Self-Repair in Language Learners’ Oral Discourse
An Vande Casteele & Katja Lochtman (Brussels, Belgium)
Abstract
(English)
In
the present paper, different strategies of self-initiated self-repair
in oral productions of L2 learners of Spanish are examined. In order
to do self-repair, learners first need to detect a problem and
interrupt their speech flow, and then formulate an alternative. In
second language acquisition research, language learners’
self-repair in oral discourse is often linked to learners’
proficiency level and their monitoring ability and as such is
considered as facilitative of learning. This article is based on a
study in the course of which language learners were assigned a
story-telling task based on a Spanish TV series. After viewing the
video compilation, the participants were asked to retell the story in
their own words. The aim of the study was to investigate which kinds
of spontaneous self-repair strategies were frequently used by
these language learners, which types of problems were mostly noticed
and whether detection always lead to an appropriate correction.
Finally, it is discussed in what way the self-initiated self-repairs
were related to language proficiency in general and learners’
fluency in particular.
Keywords: Self-initiated
self-repair, second language acquisition research, language
proficiency, fluency, Spanish as the L2
Abstract
(Deutsch)
In
diesem Beitrag werden Strategien zur selbstinitiierten
Selbstkorrektur (self-initiated self-repair) in der mündlichen
Produktion niederländischsprachiger Spanischlernender untersucht.
Damit Lerner sich selbst korrigieren können, müssen sie zuerst das
Problem identifizieren, den Gesprächsfluss unterbrechen und
anschließend eine Alternative formulieren. In der
Fremdsprachenerwerbsforschung wird die Selbstkorrektur in mündlicher
Kommunikation oft mit dem Niveau der Fremdsprachenkenntnisse und mit
Monitoring-Kompetenzen in Verbindung gebracht und könnte somit als
lernfördernd betrachtet werden. In dem vorliegenden Artikel wird
über eine Studie berichtet, bei der Spanischlernende Geschichten
formulieren mussten, die auf eine spanische Fernsehserie
zurückgingen. Nachdem sich die Lernenden einige Ausschnitte
angesehen hatten, mussten sie die Geschichten nacherzählen.
Dabei wurde untersucht, welche spontanen
Selbstkorrekturstrategien häufig eingesetzt wurden, welche Probleme
von den Lernenden am häufigsten identifiziert wurden und ob die
Identifikation von Fehlern auch zu deren gelungener Korrektur führte.
Zum Schluss wird der Frage nachgegangen, wie sich
selbstinitiierte Selbstkorrekturen zu Sprachbeherrschung und
Redefluss verhalten.
Stichwörter:
Selbstinitiierte
Selbstkorrektur, Zweitsprachenerwerbsforschung, Sprachbeherrschung,
Redefluss, Spanisch als Zweitsprache
1 Introduction
One
way of treating language learners’ self-repair in oral discourse in
second language acquisition research is by linking it to learners’
proficiency level and monitoring ability
(Fincher 2006, Kormos 1999, Lennon 1994, O’Connor 1988, Smith 2008,
van Hest 1996). As such it has also been
linked to error-detection ability (noticing-the-gap, Schmidt 1995),
error correction and the role of modified learner output in language
learning (Swain 1995). Furthermore, self-repair is seen as a process
that learners perform automatically (Simpson et al. 2013) and as such
could be interpreted as an indirect measure of language proficiency
in general and fluency in particular (Housen & Kuiken 2009).
