全屏显示专题章节

When one studies the standard works on the teaching of modern languages，it comes as a surprise to find how cursorily the authors deal with the question of learners'errors and their correction.It almost seems as if they are dismissed as a matter of no particular importance，as possible annoying，distracting，but inevitable by-products of the process of learning a language about which the teacher should make as little fuss as possible.It is of course true that the application of linguistic and psychological theory to the study of language learning added a new dimension to the discussion of errors；people now believed they had a principled means for accounting for these errors，namely that they were the result of interference in the learning of a second language from the habits of the first language.The major contribution of the linguist to language teaching was seen as an intensive contrastive study of the systems of the second language and the mother tongue of the learner；out of this would come an inventory of the areas of difficulty which the learner would encounter and the value of this inventory would be to direct the teacher's attention to these areas so that he might devote special care and emphasis in his teaching to the overcoming，or even avoiding of these predicted difficulties.Teachers have not always been very impressed by this contribution from the linguist for the reason that their practical experience has usually already shown them where these difficulties lie and they have not felt that the contribution of the linguist has provided them with any significantly new information.They noted for example that many of the errors with which they were familiar were not predicted by the linguist anyway.The teacher has been on the whole，therefore，more concerned with how to deal with these areas of difficulty than with the simple identification of them，and here has reasonably felt that the linguist has had little to say to him.

In the field of methodology there have been two schools of thought in respect of learners'errors.Firstly，the school which maintains that if we were to achieve a perfect teaching method，the errors would never be committed in the first place，and therefore the occurrence of errors is merely a sign of the present inadequacy of our teaching techniques.The philosophy of the second school is that we live in an imperfect world and consequently errors will always occur in spite of our best efforts.Our ingenuity should be concentrated on techniques for dealing with errors after they have occurred.

Both linguistics and psychology are in a state at the present time of what Chomsky has called“flux and agitation”（Chomsky 1966）.What seemed to be well-established doctrine a few years ago is now the subject of extensive debate.The consequence of this for language teaching is likely to be far reaching and we are perhaps only now beginning to feel its effects.One effect has been perhaps to shift the emphasis away from a preoccupation with teaching toward a study of learning.In the first instance，this has shown itself as a renewed attack upon the problem of the acquisition of the mother tongue.This has inevitably led to a consideration of the question whether then are any parallels between the processes of acquiring the mother tongue and the learning of a second language.The usefulness of the distinction between acquisition and learning has been emphasized by Lambert（1966）.And the possibility that the latter may benefit from a study of the former has been suggested by Carroll（1966）.

The differences between the two are obvious but not for that reason easy to explain：that the learning of the mother tongue is inevitable，whereas，one knows that there is no such inevitability about the learning of a second language；that the learning of the mother tongue is part of the whole maturational process of the child，whilst learning a second language normally begins only after the maturational process is largely complete；that the infant starts with no overt language behavior，while in the case of the second language learner such behavior，of course，exists；that the motivation（if we can properly use the term in the context）for learning a first language is quite different from that for learning a second language.

On examination，it becomes quite clear that these obvious differences imply nothing about the processes that take place in the learning of the first and the second language，indeed the most widespread hypothesis about how languages are learned，which has been called behaviorist，is assumed to apply in both circumstances.These hypotheses are well enough known not to require detailing here，and so are the objections to them.If then these hypotheses about language learning are being questioned and new hypotheses being set up to explain the process of child language acquisition，it would seem reasonable to see how far they might also apply to the learning of a second language.

This hypothesis states that a human infant is born with an innate predisposition to acquire language；that he must be exposed to language for the acquisition process to start；that he possesses an internal mechanism of unknown nature that enables him from the limited data available to him to construct a grammar of a particular language.How he does this is largely unknown and is the field of intensive study at the present time by linguists and psychologists.Miller（1964）has pointed out that if we wished to create an automaton to replicate a child's performance，the order in which it tested various aspects of the grammar could only be decided after careful analysis of the successive stages of language acquisition by human children.The first steps therefore in such a study are seen to be a longitudinal description of a child's language throughout the course of its development.From such a description，it is eventually hoped to develop a picture of the procedures adopted by the child to acquire language（McNeil，1966）.The application of this hypothesis to second language learning is not new and is essentially that proposed fifty years ago by H.E.Palmer（1917）.Palmer maintained that we were all endowed by nature with the capacity for assimilating language and that this capacity remained available to us in a latent state after acquisition of a primary language.The adult was seen as capable as the child of acquiring a foreign language.Recent work（Lenneberg，1966）suggests that the child who fails for any reason，i.e.，deafness，to acquire a primary language before the age of twelve thereafter rapidly loses the capacity to acquire language behavior at all.This finding does not of course carry with it the implication that the language learning capacity of those who have successfully learned a primary language also atrophies in the same way.It still remains to be shown that the process of learning a second language is of a fundamentally different nature from the process of primary acquisition.

If people postulate the same mechanism，then people may also postulate that the procedures or strategies adopted by the learner of the second language are fundamentally the same.The principal feature that then differentiates the two operations is the presence or absence of motivation.

If the acquisition of the first language is a fulfillment of the predisposition to develop language behavior，then the learning of the second language involves the replacement of the predisposition of the infant by some other force.

Given motivation，it is inevitable that a human being will learn a second language if he is exposed to the language data.Study of language aptitude does in some measure support such a view since motivation and intelligence appear to be the two principal factors that correlate significantly with achievement in a second language.

It can be proposed therefore as a working hypothesis that some at least of the strategies adopted by the learner of a second language are substantially the same as those by which the first language is acquired.Such a proposal does not imply that the course or sequence of learning is the same in both cases.

Errors made by learners will be considered in the following.When a two-year-old child produces an utterance such as“This mummy chair”，one does not normally call this deviant，illformed，faulty，incorrect，or whatever.One does not regard it as an error in any sense at all，but rather as a normal childlike communication that provides evidence of the state of his linguistic development at that moment.Our response to that behavior has certain of the characteristics of what would be called“correction”in a classroom situation.Adults have a very strong tendency to repeat and expand the child's utterance man adult version：something like“Yes.dear.That's Mummy's chair.”

No one expects a child learning his mother tongue to produce from the earliest stages only forms that in adult terms are correct or non-deviant.People interpret his“incorrect”utterances as being evidence that he is in the process of acquiring language and indeed，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.As Brown and Fraser（1964）point out：the best evidence that a child possesses construction rules is the occurrence of systematic errors，since，when the child speaks correctly，it is quite possible that he is only repeating something that he has heard.

In the case of the second language learner，it might be supposed that people do have some knowledge of what the input has been，since this is largely within the control of the teacher.Nevertheless it would be wise to introduce a qualification here about the control of input（which is of course what is called the syllabus）.The simple fact of presenting a certain linguistic form to a learner in the classroom does not necessarily qualify it for the status of input，for the reason that input is“what goes in”not what is available for going in，and people may reasonably suppose that it is the learner who controls this input，or more properly his intake.This may well be determined by the characteristics of his language acquisition mechanism and not by those of the syllabus.After all，in the mother tongue learning situation，the data available as input is relatively vast，but it is the child who selects what shall be the input.

A learner's errors，then，provide evidence of the system of the language that he is using（i.e.，has learned）at a particular point in the course（and it must be repeated that he is using some system，although it is not yet the right system）.They are significant in three different ways.First to the teacher，in that they tell him，if he undertakes a systematic analysis how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and consequently，what remains for him to learn.Second，they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired，what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language.Third（and in a sense this is their most important aspect）they are indispensable to the learner himself，because we can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn.It is a way the learner has of testing his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning.The making of errors then is a strategy employed both by children acquiring their mother tongue and by those learning a second language.

Although the following dialogue was recorded during the study of child language acquisition（Van Buren，1967）it bears unmistakable similarities to dialogues which are a daily experience in the second language teaching classroom：

Mother：Did Billy have his egg cut up for him at breakfast？

Child：Yes，I showed him.

Mother：You what？

Child：Ishowed him.

Mother：You showed him？

Mother：Ah，you saw him.

Child：Yes，I saw him.

Here the child，within a short exchange appears to have tested three hypotheses：one relating to the concord of subject and verb in a past tense，another about the meaning of show and see and a third about the see and form of the irregular past tense of see.It only remains to be pointed out that if the child had answered I saw him immediately，one would have no means of knowing whether he had merely repeated a model sentence or had already learned the three rules just mentioned.Only a longitudinal study of the child's development could answer such a question.It is also interesting to observe the techniques used by the mother to“correct”the child.Only in the case of one error，did she provide the correct form herself：You saw him.In both the other cases，it was sufficient for her to query the child's utterance in such a form as：You what？or You showed him？Simple provision of the correct form may not always be the only，or indeed the most effective，form of correction since it bars the way to the learner testing alternative hypotheses.Making a learner try to discover the right form could often be more instructive to both learner and teacher.This is the import of Carroll's proposal already referred to.

Whilst one may suppose that the first language learner has an unlimited number of hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning which must be tested，one may certainly take it that the task of the second language learner is a simpler one：“that the only hypotheses he needs to test are：are the systems of the new language the same or different from those of the language I know？And if different，what is their nature？”Evidence for this is that a large number，but by no means all，of his errors，are related to the systems of his mother tongue.These are ascribed to interference from the habits of the mother tongue，as it is sometimes expressed in the light of the new hypotheses，they are best not regarded as the persistence of old habits，but rather as signs that the learner is investigating the systems of the new language.Saporta（1966）makes this point clear.

It will be evident that the position taken here is that the learner's possession of his native language is facilitative and that errors are not to be regarded as signs of inhibition，but simply as evidence of his strategies of learning.