Markedness Theory and Error Evaluation: An Experimental Study

Santos, Terry

doi:10.1093/applin/8.3.207

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…45,No. 3 Some studies, however, have featured R-texts in a communicative context larger than a single sentence (Ensz, 1982;Ervin, 1979;Fayer & Krasinski, 1987;Galloway, 1977Galloway, , 1980Gynan, 1985;Roberts, 1993;Santos, 1987Santos, ,1988Tomiyana, 1980;Varonis & Gass, 1982). All of them used actual learner compositions or speech, presented to respondents intact or nearly intact (i.e., in some studies some errors were filtered out by pretesting).…”

Section: Language Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error Gravity: A Critical Review of Research Design

Rifkin

Roberts

1995

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines error gravity research design and its theoretical assumptions. Based on an analysis of 28 errorgravity investigations (1977–1995), we study several aspects of error gravity research design (including, e.g., the authenticity of language sample), and theoretical constructs (such as the definition of “error”). The study demonstrates that investigators have only skimmed the surface of the process of error evaluation, which is undoubtedly shaped by extralinguistic factors. We conclude that researchers should reconceptualize error gravity research and should reassess earlier studies to confirm or disaffirm their stated outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Language Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error Gravity: A Critical Review of Research Design

Rifkin

Roberts

1995

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Khalil (1985:336) approaches irritation in as "the thing that causes people to stop and take notice of a textual feature. Other studies (Santos, 1987, Vann et al 1984) link irritation to the hearer/listener. Khalil (1985:366) asserts that irritation is strongly linked to the affective response to error, "native speakers' emotional reactions to deviant utterances".…”

Section: Irritation As a Criterion Of Error Seriousnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which is which? The Face or the Book: Tunisian EFL learners’ Use of Facebook in L2 Paragraph Writing

Zahrouni¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on rhetorics of violence and discourses of gender supported by the theoretical works of Pierre Bourdieu, A. Ballinger, and Bertolt Brecht, this article first investigates the concept of violence through the performance of Jalila Baccar and Fadhel Jaïbi’sViolence(s) (2015).In this play an examination of the new forms of violence helps us pay particular attention to violence enacted by men and women against their minoritized groups, and how, when harmed, these groups go against the grain. My purpose in this article is to demonstrate how such forms of violence appeal to the audiences’ emotions and intellect. A Brechtian reading of Violence(s)with reference to Tsunami (2013) and Fear(s) (2017), also by Baccar and Jaïbi will assist comprehension of the development of violence and the resulting frustration provoked by the Arab Spring’s ongoing political, ethnic, economic, and religious conflicts and its subsequent impact on the Arab citizen’s daily behaviours and attitudes.

show abstract

“…The selection of the utterances or errors was not controlled for the differences between local and global errors or directionality of error (marked to unmarked vs. unmarked to marked). Researchers have argued that these three factors may be of considerable importance in native speaker evaluation of error gravity (Burt & Kiparsky, 1974;Santos, 1987;respectively).…”

Section: Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A contextual check would also allow for a better investigation of the evaluation of learner speech errors in intonation and tense, which can be evaluated only within discourse longer than the individual sentence. Investigators using this type of approach (e.g., Fayer & Krasinski, 1987;Guntermann, 1978;Gynan, 1985;Santos, 1987;Tomiyana, 1980;Varonis & Gass, 1982) are either unable to control the number of variables in the texts presented for respondents' evaluation (e.g., Guntermann, 1978) or are compelled to alter or modify learner discourse (e.g., Santos, 1985). For this reason, it is important to assess error gravity using a two-pronged approach, with one prong consisting of the type of procedure used in this study (the forced choice between two different error conditions, strictly controlled) and the other prong consisting of a more naturalistic procedure (with a larger discourse universe more typical of actual learner efforts to communicate.…”

Section: Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present study was designed to evaluate the degree of correlation in attitudes toward errors in the speech of American learners of Russian among teachers and nonteachers of Russian, both native speakers of Russian and native speakers of English, residents of Russia and residents of the U.S. Native speaker evaluation of learner speech errors became a popular area of research after the publication of Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, and Fillenbaum's (1960) study of reactions to spoken French and English by Canadian respondents, as evidenced by numerous studies in the more commonly taught languages of French (Ensz, 1978;Magnan, 1981Magnan, , 1983Piazza, 1979Piazza, , 1980, German (Delisle, 1982;Politzer, 1980) and Spanish (Carranza & Ryan, 1975;Chastain, 1980;Earline-Schairer, 1992;Galloway, 1977Galloway, ,1980Guntermann, 1978;Gynan, 1985) and in English as a second language (Albrechtsen, Henriksen, & Faerch, 1980;Fayer & Krasinski, 1987;Johansson, 1978;Khalil, 1985;Pennington & Richards, 1986;Santos, 1987;Sheorey, 1986;Tomiyana, 1980;Vann, 1984;Varonis & Gass, 1982). This topic continues to attract discussion among specialists in instructed second Ian-guage acquisition, as evidenced by periodic reviews of the research in this area (Eisenstein, 1983;Ludwig, 1982;Rifkin & Roberts, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Error Gravity in Learners' Spoken Russian: A Preliminary Study

Rifkin

1995

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was designed to begin the work to establish a hierarchy of error gravity for different types of common errors in American learners' spoken Russian. Respondents included native speakers of Russian and English, teachers and non‐teachers, and residents of Russia and the U. S. Respondents were asked to compare a series of paired sentences that were identical except for a particular error and to select which sentence they found to be less irritating. The sentences were selected from oral proficiency interviews conducted with intermediate‐level learners of Russian. Respondents' selections of the least irritating utterances of each pair were analyzed in order to establish a hierarchy of error gravity, and the hierarchies established for each respondent class were compared to determine if representatives of each respondent class had similar or different views of the severity of different error types.

show abstract

Markedness Theory and Error Evaluation: An Experimental Study

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Error Gravity: A Critical Review of Research Design

Error Gravity: A Critical Review of Research Design

Which is which? The Face or the Book: Tunisian EFL learners’ Use of Facebook in L2 Paragraph Writing

Error Gravity in Learners' Spoken Russian: A Preliminary Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About