Second language (L2) learning has begun recognizing that intelligibility, comprehensibility, and accentedness influence how nonnative speakers of English are perceived by others. As such, pronunciation instruction is becoming more common in L2 curriculum around the world. Corrective Feedback (CF) is commonly given in the pronunciation classroom to draw attention to and correct learners’ errors. Research has tried to understand what forms of CF are most effective for language learning, how CF affects pronunciation, and what learners believe about CF. What is lesser known is if the frequency or rate of CF affects learner’s uptake and pronunciation error repair. Participants in this study were nonnative English speakers who were placed in the high frequency feedback group (HFFG) or the low frequency feedback group (LFFG). After an initial demographic and language beliefs survey, participants experienced a one-on-one pronunciation session with a pronunciation researcher. In the pronunciation session, participants received either high frequency feedback (100% of errors corrected) or low frequency feedback (50% of errors corrected defined as every other error corrected). An immediate follow up survey asked learners about their frequency preference for feedback and their emotional reactions to the feedback. After a nonparametric statistical analysis, results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the uptake rates of the HFFG and LFFG. Marginal significance was found in the repair rates between the HFFG and LFFG with the LFFG performing marginally better, but not to a statistically significant level. Frequency of CF may affect learners’ error repair rates. The immediate follow up survey indicated that most participants were inaccurate in their perception of the frequency of CF they received during the lesson. Only two participants changed their preference for frequency of CF after the lesson. These two wanted more feedback and no learner wanted less feedback. Finally, the same survey indicated that learners felt mostly positive emotions when receiving feedback, while only two experienced nervousness/anxiousness. Conclusions are that feedback frequency does not seem to affect learner uptake, but that frequency may affect pronunciation error repair.

I investigated and compared L2 and L1 speech errors and repairs. A speech error may be defined as a linguistic item that is partially or wholly articulated but disagrees with the speaker’s desired communicative intention. A self-repair usually comprises a speech error, a self-interruption, and a repair. Repairs reveal information about the speech production process and in particular about the monitoring component. Errors and repairs were collected from 24 L1 and L2 English speakers who were audio recorded while describing patterns of multi-coloured interconnected nodes. The methodology is a modified version of Levelt’s (1982; 1983) methodology in his study of L1 Dutch speakers, and his results are incorporated in the analysis section for comparison purposes. The hypothesis that L2 speakers produce more repairs than L1 speakers was confirmed. The hypothesis that they produce more lexical errors and less appropriateness errors compared to L1 speakers was confirmed in relation to the English L1 group but not in relation to Levelt’s Dutch L1 group. The hypothesis that L2 speakers leave a larger proportion of their lexical errors unrepaired was not confirmed. The significant differences in numbers and types of errors between the L1 and the L2 data may be related to Paradis’s (2009) theory of declarative knowledge and procedural competence, which entails a higher demand on attentional resources during L2 production. Data may be influenced by methodological inconsistencies, and may also be too small to generalise upon.