Groupement interacadémique IV Session : 2004 Code : Page : 1
Didier DAENINCKX, Main courante, 1994 Groupement interacadémique IV Session : 2004 Code : EXAMEN : BEP - CAP INDUSTRIEL Epreuve : FRANÇAIS Durée : 2 h
Didier Daeninckx Galadio Didier Galadio Daeninckx Didier
Didier Daeninckx Galadio Allemagne, années trente Ulrich est un adolescent de Duisbourg comme les autres À un détail près : sa peau est noire Son père, un soldat africain, est venu en Allemagne avec les troupes françaises d’occupation chargées de veiller à l’application du traité de Versailles
Einheit 2 - Editions Didier
langue courante B1 2 Identifi er les apports d’un texte pour la thématique B1 3 Reconnaître dans un texte factuel les opinions, les arguments utilisés B1 3 Suivre dans une narration le déroulement de l’action et comprendre les descriptions des sentiments Prendre des notes et les organiser Rédiger une annonce Écrire un dialogue
Objet détude n°5 : Le Reflet , Didier Daeninckx, 1994
Sous axe 3 : la chute comme une morale implicite (et une vengeance salutaire) La chute ménage alors comme un comble du racisme Elle surprend le lecteur, l'amuse, mais elle
DIDIER a exercé le métier de facteur pendant quarante
DIDIER a exercé le métier de facteur pendant quarante ans — dont vingt-sept dans une commune du joli nom de Nérondes, dans le Cher Il a pris sa retraite en 2014 Mais La Poste, reconnaissante, ne l’a pas oublié pour autant 5 La preuve ? Elle lui réclame aujourd’hui la « restitution
GOGIQUE — onier
tion : Didier Arnaudet GOGIQUE 14 e Main courante, 2001 Acier peint Dimensions inconnues Nuance, 2005 Bois et peinture 400x173x150cm Production Le village
Construire et défendre son budget - Dunod
La main courante 66 Déclinaison des objectifs et des plans d’action 67 Aligner l’organisation sur la mise en œuvre de la stratégie 67 Fixer les objectifs de performance des responsables budgétaires 69 Formaliser des plans d’action à court terme 71 Choisir les indicateurs 75 Le chiffrage des objectifs et des plans d’action 76
ED 019 903 OF LEARNERS
interference selon une terminologie courante A la lumiere des hypotheses nouvelles il vaut mieux y voir des indices de l'exploration du systeme de la nouvelle langue entreprisepar l'eleve plutat que des signes d'une persistance d'habitudes acquises anterieurement La position prise par l'auteur est
abcDicoefgDunodhijk LEXIQUE de GESTION et de MANAGEMENT
courante des affaires et sur le contenu des enseignements des universités et écoles de gestion C’est pourquoi le présent ouvrage accorde une place beaucoup plus impor-tante aux méthodes et techniques de gestion qu’aux aspects strictement scientifiques
N°35 JUILLET-AOUT 2018
d’enregistrement sur la main courante gendarmerie pour acter un différend familial, de voisinage sans pour autant déposer plainte « Chez KARINE et DIDIER » La pizza du mois « L'Exotique » sauce tomate, mozzarella, poulet, ananas et curry à 10€ Réservation au 02 97 93 94 33 La boulangerie sera fermée du mercredi 04 juillet au
[PDF] Management - Contrôle stratégique et critères d'évaluation
[PDF] management 1ère stmg cours
[PDF] management 1ère stmg cours pdf
[PDF] management a rendre
[PDF] management cas pratique exemple
[PDF] management comportement pdf
[PDF] management d'entreprise
[PDF] Management dans l ' association La Main Ouverte
[PDF] management de la performance définition
[PDF] management de la performance des concepts aux outils
[PDF] management de la performance pdf
[PDF] management de la production pdf
[PDF] management de projet pdf gratuit
[PDF] management des collectivités territoriales definition
ED 019 903
FL DOD 622'THE SIGNIFICANCEOF LEARNERSERRORS.'BY- CORDER, S.F.PUB DATE
NOV 67EDRS PRICEMF-S0.25HC -$D.5211P.
DESCRIPTORS-
*PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, *SECONDLANGUAGE LEARNING,*LEARNING PROCESSES,*LEARNING MOTIVATION,*VERnALDEVELOPMENT, LANGUAGEDEVELOPMENT, LEARNINGTHEORIES,LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION,LANGUAGE RESEARCH,PRESCHOOL LEARNING,VERBAL ABILITY,
ERRORS (NOT MISTAKES)
MACE IN BOTH SECONDLANGUAGELEARNING AND CHILDLANGUAGE ACQUISITIONPROVIDE EVIDENCE THATA LEARNER USESA DEFINITE SYSTEMOF LANGUAGE AT EVERYPOINTIN HIS DEVELOPMENT.THIS SYSTEM, OR"BUILT-IN SYLLABUS," MAYYIELD A MOREEFFICIENT SEQUENCETHAN THEINSTRUCTOR-GENERATEDSEQUENCE BECAUSEIT IS MORE MEANINGFULTO THE LEARNER. BYALLOWING THELEARNER'S INNATESTRATEGIES TO DICTATETHELANGUAGE SYLLABUS,RATHER THAN IMPOSINGUPON HIM PRECONCEIVEDNOTIONS OF WHATHE OUGHT TO LEARN,A MORE EFFECTIVEMEANS OFLANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONMAY BE ACHIEVED.THIS ARTICLE APPEAREDIN THE "INTERNATIONALREVIEW OF APPLIEDLINGUISTICS INLANGUAGE TEACHING,"VOLUME 5, NUMBER4, NOVEMBER 1967,PAGES161 -170. (AF)
r..rr,1.61 r OOP CAM 2,Inteenational
Review ofAppliedistics in LanguageTeaching
tiersJULIUS GROOS VERLKG
HEIDELBERG P.O.B.629
© 1963 Julius Groos Verlag
6900 Heidelberg/Germany,
Gaisbergstrafie 6-8P. O. Box 629. Cable Address:Groos HeidelbergBanking Account No. 02/52338Deutsche Bank HeidelbergPrinted by Julius Beltz,Weinheim/Germany.
Editors: Prof. Dr. Berth Malmberg,
University of Lund/SwedenProf. Dr. Gerhard Nickel,Universitit Kiel/GermanyPublished quarterly
Erscheint vierteljihrlich
Subscription per Vol.
Europe (excl. France)Overseas (excl. USA)
Individual
Institutional
Single CopiesDM 38. (US$ 9.50)DM 42. (US$ 10.50)DM 10.50 (US$ 2.65)DM 39. (US$ 9.75)DM 43. (US$ 10.75)DM 11. (US $ 2.75)
Postage includedFrance: Price: NF 60 SoleAgency: Librairie Marcel Didier4 et 6, rue de la SorbonneParis VUSA: Price: US$10.75Sole Agency: ChiltonBooks, A Division of Chilton CompanyEast Washington Square525 Locust StreetPhiladelphia 6, Penna. (19106)
.tAllgoreirlOrrororrrtt-^ A boOTHE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER'S
ERRORS
S. P. Corder
Il est etonnant de constater la legerete
avec laquelle les travaux de pedagogiclinguistique passent sur la question deserreurs commises par les cloves et de la
correction de celles-ci. Il existe en methodologie deux ecoles: celle qui suutient quela presence des erreurs n'est qu'un indice de la defectuositede la technique d'ensei-gnement, et une autre qui est d'avis que, puisquenous vivons dame, un mondeimparfait, les erreurs apparaitront necessairement malgretous nos efforts. Suit unediscussion sur les rapportsentre l'apprentissage de la langue maternelle et celuid'une deuxieme etc. langue aun age plus milr. II reste a prouver que le processus
d'apprentissage d'une deuxieme langue est fondamentalementdifferent de celui dupremier apprentissage. Une motivationune fois donnee, il est inevitable qu'un etrehumain apprenne une deuxieme langue a conditiond'être expose a des faitslinguistiques appartenant a cette langue. La motivationet l'intelligence semblentetre les deux principaux facteurs ayantune correlation significative avec les progresfaits en une deuxieme langue. L'auteurpropose comme hypothese de travail que lastrategic adoptee pour l'apprentissage d'une deuxiemelangue est du moins par-tiellement la meme que celle appliqueepour l'acquisition de la premiere. Et pourtantil sera necessaire de supposerune difference entre les deux. L'hypothese que celui
qui apprend la deuxieme langue a a tester est la suivante: le systemede la nouvellelangue est-il identique au different dela langueque je connais ?, et, s'il en est different,en quoi consiste ladifference ? Un grand nombre deserreurs commises sontdues a la langue maternelleinterference selon une terminologiecourante. A lalumiere des hypotheses nouvelles ilvaut mieux y voir des indices de l'explorationdu systeme de la nouvelle langue entreprisepar l'eleve plutat que des signes d'unepersistance d'habitudes acquises anterieurement. La positionprise par l'auteur estla suivante: la maitrise de l'eleve desa langue maternelle facilite l'apprentissage dela deuxieme langue; les erreursne sont pas des signes d'obstacles mais des indices
d'une strategic utilisee dans l'apprentissage. Nous devonsnous adapter aux besoinsde l'eleve plutot que de lui imposernos conceptions a nous des methodes d'appren-tissage (des "comment", des "quoi", des "quand").
Es ist auffallend, wie oberflachlich man in sprachpadagogischen WerkendieFrage der Fehler des Lernenden und deren Korrigierung behandelt. Es gibtzweimethodisch verschiedene Schulen
:die, wekhe geltend macht, daig das Vorhanden- sein von Fehlern nur ein Indiz methodischer Mange' ist, und diejenige, die meint, dal trotz unserer Bemuhungen Fehler entstehen mussen, weil wir ineiner mangel-haften Welt leben. Es folgt eine Diskussion fiber das Verhaltnis zwischendem Er-lernen der Muttersprache und dem einer zweitenusw. Sprache in einem reiferen
Alter. Es bleibt zu beweisen, dal der Prozeig des Erlernens einer zweiten Sprache grundsatzlich verschieden ist von dem der ersten. Wenn eine Motivation vorhanden ist, lernt ein Mensch eine zweite Sprache, sobalder in Kontakt mit den betreffendensprachlichen Daten gebracht wird. Die Motivation und die Intelligenz scheinendiezwei wesentlichen Faktoren zu sein, die zu den Fortschritttin der zweiten Sprache
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISCOPYRIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED
BY.ANISglad,
TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING
UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. OFFICE OF
EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE
THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PERMISSION OF
THE COPYRIGHT OWNER."U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS TEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATIONPOSITION OR POLICY.
s. ti162IRAL, VOL. V/4, NOVEMBER 19672,2., 2,4
,Itenx.4.1ef. eine signifikante Korrelation haben. Vf. schligt alsArbeitshypothese vor, dati derWeg zum Erlernen einer zweiten Sprache mindestensteilweise derselbe ist wie der-jenige, der bei. Erlernen der erstengegangen wird. Und trotzdem muii man ver-muten, dais es einen Unterschied zwischen beiden gibt. Wereine zv. cite Sprachelernt, hat die folgende Hypothesezu testen: ist das System der neuen Spracheidentisch mit dem der schon bekannten Spracheoder nicht. Wenn sic nicht iden-dsch ist, worin besteht der Unterschied ? Einegroile Anzahl der begangenenFehler beruht auf der Muttersprachen-Interferenzin der gelaufigen Terminologie.Im Licht der neuen Hypothesen istes besser, dieFehler als Indizien der Entdeckungder neuen Sprache durch den Lernendenzu betrachten, als darin eine Fortsetzungvon einmal erworbenen Gewohnheiten zu sehen. Der Standpunktdes Vfs. ist derfolgende: Die Beherrschung der Mutterspracheerleichtert das Erlernen der zweitenSprache; die Fehler sind nicht Zeichen irgendeinerHemmung, sondern Indizieneines bestimmten Vorgehens beim Erlernen. Wir miissenmehriiber den Lernendenwissen. Wir mussen uns eher seinen Bediirfnissenanpassen, als ihm unsere Auf-fassung der Lehrmethoden aufzuzwingen (vomwie", was", and wann").
When one studies the standard works
on the teaching of modern languagesit comes as a surprise to find how cursorily the authorsdeal with the question
of learners' errors and their correction. It almostseems as if they are dismissedas a matter of no particular importance, as possible annoying,distracting, butinevitable by-products of theprocess of learning a language about which theteacher should make as little fussas possible. It is of course true that the appli-cation of linguistic and psychological theoryto the study of language learningadded a new dimension to the discussion oferrors ; people now believed theyhad a principled means for accounting for theseerrors, namely that they werethe result of interference in the learning ofa second language from the habits ofthe first language. The major contribution ofthe linguist to language teaching
was seen as an intensive contrastive study of the systems of the secondlanguageand the mother-tongue of the learner; out of this would come an inventory ofthe areas of difficulty which the learner wouldencounter and the value of thisinventory would be to direct the teacher's attentionto these areas so that he mightdevote special care and emphasis in his teachingto the overcoming, or even
_._avoiding, of these predicted difficulties. Teachershave not always beenvery im-pressed by this contribution from the linguistfor the reason that their practicalexperience has usually already shown them where thesedifficulties lie and theyhave not felt that the contribution of the linguisthas provided them with anysignificantly new information. They noted for examplethat many of the errorswith wk., .t they were familiarwere not predicted by the linguist anyway. Theteacher has been on the whole, therefore,more concerned with bow to deal withthese areas of difficulty than with the simple identificationof them, and here hasreasonably felt that the linguist has had littleto say to him.In the field of methodology there have beentwo schools of thought in respectof learners' errors. Firstly the school whichmaintains that if we were to achieve
_ -+-2, '2.272222....27-14^.22,,22.222.27,-,772222..2..11012.SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER'S ERRORS
163a perfect teaching method the errors would
never be committed in the first place,and therefore theoccurrence of errors is merely a sign of thepresent inadequacyof our teaching techniques. Thephilosophy of the second schoolis that we livein an imperfect world and consequentlyerrors will always occur in spite of ourbest efforts. Our ingenuity shouldbe concentratedon techniques for dealingwith errors after they have occurred.
Both these points of view
are compatible with the same theoretical standpointabout language and language learning,psychologically behaviourist and linguis-tically taxanomic. Their application,to langue teaching is known as the audio-lingual or fundamental skills method.
Both linguistics and psychology
are in a state at the present time of whatChomsky has called 'flux and agitatir n' (Chomsky1966). What seemed to bewell established doctrinea few years ago is now the subject of extensive debate.
The consequence of this for language teachingis likely to be far reaching andweare perhaps only now beginning to feel its effects. One effecthas been perhapsto shift the emphasis away froma preoccupation with teaching towards a study oflearning. In the first instance this hasshown itself as a renewed attackupon theprohlem the acquisition of the mother-tongue.This has inevitably ledto aconsideration of the question whet'',a there are any parellels between the
processes of acquiring the mother-tongue and the learning ofa second language.The usefulness of the distinction betweenacquisition and learning has beenemphasised by Lambert (1966) and thepossibility that the lattermay benefit froma study of the former has been suggested by Caroll(1966).
The differences between the
two are obvious but not for thatreason easy toexplain: that the learning of the mother-tongueis inevitable, whereas, alas,weall know that there isno such ineitability about the learning ofa second lan-guage; that the learning of the mother-tongue ispart of the whole maturationalprocess of the child, whilst learning a second languagenormally begins onlyafter the maturationalprocess is largely complete; that the infant starts withnoovert language behaviour, while in thecase of the second language learner suchbehaviour, of course, exists; that the motivation (if we can properlyuse the termin the context) for learninga first language is quite different from that forlearning a second language.
On examination it becomes clear that these
obvious differences imply nothingabout the processes that take place in thelearning of first and second language.Indeed the most widespread hypothesisabout how languagesare learned, whichI have called behaviourist, is assumedto apply in both circumstances. Thesehypotheses are well enough knownnot to require detailing here, andso are theobjections to them. If then these hypothesesabout language learningare beingquestioned and new hypotheses beingset up to account for the process of childlanguage acquisition, it wouldseem reasonable to see how far they might alsoapply to the learning ofa second language.
164IRAL, VOL. V/4, NOVEMBER 1967
Within this new context the study of
errors takes on a new importance andwill I believe contribute toa verification or rejection of the new hypothesis.
This hypothesis states thata human infant is barn with an innate predisposi-tion to acquire language; that he mustbe exposed to language for the acquisitionprocess to start; that he possesses an internal mechanism ofunknown naturewhich enable him from the limiteddata available to him toconstruct a grammarof a particular language. How he doesthis is largely unknown and is the field ofintensive study at the present time by linguists andpsychologists. Miller (1964)has pointed out that ifwe wished to create an automaton to replicatea childs per-formance, the order in which it testedvarious aspects of the grammar could onlybe decided after careful analysis of thesuccessive stages of language acquisitionby human children. The firststeps therefore in such a studyare seen to be alongitudinal description ofa child's lazguage throughout thecourse of its devel-opment. From such a description it is eventuallyhoped to developa picture ofthe procedures adopted by the childto acquire language (McNeill 1966).
The application of this hypothesisto second language learning is notnew andis essentially that proposed fiftyyears ago by H. E. Palmer (1917). Palmer main-tained that wewere all endowed by nature with the capacity for assimilatinglan-guage and that this capacity remained availableto us in a latent state after theacquisition of a primary language. The adultwas seen as capable as the child ofacquiring of foreign language. Recent work(Lenneberg 1966) suggests that thechild who fails forany reason i. e. deafness, to acquire a primary languagebeforethe age of 12 thereafter rapidly losesthe capacity to acquire languagebehaviourat all. This finding does not ofcourse carry with it the implication that the lan-
guage learning capacity of those who have successfully learneda primary language'also atrophies in thesame way. It still remains to be shown that theprocess oflearning a second language is ofa fundamentally different nature from theprocessprimary acquisition.
If we postulate thesame mechanism, thenwe may also postulate that theproce-dures or strategies adopted by thelearner of the second languageare fundamen-tally the same. The principal featurethat then differentiates thetwo operations isthe presence or absence ofmotivation. If the acquisition of the firstlanguage is afulfilment of the predispositionto develop language behaviour, then the learningof the second language involves thereplacement of the predisposition of the infantby some other force. What thisconsists of is in the context of thispaperirrelevant.
Let us say therefore that, given motivation,it is inevitable that a human being willlearn a second language if he is exposedto the language data. Study of languageaptitude does insome measure support such a view since motivation andintelli-gence appear to be the two principal factors whichcorrelate significantly withachievement in a second language.
I propose therefore as
a working hypothesis that some at least of the strategiesadopted by the learner ofa second language are substantially thesame as those
r.gr+77.51 m.7 c. TeaSIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER'S ERRORS
165by which a first language is acquired. Such a proposal does not imply that the course or sequence of learning is the same in both cases. We can now return to the consideration of errors made by learners. When atwo year old child produces an utterance such as "Thismummy chair" we do
not normally call this deviant, ill-formed, faulty, incorrector whatever. We do notregard it as an error in any sense at all, but ratheras a normal childlike commu-
nication which provides evidence of the state of his linguistic development at thatmoment. Our response to that behaviour has certain of the characteristics ofwhat would be called `correction' ina classroom situation. Adults have a verystrong tendency to repeat and expand the child's utterance inan adult version;
something like `Yes, dear, that's Mummy's chair'.No one expects a child learning his mother-tongue
to produce from theearliest stages only forms which in adult termsare correct or non - deviant. We interpret his 'incorrect' utterances as being evidence that he is in theprocess of acquiring language and indeed, for those who attempt to describe his knowledgeof the language at any point in its development, it is the 'errors' whichprovidethe important evidence. As Brown and Frazer (1964) pointout the best evidencethat a child possesses construction rules is theoccurrence of systematic errors,
since, when the child speaks correctly, it is quite possible that he is onlyrepeatingsomething that he has heard. Sincewe do not know what the total input has been
we cannot rule out qhis possibility. It is by reducing the language to a simpler system than it is that the child reveals his tendency to induce rules. In the case of the second language learner it might be supposed that we do have some knowledge of what the input has been, since this is largely within the control of the teacher. Nevertheless it would be wise to introduce a qualification here about the control of input (which is ofcourse what we call the syllabus). The simple fact of presenting a certain linguistic form toa learner in the classroom does not necessarily qualify it for the status of input, for thereason that input is`what goes in' not what is available for going in, andwe may reasonably supposethat it is the learner who controls this input,or more properly his intake. This
may well be determined by the characteristics ofhis language acquisition mechan- ism and not by those, Of the syllabus. After all, in the mother-tongue learning situation the data available as input is relatively vast, but it is the child who selectswhat shall be the input.Ferguson (1966) has recently made the point that
our syllabuses have beenbased at best upon impressionistic judgements and vaguely conceivedtheoreticalprinciples where they have had any considered foundationsat all. The suggestion
that we should take more account of the learner's needsin planning our syllabusesis not new, but has not apparently led toany investigations, perhaps because ofthe methodological difficulties of determining what thelearner's needs mightactually be. Carroll (1955) made sucha proposal when he suggested it might beworth creating a problem-solving situation for the learnerin which he mustfind, by enquiring either of the teacheror a dictionary appropriate verbal re-
166IRAL, VOL. V/4, NOVEMBER 1967
sponses for solving the problem. He pointedout that such a hypothesis containedcertain features of whatwas believed to occur in the process oflanguage acqui-sition by the child.
A similar proposal actuallyleading to an experimentwas made Mager butnot in connection with languageteaching (Mager 1961); it is neverthelessworthquoting his own words:
`Whatever sequencing criterionis used it is one which theuser calls a`logical' sequence. But althoughthere are several schemes bywhich se-quencing can be accomplished and,although it is generally agreedthat aneffective sequence isone which is meaningful to the learner,the informa-tion sequence to be assimilatedby the learner is traditionallydictatedentirely by the instructor.We generally fail to consultthe learner in thematter except to ask him to maximizethe effectiveness of whateversequencewe have already decided upon'.
He points out as the conclusions
he draws from his smallscale experimentthat the next step would beto determine whether the learner-generatedsequence,or, as we might call it, his built-in syllabus,is in some way more efficient thantheinstructor-generatedsequence. It seems entirely plausible thatit would be so.The problem is to determinewhether there exists sucha built-in syllabus and todescribe it. It is in suchan investigation that the study of learner'serrors wouldassume the role it already plays in the study ofchild language acquisition,since,as has been pointed out, the keyconcept in both cases is that the learneris usinga definite system of language atevery point in his development, althoughit is notthe adult system in theone case, nor that of the second languagein the other.The learner'serrors are evidence of this system andare themselves systematic.The use of theterm systematic in this context implies,of course, that theremay be errors which are random,or, more properly, the systematicnature