Volume 73, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Teacher training institutes in the Netherlands submit to their students tests of grammaticality judgments concerning FL sentences, in order to prepare them for their future task. Comparison of the results of these tests with results of FL production tests of the same students suggested that the former task was more difficult than the latter. The purposes of this study were to examine two questions : (1) Is production of FL grammatical structures different from, that is, more difficult than giving a judgment of grammatical acceptability concerning the same structures? (2) How do students proceed when judging the grammaticality of a given FL sentence? To this end, an experiment was designed. 30 French syntactic structures were selected which often give rise to errors. These structures were incorporated in a grammaticality judgment test and a production test. The tests were administered to matched groups of Dutch students of French of the level mentioned. The hypothesis was that the two tasks were of a different degree of difficulty. The results did not confirm this hypothesis : although differences were found between the three conditions explored (judgment of a correct sentence, of an incorrect one, and production), these differences were not significant.

The grammatically judgment test was also administered to two groups of French subjects in order to compare their behaviour to that of the Dutch group. The French subjects were found to behave more homogeneously than the Dutch ones.

The results of the pilot study suggest that the two tasks are not essentially different.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bialystok, E.
    (1979) : Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammaticality. Language Learning 29:81-103.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bialystok, E.
    (1981) : The Role of linguistic knowledge in second language use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4:31–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1982) : On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms. Applied Linguistics 3:181-216.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bialystok, E. – E. Bouchard Ryan
    (1985) : A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. In : D.L. Forrest-Pressley , G.E. MacKinnon & T.G. Waller (eds) : Metacognition, cognition, and human performance. New York : Academic Press : 207-251.
  5. Breuker, J. & E. van der Linden
    (1981) : Het oplossen van Franse grammatikaproblemen. In : J. Beishuizen , Onderwijsleerprocessen. Lisse : Swets & Zeitlinger.
  6. Chaudron, C
    (1983) : Research on metalinguistic judgments : a review of theory, methods, and results. Language Learning 33:343-377.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gass, S.
    (1979) : Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29:327-344.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Noordman, L.G.M.
    (1977) : Inferring from language. Dissertation, University of Groningen.
  9. Seliger, H.W.
    (1983) : The language learner as a linguist : of metaphors and realities. Applied Linguistics 4:179-192.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Straalen, W. van , P. Sarkar-van Geen , W. Kruize
    (1986) : Erreurs grammaticales. Comment s'entraîner à les dépister. Le Français dans le Monde198:57-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Van der Linden, E.
    (1985) : Toepassing van een regelsysteeem : de grammatika van het Frans. Unpublished dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
  12. (forthcoming) : Making introspection research more reliable.
  13. White, L.
    (1977) : Error analysis and error correction in adult learners of English as a second language. Working papers on bilingualism 13:42-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  • 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