CF types: Definitions and examples

Following the identification of CF types by Lyster and Ranta (1997) as well as the classification of CF types by Ranta and Lyster (2007) and Sheen and Ellis, (2011), definitions and examples of the different CF types are provided below. To begin with a feedback type within the category of prompts, elicitation includes at least three different techniques which aim for the direct elicitation of the correct form from the student. Firstly, one of the techniques is when the teacher leaves an intentional blank and allows the student to complete his/her utterance by filling the gap, as in Example 1 below. Secondly, when the teacher asks the student an open-ended question (usually a wh- question), like in Example 2, and thirdly, when occasionally the teacher enquires the student to reformulate their original utterance (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).

Example 1 (Lyster, 2004b, p. 405)

T: Il vit ou un animal domestique? Ou est-ce que ca vit? [Where does a pet live? Where does it live?]

S: Dans un maison. [In a (masculine) house.] T: Dans? Attention. [In …? Careful.]

S: Dans une maison. [In a (feminine) house]

Example 2 (Blanc, Carol, Griggs, & Lyster, 2012, p. 37) – ‘cabane’ is the French word for tree house

S: They went... they went in the ‘cabane’

T: They went in their ‘cabane’. What’s another word for ‘cabane’?

A Clarification request as illustrated in Example 3, indicates to learners that their utterances are misunderstood, erroneous, or both, thus the students are prompted to repeat or to reformulate their original utterance (Spada & Frohlich, 1995). Whether the teacher’s purpose is for the student to repeat or to reformulate the original utterance, phrases such as ‘pardon?’/‘sorry?’/‘I don’t understand’/‘what?’, or even ‘what do you mean by X?’

might be used to signal to the students that they are expected to produce output (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).

Example 3 (Lyster, Collins, & Ballinger, 2009, p. 374): S: When they fire the books uh-

T: When they what?

S: When they fire the books.

T: What do you mean when they fire the books?

A teacher’s repetition of the erroneous part of a student’s utterance in isolation is illustrated in Example 4. Repetition occurs typically with a change in intonation aiming to highlight the location of the error (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). However, repetition is a type of CF that usually functions along with other types, as in Examples 1, 2, and 3, rather than standing on its own as in Example 4.

Example 4 (Lyster, 2002, p. 243) S: Il bond. [It jump]

T: Il bond? [It jump?]

Closing the category of prompts, metalinguistic information indicates that a student’s utterance is erroneous without providing the correct form. It can be provided in varying degrees of “informativeness” as Ortega (2009) suggests, that is “how much information is provided about the blame of the ungrammaticality” (p.75). Metalinguistic clues refer to simple indications which reject a student’s erroneous form, or attempt to push learners to use the correct form (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster, 2015) as in Examples 5 and 6 respectively.

Example 5 (Lyster, 2004b, p. 243):

S: Parce qu’elle cherche, euh, son, son carte. [Because she’s looking for, um, her, her, (masculine) card.]

T: Pas son carte. [Not her (masculine) card.]

Example 6 (Gibbons, 2003, p. 264):

S: We found out that the south and the south don’t like to stick together T: Now let’s /let’s start using our scientific language…

With metalinguistic feedback the teacher provides metalinguistic explanation such as comments, information, or questions aiming to illustrate the well-formedness of the student’s utterance, and to prompt further student production. Grammatical metalanguage such as ‘it’s feminine’ might be provided after grammatical errors, or metalinguistic information such as a word definition, might be provided following a lexical error. Further, metalinguistic questions such as ‘is it masculine?’ point to the nature of the error (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster, 2015). Example 7 contains metalinguistic feedback.

Example 7 (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006, p. 353): S: He kiss her

T: Kiss – you need past tense S: He kissed her

Finally, another type of CF that has not received much attention is paralinguistic signal, namely a gesture or facial expression which aims to indicate that there is an error in the student’s utterance. These signals aim for the student to produce a better formable utterance (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).

Concerning the category of reformulations, explicit correction identifies the error and provides the correct form explicitly. When the teacher provides the correct form, s/he clearly indicates that the student’s utterance is erroneous by using phrases such as ‘oh you mean’, ‘you should say’ amongst others, as in Example 8 (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).

Example 8 (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p.63):

S: Nous coupons les pailles en six differents grosseurs et attache les pailles avec le ruban gomme. [we cut the straws into six different thicknesses and attaches the straws with the tape.]

