Conversational Interaction and Second Language Development: Recasts, Responses, and Red

Herrings?
Author(s): Alison MacKey and Jenefer Philp
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 82, No. 3, Special Issue: The Role of Input and
Interaction in Second Language Acquisition (Autumn, 1998), pp. 338-356
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/329960 .
Accessed: 18/03/2011 00:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
ConversationalInteraction and
Second Language Development:
Recasts, Responses, and Red Herrings?
ALISON MACKEY JENEFER PHILP
Departmentof Linguistics Universityof Tasmania& MichiganState University
GeorgetownUniversity 4629 HarleyAvenue
Washington,DC 20057-1051 Fort Worth,TX 76107
Email.:mackeya@gusun.georgetown.edu Email:philp@pilot.msu.edu

This article examines the effects of negotiated interaction on the production and develop-
ment of question forms in English as a second language (ESL). The study focused on one fea-
ture of interaction, recasts, which have recently been the topic of interactional work in the
SLA literature (Long, 1996; Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, this issue; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Oliver,
1995). The study compared groups of learners who received interactionally modified input
with learners who received the same input containing intensive recasts in order to investigate:
(a) the effect of recasts on learners' short term interlanguage (IL) development, and (b) the
nature and content of learners' responses to recasts. The results suggest that for more ad-
vanced learners, interaction with intensive recasts may be more beneficial than interaction
alone in facilitating an increase in production of targeted higher-level morphosyntactic
forms. These positive developmental effects were found for recasts even though, as is gener-
ally acknowledged in the discourse, recasts were usually not repeated and rarely elicited mod-
ification by the learners. This study, therefore, suggests that recasts may be beneficial for short
term IL development even though they are not incorporated in learners' immediate re-
sponses. In fact, the responses may be red herrings.

