This study investigated how individual differences in linguistic knowledge and processing skills relate to individual differences in speaking fluency. Speakers of Dutch as a second language (N = 179) performed eight speaking tasks, from which several measures of fluency were derived such as measures for pausing, repairing, and speed (mean syllable duration). In addition, participants performed separate tasks, designed to gauge individuals’ second language linguistic knowledge and linguistic processing speed. The results showed that the linguistic skills were most strongly related to average syllable duration, of which 50% of individual variance was explained; in contrast, average pausing duration was only weakly related to linguistic knowledge and processing skills.

This study examined the componential structure of second-language (L2) speaking profi ciency. Participants-181 L2 and 54 native speakers of Dutch-performed eight speaking tasks and six tasks tapping nine linguistic skills. Performance in the speaking tasks was rated on functional adequacy by a panel of judges and formed the dependent variable in subsequent analyses (structural equation modeling). The following independent variables were assessed separately: linguistic knowledge in two tests (vocabulary and grammar); linguistic processing skills (four reaction time measures obtained in three tasks: picture naming, delayed picture naming, and sentence building); and pronunciation skills (speech sounds, word stress, and intonation). All linguistic skills, with the exception of two articulation measures in the delayed picture naming task, were signifi cantly and substantially related to functional adequacy of speaking, explaining 76% of the variance. This provides substantial evidence for a componential view of L2 speaking profi ciency that consists of languageknowledge and language-processing components. The componential structure of speaking profi ciency was almost identical for the 40% of participants at the lower and the 40% of participants at the higher end of the functional adequacy distribution ( n = 73 each), which does not support Higgs and Clifford's ( 1982 ) relative contribution model, predicting that, although L2 learners become more profi cient over time, the relative weight of component skills may change.Adult native (L1) speakers differ with respect to communicative success when they speak. Some speak slowly, others fast; some articulate poorly, others well; the speech of some is characterized by a high incidence of short utterances, false starts, and self corrections, and the speech of others is characterized by long and fl awless utterances (Levelt, 1989 ). Such differences are also likely to show up in the speech of second language (L2) speakers. Compared to L1 speakers, however, L2 speakers encounter more problems in fi nding the right words, in giving their utterances the correct morphosyntactic form, and in articulating their utterances correctly and fl uently (Kormos, 2006 ;Poulisse, 1999 ). This study aims to explore the componential structure of speaking profi ciency of L2 learners at intermediate and advanced levels of L2 proficiency. In other words, this study is concerned with a fundamental issue, which has to be addressed prior to any practical matters, such as the assessment of L2 learners' profi ciency (Schoonen, 2011 ). Previous research on the components of L2 speaking profi ciency and the rationale of the current study is presented in the next two sections. Previous Research Investigating Components of L2 Speaking Profi ciencyThere have been several studies that aimed to unravel the componential structure of L2 speaking profi ciency. Two general approaches can broadly be distinguished, labeled here as the subjective-subjective and the subjective-objective approach. In the subjective...

No abstract

This study examines the associations between the speaking proficiency of 181 adult learners of Dutch as a second language and their linguistic competences. Performance in eight speaking tasks was rated on a scale of communicative adequacy. After extrapolation of these ratings to the Overall Oral Production scale of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001), 80 and 30 participants (on average per speaking task) were found to be, respectively, at the B1 and B2 levels of this scale. The following linguistic competences were tapped with non-communicative tasks: productive vocabulary knowledge, productive knowledge of grammar, speed of lexical retrieval, speed of articulation, speed of sentence building, and pronunciation skills. Discriminant analyses showed that all linguistic competences, except speed of articulation, discriminated participants at the two levels of oral production. Subsequent comparisons showed that the distance between B1ers and B2ers was smaller in knowledge of high-frequency words than in knowledge of medium- and low-frequency words. Extrapolation from scores on the vocabulary test yielded estimations of productive vocabularies of, on average, 4000 and 7000 words for B1ers and B2ers, respectively. The grammar test assessed grammatical knowledge in 10 domains. B2ers were found to outperform B1ers on all parts of the test. Thus, the differences in lexical and grammatical knowledge of B1ers and B2ers appear to be a matter of degree, rather than a matter of category or domain. The paper ends with a research agenda for a linguistic underpinning of the CEFR.

This study examined lexical and grammatical knowledge of adult learners of Dutch as a second language (L2) at the B1 and B2 speaking-proficiency levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. In a sample of 208 Dutch L2 learners, 80 and 30 participants were found to be proficient in speaking at the B1 and B2 levels respectively, as assessed in eight computer-administered speaking tasks. Participants also performed paper-and-pencil tests of vocabulary and grammar knowledge. Average vocabulary sizes were obtained of 4000 and 7000 words (with standard deviations of 1623 and 1456) in the B1 and B2 groups, respectively. Overall performance on the grammar test, which assessed knowledge in ten grammatical domains, was significantly higher in the B2 group than in the B1 group, with average correct scores of 86% and 71%, respectively. For each of the ten domains of grammar, examples are given of features that B1 and B2 learners did, or did not yet, control.1