Session 1F

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) research on task complexity has shown that more cognitively complex tasks enhance a focus on form and result in oral productions of increased linguistic complexity and accuracy at the expense of speaking fluency (Robinson, 2005). However, whether this holds for L2 pronunciation is still an empirical question in TBLT (Gurzynski-Weiss et al., 2017). In addition, whereas foreign language anxiety is a widely researched affective variable in SLA (Teimouri et al. 2019) and may impair L2 learners’ cognitive processing and language achievement (Horwitz, 2001), the potential effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 speaking anxiety (Baralt & Gurzynski-Weiss, 2011; Kim & Tracy-Ventura, 2011) and the impact speaking anxiety may have on L2 fluency and pronunciation accuracy are presently under-researched. The present study manipulated task complexity within subjects by asking advanced L2 English learners (N=42) to perform a simple and a complex version of comparable monologic problem-solving tasks (Gilabert, 2007) in L1-Spanish/Catalan (map tasks, used as baseline) and L2-English (fire chief tasks). Languages and task versions were counterbalanced across participants. Task complexity effects on learners’ L2 speech were assessed through temporal measures of speed and breakdown fluency (speech and articulation rates, phonation time ratio, pause frequency and duration, mean length of run) and native-speaker (N=7) judgements of accentedness (perceived pronunciation accuracy) and comprehensibility (ease of understanding). Task complexity effects on learners’ speaking anxiety were assessed physiologically during task performance (heart rate (HR) and galvanic skin response (GSR) measures), and subjectively immediately after task completion through scalar judgements of perceived anxiety, task difficulty, and mental effort (Révész et al, 2016). Individual differences in L2 proficiency (vocabulary size and elicited imitation) and working memory (digit span) were controlled for. The results showed that increased task complexity affected subjective and objective (HR and GSR) anxiety levels, which were higher during L2 than L1 speaking and in complex than simple tasks, and was detrimental to L2 speaking fluency and accentedness, but not to comprehensibility. Higher anxiety levels resulted in increased pause frequency and duration but did not affect accentedness or comprehensibility. Learners' perceived levels of anxiety and task difficulty correlated negatively with L2 fluency measures and comprehensibility, but were unrelated to accentedness. These findings suggest that the manipulation of task complexity may have an impact on speaking anxiety and both may affect L2 speaking fluency and perceived comprehensibility to a larger extent than L2 pronunciation. References Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners' state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 201-229. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 215-240. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Long, A. Y., & Solon, M. (2017). TBLT and L2 pronunciation: Do the benefits of tasks extend beyond grammar and lexis?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 213-224. Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual review of applied linguistics, 21, 112-126. Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety, and the development of the simple past. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 287-306). Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 703-737. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1-32. Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1-25.

One of the main objectives in terms of L2 oral proficiency of second language learning programs in school is to have learners understand and to be understood by speakers of the L2. Second language programs in schools usually offer a few hours of L2 instruction per week. In Quebec (Canada), an intensive English program is also offered at the end of elementary school (400-hour intensive program). This intensive program is known for its positive impact on various aspects of English learning (see Ligthbown (2014) for an extensive review). Thus far, however, virtually no research has systematically examined the influence of intensive learning contexts in schools on the development of children's L2 oral production skills from a tri-dimensional perspective (Derwing & Munro, 2013) targeting the notions of perceived fluency, comprehensibility and accentedness. Moreover, to our knowledge, no studies have explored the students' progression in intensive settings from the perspective of different raters such as native speakers, English L2 teachers and native speakers (students) of the same age. This study set out to investigate the development of grade 6 (age M = 11.4) L2 English of French students' (n = 52) fluency (flow of language output), comprehensibility (perceived difficulty of understanding) and accentedness (perceived degree of accent) when enrolled in an intensive English program (10-month) in Quebec, Canada. Learners' oral production was assessed during the first month (Time 1) and last month (Time 2) of the program using a picture-narrative task based on The Suitcase Story (Derwing et al., 2004). Time 1 and Time 2 speech samples (M = 32 sec) were then randomized and rated on each of the three dimensions by native speakers (n = 5) and expert ESL teachers (n=5) using a 7-point Likert scale. Oral production was also assessed by students of the same age (n=25) using questions based on the perception of the production. Native speakers and expert ESL teachers' ratings revealed that learners' fluency, comprehensibility and accentedness improved significantly during the program (ps < .001), with effect sizes being greatest for comprehensibility development (expert, d = 1.79; native, d = 1.69). The analysis of grade 6 native speakers' perceptions of grade 6 ESL learners' speech production reveals that the nature of pauses (fillers) and the use of L1 words seem to be important factors affecting the perception of speech production. These results provide new empirical evidence that L2 learners' comprehensibility, fluency and accentedness can improve significantly over the school year in intensive settings from the perspective of different raters, but it also sheds light on factors that may influence children's perception of L2 speech. Theoretical implications for these findings are discussed. References: Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2013). The development of L2 oral language skills in two L1 groups: A 7-year study. Language Learning, 63(2), 163-185. Derwing, T.M, Rossiter, M.J., Munro, M.J., & Thomson, R.I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54 (4), 655-679. Lightbown, P. M. (2014). Making the minutes count in L2 teaching. Language Awareness, 23, 3-23.

L2 speech fluency, referring to the smoothness and effortlessness of speech, has mostly been studied from monologue data cross-sectionally for instance by comparing learners at different proficiency levels (but see Derwing et al. 2008 for a longitudinal fluency project). In the present study, the purpose was to apply the concept of L2 speech fluency to the analysis of interactional data and to operationalize it in terms of individual fluency (within-turn contributions by individual learners) and interactional fluency (capturing the co-constructed nature of interaction; cf. McCarthy's 2010 confluence). The development of individual and interactional fluency was examined during a speaking skills course in upper secondary school (on short-term development of fluency, see e.g., Author 2019; Tavakoli et al. 2016). This exploratory study included 10 upper secondary school students (M age = 17.75) completing an L2 English course "Speak and influence", which is a national specialization course in Finland aimed at developing L2 speaking skills. The students completed an interactional task (5-minute discussion on a topic with the help of a mind map) in pairs at the beginning of the 7-week course in October 2019. They also completed a short background questionnaire and a proficiency level test (LexTALE; Lemhöfer & Broersma 2012). At the end of the course, the third part of their course final exams, involving a similar discussion task with different topics, was audio and video recorded. The pairs were the same as at the beginning of the course. The tasks were transcribed and analyzed from the perspective of individual fluency with widely employed and well-established temporal fluency measures, including speech rate, articulation rate, and silent pause frequencies, mean durations, and locations (mid/end-clause; e.g. De Jong 2018; Kormos 2006). For interactional fluency, a set of four exploratory measures were used, which captured both temporal aspects (between-turn pause frequency and duration) and cohesive devices related to maintaining fluency across turns (e.g. other-repetitions; Author 2017). The results demonstrated development for some of the fluency measures, while other aspects did not develop during the course. Furthermore, individual differences across the pairs and individual learners were observed, indicating that developmental paths are not necessarily linear (e.g. Larsen-Freeman 2009). The study has important contributions to the field of L2 speech fluency: it extends the traditional individual-based approach towards a more socio-cognitive approach by suggesting measures for capturing interactional fluency. From an L2 fluency assessment perspective, the results will hopefully spark discussion on whether individual-based assessment should be complemented with assessments of co-constructed performance e.g. by awarding joint scores for interactional fluency. Considering SLA research more broadly, the study advocates for an integrated view of L2 speaking skills from the perspective of fluency, incorporating both social and cognitive perspectives. References Author (2019). Details removed. Author (2017). Details removed. De Jong, N. H. (2018). Fluency in second language testing: Insights from different disciplines. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15, 237–254. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 579–589. Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of english. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 325–343. McCarthy, M. (2010). Spoken fluency revisited. English Profile Journal, 1(1), 1–15. Tavakoli, P., Campbell, C., & McCormack, J. (2016). Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 447–471.