Error Gravity: A Critical Review of Research Design

Rifkin, Benjamin; Roberts, Felicia

doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00450.x

Cited by 30 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We opted for a simple, holistic rating of grammatical accuracy because numerous studies have demonstrated the difficulty (if not impossibility) of reliably classifying or evaluating the qualities of errors in the writing or speech of second-language learners (e.g., Lennon, 1991;Rifkin & Roberts, 1995), given that numerous lexical, morpho-syntactic, and semantic elements combine to produce perceptions of errors, and these vary by context and perceiver. Moreover, it is questionable if there could be a simple, direct correspondence between the frequency of errors and the quality of composition writing (Haswell, 1988).…”

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Discourse Features and Verification of Scoring Levels for Independent and Integrated Prototype Written Tasks for the New Toefl®

Cumming

Kantor²,

Baba

et al. 2005

ETS Research Report Series

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed whether and how the discourse written for prototype integrated tasks (involving writing in response to print or audio source texts) field tested for the new TOEFL® differs from the discourse written for independent essays (i.e., the TOEFL essay). We selected 216 compositions written for 6 tasks by 36 examinees in a field test—representing Score Levels 3, 4, and 5 on the TOEFL essay—then coded the texts for lexical and syntactic complexity, grammatical accuracy, argument structure, orientations to evidence, and verbatim uses of source text. Analyses with nonparametric MANOVAs, following a 3‐by‐3 (task type by English proficiency level) within‐subjects factorial design, showed that the discourse produced for the integrated writing tasks differed significantly at the lexical, syntactic, rhetorical, and pragmatic levels from the discourse produced in the independent essay on most of these variables. In certain analyses, these differences were also obtained across the 3 ESL proficiency levels.

show abstract

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Discourse Features and Verification of Scoring Levels for Independent and Integrated Prototype Written Tasks for the New Toefl®

Cumming

Kantor²,

Baba

et al. 2005

ETS Research Report Series

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The correct identification of errors serves to establish the causes and the processes followed in language production. Many studies concerning errors have focused on the nature of these, but very few have analysed the ability to identify and interpret errors in a second language (Rifkin & Roberts, 1995;Carrió Pastor, 2004;Hamid, 2007;Mestre, 2011). A further issue of importance in this research is that second language errors are a result of different causes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical errors in second language scientific writing: Some conceptual implications

Pastor

Mestre-Mestre

2014

ijes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, scientific writers are required not only a thorough knowledge of their subject field, but also a sound command of English as a lingua franca. In this paper, the lexical errors produced in scientific texts written in English by non-native researchers are identified to propose a classification of the categories they contain. This study will enable researchers to improve their writing and facilitate smoother communication among international writers. In addition, establishing the causes of these errors may enable the recurrent pattern to be identified and the necessary guidelines for their correction to be drawn up. These data may be able to illuminate the processes followed by non-native speakers of English when learning new words, and thereby facilitate the avoidance of errors and the identification of the mechanisms which can permit the correct production of the specialised lexicon.KEYWORDS: error analysis; error classification; second language acquisition; scientific writing. RESUMENEn la actualidad, los escritores científicos han de ser no sólo conocedores de sus areas específicas de conocimiento, sino también de la lengua inglesa, que se utiliza como lengua franca. En este artículo, se han identificado los errores léxicos que se producen en los textos científicos escritos en inglés por investigadores no nativos para proponer una clasificación de sus categorías. Este estudio permitirá a los investigadores mejorar su escritura y facilitará una mayor comunicación entre los escritores internacionales. Adicionalmente, el establecer las causas de estos errores podría permitir identificar los patrones recurrentes y proponer una serie de medidas para corregirlos. Estos datos podrían mostrar los procesos que han seguido los escritores no nativos de la lengua inglesa cuando aprenden nuevas palabras y, por lo tanto, facilitar no cometer errores e identificar los mecanismos que pueden permitir una correcta producción de un léxico especializado.PALABRAS CLAVE: análisis de errores; clasificación de errores; adquisición de una segunda lengua; escritura científica.

show abstract

“…20 While this may not apply so much to the rules of grammar, which most teachers tend to have at their fingertips, things are more complicated in the case of some aspects of pronunciation, vocabulary, and particularly sociolinguistics and pragmatics, because there are nuances in these areas that cannot easily be acquired from the coursebook and require abundant exposure and copious opportunities for naturalistic language use. Hughes and Lascaratou 1982;Ludwig 1982;Davies 1983;Rifkin and Roberts 1995;James 1998;Pawlak 2003Pawlak , 2004b. 100-101) illuminate, "[t]eachers who are non-native speakers of the target language may perhaps be expected to have a rather special problem in terms of their ability even to notice learners' errors.…”

Section: Should Learner Errors Be Corrected?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom

Pawlak¹

2014

Second Language Learning and Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The series brings together volumes dealing with different aspects of learning and teaching second and foreign languages. The titles included are both monographs and edited collections focusing on a variety of topics ranging from the processes underlying second language acquisition, through various aspects of language learning in instructed and non-instructed settings, to different facets of the teaching process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and evaluation. The publications reflect state-of-the-art developments in those areas, they adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and follow diverse research paradigms. The intended audience are all those who are interested in naturalistic and classroom second language acquisition, including researchers, methodologists, curriculum and materials designers, teachers and undergraduate and graduate students undertaking empirical investigations of how second languages are learnt and taught.

show abstract

Error Gravity: A Critical Review of Research Design

Cited by 30 publications

References 40 publications

Analysis of Discourse Features and Verification of Scoring Levels for Independent and Integrated Prototype Written Tasks for the New Toefl®

Analysis of Discourse Features and Verification of Scoring Levels for Independent and Integrated Prototype Written Tasks for the New Toefl®

Lexical errors in second language scientific writing: Some conceptual implications

Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About