The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in Language Development-Some Reflections

[PP: 01-07]
Hind Talal Mashrah
Taif University
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the importance of feedback, especially the implicit negative feedback in
learning process to enhance language development. The definition of the feedback and the types are
elaborated in relation to how the types contribute in improving the comprehension and the acquisition
of second language in the process of communication with native and non-native speakers of English
by providing comprehensible input and modified output. The theory of implicit negative impact which
focuses on three significant areas: (1) type of implicit negative feedback, (2) the critical role of
noticing to increase the knowledge and the acquisition by demonstrating research studies to prove,
and (3) the key role of interaction to increase the acquisition and the comprehension are detailed with
supportive literature. The paper also briefs some limitations encountered while applying such type of
feedback in the learning process.
Keywords: Negative Feedback, Interaction, Modified Output, Corrective Feedback, Second Language
Acquisition
ARTICLE The paper received on Reviewed on Accepted after revisions on
INFO 03/10/2016 05/11/2016 12/02/2017
Suggested citation:
Mashrah, H. (2017). The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in Language Development-Some Reflections.
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 5(1), 01-07.

1. Introduction promoting more comprehension and

Providing feedback to learners acquisition of a second language.
contributes effectively to increase Therefore, it is important to state the exact
acquisition of second language. During definition of the corrective feedback and
negotiation for the meaning, there are some what the feedback types are. The paper also
types of feedback used among native discusses the vital role of two concepts:
speakers (NS)-nonnative speakers (NNS) or noticing theory and the interaction method
non-native speakers (NNS)–nonnative to promote comprehension and acquisition
speakers (NNS). The importance of of the second language by providing
providing feedback is to give opportunities detailed studies to support these two
to learners to correct their utterance during concepts.
the interaction. Learners in this stage 2. Corrective Feedback and the Role of
receive the feedback from NS and should Implicit Feedback
pay attention to the feedback to see the gap Corrective feedback is defined as
between input (NSs' utterance) and output native speakers' reactions when they listen
(learners' utterance). Consequently, paying to learners' utterance of non–native
attention or noticing leads learners speakers (Adams, Nuevo & Egi, 2011).
concentrate on particular mistakes because Corrective feedback is considered negative
learners, in this case, can produce modified evidence for learners and has two different
output after receiving comprehensible input types of feedback: explicit feedback and
(Doughty & Long, 2003). However, the implicit feedback. Explicit feedback is
comprehensible input is not everything to realized as an overt or direct correction for
simplify the production; learners need to example (no, it is not eated. It is ate),
notice the gap and reproduce modified metalinguistic feedback, or elicitation.
output to have meaningful communication. Unlike explicitness, implicit feedback is
Thus, the purpose of the paper is to show realized as a covert or indirect correction.
how implicit negative feedback facilitates Implicit feedback takes many forms such as
language learning through interaction while repasts or reformulation of the utterance of
learners produce comprehensible output non-native speakers, repetition, or requests
and receive modified input that supports for clarification like "pardon?".
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 05 Issue: 01 January-March, 2017

Implicit feedback has an influence and Loewen (2001) and Mackey (2006)
on modified output through interaction. examined the retention of the output in
According to Swain (2005), learners may short–term. They observed that pushed
respond to any feedback by providing output assists learners to produce accurate
output modification. As a result, learners structures that they already knew about
are forced to correct their first output which them. However, these changes of modified
leads them to pay more attention or notice output through interaction can be retained
to syntactic process to focus on meaning for short period of time. Thus, implicit
level. Many instructors in ESL prefer using negative feedback has a significant role in
implicit feedback, particularly recasts, affecting the production of the output
because it does not make more distraction modification.
during the interaction and allows learners to 3. Recasts as an Implicit Negative
promote noticing their mistakes and the gap Feedback
between native and non –native speakers. One of the most important types of
In contrast, other researchers do not implicit negative feedback is recasts. There
mention the benefits of using implicit is significant evidence supporting the useful
feedback because some learners cannot role this kind of feedback "recasts" can offer
notice the gap or the mistake which when we, as teachers, apply it in ESL/EFL
restrains language learning development. classrooms through communications with
The researchers are more likely to use the learners.
explicit feedback to lower the confusion and According to Richards and Schmidt
allow learners to recognize their errors and (2010), Longman Dictionary of Language
to perform more accurately. In Adams, Teaching and Applied Linguistics defines
Nuevo and Egi's (2011) study, their first recast as "a more competent interlocutor
hypothesis was whether implicit feedback, (parent, teacher, native speaker
recasts in learner–learner interaction, interlocutor) rephrases an incorrect or
promotes language learning. The second incomplete learner utterance by changing
hypothesis was whether output one or more sentence components (e.g.
modification, following recasts in learner- subject, verb, or object) while still referring
learner interaction, enhances linguistic to its central meanings" (p. 487). Doughty
forms. The findings showed that that when and Long (2003) state four purposes of
learners modified their output, following doing recasts: (a) to restate the ill-formed
implicit feedback especially recasts, utterance, (b) to expand the utterance, (c) to
learners reprocessed and produced the retain the central meaning of the utterance,
output differently and this allowed them and (d) to recasts the ill-formed utterance.
through negotiation to gain more explicit Implicit negative feedback has a major role
knowledge which is a controlled process through the interaction in the second
where learners make efforts to use their language acquisition and facilitates the
memory during their learning a second second language development. Moreover,
language. Thus, the modified output is a implicit negative feedback induces noticing
learning method, also considered as gradual in some structures and forms, especially
learning process to change previous recasts which are considered another
knowledge but it is not a way to learn a new primary source of reformulating the
linguistic knowledge. However, the results utterance in target–like saying
of the same study showed that implicit (McDonough & Mackey, 2000). Doughty
feedback in learner–learner interaction has and Long (2003) singles out that learners
more limited evidence to promote learning may confuse whether recast is a model of
language and linguistic forms than native corrective feedback or a different way of
speaker–learner interaction does. pronouncing the same word. There are
Furthermore, Mackey's (2006) study was to some experiments below to reveal the
demonstrate whether learners modify their impact of recasts to learn the second
responses when they form question language through implicit negative
structures by applying implicit negative feedback.
feedback. The results showed that as First, in McDonough and Mackey’s
learners alter their responses, they enhance (2000) research, the study compared two
their production of question types. groups of students: the first group received
Receiving implicit negative feedback in modified input through interaction and the
question forms through negotiation may second group received the same input but
give an opportunity to reprocess the output with intensive recasts. The purpose of the
and produce it accurately and facilitate study was to investigate the effect of recasts
developing a language. Ellis, Basturkmen on learners' interlanguage development and
Cite this article as: Mashrah, H. (2017). The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in Language Development-
Some Reflections. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 5(1), 01-07.
Page | 2
The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in Language Development.. Mashrah, Hind.

to notice the responses of learners when 4. Noticing in Second Language

they receive the recasts via information–gap Acquisition
tasks. The results showed that the Noticing or awareness, which has
interaction, with intensive recasts, was attracted some scholars' attention such as
more efficient to enhance production than Leung and Williams (2012) and Philip
interaction without intensive recasts for the (2012), aids developing the acquisition
advanced student. However, having recasts through negotiation, and it is a part of
in the interaction had limited progress for implicit negative feedback. Longman
students in low-level. In summary, the Dictionary of Language Teaching and
recasts have had an influence on language Applied Linguistics defines noticing as "the
development and enhancing the awareness hypothesis that input does not become
of the gab by noticing. intake for language learning unless it is
Second, Long, Inagaki and Ortega noticed, that is, consciously registered"
(1998) carried out two studies. The aim of (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p. 401).
these two studies was to prove the best According to Gass and Mackey (2006), the
method to maximize second language intake of foreign language does not
acquisition by comparing between using internalize in learners unless they notice the
models and recasts through interaction via input to occur the acquisition. Furthermore,
forming questions. The participants were Schmidt (2001) and Philip (2012)
asked to play information–gap emphasize that new linguistic forms will be
communication game and use either recasts internalized when learners receive
or model while they played. The two comprehensible input through interaction
studies concentrated on applying models based on Doughty and Long's (2003)
before utterance and recast after utterance in interaction hypothesis. If learners are likely
Japanese and Spanish as second languages. to take advantage of negotiation, they must
The results revealed that recasts were more perceive the input and pay more attention to
efficient than following models to develop the gap between their interlanguage forms
structure and adverb placement in the (i.e. linguistic knowledge) and second
Spanish study. On the other hand, in the language alternative. To acquire the target
Japanese study, recasts played a role as language, noticing may take negotiation as
learners' assistance to learn or resuscitate a tool to facilitate language learning. If
some background knowledge of structures. learners do not perceive the input that they
In short, implicit negative feedback receive during the interaction, they will not
(recasts) is more efficient than using models learn or acquire much information from the
to make some developments for short–term. conversation (Gass & Mackey, 2006).
The last study was conducted by Doughty and Long (2003) explain that
Mackey (1999) and her primary goal was to during a negotiation, learners have difficult
see whether learners improved their times to understand the meaning of the
learning question structures by modifying conversation and to communicate with
their output, which is learners' responses, native speakers as well because learners
via implicit negative feedback in attempt to concentrate more on the language
interaction. She divided her participants forms and the meaning at the same time.
into two groups: one group had to produce Furthermore, Mackey, Philip, Egi, Fujii and
modified responses, and the second one did Tastsumi (2002) showed in their study that
not alter their responses. The findings there are outstanding outcomes because of
showed that learners who implemented the role of noticing during feedback
modification in the question structures in interactions (recasts) and its relationship
their responses maximize their productions with working memory of the individual
of the higher level of forming questions. differences to increase the acquisition of
Mackey emphasizes that receiving implicit learning a language. In short, one way to
negative feedback through interaction and improve the comprehension and the
then modifying the output through acquisition of the second language is
producing responses is considered an noticing or attention to the gap through
excellent opportunity to promote negotiation.
comprehension and to learn more particular Besides, noticing is an essential part
question forms. All earlier studies present to enhance learning implicit knowledge.
strong evidence that implicit negative According to Ellis (2005), learning
feedback particularly recasts plays a language implicitly is to expose to the input
facilitating role in second language incidentally with little awareness to
acquisition. linguistic forms. There are several
processes to transfer input to implicit
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org ) ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 05 Issue: 01 January-March, 2017
Page | 3
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 05 Issue: 01 January-March, 2017

