Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:59:37.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research on the role of recasts in L2 learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2020

Jaemyung Goo
Jaemyung Goo*
Affiliation:
Department of English Education, Gwangju National University of Education, Gwangju, South Korea
*
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With much empirical evidence of a beneficial role of interaction in second language (L2) development, researchers have become interested in investigating specific aspects of interaction (e.g., negotiation for meaning, corrective feedback (CF), modified output, noticing, etc.) that likely influence the extent to which interaction benefits L2 learning (Mackey, 2012; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2012; Mackey & Goo, 2013; Gass & Mackey, 2015; Loewen & Sato, 2018). Among varied features of interaction, CF has been found to be quite effective at drawing learners' attention to L2 linguistic features during interaction, and has engendered much scholarly discussion of pivotal importance and numerous empirical studies on its potential for L2 development (see Russell & Spada, 2006; Mackey & Goo, 2007; S. Li, 2010*; Lyster & Saito, 2010*; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013*; Brown, 2016*; Nassaji, 2016* for reviews and meta-analyses). Recasts, inter alia, have been at the center of most CF research and greatly explored with a view to understanding the nature of recasts, their characteristics (in various L2 learning contexts), their relative efficacy over other CF moves, and moderator variables that may mediate the effectiveness of recasts.

Type
Research Timelines
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 289 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by 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

Baker, N. D., & Nelson, K. E. (1984). Recasting and related conversational techniques for triggering syntactic advances by young children. First Language, 5(13), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J. N., & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chouinard, M. M., & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 637–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, E. V. (2014). Pragmatics in acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 41(SI), 105–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, M. T., Soto, G., & Nelson, K. (2017). Language learning, recasts, and interaction involving AAC: Background and potential for intervention. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(1), 42–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 180–206). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2016). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity: A replication. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O., & Yilmaz, Y. (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 279–302). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. (1990). Learnability and feedback. Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Positive and negative evidence in language acquisition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(2), 341–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Révész, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62(3), 851–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approach. In Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2013). Interaction approach in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (Vol. 5, pp. 2748–2758). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. L., Bonamo, K. M., & Travis, L. L. (1995). Negative evidence on negative evidence. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 139–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saxton, M. (2005). ‘Recasts’ in a new light: Insights for practice from typical language studies. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, M. (2010). Child language: Acquisition and development. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Saxton, M., Backley, P., & Gallaway, C. (2005). Negative input for grammatical errors: Effects after a lag of 12 weeks. Journal of Child Language, 32(3), 643–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saxton, M., Kulcsar, B., Marshall, G., & Rupra, M. (1998). Longer-term effects of corrective input: An experimental approach. Journal of Child Language, 25(3), 701–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301–322). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2009). Interaction research in second/foreign language classrooms. In Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 157–175). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar