Giles Witton-Davies,National Taiwan University, Taiwan

giles@ntu.edu.tw

Outline of talkPrevious analyses of repairA new classification of repairA study of repair in L1 and L2 speechHow repair types relate to speech rateHow repair differs in L1 and L2 speech

Temporal & other measures of fluency Articulation rate Pause time, frequency (MLR), duration Pause distribution Repair – frequency & number of words [Coherence and cohesion]

Combined measures of fluency

Speech rate (SR)= articulation rate (AR), pause time

Pruned speech rate = AR, pause time, repair

pruned speech = speech minus repair & filled pauses

Lennon 1990Repair frequencyPruned speechRiggenbach 1991Retraced and unretraced false startsHow much rejected?Freed 1995Frequency of repetitions, reformulations,

corrections, partial repeat of word

Tavakoli, P. and Skehan, P. (2005)

Frequency of repetition, reformulation, false start, substitution.

“The repair fluency group loads together consistently, and separately from other aspects of fluency suggesting that a concern to modify utterances on-line is somewhat distinct from a capacity to organise speech in real time.”

Maclay and Osgood 1959

Repetition that non-significant semanticallyFalse starts: retraced (reformulations) and non-

retracedRepetitions of form words, before lexical word. Retraced false starts of lexical items before

lexical items

Negative correlation between SR and combined total hesitations

Olynyk, M., A. d’Anglejan and D. Sankoff (1990)

Investigation of “speech markers”: filled pauses, transitions, repetitions, repair

conversions, cut-offs

Progressives (prepositioned repair)Regressive (postpositioned, after the repair)

High fluency speakers have more repeats and transitions, low fluency speakers more repair conversions, cut-offs.

Classification of repairAll repair togetherRepetitions, reformulations, substitutions,

false starts separatelyClassification of repair contextMeasures of repairFrequencyNo. of wordsRepair context

Repair frequency:no. of words per repairrepairs per n. wordsRepair rate:% of pruned speech% of repaired speech

All repair

Learner Data: 17 Taiwanese university studentsWork in pairsEnglish language and literature dept.1st and 8th semestersPicture story monologue – 2 mins eachDiscussion dialogue – 4-5 mins: e.g.

prioritise qualities of friends.

Data

Native speaker data: 6 native speakers aged 19-30.Same tasks, in pairs.

Processing & AnalysisTranscriptions using ”Transcriber”. Fluency measurement.Repair tagging for each occurrence of

repair.

Fluency analysisArticulation rate, speech rate, pruned

speech ratePause frequency, pause time, mean length

of pause, mean length of runPause distribution – between clauses,

between constituents, between words.Repair: pruned speech rate, percentage of

pruned speech

ExternalBetween clausesAt beginning/ end of clauseInternalWithin clausesAfter clause has startedNumber of wordsWords rendered unnecessary by repair

Repetitionexactly the same wordsno rhetorical or emphatic effectReformulationlexis, grammar, lexis and grammarsame start, lexis or grammarFalse startnew start, new lexis and grammar

Repair contextwhat comes before repairwhat comes nextwhat is changed

Repetition before lexical or form wordsSeach for lexis or grammare.g. lexis|so he ‘s made up his mind ::{to

#####εεε} to lose weight.

e.g. form{and they are they are} #####they are

very scared{maybe t-h-e-y} ####maybe they didn ‘t

have anything

Reformulation – change of grammar or lexis or both

Grammar = form: morphology, syntax, form words (articles, prepositions)

Lexis = meaning: content wordsExpression = new word(s), new structure(s)

Examples:Grammar but he still {keeps on keep on} kept on

walkingLexis and .......{εεε} the robber told {one of the

bank ####εε} one of the workersExpression maybe they didn ‘t have anything to εε they}

maybe they ,,,,didn ‘t have the ///right knowledge|

Repair tagging: E-3-RP-L, I-2-RF-G1. External/ Internal 2. No. of words 3-4. Repetition (RP), reformulation (RF),

false start (FS)5. Repetition followed by: lexical word (L),

form word (F), nothing (X).Reformulation of lexis (L), grammar (G) or

both: expression (E)False start ends with lexical (L) / form (F)

word.

Pearson correlations of repair measures with learners' speech rate:

All repair frequency= .56 – no. of words= .65Repetition – frequency= .20 - no. of words= .53Reformulation – frequency = .56 - no. of words= .61Mean length of repair= .32

External repair frequency= .61 -words= .65Internal repair frequency= .27 -words= .46Repetition before lexis -words= .55 before form -words= .38Reformulation of lexis - frequency= .40 -words= .60Reformulation grammar -frequency= .294 -words= .24

No reformulation of grammar

Negative correlations all repair: SR = -.26 repetition (words): SR =-.53

Internal repair correlates negatively with speech rate, but external does not correlate significantly.

Native speaker - non-native speaker repair means

% repaired words: 14.7 3.9% repeated words: 6.4 1.8% reformulated words: 6.7 1.5% false starts: 1.5 0.6

Non-native speaker repair examples:

|{εεεεε .......it is a bank}E4RFGit was a bank|

|so they could find out ....::{εεεεε who the robber is}E4RFG#######who the robbers are|

|{a-n-d he find}E2RFE ######a-n-d {h-e want ::to find a job εεε}E6RPF he want ::to ////find a jobs to do|

Examples:|and it was beginning ::to show on {his}I1RPL

{εεε} his tummy|.......|a couple of {er old lady}I2RFL older

ladies ,,,,,looking quite smart||{and it}E2RPL and {it s- e-}E3FSF the weather

{changed}I1RFL took a bit of a change for the worse|

ConclusionsFor learners, more repair correlates with slower speech rates.

For native speakers, more repair correlates with faster speech rates.

Repetition before lexical/ form words: no significant difference.

Reformulation of grammar: absent from NS, low correlation with speech rate for learners.

Conclusions

ConclusionsRepair frequency and repair extent/ no. of

words behave differently.External repetition more significant than

internal for learners.False start & reformulation of expression

could be brought together.More data & analysis required...

Conclusions

Freed, B. (1995). “What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent?” In B. Freed (Ed.) Second language acquisition in a study abroad context. (pp. 123-148). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Lennon, P. (1990). “Investigating fluency in EFL: a quantitative approach.” Language Learning 40: 3, 387-417.

Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15, 19–44.

Riggenbach, H. (1991). “Towards an understanding of fluency: a microanalysis of non-native speaker conversation.” Discourse processes, 14, 423-441.

Olynyk, M., A. d’Anglejan and D. Sankoff. (1990). “A quantitative and qualitative analysis of speech markers in the native and second language speech of bilinguals.” In R Scarcella, R. Anderson and S. Krashen (Eds.) Developing communicative competence in a second language. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 139-155.

Tavakoli, P. and Skehan, P. (2005). ‘Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing.’ In R. Ellis (ed.) Planning and Task performance in a second language, Amsterdam: John Benjamin, pp. 239-273.

Thank you for coming!

Any comments or questions?

giles@ntu.edu.tw