CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningPhonetics and Phonology ResearchSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Multilingual speakers’ L1, L2, and L3 fluency across languages: A study of Finnish, Swedish, and English

Open access
Peltonen, Pauliina, Lintunen, Pekka·2022·Nordand
DOI 10.18261/nordand.17.1.4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present study provides a multilingual perspective on speech fluency by examining fluency across first language (L1), second language (L2), and third language (L3) productions in Finnish, Swedish, and English among L1 Finnish (Group 1, G1) and Finnish–Swedish bilingual (Group 2, G2) university students in Finland. The two research questions focused on differences in speech fluency across the three languages between the groups and correlations across speech fluency measures in the different languages. Ninety speech samples in Finnish (L1), Swedish (L1/L3), and English (L2) from 30 participants were analyzed in the present study. The speech samples consist of short picture narrations based on comic strip prompts. The fluency analyses focused on temporal fluency and stalling mechanisms. The data were analyzed quantitatively with Mann-Whitney U-tests and Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficients. The results demonstrated minor differences between the groups in their Finnish (L1) and English (L2) productions, but a higher level of fluency in Swedish for G2 (their L1) than G1 (their L3). For G1, the correlations were strongest between their L1 Finnish and L2 English, whereas for G2, mostly moderate to strong correlations were found between the different language pairs. The results suggest connections in fluency across the languages in a multilingual speaker’s repertoire, but the strength of the correlations varies depending on the participants’ L1(s) and proficiency level in the additional languages. Based on the findings, further research on fluency among multilingual speakers is needed. The results have implications for L2 teaching and assessment. Keywords fluency multilingualism speech production individual differences

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 · 10.18261/nordand.17.1.4

Cites

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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 33 · Cited by 10

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 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
  2. Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
  3. De Jong, N. H. (2016). Fluency in second language assessment. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 203-218).
  4. 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 (DiSS) (pp. 17-20). Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). https://www.isca- speech.org/archive/diss_2013/dis6_017.html
  5. De Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. J. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 223-243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000210 · DOI
  6. De Jong, N. H., & Wempe, T. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 385-390. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.385 · DOI
  7. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 533- 557. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990015 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Dumont, A. (2018). Fluency and disfluency: A corpus study of non-native and native speaker (dis)fluency profiles [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Université catholique de Louvain.
  9. Duran-Karaoz, Z., & Tavakoli, P. (2020). Predicting L2 fluency from L1 fluency behavior: The case of L1 Turkish and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(4), 671- 695. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000755 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (1998). Problem-solving mechanisms in L2 communication: A psycholinguistic perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(3), 349-385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198003039 · DOI
  11. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 · DOI
  12. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA.
  13. Huensch, A., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2017). Understanding second language fluency behavior: The effects of individual differences in first language fluency, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency over time. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(4), 755-785. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000424 · DOI
  14. Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64(4), 809-854. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12084 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
  16. Lehtonen, J. (1979). Speech rate and pauses in the English of Finns, Swedish-speaking Finns, and Swedes. In R. Palmberg (Ed.), Perception and production of English: Papers on interlanguage (pp. 35-51). Åbo Akademi University.
  17. Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387-417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00669.x · DOI
  18. Lintunen, P., Mutta, M. & Peltonen, P. (2020). Synthesising approaches to second language fluency: Implications and future directions. In P. Lintunen, M. Mutta & P. Peltonen (Eds.), Fluency in L2 learning and use (pp. 186-201). Multilingual Matters.
  19. Peltonen, P., & Lintunen, P. (2016). Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in L2 fluency analysis: A study of Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking learners of English at two school levels. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 209-238. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2014-0018 · DOI
  20. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is "big"? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878-912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 263-270).
  22. Riazantseva, A. (2001). Second language proficiency and pausing: A study of Russian speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 497-526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310100403X · DOI
  23. Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge.
  24. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Skehan, P. (2014). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 1-26).
  26. Tavakoli, P., Nakatsuhara, F., & Hunter, A.-M. (2020). Aspects of fluency across assessed levels of speaking proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 169-191. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12620 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Wolk, C., Götz, S., & Jäschke, K. (2020). Possibilities and drawbacks of using an online application for semi-automatic corpus analysis to investigate discourse markers and alternative fluency variables. Corpus Pragmatics, 5, 7-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00072-x 1 L1 refers to the native language(s): Finnish for G1, Swedish and Finnish for the majority of G2 (for details, see Participants). L2 refers to English for both groups, and L3 refers to Swedish for G1. · DOI

Authors
Peltonen, P., & Lintunen, P.
ORCID
Venue
Nordand
Publisher
Scandinavian University Press
Published
2022-05-10
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
48-63
ISSN
  • 0809-9227 (ISSN-L)
  • 2535-3381
DOI
10.18261/nordand.17.1.4
OpenAlex
W4229459965
Cited by
10
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6
FWCI
7.53
Type
journal article
Language
no
Open access
Locations
  • Nordand (publishedVersion)
  • UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion)
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
speech fluency, multilingualism, third language, Finnish language, Swedish language, English language, bilingualism, stalling, picture narration, individual differences, language proficiency

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