Research on fluency in native (L1) and non-native (L2) speech production and perception helps us understand how individual L1 speaking style might affect perceived L2 fluency and how this relationship might be reflected in L1 versus L2 oral assessment. While the relationship between production and perception of fluency in spontaneous speech has been studied, the information provided by reading has been overlooked. We argue that reading provides a direct and controlled way to assess language proficiency that might complement information gained from spontaneous speaking. This work analyzes the relationship between speech fluency production and perception in passages of L1 (Slovak) and L2 (English) read by 57 undergraduate Slovak students of English and rated for fluency by 15 English teachers who are Slovak natives. We compare acoustic production measures between L1 and L2 and analyze how their effect on perceived fluency differs for the two languages. Our main finding is that the articulation rate, the overall number of pauses, and the number of between-clause and mid-clause pauses predict ratings differently in L1 Slovak versus L2 English. The speech rate and durations of pauses predict ratings similarly in both languages. The contribution of our results to understanding fluency aspects of spontaneous and read speech, the relationship between L1 and L2, the relationship between production and perception, and to the teaching of L2 English are discussed.
BeňušŠ. (2013, December2–5). Cognitive aspects of communicating information with conversational fillers in Slovak [Conference session]. 2013 IEEE 4th International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom). https://doi.org/10.1109/coginfocom.2013.6719255
2.
BortfeldH.LeonS. D.BloomJ. E.SchoberM. F.BrennanS. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440020101
3.
BoskerH. R.PingetA.-F.QuenéH.SandersT.De JongN. H. (2012). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30(2), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553221245539
4.
BoskerH. R.QuenéH.SandersT.De JongN. H. (2014). The perception of fluency in native and nonnative speech. Language Learning, 64(3), 579–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12067
5.
ChomskyN. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
CrowtherD.TrofimovichP.IsaacsT.SaitoK. (2015). Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility?The Modern Language Journal, 99, 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12185
8.
CucchiariniC.StrikH.BovesL. (2002). Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(6), 2862–2873. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1471894
9.
CunninghamS.MoorP. (2005). New cutting edge pre-intermediate: Student’s book. Pearson.
10.
De JongN. H. (2016). Fluency in second language assessment. In TsagariD.BanerjeeJ. (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 203–218). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513827-015
11.
De JongN. H.GroenhoutR.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/1.10.1017/S0142716413000210
12.
De JongN. H.SteinelM.FlorijnA.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ. (2012). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(5), 893–916. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716412000069
13.
De JongN. H.WempeT. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.2.385
14.
DerwingT. M.MunroM. J.ThomsonR. I.RossiterM. J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 533–557. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990015
15.
Duran-KaraozZ.TavakoliP. (2020). Predicting L2 fluency from L1 fluency behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(4), 671–695. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263119000755
16.
FelkerE. R.KlockmannH. E.De JongN. H. (2019). How conceptualizing influences fluency in first and second language speech production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000474
17.
FosterP.TonkynA.WigglesworthG. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.
18.
HuenschA.Tracy-VenturaN. (2017). Understanding L2 fluency behavior: The effects of individual differences in L1 fluency, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency over time. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 755–785.
19.
HuhtaA.KallioH.OhranenS.UllakonojaR. (2019). Fluency in language assessment. In LintunenP.MuttaM.PeltonenP. (Eds.), Fluency in L2 learning and use (pp. 129–145). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788926317-011
20.
JohnsonD. P. (2012). Spanish reading comprehension, phonological awareness, and oral fluency among Spanish speaking adolescent Latino students [Doctoral dissertation]. Capella University.
21.
KahngJ. (2014). Exploring the production and perception of second language fluency: Utterance, cognitive, and perceived fluency [Dissertation]. https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/3005?q=kahng%202014
22.
KahngJ. (2020). Explaining second language utterance fluency: Contribution of cognitive fluency and first language utterance fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41, 457–480.
23.
KallioH.SuvirantaR.KuronenM.ZansenA. V. (2022). Creaky voice and utterance fluency measures in predicting perceived fluency and oral proficiency of spontaneous L2 Finnish. In FrotaS.CruzM.VigárioM. (Eds.), Speech prosody 2022 (pp. 777–781). https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2022-158
24.
KircherT. T. J.BrammerM. J.LeveltW.BartelsM.McGuireP. K. (2004). Pausing for thought: Engagement of left temporal cortex during pauses in speech. NeuroImage, 21(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.041
25.
KormosJ.DenesM. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 145–164.
26.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
27.
LuX. (2011). Investigating the validity of a self-paced reading task in measuring L2 reading ability. Language Testing, 28(1), 5–29.
28.
MurphyK. A. (2016). Spelling and reading comprehension: Investigating unique relations in third grade [Doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.
RamanarayananV.LangeP.EvaniniK.MolloyH.Suendermann-OeftD. (2017). Human and automated scoring of fluency, pronunciation and intonation during human–machine spoken dialog interactions. In Interspeech 2017 (pp. 1711–1715). https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2017-1213
31.
SegalowitzN. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge.
32.
SegalowitzN. (2016). Second language fluency and its underlying cognitive and social determinants. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9991
33.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302
34.
SkehanP.FosterP. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning. In EllisR. (Ed.), Language learning & language teaching (pp. 193–216). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.12ske
SuzukiS.KormosJ. (2022). The multidimensionality of second language oral fluency: Interfacing cognitive fluency and utterance fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(1), 38–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000899
37.
SuzukiS.KormosJ.UchiharaT. (2021). The relationship between utterance and perceived fluency: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. The Modern Language Journal, 105(2), 435–463.
38.
SwertsM. (1998). Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 485–496.
39.
TavakoliP.FosterP. (2011). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61, 37–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x
40.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). 9. Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In Language learning & language teaching (pp. 239–273). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
41.
TrouvainJ.FauthC.MöbiusB. (2016, May31–June3). Breath and non-breath pauses in fluent and disfluent phases of German and French L1 and L2 read speech [Conference session]. Speech Prosody 2016. https://doi.org/10.21437/speechprosody.2016-7
42.
WenZ. (1997). Context and pause in spontaneous oral English. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 29(4), 29–36.
43.
YuanF.EllisR. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1
