Braidi2002 recasts

7/27/2019 Braidi2002 recasts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/braidi2002-recasts 1/43

LanguageLearninig52:1, March 2002, pp . 1-42

Reexamining the Role of Recastsin Native-Speaker/Nonnative-Speaker

Interactions

SusanM. BraidiWest Virginia University

This study examines the occurrence and use of recasts

in adult native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions ina nonclassroom setting. The study focuses on native-

speaker recasts in three types of negotiations: one-signal

negotiated interactions, extended negotiated interactions

(Pica, 1988), and nonnegotiated interactions, and on re-

casts in response to nonnative speaker levels of grammati-cality (single vs. multiple errors) resulting from four

conversation tasks. The results show that recasts occur indifferent patterns than those reported in earlier research,but that these recasts are nevertheless used at rates con-sistent with previous research. These findings raise ques-

tions concerning current criteria for determining the

Susan M. Braidi, Department of Foreign Languages.I would like to thank the following people who have helped in the prepa-

ration of this paper: Jennifer Thomas for help with data coding, JamesDybdahl for data transcription, Pam Erramuzpe for research assistance, DanChilko and Magdalena Niewiadomska-Bugaj for their assistance with thestatistical analysis, Frank W Medley, Jr., for comments on previous drafts,and the students for their participation in the study.This research was fundedin part by a grant from theDepartment ofEnglish at Arizona State UniversityThe Department of Foreign Languages at West Virginia University also

supported the project. An earlier version of this paper was presented at theannual conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics



LanguageLearning

existence of negative evidence in patterns that can be used

by learners.

Recent reviews of the role of input and interaction in second

language (L2) acquisition (Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998; Long, 1996;

Pica, 1994; Wesche, 1994) suggest that interaction can p-rovide

the input and output conditions conducive to L2 development.

Although recasts as a type of input have been investigated in L2negotiation in and out ofthe classroom (e.g., Doughty,1993; Lyster,

1998a, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Mackey, 1999; Mackey, Gass,

& McDonough, 2000; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Oliver, 1995, 2000;

and Ortega & Long, 1997), the usability and use of recasts in

second language development is far from clear. The present study

examines the occurrence and use ofrecasts in adult native speaker

(NS)/nonnative-speaker (NNS) interactions, with a focus on differ-

ent types of negotiation and different levels of grammaticality. As

background for the present study, I first examine the claims made

for input and interaction features in L2 acquisition and then

review the research on negative evidence in first language (L1)

and L2 acquisition. Also included in this section is a brief discus-

sion of the effects ofnegotiation type on NNS responses.

The Role of L2 Input and Interaction

The role of input in general, and specific types of input and

interaction in particular, has been much debated in both the Li

and L2 acquisition literature. Input can be defined as the linguistic

forms that are in evidence in the learner's environment. Thislinguistic evidence may serve as positive evidence or as negative

Vol. 52, No. 1



Braidi 3

to L2 development, from comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985) to

incomprehensible input (White, 1987), from apperceived and com-prehended input (Gass, 1988, 1997) to comprehensible output(Swain, 1985,1995), from enhanced input (Sharwood Smith, 1993)

to structured input (VanPatten, 1996; VanPatten & Cadierno,1993a, 1993b), and from interactional negotiation of meaning(Long, 1983a, 1983b; Pica, 1994) to interactional negotiation of

form (Lyster, 1998a; Lyster & Ranta, 1997). An additional compo-

nent is the learner's ability to attend to and notice the particularfeatures in the input (Schmidt, 1990, 1995; Schmidt & Frota, 1986;

Tomlin & Villa, 1994).1 All of these approaches to input, interac-tion, and output place different amounts of emphasis on the roleof input and attention to input in L2 morphosyntactic, lexical, andphonological development.

Recent reviews of input and interaction in L2 acquisition

(Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998; Long, 1996; Pica, 1994) have madethe following suggestions about the role that input and interactionplay in L2 development. Pica (1994, p. 494), in a review of L2interaction research, defined negotiation of meaning as "the modi-fication and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners

and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficul-ties in message comprehensibility." Pica suggested that negotia-tion of meaning aids in L2 development in three

major ways. It"facilitates learners' comprehension and structural segmentationof L2 input, access to lexical form and meaning, and production of

modified output" (p. 493).

Gass et al. (1998), on the basis of the work of Sato (1986),highlighted the selective nature of the relationship between inter-action and L2 acquisition. They argued that the important issueis the role that negotiation plays in highlighting the mismatchesbetween the learner's interlanguage and the target language, thus



Language Learning

claims forthe

roleof comprehensible output in L2 development.

On the basis of the insufficiencies of comprehensible input, Swain

(1985) argued that what is required to facilitate L2 development

is comprehensible output, which forces learners to move from the

semantic level of processing to the syntactic level in order to

produce the target language. She further hypothesized that com-

prehensible output serves a "noticing/triggering" function or a

"consciousness-raising" role (1995, p. 128), and she argued thatlearner production ofoutput and the linguistic problems that arise

may lead learners "to notice what they do not know, or know only

partially" (1995, p. 129).2

The interplay between comprehension, negotiation, atten-

tion, and production in the negotiation of meaning is also sup-

ported by Long (1996). Long argued for the role of interactional

negotiations as a means of facilitating the connection between

learner attention and L2 development. He stated that "communi-

cative trouble can lead learners to recognize that a linguistic

problem exists, switch their attentional focus from message to

form, identify the problem, and notice the needed item in the

input" (p. 425). In an updated version of his Interactional Hypothe-

sis, he suggested that the negotiation of meaning that causes NS

interlocutors to make interactional adjustments "facilitates acqui-

sition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, par-

ticularly selective attention, and output in productive ways"

(pp. 451-452). All of these reviews highlight the role ofinteraction,

and specifically the negotiation of meaning, as facilitative in the

L2 acquisition process, from the perspectives of both input and

output.Coming from a pedagogical perspective, Lyster (1998a,

Vol. 52, No. 1



Braidi

(a) elicitation of the correct target language form by offering a

fill-in-the-blank form or a repetition of the student error;(b) metalinguistic feedback in the form of "comments, information

or questions related to the well-formedness of the student's utter-

ance";3 (c) clarification requests indicating that the student utter-

ance had been misunderstood; and (d) repetitions of the student's

erroneous utterance (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, pp. 47-48).4 Lyster

(1998b) noted that negotiation of form differs from negotiation of

meaning in that "the negotiation of form aims not only for com-prehensibility of message but also for accuracy and precision inform, thus involving a more pedagogical and less conversational

function of negotiation" (p. 53). Therefore, the types of interaction

that occur in the classroom may differ markedly from those found

in experimental and conversational settings.

Negatiue Evidence

Given these claims for the facilitative possibilities and limi-tations of negotiated interaction, renewed interest in types ofnegotiation and in negative evidence has emerged. Negative evi-dence indicating to the learner that a given utterance is not

grammatical or acceptable takes different forms (see Long, 1996;Long & Robinson, 1998; Schachter,

1984). As a reaction to alearner's erroneous utterance, this negative feedback can be ex-plicit or implicit. Explicit negative evidence is input in which the

NNS error is explicitly pointed out to the learner, as in "No, not X.

It's Y," for example. Implicit negative evidence includes more

subtle indications that an utterance is not well-formed and cantake several forms, for example, clarification requests seeking

additional information or recoding of the original utterance (e.g.,

"What do you mean?"), confirmation checks with question intona-

5



Language Learning

The role of negative evidence in language acquisition, how-

ever, has been called into question. Pinker (1989, Grimshaw &

Pinker, 1989) claimed that for negative evidence to play a role in

Li acquisition, it must meet four criteria: negative evidence would

have to exist; it would have to be useful; it would have to be used;

and it would have to be necessary (Pinker, 1989, pp. 19-20).5 Beck

and Eubank (1991) raised similar concerns for L2 acquisition.

In a review of input issues, Long (1996) addressed each ofPinker's criteria in detail with reference to both Li and L2 acqui-

sition. Several representative points from the Li acquisition lit-

erature are briefly noted here. Long (1996, p. 430) stated that

"Demonstrating the existence of negative evidence involves show-

ing that something in the learner's linguistic, conversational, or

physical environment reliablyprovides the information necessary

to alert the learner to the existence of error" (p. 430, emphasis

added). In other words, the negative input would have to be

consistently, reliably, and differentially provided. For instance,

Bohannon and Stanowicz (1988) reported that adults reliably

respond differently to children's grammatical and ungrammatical

utterances. Over 90% of their exact repetitions were in response

to well-formed utterances, while over 70% of the recasts and

expanded repetitions were in response to ill-formed utterances.

Not all LI research finds as great a difference. For example,

Demetras, Post, and Snow (1986) found differences fo r implicit

feedback such as fo r exact repetitions, topic continuations (o r

"move-ons"), and clarification requests, but no differences fo r other

measures, such as explicit corrections and explicit approvals. They

suggested that the suppliance of a clarificationrequest indicates

a "higher probability" that the original utterance was ill-formed

Vol. 52, No. 1



Braidi

Furrow, Baillie, McLaren, & Moore, 1993; and Hirsh-Pasek, Trei-

man, & Schneiderman, 1984), although not all LI research sup-

ports the notion of the existence of reliable and differential

negative input (e.g., Grimshaw & Pinker, 1989; Morgan & Travis,

1989). Based on the evidence in support of differential negative Li

input and on the notion that negative evidence need not be

categorical (Bohannon & Stanowicz, 1988), Long(1996) concluded

that negative evidence does exist in LI acquisition.

For the negative evidence to be useful, Long (1996) suggestedthat the learner must not only notice the negative evidence but

must also perceive it as negative evidence. Other issues in terms

of usefulness, or usability in Long's wording,6 are whether or not

the learner is able to accurately identify the error that is being

corrected and whether or not the learner can hold this negative

evidence in memory long enough to be able to compare it to the

original erroneous utterance. Some evidence for the usability ofrecasts, a particular type of implicit negative evidence, comes from

Farrar (1990, 1992). Farrar (1992) reported that children were tw o

to three times more likely to imitate parental responses after

corrective recasts than after other types of responses, including

noncorrective recasts, topic continuations, and topic changes. In

addition, Farrar (1990) found that recasts were associated with

the children's acquisition of particular morphological forms,namely plurals and progressives. These studies offer some evi-

dence that the children were not only able to notice the negative

evidence as negative evidence but also to use the evidence, thus

exemplifying Pinker's third criterion of use.

In terms of Pinker's final criterion of necessity, Long (1996)

noted that too little evidence in the form of empirical support

currently exists. From the perspective of generative theory,whichposits Universal Grammar (UG) as the innate language learning

7



Language Learning

properties (e.g., specific morphosyntactic features such as tense

markers) rather than abstract properties constrained by UG.

This observation suggests a facilitative role, rather than a

necessary role, for negative feedback.

Pinker's four criteria fo r negative evidence are also applica-

ble to the role of negative evidence in L2 acquisition. The question

to be addressed in this study concerns the existence and the role

of negative feedback in L2 interactional input with a specific focuson the existence and use of recasts. We now turn briefly to the L2

literature concerning these aspects of input-first to recasts in

particular and then to negative evidence-including recasts-in

L2 interaction.

From the perspective of L2 acquisition, the role of recasts is

under debate, and under examination in both classroom (Doughty,

1993; Doughty & Varela, 1998; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b; Lyster &Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 2000) and experimental settings (Mackey &

Philp, 1998; Mackey et al., 2000; Oliver, 1995). As noted above,

recasts are classified as a type of implicit negative evidence that

can indicate the ungrammaticality ofthe learner's utterance. Long

(1996, p.4 3 4 ) defined recasts as "utterances that rephrase a child's

utterance by changing one or more sentence components (subject,

verb, or object) while still referring to its central meanings." The

changes correct a target language error (cf. Farrar, 1992)7 and can

include additions, substitutions, and reorderings (examples

adapted from Farrar, 1990, p. 612):

(1) Addition

Child: Phone ring.

Mother: The phone is ringing.

Vol. 52, No. 1



Braidi

In recent research, the role of recasts as a form of negative

L2 evidence has received considerable attention. In an L2 French

classroom, Doughty (1993) examined teacher use of recasts as well

as exact repetitions and expansions in response to learners' well-

and ill-formed utterances. She found that the teacher in the study

used exact repetitions and recasts differently Specifically, exact

repetitions were used for the majority of well-formed utterances

(161 out of 173), and recasts were used in response to the majority

of the ill-formed utterances (183 out of 195, with expansions usedin response to the remaining 12 ill-formed utterances). In addition,

when the teacher asked for clarification, it occurred most often

after utterances with a single error (60 out of 68) than after

utterances with multiple errors (8 out of 68). The findings of this

pilot study seem to indicate that L2 classroom interaction includes

the differentially supplied negative input that is also found in Li

acquisition.Lyster and Ranta (1997) also examined the existence of

recasts in the classroom, in this case French immersion classes in

Canada. In response to learners' errorful utterances, teachers

responded 557c of the time with recasts. The other types of re-

sponses occurred at much lower rates (i.e., elicitation at 14%,

clarification requests at 11%7c, metalinguistic feedback at 8%, ex-

plicit correction at7%7c,

and repetition at 5%). Lyster (1998a) alsofound a significant difference in the types of feedback that teach-

ers use in response to different types of learner errors; grammati-

cal errors and phonological errors were responded to with recasts

(72% and 64%7c, respectively), whereas lexical errors received feed-

back in the form of negotiation of form (55%c). In a comparison of

feedback types in response to child and adult English as a Second

Language (ESL) learners, Oliver (2000) also found evidence for the

use of negative feedback, including recasts and negotiation strate-

9



LanguageLearning

ultimate use of recasts is still underdebate. As noted above,

although Lyster and Ranta (1997) have found that recasts are the

most widely used teacher response type (55%), they are also the

least likely (31%) to lead to learner uptake in the form of self-

generated repair. This finding demonstrates that recasts are in-

deed used by learners, although other forms ofnegative input may

be more useful. In terms of usability, Lyster (1998b) also demon-

strated that recasts as used in the context of an elementary schoolimmersion classroom were "unlikely to be either negotiated or

noticed by young L2 learners as negative evidence" (p . 52). This is

because corrective recasts and noncorrective repetitions fulfill the

same functions in classroom discourse,8 and they occur in identical

patterns, thus limiting the salience ofrecasts as negative evidence.

However, as stated above, Lyster (1998b) also reported that recasts

resulted in uptake 31% of the time, which was considerably more

than the uptake following noncorrective repetition (5%). In con-

trast, in a content-based science classroom study, Doughty and

Varela (1998) found that corrective recasts with an intonational

focus, which both repeated the error with rising intonation to draw

the learner's attention and provided the correct L2 forms, were

highly effective in increasing the learners' use of past tense forms

in both oral and written science reports. Lyster (1998b) noted that

Doughty and Varela's findings support the notion that the real

value of recasts may be in combination with other, more explicit

clues. 9

The usability and use of recasts have also been examined in

experimental settings in which recasts were purposefully supplied

in the interactions, and these studies have resulted in mixedfindings. For example, Mackey and Philp (1998) compared negoti-

Vol. 52, No. 10



Braidi

of recasts with positive models. Learners receiving recasts per-

formed significantly better than did learners receiving only posi-tive models in the production ofL2 Spanish adverb placement, but

no difference between recasts and models was found fo r produc-

tion of Spanish direct object topicalization,1 0 nor for L2 Japanese

locative particles or adjective ordering.

What is the status of negative evidence in L2 interaction that

is not artificially altered, that is, interaction in which recasts are

not purposefully supplied fo r experimental reasons? Long (1996,p. 444) has suggested that the status of negative feedback in

natural NS-NNS conversation is a more interesting question,

because "a metalinguistic focus is lacking and ... attempts at overt

error correction rarely occur . . ." In a series of investigations of

negative evidence in L2 interaction (Brock, Crookes, Day, & Long,

1986; Chun, Day, Chenoweth, & Luppescu, 1982; and Day, Che-

noweth, Chun, & Luppescu, 1984), little evidence of negativefeedback was found in adult NS-NNS interactions. For instance,

Chun et al. (1982) found only 8.9% of L2 learners' errorful utter-

ances were responded to with some form of negative feedback, with

the larger percentage of that negative feedback (66%) repre-

senting more explicit types of correction.'" In addition, in an

extended analysis of this same data base, these corrections were

found to have little observable effect on learners' immediate re-

sponses (Brock et al., 1986).

More recent studies of negative evidence in L2 interaction

have found more positive results in adult NS-NNS free conversa-

tion (Richardson, 1993 [as cited by Long, 19961), in child NS-NNS

dyads (Oliver, 1995), and in classroom and peer-pairwork settings

(Oliver, 2000). For example, Oliver (1995) examined recasts in

interaction with NS-NNS child dyads interacting during conver-

sation tasks. Oliver found that negative feedback in the form of

11



LanguageLearning

input to their NNS partners; in response to clear or ambiguous

NNS utterances, NSs responded more often with negotiation (in

the form of clarification requests or confirmation checks) to

ambiguous utterances and less often with recasts. In addition to

the level of ambiguity, the level of grammaticality also affected

NS response; in response to single-error utterances, NSs recast

69% of the time as compared to utterances with multiple errors

(31%). In response to multiple-error utterances, NSs were morelikely to use negotiation (78%). Oliver concluded that NS re-

sponses fit a differential pattern of "opaque-negotiate" and

"transparent-recast." Furthermore, Pica (1988) suggested that in

reaction to NS corrective feedback, NNSs often simply acknowl-

edge the correction because to respond in any other way would be

conversationally inappropriate. Oliver extended her analysis to

examine NNS reaction according to appropriateness (e.g., in-stances in which the NNS reacts to a NS recast that is not in the

form of a yes/no question, thus allowing for a response from the

NNS other than "yes" or "no") and to possibility (e.g., instances in

which the NS does not continue speaking after providing a recast,

thus allowing the NNS to respond to the recast). In the exchanges

where it was appropriate and possible for NNSs to use the NS

recasts, child L2 learners incorporated more than a third of these

recasts, thus resulting in substantial use ofthe negative evidence.

In a comparison of negative feedback for both child and adult

ESL learners, Oliver (2000) compared the availability and use of

negative feedback in both teacher-fronted classroom and peer-

pairwork settings. She found that negative feedback was provided

in both settings fo r both ages in response to approximately half of

the nontargetlike utterances for all learners at a rate (adults: 47%;

Vol. 52, No. 12



Braidi

linguistic forms targeted by that feedback. Recasts were ex-

amined as one type of negative feedback supplied. They found

that learners were accurate in perceiving lexical and phonological

feedback as feedback. However, they were seldom able to identify

negative feedback concerning morphosyntax as feedback. This is

particularly interesting because 75%c of the recasts were in re-

sponse to morphosyntactic problems. They concluded that inter-

actional feedback in the form of recasts that is focused on

grammatical form may not be perceived as negative feedback, andthat the effect of such feedback on actual development still needs

to be addressed.

A final issue here is the question ofuse and what use implies.

Several studies (e.g., Brock et al., 1986; Oliver, 1995; Lyster &

Ranta, 1997) defined use of negative feedback as the learner's

incorporation (or uptake) of the feedback in the immediate turn,

thus modifying their original utterance. But what do these modi-fications represent-L2 development, temporary changes in pro-

duction, or simply corrections of performance mistakes (Corder,

1967)? Gass and Varonis (1989) argued that L2 learners are able

to "incorporate standard language forms into their own speech"

(p. 75) as a result of repaired forms in the interaction. These

incorporations may occur immediately after the repair or after

several intervening turns have taken place. At the same time, theyrecognized that repair incorporation does not necessarily signal

grammar restructuring, and that some changes may be "more

lasting than others" (p. 84). Gass and Varonis (1994) also showed

evidence for incorporation over time as a result of prior interaction.

Mackey & Philp (1998) also showed longer-term effects (after 5

weeks) for intensive recasts for advanced-level learners. In addi-

tion, Mackey etal. (2000) noted that learners in their study

incorporated NS feedback by modifying their original utterances

13



LanguageLearning

recall. These studies highlight the need for a variety ofapproaches

to the question of use of negative evidence.

What role then do recasts play in L2 interaction? As Long

(1996, p. 444) noted, the status of negative feedback in interaction

that lacks a pedagogical focus such as conversation offers insight

into its use because overt error correction in these settings is rare.

Recasts, as an implicit form of negative evidence, may in fact be

more prevalent in this type of setting. The few studies cited abovesuggest that recasts do exist and are used by NNS interlocutors

to varying degrees in L2 interaction, but may not be perceived by

learners as negative evidence. However, given the number of

studies, the usability and ultimate use of recasts in interaction are

still open questions.

An added focus in this study is the occurrence and use of

recasts in different types of negotiation representing different

levels of negotiation difficulty. Oliver's (1995) findings suggested

that recasts are used in response to transparent rather than to

opaque meaning according to level of error. In an earlier study

investigating the relationship between interactional modifica-

tions and learners' output, Pica (1988) showed that NNSs re-

sponded quite differently depending on the type of input that they

received from NSs and on the success of their attempts to commu-

nicate (Pica, 1988). L2 learners showed different rates and types

of output modification according to the difficulty level of the

negotiation (Pica, 1988). Pica (1988, pp. 54-55; based on Varonis

& Gass' 1985 model of negotiated interaction) characterized the

NS-NNS negotiations either as one-signal negotiated interactions

or as extended negotiated interactions onthe basis of the differ-

ence in the length of negotiation. In one-signal negotiated inter-

Vol. 52, No. 14



Braidi

3. Response to signal

4. Resolution

Extended negotiated interactions include more lengthy negotia-

tions, in which the interlocutor signals lack ofcomprehension more

than once. Extended negotiated interactions include the following

sequencing:

1. Trigger utterance

2. Signal of lack of comprehension


4. Signal of lack of comprehension


6. Resolution, continued signals of incomprehension, or aban-

donment of negotiation

Samples of these two negotiation types are given in Appendix A.

In one-signal negotiations, which are more easily negotiated,

the L2 learners were able to produce output consistent with targetlanguage norms. Pica (1988) found that the NNSs modified roughly

50%c of their initial utterances with morphological, phonological,

semantic, and syntactic changes. Of these modifications, 91% were

targetlike. When an extended negotiation was needed, the L2 learn-ers in Pica's study produced very few modifications of their initial

responses, and they made only semantic modifications in their

first attempts to modify their output. In their second attempts at

meaning negotiation, learners more often confirmed the accuracy

of the NS's correction of the NNS output rather than attempting

to make additional modifications. Therefore, the length and diffi-

culty of the negotiations affected the NNS response. It is hypothe-sized here that the length and difficulty of the negotiations might

15



LanguageLearning

little need to modify the output because to do so would be redun-

dant and "in violation of conversational norms" (p. 67).12 While

there is undoubtedly truth in this interpretation, there is an

alternative possibility. In their first attempts at modification in

extended negotiations, the NNSs produced only semantic modifi-

cations, as opposed to the more extensive phonological, morpho-

logical, syntactic, and semantic modifications made in the

one-signal negotiations. The fact that they did not modify theiroutput syntactically or morphologically in their initial modifica-

tions suggests that they either do not know the form or are initially

unable to even focus on the form because of its complexity or

unfamiliarity. The differences found in the learners' output modi-

fications in one-signal and extended negotiations may represent

the difference between a performance error that can be easily

rectified (Corder, 1967) and a gap in the interlanguage competencethat cannot be easily dealt with by the learner. This too would

account for the learner's preference for simply confirming the NS's

check of the intended meaning in a targetlike form.

If one is to assume that negotiated interaction facilitates L2

development as claimed (Gass et al., 1998; Long, 1996; Pica, 1994),

closer attention must be given to extended interactions, in which

learners seem to be less able to modify their own output. These

extended interactions may be the required environment fo r notic-

ing the gap or mismatch (Swain, 1995; Gass et al., 1998), focusing

on the form (Long, 1996), and facilitating L2 development. The

existence of recasts in these different negotiation types will be

explored in the present study.

Research Questions

Vol. 52, No. 16



Braidi

a. Do recasts occur in all negotiation types (i.e., nonnegoti-

ated, one-signal negotiations, and extended negotiations)?

b. Do recasts occur in response to different levels of

utterance grammaticality (i.e., single error vs. multiple

error)?

RQ2. How and under which conditions do adult NNSs re-

spond to NS recasts?

Method

Participants

The participants consisted of 10 adult native speakers of

English and 10 adult Japanese speakers learning English. The

participants were randomly assigned to 10 NS-NNS dyads thatwere gender-shared, resulting in three male dyads and seven

female dyads. The members of the dyads did not know each

other before their participation in the project. The NS partici-pants were undergraduate students at an American university

and ranged in age from 19 to 28. These students were enrolled in

basic-to-intermediate-level language courses. Their university

language study rangedfrom

5months to 3 years. The NNSparticipants ranged in age from 19 to 26. Their length of stay in

the United States ranged from 1 to 6 months, with an average of

3.2 months. All were enrolled in intensive English language

classes at the lower and upper intermediate levels. Level place-ment was determined by a combination of tests: the English

Placement Test (for grammar, vocabulary, and listening and read-

ing comprehension), the John Test (for oral-aural comprehension),

and a writing sample.13

17



LanguageLearning

four communication tasks that required participants to exchange

information verbally in order to complete the given tasks. Two

tasks were one-way information tasks in which only one partici-

pant had the information necessary to complete the task and had

to successfully communicate that information to his/her partner.

These tasks included (a) giving instructions for the matching of a

display of figures on a felt board and (b) giving instructions for

drawing a picture. Only the NS gave instructions for the felt-boardtask, whereas both the NS and NNS participants gave drawing

instructions. There was one two-way information task, in which

both interlocutors held part of the information necessary to com-

plete the task, and they had to share the information in order to

solve the problem. This task was a story sequencing task in which

each subject had one half of a sequenced set of pictures needed to

complete a story. The participants described the pictures to each

other and then determined the proper sequence of the series of

pictures. The final task was a conversation about the tasks they

had done together. The tasks were varied to allow for both struc-

tured and less structured interactions. All tasks were audiotaped.

For each task the participants sat at desks with a barrier

between them. For the felt board task, they were unable to see

each other over the felt board. For all of the remaining tasks,

the participants were able to face each other but were unable

to see the task materials because of the barrier. At the end of

each task, the participants were able to show their materials to

their partners.

Analysis

Vol. 52, No. 18



Braidi 19

The interaction data were coded in two ways. First, the entire

set of data was analyzed by two raters in order to segment andclassify the negotiations as either one-signal negotiations or ex-

tended negotiations. All of the remaining interactions were clas-sified by default as nonnegotiated interactions. The interrater

reliability for the classification of the negotiation data was94.5% 14 Only those items on which there was complete agreementwere included in the final analysis.

The interactions were then coded following Oliver's (1995)three-part coding system. Each interaction was divided into threeparts, consisting of the NNS initial turn, the NS response to that

utterance, and the NNS reaction to the NS response. In this

schema, the third part-the NNS reaction-becomes the first part

of the subsequent interaction, that is, the NNS initial turn towhich the NS responds. The three-part interactions were then

coded as one of three types, with subcategories for each type asfollows (see Appendix B for greater detail).

1. NNS initial turns. Each initial turn was rated as eitherincorrect or correct. Incorrect utterances were sentences orphrases that were missing either a grammatical marker or anobligatory item (e.g., articles, tense/aspect marking, subject or

object pronouns, prepositions, or particles) or were incorrectlymarked or included the wrong item (e.g., tense, verb form, sub-ject-verb agreement). Correct utterances were complete sentencesor phrases that would be an appropriate NS response. Incorrectutterances were also rated for the degree of error-either a singleerror or multiple errors.

