(Un)Successful Error Repairs in L2 Communication

Language errors in second language (L2) communication indicate that the learners are making progress in learning their target language. When these errors are committed, it is common for L2 speakers to make repairs on their utterances to ensure their intended messages are successfully delivered. While self-repair signals speakers’ positive attitude in L2 learning process, repairing own language errors can be challenging since this requires close monitoring of the target language use while applying the linguistic rules correctly. In order to gain insights on L2 speakers’ struggle in using the target language, the current study was set to examine the types of language errors incurred by 19 speakers of English as a second language (ESL) and whether they were successful in repairing such errors. In order to obtain real data, observations were made on the candidates’ interactions with eight panellists during academic staff recruitment interviews, focusing on language errors and repairs made by the candidates. Data analysis started by categorizing the types of language errors in candidates’ utterances before repairs on these errors were examined to see if the candidates were successful or otherwise in repairing their own errors; these were referred to as error-repair and back-to-error repair, respectively as termed by Kormos, Levelt and van Hest. The findings indicated that all 34 errors were related to language forms which could be further categorized into nine sub errors namely verb-form, word-form, prepositional, modal verb-usage, word choice, pronoun, syntactic, verb-tense and article errors. Among 15 successfully repaired errors, verb-form errors were the most frequent with six instances, followed by four prepositional errors and two word-choice errors while modal verb-usage, prepositional and pronoun errors occurred only once. As for unsuccessful or back-to error-repairs which occurred 19 times, syntactic errors were the most frequent, with six occurrences followed by verb-form and verb-tense errors, both with four occurrences. Other unsuccessful repairs involved prepositional error which occurred twice while article, word-choice and pronoun errors occurred only once. While the findings show L2 speakers’ poor control over syntactic and verb-form and verb-tense of English, they provide insights on the language features that require greater emphasis in English language teaching in Malaysia.

Error Repair, ESL Speakers, Language Error, L2 Learners

1. Atmaca, C. (2016). Error analysis of Turkish EFL learners: A case study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Beshir, M. & Yigzaw, A. (2022). Students’ self-repair in EFL classroom interactions: implications for classroom dynamics. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(26). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00153-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cho, E. H. & Larke, P. (2010). Repair strategies usage of primary elementary ESL students: implications for ESL teachers. Tesl-Ej, 14(3), 1-18 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Haq, I. U., Farhat, P. A., & Iqbal, S. W. (2022). Language Stress and Anxiety among the ESL Students: A Case Study of First Year Students in Pakistani Context. Annals of Human and Social Sciences, 3(2), 647-655. https://doi.org/10.35484/ahss.2022(3-II)61 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Kormos , J. (2000). The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 22(2), 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100002011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Liao, S. C., Hunt, E. A., & Chen, W. (2010). Comparison between inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement in performance assessment. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore, 39(8), 613–618. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20838702/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Maitlo, S.K., Ahmad, A., Ali, S. & Soomro, A.R. (2023). Exploring errors and mistakes in the structure of grammar at university level in Khairpur Mir’s Sindh. International Journal of Comtemporary Issues in Social Science, 2(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1-63. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404400001019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. van Hest, E. (1996). Self-Repair in L1 and L1 production. Tilburg University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Williams, S. (2022). Self-Corrections. I: Disfluency and Proficiency in Second Language Speech Production. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12488-4_6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Wong, J. &Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers (First). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Zembytska, M., Romanova, Y. & Chumak, N. (2022). ESL students’ perceptions of error correction techniques in oral production: A level-based approach. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 9(1), 315-336. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Communication Strategies among Promoters During MATTA Fair 2025
• An Examination of Colleen Ballinger’s Experience in Social Media: Cancel Culture Chronicle
• Communication Patterns in Conflict Interactions in Premarital Couples Who Are in Abusive Relationships
• Social Media Use on Mental Health Outcomes among Adolescents and Young Adults in Port Harcourt City
• Language Beyond Words: Jazz Improvisation as An Alternative Mode of Communication in Education