knowledge: (1) noticing: learners pay more A study was done by Pica, Young,
attention to particular linguistic form in the and Doughty (1987) who claimed that
input, (2) comparing: learners examine the modified negotiation help comprehension.
noticed forms with their production of the The researchers compare the effects of two
output, and (3) integrating: learners are things: pre–modified input and modified
asked to create new ways to integrate the input. The number of participants was 16,
noticed forms to their interlanguage forms. and they were in low–intermediate level.
There are many factors which aid in The participants were divided into two
increasing noticing in the input: (1) task groups: one group received directions by
demands: paying attention to learners to ask choosing and placing items on a small
instructions because these instructions are board. These directions were modified to
necessary to accomplish a task, (2) maximize repetition and minimize the
frequency: when input is repeated many complexity. The other group received
times in the classroom, the input become baseline directions. That is, the direction
recognized and ready to be acquired by produced among native speakers of English
learners, (3) unusual features: sometimes and not modified. However, the
learners encounter incidentally with participants had opportunities to ask when
unfamiliar linguistic forms that are not they did not understand. The results
frequently occurred, (4) salience: some showed that the group of changed or
linguistic forms are more overtly than adjusted input gained higher levels of
others because of their pronunciations, (5) comprehension 88% vs. 69%. Pica et al.
modified conversation through negotiation stated that when modification happened in
of meaning causes noticing of some interaction, learners would not meet any
linguistic forms which might be neglected, difficulties to comprehend the input. In
and (6) existing linguistic knowledge: there contrast, Ellis, Tanaka and Yamazaki
is a particular level that learners become (1994) wonder if the learners should
read to acquire this linguistic form via involve actively in the negotiation or they
noticing. Besides, noticing assists to obtain simply access to adjust input through efforts
comprehensible input because sometimes of others. In Pica's study (1992), the
learners can pay attention to some neglected question had been answered when Pica
linguistic forms when the comprehensible divided three groups: (1) negotiators who
input is stated (Schmidt, 2001). To sum up, took part in negotiation, (2) observers who
learning implicit knowledge is an outcome watched the negotiators, but they did not
of noticing which promotes second involve, and (3) listeners who performed
language acquisition. the task later, they listened to what teacher
5. Impact of Interaction in Modified would read the modified input of directions
Input but without involving to the negotiation.
The conversational modification is The results showed that negotiators scored
considered a vital point because it leads to 88%, observers gained 78%, and listeners
facilitate the meaning of the negotiation. were 81%. Pica declared that learners who
Doughty and Long (2003) point out that have the higher ability of comprehension
modification can be comprehension checks, did not bank on the interaction to
clarification requests, and confirmation understand the input, while learners who
checks. All these changes contribute scored low-level of comprehension
effectively to increase learners' awareness, depended on interaction to understand the
to solve their difficulties of understanding input.
the meaning of the communication, and to Second, in Gass and Mackey's
promote second language acquisition. (2006) study, their aim of the experiment
Thus, ESL classrooms lack in providing was to compare between modified and
comprehensible input that assists learners to unmodified input with or without modified
acquire a second language through the negotiation on production and
meaning of negotiation, and it is necessary comprehension. Participants were
to give this opportunity to learners because receiving direction on a task. The findings
unmodified or incompressible input came up with that negotiated, and modified
impedes the acquisition. In respect to this input has influenced efficiently on
issue, there are many studies to support the comprehension. Additionally, when native
interaction hypothesis because it facilitates speakers understood the directions given by
input modification in second language learners, the production improved because
acquisition and promotes language the native speakers understood and
learning. followed the directions given by learners
(Gass, 2002). Thus, interaction with
Cite this article as: Mashrah, H. (2017). The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in Language Development-
Some Reflections. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 5(1), 01-07.
Page | 4
The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in Language Development.. Mashrah, Hind.

