A Summary and Critical Review: Exploring

measures and perception of fluency in the speech

of second language learners
Nurhadi Hamka
U5880202

A. Summary
The objective of the study conducted by Kormos and Dnes (2004)
entitled exploring measures and perception of fluency in the speech of
second language learners is to explore the linguistics and temporal
variables that predict native and non-native speaking teachers perception
of fluency and distinguish fluent from non-fluent L2 learners (pp. 146147). The study sampled 16 Hungarian L2 learners that were recruited
from two different levels of proficiency (advanced and low-intermediate).
These two group were asked to choose one out of three sets of cartoon
that consisted 6-10 pictures in logical order. While telling the narrative
story based on the picture they have chosen in advance, the participants
were recorded and the recordings were transcribed with the help of
application called Transcriber (p. 151). The raters of the participants
fluency were also divided into two different groups (i.e., native and nonnative English speaker). The linguistics variables examined in the study
were accuracy, lexical diversity, and productivity (p. 147), while the ten
temporal variables explored farther by Kormos and Dnes (2004) were; 1)
speech rate (Riggenbach, 1991), 2) articulation rate (Riggenbach, 1991),
3) phonation-time ratio (Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996), 4) mean
length of runs (Towell et al., 1996), 5) the number of silent pauses per
minute (Riggenbach, 1991), 6) the mean length of pauses, 7) the number
of filled pauses per minute, 8) the number of disfluencies per minute, 9)
pace (Vanderplank, 1993), and 10) space (Vanderplank, 1993) (pp. 151152). The study found that regarding all the native and non-native judges,
there were four temporal variables that were concluded as best predictors
of fluency scores, i.e., speech rate, the mean length of utterance,
phonation time ratio, and pace (pp. 154, 158). Interestingly, the assessors
have different perception as they have different opinion about how much
importance accuracy, lexical diversity, and the mean length of pauses
towards fluency. Finally, this study also concluded that filled and unfilled
pauses and other disfluencies were not found to influence the fluencys
perception (p. 156).

B. Critical Review
My first concern goes to the research methodology. This study used
mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) which provided a better
understanding about the particular issue that was talking about (Creswell
& Clark, 2007). The research was a case study that involved small scale
participants (16 Hungarian L2 learners) so that it is difficult to apply the
findings generally. However, the study is much better regarding the
population as Kormos and Dnes (2004) have explained that the study

had more participants compare to most previous research (p. 147).

Mackey and Gass (2012) argued that having small participants is not
always bad. Compare to a huge group of people, small participants often
give more information due to the availability of the researcher to observe
in details the objects behaviors, performance, or their perspective on
specific things. Therefore, it is a good consideration of combining
qualitative and quantitative methodology on this study so that it can
provide clearer understanding of phenomenon.
My next concern is about the consideration of choosing participants
and raters. Firstly, the selection of the participants. Kormos and Dnes
(2004) have delineated in the study that there were two groups involved
in their research. The main distinct between groups that they took into
consideration is the advanced one have spent a half to one year in an
English speaking country while none of the low-intermediate students
have such experience but at least they had learnt English at the
secondary school (p. 150). Unfortunately, this information and a careful
selection of the participants (one has been exposed to English speaking
country and another is not) was not further delineated that whether any
correlation between experienced and non-experienced to one of fluencys
variables particularly lexical diversity or not. Moreover, Kormos and Dnes
(2004) also failed to explain separately (or specifically explained) the
result of each group which makes the information of the participants less
crucial to be included. Secondly, it is about the judges. The three nonnative raters were Experienced-Hungarian university teachers in applied
linguistics and 10 years in language testing. The other three judges
(native English speakers) speak in different accents, i.e. standard British,
standard American, and non-standard British with a slight Scottish accent.
The British English speaker judges have experienced in language
pedagogy and language testing of at least 10 years and the American
raters experience only a few years in teaching and limited in language
testing (p. 150). In this consideration, Kormos and Dnes (2004) failed to
provide reasons on why three non-native and three native speakers as
raters were involved unless their job as teachers. However, albeit the
dearth of the reasons, the researchers succeed to explain the benefit of
having native and non-native raters so that they can compare the
judgment between raters over the variables.
My next concern about the study is that Kormos and Dnes (2004)
have fulfilled the ethics of the research as they mentioned that all
participants (students and raters) were informed of the objective of the
study before they got involved (p. 150). In addition, the researcher also
coded the participants to keep their privacy save.

C. Recommendation
After scanning and skimming through the researchs references, I
recommend to accept this study as it is. The objective was clear and the
findings were fit with the phenomenon that the study tried to answer.
Albeit some information on the methodology did not clearly correlated
further on the discussion, however, the information provided is quite
details so that it is easy to be followed and understood. Finally, as it has

been delineated in advance, this research will benefit both to language

pedagogy regarding to how to teach speaking especially for L2 learner so
that the learner can speak/sounded fluently, and more importantly to
language testing as regards assessing fluency speaking L2 learners.

References:
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research. 2nd Edition.
Kormos, J., & Dnes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of
fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2),
145-164.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Research methods in second language
acquisition a practical guide (1st ed.). Chichester, West Sussex ;
Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A
microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse
processes, 14(4), 423-441.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency
in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84-119.
Vanderplank, R. (1993). Pacingand spacingas predictors of difficulty in
speaking and understanding English. ELT Journal, 47(2), 117-125.