【Research Brief】

The Relationship Between L1 Fluency and L2 Fluency AmongJapanese Advanced Early Learners of English
Miki Shrosbree
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to investigate the relationship between first language (L1) fluency and second
language (L2) fluency among advanced early learners. Previous studies have found a relationship between L1
fluency and L2 fluency among late learners, but no studies have examined the relationship among early learners.
Furthermore, not many fluency measures were used in the previous studies. Twelve Japanese advanced earlylearners of English are involved in the present study, in which video-retelling performances were analyzed using 10
fluency measures. The results show that there are positive correlations between L1 fluency and L2 fluency in sevenof the fluency measures. Following the results, the present study suggests that L2 fluency measurement using L1
fluency as a baseline should be developed.
Keywords: fluency, first language (L1), second language (L2), measurement

Introduction
Fluency, which is one of the three components of second language (L2) speaking ability, alongwith complexity and accuracy, has a variety of definitions. When the word fluency is used for the L2, it
is used in two senses (Lennon, 1990, 2000). In the broad sense, fluency means global oral proficiency,
and in the narrower sense, fluency is one of the components of oral proficiency, which is related toa flow or fluidity in speech (Kormos & Denes, 2004). Lennon (2000) proposed a definition of oral
fluency as “the rapid, smooth, accurate, lucid, and efficient translation of thought or communicative
intention into language under the temporal constraints of on-line processing” (p. 26). Therefore, inthe narrow sense, fluency means rapidness and smoothness in speech performances, and it involves
efficiency of speaker’s cognitive processes. Another definition from a more recent study is that
“Fluency in the narrow sense is usually described in terms of speedy and smooth delivery of speechwithout (filled) pauses, repetitions, and repairs” (De Jong, Groenhout, Schoonen, & Hulstijn, 2015),
which focuses only on the temporal aspect of fluency. This paper uses this narrow definition which
focuses on the temporal aspect of fluency.
The measurement of L2 fluency has been developed for many years. Lennon (1990) proposedsome systematic ways to measure L2 fluency, such as speech rate and silent pause time. Kormos(2006) showed an overview of the measurements of L2 fluency, including speech rate, articulation
rate, phonation-time ratio, mean length of runs, the number/length of pauses, and the number ofdisfluencies per minute. Although L2 fluency measurements have been developed, “researchers havenot discovered universally applicable, objective measures of oral fluency” (Segalowitz, 2010, p. 39).
There seem to be some causes of this problem. One of the causes is that, as Kormos (2006, p. 162)
mentions, variables of fluency measurement are not consistent among researchers. For example,
when counting the number of silent pauses, the minimal duration of a silent pause is considered tobe from 0.2 second (Kormos, 2006) to 1 second (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). Also, units for variables
are not consistent. Some researchers use words per minute, but others use syllables per minute as anindicator of speed fluency. The second cause is the difference of task types. Several speaking tasks111

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

are used in fluency studies, such as picture narratives, film-retelling, and interviews. Thirdly, the waysof counting syllables are different among studies. Most studies transcribe speech samples and countthe number of syllables by hand, but some studies analyze the data using automated techniques for
detecting the number of syllables. Finally, there might be an influence of first language (L1) fluency
on L2 fluency. The present study focuses on this. If there is a relationship between L1 fluency and L2
fluency, L2 fluency measurement using L1 fluency as a baseline should be developed (Segalowitz,
2010; De Jong et al., 2015).
Several practical studies report that there is a relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency(Raupach, 1980; Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996; Riazantseva, 2001; Derwing, Munro, Thomson,& Rossiter, 2009; De Jong et al., 2015). Derwing et al. (2009) examined speech performances of 16
Slavic speakers of English and 16 Mandarin speakers of English who had studied English for several
years. They found a positive correlation between L1 and L2 fluency for both groups with respect
to the number of pauses per second, speech rate, and pruned syllables per second. De Jong et al.
(2015) also found the relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency. They examined fluency from
48 intermediate to advanced learners of Dutch (24 English native speakers and 24 Turkish native
speakers). They analyzed silent pause duration, syllable duration, and the frequency of pauses anddisfluency. They reported that there was a significant correlation between L1 fluency and L2 fluency
for all these fluency measures. These studies suggest that individual characteristics seems to cause
the correlations between L1 fluency and L2 fluency for any levels of learners. Towell et al. (1996)
examined speech performances of 12 English-speaking advanced late learners of French before andafter studying in France for six months. They found a positive correlation between L1 fluency andL2 fluency in terms of speech rate (strong correlation) and articulation rate (moderate correlation).
They also reported that L2 fluency development among advanced learners seems to stop some way
below their L1 fluency in terms of speaking rate and articulation rate. These results imply the relation
between L1 fluency and L2 fluency might be caused by the limitation of L2 fluency development
affected by the L1 fluency. If so, further study is needed to investigate the L1–L2 relationship among
advanced learners with many fluency measures.
The present study examines the relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency among 12
Japanese advanced early learners of English (native speakers of Japanese who started to learn
English at an early age and whose English is now at an advanced proficiency level). It is reported
that early learners’ speech rates are higher than late learners’ (Guion, Flege, Liu, & Yeni-Komshian,2000). Although Towell et al. (1996) found positive correlations between L1 fluency and L2 fluency
among advanced late learners, no studies examined advanced early learners’ speech performances.
Furthermore, not many fluency measures were used in the previous studies. Therefore, the present
study examines the relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency among advanced early learners
using a greater number of fluency measures.

Participants
The present study involved 12 Japanese advanced early learners of English (11 females and 1male) aged between 21 to 48 (M = 28.5). All the participants have high proficiency, with higher than
TOEIC 900. They are either university students or English teachers in Tokyo. All the university
student participants take their classes mostly in English, and all the teacher participants teachtheir classes in English at their workplaces. Therefore, they use English in their daily life. All theparticipants are early learners whose age of acquisition is under eight years old (M = 6.2). They have112THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN L1 FLUENCY AND L2 FLUENCY AMONG JAPANESE ADVANCED EARLY LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

been to English-speaking countries and lived there continuously for more than four years (M = 6.3).

Materials
The present study used a film-retelling task using a video clip called “Lion’s Cage” from Charlie
Chaplin’s (1928) silent film, The Circus. Participants described the story in their L2 (English) first, andfour months later, they watched the same video clip and described the story in their L1 (Japanese).
A four-month interval was set to avoid a repetition effect. Because Bygate (2001) reported that arepetition effect was observed after two months, the present study set the interval longer than twomonths.

Analysis
The temporal variables used for fluency measurement in the present study are mostly the sameas those in Kormos (2006). Ten variables (speech rate, articulation rate, pruned syllables per minute,mean length of runs, phonation time ratio, number of silent pauses, silent pause duration, number offilled pauses, filled pause duration, and number of disfluencies) were used. For the boundary of silent
pauses, 0.25 second was used in the present study, following recent fluency measurement studies,such as De Jong et al. (2015).
For measuring speech rate, articulation rate, pruned syllables per minute, and mean length ofruns, different units were used for English and Japanese. For measuring English fluency, a syllable
was used as a unit. On the other hand, for measuring Japanese fluency, a mora was used as a unit
instead of a syllable. This is because Japanese is a mora-timed language, and the basic prosodic unit
in Japanese is mora (Kubozono, 1998). It is more practical to use mora instead of syllable, because
it is much easier to count the number of morae than counting the number of syllables in Japanese,
especially in relatively long spontaneous speech. If there is no necessity of direct comparison of L1–
L2 data, mora should be suitable as a unit for fluency measurement in Japanese.

Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of L1 fluency and L2 fluency. All these fivemeasures (1. pruned syllables or morae per minute, 2. speech rate, 3. articulation rate, 4. mean lengthof runs, and 5. phonation time ratio) are speed fluency. Fluency is higher when figures are greater.
Except for phonation time ratio, the units are syllable or mora (L1: mora; L2: syllable), so the figures
are not comparable between L1 fluency and L2 fluency.

113

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Table 1The Basic Statistics of L1 and L2 Fluency (Speed Fluency)
No.

Temporal Variables

Advanced Early Learners
N = 12
L1
Japanese [mora]

L2
English [syllable]

1

Pruned syllables or morae per minute(syllables or mora/min)

270.816(57.584)

129.288(22.766)

2

Speech rate(syllables or mora/min)

275.636(56.228)133.677(23.094)3

Articulation rate(syllables or mora/min)

443.824(52.827)215.870(21.417)

4

Mean length of runs(the number of syllables or morae)

11.486(2.544)5.571(0.612)

5

Phonation time ratio(%)

67.034(8.508)66.026(9.865)Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Units are mora or syllable for Nos. 1 to 4, and percentages for No. 5.

Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the fluency measurements categorized aseither breakdown or repair fluency measurements (6. number of silent pauses per second, 7. average
duration of silent pause, 8. number of filled pauses per second, 9. average duration of filled pauses,and 10. number of disfluencies per second). Because these measurements represent breakdown orrepair profiles, fluency is higher when figures are smaller. The figures are comparable between L1and L2 for these measures, because they do not include the number of syllables or morae.
Table 2The Basic Statistics of L1 and L2 Fluency (Breakdown and Repair Fluency)
No.

Temporal Variables

Advanced Early Learners
N = 12
L1
Japanese

L2
English6

Number of silent pauses/sec

0.398(0.046)0.399(0.042)

7

Average silent pause duration

840.539(270.946)

854.040(252.158)

8

Number of filled pauses/sec

0.123(0.106)0.084(0.075)

9

Average filled pause duration

459.984(121.895)

494.476(135.854)

10

Number of disfluencies/sec

0.026(0.019)0.038(0.027)Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses.

The difference between the L1 fluency and L2 fluency was statistically analyzed using t-tests for the
fluency measures which are comparable between L1 and L2 (No. 5 – No. 10). Homogeneity of variance
was shown in all the measures by Levene’s test. There were no significant differences between L1
fluency and L2 fluency for any of these fluency measures.

114

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN L1 FLUENCY AND L2 FLUENCY AMONG JAPANESE ADVANCED EARLY LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

Correlations Between L1 Fluency and L2 Fluency
Table 3 shows the results of correlation analyses between L1 fluency and L2 fluency. Strong
positive correlations between L1 fluency and L2 fluency were found in many of the fluency
measurements. Strong positive correlations were observed for pruned syllables per minute (r = .848,
p < .01), speech rate (r = .841, p < .01), mean length of runs (r = .720, p < .01), and phonation time ratio(r = .721, p < .01). Moderate correlations were also seen for silent pause duration (r = .586, p < .05),
number of filled pauses (r = .679, p < .05), and number of disfluencies (r = .586, p < .05).
Table 3
Correlation Between L1 Fluency and L2 Fluency
Fluency Measures
1

Pruned syllables/minute

Pearson’s r.848**

2

Speech rate

.841**

3

Articulation rate

.557

4

Mean length of runs

.720**

5

Phonation time ratio.721**

6

Number of silent pauses

.209

7

Silent pause duration

.586*

8

Number of filled pauses

.679*

9

Filled pause duration

.482

10

Number of disfluencies.586**p < .05 **p < .01

Discussion
As shown in Table 3, the correlations between L1 fluency and L2 fluency are evident in many
fluency measures (seven out of 10). Among these seven fluency measures, four fluency measures
show strong correlations (pruned syllable per min, speech rate, mean length of runs, and phonation
time ratio), and three measures show moderate correlations (silent pause duration, number of filled
pauses, number of disfluencies). Thus, among advanced early learners, the relationship between L1
fluency and L2 fluency seems to be a general trend, rather than a specific phenomenon within somemeasures. The results from Towell et al. (1996) also found the relationship between L1 fluency andL2 fluency among advanced late learners. From these two results, it is suggested here that L2 fluency
measurement using L1 fluency as a baseline should be developed in diagnostic fluency tests foradvanced learners. For example, an advanced learner who speaks very slowly in their L1 probably has
a very low speech rate in the L2. If L1 fluency is not considered, L2 fluency may be assessed as low foran advanced learner or not yet fully developed, although the learner’s L2 fluency development might
have already reached its full development when considering L1 fluency. Thus, there should be further
studies which investigate adjusted L2 fluency measurement using L1 fluency as a baseline.
One thing which should be noted is that although speed fluency measures showed strong
correlations between L1 fluency and L2 fluency (pruned syllables per minute: r = .848; speech rate: r =.841; mean length of runs: r = .720; and phonation time ratio: r = .721), breakdown and repair fluency
measures showed moderate correlations between L1 fluency and L2 fluency (silent pause duration:r = .586; number of filled pauses: r = .679; and number of disfluencies: r = .586). The differences of115

