Fluency

1

ORAL FLUENCY

Promoting Oral Fluency of Second Language Learners

Literature Review

Dina Al-Sibai

Department of English

King Saud University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Educational Linguistics

Dr. Dogan Bulut

December 18, 2004

Fluency

2

Promoting Fluency of Second Language Learners

L2 teachers have often claimed that fluency is a difficult concept to define. However, taxi drivers,

shopkeepers, and receptionists – among many other ordinary professionals – make judgments daily and

with ease regarding their clients’ L2 fluency. According to Derwing et al. (2004), the difficulty in

achieving a definition lies in the fact that fluency encompasses many aspects of language. Realizing the

difficulties involved in arriving at a precise definition of fluency, Brown (2003, p. 1) gives a sample of

some of the well-known ones. Hartmann & Stork (1976) suggest that “a person is said to be a fluent

speaker of a language when he can use its structures accurately whilst concentrating on content rather

than form, using the units and patterns automatically at normal conversational speed when they are

needed.” Brumfit (1984) feels that fluency is “to be regarded as natural language use.” Richard et al.

(1985) maintain that fluency is “the features which give speech the qualities of being natural and normal,

including native-like use of pausing, rhythm, intonation, stress, rate of speaking, and use of interjections

and interruptions.” Considering native speakers' oral production, Fillmore’s (1979) identifies four abilities

that might be subsumed under the term fluency, the first of which is the ability to talk at length with few

pauses. The three other abilities include the ability to talk in coherent, reasoned, and “semantically dense

sentences”, the ability to have appropriate things to say in a wide range of contexts, and finally the ability

to be creative and imaginative in language use (p. 93).

One of the most difficult challenges in teaching an L2 is finding ways to help students improve their

oral fluency. This is especially true in countries where learners share a common mother tongue and have

little or no exposure to the L2 outside the classroom. According to Bresnihan & Stoops (1996), pair and

group work communication tasks – as they are structured in ESL classrooms – are often ineffective or not

as effective as teachers desire. The reason is simple; when learners are asked to perform these activities,

they often just chat in their native language. Although they may want to express their ideas in English, it

is hard for them to do so, and it is hard for teachers to convince them to try. To overcome this obstacle,

Schneider (1997) proposes to focus exclusively on fluency by making students communicate with English

Fluency

3

only. Schneider explains that years of study leave learners with an extensive knowledge of grammar and

vocabulary that is rarely put into oral practice. As a result, growing numbers of students gradually come

to believe that they are incapable of speaking English and feel the hopelessness that many L2 learners

suffer. Hence, having to use their latent ability in English and to focus exclusively on fluency, ESL

learners can demonstrate to themselves that they can succeed in speaking English. This method may also

activate in them the prime motivators for language learning: gaining increased satisfaction from studying

a new language and a heightened sense of appreciation of its relevancy to their lives.

We live at a time where the ability to speak an L2 fluently has become a must, especially for those

who want to advance in certain fields of human endeavor. According to Derwing et al. (2004), oral

fluency is an important characteristic of L2 speech, which is often the object of evaluation in testing L2

skills. For both theoretical and practical reasons, research is carried out to establish the factors that

contribute to perceptions of L2 fluency as well as the reliability of judgments of fluency. This is

important because fluency of L2 learners is often assessed in high-stakes tests that have tangible effects

on university admissions, employment decisions, etc. An example in point is the Test of English as a

Foreign Language (TOEFL) which is a requirement for foreign students wishing to study in North

America. Expected to be launched in September 2005, TOEFL’s new version spotlights an area that many

students are particularly weak in: speaking in English with reasonable fluency. According to its designers,

the new TOEFL emphasizes the practical command of English as a tool of communication, evaluating the

integrated skills that are needed for real-life discourse, as well as evaluating each skill separately. Hence,

takers of the new TOEFL “will be asked to give a short speech on a specific topic…will not only be using

the language in an interactive fashion…will be required to use critical thinking and logic,” (“New TOEFL

version,” para. 6)

More than ever before, many L2 learners thus feel the need to speak fluently. Learners’ reasons for

wanting to become fluent speakers range from a mere desire to feel confident when talking to others in an

L2 to an urgent need to pass a language test, such as the TOEFL, Test of Spoken English (TSE), etc.

Fluency

4

Regardless of the reason, however, one thing is clear. L2 teachers should place greater emphasis on

fluency including finding new ways to incorporate fluency-enhancing activities into their classroom

teaching. To reach this stage, one must first recognize the mechanisms surrounding fluency. Wood (2001)

suggests that empirical research focusing on fluency has generally involved the elicitation of a speech

corpus as well as the analysis of temporal and qualitative aspects of the speech productions. Equally

important, most fluency studies have shown a remarkable degree of agreement on the types of temporal

variables to be tracked and developed. Cucchiarini et al. (2000)cites Lennon (1990) who believes that in

trying to define the temporal aspect of fluency, “ it has often been assumed that the goal in language

learning consists in producing speech at the tempo of native speakers, unimpeded by silent pauses and

hesitations, filled pauses, …” (p. 390). Hence, fluency is not an absolute value that learners have or do

not have. It is a degree-based characteristic: all learners should achieve some degree of fluency.

According to Brown (2003), communicative language strategies can help learners communicate fluently

with whatever proficiency they happen to have and at any given time, including the ability to use speed,

pauses, and hesitations efficiently.

This paper explores two basic strategies that are widely utilized to improve the level and content of

learners’ oral fluency. The various techniques embodied in these fluency-enhancing strategies are

championed by increasing numbers of L2 teachers and researchers all over the world. The first strategy to

be discussed is that of speech rate. This is followed by a detailed analysis of the multi-faceted strategy of

filling pauses with fillers and lexical phrases. It is generally believed that if these, and similar, strategies

are carefully presented and taught, a significant improvement in learners’ fluency is certain to follow.

I. Speech Rate

According to Wood (2001), empirical research lends much support to the idea that speech rate is a

sound indicator of fluency. In most studies, speech and articulation rates seem to rise with overall

fluency. The two also correlate well with evaluations of fluency as well as with time spent learning a new

language. Emphasizing the closeness between fluency and speech rate, Wood points to the 1987

Fluency

5

longitudinal study by Towell in which significant improvement was detected in the speech rate of a

student of French over a four-year period. A research paper by Munro & Derwing (1998) tested the

hypothesis that accented speech heard at a reduced rate would sound less accented and more

comprehensible than speech produced at a normal rate. In two experiments, native English listeners rated

a passage read by 10 high-proficiency Mandarin learners of English. In the first experiment, 20 listeners

evaluated passages read slowly as more accented and less comprehensible than normal-rate passages. In

the second experiment, where a computer modified speaking rates, 20 new listeners preferred some

speeded passages, but none of the slowed ones. The results suggested that the optimal speaking rate for

non-native speakers (as determined by comprehensibility scores, accent scores, and listener preference

ratings) may be somewhat slower than the optimal rate for native speakers. However, given the fact that

non-natives typically speak slower than natives, the strategy of intentionally speaking at a slower-than-

normal rate was not beneficial as a way of improving accentedness or comprehensibility. Hence, a

general speaking strategy of slowing down may not help L2 learners.

