Factors Influencing L2 Self-repair Behavior: The Role of L2 Proficiency, Attentional Control and L1 Self-repair Behavior
Self-repairs, that is revisions of speech that speakers themselves initiate and complete (Salonen and Laakso in J Child Lang 36:859, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000908009240), are frequently used to observe the cognitive and linguistic processes underlying second language (L2) speech production. Previous research has shown that factors such as L2 proficiency, attentional control and native language (L1) self-repair behavior interact with L2 self-repair behavior. To our knowledge, however, no research has examined how these three factors interact within a cohort of L2 speakers. As such, the present study examined the proficiency scores, attentional control scores and L2 and L1 self-repair frequency data of 58 adult L2 English speakers of various proficiency levels. Regression results showed that while proficiency was not a significant predictor of L2 self-repair behavior, attentional control and L1 repair frequency together explained 40% of the variance. Results suggest that L2 self-repair behavior may be more closely linked to stable cognitive and personality traits than to L2 proficiency.
KeywordsSelf-repairs Second-language speech production Attention Proficiency
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Arroyo, E. (2003). La reformulation en communication exolingue chez des locuteurs hispanophones parlant français. Marges linguistiques, septembre octobre. http://www.marges-linguistiques.com. Visited in May 2009.
- Bange, P., & Kern, S. (1996). La régulation du discours en L1 et en L2. Études Romanes, 35, 69–103.Google Scholar
- Dietrich, R. (1982). Self-corrections. Case studies in the speech of adult learners of German as a foreign language. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 12, 120–151.Google Scholar
- Fincher, A. (2006). Functions of self-initiated self-repairs in an advanced Japanese language classroom. Unpublished dissertation, Griffith University, Australia.Google Scholar
- Griggs, P. (1997). Metalinguistic work and the development of language use in communicative pair-work activities involving second language learners. In L. Diaz & C. Pérez (Eds.), Views on the acquisition and the use of second languages (pp. 403–415). Barcelona: Universitat Pompei Fabrat.Google Scholar
- Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 21–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kormos, J. (1998). A new psycholinguistic taxonomy of self-repairs in L2: A qualitative analysis with retrospection. The Even Yearbook, 3, 43–68.Google Scholar
- Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Levelt, W. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mayer, M. (1967). A boy, a dog and a frog. New York: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
- Mayer, M. (1969). Frog where are you?. New York: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
- Möhle, D. (1984). A comparison of the second language speech production of different native speakers. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 26–49). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
- O’Connor, N. (1988). Repairs as indicative of interlanguage variation and change. In T. J. Walsh (Ed.), Georgetown University round table in languages and linguistics 1988: Synchronic and diachronic approaches to linguistic variation and change (pp. 251–259). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- O’Donnell, J., MacGregor, L., Dabrowski, J., Oestreicher, J., & Romero, J. (1994). Construct validity of neuropsychological tests of conceptual and attentional abilities. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 596–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199407)50:4<596::aid-jclp2270500416>3.0.co;2-s.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Partington, J. E., & Leiter, R. G. (1949). Partington’s pathway test. The Psychological Service Center Bulletin, 1, 9–20.Google Scholar
- Rossiter, J. M., Derwing, T. M., & Jones, V. L. M. O. (2008). Is a picture worth a thousand words? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00127.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Royer, C. (2002). L’appropriation de la négation du français eu milieu guidé: une approche interactionniste. Marges Linguistiques, novembre. http://www.marges-linguistiques.com. Visited in May 2009.
- Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Tognoli, E., & Toniolo, A. M. (2003). L’attention chez l’enfant: mesures capacitaires ou mesures processuelles. Psychologie et psychométrie, 24, 11–40.Google Scholar
- van Hest, E. (1996). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
- Wiese, R. (1984). Language production in foreign and native languages: same or different. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 11–25). Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar