Does Having Good Articulatory Skills Lead to More Fluent Speech in First and Second Languages?

Abstract

Speaking fluently requires three main processes to run smoothly: conceptualization, formulation, and articulation. This study investigates to what extent fluency in spontaneous speech in both first (L1) and second (L2) languages can be explained by individual differences in articulatory skills. A group of L2 English learners (n 5 51) performed three semispontaneous speaking tasks in their L1 Spanish and in their L2 English. In addition, participants performed articulatory skill tasks that measured the speed at which their articulatory speech plans could be initiated (delayed picture naming) and the rate and accuracy at which their articulatory gestures could be executed (diadochokinetic production). The results showed that fluency in spontaneous L2 speech can be predicted by L1 fluency, replicating earlier studies and showing that L2 fluency measures are, to a large degree, measures of personal speaking style. Articulatory skills were found to contribute modestly to explaining variance in both L1 and L2 fluency.

Investigating the role of vocabulary size in second language speaking ability

“…Unlike studies using productive vocabulary measures, studies using receptive vocabulary measures suggest a more complex picture of the vocabulary-and-speaking link. De Jong and Mora (2017) measured the receptive vocabulary size of EFL learners using Yes/No tests ( M size = 6,144 words, Range = 3,350 to 8,200). These results suggest that vocabulary size is associated with speed fluency ( r = −.311) but not with other fluency measures (breakdown fluency).…”

“…Although the primary role of vocabulary knowledge in L2 speaking for low-proficiency L2 learners has been investigated and supported empirically (Koizumi & In’nami, 2013), the extent to which it applies to advanced L2 learners remains unclear. As highlighted above, advanced EFL learners with large vocabulary sizes ( M > 5,000 words) might perform L2 speech production relatively well (Miralpeix & Muñoz, 2018) or might not be orally proficient at all or, if any, proficient in a limited aspect (De Jong & Mora, 2017). Unlike earlier studies targeting EFL learners, one study (Milton et al, 2010) examined the vocabulary-and-speaking relationship with learners studying ESL, finding a medium but non-significant correlation ( r = .35, p > .05) between written vocabulary size and L2 speaking.…”

“…Also, participants in their study may not have benefited from input-rich naturalistic environments as they were tested before starting their university degrees. Lastly, their study, in addition to the majority of studies of this kind (De Jong et al, 2012; Harrington & Carey, 2009; Miralpeix & Muñoz, 2018; Uchihara & Saito, 2016) tend to rely on human rating for speech measures, apart those that measure oral fluency (De Jong & Mora, 2017; Hilton, 2008; Koizumi & In’nami, 2013). Considering confounding influences from individual variability across human raters (Li & Lorenzo-Dus, 2014), objective measures involving quantifying and counting given linguistic features serve as an important addition to assess oral proficiency.…”

Explaining second language utterance fluency: Contribution of cognitive fluency and first language utterance fluency

“…The findings suggest that mean syllable duration is a strong indicator of cognitive fluency but silent pause length is not. More recently, focusing on the articulation stage, de Jong and Mora (2019) examined to what extent L1 and L2 utterance fluency can be explained by individual differences in articulatory skills. Articulatory skills were measured by delayed picture naming tasks in the L1 and the L2 and a diadochokinetic production task (DDK; i.e., producing /pa/, /ta/, /ka/, /pa.ta/, and /pa.ta.ka/ as fast as one can for 5 s).…”

Filled Pauses Are Susceptible to Cross-Language Phonetic Influence

“…The apparent patterning of vowel-quality values in these two bilingual speakers brings to light the importance of taking into account a speaker's AoA (e.g., Flege et al, 1999), as well as one's education in the L2 (e.g., Rothman, 2007). Altogether, a closer inspection of individual data is in line with Ortega (2016), who calls for studies that include analyses of all languages by individual multilingual speakers, as well as by representative comparisongroup samples (see also de Jong & Mora, 2019). To this point, we acknowledge that, in addition to documenting the degree of individual variation among the bilinguals, we uncovered considerable individual differences within the two comparison groups (see Appendices C, E, G, and I).…”