Schloff & Yudkin (1991) give some practical advice on speeding up one’s speaking pace. According

to the authors, many non-fluent speakers take great pains with their speech because they believe that

everything which comes out of their mouths should be perfectly worded. The researchers argue that it is

admirable to care about what one says, but – in the long run – it is better to make a few mistakes along the

way rather than to speak too slowly which may cause the speaker to be perceived as boring, tired, or less

intelligent than he or she really is. Schloff &Yudkin advocate a ‘sixty-second strategy’. They advise slow

speakers to choose about a 180-word passage from a magazine or a book, then to practice reading it

aloud, seeing how close they can get to finishing it in one minute without sacrificing meaning or clarity.

Although Turk (1985, p. 135) believes that fluency is often associated with speed, “the key is variety.” He

believes that the pace of the human speaking voice – along the whole range from slow and deliberate

emphasis to rapid enthusiasm – can be consciously varied. According to him, highly charged points can

be made word by word, while amusing anecdotes are speeded up to their punch-line. The author reassures

Fluency

6

anyone concerned about his or her pace of speech, even non-fluent speakers, to relax about constantly

feeling the need to speed up. He argues that that varied-pace method adds to the attractiveness of the

speaking voice; while monotonous regularity of speed increases the risks of boredom.

Porter & Grant (1992) also believe that it is important to vary one’s speech rate as situation warrants.

According to them, however, non-natives worry that they lack fluency in English and, thus, may speak

quickly to make up for it. The authors maintain that this solution is not sound. By speeding up their

speech without adequate language know-how, non-native speakers make it more difficult for native

listeners to understand them. The two researchers advise L2 learners striving to speak correctly to listen

to their professors when giving lectures or assignments. In such situations, teachers tend to use the spoken

language mainly for ‘transactional’ function – communicating a message – where key words are

emphasized and are said more slowly. Porter & Grant suggest that this is not the same as ‘interactional’

function, where the spoken language is speeded up in conversations of social nature. Similarly, Brown

(2003) advocates that L2 students should be trained to use speed wisely and not to blindly raise their

speech rate at all cost. The author observes that untrained teachers may think of fluency as being about

speed. But fast speech is not necessarily fluent speech. In fact, fluent native speakers vary their speed

depending on the context in which they are speaking. Unfortunately, non-native speakers often think that

they should speak fast to be more fluent. Hence, L2 learners must realize that it is fine to speak slowly as

long as it is done at a reasonable rate. Such rate is achieved when speakers, both native and non-native,

have time to think as they talk.

According to Tam (1997), the speech of fluent speakers is often filled with reduced forms such as

contraction, elision, assimilation, and reduction. These forms usually have a positive influence on

speeding up one’s rate of speech because they often lead to: 1. disappearance of word boundaries, 2.

omission of end vowels and consonants, and 3. substitutions of elements within words. Fluent speakers

also produce sentences that appear in elliptical forms. As such, when the context is obvious, subjects,

articles, verbs, pronouns, etc., are frequently deleted. Citing Brown, Tam observes that “Students whose

Fluency

7

education has been largely couched in slow and deliberate spoken English are often shocked to find,

when they enter a context in which native speakers are talking to each other, that they have considerable

difficulty in understanding what is being said,” (Building up fluency section, para. 4). As a remedy, Tam

argues that speaking courses should include a half-hour weekly session on understanding reduced forms.

According to him, much benefit can be accrued from following such a procedure. Using it himself, the

author explains that students should be allowed to first listen to a tape which gives the slow pronounced

version of a chosen text and then the relaxed, fast pronunciation. Students are then asked to repeat the

slow version followed by the faster one. Finally, the tape is switched off. Students are divided into pairs

or trios that practice conversing using the full text.

Brown (2003, p. 4) points out that reduced forms were defined by Brown & Hilferty (1989) as

“connected speech replete with its contracted forms, elision, liaison, and reduction.” At this point, Brown

(2003) adds several other subcategories including weak forms, linking, assimilation, and intrusion. He

also points out that there are some people who think of reduced forms as signs of lazy or careless English;

but he argues that such a view is naive and incorrect. Indeed, there is ample evidence that reduced forms

are applied - to lesser or greater degrees - in many forms of English usage, even the most formal. Like

Tam (1997), Brown maintains that spoken English is very different from written English, and that

teachers should not be so surprised when their students are unable to understand natural spoken language

like, “whenduyawannagonnagedoudahere?” [When do you want to get out of here?] (p. 4), much less

produce it. This being the case, he suggests that a few crucial generalizations about real spoken English

should be introduced in any L2 speaking-related course. An example in point is that an unstressed vowel

in English becomes a “schwa” in many environments, which makes the schwa the most common (though

often ignored) vowel in American English. To be sure, although reduced forms can play a positive role in

speeding up the speech rate of L2 learners, other speech-rate techniques hold even more promise.

One of the most well-researched activities for improving a learner’s speech rate is called the 4/3/2

technique. Devised and developed by Keith Maurice (1983, 1994), this technique is based on the principle

Fluency

8

of L2 learners working in pairs, with one acting as speaker and the other as listener. The speaker talks for

four minutes on a topic while his/her partner listens. The pairs are then changed, with each speaker giving

the same information to a new partner in three minutes, followed by a further change of partners and a

two-minute talk. Tam (1997) suggests that the 4/3/2 technique allows L2 learners to perform at levels

above their usual levels of oral performance. However, adjustments may be needed particularly if each

speaker has only one listener, and he/she is required to speak to him/her three times consecutively. The

net effect of such a circumstance is that listeners may feel bored and impatient. To avoid this situation, L2

teachers are advised to institute some modifications. Since most learners do not wish to be restricted to

just one listener for the whole session, each speaker may be allowed to address at least three listeners in a

group. As such, each student can have his/her own turn in each round. This simple adjustment is believed

to increase learners’ motivation, attention, and interest in the talks being presented in the classroom.

According to Nation (1991), fluency activities depend on certain “features” to achieve their goals.

