Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:36:33.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FACETS OF SPEAKING PROFICIENCY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2012

Nivja H. de Jong ,
Margarita P. Steinel ,
Arjen F. Florijn ,
Rob Schoonen  and
Jan H. Hulstijn
Nivja H. de Jong
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Margarita P. Steinel
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Arjen F. Florijn
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Rob Schoonen
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Jan H. Hulstijn*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jan H. Hulstijn, Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, the Netherlands; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the componential structure of second-language (L2) speaking proficiency. Participants—181 L2 and 54 native speakers of Dutch—performed eight speaking tasks and six tasks tapping nine linguistic skills. Performance in the speaking tasks was rated on functional adequacy by a panel of judges and formed the dependent variable in subsequent analyses (structural equation modeling). The following independent variables were assessed separately: linguistic knowledge in two tests (vocabulary and grammar); linguistic processing skills (four reaction time measures obtained in three tasks: picture naming, delayed picture naming, and sentence building); and pronunciation skills (speech sounds, word stress, and intonation). All linguistic skills, with the exception of two articulation measures in the delayed picture naming task, were significantly and substantially related to functional adequacy of speaking, explaining 76% of the variance. This provides substantial evidence for a componential view of L2 speaking proficiency that consists of language-knowledge and language-processing components. The componential structure of speaking proficiency was almost identical for the 40% of participants at the lower and the 40% of participants at the higher end of the functional adequacy distribution (n = 73 each), which does not support Higgs and Clifford’s (1982) relative contribution model, predicting that, although L2 learners become more proficient over time, the relative weight of component skills may change.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 5 - 34
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.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, M. L. (1980). Five cooccurring factors in speaking proficiency. In Frith, J. R. (Ed.), Measuring spoken language proficiency (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, V. (2007). Personality differences and oral test performance. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2005). PRAAT [Acoustic analysis software]. Retrieved March 1, 2005, fromhttp://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1961). Fundamental considerations in testing for English language proficiency of foreign students. In: Testing the English proficiency of foreign students. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Reprinted in Allen, H. B. & Campbell, R. N. (Eds.). (1972), Teaching English as a second language: A book of readings (pp. 313–320). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Cholin, J., Levelt, W. J. M., & Schiller, N. O. (2006). Effects of syllable frequency in speech production. Cognition, 99, 205–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Jong, J. H. A. L., & Van Ginkel, L. W. (1992). Dimensions in oral foreign language proficiency. In Verhoeven, L. T. & de Jong, J. H. A. L. (Eds.), The construct of language proficiency: Applications of psychological models to language assessment (pp. 187–205). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (in press).The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and nonnative speakers. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Douglas, D. (1994). Quantity and quality in speaking test performance. Language Testing, 11, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutch Language Union. (2004). Corpus of spoken Dutch. Retrieved May 1, 2005, fromhttp://lands.let.ru.nl/cgn/ehome.htm.Google Scholar
Eriksen, C. W., Pollack, M. D., & Montague, W. E. (1970). Implicit speech: Mechanism in perceptual encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84, 502–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harley, B., Cummins, J., Swain, M., & Allen, P. (1990). The nature of language proficiency. In Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 7–25). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, A. W., & Young, R. F. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In Young, R. F. & He, A. W. (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral language proficiency (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. V., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In Higgs, T. V. (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 243–265). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29, 24–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A., & Davis, J. (2008). A microanalytic perspective on discourse, proficiency, and identity in paired oral assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5, 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y.-W. (2005). Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking test: Evaluating prototype tasks. TOEFL Monograph MS-28 (RM-04–07).Google Scholar
Lee, Y.-W. (2006). Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking assessment consisting of integrated and independent tasks. Language Testing, 23, 131–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macromedia Authorware 7. (2003). [Computer software]. Retrieved December 1, 2004, fromhttp://www.macromedia.com/software/authorware.Google Scholar
Magnan, S. (1988). Grammar and the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview: Discussion and data. Modern Language Journal, 72, 266–276.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. F. (1990). Item response theory and the validation of an ESP test for health professionals. Language Testing, 7, 52–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T. F. (1997). “Interaction” in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18, 446–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, K., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2011). Linguistic skills of adult native speakers, as a function of age and level of education. Applied Linguistics, 32, 475–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakatsuhara, F. (2008). Inter-interviewer variation in oral interview tests. ELT Journal, 62, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, B. (2008). Modelling performance in tests of spoken language. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulisse, N. (1999). Slips of the tongue: Speech errors in first and second language production. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sawaki, Y. (2007). Construct validation of analytic rating scales in a speaking assessment: Reporting a score profile and a composite. Language Testing, 24, 355–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-prime reference guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Schoonen, R. (2005). Generalizability of writing scores: An application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing, 22, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonen, R. (2011). How language ability is assessed. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 701–716). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schoonen, R., Van Gelderen, A., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. . (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic fluency, linguistic knowledge and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53, 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severens, E., Van Lommel, S., Ratinckx, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2005). Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychologica, 119, 159–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 174–215.Google ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, S., Knoll, R. L., Monsell, S., & Wright, C. E. (1988). Motor programs and hierarchical organization in the control of rapid speech. Phonetica, 45, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In Stelmach, G. E. (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117–152). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thio, K., & Verboog, M. (1993). Verstaanbaar spreken: Een handleiding uitspraakonderwijs voor docenten Nederlands als tweede taal [Comprehensible speaking: A manual for the teaching of pronunciation for teachers of Dutch as a second language]. Muiderberg, The Netherlands: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Buuren, S., & Oudshoorn, C. G. M. (1999). Flexible multivariate imputation by MICE. Leiden, the Netherlands: TNO Preventie en Gezondheid (document # PG 99.054).Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. . (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. F. (2002). Discourse approaches to oral language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar