Recent research in second language acquisition suggests that a number of speed, breakdown, repair, and composite measures reliably assess fluency and predict proficiency. However, there is little research evidence to indicate which measures best characterize fluency at each assessed level of proficiency and which can consistently distinguish one level from the next. This study investigated fluency in 32 speakers? performing 4 tasks of the British Council's Aptis Speaking Test, which were awarded 4 different levels of proficiency (Common European Framework of Reference for Language levels A2?C1). Using PRAAT, the performances were analyzed for various aspects of utterance fluency across different levels of proficiency. The results suggest that speed and composite measures consistently distinguish fluency from the lowest to upper-intermediate levels (A2?B2), and many breakdown measures differentiate between the lowest level (A2) and the rest of the proficiency groups, with a few differentiating between lower (A2, B1) and higher levels (B2, C1). The varied use of repair measures at different levels suggests that a more complex process is at play. The findings imply that a detailed micro-analysis of fluency offers a more reliable understanding of the construct and its relationship with assessment of proficiency.

中文翻译：

---

不同口语水平评估的流利程度

最近对第二语言习得的研究表明，许多速度、故障、修复和综合措施可以可靠地评估流利度并预测熟练程度。然而，几乎没有研究证据表明哪些措施最能描述每个评估水平的流利程度，哪些措施可以始终如一地将一个水平与下一个水平区分开来。这项研究调查了 32 位演讲者的流利程度？执行英国文化协会 Aptis 口语测试的 4 项任务，这些任务被授予 4 个不同的熟练程度（欧洲语言水平通用参考框架 A2？C1）。使用 PRAAT，针对不同熟练程度的话语流利度的各个方面对表演进行了分析。结果表明，速度和综合测量一致地将流利程度从最低级别到中上级别 (A2?B2) 区分开来，许多细分指标将最低级别 (A2) 和其他熟练程度组区分开来，其中一些区分了较低（A2，B1）和较高水平（B2，C1）。在不同级别使用不同的修复措施表明一个更复杂的过程正在发挥作用。研究结果表明，对流利度的详细微观分析提供了对结构及其与熟练程度评估关系的更可靠的理解。在不同级别使用不同的修复措施表明一个更复杂的过程正在发挥作用。研究结果表明，对流利度的详细微观分析提供了对结构及其与熟练程度评估关系的更可靠的理解。在不同级别使用不同的修复措施表明一个更复杂的过程正在发挥作用。研究结果表明，对流畅性的详细微观分析提供了对结构及其与熟练程度评估关系的更可靠的理解。