Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-p6fvt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T19:11:00.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repair in Foreign Language Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Gabriele Kasper
Gabriele Kasper
Affiliation:
University of Aarhus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Repair, defined in this paper as modifications of trouble sources which have manifested themselves in the discourse, is an important activity in FL learning and communication, both in educational and non-educational contexts. It is argued that studies of repair in the FL classroom should include all repair activity rather than focus on one specific repair type, viz., the teacher's correction of learners' errors. In this study the four repair types suggested by Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977) are analyzed, and a further distinction is made according to whether the trouble source is produced by the teacher or a learner. It is shown that different preferences for repair patterns vary with the type of classroom activity (language-centered vs. content-centered activities), and it is discussed how these preferences relate to repair in non-educational learner-native speaker discourse.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 200 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bolte, H. and Herrhtz, W.. (In press.) Language learning processes and strategies in the foreign language classroom: a reconstructive and interventive model. In Kasper, in press.Google Scholar
Færch, C. (In press.) Rules of thumb and other teacher-formulated rules in the foreign language classroom. In Kasper, in press.Google Scholar
Færch, C., Haastrup, K. and Philhpson, R.. 1984. Learner language and language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Færch, C. and Kasper, G.. 1982. Phatic, metalmgual and metacommumcative functions in discourse: gambits and repairs. In Enkvist, N.E. (ed.), Impromptu speech, pp. 71–103. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Gaskill, W. H. 1960. Correction in native speaker—non-native speaker conversation. In Larsen-Freeman, pp. 125–37.Google Scholar
Glahn, E. 1980. 20 spørgsmål til professoren. Skrifter om anvendt og matematisk lingvistik 6: 257–80.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. Essays in face-to-face behaviour. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. (In press.) Quantitative studies of teacher talk. In Kasper.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. 1983. Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. In Croft, K., (ed.), Readings on English as a second language, pp. 153–75. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1974. Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 3: 181–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, B. and Fuller, N.. 1975. On the non-fatal nature of trouble: Sense-making and trouble-managing in lingua franca talk. Semiotica 13:11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. (ed.). (In press.) Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom. Århus: Arkona.Google Scholar
Knapp-Potthoff, A. and Knapp, K.. 1982. Fremdsprachenlemen and -lehren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (ed.). 1980. Discourse analysis in second language research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lauerbach, G. 1982. Face-work in Reparaturen—ein Charakteristikum von Lerner/Native Speaker-Diskursen. L.A.U.T. paper no. 81, series B. Trier.Google Scholar
Madsen, B. F. and Petersen, U. H.. 1983. Styring i fremmedsprogsundervisning. In Wagner, J. & Petersen, U. H. (eds.), Kommunikation i fremmedsprogsundervisning, pp. 112–36. Copenhagen: Gjellerup.Google Scholar
Ramge, H. 1980. Korrekturhandlungen von Lehrern im Deutschunterricht. In Ramge, H. (ed.), Studien zum sprachlichen Handeln im Unterricht, pp. 132–57. Giessen: Schmitz.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J. 1984. Reparative Handlungsmuster und ihre Verwendung im Fremdsprachenunterricht. ROLIG papir 30.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J. 1979. Elizitieren. Fragemodifizierung im Unterricht. Mimeo, Bochum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics vol. 12: Discourse and syntax, pp. 261–86. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H.. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, J. 1980. The negotiation of meaning: Repair in conversations between second language learners of English. In Larsen-Freeman, pp. 138–53.Google Scholar
Shimanoff, S. B. and Brunak, J. C.. 1979. Repairs in planned and unplanned discourse. In Keenan, E. O. and Bennett, T. L. (eds.), Discourse across time and space, pp. 123–67. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.Google Scholar