INTRODUCTION 1
0.1 Need for the Study 2
0.1.1 Motivation 2
0.1.2 Significance of the Study 5
0.1.2.1 Theoretical Significance 5
0.1.2.2 Methodological Significance 8
0.1.2.3 Pedagogical Significance 9
0.2 Organization of the Book 11
PART Ⅰ RESEARCH BACKGROUND 15
Chapter One LITERATURE REVIEW 15
1.1 Introduction 15
1.2 Theoretical Issues 15
1.2.1 Mechanisms of L2 Self-Repair and Its Role in L2 Acquisition and Use 16
1.2.1.1 Types of Self-Repairs 16
1.2.1.2 Conditions for Monitoring and Self-Repair 17
1.2.1.3 The Relevance of Self-Repair to L2 Acquisition and Use 18
1.2.2 Relevant Theories in Accounting for the Variations in Self-Repairs 20
1.2.2.1 Information Processing Theory 20
1.2.2.2 Notion of Automatization 21
1.2.2.3 Attention in Output Processing 22
1.3 Empirical Studies 25
1.3.1 Areas of Investigation 26
1.3.1.1 Studies on Self-Repair Proper 27
1.3.1.1.1 General Characteristics of Self-Repair 27
1.3.1.1.2 The Relationship between Self-Repairs and Output Variables 31
1.3.1.2 Proficiency-Related Differences in Self-Repair Behavior 32
1.3.1.2.1 Differences in the Distribution of Self-Repairs 32
1.3.1.2.2 Differences in the Placing of Cut-Off Points 36
1.3.1.2.3 Differences in the Placing of Restarting Points 39
1.3.1.2.4 Differences in the Result of Self-Repair 40
1.3.2 Problems with Existing Studies:A Brief Summary 43
1.3.2.1 Conflicting Findings and Unexplored Issues 44
1.3.2.2 Methodological Issues 44
1.4 Summary 45
Chapter Two INTRODUCING THE PRESENT STUDY 46
2.1 Introduction 46
2.2 Self-Repair:Definition and Identification 46
2.2.1 Defining Self-Repair 46
2.2.2 Features for Identification 48
2.2.2.1 Structure of a Self-Repair 48
2.2.2.2 Speech Signals as an Aid to the Identification 49
2.3 Taxonomies of Self-Repairs 51
2.3.1 Existing Taxonomies:Introduction and Evaluation 51
2.3.1.1 Levelt's(1983)Taxonomy 52
2.3.1.2 van Hest's(1996)Taxonomy 54
2.3.1.3 Kormos's(1999b,2000a)Taxonomy 57
2.3.2 An Adapted Version of the Classification in the Present Study 59
2.4 Toward a Framework for the Present Study 61
2.4.1 Systematizing the Self-Repair Studies 61
2.4.2 Making Hypotheses 64
PARTⅡ METHODOLOGY 71
Chapter Three RESEARCH DESIGN 71
3.1 Introduction 71
3.2 Research Questions 71
3.3 Materials 72
3.3.1 The National Spoken English Test for English Majors(Band 4) 73
3.3.2 The SECCL Project 75
3.3.3 Justifying the Use of Corpus Data 76
3.4 Data Selection 78
3.4.1 Whole Sample 78
3.4.2 High-Score Group and Low-Score Group 81
3.4.3 3 High-Scorers and 3 Low-Scorers for Close Examination 81
3.5 Data Analysis 83
3.5.1 Identifying Self-Repairs 83
3.5.2 Classifying Self-Repairs 84
3.5.2.1 Classifying Self-Repairs in Terms of Scope 84
3.5.2.2 Classifying Self-Repairs in Terms of Content 85
3.5.2.3 Classifying Self-Repairs in Terms of Interruption Point 93
3.5.2.4 Classifying Self-Repairs in Terms of Restarting Point 93
3.5.2.5 Classifying Self-Repairs in Terms of Number of Attempts 95
3.5.3 Coding Procedure 96
3.5.4 Measuring the Variables 102
3.5.4.1 Performance-Related Variables 102
3.5.4.2 Repair-Related Variables 108
3.6 Summary 114
PART Ⅲ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 117
Chapter Four GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SELF-REPAIR 117
4.1 Introduction 117
4.2 Self-Repair Proper 118
4.2.1 Distribution in Terms of Scope and Content 118
4.2.1.1 One-Aspect Repairs 119
4.2.1.2 Double-Aspect Repairs 125
4.2.2 Distribution in Terms of Way of Interrupting 128
4.2.3 Distribution in Terms of Way of Restarting and Number of Attempts 131
4.2.3.1 Way of Restarting 131
4.2.3.2 Multiple Repairs 133
4.2.4 Success Rate of Form Repairs 141
4.3 Relationship between Self-Repairs,Score and Output Variables 143
4.4 Tentative Conclusions Drawn from Double and Multiple Repairs 151
4.5 Summary 152
Chapter Five DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIGH-SCORERS AND LOW-SCORERS IN SELF-REPAIR 153
5.1 Introduction 153
5.2 The High-Group vs.the Low-Group:Between-Group Differences 154
5.2.1 Differences in Distribution of Self-Repairs 154
5.2.2 Differences in Interruption Point 161
5.2.3 Differences in Retracing Span 163
5.3 3 High-Scorers vs.3 Low-Scorers:Within-Group Variations 165
5.3.1 3 High-Scorers 166
5.3.2 3 Low-Scorers 173
5.3.3 A Brief Summary 178
5.4 Summary 180
Chapter Six VARIATIONS IN MORPHOLOGICAL REPAIRS 181
6.1 Introduction 181
6.2 Variations between the 1st Half and the 2nd Half of the Utterances 181
6.3 Variations in the Tense Accuracy of Subsequent Verbs 189
6.3.1 Tense Accuracy of the Verbs Immediately Following Repairs 190
6.3.2 Tense Accuracy of the Same Verbs within the Utterance 191
6.4 Summary 193
PART Ⅳ CONCLUSION 197
Chapter Seven SELF-REPAIR IN L2 MONOLOGIC ORAL PRODUCTION:A CONCLUSION 197
7.1 Introduction 197
7.2 Major Findings 197
7.2.1 Findings Concerning the General Characteristics of Self-Repair 197
7.2.2 Findings Concerning the Proficiency-Related Differences in Self-Repair 199
7.2.3 Findings Concerning the Possible Effects of Earlier Self-Repairs on Subsequent Performance 200
7.3 Theoretical Implications 202
7.3.1 Constructing a Descriptive Framework for L2 Self-Repair Studies 202
7.3.2 Validating the Contribution of Performance Variability Analyses in Second Language Acquisition Theory 203
7.3.3 Questioning Krashen's Monitor Hypothesis 204
7.4 Pedagogical Implications 204
7.5 Limitation of the Study 205
7.6 Suggestions for Future Research 207
7.6.1 Areas of Investigation 207
7.6.2 Methods of Investigation 208
7.7 Summary 209
References 211
Appendices 224
后记 251
LIST OF TABLES 27
Chapter One 27
Table 1.1 Distribution of self-repairs:research findings 27
Table 1.2 Correlations between variables(Temple 2000:294) 31
Chapter Two 52
Table 2.1 Three major taxonomies of self-repairs in L1 and L2:a comparison 52
Chapter Three 80
Table 3.1 A description of excluded subjects 80
Table 3.2 Subjects selected for qualitative analyses(average std.repair=2.52) 82
Table 3.3 Correlations between score and two standardization measures 110
Chapter Four 119
Table 4.1 Distribution of self-repairs in terms of scope 119
Table 4.2 Frequency of main categories of self-repairs 119
Table 4.3 A comparison of L2 repair distributions with Kormos(2000a) 121
Table 4.4 Frequency of different categories and sub-categories of self-repairs 124
Table 4.5 Frequency of morphological and non-morphological repairs 124
Table 4.6 General characteristics of double-repairs(N=9) 126
Table 4.7 Frequency of immediate and delayed repairs 129
Table 4.8 Means of interruption point of three groups in van Hest's study(van Hest 1996:71) 130
Table 4.9 Frequency of instant repairs，retracing repairs and fresh starts 132
Table 4.10 Distribution of subjects with respect to the number of multiple repairs 133
Table 4.11 Distribution of multiple repairs with respect to the type in each of the multiple attempts 135
Table 4.12 Success rate of form repairs 142
Table 4.13 Success rate of sub-categories of form repairs 142
Table 4.14 Correlations between self-repairs，score and output variables 144
Table 4.15 Correlations between measures of fluency，accuracy and form repairs 146
Table 4.16 Correlations between score，fluency，accuracy and complexity 149
Table 4.17 Coefficients for the predictors of repair occurrences 150
Chapter Five 155
Table 5.1 Descriptive statistics of self-repairs:L-group vs.H-group 155
Table 5.2 A comparison of major categories of self-repairs 156
Table 5.3 A comparison of information and linguistic repairs 157
Table 5.4 A comparison of sub-categories of self-repairs 158
Table 5.5 A comparison of morphological and non-morphological repairs 159
Table 5.6 Correlations between score and sub-categories of form repairs 161
Table 5.7 Differences in interruption point 161
Table 5.8 Differences in retracing span 163
Table 5.9 Major categories of self-repairs by 3 high-scorers and 3 low-scorers 165
Table 5.10 Distribution of self-repairs by 3 high-scorers 166
Table 5.11 A description of tense error rate and repair rate by 3 high-scorers 171
Table 5.12 Distribution of self-repairs by 3 low-scorers 174
Table 5.13 A description of tense error rate and repair rate by 3 low-scorers 176
Table 5.14 A comparison in error rate，repair rate and success rate of tense 179
Chapter Six 182
Table 6.1 Differences in error rate and repair rate between the 1st half and the 2nd half 182
Table 6.2 Distribution of subjects who made tense repairs 186
Table 6.3 Change of tense repairs between the 1st half and the 2nd half 186
Table 6.4 Repair rate increase between the 1st half and the 2nd half(％，N=10) 187
Table 6.5 Repair rate decrease between the 1st half and the 2nd half（％，N=10） 188
Table 6.6 Two students with highest increase rate vs.two students with biggest decrease rate 188
Table 6.7 Status of subsequent verbs after tense repair(N=38) 190
Table 6.8 Status of verbs which were repaired and later repeated 193