Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language

Abstract

In this paper we present a possible multi-method approach towards the description of a potential correlation between errors and temporal variables of (dys-)fluency in spoken learner language. Using the German subcorpus of theLouvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage(LINDSEI) and the native control corpusLouvain Corpus of Native English Conversation(LOCNEC), we first analysed errors and temporal variables of fluency quantitatively. We detected lexical and grammatical categories which are especially error-prone as well as problematic aspects of fluency for all learners in the LINDSEI subcorpus, e.g. confusion in tense agreement across clauses or an overuse of unfilled pauses. In the ensuing qualitative analysis of five prototypical learners, no trend for a possible correlation of accuracy and fluency could be observed. Fifty native speakers’ ratings of these five learners revealed that the learner with an average performance across the investigated variables received the highest ratings for overall oral proficiency.

Improving Speaking Fluency in a Task-Based Language Teaching Approach: The Case of EFL Learners at PUNIV-Cazenga

“…Speaking proficiency has been widely investigated in EFL contexts (Brand & Götz, 2011;Kessler, 2010;Lam, 2007;Nakatani, 2010;Rohani, 2011). However, investigations are rare on how learners progress in terms of their speaking fluency in a TBLT approach, particularly in the Angolan context.…”

“…In their study, in which they assessed the effects of different tasks on speech comprehensibility, Crowther et al (2015) mentioned solely "segmentals, word stress, rhythm, and speech rate" as examples of fluency categories (p. 80). Similarly, in assessing the correlation between speaking fluency and accuracy, Brand and Götz (2011) used only temporal variables of fluency such as "speech rate, length of speech runs or the number and length of filled and unfilled pauses" (p. 257).…”

“…In fact, many studies have been conducted in EFL contexts to find ways of helping learners improve their speaking problems (Brand & Götz, 2011;Crowther, Trofimovich, Isaacs, & Saito, 2015;Kessler, 2010;Lam, 2007;Nakatani, 2010;Rohani, 2011). In these studies, tasks of various types (Ellis, 2009;Long & Crookes, 1992;Prabhu, 1987;Skehan, 1998) have been used as main or secondary tools for gathering data.…”

Establishing the fluency gap between native and non-native-speech

“…Along with accuracy and complexity of learner language (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005), speech fluency has merited considerable research attention and emerged recently as a one of the most reliable indicators of L2 proficiency and progress (Brandt & Götz, 2011;Bosker, Pinget, Quene, Sanders, & De Jong, 2013;Cucchiarrini, Strik, & Boves, 2000, 2002De Jong, Steinel, Florijn, Schonen, & Hulstijn, 2009, 2012Götz, 2013;Hilton, 2008;Osborne, 2007, Pinget, Bosker, Quene, & De Jong, 2014. Defined as observable, real-time speech behaviour, oral fluency is described and measured in terms of a set of temporal variables related to the speed of speaking, time filled with speech vs silence and the occurrence of hesitation and repair phenomena.…”

Speech fluency in phrases: teaching English oral fluency in distance learning

“…Some researchers argue that quantitative measure of fluency are reliable (BakerSmemoe et al, 2014;Beigi, 2009;Cucchiarini et. al., 2000), while others find that L2 fluency and L2 accuracy are not highly correlated (Brand & Gotz, 2011), and that it was dependent on context and proficiency level (Garcia-Amaya, 2009). Tavakoli & Skehan (2005) propose three aspects of fluency: speed fluency, breakdown fluency, and repair fluency.…”