While terms and their relation to the practices they supposedly represent continue to be loosely defined in SLA, the theoretical debates and empirical comparisons surrounding them will have limited consequence. The purpose of this paper is to identify the range of differing linguistic behaviours included under POSITIVE and NEGATIVE EVIDENCE with a view to offering a greater clarification of the two terms from a learner's perspective. Unfortunately, evidence can be potentially enlightening just as it can be potentially misleading, and an attempt is made to identify both the former and the latter cases. If we can understand the evidences and situations that can lead to potential confusion we may be closer to offering students actual evidence that can lead them nearer to the truth.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beck, M-L. and Eubank, L.1991. Acquisition theory and experimental design. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13:1. 73-76.
2.
Bley-Vroman, R.1986. Hypothesis testing in second language acquisition theory . Language Learning, 36:3. 353-376.
3.
Bruton, A.1995. Tightening up on terms (2): Focus on form. IATEFL Research Newsletter, 6: 5-9.
4.
Bruton, A.2000. Expressing possessive, social, professional and part-whole relationships grammatically in English. Perspectives on the Genitive in English: Synchronic, diachronic, contrastive and research. Edited by A. Bruton, L. García García and J.J. FernándezDomínguez. Sevilla, Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Sevilla.
5.
Carroll, J.B.1964. Words, meanings and concepts. Harvard Educational Review, 34:2.178-202.
6.
Carroll, S. and Swain, M.1993. Explicit and implicit negative feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15:3. 357-386.
7.
Carroll, S., Swain M. and Roberge, Y.1992. The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13:2. 173-198.
8.
Chomsky, N.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
9.
Cook, V.J.1985. Chomsky's universal grammar and second language learning . Applied Linguistics, 6:1. 2-18.
10.
Day, E. and Shapson, S.1991. Integrating formal and functional approaches in language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41:1. 25-38.
11.
Doughty, C. and Varela, E.1998. Communicative focus on form. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Edited by C. Doughty and J. Williams.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Fotos, S. and Ellis, R.1991. Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25:4. 605-628.
13.
Gass, S.1988. Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9:2. 198-141.
14.
Harley, B.1989. Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment . Applied Linguistics, 10:3. 331-359.
15.
Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D.1981. Introduction. Explanation in Linguistics. Edited by N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot.London: Longman .
16.
James, C.1994. Explaining grammar to its learners. Grammar and the Language Learner. Edited by M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, and E. Williams.New York: Prentice Hall.
17.
Lightbown, P.M.1983. Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Edited by H. Seliger and M. Long.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
18.
Long, M.H. and Robinson, P.1998. Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Edited by C. Doughty and J. Williams.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Lyster, R.1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse . Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20:1. 51-81.
20.
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L.1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19:1. 37-66.
21.
Pica, T.1983. Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33: 4. 465-497.
22.
Schachter, J.1991. Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7:2. 89-102.
23.
Sharwood Smith, M.1991. Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7:2. 118-132.
24.
Sharwood Smith, M.1993. Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases . Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15:2. 165-179.
25.
Spada, N. and Lightbown, P.M.1993. Instruction and the development of questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15:2. 205-224.
26.
Swain, M.1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in Second Language Acquisition. Edited by S.M. Gass and C.M. Madden.Rowley, MA : Newbury House.
27.
Tomasello, M. and Herron, C.1988. Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Psycholinguistics , 9:3. 237-246.
28.
Tomasello, M. and Herron, C.1989. Feedback for language transfer errors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11:4. 385-395.
29.
Trahey, M.1996. Positive evidence in second language acquisition: some long-term effects. Second Language Research, 12:2. 111-139.
30.
White, L.1987. Against comprehensible input: the input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics , 8:2. 95-110.
31.
White, L.1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7:2. 133-161.
32.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, N. and Ranta, L.1991. Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12:4. 416-432.
33.
Williams, J. and Evans, J.1998. What kind of focus and on which forms? Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Edited by C. Doughty and J. Williams.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
