Applications of stalling mechanisms in Chinese-English bilinguals’ L1 and L2 spoken discourse

Abstract

This article reports an empirical research into the correlation between adult speakers' communication strategic competence and their language proficiency by comparing Chinese-English bilinguals' application of stalling devices in their L1 and L2 spoken discourse. Dörnyei and Kormos' ((1998). Problem-solving mechanisms in L2 communication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 349-385) taxonomy of communicative strategies is employed as the analytical framework for the present investigation. The qualitative observations reveal that the general categorical variations of stalling strategy in our participants' L1 and L2 discourse are indistinguishable, manifesting the universality of linguistic communicative strategies. Yet, participants are found to be less proficient at utilizing L2 fillers than the L1 equivalents with respect to variation. Such phenomenon should be greatly attributed to language specificity of the lexicalized stalling devices and the paucity of authentic L2 stimuli the participants received. The quantitative results indicate that the frequency of stalling devices increases along with the decrease of the speakers' automaticity of language processing. Specifically, the frequency of L2 stalling strategies is about two times higher than that of its L1 equivalents. The quantitative results further reinforce that L2 processing is less automatic than L1 processing. In brief, both the qualitative and quantitative findings evidence a tight correlation between the speakers' communication strategic competence and their linguistic proficiency. Finally, some insights into the teaching of non-native stalling strategies for language learners are provided.

Communication strategy used by Spanish speakers of English in formal and informal speech

“…These strategies include inserting hesitation markers (e.g., eh ) or filler words, for which we also found an interaction between chunk length and formality (cf. Tang, 2015, who found an interaction between proficiency and the use of fillers).…”

“…The speaker-dependent slopes for fillers revealed a more diffuse picture: about half of the speakers used more fillers in informal speech, whereas the other half used more fillers in formal speech. This may be explained by a difference in the function that filler words may have for different speakers (Aijmer, 2004;Götz, 2013;Hasselgren, 2002) or by speakers' individual speaking styles, which they possibly also show in their L1 (Olynyk, d'Anglejan, & Sankoff, 1987;Tang, 2015). For instance, the functions of the filler word like are manifold (e.g., Tagliamonte, 2011) and subtle functional differences in the occurrences of like in our data are conceivable: for some speakers, like may have mainly served pure time-gaining purposes, as in (11), whereas other speakers not only gained time and kept the communication channel open, but also enhanced the informal character of their speech, as in (12).…”

“…In spontaneous spoken discourse, people use floor-holding devices, such as hesitations or reformulations, while searching for an adequate term or maintaining the flow of the communication (cf. Bongaerts & Poulisse, 1989; Dörnyei, 1995; Tang, 2015). Communication strategies can be particularly useful for emergent bilinguals when they want to tackle or overcome linguistic problems.…”

Effects of salience and working memory on L2 processing of english relative clauses with past participles and past participial reduced relative clauses by L1 Thai learners

“…processing has been claimed to be less automatic, yet more resource-demanding than L1 processing (e.g., Rah & Adone, 2010;Saur et al, 2009;Meisel, 2011;Trenkic et al, 2014;Tang, 2015;Reichle et al, 2016). The concept of the less automatic L2 processing applied to the processing of the prepositional phrases in the RC and PRRC structures.…”

“…Such a result indicated that L2 processing was more resource-demanding than L1 processing. L1 processing's higher degree of automaticity than L2 processing's has been well-attested by a vast body of the L2 processing literature (e.g., Sharifian, 2002;Mueller, 2005;Stowe & Sabourin, 2005;Jin, 2007;Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2009;Alptekin & Erçetin, 2010;Rah & Adone, 2010;Saur et al, 2009;Meisel, 2011;Trenkic et al, 2014;Tang, 2015;Reichle et al, 2016) Apart from lower automaticity degree of L2 processing, the L2 learners' reading could be impeded and slowed down by Thai-English differences as to the two structures in the test items: RC and PRRC.…”