As was the case in Oliver's (1995) study, several negotiationturns included more than one utterance that could be rated. Inthese cases, a hierarchical value was assigned to the coding(p. 468). In the present study, for the initial turns, the hierarchy



LanguageLearning

negotiation or a continuation response. A response was coded as a

recast if it incorporated the content words of the immediately

preceding incorrect NNS utterance, and also changed and cor-

rected the utterance in some way (e.g., phonological, syntactic,

morphological or lexical). Responses that recast an incorrect NNS

utterance and also expanded that utterance by providing addi-

tional information not contained in the learner utterance were

also coded as recast/expansions. Negotiation responses includedconfirmation checks, clarification requests, and direct statements

of non-comprehension. A hierarchical value, as follows, was also

assigned to the coding of the NS response, because some recasts

could also be classified as negotiation: recast > negotiation >

continuation. NS responses that did not provide negative informa-

tion concerning comprehensibility or grammaticality were coded

as topic continuations. Topic continuations consisted of responses

that followed an NNS's utterance and maintained the semantic

theme, but did not contain any ofthe previous utterance, responses

that partially or completely repeated the learner utterance with-

out indicating the need fo r negotiation, or responses that provided

additional information not contained in the learner utterance and

served as a language model.

3. NNS reaction. NNS reactions were put into seven catego-

ries: (a) topic continuations, (b) negotiations, (c) agreements,

(d) successful incorporations of recasts, (e) unsuccessful incorpo-

rations of recasts, (f) successful repetitions or self-corrections, and

(g) unsuccessful repetitions or self-corrections. 15 In response to NS

recasts, NNSs either successfully incorporated the recast, at-

tempted unsuccessfully to incorporate the recast, negotiated, orsimply continued the conversation in some way. The topic continu-

20 Vol. 52, No. 1



Braidi

with the content or with the form of the response. NNSs also

attempted to repeat NS noncorrective utterances or to modifytheir own previous utterances in some way. These attempts inresponse to nonrecasts were also classified as either successful or

unsuccessful.

Two raters coded each part of 324 three-part exchanges or

12% ofthe data for response type. The interrater reliability for this

portion of the coding was 94.4%k agreement overall, 91.8% agree-

ment for coding NNS initial turns, 93.6% agreement for NS re-sponses, and 98%S. agreement for NNS reactions.

Results

A total of 2,522 three-part exchanges were coded. Of these,

1,642, or 65.10%S. of the NNS initial utterances, were correct. NNS

initial utterances were incorrect in 880 cases or in 34.89% of theexchanges. What types of feedback did learners get to the 34.89%

of their utterances that were incorrect? If we define negative

feedback as including both recasts and negotiations, 225 or 25.56%(225/880) of the errors were responded to negatively, with 643, or73.06% (643/880) receiving no negative feedback. 16

Taking a closer look at the question of recasts, we return nowto the research questions.

Question 1 asks under which circum-stances recasts occur in NS-NNS adult interaction considering

both negotiation type (i.e., nonnegotiated, one-signal negotiations

and extended negotiations) and utterance grammaticality (i.e.,

ungrammatical with a single error and ungrammatical with mul-

tiple errors). To answer this question, the total number of three-

part exchanges and the total number of recasts were tabulated,

with a total of2,522 three-part exchanges coded, and a total of 136,or 5.39%, containing recasts.

21



LanguageLearning

Table 1

Negotiation type:NS response in different types of negotiation

Nonnegotiated One-signal Extended

interactions negotiations negotiations Total

N % N % N % N %

Recasts 43 2.77 46 8.72 47 10.56 136 5.39

Nonrecasts 1,507 97.22 481 91.27 398 89.43 2,386 94.60

Total 1,550 527 445 2,522

negotiated turns (i.e., recasts in one-signal and negotiated inter-

actions = 93/972). Table 2 presents the occurrence of recasts in

response to the level of grammaticality. The analysis of all NNS

initial errorful utterances (N = 880) reveals that the NSs in thecurrent sample offered recasts in response to 13.8% of the single-

error NNS utterances and offered recasts in response to 17.41%

of the multiple-error NNS utterances, as shown in Table 2. Also,

recasts represent 15.45% of the NS responses to NNS errorful

utterances. Of all recasts (N = 136), 48.52% are in response to

utterances with a single error, whereas 51.47% are in response to

utterances with multiple errors.

A loglinear analysis of a 2 x 3 x 2 contingency table (Table 3)

tested the effects and statistical interaction of utterance grammati-

cality (two levels: single error and multiple errors) and negotiation

type (three levels: nonnegotiated, one-signal negotiations, and

extended negotiations) on the occurrence of recasts (two levels:

recast and nonrecast). 17 The analysis excluded grammatical utter-

ances, because by definition recasts are not given in response to

Vol. 52,No. 12



Braidi

Table 2

NS response to NNS initialerrorfulutterances

Grammatical errors

Single error Multiple errors Total

N % N % N %

Recasts 66 13.80 70 17.41 136 15.45

Nonrecasts 412 86.19 332 85.28 744 84.54Total 478 402 880

Table 3

Contingency table for loglinearanalysisofgrammaticality level by

negotiation type

One-signal Extended

Nonnegotiated negotiations negotiations

Recast Nonrecast Recast Nonrecast Recast Nonrecast Total

Single error 21a 225 20 92 25a 95 478

> 1 error 22a 214a 26a 68 22a 50a 402

Total 43 439 46 160 47 145 880

Note. aHaberman 1973) adjusted residual > 2.

the Haberman adjusted residuals indicate that this significance

is due to fewer recasts than expected occurring in nonnegotiated

interactions and more recasts than expected occurring in extended

negotiations. In other words, the results show that each of these

effects-level of grammaticality and type of negotiation-is sig-

nificant but that the statistical interaction between the two effectsis not significant.

23



24 Language Learning Vol. 52, No. 1

Table 4

NNS reactions to NS responses to errorful utterances

NNS reactions to .. .

NS recast NS negotiation NS continue

response response response

N%

N%

N%

Continue 60a 44.11 60 67.41 427 66.40

Negotiate 14 10.29 la 1.12 100 15.55

Agreement 39a 28.67 7 7.86 44a 6.84

Successful

incorporation* 13 9.5 loa 11.20 29 4.51

Unsuccessful

incorporation* 10 7.3 11 12.35 43 6.68

Total 136 89 643

2 (8 N= 868) = 87.454p < 0.0001.

Note. allaberman (1973) adjusted residual > 2.

*In reaction to NS negotiation and continue responses, these are successful

and unsuccessful repetitions or self-corrections.

the analysis for not falling into the established patterns, leaving

a total of 868 incorrect utterances for further analysis. A chi-

square analysis of the NNS reactions to NS responses to NNS

errorful utterances reveals a significant difference between

NNS agreement reactions to NS recasts and to NS continuation

or negotiation responses, X2 (8, N = 868) = 87.454, p < 0.0001.

Haberman (1973) adjusted residuals indicate that it is the agree-

ment category that mostly contributes to the significance. This isdue to the greater than expected number of agreements in re-

. . . . .



Braidi 25

Table 5

NNS reaction to NS recast responses in different types of negotiation

> 1 error/recast/continue

> 1 error/recast/negotiate

> 1 error/recast/agreement> 1 error /recast/successful

incorporation

> 1 error/recast/unsuccessf

or non-incorporation

Nonnegotiated One-signal Extended

interactions negotiations negotiations Total

N N N N

24 19 17 60

2 3 9 14

13 17 9 393 5 5 13

ful 1

Total 43

2

46

7 10

47 136

Table 6

NNS reaction to NS recast responses based on level of

grammaticality

Single error Multiple errors Total

N N N

errorful utterance/recast/continue 32 28 60

errorful utterance/recast/negotiate 10 4 14errorful utterance/recast/agreement 16 23 39

errorful utterance /recast/successful 4 9 13

incorporation

errorful utterance/recast/unsuccessful 4 6 10

or non-incorporation

Total 66 70 136

response to single-error and multiple-error NNS utterances. A



26 LanguageLearning Vol. 52, No. 1

analysis of NNS reaction to NS recasts in different negotiation

types was not possible, owing to low cell counts.

Finally, in an analysis of NNS incorporation of NS recasts,

the data in Table 4 reveal that NNSs correctly incorporate NS

recasts 9.5% of the time and agree with the NNSs' recast 28.67%

of the time. Recall that previous research (Pica, 1988; Oliver, 1995)

makes a distinction between interactions in which incorporation

is appropriate (e.g., the NS interlocutor's recast allows the NNSto incorporate) and interactions in which incorporation is inappro-

priate (e.g., the NS recasts in the form of a yes/no question). In an

analysis of the appropriateness of incorporation versus nonincor-

poration (see Oliver, 1995) of this data, Table 7 shows that the

NNSs' rate of incorporation increases from 9.5% for all recasts to

34.21% for recasts when only appropriate contexts are taken into

consideration.

Discussion

Although the occurrence of recasts in classroom discourse is

well established (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster, 1998b), the extent

to which recasts occur in different types of NS-NNS negotiation

and the use of those recasts still warrants investigation. The

Table 7

NS incorporation/non-incorporationesponses based onappropriateness

Appropriateness



Braidi

response to the first research question posed here-"Under which

circumstances do recasts occur in NS-NNS adult interaction?"-isthat recasts do occur in response to incorrect NNS utterances and

that recasts occur in different types of NS-NNS negotiations-

nonnegotiated interactions, one-signal negotiations, and extended

negotiations. In general, the percentage of recasts in response to

incorrect NNS utterances found here (15.45%) is much higher

than the combined negative evidence (8.9%) found in Chun et al.'s

(1982) interactions. However, the combined percentage of negativeevidence in this study, i.e., recasts plus negotiation (25.56%), is

also much lower than the amounts found in other studies of

negative input in interaction (e.g., 61% in Oliver [1995] and 47%

for adults and 40% for children in Oliver [2000]). One possible

difference in these findings may be the type of interaction. The

data in the Chun et al. (1982) study were taken from NS-NNS

conversationsbetween friends. Since conversations are less goal-directed than task-based interactions, the need to resolve a com-

munication difficulty through the use of negative feedback is

decreased (Crookes & Rulon, 1985; cf. Pica, Holliday, Lewis, &Morgenthaler, 1989). This difference in type of interaction does

not, however, account fo r the difference between these results and

those obtained in Oliver's studies (1995,2000), which also included

similar task-based interactions. Other differences between

Oliver's studies and this one do exist and may indeed account for

the difference in negative feedback (e.g., age, cultural and linguis-

tic background, and task differences).

In terms of Pinker's criterion of existence, we must determine

whether or not recasts occurred in reliable, consistent, and differen-

tial patterns. The analysis of negotiation type reveals that although

the level of occurrence of recasts is quite low and they do occur in all

types of negotiation, there are highly significant differences among

27



Braidi

characteristics: for example, single-error versus multiple-error

differences (Doughty, 1993; Oliver, 1995), type of error differences(Lyster, 1998a), and comprehensibility of error differences (Oliver,

1995; this study). In addition, the patterns are not consistent

across studies, as for example in the differences in single- versus

multiple-error patterns. As with the LI research, the L2 interac-

tional research also presents varying amounts of combined nega-

tive feedback in response to learner errors (e.g., from 25% to 61%).

Recall that Demetras, Post, and Snow (1986) cautioned that pro-portional differences, as opposed to absolute differences, may be

less than optimally useful.

One way to reconcile this difference in patterns is to speculate

that there are no absolutes with regard to patterns of negative

feedback in L2 interaction, but rather, if negative evidence is to

play a facilitative role rather than a necessary role in L2 develop-

ment, learners need to discern the patterns of feedback of anygiven interlocutor. This notion is not so unusual if one considers

the adjustments that L2 learners must make in order to under-

stand the differences in feedback practices by L2 classroom teach-

ers (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Spada & Lightbown, 1993).

Alternatively, it may be the case that the pattern is less important

than the level of frequency. As seen above, Bohannon and

Stanowicz (1988) suggest that a frequency level of25% is sufficient

for learning to take place.

These speculations, however, are only speculations. A more

realistic solution to the issue would be additional interactional

studies that can determine a consistent thread running through

these NS response patterns. One possible focus would be the

question of comprehensibility suggested by Oliver's (1995) trans-

parent and opaque meanings or a closer look at errors in one-signal

and extended negotiations. Without more interactional studies of

29



LanguageLearning

Turning to the question of the use of recasts, we can consider

the second question explored here: "How and under which condi-

tions do adult NNSs respond to NS recasts?" The findings here are

consistent with previous findings both in terms of NNS incorpo-

ration and NNS agreement following NS recasts. In terms of

percentages, these data show a similar pattern ofuse ofthe recasts

in comparison with Oliver (1995). These results indicate 9.5%

incorporation of corrected structures in response to all recasts in

comparison with Oliver's findings of 9.93% incorporation. Al-

though these rates of incorporation are quite low, these findings

are consistent with Pica's (1988) finding that NNSs simply tend

to agree with the correct form or to reply "yes" or "no" to a recast

in a question form because these responses are more appropriate.

In addition, the highly significant rate of NNS agreement in

reaction to NS recasts found here further supports Pica's claim.After adjusting fo r appropriateness and possibility of re-

sponse, the use of recasts is again consistent across studies. Here,

the NNSs' rate of incorporation increases to 34.21% when only

appropriate contexts are taken into consideration in comparison

to Oliver's (1995) findings of 35% incorporation in appropriate

contexts and to Lyster and Ranta's (1997) finding of 31% learner-

generated repairs following recasts. Also suggestive is Mackey et

al.'s (2000) finding of a 33% uptake in response to morphosyntactic

feedback (which often occurred in the form of recasts) that was

accurately perceived. Oliver (1995, p. 476) notes that this amount

of incorporation is "particularly promising" given that in a non-

pedagogical, conversational setting, only a certain portion of the

recasts will be usable, i.e., within the learnability range ofthe NNS

(Meisel, Clahsen, & Pienemann, 1981; Pienemann, 1989). A limi-

Vol. 52,No. 10



Braidi 31

or contradictory patterns of occurrence in terms of the existence

ofnegative evidence with consistent percentages of short-term useof negative evidence. At some level, this type of negative evi-

dence is recognized by learners if it is used appropriately by

learners to correct their ungrammatical utterances. How and

whether learners actually perceive it as negative evidence war-

rants further examination (Mackey et al., 2000). One issue may

pertain to instructed versus noninstructed learners. All of the

NNS participants in this study were currentlyenrolled in ESLclasses; all of the NS participants were undergraduates in pro-

grams with a foreign language requirement, usually completed by

classroom instruction. One advantage in this regard that in-structed L2 learners may have is that classroom discourse pat-

terns seem to highly favor negative feedback (i.e., Lyster & Ranta,

1997), and although learners may not expect to be corrected in a

nonpedagogical setting as in nonclassroom NS-NNS interaction,

they use recasts in interaction as negative feedback when they

hear it.20 This is supported by the consistent (and adjusted)

incorporation rates both in and out of the classroom. Therefore,

although the patterns of occurrence may be inconsistent, these

instructed learners do use recasts as negative feedback.

These findings also raise questions about the status of re-

casts as negative feedback in interactions. Given the limited

evidence regarding long-term effects of recasts in L2 acquisition

(see Long, 1996; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Long et al., 1998), the high

number ofNNS agreements in response to NS recasts is interest-

ing with regard to the actual usefulness ofrecasts. It must be noted

here that no distinction could be made between agreement to

meaning and agreement to form; therefore, it is impossible to tell

exactly what the learners are agreeing to: "Yes, I recognize that

that is the correct form" versus "Yes, that is what I meant to say."

As such, it is difficult to



LanguageLearning

an analysis might serve to clarify the NS response to single- and

multiple-error utterances. In addition, the participants were from

a single cultural and linguistic group. It may be that Japanese

cultural interactional patterns or LI linguistic influences affect

the interactions and the level and type of error. Finally, this study

examined only immediate incorporation of recasts. A long-term

analysis of the role of recasts and negative feedback in general

would shed more light on the questionof negative evidence in L2

acquisition.

In conclusion, recasts occur in NS-NNS interactions, and this

occurrence of recasts is affected to some degree by types of nego-

tiation and by levels of grammaticality. Since learners are able to

use these recasts (up to 35%) in the short term, recasts are of some

utility to learners. However, several crucial questions concerning

recasts in particular and negative feedback in general remain. Forinstance, whereas recasts and negative feedback occur in

NS-NNS interactions, must they occur in consistent and reliable

patterns across interactions in order to be used? If so, what are

these patterns with respect to number of errors, type of errors, and

effect of errors? In a nonpedagogical language setting, NS-NNS

interactions may reveal a clearer picture of how learners respond

to different types of input and in different types of interactions

and may indicate more effective ways of incorporating interac-

tional patterns into classroom practices.

Revised version accepted 12 September 2001

Notes

'Schmidt (1995, p. 29) defines noticing as the "conscious registration of the

Vol. 52, No. 12



Braidi 33

i.e., "using language to reflect on language, allowing learners to control and

internalize it" (Swain, 1995, p. 132).

3An anonymous reviewer notes that Long (1996) describes (b) as explicit

negative feedback.4Examples from Lyster and Ranta (1997, pp. 47-48) of the negotiation of form

responses are as follows: (a) "C'est un . . .," "No, not that. It's a . . .," or 'Lechien peut court? Le chien peut . . ."with a repetition of a grammatical error,

(b) "Can you find your error?" "No, not X," "It's masculine," or "Is it feminine?"

(c) "Pardon me," or "What do you mean by X?", and (d) "Le girafe?" with a

repetition of a gender error.5

These four criteria for language acquisition are based on theories of

learnability (e.g., Lightfoot. 1989; Pinker, 1984; Wexler & Culicover, 1980) in

which innate learning mechanisms are proposed that can account for Liacquisition based solely on positive evidence.6Long (1996) uses the term "usability" in place of Pinker's (1989) term

"usefulness" without making a distinction between these terms. To be consis-

tent with the usage in other L2 studies, the term "usable" will be used here.

7In his study of recasts in Li acquisition of grammatical morphemes, Farrar

(1992, p. 92) distinguishes between corrective and noncorrective recasts:

"(a) recast that corrects a target error-reformulates the child's sentence by

correcting a particular noun or verb phrase by means of a grammaticalmorpheme, (b) recast that does not correct a target but models a target-

expands the child's sentence while using some of the child's own words and

models a grammatical morpheme. .. "8Recasts and noncorrective repetitions both "respond to the semantic content

of a learner's utterance by (a) providing or (b) seeking confirmation of the

learner's message, or by (c) providing or (d) seeking additional information

related to the learner's message" (Lyster, 1998b, p. 63).9

A reviewer questions whether "stress or rising intonation can be categorized

along with other metalinguistic information as being explicit."10

0ne reason for the lack of significant findings for Spanish direct object

topicalization may be the design of the study The participant utterance as

shown in the example below is not incorrect out of a context (Ortega & Long,

1997).

Prompt: la guitarra

NNS: Pedro tiene la guitarra.

Researcher: La guitarra la tiene Pedro, si? uhuhm.

As Ortega and Long (p. 71-72) point out, topicalization of direct objects (la

guitarra n this example) is the unmarked word order in instances where "thedirect object does not convey new information in the sentence." In these cases,



Braidi 35

4.8%7c and 6.8%. The 95%c confidence intervals for the proportion of NNS

agreement responses in reaction to NS negotiations and to NS continuation

moves overlap, indicating that the proportions are not significantly differentfor agreements in reaction to NS negotiations and to NS continuation moves,

but they are both significantly lower than the proportion of NNS agreement

responses in reaction to NS recasts.

'9

Alternatively, because extended negotiations are longer, there may be more

opportunity to provide recasts.2 0

Evidence shows that L2 learners adopt classroom discourse patterns in

other nonclassroom settings. In an investigation of study-abroad experiences,

Wilkinson (1998 argues that L2 learners in a study-abroad context adopt

the typical question-response-feedback pattern in their out-of-classroominteractions, resulting in an "omnipresent classroom" in which learners rely

on classroom "discourse norms as a viable communication strategy" (p. 26).This finding suggests that classroom learners rely on classroom discourse

patterns in nonpedagogical settings.

References

Beck, M. L., & Eubank, L. (1991). Acquisition theory and experimental design.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 73-76.

Bohannon, J. N., &Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issues of negative evidence: Adult

responses to children's language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24,

684-689.

Brock, C., Crookes, G., Day, R., & Long, M. (1986). Differential effects of

corrective feedback in native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation. In

R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 229-236). Cambridge, MA: Newbury

House.

Chun, A. E., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors,

interaction, and correction: A study of native-nonnative conversations.

TESOL Quarterly, 16 , 537-547.

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. InternationalReview

ofApplied Linguistics, 5, 161-170.

Crookes, G., & Rulon, K. (1985i. Incorporationof corrective eedback in native

speaker/non-native speaker conversation (Center for Second Language

Classroom Research Technical Report No. 3). Manoa, HI: Social Science

Research Institute, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Day, R. R., Chenoweth, N. A., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1984). Corrective




Doughty,C. (1993). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language

learners. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown UniversityRound Tableon Languages

and Linguistics. Strategic interactionand language acquisition: Theory,

practice and research (pp. 96-108). Washington, DC: Georgetown Univer-

sity Press.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty

& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second languageacquisi-

tion (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

English Language Institute. (1972). The English Placement Test. Ann Arbor,

MI: English Language Institute, University of Michigan.

Farrar, M. J. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of morphemes. Journalof

Child Language, 17, 607-624.

Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisi-

tion. Developmental Psychology, 28, 90-98.

Furrow, D., Baillie, C., McLaren, J., & Moore, C. (1993). Differential respond-

ing to two- and three-year-olds' utterances: The roles of grammaticality

and ambiguity Journal of ChildLanguage, 20, 363-375.

Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second

language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T (1998). The role of input and interaction in

second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal,82, 298-307.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative

discourse. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamicinterlanguage

(pp. 71-86). New York: Plenum Press.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language

production. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 16, 283-302.

Grimshaw, J., & Pinker. S. (1989). Positive and negative evidence in language

acquisition. Behavioraland Brain Sciences, 12, 341-342.

Haberman, S. J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables.

Biometrics, 29, 205-220.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown & Hanlonrevisited: Mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journalof Child



Braidi 37

Long, M. H. (1983a . Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native

speakers. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 5, 177-193.

Long, M. H. (1983b . Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the

negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics,4, 126-141.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. In W C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Edsi, Handbook of second

languageacquisition(pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.

Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative

feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The

Modern Language Journal, 82, 356-371.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and

practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom

second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Lyster, R. (1998a\. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in

relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Lan-

guage Learning,48, 183-218.

Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom dis-

course. Studies in Seconid LanguageAcquisition, 20, 51-81.Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake.

Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second

LanguageAcquisition, 19, 37-66.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive

interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22,

471-497.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second lan-

guage development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern

LanguageJournal,82, 338-356.

Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining develop-

mental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second

LanguageAcquisition, , 109-135.

Morgan, J. L., & Travis, L. (1989). Limits on negative information in language

input. Journalof Child Language, 16, 531-552.

Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies

in Second LanguageAcquisition, 17, 459-481.




Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as outcome of NS-NNS negotiated

interaction. LanguageLearning, 38, 45-73.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-

language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learn-

ing, 44, 493-527.

Pica, T, Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible

output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in

Second LanguageAcquisition, 11, 63-90.

Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments

and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79.

Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pinker, S. (1989). Resolving a learnability paradox on the acquisition of the

verb lexicon. In M. L. Rice & R. L. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The teachabilityof

language (pp. 13-61). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Richardson, M. A. (1993). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme

acquisition: mplications or SLA. Perth, Australia: University of Western

Australia, Graduate School of Education.

Sato, C. J. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking

the connection. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn:Conversation n second

languageacquisition (pp. 23-45). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Schachter, J. (1984). A universal input condition. In W E. Rutherford (Ed.),

Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 167-183).

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.

Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial

on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),

Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report

No. 9) (pp. 1-63). Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a

second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In

R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn. Conversation in second language acqui-sition (pp. 237-326). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Press.



Braidi 39

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles ofcomprehensible

input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass &C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition(pp. 235-253).

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In

G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principleandpractice n applied inguistics

(pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second

language acquisition. Studies in SecondLanguageAcquisition, , 183-203.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second

languageacquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input process-

ing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993b). Input processing and second language

acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77 ,

45-57.

Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A

model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71-90.

Wesche, M. B. (1994). Input and interaction in second language acquisition.In C. Gallawav & B. J. Richards (Eds.), Input and interaction in language

acquisition (pp. 219-249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wexler, K., & Culicover, P W (1980). Formalprinciples of language acquisi-

tion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and

the development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.

White, L. (1989). Unitversal Grammar and second language acquisition.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

White, L. (1996). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition:

Current trends and new directions. In W C. Ritchie & T K. Bhatia (Eds.),

Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 85-120). New York: Aca-

demic Press.

Wilkinson, S. (1998). Study abroad from the participants' perspective: A

challenge to common beliefs. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 31, 23-39.



Language Learning

Appendix A

One-signal negotiated interactions:

A. 1. Trigger utterance

2. Signal of lack of

comprehension


4. Resolution

B. 1. Trigger utterance


comprehension


4. Resolution

Extended negotiated interactions:

A. 1. Trigger utterance


comprehension



comprehension


6. Resolution, continued signals

of incomprehension, or

abandonment of negotiation.

B. 1. Trigger utterance


NNS: They have a smile.

NS:

NNS:

NS:

They're smiling?

Yes. Go to the river.

OK.

NNS: First I need line?

NS:

NNS:

NS:

Excuse me?

First I do line?

Line. Uh-huh. Right. OK.

NNS: Mmm. Ah, where's place?

NS: Huh?

NNS: Where's the place? Where?

NS: Where are they when he's

going to cut the fish up?NNS: Uh-huh.

NS: It looks like they're at

home.

NNS: Left hand, and right hand

is like pot.

Vol. 52, No. 10



Braidi

6. Resolution, continued signals

of incomprehension, orabandonment of negotiation NS: Bucket.

Appendix B

1. NNS initial turns correct, incorrect with a single error, or

incorrect with multiple errors

2. NS responsesa. negative feedback: recasts or negotiation

recasts:

NNS: So already got the fish?

NS: Yeah, he's got the fish.

NNS: Yeah.

recast /expansions:

NNS: And next apple.

NS: Right. It's next to the apple, but there's about an inchbetween-between the two.

NNS: Between apple and rabbit?

negotiation:confirmation checks:

NNS: Drawing the most top upper level, ah, area.

NS: On the top of it?

NNS: Yeah, top. Like top.

negotiation:clarification requests:

NNS: And maybe I think this is going to the lake or river.

NS: Excuse me, what?

NNS: I think this picture is going to lake or river.

negotiation:direct statements of lack of comprehension:

NNS: Has an animal, catch

NS: I don't get that.

NNS: Sorry. In this picture the animal, another animal in the

fish'smouth.

b. continuation: topic continuation

41



COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/

nonnative-speaker interactions

SOURCE: Language Learning 52 no1 Mr 2002

WN: 0206001954001

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in

violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:

http://www.blackwellpub.com/.

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Braidi2002 recasts

Documents

Transcript of Braidi2002 recasts