ofwhich cannot be readilydiscerned. The opposition betweensystematic and non-systematic errors is important. Weare all aware that in normal adult speechinour native language we are continuallycommitting errors of one sortor another.These, as we have beenso often reminded recently,are due to memory lapses,physical states, suchas tiredness and psychological conditionssuch as strongemotion. Theseare adventitious artefacts of linguist performanceand do notreflect a defect inour knowledge of our own language. Weare normally immedi-ately aware of them whenthey occur andcan correct them with moreor lesscomplete assurance. It wouldbe quite unreasonableto expect the learner ofasecond language notto exhibit such slips of thetongue (or pen), since he issubject to similar external andinternal conditions whenperforming in his firstor second language. We must therefore makea distinction between thoseerrorswhich are the product of suchchance circumstances and thosewhich reveal hisunderlying knowledge of thelanguage to date,or, as we may call it his transitionalcompetence. The errors of performancewill characteristically beunsystematic andthe errors ofcompetence, systematic. As Miller (1966)puts it, 'it would be
SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER'S
ERRORS 167
meaningless to state rules formaking mistakes'. It willbe useful therefore here-after to refer toerrors of performance as mistakes,reserving the term error to referto the systematic errors of thelearner from whichwe are able to reconstruct hisknowledge of the languageto date, i. e. his transitionalcompetence.Mistakes are of no significanceto the process of language learning.Howeverthe problem of determiningwhat is a learner's mistakeand what a learner'serroris one of some difficulty andinvolves a muchmore sophisticated study andana-lysis of errors than is usuallyaccorded them.A learner'serrors, then, provide evidence ofthe system of the languagethathe is using (i.e. has learned) at a particularpoint in thecourse (and it must berepeated that he isusing some system, althoughit is not yet the right system).They are significantin three differentways. First to the teacher, in that theytellhim, if he undertakesa systematic analysis, how far towardsthe goal the learnerhas progressed and,consequently, what remainsfor him to learn. Second,theyprovide to the researcherevidence of how languageis learned or acquired, whatstrategies or procedures thelearner,is employing in his discoveryof the lan-guage. Thirdly (and in asense this is their most important aspect)they are in-dispensible to the learner himself,because we can regard themaking oferrorsas a device the learner uses in orderto learn. It is a way the learnerhas of testinghis hypotheses about thenature of the language he is learning.The making oferrors then is a strategy employed bothby children acquiring theirmother-tongue and by those learninga second language.Although the following dialoguewas recorded during the study of childlan-guage acquisition (Van Buren 1967)it bears unmistakable similaritiestodialogues whichare a daily experience in the secondlanguage teaching class-room :
Mother : Did Billy have his
egg cut up for him at breakfast ?Child:Yes, I showeds him.Mother : You what ?
Child:
I showed him.
Mother: You showed him
?Child:I seed him.Mother: Ah,
you saw him.Child:Yes I saw him.
Here the child, within
a short exchange appears to have testedthree hypotheses:one relating to the concord of subjectand verb ina past tense, another about themeaning of show andsee and a third about the form of theirregular past tense ofsee.It only remainsto be pointed out that if the childhad answered Isaw himimmediately, we would haveno means of knowing whether he hadmerely re-peated a modelsentence or had already learnedthe three rules justmentioned.Only a longitudinal study ofthe child's developmentcould answer suchaquestion. It is also interestingto observe the techniques used bythe mother to
PreCIA,A.11,Mtrol.45,4.
168IRAL, VOL. V/4, NOVEMBER1967t ert,..-
`correct' the child. Only in thecase of one error did she provide thecorrect formht-rself:You saw him. In both theother cases, it was sufficient forher to querythe child's utterance in sucha form as : you what? or You showed him? Simpleprovision of the correct formmay not always be the only,or indeed the mosteffective, form of correctionsince it bars theway to the learner testing alternativehypotheses. Makinga learner try to discover the right formcould often bemoreinstructive to both learner and teacher.This is the import of Carroll'sproposalalready referred to.
We may note here that the
utterance ofa correct formcannot be taken as proofthat the learner has learnedthe systems which wouldgenerate that form in anative speaker, since hemay be merely repeating a heardutterance, in which casewe should class such behaviour,not as language, but in Spolsky'sterm (Spolsky1966) language-like behaviour'.Nor must we overlook the factthat an utterancewhich is superficiallynon-deviant is not evidence ofa mastery of the languagesystems which would generate it ina native speaker since suchan utterance mustbe semantically relatedto the situational context. Thelearner who produced 'Iwant to know the English' mighthave been utteringan unexceptionable senti-ment, but it is more likely that hewas expressing the wish to know the Englishlanguage. Only the situationalcontext could show whether hisutterance was anerror or not.
