Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:04:01.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IMPACT OF RECASTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMARY STRESS IN A SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED ENVIRONMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2016

Özgür Parlak  and
Nicole Ziegler
Özgür Parlak*
Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah
Nicole Ziegler
Affiliation:
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Özgür Parlak, American University of Sharjah, College of Arts and Sciences, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: oparlak@aus.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although previous research has demonstrated the efficacy of recasts on second language (L2) morphology and lexis (e.g., Li, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007), few studies have examined their effect on learners’ phonological development (although see Saito, 2015; Saito & Lyster, 2012). The current study investigates the impact of recasts on the development of lexical stress, defined as the placement of emphasis on a particular syllable within a word by making it louder and longer, in oral synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) and face-to-face (FTF) interaction. Using a pretest-posttest design, intermediate learners of English were randomly assigned to one of four groups: FTF recast, SCMC recast, FTF control, or SCMC control. Pre- and posttests consisted of sentence-reading and information-exchange tasks, while the treatment was an interactive role-play task. Syllable duration, intensity, and pitch were used to analyze learners’ development of stress placement. The statistical analyses of the acoustic correlates did not yield significant differences. However, the observed patterns suggest that there is need for further investigation to understand the relationship between recasts and development of lexical stress.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 39 , Special Issue 2: TBLT and L2 Pronunciation: Do the Benefits of Tasks Extend Beyond Grammar and Lexis? , June 2017 , pp. 257 - 285
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank Laura Gurzynski-Weiss, Avizia Yim Long, and Megan Elisabeth Solon for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article. We are also grateful to Alison Mackey and Jenifer Philp for their insightful guidance on the research on which this article is based, and to Sam Kirkham for his assistance with analysis. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their valuable suggestions and feedback. Any remaining errors are our own.

References

REFERENCES

Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201–229.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455–464.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E. (1986). Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 6.0.08) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Bradley, T., & Lomicka, L. (2000). A case study of learner interaction in technology-enhanced language learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E., Chen, S., & Wang, C. (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 261–280.Google Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41, 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, M. (2004). CALL visual feedback for pronunciation of vowels: Kay Sona-Match. CALICO Journal, 21, 571–601.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.Google Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J., & Lecumberri, L. G. (1999). The acquisition of English pronunciation: Learners’ views. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Colantoni, L., Marasco, O., Steele, J., & Sunara, S. (2014). Learning to realize prosodic prominence in L2 French and Spanish. In Miller, Ryan T., Martin, Katherine I., Eddington, Chelsea M., Henery, Ashlie, Miguel, Nausica Marcos, Tseng, Alison M., ... Walter, Daniel (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum: Building Bridges between Disciplines (pp. 15–29). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.Google Scholar
Darhower, M. A. (2008). The role of linguistic affordances in telecollaborative chat. CALICO Journal, 26, 48–69.Google Scholar
de Jong, K., & Zawaydeh, B. (2002). Comparing stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus: Patterns of variation in Arabic vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 53–75.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42, 476–490.Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393–410.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2009). Podcasting: An effective tool for honing language students’ pronunciation? Language Learning and Technology, 13, 66–86.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. (1991). The structural conformity hypothesis and the acquisition of consonant clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 23–41.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.Google Scholar
Fernández-Garcia, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19, 279–294.Google Scholar
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27, 70–105.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.Google Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.Google Scholar
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. Modern Language Journal, 86, 562–570.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 201–223.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, B., & Bhatt, R. (1997). Optimal L2 syllables: Interactions of transfer and developmental factors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 331–378.Google Scholar
Hardison, D. M. (2004). Generalization of computer-assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language Learning and Technology, 8, 34–52.Google Scholar
Hardison, D. M. (2005). Contextualized computer-based L2 prosody training: Evaluating the effects of discourse context and video input. CALICO Journal, 22, 175–190.Google Scholar
Hirata, Y. (2004). Computer assisted pronunciation training for native English speakers learning Japanese pitch and durational contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 357–376.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83–103.Google Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning and Technology, 9, 79–98.Google Scholar
Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38, 301–315.Google Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous and computer-networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476.Google Scholar
Kirkham, S. (2016). Ethnicity and phonetic variation in Sheffield English liquids. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. doi:10.1017/S0025100316000268 Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 1–24.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 635–649.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Experimental perspectives on classroom interaction. In Markee, N. (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 60–73). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approach. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanossova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 129–152.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704–740.Google Scholar
Major, R. (1998). Interlanguage phonetics and phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 131–137.Google Scholar
McAllister, R., Flege, J. E., & Piske, T. (2002). The influence of L1 on the acquisition of Swedish quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics, 30, 229–258.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323–338). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 31–47.Google Scholar
Mompean, J. A., & Fouz-González, J. (2016). Twitter-based EFL pronunciation instruction. Language Learning and Technology, 20, 1–20.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J. (1993). Productions of English vowels by native speakers of Arabic: Acoustic measurements and accentedness ratings. Language and Speech, 36, 39–66.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). The foundations of accent and intelligibility in pronunciation research. Language Teaching, 44, 316–327.Google Scholar
Neri, A., Mich, O., Gerosa, M., & Giuliani, D. (2008). The effectiveness of computer assisted pronunciation training for foreign language learning by children. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 245–266.Google Scholar
Piske, T., MacKay, I. R. A., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2015). Variables affecting the effects of recasts on L2 pronunciation development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 276–300.Google Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 1–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluijter, A. M., & van Heuven, V. J. (1996). Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2471–2485.Google Scholar
Solon, M., Long, A. Y., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2014). Task complexity and L2 pronunciation. Paper presented at the 33rd annual Second Language Research Forum, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. October 2014.Google Scholar
Soto-Faraco, S., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Cutler, A. (2001). Segmental and suprasegmental mismatch in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 412–432.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22, 399–431.Google Scholar
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 82–99.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., McDonough, K., & Neumann, H. (2013). Using collaborative tasks to elicit auditory and structural priming. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Donselaar, W., Koster, M., & Cutler, A. (2005). Exploring the role of lexical stress in recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 251–273.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.Google Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time. Language Learning and Technology, 14, 72–93.Google Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29, 507–531.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016a). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016b). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163.Google Scholar
Zielinski, B. W. (2008). The listener: No longer the silent partner in reduced intelligibility. System, 36, 69–84.Google Scholar