Fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance: Challenges in defining and measuring L2 fluency
Abstract
The study reported in this paper challenges current models of measuring second language fluency by comparing monologic versus dialogic task performance, and providing a novel insight into the measurement of the interactive aspects of dialogic performance. The data that constitute 35 monologic and dialogic task performances from second language learners were coded using a battery of established measures known to tap different aspects of fluency, and subjected to statistical analysis to test for overlaps or differences. Interactive aspects of fluency in dialogue, e. g. interruptions, overlap and unclaimed between turn pauses were also investigated to compare with common measures of monologic speech. While the results confirm previous research findings suggesting that performance is in general statistically more fluent in a dialogue in terms of speed, length of pause and repair measures, they indicate that performances in the two modes are not different in terms of number and location of pauses. The analysis of the dialogues indicates that the decisions researchers make about measuring the interactive aspects of fluency would have an impact on the outcome of measurements of fluency. These findings highlight the need for developing a more systematic and reliable approach to measuring second language (L2) fluency.
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?
Dialogic contexts might facilitate fluent speech production.
“While some previous studies exploring task mode effects on L2 speech fluency have suggested that dialogic contexts might facilitate fluent speech production (e.g., Tavakoli, 2016;Witton-Davies, 2014)”
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 Tavakoli, 2016
Tavakoli (2016) found statistically significantly more fluent performance in the dialogue on speed, length-based breakdown, and composite measures, but not on frequency or location of silent pauses.
“The results demonstrated statistically significantly more fluent performance in the dialogue on speed (articulation rate), length-based breakdown (mean length of silent pauses), and composite (speech rate, mean length of run, phonationtime ratio) measures, but not on the frequency or location of silent pauses”
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 Tavakoli (2016)
The fluency measures presented in Table 1 were chosen based on previous studies on monologic and dialogic fluency.
“The fluency measures presented in Table 1 were chosen based on previous studies on monologic and dialogic fluency (see, e.g., De Jong, 2018;Peltonen, 2017Peltonen, , 2020;;Tavakoli, 2016;Witton-Davies, 2014).”
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 Tavakoli, 2016
Turn-taking provides opportunities for the interlocutor to plan during the other speaker's turn.
“turn-taking provides opportunities for the interlocutor to plan during the other speaker's turn”
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 Tavakoli, 2016
The greater fluency of dialogic performances compared to monologic performances can be explained by the presence of the interlocutor and the overall interactive nature of the dialogic task.
“can be explained with the presence of the interlocutor and the overall interactive nature of the dialogic task”
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 Tavakoli, 2016
Our findings are in line with Tavakoli's (2016) results regarding the speed and composite fluency measures.
“Our findings are in line with Tavakoli's (2016) results regarding the speed and composite fluency measures, demonstrating more fluent performance in dialogue (faster AR and SR).”
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 Tavakoli (2016)
Tavakoli (2016) found the SPs to be shorter in dialogue but no difference in the frequency of SPs across the two modes.
“while Tavakoli (2016) found the SPs to be shorter in dialogue but no difference in the frequency of SPs across the two modes”
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 Tavakoli (2016)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 24 · Cited by 91
- Authors
- Tavakoli, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Reading (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Tavakoli, Parvaneh
- ORCID
- Tavakoli, Parvaneh
- Venue
- International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2016-01-01
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0019-042X (ISSN-L)
- 1613-4141
- OpenAlex
- W2424806470
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 25.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (publishedVersion)
- CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- second language fluency, monologic speech, dialogic speech, turn-taking, interruptions, overlap, pauses, repair, speech rate, second language learners
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