THIS STUDY EXPLORES THE RELATION-
ship between recasts in conversational interac-
tion and short-term second language (L2) devel-
opment. Long's updated version of the interaction
hypothesis (Long, 1996) claims that interaction
is facilitative of L2 development, and that im-
plicit negative feedback, which can occur through
interaction, may be one way by which interaction
can have this positive effect. Recasts are one kind
of implicit negative feedback. Although some
studies have demonstrated positive effects for in-
teraction in L2 development (Ellis, Tanaka, & Ya-
mazaki, 1994; Mackey, 1995, 1997a; Nobuyoshi &
Ellis, 1993), an important next step is the attempt
to isolate the effect of individual interactional
features, such as recasts, on L2 development.
TheModernLanguage
Journal,82, iii, (1998)
0026-7902/98/338-356 $1.50/0
@1998TheModernLanguage
Journal
Two particularfeatures of interaction are the focus
of this study: (a) recasts of nontarget-like utter-
ances and (b) learners' immediate responses to
those recasts.
Previous studies of recasts have examined their
effect by focusing on the responses of learners
(Brock, Crookes, Day, & Long, 1986; Lyster &
Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 1995; Richardson, 1993) or
through immediate posttests (Long, Inagaki, &
Ortega, this issue). However, second language ac-
quisition (SLA) researchers such as Gass (1991,
1997), Gass and Varonis (1994), and Lightbown
(1994) have cautioned that factors such as in-
struction, focus on form, and interaction may
have delayed developmental effects. Although
not substituting for detailed longitudinal work,
one aim of this study was to fill the gap between
current studies of recasts and long-term case stud-
ies that do not yet exist. Thus, this study utilized a
pretest, posttest, delayed posttest design. The
main aim of the study was to examine the effects
Alison MackeyandJeneferPhilp
of conversational interaction with intensive re-
casts on L2 development.
WHAT IS CONVERSATIONAL
INTERACTION?
As discussed in a series of articles, the theoret-
ical basis for work on interaction is provided by
Long's interaction hypothesis (1983, 1985, 1996),
which evolved from work by Hatch (1978) on the
importance of conversation to developing gram-
mar, and from claims by Krashen (1985) that
comprehensible input is a necessary condition
for SLA. Long argues that interaction facilitates
acquisition because of the conversational and lin-
guistic modifications that occur in such dis-
course, which provide learners with the input
they need. Conversational interaction has been
shown to have positive effects on L2 comprehen-
sion and production (Gass & Varonis, 1994;
Loschky, 1994; Mackey, 1995; Pica, 1992; Pica,
Young, & Doughty, 1987). Two examples of how
the process of negotiated interaction may be op-
erating can be seen below (taken from data in
this study). In the first example, the nonnative
speaker (NNS) does not understand the word
couple.The word is repeated, the original phrase
is extended and rephrased by the native speaker
(NS), and finally, a synonym is given.
Example 1:
NS: there's there's just a couple
more things
NNS: a sorry? couple?
NS: couple more things in the
room only just a couple
NNS: couple? what does it mean cou-
ple?
NS: like 2 2 things 2 or 3 things
NNS: more
NS: yeah
Learner production is also an important issue
in interaction. Swain (1985, 1995) has argued
that having to produce language is what con-
strains learners to think about syntax. Swain and
Lapkin (1995) explored "think aloud" or dic-
togloss tasks, which they suggested may reveal
learners' introspective processes. Swain and Lap-
kin (this issue) also discuss what they term
"collaborative dialogues" in "language related
episodes," where the learners talk about the
language they are producing or writing. They
suggest that such conversations may be a source
of L2 learning. Pica, Holliday, Lewis, and Mor-
genthaler (1989) also pointed out the impor-
tance of learner output. An example of a learner
339
being pushed to produce more comprehensible
output can be seen in Example 2 (data are from
the present study), where the NNS rephrases the
original sentence in an effort to be understood.
Example 2:
NNS: here and then the left
NS: sorry?
NNS: ah here and one ah where one ah one of
them on the left?
NS: yeah ones behind the table and then the
others on the left of the table.
Interactionand L2 Development
It has been claimed that input must be inter-
nalized in some way in order to affect the acqui-
sition process. If learners are to make use of the
possible benefits of interaction, such as L2 data
and feedback on their production, they must not
only comprehend this L2 data but also must no-
tice the mismatch between the input and their
own interlanguage (IL) system (Gass, 1990). Ellis
(1991) also claimed that the acquisition process
includes the procedures of noticing, comparing,
and integrating. In trying to understand the pro-
cess of interaction, researchers have suggested
that if interaction is to impact on the learners IL,
learners may need to notice the gap between
their IL form and the L2 alternative (Gass, 1990;
Gass & Varonis, 1994; Schmidt, 1990, 1994;
Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Gass (1990) points out
that "nothing in the target language is available
for intake into a language learner's existing sys-
tem unless it is consciously noticed" (p. 136).
Noticing or attention to form may be facilitated
through negotiated interaction. It has been ar-
gued that during negotiation for meaning, when
learners are struggling to communicate and are
engaged in trying to understand and to be under-
stood, their attention may be on language form
as well as meaning (Gass & Varonis, 1994; Long,
1996; Pica, 1994). In discussing the importance
of negotiated interaction to the SLA process,
Gass and Varonis (1994) argue that negotiations:
... cruciallyfocus the learner'sattentionon the parts
of the discoursethat are problematic,either from a
productive or a receptive point of view. Attention in
turn is whatallowslearnersto notice a gap between
what they produce/know and what is produced by
speakersof the L2. The perception of a gap or mis-
matchmaylead to grammarrestructuring.(p. 299)
In Long's (1996; this issue) updated interac-
tion hypothesis, he has suggested that in terms of
internalizing interaction, there is a role in SLA
for negotiated interaction that elicits negative
340
feedback, including recasts. According to Long
(1996), this feedback may induce noticing of some
forms:
it is proposedthatenvironmentalcontributionsto ac-
quisitionare mediatedby selectiveattentionand the
learner'sdevelopingL2 processingcapacity.... nega-
tive feedbackobtained in negotiationwork or else-
wheremaybe facilitativeof SLdevelopment.(p. 414)
StructuresLearnable throughInteraction
Exactly which morphosyntactic structures may
be internalized by learners may be constrained
by a number of factors. One of these is the learn-
ability of the structure (Pienemann, 1984, 1989).
Pienemann claims that the learnability of a struc-
ture is dependent on the readiness of the learner
to acquire it. This means learners need to be at
the correct developmental level to have the pro-
cessing constraints required for acquiring the
structure. Research on teachability and develop-
mental sequences carries a clear caveat for any
study exploring an effect of a treatment on ac-
quisition because it shows that results will be con-
strained by readiness to acquire. If learners are
not at the correct developmental level they will
not acquire the structure; it is supposedly un-
learnable, unteachable, and untreatable.
Interactionand L2 Comprehension,Production,
and Development
Studies to date, both qualitative and quantita-
tive, on the effects of conversational interaction
on L2 production and development, point to a
positive yet selective role for interaction. One of
the first studies to explore this issue was carried
out by Sato (1986, 1988), who explored the con-
nection between conversation and SLA through
a longitudinal study of early ESL acquisition by
two young Vietnamese brothers in a naturalistic
setting. Through a careful analysis of the pro-
duction of past time reference in the boys' pro-
duction, she found no connection between NS
input or naturalistic interaction and the gram-
matical encoding of past time reference. She
pointed out, however, that the past time refer-
ence was largely recoverable from situational
knowledge and discourse context. It was gener-
ally not necessary to provide or require past time
reference marking in the conversations. Sato sug-
gested that conversation might be selectively fa-
cilitative of linguistic development (see also
Long, 1996) and that different types of gram-
matical structures and discourse contexts were
areas of consideration for future research.
TheModernLanguageJournal82 (1998)
Differential effects of different types of inter-
action on various aspects of L2 acquisition have
since been noted in a number of studies, some of
which are considered below. The effect of inter-
action on NNS comprehension and production
was the focus of an empirical study by Gass
and Varonis (1994). Their study compared pre-
scripted modified and unmodified input with
and without the opportunity for interactional
modifications. Effect on comprehension and
production were both measured by success in fol-
lowing the directions of a picture placement task.
Although both input conditions were found to
positively affect comprehension, the ability to
give directions was improved only through nego-
tiated interaction, not modified interaction. Sub-
sequent qualitative analysis of the data suggests
that the learners increased their ability to use var-
ious descriptive devices rather than to use new
vocabulary items. They used the same devices
used by their NS interlocutor in a prior session.
Gass and Varonis (1994) suggested that interac-
tion with the opportunity for modifications may
impact on later language use. Polio and Gass's
(this issue) partial replication study did find a
positive effect for negotiated interaction on L2
production as indicated by NSs' comprehension
of that production, and also raises interesting
methodological points for future studies to con-
sider. A positive effect for interaction on com-
prehension was also found by Loschky (1994). He
considered the effects of comprehensible input
and interaction on comprehension and on the
retention of vocabulary items and the acquisition
of two locative constructions in Japanese as a
second language. Although negotiated interac-
tion benefited learner comprehension, it had no
effect on the retention or acquisition of the vo-
cabulary items or the grammatical structures in-
vestigated in the study.
In terms of comprehension and lexical acquisi-
tion, in a study based on the ESL of two groups
of Japanese L1 learners, Ellis, Tanaka, and Ya-
mazaki (1994) found that interactionally modi-
fied input resulted in improved comprehension,
and more new words being acquired than was the
case with premodified input. Ellis et al.'s study
thus provides evidence for a link between inter-
actionally modified input and lexical acquisition.
They argue that interaction gives learners con-
trol over the input and allows them to identify
and solve problems. They suggest that interac-
tion allows learners to comprehend items in the
target language (TL) and that comprehended
input is important for SLA. Difference in the
findings of Ellis et al. and Loschky (1994) re-
Alison MackeyandJeneferPhilp
garding the effect of interaction on the acquisi-
tion of lexical items may, as Ellis et al. suggest, be
due to the difference in target items used to mea-
sure development. Loschky's measure of acquisi-
tion was locative constructions; Ellis et al. used
vocabulary items.
Mackey (1995, 1997a) examined the effects of
different types of input and interaction on the
short-term development of morphosyntactic
structures using a pretest, posttest, delayed post-
test design. Mackey's study involved learners and
NSs carrying out communicative tasks in pairs.
The tasks were designed to promote interaction
that was focused on question forms in ESL. The
question forms were those located on the devel-
opmental sequence proposed by Pienemann and
Johnston (1987). Adult ESL learners (n = 34) of
varying L1 backgrounds were divided into five
groups. Group 1 took part in the interaction fo-
cused on specific morphosyntactic structures.
Group 2 received the same treatment but was as-
sessed as being at a developmentally lower level.
Group 3 observed the interaction but had no op-
portunity to produce output. Group 4 received
premodified (scripted) input but had no oppor-
tunity to modify the input. Group 5 was a control
group and received no treatment. Specific find-
ings of Mackey's study include the following:
(a) taking part in interaction led to the increased
production of developmentally more advanced
questions and (b) only active participation in in-
teraction resulted in development. Observing in-
teraction without opportunities for production
and receiving premodified input with no oppor-
tunities for interactional modifications did not
result in increases in developmentally more ad-
vanced structures. In addition to supporting the
interaction hypothesis, this finding provides
support for the output hypothesis (Swain, 1995)
and suggestions that learners can be pushed to
"notice the gap" (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) through
production. Mackey's study also found that (c)
the increase in developmentally more advanced
structures did not take place immediately but in
delayed posttests, thus supporting claims that de-
velopment may not be an immediate effect of in-
teraction (Gass, 1997; Gass & Varonis, 1994;
Lightbown, 1994). Mackey's findings indicate a
positive role in L2 learning for the interactional
modifications, conditions, and processes hypoth-
esized to be important in L2 learning. In a quali-
tative study of 8 learners who took part in inter-
action, Mackey (1997b) found that those learners
who demonstrated a pattern of modifying their
responses during interaction (n = 4) were more
likely to develop in terms of higher-level struc-
341
tures than learners who did not follow a pattern
of modifying their responses (n = 4). Positive
effects on L2 learning were also found for mod-
ifications in a study in which classroom learners
were provided with interactional modifications
following nontarget-like output by Muranoi
(1995).
Findings from these studies on the effects of in-
teraction and L2 development would seem to lead
back to Sato's (1986) proposal that conversation is
selectively facilitative of L2 development depend-
ing on the structures involved: "Certain aspects of
conversational structure appear to facilitate the
acquisition of some linguistic coding devices" (p.
44). The question we might ask, based on Sato's
proposal, is: "What sort of conversational interac-
tion leads to what sort of development?"
Recasts
One focus of such L2 research is recasts. Follow-
ing L1 acquisition research, there has been new
interest in the role of recasts or corrective feed-
back for language learning, along with the recent
emphasis on how TL features can be made more
salient to the learner through interaction. Farrar
(1992) identifies recasts as those utterances "in
which parents explicitly correct the child's sen-
tence by adding syntactic or semantic informa-
tion" (p. 90). The central meaning is retained
while morphological, syntactic, or lexical elements
may be changed. Farrar argues that recasts, by
providing the child with a target-like sample of
their nontarget-like utterance, give children neg-
ative evidence or feedback on their errors.
Long (1996) provides a comprehensive opera-
tionalization of recasts, which applies for L1 and
L2 acquisition: "Recasts are utterances which re-
phrase a child's utterance by changing one or
more sentence components (subject, verb or ob-
ject) while still referring to its central meanings"
(p. 434). He notes four properties of recasts: (a)
they are a reformulation of the ill formed utter-
ance, (b) they expand the utterance in some way,
(c) the central meaning of the utterance is re-
tained, and (d) the recast follows the ill-formed
utterance (see also Farrar, 1992; Oliver, 1995).
Thus, in Example 3 from data in the current
study, the NS interlocutor responds to the NNS's
ill-formed utterance with a reformulation, modi-
fying the NNS's utterance by first supplying the
auxiliary and then completely recasting the ut-
terance by changing the pronoun and the mor-
phology of the main verb. The central meaning
of the NNS's original utterance is retained. This
is an example of a recast of a question form.
342
Example 3:
NNS: what are they (.) what do they
do your picture?
NS: what are they doing in my pic-
ture?
Oliver (1995) provides a detailed taxonomy of
recasts in her article, and also points out that re-
casts may be given in response to one or more er-
rors and may be a full or partial recast of the
learner's utterance. This is seen in Example 3,
where there are multiple errors. The NS responds
with a full recast, "whatare they doing in my pic-
ture?", completing the learner's initial attempt,
"whatare they.. ." and providing the TL verb form
and preposition. Example 4, from this study,
shows a recast of a single error utterance. Words in
square brackets represent simultaneous speech.
Example 4:
NNS: yeah and they're eat lunch [eat
lunch]
NS: [yes] they're eating lunch
As Long (1996) points out, the correction pro-
vided by recasts is different from preemptive
teaching in the classroom because recasts are re-
active, given in response to an utterance the
learner initiates and first formulates. The inter-
locutor responds to a nontarget-like form by re-
casting the utterance totally or partially. The
recast may be provided because the form is non-
target-like yet the meaning is understood, as in
Example 4, or the recast may be provided as an
attempt to clarify the meaning as well as the non-
target-like form, as in Example 6. In either case,
the learner is provided with a TL sample of what
the interlocutor perceives to be the learner's in-
tended message.
In the following examples from data in the cur-
rent study, adult L2 learners are corrected by
their NS interlocutors. The recasts in this case are
part of negotiation sequences and function as
confirmation checks (Long, 1980). The NNS hears
her output partially recast in a target-likeform.
Example 5:
NNS: I think some this girl have birth-
day and and its big celebrate
NS: big celebration
NNS: oh
Example 6:
NNS: this window is full or broke?
NS: is it broken?
NNS: yeah
Based on work by Long (1996, p. 430) who dis-
cusses and summarizes the L1 literature and re-
TheModernLanguageJournal82 (1998)
search by Pinker (1989), Grimshaw and Pinker
(1989), and Beck and Eubank (1991), four condi-
tions need to be met before a role for negative ev-
idence can be assigned in a theory of language
acquisition: Negative evidence must be shown
(a) to exist, (b) to exist in a usable form, (c) to be
used, and (d) to be necessary for acquisition.
Recent studies investigating recasts have con-
sidered the existence and use of recasts. In terms
of the existence of recasts, research has exam-
ined the frequency of occurrence in a classroom
context (Doughty, 1993; Lyster, 1998; Lyster &
Ranta, 1997) and in the context of interaction
with children and adults (Oliver, 1995; Richard-
son, 1993). In terms of whether recasts exist in a
usable form and whether or not they are used,
these issues have been measured by various stud-
ies through the analysis of repetition or incorpo-
ration of recasts in the "third turn," or both
(Doughty, 1994; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Oliver,
1995; Richardson, 1993). In this study, we argue
for a longer-term perspective on learner devel-
opment than immediate use. Studies such as
Lyster and Ranta (1997) conclude that recasts
were rarely used, in terms of "uptake," by class-
room L2 learners of French. They state that:
Uptake in our model refersto a student'sutterance
which immediately follows the teacher's feedback and
which constitutes a reaction in some way to the
teacher'sintention to drawattentionto some aspect
of the student's initial utterance ... if there is no up-
take then there is topic continuation, which is initi-
ated either by the same or anotherstudent (in both
cases the teacher'sintention goes unheeded) or by
the teacher (in which case the teacherhas not pro-
vided an opportunityfor uptake).(p. 19)
In Oliver's (1995) study, however, we see a
methodological advance over previous studies in
terms of measurement of "use" or "uptake" of
data, because Oliver eliminates turns in her data
where there is no opportunity for the NNS to re-
peat or incorporate the recast, such as when the
NS recasts, and then changes the topic or moves
on with the utterance in the same turn: "The girl
went to the doctor? Yeah, my girl did too, how
about your boy?"Once the topic has moved from
the girl to the boy, the NNS has no opportunity to
take up the recast, but must move on with the se-
mantically contingent part of the conversation.
When these "no opportunity" turns are elimi-
nated, Oliver found a much higher incorpora-
tion of recasts in terms of "uptake"or "use."The
study by Long et al. (this issue) utilized an ex-
perimental approach to recasts, which allowed
for posttesting. However, the pretest, treatment,
and posttest were carried out in succession in
Alison MackeyandJeneferPhilp
one 45-minute session and delayed posttests were
not carried out.
Previous studies of recasts have suggested that
their effect on SLA is worthy of further investiga-
tion, although interpretation of the findings is
not clear cut. Doughty (1993), in a classroom-
based study of university beginning French learn-
ers, found in 6 hours of classroom interaction
that the NS teacher responded to NNSs' nontarget-
like utterances in 43% of cases, and responded
with recasts or expansions most frequently when
there was only one error. Richardson's (1993)
small-scale empirical study of three NS-NNS
dyads showed similar results. Richardson also
found that NNSs were more likely to respond to
recasts than to repetitions of their well formed
utterances. Oliver's study (1995) of eight child
NS-NNS dyads found that over one third of re-
casts were incorporated by the NNSs when it was
possible and appropriate for the NNS to respond.
Lyster and Ranta (1997) found that recasts were
ineffective at eliciting student-generated repair
when compared with other types of feedback:
clarification requests, repetition, metalinguistic
feedback, and elicitation. However, they also
point out that teachers have an overwhelming
tendency to use recasts. Long et al. (this issue), in
two studies focusing on models prior to an utter-
ance and recasts after an utterance in Japanese
and Spanish, found evidence in one of their stud-
ies (of Spanish) that recasts were more effective
than models in development of a previously un-
known L2 structure.
Thus it seems that studies that have tested the
effects of negotiated interaction have shown that
such interaction can have a positive effect on L2
development. Long (1996) has claimed that im-
plicit negative feedback, including recasts, may
be elicited through negotiated interaction and
that such feedback can draw learners' attention
to mismatches between input and output. Stud-
ies of recasts have shown that they are frequently
provided to learners in classrooms and also, al-
though less often, through conversational inter-
action. Research to date suggests that learners
may not "use"recasts very often in their immedi-
ate turns. However, the use of recasts beyond the
third turn is an area of research that is largely un-
explored. This study focuses on that area. It ex-
plores the use of recasts through production in
delayed posttests. In this study, we compared the
effects of (a) negotiated interaction with inten-
sive recasts and (b) negotiated interaction with-
out such recasts on the development of questions
in ESL. In addition to this exploration, the ef-
fects of recasts on developmental sequences were
343
also examined by including learners at high and
low developmental levels. We generated the fol-
lowing research questions and hypotheses.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
AND HYPOTHESES
1. Do learners who participate in task-based inter-
action with intensive recasts show an increase
in developmentally more advanced structures?
HypothesisOne
Learners who participate in interaction with
intensive recasts will show a greater increase in
production of developmentally more advanced
structures than learners who participate in inter-
action without intensive recasts.
2. What is the role of the learner's response to the
recasts?
HypothesisTwo
Learners will show an increase in production
of developmentally more advanced structures if
their responses to the recasts of these structures
are modified.
METHOD
The design of this study was based on a larger
study by Mackey (1995). A subset of data from
this larger study was also utilized for the Interac-
tor groups in the current study. Not all data from
the larger study were available (transcribed and
coded) at the time the present study was carried
out. Data were randomly selected for transcrip-
tion and coding.
Operationalizationof L2 Development
Question forms were chosen as the measure
of development because previous research had
shown that they were readily elicited (Mackey,
1994b) and that they were present at all stages of
learning. In addition, empirical research for the
stages of acquisition for question formation is
relatively robust (Pienemann & Johnston, 1987;
Pienemann, Johnston, & Brindley, 1988; Piene-
mann & Mackey,1993; Spada & Lightbown, 1993).
Also, the issue of readiness to acquire certain
forms could be controlled.
The effect of the treatment conditions on
learners' IL development was assessed through
examining changes in question formation. Con-
344
versational tasks with face validity as familiar
classroom materials, for example "Spot the Dif-
ference," were designed to promote production
of these forms (Mackey, 1994a, 1994b). All ques-
tion forms targeted in treatment and tests were
part of the developmental sequence for question
formation in ESL identified by Pienemann and
Johnston (1987) and shown in Table 1. This se-
quence was also adapted by Spada and Light-
bown (1993) for their study of the effects of in-
struction on question formation and is further
described in that study.
Responsesto Recasts
As discussed, in recent studies of recasts
(Doughty, 1993; Farrar, 1992; Lyster & Ranta,
1997; Richardson, 1993), responses to recasts
have been examined in terms of repetition or in-
corporation. In this study, responses to recasts
were categorized in four different ways: (a) con-
tinue, (b) repeat, (c) modify, and (d) other. All
examples of coding of responses are from data in
this study. Approximately one third of the data
set was coded by each of the researchers and a
third party to ensure that coding was consistent.
Interrater reliability for coding was 96% (based
on simple percentage agreement).
Continue.The participant does not modify or
repeat a recast, but continues on task with the
topic. The participant may acknowledge the re-
cast, for example, "hmmm" "yeah," or just con-
tinue on task.1 Two examples of "continue" re-
sponses are as follows: (A) The NNS, following a
recast, continues with what he or she was saying
(i.e., remains on task); and (B) The NNS, follow-
ing a recast, continues after acknowledging that
the recast was what was meant. Also, they may
simply acknowledge the recast but do not say any-
thing further. This often happens when the re-
cast is of a question form. In Example B, the
NNS, satisfied that the question has been under-
stood, simply waits for the answer.
Example A:
Recast followed by continued task talk
NNS: yeah and they're eat lunch [eat
lunch]
NS: [yes] they're eating lunch
NNS: and finished its rain getting rain
Example B:
Recast followed by continued task talk
NNS: what what they doing?
NS: what are they doing?
NNS: yeah
NS: they're signing a contract
TheModernLanguageJournal82 (1998)
The analysis initially sought to identify "con-
tinue" responses in terms of whether they were A
or B responses, that is "continue on task" or "ac-
knowledge the recast and then continue." How-
ever, all verbal and nonverbal acceptances of re-
casts were considered to be "continue" because,
even if participants "acknowledge" the recast
(e.g., "yes""mm""yeah and .. ."), it was not pos-
sible to identify the participants' intentions. For
example, participants could intend to acknowl-
edge the recast, meaning to say "yes that's what I
meant," or they could intend to simply acknowl-
edge turn completion. In order to avoid ambigu-
ity, all such responses were considered to be
"continue."
Repeats. The participant repeats the recast.
This may be a full or partial repetition (see Ex-
ample C) of a recast.
Example C:
Partial repetition of a recast
NNS: oh (..) she go to the zoo and
she is she fun?
NS: is she=?
NNS: fun
NS: is she having fun?
NNS: having fun
NS: yeah yeah
Modifies.The participant modifies the recast or
the original utterance after the recast, or both.
This is not a repetition of the recast, but a modi-
fication of it (see Example D).
Example D:
NNS: modifies utterance, incorporat-
ing a recast
NNS: what what thinking?
NS: what does she think?
NNS: what does she thinking her
friends?
NS: what is she thinking about her
friends?
Other In some cases, after recasts, there is no
opportunity for the NNS to respond either with
repetition, modification, or acknowledgment
(see Examples E and F). This was considered to
be a separate category and was labeled "other."
Example E:
Following a recast, no opportunity given for a
NNS: turn
NNS: take box ah shelf?
NS: that's right yeah he puts the
box on the shelf and this the
price price you know
Alison Mackey andJenefer Philp 345

