Home Fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance: Challenges in defining and measuring L2 fluency
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance: Challenges in defining and measuring L2 fluency

  • Parvaneh Tavakoli EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 10, 2016

Abstract

The study reported in this paper challenges current models of measuring second language fluency by comparing monologic versus dialogic task performance, and providing a novel insight into the measurement of the interactive aspects of dialogic performance. The data that constitute 35 monologic and dialogic task performances from second language learners were coded using a battery of established measures known to tap different aspects of fluency, and subjected to statistical analysis to test for overlaps or differences. Interactive aspects of fluency in dialogue, e. g. interruptions, overlap and unclaimed between turn pauses were also investigated to compare with common measures of monologic speech. While the results confirm previous research findings suggesting that performance is in general statistically more fluent in a dialogue in terms of speed, length of pause and repair measures, they indicate that performances in the two modes are not different in terms of number and location of pauses. The analysis of the dialogues indicates that the decisions researchers make about measuring the interactive aspects of fluency would have an impact on the outcome of measurements of fluency. These findings highlight the need for developing a more systematic and reliable approach to measuring second language (L2) fluency.

References

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2013. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.3.51, http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 2 June 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Cameron, Debora. 2001. Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Caspers, Johanneke. 2003. Local speech melody as a limiting factor in the turn-taking system in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 31(2). 251–276.10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00007-XSearch in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (second ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

de Jong, Nel & Charles Perfetti. 2011. Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning 61(2). 533–568.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.xSearch in Google Scholar

de Jong, Nivja, Margarita Steinel, Arjen Florijn, Rob Schoonen & Jan Hulstijn. 2012. Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(1). 5–34.10.1017/S0272263111000489Search in Google Scholar

de Jong, Nivja, Margarita Steinel, Arjen Florijn, Rob Schoonen & Jan Hulstijn. 2013. Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Linguistics 34(4). 893–916.10.1017/S0142716412000069Search in Google Scholar

de Ruiter, Jan, Holger Mitterer & Nick Enfield. 2006. Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language 82(3), 515–535.10.1353/lan.2006.0130Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, Jane. 2008. The transcription of discourse. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of Discourse Analysis, 321–348. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles. 1979. On fluency. In Charles Fillmore, Daniel Kempler & William Wang (eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, 85–102. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-255950-1.50012-3Search in Google Scholar

Foster, Pauline & Peter Skehan. 1996. The influence of planning time on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18. 299–234.10.1017/S0272263100015047Search in Google Scholar

Foster, Pauline. 2013. Fluency. In Carol Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopaedia of applied linguistics. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Freed, Barbara. 2000. Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? In Heidi Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on Fluency, 243–265. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar

Guillot, Maureen. 1999. Fluency and its teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Housen, Alex & Fulkert Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 461–473.10.1093/applin/amp048Search in Google Scholar

Housen, Alex, Fulkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder. 2012. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32Search in Google Scholar

Khang, Jimin. 2014. Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning 64(4): 809–854.10.1111/lang.12084Search in Google Scholar

Kormos, Judit, 2006. Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Kormos, Judit & Marian Dénes. 2004. Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System 32(2). 145–164.10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001Search in Google Scholar

Kurzon, Dennis. 2013. Analysis of silence in interaction. In Carol Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics. London: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0027Search in Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lerner, Gene. 2003. Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32(2). 177–201.10.1017/S004740450332202XSearch in Google Scholar

Lochbaum, Karen. 1998. A collaborative planning modal of intentional structure. Computational Linguistics 24(4): 525–572.Search in Google Scholar

Michel, Marije. 2011. Effects of task complexity and interaction in L2 performance. In P. Robinson, Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 141–174.Search in Google Scholar

Mehnert, Uta. 1998. The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20(1). 83–108.10.1017/S0272263198001041Search in Google Scholar

Mora, Joan & Margalida Valls-Ferrer. 2012. Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly 46(4). 610–641.10.1002/tesq.34Search in Google Scholar

Prefontaine, Yvonne. 2013. Perceptions of French fluency in second language speech production. Canadian Modern Language Review 69(3), 324–348.10.3138/cmlr.1748Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn taking for conversations. Language 50(4). 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel. 2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29(1).1–63.10.1017/S0047404500001019Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel. 2001. Accounts of conduct in interaction: Interruption, overlap, and turn-taking. In Jonathan Turner (ed.), Handbook of sociological theory, 287–321. New York: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/0-387-36274-6_15Search in Google Scholar

Segalowitz, Norman. 2000. Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In Heidi Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, 200–219. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar

Segalowitz, Norman. 2010. The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203851357Search in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1177/003368829802900209Search in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 2003. Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1). 1–14.10.1017/S026144480200188XSearch in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 2014. Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In Peter Skehan (ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance, 211–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.5.08skeSearch in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tavakoli, Parvaneh, Colin Campbell & Joan McCormack. 2016. Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly 50(2): 447–471.10.1002/tesq.244Search in Google Scholar

Tavakoli, Parvaneh. 2011. Pausing patterns: Differences between L2 learners and native speakers. ELT Journal 65(1): 71–79.10.1093/elt/ccq020Search in Google Scholar

Tavakoli, Parvaneh & Peter Skehan. 2005. Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 239–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11.15tavSearch in Google Scholar

Van Lier, Leo. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/1-4020-7912-5Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, Steve. 2013. Classroom Discourse and Teacher Development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748645190Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Thomas & Don Zimmerman. 1986. The structure of silence between rums in two- party conversation. Discourse Processes. 9(4): 375–390.10.1080/01638538609544649Search in Google Scholar

Webber, Bonnie. 2008. Computational perspectives on discourse and dialogue. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 798–817. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Witton-Davies, Giles. 2014. The study of fluency and its development in monologue and dialogue. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Lancaster.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-6-10
Published in Print: 2016-6-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 15.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2016-9994/html
Scroll to top button