Keywords
English articles
recasts
recast frequency
teaching English grammar
How to Cite
Number of views: 309
Number of downloads: 177
Abstract
This study examines the role of recast frequency and its effectiveness in the acquisition of English articles in a computer-mediated context. Sixty-one pre-intermediate university language learners in Turkey were randomly divided into four main groups: high frequency recast (HF), low frequency recast (LF), test control, and task control groups. The learners in the HF and LF recast groups completed five and two tasks, respectively, in a video-conferencing environment and received oral recasts on their incorrect use of English articles. Learners in the test control group only took the pre and posttests, and learners in the task control group completed five tasks without receiving feedback on the target structure. The outcome was measured through online picture description and error correction tasks. Findings showed that in the picture description task, learners in the HF group performed significantly better than those in the LF recast group and the control groups. In the error correction task, the results revealed a short-term advantage for learners in the HF group, which faded away in the delayed posttest. Significant correlations were also found between the recast frequency and learners’ score improvement in the immediate and delayed picture description tasks but not in the error correction tasks. These results suggest that recast quantity may play an important role in improving learners’ accuracy of their oral production.
Funding
This study was supported by the postdoctoral grant (No:1059B191802186) from The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜ-BİTAK)
References
Ahn, J., & Kim, Y. (2016). The effects of recasts and working memory on the development of implicit and explicit knowledge. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 3-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2016-0001
Akiyama, Y. (2017). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation. System, 64, 58-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.007
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 183-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086287
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all: Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 544-548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060268
Asari, Y. (2017). Salience-enhanced recasts and their effects on learners’ production of uptake and modified output. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 65-84.
Bao, R. (2019). Oral corrective feedback in L2 Chinese classes: Teachers’ beliefs versus their practices. System, 82, 140-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.004
Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), 657-668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.15.4.657
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200
Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 451-480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102003042
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012158
Dede, M. (1986). Studies in Turkish linguistics. John Benjamins.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Dough-ty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge University Press.
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 29(4), 511-537. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070416
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143-188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305-352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X
Ellis, N. C. (2014). Implicit and explicit learning of language. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 3-23). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767-003
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Salience in usage-based SLA. In S. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Saliency in second language acquisition (pp. 22-40). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315399027-2
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford Univer-sity Press.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339-360). Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 28(3), 339-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 877-905. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.877
Fu, T., & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feed-back perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 159-181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.8
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445-474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000149
Goo, J. (2020). Research on the role of recasts in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 53(3), 1-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144482000004X
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000708
Han, Z. (2002). A Study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3588240
Hassanzadeh M., Marefat, F., & Ramezani A. (2019). The impact of single versus multiple recasts on L2 learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge. Heliyon, 5(5), 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01748
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Karoma.
Huebner, T. (1985). System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35(2), 141-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01022.x
Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54(2), 311-394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00257.x
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects of L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000019
Kamiya, N. (2015). The effectiveness of intensive and extensive recasts on L2 acquisition for implicit and explicit knowledge. Linguistics and Education, 29, 59-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.11.002
Kim, J. H. (2021). The relative effect of recasts on L2 Korean learners’ accuracy development of two different forms and its relationship with language analytic ability. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 451-475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819859910
Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 549-581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000618
Kourtali, N. E. (2022). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated recasts on L2 development. Language Learning and Technology, 26(1), 1-20.
Kourtali, N. E., & Borges, L. (2023). The effects of feedback timing on L2 development in written SCMC. Computer Assisted Language Learning. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2171066
Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
Li, H. (2018). Recasts and output-only prompts, individual learner factors and short-term EFL learning. System, 76, 103-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.05.004
Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373-396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510384
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220600803311
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361-377). Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536-556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00465.x
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feed-back in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01213.x
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). State-of-the-art article: Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405-430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami051
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x
Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62(3), 704-740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00649.x
Master, P. (2002). Information structure and English article pedagogy. System, 30(3), 331-348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00018-0
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 323-338). Oxford University Press
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693-720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00393.x
Monteiro, K. (2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video conferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 56-79.
Morris, D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519-533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL class-rooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00142
Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of recasts and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 771-799. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000467
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535-562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816644940
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12387
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2020). Corrective feedback and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 151-163). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774390.015
Öztürk, B., (2005). Case, referentiality and phrase structure. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.77
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241
Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2), 133-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1275702
Rassaei, E. (2020). The separate and combined effects of recasts and textual enhancement as two focus on form techniques on L2 development. System 89, 102-193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102193
Rassaei, E. (2022). The effects of recasts on L2 grammar: A meta-analysis. The Language Learning Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2097298
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00690.x
Révész, A., & Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15(3), 160-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2167/la401.0
Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.012
Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 196-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01427.x
Sarandi, H. (2016). Oral corrective feedback: A question of classification and application. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 235-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.285
Sarandi H. (2020). Mixed corrective feedback and the acquisition of third person “-s.” The Language Learning Journal, 48(4), 402-413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1400579
Sarandi, H., & Çelik, M. (2019). The effects of explicit recasts and output-only prompts on learning L2 grammar. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(4), 981-998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018043537
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7(2), 89-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700202
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Re-search, 8(3), 263-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301-322). Oxford University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835-874. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158-164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
van de Guchte, M., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learn-ing: The effects of recasts and prompts. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 246-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12211
Wacha, R. C., & Liu, Y. T. (2017). Testing the efficacy of two new variants of recasts with standard recasts in communicative conversational settings: An exploratory longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 189-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815624268
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62(4), 1134-1169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00726.x
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691-705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.020
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 65-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000212
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293-314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01022.x
Zhao, Y. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit recasts on the acquisition of two grammatical structures and the mediating role of working memory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland).
Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2022). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person -s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Re-search, 26(3), 361-381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903343
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Hedayat Sarandi, Hossein Nassaji
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.