modification affects positively in language than they need. To conclude, giving

learning use. learners greater quantity of input through
Loschky (1994) also did a study interaction leads negatively to make low-
and his purpose was to prove the impacts of level of comprehension.
comprehensible input on comprehension 6. Conclusion
through interaction and retention of In conclusion, implicit negative
vocabulary and grammar in Japanese as a feedback has had an influence on
second language. The results revealed that comprehension and acquisition of the
comprehensible input contributes positively second language through interaction where
to promote understanding of vocabulary, learners receive modified input and produce
yet it does not contribute to retention or comprehensible output. Interaction
acquisition of grammar and vocabulary. In contributes efficiently to raise the
contrast, Ellis, Tanaka, and Yamazaki understanding of learners by providing
(1994) conducted an experiment with input modification to give an opportunity to
Japanese students of English in high school. learners to control over receiving input and
The main aim of their research was to solving problems of comprehension which
investigate whether modified negotiation or facilitates second language acquisition. As
input plays a facilitating role in maximizing a result, learners start producing more
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. comprehensible output in the
The findings revealed two things: first, communication (Ellis, Tanaka, &
changed or adjusted input through Yamazaki, 1994).
interaction assists better-promoting Therefore, some implications might
comprehension than pre–modified input work effectively in classroom settings
does; second, interactionally adjusted input suggested by Pica, Young, and Doughty
aims to acquire more new words than pre– (1987). Mayo and Pica (2000) conducted
modified input does. Thus, the some studies in EFL classrooms and
comprehended input is valuable as it claimed that the environment of EFL
facilitates understanding through classrooms considers as a vital step to
interaction which leads to acquiring the enhance input, output, and feedback in
second language. The above studies have learning the second language. Thus, their
proved a part of interaction hypothesis that findings pointed out that EFL classrooms
the modified input in negotiation leads to are considered as a real learning context.
the increasing of comprehension. Teachers can help their students understand
On the contrary, there are several the input by giving sufficient quantity and
drawbacks when the input is elaborated redundancy without waiting for students to
through interaction. According to Ellis, ask for more clarification or confirmation.
Tanaka, and Yamazaki (1994), some However, teachers should check students'
studies have shown that elaborated input comprehension by asking them if they need
does not assist learners to understand the more explanation or clarification and by
negotiation. First, native speakers assume encouraging them to ask any question,
when they include more explanation during rather than relying on giving quantity and
the communications, they will aid learners redundancy.
to comprehend the interaction. However, Another suggestion is that teacher–
native speakers make their interactions student relationship assists in facilitating
more complicated and cause less input modification by implementing the
achievement of learners' comprehension. negotiation in classroom settings, instead of
Second, native speakers provide an amount common teachers' and students' roles which
of information to learners to do a particular are teachers' elicitation and feedback and
task. Some native speakers implement students' response. Also, if modified input
"skeletonizing strategy" which is giving has involved in a classroom, the teachers are
limited information to learners whereas not going to take an advantage and ask
other native speakers provide questions to students. However, all
"embroidering strategy" which is giving students in that classroom will have an
much information and more explanation opportunity to interact with their teachers
beyond the requirement. Thus, and come up with questions and to clarify
embroidering strategy causes some and confirm some incomprehensible input
problems while learners do a particular task to have a better understanding of some
because this approach leads to distracting concepts. Furthermore, by the interaction
them more than it assists them. Resulting that encourages students to speak, teachers
from this, learners will have hard times due and students have more confidence to make
to receiving expanded information more a small discussion about things that are
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org ) ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 05 Issue: 01 January-March, 2017
Page | 5
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 05 Issue: 01 January-March, 2017

considered ambiguous for students and Doughty, C. & Long, M. (2003). Handbook
need more explanation to clarify the of Language Acquisition. Blackwell
meaning of some incomprehensible input. Publishing Ltd.
Pica, Young, and Doughty (1987) single out Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. & Yamazaki, A. (1994).
some alternative methods rather than Classroom Interaction,
spoken interaction in the class. Teachers Comprehension, and the Acquisition
can ask students to check dictionaries, read of L2 Word Meaning. Language
their textbooks thoroughly, discuss with Learning, 44(3), 449-491.
other classmates or with teachers in their Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S.
office hours, or implement scaffolding (2001). Learner Uptake in
Communicative ESL Lessons.
method. In contrast, the lack of spoken
Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
communication in the class, which makes
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring Implicit and
comprehensible input more apparent, Explicit Knowledge of a Second
narrows the benefit of interaction because Language: A Psychometric Study.
pre–modified input provided by teacher and Studies in Second Language
curriculum designers limit negotiation use Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
in the classroom. Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second
The traditional pedagogy Language Acquisition: An
concentrated more on teachers' role to make Introductory Course 2nd Edition,
students dependently. On the other hand, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
the current education shifts to the opposite New Jersey.
direction that teachers should assist students Gass, S. (2002). An Interactionist Perspective
to depend on themselves and students have on Second Language Acquisition. In
more responsibilities by enhancing spoken R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford
interaction in a classroom which increases Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp.
input comprehension. Ellis, Tanaka, and 170-181). Oxford: Oxford University
Yamazaki (1994) and Doughty and Long Press.
(2003) point out that there are further Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2006). Input,
researches and studies on interaction and Interaction, and Output: An
acquisition as they focus in their study on Overview. AILA Review, 19, 3-17.
vocabulary acquisition. In contrast, there Long, M., Inagaki, S. & Ortega, L. (1998).
are other aspects of language such as The Role of Implicit Negative
phonology, syntax, and morphology that Feedback in SLA: Models and
Recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The
may have different ways to acquire
Modern Language Journal, 82(3),
acquisition or may not be acquired through
357-371.
interaction. Moreover, Gass and Selinker Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible Input
(2001) emphasize that the communication and Second Language Acquisition:
should not be considered as a key factor to What Is the Relationship? Studies in
cause the acquisition which is banked on the Second Language Acquisition, 16(4),
needs of learners' differences. From this 303-325.
point, there is promising research in the Mackey, A. (1999). Input, Interaction,
future that will have many contributions to Second Language Development: An
find out the relationship among interaction, Empirical Study of Question
input, and second language acquisition. Formation in ESL. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557-
Acknowledgments 587.
The author gratefully acknowledges Mackey, A. & Philip, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. &
Dr. David Hayes, Associate Professor, Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual
Department of Applied Linguistics at Brock Differences in Working Memory,
University for his advice, support, and Noticing of Interactional Feedback,
guidance in the development of this paper. and L2 Development. In P. Robinson
(Ed.),
References Individual Differences and
Adams, R., Nuevo, A. & Egi, T. (2011). Instructed Language Learning (pp.
Explicit and Implicit Feedback, 181-209).
Modified Output, and SLA: Does Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Explicit and Implicit Feedback Benjamins.
Promote Learning and Learner – Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, Noticing and
Learner Interactions? The Modern Instructed Second Language
Language Journal, 95, 42-63. Learning. Applied Linguistics, 27,
405-530.

Cite this article as: Mashrah, H. (2017). The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in Language Development-
Some Reflections. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 5(1), 01-07.
Page | 6
The Role of Implicit Negative Feedback in Language Development.. Mashrah, Hind.

Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). L2 Learner Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. (1987).
Interaction in a Foreign Language The Impact of Interaction on
Setting: Are Learning Needs Comprehension. TESOL Quarterly,
Addressed? International Review of 21(4), 737-757.
Applied Linguistics in Language Richards, J & Schimdt, R. (2010). Longman
Teaching, 38(1), 35-59. Dictionary of Language Teaching
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2000). and Applied Linguistics. (4th ed.).
Communicative Tasks, Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education
Conversational Interaction and Limited.
Linguistic Form: An Empirical Study Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P.
of Thai. Foreign Language Annals, Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and
33(1), 82-92. Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-
Philip, J. (2012). Noticing Hypothesis. In P. 32). New York: Cambridge
Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge University Press.
Encyclopedia of Second Language Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis:
Acquisition (pp. 464-467). New York: Theory and Research. In E. Hinkel
Routledge. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in
Pica, T. (1992). Research on Negotiation: Second Language Teaching and
What Does It Reveal about Second- Learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah,
Language Learning Conditions, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Processes, and Outcomes? Language
Learning, 44, 493-527.

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org ) ISSN:2308-5460

Volume: 05 Issue: 01 January-March, 2017
Page | 7