Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:05:16.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pause behavior within reformulations and the proficiency level of second language learners of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2019

Simon A. Williams Open the ORCID record for Simon A. Williams [Opens in a new window]  and
Malgorzata Korko
Simon A. Williams*
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Malgorzata Korko
Affiliation:
University of Middlesex
*
*Corresponding author. Email: s.a.williams@sussex.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research reports on a quantitative analysis of the combination of two types of disfluency, reformulations and pauses, in the speech of lower intermediate and advanced speakers of English as a second language (L2). The present study distinguishes between corrections and false starts within the category of reformulations as well as between silent and filled pauses. It focuses on the extent to which pause behavior within reformulations varies according to the stage of L2 development and the type of reformulation used. An analysis was made of 56 L2 speakers’ 2-min monologues. The results showed that lower intermediate and advanced speakers differed on the frequency of silent pauses inserted in corrections but not on their frequency in false starts. This suggests that false starts depend less on proficiency level, and may reflect temporary problems with conceptual encoding or extralinguistic factors that contribute to the efficacy of L2 production rather than difficulties with linguistic processing per se. The frequency of silent pauses rather than silent pause duration or the frequency and duration of filled pauses appeared to be the only marker to differentiate between false starts and corrections across the two proficiency groups.

Keywords

bilingual speech productionpausereformulationrepairsecond language proficiency
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , May 2019 , pp. 723 - 742
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmadian, M. J., Abdolrezapour, P., & Ketabi, S. (2012). Task difficulty and self-repair behavior in second language oral production. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 310–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, M., Powell, D., & Dolby, D. (2007). IELTS graduation. Oxford, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R. A. (2014). Does measuring L2 utterance fluency equal measuring overall L2 proficiency? Evidence from five languages. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 707–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, G. (1977). The dynamics of interruption and the filled pause. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 283–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmer, E. R., & Mitton, J. L. (1991). Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 39, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosker, H., Pinget, A., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & de Jong, N. (2012). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30, 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brédart, S. (1991). Word interruption in self-repairing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 123–137.Google ScholarPubMed
Brennan, S. E., & Schober, M. F. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 274–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz, J. (1998). Pauses and communication strategies in second language speech (ERIC Document ED 426630). Rockville, MD: Educational Resources Information Center.Google Scholar
Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25, 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2012). Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 111, 2862–2873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
Declerck, M., & Kormos, J. (2012). The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 782–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H. (2016). Predicting pauses in L1 and L2 speech: The effects of utterance boundaries and word frequency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H., & Bosker, H. R. (2013). Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. In Eklund, R. (Ed.), The 6th Workshop on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech (DiSS) (pp. 17–20). Stockholm, Sweden: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, R. (2013). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 893–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ejzenberg, R. (2000). The juggling act of oral fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. In Riggenbach, H. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (1995). The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 709–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraundorf, S. H., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Alice’s adventures in um-derland: Psycholinguistic sources of variation in disfluency production. Language Cognition Process, 29, 1083–1096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialog: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 production. IRAL, 45, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., & Bourhis, R. (1973). Towards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society, 2, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginther, A., Dimova, S., & Yang, R. (2010). Conceptual and empirical relationships between temporal measures of fluency and oral English proficiency with implications for automated scoring. Language Testing, 27, 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, P. S., & Hecht, K. (1993). Pupil self-correction in oral communication in English as a foreign language. System, 21, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1991). Pausological research in an L2 context: A rationale and review of selected studies. Applied Linguistics, 12, 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Notebaert, L. (2011). Lexical access problems lead to disfluencies in speech. Experimental Psychology, 57, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashemi, L., & Thomas, B. (2011). IELTS Trainer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igras-Cybulska, M., Ziolko, B., Zelasko, P., & Witkowski, M. (2016). Structure of pauses in speech in the context of speaker verification and classification of speech type. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech and Music Processing, 18, 1–16.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale for the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64, 809–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A., Johnson, H., Grant, J., Jones, M.-C., Karmiloff, Y-N., Bartrip, J., & Cuckle, P. (1993). From sentential to discourse functions: Detection and explanation of speech repairs by children and adults. Discourse Processes, 16, 565–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korko, M., & Williams, S. A. (2017). Inhibitory control and the speech patterns of second language users. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 43–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kormos, J. (1998). A new psycholinguistic taxonomy of self-repairs in L2: A qualitative analysis with retrospection. Even Yearbook, ELTE SEAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 43–68.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49, 303–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2000a). The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production. Language Learning, 50, 343–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2000b). The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. London, UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kovac, M. M., & Milatovic, B. (2012). Analysis of repair distribution, error correction rates, and repair successfulness in L2. Studia Linguistica, 67, 225–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leal, C. F. (1995). A pause as a cause of change. ERIC document ED 379935. Rockville, MD: Educational Resources Information Center.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 223–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, N., Weisberg, R. W., & Saffran, E. M. (1989). Variables influencing the occurrence of naming errors: Implications for models of lexical retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 462–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, N. (1988). Repairs as indicative of interlanguage variation and change. In Walsh, T. J. (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table in Languages and Linguistics 1988: Synchronic and diachronic approaches to linguistic variation and change. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Oomen, C. C. E., & Postma, A. (2001). Effects of time pressure on mechanisms of speech production and self-monitoring. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 163–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oomen, C. C. E., & Postma, A. (2002). Limitations in processing resources and speech monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plug, L., & Carter, P. (2014). Timing and tempo in spontaneous phonological error repair. Journal of Phonetics, 45, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riazantseva, A. (2001). Second language proficiency and pausing: A study of Russian speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 497–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of non-native speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, M. J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnadt, M. J., & Corley, M. (2006). The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency production. Proceedings of the twenty-eighth meeting of the Cognitive Science Society [CD-ROM]. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schuller, B., Steidl, S., Batliner, A., Burkhardt, F., Devillers, L., Müller, C., & Narayanan, S. (2013). Paralinguistics in speech and language—State-of-the-art and the challenge. Computer Speech & Language, 27, 4–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1996). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Chicago.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (2011). Pausing patterns: Differences between L2 learners and native speakers. ELT Journal, 65, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hest, E. (1996). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar