Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T15:21:18.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negative Feedback in Child NS-NNS Conversation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Rhonda Oliver
Rhonda Oliver
Affiliation:
The University of Western Australia
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports on a study that examines the pattern of interaction in child native speaker (NS)–nonnative speaker (NNS) conversation to determine if the NSs provide negative feedback to their NNS conversational partners. It appears that just as children are able to modify their input for their less linguistically proficient conversational partners in first language acquisition (Snow, 1977), so too are children able to modify their interactions for NNS peers in the second language acquisition process and, in doing so, provide negative feedback. Two forms of NS modification were identified in this study as providing reactive and implicit negative feedback to the NNS. These were (a) negotiation strategies, including repetition, clarification requests, and comprehension checks, and (b) recasts. The results indicated that NSs respond differentially to the grammaticality and ambiguity of their NNS peers' conversational contributions. Furthermore, NS responses (negotiate, recast, or ignore) appeared to be triggered by the type and complexity of NNS errors, although it was more likely overall that negative feedback would be used rather than the error ignored. Additionally, evidence suggested that negative feedback was incorporated by the NNSs into their interlanguage systems. This indicates that not only does negative evidence exist for child second language learners in these types of conversations, but that it is also usable and used by them in the language acquisition process.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 1995, pp. 459 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher's treatment of learner error. In Burt, M. K. & Dulay, H. C. (Eds.), On TESOL '75 (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, N. D., & Nelson, K. E. (1984). Recasting and related conversational techniques for triggering syntactic advances by young children. First Language, 5, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, M. L., & Eubank, L. (1991). Acquisition theory and experimental design: A critique of Tomasello and Herron. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IIIBohannon, J. N., MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1990). No negative evidence revisited: Beyond learnability or who has to prove what to whom. Developmental Psychology, 26, 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IIIBohannon, J. N., & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 155–207). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers' priorities in correcting learners' errors in French immersion classes. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 64–84). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chun, A. E., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, N. A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and corrections: A study of native-nonnative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookes, G., & Rulon, K. A. (1985). Incorporation of corrective feedback in native speaker/non-native speaker conversation (Technical Report No. 3). Center for Second Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Demetras, M. J., Post, K. N., & Snow, C. E. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language, 13, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. (1984). Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Farrar, M. J. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 17, 607–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28, 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furrow, D., Baillie, C., McLaren, J., & Moore, C. (1993). Differential responding to two- and three-year-olds' utterances: The roles of grammaticality and ambiguity. Journal of Child Language, 20, 363–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gass, S., & Lakshmanan, U. (1991). Accounting for interlanguage subject pronouns. Second Language Research, 7, 181–203.Google Scholar
Gold, E. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. (1990). Learnability and feedback. Developmental Psychology, 26, 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Positive and negative evidence in language acquisition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 341–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon revisited: Mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language, 11, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In Brown, H., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL '77 (pp. 144–158). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the Input Hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1993). Sheltered subject-matter teaching. In Oller, J. W. Jr. (Ed.), Methods that work (2nd ed., pp. 143–148). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levine, M. (1959). A model of hypothesis behaviour in discrimination learning set. Psychological Review, 66, 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, M. (1963). Mediating processes in humans at the outset of discrimination learning. Psychological Review, 70, 254–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lightbown, P., & White, L. (1987). The influence of linguistic theories on language acquisition research. Language Learning, 37, 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. In Brown, H., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL 77 (pp. 278–293) Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (in press-a). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (in press-b). Task-based language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mito, K. (1993). The effects of modeling and recasting on the acquisition of L2 grammar rules. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii, Manoa.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. E. (1991). On differentiated language-learning models and differentiated interventions. In Krasnegor, N. A., Rumbaugh, D. M., Schiefelbusch, R. L., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. S. (Eds.), Biological and behavioral determinants of language development (pp. 399–428). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. E., Carskaddon, G., & Bonvillian, J. D. (1973). Syntax acquisition: Impact of experimental variation in adult verbal interaction with the child. Child Development, 44, 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (1990). TESLese: The characteristics of ESL teachers' language. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Western Australia, Nedlands.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negotiation and feedback in child second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Australia, Nedlands.Google Scholar
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, S. (1987). Parental responses to grammatical and ungrammatical child utterances. Child Development, 58, 376–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Resolving a learnability paradox in the acquisition of the verb lexicon. In Rice, M. L. & Schiefelbusch, R. L. (Eds.), The teachability of language. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. A. (1993). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition: Implications for SLA. Unpublished manuscript, University of Western Australia, Nedlands.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence. In Wolfson, N. & Manes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, C. E. (1977). The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal of Child Language, 4, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In Freed, B. F. (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 91–103). Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form in teaching. Language Learning, 38, 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1990). Implications of learnability theories for second language learning and teaching. In Halliday, M. A. K., Gibbons, J., & Nicholas, H. (Eds.), Learning, keeping, and using language (pp. 271–286). Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.Google Scholar