Conversational repair in foreign language classrooms: A case study in a Turkish context

Problem Durumu: İkinci dil konuşucusunun dil yeterlilik seviyesinin konuşma esnasında seçilen onarım türlerine göre belirlenebileceği ileri sürülmüştür. İkinci dil kullanıcısı, konuşma esnasında ortaya çıkan iletişim sorunlarını fark edip düzeltirse, anadil konuşucusunun edimbilimsel yetisine yakın bir edimbilimsel yetiye ulaştığını belirtilmektedir. Ancak ikinci dil kullanıcısı konuşmadaki sorunları fark etmezse ve sorunlar dinleyici tarafından düzeltilirse, anadil konuşucusunun edimbilimsel yetisine ulaşmadığını söylenmektedir. Onarım stratejileri üzerine yapılan çalışmalar incelendiğinde, anadili İngilizce olmayan konuşucuların onarım strateji dağarcını inceleyen çalışmaların sınırlı sayıda olduğu görülmektedir. Diğer taraftan, Türkiyedeki çalışmalar incelendiğinde, yazarın en doğru bilgisine göre, anadili İngilizce olmayan Türkçe konuşucuların kullandıkları onarım stratejileri ve türleri üzerine mevcut bir çalışma yoktur. Bütün bunlar göz önünde bulundurularak, bu çalışma literatürde ileri sürülen onarım stratejilerinin anadili İngilizce olmayan Türkçe konuşucular tarafından kullanılıp kullanılmadığını irdeleyerek bu konuşucuların iletişim sırasında ortaya çıkan problemleri fark etme ve düzeltme yeterliliklerini araştırmaktır. Araştırmanın Amacı: Bu çalışmanın amacı konuşma çözümlemesi yapılarak anadili İngilizce olmayan Türkçe konuşucuların ne tür onarım stratejilerini kullandıkları ve hangi durumlarda sözcelerini onarma gereksinimi duyduklarını ortaya koymaktır.

Yabancı dil sınıflarından söylem onarımları: Türkiye bağlamından bir durum analizi

Problem Statement: A speaker’s language proficiency level can be determined by observing the repair types employed during conversation. When a non-native speaker of English performs self-initiated self-repair, this means that s/he has attained native-like proficiency. However, when other-initiated other-repair is performed, the non-native speaker of English has achieved less native-like proficiency in the interaction. Thus, repairs are significant signs indicating the proficiency level of the language user and have significant roles in the achievement of native-like norms. Nearly all existing studies focus on repair strategies used in the interaction between native-native speakers of English and native-nonnative speakers of English. The number of studies on repair strategies in the repertoire of nonnative speakers of English is limited. When studies in Turkey are investigated, to the best knowledge of the writer, there is no study that focuses on the types of conversational repair or repair strategies employed by Turkish learners of English. Therefore, this paper can be regarded as the first investigation of conversational repairs by Turkish learners of English. Purpose of the study: The purpose of this study is to investigate what types of repair strategies Turkish speakers of English prefer to use and in what cases they prefer to repair their utterances. The study aims to explore the competence of Turkish speakers of English in realizing their own conversational problems and selfcorrecting them. Methods: This is a qualitative case study. 10 hours of conversation classes were recorded for data analysis. For conversational analysis, turn-taking, adjacency pairs and subsequent sentences in discussions and presentations were transcribed, from which repair strategies were identified and categorized. Findings and Result: According to the findings, the Turkish English-speaking students perform lexical, phrasal and phonological self-repair but not content or pragmatic repair. However, to have native-like interaction and proficiency, nonnative speakers of English should perform self-initiated self-repair on the pragmatics and content of their utterances. The students perform self-initiated other repair, but that is not a commonly used conversational repair. When the interlocutors in the class have problems understanding what the presenter or another student says, they do not initiate repair. Conclusion and Recommendation: In foreign language classrooms, it should be emphasized that repair, repair strategies and the monitoring of one’s utterances are natural processes in communication and social interaction. Students should be encouraged to make self-initiated self-repair on content and pragmatics and to initiate repair to repair problems in their classmates’ utterances.

___

  • Bonner, M. Fucks, M., Maurer, J. Schoenberg, I. E. & Westheimer, M. (2005). Focus on grammar. New York: Longman.
  • Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. OUP.
  • Genç, B. (2007). Analysis of communication strategies employed by Turkish- speakers of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Çukurova University, Adana.
  • Hoekje, B. (1984, March). Processes of repair in non-native speakers of English. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Houston, TX.
  • Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7(2), 200-215.
  • Kingerger, C. (1995). Task variation and repair in foreign language classroom. In A. Haggstron, L.Z. Morgan, & J. A. Wieczorek, (Eds.). The foreign language classroom: Bridging theory and practice (pp.55-70). New York: Garland Publication.
  • Markee, N. P.P. (2000). Conversational analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum.
  • Pace, J. L. & Hemmings, A. B. (2008). Classroom authority: theory, research and practice. New Jersey: Routhedge.
  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, M. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
  • Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-82.
  • Schegloff, E. (2000). When “others” initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205-43.
  • Seedhouse, P. (1998). CA and analysis of foreign language interaction: A reply to Wagner. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(1), 85-102.
  • Shehadeh, A. (1999). Insights into learner output. English Teaching FORUM, 37 (4), 2-6.
  • Shehadeh, A. (1991). Comprehension and performance in second language acquisition:A study of second language learners’ production of modified comprehensible output. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Durham, UK.
  • Soar, L. & Soar, J. (2001). Headway: Advanced Students’ Book English. Oxford University Press.