1887
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article investigates the morphosyntactic accuracy of second year examination compositions written by advanced level students of French. The study provides a detailed error analysis of 212 compositions done on the basis of an error classification system consisting of twenty-two linguistic categories. The findings derived from this data highlight areas where students’ linguistic competence is at its weakest, and the rate of progress made by students from one semester to another. More specifically, they present the problem of linguistic accuracy, or rather lack thereof, as widespread, deeply engrained, and worthy of serious attention. The outcome of this investigation leads to a discussion of practical and theoretical explanations for our students’ lack of morphosyntactic accuracy and to a consideration of ways of reducing orthographic and grammatical imprecision. The effectiveness of focus on form is examined, with particular reference to processing instruction linked to the classroom use of the French grammar checker

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.22.1.03mog
1999-01-01
2019-08-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Besnard, Ch.
    (1995) Synthèse des 50 erreurs les plus courantes à 1’écrit: Pour une approche fonctionnelle de la langue. Canadian Modern Language Review51, 2: 348–356.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Burston J.L.
    (1996) A comparative evaluation of French grammar checkers. CALICO Journal13, 3: 104–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Corder, S.P.
    (1981) Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dulay, B. and S. Krashen
    (1982) Language two. New York, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ellis, R.
    (1994) The Study of second language acquisition. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kern, R.
    (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal79, 4: 457–476. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1995.tb05445.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05445.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Krashen, S.
    (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1984) Writing: research, theory and applications. Oxford, Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1985) The Input hypothesis: issues and applications. London, Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Lightbown, P.
    (1991a) Getting quality input in the second/foreign language classroom. In C. Kramsch and S. McConnell-Ginet (eds) Text and context: cross-disciplinary perspectives on language studies. Lexington, Mass., D.C. Heath and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1991b) What have we here? Some observations on the effect of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson , E. Kellerman , L. Selinker , M. Sharwood Smith and M. Swain (eds) Foreign/second language pedagogy research. Clavedon, Avon, Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lightbown, P. and N. Spada
    (1990) Focus on form.and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition12, 4: 429–449. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100009517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009517 [Google Scholar]
  13. Long, M.
    (1983) Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly17: 3359–382. doi: 10.2307/3586253
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586253 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1991) Focus on form: A design feature in language methodology. In K. De Bot , D. Coste , R. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (eds) Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.2.07lon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2.07lon [Google Scholar]
  15. Polio, Ch.G.
    (1997) Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language written research. Language Learning47, 1: 101–143. doi: 10.1111/0023‑8333.31997003
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003 [Google Scholar]
  16. Schmidt, R.
    (1993) Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In R. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Schmidt R. and S. Frota
    (1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (ed.) Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA, Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Sharwood Smith, M.
    (1993) Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15, 2: 165–180. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100011943
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011943 [Google Scholar]
  19. Tomasello, M. and C. Herron
    (1988) Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics9, 3: 237–246. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400007827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400007827 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1989) Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11, 4: 513–517. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100008408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008408 [Google Scholar]
  21. VanPatten, B.
    (1990) Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition12, 3: 287–301. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100009177
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177 [Google Scholar]
  22. (1996) Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. Norwood, N. J. , Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.22.1.03mog
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error