Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-rvxtl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-19T00:22:23.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2012

MATHIEU DECLERCK  and
JUDIT KORMOS
MATHIEU DECLERCK
Affiliation:
Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen University, Institute of Psychology
JUDIT KORMOS*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University
*
Address for correspondence: Judit Kormos, Lancaster University, Department of Linguistics and English Language, Bailrigg, County South LA1 5FB, UK[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study we examined how the introduction of a parallel finger-tapping task influences second language (L2) speech encoding mechanisms and monitoring processes, and how the level of proficiency impacts the efficiency and accuracy of L2 performance under single and dual task conditions. The results indicate that imposing dual task demands had a negative effect on the accuracy of lexical selection and the efficiency of error-correction processes. We argue that this can be explained with reference to attentional bottleneck effects on lexical selection processes and on monitoring. The findings also reveal that the level of L2 competence influenced both the speed and the accuracy of speech encoding processes and the efficiency of monitoring.

Keywords

second language productiondual taskmonitoringsecond language proficiency
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 782 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The first author was supported by a grant funded by the Hungarian Scholarship Board (MOB-193-1/2009. We thank the three anonymous reviewers of this paper for their detailed comments and useful suggestions.

References

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D., Emslie, H., Kolodny, J., & Duncan, J. (1998). Random generation and the executive control of working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51 (A), 819–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackmer, E. R., & Mitton, J. L. (1991). Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 39, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cook, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2008). Capacity demands of phoneme selection in word production: New evidence from dual-task experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 886–899.Google ScholarPubMed
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, F. J. (1978). Monitoring attention deployment by random number generation: Index to measure subjective randomness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12 (1), 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fathman, A. K. (1980). Repetition and correction as an indication of speech planning and execution processes among second language learners. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (eds.), Towards a cross linguistic assessment of speech production, pp. 77–85. Frankfurt: Peter D. Lang.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1187–1199.Google ScholarPubMed
Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Cognitive approaches to the development of short-term memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 410–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2006). The simultaneous manipulation along the planning time and +/– Here-and-Now dimensions: Effects on oral L2 production. In García Mayo, M. P. (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, pp. 44–68. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N. (2006). Language production and working memory: The case of subject–verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the Perceptual Loop Theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 113–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale for the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahanshahi, M., Saleem, T. T., Ho, A. K., Dirnberger, G., & Fuller, R. R. (2006). Random number generation as an index of controlled processing. Neuropsychology, 20, 391–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 132, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kormos, J. (2000). The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production. Language Learning, 50, 343–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Speech production and the Cognition Hypothesis. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance, pp. 39–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 146–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P. (1984). Retelling a story in English as a second language. In Dechert, H. W., Möhle, D. & Raupach, M. (eds.), Second language productions, pp. 50–68. Tübingen: Günter Narr.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. (1991). Error: Some problems of definition, identification and distinction. Applied Linguistics, 12, 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 33, 41–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Language production: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, C. & Hagoort, P. (eds.), Neurocognition of language, pp. 83–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Science, 22, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, N., Weisberg, R. W., & Saffran, E. M. (1989). Variables influencing the occurrence of naming errors: Implications for models of lexical retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 462–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navon, D. (1984). Resources – A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navon, D. (1989). The importance of being visible: On the role of attention in a mind viewed as an anarchic intelligence system; basic tenets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1, 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oomen, C. C. E., & Postma, A. (2001). Effects of time pressure on mechanisms of speech production and self-monitoring. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 163–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oomen, C. C. E., & Postma, A. (2002). Limitations in processing resources and speech monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitation in dual-task performance. In Pashler, H. (ed.), Attention, pp. 155–189. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Postma, A., & Kolk, H. (1992). The effects of noise masking and required accuracy on speech errors disfluencies and self-repairs. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 537–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Postma, A., & Kolk, H. (1993). The covert repair hypothesis: Prearticulatory repair processes in normal and stuttered disfluencies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 472–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulisse, N. (1993). Slips of the tongue and their correction in L2 learner speech: Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition. Presented at the 10th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15, 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis of adult, task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–107.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofs, A. (2008). Attention, gaze shifting, and dual-task interference from phonological encoding in spoken word planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1580–1598.Google ScholarPubMed
Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sarno, K., & Wickens, C. D. (1995). The role of multiple resources in predicting time-sharing efficiency: An evaluation of three workload models in a multiple task setting. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5, 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, pp. 183–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towse, J. N., & Neil, D. (1998). Analyzing human random generation behavior: A review of methods used and a computer program for describing performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 583–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hest, E. (1996). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In Nickerson, R. S. (ed.), Attention and performance (vol. VIII), pp. 239–257. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wickens, C. D. (2007). Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar