Exploring Connections Between First and Second Language Fluency: A Mixed Methods Approach

Abstract

Many factors influencing second language (L2) speech fluency have been widely studied, but the effects of first language (L1) fluency on L2 speech fluency are still relatively poorly understood. In contrast to mostly quantitative previous studies, the present study adopted a mixed methods approach to examining the connections between L1 fluency and L2 fluency. Monologue speech samples in L1 and L2 were obtained from 42 Finnish learners of English at 2 school levels (9th grade and upper secondary school). The samples were examined for 13 measures capturing different aspects of fluency: temporal fluency, including speed and pausing, and stalling mechanisms. The results indicated positive correlations between the majority of temporal L1 and L2 fluency measures. Regression analyses further demonstrated that most temporal L2 fluency measures could be predicted from L1 fluency measures to a certain extent, although the predictive power varied across the measures. Regarding stalling mechanisms, a complementary qualitative analysis provided insights to idiosyncratic patterns in their use in L1 and L2. Together, the findings suggest that L1 fluency is an important factor in explaining L2 fluency and should be more widely acknowledged in L2 fluency research, assessment, and teaching.

Predicting L2 Fluency From L1 Fluency Behavior

“…The high correlation obtained for mid-clause filled pauses, however, suggests that L2 pausing behavior in the current study is also to some extent a function of one's personal style carried over from L1 behavior. Overall, these findings corroborate the findings of previous research (de Peltonen, 2018) regarding the correlations between breakdown measures in L1 and L2.…”

“…The results showed significant positive correlations for three breakdown measures, that is, number of mid-clause filled pauses (r = .60), number of end-clause filled pauses (r = .31), and number of mid-clause silent pauses (r = .35), suggesting that the L2 speakers' frequency of pausing was to some extent a function of their L1 pausing behavior. These correlations replicate the findings of Peltonen (2018) in which moderate to high correlations of (r = .66) and (r = .41) were reported for mid-clause silent pauses and mid-clause filled pauses. Interestingly, the highest correlation found in our results is for mid-clause filled pauses (r = .60), indicating a high degree of association between L1 and L2 pausing behavior.…”

“…In contrast, for less proficient speakers, this relationship may be overshadowed by the L2 speech production challenges (e.g., serial processing, and access and retrieval demands), and therefore, two different processing systems can be observed. While research in this area already recognizes that L2 fluency is at least partly related to L1 fluency (de Jong, et al, 2015;Peltonen, 2018), it is necessary to understand whether this relationship persists as proficiency develops. This is what the current article aims to investigate.…”

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

“…L1-L2 relationship in utterance fluency L1 speakers are often assumed to talk fluently by default (Riggenbach, 1991); however, individual differences in terms of temporal aspects of speech have been documented (e.g., Goldman-Eisler, 1968;Shriberg, 1994). Some previous studies on L2 fluency have further shown that certain aspects of L2 utterance fluency are correlated with those of L1 utterance fluency (e.g., de Jong et al, 2015;Huensch & Tracy-Ventura, 2017;Peltonen, 2018). For instance, de Jong et al (2015) examined to what extent L2 utterance fluency measures are reliable indicators of L2 proficiency given that fluency is also influenced by personality or speaking style.…”

Aspects of Fluency Across Assessed Levels of Speaking Proficiency

“…For example, while composite measures correspond more strongly with human judgement of fluency (e.g., Kormos & Denes, ), pure measures tell us more about the underlying processes of speech formulation and production (e.g., Huensch & Tracy–Ventura, ) and can therefore provide a more nuanced picture of fluency that is more appropriate in language teaching and assessment (Tavakoli & Hunter, ). From a psycholinguistic perspective, an in‐depth and detailed analysis of L2 fluency is also perceived as crucial, since the emerging evidence (de Jong et al., ; Derwing et al., ; Huensch & Tracy–Ventura, ; Peltonen, ) suggests that first language (L1) and L2 fluency behaviors are, at least to some extent, related, and that certain aspects of L2 fluency might be a function of L1 personal styles. In sum, then, given this complex picture, it can be argued that conceptualizing and measuring fluency at a fine‐grained level can not only reveal more about the connection between L2 speech and the underlying speech production processes (Huensch & Tracy–Ventura, ; Hunter, ; Tavakoli & Hunter, ), but it will also enhance a more reliable understanding of what characterizes fluency at different levels of proficiency, making speaking‐test rating scales more useful and meaningful for users and examiners (Nakatsuhara, ; Tavakoli, Nakatsuhara, & Hunter, ).…”