TABLE 1
Examples of Question Forms and Developmental Stages

Developmental Stage Example

Stage 2

SVO? It's a monster?

Canonical word orderwith question intonation. Your car is black?
You have a cat?
I draw a house here?

Stage 3
Fronting: Wh/Do/Q-word
Where the cats are?
Direct questions with main verbsand someform offronting. What the cat doing in your picture?
Do you have an animal?
Does in this picture there is a cat?

Stage 4
Pseudo Inversion: Y/N, Cop.

In Y/N questions an auxiliary or modal is in sentence- (Y/N) Have you got a dog?
initial position. (Y/N) Have you drawn the cat?
(Cop) Where is the cat in your picture?
In Wh-questionsthe copula and the subjectchangepositions.

Stage 5
Do/Aux 2nd

Q-word->Aux/modal ->subj (main verb, etc.) Why (Q) have (Aux) you (sub) left home?

Auxiliary verbsand modals are placed in secondposition What do you have?

to Wh-Q's(& Q-words)and beforesubject Where does your cat sit?
(applies only in main clauses/direct Q's). What have you got in your picture?

Stage 6
Canc Inv, Neg Q, Tag Qu

CancelInv: Wh-Qinversions are not present in relative clauses. (Can Inv) Can you see what the time is?
Neg Q:A negatedform of Do/Aux is placed beforethe subject. (Can Inv) Can you tell me where the cat is?
Tag Q:An Aux verband pronoun are attached to end (Neg Q) Doesn't your cat look black?
of main clause. (Neg Q) Haven't you seen a dog?
(Tag Q) It's on the wall, isn't it?
Note. This table is based on Pienemann andJohnston (1987) and Pienemann,Johnston, and Brindley (1988).
See also Spada and Lightbown's (1993) adaptation and Mackey (1995, 1997a, 1997b). Stage 1 consists of sin-
gle words such as "why?"and "cat?"As all participants in the study were beyond this level, it is not included
in this table.

Example F: Participants
Following a recast, no opportunity given for a
NNS: turn
Thirty-five adult ESL learners from two private
NNS: why why man business man
English language schools in Sydney, Australia
very happy? participated in the present study. They were from
NS: why is he very happy? because beginner and lower intermediate intensive Eng-
he has poisoned this man lish language classes. Participation in the study
In these cases, although the NNS does eventually was voluntary and involved a commitment of 15
take a turn, it is inappropriate to code as "con- to 25 minutes for one afternoon each day for 1
tinues" because the recast is given and followed week, then three more 15 to 25 minute sessions
by the NS continuing on task. spread over 3 weeks. The sessions, in which par-
346
ticipants were paired with a NS and performed
three tasks, were held during study periods at the
language center. Participants ranged in age from
15 to 30 and were of mixed L1 backgrounds
(Cantonese: 8, Korean: 2,Japanese: 8, Russian: 4,
Czech: 3, Indonesian: 6, Portuguese: 1, Spanish:
2, Swiss-German: 1). There were 17 men and 18
women. The participants had been in Australia
no more than 7 months, the majority having ar-
rived 2 months prior to the study. The NSs were
the two researchers and three project research
assistants, three women and two men. Four were
speakers of Australian English and one was a
speaker of British English. There were three fe-
male NSs and two male NSs. The NSs were be-
tween the ages of 24 and 36.
GroupAssignment
Participants were selected on the basis of their
willingness to be involved in the study. In order to
test the hypotheses, groups of participants at dif-
ferent developmental levels were created. Partic-
ipants were assigned as "readies" or "unreadies"
on the basis of proficiency level assessments (cor-
responding to beginner and intermediate) made
by the school. There was a pool of participants
who were "unready"for some question structures
and should not have been able to develop those
structures: For example, participants who began
the study at stage 3 were not ready to acquire
structures at stage 5 or 6 because they first
needed to acquire stage 4; a pool who were
"ready,"for example, participants who began the
study at stage 4, were ready to acquire structures
at stage 5. Transcripts of a conversation from a
task carried out by "unready" participants were
examined by the researchers to confirm their de-
velopmental levels. This assessment of their de-
velopmental level was based on Pienemann and
Johnston (1987) and Pienemann, Johnston, and
Brindley (1988), as shown previously in Table 1.
Once assigned as "ready" or "unready,"partici-
pants were placed randomly into groups: two In-
teractor groups, two Recast groups, and a Con-
trol group (see Table 2). The Recast groups
received intensive recasts of their nontarget-like
utterances as they carried out tasks in pairs with
a NS interlocutor. The Interactor groups per-
formed the same tasks but did not receive such
recasts. The Control group participated in pre-
and posttests only. It should be noted that the
Control group came from the "ready"pool. Re-
searchers were assigned randomly to each group
and rotated so that all participants had all re-
searchers for both test and treatment sessions.
TheModernLanguageJournal82 (1998)
Data for the Control and the Interactor groups
were collected I year earlier than the data for the
Recast groups. However, the NSs were the same
at both times, with one exception: The NS of
British English did not participate in data collec-
tion for the recast groups. On the basis of bio-
data, proficiency level,2 and hours and type of in-
struction in the schools attended, the groups
were held to be equivalent.
Procedure
Each test and treatment session lasted approx-
imately 15 to 25 minutes. The entire study con-
sisted of one session per day for 1 week, one ses-
sion 1 week later, and a final session 3 weeks later.
Both the treatments and the tests consisted of in-
formation gap tasks, as indicated in Table 3.
Working in NS-NNS dyads, participants were
given three tasks to perform. In the test sessions,
participants carried out the three "spot the dif-
ference" tasks, where each participant had a sim-
ilar picture with 10 differences. The pictures
were hidden from the view of the partner. The
NNS was required to find the differences be-
tween the two pictures by asking questions. In
the treatment sessions, participants performed
three tasks. These were a picture drawing task, a
story completion task, and a story sequencing
task. A variety of tasks were used to allow for the
occurrence of a range of contexts for eliciting
the targeted forms.
The NSs were trained in the use of the tasks by
reading written instructions for the tasks, exam-
ining transcripts, and carrying out role plays. For
the recast treatment, the NSs were instructed to
recast fully any nontarget-like utterance given by
the NNSs and to target and recast question forms
as much as possible.3
RESULTS
HypothesisOne
Learners who participate in interaction with in-
tensive recasts will show a greater increase in pro-
duction of developmentally more advanced struc-
tures than learners who participate in interaction
without intensive recasts.
This hypothesis was tested by examining: (a)
the numbers of participants in each group who
produced more question forms at higher devel-
opmental levels than they initially used and (b)
the total numbers of questions produced at
higher levels by each group.
Alison MackeyandJeneferPhilp 347
TABLE2
Group Assignment
Group Treatment Group Size

Control no treatment 6
InteractorReady negotiated interaction 6
InteractorUnready negotiated interaction 6
Recast Ready interaction with intensive recasts of nontarget-likeforms 9
Recast Unready interaction with intensive recastsof nontarget-likeforms 8

TABLE3
Experimental Procedure
Week 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week 2 Week 5
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 5 Day 5
Pretest Treatment 1 Treatment2 Treatment3 Posttest 1 Posttest2 Posttest3
Picture Story Story Story Picture Picture Picture
Differences Completion Completion Completion Differences Differences Differences
Picture Picture Picture
Sequencing Sequencing Sequencing
Picture Picture Picture
Drawing Drawing Drawing

(1 example (1 example (1 example

(3 examples) of each) of each) of each) (3 examples) (3 examples) (3 examples)

Participants Producing More Questionsat Higher
DevelopmentalLevels.As discussed, the model for
developmental levels used in this study was the six
stage sequence described by Pienemann and
Johnston (1987) and Pienemann, Johnston, and
Brindley (1988). Movement of participants be-
tween stages was only considered in relation
to question formation; no claims about the over-
all developmental stage of participants' IL are
made. The developmental stage for each partici-
pant in relation to the highest level questions
they produced was charted for each of the tests.
An overall stage measurement was made in rela-
tion to participants' performance after each test
by producing an implicational scale for each par-
ticipant for each test (Pienemann, Johnston, &
Brindley, 1988). The number of individuals who
gained a stage in relation to the pretest was cal-
culated for each group. Participants were con-
sidered to have gained a stage after at least two
productive usages of two higher-level question
forms in more than one of the posttests. This re-
quirement is essentially an arbitrary one. It is a
more conservative measure than the "two pro-
ductive usages" at one time measure (Pienemann
& Johnston, 1987; Pienemann, Johnston, &
Brindley, 1988; Spada & Lightbown, 1993), as it
entails two usages of two forms on more than one
occasion.4 It was hoped that the more rigorous
criterion would strengthen the probability that
stage development had occurred.
With regard to the Interactor Ready and Recast
Ready groups, we can see from Table 4 that in the
Recast Ready group, 7 of the 9 participants in-
creased in developmental level. As discussed
above, this means that 7 of the 9 participants pro-
duced at least two productive usages of two
higher-level question forms in more than one of
the posttests. Participants produced these struc-
tures in a variety of posttest combinations, sec-
ond and third, first and second and, for one par-
ticipant, first and third. In the Interactor Ready
group, 5 participants did not increase in devel-
opmental level, although 1 participant did. Thus,
there does appear to be evidence for a significant
relationship between development, as measured
TABLE4
Production of Questions at Higher Developmental
Levels
No Stage Stage
Increase Increase
InteractorReady 5 1
(83%) (17%)
Recast Ready 7
2
(22%) (78%)
348 TheModernLanguageJournal82 (1998)

by question production and exposure to recasts
[X2 (1, n = 15) = 5.4, p < .05].5 It should be noted
that the Control group was at the same level as
the Ready groups, not the Unready groups. In the
Control group, 4 of 6 participants (67%) had no
stage increase; 2 of 6 (33%) participants showed
an increase.6
With regard to the Interactor Unready and Re-
cast Unready groups, Table 5 indicates that 6 out
of 6 Interactor Unready participants and 6 out of
8 Recast Unready participants did not increase
in developmental stage in terms of production
of higher-level structures.7 No significant differ-
ences were found.
Figure 1 shows the increase in production of
TABLE5
Production of Questions at Higher Developmental
Levels
No Stage Stage
Increase Increase
InteractorUnready 6 0
(100%) (0%)
RecastUnready 6 2
(75%) (25%)
developmentally more advanced question forms.
It is clear that the group that was both ready and
received recasts developed the most.
Total Numbers of Questions Produced at Higher
Levels.Production of structures, rather than in-
crease in developmental stage, was also a focus of
the analysis. An investigation of the total amount
of higher-level structuress produced was carried
out individually for each group using a one-way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with test as the re-
peated measure. All post hoc analyses used
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) with an alpha
level of .05.
With regard to the Recast Ready Group, we can
see from Table 6 that, for questions at stage 5,
there is some evidence for a linear increase in the
number of higher-level question forms through-
out the posttests [F (3,24) = 3.07, p < .04]. How-
ever, this pattern is complicated by the high
pretest levels and the high pretest standard devia-
tion. Post hoc tests were not significant. All other
questions did not show significant increases.
In terms of the Recast Unready Group, Table 6
shows that, for questions at stage 4, there is again
some evidence of a trend in that the number
of higher-level question forms increased from
pretest levels [F (3,21) = 2.57, p < .08], although
this is only marginal. All other questions did not
show significant increases.
For the Interactor Ready group, for questions at
stage 5, there is some evidence that the number
of higher-level question forms increased from
pretest levels as shown in Table 6 [F (3,15) = 2.62,
p < .08], but again this is only marginal. All other
questions did not show significant increases.
With regard to the Interactor Unready group,

FIGURE1
Increased Production of DevelopmentallyAdvancedQuestions

100-

90-
80-

70-

60- -.- --- Recasts

--- - Interactors
. 50- ------ --- Control
" 40-
30-
20 20 __-------m

10
0
Unready I Ready
Group Assignment
Alison MackeyandJeneferPhilp 349
TABLE6 between the pretest and posttest 2. The results for
Increased Production of Higher-LevelStructures all other questions were not significant.
Recast Ready M SD
Stage 5 questions HypothesisTwo
Pretest 2.55 2.65 Learners will show an increase in production
Post 1 1.11 .78 of developmentally more advanced structures if
Post 2 1.44 1.81 their responses to the recasts are modified.
Post 3 2.77 1.85
As can be seen from Table 7, which illustrates
RecastUnready learners' responses to the recasts contained
Stage 4 questions within the interactional treatment, for the Recast
Pretest 3.50 3.07 Ready group, 218 (53%) of the responses were to
Post 1 7.25 7.92 continue on task, 92 (22%) were to repeat the re-
Post 2 7.87 8.96 cast, and 20 (5%) were to modify the original ut-
Post 3 11.50 6.11 terance; 19%of responses were classified "other,"
which means there was no opportunity for a re-
InteractorReady sponse. For the Recast Unready group, of a total
Stage 5 questions of 316 recasts, 168 (53%) were continue, 64
(20%) were repeat, and 13 (4%) were modify.
Pretest .33 .81
Post 1 1.50 1.76 Again, 22% of recasts were impossible to repeat
or incorporate (these were the turns classified as
Post 2 2.33 2.33
Post 3 1.33 1.21 "other"). If these "no opportunity turns" are re-
moved (Oliver, 1995), then the large proportion
InteractorUnready of responses in which the learner simply contin-
Stage 4 questions ues on task becomes even more obvious (66% for
the Recast Ready group and 68% for the Recast
Pretest .83 .98 Unready group). It should be noted that both
Post 1 2.50 2.50 "continue" and "no opportunity" turns are simi-
Post 2 5.00 2.82 lar in that in both cases the interaction continues.
Post 3 4.0 1.54
They are distinguished by who continues the on-
task talk. In "continue" turns, the NNS carries on

