Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:05:46.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LEARNERS' INTERPRETATIONS OF RECASTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2006

Helen Carpenter ,
K. Seon Jeon ,
David MacGregor  and
Alison Mackey
Helen Carpenter
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
K. Seon Jeon
Affiliation:
Columbus State University
David MacGregor
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Alison Mackey
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of interaction researchers have claimed that recasts might be ambiguous to learners; that is, instead of perceiving recasts as containing corrective feedback, learners might see them simply as literal or semantic repetitions without any corrective element (Long, in press; Lyster & Ranta, 1997). This study investigates learners' interpretations of recasts in interaction. Videotapes of task-based interactions including recasts and repetitions were shown to advanced English as a second language students (N = 34). Although both groups viewed the teacher's feedback (recasts, repetitions, or other), one group saw video clips that had been edited to remove the learners' nontargetlike utterances that had triggered the feedback, and another group saw the same video clips with the initial nontargetlike utterances included. After each clip, learners in both groups were asked to indicate whether they thought they were hearing a recast, a repetition, or something else. A subset of learners (n = 14) provided verbal reports while they evaluated the clips. Results show that learners who did not overhear initial learner utterances were significantly less successful at distinguishing recasts from repetitions. The verbal protocol data suggest that learners were not looking for nonverbal cues from the speakers. A post hoc analysis suggests that morphosyntactic recasts were less accurately recognized than phonological or lexical recasts in this study. These findings suggest that the contrast between a problematic utterance and a recast contributes to learners' interpretations of recasts as corrective.We are grateful to Bo Ram Suh for her help with data collection and coding and Rebecca Sachs for her help with editing. We would also like to thank Mohammed Louguit from the Center for Applied Linguistics for statistical assistance. We are grateful for the comments made by the anonymous SSLA reviewers who helped us to improve the paper. Despite the assistance of these individuals, any errors remain our own.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 209 - 236
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allwright, D. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher's treatment of learner error. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education: On TESOL '75 (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of passé composé and imparfait. Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.Google Scholar
Baker, N., & Nelson, K. (1984). Recasting and related conversational techniques for triggering syntactic advances by young children. First Language, 5, 3–22.Google Scholar
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 157–174). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87–105.Google Scholar
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 10, 583–593.Google Scholar
Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28, 90–98.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.Google Scholar
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.Google Scholar
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255–270.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.Google Scholar
Kessler, C., Lee, L., McCloskey, M., Quinn, M., & Stack, L. (1996). Making connections: An integrated approach to learning English. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
Leeman, J., (in press). Feedback. In R. Dekeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from linguistics and psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loewen, S. (2002). The occurrence and effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-based ESL lessons. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–478). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (Ed.). (in press). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (in press). Interaction. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from linguistics and psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individuals differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617–673.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1980). Theories of the child's acquisition of syntax: A look at rare events and at necessary, catalytic, and irrelevant components of mother-child conversation. In V. Teller & S. White (Eds.), Studies in child language and multiculturalism (pp. 45–68). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Nelson, K. (1987). Some observations from the perspective of the rare event cognitive comparison theory of language acquisition. In K. Nelson & A. Kleeck (Eds.), Children's language (Vol. 6, pp. 289–331). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaeste (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom instruction (pp. 47–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–533.Google Scholar
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573–595.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and second language syllabus design: A triadic theory of task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 285–317). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139–161.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Warren, P. (1996). Prosody and parsing: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 1–16.Google Scholar