Jacet Kansai J.12 (2010), 20‑31. c
ISSN 1880‑2281 Printed in JapanThe

Kansai Chapter, JACET

2010

effect of different latencies and sentence lengths on

repeatingtasks: Further
Miwa

analyses of Morishita(2008)

Morishita

Kobe Gakuin University

This study aims

to investigate the speechproficiency levels in comparison
Basedprocesses ofJapanese EFL

learners at different

to those of native English speakers, focusing on repeating tasks.

on the results of Morishita (2008), who

examinedthe effect of differentlatencies (artificial

pauses) and sentence lengths on utterances using repeating and open

question tasks, the present

study further analyzes the data obtained from repeating tasks in a quantitative approach. Although
no statisticallysignificanteffect of differentlatencies was observed, there was a tendency for upper
level students to inaccurately repeat the sentences whenboth latencies and sentences were long,while lower level students had trouble repeating even short‑length sentences whenlatencies were

long. It was also found that speech rates (syllables per minute) decreased and response latencies (thesilence before speaking) increased as the sentences became
lower

longer in the case of both upper andlevel students, which was not the case for native English speakers. The results of the present

study will serve as a stepping stone to carry out further research on waysof using repeating tasks(e.g., what kind of repeating tasks should be given to different levels of learners),which have, up tonow, been generally based on teachers' instinctsalone.

Keywords: speech processes, latency,repeating tasks

1. Introduction
Japanesethe meanEFLlearners are said to be much

weaker in speaking than other language skills.In fact,

score of native speakers of Japanese was the lowest in the world ranking in the speaking

section of TOEFLRiBT (Internet‑based Testing) according to Educational Testing Service (2007).

This can be regarded as a very serious situation in terms of internationalcompetitiveness, not onlyin academic

fields,but also in business (Morishita, 2008, p. 17).Therefore, in order to obtain an

effective speaking pedagogy

for Japanese EFL

learners,research on their speech processes, which

has been very limited so far,should be urgently implemented.
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the speech processes of Japanese EFL
at differentproficiency levels in comparison
repeating tasks obtained from(artificialpauses)

andlearners

to those of native English speakers based on the data of

Morishita (2008). The

sentence lengths to examine
20

participants were

given different latencies

the level of automaticity, amandatory

The

effect of differentlatencies and sentence lengths on repeating tasks: Further analyses of Morisbita (2008)

requirement

for speaking ability,from differentperspectives.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Levelt's Spoken Language Processing Model
It may be no exaggeration to say that most psycholinguisticresearch on speaking has been
based on Levelt'sspoken language processing model shown in Figure 1,

PARSERFORMULATOR

surfacestructure

PROCESSOR
twerl

speechspeechFigure I. Schematic Representation of theProcessing Components
Involved in Spoken Language Use. Reprinted from Levels 1993, p.2.

Processes on the right represent listening and those on the leftrepresent speaking. We
about what
encoding

weare going to say in the conceptualizer. Then,

accesses lemma

phonological encoding
each lemmain the formuhtor,

firstthinkgrammaticalinformation stored in one's mental lexicon and builds syntax, whileaccesses lexeme

information to retrieve a phonetic or articulatoryplan forand for the utterance as a whole. The articulator retrievessuccessive chunks of internal

speech and unfolds them for execution (Levelt, 1989, 1999).
Althoughthis specch process is automatic and simultaneously processed in the case of native

speakers, it is a demanding
betweenone for non‑native speakers and trade‑off effectsare often observed

fluency, complexity and accuracy of the speech.

2.2 Repeating

Tasks

The idea of giving different latencies in repeating tasks in the present study cameteaching method

called "Readand LookUp"(West, 1960), a kind of oral reading method

from

a

where

learners read a sentence and look up and say it (i.e.,not simply reading aloud). In this method,learners require concentration and cognitive load in order to access their mental lexicon and retrieve
21

Miwa

the right word(s), especially whenMorishitacertain pauses are given until they are allowed

to speak. Thisultimately leads to language acquisition.Giving different latencies to repeating tasks maya similar effect to that of "Read and Lookreading, the effect may

also haveUp" on learners, or, because they are listening rather thanbe stronger.

