Task Preparation and Second Language Speech Production

Abstract

This study investigated the relative effects of four forms of task preparation on L2 speech production. One hundred forty‐four Japanese speakers of English completed an oral opinion task after 10 minutes of preparation. The same task repetition condition involved four iterations of the same pedagogic task (same procedures, same content), the parallel task repetition condition involved four iterations of the same type of task (same procedures, different content), the first language (L1) planning condition involved dyadic planning for the task in Japanese, and the second language (L2) planning condition involved the same in English. The effects of these task implementation options were compared in terms of measures of conceptualization, formulation, and monitoring of L2 speech production (Kormos, 2006; Levelt, 1989) as well as overall L2 speech fluency during task performance. Results suggest that different preparatory options might support L2 learners’ speech production in complementary ways by alternately reducing the conceptualization, formulation, and monitoring demands they face on tasks. Results provide an initial basis for implementing tasks to effectively support L2 learners’ emerging abilities to parallel process content and language during real‐time speech production (Skehan, 2009). Options for sequencing preparatory support in task‐based language teaching are discussed.

The Relationship Between Utterance and Perceived Fluency: A Meta‐Analysis of Correlational Studies

“…Strategy‐training activities can be used in the classroom to assist students in exploiting lexical fillers or pauses for planning ahead at the end of clauses. Besides awareness raising and strategy training activities, pre‐task planning time and rehearsal can also be beneficial for increasing speed of delivery and reduction in pausing and hesitations (e.g., Lambert, Aubrey, & Leeming, 2020; Tavakoli, Campbell, & McCormack, 2016). Teaching chunks (e.g., collocations and fixed expressions) might have a central place in vocabulary instruction as phraseologically proficient speakers are less likely to pause in the middle of clauses (Tavakoli & Uchihara, 2020).…”

Individual differences in memory predict changes in breakdown and repair fluency but not speed fluency: A short-term fluency training intervention study

“…mean length of run without filler or filled pauses) during 13-week classroom and study abroad experience, to the current short-term fluency training intervention. More broadly, from the perspective of speech processing model (Kormos, 2006;Lambert et al, 2017Lambert et al, , 2020Skehan, 2009), the present findings suggest that learners with higher PSTM were more likely to execute parallel processing of content and language during task repetition practice.…”

“…at the boundary of the AS unit). Mid-clause pauses indicate linguistic breakdown such as lexical and syntactic ones, whereas clause-final pauses presumably reflect conceptualization, including content planning (de Jong, 2016;Kahng, 2018;Lambert et al, 2017Lambert et al, , 2020Skehan et al, 2016). Third, repair fluency (the repetition and repair frequency) is often subsumed under utterance fluency, but the constructs are slightly different from the other two.…”

“…As L2 proficiency increases, L2 learners gradually shifts to more efficient, parallel processing of content and language. The shift of serial to parallel processing can be potentially captured by analyzing pauses that occur within the clausal boundary because they largely reflect linguistic encoding, as opposed to clause-final pauses primarily indicating conceptualization (Lambert et al, 2017(Lambert et al, , 2020. Moreover, Skehan (2016) proposed that fluency development can be linked particularly to a putative L2 learning stage pertaining to gaining control over L2 knowledge.…”

“…feel sleep : : : sleepy; owner tell : : : told) in the current study. These self-repair behaviors are considered to reflect learners' attentional resources directed to monitoring their speech and reformulating initially encoded language (Kormos, 1999;Lambert et al, 2017Lambert et al, , 2020. Relatedly, repair frequency may also be considered as a measure of "attempted accuracy" because it indicates learners' self-directed attention to form and their effort to produce more accurate speech (Brown Nielson & DeKeyser, 2019;Gilabert, 2007).…”