AbstractThis study attempts to add new empirical evidence on the language learning (operationalized and measured in terms of several dimensions of accuracy) that may derive from accessing and processing written corrective feedback (WCF) on one's own writing. The research questions examined potential interactions between type of WCF (direct vs. indirect), type of errors (grammar vs. nongrammar), and the perspective of feedback (accuracy vs. acquisition) in a single research design. To this end, 46 English majors at a Spanish university participated in a pretest–posttest design, with 2 intervention groups (those receiving direct or indirect WCF and asked to process it via written languaging) and a control group (who wrote and rewrote their texts without the help of WCF but also engaged in languaging). The analyses conducted show (a) limited appropriation of the WCF received, (b) positive short‐term and longer term benefits resulting from the combined effect of WCF and written languaging, and (c) differential effects of type of WCF on error types. These findings are discussed from the perspective of current theory and research on the manner in which WCF may contribute to language learning in terms of the dual distinction between feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition.