
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
6
Bohannon III et al., 1990; Brown and Bellugi, 1964; Brown and Hanlon, 1970;
Gordon, 1990; McNeil, 1966; Marcus, 1993). Some researchers saw expansions as
maternal imitations of the content of children’s utterances, albeit with added
grammatical forms, but they were not sure that this was feedback with any role in
language learning. Research in the last 10 years suggests that very young children
are capable of learning from some form or other of corrective feedback (Saxton,
1998, Saxton et al, 2005, Saxton et al., 2006).
Recasts have been extensively investigated in the observational L1 literature
but there is no agreement on their exact role in language acquisition (Bohannon III
and Stanowicz, 1988). Recasts are “simple” or “complex” (Baker and Nelson,
1984) reformulations of children’s utterances, which may or may not contain
errors. When they reformulate correct utterances recasts are modelling
structures that may or may not be already part of a child’s current linguistic
knowledge (Farrar, 1992; Nelson, 1977; Nelson et al., 1973).
Feedback to children in L2
Studies in second language classrooms suggest that implicit corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching classrooms can have a direct effect on learners’
output accuracy (Lightbown and Spada, 1990). Characterised by ‘meaning
negotiation and meaning exchange leading to mutual understanding’ (Speidel,
1987, p. 104) they provide a great deal of ‘rough tuning’ (Speidel, 1987, p. 110)
in the form of model/feedback, i.e. when teachers extend, expand, reformulate –
recast– learners’ responses, they simultaneously provide corrections and
modelling to learners’ linguistic errors.
However, Chaudron (1977) analysed teachers’ feedback in six of this type of
classroom talk (learners aged 13–15) and discovered that – SLIDE 7 - the most
effective corrective feedback first located errors and immediately rejected them, in
the form of repetition of the error with emphatic tone. Then metalinguistic
explanation for errors was provided to encourage learners to self-correct. In the
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
7
absence of self-correction, the original question was rephrased, and, if necessary,
other learners were asked to help. Teachers’ least successful – SLIDE 8 responses to learners’ errors were exact repetitions of grammatical errors and
expansions because they did not lead to correct responses by students.
Expansions are a form of recasts that did not lead to learner uptake in two
studies by Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (1998) with 9-11 year olds. Lyster
found recasts ambiguous and ineffective in ‘communicative classrooms’ (Lyster,
1998, p. 74) where the line between content and form is rather blurred. The most
successful type of feedback, according to Lyster and Ranta (1997), was
metalinguistic.
Lyster and Ranta (1997) also found that teachers’ feedback was highly
idiosyncratic and ambiguous. Closer analysis by Lyster (1998) of Lyster and
Ranta’s (1997) data revealed that the intonation of teachers’ recasts rendered them
ambiguous. Ambiguity increased when recasts were accompanied by “signs of
approval”. And in 103 instances teachers responded affirmatively to the
substantive content of students’ ill-formed utterances. (Lyster, 1998 p. 70).
Feedback to L2 adults
Similar results on feedback were found in L2 studies with adults. Tomasello and
Heron’s (1988, 1989) garden-path technique offered an interesting combination
of implicit instruction and explicit metalinguistic feedback, effective in arresting
L1 transfer errors (1989) and L2 generalisation errors (1988).
Carroll et al. (1992) conducted an experiment with implicit feedback to
French L1 university students learning EL2 of intermediate and advanced
proficiency. They concluded that implicit feedback plus positive input affected
long-term lexical learning but had no effect on morphological generalisation.
And Carroll and Swain’s (1993) experiments tested the effects of implicit and
explicit feedback on EL2 learning by Spanish L1 speakers with intermediate
proficiency in EL2. They showed that explicit negative feedback with
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
8
metalinguistic explanation led to correct application of dative alternation rules (for
example, ‘John sent a letter to Mary’ can alternate with ‘John sent Mary a letter’ p.
363) and understanding that there are verbs that cannot alternate.
MAIN FINDINGS – EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION – SLIDE 9
On the basis of these theoretical indications, I carried out an investigation on
corrective feedback in 65 English primary schools classrooms in 33 education
authorities. In each school one teacher completed a questionnaire and a second
teacher in a separate school was interviewed. The questionnaire and interview
were cross-validated to get a picture of how class-teachers in thirty-three
authorities taught English and corrected errors in multilingual classrooms in the
mid 1990s. A sample of eight teachers was selected from the questionnaire
respondents for the observation study which told me if teachers did in reality what
they said they did in the questionnaire.
Summary of empirical results – instructional approach – how teacher said
they taught
The results from the questionnaire and interview indicated that all 65 teachers in
thirty-three authorities intervened in the acquisition of their EL1 and EL2
children’s language competence. Sixty-nine per cent of them did so with a
communicative approach, providing “rough tuning” (Speidel, 1987 p. 110) when
necessary, in a sort of “guided acquisition”, as one interview teacher put it.
Summary of empirical results – error correction – how teachers said they
corrected
Covert feedback emerged as the overall feedback type from the questionnaire and
interview analysis – SLIDE 10- Although the results revealed differences between
interview and questionnaire teachers, which were attributed to method design,
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
9
covert feedback was mentioned many more times, suggesting that covert feedback
was likely to be selected by more teachers than overt or mixed feedback. The latter
contained covert and overt feedback, making it a recipe for confusion and
ambiguity, as already found in the literature.
Covert correction to speaking was mentioned by an almost equal number of
questionnaire (19) and interview (16) teachers – SLIDE 11 - . The predominant
mention of covert over overt feedback to speaking by both sets of teachers was
confirmed by the highly significant results of two Wilcoxon two-tailed signed
ranks tests. Among the questionnaire teachers, covert feedback to speaking was
mentioned by six times more teachers than those who gave overt feedback. And
more than three times the number of interview teachers said to give covert
feedback to speaking over those who did so overtly.
Summary of empirical results – how teachers actually gave feedback
Eight video-recorded observation lessons were analysed to see if teachers taught
and corrected in reality as they claimed in the questionnaire. In-depth analysis of
teacher responses to errors provides further insights into teacher feedback. The
first thing – SLIDE 12 – to be said about the feedback given by the eight
observation teachers is that, overall, they corrected covertly with 76% of all
corrective feedback being covert. Secondly these 8 teachers corrected 71% of
children’s linguistic errors covertly – SLIDE 13 – while 18.4% went ignored,
because correction would break the flow of the interaction.
Interesting results from a finer analysis of teachers’ observed feedback
included the following: Corrective feedback was often confusing – SLIDE 14 -.
Sometimes utterances in teachers’ corrective response wavered between overt and
covert negative, and I categorised it as covert/overt/negative feedback. At other
times it wavered between covert negative, implying rejection of pupils’
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
10
productions, and covert positive, as if teachers could not make up their mind about
the appropriateness of pupils’ contributions. I categorised this feedback as
covert/positive/negative. Lyster (1998) also found ambiguity in the way teachers
used recasts, often accompanied by signs of approval when they responded
simultaneously to content and language errors. This is a problem specific to
communicative classrooms, suggested Lyster: - SLIDE 15 This reveals what must be a source of ambiguity for young L2
learners as well as a dilemma for teachers whose mandate is to
teach both language and content: namely, how to reinforce the
substantive content of student messages while giving them clear
messages about language form (Lyster, 1998 p. 71).
An example of a covert/negative/positive/feedback is this teacher’s sequence
of responses – SLIDE 16 - . A group of pupils and teacher were discussing the
meaning of words with ch (pronounced as k) in them. At this point in the lesson it
was the word Christmas. The teacher had asked for a sentence with this word in it.
First she covertly approved (cvp) of it by repeating (rcr) a pupil’s correct response,
line 2. She overtly accepted it (ovp) in the next three utterances. Then she changed
her mind and she wanted more information (line 6) and asked a referential (rfl)
question. At this point the feedback reverted to covert, but I was no longer sure
whether it was covert/negative or covert/positive and categorised it as
covert/negative/positive (cnp). When she said ‘that doesn’t explain a lot’ (line 8)
she implied that the explanation given in line 1, which had already been accepted
as correct in lines 3, 4, 5, was now only partially correct. This confusion is
compounded by the use of tones 1 which denotes certainty in line 4 (very good)
and line 8 (that doesn’t explain a lot); also tone 3 is neutral and could denote
certainty or uncertainty (lines 2 and 7, exact repetition of child’s utterance).
Intonation contributed highly to all eight teachers’ idiosyncratic feedback. For
example one teacher gave exact repetitions in tone 5, which can express positive
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
11
and joyful surprise, as well as negative surprise expressing doubts. Another
teacher prompted mostly in tone 3, a very neutral tone with no indication to pupils
as to why the teacher was prompting, whether pupils had made an error or not.
Do learners want corrective feedback?
The working group considering these findings may also wish to consider what
learners want. As part of my research I asked six bilingual children, over a period
of 10 weeks of teaching programme how they felt about being corrected. They
were almost unanimous in saying that they did not mind how they were corrected
– SLIDE 17 - so long as teachers stuck to their method of doing so. Over a period
of 10 lessons I asked the children on three occasions if they wanted to be
corrected, how and why? Except for one occasion, when one child said that shed
did not like written errors being corrected, there was a 94% consistency to wanting
to be corrected, in any way the teachers chose, so that they could learn.
IN CONCLUSION SLIDE 18
Second language acquisition literature findings on corrective feedback indicate
that:
 metalinguistic corrective feedback is the most effective in promoting uptake
and self-correction in communicative lessons
 recasts are the most used features of implicit corrective feedback BUT
 recasts do not lead to learner uptake and self-correction
 corrective feedback can be idiosyncratic AND confusing
My empirical investigation confirmed these literature findings: the great majority
of participant teachers gave implicit corrective feedback to linguistic errors in their
multilingual classrooms. Much of their feedback was confusing and idiosyncratic.
This, according to the literature, does not lead to learners modifying their internal
grammar. And if erroneous productions are left uncorrected in the process of
grammatical internalisation, fossilisation will become engrained and learners will
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
12
never know when they are making wrong inferences. Combining content and
language teaching in language across the curriculum and in language for school
education, as the European Language Framework aims to do, must give serious
considerations to these issues. Otherwise many students in European classrooms
will run the risk of failing examination and tests as a result of linguistic
misconceptions, because maybe they do not understand the linguistic structure of a
question, as my 14 year old students did in their history tasks. Indeed this is going
to be the biggest challenge for curriculum planners and language teachers.
References
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. 1991. Focus on the language classroom: an introduction
to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Baker, N. D., & Nelson, K. E. 1984. Recasting and related conversational techniques for
triggering syntactic advances by young children. First Language, 5, 3-21
Bohannon III, J. N., & Bonvillian, J. D. 1997. Theoretical approaches to language
acquisition. In J. B. Gleason (ed.), The development of language. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon 259-316
Bohannon III, J. N., MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. 1990. No negative evidence revisited:
beyond learnability or who has to prove what to whom. Developmental Psychology,
26, 221-226
Bohannon III, J. N., & Stanowicz, L. 1988. The issue of negative evidence: adult
responses to children’s language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684-689
Bohannon III, J. N., & Stanowicz. 1989. Bidirectional effects of imitation and repetition
in conversation: a synthesis within a cognitive model. In G. E. Speidel & K. E. Nelson
(eds.) The many faces of imitation in language learning. New York: Springer-Verlag
121-150
Braine, M. D. S. 1971. On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In D.
I. Slobin (ed.) The ontogenesis of grammar. A theoretical symposium. New York:
Academic Press 153-186
Brown, R. & Bellugi, U. 1964. Three processes in the child's acquisition of syntax.
Harvard Educational Review, 34, 133-151
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. 1970. Derivation complexity and order of acquisition in child
speech. In J. R. Hayes (ed.) Cognition and the development of language New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc, 11-53
Carroll, S., Roberge, Y., & Swain, M. 1992. Comprehension of grammatically modified
and nonmodified sentences by second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics,
13, 147-198
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. 1993. Explicit and implicit negative feedback. An empirical
study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second language
Acquisition, 15, 357-386
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
13
Chaudron, G. 1977. A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of
learners’ errors. Language learning, 27, 29-46
Chaudron, G. 1988. Second language classrooms. Research on teaching and learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL, V, 161-170
Corder, S. P. 1981. Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Demont, E., & Gombert, J. E. 1996. Phonological awareness as a predictor of recoding
skills and syntactic awareness as a predictor of comprehension skills. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 66, 315-332
Donaldson, M. 1978. Children’s minds. London: Fontana Press
Downing, J. 1977. Linguistics for infants. Reading 11, 36-45
Drever, M. 2001. Investigating the role of an explicit pedagogic focus on grammatical
forms and corrective feedback in multilingual classroom in England. Unpublished
PhD thesis, the university of Reading.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. 1974. You can’t learn without goofing. An analysis of
children’s second language ‘errors’. In J. C. Richards (ed.), Error analysis.
Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman 95-123
Edwards, V. 1995c. Writing in multilingual classrooms. Reading: Reading and Language
Information Centre
Ely, R. 1997. Language and literacy in the school years. In Berko-Gleason, J. (ed.) The
development of language. Boston: Allyn and Bacon 398-439
Farrar, M. J. 1992. Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 90-98
Gordon, P. 1990. Learnability and feedback. Developmental Psychology, 26, 217-220
Han, Z., & Odlin, T. 2006. Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition.
Multilingual Matters.
Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. 1971. Imitation and correction in foreign language learning.
The modern language journal, 8, 494-498
Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1985. Language and cognitive processes from a developmental
perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 61-85
Krashen, S. D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman
Krashen, S. D. 1987. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London:
Prentice Hall International
Lee, P. 1997. Language in thinking and learning: pedagogy and the new Whorfian
framework. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 430-471
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
Long, M. H. 1977. Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions. In H. D.
Brown, C. A. Yorio and R. H. Crymes (eds.) Teaching and learning English as a
second language: trends in research and practice. On TESOL ’77. Washington, D. C.:
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages 278-295
Long, M. H., 2003. Stabilization and fossillization in interlanguage development. In J.
Doughty and M. H. Long (eds), 2003. The handbook of second language acquisition.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing 487-536
Lyster, R. 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
14
Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form
in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37-67
Marcus, G. F. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46, 53-85
McNeil, D. 1966. Developmental Psycholinguistics. In F. Smith & G. A. Miller (eds.)
The genesis of language. A psycholinguistic approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The MIT Press 15-84
Nelson, K. E. 1977. Facilitating children’s syntax. Developmental Psychology, 13, 101107
Nelson, K. E., Carskaddon, G., & Bonvillian, J. D. 1973. Syntax acquisition: impact of
experimental variation in adult verbal interaction with the child. Child Development,
44, 497-504
Pratt, C., Tunmer, W. E. & Bowey, J. A. 1984. Children's capacity to correct grammatical
violations in sentences. Journal of Child Language, 11, 129-141
Pratt, C. & Grieve, R. 1984a.The development of metalinguistic awareness: an
introduction. In W. E. Tunmer, C. Pratt & M. L. Herriman (eds.), Metalinguistic
awareness in children: theory, research and implications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag 211
Pratt, C. & Grieve, R. 1984b. Metalinguistic awareness and cognitive development. In W.
E. Tunmer, C. Pratt & M. L. Herriman (eds.), Metalinguistic awareness in children:
theory, research and implications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag 128-143
Saxton, M., Backley, P., & Gallaway, C. 2005. Negative input for grammatical errors:
effects after a lag of 12 weeks. Journal of child language 32, 643-672
Saxton, M., Houston-Price, C., & Dawson, N. 2006. The prompt hypothesis: clarification
requests as corrective input for grammatical errors. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 394414.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL, X: 209-231
Selinker, L., Swain, M., and Dumas, G. 1975. The Interlanguage hypothesis extended too
children. Language Learning, 25, 139-151
Speidel, G. E. 1987. Conversation and language learning in the classroom. In K. E.
Nelson & A. van Kleeck (eds.) Children’s language. Volume 6. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers 99-135
Titone, R. 1993. A crucial psycholinguistic prerequisite to reading: children's
metalinguistic awareness. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, 30, 81-96
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. 1988. Down the garden path: inducing and correcting
overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 9, 237-246
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. 1989. Feedback for language transfer errors. The Garden
Path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385-395
Vigil, N. A., and Oller, J. W. 1976. Rule fossilisation: a tentative model. Language
Learning, 26, 281-295
White, L. 2003. On the nature of interlanguage representation: universal grammar in the
second language. In J. Doughty and M. H. Long (eds). The handbook of second language
acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing 19-42
Mina Drever, consultant, Training and Development Agencies for schools, London
minadrever@aol.com
15