1. Cognitive and Linguistic Constraints on Phoneme

Isolation in Dutch Kindergartners (EJ796049)

  

Author(s): de Graaff, Saskia; Hasselman, Fred; Bosman, Anna M. T.; Verhoeven, Ludo

Source: Learning and Instruction, v18 n4 p391-403 Aug 2008

Pub Date: 2008-08-00

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative

Peer-Reviewed: Yes

Abstract:This study investigated whether task instructions affect sound-isolation performance. The effects of phoneme class and phoneme position were also assessed. Two hundred Dutch kindergartners were presented with a free-sound-isolation task and its constrained counterparts: an initial-, a middle-, and a final-sound-isolation task. All tasks contained 17 CVC words. Children's performance on the free-sound-isolation task was better than on the constrained tasks. On all four tasks, children made fewer errors in isolating the initial phoneme than the final phoneme. Isolating the middle phoneme proved to be the most demanding. The effect of phoneme class depended on the type of task and on phoneme position. Findings were placed against the background of sonority and word-final phoneme vocalization in Dutch. (Contains 1 table and 2 figures.)

2. Limits on Learning Phonotactic Constraints from

Recent Production Experience (EJ809720)

  

Author(s): Warker, Jill A.; Dell, Gary S.; Whalen, Christine A.; Gereg, Samantha

Source: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,

Pub Date: 2008-09-00

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Research

Peer-Reviewed: Yes

and Cognition, v34 n5 p1289-1295 Sep 2008

Abstract:Adults can learn new artificial phonotactic constraints by producing syllables that exhibit the constraints. The experiments presented here tested the limits of phonotactic learning in production using speech errors as an implicit measure of learning. Experiment 1 tested a constraint in which the placement of a consonant as an onset or coda depended on the identity of a nonadjacent consonant. Par

3. Effects of Onset- and Rhyme-Related Distractors on

Phonological Processing in Children with Specific

Language Impairment (EJ811643)

  

Author(s): Seiger-Gardner, Liat; Brooks, Patricia J.

Source: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, v51 n5 p1263-1281 Oct 2008

Pub Date: 2008-10-00

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Research

Peer-Reviewed: Yes

Abstract:Purpose: This study used the cross-modal picture-word interference task of P. J. Brooks and B. MacWhinney (2000) to compare effects of phonologically related words on lexical access in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Method: Children (7;1 [years;months]-11;2) named pictures while ignoring auditory distractors. Three stimulus asynchrony conditions varied the timing of distractors

4. Spanish-Speaking Children's Spelling Errors with

English Vowel Sounds that Are Represented by Different

Graphemes in English and Spanish Words (EJ813150)

  

Author(s): Sun-Alperin, M. Pub Date: 2008-10-00

Kendra; Wang, Min

Source: Contemporary Educational Psychology, v33 n4 p932-948 Oct 2008

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Research

Peer-Reviewed: Yes

Abstract:Vowels in Spanish have direct one-to-one letter-sound correspondences, whereas vowels in English usually have multiple spellings. For native Spanish-speaking children learning to spell in English, this transition from a shallow to a deep orthography could potentially cause difficulties. We examined whether the spelling of English vowel sounds was particularly difficult for native Spanish-speaking

5. Canonical and Epenthetic Plural Marking in Spanish-

Speaking Children with Specific Language Impairment

(EJ813842)

  

Author(s): Grinstead, John; Cantu-Sanchez, Myriam; Flores-Avalos, Blanca

Source: Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics, v15 n4 p329-349 Oct 2008

Pub Date: 2008-10-00

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Research

Peer-Reviewed: Yes

Abstract:In this study, we investigate whether specific language impairment (SLI) manifests itself grammatically in the same way in Spanish and English with respect to nominal plural marking. English-speaking children with SLI are very proficient at marking plural on nouns. Spanish has two main nominal plural allomorphs: /s/ and /es/. The /es/ allomorph has received multiple theoretical treatments,

6. Learning Correct Responses and Errors in the Hebb   

Repetition Effect: Two Faces of the Same Coin (EJ793380)

Author(s): Couture, Mathieu; Lafond, Daniel; Tremblay, Sebastien

Source: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, v34 n3 p524-532 May 2008

Pub Date: 2008-05-00

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative

Peer-Reviewed: Yes

Abstract:In a serial recall task, the "Hebb repetition effect" occurs when recall performance improves for a sequence repeated throughout the experimental session. This phenomenon has been replicated many times. Nevertheless, such cumulative learning seldom leads to perfect recall of the whole sequence, and errors persist. Here the authors report evidence that there is another side to the Hebb

7. Past Tense Morphology in Cri Du Chat Syndrome:

Experimental Evidence (EJ791086)

  

Author(s): Wium, Kristin; Kristoffersen, Kristian Emil

Source: Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, v22 n4-5 p401-406 Apr 2008

Pub Date: 2008-04-00

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Research

Peer-Reviewed: Yes

Abstract:It has been observed that persons with Cri du chat syndrome (CDCS) have poor language production. However, very few studies have addressed the question whether all aspects of language production are equally afflicted, or whether there are differences between for instance phonological and morphological abilities. The present study was aimed at investigating to what extent persons with CDCS inflect

8. Perception and Confusion of Speech Sounds by Adults

with a Cochlear Implant (EJ791070)

  

Author(s): Rodvik, Arne K.

Source: Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, v22 n4-5 p371-378 Apr 2008

Pub Date: 2008-04-00

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Research

Peer-Reviewed: Yes

Abstract:The aim of this pilot study was to identify the most common speech sound confusions of 5 Norwegian cochlear implanted post-lingually deafened adults. We played recorded nonwords, aCa, iCi and bVb, to our informants, asked them to repeat what they heard, recorded their repetitions and transcribed these phonetically. We arranged the collected data in confusion matrices to find the most common and m

9. Training 8-Year-Old French Immersion Students in

Metalinguistic Analysis: An Innovation in Form-Focused

Pedagogy (EJ789257)

  

Author(s): Bouffard, Laura Annie; Sarkar, Mela

Source: Language Awareness, v17 n1 p3-24 2008

Pub Date: 2008-00-00

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative

Peer-Reviewed: No

Abstract:Most research on language awareness in a second language (L2) has been carried out with adult learners. This research presents data showing that pedagogical techniques can be devised enabling children as young as 8 to develop metalinguistic awareness of their emerging L2 system. Building on existing work by Canadian researchers, this classroom-based study investigated tasks designed to

10. Fortition and Lenition Patterns in the Acquisition of

Obstruents by Children with Cochlear Implants

  

(EJ787180)

Author(s): Kim, Jungsun; Chin, Steven B.

Source: Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, v22 n3 p233-251 Mar 2008

Pub Date: 2008-03-00

Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative

Peer-Reviewed: Yes

Abstract:This paper investigates patterns of error production in 10 children who use cochlear implants, focusing specifically on the acquisition of obstruents. Two broad patterns of production errors are investigated, fortition (or strengthening) errors and lenition (or weakening) errors. It is proposed that fortition error patterns tend to be related to the process of phonological development, because

Error AnalysisA comprehensive bibliographyBernd Spillner Library and Information Sources in Linguistics 12 1991. xxxix, 552 pp.Publishing status: AvailableHardbound – In stock978 90 272 3731 6 / EUR 160.00 / USD 240.00Errors are information. In contrastive linguistics, they are thought to be caused by unconscious transfer of mother tongue structures to the system of the target language and give information about both systems. In the interlanguage hypothesis of second language acquisition, errors are indicative of the different intermediate learning levels and are useful pedagogical feedback. In both cases error analysis is an essential methodological tool for diagnosis and evaluation of the language acquisition process. Errors, too, give information in psychoanalysis (e.g., the Freudian slip), in language universal research, and in other fields of linguistics, such as linguistic change.This bibliography is intended to stimulate study into cross-language, cross-discipline and cross-theoretical, as well as for language universal, use of the numerous, but sometimes hard to come by, error analysis studies. 5398 titles covering the period 1578 up to 1990 (with work in more than 144 languages and language families) are cited, cross-referenced, and described. The subject areas covered are numerous. For example: Theoretical Linguistics (Linguistic Typology, Cognitive Linguistics), Historical Linguistics (Language Change), Applied Linguistics (e.g. Speech Disorders), Translation, Mother Tongue Acquisition, Foreign Language Learning (Negative Transfer, Intralingual and Interlingual Errors), Psychoanalysis (Slips of the Tongue), Typography, Shorthand, Clinical Linguistics and Speech Pathology, Reading Research, Automatic Error Detection, Contact Linguistics (Code-switching, Interference), etc.

Next to students picking their ears with their pencils while kicking their neighbours' chairs and muttering secret deprecations in advanced Mother Tongue in the middle of your explanation of the future perfect continuous, it's probably the most annoying

phenomenon in the business: students of all ages, walks and IQs repeating the same mistakes interminably despite frequent and focused reminders of forms they have learned and still remember (when their attention is drawn to them).

Krashen explains this phenomenon in terms of three hypotheses:

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis 2. The Natural Order Hypothesis 3. The Monitor Hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that acquisition and learning are different phenomena. We may learn, for example, a great deal about the workings of a car without ever being able to fix one, simply because knowledge about something does not constitute knowledge of something. We may complete a weekend diving course and complete a handful of successful recreational dives, only to forget a few weeks down the road what exactly we're supposed to check before we enter the water, how to swim efficiently with flippers, and how to tell our partner that we're out of air.

I will discuss what I see as the elements involved in this disparity further down the page or later in this blog. For now, you need only think of a time when you forgot to do or apply something you had learned and then were reminded of, only to declare, "Ah!  I knew that!"

The Natural Order Hypothesis states that some items of a language, namely functors, are acquired in a certain order which is consistent across learners, ages, and first languages. In the context of Krashen's theory, it is this hypothesis that explains the discrepancy between learning and acquisition. Items may be learned, or brought into our awareness, even applied under conditions of present awareness, in any order, but will only be truly mastered, or acquired, in an order which is natural to the learner/acquirer. The basic principle of natural order underlies our assumptions, based on millenia of observation, about children's motor development. First they flop, then they the flip, then they roll around, then they sit, then they crawl, then they walk, then they jump, then they run, then they dance, and so on. Something like that. The difference is that in motor development, acquisition of one skill requires or is expedited by acquisition of the previous one, while in language acquisition, no such skill-based "seriation" is apparent.

The Monitor Hypothesis states that learned language can be drawn upon under conditions which allow the learner time to draw upon them, most often conditions which require or remind the learner to draw upon them. Think how often you have stalled or frozen in the middle of a task because you could not instinctively recall the next step, perhaps because the next step did not come easily to mind or because pressure of some sort forced you to rely on second nature.  The Monitor Hypothesis suggests that language items (specifically grammar items) which have not become second nature require deliberate thinking before they will manifest themselves in language production. When we have leisure to employ the Monitor or when we know that correct grammatical form is essential to the success of an utterance, we check our utterances before sharing them.

Taken together, these three hypotheses seem to me to explain the problems that I am currently bent on helping students overcome.

Error Analysis: Review

OUTLINE

1. Introduction 2. Error Analysis (EA): its roots and development 3. EA in 1970s: popularity and criticism 4. EA in 1990s: new perspective

3.1. Data Driven Learning and EA3.2. Negative Evidence and EA

5. EA in Learner Corpora Research4.1. Comparison of EA in 1970s with EA based on learner corpora4.2. Similarity and differences4.3. Significance of learner language analysis on computer

 

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, I am going to discuss the significance of evaluating Error Analysis (EA) studies in 1970s and early 1980s and set the proper perspective toward the use of learner corpora in analysing learner language errors in order to better understand the process and sequence of acquisition of English as a second/foreign language.

Before 1960s, when the behaviouristic viewpoint of language learning was prevailing, learner errors were considered something undesirable and to be avoided. It is because in behaviourists perspectives, people learn by responding to external stimuli and receiving proper reinforcement. A proper habit is being formed by reinforcement, hence learning takes place. Therefore, errors were considered to be a wrong response to the stimulus, which should be corrected immediately after they were made. Unless corrected properly, the error became a habit and a wrong behavioural pattern would stick in your mind.

This viewpoint of learning influenced greatly the language classroom, where teachers concentrated on the mimicry and memorisation of target forms and tried to instill the correct patterns of the form into learners' mind. If learners made any mistake while repeating words, phrases or sentences,  the teacher corrected their mistakes immediately. Errors were regarded as something you should avoid and making an error was considered to be fatal to proper language learning processes.

This belief of learning was eventually discarded by the well-known radically different perspective proposed by N. Chomsky (1957). He wrote in his paper against B.F. Skinner, that human learning, especially language acquisition, cannot be explained by simply starting off with a "tabula rasa" state of mind. He claimed that human beings must have a certain kind of innate capacity which can guide you through a vast number of sentence generation possibilities and have a child acquire a grammar of that language until the age of five or six with almost no exception. He called this capacity "Universal Grammar" and claimed that it is this very human faculty that linguistics aims to pursue.

This swing-back of pendulum toward a rationalistic view of language ability lead many language teachers to discredit the behaviouristic language learning style and emphasize cognitive-code learning approach. Hence, learners were encouraged to work on more conscious grammar exercises based on certain rules and deductive learning began to be focused again. This application of new linguistic insights, however, did not bear much fruit since Chomsky himself commented that a linguistic theory of the kind he pursued had little to offer for actual language learning or teaching (Chomksy 1966) .  

In the school of applied linguistics, however, this shift towards the innate human capacity raised a growing interest in the learner's powers of hypothesis formation as he moves towards the bilingual competence sufficient for his communicative needs. One major result of this shift of attention was an increasing concern in the monitoring and analysis of learner language. The concepts of 'interlanguage' and 'approximative system' presented challenging areas of descriptive enquiry.

In 1970s and early 80s, a large number of papers on error analysis were published throughout the world. However, it lost its attention and enthusiasm gradually as

more and more criticism was made against the approach and method of error analysis. As the present writer makes an attempt to analyse learner language oncomputer, it is essential to review the previous work of error analysis and identify what it aimed to achieve and how it failed. Otherwise, it could be just a repetition of what was already done a decade ago and not very much meaningful. Error analysis using learner corpora must be significantly different from traditional error analysis, in quality and quantity. I would like to show the readers whether that is really the case.

I will first review some classic articles on error analysis by Corder, Selinker, Richards, among others and try to establish what the original purpose of error analysis was like or what it inteded to do. Then I will describe the criticisms against error analysis in 80s and early 90s and summarise what traditional error analysis failed to offer. Next, I will introduce recent research results on the role of negative evidence in language learning and data-driven learning in order to show the effectiveness of giving feedback to learners about their common errors in a new language learning perspective. Finally, I would like to make a systematic comparison between traditional error analysis and "learner corpus-based" error analysis so that hopefully I can convince the readers of the powers of learner corpora in systematic investigation of learner language.

Error Analysis (EA): its roots and development

Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) claims that the study of SLA can be said to have passed through a series of phases defined by the modes of inquiry researchers have utilized in their work: contrastive analysis, error analysis, performance analysis and discourse analysis (p.81). As we look into the roots and development of error analysis, let us first overview contrastive analysis so as to gain better insight into how error analysis became more popular among SLA researchers.

Contrastive Analysis

Before the SLA field as we know it today was establised, from the 1940s to the 1960s, contrastive analyses were conducted, in which two languages were systematically compared. Researchers at that time were motivated by the prospect of being able to identify points of similarity and difference between native languages (NLs) and target languages (TLs). There was a strong belief that a more effective pedagogy would result when these were taken into consideration. Charles Fries, one of the leading applied linguists of the day, said: "The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared witha parallel description of the native language of the learner."(Fries 1945: 9)

Robert Lado, Fries' colleague at the University of Michigan, also expressed the importance of contrastive analysis in language teaching material design:

Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture - both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture and receptively  when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture as practised by natives. (Lado 1957, in Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991:52-53)

This claim is still quite appealing to anyone who has attempted to learn or teach a foreign language. We encounter so many examples of the interfering effects of our NLs.

Lado went on to say a more controversial position, however, when he claimed that "those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult" (Lado 1957:2). This conviction that linguistic differences could be used to predict learning difficulty produced the notion of the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH): "Where two

languages were similar, positive transfer would occur; where they were different, negative transfer, or interference, would result." (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991: 53)

 

Corder (1967): Introduction of the Concept 'Error Analysis'

It was S.P. Corder who first advocated in ELT/applied linguistics community the importance of errors in language learning process. In Corder (1967), he mentions the paradigm shift in linguistics from a behaviouristic view of language to a more rationalistic view and claims that in language teaching one noticeable effect is to shift the emphasis away from teaching towards a study of learning. He emphasises great potential for applying new hypotheses about how languages are learned in L1 to the learning of a second language.  He says "Within this context the study of errors takes on a new importance and will I believe contribute to a verification or rejection of the new hypothesis." (in Richards 1974:.21)

Corder goes on to say that in L1 acquisition we interpret child's 'incorrect' utterances as being evidence that he is in the process of acquiring language and that for those who attempt to describe his knowledge of the language at any point in its development, it is the 'errors' which provide the important evidence.(ibid.: 23) In second language acquisition, Corder proposed as a working hypothesis that some of the strategies adopted by the learner of a second language are substantially the same as those by which a first language is acquired. (It does not mean, however, the course or sequence of learning is the same in L1 and L2.) By classifying the errors that learners made, researchers could learn a great deal about the SLA process by inferring the strategies that second language learners were adopting. It is in this Corder's seminal paper that he adds to our thinking by discussing the function of errors for the learners themselves. For learners themselves, errors are 'indispensable,' since the making of errors can be regarded as a divice the learner uses in order to learn. (Selinker 1992: 150)

Selinker (1992) pointed out the two highly significant contributions that Corder made: "that the errors of a learner, whether adult or child, are (a) not random, but are in fact systematic, and are (b) not 'negative' or 'interfering' in any way with learning a TL but are, on the contrary, a necessary positive factor, indicative of testing hypotheses. (ibid:151) Such contribution in Corder (1967) began to provide a framework for the study of adult learner lanugage. Along with the influence of studies in L1 acquisition and concepts provided by Contrastive Analysis (especially language transfer) and by the interlanguage hypothesis (e.g. fossilization, backsliding, langauge transfer, communication and learning strategies), this paper provided the impetus for many SLA empirical studies.

EA in 1970s: popularity and criticism

 

REFERENCES (to be completed)

Chomsky, N. (1959) A review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, pp.26-58.

Chomsky, N. (1966) Research on language learning and linguistics. Report of the Northeast Conference, 1966, pp. ??

Corder, S.P. (1967) The significance of learners' errors. Reprinted in J.C.Richards (ed.) (1974, 1984) Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 19 - 27 (Originally in International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5 (4)) 

Fries, C.C. (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.

Error analysisFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Error analysis is the study of kind and quantity of error that occurs, particularly in the fields of applied mathematics (particularly numerical analysis), applied linguistics and statistics.

Contents[hide]

1 Error analysis in numerical modelling 2 Error analysis in language teaching 3 Error analysis in molecular dynamics simulation 4 Error Analysis in Undergraduate Science Laboratory 5 References 6 See also

7 External links

Error analysis in numerical modelling

In numerical simulation or modelling of real systems, error analysis is concerned with the changes in the output of the model as the parameters to the model vary about a mean.

For instance, in a system modelled as a function of two variables z = f(x,y). Error analysis deals with the propagation of the numerical errors in x and y (around mean values and ) to error in z (around a mean ).[1]

In numerical analysis, error analysis comprises both forward error analysis and backward error analysis. Forward error analysis involves the analysis of a function which is an approximation (usually a finite polynomial) to a function to determine the bounds on the error in the approximation, i.e. to find ε such that . Backward error analysis involves the analysis of the approximation function , to determine the bounds on the parameters such that the result z' = z.[2]

Error analysis in language teaching

In language teaching, error analysis studies the types and causes of language errors. Errors are classified[3]according to:

modality (i.e. level of proficiency in speaking, writing, reading, listening) linguistic levels (i.e. pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, style) form (e.g. omission, insertion, substitution) type (systematic errors/errors in competence vs. occasional errors/errors in

performance) cause (e.g. interference, interlanguage) norm vs. system

Error analysis in molecular dynamics simulation

In molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, there are errors due to inadequate sampling of the phase space or infrequently occurring events, these lead to the statistical error due to random fluctuation in the measurements.

For a series of M measurements of a fluctuating property A, the mean value is:

When these M measurements are independent, the variance of the mean <A> is:

but in most MD simulations, there is correlation between quantity A at different time, so the variance of the mean <A> will be underestimated as the effective number of independent measurements is actually less than M. In such situations we rewrite the variance as :

where φμ is the autocorrelation function defined by

We can then use the autocorrelation function to estimate the error bar. Luckily, we have a much simpler method based on block averaging.[4]

Error Analysis in Undergraduate Science Laboratory

Error Analysis in an Undergraduate Science Laboratory

References

1. ̂ James W. Haefner (1996). Modeling Biological Systems: Principles and Applications. Springer, 186–189. ISBN 0412042010.

2. ̂ Francis J. Scheid (1988). Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Numerical Analysis. McGraw-Hill Professional, 11. ISBN 0070552215.

3. ̂ Cf. Bussmann, Hadumod (1996), Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, London: Routledge, s.v. error analysis. A comprehensive bibligraphy was published by Bernd Spillner (1991), Error Analysis, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

4. ̂ D. C. Rapaport, The Art of Molecular Dynamics Simulation, Cambridge University Press.

See also

Errors and residuals in statistics

For Error Analysis in Applied Linguistics see Contrastive analysis

External links

[1] – Definitions and graphical explanation.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis"Categories: Mathematics stubs | Numerical analysis