For more than two decades, after the advent of the communicative approach and of Krashen’s theories about interlanguage (Krashen 2009), the demonization of errors, typical of the grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods (Richards 1973), had been in turn demonized in theoretical ELT frames. Concomitantly, prescriptivism had fallen into disgrace in favour of more democratizing linguistic theories and language policies in academia (Crystal 2000 & 2009). Interest in error analysis and corrective feedback has recently been revived by computer learner corpora studies (Granger et al. 2002), which provide new evidence and insights in fields like SLA and second language teaching and learning. However, throughout the swings of the pendulum, many teachers, lecturers and the selfsame linguists, in their daily teaching practice, keep being preoccupied with their students’ errors, especially at CEFR C1-C2 levels when the acceptability of spoken and written language depends on its accuracy. Language teachers’ time-honoured concerns and the interest of the general public in error avoidance have been endorsed by the regular publishing (and re-publishing) of error lists of some kind, often in the form of dictionaries of usage (Allen 2009) and of common errors – in Italy, almost one a year since 2004 (Browne et al. 1995; Hofmann Cortesi 2004; Clifton 2006; Rossetti & Rossetti 2007; Torfs 2008; Bonini Cambi & Caroselli 2009; Browne et al. 2009; Wallwork 2009; Silberberg 2011; Dickens & Siano 2012). This paper surveys these pedagogical dictionaries of common errors for Italian learners as far as their treatment of lexical errors is concerned, since these are considered as the most irritating and persistent in learner language, even at upper-intermediate and advanced levels (Agustín Llach 2011). After suggesting a categorization of the dictionaries in question according to a number of criteria, their structures are analysed on the basis of a proposed sequence of stages in corrective feedback. The main question is: Where do pedagogical dictionaries of errors stand between language prescription and description? The focus of the study is on the dictionaries’ sources of data and on their judgmental stances. The concluding remarks consider the average users’ needs for the development of new tools for the identification, classification, prevention and corrective feedback of Italians’ typical lexical errors in English.

Right Word or Wrong Word? Lexical errors in dictionaries of common mistakes for EFL Italian learners

BOZZO, LUISA
2014-01-01

Abstract

For more than two decades, after the advent of the communicative approach and of Krashen’s theories about interlanguage (Krashen 2009), the demonization of errors, typical of the grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods (Richards 1973), had been in turn demonized in theoretical ELT frames. Concomitantly, prescriptivism had fallen into disgrace in favour of more democratizing linguistic theories and language policies in academia (Crystal 2000 & 2009). Interest in error analysis and corrective feedback has recently been revived by computer learner corpora studies (Granger et al. 2002), which provide new evidence and insights in fields like SLA and second language teaching and learning. However, throughout the swings of the pendulum, many teachers, lecturers and the selfsame linguists, in their daily teaching practice, keep being preoccupied with their students’ errors, especially at CEFR C1-C2 levels when the acceptability of spoken and written language depends on its accuracy. Language teachers’ time-honoured concerns and the interest of the general public in error avoidance have been endorsed by the regular publishing (and re-publishing) of error lists of some kind, often in the form of dictionaries of usage (Allen 2009) and of common errors – in Italy, almost one a year since 2004 (Browne et al. 1995; Hofmann Cortesi 2004; Clifton 2006; Rossetti & Rossetti 2007; Torfs 2008; Bonini Cambi & Caroselli 2009; Browne et al. 2009; Wallwork 2009; Silberberg 2011; Dickens & Siano 2012). This paper surveys these pedagogical dictionaries of common errors for Italian learners as far as their treatment of lexical errors is concerned, since these are considered as the most irritating and persistent in learner language, even at upper-intermediate and advanced levels (Agustín Llach 2011). After suggesting a categorization of the dictionaries in question according to a number of criteria, their structures are analysed on the basis of a proposed sequence of stages in corrective feedback. The main question is: Where do pedagogical dictionaries of errors stand between language prescription and description? The focus of the study is on the dictionaries’ sources of data and on their judgmental stances. The concluding remarks consider the average users’ needs for the development of new tools for the identification, classification, prevention and corrective feedback of Italians’ typical lexical errors in English.
2014
Osservare le norme, osservare l’uso: il lessico nei dizionari e nei media
Torino
9-11 maggio 2013
Observing Norms, Observing Usage: Lexis in Dictionaries and the Media
Peter Lang
1
18
9783034315845
Luisa Bozzo
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/151189
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact