Exploring Utterance and Cognitive Fluency of L1 and L2 English Speakers: Temporal Measures and Stimulated Recall
Abstract
Although fluency constitutes an essential component of second language (L2) proficiency, there are mixed results and gaps in the literature on how L2 speakers’ fluency differs from fluent speech production in a first language (L1). The research reported in this article investigated utterance fluency and cognitive fluency of L1 English speakers and Korean learners of L2 English by eliciting and comparing quantitative evidence from temporal measures and qualitative evidence from stimulated recall responses. In addition, the L2 speaker group's proficiency was measured by an in‐house institutional test so as to inspect how L2 fluency measures correlated to varying proficiency. The L1 and L2 speakers were different in speed, length of run, and silent pauses. In particular, a striking group difference in silent pause rate within a clause was found, consistent with the claim that pauses within clauses reflect processing difficulties in speech production. Different qualitative patterns in the stimulated recall responses by the lower and higher proficiency learners are discussed in relation to Ullman's declarative/procedural model and Segalowitz's fluency vulnerability points in L2 speech production.
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?
L2 speaking involves demanding mental processes such as conceptualization, formulation, and articulation and relies on procedural knowledge for real-time speech processing.
“To further our understanding of distributed practice effects, investigations into speaking skill acquisition are important because L2 speaking involves demanding mental processes, such as conceptualization, formulation, and articulation (Levelt, 1989) and relies on procedural knowledge for real-time speech processing (Kahng, 2014;Kormos, 2006;Suzuki, 2021b).”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2022) · cites this paper as Kahng, 2014
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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fluency in Second Language Testing: Insights From Different Disciplines
De Jong, N. H. (2018) · Language Assessment Quarterly · doi:10.1080/15434303.2018.1477780 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Suzuki, Y. (2021) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12433 · Cited by 76 · 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
MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT
Suzuki, Y., & Hanzawa, K. (2022) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263121000358 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“…on 26 Jul 2021 at 19:29:10, subject to the Cambridge Core mid-clause pause is arguably related to proceduralization of L2 knowledge (Kahng, 2014; Kormos, 2006; Suzuki, 2021b), the current findings suggest that massed practice plays a potential facilitative role for certain aspects…”
Background
- Authors
- Kahng, J.
- Affiliations
- Northeastern Illinois University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kahng, Jimin
- ORCID
- Kahng, Jimin
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-10-15
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 809-854
- ISSN
- 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9922
- OpenAlex
- W2143896577
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 44.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Language Learning (N/A Dissertation Grant 2014)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- utterance fluency, processing fluency, second language speech production, Korean learners of English, silent pauses, speech production timing, second language proficiency, stimulated recall, run length
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
