大学英语课堂教学中错误纠正方法的比较
摘要
本文主要研究在大学的英语课堂中不同的纠错方法对不同水平的学习者有何不同的影响,并通过问卷调查了解学生们对于课堂错误纠正的态度以及他们所期望的错误纠正的方法。本文试图解决以下三个问题:
1.不同水平的学生所犯的错误是否相同?
2.不同的纠错方法对于同水平的学习者而言产生的结果是否相同?
3.对于教师的课堂错误纠正学生持有何种态度,以及他们对课堂错误纠正的期望是什么?
本研究主要在青海大学的两位教师所教授的两个不同级别的四个班级中实施。在同水平的班级中教师分别采用直接纠错法和间接纠错法进行教授。通过对每个班级进行了12节课的课堂观察后,又分别对不同水平的学生进行了不同水平的测试,并且给所有的学生发放了一份问卷调查表,最后得出以下结论:
1.本研究中所搜集到的错误可以归纳为六种,即语音错误,句法错误,词汇错误,语义错误,语用错误,和对课文内容的理解错误。不同水平的学习者所犯的错误类型相同,但各种错误的比例不同,相对应的教师纠正错误的种类的比例也不相同。
2.通过在同水平的学习者中对直接纠错法和间接纠错法对比,我们发现不同的纠错法对同水平的学习者的影响不同。对于高水平的学习者而言,间接纠错法优于直接纠错法,而对于低水平的学习者而言,则直接纠错法明显地优于间接纠错法。
3.不同水平的学习者对于错误纠正都持肯定的态度,尤其是教师在课堂中的错误纠正。他们对教师课堂纠错的效果都抱有很高的认定,并且都更多的依靠教师的课堂纠错去提高他们的英语水平。所不同的是,高水平的学习者喜欢在老师的帮助下进行自我纠错,而低水平的学习者则希望老师能够用直接纠错法纠正他们的错误。
After undergoing the stages such as Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Interlanguage Analysis, the attitudes towards error correction have evolved from the strict avoidance of errors and hence quick and direct error correction before the 1960s, to the condemnation of error correction as harmful and unnecessary in the late 1960s, and to a more critical view of the need and value of error correction in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s. Nowadays more people would like to view making error as a strategy, evidence of learner internal processing, and errors are an important part of the learning process and quite informative and useful both for the learner and the teacher, and think the fundamental way to correct errors could teach students to learn more effectively and efficiently. Meanwhile, comparing with the naturalistic second language acquisition, the classroom instruction is a special designed learning circumstance and an activity which is planned seriously and organized in a systematic way. The character of classroom instruction decides the learners could improve their acquired efficiency by designing and changing the teaching method. Accordingly, the present study sets about probing the error treatment in EFL classroom setting, and compare the effects of the different error treatment on the different level's learners, thus finding a comparatively effective way of error treatment which may contribute to improving the teaching quality.
The research is conducted among teachers and students in Qinghai University exclusively. With classroom observation, test, and questionnaire, the researcher attempts to find out: (1) If the students at different levels make the same errors? (2) If the different ways of error treatment will produce the same effect on the students at same level? (3) What is the students' attitude and expectation of how teacher should treat their errors in class?
As a result of it, we could draw the following conclusion:
(1) The errors in the study could be categorized into six types, i.e. phonological error, morphosyntactic error, lexical error, semantic error, pragmatic error, content error, and the main types of error that students at different levels make are similar, but the proportions of these errors are different. Corresponding with it, the proportions of the teacher's error treatment are different.
(2) The contrast between the direct error treatment and the indirect error treatment in the same level class indicates that the influence of these two different ways of error treatment on the students at same level is different. For the students at high level, the effect of indirect error treatment is superior to direct error treatment, whereas for the students at low level, the effect of direct error treatment is superior to indirect error treatment evidently. This reflects that the different ways of error treatment will produce the different effect on the students at same level.
(3) The students at different level all hold positive attitude towards error treatment, in particular the teacher's error treatment in class. They are thinking highly of the effect of the teacher's error treatment and depending much on it to improve their English proficiency. The difference between them is that the students at high level would like to choose the way of self-correction with the help of teacher and hope the teacher could combine the direct error treatment with indirect error treatment to correct their errors in class, while the students at low level depend much on teacher to correct their errors with the way of direct error treatment.
