Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 7:1 (2024) ► pp.129–156

The detriment that error production creates is affected by non-L1 speakers’ linguistic group membership

 | University of the West of England, UK
 | University of the West of England, UK
 | University of the West of England, UK
 | University of the West of England, UK
We present three studies that investigate the effect of group-level language ability expectations on language ability judgements. Study 1 identifies expected English-language ability levels that native English speakers’ have for a number of non-native English-speaker groups. Based on the results, two text-based written-guise studies were conducted investigating the level of detriment that grammatical and lexical/typographical errors created on English-language ability ratings for different author guises (Swedish, Chinese, English) in formal (Study 2) and informal contexts (Study 3). In both contexts, grammatical errors produced by the guise representing the lower-ability non-L1 group were overlooked, while the same errors produced by the other guises significantly lowered the ability ratings. Our results coincide with the idea of the ‘sympathetic native speaker’ and expand it, suggesting that expected language level based on linguistic group membership inversely affects the level of sympathy/tolerance demonstrated. We link this to possible pedagogical implications.
Keywords: language ability judgements, interlanguage writing, linguistic bias, sympathetic native speaker, effect of errors
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Errors
      • 1.1.1Native speakers
      • 1.1.2Non-L1 speakers
      • 1.1.3Errors in written texts
    • 1.2Personal names and group membership
    • 1.3Sympathetic Native Speaker
  • 2.The present study
    • 2.1On the selection of judges
  • 3.Study 1 – native speaker’s expectation of non-L1 speaker’s English language ability
    • 3.1Method
    • 3.2Results and discussion
  • 4.Study 2 – judgements of errors in a formal text
    • 4.1Method
      • 4.1.1Respondents (Judges)
      • 4.1.2Texts used
      • 4.1.3The Guises, i.e., the linguistic background of the writer of the text
      • 4.1.4Questionnaire
      • 4.1.5Procedure
      • 4.1.6Coding
    • 4.2Results
    • 4.3Discussion
  • 5.Study 3 – judgement of errors in an informal text
    • 5.1Method
      • 5.1.1Respondents (judges)
      • 5.1.2Materials
      • 5.1.3Coding
    • 5.2Results
  • 6.General discussion
    • 6.1Why the different error judgements for Swedish/English and Chinese speakers?
    • 6.2The effect of different error types
    • 6.3Detriment of errors in formal and informal texts
    • 6.4Implications of the current study in L2 pedagogical settings
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00020.kir
References (55)
References
Ambridge, B., et al. (2020). The crosslinguistic acquisition of sentence structure: Computational modeling and grammaticality judgements from adult and child speakers of English, Japanese, Hindi, Hebrew, and K’iche’. Cognition, 202 1, 104310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Appelman, A., & Schmierbach, M. (2018). Make no mistake? Exploring cognitive and perceptual effects of grammatical errors in news articles. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95 1, 930–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ayhan, Ü. & Uğur Türkyılmaz, M. (2015). Key of language assessment: Rubrics and rubric design. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 21, 82–92.Google Scholar
Beason, L. (2001). Ethos and error: How business people react to errors. College Composition and Communication, 53 1, 33–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bender, E. M. (2005). On the boundaries of linguistic competence: Matched-guise experiments as evidence of knowledge of grammar. Lingua, 115 1, 1579–1598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1986). Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child development, 57 1, 498–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birkelund, G. E., Rogstad, J., Heggebø, K., Aspøy, T. M. and Bjelland, H. F. (2014). ‘Diskriminering i arbeidslivet – Resultater fra randomiserte felteksperiment i Oslo, Stavanger, Bergen og Trondheim’, Sosiologisk tidsskrift, 22 1, 352–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandenburg, L. C. (2015). Testing the recognition and perception of errors in context. Business and Professional Communication, 78 1, 74–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cargile, A. C. (1997). Attitudes towards Chinese-accented speech: An investigation in two contexts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16 1, 434–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carpusor, A. G. & Loges, W. E. (2006). Rental discrimination and ethinicity in names. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 361, 934–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cotton, J., O’Neill, B. S., & Griffin, A. (2008). The “Name Game”: Affective and hiring reactions to first names. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 231, 18–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework for Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. & Street, J. (2006). Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, 28 1, 604–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, E. E. (1983). Error evaluation: The importance of viewpoint. ELT Journal, 37 1, 304–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delamere, T. (1996). The importance of interlanguage errors with respect to stereotyping by native speakers in their judgements of second language learners’ performance. System, 24 1, 279–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., & Ehrensberger-Dow, M. (2002). “They speaked and wrote real good”: Judgements on non-native and native grammar. Language Awareness, 11 1, 84–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Fasoli, F., Cramer, J., & Rakić, T. (2021). Toward a Century of Language Attitudes Research: Looking Back and Moving Forward. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40 1, 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Giles, H., Beck, A. C., & Tatum, N. T. (2017). The fluency principle: Why foreign accent strength negatively biases language attitudes. Communication monographs, 84(3), 385–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2020). English Language. Ethnologue: Languages of the World.Google Scholar
Fayer, J. M. & Krasinski, E. (1987). Native and nonnative judgments of intelligibility and irritation. Language Learning, 37 1, 313–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figueredo, L. & Varnhagen, C. K. (2005). Didn’t you run the spell checker? Effects of type of spelling errors and use of a spell checker on perceptions of the author. Reading Psychology, 26 1, 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, J. (2007). Treebanks gone bad: Parser eveluation and retraining using a treebank of ungrammatical sentences. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 10 1, 129–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, V. (2010). Adult learners’ perspectives on the acquisition of L2 Russian pragmatic competence. Russian Language Journal/Русский язык, 601, 77-94.Google Scholar
Galloway, V. B. (1980). Perceptions of the Communicative Efforts of American Students of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 64 1, 428–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, S., Song, H. & Tesser, A. (2010). Tained recommendations: The social comparison bias. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 113 1, 97–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational Review, 22 1, 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual defferences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 1, 1464–1480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hairston, M. (1984). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions repond to lapses in usage. College English, 43 1, 794–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21 1, 60–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kantz, M. & Yates, R. (1994). Whose judgments? A survey of faculty responses to common and highly irritating writing errors. In Partial Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar, 38–54.Google Scholar
Klimanova, L. & Dembrovskaya, S. (2013). L2 identity, discourse and social networking in Russian. Language Learning and Technology, 17 1, 69–88.Google Scholar
Kreiner, D. S., Schnakenberg, S. D., Green, A. G., Costello, M. J. & and McClin, A. F. (2002). Effects of spelling errors on the perception of writers. Journal of General Psychology, 129 1, 5–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C. & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60 1, 44–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, D. J. & Gilsdorf, J. W. (1991). Language in change: Academics’ and executives’ perceptions of usage errors. The Journal of Business Communication, 27 1, 137–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levon, E., Sharma, D., Watt, D. J. L., Cardoso, A., & Ye, Y. (2021). Accent bias and perceptions of professional competence in England. Journal of English Linguistics, 491, 355–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mirshahidi, S. (2016). I find you attractice but I don’t trust you: the case of language attitudes in Iran. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38 1, 146–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mozafari, A., El-Alayli, A., Kunemund, A. & Fry, T. (2019). Impressions of businesses with language errors in print advertising: Do spelling and grammar influence the inclination to use a business? Current Psychology, 38 1, 1721–1727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mumford, S. (2009). An analysis of spoken grammar: The case for production. ELT Journal, 63 1, 137–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 63 1, 59–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Office for National Statistics ; National Records of Scotland ; Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (2016). 2011 Census aggregate data. UK Data Service (Edition: June 2016). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Planken, B., van Meurs, F. & Maria, K. (2019). Do errors matter? The effects of actual and perceived L2 English errors in writing on native and non-native English speakers’ evaluations of the text, the writer and the persuasiveness of the text. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 6 1, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preston, D. R. (1981). The Ethnography of TESOL. TESOL Quarterly. 15 1, 105–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Queen, R. & Boland, J. E. (2015). I think your going to like me: Exploring the role of errors in email messages on assessments of potential housemates. Linguistics Vanguard, 1 1, 283–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, F. & Cimasko, T. (2008). Evaluating ESL: Making sense of university professors’ responses to second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 1, 125–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. L., & Williams-James, M. (1997). The impact of writer nationality on mainstream teacher’s judgments of composition quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 1, 139–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santos, T. (1988). Professors’ reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22 1, 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. S., Gilbers, S. & Nota, A. (2014). Ultimate attainment in late second language acquisition: Phonetic and grammatical challenges in advanced Dutch-English bilingualism. Second Language Research, 30 1, 129–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (1993). Comparing native and nonnative teachers’ evaluations of error seriousness. Japanese Association of Language Teaching Journal, 15 1, 181–191.Google Scholar
Spillner, B. (2017). Error analysis in the world. Frank and Timme GmbH.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. Key readings in social psychology. In John T. Jost & Jim Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings, Key readings in social psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2015). Performance descriptors for language learners. ACTFL Publishing, Alexandria.Google Scholar
Wheeler, R., Cartwright, K. B., Swords, R. (2012). Factoring AAVE into reading assessment and instruction. The Reading Teacher, 65 1, 416–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, K. C., Yagelski, R., & Yu, F. (2014). The nature of error in adolescent student writing. Reading and Writing, 27 1, 1073–1094. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, S., Liu, D., & Li, Z. (2022). Testing the Bottleneck Hypothesis: Chinese EFL learners’ knowledge of morphology and syntax across proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 026765832211285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sun, Hui, Petar Čolović, Petar Milin & Dagmar Divjak
2024. L1 listeners’ evaluations of LX speech: the role of listener expectations and personality traits. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 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.