INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1568
www.rsisinternational.org
(Un)Successful Error Repairs in L2 Communication
*Suryani Awang
1
, Wan Nuur Fazliza Wan Zakaria
2
, Siti Shazlin Razak
3
, Muhammad Saiful Anuar
Yusoff
4
1,2,3.4
Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, University Technology MARA Cawangan Kelantan
*Corresponding Author
DOI:
https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000133
Received: 30 September 2025; Accepted: 06 October 2025; Published: 05 November 2025
ABSTRACT
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.
Keywords:
Error Repair, ESL Speakers, Language Error, L2 Learners, Self-Repair
INTRODUCTION
It is a well-known fact that language learners face linguistic complications and various challenges in
learning second language (L2) (Haq et al. (2022). While these learners are prone to make errors in the
learning process, L2 errors should be viewed positively by learners and educators since they indicate that
the learners are making progress in learning their target language (Atmaca, 2016). Among many possible
reasons that cause L2 error, learners’ first language (L1) influence on the target language termed as ‘transfer
error’ (Corder, 1981) is commonly cited. Despite this however, many also cited the intrinsic difficulty of
the target language subsystem is also the cause of the problem rather than the cross-lingual influence alone
(Zembytska et al., 2022).
When L2 errors are committed, it is common for L2 speakers to make repairs on their utterances to ensure
their intended messages are successfully delivered. According to
Schegloff (2000), ‘repair strategy’ helps to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1569
www.rsisinternational.org
tackle difficulties or troubles in speaking, hearing, and understanding that can happen in interactions. Similarly,
Beshir (2022) defines
language repairs, as
the “actions taken on learners’ erroneous utterances”.
Despite the
speakers’ positive attitude in L2 learning process reflected through the act of repairing their own language
errors, repairing own erroneous utterances is actually challenging since this requires close monitoring of
the target language use while applying the linguistic rules correctly
.
In oral interactions which involve two or more speakers, language errors could be initiated by the speakers
themselves or by others (interlocutors). A repair made by interlocutors on errors initiated by them is called
other initiation-other repair while a repair made by the speakers on their own language errors is referred to
as self-initiation self-repair. Based on
Schegloff (2000) and Wong & Waring’s (2010) categorization of
repairs, there are four types of language repair namely self-initiation self-repair,
other-initiation self-repair,
other initiation other repair, self-initiation-other repair.
Although examining all types of repairs offers
a more comprehensive view on L2 oral interactions, the current
study focused only of self-initiation self-repair among L2 speakers due to the nature of the research context
which involved interactions in high-stake i.e real job interviews. In this context, power distance between
candidates and panellists is obvious. Being the interview candidates, the respondents
would be more
concerned of their own language use instead of the panellists’, causing other-initiated repairs to hardly
occur in the interactions.
Based on
Kormos (2000), Levelt (1983) and van Hest’s (1996) perspective of self-repair, a
side from
language errors, self-repair could also be made to correct wrongly delivered information and fact or to
increase appropriateness level in oral communication.
Among all these reasons, the current study
focused only on language error repairs done by the speakers themselves.
In particular, this
study aimed
to identify the types of language errors that were successfully and unsuccessfully repaired by L2 speakers
themselves.
The findings would provide insights on the aspects of English language teaching the needs further
emphasis so as to enhance L2 learners’ competency in using the target language.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Language Errors in Second Language Learning
As stated earlier, it is common for L2
learners to face linguistic complications and challenges in learning
second language (L2) (Haq et al. (2022). A review on past literature shows that there has been extensive
research on L2 errors, particularly in the written communication. For instance, a study by Maitlo et al.
(2023) showed some common language errors which included errors in
punctuations, spellings, prepositions
and tense aside from adverb, subject verb agreement, pluralization, pronoun, conjunction, articles and adjectives
(Haq et al. 2022). While these types of errors usually occur in L2 learners’ writing tasks, morphological and
syntactic errors as well as lexical and phonological errors were identified in oral communication
(Zembytska et
al., 2022). While these errors are expected in L2 speakers’ oral data, the extent to which the speakers were
able to successfully repair their own erroneous utterances was yet to be examined.
Language Repair
Similar to research on errors in L2 communication, research on language repairs has attracted many
researchers and scholar. Language repairs, as defined by
Schegloff (2000: 207), are ‘practices for dealing
with problems or troubles in speaking, hearing, and understanding the talk in conversations (and in other forms
of talk in interaction)’. It should be noted that both language errors and r
epairs could be done by the speakers
themselves or by others (the interlocutors). O
ther-initiation self-repair for instance, occurs when
erroneous utterances are initiated by others and then repaired by L2 speakers. In other-initiation other
repair, erroneous utterances are initiated by others (the interlocutors) who later make repair on their
own utterances. Meanwhile, self-initiation-other repair is the condition when erroneous utterances
initiated by L2 speaker are repaired by the interlocutor. Finally, self-initiation self- repair which
becomes the focus of the current study refers to the condition when the speakers repair their own
erroneous utterances. This type of repair reflects L2 speakers’ active concern about their L2 oral
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1570
www.rsisinternational.org
production by adjusting the speech towards the standard form (Williams, 2022). Hence, findings on
this type of repair would provide insights to what extent L2 speakers are able to function in the target
language.
While past studies on self-repair tended to focus on strategies or techniques employed by L2 speakers in the
context of classroom interactions (
Cho and Larke, 2010; Beshir, 2022), the current study deviates from
current literature by examining self-repair in real communicative context. Using
Kormos (2000), Levelt,
(1983) and van Hest’s (1996)
conceptualization to categorize the types of self-repairs that resulted in
identifications of
Same Information Repair (Repeat), Different Information Repair (Message
Replacement and Fact Repair), Appropriateness Repair (Abandonment, Replacement, and Insertion
Repair), Error Repair and Back-to-error Repair. In this study the last two types of repairs (i.e Error
Repair and Back-to-error Repair) were analysed in detail in order to achieve the research objective.
METHODOLOGY
In order to examine self-repairs on language errors made by L2 speakers, the researchers carried out
observations on oral interactions between 19 candidates and eight panellists of real interviews conducted
at one public university in the east coast of Malaysia. The purpose of the interview was to make selection
for academic staff for three faculties at the university namely the Faculty of Art and Design (FSSR), the
Faculty of Information Management (IM), and the Academy of Contemporary Islamic Studies (ACIS). In
the interview, the candidates were asked to carry out a mock teaching before they were invited for the real
interview process which involved oral interactions with the interview panellists.
These interviews were conducted physically and online, whichever was considered more convenient for
the candidates and the faculty. For instance, five FSSR candidates were interviewed via Cisco Webex while
only one attended the interview in person. Similarly, all the five IM candidates were interviewed online.
Meanwhile, three ACIS candidates attended online and the other five were interviewed face-to-face. The
interview panellists consisted of eight members: the campus Rector, the Deputy Rector of Academic
Affairs, the Heads of the three faculties as well as the Deans of the faculties. While the campus Rector, the
Deputy Rector and the Heads of the faculties were physically present in the meeting room during the
interviews, the three Deans from the university main campus in Shah Alam, Malaysia participated virtually.
Data Collection Procedure
Data collection began with obtaining approval from the Research Ethics Committee and the campus Rector
before arrangements were made with the Assistant Registrar to allow one researcher to observe and video-
record the interview sessions. The purpose of video-recording the sessions was to facilitate data analysis
process later on. Additionally, informed consent was secured from both candidates and panellists before
the researcher started the observations.
In total, 19 candidates were interviewed. Although the recordings covered complete interactions between
the candidates and the interview panellists, analysis was confined to the candidates’ language errors and
repairs. To maintain confidentiality of the candidates and the panellists, pseudonyms were assigned to each
of them. Candidates were coded as “C1” to “C19,” while panellists were coded as “P1” to “P8.”
Data Analysis and Issues of Reliability and Validity
As stated earlier, the purpose of recording the interview sessions was to facilitate the researchers in data
analysis. This started by importing the video data into NVivo software (version 12) which helped the
researchers to do systematic organisation and coding of the research data. The coding process began with
viewing of the recordings repeatedly to identify the instances of the candidates’ utterances that contained
language errors and repairs. These utterances were then transcribed and examined to identify the types of
language errors occurred and whether these errors were correctly repaired. The results obtained were
verified by two independent inter-raters, which according to Liao et al. (2010), is a sufficient number to
strengthen the credibility of the findings. The use of NVivo software to manage and classify language errors
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1571
www.rsisinternational.org
helped to enhance the reliability of data analysis while validity issue was addressed through interrater
verifications.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the categorizations of language errors with the help of Nvivo software, the types of language errors
identified and their frequency count are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Types of Language Errors and Frequency Count
Types of Language Errors
Frequency count
1.
Verb-form
10
2.
Prepositional
6
3.
Syntactic
6
4.
Verb-tense
4
5.
Word-choice
3
6.
Pronoun
2
7.
Modal verb-usage
1
8.
Word-form
1
9.
Article
1
TOTAL
34
As shown in Table 1, errors related to verb-forms occurred in the highest frequency amounting to 10 occurrences
followed by prepositional and syntactic errors which occurred six times in the interactions. Verb-tense error was
the third with four occurrences followed by word-choice and pronoun errors which occurred three and two times
respectively. The least frequent errors were modal verb-usage, word-form and article errors which occurred only
once.
Further breakdown of these errors based on successful and unsuccessful repairs are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Types of Language Errors and Frequency Count of Successful and Unsuccessful Repairs
Types of Language Errors
Total Frequency Count
Successful Repair
Unsuccessful Repair
1.
Verb-form
10
6
4
2.
Prepositional
6
4
2
3.
Syntactic
6
-
6
4.
Verb-tense
4
-
4
5.
Word-choice
3
2
1
6.
Pronoun
2
1
1
7.
Modal verb-usage
1
1
-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1572
www.rsisinternational.org
8.
Word-form
1
1
-
9.
Article
1
-
1
TOTAL
34
15
19
Table 2 shows that among 15 successfully repaired errors, verb-form errors occurred most frequently 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 type of error 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.
The examined erroneous utterances which were successfully and unsuccessfully repaired are shown in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Successful L2 Error Repairs
Table 3 shows erroneous utterances that were successfully repaired. Explanations on how the candidates
repaired the erroneous utterances are given in the last column of Table 3.
Table 3: Types of errors successfully repaired by L2 speakers
Erroneous Utterances with Successful Repairs
Types of Language
Errors Successfully
Repaired
Explanations
Utterances
1.
C2: Still, I'm have...I have to do it
for a to...to aaa...to contribute
aaa...in my aaa...department
verb-form error
Repaired from ‘I’m
have’ to ‘I have’.
2.
C3: I believe in my knowledge [in]
creative...creative industry, I may
help and given...give some benefits
to students
verb-form error
Repaired from ‘I may
help and given some
benefits to students’ to
‘I may help and give
some benefits to
students’.
3.
C2: Still, I'm have...I have to do
it for a to...to aaa...to contribute
aaa...in my aaa...department
verb-form error
Repaired from ‘I’m
have’ to “I have’.
4.
C2: Still, I'm have...I have to do it
for a to...to aaa...to contribute
aaa...in my aaa...department
verb-form error &
prepositional
error
1. Repaired from
‘I’m have’ to ‘I
have’
2. Repaired from ‘I
have to do it for
contribute’ to ‘I
have to do it to
contribute in my
department’.
5.
C4: I prefer to work in team,
because in that way, I can listen
for aaa...I can listen to others’
opinion (use hand gestures
prepositional error
Repaired ‘I can listen
for others’ opinion’ to
‘I can listen to others’
opinion’.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1573
www.rsisinternational.org
while explaining)
6.
C5: So that program aaa...I join to
aaa...I...I...I...I must ….I have must
aaa...I must have aaa...business
relationship
modal verb-usage
error
Repaired ‘I have
must’ to ‘I must
have’.
7.
C11: My first degree aaa...is in
aaa...Information Technology
majoring in Information System
Engineering aaa...at...aaa...from
MMU Melaka
prepositional error
Repaired from ‘… at
MMU Melaka’ to ‘…
from MMU Melaka’
8.
C11: [I] continue my aaa...Masters
studies and after aaa...finish[ed]
aaa...my studies, I'm offer...I'm.. I
got the offer to continue my Ph.D.
from Faculty IM
verb-form error
Repaired from ‘I’m
offer’ to ‘I’ got the
offer’
9.
C11: Okay aaa...I think aaa...if I
am given the change err...the
chance to be as a lecturer in this
faculty aaa...and UiTM
word-choice error
Repaired from ‘the
change’ to ‘the
chance’.
10.
C9: I [was given an] opportunity
or chance to working.. to work as
a lecturer here…there
verb-form error &
prepositional error
1. Repaired from
‘chance to working’
to ‘chance to work’.
2. Repaired from
‘here’ to ‘there’.
11.
C11: Okay aaa...another aaa...my
contribution to our university which
is aaa...I'm also a very interesting
err...very interested aaa...to trying
aaa...the new project on innovation,
inration or design of the our which
is aaa...can contribute with the
others company are so
word-form error
Repaired from ‘I am
also very interesting’
to ‘I am also very
interested’.
12.
C9: I also learn at, I also teach at
USIM
word-choice error
Repaired from ‘I also
learn at USIM’ to ‘I
also teach at USIM’.
13.
C10: We can tell the parents that if
the...if they didn't see any potential
in theirself...in their children..
(use hand gestures while
explaining)
pronoun error
Repaired from
‘theirself’ to ‘their
children’.
Unsuccessful L2 Error Repairs
Table 4 shows erroneous utterances that were unsuccessfully repaired by L2 speakers themselves. The last
column of Table 4 contains L2 speakers’ possible intended expressions which are suggested for repair purpsoses.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1574
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 4: Types of errors unsuccessfully repaired by L2 speakers
Erroneous Utterances with Unsuccessful Repairs
Types of Language Errors
Unsuccessfully Repaired
Possible intended
expressions
Erroneous
Utterances
1.
C4: This [is] one of the [projects]
that I am most emm...that I most
like
syntactic error
I like the most
2.
C1: So, if they...they not doing
their work, I'm personally
contact...contacting them to
[submit] their work
verb form error
I personally
contacted
3.
C1: But, besides teaching, aaa
I'm currently... I'm aaa...like to
share a knowledge with students
to encourage them aaa to involve
in aaa international exhibition
also
verb form error
I like to share
4.
C1: Okay aaa I like...I'm join for
Asian Digital Art Society
verb form error &
prepositional error
I join/joined Asian
Digital Art Society
5.
C4: So usually, by the earliest
semester, the earl...emm...by
the earliest start of semester
for the first three weeks
syntactic error
At the beginning of
the semester)
6.
C5: After I graduate my degree,
I start with aaa...work as a
graphic designer at a
Chamberawe International as a
advertising agency
verb tense error & syntactic
error
1. After I graduated
with my degree, I
started…
2. I [started] working
as…
7.
C11: And then, aaa...during the
aaa...I'm working I continue my
study aaa...I'm continue my
aaa...Masters study and after
aaa...finish aaa...my study, I'm
offer...I'm I got the offer to
continue my Ph.D. from Faculty
IM
Combination of verb tense
error & syntactic error
While working, I
continued my
Master’s studies
8.
C11: And then, aaa...during the
aaa...I'm working I continue my
study aaa...I'm continue my
aaa...Masters study and after
aaa...finish aaa...my study, I'm
offer...I'm I got the offer to
continue my Ph.D. from Faculty
IM
verb tense error & syntactic
error
After finishing my
studies, I was
offered/I got an offer
to continue my PhD
9.
C11: And then, aaa...I'm joined
the innovation during my Ph.D.
verb form error & article
error
1. I [also]
joined innovation
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1575
www.rsisinternational.org
As seen in Table 4, the types of errors that were unsuccessfully repaired by the respondents were syntactic errors
which occurred six times, followed by verb-form and verb-tense which recorded four occurrences. Here, the
candidates’ sentences were not only misconstrued but also showed organizational of words and phrases that did
not make sense; a condition that reflects serious language errors among English language learners in the current
study.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that syntactic errors, with six occurrences, were the most
difficult type of L2 errors to be handled by L2 learners as none of these errors was successfully repaired by
the candidates. Other types of errors that were unsuccessfully repaired were verb-tense error and article
error with occurred four times and once, respectively. Unlike these errors, verb-form and prepositional
errors which showed 10 and four occurrences were repaired with more than half successful rate, indicating
that the learners had some control on these aspects of language.
From what has been concluded, effective measures are obviously needed to help L2 learners produce
sentences with correct structure and tenses. Since the data of this study were taken from L2 learners’ oral
language production in real communication context, the findings provide useful insights on the aspects of
L2 learning that must be emphasized and addressed by educators and people of authority in order to produce
competent English language speakers in Malaysia.
RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In the current study, the number of respondents was determined by the candidates who attended the
interviews, which totalled 19. Since this number may not reflect a broader L2 learner population, future
research is recommended to include a larger sample from various L2 proficiency levels so that the results
can better reflect how proficiency level influences L2 learners’ reactions to their own L2 errors.
Another recommendation for future research relates to the scope of analysis. While the current study
focused on L2 learners’ self-initiated repairs, future research could examine how these learners respond to
language errors initiated by other, known as other-initiated repairs. In doing so however, the researchers
aaa...I'm also joined the
innovation aaa...and already got
the three gold medals and one
silver medal
[competition]
during my PhD
2. …already got
three gold medals
10.
C9: I really like teaching. So,
aaa...in master also I learn...I
teaching a student in PTAR.
Okay, that's all from me. Thank
you
Combination of word choice
error and verb tense error
In Master’s studies, I
taught a student..
11.
C12: I want they know...I want
Muslim Malay know more about
what is our religion and what is
how can we relate with our
Creators.
Pronoun error &
prepositional error
1. I want them to
know
2. I want Muslim
Malays to know
12.
C12: I want they know...I want
Muslim [Malays to] know more
about what is our religion and
what is how can we relate with
our Creator.
syntactic error
I want Muslim
Malays to know what
our religion is and
how we can relate
with our Creator.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 1576
www.rsisinternational.org
must ensure that the unit of analysis provides rich data for other-initiated repairs, unlike the current studies
in which the interview sessions offered limited opportunities for L2 speakers to repair interviewers’
language errors. It is hoped that results from both self-initiated and other-initiated repairs will further clarify
the interactional dynamics in L2 communication.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, for the financial support granted
under the FRGS/1/2019/SS09/UITM/02/11.
REFERENCES
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
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
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
4.
Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford University Press.
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
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
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
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/
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).
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
11.
van Hest, E. (1996). Self-Repair in L1 and L1 production. Tilburg University Press.
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
13.
Wong, J. &Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for
ESL/EFL teachers (First). Routledge.
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.
