Cover not available
Part of
Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan
Edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen and Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
[Task-Based Language Teaching 13] 2019
► pp. 39–52

Chapter 2
Automaticity, fluency and second language task performance

| University of Reading

Research in second language (L2) task performance has been interested in examining fluency not only as a key aspect of language performance but also as a construct that can demonstrate L2 processing and development in concrete and measurable ways. Speech fluency has been particularly important in second language acquisition (SLA) research as it helps shed light on significant aspects of language processing, such as attention, noticing, and automaticity. This chapter will provide a brief overview of the literature on the relationship between automaticity and L2 fluency. It will then highlight the extent to which research in this area has moved beyond a simple and inadequately-defined concept of fluency to characterising fluency as a multidimensional and complex construct that is defined rigorously and measured objectively and systematically. After discussing the significance of fluency in language acquisition, language teaching and language assessment, the chapter evaluates the existing frameworks for defining and measuring fluency. It will also outline how operationalisation and measurement of fluency have changed to become more robust in nature and more methodical in operation. In doing so, Skehan’s influential contribution to the development of the current understanding of fluency and its measurement will be highlighted. The paper will conclude by underlining the need for expanding the existing framework to include other factors, such as individual, social, and cultural factors that affect fluency in task performance.

Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Fluency: A multifaceted construct
  • Automaticity
  • Automaticity and SLA
  • Skehan’s influential contribution to conceptualising and measuring fluency
    • A reliable framework for understanding and measuring fluency
    • Underlining the effects of task design on fluency
  • Directions for future fluency research
  • References
Published online: 28 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.03tav
References
Anderson, J. R.
(1983) The architecture of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(1993) Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
de Jong, N. H.
(2016) Predicting pauses in L1 and L2 speech: The effects of utterance boundaries and word frequency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54(2), 113–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A.
(2011) Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H.
(2012) Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(1), 5–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H.
(2015) Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behaviour. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2001) Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Cognition and second language instruction (pp.125–151). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp.93–112). London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
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, 533–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freed, B., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D.
(2004) Context of learning and second language fluence in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(02), 275-301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. Behney, J., & Plonsky, L.
(2013) Second language acquisition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R.
(2009) Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 555–582.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J.
(2006) Speech production and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Denes, M.
(2004) Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(1), 145–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P.
(1990) Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Logan, G.
(1988) Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(2), 492–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) Shapes of reaction time distributions and shapes of learning curves. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(4), 883–914.Google Scholar
Mora, J. C., & Valls-Ferrer, M.
(2012) Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 610–641.Google Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2009) Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E.
(2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N.
(2003) Automaticity and second languages. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.383–406). London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Fluency. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopaedia of second language acquisition (pp.240–244). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M.
(1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing, 1: Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W.
(1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing, 2: Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984) Automatic and controlled processes revisited. Psychological Review, 91(2), 269–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.167–185). Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
(2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Limited attention capacity and cognition. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp.123–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. Foster, P., & Shum, S.
(2016) Ladders and snakes in second language fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 54(2), 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Shum, S.
(2017) What influences performance? Personal style or task being done. In L. Lillian, C. Wong, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Faces of English education: Students, teachers and pedagogy (pp.xx). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P.
(2011) Pausing patterns: Differences between L2 learners and native speakers. ELT Journal, 65(1), 71–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Speech fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 54(2), 133–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P
(2018) L2 development in an intensive Study Abroad EAP context. System, 72. pp. 62-74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Hunter, A.-M.
(2017) Is fluency being ‘neglected’ in the classroom? Teacher understanding of fluency and related classroom practices. Language Teaching Research, 22(3), 330–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., Campbell, C., & McCormack, J.
2016 Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 447–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., Nakatsuhara, F., & Hunter, A. -M.
(2017) Scoring validity of the Aptis Speaking test: Investigating fluency across tasks and levels of proficiency. British Council Report. London: The British Council.
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Awwad, Anas & Rashed Alhamad
2021. Online task planning and L2 oral fluency: does manipulating time pressure affect fluency in L2 monologic oral narratives? . International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 59:4 ► pp. 605 ff. DOI logo
Awwad, Anas & Rashed Alhamad
2021. Online task planning and L2 oral fluency: does manipulating time pressure affect fluency in L2 monologic oral narratives? . International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 59:4 ► pp. 605 ff. DOI logo
Caldwell-Harris, Catherine L. & Brian MacWhinney
2024. Expanding the emergentist Account:Reply to open peer commentaries. Brain and Language 248 ► pp. 105368 ff. DOI logo
Duran-Karaoz, Zeynep & Parvaneh Tavakoli
2020. PREDICTING L2 FLUENCY FROM L1 FLUENCY BEHAVIOR. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42:4 ► pp. 671 ff. DOI logo
Garcia-Ponce, Edgar Emmanuell, M. Martha Lengeling, Irasema Mora-Pablo & Lisa Marie Conaway Arroyo
2023. Use of WhatsApp as a Platform to Promote English Oral Fluency and Accuracy: A Task Repetition Approach. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura 28:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Huynh, Thu-Nguyet, Chi-Jen Lin & Gwo-Jen Hwang
2022. Learner-generated material: the effects of ubiquitous photography on foreign language speaking performance. Educational technology research and development 70:6 ► pp. 2117 ff. DOI logo
Jamoussi, Rafik, Aladdin Al Zahran & Kais A. Kadhim
2023. Beliefs on translation speed among students. A case study. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Tavakoli, Parvaneh, Gill Kendon, Svetlana Mazhurnaya & Anna Ziomek
2023. Assessment of fluency in the Test of English for Educational Purposes. Language Testing 40:3 ► pp. 607 ff. DOI logo
Wetzel, Mathis, Sandrine Zufferey & Pascal Gygax
2024. The role of complexity in the ability to notice incoherent uses of connectives for L2. Journal of Second Language Studies 7:1 ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.