Verbal Self‐Monitoring in the Second Language

Broos, Wouter P. J.; Duyck, Wouter; Hartsuiker, Robert J.

doi:10.1111/lang.12189

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 74 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most notably is the activation account, which proposes that additional activation to the target language can result in fluent bilingual language processing. Other control processes have also been discussed in the literature, such as speech monitoring (Broos et al, 2016). It is important to point out that empirical effects tend to be the result of an accumulation of processes, as probably no effects are process-pure.…”

Section: Requirements Of a Bilingual Inhibitory Control Markermentioning

confidence: 99%

The concept of inhibition in bilingual control.

Declerck¹,

Koch²

2023

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To achieve fluent language processing as a bilingual, a dominant theoretical framework assumes that the nontarget language is inhibited. This assumption is based on several empirical effects that are typically explained with inhibitory control. In the current article, we discuss four prominent effects linked to bilingual inhibition in language production (i.e., asymmetrical switch costs, n−2 language repetition costs, reversed language dominance, and the blocked language order effect). We argue that these effects require more empirical examination in order to arrive at a firmer basis for the assumption that inhibition plays a major role during bilingual language control. In particular, the empirical replicability of the phenomena themselves needs to be established more firmly, the underlying theoretical assumptions need further examination, and the alternative explanations of the empirical effects need to be scrutinized. In turn, we conclude that inhibitory control may provide a coherent framework for bilingual language production while outlining the challenges that the inhibition account still needs to face.

show abstract

Section: Requirements Of a Bilingual Inhibitory Control Markermentioning

confidence: 99%

The concept of inhibition in bilingual control.

Declerck¹,

Koch²

2023

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For repairs in L2 speech, research by Van Hest (2000) showed that different types of repair are observed, depending on proficiency level: low-proficient L2 speakers make more lexical and phonological error repairs while highly proficient speakers use more appropriateness repairs for lexical items (For a recent review comparing monitoring and error repair for L1 and L2 speech, see Broos, Duyck, & Hartsuiker, 2016).…”

Section: Psycholinguisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluency in Second Language Testing: Insights From Different Disciplines

Jong

2018

Language Assessment Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers the construct of fluency in second language assessment and how it might be informed by research in applied linguistics. It briefly describes the way fluency is conceptualized in four language tests, as embodied in their respective assessment criteria, to show where the field is at present. The article then takes into account recent insights from applied linguistics, and from the fields of psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistics. The article questions the current conceptualization of fluency in language testing, in which it is defined as a concept that should be sought in the ear of the beholder, and where disfluency is only seen as a deficit. Future research should focus on finding ways to ensure that the measures used in testing reflect the ability to talk fluently and efficiently, rather than measures that only reflect listeners' impressions about such ability, and to show that these can be marked appropriately and reliably.

show abstract

“…Such disadvantages have been demonstrated in both L2 speech production (Ivanova & Costa, 2008; Sadat, Martin, Alario, & Costa, 2012) and L2 speech comprehension (Lagrou, Hartsuiker, & Duyck, 2011). Here, we ask whether there is also a disadvantage in verbal self-monitoring in L2 (see Broos, Duyck, & Hartsuiker, 2016 for a review on L2 verbal self-monitoring). The verbal self-monitoring system is responsible for detecting and correcting speech errors and other problems in speech.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring speech production and comprehension: Where is the second-language delay?

Broos

Duyck

Hartsuiker

2018

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on error monitoring suggests that bilingual Dutch–English speakers are slower to correct some speech errors in their second language (L2) as opposed to their first language (L1). But which component of self-monitoring is slowed down in L2, error detection or interruption and repair of the error? This study charted the time course of monitoring in monolingual English speakers and bilingual Dutch–English speakers in language production and language comprehension, with the aim of pinpointing the component(s) of monitoring that cause an L2 disadvantage. First, we asked whether phonological errors are interrupted more slowly in L2. An analysis of data from three speech error elicitation experiments indeed showed that Dutch–English bilinguals were slower to stop speaking after an error had been detected in their L2 (English) than in their L1 (Dutch), at least for interrupted errors. A similar L2 disadvantage was found when comparing the L2 of Dutch–English bilinguals to the L1 of English monolinguals. Second, monolingual English speakers and bilingual Dutch–English speakers performed a picture naming task, a production monitoring task, and a comprehension monitoring task. Bilingual English speakers were slower in naming pictures in their L2 than monolingual English speakers. However, the production monitoring task and comprehension monitoring task yielded comparable response latencies between monolinguals in their L1 and bilinguals in their L2, indicating that monitoring processes in L2 are not generally slower. We suggest that interruption and repair are planned concurrently and that the difficulty of repairing in L2 triggers a slow-down in L2 interruption.

show abstract

Verbal Self‐Monitoring in the Second Language

Cited by 8 publications

References 74 publications

The concept of inhibition in bilingual control.

The concept of inhibition in bilingual control.

Fluency in Second Language Testing: Insights From Different Disciplines

Monitoring speech production and comprehension: Where is the second-language delay?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About