Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Second Language Fluency

Abstract

Fluency in a second language is considered important by both learners and teachers, but is not well understood. This paper describes what is known about second language fluency and describes a number of psychological learning mechanisms that might explain how fluency develops. These include the mechanisms underlying the contrast between automatic and controlled processing, the learning mechanisms postulated within Anderson's ACT"' theory of cognition, Bialystok's conception of the control dimension of language development, the notion of restructuring, recent proposals for the redefinition of automaticity as retrieval from memory, both instance and strength versions, and chunking theories. The paper concludes with some suggestions for research into the development of second language fluency itself that can fill gaps in existing knowledge and reduce our dependence on other fields for explanatory principles, while contributing simultaneously to discussion of the mechanisms responsible for skill development in general.The Phenomenon of Fluency ''Fluenf' and "fluency'' are frequently used as non-technical terms and have a number of meanings that should be sorted out. With respect to native language fluency, identified four different things we might have in mind when identifying someone as a particularly fluent speaker. First, we might be thinking of a speaker who easily fills time with talk, a fast talker (Kuiper & Tillis, 1986) such as a disk jockey, a sports announcer, or a conversational partner who hardly lets us get a word in edgewise. Second, we might have the quality of speech more in mind than quantity and might mean by a fluent speaker one whose speech is coherent, complex and dense (Fillmore gives Noam Chomsky as an example of this kind of fluent speaker). We might also consider someone to be especially fluent if they always seem to know the appropriate thing to say in a wide variety of contexts, identifying fluency with pragmatic and affective skills. Finally, Fillmore points out, we may focus on

Differential Effects of Prompts and Recasts in Form-Focused Instruction

“…and in executive control from controlled to automatic processing of those mental representations~Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977!+ Regarding language, declarative knowledge refers to knowledge of the language system, such as word definitions and rule-based representations, whereas procedural knowledge refers to knowledge about how to perform cognitive activities, including language comprehension and production+ Skill development depends on transforming declarative representations, through practice, into production rules that represent procedural knowledge+ This development is described as a transition from controlled processing, which requires a great deal of attention and use of short-term memory, to automatic processing, which operates on routinized procedures available in long-term memory+ The proceduralization of rule-based representations occurs through practice and feedback~Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, & Pelletier, 1995!, which are considered crucial elements in information-processing models of L2 development, because they engage learners in processes of restructuring interlanguage representations and, thus, have particular relevance in immersion contexts~Lyster, 1990; Ranta & Lyster, 2003!+ An alternative view of skill acquisition is Logan's~1988! instance theory, whereby automatization involves, rather than proceduralization of rule-based representations with increasingly less attention, a transition from rule-to memory-based performance~see DeKeyser, 2001;Robinson & Ha, 1993;Schmidt, 1992Schmidt, , 2001!+ In this view, procedures initially deriving from rule-based representations become available as memory-based chunks, which then operate autonomously+ With minimal computational demands, retrieval from the memory-based system involves more efficient processing, enables fluent performance, and is thus considered synonymous with automaticity+ However, to account more specifically for L2 learning and variability in L2 performance, still from an information-processing perspective, Skehan~1998! described a dualcoding system, which instead reconciles both rule-and memory-based systems as equally important representational systems for L2 learners+ According to Skehan~1998!, the dual-mode system comprises two interrelated representational systems: an analytic rule-based system and a memorydriven exemplar-based system+ The rule-based system is generative and parsimoniously organized, with the advantage of its propensity for creative and precise computations but the disadvantage of a heavy processing burden during ongoing language use+ In contrast, the exemplar-based system is composed of lexicalized chunks, stored in a redundant unstructured memory system, which have the advantage of being retrieved quickly during ongoing communication because they do not require excessive internal computation but the disadvantage of having only limited potential for expressing new and precise meanings+ Access to the dual-mode system thus affects fluency, as learners engage differentially in retrieval, leading to either computed rulebased performance or memory-driven exemplar-based performance+ Skehan argued that during online communication, "where communicative pressure and accessibility are paramount," the exemplar-based system will be the system of choice, thus "reducing the likelihood that the more open and generative rule-based system will be used"~p+ 62!+ These two representational systems, however, are not entirely separate; instead, they are "in constant dialect," enabling L2 learners to engage in complementary processes of analysis and synthesis: "The analysis is necessary to enable the learner to gain generativity and flexibility, and the synthesis is necess...…”

Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form

“…Schmidt, for exanrple, holds the strongest version ofthe claim that attention is central (Schmidt, 1992(Schmidt, , 1993(Schmidt, ,1994(Schmidt, , 1995 Figure I and (b) that working memory can hold more than the notorious seven bits of inforrnation (Miller' 1956)' In fact, as already noted in the discussion of Figur€ 2, recent studies ofmemory suggest that working memory is frr more complex and integrated than held by earlier conceptualizations (see Broadbent, 1984 for the earlier view, and Cowan, 199n2, 1993 …”

“…Schmidt, for exanrple, holds the strongest version ofthe claim that attention is central (Schmidt, 1992(Schmidt, , 1993(Schmidt, ,1994(Schmidt, , 1995). Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis states essentially that "teamers neea to pay attention to order to learn" (Schmidt, in press).…”

Predicting pauses in L1 and L2 speech: the effects of utterance boundaries and word frequency

“…Being fluent in an L2 is defined as being able to smoothly and effortlessly translate intended messages to speech (e. g., Schmidt 1992) and, hence, fluent speech is defined as speech without (unnatural) hesitations. Fluency, together with complexity (with respect to syntax and lexis) and accuracy in L2 speech (with respect to morpho-syntax, lexis, and pronunciation), is one of the three perceptual dimensions of speech that develop as L2 learners' proficiency progresses (Housen and Kuiken 2009).…”