Factors Influencing L2 Self-repair Behavior: The Role of L2 Proficiency, Attentional Control and L1 Self-repair Behavior

  • Michael Zuniga
  • Daphnée Simard


Self-repairs, that is revisions of speech that speakers themselves initiate and complete (Salonen and Laakso in J Child Lang 36:859, 2009., 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.


Self-repairs Second-language speech production Attention Proficiency 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Arbuthnott, K., & Frank, J. (2000). Executive control in set switching: Residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 33–41. Scholar
  2. Arroyo, E. (2003). La reformulation en communication exolingue chez des locuteurs hispanophones parlant français. Marges linguistiques, septembre octobre. Visited in May 2009.
  3. Bange, P., & Kern, S. (1996). La régulation du discours en L1 et en L2. Études Romanes, 35, 69–103.Google Scholar
  4. Brédart, S. (1991). Word interruption in self-repairing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 123–137. Scholar
  5. Camps, J. (2003). The analysis of oral self-correction as a window into the development of past time reference in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383. Scholar
  7. de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24. Scholar
  8. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. M., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 533–557. Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20. Scholar
  11. Fincher, A. (2006). Functions of self-initiated self-repairs in an advanced Japanese language classroom. Unpublished dissertation, Griffith University, Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. Scholar
  13. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240. Scholar
  14. Golonka, E. (2006). Predictors revised: Linguistic knowledge and metalinguistic awareness in second language gain in Russian. Modern Language Journal, 90, 496–505. Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Kormos, J. (1999). The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behavior of L2 learners. System, 27, 207–221. Scholar
  19. Kormos, J. (2000a). The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production. Language Learning, 50, 343–384. Scholar
  20. Kormos, J. (2000b). The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Lafrance, A., & Gottardo, A. (2005). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills and reading in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 559–578. Scholar
  23. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417. Scholar
  25. Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 33, 41–103. Scholar
  26. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Mayer, M. (1967). A boy, a dog and a frog. New York: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
  29. Mayer, M. (1969). Frog where are you?. New York: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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.<596::aid-jclp2270500416>;2-s.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 557–581. Scholar
  34. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Partington, J. E., & Leiter, R. G. (1949). Partington’s pathway test. The Psychological Service Center Bulletin, 1, 9–20.Google Scholar
  36. Reitan, R. (1955). The relation of the Trail Making Test to organic brain damage. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19, 393–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Reitan, R. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rossiter, J. M., Derwing, T. M., & Jones, V. L. M. O. (2008). Is a picture worth a thousand words? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 325–329. Scholar
  39. Royer, C. (2002). L’appropriation de la négation du français eu milieu guidé: une approche interactionniste. Marges Linguistiques, novembre. Visited in May 2009.
  40. Salonen, T., & Laakso, M. (2009). Self-repair of speech by four-year-old Finish children. Journal of Child Language, 36, 855–882. Scholar
  41. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Simard, D., Bergeron, A., Liu, Y.-G., Nader, M., & Redmond, L. (2016). Production d’autoreformulations autoamorcées en langue seconde : rôle de l’attention et de la mémoire phonologique. Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 72, 183–210. Scholar
  45. Simard, D., Fortier, V., & Zuniga, M. (2011). Attention et production d’autoreformulations autoamorcées en français langue seconde, quelle relation? Journal of French Language Studies, 21(3), 417–436. Scholar
  46. Tognoli, E., & Toniolo, A. M. (2003). L’attention chez l’enfant: mesures capacitaires ou mesures processuelles. Psychologie et psychométrie, 24, 11–40.Google Scholar
  47. Tombaugh, T. (2004). Trail making test A and B: Normative data stratified by age and education. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 203–214. Scholar
  48. Tomlin, R., & Villa, H. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Hest, E. (1996). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Yochim, B., Baldo, J., Nelson, A., & Delis, D. (2007). D-KEFS Trail Making Test performance in patients with prefrontal cortex lesions. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 13, 704–709. Scholar
  52. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de didactique des languesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Département de linguistiqueUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations