馮敏敏

Ⅰ.Theoretical background

Language errors are significant in three respects： they tell the teacher what needs to be taught； they tell the researcher how learning proceeds； and they are a means whereby learners test their hypothesis about the second language （Corder， S.P. 1967） Learning to swim， to play tennis， to type， or to read all involve a process in which success comes by profiting from mistakes， by using mistakes to obtain feedback from the environment and with that feedback to make new attempts which successively more closely approximate desired goals. However， getting the learners to communicate at all costs may cause the fossilization of language.

Under this circumstance， Vigil and Oller （1976） provided a formal account of fossilization as a factor of positive and negative affective and cognitive feedback. Affective information is mainly encoded in terms of kinesics mechanisms such as gestures， tone of voice， facial expressions and etc. While cognitive information is always conveyed by means of linguistic devices such as sounds， phrases， structures， discourse and so on.

Vigil and Oller find that negative affective feedback， despite the degree of cognitive feedback， will likely cause the abortion of further attempts to communicate. Therefore， one of the most important requirements for effective and meaningful communication lies in the affective affirmation of the learner.

Ⅱ.Pedagogical implications

1. General review of its implication

The most useful implication of Vigil and Ollers model for a theory of error correction is that cognitive feedback must be optimal in order to be effective. Too much negative cognitive feedback-a barrage of interruptions， corrections， and overt attention to malformations-often leads learners to shut off their attempts at communication. The learners perceive that so much is wrong with their production that there is little hope to get anything right.

On the other hand， too much positive cognitive feedback—willingness of the teacher-hearer to let errors uncorrected， to indicate understanding when understanding may not have occurred. The result is the persistence， and perhaps the eventual fossilization， of such errors.

Therefore， the task for the teacher is to discern the optimal tension between positive and negative cognitive feedback： providing enough green lights to encourage continued communication， but not so many that crucial errors go unnoticed， and providing enough red lights to call attention to those crucial errors， but not so many that the learner is discouraged from attempting to speak at all （Brown 220）.

2. How to correct errors

After answering the first question “ what do we correct？” now we come to the second question， the most important one， “how do we correct？” First， the teacher should correct selectively since its impossible to correct all the errors the students makes. Hendrickson （1980） advised teachers to try to discern the difference between global and local errors.

Global errors need to be corrected in some way since the message may otherwise remain garbled. Second， when conducting error correction， the teacher should concentrate on that which will be most productive for the student in future communication. Third， the manner in which the correction is done must be constructive. Two aspects must be considered in constructive error correction： the establishment of an appropriate atmosphere in the class， and the use of appropriate ‘softeners when correcting. Creating an appropriate atmosphere in the classroom is connected to classroom management， and the attitudes and the relationships that develop in the class. The talking class should be a sheltered environment in which it is always safe to take risks and to try things out without fear of ridicule. Correcting errors is delicate matter for everyone has a fragile ego， and not everyone responds positively to softened correction.

3. When to treat errors

Against this theoretical backdrop we can evaluate some possibilities of when to treat errors in the language class. Having noticed an error， the first decision the teacher makes is whether or not to treat it at all. In order to make the decision the teacher may have recourse to factors with immediate， temporary bearing， such as the importance of the error to the current pedagogical focus on the lesson， the teachers perception of the chance of eliciting correct performance from the student if negative feedback is given， and so on. It is a conventional wisdom not to destroy the flow of communication by stopping students to correct them， or， as Horner puts it （1988：217）： ‘Avoid interrupting communicative exchanges. This means a postponement of error correction until the end of the exchange or interaction， which reflects the principle of Vigil and Ollers theory.

However， certain situation in which immediate correction is necessary， and that is when communication has broken down because of some linguistic or sociolinguistic difficulty. At the linguistic level， for example， incorrect use of a particular lexical item or form could really interfere with comprehension. On the other hand， at the sociolinguistic level， the behavior of certain of the participants can really be inappropriate， and can also hinder others participation.

4. Who does the correcting

We need to be careful in interpreting Vigil and Ollers model although its most helpful in understanding models of error correction. Selinker and Lamendella （1979） noted that Vigil and Ollers model relies on the notion of extrinsic feedback alone in error correction， while there are other factors internal to the learners. Who does the correcting？ They first can be the learners themselves. The teachers play very important role in error correction in the classroom. In addition， the people surrounding the learner such as the their classmates， friends and others can also do the correcting.

5.Conclusion

According to Vigil and Ollers theory， the positive and negative affective and cognitive feedback on error correction in the talking class should include the above- mentioned factors. Positive affective and cognitive is imperative in error correction， however， it must be conducted in an optimal level. Error correction is a perplexing and complex issue in second language acquisition， through which the true process of human learning can be found； therefore， it deserves attention and research.

References

[1]Selinker， Larry and Lamendella， John. （1979）. The role of extrinsic feedback in interlanguage fossilization： A discussion of “Rule fossilization： A tentative model.” Language Learning 29.

[2]Vigil， Neddy A. and Oller， John W. （1976）. Rule fossilization： A tentative model. Language Learning 26.