Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presentations

Hincks, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.004

Cited by 78 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is not inconceivable that this lack of refinement may affect the effectiveness of communication. This is precisely what was empirically shown by Hincks (2010), who found that speakers needed 26.5% more time to deliver the same presentations in English than in their mother tongue. In other words, using ELF also has the disadvantage that it may take considerably more time than using mother tongue communication.…”

Section: Elf Versus L1-l2supporting

confidence: 57%

Your language or mine? or English as a lingua franca? Comparing effectiveness in English as a lingua franca and L1–L2 interactions: implications for corporate language policies

Mulken

Hendriks

2014

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For multinational corporations, the need for efficiency and control has motivated the choice for a corporate language. However, increasing internationalisation has forced corporations to rethink their language policies to cater to the changing demands of the multicultural and multilingual workplace. This paper explores two related issues. First, it addresses the influence of mode of communication (English as a Lingua Franca [ELF] vs. L1-L2 interactions) on task efficiency. Second, it investigates the use of communication strategies in the different types of interactions (ELF vs. L1-L2). In a within-subject experimental design, the present study explores the effectiveness of language use in dyadic, computer-mediated communication between non-native speakers of English (ELF) and native and non-native speakers of German and Dutch (L1-L2). In three consecutive chat sessions, 60 participants performed a problemsolving task in English, German or Dutch. Findings indicate that in L1-L2 interactions, the participants were more effective in realising communicative goals than in ELF interactions, and that participants made use of different communication strategies in L1-L2 interactions than in ELF interactions. Consequently, international organisations which implement a corporate language may benefit from condoning multilingual practices on the work floor.computer-mediated communication (CMC) activities for (inter)national interactions (e.g. Tworoger et al. 2013) on a daily basis (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, MSN), the purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of language choice in CMC interactions.Business communication research has demonstrated that despite a corporate (monolingual) language policy, communication in companies is often multilingual, with several languages coexisting alongside the corporate language in the workplace (Angouri 2013;Kingsley 2013;Lüdi, Höchle, and Yanaprasart 2010;MacKenzie 2012).Although the use of a corporate lingua franca may facilitate global communication in multilingual settings, it may also present linguistic, cultural and organisational challenges for those who are non-native speakers of the corporate language. For instance, Welch, Welch, and Piekkari (2005) showed that, although knowledge transfer and information processes are considered of paramount importance to internationally operating companies, language often remains a 'forgotten factor' in many multinational organisations in that organisations often overlook the (immaterial) costs and consequences of the implementation of a single corporate language. The use of a corporate language may exclude non-native staff lacking adequate proficiency from communication processes, and, conversely, put considerable power into the hands of those individuals or units that do possess the required language skills (Welch et al. 2005). In her analysis of international business meetings, Rogerson-Revell (2008) showed that the use of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) may lead to feelings of frustration in meetings and that a considerable...

show abstract

Section: Elf Versus L1-l2supporting

confidence: 57%

Your language or mine? or English as a lingua franca? Comparing effectiveness in English as a lingua franca and L1–L2 interactions: implications for corporate language policies

Mulken

Hendriks

2014

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As can be seen from Table 4, students spoke on average 45% slower in their English descriptions and had 33% shorter runs. This represents a much greater difference between English and Swedish speech than that found by Hincks (2005Hincks ( , 2010 who reports Swedish students speak on average 23% slower in English in their oral presentations. This fi nding is perhaps in line with what could have been expected.…”

Section: Fluency Measurescontrasting

confidence: 45%

“…Thus, any attempt to compare scientifi c literacy between students using MLR or SPS methods will need to account for individual differences in speaking patterns in some way. Hincks (2010) found that in the majority of studies the length of time used to designate a pause varies between 200 and 300 milliseconds. The analysis presented in this article takes a different approach, using a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment of pauses.…”

Section: Fluencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For interviews, this process often involves locating and deleting interviewer speech and correcting the speaking time accordingly. Hincks (2005Hincks ( , 2010 compared presentations on the same topic given by the same students in English and Swedish using the SPS and MLR measures. Her main fi nding is that when Swedish students speak English they pause more often, use shorter phrase lengths and speak on average 23% slower.…”

Section: Fluencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Ability of Students to Explain Science Concepts in Two Languages

Airey

2017

HJLCB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses the ability of twenty-one physics undergraduates at two Swedish universities to orally describe and explain in both Swedish and English the science concepts met in their lectures. This ability is related back to the language used to teach the concepts (English, Swedish or both languages). Transcripts of student descriptions in both languages are rated using three measures:Fluency (in terms of syllables per second and mean length of runs) 1.Code-switching 2.A judgment about the 'disciplinarity' of what is said. 3.Comparison between languages fi nds that students speak on average 45% slower and have 33% shorter runs in their English descriptions. However, these differences in speaking rate and run length become much lower (28% and 26% respectively) in those transcripts where students appear to have adequately understood the concepts that were presented in the lectures. These latter values are in line with fi ndings in comparative studies of other types of speech event (See Hincks 2010). Analysis of code-switching identifi es some students (n=3) who have great diffi culty describing disciplinary concepts in English. These were fi rst year students and were being taught in English for the fi rst time. It is thus concluded that for some students disciplinary English is indeed a problem. However, from a disciplinary point of view, all other students give similarly good (or bad) descriptions of physics concepts in both Swedish and English, regardless of the language used in the lectures.

show abstract

“…This has been so far done only as part of research designs where the language of testing served as an independent variable (cf. Airey 2010;Hincks 2010;Järvinen 2010;Stohler 2006). Some of these studies showed that students (often highly proficient users of L2) benefitted differently from L1 and L2 production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues in the assessment of bilingually educated students: expressing subject knowledge through L1 and L2

Gablasová

2014

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses issues related to oral assessment of school knowledge of L2-educated students. In particular, it examines benefits and disadvantages of students being tested in their L1 (their dominant language) and in their L2 (their language of instruction). The study draws on the data from 37 high school students studying in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) setting in Slovakia. They were tested both in their L1 (Slovak) and their L2 (English) on material which they read in English. Their ability to verbally express content knowledge was assessed in terms of linguistic accuracy, fluency, academic format appropriateness and lexical appropriateness. The results from these 37 students were compared with the performance of 35 students who read the same material in their L1 and were tested in L1. The study shows how the choice of either L1 or L2 can to some extent constrain students' ability to express the knowledge they have.

show abstract

Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presentations

Cited by 78 publications

References 20 publications

Your language or mine? or English as a lingua franca? Comparing effectiveness in English as a lingua franca and L1–L2 interactions: implications for corporate language policies

Your language or mine? or English as a lingua franca? Comparing effectiveness in English as a lingua franca and L1–L2 interactions: implications for corporate language policies

The Ability of Students to Explain Science Concepts in Two Languages

Issues in the assessment of bilingually educated students: expressing subject knowledge through L1 and L2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About