Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:10:27.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feedback for Language Transfer Errors

The Garden Path Technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Michael Tomasello  and
Carol Herron
Michael Tomasello
Affiliation:
Emory University
Carol Herron
Affiliation:
Emory University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study we compared two methods for correcting language transfer errors in the foreign language classroom. Thirty-two English-speaking college students enrolled in two sections of an introductory French course served as subjects. Eight commonly encountered English-to-French transfer errors were identified and randomly assigned to one of two teaching conditions for one class section; each error was assigned to the opposite condition for the other section. In both teaching conditions students began by translating English sentences into French. The sentences were such that an L1 (first language) transfer strategy produced correct translations (e.g., using savoir for some uses of “to know”). A sentence for which the transfer would not produce an adequate translation (e.g., a sentence requiring connaître) was then introduced in one of two ways. In one condition—what we have termed the Garden Path condition—students were given the new sentence and asked to translate as before. Their inevitable transfer error was then immediately corrected by the teacher. In the control condition students were simply given the correct French form and told that it differed from the English pattern (they were not given the opportunity to commit a transfer error). Student learning of the non-transferable form was assessed three times throughout the course of the semester, and at all time points performance was better in the Garden Path condition. We interpreted this finding as support for a cognitive comparison model of second language acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 385 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bley-Vroman, R. (1986). Hypothesis testing in second language acquisition theory. Language Learning, 36, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, N., & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corder, P. (1983). A role for the mother tongue. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 85–97). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Demetras, M., Post, K., & Snow, C. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language, 13, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herron, C. (1981). The treatment of errors in oral activities: Developing instructional strategies. French Review, 55, 6–16.Google Scholar
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1988). Learning grammatical structures in a foreign language: Modelling versus feedback. French Review, 61, 910–923.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Trieman, R., & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon revisited: Mothers' sensitivity to grammatical forms. Journal of Child Language, 11, 81–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58–145.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark's “ignorance hypothesis” and current second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135–153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lenard, Y. (1987). Parole el pensee. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Mannle, S., & Tomasello, M. (1987). Fathers, siblings, and the Bridge Hypothesis. In Nelson, K. E. & van Kleeck, A. (Eds.), Children's language (Vol. 6, pp. 61–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. E. (1981). Toward a rare event cognitive comparison theory of syntax acquisition. In Dale, P. & Ingram, D. (Eds.), Child language: An international perspective (pp. 375–402). Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. E. (1987). Some observations from the perspective of the rare event cognitive comparison theory of language acquisition. In Nelson, K. E. & van Kleeck, A. (Eds.), Children's language (Vol. 6, pp. 411–445). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Newmark, L. (1966). How not to interfere with language learning. International Journal of American Linguistics, 40, 77–83.Google Scholar
Penner, S. (1986). Parental responses to grammatical and ungrammatical child utterances. Child Development, 58, 376–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, A., & Stromquist, N. (1979). ESL methodology and student language learning in bilingual elementary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, W. M. (1986). Comprehension and production in interactive language teaching. Modern Language Journal, 70, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1983). A new account of language transfer. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 98–111). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. (1975). The use of overgeneralization and transfer strategies by elementary and intermediate students in ESL. Language Learning, 25, 73–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1988). Down the Garden Path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Mannle, S., & Werdenschlag, L. (1989). The effect of previously learned words on the child's acquisition of words for similar referents. Journal of Child Language, 15, 505–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar