Applied Linguistics 29/3: 359–380 ß Oxford University Press 2007

doi:10.1093/applin/amm041

A Longitudinal Study of ESL Learners’

Fluency and Comprehensibility

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

Development
1
TRACEY M. DERWING, 2MURRAY J. MUNRO, and 1RON I.
THOMSON
1
University of Alberta and 2Simon Fraser University

This longitudinal mixed-methods study compared the oral fluency of

well-educated adult immigrants from Mandarin and Slavic language back-
grounds (16 per group) enrolled in introductory English as a second language
(ESL) classes. Speech samples were collected over a 2-year period, together with
estimates of weekly English use. We also conducted interviews at the last data
collection session. The participants’ fluency and comprehensibility at three
points over 22 months were judged by 33 native speakers of English. We
examine the learners’ progress in light of their exposure to English outside of
their ESL class. The Slavic language speakers showed a small but significant
improvement in both fluency and comprehensibility, whereas the Mandarin
speakers’ performance did not change over 2 years, although both groups started
at the same level of oral proficiency. These differences may be attributable in
part to degree of exposure to English outside the ESL courses. Neither group had
extensive exposure outside of their classes because of employment and familial
responsibilities (although the Slavic language speakers reported more opportu-
nities). Thus both groups may have been disadvantaged by a lack of oral fluency
instruction. The findings, both quantitative and qualitative, are interpreted
using the Willingness to Communicate framework; we also discuss implications
for the language classroom.

To our knowledge, there are no systematic longitudinal studies of adult

immigrants’ development of oral fluency in their second language (L2)
environment. In fact, Ortega and Iberri-Shea’s (2005) review of second
language acquisition (SLA) research noted the paucity of longitudinal studies in
general and argued for increased and better-designed long-term investigations
of L2 development. Despite the utility of cross-sectional research to identify
broad patterns in SLA, following a cohort of learners over time can lead to
a greater understanding of their progress. Ortega and Iberri-Shea observed that
few longitudinal studies involve adults in non-university contexts, most have
small sample sizes, and few include non-linguistic variables. The current study
responds to these issues by investigating developmental aspects of adult
immigrant ESL learners’ speech production, taking into account exposure to
English outside the classroom. We focus on comprehensibility and oral fluency,
two important aspects of communicative success.
360 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

COMPREHENSIBILITY
We define comprehensibility as the ease or difficulty with which a listener
understands L2 accented speech. Numerous studies have shown that

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

assessing this aspect of speech via a Likert rating scale yields reliable ratings
that correlate well with intelligibility and processing time (Munro and
Derwing 1995a, 1995b; Derwing and Munro 1997; Derwing et al. 1998).
Because they reflect the perceptions of ordinary listeners, comprehensibility
ratings are useful for tracing L2 learners’ progress and in assessing the effects
of pedagogical interventions. A perceived improvement in an L2 learner’s
comprehensibility in a randomized listening task must be attributable to
an improvement in the speaker’s performance.

FLUENCY
Oral fluency, interpreted here as an automatic procedural skill on the part of
the speaker (Schmidt 1992) and a perceptual phenomenon in the listener,
has been investigated from a number of perspectives: the characteristics
of fluent and dysfluent L2 speech (Lennon 1990, 2000; Riggenbach 1991,
2000; Wennerstrom 2001); the effects of planning (e.g. Foster and Skehan
1996; Wigglesworth 1997; Ortega 1999; Yuan and Ellis 2003); self-
monitoring (Kormos 1999); neurobiological factors (Dewaele 2002); and
task type (Bygate 1996; Skehan and Foster 1999; Derwing et al. 2004). In
addition, there has been considerable research on the effects of a study-
abroad experience on fluency (Lennon 1990; Freed 1995; Towell et al. 1996;
Segalowitz and Freed 2004; Towell and Dewaele 2005). Generally, fluency
improves with greater opportunities to interact in the L2 outside of the
classroom. However, most study-abroad research has involved a relatively
narrow population comprising young university students who have self-
selected to take language courses. Like comprehensibility, fluency, or
automaticity of production, is a vital aspect of successful communication.
Filled pauses, excessive pausing, pausing in inappropriate places, false starts,
and a slow speaking rate can all affect the listener negatively (Derwing and
Munro 2001; Munro and Derwing 2001). Fluency problems can also be
exasperating for L2 speakers; it is thus important for L2 learners to develop
oral fluency skills early in L2 acquisition.

WILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE
As important as comprehensibility and fluency are, L2 learners’ willingness
to communicate (WTC) is also an essential prerequisite for successful
interactions, particularly in the case of people who live and work in the L2
environment (MacIntyre et al. 1998). Originally conceptualized for the L1,
WTC refers to the ‘probability of engaging in communication when free to
choose to do so’ (p. 546). WTC in the L2 is highly complex as shown in the
 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON 361

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

Figure 1: Willingness to communicate pyramid
Reprinted with permission from Blackwell Publishing from MacIntyre et al.
(1998: 547)

multi-layered heuristic model posited by MacIntyre et al. (1998) that

incorporates situational, motivational, attitudinal, social, and cognitive
influences (see Figure 1). Because of the intricacies of the model, we
cannot recapitulate all aspects here; for an in-depth description, see
MacIntyre et al. (1998) and McCroskey and Richmond (1991). In this
study we examine the outcomes of a longitudinal investigation of
comprehensibility and fluency development in light of this model, with
particular emphasis on exposure to English outside the ESL classroom.

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT

We chose two groups of adult L2 learners who entered Canada through the
skilled workers programme, which is intended for immigrant doctors, scientists,
engineers, and other professionals. The Canadian government provides
language learning opportunities to those who have limited or no English on
arrival; consequently, ESL classes accommodate people from a wide variety of
backgrounds. Two regions of the world that are well represented are Mainland
China (PRC) and the former Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, even after completing their ESL training, many of these
skilled workers are unable to re-enter their own fields, or have difficulty
communicating with co-workers if they do find employment (Krahn et al.
2000). One obstacle they face is an unwillingness on the part of Canadian
362 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

professional bodies and employers to recognize foreign credentials (Li 2001;

Reitz 2001), but even if immigrants requalify at Canadian institutions, they
are often blocked from obtaining employment because they have no

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

Canadian work experience (Canadian Coalition of Community Based
Employability Training 2005). This problem is thought to be related, at
least in part, to newcomers’ oral communication skills. For these reasons we
examined the fluency and comprehensibility of two groups of immigrants
over the course of their first 2 years in Canada to determine if there are ways
of enhancing their communicative effectiveness.
The two participant groups were chosen according to several parameters.
First, this study is part of a larger project in which we are tracing ESL
students’ phonological development longitudinally. We deliberately selected
two typologically distinct languages to determine whether the students share
developmental characteristics that are intrinsic to English. Second, both
Chinese and Slavic peoples have a long history of immigration to Canada and
both continue to populate ESL programmes in significant numbers. We chose
one group of Caucasian background and one visible minority1 group for
comparison purposes. Although both groups experienced discrimination in
the late 1800s and the early 1900s, Chinese people were not treated
equitably in Canadian law until the 1960s, and were thus obliged to rely on
their own community for support. Racial discrimination still exists in Canada
(Pendakur and Pendakur 1998) and may have an impact on language
acquisition. Although Ukrainians suffered blatant discrimination on arrival,
subsequent generations tended to be treated better and were integrated into
the mainstream (although subtle forms of discrimination persisted for a long
time). Current immigrants from the PRC and the former Soviet Union are
well educated, and, although most have studied English in their countries of
origin, the majority of these newcomers had extremely limited exposure to
spoken English prior to their arrival in Canada.
The participants were all residents of Edmonton (population 1,000,000),
a cosmopolitan but primarily monolingual city with sizeable communities
of Chinese and Slavic language speakers, among many other ethnocultural
groups. In Schumann’s (1976) terms, the Chinese exhibit more social
distance than the Slavic language speakers from the rest of Canadian society
because of their greater cohesiveness, a tendency towards greater enclosure,
and less cultural congruence. Immigrants to Edmonton most often cite
a strong economy, family and friends, educational opportunities, and quality
of life as the factors that attracted them (Derwing and Krahn in press).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1 How do comprehensibility and fluency in the English productions of

beginner Mandarin language speakers (MAS) and Russian and Ukrainian
(Slavic) language speakers (SLS) develop over a period of 2 years?
 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON 363

2 How are judgements of comprehensibility and fluency related to learners’

exposure to English outside the ESL classroom?
3 What are English L2 learners’ reactions to their English learning

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

experiences in terms of difficulties, L2 use, and utility of their classes?

METHOD
Our mixed-methods longitudinal design comprised quantitative evaluations
of the L2 learners’ comprehensibility and fluency, and qualitative interviews
to probe learners’ English learning experiences.

English L2 learners
The learners were sixteen high beginner MAS ESL students (six men and ten
women) from 27 to 42 years of age (M ¼ 34.4years) and sixteen high
beginner SLS ESL students (eight men and eight women), from 19 to 49
years of age (M ¼ 38.6years). The SLS group consisted of fifteen Russian
speakers and one speaker of Ukrainian. These two languages are very similar
in terms of grammar, phonology, and lexis, and are mutually intelligible.
Furthermore, Russians and Ukrainians shared many experiences under the
Soviet Union.
Once they arrived in Canada, the students’ proficiency was tested with the
Canadian Language Benchmarks assessment tool (Centre for Canadian
Language Benchmarks 2006). All were in Stage 1 of the Canadian Language
Benchmarks, and all were enrolled in full-time beginner ESL classes at the
outset of the study. In total, data were collected seven times over the course
of 2 years. The first six data collection points were at approximately 2-month
intervals, while the seventh and final collection date was a year after the
sixth. For the purposes of this paper, we chose to use the data collection
points from Time 2 (T2), Time 6 (T6) 8 months later, and Time 7 (T7), a year
after T6. The picture narratives given to the speakers at these three times
were identical; furthermore, since the same narrative had been used at Time
1, the speakers were familiar with the task. We realize that this raises the
potential problem of practice effects in our data; however, the drawbacks of
using the same task repeatedly were outweighed by the importance of
obtaining comparable speech samples at each testing session. In an earlier
study, comparisons were made of a larger set of these same speakers at Times
1 and 2 (Derwing et al. 2006). There were no significant between-group
differences in fluency at T2 (although the MAS appeared to have a fluency
advantage at Time 1); for this reason, T2 seemed to be the best starting point
for the current comparisons. At that point, the students had completed
between 3 and 5 months of ESL study. Some of the participants had been in
Canada for up to 3 months before beginning ESL classes, but reported little or
no contact with native speakers during that period. The MAS indicated that
they had studied English as a foreign language (EFL) in China for between 1
364 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

and 20 years (M ¼ 6.94years). The SLS had had EFL instruction for
between 2 and 13 years (M ¼ 5.7years); however, in all cases, members of
both groups had very little experience with listening and speaking in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

English before emigrating. The participants had completed postsecondary
education in their countries of origin. All speakers passed a pure-tone
hearing screen.
The learners in this study are a subset of participants in Derwing et al.
(2006). Of the original twenty MAS, only sixteen were able to participate
in the seventh round of data collection. (Two returned to China and one had
health issues. The fourth could not be located.) Nineteen of the original
twenty SLS were still available. To equalize sample sizes, we removed three
learners from the SLS group by matching the groups for time in Canada,
keeping the range and time from the initial data collection point as close
as possible.

Speaking tasks
The ESL participants narrated the same story in English from a set of pictures
at each of the three data collection points. The pictures were of a man and a
woman who collided on a busy street corner in a large city. They fell to the
ground, dropping their identical green suitcases in the process. After standing
up and apologizing, they each picked up a suitcase and went on their
respective ways. Finally, upon opening their luggage, they discovered that
they had mistakenly switched bags. In each session the speakers were given a
few minutes to familiarize themselves with the pictures and to ask questions.
Recordings of the learners’ narratives were made using high quality digital
recording equipment in a quiet room.

Reported exposure to English

Before each recording session, participants answered a series of questions
about their exposure to English outside the classroom. They estimated their
daily use of English language radio and television on a scale of ‘less than one
hour’, ‘one hour’, ‘two hours’, ‘three hours’, ‘or ‘more than three hours’. They
also estimated how often they interacted with others in English (with both
NS and NNS interlocutors) for more than 10 minutes. This scale ranged
from ‘never’, ‘one to three times a week’, ‘four to six times a week’, ‘once a day’,
to ‘several times a day’. Ten minutes was set as the minimum unit
of conversation to exclude superficial, routinized daily interactions
(e.g. greetings, shopping).

Learners’ reactions to their experiences in English

At Time 7, the learners participated in individual interviews ranging from
30 to 60 minutes. The interviewer (one of the authors) asked a series
 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON 365

of prepared questions, but invited the participants to respond in an open-

ended fashion. Those questions that are of relevance to the findings reported
here appear in the Appendix. The interviews were recorded for later

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

transcription in standard orthography.

Stimulus preparation
For presentation to the listeners, 20-second excerpts were taken from the
beginning of each production, eliminating sample-initial false starts or
hesitations. Speakers sometimes employ dysfluencies in turn beginnings as
interactional strategies (Carroll 2004); however, our listeners could not see
the speakers face-to-face and heard these narratives as a single turn, and thus
might have been unduly influenced by initial dysfluencies. Samples from the
beginning of the narrative ensured that content was held relatively constant
across speakers and times. The ninety-six 20-second samples (32 speakers
3
times) were randomized. An additional three native speaker samples were
added to the stimulus set to verify that raters stayed in step during the rating
task. Three different randomizations were recorded onto separate CDs for
presentation to the listeners.

Raters
A total of thirty-three native-speaking English listeners (six males and
twenty-seven females; age range 20–48 years, M ¼ 30 years) were recruited
to evaluate the fluency and comprehensibility of the L2 speakers using
7-point Likert scales. Fourteen raters were assigned to randomization 1, ten
to randomization 2, and nine to randomization 3. All of the raters were
students enrolled in courses in the Faculty of Education at the University of
Alberta. None had studied Mandarin, but one person reported having studied
Ukrainian, although she indicated that she was not at all proficient. Twelve
listeners said that they had some familiarity with Slavic or Mandarin accents,
although none of the participants declared a high degree of familiarity.
All the listeners reported normal hearing.

Rating task
The listeners completed the rating task in small groups. Two 7-point scales
were used, one for fluency (1 ¼ extremely fluent, 7 ¼ extremely dysfluent) and
one for comprehensibility (1 ¼ very easy to understand, 7 ¼ extremely difficult to
understand). Before the task began, we briefly explained that fluency
judgements should be based on factors such as speech rate, filled pauses
such as ums and uhs, self-corrections, and silent pauses, as well as the overall
flow of speech, and that grammar and vocabulary should not be taken into
consideration. This explanation was made to ensure that raters did not
confuse ‘fluency’ with ‘proficiency’, a common connotation of this term
366 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

(Derwing et al. 2006). To make comprehensibility judgements, the raters

were asked to indicate how easy or difficult the speech samples were to
understand. In previous studies, we have found that such instructions are

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

sufficient and result in reliable ratings (e.g. Derwing and Munro 1997;
Derwing et al. 2004; Munro et al. 2006).
To minimize the effect of content familiarity on listeners’ judgements,
raters were shown the pictures used to elicit the narrative. Three practice
items were presented before the main rating task to demonstrate the range of
productions. The raters then heard all ninety-six NNS samples and the three
NS samples. The entire task took approximately 1 hour, with a mandatory
break at the mid-point to reduce fatigue.

RESULTS
The ratings of the NS samples, which consistently showed high
comprehensibility and a high level of fluency, indicated that none of the
listeners lost their place during the task; these ratings were subsequently
removed from the data set. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for the NNS
were .95 for comprehensibility and .97 for the fluency ratings.
Having established strong inter-rater reliability, we pooled mean
comprehensibility and fluency ratings over all raters to derive means for
each learner as well as for each group of learners. As can be seen from
Figures 2 and 3, the MAS and SLS groups’ mean scores at 2 months were
nearly identical on both scales. However, over time, the two groups appear to
diverge.
Mean ratings for each learner on each scale were submitted to two
separate mixed-design ANOVAs, one to evaluate changes in comprehensi-
bility ratings over time and another to assess changes in fluency ratings.
7
Mandarin
7=Extremely difficult to understand

6 Slavic
1=Very easy to understand

1
Two months Ten months Two years

Figure 2: Comprehensibility ratings for MAS and SLS at Times 2, 6, and 7

 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON 367

7
Mandarin
6 Slavic

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

1=Extremely Fluent
7 = Extremely 5

1
Two months Ten months Two years

Figure 3: Fluency ratings for MAS and SLS at Times 2, 6, and 7

First language (L1) was the between-groups factor and Time (3 levels) was
the within-groups factor.
For comprehensibility ratings, the effect of L1 was significant,
F(1, 30) ¼ 4.69, p ¼ .038, partial 2 ¼ .135, as was the effect of Time
F(2, 60) ¼ 13.02, p 5 .001, partial 2 ¼ .303. and the L1
Time interaction,
F(2, 60) ¼ 6.19, p 5 .001, partial 2 ¼ .171.
The ANOVA for mean fluency ratings also revealed significant effects of L1,
F(1, 30) ¼ 5.29, p ¼ .029, partial 2 ¼ .15, Time F(2, 60) ¼ 13.76, p 5 .001,
partial 2 ¼ .314, and the L1
Time interaction, F(2, 60) ¼ 3.98, p ¼ .024,
partial 2 ¼ .171.
Because of significant interaction effects, Bonferroni-adjusted t-tests were
used to evaluate within-group performance. There was no significant change
over time in comprehensibility for the MAS. However, for the SLS,
significant differences were found in mean comprehensibility ratings from T2
to T6 (Ms ¼ 4.19, 3.39; SDs ¼ .83, .60), t(15) ¼ 4.77, p 5 .001, and from T2 to
T7 t(15) ¼ 5.24, p 5 .001, but not from T6 to T7. No significant differences
were found in the fluency judgements of the MAS productions. Significant
differences were found in the fluency ratings of the SLS between T2 and
T6 (Ms ¼ 4.8, 4.15; SDs ¼ .96, .77), t(15) ¼ 3.19, p ¼ .006, and from T2 to
T7 (M ¼ 3.75; SD ¼ .81), t(15) ¼ 5.09, p 5 .001, but not from T6 to T7.
In summary, there was no indication of improvement over time for the MAS
in either comprehensibility or fluency. The SLS, however, improved
somewhat on both dimensions.