These features are apparent, to some degree, in almost all fluency-enhancing techniques. By examining

these features, one can fairly judge if an activity has the potential of developing fluency positively and in

an efficient way. Judging the validity of the 4/3/2 method, for example, Nation maintains that this activity

holds all the telltale features for improving the fluency of L2 learners. First, the learner is encouraged to

process a large quantity of language by allowing the speaker to perform without interruption and by

having the speaker make three deliveries of the same text. Second, the demands of the activity are limited

to a smaller set than would occur in most uncontrolled learning activities; i.e. the learner has control over

the topic and language being presented. Third, the learner is helped to reach a high level of performance

by having both the opportunity to repeat the message and by the challenge of decreasing time to convey

that message. To be sure, such levels are usually measured in terms of quantity and rate of production

rather than quality. However, research carried out by Nation (1989) and Arevart & Nation (1990) shows

that, in the case of 4/3/2, “any increase in rate as measured by words per minute is actually accompanied

Fluency

9

by improvements in the quality of the talk as measured by hesitations, grammatical accuracy, and

grammatical complexity,” ( Nation, 1991, para. 4).

Tam (1997) maintains that what L2 learners need from an oral communication course is sufficient

practice. The goal of rehearsed practice is achieving a form of stable yet modified speech pattern so that

learners can have easy access to the pattern when it is needed. The author used the 4/3/2 technique in a

speech course designed for a group of 16 Chinese teaching assistants working on their research and

postgraduate engineering degrees at several universities in Singapore. Although all participants had

minimal experience with spoken English, it was hoped that the course would provide them with enough

preparation to give technical talks, in English, to undergraduate students to enable them to conduct their

own experiments. The course was made up of six three-hour sessions. Each session consisted of three

basic activity-components: fluency practice, reading aloud, and dialogue or role-play. Throughout the

session, Tam moved around to listen and provide advice on different matters. Repetition was emphasized

as the main mode of oral practice because it has been shown to have a positive effect on building fluency.

Attention was also paid to the proper use of discourse markers, prosodic cues, systematic listing or

itemization, and other cohesive links. Tam suggests that such important suprasegmental elements could

be incorporated successfully along with fluency practice. By encouraging repetition of utterances,

focusing on voice quality, and reduced forms in speech, the course’s pedagogic implication was that

fluency training is an achievable endeavor.

In their article, Bresnihan & Stoops (1996) state that an important challenge in teaching ESL is

finding ways to help students improve their oral fluency. This is particularly true in countries where

students tend to share a common language and have little or no exposure to English outside the

classroom. The authors discuss three activities: “Talking Zone”, “Speaking Line”, and “Conversation

Game” which they found very effective in encouraging Japanese students to speak in English, even in

large classrooms. Although each of these activities is designed to help L2 teachers assist learners in

bridging the gap between their written materials and speaking fluently in English, the Speaking Line is

Fluency

10

the one most elaborated upon providing readers with detailed explanations and illustrations of various

seating arrangements for this activity. However, a careful reading of this activity reveals that the main

difference between this activity and Maurice’s 4/3/2 technique is in the seating arrangement. Bresnihan

and Stoops specify how to change partners: “The students at the beginning of one row stand up and move

to the back of the row while the rest of the students in the back row move forward. Then everyone has a

new partner” (The basics section, para. 5). The Speaking Line also offers participating partners the

opportunity to take part in longer conversations if they wish to do so. This is in contrast to the more

structured 4/3/2 technique where learners are encouraged to make short speeches or tell stories to their

partners within specified time limits. The authors suggest that implementing the Speaking Line allows

learners to have real and totally unscripted conversations on their own. It also permits students to speak

with a random assortment of classmates, without hesitation or difficulty in choosing with whom to speak

as might be the case with shy students.

Other interesting activities based on the speech-rate principle can be found in Voller & Widdows’

(1989) Chatterbox: A Conversation Text of Fluency Activities For Intermediate Students. To be sure,

CHATTERBOX is a course of practical activities to help develop English language fluency. It is intended

for students who have mastered the basic structures of English but need practice in using what they have

learned. Voller & Widdows’ book is a teacher’s manual which outlines CHATTERBOX’s various

components. The course is based on three language-learning approaches: 1. ‘the natural’, which

emphasizes learners’ need for a large quantity of meaningful language, 2. ‘the humanistic’, which stresses

the need of a supportive and nonjudgmental classroom environment, and 3. ‘the communicative’, which

recognizes the importance of oral competency in language learning. This book is filled with ideas for

organizing fluency-stimulating activities, several of which use the 4/3/2 technique as their basis. For

example, an activity called, “How Would You React?” requires teachers to divide students into pairs.

Fluency

11

Then the teacher writes on the board:

“What would you do if…” 1. you found a way of becoming temporarily invisible? 2. your teacher suddenly slapped a student? (p.33) The teacher then asks students to choose one topic. Students will present their reactions to their partners,

each of whom is called ‘partner 1’. Pairs will then change partners and each student will have another

chance to deliver the same talk to another partner, but with more fluency due to the restricted time limit.

Finally, each student goes back to his or her ‘partner 1’ to retell their reactions for the third time. Going

back to their initial partners gives students a chance to get immediate feedback because their partners

should be able to make general observations about their change of fluency by comparing the speaker’s

first and third deliveries of speech.

Brown & Nation’s (1997) article has an impressive variety of suggestions for developing spoken

language in general, and the oral fluency of L2 learners in particular. In their article, they also confirm the

usefulness of the 4/3/2 technique for developing fluency because it includes the “features”, previously

discussed in Nation (1991), that are needed in fluency development activities. They propose that the first

time that learners use this technique it may be best if the topic involves talking about something that

actually happened to them. This is because the chronological order of the events and experiences will

make it easier for learners to remember and repeat because the time sequence provides a clear structure

for the talk, especially for beginners. The authors provide other activities, such as one they call

“Headlines” to develop speaking fluency that involve the same features of 4/3/2. The authors explain that

the 4/3/2 technique and Headlines rely on repetition of the same story to develop fluency and that this

kind of fluency is useful for predictable topics that learners may need to speak about in their near futures.

For example, when meeting other people learners may need to talk about themselves, about the kind of

food they eat, about their country, about their travels, about their interests and hobbies, and about their

adventures and experiences.

Fluency

12

According to Nation (2003), the utilization of L2 should be encouraged through classroom

management such as telling the class what to do, controlling student behavior, explaining activities, etc.

However, the author suggests that L1 can also have an active role in preparing learners for such tasks by

making sure that the material they are working with is truly familiar. Nation maintains that fluency

development tasks need to involve language items that are already familiar to the learners. This

preparation can involve helping learners recall L1 stories and information that they then work with in the

L2, or getting learners to use the L1 to discuss and become very familiar with L2 input, such as

newspaper articles, TV news reports, short factual texts, that is then used as the basis for L2 fluency

activities such as the 4/3/2 technique. Nation also argues that there is a “need to include some kind of

encouragement to perform faster than usual,” (para.12). He states that this encouragement can take the

form of time pressure as in speed reading or the 4/3/2 activity. This being the case, Nation observes that

L1 is a useful tool that can be used whenever needed but should not be over-used. There should be a

balanced approach which incorporates L1 but also recognizes the importance of maximizing L2 use in the

classroom.

Another technique commonly used to supplement L2 learners’ limited opportunity to speak outside

the classroom is through the use of tape recorders. In a (1997) article, Schneider writes about the great

benefits of pair taping and suggests some ways to implement it. He lists a number of instructions which

teachers are encouraged to follow. For example, students should be told that they can talk about any topic

they wish and change partners any time, they should have a natural, flowing conversation without pauses

or long periods of silence, and that they shouldn’t speak in their own language Students should tape once

a day because a substantial part of the success with pair taping is seemingly due to students recording

many times a week. As for checking the tapes, Schneider suggests that the teacher takes one cassette

from each pair for the same session(s) and fast forwards, listening momentarily to different parts of the

students' conversation(s). Comments are stuck on the tape covers with notes. Such reminders showing

that the tapes are really being monitored should eventually make it unnecessary to do much more than a

Fluency

13

casual checking. The teacher might also inform the students that entire tapes will be reviewed from time

to time. Monitoring reinforces the idea that recording conversations is a serious part of their evaluation,

not simply a diversion from a regular class period. Moreover, the taping wouldn't make sense to students

if their tapes were never listened to.

Later in a comprehensive (2001) research article, Schneider (2001) wrote on pair-taping and its effect

on improving ESL learners’ fluency as well as their motivation and achievement. According to the

author, having little opportunity to use the knowledge gained through years of English language study,

many ESL students cannot believe that it is possible for them to speak English. To them, English is only

another subject that must be studied year after year. Japanese students, for instance, begin learning

English from the 7th grade. Upon entering college, many feel no desire to continue its study. Some even

think they are incapable of speaking it, suffering the hopelessness common among L2 students. Hence,

learners’ motivation is a great concern for ESL teachers. Schneider suggests that the answer lies in pair

taping. The author conducted a study based on two sections of fifty second-year Japanese college

students. The participants were given the option between attending their once-a-week class or using the

language lab to record conversations in English for an equivalent amount of time spread equally over four

days a week. Tapers were divided into pairs and were allowed to talk about whatever they wanted to,

whenever they liked, and with whomever they wished. The only condition was that they must speak

solely in English. Most pair tapers reported significant improvement and that speaking had become easier

and more enjoyable. They were more relaxed, confident, and enthusiastic than before. Schneider explains

that since pair tapers are essentially in charge of their language acquisition, they feel more responsible.

They also have an added incentive to speak in English knowing that their teacher will be listening to their

conversations through the tapes.

Kluge & Taylor’s (2000) article is quite informative because it not only offers the benefits of partner

taping, it also points out the pitfalls to avoid. The authors assert that partner taping outside the classroom

offers a simple and practical method of getting students to develop more fluency in a foreign language as

Fluency

14

well as to take responsibility for their own oral language practice. Kluge & Taylor explain the rationale

behind implementing such a system. Working at a Japanese university, they were frustrated by the lack of

time for open-ended English speaking practice in their once-weekly English oral communication course.

They also wanted their students to take more responsibility for their own fluency development outside the

classroom. Encouraged by the work on student taping of Schneider (1993), the authors decided to

institute their own system of ‘partner taping’ as a supplement to their course, requiring students to record

free conversation outside of class and to turn in their tapes as homework each week. The results seem to

have exceeded the researchers’ expectations. Students stay in English while taping, develop greater oral

fluency, gain hours of extra practice, maintain a concrete record of their progress, and get a sense of

responsibility for their learning. The authors also observed that teachers, in turn, gain a better sense of the

students and their language problems. In addition, Kluge & Taylor describe the procedures involved in

partner taping, provide advice on monitoring students’ tapes, and offer useful suggestions on evaluating

students’ fluency performance.

Another interesting article is that of Huges (1993). This study offers specific instructions on how to

improve the fluency of L2 learners. It is suggested that in a pronunciation or an oral skills class, students

can be assigned a spoken journal on cassette tape just as they are assigned a written journal in a writing

class. The author observes that this tape becomes a record of a student’s own explorations in English and

provides the medium for a dialogue between teacher and learner. Whereas Schneider (1997) and Kluge &

Taylor (2000) give detailed explanations on pair-taping or partner taping techniques, Huges describes a

simple and relaxed version of tape-recording. His method involves individual work where each student is

asked to complete a fixed number of 5-minute entries during the course. Students speak on a given topic

for at least five minutes each week. Tape journals are then handed in, reviewed, and returned to students

with instructions to listen to their own voices and then to the teacher’s comments. What makes Huges’

technique special is that after listening to the first few entries, the teacher may notice where the student is

failing and, consequently, give the assignments that improve his/her weakest skills. The author gives an

Fluency

15

example: if the student has trouble pronouncing past tense endings, the teacher may ask the student

something like, “Tell me about an experience in the past, either something that happened in your country

or something that happened during your first days in New York,” (para. 5). Huges advises that

assignments should be challenging, with each entry setting the direction for the next one. Teachers’

feedback must also be genuine, whether answering learners’ questions or thanking them for sharing their

experiences and thoughts.

II. Using Pause Fillers and Lexical Phrases

According to Wood (2001), pause phenomena is considered one of the most complex and informative

elements of fluency being studied in empirical research. Three aspects of pauses have been investigated,

namely frequency, length, and placement. Wood mentions Riggenbach (1991) who studied the presence

of both filled and unfilled pauses in the speech of four Chinese ESL learners. The results showed that

unfilled-pause frequency was an important discriminator between subjects rated as highly fluent and

those rated as less fluent. As for length of pauses, Wood cites Lennon’s (1990) work on changes in the

pause time of four German ESL students. He found that total unfilled pause time as a percentage of total

speech decreased by an average of 25% in three out of four subjects. The paper also examines second

language speech fluency and how it may be facilitated through instruction. Wood presents a synthesis of

research on fluency in L2 speech for determining what elements of speech proficiency are most relevant

to fluency. The study’s empirical research is discussed in light of psycholinguistic knowledge about

mental processes underlying second language production. A model of fluent speech production is

outlined, centering on the importance of automatic processing and retrieval of a repertoire of formulaic

language units in spontaneous speech. The model is a starting point for a pedagogy of fluency that

combines elements of automatization and formulaic competence.

