Visual Cues during Interaction: Are Recasts Different from Noncorrective Repetition?

Autor/inn/en	McDonough, Kim; Trofimovich, Pavel; Lu, Libing; Abashidze, Dato
Titel	Visual Cues during Interaction: Are Recasts Different from Noncorrective Repetition?
Quelle	In: Second Language Research, 36 (2020) 3, S.359-370 (12 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (McDonough, Kim) ORCID (Trofimovich, Pavel) ORCID (Abashidze, Dato)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0267-6583
DOI	10.1177/0267658320914962
Schlagwörter	Eye Movements; Cues; Second Language Learning; Second Language Instruction; English (Second Language); French; Error Correction; Nonverbal Communication; Bilingualism; Undergraduate Students; Intonation; Feedback (Response); Video Technology; Language of Instruction; Foreign Countries; Evaluators; Interaction; Canada (Montreal) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Augenbewegung; Stichwort; Zweitsprachenerwerb; Fremdsprachenunterricht; English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Französisch; Korrektur; Non-verbal communication; Nonverbale Kommunikation; Bilingualismus; Teaching language; Unterrichtssprache; Ausland; Interaktion
Abstract	Visual cues may help second language (L2) speakers perceive interactional feedback and reformulate their nontarget forms, particularly when paired with recasts, as recasts can be difficult to perceive as corrective. This study explores whether recasts have a visual signature and whether raters can perceive a recast's corrective function. Transcripts of conversations between a bilingual French-English interlocutor and L2 English university students (n = 24) were analysed for recasts and noncorrective repetitions with rising and declarative intonation. Videos of those excerpts (k = 96) were then analysed for the interlocutor's provision of visual cues during the recast and repetition turns, including eye gaze duration, nods, blinks, and other facial expressions (frowns, eyebrow raises). The videos were rated by 96 undergraduate university students who were randomly assigned to three viewing conditions: clear voice/clear face, clear voice/blurred face, or distorted voice/clear face. Using a 100-millimeter scale with two anchor points (0% = he's making a comment, and 100% = he's correcting an error), they rated the corrective function of the interlocutors' responses while their eye gaze was tracked. Raters reliably distinguished recasts from repetitions through their ratings (although they were generally low), but not through their eye gaze behaviors. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01