Does Measuring L2 Utterance Fluency Equal Measuring Overall L2 Proficiency? Evidence From Five Languages

Abstract: The current study examined the relationship between overall second language (L2) proficiency and utterance fluency measures for several L2s in order to determine whether utterance measures can be used to predict L2 proficiency. The study measured the speech rate, number of hesitations, number and length of pauses, number and length of runs, and number of false starts using excerpts from 126 ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs) spoken by 86 participants. Forty of the participants provided pre- and post-OPI speech samples, which also allowed examination of changes over time. All 86 participants were native English speakers who spoke L2 French, German, Japanese, Arabic, or Russian. They ranged in proficiency from Novice Mid to Superior. Results suggested that some L2 utterance fluency measures correlated significantly with overall L2 proficiency for all L2s, but data also revealed some differences across L2s. These differences hinged partly on the L2's relative difficulty for native English speakers. Results suggested that it might be feasible to use specific fluency measures to estimate proficiency, in particular at higher levels, but that fine-grained sublevel estimates would not be recommended, in particular at the Novice and Intermediate levels.Key words: assessment, foreign/second second language learning/acquisition, oral proficiency (OPI and OPIc), proficiency, quantitative researchIntroductionUnderstanding the relationship between a second language (L2) learner's oral fluency and oral proficiency has important implications for L2 acquisition theories, pedagogical practices, high-stakes testing, and so on (de Jong, Groenhout, Schoonen, & Hulstijn, 2013; Ginther, Dimova, & Yang, 2010; Segalowitz, 2010; Skehan, 2009). For example, determining the relationship between these two may provide a better understanding of how the L2 system develops (Segalowitz, 2010; Skehan, 2009), which in turn may generate better teaching methods for improving oral L2 fluency and, as a result, help learners develop greater L2 proficiency (de Jong & Perfetti, 2011). Moreover, knowing how fluency development may vary according to proficiency from one L2 to another can allow educators to know what to expect and how to appropriately weigh various aspects of fluency as they promote the proficiency development of their learners. Finally, those interested in high-stakes testing might examine whether automatically measuring L2 fluency could replace more laborious and expensive manual rating systems for estimating L2 proficiency (Ginther et ah, 2010; Ushigusa, 2009). The purpose of the current study is to better understand the relationship between oral fluency and L2 proficiency, especially as it relates to different L1-L2 combinations and at different ACTFL proficiency levels and sublevels.Literature ReviewThe term fluency, especially in an L2 context, has several definitions, most of which refer to fluidity or ease of speech (Guillot, 1999; Kormos, 2006; Riggenbach, 2000; Schmidt, 1992; Segalowitz, 2010). In its broad sense, as defined by Lennon (1990), L2 fluency is often synonymous with overall L2 proficiency. In this sense, when laypeople use the word fluency, they often mean proficiency (Guillot, 1999). More narrowly, fluency can refer to language that is produced fluidly and smoothly as one combines words and sentences in speech. In this sense, the term is used in most L2 research to complement accuracy (i.e., error-free language) and complexity (i.e., language spoken with situation-appropriate forms) as one of the three main aspects of proficiency (Towell, 2012). However, these three factors may influence each other differently depending on the speaker's L2 proficiency (Skehan, 2001, 2009; Taguchi, 2008). Segalowitz (2010) further divided this narrow sense of fluency into three subcategories: cognitive fluency, a speaker's ability to plan and execute L2 speech smoothly and easily; perceived fluency, a native speaker's subjective impression of a nonnative speaker's ease of producing speech; and utterance fluency, often called temporal fluency, the measurable features for the ease and smoothness of L2 speech, such as the speech rate, number of hesitations, and number and length of pauses. …