Unlike other similar tasks suchas oral reading and shadowing,articulator in Levelt's spoken

languageprocessing

functions suchencoding

and phonological encoding

as grammaticalmodel,

2007; Morishita, 2008). Therefore, it can be reasonably

whichmainlyact on therepeating tasks require processingin the formulator (Kadota,

expected that repeating tasks stimulate

one's access to and retrievalof syntactic information stored in the mental lexicon, whichleads toincreased automaticity in language production.
Repeatingtasks can be regarded as a part of Palmer's Oral Method(1921), wherelanguage istaught through pattern practice.Given they are not mechanical tasks in realitybut cognitively moredemandingBeing

ones, where structural understanding is required, we should have another look at them.

able to be implemented

in nearly any classroom environment, they are especially useful for

relatively large classes in Japan (Morishita, 2008).

2.3 The Effect of Different Latencies and Sentence Lengths
Morishita (2008) examinedJapanese EFL

the effect of differentlatencies and sentence lengths on utterances oflearners in comparison

experimental approachon Utterances

to native English

based on Levelt's spoken

speakers throughlanguagea psycholinguistic

processing model. The

consisted of 15 native English speakers and 36 Japanese university students, whoparticipants

were divided into

upper and lower proficiency groups. They

were given six sentences for repeating tasks with three

types of latencies (0, 5 andartificialpauses provided

questions for open

10 second

before speaking)question tasks with three types of latencies (0, 10 and 20 second

pauses). Their utterances were recorded and transcribed to count the number

and

three

artificialof words produced.

The results demonstrated

that different latencies in both tasks did not affect either native English

speakers or Japanese EFL

learners,while different sentence lengths in repeating tasks affected only

the latter.
Since Morishita (2008) did not fully observe the effect of different latencies on utterances in
repeating tasks, the present study aims to further examine the interactioneffect of different latencies
and sentence lengths on such tasks. It also investigates their effect on other aspects of utterancessuch as speech rates,articulationrates and response latencies.

3. Experiment
3.1 ResearchThe
1: How

Questionspresent study addresses the following research questions:do different latencies and sentence lengths affect the accurate reproduction in repeatingtasks?
2: Howdo different latencies and sentence lengths affect fluency in repeating tasks?
22

The

effect of differentlatencies and sentence lengths on repeating tasks: Further analyses of Morishita (2008)

3: Howdo different latencies and sentence lengths affect response latenciesin repeating tasks?

3.2 Methods
Participants, tasks and utterance data were the same as those of Morishita (2008).
Participants
Thirty‑six Japanese undergraduate
languagethemandpostgraduate students learning English

as a foreignand 15 native English speakers living in Japan participated in the experiment. None

had auditory or visual disorders. The Japanese EFLoflearners were divided into high (n = 17)

and low (n = 19) English proficiency groups according to their scores on the Versant English Test,a10‑minutecomputerized

telephone test (Versant with OrdinateR

Technology,2006). It evaluates

general abilityof test‑takersto understand spoken English and to respond appropriately in English,
and has meaningfulcorrelations with related tests of English proficiency, such as TOEFLR.

The

score range of the high proficiency group was 40 to 57 and that of the low proficiency group was 24
to 39 (Full score = 80).
Tasks
In the experiment, six sentences for repeating tasks were prepared as shownin Table 1. They

were adapted from the sample repeating tasks of the Versant English Test, with minor modification
to control the numberof syllables.

words syllables speech time
Short

1 War

1.46

broke out suddenly.

2 Leavetown

Medium3 It's supposed

Long

5 They1.50

on the next train.
to rain hard tomorrow,

2.17

isn'tit?

2.31

Sentenceplay loud music all through the nightwhen

he is trying to sleep.

6 Thereare three basic ways

14

lengths were not based on the number

reference to Kohno
than about 330

16

3.77

of words but on the numberof syllables with

(1993). He defined seven plus or minus two syllables, whose

intervals are lessms, as a Perceptual Sense

Unit (PSU),

a perceptible unit of human

Therefore, tasks are considered to be increasingly difficultto process for Japanese EFL
the sentences becomelearners as

longer. In contrast, native English speakers can generally repeat the sentencesthat contain more than seven syllables because they can use the method
grouping

memory.

of "chunking," a process of

individual information into larger units (Miller,1956).

Auditory

memoryphonological loop

is believed to disappear within a few seconds unless being rehearsed in thein working

memory(Baddeley, 1986, 2000). This means

that, short‑lengthMiwasentences, whose

Morishita

speech time (duration) in the original recordings was around 1.5 seconds, require

no rehearsal, while long‑length sentences do require rehearsal for accurate reproduction, andmedium‑lengthThreesentences are situated on the border.

different latencies weresentences as shown

given for articulatory rehearsal andeach condition had two

in Table 2.