This thesis is composed of six parts. Part one shows the orientation, purpose and significance of the study. Part two provides the literature review about the thesis. Part three addresses some relevant theories and models in SLA that are relevant to the present study over the past two decades. Part four describes the research conducted in this study. Part five is about data collection and analyses. Part six presents the findings of the study and its implications for teaching. Limitations of the present study are also provided.
1.不同水平的学生所犯的错误是否相同?
2.不同的纠错方法对于同水平的学习者而言产生的结果是否相同?
3.对于教师的课堂错误纠正学生持有何种态度,以及他们对课堂错误纠正的期望是什么?
本研究主要在青海大学的两位教师所教授的两个不同级别的四个班级中实施。在同水平的班级中教师分别采用直接纠错法和间接纠错法进行教授。通过对每个班级进行了12节课的课堂观察后,又分别对不同水平的学生进行了不同水平的测试,并且给所有的学生发放了一份问卷调查表,最后得出以下结论:
1.本研究中所搜集到的错误可以归纳为六种,即语音错误,句法错误,词汇错误,语义错误,语用错误,和对课文内容的理解错误。不同水平的学习者所犯的错误类型相同,但各种错误的比例不同,相对应的教师纠正错误的种类的比例也不相同。
2.通过在同水平的学习者中对直接纠错法和间接纠错法对比,我们发现不同的纠错法对同水平的学习者的影响不同。对于高水平的学习者而言,间接纠错法优于直接纠错法,而对于低水平的学习者而言,则直接纠错法明显地优于间接纠错法。
3.不同水平的学习者对于错误纠正都持肯定的态度,尤其是教师在课堂中的错误纠正。他们对教师课堂纠错的效果都抱有很高的认定,并且都更多的依靠教师的课堂纠错去提高他们的英语水平。所不同的是,高水平的学习者喜欢在老师的帮助下进行自我纠错,而低水平的学习者则希望老师能够用直接纠错法纠正他们的错误。
After undergoing the stages such as Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Interlanguage Analysis, the attitudes towards error correction have evolved from the strict avoidance of errors and hence quick and direct error correction before the 1960s, to the condemnation of error correction as harmful and unnecessary in the late 1960s, and to a more critical view of the need and value of error correction in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s. Nowadays more people would like to view making error as a strategy, evidence of learner internal processing, and errors are an important part of the learning process and quite informative and useful both for the learner and the teacher, and think the fundamental way to correct errors could teach students to learn more effectively and efficiently. Meanwhile, comparing with the naturalistic second language acquisition, the classroom instruction is a special designed learning circumstance and an activity which is planned seriously and organized in a systematic way. The character of classroom instruction decides the learners could improve their acquired efficiency by designing and changing the teaching method. Accordingly, the present study sets about probing the error treatment in EFL classroom setting, and compare the effects of the different error treatment on the different level's learners, thus finding a comparatively effective way of error treatment which may contribute to improving the teaching quality.
The research is conducted among teachers and students in Qinghai University exclusively. With classroom observation, test, and questionnaire, the researcher attempts to find out: (1) If the students at different levels make the same errors? (2) If the different ways of error treatment will produce the same effect on the students at same level? (3) What is the students' attitude and expectation of how teacher should treat their errors in class?
As a result of it, we could draw the following conclusion:
(1) The errors in the study could be categorized into six types, i.e. phonological error, morphosyntactic error, lexical error, semantic error, pragmatic error, content error, and the main types of error that students at different levels make are similar, but the proportions of these errors are different. Corresponding with it, the proportions of the teacher's error treatment are different.
(2) The contrast between the direct error treatment and the indirect error treatment in the same level class indicates that the influence of these two different ways of error treatment on the students at same level is different. For the students at high level, the effect of indirect error treatment is superior to direct error treatment, whereas for the students at low level, the effect of direct error treatment is superior to indirect error treatment evidently. This reflects that the different ways of error treatment will produce the different effect on the students at same level.
(3) The students at different level all hold positive attitude towards error treatment, in particular the teacher's error treatment in class. They are thinking highly of the effect of the teacher's error treatment and depending much on it to improve their English proficiency. The difference between them is that the students at high level would like to choose the way of self-correction with the help of teacher and hope the teacher could combine the direct error treatment with indirect error treatment to correct their errors in class, while the students at low level depend much on teacher to correct their errors with the way of direct error treatment.
This thesis is composed of six parts. Part one shows the orientation, purpose and significance of the study. Part two provides the literature review about the thesis. Part three addresses some relevant theories and models in SLA that are relevant to the present study over the past two decades. Part four describes the research conducted in this study. Part five is about data collection and analyses. Part six presents the findings of the study and its implications for teaching. Limitations of the present study are also provided.
引文
Allen, P and B. Harley. 1999. Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Allwright, D.and K. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allwright, R. L. 1984. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics. 5/2,157-171.
Brown, H. D. 2002. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Burt, M. and C. Kiparsky. 1972. The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English. Rowley, Mass:Newbury House.
Carroll, S. and M. Swain. 1993. Explicit and Implicit Negative Feedback. Applied Linguistics,14/4,357-386.
Cathcart, R. and J. Olsen. 1976. "Teachers' and students' preference for correction of classroom errors" in Fanselow and Crymes(eds.)
Chaudron, C. 1977. A descriptive model if discourse in the corrective treatment of learner's error. Language Learning. 27: 29-46.
Chaudron, C. 1985. Intake: on models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input.SSLA, 7/1, 1-14.
Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chenoweth, A., R. Day, A. Chun, and S. Luppescu. 1983. Attitudes and preferences of nonnative speakers to corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 6: 79-87.
Cook, G. and B. Seidlhofer. 1999. Principles & Practice on Applied Linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Cook, V. 2000. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Corder, S. P. 1967. The Significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 5:161-170.
Corder, S. P. 1971. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 9:147-159.
Corder, S. P. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Corder, S. P. 1978. Language distance and the magnitude of the learning task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2:27-36.
Corder, S. P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dekeyser, R. 1993. The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal. 77:501-514.
Doughty, C. 1991. Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of LS relativization. SSLA, 13:431-469.
Doughty, C. and E. Varela. 1998. "Communicative focus on form" in C. Doughty & J.Williams(eds.): Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:CUP.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1976. Creative construction in second language learning and teaching.Language Learning. Special Issue Number 4:65-79.
Edge, H. 1989. Mistakes and Errors. London: Longman.
Edmondson, W. 1985. Discourse worlds in the classroom and in foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 7: 159-168.
Eills, R. 1984. Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford: Pergamon.
Eills, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Oxford University Press.
Eills, R. 1991. Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 13:161-186.
Eills, R. 1999. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Eills, R. 2002. Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Eills, R., S. Loewen., and H. Basturkmen. 1999. Foucsing on form in the classroom. Occasional Paper 13, Institute of Language Teaching and Learning, University of Auckland.
Eills, R., S. Loewen., and H. Basturkmen. 2001. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lesson. In Language Learning. 51:2, 281-381.
Faerch, C. and G. Kasper. 1983. "Procedural Knowledge as a Component of Foreign Language Learners' Communicative Competence" in H. Boete and W. Herrlitz(eds.): Kommunikation in (Sprach-) Unterricht. Utrecht.
Gass, S. 1991. Grammar Instruction, Selective Attention, and Learning. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. and E. Varonis. 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 16: 283-3-2.
Han, Z. 2000. Persistence of the implicit influence of NL: The case of the pseudo-passive. Applied Linguistics. 21(1): 78-105.
Harley, B. P. Allen. J. Cummins. and M. Swain. eds. 1990. The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatch, E. ed. 1978. Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hendrickson, J. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
James, C. 2001. Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
Lee, I. 1997. ESL learners' performance in error correction in writing: some implications for teaching. System. 25/4: 465-477.
Lightbown, P. M. and N.Spada. 1999. How Language Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. 2000. Foreign and Second Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Long, M. 1977. 'Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions' in Brown et al. (eds.).
Long, M. 1980. Inside the "black box": methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning. 30:1-42.
Long, M. 1983. 'Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom' in Clarke and Handscombe (eds).
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie,W. R. and Bhatia, T. J., editors, Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, San Diego, CA:Academic Press, 413-468.
Long, M., S. Inagaki. and L. Ortega. 1998. The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal. 82: 357-371.
Lyster, R. 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 20/1: 51-81.
Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19/1.
Mackey, A. S. Gass. and K .McDonough. 2000. How do learners perceive interactional feedback?.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 22: 471-497.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Nemser, W. 1971. Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 9:115-123.
Ohta, A. S. 2001. Second Language Acquisition Processed in the Classroom : Learning Japanese.Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pica, T. 1991. Classroom interaction, participation and comprehension: redefining relationships.System. 19:437-452.
Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes. Language Learning. 44: 493-527.
Richards, J. 1971. A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching Journal. 25:204-219.
Richards, J. and T. Rodgers . 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:CUP.
Schachter, J. 1991. Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research.7:89-102.
Selinker,L.1972.Interlanguage.International Review of Applied Linguistics.10:209-231..
Skehan,P.2000.A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Spolsky,B.1989.Conditions for Second Language Learning.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Swain,M.1985.'Communicative competence:some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development' in Gass and Madden(eds.).
Swain,M.and S.Lapkin.1995.Problems in output and the cognitive process they generate:a step towards second language learning.Applied Linguistics.16/4:371-391.
Thornbury,S.1999.How to Teach Grammar.Essex:Person Education Limited.
Vigil,F.and J.Oller.1976.Result fossilization:a tentative model.Language Learning.26:281-295.
White,L.P.Spada.Lightbown.& L.Ranta.1991.Input enhancement and L2 question formation.Applied Linguistics.12:416-432.
Williams,M.& R.L.Burden.2000.Psychology for Language Teachers.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
郝小梅,2003,错误分析与课堂纠错原则,《云南师范大学学报》,第2期,74-76。
郝兴跃,2003,论外语/二语习得只的错误分析,《山东外语教学》,第1期,44-47。
黄成风,2003,英语口语纠错策略,《广西教育学院学报》,第5期,139-142。
贾梁豫,2003,教学艺术与综合外语教学中的纠错,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第3期,56-60。
蒋祖康,1999,《第二语言习得研究》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
刘楠,2001,在英语口语课中如何纠错,《青海大学学报》,第1期,92-93。
马冬梅,2002,英语教学中小组口语活动后的学生自我纠错,《外语教学与研究》,第34卷第2期,131-135。
邱兆杰,1997,EFL教学中的纠错问题,《外语界》,第2期,41-45。
谢洪,刘海量,2003,情感、认知反馈与交际教学中的错误分析及纠正策略,《四川外语学院学报》,第19卷第2期,151-153。
朱明慧,1996,英语口语课中的纠错策略,《外语界》,第3期,32-33。
庄凌,1999,外语教学中的纠错对策,《广西广播电视大学学报》,第3期,21-23。
Allwright, D.and K. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allwright, R. L. 1984. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics. 5/2,157-171.
Brown, H. D. 2002. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Burt, M. and C. Kiparsky. 1972. The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English. Rowley, Mass:Newbury House.
Carroll, S. and M. Swain. 1993. Explicit and Implicit Negative Feedback. Applied Linguistics,14/4,357-386.
Cathcart, R. and J. Olsen. 1976. "Teachers' and students' preference for correction of classroom errors" in Fanselow and Crymes(eds.)
Chaudron, C. 1977. A descriptive model if discourse in the corrective treatment of learner's error. Language Learning. 27: 29-46.
Chaudron, C. 1985. Intake: on models and methods for discovering learners' processing of input.SSLA, 7/1, 1-14.
Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chenoweth, A., R. Day, A. Chun, and S. Luppescu. 1983. Attitudes and preferences of nonnative speakers to corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 6: 79-87.
Cook, G. and B. Seidlhofer. 1999. Principles & Practice on Applied Linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Cook, V. 2000. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Corder, S. P. 1967. The Significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 5:161-170.
Corder, S. P. 1971. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 9:147-159.
Corder, S. P. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Corder, S. P. 1978. Language distance and the magnitude of the learning task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2:27-36.
Corder, S. P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dekeyser, R. 1993. The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal. 77:501-514.
Doughty, C. 1991. Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of LS relativization. SSLA, 13:431-469.
Doughty, C. and E. Varela. 1998. "Communicative focus on form" in C. Doughty & J.Williams(eds.): Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:CUP.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1976. Creative construction in second language learning and teaching.Language Learning. Special Issue Number 4:65-79.
Edge, H. 1989. Mistakes and Errors. London: Longman.
Edmondson, W. 1985. Discourse worlds in the classroom and in foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 7: 159-168.
Eills, R. 1984. Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford: Pergamon.
Eills, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Oxford University Press.
Eills, R. 1991. Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 13:161-186.
Eills, R. 1999. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Eills, R. 2002. Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Eills, R., S. Loewen., and H. Basturkmen. 1999. Foucsing on form in the classroom. Occasional Paper 13, Institute of Language Teaching and Learning, University of Auckland.
Eills, R., S. Loewen., and H. Basturkmen. 2001. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lesson. In Language Learning. 51:2, 281-381.
Faerch, C. and G. Kasper. 1983. "Procedural Knowledge as a Component of Foreign Language Learners' Communicative Competence" in H. Boete and W. Herrlitz(eds.): Kommunikation in (Sprach-) Unterricht. Utrecht.
Gass, S. 1991. Grammar Instruction, Selective Attention, and Learning. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. and E. Varonis. 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 16: 283-3-2.
Han, Z. 2000. Persistence of the implicit influence of NL: The case of the pseudo-passive. Applied Linguistics. 21(1): 78-105.
Harley, B. P. Allen. J. Cummins. and M. Swain. eds. 1990. The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatch, E. ed. 1978. Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hendrickson, J. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
James, C. 2001. Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
Lee, I. 1997. ESL learners' performance in error correction in writing: some implications for teaching. System. 25/4: 465-477.
Lightbown, P. M. and N.Spada. 1999. How Language Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. 2000. Foreign and Second Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Long, M. 1977. 'Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions' in Brown et al. (eds.).
Long, M. 1980. Inside the "black box": methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning. 30:1-42.
Long, M. 1983. 'Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom' in Clarke and Handscombe (eds).
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie,W. R. and Bhatia, T. J., editors, Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, San Diego, CA:Academic Press, 413-468.
Long, M., S. Inagaki. and L. Ortega. 1998. The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal. 82: 357-371.
Lyster, R. 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 20/1: 51-81.
Lyster, R. and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19/1.
Mackey, A. S. Gass. and K .McDonough. 2000. How do learners perceive interactional feedback?.Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 22: 471-497.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Nemser, W. 1971. Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 9:115-123.
Ohta, A. S. 2001. Second Language Acquisition Processed in the Classroom : Learning Japanese.Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pica, T. 1991. Classroom interaction, participation and comprehension: redefining relationships.System. 19:437-452.
Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes. Language Learning. 44: 493-527.
Richards, J. 1971. A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching Journal. 25:204-219.
Richards, J. and T. Rodgers . 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:CUP.
Schachter, J. 1991. Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research.7:89-102.
Selinker,L.1972.Interlanguage.International Review of Applied Linguistics.10:209-231..
Skehan,P.2000.A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Spolsky,B.1989.Conditions for Second Language Learning.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Swain,M.1985.'Communicative competence:some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development' in Gass and Madden(eds.).
Swain,M.and S.Lapkin.1995.Problems in output and the cognitive process they generate:a step towards second language learning.Applied Linguistics.16/4:371-391.
Thornbury,S.1999.How to Teach Grammar.Essex:Person Education Limited.
Vigil,F.and J.Oller.1976.Result fossilization:a tentative model.Language Learning.26:281-295.
White,L.P.Spada.Lightbown.& L.Ranta.1991.Input enhancement and L2 question formation.Applied Linguistics.12:416-432.
Williams,M.& R.L.Burden.2000.Psychology for Language Teachers.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
郝小梅,2003,错误分析与课堂纠错原则,《云南师范大学学报》,第2期,74-76。
郝兴跃,2003,论外语/二语习得只的错误分析,《山东外语教学》,第1期,44-47。
黄成风,2003,英语口语纠错策略,《广西教育学院学报》,第5期,139-142。
贾梁豫,2003,教学艺术与综合外语教学中的纠错,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第3期,56-60。
蒋祖康,1999,《第二语言习得研究》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
刘楠,2001,在英语口语课中如何纠错,《青海大学学报》,第1期,92-93。
马冬梅,2002,英语教学中小组口语活动后的学生自我纠错,《外语教学与研究》,第34卷第2期,131-135。
邱兆杰,1997,EFL教学中的纠错问题,《外语界》,第2期,41-45。
谢洪,刘海量,2003,情感、认知反馈与交际教学中的错误分析及纠正策略,《四川外语学院学报》,第19卷第2期,151-153。
朱明慧,1996,英语口语课中的纠错策略,《外语界》,第3期,32-33。
庄凌,1999,外语教学中的纠错对策,《广西广播电视大学学报》,第3期,21-23。