Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners.

The research reported in this paper explores which variables predict native and non-native speaking teachers' perception of fluency and distinguish fluent from non-fluent L2 learners. In addition to traditional measures of the quality of students' output such as accuracy and lexical diversity, we investigated speech samples collected from 16 Hungarian L2 learners at two distinct levels of proficiency with the help of computer technology. The two groups of students were compared and their temporal and linguistic measures were correlated with the fluency scores they received from three experienced native and three non-native speaker teacher judges. The teachers' written comments concerning the students' performance were also taken into consideration. For all the native and non-native teachers, speech rate, the mean length of utterance, phonation time ratio and the number of stressed words produced per minute were the best predictors of fluency scores. However, the raters differed as regards how much importance they attributed to accuracy, lexical diversity and the mean length of pauses. The number of filled and unfilled pauses and other disfluency phenomena were not found to influence perceptions of fluency.

[1]  R. Hawkins,et al.  The development of fluency in advanced learners of French , 1996 .

[2]  B. Richards.  Type/Token Ratios: what do they really tell us? , 1987, Journal of Child Language.

[3]  Robert Vanderplank.  Pacing and Spacing as predictors of difficulty in speaking and understanding English , 1993 .

[4]  Heidi Riggenbach,et al.  Perspectives on Fluency , 2000 .

[5]  A.J.S. van Gelderen,et al.  Prediction of global ratings of Fluency and Delivery in narrative discourse by linguistic and phonetic measures; oral performances of students aged 11-12 years. , 1994 .

[6]  Z. Dörnyei,et al.  The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance , 2000 .

[7]  Martin Bygate,et al.  Quality of language and purpose of task: patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks , 1999 .

[8]  H. W. Dechert,et al.  Second language productions , 1984 .

[9]  Barbara F. Freed.  What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent , 1995 .

[10]  Roger Griffiths,et al.  Pausological Research in an L2 Context: A Rationale, and Review of Selected Studies , 1991 .

[11]  Jean-Marc Dewaele,et al.  Productivity and lexical diversity in native and non-native speech: a study of cross-cultural effects , 2003 .

[12]  Glenn Fulcher,et al.  Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction , 1996 .

[13]  Jean-Marc Dewaele,et al.  Saisir l’insaisissable ? Les mesures de longueur d’énoncés en linguistique appliquée , 2000 .

[14]  P. Skehan.  语言学习认知法 = A cognitive approach to language learning , 1998 .

[15]  Ann K. Wennerstrom.  The role of intonation in second language fluency , 2000 .

[16]  Scott Jarvis,et al.  Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity , 2002 .

[17]  H. Riggenbach.  Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations , 1991 .

[18]  Roseli Ejzenberg.  The juggling act of oral fluency: a psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor , 2000 .

[19]  R. Schmidt.  Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Second Language Fluency , 1992, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[20]  George A. Miller,et al.  Language and Communication , 1951 .

[21]  A. E. Hieke.  Linking as a Marker of Fluent Speech , 1984 .

[22]  A. Riazantseva,et al.  SECOND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND PAUSING A Study of Russian Speakers of English , 2001, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[23]  P. Lennon.  The lexical element in spoken second language fluency , 2000 .

[24]  Barbara F. Freed.  Second language acquisition in a study abroad context , 1995 .

[25]  A. E. Hieke.  A Componential Approach to Oral Fluency Evaluation , 1985 .

[26]  N. Segalowitz.  Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance , 2000 .

[27]  Barbara F. Freed.  Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? , 2000 .

[28]  Peter Skehan,et al.  The Influence of Task Structure and Processing Conditions on Narrative Retellings. , 1999 .

[29]  H. Riggenbach,et al.  Overview: varying perspectives on fluency , 2000 .

[30]  Frieda Goldman Eisler.  Psycholinguistics : experiments in spontaneous speech , 1968 .

[31]  P. Skehan.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TASK-BASED INSTRUCTION , 1996 .

[32]  Francine Chambers,et al.  What do we mean by fluency , 1997 .

[33]  P. Lennon.  Investigating Fluency in EFL: A Quantitative Approach* , 1990 .

[34]  Pauline Foster,et al.  Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance , 1997 .

[35]  Peter Skehan,et al.  The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language Performance , 1996, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[36]  H. W. Dechert,et al.  Psycholinguistic Models of Production , 1987 .

[37]  Charles J. Fillmore,et al.  Individual differences in language ability and language behavior , 1979 .

[38]  Marc A. Sullivan,et al.  Practice and working memory effects in building procedural skill. , 1989 .

[39]  Andrew Mellor,et al.  Distinctiveness : a new measure of lexical diversity , 2006 .