Table
No

2. Latenc

Conditions

latency

Short latency (5 seconds)

Long latency(10 seconds) 2
6

Total

All sentences wererecorded by a native speaker of English. Beeps

wereinserted after eachsentence with three types of latencies (0, 5 and 10 seconds), and after 10 seconds of the response
time, a sentence was subsequently given. In order to counterbalance latencies to avoid the impact oneach sentence, three types of sound fileswere madewith a combinationof differentlatencies.

Procedure
Eachparticipant in the experiment was tested individually while seated next to the experimenter.

Before the experiment started,the instructions were given and the participants were required to sign
a letter of consent. Then, the participants put on headphones

and a miniature microphoneandlistened to a set of practice tasks. After each beep, latencies of differentlengths were provided, andparticipants were required to repeat three sentences with differentlatencies.
After the practice session, they wereable to ask questions if needed

and whenprepared, the main tasks started.The main tasks were conducted in the same manner
session on a laptop personal computerrunning Microsoft

Windows

they wereas the practiceXP. Their utterances wererecorded with an IC recorder and transferred to the computer.
After the experiment, all the utterances were transcribed in an orthographic manner, not basedon phonetics. Eachword

was counted only once even if itwas repeated morepronunciation errors were allowed, but words pronounced
not know

than twice. Minor

in a way where participants obviously did

them were not counted.

Speechrates were produced by dividing the number

and then multiplying it by 60 to obtain the number
Articulation rates were

producedof syllables by the speech time (duration)of syllables per minute (Riggenbach,1991).

by subtracting silent pauses (longer than one second) fromspeech time of each response before following the same methodtheas speech rates.

In addition, response latencies,or the silence after the beep before the participants spoke, were
measuredusing Sound Engine (ver.3.10).

4. Results
Data of the rates of accuratelyrepeated words, speech rates,articulation
rates and response
24

The

effect of differentlatencies and sentence lengths on repeating tasks: Further analyses of Morishita (2008)

latencies were analyzed in a three‑way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
between‑participants factor, lengths of latencies andfactors (significance level = .05).Tukey's HSD

4.1 Meanwith proficiency levels as athose of sentences as within‑participants

post hoc test was used for multiple comparisons.

Rates of Accurately Repeated Words

The mean ratesof accuratelyrepeatedwords are shown in Table 3.

NS

Upper

Lower

The ANOVA

098.3(0.50)

5

100.0(0.00)

10

100.0

0

75.8

(2.12)

5

86.1(1.61)

10

93.8

0

71.2

(1.98)

575.0(1.54)

10

60.6

100.0 (0.00)
93.8 (1.88)

92.0(0.99)

95.4(0.92)

96.4(2.41)(2.15)
57.5
64.3

52.5

(1.66)

57.8(1.53)

46.2(2‑10)(2.31)

32.4(1.47)(1.93)

34.6(1.89)

54.7

37.5

obtained significantmain effectsfor proficiency levels,F(2, 28) = 107.91, p< .01,

and for sentence lengths, F(2, 56) =51.67, p<.01. The

interaction of sentence lengths andproficiency levels was also significant,^(4, 56) = 8.45, p< .01. Neither main effect nor two‑factor
interactions for latencies were significant.Three‑factor interactionwas also not significant.
The results of multiple comparisonslevels showed

sentences between

short‑length sentences between

native English speakers and upper level students as well as

upper and lower level students.

level students tended to accurately repeat short‑length and medium‑length

their utterances gradually increased as latencies becamecase of long‑length sentences in the 10 second
utterances when

proficiency

that the significant differences were observed in all conditions except short‑lengthand medium‑lengthUpper

for the interaction of sentence lengths andsentences, andlonger with the only exception being thecondition. Lower

level students increased their

they were given 5 second latencies,but the figures decreased under the 10 second

condition for short‑length and medium‑length

sentences. This meansthat 10 seconds

might havebeen too protracted for lower level students to effectivelyrehearse the sentences in the phonologicalloop (see 3.2).

4.2 Mean

Speech Rates and Mean

ArticulationRates

Speech ratesand articulation
ratesbased on the number of syllables
per minute were examined
to compare the levelof fluencybetween each group.
The mean speech ratesare shown in Table 4.

25

Miwa

NS

Upper

Morishita

0247.91 (22.90)

296.55 (33.86)

5218.10 (29.10)

296.33 (74.25)

283.74 (52.53)
287.44 (19.00)

100

187.94 (31.48)

179.92 (71.58)

124.57 (42.31)

5190.00 (46.93)

176.03 (58.80)

111.51 (36.20)

0

187.65 (43.07)

131.52 (50.07)

85.54 (45.90)

5148.23 (44.27)

135.02 (51.36)

108.03 (40.94)

10
Lower

10

The ANOVA

obtained significantmain effects for proficiency levels,F(2, 27) = 111.91, /?< .01,

and for sentence lengths, F(2, 27) = 28.94, p<.01. The

interaction of sentence lengths andproficiency levels was also significant,F(4, 54) = 28.81, p< .01. Neither main effect nor two‑factor
interactions for latencies were significant.Three‑factor interactionwas also not significant.
The results of multiple comparisonslevels showed

for the interaction of sentence lengths andthat the significant differences were observed in all conditions except short‑length

sentences between
medium‑length

native English speakers andupper

rates of Japanese EFL

articulationrates are shownNS

the sentences were short, while the speechlearners gradually decreased as the sentences became

and lower level students spoke much

The meanlevel students as well as short‑length,

and long‑length sentences between upper and lower level students.

Native English speakers tended to speak slowly whenupper

proficiency

longer. Overall, bothmore slowly than native English speakers.
in Table 5.

0247.91 (22.90)

296.55 (33.86)

5218.10 (29.10)

296.33 (74.25)

283.74 (52.53)
287.44 (19.00)

0

187.94 (31.48)

210.51 (54.89)

155.04 (43.78)

5

197.23 (38.33)

178.12 (54.01)

135.15 (39.05)

10208.31

0

187.65 (43.07)

160.07 (31.09)

122.08 (36.77)

5

155.55 (39.28)

141.24 (44.86)

125.96 (36.63)

10

160.57

10

Upper

Lower

The ANOVA(32.13)

obtained significantmain effects for proficiency levels,F(2, 27) = 98.50, p< .01,

for sentence lengths, F(2, 54) = 18.74, p< .01, andfor latencies, F(2, 54) = 3.47, p< .05. Theinteraction of sentence lengths and proficiency levels was also significant,F(4, 54) = 23.47,/K
Three‑factor interactionwas not significant.
26

.01.

The

effect of differentlatencies and sentence lengths on repeating tasks: Further analyses of Morishita (2008)

The results of multiple comparisonslevels showed

medium‑length

native English

speakers andand long‑length sentences between

Overall, Japanese EFL

learners' mean

speech rates in Table 4, meaning

upper

level students as well as short‑length,

upper and lower level students.

articulationrates were muchthat they produced

manyhigher than those of theirsilent pauses (longer than one

second) in their utterances.In the case of short‑length sentences, the mean
upper

and lower level students were almost the same

producedBothfewer silentpauses in comparisonas their mean

articulationrates of bothspeech rates,showing

to the case of medium‑lengththat theyand long‑length sentences.

upper and lower level students tended to pause a lot in the 0 second condition for medium‑

length and long‑length sentences, and the former produced
when

proficiency

that the significant differences were observed in all conditions except short‑length

sentences between

mean

for the interaction of sentence lengths andquite a few silent pauses

especiallythey tried to repeat long‑length sentences in the 10 second condition.

4.3 MeanResponse Latencies

Response latencies(the silencebefore speaking) were examined to compare the automaticity
level (processingspeed) between each group.

0

NS

Upper

0

0.70

(0.21)

0.93(0.62)

5

0.64(0.27)

0.84(0.75)

0.62

0
5

0.69

(0.19)

ANOVA(0.21)

0.47(0.18)

0.82(0.72)

1.27
0.95(0.78)

1.04

(052)

(0.81)

1.05(0.41)

1.25(0.85)

1.15(0.65)

1.10(0.64)

10

The

0.57
0.50

10
Lower

(0.15)(0.14)(0.19)(0.22)