T4: Euh, David, excuse-moi. Je veux que tu te serves du mot “longueurs”. Vous avez coupe les pailles en differentes longueurs. Pas grosseurs. [Uh, David, excuse me. I want you to use the word ‘lengths’. You cut the straws into different lengths. Not thicknesses.]

In Example 8, the teacher provides the correct form without explaining the source of the error, but explicit correction might function alongside metalinguistic explanation, as in Example 9.

Example 9 (Sheen, 2007, p. 307): S: There was fox. Fox was hungry.

T: The fox. You should use the definite article ‘the’ because you’ve already mentioned ‘fox’.

To continue with reformulations, recast as indicated in Example 10, refers to the correct reformulation of all or a part of a student’s utterance minus the error (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). It is a more target-like reformulation of a learner’s incorrect utterance, without modifications in meaning (Mackey, 2007).

Example 10 (Lowen & Philip, 2006, p. 538): S: to her is good thing (.) to her is good thing T: yeah for her is a good thing

Recasts can also be considered to be implicit as they do not involve phrases such as ‘you mean’, or ‘you should say’ (Long, 1996, 2007; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Long & Robinson, 1998). However, research has suggested that recasts are non-monolithic in nature, as they differ in length, mode, number of changes and linguistic focus amongst others (Sheen, 2006; Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Loewen & Philip, 2006; Sato, 2011). Based on such differing characteristics, recasts can also considered to be quite explicit (Nicholas, Lightbown, & Spada, 2001; Sheen, 2004, 2006; Ellis & Sheen, 2006). Therefore, Sheen and Ellis (2011) suggested that there are conversational recasts and didactic recasts, which would correspond to implicit and explicit recasts respectively. Conversational recasts act as confirmation checks aiming to resolve a communication problem, as in Example 11.

Example 11 (Ellis & Sheen, 2006, p. 581): S: What do you spend time with your wife? T: What?

S: What do you spend extra time with your wife? T: Ah, how do you spend?

S: How do you spend.

In Example 11, a communication breakdown has arisen. At first, the teacher requests clarification from the student to which the student responds with the same error. Then, the teacher reformulates the student’s original utterance, and the student produces uptake, indicating that ‘negotiation of meaning’ is involved when the student understands that the meaning he wished to express requires the use of ‘how’ and not of ‘what’ (Sheen & Ellis, 2011). On the other hand, when a teacher chooses to focus the attention to form and be more consistent about it, even when no communication breakdown is evident, a didactic recast is provided, as in Example 12.

Example 12 (Llinares & Lyster, 2014, p. 189): S: On Sunday I go to

S: I go to T: I went

S: I went to a … How do you say exposicion [exhibition]?

In Example 12, the teacher is more consistent in the ‘negotiation of form’. The teacher understands the student’s original utterance, but after reformulating it, the student’s second error in response to the reformulation leads the teacher to make the correction more salient, by shortening the reformulation and by placing the required form ‘went’ at the end of the recast, consequently making it more explicit (Lyster, 2015).

With respect to additional characteristics of recasts, Sheen (2006) presented a taxonomy of recasts that arose in his descriptive study of ESL and EFL classrooms. According to Sheen’s (2006, pp. 371-375) coding scheme, recasts can occur in a single-move or in a multi-move. According to the coding scheme, multi-move recasts contain more than one feedback type in a single teacher turn, and there are three different types. Corrective recasts are recasts preceded by repetition, repeated recasts are recasts which the teacher repeats partially or fully, and combination recasts are recasts that occur with other CF types, except explicit correction.

With regards to the single-move recasts, they can vary in terms of: mode i.e. declarative, interrogative, scope i.e. the extent to which a reformulation differs from the original, reduction i.e. whether it is reduced or not, length, number of changes, types of changes, and linguistic focus. In Example 13, the characteristics of the provided recast are the following: the mode is declarative, the scope is isolated, the reduction is reduced, the length is a word, there is one change, the type of change is substitution, and the linguistic focus is grammatical.

Example 13 (Sheen, 2006, p. 373): S: What’s feed up?

Technically outside the category of reformulations is the last CF type translation, which refers to the teacher’s response to students’ unsolicited uses of L1. Translation was initially treated as a distinct category during initial identifications of CF types (Lyster & Ranta, 1995), but it was later treated as a recast due to its infrequent occurrence and to the fact that it was viewed as if it served the function of a recast (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). However, there seems to be a relevant difference between the two types. Recast is a response to an ill-formed utterance in the L2, whereas translation is a response to a well- formed utterance in the L1 (Lyster & Panova, 2002). Thus, treating translation as a separate CF type seems logical.