The impact of language co-activation on L1 and L2 speech fluency

Abstract

Fluent speech depends on the availability of well-established linguistic knowledge and routines for speech planning and articulation. A lack of speech fluency in late second-language (L2) learners may point to a deficiency of these representations, due to incomplete acquisition. Experiments on bilingual language processing have shown, however, that there are strong reasons to believe that multilingual speakers experience co-activation of the languages they speak. We have studied to what degree language co-activation affects fluency in the speech of bilinguals, comparing a monolingual German control group with two bilingual groups: 1) first-language (L1) attriters, who have fully acquired German before emigrating to an L2 English environment, and 2) immersed L2 learners of German (L1: English). We have analysed the temporal fluency and the incidence of disfluency markers (pauses, repetitions and self-corrections) in spontaneous film retellings. Our findings show that learners to speak more slowly than controls and attriters. Also, on each count, the speech of at least one of the bilingual groups contains more disfluency markers than the retellings of the control group. Generally speaking, both bilingual groups-learners and attriters-are equally (dis)fluent and significantly more disfluent than the monolingual speakers. Given that the L1 attriters are unaffected by incomplete acquisition, we interpret these findings as evidence for language competition during speech production.

Identification of fluency and word‐finding difficulty in samples of children with diverse language backgrounds

“…Howell's (2013) procedure allows the WWR symptoms to be used to indicate WFD. Consistent with this, WWRs are used as fillers when words are not known (Bada 2010, Clark and Clark 1977, MacWhinney and Osser 1977 and high rates of WWR symptoms alone are indicative of WFD (Bergmann et al 2015, Fathman 1980, Fox et al 1996, German 1991, Hilton 2008. Moreover, WWR rate indicates WFD irrespective of a child's language background (Lennon 1990, Rydland andAukrust 2005).…”

“…For instance, a word from their native language could be used (code switching) or they could circumlocute using an alternative English word. To summarize: (1) SSs arise during planning and are an indication of fluency difficulty (Howell 2010, Mirawdeli andHowell 2016); and (2) WWRs operate at the articulation stage, which adjusts articulation rate to allow more time for planning when there is fluency difficulty (Howell 2010) and to allow a child with WFD time to determine an alternative formulation of the utterance (Bergmann et al 2015, Fathman 1980, Fox et al 1996, Hilton 2008.…”

“…Consistent with this, WWRs are used as fillers when words are not known (Bada , Clark and Clark , MacWhinney and Osser ) and high rates of WWR symptoms alone are indicative of WFD (Bergmann et al . , Fathman , Fox et al . , German , Hilton ).…”

Collaborative and Self-directed Learning Strategies to Promote Fluent EFL Speakers

“…Jones (2007) explains that oral fluency does not refer to the perfect use of language without interruptions or hesitations but to a confident oral production where listeners can follow ideas in a smooth form. Nevertheless, Bergmann, Sprenger and Schmid (2015) conclude from their research on the impact of language co-activation on L1 and L2 speech fluency that knowledge of language has a direct impact on fluency, since L1 learners make sure of the correct use of language in L2 before uttering a word to simplify mistakes and guarantee, according to their beliefs, a more efficient message. As defined by Segalowitz (2010), oral fluency is a complex cognitive skill that requires learners to use linguistic knowledge in a cognitively fluent way.…”

Predictors of Language Dominance: An Integrated Analysis of First Language Attrition and Second Language Acquisition in Late Bilinguals

“…Fluency: in both free and elicited discourse, L1At populations have consistently been demonstrated to be less fluent than monolinguals, as indicated by a slower speech rate and higher incidence of pauses, filled pauses, repetitions and self-corrections (e.g., Dostert, 2009; Schmid and Fägersten, 2010; Cherciov, 2011; Yılmaz and Schmid, 2012; Bergmann et al, 2015). …”