Effects of exposure on L2 comprehensibility and fluency

At each of the three reporting periods, the participants indicated the
frequency of interactions in English of 10 minutes or more with both native
368 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

96
88
Number of responses (n=96) 80
72

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

64
56
48
40
32
24
16
8
0
never

1-3
times/week

4-6
times/week

once a day

several
times/day

never

1-3
times/week

4-6
times/week

once a day

several
times/day
Mandarin Slavic

Figure 4: Interactions in English with native and non-native speakers of

10 minutes or more

and non-native speakers on the following scale: 1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ 1–3 times per
week, 3 ¼ 4–6 times per week, 4 ¼ once a day, and 5 ¼ several times a day.
These scores were pooled across times and submitted to non-parametric
Mann–Whitney U tests because of uneven distributions. They revealed that
the SLS interacted significantly more often than did the MAS with both
native speakers of English (U ¼ 691, p 5 .001) and non-native English
speakers (U ¼ 714, p ¼ .001). Because of the parallel findings for both kinds
of interlocutors, we pooled the responses regarding conversations with native
speaker and non-native speaker interlocutors in the histogram in Figure 4
to illustrate between-group differences.
At each recording session, the L2 learners reported the time they spent
listening to English talk radio and watching English television daily using a
scale of 1–5 (1 ¼ less than 1 hour, 2 ¼ 1 hour, 3 ¼ 2 hours, 4 ¼ 3 hours,
5 ¼ more than 3 hours). The MAS’s radio scores ranged from 1 to 5 across the
three times, while the SLS’s scores ranged from 1 to 4. Both groups’ scores
for television viewing ranged from 1 to 5. As can be seen in Figure 5, the SLS
listened to the radio significantly more often than the MAS (U ¼ 887,
p ¼ .027), but no significant between-group difference was found for time
watching television (U ¼ 901, p 4 .05).

Correlations between comprehensibility and fluency

To evaluate the relationship between the judgements of comprehensibility
and fluency, we computed Pearson r correlations across ratings for each
participant. Table 1 shows that the correlations were moderate to strong for
 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON 369

Number of responses within each language group

48

40

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

32
(n=48)

24

16

0
< 1 2 3 >3 < 1 2 3 >3
1 hour hour hours hours hours 1 hour hour hours hours hours

Mandarin Slavic

Figure 5: Time spent listening to English talk radio each day

Table 1: Correlations between comprehensibility and fluency ratings

Comprehensibility rating Fluency rating Pearson’s r
(n ¼ 32) (n ¼ 32)

T2 M ¼ 4.2 M ¼ 4.8 .872

Range ¼ 2.8–5.6 Range ¼ 2.9–6.5
T6 M ¼ 4.0 M ¼ 4.5 .791
Range ¼ 2.5–5.9 Range ¼ 3.1–6.0
T7 M ¼ 3.6 M ¼ 4.1 .791
Range ¼ 2.1–4.8 Range ¼ 2.4–5.2


p 5 .01, 2-tailed.
Comprehensibility scale: 1 ¼ very easy to understand; 7 ¼ very difficult to understand.
Fluency scale: 1 ¼ extremely fluent; 7 ¼ extremely dysfluent.

judgements of narrative productions at each time. In addition, it is clear that

fluency tended to be judged more harshly than comprehensibility.

Learners’ perceptions of opportunities to communicate in

English
As an adjunct to the quantitative analyses, we examined the participants’
final open-ended interview transcripts describing their daily opportunities
to communicate in English. In an examination of the role of interactions
370 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

with others, we applied the framework of MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) model

of variables influencing WTC. We focused on the lower three layers of the
model, which represent relatively stable aspects of the learners’ motivational

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

propensities, affective-cognitive contexts, and social and individual contexts.
Despite some variation across speakers, we observed shared elements in the
attitudes expressed within the SLS; similarly, members of the MAS exhibited
many commonalities.

