Studies have shown that composition and L2 writing teachers give different scores (Golombek, Weigle, Boldt, & Valsecchi, 2003) and focus on different features (Brown, 1991) when assessing student writing, which is assumed to be due to the differences in their background and training (Santos, 1992; Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995). Error gravity is thought to be one reason why composition and L2 writing teachers give different scores (Rifkin & Roberts, 1995). Common methods for examining error gravity were to analyze scores and responses given by the raters and to have raters reflect on the rating process and analyze their responses. Only one study had used eye-tracking methodology to explore the raters’ reading behaviors (Eckstein, Briney, Chan & Blackwell, 2018). The current study built on Eckstein et al.’s study to examine how composition and L2 writing teachers rate grammar errors differently. The researchers identified three native-like errors and three nonnative-like errors and introduced them into eight paragraphs written by students in a first-year composition class. The researchers asked composition and L2 writing teachers to read and assess the eight paragraphs while an eye-tracker measured their eye-movements. We assume that what raters look at while assessing the paragraphs reflects what they are cognitively processing (Rayner, 1998). The results indicate that composition and L2 writing teachers assign significantly different scores to grammar (L2 writing teachers assign higher scores), yet their reading behaviors are similar. This indicates that teachers with different backgrounds do not process grammar errors differently, but rather reach different scores based on other differences.

<p>Abstract: This paper is based on a qualitative investigation concerning the effect of errors on the intelligibility of learner texts and whether there are some errors that can be considered graver than others. The investigation was based on five student texts that were collected at an upper secondary school in the Swedish province of Värmland. The texts were sent to five native speaker evaluators in Britain and the United States of America. The errors represented were categorized as followed: substance, grammar, word choice, transfer errors and other errors.The results indicate that errors concerning substance, word choice, other errors and grammar were not considered grave. Concerning the grammatical errors, there were only a small number of cases that were considered grave. Therefore, the conclusion was drawn that grammatical errors do not affect the intelligibility of any of the five texts. However, the results from the investigation show that transfer errors, i.e. when the writer has transferred characteristics from the first language to the target language, were considered affecting the intelligibility to a larger extent than errors belonging to the other categories.</p>

The purpose of this study is to determine two types of error gravity in a corpus of texts written by native Chinese learners of English (ELLs)—one that enriches the traditional construct of gravity found in error gravity research by including error frequency, or how often an error occurs in a text relative to others, as an intervening variable, and one that applies the new error gravity data in a practical way to help establish salient grammatical focal points for written corrective feedback (WCF). Previous error gravity research has suggested that the amount of irritation caused by error is determined by the extent to which an utterance departs from "native-like" speech. However, because these studies often neglect the role of frequency in determining gravity—relying on isolated sentences, pre-determined errors, and manipulated texts to define it—a more complete view of error gravity is needed. Forty-eight native English speakers without ESL teaching experience and 10 experienced ESL teachers evaluated a set of 18 timed, 30-minute essays written by high intermediate to advanced native-Chinese ELLs. Errors were identified, verified, tagged, and classified by the level of irritation they produced. Results show the most serious errors included count/non-count (C/NC), insert verb (INSERT V), omit verb (OMIT V), and subject-verb agreement (SV). The most frequent error type was word choice (WC), followed by singular/plural (S/PL), awkward (AWK), and word form (WF). When combined, singular/plural (S/PL), word form (WF), word choice (WC), and awkward (AWK) errors were found to be the most critical. These findings support Burt and Kiparsky's (1972) global/local error distinction in which global errors, or those lexical, grammatical and syntactic errors that affect the overall organization or meaning of the sentence (Burt, 1975) are deemed more grievous than local ones, which affect only "single elements (constituents)" (Burt, 1975, p. 57). Implications are discussed in terms of future research and possible uses in the Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback classroom.

Abstract: This paper is based on a qualitative investigation concerning the effect of errors on the intelligibility of learner texts and whether there are some errors that can be considered graver than others. The investigation was based on five student texts that were collected at an upper secondary school in the Swedish province of Värmland. The texts were sent to five native speaker evaluators in Britain and the United States of America. The errors represented were categorized as followed: substance, grammar, word choice, transfer errors and other errors.The results indicate that errors concerning substance, word choice, other errors and grammar were not considered grave. Concerning the grammatical errors, there were only a small number of cases that were considered grave. Therefore, the conclusion was drawn that grammatical errors do not affect the intelligibility of any of the five texts. However, the results from the investigation show that transfer errors, i.e. when the writer has transferred characteristics from the first language to the target language, were considered affecting the intelligibility to a larger extent than errors belonging to the other categories.