Repair is defined as
“practices for dealing with problems or troubles in speaking,
hearing, and understanding the talk in conversation (and in other
forms of talk in interaction)” (Schegloff 2000: 207). When
a given repair is carried out by the current speaker, it is referred
to as self-initiated
(Schegloff et al. 1977). According to Shehadeh (2001),
self-initiations occur when the language learner notices that the
interlocutor has not understood or has misunderstood an utterance, or
when the utterance is ill-formed. As such, the language learner
realizes that he or she needs to reformulate or modify his or her
output (Sato 2008). Self-initiated repairs are considered
facilitative of learning. Along with Swain (1993, 1995), Lyster &
Ranta (1997) argue that the process of attempting to produce more
accurate and more comprehensible output will push the language
learner to reprocess and restructure his or her interlanguage towards
modified output. According to Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1993,
1995) the important functions of such learner output are:
the hypothesis-testing function, in which learners are potentially testing their hypotheses about the target language; the metalinguistic function, enabling learners to control and internalize linguistic knowledge; and a noticing-the-gap function, in which learners perceive a difference between what they can say and what they want to say. (Sato 2008: 224)
Moreover, output is
assumed to enhance fluency through practice (Swain & Lapkin
1995), whereby fluency, the capacity to communicate meaning in real
time (Skehan 1995), is often considered as one aspect of language
proficiency next to accuracy and complexity (Housen & Kuiken
2009). What is more, the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages also takes fluency as a component for describing overall
proficiency (Council of Europe 2001).
2 Repairs, Self-Repairs and Self-Corrections
Repair was initially
studied in the context of L1 speaker discourse (Fox & Jasperson
1996, Schegloff et al. 1977, Schegloff 1979, 1997, 2000). Today, the
study of repair has been extended to the analysis of learner
discourse (Kazemi 2011, Simpson et al. 2013, van Hest et al. 1997,
Wong 2000, 2005). However, as Simpson et al. rightly state,
this has been accompanied by a narrowing down of focus onto error monitoring and correction, partly due to the tendency for L2 speakers themselves to attend more to errors than L1 speakers”. (Simpson et al. 2013: 145)
An error is generally
referred to as form-focused in nature (i.e. syntactic, morphological
or lexical).
Generally, repair is
classified into four categories based upon who initiates the repair
and who takes steps to resolve the problem:
- self-initiated self-repair (SISR),
- other-initiated self-repair (OISR),
- self-initiated other-repair (SIOR) and
- other-initiated other-repair (OIOR). (Schegloff 1997, 2000)
According
to Schegloff, SISR or “self-initiation and a same turn repair is
the most common and most successful” Schegloff (1979: 268) in the
L1. Modifications made by language learners are generally
referred to as self-initiated, self-completed repairs (Simpson et al.
2013). The aim of this research is to offer more insight into the
self-initiated self-repair. According
to Postma (2000: 98) self-repair refers to repairing discourse
elements that are considered as erroneous by something else without
external prompting. This generally happens “within a short
span of time from the moment of error occurrence.” Self-repairing
is not only typical of human speech, as Postma adds (2000), we also
do it when driving a car or riding a bike, when playing a music
instrument, etc. In brief, in many actions, corrective strategies
come into play.
Self-correction
occurs when learners correct themselves; this means that errors are
replaced by an alternative that is correct. Self-repair is considered
as a more general and broader concept, since it refers to an
alternation with respect to what was uttered initially. It
implies corrections, but also clarifications of previous elements in
a given discourse. Moreover, self-repair does not always imply a
successful correction. Specifically focusing on self-initiated
modified output, this study examines which kinds of self-repairing
strategies are frequently used by language learners, which kinds of
problems are noticed and whether detection leads to appropriate
corrections.
3 Self-Repairs and Proficiency
Self-repairs
by language learners have often been linked to gauging language
proficiency (Sato 2008, Wong 2000, 2005), since
they are considered to involve error-detection (noticing-the-gap,
Schmidt 1995) and the production of modified learner output in
language learning (Swain 1995). Self-initiated
self-repair can be viewed as an indicator of L2 proficiency “based
on the link found between proficiency and monitoring”
(Fincher 2006, Simpson et
al. 2013, van Hest 1996). In this study,
we are especially concerned with fluency as one aspect of language
proficiency, also referred to as ‘fluency in the narrow sense’,
which is often contrasted with the linguistic complexity and accuracy
of learner language (Housen & Kuiken, 2009):
Fluency in the narrow sense is usually described in terms of speedy and smooth delivery of speech without (filled) pauses, repetitions, and repairs. (De Jong et al. 2015: 224).
As
Housen & Kuiken (2009: 462) put it, fluency is often defined as
the ability to process the L2 with native-like rapidity or ‘the extent to which the language produced in performing a task manifests pausing, hesitation, or reformulation’. (Ellis 2003: 342)
In
brief, in order to make a repair, learners must first detect a
problem, interrupt their speech flow, and then formulate an
alternative. This procedure has an influence on the language
learners’ fluency.
Fluency is also linked to
the learners’ control of their linguistic L2 knowledge, with
“control improv[ing] as the learner automatizes the process of
gaining access” (Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998: 4). The construct is
not uncontroversial, however. In L2 research, mainly oral production
data have been analyzed to determine which quantifiable
linguistic phenomena contribute to fluency in L2 speech (Housen &
Kuiken, 2009). According to such studies, speech
fluency is even considered a
multi-componential construct in which different sub-dimensions
can be distinguished,
such as speed fluency (rate and density of delivery), breakdown fluency (number, length and distribution of pauses in speech) and repair fluency (number of false starts and repetitions). (Tavakoli & Skehan 2005) (Housen & Kuiken, 2009: 265).
In
this sense, the present study focuses on repair fluency, since in the
case of self-initiated self-repairs, language learners realize that
they need to reformulate or modify their output, which, according to
Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1993, 1995), is facilitative of learning
(see Introduction above).
In L2 studies, some
problems arose also concerning the operationalization of fluency,
that is, how fluency can be validly, reliably and efficiently
measured (Housen & Kuiken 2009; for inventories of fluency
measures, Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005; Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998).
Accordingly, self-repairs are often found as part of formulas for
measuring fluency as one aspect of proficiency. Examples of such
fluency measures would be the number of:
- words per minute,
- pauses and fillers in a given number of words,
- repetitions in a given number of words and - above all –
- self-repairs in a given number of words.
However, such
quantitative measures do not provide us with the information needed
to answer our research questions. The present study, therefore, is a
qualitative analysis of self-initiated self-repairs by L2 learners of
Spanish in Brussels.
4 The Study
4.1 Research Questions
Specifically
focusing on self-initiated modified output,
in the current study, we examine which kinds of
self-repair strategies are frequently used by language learners,
which kinds of problems are noticed and whether their detection leads
to appropriate corrections. It is a descriptive
study focusing on how learners successfully or unsuccessfully
self-repair their utterances and what this means for their fluency as
a function of their overall language proficiency.
To examine the functions
of self-repair practices of Spanish L2 learners, we posited the
following research questions:
1. What kinds of
self-repairing strategies (SISR) are usedby our language learners?
Our aim was to determine
how learners oriented themselves to trouble sources (i.e. instances
in need of repair) in their own talk and how they structured their
subsequent self-repairs.
2. What kinds of errors are
noticed? Does error-detection lead to appropriate corrections?
Our aim was to improve
our understanding of how participants used self-repair as a resource
for modified output, which is believed facilitative of language
learning.
3. How do
self-initiated self-repairs influence fluency as part of language proficiency?
Our aim was to improve
our understanding of the role self-initiated self-repairs play in
measuring fluency as a part of language proficiency.
4.2 Unit of Analysis
A repair formally
consists of two segments: a reparandum and the alteration (Heeman &
Allen 1999). The reparandum is “the stretch of speech that the
speaker is replacing” (Heeman & Allen 1999: 3). The second part
is the alteration and serves as the replacement for the reparandum.
The end of the reparandum is called the “interruption point” or
“cut-off” and this point is not always situated at the end of a
word, it can also appear in the middle of a word (Schegloff 1987:
212). This ‘cut-off’ is a sudden interruption of the flow of
speech and assumes the role of repair initiator (Schegloff 1987:
212).
Example:1
reparandum
/ alteration
A particular phenomenon
of self-repairing is the use of editing terms. Editing terms are
fillers such as uhm,
no or pues.
They appear after the detection of the problem, i.e. after the
interruption of the speech flow. They are often considered as a sign
of speech disfluency, indicating false starts or restarts, but they
also have a communicative purpose. They enable the speaker to hold
the floor and offer him some time to reflect. Instead of editing
terms, there can also be a silent or unfilled pause (van Hest 2000:
77).
Example:
(2)
Hablo con uhm habla con las modeles. (X12)
reparandum
/ editing term alteration
Next to uhm
we may find other editing terms such as no and
no sí.
Examples:
(3)
Sí hay un un uhm algunos
algunas
mujeres que que son feas.
(4)
es la fiesta de jubilación de el jefe anciano Francisco que va a dar
una agradación, no las gracias a todo el mundo
(5)
y todo el mundo está enfadado, no, sí enfadado.
In
other examples, instead of a pause, an extra-linguistic
element appeared, such as laughter. This can be seen as another
non-verbal kind of pause filler.
Example:
(6)
y que esta esto esta persona (risa) va a ayudarse con uhm el
medicamentos
4.3 Research Method and Description of the Task
The
current investigation is a descriptive study of the discourse of
university students in the Bachelor program of Linguistics and
Literary Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium). The
participants were all students learning Spanish as a foreign
language. They were between 18 and 21 years of age and they all speak
other languages (Dutch L1, French L1 or L2, English L2 and sometimes
German L2).
The
participants were assigned an oral story-telling task, based on the
Spanish TV series Yo soy Bea (Ugly Betty).
In particular, the story-telling task was based on film fragments
chosen from a compilation of extracts from this TV series found on
YouTube.
The
task was assigned individually and took about 20 minutes to complete.
It consisted of a first viewing session of the video compilation
including audio, in order to give the participants a general overview
of the storyline. Then, the participants were asked to retell the
story in their own words while watching the video fragment a second
time, but this time, without sound. This procedure allows a
story-telling time almost equivalent to the video’s time, which put
some (time) pressure on the learners to process the L2 with
native-like rapidity. By doing so, we avoided participants only
offering a brief summary of the story; so they really had to retell
the story by describing what they were seeing. Another characteristic
of the task was the impossibility of adjusting the produced discourse
after performing the task (contrary to the production of a written
assignment). The participants had to retell the story without any
extra preparation, so the L2 speech fragments obtained were
comparable to what they would produce in real-time interaction. Next
to the time pressure described, there was the unavailability of
exterior help. As such, the focus of the study could be fully
directed to the fluency of the participants’ L2 discourse.
Finally,
the participants were not informed about the purpose of the study.
The activity was presented to them as a normal oral exercise within a
language course.
The
participants were also asked to fill in a background questionnaire.
In this
survey,
they were requested to give basic information such as their L1, age,
gender, their previous language studies, and to rate their
proficiency in other foreign languages.
The
data were recorded and transcribed. In order to give the reader an
idea of the data used in this research, this is a small excerpt of a
transcription:
y
es Beatriz la secretaría fea
y
uhm dan beses eh besos
y
hay una conservación conversación y uhm Álvaro quiere dar
muchísim- muchas bes- bes- muchos besos a todos las personas que eh
están guapa guapas
uhm
las personajes rían se rían uhm
pero
hay también Beatriz que está feo fea y no quiere dar una bes- dan
dar una no quiere no quiere dar una besa ella
The corpus is compiled of
20 transcriptions and consists of approximately 12,000 words, which
results in an average of 600 words per transcription.
5 Results
5.1 Identification and Analysis of Self-Repairs
In
the following section, the nature of the different self-repairing
strategies will be identified, i.e. the types that frequently occur
in our database of oral narratives produced by language learners
of Spanish, and the efficiency of these self-repairs.
Due
to the nature of the task and the absence of interaction, all
instances of self-initiated self-repairs were spontaneous
self-repairs, without any external prompting. We found a total amount
of 194 self-initiated self-repairs.
The
repairs retrieved in our database were classified according to the
nature or level of repair. Repairs were distinguished on the
morpho-syntactic level such as morpheme modifications (e.g. verbal
forms, agreement within noun phrases, and repairs in sentence
structure), repairs on the lexico-semantic level (including word
choice), repairs on the phonological level (changes in pronunciation
or word stress) and repairs on the discourse level (concerning
information structuring and referent identification).
In
Table 1, the respective number of these types of self-repair is
displayed:
Type
of Self-Repairs
|
Absolute
Numbers
|
Percentages
|
Repairs
on morpho-syntactic level
|
108
|
55.6%
|
Repairs
on lexico-semantic level
|
69
|
35.6%
|
Repairs
on phonological level
|
7
|
3.6%
|
Repairs
on discourse level
|
10
|
5.2%
|
TOTAL
|
194
|
100%
|
Table 1: Types of self-repair in absolute numbers
Repairs
on the morpho-syntactic level appeared most frequently in our
database (in 108 cases), followed by modifications on the
lexico-semantic level (in 69 cases). Seven examples illustrated a
phonological repair and in ten cases, a repair on the discourse level
was found.
An
even more detailed analysis of the self-repairs used by the language
learners offers the following results (Table 2).
Within the group of
morphological repairs, most of them are related to verbal forms (47
examples of the 108 repairs in this category (43,5%)). The following
extracts illustrate this category.
Examples:
(7)
Los dos hombres entran pero no quiero no quieren decir
qué qué ha ocurrido uhm (X19)
(8)
y los dos chicas le ayuden ayudan (X2)
(9)
Las otras personas también están pensando pens- sí no piensando
pensando (X18)
Many self-repairs in
verbal morphology concern a repair of the morpheme indicating a
person, but repairs of tense and mode appeared in the corpus as well.
Type
of Self-Repairs
|
Absolute
Numbers
|
Percentages
|
Linguistic
Level
|
Absolute
Numbers
|
Percentages
|
Repairs
on the morpho-syntactic level
|
108
|
55.6%
|
Verb
|
47
|
24.2%
|
Determiner
|
34
|
17.5%
|
|||
Noun
|
4
|
2.1%
|
|||
Adjective
|
14
|
7.2%
|
|||
Pronoun
|
2
|
1.0%
|
|||
Preposition
|
2
|
1.0%
|
|||
Sentence
structure
|
5
|
2.6%
|
|||
Repairs
on the lexico-semantic level
|
69
|
35.6%
|
Verb
|
21
|
10.8%
|
Determiner
|
4
|
2.1%
|
|||
Noun
|
21
|
10.8%
|
|||
Adjective
|
12
|
6.2%
|
|||
Pronoun
|
6
|
3.1%
|
|||
Ser/estar
|
5
|
2.6%
|
|||
Repairs
on the phonological level
|
7
|
3.6%
|
Word
stress
|
7
|
3.6%
|
Repairs
on the discourse level
|
10
|
5.2%
|
Choice
referent
|
10
|
5.2%
|
TOTAL
|
194
|
100%
|
194
|
100%
|
Table
1: Analysis of different types of self-repairs
Apart from these, various
agreement repairs were found, mostly with determiners (in 34
cases), as in (10).
Example:
(10)
no sabe qué hacerlo con este información esta información
(X13)
In other cases,
adjectives were repaired.
Examples:
(11)
ella no fue contente contenta (X8)
(12)
las chicas son muy contento contento contentas (X12)
The category of
lexico-semantic repairs represents 69 instances in our database
(35.6%). Within this group, we distinguish single word choices and
the use of longer items, such as collocational aspects and the use of
ser and estar.
The self-repairs of
single word choices are mostly verbs and nouns.
Examples:
(13)
Quiere pelear pegar Gonzalo (X1)
(14)
Bea oye un conversación entre Alvaro y su compañón compañero
(X15)
(15)
Está haciendo uhm una soliciture solicitud para trabajar (X1)
(16)
se trata de uhm la secretaría uhm fea de un uhm un hombre
de uhm de businessman (X20)
(17)
la mujer dice que Beatriz no está alle no es no se
se siento bueno (X12)
(18)
pienso que Bea es un poco uhm amorada euhm enamorada de
Alvaro (X15)
(19)
que los chicos son estúpidos están estúpidos (X1)
We also noticed one
instance of a lapsus.
Example:
(20)
Y hay una conservación conversación (X18)
As for phonological
interventions, only a few examples could be discerned: seven examples
of repairs (3.6%) in the pronunciation were found and those were
often erroneous, since the learners sometimes changed a correct form
into a wrong one. Frequently, this was related to a peculiarity in
Spanish verbal morphology: the flectional morpheme changes but the
respective syllable is not stressed. This seems particularly
difficult for language learners as they tend to focus on the verbal
morpheme, but this part cannot be emphasized.
Example:
(21)
la gente uhm escucha escuchá (X18)
Finally, some corrections
on the discourse level were identified. Those were corrections of
extra-linguistic referent indication. Generally, such repairs are due
to some confusion in indicating the correct protagonist, in this
particular case the person who tried to hit the other one.
Example:
(22)
Diego quiere pegar a Die.. no no Álvaro quiere pegar a
Diego (X13)
5.2 Efficiency of Self-repairs
This last section is
dedicated to the efficiency of self-repair. It is clear that not all
attempts at self-repair turned out to be successful. So only the
success rate of self-repairs in our database will be analysed.
Numerous successful corrections could be observed, but also several
examples of erroneous self-repairs or failed attempts at self-repair
could be identified. In some cases, a correct item was “repaired”
into an erroneous one (as in (23)). On other occasions, we found
attempts to correct linguistic items, but they were finished
unsuccessfully (e.g. (24)).
Examples:
(23)
La chica trae agua para Beatriz para que se sienta siente
mejor (X2)
(24)
Uhm Beatriz es está muy uhm no habla y uhm nadie sabe
qué qué ha pasada (X14)
Still, an important
aspect concerning the success rate apparently is the condition
under which the task had to be performed. The participants were under
time pressure as the video fragment went on and there was no time for
them to reflect on and correct what they had said. Erroneous
self-repairs therefore both hamper the fluency and the accuracy of
the utterance.
Looking
at the success rate of the self-repairs (Table 3), we can conclude
that in 81% of the cases, the repair was successful. Out of the 194
instances of self-repair retrieved from our learner corpus, 157
(80.9%) were successful and only 37 (19.1%) were unsuccessful. These
findings show that when learners notice an erroneous form, chances
are high that they are able to change it into a correct version:
- Successful RepairsFailed RepairsTotal RepairsRepairs on the morpho-syntactic level91(46.9%)17(8.8%)108(55.6%)Repairs on the lexico-semantic level56(28.9%)13(6.7%)69(35.6%)Repairs on the phonological level1(0.5%)6(3.1%)7(3.6%)Repairs on the discourse level9(4.6%)1(0.5%)10(5.2%)TOTAL157(80.9%)37(19.1%)194(100%)
Table
3: Success rate of self-repairs
A
more detailed analysis of the success rate within the different
categories indicates that repairs on the discourse level and on
the morpho-syntactic level turned out to be most successful, whereas
phonological repairs predominantly failed.
Agreement
corrections with determiners were mostly corrected successfully,
followed by modifications of verbal forms. Within the category
of lexico-semantic changes, nouns were mostly corrected successfully.
