Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T13:54:52.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TASK REPETITION AND SECOND LANGUAGE SPEECH PROCESSING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2016

Craig Lambert ,
Judit Kormos  and
Danny Minn
Craig Lambert
Affiliation:
Curtin University
Judit Kormos
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Danny Minn
Affiliation:
Kitakyushu University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between the repetition of oral monologue tasks and immediate gains in L2 fluency. It considers the effect of aural-oral task repetition on speech rate, frequency of clause-final and midclause filled pauses, and overt self-repairs across different task types and proficiency levels and relates these findings to specific stages of L2 speech production (conceptualization, formulation, and monitoring). Thirty-two Japanese learners of English sampled at three levels of proficiency completed three oral communication tasks (instruction, narration, and opinion) six times. Results revealed that immediate aural-oral same task repetition was related to gains in oral fluency regardless of proficiency level or task type. Overall gains in speech rate were the largest across the first three performances of each task type but continued until the fifth performance. More specifically, however, clause-final pauses decreased until the second performance, midclause pauses decreased up to the fourth, and self-repairs decreased only after the fourth performance, indicating that task repetition may have been differentially related to specific stages in the speech production process.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 167 - 196
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

References

REFERENCES

Ahmadian, M. J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and fluency: does it transfer to a new task?. The Language Learning Journal, 39, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59.Google Scholar
Arevart, S., & Nation, P. (1991). Fluency improvement in a L2. RELC Journal, 22, 84–94.Google Scholar
Arevart, S., & Nation, P. (1993). Adjusting fluency and grammar through repetition. In Oller, J. (Ed.), Methods that work: Ideas for language teachers (2nd ed., pp. 298–308). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language, 35, 735–771.Google Scholar
Bosker, H., Pinget, A., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & De Jong, N. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30, 159–175.Google Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1975). Hesitation and semantic planning in speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27, 33–48.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference of languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s’ speaking’model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a L2. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 1–24.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (1998). Problem-solving mechanisms in L2 communication: A psycholinguistic perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 349–385.Google Scholar
Educational Testing Service. (2008). TOEIC test data and analysis 2007: Number of examinees and scores in FY2007. Tokyo: The Institute for International Business Corporation, TOEIC Steering Committee.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based research: Theory and research. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a L2 (pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M., & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative English speech (Vol. 53). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49, 303–342.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and L2 acquisition . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Speech production and the cognition hypothesis. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), L2 task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken L2 fluency. In Riggenbach, H. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 25–42). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, C. & Hagoort, P. (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–250.Google Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M.. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 141–162). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Maurice, K. (1983). The fluency workshop. TESOL Newsletter, 17, 429.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2009). Using priming methods in second language research. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17, 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nihon Eigo Kentei Kyokai [The Eiken Foundation of Japan]. (2009). Eiken jun 1 kyuu zenmondaishuu [Eiken pre-1 level: Complete questions collection]. Tokyo: Oubunsha.Google Scholar
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and L2 performance in narrative retelling. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is big? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of L2 fluency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling L2 performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance and task-based pedagogy. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., Xiaoyue, B., Quian, L., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16, 170–187.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61, 37–72.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a L2 (pp. 239–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, J. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85–106.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effect of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar