Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (1999) ► pp.61–80

Morphosyntactic accuracy in the written compositions of advanced university level students of French

| Monash University
| Monash University
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 Le Correcteur 101.
Published online: 1 January 1999
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.22.1.03mog
References (22)
Besnard, Ch. (1995) Synthèse des 50 erreurs les plus courantes à 1’écrit: Pour une approche fonctionnelle de la langue. Canadian Modern Language Review 51, 2: 348–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burston J.L. (1996) A comparative evaluation of French grammar checkers. CALICO Journal 13, 3: 104–111.Google Scholar
Corder, S.P. (1981) Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dulay, B. and S. Krashen (1982) Language two. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of second language acquisition. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (1995) Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal 79, 4: 457–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Pergamon.Google Scholar
(1984) Writing: research, theory and applications. Oxford, Pergamon.Google Scholar
(1985) The Input hypothesis: issues and applications. London, Longman.Google Scholar
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
(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
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 Acquisition 121, 41: 429–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983) Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly 17: 3 359–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, Ch.G. (1997) Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language written research. Language Learning 47, 1: 101–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993) Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 2: 165–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. and C. Herron (1988) Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics 9, 3: 237–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 4: 513–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990) Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 3: 287–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. Norwood, N. J., Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Durel, Patrick
2006. Utilisation de l'assistant grammatical Antidote dans le cadre d'activités de révision - Analyse exploratoire de protocoles d'observation. Alsic :Vol. 9 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.