PL EN


2015 | 13 | 3 | 230-247
Article title

Establishing the Fluency Gap Between Native and Non-Native-Speech

Authors
Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Although various dimensions of speech fluency have so far generated a great deal of research interest, very few accounts have tackled the issue of the relationship between L1 and L2 fluency. Also, little empirical evidence has been provided to support the claim that language users are more fluent in their mother tongue than in a foreign/second language. This study examines the fluency gap between L1 and L2 fluency using a battery of objectively quantifiable temporal measures of speed and breakdown fluency. It also attempts to identify those temporal fluency variables which are affected by the individual way of speaking rather than the degree of automatisation of speech processing and which underlie oral performance both in L1 and L2. The analysis draws on transcriptions of elicited speech samples in L1 (Polish) and L2 (English).
Year
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
230-247
Physical description
Dates
published
2015-09-01
online
2016-03-10
Contributors
author
References
  • Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2005). PRAAT (Version 5.3.51) [Software]. Available from http://www.praat.org/
  • Bosker, H. R., Pinget, A. F., Quene, H., Sanders, T., & De Jong, N. H. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30(2), 159-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526177[Crossref]
  • Brandt, C., & Götz, S. (2011). Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 255-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.2.05bra[Crossref]
  • Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25(4), 535-544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00046-8[Crossref]
  • Cucchiarrini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2000). Quantitative assessment of second language learner’s fluency by means of automatic speech recognition technology. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 107(2), 989-999.
  • Cucchiarrini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002). Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 111(6), 2862-2873.
  • Dechert, H. W. (1980). Pauses and intonation as indicators of verbal planning in secondlanguage speech productions: two examples from a case study. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 271-285). The Hague, Mouton.
  • De Jong, N. H., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2009, July). Fluency in L2 is related to fluency in L1. Paper presented at the 7th International Symposium on Bilingualism, Utrecht, The Netherelands.
  • De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121-142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(5), 893-916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000069[Crossref]
  • Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). Second language fluency: judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54(4), 655-679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00282.x[Crossref]
  • Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 533-557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990015[Crossref]
  • Deschamps, A. (1980). The syntactical distribution of pauses in English as a second language by French students. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech. Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 255-262). The Hague, Mouton.
  • Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In D. Kempler & W. S. Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85-102). New York: Academic Press.
  • Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds), Research pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 75-93). Harlow: Longman.
  • Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047[Crossref]
  • Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The effect of source of planning and focus on planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300303[Crossref]
  • Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2013). Anticipating a post-task activity: the effects on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of second language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(3), 249-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249[Crossref]
  • Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2001). Measuring spoken language: a unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354[Crossref]
  • Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 275-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426209X[Crossref]
  • Gimson, A. C., & Cruttenden, A. (1994). Gimson’s pronunciation of English. Based on Gimson, A. C. 1962. An introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: Arnold.
  • Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.
  • Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Hilton, H. (2008). The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 fluency. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 153-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571730802389983[Crossref]
  • Hincks, R. (2010). Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca presentations. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 4-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.004[Crossref]
  • Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64(4), 809-854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.12084[Crossref]
  • Koponen, M., & Riggenbach, H. (2000). Overview: varying perspectives on fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 5-24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 146-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001[Crossref]
  • Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: a quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.x[Crossref]
  • Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 25-42). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
  • Osborne, J. (2007). Investigating L2 fluency through oral learner corpora. In M. C. Campoy & M. J. Luzón (Eds.), Spoken corpora in applied linguistics (pp. 181-197). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  • Pinget, A. F., Bosker, H. R., Quene, H., & De Jong. N. H. (2014). Native speakers’ perceptions of fluency and accent in L2 speech. Language Testing, 31(3), 349-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526177[Crossref]
  • Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 271-285).
  • The Hague: Mouton Raupach, M. (1984). Formulae in second language production. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 114-137). Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
  • Rossiter, M. J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(3), 395-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.3.395[Crossref]
  • Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
  • Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 173-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104262027[Crossref]
  • Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Skehan, P. (2003). Task based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X[Crossref]
  • Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047[Crossref]
  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302[Crossref]
  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071[Crossref]
  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: the influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193-218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: a synthesis of the Ealing research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 199-219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239-273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Towell, R. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency from the perspective of psycholinguistic second language acquisition research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (Eds.) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 47-69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.84[Crossref]
  • Wiese, R. (1984). Language production in foreign and native languages: Same or different? In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 11-25). Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_1515_rela-2015-0021
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.