CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Phonetics and Phonology ResearchEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

Fluency in Dialogue: Turn‐Taking Behavior Shapes Perceived Fluency in Native and Nonnative Speech

Open access
van Os, Marjolein, de Jong, Nivja H., Bosker, Hans Rutger·2020·Language Learning
DOI 10.1111/lang.12416
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Fluency is an important part of research on second language learning, but most research on language proficiency typically has not included oral fluency as part of interactions even though natural communication usually occurs in conversations. The present study considered aspects of turn‐taking behavior as part of the construct of fluency and investigated whether these aspects differentially influence perceived fluency ratings of native and nonnative speech. Results from two experiments using acoustically manipulated speech showed that, in native speech, too “eager” answers (interrupting a question with a fast answer) and too “reluctant” answers (answering slowly after a long turn gap) negatively affected fluency ratings. However, in nonnative speech, only too “reluctant” answers led to lower fluency ratings. Thus, we demonstrated that acoustic properties of dialogue are perceived as part of fluency. By adding to the current understanding of dialogue fluency, these lab‐based findings carry implications for language teaching and assessment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lang.12416

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Beňuš, Š., Gravano, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2011). Pragmatic aspects of temporal accommodation in turn-taking. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3001-3027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.011 · DOI
  5. Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440020101 · DOI
  6. Bosker, H. R., Pinget, A. F., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & De Jong, N. H. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30, 159-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212455394 · DOI
  7. Bosker, H. R., Quené, H., Sanders, T., & De Jong, N. H. (2014). The perception of fluency in native and nonnative speech. Language Learning, 64, 579-614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212455394 · DOI
  8. Bosker, H. R., & Reinisch, E. (2015). Normalization for speech rate in native and nonnative speech. In M. Wolters, J. Livingstone, B. Beattie, R. Smith, M. MacMahon, J. Stuart-Smith, & J. Scobbie. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international congress of phonetic sciences (pp. 1-5). ICPhS 2015. London, UK: International Phonetic Association. Retrieved from https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs- proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0324.pdf
  9. Bull, M. C., & Aylett, M. P. (1998). An analysis of the timing of turn-taking in a corpus of goal-orientated dialogue. In R. Mannel & J. Robert-ribes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, ICSLP 1998 (pp. 1175-1178). Canberra, Australia: Australian Speech Science & Technology Association.
  10. Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  11. Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25(4), 535-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00046-8 · DOI
  12. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002). Quantitative assessment of second language learners' fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 2862-2873. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1471894 · DOI
  14. De Jong, N. H., & Bosker, H. R. (2013). Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. In R. Eklund (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th workshop on disfluency in spontaneous speech (pp. 17-20). DiSS Stockholm, Sweden: KATH Royal Institute of Technology.
  15. Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54, 655-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00282.x · DOI
  16. Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. Filmore, d. Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85-101). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  17. Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35, 553-574. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017 · DOI
  18. Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816 · DOI
  19. Garrod, S. (1999). The challenge of dialogue for theories of language processing. In S. Garrod & M. J. Pickering (Eds.), Language processing (pp. 389-415). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
  20. Goldberg, J. A. (1990). Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power-and rapport-oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 883-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90045-F Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics experiments in spontaneous speech. New York, NY: Academic Press. · DOI
  21. Heldner, M., & Edlund, J. (2010). Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 555-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002 International English Language Testing System. (n.d.). SPEAKING: Band descriptors (public version). Retrieved from https://www.ielts.org/-/media/pdfs/speaking-band-descriptors.ashx?la=en on 23-07-2019. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O'Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29, 24-49. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm017 · DOI
  23. Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring the production and perception of second language fluency: Utterance, cognitive, and perceived fluency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East Lansing: Michigan State University. Retrieved from https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/ 3005/datastream/OBJ/download/Exploring_the_production_and_perception_of_ second_language_fluency___utterance__cognitive__and_perceived_fluency.pdf
  24. Kahng, J. (2018). The effect of pause location on perceived fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 569-591. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000534 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Kaufeld, G., Ravenschlag, A., Meyer, A. S., Martin, A. E., & Bosker, H. R. (2020). Knowledge-based and signal-based cues are weighted flexibly during spoken language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46, 549-562. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000744 · DOI
  26. Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387-417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.x · DOI
  27. Maslowski, M., Meyer, A. S., & Bosker, H. R. (2019). How the tracking of habitual rate influences speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000579 · DOI
  28. May, L. (2009). Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater's perspective. Language Testing, 26, 397-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104668 · DOI
  29. McCarthy, M. (2010). Spoken fluency revisited. English Profile Journal, 1(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2041536210000012 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Meyer, A. S., Alday, P. M., Decuyper, C., & Knudsen, B. (2018). Working together: Contributions of corpus analyses and experimental psycholinguistics to understanding conversation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00525 · DOI
  31. Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.011 · DOI
  32. Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12525 · DOI
  33. Peltonen, P. (2017). Temporal fluency and problem-solving in interaction: An exploratory study of fluency resources in L2 dialogue. System, 70, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.009 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Pinget, A.-F., Bosker, H. R., Quené, H., & De Jong, N. H. (2014). Native speakers' perceptions of fluency and accent in L2 speech. Language Testing, 31, 349-365, https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526177 · DOI
  35. Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Processes, 14, 423-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544795 · DOI
  36. Roberts, F., Margutti, P., & Takano, S. (2011). Judgments concerning the valence of inter-turn silence across speakers of American English, Italian, and Japanese. Discourse Processes, 48, 331-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.558002 · DOI
  37. Roberts, S. G., Torreira, F., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). The effects of processing and sequence organization on the timing of turn taking: A corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00509 · DOI
  38. Robinson, L. F., & Reis, H. T. (1989). The effects of interruption, gender, and status on interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 141-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987046 · DOI
  39. Rodd, J., Bosker, H. R., Ernestus, M., Alday, P. M., Meyer, A. S., & ten Bosch, L. (2020). Control of speaking rate is achieved by switching between qualitatively distinct cognitive "gaits": Evidence from simulation. Psychological Review, 127, 281-304. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000172 · DOI
  40. Roger, D., & Nesshoever, W. (1987). Individual differences in dyadic conversational strategies: A further study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 247-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00786.x · DOI
  41. Rossiter, M. J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 395-412. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.3.395 · DOI
  42. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7-55). New York, NY: Academic Press.
  43. Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S. (Eds.). (2019). Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
  44. Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge.
  45. Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10587-10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Tavakoli, P. (2016). Fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance: Challenges in defining and measuring L2 fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54, 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9994 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239-273). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  48. Tavakoli, P., & Uchihara, T. (2020). To what extent are multiword sequences associated with oral fluency? Language Learning, 70, https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12384 · DOI
  49. ter Maat, M., Truong, K. P., & Heylen, D. (2010). How turn-taking strategies influence users' impressions of an agent. In J. Allbeck, N. Badler, T. Bickmore, C. Pelachaud, & A. Safonova (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 6356. Intelligent Virtual Agents. IVA 2010 (pp. 441-453). Berlin, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15892-6_48 · DOI
  50. Torreira, F., Bögels, S., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Breathing for answering: The time course of response planning in conversation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00284 · DOI
  51. Traxler, M. J. (2012). Introduction to psycholinguistics: Understanding language science. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
  52. Van Leeuwen, A. R. (2017). Right on time: Synchronization, overlap, and affiliation in conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht, Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht. Retrieved from https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/478_fulltext.pdf
  53. Witton-Davies, G. (2014). The study of fluency and its development in monologue and dialogue (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.
  54. Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 426-443). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Os, M., de Jong, N. H., & Bosker, H. R.
Affiliations
  • Language Science and Technology Saarland University, Saarbrücken Germany
  • ICLON Graduate School of Teaching/Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL) Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands
  • Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (NL)
Corresponding author
Bosker, Hans Rutger
ORCID
Bosker, Hans Rutger
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06-17
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
1183-1217
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
DOI
10.1111/lang.12416
OpenAlex
W3036649342
Cited by
39
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Language Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Keywords
oral fluency, turn-taking, perceived fluency, second language speech, speech acoustics, interruptions, conversation, second language assessment

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