Social and individual context

MacIntyre et al. (1998) point out that ‘certain groups may be more
homogeneous than others with respect to certain traits or profiles. As well,
groups may show different average or baseline levels of a given trait’ (1998:
558). Some evidence of this emerged in the current study. The SLS, for
example, were more likely to express an assertive stance than the MAS, and,
as a correlate, they appeared to have more outgoing personalities. The
following excerpt exemplifies the MAS’s reticence: ‘Some students are very
smart, they speak a lot. But, like me, maybe shy. Can’t to speak too much’
(MAS #11). SLS, although also concerned about speaking in English, more
frequently reported a need to initiate conversations, in spite of social anxiety:
‘I trained for this [small talk] very well during my salesperson practice, you
know, when you just really need to start conversation to sell something.
You just have to do it. That’s it’ (SLS #37).
Another relatively stable variable of MacIntyre et al.’ s (1998) model is
Intergroup Climate, in this instance, the relationship between the host
community and the two immigrant groups. Although none of the
respondents cited instances of blatant discrimination, a number of comments
from the MAS made reference to a lack of recognition of foreign credentials
and foreign work experience: ‘I just feel that the, like the, they don’t accept
the other country’s working experience, so that is, actually even we can do
that job’ (MAS #19); ‘I sent a lot of résumé. I called, I phoned many
company, ask if, do you have any opportunity to work? But I didn’t receive
the response’ (MAS #20). One MAS expressed a sense of being excluded
from classroom activities at an institution at which both Canadians and
immigrants studied: ‘When we do some project, the Canadia [sic] student
want to do the project in a group and even we want to join them, they
always have enough member in their group. So we have to together with
Chinese. So it’s difficult to merge into that’ (MAS #2).

Affective-cognitive context
The affective-cognitive context encompasses intergroup attitudes, social
situation, and L2 communicative competence. The latter clearly affects
success in L2 interaction. The difference in the two groups’ ratings
could be attributable to the greater typological distance of Mandarin
 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON 371

from English. ‘I don’t have enough words, so I cannot read the news-
paper and watch TV. And sometimes for me, the pronunciation . . .
I cannot understand’ (MAS #15). While participants from both groups

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

commented extensively on the difficulties inherent in learning English and
on their own limitations, statements from the SLS often reflected a more
optimistic perspective, such as the following: ‘Now I have basic English, not
high level, but I can speak. But I can speak, and I’m sure that I would be
understood anyway’ (SLS #38). Some SLS also seemed to resolve to seek out
feedback to overcome their communicative limitations, as the following
excerpt illustrates: ‘I was working for one woman, Canadian . . . . And after
she told me, ‘‘I don’t understand, you are rude, or just because of your bad
English?’’ I told her, ‘‘What I did wrong?’’ She told me like your tone of
your voice . . . I start thinking, try to get some information about this . . .
I asked her, ‘‘What do you want?’’ and tone of my voice, and she told me . . .’
(SLS #29).
In MacIntyre et al.’s framework, social situation entails factors such as the
nature of the participants’ relationship to each other, the setting, the purpose
of the exchange, the topic, and the medium of communication. As the
following comments illustrate, a striking difference emerged between the
two immigrant groups with regard to topics of discussion with Canadians:
‘Sometimes I have a chance to talk with Canadian people but the topic they
interested in are not the same with us. Just like they talk about some sports.
I don’t know—I know nothing about that’ (MAS #2); ‘I like hockey, so we
talk, discuss, like NHL [National Hockey League] problems. This year I was
cheering for Calgary and last year I supported Anaheim Mighty Ducks
because there is a player there from Belarus. I know that a lot of people here
in Edmonton, they were supporting Lightning [referring to a team from
the US who were in the finals with Calgary] because they hate Calgary.
It’s tradition’ (SLS #31).
Another feature of the affective-cognitive context layer of the WTC model
is intergroup attitudes. A defining opposition within this category is
integrativeness versus fear of assimilation: ‘At home I am not really use
too much English, because at home, I want to speak Chinese. For many
reasons, I just want to my kids to keep to speaking Chinese. To keep our
heritage—Chinese heritage’ (MAS #6). The same individual reported that she
rarely watched English language TV and did not often speak to Canadians
because of a lack of comfort doing so. Some SLS also expressed a desire for
their children to maintain their L1, but they also demonstrated more
evidence of association with English speakers. For example: ‘At home we are
still talking in Russian because of our children. I don’t want they forgot
Russian’ (SLS # 38). This individual also reported that she visits with her
Canadian neighbours and that she makes a rule of watching English
language TV; she also reported consulting with her daughter about the
meaning of slang expressions in English.
372 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

Motivational propensities
One of the categories in the motivation layer of the WTC model is L2 self-
confidence. Again we noted some differences between the two groups, where

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

the SLS appeared to have more confidence in their ability to talk with native
speakers: ‘You have to break this barrier in your head. You have to
understand that people are nice, they are friendly, they really want to talk to
you and they just don’t care about any mistakes you are doing when you
speak to them’ (SLS #37). Compare this with a MAS who, when asked about
making small talk with people outside of work replied: ‘No, I don’t think
I can . . . . Because English is poor’ (MAS #1).
Another category in this layer of the model is interpersonal motivation.
Some of the SLS indicated that they were strongly motivated to talk to
others: ‘Actually, I talk with everybody. With clients a lot . . . usually I’m
trying to speak about, to talk about their life with them. But very often they
are asking questions about my background, about my life, what I am doing,
why I came Canada. They are very interesting in a new personal life too’
(SLS #39). Some of the MAS expressed a desire to interact with native
speakers but found it difficult to do so: ‘It’s not easy to find native speakers
to talk to. Yesterday, I talk to my husband. I said, ‘‘We should found the
opportunity to speak to native people.’’ My husband also say ‘‘It’s difficult.
Where can we found native people who can, who can talk with us?’’ ’
(MAS #20).
Our questions did not elicit many comments that could be related to the
WTC model’s more situationally-affected contexts, but we found evidence of
willingness to communicate and deliberate strategies to learn English more
often in the SLS: ‘I’m listen to radio every morning when I’m driving to
school. I force myself. I refuse totally of reading Russian books, even though
I can take, pick up any books in library. I totally deprive myself of Russian
movies, even I can take, there are a lot of Russian stores and I can take
any cassettes . . . . I started enjoy watching English movies, you know. I put
captures [captions] and even I’m reading, you know, but even I go to the
theatre, now I can understand at least 70%’ (SLS #29). This same individual
reported using English every day in conversations with friends and with
people at her part-time job. It was her belief that to learn a language one must
work at it through as many channels as possible. It is interesting to contrast
this woman’s behaviour with that of an MAS woman who indicated that:
‘In the past year, in this year, yeah, for almost one year, I just try to study by
myself for the TOEFL, and improving my TOEFL score, so I just pay attention
to study by myself. So less chance to talk with people’ (MAS #12).

DISCUSSION
We compared listeners’ assessments of oral comprehensibility and fluency in
this longitudinal study of speakers of Mandarin and East Slavic languages
 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON 373

who were learning English. Our first research question asked how these two
features of L2 speech changed over a period of 2 years. For both
comprehensibility and fluency, the SLS improved from T2 to T6 and T7,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

while the MAS showed no significant improvement over time. The SLS in
this study showed that these two dimensions can change as a result of
language experience over time; nevertheless, the change was small and
occurred only for the SLS, even though both groups were enrolled in the
same full-time L2 programmes during their first year in Canada. We did not
examine the curricular materials, nor did we make classroom observations,
but students from both groups reported that the primary focus in their ESL
classes was on reading, writing, and grammar skills, rather than on speaking
and listening. It is possible, therefore, that a lack of instruction focused
on fluency development can account for the limited change over time.
An informal examination of the participants’ productions at Times 2, 6, and
7 revealed that their use of vocabulary improved, as did the accuracy and
complexity of grammatical forms, but native listeners (who were cautioned
not to pay attention to lexis or syntax in their judgements) rated the MAS
similarly in both fluency and comprehensibility over time, whereas they
detected a change in the SLS productions on both variables. The conclusions
drawn here are based on ratings from thirty-three native listeners of English,
who heard the stimuli in a blind evaluation task. While some previous
studies have revealed biases against second language users’ speech (Bradac
1990), bias cannot explain the differential effects seen here, since the groups
were rated the same at T2 on both measures.
These data revealed no difference in fluency or comprehensibility scores
between Times 6 and 7. One possible explanation for this outcome is that the
learners had plateaued and that they will show no further improvement on
either of these dimensions over time. In fact, Trofimovich and Baker (2006)
found no effect of L2 experience on speaking rate in a cross-sectional study
of learners residing in the USA for 3 months, 3 years, and 10 years. However,
another possible interpretation of the data is that the rate of change among
these learners had slowed such that the timeframe of the study did not
permit us to see significant improvement. As Ortega and Iberri-Shea (2005)
observed, some developmental aspects of SLA may have to be examined over
much longer periods of time than others.
We also examined whether listeners’ judgements of the comprehensibility
and fluency of second language learners’ productions were related. Speakers
who were rated as more fluent were also judged to be easier to understand.
However, because this is simply a correlational analysis, we cannot conclude
that the SLS comprehensibility improved as a result of their increased
fluency.
Our quantitative analyses of students’ self-reported exposure to English
outside of class included frequency of conversations in English lasting more
than 10 minutes and television and radio usage. Modal frequencies of
conversations were larger for the SLS (several times a day) than for the MAS
374 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