More
details on the results within the different categories are documented
in Table 4:
- Successful RepairsFailed RepairsRepairs on morpho-syntactic levelVerb91(46.9%)3617(8.8%)11Determiner322Noun40Adjective122Pronoun11Preposition20Sentence structure41Repairs on lexico-semantic levelVerb56(28.9%)1613(6.7%)5Determiner31Noun201Adjective84Pronoun60Ser/estar32Repairs on phonological levelWord stress1(0.5%)16(3.1%)6Repairs on discourse levelChoice referent9(4.6%)91(0.5%)1TOTAL157(80.9%)37(19.1%)
Table
2: Analysis of the successful and
unsuccessful repairs
Finally,
within the category of failed attempts at self-repair, the following
sub-types can be distinguished:
In 15 cases (7.7%), the
error was not modified into a correct version, so the corrective
attempt still led to an erroneous version:
Example:
(25)
la gente son emocionado emocionados (X17)
In 14 examples (7.2%),
the repaired form was slightly better than the original form, but
still not correct.
Examples:
(26)
Beatriz uhm oída ha oída (X13)
(27)
la mujer dice que Beatriz no está alle no es no se
se siento bueno (X12)
In 16 cases (8.2%), a
correct form was changed into a wrong form.
Examples:
(28)
esto es una un reunión de todo el personal de la firma
(29)
la chica trae agua para Beatriz para que se sienta siente
mejor
Within the category of
phonological repairs, in four cases (2.1%), a correct item was
changed into an erroneous one.
Example:
(30)
la gente uhm escucha escuchá
Because of the emphasis
in the verbal form, pronunciation turned out erroneous.
In some cases, several
repairs followed each other. For instance, within the category of
successful repairs, in three cases (1.5%), there was first a correct
form, then modified into an error after which it was modified again
into the original correct form.
Examples:
(31)
Las otras personas también están pensando pens- sí no
piensando pensando (X18)
(32)
y que esta esto esta persona (risa) va a ayudarse con uhm el
medicamentos (X18)
(33)
puede uh responder uhm respondar no responder (X18)
6 Conclusions
The
present study on self-repairing strategies shows how L2 learners of
Spanish tried to regulate and alter discourse while speaking.
Self-initiated self-repairs occur when discourse elements are
repaired or modified without external prompting. The aim of the
investigation was to find out what
kinds of self-repairing strategies were frequently used by our
language learners, what kinds of errors were noticed and whether
error-detection led to appropriate corrections. Our research
aim was to improve understanding of how participants used
self-repair
as a resource for modified output, which is considered facilitative
of language learning.
The
results of our study showed that repairs on the morpho-syntactic
level appeared most frequently and usually represented modifications
of verbal morphemes or determiner agreement. On the
lexico-semantic level, repairs of single nouns and verbs were
predominant. As for the success rate of self-repairs,
morpho-syntactic repairs turned out to be most successful, whereas
phonological changes usually failed. With regards to our learners’
overall language proficiency, our results suggest that self-initiated
self-repairs improve morpho-syntactic accuracy at the expense of
learners’ fluency. As opposed to native speakers, language learners
interrupt their speech flow by morpho-syntactic corrections
accompanied by multiple editing terms such as uh,
uhm or no
in order to gain time. Nevertheless, in our study, self-repairs
frequently led to correctly modified output and, may as such, be
facilitative of learning (Swain 1993, 1995).
References
Council of Europe. (2001). Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Jong, N.H., R. Groenhout, R.
Schoonen & J. Hulstijn (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking
style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency
for first language behavior. In: Applied Psycholinguistics,
36, 223-243.
Ellis, R.
(2003). Task-based Language Learning
and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. & G. Barkhuizen (2005).
Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Fincher, A. (2006). Functions of
self-initiated self-repair in an advanced Japanese language
classroom. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Griffith University:
Australia.
