Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 141/142 (2003) ► pp.301–344

Negative Evidence in Language Classroom Activities

A Study of its Availability and Accessibility to Language Learners

This study sought to identify and describe how negative evidence was made available and accessible in responses to learners during two classroom activities: a teacher-led discussion, which emphasized communication of subject matter content, and a teacher-led sentence construction exercise, which focused on application of grammatical rules.
Data came from adult, pre-academic English language learners during six discussions of American film and literature, and six sets of sentence construction exercises. Findings revealed little availability of negative evidence in the discussions, as students' fluent, multi-error contributions drew responses that were primarily back-channels and continuation moves. Greater availability and accessibility of negative evidence were found in the sentence construction exercises, as students were given feedback following their completion of individual sentences.
Results from the study suggested several pedagogical implications and applications.
Keywords: Second Language Learning, English as a Second Language Learning, Second Language Instruction, Feedback, Classroom Communication, Feedback
Published online: 1 January 2003
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.141.0.2003192
References (57)
ALLWRIGHT, R., 1975. Problems in the study of the language teacher's treatment of learner error. In: M. K. Burt and H. C. Dulay (Eds.) On TESOL'75: New Direction in Second Language Learning, Teaching and Bilingual Education. TESOL, Washington, D.C., pp. 96–101.Google Scholar
BOHANNON, J, AND STANOWICZ, L., 1988. The issue of negative evidence: adult responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology 24 (5), 684–689.Google Scholar
BROWN, R. AND HANLON, C, 1970. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In: J. Hayes (Ed.). Cognition and the Development of Language. Wiley, New York pp. 11–53.Google Scholar
CARROLL, S. AND SWAIN, M.., 1993. explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 151, 357–386.Google Scholar
CHAUDRON, C., 1977. A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning 271, 29–46.Google Scholar
, 1988. Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge University Press ,New YorkGoogle Scholar
CHUN, A. DAY, R., CHENOWETH, A. AND LUPPESCU, S., 1982. Errors, interaction, and correction: a study of native-normative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 161, 537–547.Google Scholar
DAY, R., CHENOWETH, A. CHUN, A. AND LUPPESCU, S., 1984.Corrective feedback in native-normative discourse. Language Learning, 34 (1), 19–46.Google Scholar
DEKEYSER, R., 1993. The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 771, 501–514.Google Scholar
DOUGHTY, C. AND VARELA, E., 1998 Communicative focus on form. In: C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 114–138.Google Scholar
DOUGHTY, C. AND WILLIAMS, J. (Eds.), 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
ELLIS, R., 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
FANSELOW, J., 1977. The treatment of error in oral work.. Foreign Language Annals 101,. 583–593.Google Scholar
FARRAR, M.,. 1990. Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language 17 (3), 607–624.Google Scholar
,. 1992. Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology 28 (1), 90–98Google Scholar
GASS, S. AND SELINKER, L., 1994. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
GASS, S. AND VARONIS, E., 1989. Incorporated repairs in non-native discourse. In: M. Eisenstein (Ed.). The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 71–86.Google Scholar
, 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 161, 283–302.Google Scholar
HIRSCH-PASEK, K., TREIMAN, R., AND SCHNEIDERMAN, E., 1984. Brown and Hanlon revisited: mother's sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language 111, 81–88.Google Scholar
KUMARAVADIVELU, B. 1994. The postmethod condition: emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching TESOL Quarterly 281, 27–48.Google Scholar
LAPKIN, S. AND SWAIN, M.a, 1996. Vocabulary teaching in a grade 8 French immersion classroom: a descriptive case study. Canadian Modern Language Review 53 (1), 242–256.Google Scholar
LEVINSON, S., 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
LIGHTBOWN, P., 1993. Input, interaction, and feedback in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 71, ii–iv.Google Scholar
LIGHTBOWN, P. AND SPADA, N., 1990. Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 121, 429–448.Google Scholar
, 1997. Learning English as a second language in a special school in Quebec. Canadian Modern Language Review 53 (2), 215–355.Google Scholar
LONG, M., 1985. Input and second language acquisition theory. In: S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, MA., pp. 377–393.Google Scholar
, 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition (Vol. 21) Second Language Acquisition Academic Press, New York, pp. 413–468.Google Scholar
