This study explored the relative effect of recasts on second language (L2) Korean learners’ accuracy development of the object relative clauses (RCs) and the honorific subject–verb (S-V) agreement in Korean and its relationship with language analytic ability (LAA). Forty-five L2 Korean learners participated in the study and five Korean native speakers participated as their dyadic partners. The learners were assigned into the recast group (n = 27) and the control group (n = 18). The recast group received recasts to their errors of the target forms from an interlocutor, a native Korean speaker, during their engagement in four communicative activities, but no recasts were provided to the control group. Three language tests (i.e. a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest) to measure accuracy development and a LAA test were applied to both groups. The study found that recasts benefited L2 Korean learners’ accuracy development of both forms, but their effects were not equal: recasts were more effective for the object RCs than the honorific S-V agreement. In addition, the results showed that LAA had a positive effect on the extent to which the learners benefited from recasts.
BensonS.DeKeyserR. (2018). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 25April2018 (doi: 10.1177/1362168818770921).
2.
BrownL. (2011). Korean honorifics and politeness in second language learning. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
3.
BrownP.LevinsonS. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
DörnyeiZ. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
DoughtyC. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
7.
DoughtyC. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and SLA (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
EgiT. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.
9.
EllisR. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structure. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford Press.
10.
ErlamR. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–172.
11.
GassS.SpinnerP.BehneyJ. (2018). Salience in second language acquisition and related field. In GassS.SpinnerP.BehneyJ. (Eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp. 1–18). New York: Routledge.
12.
GoldschneiderM.DeKeyserR. (2001). Explaining the ‘Natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.
13.
GooJ.MackeyA. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
14.
GranenaG. (2013). Reexamining the robustness of aptitude in second language acquisition. In GranenaG.LongM. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 179–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
15.
GranenaG.LongM. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29, 311–343.
16.
JeonK.S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 379–403). Oxford: Oxford Press.
17.
KecskesI. (2006). On my mind: Thoughts about salience, context and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research, 22, 219–237.
18.
KimJ.H.HanZ.-H. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 269–297). Oxford: Oxford Press.
19.
LandisJ.R.KochG.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
20.
LeeM. (2002). The role of corrective recasts in L2 Korean: Object relatives and the honorific morpheme -si. The Korean Language in America, 7, 291–306.
21.
LeemanJ. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.
22.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
23.
LiS. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.
24.
LiS. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396.
25.
LiS. (2015a). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408.
26.
LiS. (2015b). The differential roles of two aptitude components in mediating the effects of two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. In SanzC.LadoB. (Eds.), Individual differences, L2 development, and language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 32–52). Stamford, CT: Cengage.
27.
LiS.ZhuY.EllisR. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295.
28.
LoewenS.ReinderH. (2011). Key concepts in second language acquisition. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
29.
LongM.H. (2007). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In LongM.H. (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
LysterR.MoriH. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
31.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
32.
MackeyA.GassS.McDonoughK. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
33.
MossD.Ross-FeldmanL. (2003). Second language acquisition in adults: From research to practice. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
34.
NassajiH. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitation in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
35.
NassajiH. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562.
36.
O’GradyW. (2011). Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In KiddE. (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function (pp. 13–38). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
37.
O’GradyW.LeeM.ChooM. (2003). A subject–object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 443–448.
38.
ParkE.S.SongS.ShinY.K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research, 20, 678–699.
39.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
40.
RévészA. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
41.
RobinsonP. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.
42.
SanzCLadoB. (2015). Individual differences, L2 development, and language program administration: From theory to application. Stamford, CT: Cengage.
43.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
SchmittN.DornyeiZ.AdolphsS.DurowV. (2003). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In SchmittN. (Ed.), The acquisition, processing, and the use of formulaic sequences (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
45.
SheenY. (2007). The effects of oral corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 228–248). Oxford: Oxford Press.
46.
SheenY.EllisR. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593–610). 2nd edition.New York: Routledge.
47.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
SkehanP. (2014). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36, 367–384.
49.
SkehanP. (2016). Foreign language aptitude, acquisitioned sequences, and psycholinguistic processes. In GranenaG.JacksonD.YilmazY. (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 17–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
50.
SohnH.M. (1999). The Korean language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
The National Institute of the Korean Language. (2011). Standard language manners. Seoul: The National Institute of the Korean Language.
52.
TrofimovichP.AmmarA.GatbontonE. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford Press.
53.
VanPattenB. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NH: Ablex.
54.
YilmazY. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.
55.
YilmazY. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.
56.
YilmazY.YukselD. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
