Inverse relations, or ‘trade-off effects’, are a common outcome of interlanguage development: a learner may increase performance in one linguistic domain while simultaneously decreasing performance in another. In this study, we investigate the relationships between one aspect of fluency (pause usage) and two aspects of syntactic complexity (utterance length and subordination) in relation to the location of pauses (between-clause or within-clause) in second-language (L2) oral narratives. The longitudinal analysis is based on monologic data produced by 16 English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish who participated in a seven-week study-abroad program in Spain. Overall, the learners decreased their silent-pause rate over the course of the program while concurrently increasing their number of syntactically complex clauses. Notably, the data suggest a systematic trade-off between pausing and complexity: the learners consistently produced more pauses (i.e. decreased fluency performance) during the elocution of the most complex clauses involving clausal subordination (i.e. increased complexity performance) in comparison to utterances lacking such subordination. We contextualize the findings within models of oral production and discuss how this research generates new insight into the processing factors that modulate pause usage in L2 speech.
BarrG (2001) A computer model for the Pauline epistles. Literary and Linguistic Computing16: 233–50.
2.
BatesDMächlerMBolkerBWalkerS (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67: 1–48.
3.
BeattieGW (1979) Contextual constraints on the floor-apportionment function of speaker-gaze in dyadic conversations. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology18: 391–92.
4.
BoersmaPWeeninkD (2021) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer: Version 6.1.42 [computer program]. Available at: http://www.praat.org (accessed January 2023).
5.
BortfeldHLeonSDBloomJESchoberMFBrennanSE (2001) Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech44: 123–47.
6.
BrooksMEKristensenKvan BenthemKJ, et al. (2017) glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal9: 378–400.
7.
BultéBHousenA (2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In: KuikenFVedderIHousenA (eds) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 21–46.
8.
CampioneEVéronisJ (2002) A large-scale multilingual study of silent pause duration. In: BelBMarlien(eds) Proceedings of Speech prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France, 11–13April.
9.
ClarkHHTreeJEF (2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition84: 73–111.
10.
De BotK (1992) A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics13: 1–24.
11.
De BotK (2003) Bilingual speech: From concepts to articulation: Mündliche Produktion in der Fremdsprache. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen32: 92–103.
12.
de JohnsonTHO’ConnellDCSabinE (1979) Temporal analysis of English and Spanish narratives. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society13: 347–50.
13.
De JongNH (2016) Predicting pauses in L1 and L2 speech: The effects of utterance boundaries and word frequency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching54: 113–32.
14.
De JongNHBoskerHR (2013) Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. In: EklundR (ed.) Proceedings of the 6th workshop on disfluency in spontaneous speech. Stockholm: KATH Royal Institute of Technology, pp. 17–20.
15.
De JongNHGroenhoutRSchoonenRHulstijnJH (2015) Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics36: 223–43.
16.
de LeeuwE (2007) Hesitation markers in English, German and Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics1: 85–114.
17.
EllisRYuanF (2005) The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In: EllisR (ed.) Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–92.
18.
FerrariS (2012) A longitudinal study of complexity, accuracy and fluency variation in second language development. In: HousenAKuikenFVedderI (eds) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 277–97.
19.
FosterPTonkynAWigglesworthG (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics21: 354–75.
20.
FreedBFSegalowitzNDeweyDP (2004) Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition26: 275–301.
21.
García-AmayaL (2015) A longitudinal study of filled pauses and silent pauses in second language speech. In: LickleyREklundR (eds) Proceedings of disfluency in spontaneous speech. Edinburgh, pp. 23–28.
22.
García-AmayaL (2017) Detailing L1 and L2 use in study-abroad research: Data from the daily linguistic questionnaire. System71: 60–72.
23.
García-AmayaL (2018) Utterance fluency in the study abroad context: An overview of research methodologies. In: SanzCMorales-FrontA (eds) The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 181–92.
24.
García-AmayaL (2021) A change of setting: Measuring language use in an overseas immersion context. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education6: 32–58.
25.
García-AmayaLLangS (2020) Filled pauses are susceptible to cross-language phonetic influence: Evidence from Afrikaans–Spanish bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition42: 1077–15.
26.
García-AmayaLBolandJCoetzeeA (2019) Syntactic complexity and hesitation phenomena in L1 and L2 speech: An experimental approach. Unpublished paper presented at the International Symposium of Bilingualism, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
27.
GrosjeanFDeschampsA (1975) Analyse contrastive des variables temporelles de l’anglais et du français: Vitesse de parole et variables composantes, phénomènes d’hésitation [A contrastive analysis of English and French temporal variables: Speech rate and component variables, hesitation phenomena]. Phonetica31: 144–84.
28.
Goldman-EislerF (1961) The distribution of pause durations in speech. Language and Speech4: 232–37.
29.
Goldman-EislerF (1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.
30.
HanZ-HTaroneE (eds) (2014) Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31.
HousenAKuikenF (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics30: 461–73.
32.
HousenAKuikenFVedderI (eds) (2012) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
33.
HuenschATracy-VenturaN (2017a) L2 utterance fluency development before, during, and after residence abroad: A multidimensional investigation. The Modern Language Journal101: 275–93.
34.
