CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 137EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

INTERPRETING RECASTS AS LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE: The Roles of Linguistic Target, Length, and Degree of Change

Egi, Takako·2007·Studies in Second Language Acquisition
DOI 10.1017/s0272263107070416
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Researchers have claimed that recasts might be ambiguous as feedback. Because recasts serve a dual function, as both feedback and conversational response, learners might not always interpret them as feedback (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997). This study explores how learners interpret recasts they notice (as responses to content, negative evidence, positive evidence, or a combination of negative and positive evidence) and how recast features (linguistic targets, length, number of changes) might affect their interpretations. Forty-nine learners of Japanese engaged in task-based activities during which they received recasts of morphosyntactic and lexical errors. When learners noticed recasts, they occasionally interpreted them as responses to content, particularly when recasts were long and substantially different from their problematic utterances. In contrast, learners were significantly more likely to attend to the linguistic evidence in recasts when these were short and closely resembled the original utterances. These patterns were generally observed for both morphosyntactic and lexical recasts. Results suggest that length and number of changes might, in part, determine the explicitness of recasts as feedback and thus affect learners' abilities to interpret them as such.I am grateful to Alison Mackey, Helen Carpenter, and Ana-Maria Nuevo for their insightful suggestions on an earlier version of this article. I also would like to thank Alison Mackey, Ronald Leow, and Noriko Iwashita for their valuable feedback on the dissertation research on which this study is based, the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions, and Brian Marx for his statistical advice. Any errors, of course, are my own. This research was supported in part by a dissertation improvement grant from the National Science Foundation (grant No. 0214188).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263107070416

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mackey, Gass & McDonough's (2000) stimulated recall data showed that feedback that was intended to correct lexical, semantic, and phonological errors was perceived more accurately than feedback targeting morphosyntactic errors (see also Egi 2007).

    “Mackey, Gass & McDonough's (2000) stimulated recall data showed that feedback that was intended to correct lexical, semantic, and phonological errors was perceived more accurately than feedback targeting morphosyntactic errors (see also Egi 2007).”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Egi 2007

  • Learners do notice the corrections they receive even in implicit types of corrective feedback such as recasts.

    “There is clear evidence that learners do notice the corrections their receive even in implicit types of CF such as recasts (Egi, 2007)”

    From Focus on form: A critical review (2016) · cites this paper as Egi, 2007

  • The extent to which learners notice those forms that are focused on during communicative interactions varies according to factors such as whether the form receiving the focus is relevant to the learners' communicative needs and the discoursal characteristics of specific focus on form options, in particular their level of explicitness.

    “The extent to which learners notice those forms that are focussed on during communicative interactions varies according to a number of factors such as whether the form receiving the focus is relevant to the learners' communicative needs (J.Williams, 2001) and the discoursal characteristics of specific focus on form options, in particular their level of explicitness (Egi, 2007).”

    From Focus on form: A critical review (2016) · cites this paper as Egi, 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Egi, T.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Egi, Takako
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2007-10-23
Volume
29
Issue
04
ISSN
  • 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1545
DOI
10.1017/s0272263107070416
OpenAlex
W2083460519
Cited by
137
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 15
FWCI
57.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
recasts, explicit feedback, negative evidence, positive evidence, morphosyntactic errors, lexical errors, task-based language learning, Japanese as a second language, conversational responses

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review