Although it has been suggested
that the strategies of learninga first andsecond languagemay be the same, it is neverthelessnecessary at this point toposit a distinction between thetwo. Whilst one maysuppose that the first lan-guage learner has an unlimited numberof hypotheses about thenature of thelanguage he is learning whichmust be tested (althoughstrong reasons have beenput forward for doubting this)we may certainly take it that the task of thesecondlanguage learner isa simpler one: that the only hypotheseshe needs to testare:`Are the systems of thenew language the sameor different from those of thelanguage I know ? "And ifdifferent, what is theirnature ?' Evidence for this isthat a large number, but byno means all, of his errors,are related to the systemsof his mother-tongue. Theseare ascribed to interference from the habitsof themother-tongue, as it issometimes expressed. In the lightof the new hypothesesthey are best not regardedas the persistence of old habits, but ratheras signsthat the learner isinvestigating the systems of thenew language. Saporta (1966)makes this point clear, 'Theinternal structure of the(language acquisition)device, i. e. the learner, hasgone relatively unexplored exceptto point out thatone of its components is thegrammar of the learners native language.It hasgenerally been assumed thatthe effect of thiscomponent has been inhibitoryrather than facilitative'. Itwill be evident that theposition taken here is that thelearner's possession of hisnative language is facilitative andthat errorsare notto be regarded as signs of inhibition,but simplyas evidence of his strategies oflearning.
...a.*.,lecrxt 4SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER'S ERRORS
169We have been reminded recently of Von
Humboldt's statement thatwe cannotreally teach language,we can only create conditions in which it will developspon-taneously in the mind in itsown way. We shall never improve our ability to createsuch favourable conditions untilwe learn more about the way a learner learnsand what his built-in syllabus is. Whenwe do know this (and the learner's errorswill, if systematically studied, tellus something about this) we may begin to bemore critical of our cherished notions. Wemay be able to allow the learner'sinnate strategies to dictateour practice and 'determine our syllabus ;we maylearn to adapt ourselves to his needs ratherthan impose upon himour preconcep-tions of how he ought to learn, what he oughtto learn and when he ought tolearn it.
S. P. Corder
Department of Applied Linguistics
University of Edinburgh
14, Buccleuch Place
Edinburgh 8
REFERENCES
Brown, R. W. and Fraser, C. The Acquisition of
Syntax. In Ursula Bellugi andRoger Brown (Eds) The Acquisition of LanguageMonograph of the Societyfor Research in Child Development, Vol.29 No. 1. 1964.Carroll, J. B. The study of Language. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge 1955.Carroll, J. B.Research in Foreign Language Teaching:The Last Five Years.Report of the Northeast Conference 1966.
Chomsky, N. Research on Language Learningand Linguistics. Report of theNortheast Conference 1966.Ferguson, C. A. Research on Language Learning.Applied Linguistics. Report ofthe Northeast Conference 1966.
Lambert, W. A.Some observations on First LanguageAcquisition and SecondLanguage Learning. (Mimeograph) 1966.
McNeill, D. Developmental Psycholinguistics.In F. Smith and G. A. Miller (Eds).The Genesis of Language. The M. I. T.Press. 1966.Miller, G. A. The Psycholinguists.Encounter 23.1. 1964.Miller, G. A. Language and Psychology.In E. H. Lenneberg (Ed). New Directionsin the Study of Language. M. I. T. Press. 1966.Lenneberg, E. H. The Natural History ofLanguage. In Smith and Miller (Eds).The Genesis of Language. M. I. T.Press. 1966.Mager, R. F. On the Sequencing of InstructionalContent. Psychological Reports1961 (405-412).
Palmer, H. E.The Principles of Language Study.1917. Reprinted in Languageand Language Learning, 0. U. P. London1964.
we.Alli%O.ViCiMPON4ii44,01
.o 170IRAL, VOL. V/4, NOVEMBER1967'Jo
Spolsky, B. A
Psycholinguistic Critiqueof ProgrammedForeign Language In-struction. IRAL 4.2(119-129).Saporta, S. AppliedLinguistics andGenerative Grammar.In Valdman, A. (Ed).Trends in ModerpLanguage Teaching.McGraw-Hill. 1966.Van Buren, P. PersonaeCommunication.
*11.1.0111,..quotesdbs_dbs5.pdfusesText_10