Wood (2001) points out that the pervasive nature of formulaic language units has been documented

extensively. He cites Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) who propose that formulaic units called lexical

phrases can provide frames and strings to help build sentences and increase speed of speech. Wood also

Fluency

16

mentions Chambers (1998) who suggests that formulaic language units are what allow L2 learners to

increase the length of fluent runs between pauses. Equally interesting, Wood agrees with Pawley & Syder

(1983) who find a need for mastery of a body of lexicalized sentence stems: “A lexicalized sentence stem

is a unit of clause length or longer, whose grammatical form and lexical content is wholly or largely

fixed; its fixed elements form a standard label for a culturally recognized concept, a term in the

language,” (Formulaic language units in use section, para.7). Wood argues that having a broad and highly

automatized store of memorized clauses and clause stems gives the L2 speaker a chance of attaining

native-like fluency. If clauses can be retrieved and reproduced automatically, without need for individual

planning, then speakers should generally be able to be a clause or two ahead of themselves as they

articulate. As such, Wood suggests that given the considerable importance of formulaic language units in

speech, it follows that teaching must somehow work to facilitate the acquisition of formulaic competence,

including automatization. This can be done in a number of ways, none of which require the memorization

of lists. In fact, it is possible to acknowledge automaticity, formulaic language units, and the clause

structure of spoken language and integrate them into any L2 classroom instruction.

As mentioned above, Wood’s (2001) article outlines a fluency speech model. The model was

conducted through a fluency workshop in an ESL program at a Canadian university with students of

varying L1s. Consisting of three hours per week for six weeks, the model was made up of four stages.

The first was ‘the input stage,’ whereby students listened 3 times to a 10-minute audiotape of a native

English speaker engaged in a spontaneous talk of personal interest. The instructor’s main job was to draw

learners’ attention to formulaic language units that occur between marked hesitations. Upon finishing the

input and analysis, ‘the automatization stage’ began. Learners spent time repeating the audiotape along

with the transcript in the language lab. Transcribed speech was imitated by learners until they felt enough

control over its speed, pause profile, and lexis. The third was ‘the practice and production stage’ where

learners were given a chance to prepare a brief talk of their own based loosely on the same topic. After

this practice, learners recorded their talks without using any notes. Tapes were then collected and

Fluency

17

reviewed by the instructor, with learners discussing their performances and commenting on any aspect

which they felt had shown development from the first to the third production. Finally came ‘the free talk

stage’ where learners formed groups, generating topics relating to the original model. The topics were

distributed randomly to students, and the groups took turns listening to each one speaking spontaneously

about his/her topic. Since automatization and formulaic language units are key elements of fluency

development, the groups were particularly urged to comment on the speed, hesitations, and difficulties of

their colleagues’ productions.

In 2004, Wood wrote again on the role of automatized lexical phrases in the development of L2

speech fluency. The new research suggests that while integral to effective communication, L2 speech

fluency is a language phenomenon that is not handled properly by the L2 teaching profession. Wood

suggests that such a situation occurs because oral fluency is a challenging construct whose

psycholinguistic foundations and place in the language curriculum are not fully investigated. Hence, the

author, in this recent study, tries to examine the nature of fluency development as an important element of

L2 performance, so instrumental for effective communication, yet so marginalized in the language

curriculum. This examination is based on a study in which Wood empirically tests the possibility that

automatic retrieval of lexical phrases is important in the development of L2 speech fluency. Collected

over the course of two months, four speech samples of six ESL learners (2 Chinese, 2 Japanese, and 2

Spanish) were analyzed for evidence of the part that automatized formulaic language or lexical phrases

play in the development of their oral fluency. The over all results showed that the participants displayed a

noticeable increase in speech fluency as measured by temporal variables used by Wood. There was also

enough evidence that automatized lexical phrases played a facilitating role in this increase.

Fayer et al. (1995, para. 1) explain that pauses occurring in speech are commonly referred to as

“hesitation pauses”. The authors state that perception of hesitant speech is found to relate to judgments of

intelligibility in nonnative speech. The relationship between such judgments and the temporal variables

related to pauses in nonnative speech is the topic of this study. According to the authors, much pause time

Fluency

18

or overlong pauses are found in speakers of low fluency, while less pause time is found in fluent speakers.

They cite Albrechtsen et al. (1980) who noted that hesitations were one of the factors that interfered with

the intelligibility and fluency of Danish ESL students. It is also suggested that L2 learners can be helped

to better manage pause time through the use of communication strategies before they gain proficiency. It

seems advisable to help such learners use different communication strategies in coping with the cognitive

blocks when they occur. One type of communication strategy proposed by the authors involves the use of

memorized phrases with which to fill pauses. Like Wood (2001), they argue that fixed expressions or

formulae can help rather than hinder communication, and more variety should come with further

language mastery. Examples include, “I'm not sure how to say this”, “How do you say . . . ”, “Let me

think”, and “I mean,” (Discussion section, para. 8). Fayer et al. also believe that strategies which help to

reduce listener distraction are important until pause time and duration of pauses more closely approach

native speaker norms.

Brown (2003) suggests that ESL learners should understand that native English speakers use pauses

and hesitations while they are talking. Since learners tend not to believe this view, teachers may audiotape

or videotape some natives talking in a natural setting in order to show to their students that natives do

indeed pause and hesitate, and that the reason is simple. Humans need time to think when talking, and

they use pausing and hesitating to give them that time. Teachers can also inform their students that using

slower speed with pauses and hesitations may require the use of fillers. Some fillers in English are just

sounds like, ‘uhm, er, uh, ah, umm.’ Others are words like, ‘okay, you know, well, so’ (p. 7). The purpose

of such fillers is to fill silence which makes speech more natural and fluent. Brown also proposes that

fluency is not an absolute issue which learners either have or do not have. Some degree of fluency can be

achieved at all levels of language proficiency. ESL teachers, thus, should help their students develop

fluency using all available communicative language tools, choices, and strategies. For instance, such

strategies must enable learners to: 1. use speed to their advantage, 2. apply pauses and hesitations

efficiently, 3. give appropriate feedback, 4. repair competently, 5. clarify effectively, and 6. negotiate for

Fluency

19

meaning if necessary. Fluency is also enhanced when teachers: 1. encourage constructive errors, 2. create

opportunities for practice, 3. construct activities that focus on getting messages across, and 4. assess

learners’ fluency not their accuracy.

Kam-yin (1993) dedicates a whole article to describing a series of activities designed specially to

teach the use of time-creating devices used by speakers to gain time so that they can formulate what to

say next. The author describes the use of fillers such as “well, actually, I mean, you know, let me see

now, oh let me think,” and repetition of key words in one’s interlocutor’s utterance, e.g., “A: When are

you leaving? B: When am I leaving?” (para. 2). In this article, the author goes into great detail explaining

the rationale for teaching time-creating devices in speech stating that pauses, often misinterpreted as the

end of a turn in speaking, prevent less fluent speakers from holding the floor and cause them to lose the

chance to go on speaking. The resultant impression is that the students are incompetent speakers who fail

to contribute as much as is desirable to class discussion or spontaneous conversation. However, if they

know how to signal that they are planning their speech and have not finished their turn, this will enable

them to speak more, and more effectively. Kam-yin presents an impressive method which contains a

description of the different stages involved in teaching time-creating devices, as well as the rationale

behind each step. Kam-yin’s method consists of the following six stages: a consciousness-raising activity,

a practice activity, a fluency practice, a further fluency activity, a feedback activity for students, and an

evaluation activity for the teacher.

According to Derwing et al. (2004), the relationship between exposure to the L2 and fluency is

complex. Although fluency appears to develop with increased exposure to L2 input, a speaker’s initial

proficiency may influence the degree of improvement during a stay in an L2 environment. The authors

examined whether untrained raters’ assessments of fluency in low-proficiency L2 speech were related to

temporal measures and whether they varied across tasks. Speech samples were collected from twenty

beginner Mandarin-speaking ESL students (7 men & 13 women) on picture description, monologue, and

dialogue tasks. Temporal measures were made on each sample. Fluency, comprehensibility, and

Fluency

20

accentedness were then rated by twenty eight untrained judges. Results showed that the rating data

paralleled the speech measurements. Fluency and comprehensibility ratings were highly correlated, and

fluency was more strongly related to comprehensibility than to accentedness. An important implication of

this study for the ESL classroom is the need to use a variety of tasks that draw upon different skills to

enhance fluency, even for beginning students. Derwing et al. also attempted to determine the role of pitch

and phrasal segmentation. They cite Wennerstrom (2000) who found that L2 speakers who utilized a

broad pitch range and who paused in syntactically appropriate places, such as at clause boundaries, were

rated by trained judges as more fluent than speakers whose pitch range was limited and who tended to

pause in the middle of phrases.

Another important work is Porter & Grant’s (1992) book which tries to help non-native English

speakers gain proficiency in speaking and listening. The authors maintain that students can best learn

communication skills by extensive practice. Adopting an interactive, experiential approach to learning,

they stress the activities that promote learner involvement and interaction, with students practicing the

skills that are to be learned rather than just talking or hearing about them. Intended for use in college

classes, intensive English programs, and ESL training courses for professionals, the book promotes

‘cumulative learning’ which is based on: 1. moving from simpler to more complex tasks, 2. focusing on

the different features of the speaking/listening processes, and 3. working toward the integration of various

language skills. The book features a highly organized appendix entitled “Pronunciation”. Here, the

authors discuss pauses and phrase grouping, observing that spoken English has rules regarding the

grouping of words into phrases and that slight pauses come between these phrase groups. They list five

rules that can help learners determine which words to group together. For example, the first rule is:

“Nouns + their modifiers, e.g. in every field,” (p. 225). Although such rules can prove to be quite helpful,

the authors present only one activity in order to apply these rules to, but fail to provide an answer key for

learners.

Fluency

21

According to Porto (1998), recent research in computer analysis of the English language has revealed

a widespread occurrence of lexical patterns in adult language use. These patterns are found in phrases

such as, “by and large,” “once and for all,” “and for that matter,” “I see your point but...,” and “as far as I

know,” (para. 20). The author cites Pawley & Syder (1983) who suggest that lexicalized-sentence stems

and other memorized strings form the main building blocks of fluent connected speech. Also mentioned

are Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) who maintain that syntactically simple phrases which allow a

considerable amount of lexical variation may be the most powerful pattern generators. An example in

point is “the frame modal + you + VP” (Learner awareness section, para. 2) This ensures a steady growth

in language development. L2 Learners may generate increasingly more complex phrases as they become

more fluent. In time, for example, such learners will easily be able to say, “Can you open the window?”,

“Could you lend me some money?”, and “Would you type this for me?”, with optional slots such as

“please” and “kindly” (Learner awareness section, para. 2) Porto proposes that lexical phrases belong to a

continuum. At one end there are fixed phrases such as “by the way,” “have a nice day,” which are not

subject to alterations. Other phrases, however, allow some degree of modification. For instance, a phrase

like “a _____ ago” accepts variations such as “a day ago,” “a week ago,” “a month ago,” (Degrees of

variability and flexibility section, para. 1) and so on. Hence, the author encourages L2 teachers to

consider not only frequency but other factors such as productivity when selecting lexical phrases.

Focusing on fixed nonproductive phrases may have a hindering effect in the sense that there is no scope

for expanding the frames as a way of enhancing learners’ fluency.

To be sure, Porto’s article is an important attempt to emphasize that lexical phrases are not ‘dead

ends’ as some may suggest. Analyzable by the rules of grammar, they are dual in nature. Depending on

the situation, they may be treated as unanalyzed units in the lexicon or produced afresh using the rules of

syntax. This fact ensures a steady growth in language fluency. Lexical phrases allow for the expansion of

previously acquired knowledge as L2 learners become more fluent. These phrases are easy to acquire for

two reasons. First, they occur frequently. Porto cites Yoshida’s (1978) work which shows that recurrent

Fluency

22

phrases are acquired as memorized forms. Second, they are context-bound and have situational meaning

associated with them. Porto maintains that frequency of occurrence and context association make lexical

phrases highly memorable for learners and easy to pick up. Therefore, they constitute an efficient device

for improving learners’ speech rate, thus fluency. Moreover, lexical phrases allow for the expansion of

previously acquired knowledge as learners become more proficient. They may be used to maintain a

conversation, change the topic, make a request, greet people, etc. For instance, a basic phrase to express

sympathy is ‘I’m sorry.’ As learners become more speech proficient, the pattern may be expanded to

obtain phrases like ‘I’m very/terribly/ awfully sorry about/to hear,’ ‘that’s awful/terrible,’ and ‘what a

pity/shame!’ (para. 6). This functional feature of lexical phrases offers learners the possibility of

expressing the same function in increasingly more varied ways, thus leading to language development.

On the other hand, the paper written by Myles et al. (1998) examines the role in the ESL classroom

of the rote-learning of the so called ‘unanalyzed chunks.’ Largely based on the works of Peters (1983,

1985) and Weinert (1995), the authors provide the criteria for identifying and characterizing such chunks.

This should include:

- at least two morphemes in length; - phonologically coherent and fluently articulated nonhesitant; - greater complexity in comparison with learners’ other output; - used repeatedly and always in the same form; - situationally dependent; - community-wide in use. (para. 4)

According to Myles et al., introducing such criteria to L2 learners can be of great help to them. For

example, with regards to Wood’s (2001) ‘input stage,’ this criteria would help both learners and teachers

in identifying various ‘chunks’ or ‘formulaic language units’ during the tape-listening session. Named

‘Progression in Foreign Language Learning,’ Myles et al.’s project ran for three years, between 1993 and

1996. It had a threefold purpose: 1. to document the rate and route of progression of a group of 11 to 13

year-old students during their first two years of learning French as a foreign language, 2. to explore

possible links between such progression and classroom learning experiences; and 3. to explore the special

Fluency

23

role in classroom learning of the rote-learning of ‘unanalyzed chunks.’ The results were rather quite

interesting. During the early stages of the experiment, it was evident that the use of formulas not only

facilitated learners’ entry into communication but also speeded up their speech production. In fact, the

students could not initially rely on much else in order to hold the kind of sustained conversations required

by the classroom context. However, as time passed and the students' communicative needs developed

beyond the highly-structured exchanges of a beginners' class, the formulas provided for those exchanges

became woefully inadequate.

In the same vein, Kavaliauskiene & Janulevieiene (2001) argue that collocations are the most

important types of lexical phrases. Collocations are viewed as the way in which words typically occur

with each other, i.e. combinations of words in natural speech which usually keep permanent company. As

such, knowing frequent collocations is essential for fluent and natural English. Computer analysis of the

English language reveals a widespread occurrence of lexical patterns in language use which are important

both in language use and acquisition. Kavaliauskiene & Janulevieiene maintain that for effective oral

learning, students must turn a high proportion of the input to which they are exposed into intake in order

to develop an ability to notice ‘chunks’ of different kinds. They suggest using a more discovery-based

methodology based on encouraging L2 students to identify and analyze different language items in

authentic passages. Using this approach, the authors write of their experience with teaching English for

Specific Purposes’ (ESP) skills at Lithuanian Law University. According to them, ESP lexical phrases

may be treated as ‘chunks’ or prefabricated language units which, once learnt, are easily retrievable and

accessible. The authors provide a list of ‘chunks’ that their students identified in an authentic passage on

contract killing:

- died of wounds in hospital, in the car, etc. - a heap of twisted metal - is known as the richest man in ... - to earn a good/bad, etc. reputation - claimed the lives of some politicians - to watch out for ... - a criminal was on the run, etc. (para. 10)

Fluency

24

While the previous authors propose an analysis of authentic passages in the acquisition of

collocations, Willis (1996, p. 113) suggests that L2 teachers can organize listening tasks which enrich

learners’ exposure to common phrases like ‘all right?’, ‘so what about this one?’, ‘listen again,’ ‘is that

right?’, ‘I'll say them again',’ and ‘ok, that's it.’ The author claims that their meanings too are easily

derived from the context as well as the teacher’s accompanying expressions and gestures. After listening

several times to a conversation on tape, teachers are urged to ask their students to write down those

lexical phrases that are used as responses to suggestions like, ‘oh yes,’ ‘mhm mhm,’ and ‘that's a good

one,’ classifying them according to whether they mean ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Students then should practice saying

them, either by repeating after the tape or in chorus in order to achieve fluency, a process similar to what

Woods (2001) suggests at the ‘automatization stage.’ In all, the aim of communication tasks is to

stimulate real language use in the target language. Such tasks are used at the end of a methodological

cycle as well as a base for speaking-skills lessons.

Another technique, developed by Qi (2003), also advocates the use of authentic material for

acquiring commonly used idiomatic expressions. Arousing students’ interest and increasing their

commitment to speak English has long been a headache for teachers who want their classrooms to be

lively, dynamic, and inspiring. This problem is frequently magnified with large mixed-ability classrooms

and little or no exposure to oral English after class. In this article, Qi outlines a new and experimental

way to enhance the oral fluency of ESL learners by presenting them with different and exciting English

language settings, as well as having them start conversations about certain topics. The activity is based on

movies which are a rich and varied resource for idiomatic expressions. Undoubtedly, the settings create a

real and authentic experience of practicing spoken English. Presenting ESL learners with the opportunity

to discuss certain topics in various ways while speaking the target language (English) for at least ten to

fifteen minutes, the activity is designed to make even tongue-tied and shy students want to try. Giving a

Fluency

25

number of examples to show how this technique may work, the author explains that the main progression

of the activity is from imitation, to repetition, to creative use of English.

Some researchers have maintained that several lexical phrases can be taught together in order to help

L2 learners become more fluent in their daily conversations. Schloff & Yudkin’s (1991) Smart Speaking:

Sixty-Second Strategies, is a very helpful book which is filled with many fluency-improvement

techniques using groups of lexical phrases that are properly and smartly combined together. For example,

the authors suggest using the ‘Plus Arrow Plus’ technique for politely ending a conversation. This

technique is actually a simple strategy based on the internalization of the three following lexical phrases:

Plus + (Saying something positive), ‘It was good talking to you about… Arrow (Stating what needs to be done), ‘I need to say hi to…’ Plus + (Adding positive comment), ‘It was a pleasure meeting you. Bye.’ (p. 59) To be sure, Schloff & Yudkin caution that the words ‘Sixty-Second Strategies’ does not mean timing

their book with a stopwatch, but that it implies solutions which can be read and applied quickly. They

suggest that whatever the readers’ profession, background, or level of experience, this book is for them if

they like to be confident and effective communicators. It is written so that one can ‘dive in’ anywhere and

find quick help for his/her urgent communication problem.

In their handbook for ESL teachers, Baker & Westrup (2003) maintain that throughout the world, and

especially in developing countries, there is need for people who speak English well. In many countries,

college education is carried out in English. Employees fluent in English are in high demand. As such, it is

important for students to learn to speak English well, and for teachers to know how to teach speaking

skills well. The authors point out that most teachers are good at teaching vocabulary and grammar.

However, organizing lessons to practice speaking English is a big challenge for teachers. The handbook

contains many practical activities to help teachers improve their students’ fluency skills. According to

Baker & Westrup, their book is particularly useful for those who teach large classrooms with very few

resources. The activities are suited to both new and experienced teachers, and can be used for young and

adult learners. An example in point is the comprehensive section on practicing lexical phrases. One of the

Fluency

26

activities teaches ESL learners how to fluently return to the topic. The teacher first presents the phrases

needed, e.g. ‘in any case,’ ‘anyway,…,’ ‘where was I?’, ‘to get back to what I was saying…,’ etc. (p. 84).

Then, a student is picked up by the teacher. The student chooses a topic and starts talking, while the other

students try to interrupt as much as possible. The student who is being interrupted will thus have many

chances to practice using the pre-fabricated phrases for returning to the topic.

A Few Concluding Words

From what has been said, it is evident that more work and patience are needed in order to build viable

and strong fluency-based oral skills courses. For the long term success of these courses, existing

knowledge about fluency-development methodologies must be integrated into all elements of a language

teaching program. Research is also needed on the efficacy of some of the pedagogical techniques used to

promote oral fluency. It is essential to ask questions about whether or not the elements of repetition,

practice, participating in speaking activities, attention to temporal variables, interaction, using pair-taping,

and utilization of formulaic language units can lead to transfer of abilities and skills outside of the

classroom context. Some researchers point out that teaching fluency is different from teaching other

aspects of language. As Brown (2003) points out, in teaching fluency, we must be willing to down-grade,

or let go of, some of the controls in our classrooms. L2 teachers should be willing to let learners have

some say, authority, and responsibility over the oral work being carried out. We must set up exercises and

situations in which fluency can develop and flourish, encouraging learners to orally communicate in a

positive and enriching environment inside and outside the classroom. Such changes will obviously not

take place over night, especially in many countries where the teacher – centered approach dominates

classroom instruction. However, this I believe, is no excuse for not at least testing some of the

suggestions which have just been proposed. As ESL teachers, we have an obligation to help our students

to reach their fullest potential when speaking in English. This can hopefully be achieved when we offer

them the full range of communicative language tools and strategies along with sufficient language input

and speech-promotion activities.

Fluency

27

References

Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential Speaking Skills: A Handbook for English Language

Teachers. London: Continuum.

Bresnihan, B., & Stoops, B. (1996, July - September). Three Ways That Work! Oral Fluency Practice in

the EFL Classroom [Electronic version]. English Teaching Forum, 34 (3), 30.

Brown, J. (2003). Promoting fluency in EFL classrooms. Paper presented at the JALT Pan-SIG

Conference Proceedings. Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http:// www.jalt.org/pansig/2003/

HTML/Brown.htm

Brown, S. & Nation, P. (1997, January). Teaching Speaking: Suggestions for the Classroom. The

Language Teacher. Retrieved November 8, 2004, from http://jalt-publications .org/tlt/files/97/jan/

speaking.html

Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H. & Boves, L. (2000). Quantitative Assessment of Second Language Learners'

Fluency By Means Of Automatic Speech Recognition Technology [Electronic version]. Journal of

the Acoustical Society of America, 107 (2), 989-999.

Derwing, T., Rossiter, M. Munro, M. & Thomson, R. (2004, December). Second Language Fluency:

Judgments On Different Tasks [Electronic version]. Language Learning, 54 (4), 655–679.

Fayer, J. & Krasinski, E. (1995, May - August). Perception of Hesitation in Nonnative Speech

[Electronic version]. Bilingual Review, 20 (2), 114-121.

Fillmore, C. (1979). On fluency. In C. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. Wang (Eds.), Individual Differences

in Language Ability and Language Behavior (pp. 85–101). New York: Academic Press.

Huges, E. (1993, April). Tape Journals in the Oral Skills Class [Electronic version]. Adventures in

Assessment, 4.

Fluency

28

Kam-yin, W. (1993, July - September). Teaching Time-Creating Devices in Spontaneous Speech: A

Focused-Learning Approach [Electronic version]. English Teaching Forum, 31 (3), 33.

Kavaliauskiene, G., & Janulevieiene, V. (2001, March). Using the Lexical Approach for the Acquisition

of ESP Vocabulary. The Internet TESL Journal, VII (3). Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://

iteslj.org/Articles/Kavaliauskiene-LA.html

Kluge, D. & Taylor, M. (2000, February). Boosting Speaking Fluency Through Partner Taping. The

Internet TESL Journal, VI (2). Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/

Kluge- PartnerTaping.html

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1998, June). The Effects of Speaking Rate on Listener Evaluations of

Native and Foreign-Accented Speech [Electronic version]. Language Learning, 48 (2), 159 - 182.

Myles, F., Hooper, J. & Mitchell, R. (1998, September). Rote or Rule? Exploring the Role of Formulaic

Language in Classroom Foreign Language Learning [Electronic version]. Language Learning, 48 (3),

323-364.

Nation, P. (1991, October). Fluency and Learning [Electronic version]. The English Teacher, XX.

Nation, P. (2003, June). The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning. Asian-EFL-

Journal. Retrieved November 6, 2004, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/june2003.subpn.htm

New TOEFL Version Aims to Improve Students’ Oral Fluency. (2003, April 22). Daily Yomiuri.

Retrieved November 6, 2004, from InfoTrac database.

Porter, P., & Grant, M. (1992). Communicating Effectively in English: Oral Communication for Non-

Native Speakers. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Porto, M. (1998, July - September). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching [Electronic version].

English Teaching Forum, 36 (3), 22.

Fluency

29

Qi, Y., (2003, March). A Practical and Effective Way to Enhance the ESL Students’ Oral Competence.

The Internet TESL Journal, IX (3). Retrieved November 7, 2004, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/

Qi-OralCompetence.html

Schloff, L., & Yudkin, M. (1991). Smart Speaking: Sixty-Second Strategies. New York: Henry Holt and

Company.

Schneider, P. (1997, February). Using Pair Taping. The Internet TESL Journal, III (2). Retrieved

November 10, 2004, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Schneider-PairTaping.html

Schneider, P. (2001, September). Pair taping: Increasing Motivation and Achievement With a Fluency

Practice. TESL-EJ, 5 (2). Retrieved November 6, 2004, from http:// www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-

EJ/ej18/a2.html

Tam, M. (1997, January - March). Building Fluency: A Course for Non-native Speakers of English

[Electronic version]. English Teaching Forum, 35 (1), 26.

Turk, C. (1992). Effective Speaking: Communicating in Speech. London: Chapman & Hall.

Voller, P., & Widdows, S. (1989). Chatterbox: A Conversation Text of Fluency Activities For

Intermediate Students (Teacher’s Manual). New York: Collier Macmillan.

Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Wood, D. (2001, June). In Search of Fluency: What Is It and How Can We Teach It? [Electronic

version]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (4), 573-589.

Wood, D. (2004). An Empirical Investigation into the Facilitating Role of Automatized Lexical Phrases

in Second Language Fluency Development [Electronic version]. Journal of Language and Learning,

2 (1).