Book Review

Exploring EFL Fluency in Asia
Theron Muller, John Adamson, Philip Shigeo Brown, andSteven Herder, Eds. Palgrave MacMillan, 2014. (354 pages)
HC ¥12,154, Kindle ¥11,254 ISBN 978-1137449399
Reviewed by Matthew Apple
Ritsumeikan University
What is language fluency? While seemingly simple on the surface, this question
has driven second language researchers for decades, and it is this very questionthat drives the studies in the edited volume, Exploring EFL fluency in Asia
(Palgrave MacMillan, 2014). Edited by a quartet of Japan-based EFL teacherresearchers with decades of combined teaching experience among them, thevolume contains the most comprehensive, up-to-date research concerning
fluency as it pertains to language education. More than any aspect of learning aforeign language, the idea of becoming “fluent” has captured popular opinion:
bookstores and Web sites abound with “learn X language in X weeks” and “howto become fluent in X” guidebooks. Some purport to use scientifically-provenmethods of language learning, while others are little more than motivational“yes, you can” essays. Exploring EFL fluency stands out as a superb collectionof both classroom-based research with practical tips for language teachers anddetailed explanatory guides for theoretical aspects of fluency.
The title itself sets this book apart from others in three ways. First, fluency
is treated as it applies (or, rather, as it rarely is applied) to the EFL context inAsian countries. Second, the concept of “fluency” is expanded upon from its
typical meaning of speaking ability to the other three skills (writing, reading,59

Appleand listening). At the same time, the editors make pains to point out thatthey have “intentionally left it to the contributors to define fluency in a waythat is meaningful to them in their contexts” (p. 4). Thus, from the opening
introduction, it is clear that what is meant by “fluency” in this book is anextremely complicated linguistic phenomenon. Third, the studies containedin the book present an historically complicated and convoluted concept in a
simplified yet not overly simple fashion for foreign language teachers to easily
digest and use in their own teaching contexts.
The book itself is divided into five parts, with Part 1 dealing with definitionsof fluency and its place within a larger language learning curriculum, andother parts dealing with each of the four traditional language skills. Each partconsists of several chapters written by authors from across Asia, with each partpreceded by a brief summary by the editors. Topics covered in the studies range
from the relation of fluency-based activities to testing, to ways of assessing
fluency, to the benefits of fluency training activities on language production andcomprehension. Throughout the book, the emphasis is on the utility of fluency
as a process of language learning, regardless whether the focus is on improving
the memory retrieval of set lexical phrases, comprehending complex andsophisticated language, or producing more accurate sentences without pauses.
The major contribution this book makes to the field of EFL is the sheer
scope of the fluency-related studies it covers. Researchers will find a great deal
to examine in terms of definitions of fluency and its relationship to lexicon,
linguistic coding, memory retrieval, and cognition. Teachers likewise will findseveral of the chapters a treasure-trove of practical ideas for lessons to help
learners automatize each of the four skills. The clear presentation of classroombased action research in many of the chapters demonstrates to practitioners
how they themselves could also conduct such research with their own learner
populations. Finally, the discussion of the “four strands” (Nation, 2007),the importance of autonomy, and the value of encouraging a more learnercentered, participatory framework in class may not be unique or new to allreaders. However, having such related ideas and views of fluency placed in thesame volume, and particularly in the same learning context, helps their mutual60

Exploring EFL Fluency in Asia, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 59-63

connection and effectiveness for language learning become more transparent.
That said, there are a number of flaws to the volume, some of which areunavoidable given both the topic and the context. As a co-editor, myself, ofan upcoming language education book that attempts to include studies in“Asia” (Apple, Da Silva, & Fellner, in press), I well understand the difficulties
in finding representative samples from various Asia-based educational contexts.
The present volume includes contributions from 20 authors (two of whom
also served as editors) based in eight countries: 12 from Japan, and one each in
Korea, China, Taiwan, Israel, Egypt, New Zealand, and the U.S. Considering
U.S., New Zealand, and Egypt as Asian countries seems a bit of a stretch, and thelack of authors from other major EFL contexts in Asia (the Indian subcontinent,Southeast Asia) makes me wonder if Exploring EFL Fluency in East Asia might
not have been a more appropriate title for the volume.
Additionally, while the chapters discussing the four strands of fluency,
spoken fluency, reading fluency, and listening fluency are necessary to give thereader background information on the various theories and models of fluency,
these theories are not necessarily relevant only to the EFL situation. The editors(and a few of the authors) contend that fluency-based curricula and courses areneeded more than ever in Asian EFL programs due to a historical reliance on
grammar-translation and rote memorization. However, there is no reason tobelieve that the same isn’t true of other language programs in other countries.
My own experience in the U.S., for example, is of extensive translation and rotememorization in high school French and university German classes, and a family
member who once taught both high school French and Spanish admitted that
her yearly syllabus consisted primarily of memorization and translation forexams. The purpose of this volume is not comparative or cross-cultural analysis.
However, language teachers based in Asian countries — who presumably arethose most likely to find this studies volume of interest — may wish to take care
not to overgeneralize from their own particularly local educational context to alarger “cultural” context of Asia, which may or may not exist as a single entity.
Finally, the lack of an overarching definition of fluency is both a strengthand a potential drawback to the volume. Studies in second language acquisition
61

Apple(SLA) have typically examined the relationship of complexity, accuracy, andfluency (often termed CAF for short); indeed, an entire special issue of Applied
Linguistics was devoted to CAF. Although in that issue Skehan (2009) pointed
out that the definition of fluency as “the capacity to produce speech at normal
rate and without interruption” (p. 510) was frequently used, he and otherauthors called for consideration of lexicon and task difficulty level in determining
fluency (e.g., Ellis, 2009). Others argued that CAF interact dynamically and aredifficult to view independently (e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 2009). The strength of thepresent volume is not only that it treats only one aspect of the CAF (fluency) byexpanding on the concept as it applies to all language skills (not just speakingand writing), but also that it tries to give the “big picture” of how fluency cannot
and should not be measured or examined with a single measurement. Thus, thepresent volume could be seen as answering the call for fluency to be “rethought”(Skehan, 2009, p. 510).
On the other hand, the lack of a single definition of fluency, and the repeatedinsistence that fluency should be seen as including complex grammar structures,set phrases, pauses, self-corrections, and tasks within a certain time pressure,leads to the usage of fluency to mean virtually the same thing as “proficiency.”
In addition, a few authors in the volume seem to equate fluency with“communicative competence,” which would necessarily involve socio-pragmatics
and intercultural skills as well. The seeming desire to include as many voices as
possible within the volume may have also resulted in slightly varying writing andresearch quality from chapter to chapter. One or two chapters begin with two or
three introductory paragraphs that feel somewhat tacked on as an afterthought,
or perhaps due to last-minute publisher demands.
Ultimately, this volume of edited papers provides a worthy addition both tothe study of fluency in SLA and to the pedagogical concerns of the practicallyminded classroom teacher. Available only as a hardcover or a Kindle edition,
the price is a bit steep for the average teacher; interested EFL teachers andresearchers who don’t have immediate access to institutional research funds may
wish to inquire whether their departmental colleagues could recommend a copy
or two for their institution’s library.
62

Exploring EFL Fluency in Asia, OnCUE Journal, 9(1), pages 59-63

References
Apple, M., Da Silva, D., & Fellner, T. (in press). L2 selves and motivations inAsian contexts. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on
the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. AppliedLinguistics, 30(4), 474-509.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity,accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,30(4), 579-589.
Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Teaching andLearning, 1(1), 2-13.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integratingcomplexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.

Author Bio

Matthew Apple (MFA, MEd, EdD) is Associate Professor in the Departmentof Communication, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan. Recent publications
include Language Learning Motivation in Japan (Multilingual Matters) andarticles in JALT Journal and the Journal of Applied Measurement. His researchinterests include ESP, individual differences, and educational statistics. mapple@
fc.ritsumei.ac.jp
Received: March 15, 2015
Accepted: July 27, 201563