Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development: Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings?

Abstract

This article examines the effects of negotiated interaction on the production and development of question forms in English as a second language (ESL). The study focused on one feature of interaction, recasts, which have recently been the topic of interactional work in the SLA literature (Long, 1996; Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, this issue; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 1995). The study compared groups of learners who received interactionally modified input with learners who received the same input containing intensive recasts in order to investigate: (a) the effect of recasts on learners' short term interlanguage (IL) development, and (b) the nature and content of learners' responses to recasts. The results suggest that for more advanced learners, interaction with intensive recasts may be more beneficial than interaction alone in facilitating an increase in production of targeted higher‐level morphosyntactic forms. These positive developmental effects were found for recasts even though, as is generally acknowledged in the discourse, recasts were usually not repeated and rarely elicited modification by the learners. This study, therefore, suggests that recasts may be beneficial for short term IL development even though they are not incorporated in learners' immediate responses. In fact, the responses may be red herrings.

Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: some insights from recent second language acquisition research

“…Earlier, Roberts (1995) had suggested two key factors influencing effectiveness: (1) the learnerÕs awareness of the fact that he/she is being corrected, and (2) his/her understanding of the nature of the correction. Mackey and Philp (1998) highlight the importance of the learnerÕs developmental readiness in assessing the effectiveness of corrective feedback: they found, for example, that recasts did not enable learners to acquire forms that they were not developmentally ready to acquire. Nassaji and Swain (2000: 36) make the point more specifically that Ôthe usefulness of corrective feedback may be highly dependent upon the nature of the transaction and mediation provided by the expert [teacher] to the novice [learner]Õ.…”

Counterpoint Piece: The Case for Variety in Corrective Feedback Research

“…For example, the positive effects for recasts appear to be reserved for learners in form-oriented settings (Nicholas et al, 2001 ) and for those with high literacy levels (Bigelow, delMas, Hansen, & Tarone, 2006 ), developmental readiness (Mackey & Philp, 1998 ), high working memory capacity (Mackey, Philp, Egi, Fujii, & Tatsumi, 2002 ), and high phonological memory, attention control, and analytic ability (Trofi movich, Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007 ). Goo and Mackey acknowledge these and other constraints but then ignore them as they claim instead that research has substantiated "the across-the-board utility of recasts" (p. 135).…”

“…In any case, the purpose of comparisons is indeed to ascertain which treatment is more advantageous than others. Comparing identical rather than different types of CF would lead us back to nebulous comparisons of recasts and negotiation (see Mackey & Philp, 1998 ).…”

The Achievement of Intersubjectivity through Embodied Completions: A Study of Interactions Between First and Second Language Speakers

“…The case discussed here may remind some readers of 'recasts' (Doughty 1994;Lyster and Ranta 1997;Lyster 1998;Mackey and Philp 1998;Ohta 2000Ohta , 2001Nicholas et al 2001). The definitions of recasts vary among researchers, but they are generally understood as restatements of language learners' utterances, which provide expansion or implicit correction while maintaining the semantic content.…”