Cette recherche vise à décrire 1) les erreurs lexicales commises en production écrite par des élèves francophones de 3e secondaire et 2) le rapport à l’erreur lexicale d’enseignants de français (conception de l’erreur lexicale, pratiques d’évaluation du vocabulaire en production écrite, modes de rétroaction aux erreurs lexicales). Le premier volet de la recherche consiste en une analyse d’erreurs à trois niveaux : 1) une description linguistique des erreurs à l’aide d’une typologie, 2) une évaluation de la gravité des erreurs et 3) une explication de leurs sources possibles. Le corpus analysé est constitué de 300 textes rédigés en classe de français par des élèves de 3e secondaire. L’analyse a révélé 1144 erreurs lexicales. Les plus fréquentes sont les problèmes sémantiques (30%), les erreurs liées aux propriétés morphosyntaxiques des unités lexicales (21%) et l’utilisation de termes familiers (17%). Cette répartition démontre que la moitié des erreurs lexicales sont attribuables à une méconnaissance de propriétés des mots autres que le sens et la forme. L’évaluation de la gravité des erreurs repose sur trois critères : leur acceptation linguistique selon les dictionnaires, leur impact sur la compréhension et leur degré d’intégration à l’usage. Les problèmes liés aux registres de langue sont généralement ceux qui sont considérés comme les moins graves et les erreurs sémantiques représentent la quasi-totalité des erreurs graves. Le troisième axe d’analyse concerne la source des erreurs et fait ressortir trois sources principales : l’influence de la langue orale, la proximité sémantique et la parenté formelle entre le mot utilisé et celui visé. Le second volet de la thèse concerne le rapport des enseignants de français à l’erreur lexicale et repose sur l’analyse de 224 rédactions corrigées ainsi que sur une série de huit entrevues menées avec des enseignants de 3e secondaire. Lors de la correction, les enseignants relèvent surtout les erreurs orthographiques ainsi que celles relevant des propriétés morphosyntaxiques des mots (genre, invariabilité, régime), qu’ils classent parmi les erreurs de grammaire. Les erreurs plus purement lexicales, c’est-à-dire les erreurs sémantiques, l’emploi de termes familiers et les erreurs de collocation, demeurent peu relevées, et les annotations des enseignants concernant ces types d’erreurs sont vagues et peu systématiques, donnant peu de pistes aux élèves pour la correction. L’évaluation du vocabulaire en production écrite est toujours soumise à une appréciation qualitative, qui repose sur l’impression générale des enseignants plutôt que sur des critères précis, le seul indicateur clair étant la répétition. Les explications des enseignants concernant les erreurs lexicales reposent beaucoup sur l’intuition, ce qui témoigne de certaines lacunes dans leur formation en lien avec le vocabulaire. Les enseignants admettent enseigner très peu le vocabulaire en classe au secondaire et expliquent ce choix par le manque de temps et d’outils adéquats. L’enseignement du vocabulaire est toujours subordonné à des tâches d’écriture ou de lecture et vise davantage l’acquisition de mots précis que le développement d’une réelle compétence lexicale. / This research aims to describe 1) francophone students’ lexical errors in writing and 2) teachers’ relation to lexical errors (conception of error, vocabulary evaluation practices, feedback provided). The first part of the research consists in a three-level error analysis: 1) a linguistic description based on an error typology, 2) an evaluation of error gravity and 3) an explanation of the possible sources of error. The corpus analyzed is composed of 300 texts written in French class by 3rd year high school students. The analysis revealed 1144 lexical errors. The most common are semantic problems (30%), errors related to morphosyntactic properties of words (21%) and the use of colloquial words (17%). This distribution shows that half of the lexical errors are due to a lack of knowledge of word properties other than meaning and form. The evaluation of error gravity is based on three criteria: their acceptability according to dictionaries, their impact on comprehension and their degree of integration to language. Problems related to register are usually those perceived as less serious and semantic problems represent the vast majority of serious errors. The third level of analysis concerns the possible causes of the errors and identifies three main sources: influence of oral language, semantic proximity and formal similarity between the word used and the target word. The second part of the thesis concerns French teachers’ relation to lexical errors and is based on the analysis of 224 corrected essays and eight interviews. When correcting, teachers focus their attention on errors involving morphosyntactic properties of words (gender, invariability, government pattern), which they consider as grammatical errors. The more genuine lexical errors (semantic errors, use of colloquial words and collocation errors) are rarely pointed out, and comments provided regarding these types of errors are vague and inconsistent, giving students very few hints for correction. The evaluation of vocabulary in written production is always subject to a qualitative assessment, based on the teacher’s general impression rather than specific criteria, the only clear indicator being repetition. The explanations teachers provide about lexical problems rely heavily on intuition, which shows some deficiencies in their training in regards to vocabulary.

Cette recherche vise à décrire 1) les erreurs lexicales commises en production écrite par des élèves francophones de 3e secondaire et 2) le rapport à l’erreur lexicale d’enseignants de français (conception de l’erreur lexicale, pratiques d’évaluation du vocabulaire en production écrite, modes de rétroaction aux erreurs lexicales). Le premier volet de la recherche consiste en une analyse d’erreurs à trois niveaux : 1) une description linguistique des erreurs à l’aide d’une typologie, 2) une évaluation de la gravité des erreurs et 3) une explication de leurs sources possibles. Le corpus analysé est constitué de 300 textes rédigés en classe de français par des élèves de 3e secondaire. L’analyse a révélé 1144 erreurs lexicales. Les plus fréquentes sont les problèmes sémantiques (30%), les erreurs liées aux propriétés morphosyntaxiques des unités lexicales (21%) et l’utilisation de termes familiers (17%). Cette répartition démontre que la moitié des erreurs lexicales sont attribuables à une méconnaissance de propriétés des mots autres que le sens et la forme. L’évaluation de la gravité des erreurs repose sur trois critères : leur acceptation linguistique selon les dictionnaires, leur impact sur la compréhension et leur degré d’intégration à l’usage. Les problèmes liés aux registres de langue sont généralement ceux qui sont considérés comme les moins graves et les erreurs sémantiques représentent la quasi-totalité des erreurs graves. Le troisième axe d’analyse concerne la source des erreurs et fait ressortir trois sources principales : l’influence de la langue orale, la proximité sémantique et la parenté formelle entre le mot utilisé et celui visé. Le second volet de la thèse concerne le rapport des enseignants de français à l’erreur lexicale et repose sur l’analyse de 224 rédactions corrigées ainsi que sur une série de huit entrevues menées avec des enseignants de 3e secondaire. Lors de la correction, les enseignants relèvent surtout les erreurs orthographiques ainsi que celles relevant des propriétés morphosyntaxiques des mots (genre, invariabilité, régime), qu’ils classent parmi les erreurs de grammaire. Les erreurs plus purement lexicales, c’est-à-dire les erreurs sémantiques, l’emploi de termes familiers et les erreurs de collocation, demeurent peu relevées, et les annotations des enseignants concernant ces types d’erreurs sont vagues et peu systématiques, donnant peu de pistes aux élèves pour la correction. L’évaluation du vocabulaire en production écrite est toujours soumise à une appréciation qualitative, qui repose sur l’impression générale des enseignants plutôt que sur des critères précis, le seul indicateur clair étant la répétition. Les explications des enseignants concernant les erreurs lexicales reposent beaucoup sur l’intuition, ce qui témoigne de certaines lacunes dans leur formation en lien avec le vocabulaire. Les enseignants admettent enseigner très peu le vocabulaire en classe au secondaire et expliquent ce choix par le manque de temps et d’outils adéquats. L’enseignement du vocabulaire est toujours subordonné à des tâches d’écriture ou de lecture et vise davantage l’acquisition de mots précis que le développement d’une réelle compétence lexicale. / This research aims to describe 1) francophone students’ lexical errors in writing and 2) teachers’ relation to lexical errors (conception of error, vocabulary evaluation practices, feedback provided). The first part of the research consists in a three-level error analysis: 1) a linguistic description based on an error typology, 2) an evaluation of error gravity and 3) an explanation of the possible sources of error. The corpus analyzed is composed of 300 texts written in French class by 3rd year high school students. The analysis revealed 1144 lexical errors. The most common are semantic problems (30%), errors related to morphosyntactic properties of words (21%) and the use of colloquial words (17%). This distribution shows that half of the lexical errors are due to a lack of knowledge of word properties other than meaning and form. The evaluation of error gravity is based on three criteria: their acceptability according to dictionaries, their impact on comprehension and their degree of integration to language. Problems related to register are usually those perceived as less serious and semantic problems represent the vast majority of serious errors. The third level of analysis concerns the possible causes of the errors and identifies three main sources: influence of oral language, semantic proximity and formal similarity between the word used and the target word. The second part of the thesis concerns French teachers’ relation to lexical errors and is based on the analysis of 224 corrected essays and eight interviews. When correcting, teachers focus their attention on errors involving morphosyntactic properties of words (gender, invariability, government pattern), which they consider as grammatical errors. The more genuine lexical errors (semantic errors, use of colloquial words and collocation errors) are rarely pointed out, and comments provided regarding these types of errors are vague and inconsistent, giving students very few hints for correction. The evaluation of vocabulary in written production is always subject to a qualitative assessment, based on the teacher’s general impression rather than specific criteria, the only clear indicator being repetition. The explanations teachers provide about lexical problems rely heavily on intuition, which shows some deficiencies in their training in regards to vocabulary.