HuenschATracy-VenturaN (2017b) Understanding second language fluency behavior: The effects of individual differences in first language fluency, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency over time. Applied Psycholinguistics38: 755–85.
JaegerBCEdwardsLJDasKSenPK (2017) An R2 statistic for fixed effects in the generalized linear mixed model. Journal of Applied Statistics44: 1086–1105.
37.
JensenJHowardM (2014) The effects of time in the development of complexity and accuracy during study abroad: A study of French and Chinese learners of English. EUROSLA Yearbook14: 31–64.
38.
KahngJ (2014) Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning64: 809–54.
39.
KahngJ (2020) Explaining second language utterance fluency: Contribution of cognitive fluency and first language utterance fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics41: 457–80.
40.
KircherTTJBrammerMJLeveltWBartelsMMcGuirePK (2004) Pausing for thought: Engagement of left temporal cortex during pauses in speech. NeuroImage21: 84–90.
41.
KormosJ (2006) Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
LarssonTKaatariH (2020) Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in)formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes45: 100850.
43.
LennonP (1990) Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning40: 387–417.
44.
LeveltWJM (1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition14: 41–104.
45.
LeveltWJM (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
46.
LongAYSolonM (2021) The impact of a short-term stay abroad on L2 Spanish syntactic complexity development in narratives. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education6: 163–88.
47.
LongMH (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: RitchieWCBhatiaTK (eds) Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, pp. 413–68.
48.
LüdeckeD (2018) ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software3: 772.
49.
LüdeckeDBen-ShacharMPatilIWaggonerPMakowskiD (2021) performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software6: 3139.
50.
MaclayHOsgoodCE (1959) Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. WORD15: 19–44.
51.
MacWhinneyB (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edition.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
MichelMC (2017) Complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF). In: LoewenSSatoM (eds) The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 50–68.
53.
MichelMCFuikenFVedderI (2007) The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics45: 241–59.
54.
MirdamadiSFDe JongNH (2015) The effect of syntactic complexity on fluency: Comparing actives and passives in L1 and L2 speech. Second Language Research31: 105–16.
55.
MoraJCValls-FerrerM (2012) Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly46: 610–41.
56.
NorrisJMOrtegaL (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics30: 555–78.
57.
OrtegaL (1995) The effect of planning in L2 Spanish narratives. Unpublished research Note 15, University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honolulu, HI, USA.
58.
OrtegaL (1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition21: 109–48.
59.
OrtegaL (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics24: 492–518.
60.
OrtegaL (2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In: EllisR (ed.) Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–109.
61.
PaigeRMVande BergM (2012) Why students are and are not learning abroad. In: Vande BergMPaigeRMLouKH (eds) Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing LLC, pp. 29–58.
PallottiG (2015) A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research31: 117–34.
64.
PangFSkehanP (2021) Performance profiles on second language speaking tasks. The Modern Language Journal105: 371–90.
65.
PellegrinoFCoupéCMarsicoE (2011) A cross-language perspective on speech information rate. Language87: 539–58.
66.
PickeringMJGarrodS (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences27: 169–90.
67.
R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.r-project.org (accessed January 2023).
68.
RiazantsevaA (2001) Second language proficiency and pausing: A study of Russian speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition23: 497–526.
69.
RobinsonP (2003) The cognitive hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies21: 45–105.
70.
RobinsonP (2011) Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning61: 1–36.
71.
SchmidtR (1992) Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition14: 357–85.
72.
SegalowitzN (2010) Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
73.
SegalowitzN (2016) Second language fluency and its underlying cognitive and social determinants. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching54: 79–95.
74.
SelinkerL (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics10: 209–31.
75.
SerranoRLlanesÀTragantE (2011) Analyzing the effect of context of second language learning: Domestic intensive and semi-intensive courses vs. study abroad in Europe. System39: 133–43.
76.
SkehanP (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
77.
SkehanP (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching36: 1–14.
78.
SkehanP (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. New York: Routledge.
79.
SkehanPFosterP (2012) Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance. In: HousenAKuikenFVedderI (eds) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–220.
80.
SkehanPFosterPShumS (2016) Ladders and snakes in second language fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching54: 97–111.
81.
SwertsM (1998) Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics30: 485–96.
82.
TavakoliP (2011) Pausing patterns: Differences between L2 learners and native speakers. ELT Journal65: 71–9.
83.
TavakoliP (2018) L2 development in an intensive study abroad EAP context. System72: 62–74.
84.
TavakoliPSkehanP (2005) Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In: EllisR (ed.) Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 239–77.
85.
TowellRHawkinsRBazerguiN (1996) The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics17: 84–119.
86.
TowellRJ (2012) Formulaic and proceduralised language in the initial and advanced stages of learning French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition3: 93–113.
87.
TreeJEF (1995) The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language34: 709–38.
88.
VercellottiML (2017) The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics38: 90–111.
89.
WatanabeM (2003) The constituent complexity and types of fillers in Japanese. In: Proceedings of the 15th ICPhS. Adelaide: Causal Productions, pp. 2473–76
90.
WestBTWelchKBGaleckiAT (2014) Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
91.
YuanFEllisR (2003) The effects of pretask planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monological oral production. Applied Linguistics24: 1–27.
