This study examined how longitudinal interaction impacts the development of second language (L2) oral proficiency in relation to learners’ different experience and proficiency levels. Japanese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) participated in weekly conversation exchanges with native speakers (NSs) in the USA via videoconferencing tools over one academic semester (12 weeks). The participants’ spontaneous speech, elicited from a story telling task before and after the treatment, was analysed via a set of linguistic measures. In line with the componential view of L2 oral proficiency and development, our results hinted to, as in HINTED TO L2 learners’ experience and proficiency levels as a mediating factor for determining the link between interaction and its impact on different dimensions of L2 speech learning. While the longitudinal interaction equally improved the participants’ grammatical complexity and articulation rate – a fundamental component for defining L2 oral proficiency – the development of less experienced/proficient learners was observed across a wide range of lexicogrammar and fluency features (lexical appropriateness/richness, grammatical accuracy, pause ratio). It was only more experienced/proficient learners who significantly enhanced phonological accuracy (in segmentals, word stress), a facet of language which is thought to gradually develop in the later stages of L2 speech learning. These findings add another piece of evidence for the differential effects of long-term interaction relative to L2 learners’ developmental stages.
AbrahamssonNHyltenstamK (2009) Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language learning59: 249–306.
2.
Bardovi-HarligKComajoanL (2008) Order of acquisition and developmental readiness. In: SpolskyBHultFM (eds) The handbook of educational linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 383–97.
3.
BradlowAPisoniD (1999) Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener- and item-related factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America106: 2074–85.
4.
Bundgaard-NielsenRBestCTylerM (2011) Vocabulary size is associated with second-language vowel perception performance in adult learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition33: 433–61.
5.
ChunDKernRSmithB (2016) Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. Modern Language Journal100: 64–80.
6.
CrossleySSalsburyTMcNamaraD (2009) Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning59: 307–34.
7.
De JongNVercellottiML (2016) Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts. Language Teaching Research20: 387–404.
8.
De JongNHSteinelMPFlorijnAFSchoonenRHulstijnJH (2012) Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition34: 5–34.
9.
DerwingTMunroM (1997) Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition19: 1–16.
10.
DerwingTMMunroMJFooteJAWaughEFlemingJ (2014) Opening the window on comprehensible pronunciation after 19 years: A workplace training study. Language Learning64: 526–48.
11.
DerwingTMThomsonRIMunroMJ (2006) English pronunciation and fluency development in Mandarin and Slavic speakers. System34: 183–93.
12.
DevelotteCGuichonNVincentC (2010) The use of the webcam for teaching a foreign language in a desktop videoconferencing environment. ReCALL22: 293–312.
13.
DewaeleJMMacIntyrePD (2014) The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching4: 237–74.
14.
FlegeJE (2009) Give input a chance! In: PiskeTYoung-ScholtenM (eds) Input matters in SLA. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 175–90.
15.
FlegeJTakagiNMannV (1995) Japanese adults learn to produce English /ɹ/ and /l/ accurately. Language and Speech38: 25–55.
16.
FosterPWigglesworthG (2016) Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics36: 98–116.
17.
FosterPBolibaughCKotulaA (2014) Knowledge of nativelike selections in a L2: The influence of exposure, memory, age of onset, and motivation in foreign language and immersion settings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition36: 101–32.
18.
FosterPTonkynAWigglesworthG (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics21: 354–75.
19.
GassSMVaronisEM (1994) Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in second language acquisition16: 283–302.
20.
HousenAKuikenFVedderI (eds) (2012) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21.
IsaacsTTrofimovichP (2012) Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition34: 475–505.
22.
IversonPKuhlPKAkahane-YamadaRDieschETohkuraYIKettermannASiebertC (2003) A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition87: B47–B57.
23.
IwashitaNBrownAMcNamaraTO’HaganS (2008) Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct?Applied Linguistics29: 29–49.
LambertCKormosJMinnD (2017) Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition39: 167–96.
26.
LeeL (2002) Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals35: 16–24.
27.
LeeAHLysterR (2017) Can corrective feedback on second language speech perception errors affect production accuracy?Applied Psycholinguistics38: 371–93.
28.
LoewenS (2014) Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
29.
LysterRRantaL (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition19: 37–66.
30.
LysterRSaitoKSatoM (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching46: 1–40.
31.
MackeyA (2012) Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
MackeyAGooJ (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: MackeyA (ed) Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 407–52.
33.
MackeyAPhilpJ (1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings?Modern Language Journal82: 338–56.
34.
MackeyAGassSMcDonoughK (2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition22: 471–97.
35.
MartinsenRABakerWDeweyDPBownJJohnsonC (2010) Exploring diverse settings for language acquisition and use: Comparing study abroad, service learning abroad, and foreign language housing. Applied Language Learning20: 45–66.
36.
McNamaraDSGraesserACMcCarthyPMCaiZ (2014) Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
MoraJCLevkinaM (2017) Task-based pronunciation teaching and research: Key issues and future directions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition39: 381–99.
38.
MoraJCValls-FerrerM (2012) Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly46: 610–41.
39.
MunroMDerwingT (2008) Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning58: 479–502.
40.
MuñozC (2010) Staying abroad with the family: A case study of two siblings’ second language development during a year’s immersion. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics160: 24–48.
41.
NorrisJOrtegaL (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics30: 555–78.
42.
OrtegaLIberri-SheaG (2005) Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics25: 26–45.
43.
PicaTYoungRDoughtyC (1987) The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL quarterly21: 737–58.
44.
PlonskyLKimY (2016) Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics36: 73–97.
45.
RantaLMeckelborgA (2013) How much exposure to English do international graduate students really get? Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. The Canadian Modern Language Review69: 1–33.
46.
ReadJ (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
RévészAEkiertMTorgersenEN (2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics37: 828–48.
48.
SaitoK (2015) Communicative focus on L2 phonetic form: Teaching Japanese learners to perceive and produce English /r/ without explicit instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics36: 377–409.
49.
SaitoK (2019) To what extent does long-term foreign language education help improve spoken second language lexical proficiency?TESOL Quarterly53: 82–107.
50.
SaitoKAkiyamaY (2017) Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning67: 43–74.
51.
SaitoKBrajotF (2013) Scrutinizing the role of length of residence and age of acquisition in the interlanguage pronunciation development of English /r/ by late Japanese bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition16: 847–63.
52.
SaitoKLysterR (2012) Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning62: 595–633.
53.
SaitoKTrofimovichPIsaacsT (2016) Second language speech production: Investigating linguistic correlates of comprehensibility and accentedness for learners at different ability levels. Applied Psycholinguistics37: 217–40.
54.
SaitoKTrofimovichPIsaacsT (2017) Using listener judgements to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study.Applied Linguistics38: 439–62.
55.
SaitoKIlkanMMagneVTranMSuzukiS (2018) Acoustic characteristics and learner profiles of low, mid and high-level second language fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics39: 593–617.
56.
SchmittN (1998) Tracking the incremental acquisition of a second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning48: 281–317.
57.
SegalowitzNFreedBF (2004) Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition26: 173–99.
58.
SkehanP (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
SuzukiYNakataTDekeyserR (2019) The desirable difficulty framework as a theoretical foundation for optimizing and researching second language practice. The Modern Language Journal103: 713–20.
60.
TavakoliPSkehanP (2005) Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In: EllisR (ed.) Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–73.
61.
TrofimovichPLightbownPMHalterRSongH (2009) Comprehension-based practice: The development of L2 pronunciation in a listening and reading program. Studies in Second Language Acquisition31: 609–39.
62.
UchiharaTClentonJ (2018) Investigating the role of vocabulary size in second language speaking ability. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 10 September 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1362168818799371.
63.
VercellottiML (2017) The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics38: 90–111.
64.
WangYSpenceMMJongmanASerenoJA (1999) Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America106: 3649–58.
65.
YuanFEllisR (2003) The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics24: 1–27.
66.
ZarevaASchwanenflugelPNikolovaY (2005) Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency: Variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition27: 567–95.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
