其他
期刊好文 | 二语重铸研究：基于近期争论的述评
胡光伟 （新加坡）南洋理工大学国立教育学院
张军 （新西兰）奥克兰大学教育学院
关键词：重铸 纠正型反馈 互动论 二语习得
More recent definitions (e.g., Nassaji’s and Goo’s) are more general in reference. They refrain from specifying meaning as the focus in interaction because the notion of meaning maintenance in recasting has been questioned. As Hauser (2005) has pointed out, “the meaning of a turn is ambiguous, indexical, and open to negotiation and renegotiation” (p. 310), only to be disambiguated through the following turns, including the turn that recasts it. In other words, the role of a recast turn may be meaning making rather than meaning maintenance. Furthermore, the greater generality of the more recent definitions also follows from the recognition of the “chameleonlike” nature of recasts (Ellis & Sheen, 2006, p. 579). Recasts can occur with or without stress (Chaudron, 1977), in “one-signal and extended negotiations” (Braidi, 2002, p. 16); they can be corrective or noncorrective (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998), full or partial, single or multiple, repetitive or nonrepetitive (Ellis & Sheen, 2006), isolated or incorporated, declarative or interrogative (Lyster, 1998a), and explicit or implicit (Nassaji, 2009). In addition, recasts can be distinguished by their length (short vs. long), their linguistic focus (e.g., pronunciation, or grammar), the type of change involved (e.g., substitution, reordering), their mode (e.g., declarative or interrogative), the use of reduction (e.g., partial recasts) and the number of changes (one vs. multiple) (Sheen, 2006). Given all these variations, the best solution would be to define recasts as broadly as possible, covering only their most fundamental features (e.g., presence of targetlike reformulations, as opposed to absence of targetlike forms in “prompts”), as Ellis and Sheen (2006) have suggested. Presently, an emerging consensus seems to be that a general definition is preferred but recasts need to be operationalized and coded in view of their formal diversity.
Lyster and Ranta criticize Goo and Mackey for adopting “a reductionist research strategy” (p. 179), though they do agree that a critical examination and discussion of methodological issues is useful and serves the field well. They disagree fundamentally with Goo and Mackey on the validity and value of comparative CF studies, holding that such research should have “the interests of learners and teachers in the real world in mind” (pp. 178-179) and be both meaningful and valid. They further argue that comparative studies can help us better understand the workings of different CF techniques and help identify new variables at work. They also differ from Goo and Mackey in their support for longitudinal studies. Such studies, they argue, should not be marginalized simply for fear of the possible contamination by out-of-experiment exposure. Furthermore, they call for longitudinal CF research, especially classroom-based studies, because of their concern “with investigating SLA phenomena that are of practical significance to teaching and with conducting research in such a way that it is transparently relevant to teachers” (p. 181).
Like Lyster and Ranta, we call for a broadening of the conceptual and methodological borders of CF research if this field is to continue to yield new insights into fundamental issues of second language acquisition and to inform classroom instruction.Much needed are research endeavors that make use of new technology (e.g., recent eye-tracking techniques) to track trajectories of noticing and attention, examine the effects of recasts on learning in interaction with multiple social, cultural, and cognitive factors (e.g., working memory, social status of interlocutors, learning settings), and incorporate little-researched learning targets (e.g., L2 pragmatics), as suggested by Goo and Mackey.We additionally recommend studies investigating learner/teacher beliefs and perceptions about CF and how affective factors (e.g., anxiety, self-efficacy) may interact with learning from CF (e.g., Zhang & Rahimi, 2014). There is also room for further inquiry into the differential effects produced by finer variants of a certain feedback type (e.g., Nassaji, 2009).
Furthermore, there is a need for methodologically valid and theoretically sound comparative studies that explore the aforementioned new variables and possibilities or, as Goo and Mackey suggest, examine factors that moderate the effectiveness of different types of CF. This entails the adoption of various research designs that allow researchers to examine the interaction among multiple variables. Comparative studies in classroom settings are also needed because of their pragmatic connections to the real world and their complementary relationship to blue sky lab research. Finally, more studies in EFL settings should be conducted, not only because these settings can, as Goo and Mackey suggest, provide greater control over out-of-experiment exposure but also because findings produced in ESL contexts may not be extrapolatable to EFL ones. This is certainly an area where researchers in EFL countries can actively contribute to the knowledge base for the international SLA community and cater for local teaching needs.
The shared recommendation about employing a variety of CF strategies in the classroom is particularly pertinent to an EFL context like China. To our knowledge, there has been no study following Lyster and Ranta (1997) or Sheen (2006) to investigate Chinese English teachers’ use of CF types. However, it may not be far-fetched to assume that they use a narrow range of CF techniques generally. Some of them have been observed to ignore learner errors to avoid interrupting information exchange in communicative classrooms and/or to boost learner confidence. Others have been found to overuse explicit correction (along with metalinguistic feedback) in classroom discourse, as they are used to doing when providing written feedback. Both groups of teachers need to make more strategic use of a wide range of CF strategies to cater to students’ differing needs and facilitate their learning. There are challenges to meet. To maximize the effectiveness of different types of CF in their classrooms, pre- and in-service teachers require carefully designed professional preparation that can equip them with a solid knowledge base concerning the what, why, when, where, and how of CF to draw on for appropriate feedback decisions. There are other challenges arising from resource constraints, educational structure, cultural influences, to name just a few. For example, a typical secondary English class of 50 or more students would make it infeasible for the teacher to attend to everyone’s error with recasts. Such challenges, however, are not insurmountable and provide the very impetus for researchers and teachers alike to explore alternative forms of CF in the Chinese context. Given the scope of EFL instruction in China and the surging research interest in second language acquisition in general and CF in particular, we anticipate important contributions from Chinese teachers and researchers to our growing understanding of how CF supports second or foreign language development.
本刊主要栏目包括：英语教学法、二语习得、测试与评估、语言政策、课程设计与教材评估、跨文化与英语教学、专门用途英语教学、词典与英语教学、教学实践创新、翻译教学、书评与文评等。