Fox, B. & R. Jasperson (1996). A
syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In: P.
Davies (ed.), Alternative Linguistics. Descriptive and
Theoretical Modes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 77-134.
Heeman, P. A. & Allen, J.F.
(1999). Speech repairs, intonational phrases and discourse markers:
Modeling speakers’ utterances in spoken dialog. Computational
Linguistics, 25 (4), 1-45.
Housen, A., &f Kuiken (2009).
Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. In:
Applied Linguistics, 30, 461-473.
Kazemi, A. (2011). An investigation
into the relationship between the type of self-repair and structural
complexity of utterance. In: Journal of English and literature,
2.4, 96-102.
Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and
self-repair in L2. In: Language Learning 49
(2), 303-342.
Lennon, P. (1994). Self-correction and
error in advanced learner spoken narrative. In: Bartelt. G. (ed.).
The Dynamics of Language Processes. Essays in Honor of Hans W.
Dechert. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 85-103.
Lyster, R. &
L. Ranta (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation
of form in communicative classroom. In: Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 19,
37-66.
O’Connor, N (1988). Repairs as
indicative of interlanguage variation and change. In: Walsh, T. J.
(ed.). Synchronic and Diachronic es to Linguistic Variation and
Change. Georgetown University Roundtable 1988, 251-259.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Postma, A. (2000).
Detection
of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring
models. In: Cognition
77, 97-131.
Sato, R. (2008).
Self-initiated
Modified Output on the Road to Comprehensibility. JALT
Journal,
30 (2), 223-240.
Schegloff, E. (1979). The relevance of
repair to syntax-for-conversation. In: Givon, T. (ed.). Syntax and
semantics: Vol. 12. Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic
Press, 261-286.
Schegloff, E.
(1997). Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-initiated
repair. In: Discourse Processes
23 (3),
499-545.
Schegloff, E. (2000). When ‘others’
initiate repair. In: Applied Linguistics, 21 (2),
205-243.
Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson & H.
Sacks (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization
of repair in conversation.In: Language, 53, 361-382.
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and
other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction.
In: TESOL Quarterly 35, 433-457.
Skehan, P. (1995). Analyzability,
accessibility, and ability for use. In: Cook. G. & B. Seidlhofer
(eds.). Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and
foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and
awareness in learning. In: Schmidt, R. (ed.). Attention and
awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu: University of
Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, 1-63.
Simpson, R., S. Eisenchlas & M.
Haugh (2013). The functions of self-initiated self-repair in the
second language Chinese classroom. In: International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 23, 2, 144-165.
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological
hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair.
In: Language Learning & Technology 12 (1), 85-103.
Swain, M. (1993). The output
hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. In: The
Canadian Modern Language Review 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of
output in second language learning. In: Cook, B. & B. Seidlhofer
(eds.). Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in
honor of H. Widdowson. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
125-144.
Swain, M.
& S. Lapkin (1995). Problems in
output and the cognitive process they generate: A step towards
second language learning. In: Applied
Linguistics 16,
371-391.
Tavakoli, P. & P. Skehan (2005).
Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In:
Ellis, R. (ed.). Planning and Task Performance in a Second
Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 239-273.
van Hest, E. (1996). Self-repair in
L1 and L2 Production. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
van Hest, E., N. Poulisse & T.
Bongaerts (1997). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production: an overview.
In: ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics 117/118, 85-115.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., S. Inagaki &
H.-Y. Kim (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures
of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Wong, J. (2000).
Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker
English conversation. In: Applied
Linguistics 21
(2), 244-267.
Wong, J. (2005). Sidestepping grammar.
In: Richards, K. & P. Seedhouse (eds.). Applying Conversation
Analysis. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 159-173.
____________________
1 The
examples have been transcribed according to the original data and
without
punctuation marks. So, they may contain linguistic errors.
2 These
codes refer to the users, i.e. the students who produced these texts.
