The present study investigates the role of speech repetition in oral fluency development. Twentyfour students enrolled in English as a second language classes performed three training sessions in which they recorded three speeches, of four, three, and two minutes respectively. Some students spoke about the same topic three times, whereas others spoke about three different topics. It was found that fluency improved for both groups during training, but was maintained on post-tests only by the students who repeated their speeches. These students had used more words repeatedly across speeches, most of which were not specifically related to the topic. It is argued that proceduralization of linguistic knowledge represented a change in underlying cognitive mechanisms, resulting in improvements in observable fluency.

This study examines whether aural processing of input in a situation of implicit instruction can build a knowledge base that is available for both comprehension and production tasks. Fifty-five Dutch students learned a miniature linguistic system based on Spanish. Three training conditions were compared in which noun-adjective gender agreement was the learning target. The first group of participants received receptive training, the second group received receptive and productive training, and a third group served as a control. The control group received no training of the target structure and only read an explanation of the target structure rule. Receptive knowledge was assessed with a self-paced listening test, a match-mismatch test, and a grammaticality judgment task. Productive knowledge was tested with a picture description task in single-and dual-task conditions. A postexperimental questionnaire tested whether any explicit knowledge had been induced. Results suggest that the receptive and receptive + productive training programs succeeded in building a knowledge base that was used in comprehension but much less so in production. These results will be interpreted in light of processing and the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge.Learners involved in instructed SLA traditionally are given a rule and then engage in comprehension and production tasks that employ the presented rule+ After a long period of practice and through devices such as error correction I would like to express my gratitude to Jan Hulstijn and Rob Schoonen from the University of Amsterdam for their supervision+ I would also like to thank the two anonymous SSLA reviewers for their comments and Nick Ellis for taking time to discuss this project with me+

Only a few characteristics of picture-based narrative prompts have been studied to determine what features affect task performance. Thus, it is not easy to identify equivalent narrative prompts or identify features that are impactful. Tavakoli and Foster (2008) and Tavakoli (2009) examined the impact of prompt on the language produced by English learners during a picture-based narrative task in respect to narrative structure and storyline complexity. This study investigates if prompts within these known categories elicit similar performance. Considering the findings based on different prompts in Tavakoli and Foster, as well as in Robinson's (2011) Triadic Componential Framework for pedagogical tasks, we added another feature, number of elements. All of the prompts in this study had a tight sequential structure (±causal reasoning), similar storyline complexity (±intentional reasoning), and similar main characters and props (±elements). Although the accuracy and complexity in the ESL narratives were similar across prompts, there were some unexpected differences in fluency and lexis. Potential explanations of the variation in these subareas of language performance are discussed. Overall, this study highlights the importance of piloting research and testing materials and of investigating features that constitute task complexity.

No abstract

In this task‐repetition intervention study, L2 learners’ reuse of linguistic constructions was analyzed to investigate to what extent recurring reliance on specific constructions during the same task repetition predicts fluency development. English‐as‐a‐foreign‐language (EFL) learners performed oral narrative tasks three times per day under two task repetition schedules: blocked (Day 1: Prompt A‐A‐A, Day 2: B‐B‐B, Day 3: C‐C‐C) versus interleaved (Day 1: Prompt A‐B‐C, Day 2: A‐B‐C, Day 3: A‐B‐C). From a usage‐based perspective, their reuse of constructions across the same prompt was examined at both concrete (lexical unigram [e.g., “bicycle”] and trigram [e.g., “behind the bicycle”]) and abstract (parts of speech trigram [e.g., “preposition determiner noun”]) level. Subsequent analyses revealed that blocked practice led to higher reuse of both concrete and abstract constructions than interleaved practice. Reuse frequency was correlated with during‐training and pretest–posttest fluency changes. Particularly, greater reuse of lexical and abstract trigrams during interleaved practice led to improvements in speed and breakdown fluency (i.e., shorter mean syllable duration and fewer mid‐clause pauses) after the intervention, albeit with higher effort (indicated by longer mid‐clause and clause‐final pauses). Taken together, these findings indicate that manipulating task‐repetition schedule may systematically induce reuse of linguistic constructions, which may promote proceduralization (entrenchment) of constructional knowledge at both concrete and abstract levels.

No abstract

No abstract

The verb complement structure (VC) poses difficulties for L2 learners since English verbs vary on which type of complement they require or allow, and this variability may impact acquisition. Although theoretical papers have discussed this structure, few papers describe the language performance of L2 learners. In addition, only rarely is oral production analyzed. To address this gap, we examined infinitival and gerundival VCs produced in free production speech by high-intermediate learners of English as a second language with mixed language backgrounds. Importantly, we explored the constructions by the VC produced and by the matrix verb requirements which has been underreported. Both aspects are necessary to understand what makes a VC attempt incorrect. These learners produced many VC constructions but not always correctly. The majority of the errors in VC usage involved either using neither marker or using both, even with matrix verbs which allow either VC.