Cover not available

In:Understanding L2 Proficiency: Theoretical and meta-analytic investigations
Edited by Eun Hee Jeon and Yo In'nami
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 13] 2022
► pp. 307–338

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF

Chapter 10
L2 speaking and its internal correlates

A meta-analysis

ORCiD logo with link | Seisen University
ORCiD logo with link | Chuo University
ORCiD logo with link | University of North Carolina at Pembroke
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 4 August 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.13.10koi
Abstract
The current meta-analysis examines relationships between second-language (L2) speaking (assessed using global ratings) and its internal features, such as fluency and accuracy (assessed using analytic ratings or measures) that were derived by analyzing speaking performance during the same speaking tasks. A synthesis of 39 studies (284 correlations) suggests that internal features are strongly correlated to L2 speaking in general (r = .649) and that the strength of the correlations varies according to oral features (e.g., r = .713 to .888 for fluency, delivery, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and content). The results highlight the relative importance of various internal features in L2 speaking and suggest areas in need of further research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Fluency
    • 2.2Accuracy, grammar, and vocabulary
    • 2.3Grammatical complexity and lexical complexity
    • 2.4Pronunciation, comprehensibility, delivery, content, and coherence
    • 2.5Measuring L2 speaking and its internal features
    • 2.6Relative strengths of relationships between L2 speaking and internal features
  • 3.Current study and research questions
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Literature search
    • 4.2Study inclusion criteria
    • 4.3Coding
    • 4.5Analyses
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Fluency
      • Accuracy, grammar, and vocabulary
    • 6.2Grammatical complexity and lexical complexity
    • 6.3Pronunciation, comprehensibility, delivery, content, and coherence
    • 6.4Relative strengths of relationships between L2 speaking and internal features
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (61)
References
Adams, M. L. (1980). Five coocurring factors in speaking proficiency. In J. R. Firth (Ed.), Measuring spoken language proficiency (pp. 1–6). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borenstein, M. (2019). Common mistakes in meta-analysis and how to avoid them. Biostat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cao, H. (2014). Disentangling fluency, comprehensibility and coherence: Toward a better understanding of oral proficiency profiles (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved on 12 January 2022 from [URL]
Clark, J. L. D., & Swinton, S. S. (1980). The Test of Spoken English as a measure of communicative ability in English-medium instructional settings (TOEFL Research Report, RR 80–33). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2000). Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency by means of automatic speech recognition technology. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107 (2), 989–999. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jong, N. (2018). Fluency in second language testing: Insights from different disciplines. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15 (3), 237–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34 (5), 893–916. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farnsworth, T. L. (2013). An investigation into the validity of the TOEFL iBT Speaking Test for international teaching assistant certification. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10 (3), 274–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, Z., & Tipton, E. (2015). Robust variance meta-regression (Version 2.0) [Software]. Retrieved on 12 January 2022 from [URL]
Foster, P. (2020). Oral fluency in a second language: A research agenda for the next ten years. Language Teaching, 53 (4), 446–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 354–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 , 98–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freed, B. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123–148). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gan, Z. (2008). Extroversion and group oral performance: A mixed quantitative and discourse analysis approach. Prospect, 23 (3), 24–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Complexity measures, task type, and analytic evaluations of speaking proficiency in a school-based assessment context. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9 (2), 133–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 24–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jak, S. (2015). Meta-analytic structural equation modelling. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jin, T., & Mak, B. (2013). Distinguishing features in scoring L2 Chinese speaking performance: How do they work? Language Testing, 30 (1), 23–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koizumi, R. (2005b). Speaking performance measures of fluency, accuracy, syntactic complexity, and lexical complexity. JABAET (Japan-Britain Association for English Teaching) Journal, 9 , 5–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Vocabulary and speaking. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics [online edition]. John Wiley and Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koizumi, R., & In’nami, Y. (2012). Effects of text length on lexical diversity measures: Using short texts with less than 200 tokens. System, 40 , 554–564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koizumi, R., & Kurizaki, I. (2002). Nihonjin chugakusei no monorogu niokeru supikingu no tokucho [Speaking characteristics of monologues given by Japanese junior high school students]. Bulletin of the Kanto-Koshin-Etsu English Language Education Society, 16 , 17–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koizumi, R., & Yamanouchi, I. (2003). Nihonjin chugakusei no supikingu noryoku no hattatsu [Development in speaking ability among Japanese junior high school students: Using self-introduction task]. Bulletin of the Kanto-Koshin-Etsu English Language Education Society, 17 , 33–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S. A., & Jarvis, S. (2021). Assessing the validity of lexical diversity indices using direct judgements. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18 (2), 154–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38 (4), 801–842. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96 (2), 190–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19 (1), 85–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milton, J., Wade, J., & Hopkins, N. (2010). Aural word recognition and oral competence in a foreign language. In R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, & M. Torreblanca-López (Eds.), Further insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 83–98). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 555–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ockey, G. J., Koyama, D., Setoguchi, E., & Sun, A. (2015). The extent to which TOEFL iBT speaking scores are associated with performance on oral language tasks and oral ability components for Japanese university students. Language Testing, 32 (1), 39–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orwin, R. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8 (2), 157–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietilë, P. (1999). L2 speech: Oral proficiency of students of English at university level. Anglicana Turkuensia, 19 , 1–80.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37 (6), 828–848. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86 (3), 638–641. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, K., Ilkan, M., Magne, V., Tran, M., & Suzuki, S. (2018). Acoustic characteristics and learner profiles of low, mid and high-level second language fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39 (3), 593–617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2017). Using listener judgements to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedness: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics, 38 (4), 439–462. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, K., Webb, S., Trofimovich, P., & Isaacs, T. (2016). Lexical correlates of comprehensibility versus accentedness in second language speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19 (3), 597–609. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sato, T. (2012). The contribution of test-takers’ speech content to scores on an English oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 29 (2), 223–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 (2), 173–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 510–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suzuki, S., Kormos, J., & Uchihara, T. (2021). The relationship between utterance and perceived fluency: A meta-analysis of correlational studies. The Modern Language Journal, 105 (2), 435–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., Nakatsuhara, F., & Hunter, A.-M. (2020). Aspects of fluency across assessed levels of speaking proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 104 (1), 169–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. 239–276). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Wright, C. (2020). Second language speech fluency. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ushigusa, S. (2008). The relationships between oral fluency, multiword units, and proficiency scores (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI. (Order No. 3344157)
von Hippel, P. T. (2015). The heterogeneity statistic I 2 can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15 (35), 1–8. [URL].
Xi, X., & Mollaun, P. (2006). Investigating the utility of analytic scoring for the TOEFL Academic Speaking Test (TAST). (TOEFL iBT Research Report, RR-06-07). [URL].
Yan, X., Kim, H. R., & Kim, J. Y. (2018). Complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) features of speaking performances on Aptis across different levels on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). ARAGs Research Reports online. British Council. Retrieved on 12 January from [URL]
Zenker, F., & Kyle, K. (2021). Investigating minimum text lengths for lexical diversity indices. Assessing Writing, 47 , 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Yan, Xun, Ping-Lin Chuang, Yulin Pan, Huiying Cai, Shelley Staples & Mariana Centanin Bertho
2025. Disfluency doesn’t happen in isolation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 47:2 ► pp. 560 ff. DOI logo
Yan, Xun, Yuyun Lei & Yulin Pan
2025. Diving Deep Into the Relationship Between Speech Fluency and Second Language Proficiency: A Meta‐Analysis. Language Learning 75:4 ► pp. 1051 ff. DOI logo
Yan, Xun & Yulin Pan
2025. Incorporating Co‐occurrence Into the Operationalization of Speech Disfluency for Second Language Pronunciation and Oral Proficiency Assessment. Language Learning 75:S1 ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
Handley, Zoe L. & Haiping Wang
2024. What Do the Measures of Utterance Fluency Employed in Automatic Speech Evaluation (ASE) Tell Us About Oral Proficiency?. Language Assessment Quarterly 21:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Kyle, Kristopher, Hakyung Sung, Masaki Eguchi & Fred Zenker
2024. Evaluating evidence for the reliability and validity of lexical diversity indices in L2 oral task responses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 46:1 ► pp. 278 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue