This exploratory study investigated whether joint attention through eye gaze was predictive of second language (L2) speakers’ responses to recasts. L2 English learners (N = 20) carried out communicative tasks with research assistants who provided feedback in response to non-targetlike (non-TL) forms. Their interaction was audio-recorded and their eye gaze behavior was tracked simultaneously using the faceLAB system. Transcripts were coded for characteristics of the feedback episodes (linguistic target, feedback type, intonation, prosody) and types of response (no opportunity, no reformulation, non-TL response, TL response). Eye gaze length for the researcher (when producing the feedback move) and the L2 speaker (when responding to feedback) were obtained in seconds using Captiv software. Following data pruning to reduce the data set to clausal recasts in response to grammatical errors, a logistic regression model revealed that both L2 speaker and mutual eye gaze were predictive of TL responses. Methodological issues for eye-tracking research during L2 interaction are provided, and suggestions for future research are discussed.
ArgyleMCookM (1976) Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
ArgyleMLalljeeMCookM (1968) The effects of visibility on interaction in a dyad. Human Relations21: 3–17.
3.
BavelasJBChovilN (2000) Visible acts of meaning. An integrated message model of language in face-to-face dialogue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology19: 163–94.
4.
BavelasJBCoatesLJohnsonT (2002) Listener responses as collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication52: 566–80.
5.
BrownD (2014) The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Published online 24December2014. doi: 10.1177/1362168814563200
6.
BrunerJ (1995) From joint attention to the meeting of minds: An introduction. In: MooreCDunhamPJ (eds) Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1–14.
7.
ClarkHH (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ClarkHHKrychMA (2004) Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language50: 62–81.
9.
DhindsaHAbdul-LatifS (2012) Cultural communication learning environment in science classes. Learning Environment Research15: 37–63.
10.
EllisNC (2008) The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal92: 232–49.
11.
GarrodSPickeringMJ (2004) Why is conversation so easy?Trends in Cognitive Sciences8: 8–11.
12.
GarrodSPickeringMJ (2009) Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science1: 292–304.
13.
GassSMackeyA (2006) Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review19: 3–17.
14.
GoodwinC (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
15.
GoodwinC (1986) Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica62: 29–49.
16.
GoodwinMHGoodwinC (1986) Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica62: 51–75.
17.
GullbergMHolmqvistK (1999) Keeping an eye on gestures: Visual perception of gestures in face-to-face communication. Pragmatics and Cognition7: 35–63.
18.
GullbergMRobertsLDimrothC (2012) What word-level knowledge can adult learners acquire after minimal exposure to a new language?IRAL50: 239–76.
19.
HirataYKellySD (2010) Effects of lips and hands on auditory learning of second-language speech sounds. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research53: 298–310.
20.
KellySDLeeAL (2012) When actions speak too much louder than words: Hand gestures disrupt word learning when phonetic demands are high. Language and Cognitive Processes27: 793–807.
21.
KellySDMcDevittTEschM (2009) Brief training with co-speech gesture lends a hand to word learning in a foreign language. Language and Cognitive Processes24: 313–34.
22.
LandisJRKochGG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33: 159–74.
23.
LeeKCarrasquilloA (2006) Korean college students in United States: Perceptions of professors and students. College Student Journal40: 442–56.
24.
LoewenS (2004) Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning54: 153–88.
25.
LoewenSPhilpJ (2006) Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal90: 536–56.
26.
MacedoniaMKnöscheTR (2011) Body in mind: How gestures empower foreign language learning. Mind, Brain, and Education5: 196–211.
27.
MackeyAGooJ (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: MackeyA (ed.) Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 407–51.
28.
MackeyAGassSMcDonoughK (2000) How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition22: 471–97.
29.
MooreDDunhamPJ (1995) Joint attention: Its origin and role in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
PhilpJ (2003) Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Normative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition25: 99–126.
31.
PickeringMJGarrodS (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences27: 169–226.
32.
PlonskyLBrownD (2014) Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research. Published online 14July2014. doi:10.1177/0267658314536436
33.
PlonskyLGassS (2011) Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning61: 325–66.
34.
RichardsonDCDaleR (2005) Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science29: 1045–60.
35.
RossanoFBrownPLevinsonSC (2009) Gaze, questioning and culture. In: SidnellJ (ed.) Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–249.
36.
RussellJSpadaN (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In NorrisJOrtegaL (eds) Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 133–64.
37.
SheenY (2006) Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research10: 361–92.
38.
VerspoorMde BotKLowieW (2011) A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39.
WhittakerS (2003) Things to talk about when talking about things. Human-Computer Interaction18: 149–70.
40.
ZhangJKalinowskiJ (2012) Culture and listeners’ gaze responses to stuttering. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders47: 388–97.
