CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningPhonetics and Phonology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Zuniga, Michael, Simard, Daphnée·2019·Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
DOI 10.1007/s10936-018-9587-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10936-018-9587-2

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  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. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087328 . · DOI
  2. Bange, P., & Kern, S. (1996). La régulation du discours en L1 et en L2. Études Romanes, 35, 69–103.
  3. Brédart, S. (1991). Word interruption in self-repairing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01067879 . · DOI
  4. 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. · DOI
  5. Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100008391 . · DOI · Paper page
  6. de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.1.1 . · DOI
  7. 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.
  8. Fincher, A. (2006). Functions of self-initiated self-repairs in an advanced Japanese language classroom. Unpublished dissertation, Griffith University, Australia.
  9. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010 . · DOI
  10. Golonka, E. (2006). Predictors revised: Linguistic knowledge and metalinguistic awareness in second language gain in Russian. Modern Language Journal, 90, 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00428.x . · DOI
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Kormos, J. (1998). A new psycholinguistic taxonomy of self-repairs in L2: A qualitative analysis with retrospection. The Even Yearbook, 3, 43–68.
  14. Kormos, J. (1999). The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behavior of L2 learners. System, 27, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(99)00017-2 . · DOI
  15. Kormos, J. (2000a). The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production. Language Learning, 50, 343–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00120 . · DOI
  16. Kormos, J. (2000b). The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 145–167. · DOI
  17. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Lafrance, A., & Gottardo, A. (2005). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills and reading in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716405050307 . · DOI
  19. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
  20. 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 . · DOI
  21. Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 33, 41–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 . · DOI · Paper page
  22. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. · DOI · Paper page
  23. 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.
  24. Mayer, M. (1967). A boy, a dog and a frog. New York: Penguin Putnam.
  25. Mayer, M. (1969). Frog where are you?. New York: Penguin Putnam.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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 . · DOI
  29. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226310707043x . · DOI
  30. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. · DOI
  31. Partington, J. E., & Leiter, R. G. (1949). Partington’s pathway test. The Psychological Service Center Bulletin, 1, 9–20.
  32. Reitan, R. (1955). The relation of the Trail Making Test to organic brain damage. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19, 393–394. · DOI
  33. Reitan, R. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271–276. · DOI
  34. 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 . · DOI
  35. Salonen, T., & Laakso, M. (2009). Self-repair of speech by four-year-old Finish children. Journal of Child Language, 36, 855–882. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000908009240 . · DOI
  36. Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge. · DOI · Paper page
  37. 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. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2767 . · DOI
  38. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959269510000591 . · DOI
  39. Tognoli, E., & Toniolo, A. M. (2003). L’attention chez l’enfant: mesures capacitaires ou mesures processuelles. Psychologie et psychométrie, 24, 11–40.
  40. Tombaugh, T. (2004). Trail making test A and B: Normative data stratified by age and education. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-6177(03)00039-8 . · DOI · Paper page
  41. Tomlin, R., & Villa, H. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203. · DOI
  42. van Hest, E. (1996). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
  43. 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.
  44. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1 . · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 57

Metadata

Authors
Zuniga, M., & Simard, D.
Affiliations
Université du Québec à Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Zuniga, Michael
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-05-17
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
43-59
ISSN
  • 0090-6905 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6555
DOI
10.1007/s10936-018-9587-2
OpenAlex
W2803818034
Cited by
57
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
self-healing, second language speech production, second language proficiency, attentional control, L2 English speakers
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psycholinguistics, Speech, Multilingualism, Young Adult, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review