TABLE7
Responses to Recasts
Response to Recasts (total rawscores) Total
C R M O
RecastReadies 218 92 20 79 409
% of total 53% 22% 5% 19%
%without "other"turns 66% 28% 6% n/a 330

RecastUnreadies 168 64 13 71 316

%of total 53% 20% 4% 22%
%without "other"turns 68% 26% 5% n/a 245
Note. C = continues, R = repeats, M = modifies, O = other

for questions at stage 4, as shown in Table 6, the
number of higher-level question forms increased
from pretest levels [F (3,15) = 6.40, p = .00] and
post hoc tests showed a significant difference be-
tween the pretest and posttest 2. For questions at
stage 5, the number of higher-level question forms
increased from pretest levels [F (3,15) = 4.19, p <
.02]; post hoc tests showed a significant difference
the discourse without focusing on the recast,
whereas in "no opportunity" turns, the NS carries
on the discourse without giving an opportunity
for the NNS to focus on the recast.9
An examination of Figure 2 shows that there is
very little difference between the performance
of the Recast Ready and Recast Unready groups
in terms of their responses to recasts. Very few of
350 TheModernLanguageJournal82 (1998)

FIGURE2
Responses to Recasts:Comparison of Recast Readyand Unready Groups

Recasts Ready Recasts Unready

C M C

Note. C = continues, R = repeats, M = modifies, O = other

their responses were modified; in fact, 95% of
responses in the Ready group and 96% in the Un-
ready group were not modified.1o However, in
terms of development, the two groups did dif-
fer (as shown in Tables 4 and 5 above). Seven
of 9 participants (78%) of the Recast Ready
group developed, whereas only 6 out of 8 par-
ticipants (22%) of the Recast Unready group
developed.
As well as responses to the recasts, the content
of the recasts"1 (see Table 8) was examined in
terms of the developmental stage of the recast
question provided to the NNSs by the NSs in re-
sponse to their original utterances. Questions at
stages 4 and 5 formed the content of most of the
recasts for both Ready and Unready groups. As
with responses to recasts (Table 7), there was very
little difference in the type of question forms
learners received in recasts, as can be seen in Fig-
ure 3. For both groups, over 50% of recasts of
question forms were of stage 4 type questions.
Stage 5 questions accounted for 41% of recasts
for the Recast Unready group and 33% for the Re-

TABLE8
Content of Recasts
Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Total

Recast Readies
RawScores 10 79 47 8 144
% 7% 55% 33% 5%

RecastUnreadies
RawScores 5 65 50 2 121
% 4% 53% 41% 2%

FIGURE3
Question FormsRecast:Comparison of Recast Readyand Unready Groups

Recasts Ready Recasts Unready

6 3 6

0,
Alison MackeyandJeneferPhilp
cast Ready group. Both groups also received a
small number of stage 6 question forms as recasts.
Summary of Results
Learners at higher developmental levels who
participated in interaction with intensive recasts
showed a greater increase in structures at higher
developmental levels than learners who partici-
pated in interaction without intensive recasts.
Learners did not show an increase in structures
at higher developmental levels if their responses
to the recasts were modified.
DISCUSSION
Production of DevelopmentallyAdvanced Structures
The results of the analysis of the sustained stage
development of each participant demonstrate that
the only group to show significant improvement
was the Recast Ready group, with 7 out of 9 par-
ticipants showing sustained improvement. The
analysis of the amount of structures produced by
each group showed that the only group to change
was the Interactor Unready group, which demon-
strated a significant increase at structures at both
stages 4 and 5 in the second posttest.
The apparent contradiction in these results
can be explained when the nature of the analyses
is considered. The first analysis, the sustained
stage development of each individual, was a strin-
gent test of development, requiring two different
higher-level structures at two stages and in two
posttests. Although the measure of development
is essentially an arbitrary one, its conservative na-
ture does increase the likelihood that sustained
change has taken place. By applying this measure
and comparing it with the second analysis of
structures, it can be seen that although in the sec-
ond analysis many of the participants in the In-
teractor Unready group increased their produc-
tion of higher-level structures in the second
posttest, this change in their production only
took place in one post-posttest. Thus it would
seem that sustained IL restructuring took place
only for the group that received recasts and was
at a higher developmental level than the other
group that received recasts.
In this study, we found that the positive effects
for interaction on IL restructuring, which are
predicted by the interaction hypothesis (Long,
1996) and supported by empirical studies (Ellis
et al., 1994; Gass & Varonis, 1994; Mackey, 1995,
1997a), can be enhanced through the provision
of extensive recasts within the interaction.
351
The positive finding for recasts in this study is
similar to that of Long et al. (this issue), who
found an effect for recasts over models in the de-
velopment of adverb placement in Spanish as a
second language (SSL). Long et al. did not find
effects for object topicalization in SSL, which
they suggest may be due to it being too difficult
for participants to learn. They did find some evi-
dence for the superiority of recasts over models
in a related study of Japanese as a second lan-
guage, although those results are, according to
them, difficult to interpret due to the presence of
individuals in the group with prior knowledge of
these structures.
Responsesto Recasts and L2 Development
The analysis of structures that were present in
recasts showed that both groups, regardless of
developmental level, received mostly structures
at stages 4 and 5 as recasts. Researchers were in-
structed to recast fully all nontarget-like utter-
ances. It seems, therefore, that the developmen-
tal level of the learner did not influence the TL
input that was provided to the learners in the
form of recasts. It is possible that task is a greater
predictor of the content of recasts than develop-
mental level. Although task was not a focus of this
analysis, future studies could address this issue.
The analysis of the responses to recasts demon-
strated that the overwhelming majority of learn-
ers simply continued on task (53%). Very few re-
sponses were modified (5%). Even when the
turns without opportunities for responses were
eliminated, 67% of learners continued on task
and only 6% modified their original utterances.
As various researchers have observed (Long,
1996; Mackey, 1995; Oliver, this issue), it is diffi-
cult to identify whether learners who repeated
the recast (22%, or 27% if "no opportunity" turns
are removed) were actually perceiving the recast
as feedback or simply another way of saying the
same thing. These results confirm the findings of
studies such as Lyster and Ranta (1997) that, ir-
respective of developmental level, when recasts
are provided in the context of task-based interac-
tion, they are generally not repeated and rarely
elicit self-modification by the learner. However,
this does not mean that learners are not eventu-
ally able to make some use of the recast.
The present research showed the following: (a)
the two groups that received recasts were very
similar in terms of their responses to recasts and
in terms of the content of the recasts provided to
them; but (b) one group increased its produc-
tion of developmentally more advanced ques-
352
tions, and one group's results are not suggestive
of the fact that the developmental level of the
learners and the content of the recast provided to
them may be important. In addition, the imme-
diate response of the learner to recasts may not
be a predictor of whether that learner will subse-
quently make use of the recast. In previous re-
search, learner "uptake" (Lyster, 1998; Lyster &
Ranta, 1997) has been considered the crucial
factor in determining whether or not recasts are
used. The present study suggests that, provided
the level is appropriate, recasts may be used even-
tually by some learners, regardless of their imme-
diate response to the recast. Future research
needs to consider why some, but not all, learners
use recasts, and which factors may influence
their decisions.
Which Questions Changed?
It may be that some learners benefit more than
others from recasts. In this study, it seemed that
in terms of production of higher-level structures,
developmentally more advanced learners who re-
ceived recasts were able to sustain an increase of
more advanced structures, whereas the other
groups did not show a corresponding increase.
The change in the Recast Ready group was due to
their increased production of questions at both
stage 4 and 5 in at least two posttests. These were
the same questions that formed the content of
most of the recasts provided to them. It is inter-
esting to note that although 3 participants in this
group were ready to develop stage 6, this did not
happen. When compared to the other question
types, very few stage 6 questions actually formed
the topic of recasts and very few learner utter-
ances could be identified as nontarget-like stage
6 question forms providing the opportunity for a
recast. It may be that these learners did not
change in developmental level because the input
they required was not given in sufficiently large
quantities. Future studies could address the
methodological issue of ensuring that stage 6
questions are produced and become the topic of
recasts. It is also possible that recasts are more
valuable for some forms than for others (Long,
1996), even though the learners may be at the
correct developmental level to acquire the recast
forms. It may also be that some forms are more
likely to be recast than others and perhaps more
readily produced. The Recast Unready group re-
ceived the same input in terms of content of re-
casts, but they did not significantly increase their
production of any question types. It is possible
that if the content of the recasts provided to the
TheModernLanguageJournal82 (1998)
Recast Unready group was different (for exam-
ple, targeted at questions at stage 3 and 4, which
were more developmentally appropriate levels
for most of this group), we would obtain different
results. In this study, because the recasts pro-
vided to both groups were, perhaps somewhat
unexpectedly, the same, it was not possible to as-
certain whether the effects were due to the de-
velopmental level of the learner or to the content
of the recasts.
Recasts and DevelopmentalSequences
Whatever the additional and unexplored effects
of recasts may be, it is also worth mentioning that
in this study, recasts did not enable learners to ac-
quire forms that they were not developmentally
ready to acquire, supporting the claims of Piene-
mann and Johnston (1987) and Pienemann,
Johnston, and Brindley (1988) concerning the
fixed stage sequence in ESL. Also, as mentioned,
it was the developmentally "ready"learners who
made the greater gains in terms of sustained in-
crease in higher-level structures.
Can RecastsProvideLearnerswith a LargerData-
basefor Later Use?
The treatment, which involved learners having
all of their nontarget-like questions recast for
them as they asked them, appears to have pro-
vided learners with more input concerning these
question forms than would have been provided
by negotiated interaction alone. Task-based in-
teraction with intensive recasts rather than with-
out seems to foster more production of higher-
level questions for learners at higher stages. It
seems that recasts can provide learners with
some of the processes and conditions necessary
for L2 learning (Long, 1996; Pica, 1994). The task-
based interaction used in this study constrained
learners to ask their own questions, offered them
a recast of their nontarget-like questions, and in
many cases gave them the opportunity to repeat
or modify their utterance or the recast. Such in-
teraction may contribute to an increased confi-
dence or familiarity with the use of that question
type. Gass and Varonis (1994) found that negoti-
ation on a particular task with a NS contributed
to performance on a second task; that is, learner
strategy for giving descriptions improved. No-
buyoshi and Ellis (1993) also claim that interac-
tion may increase control over certain structures.
An instance of a recast promoting increased pro-
duction is shown in Example 7, which is from a
Recast Ready treatment session. A recast of a
Alison MackeyandJeneferPhilp
stage 4 question form is provided. The NNS then
uses that form in his next three questions.
Example 7:
NNS: and ah in your picture they
children playing?
NS: are the children playing? yes
NNS: yes and are they happy or sad?
NS: they're happy (.) they're play-
ing with the ball
NNS: and ah are they playing in the
garden near house?
NS: yes
NNS: and are they any mm are their
their parents near them?
NS: no their father is inside
NNS: ah the father is looking to ah
to their to his children?
In the present study, the recasts were often not
repeated or modified or used in consecutive
turns, but the talk continues on task as seen in
Example 8.12
Example 8:
NNS: and why she promised she can
saw she can will she will can
saw see ((laughs)) bears?
NS: um can you repeat that?
NNS: again OK and why does her
mother her mother know
there isn't bears and why she
took her to the bears?
NS: oh did her if her mother knew
there wasn't any bears why did
she =take her?
NNS: = yeah yeah
NS: um oh she didn't know before
they went to the zoo but she
only found out when they ar-
rived at the zoo (.) OK
It seems obvious that recasts can provide the
learner with more TL input including models,
some of which may form a larger database of po-
tential resources. However, as demonstrated in
the example above where the learner only ac-
knowledges the recast "yeah yeah," it is difficult
to identify the process by which recasts may have
been incorporated into the database and also to
what extent the database was usable. This study
found little evidence of immediate incorporation
of recasts in the treatment; although they were
sometimes repeated, either fully or partially, it
was more common of recast question forms for
the learner to continue on task. For many learn-
ers, it seemed that their interest in the task may
353
have overridden their concern for form. Other
studies report similar findings. In examining her
data of children's responses to recasts, Oliver
(1995) found that of all recasts, only 9% were re-
peated or incorporated by the child, whereas
71% of recasts were inappropriate or impossible
to incorporate. Doughty (1994) reported a higher
degree of incorporation in the adult classroom
discourse, with 20% repetition and 17%incorpo-
ration of teacher recasts. The current study
found that, in the context of task-based interac-
tion, 26% were repeated or incorporated, whereas
53% were acknowledged within the discourse but
were not repeated by the learner. It seems ques-
tionable whether we can realistically expect im-
mediate incorporation and intake (Gass, 1990,
1997) from recasts. Given that the Recast Ready
group did change, it does seem possible to claim
that some recasts may function as part of a data-
base for the language learner. Lightbown (1994)
also suggests that timing is an important issue:
Although recasts may not elicit an immediate re-
sponse from the learner, they may have an effect
in the long term. In an early study of corrective
feedback, Brock, Crookes, Day, and Long (1986)
point out that the absence of effects in the short
term does not necessarily mean that effects over
time do not exist. Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993)
point out that one possible benefit learners re-
ceive from interaction focused on form is that
they become increasingly competent at using
forms already fully or partially acquired. This
suggests that although some learners may not im-
prove greatly in terms of acquisition of new
forms, the structure of their database or how they
use it may be altered to favor increased use of
some of the structures in the interaction. The ef-
fect of recasts in this study was to promote the in-
creased production of higher-level structures for
developmentally more advanced learners. It does
seem that the positive benefits of interaction can
be enhanced when intensive recasts are provided.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
These findings of a positive effect for recasts in
the production of questions at higher stages sug-
gest that recasts are a worthwhile issue for further
research, requiring larger samples and finer
tools of measurement as well as detailed longitu-
dinal work. Although this experimental study fo-
cused on the artificial "flooding" of interaction
with recasts, findings that recasts are a commonly
occurring part of classroom discourse also war-
rant further study of their effects. The interac-
tion of recasts with other aspects of implicit neg-
 354
ative evidence and, as Sato (1986) directed us,
other aspects of conversational interaction, also
seem to be important areas for future explo-
ration. This study suggests that it may also be im-
portant to take into account the developmental
level of the learner. In this study, claims are not
being made for acquisition, however acquisition
may be defined, but simply for a positive out-
come of treatment that was sustained in the short
term. Future studies of recasts and interaction
might also address the issue of what constitutes
acquisition, focusing on the different structures
and effects outlined by Long (1996).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was made possible through support
from the Language Acquisition Research Centre at the
University of Sydney funded by the National Languages
and Literacy Institute of Australia. We gratefully ac-
knowledge the support of Brian Taylor, the Director of
LARC, and Sue MacLean. We would also like to thank
the participants and their schools: SELC and the NEA
in Sydney, Australia. Thanks also to Ian Thornton for
help with the statistical analysis and Susan Gass and
Teresa Pica for many helpful comments.
NOTES
1Backchannels
(e.g., "mm,""oh,""uh")were also con-
sidered to be a response type worthy of comparison and
investigation and were categorized as a response type if
appropriate.
2 Proficiency level was measured using the Australian
Second Language Proficiency Rating Scheme (ASLPR).
3 It should be noted that some recasts were
provided
in the negotiated interactors group, given that recasts
are a naturally occurring but infrequent component of
task-based interaction. They were provided intensively
for the recasts group (approximately 350% more).
4 This more conservative measure was adopted in
this analysis following Mackey (1995, 1997a).
5 Because the number of participants was quite low
in this study, Fisher's exact probability test was also cal-
culated, in order to ensure that the observed relation-
ship was reliable, and was found to be significant (p =
.041).
6 For hypothesis one, the control group was not sta-
tistically compared to the experimental group because,
on this specific developmental measure, the question
of interest was whether the treatments differed from
each other.
7 It is obvious that "higher-level structures" for the
Unready groups meant structures that were higher
TheModernLanguageJournal82 (1998)
than their current level but not as high in absolute
terms as for the Ready groups. On average, structures
at stages 3 and 4 increased for the Unready group, and
structures at stages 4 and 5 for the Ready groups. The
comparison was also carried out using structures at
stages 4 and 5 for the Unready groups; no significant
differences were found. Those in the group were "un-
ready" in the sense that they should not have been able
to produce questions at stages 5 and 6, thus skipping
stages. They did not skip stages.
8 The term "increased
production of higher-level
structures" is used rather than the term "increase in de-
velopmental stage" because the Pienemann and John-
ston (1987) model assigns developmental stage on the
basis of a wide range of structures, including morphol-
ogy and word order, and the current study deals only
with question formation.
9 We are grateful to Susan Gass for pointing this out.
10 For a qualitative analysis of learner modification
and development at the individual level, that is, whether
learners who have a tendency to modify also develop,
see Mackey (1995, 1997b). Tokens of modification were
so low in this study that an analysis of individuals was
not carried out.
11The hypotheses and the analysis focused on ques-
tions at higher levels. All participants had reached
stage 2. Thus, stage 2 questions were excluded from
this analysis.
12Although all NSs were trained in the same way,one
NS showed a trend towards recasting a question and
then providing an answer to that question in the same
turn. Thus the incidence of "no opportunity" turns was
relatively high for this NS (approximately 21% higher
than for the other 4 NSs). The sessions were balanced
so that all the NSs interacted for an equal amount of
time with all the participants, but it was considered an
important facet for future research to take into consid-
eration.
REFERENCES
Beck, M. L., & Eubank, L. (1991). Acquisition theory
and experimental design: A critique of Toma-
sello and Herron. Studies in SecondLanguage Ac-
quisition, 13, 73-76.
Brock, C., Crookes, G., Day, R., & Long, M. (1986). The
differential effects of corrective feedback in na-
tive speaker/non-native speaker conversation. In
R. R. Day (Ed.), "Talkingto learn'": Conversationin
second language acquisition(pp. 327-351). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Doughty, C. (1993). Fine-tuning of feedback by compe-
tent speakers to language learners. Georgetown
UniversityRoundtableon Languagesand Linguistics,
96-108.
Doughty, C. (1994, October). Finely-tunedfeedbackas
focus onform. Paper presented at the Second Lan-
guage Research Forum, Montreal, Canada.
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis: A critical
Alison Mackey andJenefer Philp
evaluation. In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Language acqui-
sition in the second/foreign language classroom
(pp. 179-211). Anthology Series 28, Singapore:
SEMEO Regional Language Centre.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y, & Yamazaki,A. (1994). Classroom in-
teraction, comprehension and the acquisition of L2
word meanings. LanguageLearning,44, 449-491.
Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammati-
cal morpheme acquisition. DevelopmentalPsychol-
ogy,28, 90-98.
Gass, S. M. (1990). Second and foreign language learn-
ing: Same, different or none of the above? In B.
VanPatten &J. Lee (Eds.), Secondlanguageacquisi-
tion:Foreignlanguage learning (pp. 34-44). Cleve-
don, England: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. M. (1991). Grammar instruction, selective at-
tention and learning processes. In R. Phillipson,
E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith, &
M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/secondlanguagepedagogy
research(pp. 134-141). Clevedon, England: Multi-
lingual Matters.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interactionand the secondlan-
guage learner.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction,
and second language production. Studies in Sec-
ond LanguageAcquisition,16, 283-302.
Grimshaw,J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Positive and negative
evidence in language acquisition. Behavioraland
Brain Sciences,12, 341-342.
Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a second lan-
guage. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understandingsecond
and foreign language learning (pp. 34-70). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). TheInput Hypothesis:Issuesand im-
plications.London: Longman.
Lightbown, P. (1994). Theimportanceof timing in focus on
form. Paper presented at the Second Language
Research Forum, Montreal, Canada.
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interactionand second lan-
guage acquisition. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of California, Los Angeles.
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational ad-
justments to non-native speakers. Studiesin Second
LanguageAcquisition,5, 177-194.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acqui-
sition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden
(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.
377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environ-
ment in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of lan-
guage acquisition.Vol.2: Secondlanguage acquisition
(pp. 413-468). New York:Academic.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role
of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and
recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Lan-
guageJournal, 82, 357-371.
Loschky, L. C. (1994). Comprehensible input and sec-
ond language acquisition: What is the relation-
ship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16,
303-325.
355
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in
L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition,20, 51-81.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and
learner uptake: Negotiation of form in commu-
nicative classrooms. Studiesin SecondLanguageAc-
quisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (1994a). Using communicativetasks to target
grammaticalstructures.A handbookof tasks and in-
structionsfor their use. Language Acquisition Re-
search Centre, University of Sydney, Australia.
Mackey, A. (1994b). Targeting morpho-syntax in chil-
dren's ESL: An empirical study of the use of in-
teractive goal-based tasks. WorkingPapersin Edu-
cational Linguistics, 10, 67-88.
Mackey, A. (1995). Steppingup thepace:Input, interaction
and interlanguagedevelopment.An empiricalstudy of
questions in ESL. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Sydney, Australia.
Mackey,A. (1997a). Steppingup thepace:Input, interaction
and second language development.Unpublished
manuscript, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.
Mackey,A. (1997b). InteractionalModificationsand thede-
velopmentof questionsin English as a SecondLan-
guage. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.
Muranoi, H. (1995, March). Impacts of interaction en-
hancement on learning the English article sys-
tem. Paper presented at the American Associa-
tion for Applied Linguistics Conference, Chicago.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communica-
tion tasks and second language acquisition. Eng-
lish Language TeachingJournal,47, 203-210.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS/NNS
conversation. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisi-
tion, 17, 459-483.
Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child
interactions. Modern LanguageJournal, 82, 372-
386.
Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker-
non-native speaker negotiation: What do they re-
veal about second language learning? In C.
Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Textand
context: Cross-disciplinaryperspectiveson language
study (pp. 198-237). Lexington, VA: D.C. Heath.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it
reveal about second-language learning condi-
tions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learn-
ing, 44, 493-527.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact
of interaction on comprehension. TESOLQuar-
terly,21, 737-758.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L.
(1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of
linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Sec-
ond LanguageAcquisition,11, 63-90.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on
the teachability of languages. Studies in Second
LanguageAcquisition,6, 186-214.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psy-
356 TheModernLanguageJournal 82 (1998)

cholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Ap-
plied Linguistics, 10, 52-79.
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influ-
encing the development of language proficiency.
In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applyingsecondlanguage acqui-
sition research(pp. 45-141) Adelaide, Australia:
National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988).
Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for
second language assessment. Studies in Second
LanguageAcquisition,10, 217-243.
Pienemann, M., & Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical
study of children's ESL development. In P. McKay
(Ed.), ESL development:Language and literacyin
schools. Vol. 2: Documentson bandscaledevelopment
and languageacquisition(pp. 115-259). Canberra,
Australia: National Languages & Literacy Insti-
tute of Australia and Commonwealth of Australia.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnabilityand cognition.Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Polio, C., & Gass, S. M. (1998). The role of interaction
in native speaker comprehension of nonnative
speaker speech. Modern Language Journal, 82,
308-319.
Richardson, M. A. (1993). Negative evidenceand gram-
matical morphemeacquisition:Implicationsfor SLA.
Unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of
Education, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Sato, C. J. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage de-
velopment: Rethinking the connection. In R. R.
Day (Ed.), "Talkingto learn":Conversationin second
language acquisition(pp. 5-22), Rowley, MA: New-
bury House.
Sato, C. J. (1988). Origins of complex syntax in inter-
language development. Studiesin SecondLanguage
Acquisition,10, 371-395.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in sec-
ond language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,
129-158.
Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness
in search of useful definitions for applied lin-
guistics. AILAReview,11, 11-26.
Schmidt, R. W., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic
conversational ability in a second language: A
case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In
R. Day (Ed.), "Talkingto learn":Conversationin sec-
ond language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the
development of questions in L2 classrooms. Stud-
ies in SecondLanguageAcquisition,15, 205-224.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some
roles of comprehensible input and comprehensi-
ble output in its development. In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second
language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Principle and practicein applied linguistics:
Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson(pp. 125-
144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problemsin outputand the
cognitiveprocessestheygenerate:A step towardssecond
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-
391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second
language learning: Two adolescent French im-
mersion students working together. ModernLan-
guageJournal, 82, 320-337.

MLJHome Page Offers Titles, Abstracts, and

Information about the Journal
http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/mlj/
Contents include:

About TheModernLanguageJournal
Editorial Board
How to Submit a Manuscript
Recent Past Issues: Article Abstracts & Reviews
Current Issue: Article Abstracts & Reviews
Forthcoming Articles & Reviews
Special Issue Announcements
Editor's Note: Upcoming Conferences
Calendar of Events
Advertising Information
Subscription Information

Your suggestions for continued development of the page are most welcome.