A number of interaction researchers have claimed that recasts might be
ambiguous to learners; that is, instead of perceiving recasts as
containing corrective feedback, learners might see them simply as literal
or semantic repetitions without any corrective element (Long, in press; Lyster & Ranta,
1997). This study investigates learners' interpretations of
recasts in interaction. Videotapes of task-based interactions including
recasts and repetitions were shown to advanced English as a second
language students (N = 34). Although both groups viewed the
teacher's feedback (recasts, repetitions, or other), one group saw
video clips that had been edited to remove the learners'
nontargetlike utterances that had triggered the feedback, and another
group saw the same video clips with the initial nontargetlike utterances
included. After each clip, learners in both groups were asked to indicate
whether they thought they were hearing a recast, a repetition, or
something else. A subset of learners (n = 14) provided verbal
reports while they evaluated the clips. Results show that learners who did
not overhear initial learner utterances were significantly less successful
at distinguishing recasts from repetitions. The verbal protocol data
suggest that learners were not looking for nonverbal cues from the
speakers. A post hoc analysis suggests that morphosyntactic recasts were
less accurately recognized than phonological or lexical recasts in this
study. These findings suggest that the contrast between a problematic
utterance and a recast contributes to learners' interpretations of
recasts as corrective.We are grateful to Bo
Ram Suh for her help with data collection and coding and Rebecca Sachs for
her help with editing. We would also like to thank Mohammed Louguit from
the Center for Applied Linguistics for statistical assistance. We are
grateful for the comments made by the anonymous SSLA reviewers
who helped us to improve the paper. Despite the assistance of these
individuals, any errors remain our own.