Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

How conceptualizing influences fluency in first and second language speech production

  • EMILY R. FELKER (a1), HEIDI E. KLOCKMANN (a2) and NIVJA H. DE JONG (a3)

Abstract

When speaking in any language, speakers must conceptualize what they want to say before they can formulate and articulate their message. We present two experiments employing a novel experimental paradigm in which the formulating and articulating stages of speech production were kept identical across conditions of differing conceptualizing difficulty. We tracked the effect of difficulty in conceptualizing during the generation of speech (Experiment 1) and during the abandonment and regeneration of speech (Experiment 2) on speaking fluency by Dutch native speakers in their first (L1) and second (L2) language (English). The results showed that abandoning and especially regenerating a speech plan taxes the speaker, leading to disfluencies. For most fluency measures, the increases in disfluency were similar across L1 and L2. However, a significant interaction revealed that abandoning and regenerating a speech plan increases the time needed to solve conceptual difficulties while speaking in the L2 to a greater degree than in the L1. This finding supports theories in which cognitive resources for conceptualizing are shared with those used for later stages of speech planning. Furthermore, a practical implication for language assessment is that increasing the conceptual difficulty of speaking tasks should be considered with caution.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      How conceptualizing influences fluency in first and second language speech production
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      How conceptualizing influences fluency in first and second language speech production
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      How conceptualizing influences fluency in first and second language speech production
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Nivja H. De Jong, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen, Leiden University, P.N. van Eyckhof 3, 2311 BV Leiden. E-mail: n.h.de.jong@hum.leidenuniv.nl

References

Hide All
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390412.
Bates, E., D’Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Szekely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., … Tzeng, O. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 344380.
Christenfeld, N. (1994). Options and ums. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 192199.
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “Speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 124.
De Jong, N. H., & Bosker, H. R. (2013). Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. In R. Eklund (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech (DiSS) (pp. 1720), Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
De Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R. & Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 223243.
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801838.
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, 533557.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474509.
Fox Tree, J. E., & Clark, H. H. (1997). Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 62, 151167.
Fraundorf, S. H., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Alice’s adventures in um-derland: Psycholinguistic sources of variation in disfluency production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29, 10831096.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.
Greene, J. O., & Cappella, J. N. (1986). Cognition and talk: The relationship of semantic units to temporal patterns of fluency in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 29, 141157.
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274279.
Hartsuiker, R. J., Catchpole, C. M., De Jong, N. H., & Pickering, M. J. (2008). Concurrent processing of words and their replacements during speech. Cognition, 108, 601607.
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Notebaert, L. (2010). Lexical access problems lead to disfluencies in speech. Experimental Psychology, 57, 169177.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.) (2012 ). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA . Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Estimation and hypothesis testing in multilevel regression. In Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed., pp. 4053). New York: Routledge.
Ito, A., Corley, M., & Pickering, M. J. (2017). A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during L1 and L2 comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lay, C. H., & Paivio, A. (1969). The effects of task difficulty and anxiety on hesitations in speech. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 1, 2537.
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325343.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Language production: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 138.
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2012). The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 171198). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Melinger, A., & Kita, S. (2007). Conceptualisation load triggers gesture production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 473500.
Mirdamadi, F. S., & De Jong, N. H. (2015). The effect of syntactic complexity on fluency: Comparing actives and passives in L1 and L2 speech. Second Language Research, 31, 105116.
Nozari, N., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2011). Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 133.
Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413425.
Roberts, B., & Kirsner, K. (2000). Temporal cycles in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 129157.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 2757.
Schnadt, M. J., & Corley, M. (2006). The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 750–755). London: Psychology Press.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
Severens, E., van Lommel, S., Ratinckx, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2005). Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychologica, 119, 159187.
Siegman, A. W., & Pope, B. (1966). Ambiguity and verbal fluency in the TAT. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 239245.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185211.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84119.
Van der Meulen, F. (2001). Moving eyes and naming objects (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen).

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed