Cover not available
Article published In:
Current State of Second Language Studies in Japan
Edited by John Matthews and Shigenori Wakabayashi
[Journal of Second Language Studies 6:2] 2023
► pp. 290–318

Does automaticity in lexical and grammatical processing predict utterance fluency development?

A six-month longitudinal study in Japanese EFL context

| Tokyo University of Science , Japan
ORCID logo | Kanagawa University , Japan
In order to understand the development of automatization in second language (L2) acquisition and its role in speaking fluency development, 39 English as foreign language (EFL) learners performed a speaking task (subsequently analyzed for utterance fluency) as well as semantic classification (lexical processing measure) and maze (grammar processing measure) tasks at two time points (Time 1 and Time 2) over six months. The findings indicate that learners significantly speeded up their lexical and grammar processing, as reflected in faster reaction time (RT). However, only lexical processing showed a propensity for more stable processing at Time 1, as indicated by coefficient of variance (CV). Furthermore, multiple regression analyses revealed that more automatized grammar processing (faster RT and smaller CV) at Time 1 significantly predicted a larger reduction in mid-clause pause duration and frequency, respectively. These findings underscore the importance of automatization in grammar processing for developing fluency in an EFL context.
Keywords: cognitive fluency, utterance fluency, automatization, lexical processing, grammar processing, longitudinal study
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Automatization in L2 learning: Fast and stable execution of L2 skills
    • 2.2The role of automatization in utterance fluency development
  • 3.The current study
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Personal narrative task (Utterance Fluency Measure)
    • 4.3Cognitive fluency tasks (automaticity measures)
      • 4.3.1Semantic classification task
      • 4.3.2Maze task
    • 4.4Procedure
    • 4.5Data coding
      • 4.5.1Speaking task
      • 4.5.2Semantic classification task
      • 4.5.3Maze task
    • 4.6Statistical analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Development of cognitive fluency (RQ1)
    • 5.2The relationship between cognitive fluency and utterance fluency change (RQ2)
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Limitations and directions for future research
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Appendixes
    • Appendix S1.The results of Wilcoxon signed-rank test for utterance fluency change between Time 1 and Time 2
    • Appendix S2.The number of participants identified as outliers for each fluency measure
    • Appendix S3.Correlations between T1 utterance fluency measures and fluency gains
    • Appendix S4.Hierarchical multiple regression results
    • Appendix S5.Partial correlation coefficients between T1 cognitive fluency measures and fluency gains
  • References
Published online: 27 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.22007.han
References (54)
References
Akamatsu, N. (2008). The effects of training on automatization of word recognition in English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29 (2), 175–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 20 1, 93–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111 (4), 1036–1060. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.14. Retrieved from [URL]
Bosker, H. R., Pinget, A. F., Quene, H., Sanders, T., & de Jong, N. H. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30 (2), 159–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. (2002). Web Vocabprofile – an adaptation of Heatley, Nation & Coxhead’s (2002) Range . Retrieved February 2022, from [URL]
Collins, L., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (S1), 133–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R. O. B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34 (5), 893–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H., & Wempe, T. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (2), 385–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 61 (2), 367–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forster, K., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computer, 35 (1), 116–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 345–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A. (2019). Sensitive measures of vocabulary knowledge and processing: Expanding nation’s framework. In S. Webb (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 433–453). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanzawa, K. (2021). Development of second language speech fluency in foreign language classrooms: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hui, B., & Godfroid, A. (2020). Testing the role of processing speed and automaticity in second language listening. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42 (5), 1089–1115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. O. B. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30 (4), 555–582. DOI logoGoogle 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
(2020). Explaining second language utterance fluency: Contribution of cognitive fluency and first language utterance fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41 (2), 457–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keith, T. Z. (2015). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32 (2), 145–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., Aubrey, S., & Leeming, P. (2020). Task preparation and second language speech production. TESOL Quarterly, 55 (2), 331–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, K. R., & Shea, C. (2017). L2 speaking development during study abroad: Fluency, accuracy, complexity, and underlying cognitive factors. The Modern Language Journal, 101 (1), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 (5), 1247–1282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 279–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2018). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40 (1), 205–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moors, A. (2016). Automaticity: Componential, causal, and mechanistic explanations. Annual Review of Psychology, 67 1, 263–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, N. A., Segalowitz, N., O’Brien, I., & Yamasaki, N. (2004). Semantic priming in a first and second language: Evidence from reaction time variability and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17 (2–3), 237–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pili-Moss, D., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2019). Contributions of declarative and procedural memory to accuracy and automatization during second language practice. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23 (3), 639–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Ilkan, M., Magne, V., Tran, M. N., & Suzuki, S. (2018). Acoustic characteristics and learner profiles of low-, mid- and high-level second language fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39 (3), 593–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Suzukida, Y., & Sun, H. (2018). Aptitude, experience and second language pronunciation proficiency development in classroom settings: A longitudinal study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41 (1), 201–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tran, M. N., & Saito, K. (2021). Effects of the 4/3/2 activity revisited: Extending Boers (2014) and Thai & Boers (2016). Language Teaching Research, Early View. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 392–408). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Second language fluency and its underlying cognitive and social determinants. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54 (2), 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 1, 173–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14 (3), 369–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 127–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30 (2), 73–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, S., & Kormos, J. (2020). Linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and fluency: An investigation of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language argumentative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42 (1), 143–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). The multidimensionality of second language oral fluency: Interfacing cognitive fluency and utterance fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2018). The role of procedural learning ability in automatization of L2 morphology under different learning schedules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40 (4), 923–937. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2023). Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & Elgort, I. (2023). Measuring automaticity in a second language: A methodological synthesis of experimental tasks over three decades (1990–2021). In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology (pp. 206–234). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & Hanzawa, K. (2021). Massed task repetition is a double-edged sword for fluency development: An EFL classroom study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & Sunada, M. (2018). Automatization in second language sentence processing: Relationship between elicited imitation and maze tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21 (1), 32–46. 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, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar