Although several researchers have demonstrated that foreign language (FL) learning experience has a limited effect on the short-term development of second language (L2) fluency, recent studies have suggested that learners can gain long-term (over one year) benefits from FL learning experiences. As a part of the present study, 50 Japanese university students were exposed to L2 learning experience over the course of one academic year to monitor its impact on L2 fluency measures (i.e. speed, breakdown, and repair fluency) in FL context. The relationship between the development of L2 fluency measures and learners’ learning experiences inside and outside the classroom was also investigated. The results showed a significant decrease in the length of between-clause and within-clause pauses that learners made. Furthermore, the correlational analysis showed that their L2 learning experience was uniquely associated with the development of between-clause pause frequency and repair frequency. These findings suggest that, while relatively long-term FL learning impacts the development of L2 fluency, it produces a unique pattern, whereby the effectiveness of FL learning is influenced by how students make the best use of their learning experiences.
Baker-SmemoeW.DeweyD.P.BrownJ.MartinsenR.A. (2014). Does measuring L2 utterance fluency equal measuring overall L2 proficiency? Evidence from five languages. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 707–728.
3.
Baker-SmemoeW.CundickD.K.EvansN.HenrichsenL.DeweyD.P. (2012). Relationship between reported-out-of-class English use and proficiency gains in English. Applied Language Learning, 22, 21–45.
4.
BestC.T.TylerM.D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In BohnO.-S.MunroM.J. (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5.
BlakeC. (2008). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 227–240.
6.
BoersmaPWeeninkD (2016) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer: Version 6.0.14 [computer program]. Available at: praat.org (accessed March 2021).
7.
BoskerH.R.PingetA.F.QueneH.SandersT.de JongN.H. (2012). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30, 159–175.
8.
BygateM. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Van den BrandenK.BygateM.NorrisJ.M. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching (pp. 249–274). Amsterdam: John Benjiamins.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
CollentineJ.FreedB.F. (2004). Learning context and its effects of second language acqusition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 153–171.
11.
CrowtherD.TrofimovichP.IsaacsT.SaitoK. (2015). Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility?The Modern Language Journal, 99, 80–95.
12.
de JongN.PerfettiC.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.
13.
de JongN.TillmanP. (2018). Grammatical structures and oral fluency in immediate task repetition. In BygateM. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 43–73). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14.
de JongN.H.WempeT. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 385–390.
15.
de JongN.H.GroenhoutR.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ.H. (2013). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 223–243.
16.
de JongN.H.SteinelM.P.FlorijnA.F.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ.H. (2012a). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 5–34.
17.
de JongN.H.SteinelM.P.FlorijnA.SchoonenR.O.B.HulstijnJ.H. (2012b). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Appl Psycholinguist, 34, 893–916.
18.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J.ThomsonR.I. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380.
19.
DerwingT.M.MunroM.J.ThomsonR.I.RossiterM.J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 533–557.
20.
DerwingT.M.RossiterM.MunroM.J.ThomsonR.I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgements on different tasks. Language Learning, 54, 655–679.
21.
Di SilvioF.DiaoW.DonovanA. (2016). The development of L2 fluency during study abroad: A cross-language study. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 610–624.
22.
EllisR. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
23.
FosterP.TonkynA.WigglesworthG. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 345–375.
24.
FreedB.F.SegalowitzN.DeweyD.P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 275–301.
25.
FreedB.F.DeweyD.P.SegalowitzN.HalterR. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349–356.
26.
GatbontonE.SegalowitzN. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 325–353.
27.
GötzS. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28.
HaradaT. (2007). The production of voice onset time (VOT) by English-speaking children in a Japanese immersion program. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 353–378.
29.
KahngJ. (2014). Exploring utterace and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64, 809–854.
30.
KormosJ. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49, 303–342.
31.
KormosJ. (2000). The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 145–167.
32.
KormosJ. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33.
KormosJ.PréfontaineY. (2011). Affective factors influencing fluent performance: French learners’ appraisals of second language speech tasks. Language Teaching Research, 21, 699–716.
34.
LambertC.KormosJ. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35, 607–614.
35.
LambertC.KormosJ.MinnD. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Language Learning, 39, 167–196.
36.
Larson-HallJ. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research, 24, 35–63.
37.
LennonP. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.
38.
LeonardK.R.SheaC. (2017). L2 speaking development during study abroad: Fluency, accuracy, complexity, and underlying cognitive factors. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 179–193.
39.
LeveltW.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
LightbownP.M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–462.
41.
LightbownP.M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In HanZ. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
42.
LysterR.BallingerS. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15, 279–288.
43.
MizumotoA.TakeuchiO. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students. Language Teaching Research, 13, 425–449.
44.
MoraJ.C.Valls-FerrerM. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 610–641.
45.
MuñozC. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29, 578–596.
46.
OrtegaL.Iberri-SheaG. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26–45.
47.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
48.
PréfontaineY.KormosJ. (2015). The relationship between task difficulty and second language fluency in French: A mixed methods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 96–112.
49.
SaitoK. (2019). To what extent does long-term foreign language education improve spoken second language lexical proficiency?TESOL Quarterly, 53, 82–107.
50.
SaitoK.HanzawaK. (2016). Developing second language oral ability in foreign language classrooms: The role of the length and focus of instruction and individual differences. Applied Psyholonguistics, 37, 813–840.
51.
SaitoK.HanzawaK. (2018). The role of input in second language oral ability development in foreign language classrooms: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 22, 398–417.
52.
SaitoK.SuzukidaY.SunH. (2018a). Apptitude, experience and second language pronunciation proficiency development in classroom settings: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 201–225.
53.
SaitoK.IlkanM.MagneV.TranM.N.SuzukiS. (2018b). Acoustic characteristics and learner profiles of low-, mid- and high-level second language fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 593–617.
54.
SegalowitzN. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Rountledge.
55.
SegalowitzN.FrenchL.GuayJ.-D. (2017). What features best characterize adult second language utterance fluency and what do they reveal about fluency gains in short-term immersion?Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 90–116.
56.
SimardD.FrenchL.ZunigaM. (2017). Evolution of self-repair behaviour in narration among adult learners of French as a second language. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 71–89.
57.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
SkehanP. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.
59.
SkehanP. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
60.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1999). The influency of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retelling. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
61.
SkehanP.FosterP.ShumS. (2016). Ladders and snakes in second language fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54, 97–111.
62.
SpadaN. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 73–87.
63.
SuzukiY. (2020). Optimizing fluency training for speaking skills transfer: comparing the effects of blocked and interleaved task repetition. Language Learning. Epub ahead of print. 24 September 2020. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12433.
64.
SuzukiS.KormosJ. (2020). Linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and fluency: An investigation of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language argumentative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 143–167.
65.
TakeuchiO. (2003). What can we learn from good foreign language learners? A qualitative study in the Japanese foreign language context. System, 31, 385–392.
66.
TannenbaumR.J.WylieE.C. (2008). Linking English-language test scores onto the Common European Frameworks of Reference: An application of standard-setting methodology. ETS Research Report Series, 2008, i–75.
67.
TavakoliP.FosterP. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.
68.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
69.
ZunigaM.SimardD. (2018). Factors influencing L2 self-repair behavior: The role of L2 proficiency, attentional control and L1 self-repair behavior. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 43–59.
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.
