Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:18:56.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Corrective Feedback from Behaviorist and Innatist Perspectives

from Part I - Theoretical Perspectives on Corrective Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
ZhaoHong Han
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

The nature of the linguistic knowledge that ensues is the sine qua non of theoretical controversies surrounding corrective feedback. This chapter effectively brings that to light through an in-depth discussion of two polarized theoretical perspectives: the behaviorist and the innatist. The chapter provides a pathway to understanding the epistemological differences underlying the ebbs and flows of interest in corrective feedback that the field of applied linguistics has witnessed over the past five decades, arguing that heeding the eclectic insights from both perspectives would greatly benefit future research and practice.

Keywords

BehaviorismInnatismHabit formationEnvironmental stimulationCompetencePerformancePrimary linguistic dataNegative dataLearned linguistic knowledgeLearned linguistic behavior
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 23 - 43
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Allwright, R. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In Burt, M. & Dulay, H. (eds.), On TESOL’ 75: New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4), 533–581.Google Scholar
Birckbichler, D. (1977). Communication and beyond. In Phillips, J. (ed.), The language connection: From the classroom to the world. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of foreign language learning. In Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S. & Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult learning. Second Language Research, 4(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar (pp. 153–186). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language learning. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Burt, M. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53–63.Google Scholar
Burt, M. & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The gooficon: A repair manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner (1957). Language, 35(1), 26–58.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ explanations. Language Learning, 26, 45–66.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1975). The language of second-language learners: The broader issues. Modern Language Journal, 59(8), 409–413.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effects of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1975). Creative construction in second language learning. In Burt, M. & Dulay, H. (eds.), On TESOL ’75: New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 21–32). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 95–126). New York Regents Publishing Company.Google Scholar
DuPlessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L. & White, L. (1987). UG or not UG, that is the question: A reply to Chlahsen & Muysken. Second Language Research, 56(3), 56–75.Google Scholar
Duskova, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 11–36.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1984). Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of WH questions by children. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 138–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. (1991). Point counterpoint: Universal grammar in the second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10(4), 583–593.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender. Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fries, C. (1952). The structure of English: An introduction to the construction of English sentences. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.Google Scholar
George, H. V. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 582–599.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2008). On the role of meaning in focus on form. In Han, Z.-H. (ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 45–79). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2011). Fossilization – A classic concern of SLA research. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 476–490). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2013). [State-of-the-art article] Forty years later: Updating the Fossilization Hypothesis. Language Teaching, 46(2), 133–171.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. (2014). From Julie to Wes to Alberto: Revisiting the construct of fossilization. In Han, Z.-H. & Tarone, E. (eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 47–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z.-H. & Ekiert, M. (2017). Beyond focus on form: Giving learner meaning its proper place. Second Language Learning Research, 3(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H. & Finneran, R. (2014). Re-engaging the interface debate: Strong, weak, none, or all? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 370–389.Google Scholar
Hanzeli, V. (1975). Learner’s language: Implications of recent research for foreign language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 59(8), 426–432.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 331–360.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387–398.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. (1981). Error analysis and error correction in language teaching. Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Center.Google Scholar
Hernstein, R. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13(2), 243–266.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981). Introduction. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds.), Explanation in linguistics (pp. 9–31). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. (1973). The identification and evaluation of errors in foreign languages: A functional approach. In Svartvik, J. (ed.), Errata: Papers in error analysis (pp. 102–114). Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Kadia, K. (1988). The effect of formal instruction on monitored and spontaneous naturalistic interlanguage performance. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 509–515.Google Scholar
Kang, E. Y. & Han, Z.-H. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Kang, E.Y., Sok, S., & Han, Z-H. (2019). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 403–427.Google Scholar
Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Pon, P. (1975). An error analysis of an advanced learner of ESL: The importance of the monitor. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 7, 125–129.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lee, W. (1957). The linguistic context of language teaching. English Language Teaching Journal, 11, 77–85.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 217–243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., Spada, N. & Wallace, R. (1980). Some effects of instruction on child and adolescent ESL learners. In Krashen, S. D. & Scarcella, R. (eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum (pp. 162–172). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Loiou, H.-C. (1989). The impact of formal instruction on second language grammatical accuracy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(special issue 2), 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plann, S. (1977). Acquiring a second language in an immersion classroom. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL’ 77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 213–225). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Richards, J. (1973). Error analysis and second language strategies. In Oller, J. & Richards, J. (eds.), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher (pp. 114–135). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.Google Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7(2), 89–102.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning. In Schmidt, R. (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–64). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1986). The modular basis of second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 147–163.Google Scholar
Sciarone, A. & Meijer, P. (1995). Does practice make perfect? On the effect of exercises on second/foreign language acquisition. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 107 –108, 35–57.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67–92.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(2), 209–231.Google Scholar
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202.Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R. & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1986). The interaction between types of content and type of instruction: Some effects on the L2 proficiency of adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(2), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternglass, M. (1974). Close similarities in dialect features of black and white college students in remedial composition classes. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 271–283.Google Scholar
Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 52–63.Google Scholar
Terrell, T., Baycroft, B. & Perrone, C. (1987). The subjunctive in Spanish interlanguage: accuracy and comprehensibility. In VanPatten, B., Dvorak, T. & Lee, J. (eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 23–48). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2003). Two textbook representations of second language acquisition and Universal Grammar: “access” and “constraint.” Second Language Research, 19(4), 359–376.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103–135.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). Unconscious second language acquisition: Alive and well. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 25(1), 114–131.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 93–108.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2005). The continuing problems of oral grammar correction. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(2), 17–22.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2014). Consciousness and second language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. (1975). Learner systems and error analysis. In Jarvis, G. (ed.), Perspective: A new freedom (pp. 219–258). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form. Language Learning, 38(2), 243–260.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2014). The limits of instruction: 40 years after “Interlanguage”. In Han, Z.-H. & Tarone, E. (eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2017). Situating instructed language acquisition: Facts about second language acquisition. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 45–60.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.). (2015). Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (1973). Opinions of university students about language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 7(1), 102–105.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133–161.Google Scholar
White, L. (2015). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 34–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wingfield, R. (1975). Five ways of dealing with errors in written compositions. English Language Teaching Journals, 29(4), 311–313.Google Scholar
Witbeck, M. (1976). Peer correction procedures for intermediate and advanced ESL composition lessons. TESOL Quarterly, 10(3), 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×