Explaining second language utterance fluency: Contribution of cognitive fluency and first language utterance fluency
Abstract
Given that utterance fluency in a second language (L2) is associated with not only L2 cognitive fluency but also utterance fluency in the first language (L1), the study examined to what extent different measures of L2 utterance fluency can be explained by L2-specific cognitive fluency and/or the corresponding L1 utterance fluency measures. Utterance fluency measures on speed, breakdown, and repair phenomena and cognitive fluency measures including speed of lexical retrieval, syntactic encoding, and articulation were collected in the L1 and the L2 from 44 Chinese learners of English. The results show that most L2 utterance fluency measures are accounted for by the combination of L2-specific cognitive fluency measures and the equivalent L1 utterance fluency measure, whereas the number of mid-clause silent pauses and corrections, and mean syllable duration are largely explained by L2-specific cognitive measures, suggesting that they reflect L2-specific knowledge and cognitive skills. In contrast, mean silent pause duration and the number of filled pauses are mainly explained by the corresponding L1 utterance fluency measures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Kahng's stepwise multiple regression showed for most L2 fluency measures, both L2-specific cognitive fluency measures and the corresponding L1 fluency measure were significant predictors.
“the stepwise multiple regression analyses showed that for most L2 fluency measures, both L2-specific cognitive fluency measures and the corresponding L1 fluency measure were found to be significant predictors.”
From The impact of L1 speaking style, task mode, and L2 proficiency on L2 fluency: A within-subject study of monologic and dialogic speech (2025) · cites this paper as Kahng (2020)
Kahng (2020) found moderate to strong correlations between the majority of examined L1 and L2 fluency measures, strongest for mean silent pause duration r = .57.
“She found moderate to strong correlations between the majority of the examined L1 and L2 fluency measures (strongest correlation found for mean silent pause duration, r = .57)”
From The impact of L1 speaking style, task mode, and L2 proficiency on L2 fluency: A within-subject study of monologic and dialogic speech (2025) · cites this paper as Kahng (2020)
The prominent role of L1 in affecting SP durations might explain the differing findings regarding the breakdown fluency dimension.
“The prominent role of L1 in affecting SP durations (see also, e.g., De Jong et al., 2015;Gao & Sun, 2024;Kahng, 2020), not examined in Tavakoli's (2016) study, might explain the differing findings regarding the breakdown fluency dimension”
From The impact of L1 speaking style, task mode, and L2 proficiency on L2 fluency: A within-subject study of monologic and dialogic speech (2025) · cites this paper as Kahng, 2020
Cites
Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking
Clark, H. (2002) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00017-3 · Cited by 1,235 · see citing works
Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners
Kormos, J., & Dénes (2004) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001 · Cited by 679 · see citing works
Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: putting a Lexical Approach to the test
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1191/1362168806lr195oa · Cited by 506 · see citing works
Exploring Connections Between First and Second Language Fluency: A Mixed Methods Approach
PELTONEN, P. (2018) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12516 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peltonen, P., Götz, S., & Lintunen, P. (2025) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263125101289 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Kahng ’ s (2020) study of 44 Chinese learners of L2 English disentangled the relationships between L1 and L2 speech fluency further by including cognitive fluency in the analyses along with utterance fluency indicators.”
Influential
- Authors
- Kahng, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Mississippi (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kahng, Jimin
- ORCID
- Kahng, Jimin
- Venue
- Applied Psycholinguistics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-03
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 457-480
- ISSN
- 0142-7164 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1817
- OpenAlex
- W3013539567
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 30.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Psycholinguistics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- processing fluency, syntactic encoding, articulation, silent pauses, filled pauses, speech repair, Chinese learners of English, syllable duration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
