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

By T. Egi. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2007

132 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c87eefa3cd304f32818493dd7740841f544caea8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2012, background): “…were simply told that CF is a reaction to grammatical errors that supplies the correct version, although there were degrees of explicitness in the recasts shown during the role-plays (see Egi, 2007 ; R. Ellis & Sheen, 2006 ; Lyster, 1998 ; Nicholas et al., 2001 ; Sato, 2011 ; Sheen, 2006 ).”
Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research (2016, background): “Mackey et al. (2000) found that learners perceived more effectively the corrective nature of recasts when the feedback targeted phonological or lexical errors than morphosyntactic errors (see also Carpenter, Jeon, MacGregor, & Mackey, 2006; Egi, 2007).”
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY IN INTERACTION-DRIVEN L2 LEARNING (2012, background): “…were full recasts—the corrective nature of which may often go unnoticed—as opposed to partial recasts, which are generally considered more effective in drawing learners’ attention to their linguistic gaps (see Egi, 2007 ; Loewen & Philp, 2006 ; Philp, 2003 ; Sheen, 2006 , for more discussion).”
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “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).”
DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF ORAL AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE ESL CLASSROOM (2010, background): “This argument is supported by Egi ( 2007 ), who investigated learner perceptions following recasts by way of stimulated recall.”
Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms (2012, background): “First, when engaging in a task, learners tend to focus on task completion by using any kind of communication strategy, including body language, which can be followed by simple acknowledgments such as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Doyle 1983; Kormos 1999).”
Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination (2012, background): “Although there exists a range of CF explicitness (see Egi, 2007; Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Iwashita, 2003; Leeman, 2003; Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001; Philp, 2003; Sato, 2011; Sheen, 2006), students were simply taught either to let their partners know that there was an error (prompts) or to give…”