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
Published online: 27 February 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.22007.han
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.22007.han
Abstract
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.
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
References (54)
Akamatsu, N. (2008). The
effects of training on automatization of word recognition in English as a foreign
language. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 29(2), 175–193.
Allison, P. D. (1990). Change
scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological
Methodology, 201, 93–114.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity
and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and Second Language
Instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2007). Practice
in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive
psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(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.
Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate
learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Language
Learning, 61(2), 367–413.
Forster, K., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX:
A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
&
Computer, 35(1), 116–124.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring
spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied
Linguistics, 21(3), 345–375.
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.
Hanzawa, K. (2021). Development
of second language speech fluency in foreign language classrooms: A longitudinal
study. Language Teaching Research, Advance online
publication.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity,
accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473.
Hui, B., & Godfroid, A. (2020). Testing
the role of processing speed and automaticity in second language listening. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 42(5), 1089–1115.
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.
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.
(2020). Explaining
second language utterance fluency: Contribution of cognitive fluency and first language utterance
fluency. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 41(2), 457–480.
Keith, T. Z. (2015). Multiple
regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modelling (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring
measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language
learners. System, 32(2), 145–164.
Lambert, C., Aubrey, S., & Leeming, P. (2020). Task
preparation and second language speech production. TESOL
Quarterly, 55(2), 331–365.
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.
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.
Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based
language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching
Research, 15(3), 279–288.
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.
Moors, A. (2016). Automaticity:
Componential, causal, and mechanistic explanations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 671, 263–287.
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.
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.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How
big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language
Learning, 64(4), 878–912.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(2016). Second
language fluency and its underlying cognitive and social determinants. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 54(2), 75–95.
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, 261, 173–199.
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.
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.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling
second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied
Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed
instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory
research. Language
Teaching, 30(2), 73–87.
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.
(2022). The
multidimensionality of second language oral fluency: Interfacing cognitive fluency and utterance
fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication.
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.
(Ed.) (2023). Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology. New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 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.