LONG, M., INAGAKI, S. AND ORTEGA, L, 1998. The role of implicit negative evidence in SLA: models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 821, 357–371.Google Scholar
LOSCHKY, L. AND BLEY-VROMAN, R., 1990. Creating structure-based communication tasks for second language development. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 91, 161–212. Reprinted in: G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds). 1993 Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Multilingual Matters LTD, Clevedon, England, pp. 123–167..Google Scholar
LYSTER, R., 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 201,51–81.Google Scholar
LYSTER, R. AND RANTA, L., 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 191, 137–66.Google Scholar
MACKEY, A. AND PHILP, J., 1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal 821, 338–356.Google Scholar
NELSON, K.E., 1977. Facilitating children's syntax acquisition. Developmental Psychology 131, 101–107.Google Scholar
NOBUYOSHI, J. AND ELLIS, R., 1993. Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. English Language Teaching Journal 471, 203–210.Google Scholar
OLIVER, R. 1995., Negative feedback in child NS/NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 171, 559–482.Google Scholar
, 2000. Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork.. Language Learning 501,119–151.Google Scholar
PICA, T., 1985. The selective impact of classroom instruction on second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 6 (3), 214–222..Google Scholar
, 1988. Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction. Language Learning 381, 45–73.Google Scholar
, 1994. Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning 441, 493–527.Google Scholar
, 2000. Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology. System 28 (1), 1–18.Google Scholar
PICA, T., BILLMYER, K., JULIAN, M. A. BLAKE-WARD, M., BUCHHEIT, L., NICOLARY, S. AND SULLIVAN, J., 2001. From Content-Based Texts to Form Focused Tasks: An Integration of Second Language Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. Presentation to annual AAAL Conference, February 2001, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
PICA, T. HOLLIDAY, L. LEWIS, N. AND MORGENTHALER, L., 1989. Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 111, 63–90.Google Scholar
PICA, T., KANAGY, R. AND FALODUN, J., 1993. Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In: G. Crookes & S.M. Gass (eds.) Tasks and Language Learning. Multilingual Matters LTD, Clevedon, England, pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
RICHARDS, J. R., PLATT, J. & PLATT, H. 1992 .Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, London: Longman.Google Scholar
RICHARDSON, M.A., 1995. The use of negative evidence in second language acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Western Australia at Perth.Google Scholar
SCHMIDT, R., 1990. The role of consciousness in language learning. Applied Linguistics 111, 17–46.Google Scholar
SCHWARTZ, B., 1993. On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and Linguistics behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, (2), 147–163.Google Scholar
SCHWARTZ, B. AND GUBALA-RYZAK, M., 1992. Learnability and grammar reorganization in L2: against negative evidence causing the unlearning of verb movement. Second Language Research 8 (1), 1–38.Google Scholar
SPADA, N., 1997. Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: a review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching 29 (1), 1–15.Google Scholar
SPADA, N. AND LIGHTBOWN, P,. 1993. Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15 (2), 205–224.Google Scholar
SWAIN, M., 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In: G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), For H. G. Widdowson; Principles and Practice in the Study of Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 125–144.Google Scholar
TOMASELLO, M. AND HERRON, C,. 1988. Down the garden path: inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied PsychoLinguistics 91, 237–246.Google Scholar
,. 1989. Feedback for language transfer errors: the garden path technique Studies in Second Language Acquisition 111, 385–395.Google Scholar
TRUSCOTT, R., 1996. Review article: the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 461, 327–369.Google Scholar
WHITE, L., 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 71, 122–161.Google Scholar
WHITE, L., SPADA, N., LIGHTBOWN, P., RANTA, L., 1991. Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 121, 416–432.Google Scholar
WILLIAMS, J. AND EVANS, J., 1998. Which kind of focus n which kind of forms? In: C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, NewGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Pica, Teresa, Hyun-Sook Kang & Shannon Sauro
2006. INFORMATION GAP TASKS: Their Multiple Roles and Contributions to Interaction Research Methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28:02 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 august 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.