Min+Huang

In ESL classes， it is a fact that when teachers and students are having an interaction with each other， they frequently encounter problems of hearing， speaking and understanding based on one semesters observation in different levels of writing and grammar classes. Especially in low level classes， when students use the wrong word or cannot find the exact word they want， the errors or mistakes can influence their fluency， and the teacher may not be able to figure out the meaning of what the speaker said. In these situations， repair can take place in order to make the expressions clear.

This paper is built on literature review of research on repair of conversation both in classrooms and in daily life， and personal observation of conversations among teachers and students in ESL classes. This research utilizes the data collected from ESL classes in Kent State University， and makes use of conversation analysis method to investigate repair in conversation， by which we can define different categories of repairs， and at the same time discover the functions， and the meanings of repair. By investigating the data about conversation repair for students in the English learning process， we are able to know learners weakness as well as problems in English. Therefore， this research can give teachers advice about how to deal with various errors in leaners speech and at the same time provide teachers with a different perspective to get more knowledge about learners study in English.

Definitions of Repair and Literature Review

In ESL classes， teachers often provide learners with the range and complexity of repair in order to help them become interactionally competent and fluent in foreign language expression. Wang and Waring （2010） indicate that repair， a component of ones interactional competence， is occupying an important part in conversation analysis. Repair is a means of addressing problems in speaking， hearing， or understanding of the talk， which bears the closest connection with language pedagogy because teachers give corrections to help learners with misunderstandings （Wang & Waring， 2010）.

Sidnell（2010） also gives a definition of repair by saying that repair refers to an organized set of practices during which participants in conversation are able to address and potentially resolve such problems of speaking， hearing or understanding （P.111）.

Researchers from these books agree that repair consists of different types： self-initiated self-repair， other-initiated self-repair， self-initiated other-repair， and other-initiated other-repair （Wang & Waring， 2010 & Sidnell， 2010）. Diverse kinds of repairs would be used in different situations and have various functions according to these researchers.

Yasui（2010） explores the purpose of repair patterns into two language proficiency levels： advanced and beginner. And she finds that advanced learners language proficiency is displayed through his preference for self-repair， while the beginning learner exhibits his limitation in language competence through his preference for other-repair （P.1）. Therefore， based on her description of repair， the use of repair should accord to language proficiency.

Kasper （1989） indicates in his article that different preferences for repair patterns vary with the type of classroom activity. It is also said that “preferences and dispreferences for specific repair patterns depend on the configuration of relevant factors in the classroom context （P.214）” In this article， two prevalent repair types are discussed： self-initiated and self-completed repair of both teacher and learner utterance.

Loewen （2007） points out that its probably that teachers have very strong views about error correction because of their learning experience. He addresses some questions caused by exploring some of the current thinking about error correction in the field of second language acquisition research， and analyzes some repair happened in real classroom： direct correction， recast， prompt， and metalinguistic feedback. By listing the examples， he explains the benefits and disadvantages of kinds of error corrections， which also gives us the idea that repair may vary according to different situations.

Similarly， article Research on Error Correction and Implications for Classroom Teaching （1998） also did research about error corrections in the process of teaching a second language. It is asked in the article that “what do students learn by error correction or repair？” Some specific questions are listed： should learners errors be corrected？ When should learners errors be corrected？ Which errors should be corrected？ How should errors be corrected？ Who should do the correcting？ The authors give corresponding answers to the questions by observing ESL classes for a while. By analyzing the research， the authors consider the context in which student language use and errors occur； become aware of current practices； practice a variety of feedback techniques； focus on the learner-its important to let the learner self-correct （P.4）.

Data collection

The data used in this research is from my observation of ESL classes in Kent State University from January to May in 2014， including level 2 writing， level 3 grammar， level 7 writing， and level 10 writing. Detailed information of the classes is listed below.

Categories of repair and functions

Repair can be initiated and completed by the speaker who makes errors or mistakes in a conversation， or can be initiated and completed by other participants. Wang & Waring （2010） and Sidnell （2010） indicate in their research that repair consists of four categories： self-initiated self-repair， other-initiated self-repair， self-initiated other-repair， and other-initiated other-repair. These four categories cover most of conversation repairs during the procedure of my observation.

（1） Self-initiated self-repair

Repair is initiated and completed by the same speaker who makes errors in conversation （Wang & Waring， 2010）.

In the level 2 writing class， the teacher asks a female student whether she knows where Sana is.

01 Teacher： Do you know where Sana is？

02 Student： Sana：： will come. She： m-hm on the way. （（point the outside））

（pause）

Shes uh on the way to：： the classroom.

03 Teacher： Okay， I got you.

The student responds the teacher with a wrong expression that she misses the be verb. The teacher does not correct her error immediately perhaps because she has got the meaning of the sentence， or because she wants to wait for self-repair by the speaker. Then after a little while， the student notices her error， and modified it right away. This example indicates that the student has a wrong expression in speaking， but she repairs it successfully. After that， the teacher does not mention anything about the students error in speaking， but just says “okay” as a response to indicate that she has understood the speaker.

In basic level classes， missing be verbs is a very common mistake for Arabic students. This problem appears in their writing and speaking English frequently either in level 2 writing or level 3 grammar. From their errors in expression， teachers can easily find their problems about the use of be verbs， so in these classes， the teacher often emphasis on the use of be verbs.

In the level 10 writing class， one male student responds the question about “rebuttal”.

01 Teacher： Whats the meaning： of re：buttal to an argument？

02 Student： It means： uh m： to state others argument. Em， oh， no， to AGAINST the argument.

03 Teacher： Yes：：， right， it means to against.

This is a conversation on class， and the teacher reviews a question they talked about last class. The student is able to answer the question， but at the first time he gives a wrong answer. As we see， he corrects his answer right after he finishes his first sentence， which means that he actually is sure of a right answer， but just uses a wrong word. He is able to find his error in speaking， and to repair his speech right away. Making errors does not mean people are in a low level proficiency for sure， but it may be they cannot find an accurate word at that time. This is not only a problem for second language learners， but native speakers can also make mistakes sometimes. In this conversation， similarly， the teacher does not talk about the error anymore， because the student can initiate and complete the repair by himself. Without further conversation about the error， they continue the class in original speed.

These two conversations among teachers and students are examples of self-initiated self-repair， in which students find the errors in speaking， and then repair the errors by themselves. It does not mean that the students who make errors are in low level proficiency， since one of them is at level 2 and the other one is at level 10. Moreover， it does not mean that they dont know how to use the be verb， or the meaning of rebuttal. It is just because they do not pay much attention to the small error at the beginning， or they do not think of an accurate word. The good thing is that they notice their problems quickly， and then repair the errors without any hints from others. It is obvious that even native speakers may not be able to avoid making mistakes all the time when talking to others. Native speakers also may speak a wrong word by mistake， and then they modify it. Therefore， students who can initiate and complete repair by themselves are familiar with the grammatical pattern or the target question.

（2）Other-initiated self-repair

Repair is initiated by other and completed by self （Wang & Waring， 2010）.

After class， a male student talks to the teacher about spring break， which happens in level 7.

01 Student： What happ：en um for：： your car？

02 Teacher： Im sorry？

03 Student： Well：：. I mean： whats wrong： with the car？

In this conversation which is a free talk between a student and a teacher， the student does not figure out the error at the beginning， and the teacher makes a question about the former expression since she did not hear it clearly or she found the mistake. The student then modifies this sentence by using another one. At the first sentence when he uses what happen， he does not speak fluently. After the teacher responds him， he changes his entire sentence， which shows that he is not confident about how to use “happen” in a correct way. In this situation， the teacher initiates the repair by reminding him that there is something wrong with his speech， and he finally completes the repair.

In basic level classes， this repair takes places as well. In the level 3 grammar class， a male student gives the answer to a question about time clause， I （meet） a friend when I （walk） on the street.

01 Student： I wa：s meeting a friend when I walked on the street.

02 Teacher： Well：， that means： you meet the friend first， and the：n you walk on the street. Remember the action in progressive always happens first.

03 Student： Oh， yea：hm， uh， I： met a friend when I was walking on the street.

In this conversation which happens in class， the student gives the answer to a question about the time clause. The teacher does not give corrective feedback on his answer， but tells him the meaning of his answer and the use of the progressive. After the teachers explanation， the student notices the mistake in the answer， and he corrects his answer to prove his understanding of the grammar pattern. This conversation shows that the teacher knows a mistake in the learners speech， and then she provides an explanation about it to initiate the repair which is finished by the learner himself. The students answer at the beginning indicates that he is not familiar with the meaning and usage of time clause in past progress， so he makes the mistake due to his misunderstanding of the pattern. After he hears the teachers explanation， the understanding towards this pattern becomes clear. It seems that students in this grammar class have a big problem about time clause because even after several days of practice， they still make mistakes about how to use it. Nonetheless， when the teacher gives them some hints， they can correct the mistakes.

Other-initiated self-repair happens very often on learners who have learned a specific pattern but not confident about how to use it. Learners are not able to find a mistake in their expressions， but when the teacher reminds them or gives them some hints， they would be able to figure out the problem. This kind of repair shows that the learners have some knowledge about this specific pattern， but still have some problems with it. Teachers can give them more explanations or exercises based on students problems.

（3）Self-initiated other-repair

Repair is initiated by self but completed by other （Wang & Waring， 2010）.

Again， in the level 3 grammar class， after learning past progressive， the teacher talks to a male student with this pattern.

01 Teacher： What：were you doing last night？

02 Student： We：： studied： in the library last night. We we：re studied？

03 Teacher： You were studying：in the library？

04 Student： （（node）） Yes， we were studying.

The student notices the problem in his speaking， and he tries the fix it by using past progressive. But it is the teacher who repairs his error at last. In this conversation， the student can find his mistake in speaking， but he is not able to repair it successfully. This was also a mistake from level 3 grammar when they were learning past progressive. They have learned this grammar pattern， but when using it in speech learners still are not clear about it. From the speech of this pattern， we can see that they still have problems about the new knowledge， or they need time to get familiar with this pattern. Therefore， when the teacher notices this problem， they use more exercises to practice this pattern.

Another example is from the level 7 writing class. A male student talks to the teacher about his writing topic.

01 Student： One solution is the government uh：lets people work. To make them…（pause）（1）

02 Teacher： You mean the government can provide more job opportunities to people.

03 Student： Yes， yes， like：： to open more companies.

The student is talking to the teacher about his solution to a problem， but he cannot find a correct word to express it. He uses “to make them” to repeat it， but stops there. The teacher gets his meaning and uses another sentence to help him repair it. Obviously， the teachers solution is what the learner wants， since he uses “yes” for twice to confirm it. This situation is common in ESL classes， no matter what levels are. Students cannot find an exact word they want， so they rely on their teacher to give them the word to help to express.

Self-initiated other-repair takes place when learners notice there is something wrong with their speaking， but they are not able to repair it by themselves. Especially when they dont know how to continue what they want to say， they usually turn to the teacher or other classmates for help. This repair happens a lot for basic level students who have limited English vocabulary and clause. When they want to express their answers or feelings， they encounter problems of finding the correct words or patterns. Most of the time， they pause to wait until the teacher or other classmates help them get out of the position. Sometimes， the teacher will wait for their answers for a while if time permits， or the teacher will give them the right way to express it directly in order to save time.

（4）Other-initiated other-repair

Repair is initiated and completed by other （Wang & Waring， 2010）.

In the level 3 grammar class， a male student is giving the answer to a question about “found out”.

01 Student： And： they found out the：： one man run away.

02 Teacher： Okay：， the man：

（0.5） was： running away.

03 Student： Ye：s， （0.2） well.

The student does not notice the mistakes at all when he finishes the sentence， since he does not try to correct it when the teacher pauses for about 0.5 second. At the same time， the teacher hopes to get repair from the learners， but finally the teacher does not get any response and she repairs it. After the teachers repair， the student does not respond a lot about it， since maybe he is not very clear about the reason why the teacher repairs it. In this situation， it is obvious that the student does not know he makes mistakes in the first sentence， and after the teacher repairs it， he still is not clear about the repair. Therefore， in this situation， the teacher should give more explanations about the repair.

Another conversation is from the level 2 writing class. The teacher goes around the classroom to help students writing by individual.

01 Teacher： “The weather is very good. For example， there are many people in the park （teacher reads what the student writes）.” It does not make sense.

02 Student： Why？

03 Teacher： You cannot use for example between the two sentences. Instead， you can use “so”：.

04 Student： Okay：.

This is a part of the conversation when the teacher reads the students paragraph. Students are required to use “for example” in their writing. However， using “for example” between these two sentences is weird， since the later sentence is not an example of the good weather. For the student， he just puts “for example” as required， but he does not pay attention to the relationship of the two sentences. The teacher explains the meaning of “for example” in case the student has no idea of its meaning.

Other-initiated other-repair is often used in basic level students， due to their low level proficiency or familiarity to a specific word or pattern. The students rarely can find the problem in their speaking， and when the teacher points out the problem， they show confusion about it which means they are not clear about the target knowledge. They rely on the teacher or others to give them corrective feedback， since they have no idea about how to repair. In this repair， teachers usually need to give more explanations.

Conclusion

In ESL class， learners repair their errors in expression by themselves， or teachers provide learners with completion of repair in order to help them become interactionally competent and fluent in foreign language expression. From my observation of ESL classes， four kinds of repairs are recorded in this paper， including self-initiated self-repair， other-initiated self-repair， self-initiated other-repair， and other-initiated other-repair. Self-initiated self-repair which is the most independent repair mainly occurs when the learners are familiar with the knowledge， but makes errors without attention， or the learners are in high proficiency. Other-initiated self-repair occurs when the learners are not very familiar with the specific word or pattern. Self-initiated other-repair is used when leaners notice there are some problems in the speech， but they are not able to repair without helps from others. The last one is other-initiated other-repair which relays on others the most， and indicates learners weakness in learning English. In this research， preference of repair does not show much connection with gender.

By paying attention on repair， teachers can not only get the meaning of their ideas， but also can find learners problems in the process of learning English. Some learners displayed their familiarity towards the specific knowledge through their preference for self-repair， while some other learners exhibit their limitation in language competence through their preference of other-repair. Therefore， repair corrects mistakes in expression， and at the same time teachers can test learners knowledge about a specific language pattern， and hence reinforce input and activities about it.

Since the kind of repair students choose is based on their proficiency of the specific linguistic knowledge， teachers can encourage learners to relay on themselves to find and repair errors. The transformation from other-initiated other-repair to self-initiated self-repair is a procedure of gaining more knowledge. The more self-initiated self-repair learners use， the higher language proficiency they have because they are able to give corrective feedback for themselves based on their language background. Additionally， I recommend teachers to wait for a while in a conversation with learners when they are trying to repair themselves， since it is an encouragement to push production.

Future research

The four categories of conversation repair are discussed in this paper， including its meanings and functions in both conversation and ESL pedagogy. Repair in conversation can reflect the learners familiarity towards the specific English knowledge. For future research， whether there are other reasons beyond English proficiency lead to the preference to use repair can be examined. Moreover， for some particular learners， will they and how much time do they need to change their preference to use repair over time is another question we can research. Is there any difference about repair used in answering formal questions and repair used in daily conversation？ Is the choice of repair related to their culture or nationality， and why？ Is there any additional factor that influences the choice of each individual？ What is teachers function when they provide learners with repair？ Research that answers these questions will present another perspective of how language learning is accomplished effectively within a classroom community of repair.

Resources

Hellermann， J （2009）. Looking for Evidence of Language Learning in Practices for Repair： A Case Study of Self‐Initiated Self‐Repair by an Adult Learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research， 53， 113-132.

Kasper， G. （1985）. Repair in Foreign Language Teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition， 200.

Levelt， W. （n.d.）. Monitoring and Self-repair in Speech. MPI. Retrieved March 30， 2014， from http：//www.mpi.nl/world/materials/publicatio

Loewen， S （2007）. Error correction in the second language classroom.Clear News，？11， 3.

Sert， O.， & Seedhouse， P. （n.d.）. Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Novitas-ROYAL. Retrieved March 15， 2014， from http：//www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/sert_s.

Sidnell， J. （2010）. Repair. Conversation analysis： an introduction （pp. 110-138）. Chichester， U.K.： Wiley-Blackwell.

Tedick， D.， & Gortari， B. Research on Error Correction and Implications for Classroom Teaching. The ACIE Newsletter， 1， 6.

Wang， J.， & Waring， H. Z. （2010）. Repair Practices and Language Teaching. Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy： a guide for ESL/EFL teachers （pp. 211-250）. New York： Routledge.

Yasui， E. （2010）. Repair and Language Proficiency. The University at Texas at Austin. Retrieved March 28， 2014， from https：//studentorgs.utexas.edu/flesa/TPFLE_New/Issues/Summer%202010/5_Eiko%20Yasui.pdf

Appendix

Mark-up systems for conversation analysis

（0.5） Numbers in brackets indicate a gap timed in tenths of a second.

（（ ）） Double brackets are used to describe a non-verbal activity.

（ ） Empty brackets indicate the presence of an unclear utterance or other sound on the tape.

nh Short time pause with sounds from the throat

： Colons indicate the stretching of a sound at the preceding lexical item. The more colons the greater the extent of the stretching.

A Underlining of a letter or a word indicates a drop in pitch

A Bolding a letter or a word means repair takes place.

CAPITALS Capitals mark a section of speech markedly louder than that surrounding it.

Author Introduction：

Min Huang， Female， December 1990， Cangzho， Hebei Province， Master of Art of Kent State University， U.S.A

Research Direction： Task-based Language Teaching

作者簡介：黄敏，女，1990年12月出生，籍贯河北省沧州市，学历硕士研究生，毕业于美国肯特州立大学，研究方向任务型教学法。