1887
Volume 125, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The ability to carry out repairs is a key skill in spoken discourse for non-native speakers of English and has been widely studied. However, VAN HEST et al. (1997) have suggested that investigations into repair in L2 need to be more theoretically driven and less concerned with individual differences. Drawing on information from a pilot study of twenty-three conversations, lasting 185 minutes between six native and six non-native speakers, this paper argues that there is no conflict between a concern with individual differences and theory building. What is needed is a contextualised theory which is grounded in particular situations and individual differences. The paper identifies three possible areas of difficulty that may arise if a theory is not contextualised. Firstly, the paper argues that theory driven research encourages methods of data collection that we characterise as experimental and suggest that these need to be supplemented by more naturalistic forms of data collection. Secondly, the paper criticises the view that there are general preferences as to who initiates and who completes repairs and argues that a contextualised theory of repair would capture initiation/completion patterns more adequately. Finally, the paper argues that the distinction between native and non-native speakers needs to be re-examined. This is supported by the finding in the pilot study that there was little variation between native and non-native speakers in terms of these analyses.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.125-126.05ele
1999-01-01
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AL-ARISHI, A.Y.
    (1996) : Subsequences of self-initiated self-repair repetition in the speech of Arab EFL students. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics. 113-114, 221–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BERGMANN, J.R.
    (1990) : ‘On the Local Sensitivity of Conversation’ in I. Markova & C. Foppa (eds.) The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York : Harvester Wheatsheaf, 201–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CRYSTAL, D. and D. DAVY
    (1975) : Advanced Conversational English. London : Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DAY, R.R. , N.A. CHENOWETH , A.E. CHUN and S. LUPPESCU
    (1984) : ‘Corrective Feedback in Native-Non-native Discourse’. Language Learning34, 19–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. FAERCH, C. and G. KASPER
    (1985) : ‘Repair in Learner-Native Speaker Interaction’ in E. Glahn & A. Holmen (eds.) Learner Discourse. Copenhagen : University of Copenhagen, 11–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. FAERCH, C. , K. HAASTRUP and R. PHILLIPSON
    (1984) : Learner Language and Language LearningClevedon : Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. GASKILL, W.H.
    (1980) : ‘Correction in Native Speaker-Non-native Speaker Conversation’ in D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.). Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research. Rowley Mass : Newbury House125–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. HEST, E. VAN , POULISEE, N. and BONGAERTS. T.
    (1997) : Self-repair in L1 and L2 Production : An Overview. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics117-118, 85–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. HOLMEN, A.
    (1985) : ‘Distribution of Roles in Learner-Native Speaker Interaction’ in E. Glahn & A. Holmen (eds.). Learner Discourse. Copenhagen : University of Copenhagen, 70–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. NORRICK, N.R.
    (1991) : ‘On the Organisation of Corrective Exchanges in Conversation’. Journal of Pragmatics16, 59–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. PSATHAS, G.
    (1995) : Conversation Analysis : the study of talk-in-interaction. London : Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. RUNDELL, M.
    (1995) : Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow, Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. SCHEGLOFF, E.A. , G. JEFFERSON and H. SACKS
    (1977) : ‘The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organisation of Repair in Conversation’. Language53 (2), 361–382.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. SCHENKEIN, J.
    (1978) : ‘Explanation of Transcript Notation’ in J. Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the Organisation of Conversational Interaction. New York : Academy Pressxi–xvi.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. SCHWARTZ, J.
    (1980) : ‘The Negotiation for Meaning : Repair in Conversations between Second Language Learners of English’ in D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.). Discourse Analysis in Second-Language ResearchRowley Mass : Newbury House, 138–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. TSUI, A.
    (1994) : English Conversation. Oxford : OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. VARONIS, E.M. and S.M. GASS
    (1985a) : ‘Non-native/Non-native Conversations : A Model for Negotiation of Meaning’. Applied Linguistics6 (1), 71–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1985b) : ‘Miscommunication in Native/Non-native Conversation’. Language in Society14 (3), 327–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1985c) : ‘Variation in Native Speaker Speech Modification to Non-Native Speakers’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition7, 37–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WEEKS, P.A.D.
    (1985) : ‘Error-Correction Techniques and Sequences in Institutional Settings : Towards a Comparative Framework’ Human Sciences-A Journal For Philosophy And The Social Sciences8 (3), 195–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. WHITE, R.
    (1997) : ‘Back channelling, repair, pausing, and private speech.’ Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 314–343.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.125-126.05ele
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error