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

the results between speed fluency measures and breakdown and repair fluency measures might berelated to factors which affect the relationship between L1 and L2 fluency. As De Jong et al. (2015)
suggests, individual speaking style such as the way people use silent pauses and filled pauses appear
both in L1 and L2 speech productions, and that might cause correlations between L1 fluency and L2
fluency. Therefore, L1 and L2 correlations in terms of breakdown and repair fluency in the present
study might be related to individual speaking traits. On the other hand, Towell et al. (1996) imply
that the strong correlation of speech rate between L1 fluency and L2 fluency among advanced
late learners might be related to the influence of the L1 fluency on L2 fluency when L2 fluency
development reached somewhere near that of the L1. Therefore, the strong correlations between L1and L2 in terms of speed fluency in the present study might be related to the limitation of L2 fluency
development. If there are some different factors for the relationship between L1 fluency and L2
fluency, further study is needed.
Another thing which should be noted is that no correlation was found between L1 articulation
rate and L2 articulation rate in the present study, although the other speed fluency measures show
strong correlations between L1 and L2. Articulation rate is calculated as the total number of syllables
divided by the total duration of speech excluding silent pause time. The reason for this is not clear,but the ways of producing syllables/morae might be different in English and in Japanese. In thepresent study, while analyzing data, a frequent use of drawls was observed in Japanese speech
performances, and that might affect the relationship between Japanese articulation rate and English
articulation rate. Den (2003) classified the prolonging of segments in Japanese spontaneous speech
into six categories. Among them, the most frequent is initial monomoraic words, such as “de” and thesecond most frequent is final vowels of phrase-final function words such as “te” and “mo.” Drawls werealso examined in French speech production by Raupach (1980). Raupach found in case studies that
French speakers use more drawls than German speakers do in their native language. Similarly, drawls
might be used more commonly in Japanese speech than in English speech. Therefore, some of theparticipants in the present study might have used many drawls in Japanese as a way of hesitation, but
not in English. That would affect articulation rate, because use of drawls decreases articulation rate.
Further studies are needed for the effect of use of drawls on articulation rate in some languages, suchas French and Japanese.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the present study examined the relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency
among 12 Japanese advanced early learners of English using 10 fluency measures. The results show
the positive correlations between L1 fluency and L2 fluency in seven fluency measures. Among themspeed fluency measures showed strong correlations between L1 fluency and L2 fluency. Therefore,
the present study suggests that L1 fluency should be taken into consideration for L2 fluency
measurement especially for diagnostic language test among advanced learners. Further studies areneeded to develop L2 fluency measurement based on L1 fluency.

References
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M.
Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning,teaching and testing. Harlow.

116

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN L1 FLUENCY AND L2 FLUENCY AMONG JAPANESE ADVANCED EARLY LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

Chaplin, C. (Director). (1928). The circus [Film].
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 behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 223–243.
Den, Y. (2003). Some strategies in prolonging speech segments in spontaneous Japanese. Proceedingsof ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, 87–90.
Derwing, T., Munro, M., Thomson, R., & Rossiter, M. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency
and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 533–557.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. USA: Oxford University Press.
Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., Liu, S. H., & Yeni-Komshian, G. H. (2000). Age of learning effects on the
duration of sentences produced in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 205–228.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kormos, J., & Denes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of
second language learners. System, 32(2), 145–164.
Kubozono, H. (1998). Onseigaku・Oninron. [Phonetics・Prosody]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3),387–417.
Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.),
Perspectives on fluency (pp. 25–42). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. Temporal
Variables in Speech, 263–270.
Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In H.
Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda
Goldman-Eisler (pp. 263–270). The Hague: Mouton.
Riazantseva, A. (2001). Second language proficiency and pausing a study of Russian speakers ofEnglish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 497–526.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners ofFrench. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119.

117