Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-2ktwh Total loading time: 0.366 Render date: 2021-04-17T22:46:47.114Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2016

Özgür Parlak
American University of Sharjah
Nicole Ziegler
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
E-mail address:


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.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.


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.


Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87, 157167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543574.CrossRefGoogle 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, 201229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455464.CrossRefGoogle 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
Bradley, T., & Lomicka, L. (2000). A case study of learner interaction in technology-enhanced language learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 347368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E., Chen, S., & Wang, C. (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 261280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41, 543559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, M. (2004). CALL visual feedback for pronunciation of vowels: Kay Sona-Match. CALICO Journal, 21, 571601.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J., & Lecumberri, L. G. (1999). The acquisition of English pronunciation: Learners’ views. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1529). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darhower, M. A. (2008). The role of linguistic affordances in telecollaborative chat. CALICO Journal, 26, 4869.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, 5375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42, 476490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48, 393410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 5080.Google Scholar
Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2009). Podcasting: An effective tool for honing language students’ pronunciation? Language Learning and Technology, 13, 6686.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, 2341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91126.CrossRefGoogle 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, 474509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Garcia, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19, 279294.Google Scholar
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399423.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, 437470.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. 175199). 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, 70105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 127165.CrossRefGoogle 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, 562570.CrossRefGoogle 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, 137.CrossRefGoogle 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, 13931420.CrossRefGoogle 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, 201223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, B., & Bhatt, R. (1997). Optimal L2 syllables: Interactions of transfer and developmental factors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 331378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardison, D. M. (2004). Generalization of computer-assisted prosody training: Quantitative and qualitative findings. Language Learning and Technology, 8, 3452.Google Scholar
Hardison, D. M. (2005). Contextualized computer-based L2 prosody training: Evaluating the effects of discourse context and video input. CALICO Journal, 22, 175190.Google Scholar
Hirata, Y. (2004). Computer assisted pronunciation training for native English speakers learning Japanese pitch and durational contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17, 357376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning and Technology, 9, 7998.Google Scholar
Kang, O. (2010). Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38, 301315.CrossRefGoogle 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. 91131). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous and computer-networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkham, S. (2016). Ethnicity and phonetic variation in Sheffield English liquids. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. doi:10.1017/S0025100316000268
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, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10, 102120.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 635649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 3763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536556.CrossRefGoogle 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. 413468). 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. 6073). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google 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, 183218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 3766.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405430.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. 126). 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. 723). 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, 129152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471497.CrossRefGoogle 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. 407452). 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, 338356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, R. (1998). Interlanguage phonetics and phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 131137.CrossRefGoogle 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, 229258.CrossRefGoogle 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. 323338). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 3147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mompean, J. A., & Fouz-González, J. (2016). Twitter-based EFL pronunciation instruction. Language Learning and Technology, 20, 120.Google Scholar
Munro, M. J. (1993). Productions of English vowels by native speakers of Arabic: Acoustic measurements and accentedness ratings. Language and Speech, 36, 3966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2011). The foundations of accent and intelligibility in pronunciation research. Language Teaching, 44, 316327.CrossRefGoogle 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, 393408.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, 732.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. 5986). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5072.
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, 245266.CrossRefGoogle 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, 191215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. (2015). Variables affecting the effects of recasts on L2 pronunciation development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 276300.CrossRefGoogle 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, 595633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 132). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835874.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, 24712485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.
Soto-Faraco, S., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Cutler, A. (2001). Segmental and suprasegmental mismatch in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 412432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22, 399431.Google Scholar
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 8299.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, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., McDonough, K., & Neumann, H. (2013). Using collaborative tasks to elicit auditory and structural priming. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 177186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Donselaar, W., Koster, M., & Cutler, A. (2005). Exploring the role of lexical stress in recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 251273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time. Language Learning and Technology, 14, 7293.Google Scholar
Yanguas, Í. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29, 507531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Modern Language Journal, 95, 115132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016a). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016b). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zielinski, B. W. (2008). The listener: No longer the silent partner in reduced intelligibility. System, 36, 6984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 51
Total number of PDF views: 748 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th November 2016 - 17th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *