Abstract
The term “fluency” is used in two different ways in relation to second language speech. Whereas laypeople often equate fluency with proficiency in a given language, researchers define fluency as a speaker’s ease or fluidity in producing spoken language at a specific time point. This discrepancy in definitions has been problematic, especially when relying on ratings provided by naïve raters. This study seeks to determine whether “fluency” ratings differ from “fluidity” ratings assigned to 48 speech stimuli produced by native and non-native speakers of German. Samples were rated by participants from three distinct listener groups: native German listeners, second language (L2) German listeners, and non-speakers of German. On the surface, results reveal no significant differences along the two continua (“fluency” or “fluidity”). All groups rated native speakers as more fluent, and second language listeners were harshest in their ratings. Nonetheless, L2 listeners who rated speech samples along the “fluency” scale relied upon speech measures not associated with ease of speaking when compared with L2 listeners who rated the same samples for “fluidity.” Although listeners in all groups were most sensitive to speakers’ speech rate and use of filled pauses, native listeners and non-speakers relied more on temporal measures when they rated speech along the “fluidity” scale. These combined results thus indicate that “fluidity” may be the better term to use in future research relying on naïve listeners’ ratings of perceived fluency.
Funding statement: University of Calgary PURE Award.
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2012. ACTFL proficiency guidelines. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Baker-Smemoe, W., D. P. Dewey, J. Bown & R. A. Martinsen. 2014. Does measuring L2 utterance fluency equal measuring overall L2 proficiency? Evidence from five languages. Foreign Language Annals 47(4). 707–728. doi:10.1111/flan.12110Search in Google Scholar
Blin, L., O. Boeffard & V. Barreaud. 2008. WEB-based listening test system for speech synthesis and speech conversion evaluation. Proceedings of the 6th International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 2270–2274. Marrakesh.Search in Google Scholar
Bosker, H. R., A.-F. Pinget, H. Quene, T. Sanders & N. H. de Jong. 2012. What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing 7(30). 159–175. doi:10.1177/0265532212455394Search in Google Scholar
Byun, T. M., P. F. Halpin & D. Szeredi. 2015. Online crowdsourcing for efficient rating of speech: A validation study. Journal of Communication Disorders 53. 70–83. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.11.003Search in Google Scholar
Chen, H. 2010. Second language timing patterns and their effects on native listeners ’ perceptions. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 2. 183–212.Search in Google Scholar
Cooke, M., J. Barker & M. L. G. Lecumberri. 2013. Crowdsourcing in speech perception. In M Eskenazi, G-A Levow, H. Meng, G. Parent & D. Suendermann (eds.), Crowdsourcing for speech processing: Applications to data collection, transcription and assessment, 137–172. Somerset, GB: Wiley.10.1002/9781118541241.ch6Search in Google Scholar
de Jong, N. H., M. P. Steinel, A. Florijn, R. Schoonen & J. H. Hulstijn. 2012. Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics 34. 1–24. doi:10.1017/S0142716412000069Search in Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M. & M. J. Munro. 2009. Comprehensibility as a factor in listener interaction preferences: Implications for the workplace. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes 66(2). 181–202. doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.2.181Search in Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., M. J. Munro & R. I. Thomson. 2008. A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics 29(3). 359–380. doi:10.1093/applin/amm041Search in Google Scholar
Derwing, T. M., M. J. Rossiter, M. J. Munro & R. I. Thomson. 2004. Second language fluency: Judgements on different tasks. Language Learning 54(4). 655–679.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00282.xSearch in Google Scholar
Eskenazi, M. 2013. The basics. In M. Eskenazi, G-A Levow, H. Meng, G. Parent & D. Suendermann (eds.), Crowdsourcing for speech processing: Applications to data collection, transcription and assessment, 11–33. Somerset, GB: Wiley.10.1002/9781118541241Search in Google Scholar
Eskey, D. E. 2014. Meanwhile, back in the real world … : Accuracy and fluency in second language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 17(2). 315–323. doi:10.2307/3586663Search in Google Scholar
Goethe Institut. 2004. Einstufungstest. http://www.goethe.de/cgi-bin/einstufungstest/einstufungstest.plSearch in Google Scholar
Gut, U. 2009. Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-01155-5Search in Google Scholar
Isaacs, T. & R. I. Thomson. 2013. Rater experience, rating scale length, and judgments of L2 pronunciation: Revisiting research conventions. Language Assessment Quarterly 10(2). 135–159. doi:10.1080/15434303.2013.769545Search in Google Scholar
Isaacs, T. & P. Trofimovich. 2011. Phonological memory, attention control, and musical ability: Effects of individual differences on rater judgments of second language speech. Applied Psycholinguistics 32(1). 113–140. doi:10.1017/S0142716410000317Search in Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., A. Brown, T. McNamara & S. O’Hagan. 2008. Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct?. Applied Linguistics 29. 24–49.10.1093/applin/amm017Search in Google Scholar
Kang, O. 2010. Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System 38(2). 301–315. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.01.005Search in Google Scholar
Kang, O. 2012. Impact of rater characteristics and prosodic features of speaker accentedness on ratings of international teaching assistants’ oral performance. Language Assessment Quarterly 9(3). 249–269. doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.642631Search in Google Scholar
Kennedy, S., J. A. Foote & L. K. Dos Santos Buss. 2015. Second Language Speakers at University: Longitudinal Development and Rater Behaviour. TESOL Quarterly 49(1). 199–209. doi:10.1002/tesq.212Search in Google Scholar
Kormos, J. & M. Dénes. 2004. Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System 32(2). 145–164. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001Search in Google Scholar
Kunath, S. & S. Weinberger. 2010. The wisdom of the crowd’s ear: Speech accent rating and annotation with Amazon Mechanical Turk. Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, 168–171. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA.Search in Google Scholar
Lennon, P. 1990. Investigating fuency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning 40(September 1989). 387–417.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.xSearch in Google Scholar
Major, R. C. 2007. Identifying a foreign accent in an unfamiliar language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29(4). 539–556. doi:10.1017/S0272263107070428Search in Google Scholar
Munro, M. J. & T. M. Derwing. 2015. A prospectus for pronunciation research in the twenty-first century: A point of view. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 1(1). 11–42. doi:10.1075/jslp.1.1.01munSearch in Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. G. 2014. L2 learners’ assessments of accentedness, fluency, and comprehensibility of native and nonnative German speech. Language Learning 64(4). 715–748. doi:10.1111/lang.12082Search in Google Scholar
Pinget, A.-F., H. R. Bosker, H. Quene & N. H. de Jong. 2014. Native speakers’ perceptions of fluency and accent in L2 speech. Language Testing 31(3). 349–365. doi:10.1177/0265532214526177Search in Google Scholar
Préfontaine, Y. 2013. Perceptions of French fluency in second language speech production. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes 69(3). 324–348. doi:10.3138/cmlr.1748Search in Google Scholar
Riggenbach, H. 1991. Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes 14(4). 423–441. doi:10.1080/01638539109544795Search in Google Scholar
Rossiter, M. J. 2009. Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of english. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes 65(3). 395–412. doi:10.3138/cmlr.65.3.395Search in Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. 2010. The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203851357Search in Google Scholar
Towell, R., R. Hawkins & N. Bazergui. 1996. The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics 17(1). 84–119. doi:10.1093/applin/17.1.84Search in Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P. & T. Isaacs. 2012. Disentangling accent from comprehensibility. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(4). 905–916. doi:10.1017/S1366728912000168Search in Google Scholar
Wilkerson, M. E. 2010. Identifying accent in German: A comparison of native and non-native listeners. Die Unterrichtspraxis 43(2). 144–153.10.1111/j.1756-1221.2010.00076.xSearch in Google Scholar
Wilkerson, M. E. 2013. The sound of German: Descriptions of accent by native and non-native listeners. Die Unterrichtspraxis 46(1). 106–118.10.1111/tger.10132Search in Google Scholar
Appendix
Example of Fluency rating interface
Example of Fluidity rating interface
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
