Linguistic Dimensions of Comprehensibility and Perceived Fluency: An Investigation of Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Argumentative Speech

Abstract

This study examined the linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and perceived fluency in the context of L2 argumentative speech elicited from 40 Japanese-speaking learners of English. Their speaking performance was judged by 10 inexperienced native speakers of English for comprehensibility and perceived fluency, and was also objectively analyzed in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency as well as pronunciation and discourse features. The results showed that comprehensibility and fluency judgments strongly correlated with each other and that native listeners were significantly more severe when they judged fluency. Furthermore, multiple regression analyses revealed that both constructs were commonly associated with a set of underlying linguistic dimensions (grammatical accuracy, breakdown fluency, and pronunciation). However, comprehensibility was best predicted by articulation rate (speed fluency) whereas perceived fluency was most strongly associated with the frequency of mid-clause pauses (breakdown fluency).

To What Extent Are Multiword Sequences Associated With Oral Fluency?

“…In total, we had four fluency measures and eight n‐gram measures. Having based our selection of fluency measures on the findings of previous research (Kahng, ; Suzuki & Kormos, ), we believe these measures are valid representatives of the three aspects of fluency. However, we were concerned that running multiple correlations between each of these fluency measures and all of the n‐gram measures would run a risk of making a Type I error, given the small sample size of the study ( N = 56).…”

“…Second, phraseological knowledge might also influence the later stage of speech production, that is, execution of articulation (Kormos, ) or, more specifically, articulation of individual words (Suzuki & Kormos, ). After phonemic segments or lexemes are mapped onto the selected lexical items (phonological encoding), speakers execute overt production, drawing on such phonologically encoded information (Kormos, ; Levelt, ).…”

“…We selected articulation rate, that is, total number of syllables divided by total amount of speaking time per minute (excluding pauses), as a reliable representation of speed fluency (de Jong, Groenhout, Schoonen, & Hulstijn, ; Kahng, ; Mora & Valls‐Ferrer, ; Suzuki & Kormos, ). We chose frequency of silent pauses per minute to examine breakdown fluency, following recent research in this area (de Jong et al., ; Kahng, ; Skehan, ; Suzuki & Kormos, ). We also examined pause location in terms of occurrence in the middle of the clause or at the end of the clause.…”

Multi‐ or Single‐Word Units? The Role of Collocation Use in Comprehensible and Contextually Appropriate Second Language Speech

“…To date, a number of empirical studies have extensively investigated how phonological information affects L2 comprehensibility judgments. For example, raters have been shown to pay selective attention to features such as segmental contrasts with high functional load (e.g., /ɹ/ vs. /l/ but not /s/ vs. /θ/; Munro & Derwing, ; Suzukida & Saito, ), prosodic accuracy (e.g., Isaacs & Trofimovich, ; Kang et al., ), and temporal fluency (Suzuki & Kormos, ). The amount of phonological influence on these judgments has also varied in accordance with nonlinguistic variables such as task demands (e.g., Crowther et al., ) and listeners’ familiarity with foreign‐accented speech (e.g., Ludwig & Mora, ).…”

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

“…Understanding utterance fluency vis-à-vis cognitive fluency Utterance fluency can be objectively measured by temporal variables in speech samples, and it has a few different aspects such as speed fluency, breakdown fluency (pause and hesitation phenomena), and repair fluency (Skehan, 2003(Skehan, , 2009Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005). To identify reliable oral production features of L2 fluency, previous studies have employed a few different approaches: comparing speech from fluent and nonfluent speakers (e.g., Ejzenberg, 2000;Kahng, 2014;Riazantseva, 2001;Riggenbach, 1991;Tavakoli, 2011), investigating the longitudinal development of fluency (e.g., Derwing et al, 2007;Freed, 1995Freed, , 2000Lennon, 1990;Mora & Valls-Ferrer, 2012;Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996;Wood, 2010), and relating utterance fluency to perceived fluency by correlating fluency ratings with temporal variables (e.g., Bosker et al, 2013;Cucchiarini et al, 2002;Derwing, Rossiter, Munro, & Thomson, 2004;Kormos & Dénes, 2004;Rossiter, 2009;Suzuki & Kormos, 2019).…”