L1 I|uency L2 I|uency Deve|opment

resenLed by lsabell C Camlllo

November 11 2011
enda
ct|v|ty Cne Warmup
eflnlLlon maLchlng
ntroduct|on
L1 fluency and L2 fluency developmenL
ct|v|ty 1hree
Applylng Lheory Lo pracLlce
D|scuss|on Conc|us|on
CNL
1WC
IIL
1nkLL
ICUk
ct|v|ty 1wo
8evlew of asslgned readlng
roup 1
Jalaa 8eem !leun Summer
roup 2
LaLlfa Lrlc Ahmad 8abak
roup 3
Llndsey kelsey eLer khalld karen
roup 4
rancols Abby onna Ash
ct|v|ty Cne
lease assemble lnLo groups as llsLed below
ntroduct|on
L1 fluency and L2 fluency developmenL
erwlng Munro 1homson and 8osslLer (2009) presenLed resulLs
of longlLudlnal sLudy
L1 and L2 Lngllsh fluency was compared aL Lhree dlfferenL Llmes
over a span of Lwo years
luency raLlngs were [udged by naLlve speakers
1emporal aspecLs of oral producLlon were relaLed Lo Lhe speaker
and Lhe llsLener
lnferences were made regardlng exposure Lo spoken Lngllsh
Showed LhaL a varleLy of facLors conLrlbuLe Lo fluency
developmenL
JhaL ls Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween speaker and lnLerlocuLor?
1he llsLener ls [usL as lmporLanL as Lhe speaker llsLener may noL hear whaL Lhe
speaker lnLended Lo be heard
ntroduct|on
L1 fluency and L2 fluency developmenL
1 Pow ls Lhe concepL of LralL" deflned ln Lhe readlng?
An lnnaLe and relaLlvely permanenL characLerlsLlc speclflc Lo an lndlvldual
2 JhaL abouL Lhe concepL of sLaLe"?
A condlLlon broughL abouL by a cerLaln conLexL
s f|uency overned by an under|y|n tra|t?
An
s there a re|at|onsh|p between L1 f|uency and L2 f|uency
deve|opment?
kesearch uest|on
1o what extent do tempora| character|st|cs of
speakers' L1 product|ons pred|ct the same
character|st|cs |n L2?
8y erwlng Munro 1homson 8osslLer (2009)
L1 I|uency L2 I|uency Deve|opment
L2 ILULNC
DLILLCMLN1
L1 ILULNC
roup 1
a) Models of fluenL speech
producLlon
roup 2
a) L2 fluency research
raLlonale for currenL sLudy
roup
a) MeLhod
roup 4
a) 8esulLs
ct|v|ty 1wo kev|ew of ass|ned read|n
1ralL vs sLaLe
1ransfer of L1 pauslng
paLLerns (language
speclflc) overcome by
L2 proflclency
AuLomaLlzaLlon
Jorklng memory and
sLorlng knowledge
SLudy abroad
eclaraLlve
(facLual/sLaLlc) and
procedural (Lask
performance)
knowledge
Mode|s of f|uent speech product|ons
DndersLand
developmenL of L2
fluency over Llme
lcLure sLory Lask
more dlfflculL for
speakers Lhan when
glven freedom of
lexlcal and
grammaLlcal cholce
(conversaLlons)
Cverall exposure Lo
spoken Lngllsh
L2 f|uency research rat|ona|e for current study
16 adulL naLlve
speakers of Mandarln
and 16 naLlve
speakers of Slavlc
lcLure narraLlons
were descrlbed ln
boLh L1 and Lngllsh
LlghL naLlve speakers
each of Mandarln
8usslan and Lngllsh
LlghL naLlve speakers
each of Mandarln
8usslan and Lngllsh
LnLlre 0 samples
were llsLened Lo Lhen
[udged
Method
1empora| measures pauses lexlcal heslLaLlons self
correcLlons selfrepeLlLlons false sLarLs nonlexlcal fllled
pauses and asldes
lease form Lhe followlng
palrs
a) Abby Llndsey
b) rancols kelsey
c) onna eLer
d) Ash khalld karen
e) LaLlfa Jalaa
f) Lrlc 8eem
g) Ahmad a !leun
h) 8abak Summer
ct|v|ty 1hree 1heory to pract|ce
1hose fluenL ln L1 would be fluenL ln
L2?
luency a LralL or sLaLe?
Mlnlmal fluency lncrease durlng Lhe
lengLh of sLudylonger sLudy needed Lo
allow for slgnlflcanL lncrease ln fluency
developmenL?
SLrucLural slmllarlLles beLween L1s and
L2s affecL L2 fluency developmenL?
LlsLener expecLaLlons brlng abouL
harsher [udgemenLs?
D|scuss|on
&$
- A straight-forward
relationship between L1
fluency and L2 fluency can't
be made.
- Factors: structural
property of L1; proficiency
level of speakers; degree of
exposure.
- Time must be made for
oral practice outside of the
classroom.
-Longer research period is
needed.
- Other L1s need to
be studied.
- ndividual learner
performance.
1nNk CU!!