510

0.87

obtained significant main effects for proficiency levels,F{2, 27) = 11.99, p< .01,

and for sentence lengths, F(2, 54) =8.05, p<.01. The

interaction of sentence lengths andproficiency levels was also significant,F{4, 54) = 2.56, p< .05. Neither main effect nor two‑factor
interactions for latencieswere significant.Three‑factor interactionwas also not significant.
The

results of multiple comparisonslevels showed

for the interaction of sentence lengths andproficiency

that the significant difference was only observed in long‑length sentences between

native English speakers and lower level students.
Native English speakers' mean
Japanese EFL

learners were

present study. Upper

response latencies werearoundaround one second, almost the same

0.5 seconds, while those oflength as a silent pause in thelevel students tended to take longer to respond in the 0 second

condition thanin other conditions, and the longer the sentences became, the longer it took for them to respond. In
27

Miwa

contrast, lower

Morishita

level students' response time already exceeded

one second

sentences, revealing the difference in the automaticity level between

for medium‑length

upper and lower level students.

5. Discussion
This section discusses the findings of the present study and attempts to answer the threeresearch questionspresentedin Section 3.1.
5.1 How

do different latencies and sentence lengths affect the accurate reproduction in repeatingtasks?
There
becamewas a tendency for upper level students to accurately repeat the sentences as latencies
longer except in the case of long‑length sentences in the 10 second condition. Lower

students increased their utterances when

they were

given 5 second

level

latencies, but the figuresdecreased under the 10 second condition except in the case of long‑length sentences (see Table 3). It
might be assumed

that although 10 second latencies were too long for both upper and lower level

students to effectively rehearse the sentences in the phonological loop (see 3.2), the former tended
to be affected by sentence lengths rather than differentlatencies and it was the other way around in
the case of the latter.
However,the reason why upper level students decreased their utterances in thecase of long‑length sentences in the 10 second condition, while lower level students increased them,cannot be fully explained. Since this seems to be partly because of the lack of data, the number
samplesofshould be further increased in order to obtain more tangible results.

It was also found that upper level students repeated only about half of the long‑length sentences
and lower level students repeated about one third of them. This means
than 10 words even if the sentences were muchthat they could repeat lesslonger than that,possibly because either they forgot

the words after listeningto them or did not recognize them in the stage of listeningbefore speaking.
Consideringthat native English speakers could accurately repeat long‑length sentences in the 10

second condition, where

they fully understoodthe sentence structures and effectively rehearsed

them, it is too early to say that we should give Japanese EFL
less than 10 words

learners only sentences consisting ofand latencies shorter than 10 seconds. At any rate,it is definitely important tocarefully choose lengths of latenciesand sentences according to learners' proficiency levels as wellas their own individual goals.

5.2 How

do different latencies and sentence lengths affect fluency in repeating tasks?

The fact that native English speakers tended to speak slowly when
might

mean

that they simply repeated the sentences at the samethe sentences were shortspeed as the original recordings

since they could easily control their speech rates. In contrast, the speech rates of Japanese EFL
learners gradually decreased as sentences became

longer. One

took time to repeat the sentences in proportion to the number

possible reason for this is that theyof syllables without

makinganyphonetic changes, unlike the case of native English speakers.
Overall, Japanese EFL

learners' mean

articulation rates were
28

much

higher than their mean

Theeffect of differentlatenciesand sentence lengths on repeating tasks: Further analyses of Morishita (2008)

speech rates except in the case of short‑length sentences (see Tables 4 and 5), meaningthat they

produceda huge number

speakers

producedalmost no pause. Therefore, trying to avoid producingof silent pauses even in repeating tasks, while native English

included in the calculation of the speech rate,is the key to become

5.3 Howsilent pauses, whicha fluent speaker.

do different latencies and sentence lengths affect response latencies in repeating tasks?

Native English speakers' mean

response latencies werearoundlengths of latenciesand sentences, while those of Japanese EFL

0.5 seconds, regardless oflearners exceeded one second whenlong‑length sentences were given to upper level students as well as whenlength sentences were

medium‑length

indicate that they
Furthermore,experienced

6. Concluding
Althoughhigher cognitive load when

they processed

there was a tendency towards slow responses among

second condition compared
quickly whenand long‑

given to lower level students (see Table 6). In addition, the fact that it

gradually took longer for upper level students to respond as the sentences became

respondare often

to other conditions. This might

mean

longer might

longersentences.

upper level students in the 0that it was

hard for themtono time was given for rehearsal.

Remarks

and Further

Researchno statisticallysignificantinteraction of differentlatencies and sentence lengths wasobserved, some

important findings were obtained in the present study. Both upper and lower level

students increased their utterances in the 5 second condition regardless of sentence lengths, which
implies that they effectively rehearsed the sentences in the phonological loop and elaborated theirshort‑term memory.

Therefore, it was found in the present study that 5 seconds, where

they could

rehearse each sentence a few times (about 3 times for short‑length, 2 times for medium‑lengthand

1.5 times for long‑length sentences, respectively),was the most appropriate latency. However,

since

upper

level students did better under the 10 second condition (except in the case of long‑length

sentences), there is a need to further examine
rehearsal, especially to upper

the effect of giving longer latencies for additional

level students. Consideringthat JapaneseEFLlearners reacted

differently to the interactions of different latencies and sentence lengths, it is important to give
appropriate latencies andsentence lengths to the learners in repeating tasks according

to theirproficiency levels.
It was also found that both speech rates and articulationrates decreased as the sentences became
longer in the case of Japanese EFL
knowledge

learners. This meansthat they rarely madephonetic changes,of which plays an integral part both in speaking and listening.

In addition to the above implications, several questions remain to be discussed. Theof accurately repeated words in Table 3 showwords

even whenthat Japanese EFL

mean

rates

learners repeated less than 10

the sentences were longer than that.Besides the fact that long‑length sentences

consisting of 13‑14 words(16 syllables) were

too long for themto repeat, speechrates of theoriginal recordings for long‑length sentences were much

faster than those of short‑length sentences.

Since speech rates have a great effect on Japanese EFL

learners in terms of listening,syllables per

29

Miwa

minute should haveMorishita

been standardized between

length sentences might have been more complex
learners than short‑length and medium‑lengtheach sentence length. Furthermore,since long‑and more difficultto understand for Japanese EFL

sentences, not only the numberof syllables but also

factors such as vocabulary familiarity and syntactic complexity should be carefully considered infurther research.
In conclusion, a variety of additional information
overlooked

in Morishita (2008), wasspeaking requires analyses fromuncoveredmany

relating to repeating tasks, whichin the present study, implying

different perspectives. The

numberwasthat research onof samples

should be

further increased in order to obtain sufficientdata to decide in what conditions articulatory rehearsal
has the most positive effect on utterances and helps retain short‑term memory
accurate reproduction. An

experiment to examine

results of the present study (e.g.,howconducted

in order to realizethe

the learning effect of repeating tasks based on therepeated exposures can accelerate learning) should also bein the future in order to obtain an effective speaking pedagogy

for Japanese EFL

learners.

References
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working
Baddeley, A. (2000). The

memory. Oxford: Oxford

episodic buffer: A

new

University Press.

componentof working

memory?

Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 4 (11), 417‑423.
Educational Testing Service. (2007). Test and score data summary
Retrieved December

for TOEFLRInternet‑based test.

18, 2007, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/TOEFL‑SUM‑0506‑

iBT.pdf
Kadota, S. (2007). Science of shadowing and oral reading. Tokyo: Cosmopier.
Kohno,

M.

(1993).

Perceptual

senseunit andechoicmemory.

International

Journalof

Psycholinguistics, 9 (1),13‑31.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From

intention to articulation.Cambridge,

MA:

MIT

Press.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). The architecture of normal spoken language use. In Blanken, G., Dittman,J., Grimm,

H., Marshall, J. C., & Wallesch, C. (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies: Aninternational handbook(pp. 1‑15). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown,
Hagoort, P. (Eds.), The

neurocognitionof language (pp. 83‑122). Oxford:

OxfordC. M. &

University

Press.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number

seven, plus or minus two: Somelimits on our capacity forprocessing information. The Psychological Review, 63 (2),81‑97.
Morishita, M. (2008). The effect of different latencies on utterances of Japanese EFL
psycholinguistic study based on repeating and open question tasks.JACETJournal,
Palmer, H. E. (1921). The oral method
methods

of teaching languages: A monograph

together with a full description andwork. Cambridge:

abundant

Heffer.
30

exampleslearners:A
47, 17‑33.

on conversationalof fiftyappropriate

forms ofThe

effect of differentlatenciesand sentence lengths on repeating tasks: Further analyses of Morishita (2008)

Riggenbach,H. (1991). Towards

an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of normative speaker

conversation. Discourse Processes, 14, 423‑441.
Versant with OrdinateR
Assessment,

Technology. (2006). Versant for English technical manual. Texas: HarcourtInc.

West, M. (1960). Teaching English in difficultcircumstances. London:

31

Longmans.