CF types

Lyster and Ranta’s (1997, 2007) CF type classifications were used as the predetermined codes. The emergent CF types that were identified in the naturalistic data included

incorporated in the coding scheme of the oral data alongside clarification request,

elicitation, explicit correction, metalinguistic feedback, recast, repetition, and translation. Table 3.5 presents the predetermined and the emergent codes, as observed in

the dataset, under the classification of reformulations and prompts (Ranta & Lyster, 2007). The coding scheme underwent an adjustment process where new values were added, and grouped along with the basic ones (Révész, 2012a).

Table 3. 5: Coding scheme of CF types

Following Lyster and Ranta (2007) CF types were grouped under the labels of

reformulations and prompts. Reformulations included explicit correction, explicit

correction with metalinguistic explanation, recast, recast with L1, translation, and translation in L1, because they supplied students with target reformulations of their non- target output. Prompts included clarification request, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, metalinguistic feedback in L1, and repetition, because they pushed learners to self-repair, and they did not provide target reformulations of students’ non-target output. CF types are described below and are accompanied by examples.

Recast refers to the correct reformulation of all or a part of a student’s utterance minus

the error (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). In Example 5, the teacher provided a target-like reformulation of the student’s incorrect phonological error, without modifying the meaning of the erroneous utterance.

Example 5 (B1 Proficiency level):

S: I could have /ɪn'stru:/ (error: phonological)

REFORMULATIONS PROMPTS

Explicit correction Clarification Request

Explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation

Elicitation

Recast Metalinguistic feedback

Recast with L1 (emergent) Metalinguistic feedback in L1 (emergent)

Translation Repetition

T: I could have /ɪntrəˈdjuːst/ you (CF: recast)

S: /ɪntrəˈdjuːst/ you to my boyfriend if you had arrived a bit earlier (uptake: incorporation)

Translation is a target-like reformulation of an erroneous utterance, and it is provided in

response to a student’s use of L1. In Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) unit of analysis, translation was treated as a recast due to its infrequent occurrence, and because it was viewed as serving the function of a recast. However, translation was treated as a distinct category during initial identifications of CF types (Lyster & Ranta, 1997), and there seems to be a relevant difference between the two types. In particular, 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, in the current coding scheme, translation was treated as a separate CF type, as illustrated in Example 6.

Example 6 (B1 proficiency level):

S: the factories that μολύνουν [pollute] (error: unsolicited use of L1) T: pollute (CF: translation)

S: pollute the planet (uptake: incorporation)

Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) decision to treat translation as a separate CF value based on frequency matters influenced my decisions on whether to code certain values as ‘new’. My decisions were partly based on frequency matters. In some instances, CF types were identified as having different characteristics compared to their original descriptions. However, depending on their frequency, I decided whether to add them to a predetermined value, or to create a new separate category.

One of the CF types that emerged from the oral data and therefore qualified as ‘new’ was the use of recast with L1. This CF type contained the reformulation of a student’s erroneous utterance like a recast, along with its differing values in terms of length, mode, and scope, accompanied by the L1 translation of the reformulation. Concerning the distinction between reformulations and prompts, recast with L1 was grouped within the category of reformulations, because it included a prompt via the use of the L1, but it also contained a target-like reformulation of the erroneous utterance in English due to the

recast. Such a situation appeared to be comparable to another CF type, that of explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation, which was comprised by a reformulation and a prompt. Considering that explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation was placed within the category of reformulations by Ranta and Lyster (2007), it seemed rational for recast with L1 to appear there as well. Example 7 indicates an example of a recast with L1, following a pronunciation error.

Example 7 (B1 proficiency level):

S: experts say that /'loter/ (laughter) (error: pronunciation)

T: /'lɑːf.tə/ (laughter) to γέλιο [laughter] (CF: recast + L1 ~ reformulation)

S: 'lɑːf.tə/ (laughter) also produces chemicals that help you to stay healthy so the next time… (uptake: incorporation)

Another emergent CF type was translation in L1. CG was shared by the teachers and all of the students in the class, and the teachers were found to: translate an erroneous word, phrase, or utterance, and/ or to translate or to define the expected by the student correct word, phrase, or utterance, either in a declarative, or in an interrogative mode; all in an attempt to prompt the student to produce the correct form. Translation in L1 was grouped along prompts, because although it might seem like it was the reverse of translation, in fact, it was different in terms of function. Contrary to translation (Example 6), it did not provide a target-like reformulation of an erroneous utterance in English. Therefore, it acted as a prompt which aimed for the learner to self-correct. Example 8 is translation in

L1 following a student’s lexical error.

Example 8 (B1 Proficiency level):

S: we need to be at the airport by midday tomorrow if we take off (error: grammatical) T: να απογειωθούμε; [to take off?] (CF: L1-CG ~ prompt)

S: set off (uptake: self-repair)

To continue with CF, techniques that were used by the teacher and described Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) metalinguistic feedback type, which were produced however using the L1, were labelled as metalinguistic feedback in L1. These techniques included metalinguistic

explanation in the form of comments, information, or questions pointing to the well- formedness of a students’ utterance. Whether it was grammatical metalanguage, metalinguistic information, questions, or a simple ‘no’, or ‘not X’, all techniques pointed to the nature of the error, without providing the correct form; thus they paralleled the characteristics of the metalinguistic feedback type.

In addition to the above described features, in the current study, metalinguistic feedback in L1, and metalinguistic feedback, included some additional features that emerged in the dataset. Specifically, similar to the use of ‘no’, phrases such as ‘oh oh’, ‘umm’, and ‘be careful’ indicated to the students that their utterances were erroneous. In addition, metalinguistic comments such as ‘change the tense’, ‘we need double comparative’, ‘we need an adverb’, pointed to the location of the error, and/or informed the learner about the nature of the error, whilst providing information about the actions that were needed on behalf of the student. In all instances, the teacher did not provide the target form.

The features of metalinguistic feedback in L1 paralleled metalinguistic feedback. Therefore, I added this feedback type within the group of prompts. Example 9 is metalinguistic feedback in response to a learner’s lexical error, and Example 10 is metalinguistic feedback in L1, following a student’s grammatical error.

Example 9 (B1+ Proficiency level): S: mutual (error: lexical)

T: we need a verb (CF: metalinguistic feedback ~ prompt) S: going strong? (uptake: needs-repair: different error) T: run to run to run businesses (CF: recast)

T topic continuation – plant vegetables and …

Example 10 (B1+ Proficiency level):

S: when you will go to the school (error: gammatical)

T: όχι όχι χρονικός σύνδεσμος (.) μετά θέλει; [no no time conjunction (.) what does it need afterward?] (CF: metalinguistic feedback in L1~ prompt)

S: when you will go to school or work how your day spends (uptake: needs-repair: same error)

When the teacher provided the correct form along with the above metalanguage, then the CF type was coded as explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation, as shown in Example 11. While with simple metalinguistic feedback teachers kept the target form, with explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation teachers provided both an explanation and a target form. It is important to note that metalinguistic explanation was provided in the L1 or in the L2. However, due to the fact that explicit correction was provided in the L2, I decided not to separate the category into L1 and L2 versions. Example 11 (B1+ Proficiency level):

S: the same go for (error: grammatical)

T: ναι αλλά επειδή έν [yes but because it's] singular the same goes for which means the same is true for (CF: explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation ~ reformulation) T topic continuation - δηλαδή [namely] let's say that λέει του η μάμμα του John [John's mum tells him]… (no uptake)

When the correct form was provided without any sort of metalinguistic explanation, then it was coded as explicit correction, another CF type under the classification of reformulations. In Example 12, the teacher provided explicit correction after a student’s grammatical error.

Example 12 (B1 Proficiency level):

S: if you want to say to you what you must do (error: grammatical)

T: το σωστό είναι [the right one is] If I were you I would (CF: explicit correction ~ reformulation)

S: a ναι [ah yes] If I were you ναι [yes] (uptake: repetition)

Clarification requests indicated to learners that their utterances were incomprehensible,

inaccurate, or both. Regardless of whether the teacher’s purpose was for the student to repeat or to reformulate the original utterance, phrases such as ‘sorry?’/‘I don’t

understand’/‘what?’, ‘what do you mean by X?’ were some of the ways that teachers signalled that students were expected to produce output (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Example 13 is a clarification request following a student’s lexical error.

Example 13 (B1 Proficiency level):

S: …or 50 ok I won't live but if I do kids my kids will live in that year (error: lexical) T: what do you mean I do kids? (CF: clarification request ~ prompt)

S: αν κάμω παιδία εν τα παιδιά που θα ζήσουν [if I have children they are the ones who will live] (uptake: different error: unsolicited use of L1)

T: if I have children maybe do kids is a Greek phrase (CF: explicit correction + metalinguistic explanation ~ reformulation)

To continue, according to Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) framework, elicitation includes at least three different techniques which aim for the direct elicitation of the correct form from the student. Firstly, when the teacher leaves an intentional blank and allows the student to complete the utterance by filling the gap. Secondly, when the teacher asks the student an open-ended question (usually a wh-question), and thirdly, when the teacher requests the student to reformulate their original utterance. Example 14 is part of a longer episode which included an elicitation in response to a student’s grammatical error. Although the teacher’s move to elicit completion was preceded by a metalinguistic comment: ‘and the third column’- pointing to verb morphology, following Lyster and Ranta (1997), when within the same turn metalinguistic comments were provided in combination to elicitation strategies, they were coded as elicitations, due to the direct stimulation given to the students to provide the correct form.

Example 14 (B1+ Proficiency level):

S: you wouldn't have enjoy (error: grammatical)

T: enjoyed και τρίτη στήλη; [and the third column?] If you? (CF: elicitation ~ prompt) S: were (uptake: different error: grammatical)

A teacher’s repetition of the erroneous part of a student’s utterance in isolation, typically with a change in intonation aimed to highlight the location of the error (Lyster & Ranta,

1997). As part of a longer CF episode, Example 15 illustrates a repetition following a student’s grammatical error.

Example 15 (B1 Proficiency level): S: If I will came (error: grammatical) T: will came (CF: repetition ~ prompt)

S: If I will come (uptake: different error: grammatical)