Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 1987 8(3):207-218; doi:10.1093/applin/8.3.207
© 1987 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SANTOS, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


ARTICLES

Markedness Theory and Error Evaluation: An Experimental Study

TERRY SANTOS

California State University Los Angeles

In recent years, researchers in second-language acquisition have begun to consider the application of linguistic markedness theory to aspects of second-language learning. This study seeks to extend markedness theory to the area of error evaluation, more specifically the reactions of native speakers to non-native-speaker errors. It is hypothesized that there is a directionality of error gravity involving marked and unmarked pairs of forms and structures such that errors reflecting the unmarked-to-marked direction will cause greater irritation than errors reflecting the marked-to-unmarked direction. The study employed a total of five morphological and syntactic structures as unmarked and marked error types in two student compositions and investigated 40 professors' reactions to them. The five structures were (I) lst-person/3rd-person singular, (2) singular/plural NP, (3) a/an, (4) infinitive/gerund, and (5) active/passive. The results revealed a significant difference between the errors in the unmarked-to-marked category and the marked-to-unmarked category, as hypothesized on the basis of the psycholinguistic implications of markedness theory, namely, greater complexity of the marked form and greater expectation of the more basic unmarked form.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.