(1–3 times a week). The SLS also reported significantly more exposure
to English talk radio than the MAS. We recognize the limitations of scalar
self-report as a means of assessing exposure, but the specific instances in the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

qualitative data derived from the interviews lend confirmation to the general
observation that the SLS did indeed use English more frequently than
the MAS.
The framework for willingness to communicate outlined in MacIntyre et al.
(1998) proved useful for characterizing the communicative behaviour of the
L2 participants in this study. The interview was not designed to probe
specifically for the six layers on the WTC pyramid, but the responses
to relatively open-ended questions readily lent themselves to this type of
analysis. We recognize that WTC on the part of second language learners is
not the only factor that affects opportunities to interact in English; members
of the host community play a large role in determining whether newcomers
will be able to access such opportunities. Although discrimination was not
addressed specifically by any of the participants in this study, we know from
other research that some members of visible minorities in Canada experience
prejudice (Pendakur and Pendakur 1998; Hum and Simpson 1999). Even
when Canadian-born individuals do not harbour negative attitudes towards
visible minority immigrants, they may lack confidence in their own ability
to interact successfully with L2 learners (Derwing et al. 2002) and thus avoid
conversations with newcomers. This lack of confidence may be tied to
perceptions of cultural and social distance (Schumann 1976), such that
people of European origin, like the SLS in this study, are viewed as being
more similar and thus easier to talk to than the MAS. A perception of shared
interests must exist on both sides. Not only are Canadians reluctant at
times to talk with newcomers, but L2 immigrants themselves may have
difficulty establishing connections because they have no successful small talk
strategies; engaging Canadians in conversation is perceived to be out of their
reach. As one MAS expressed it: ‘I don’t know how to start a relationship
with Canadian people. I don’t know because sometimes I think they are very
polite [we interpret ‘polite’ to mean ‘reserved’]. They don’t want to your,
talk too deep, too deeply to them. It’s hard for me. I don’t know. Because
maybe this is a culture different, sometimes on the surface, say, like, ‘‘How
are you? How are you doing?’’. . . I heard my friend say, she worked in an
office about more than half year, still they can’t talk deeply. Just maybe she
have a computer problem, they like to help her. I don’t know how to, what
kind of topic I can talk them’ (MAS #21). The problem experienced by some
of the participants is thus reminiscent of Norton and Toohey’s (2001) finding
that ‘proficiencies of the good language learners in our studies were bound
up not only in what they did individually but also in the possibilities their
various communities offered them’ (2001: 318).
An aspect of the intergroup climate not addressed here is the nature of the
existing ethnocultural communities in the city where the participants live.
As in most large cities in Canada, there is a strong, relatively cohesive
 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON 375

Chinese community in Edmonton. Li’s (2004) research on social capital

has shown that many new immigrants are incorporated into a strong L1
network on arrival, which is advantageous in the earliest stages of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

settlement, but which can also limit employment and other social
opportunities later. Although there is a fairly large community of Slavic
language speakers in Edmonton, it does not seem to be as tight-knit as the
Chinese community. The Russians in this study socialized with other
Russians, but they also reported a lot of contact with their Canadian
neighbours: ‘My wife and I, we are spoke every day with our neighbours,
very good people. With my neighbours, they actually said that we can ask
them about every, everything that we don’t know. For example, it could be
about some, about school for our children, about some utilities, some
question about our townhouse’ (SLS #35); ‘My church helps me very much.
I was lucky. I came to Anglican church, same Orthodox church, but it’s 99%
of like, real Canadian. So I talk to them, and I have a lot of friends among
them’ (SLS #29).

RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section we make recommendations for language programmes to
improve L2 learners’ comprehensibility and fluency development. Of course,
we realize that adult immigrant students must make many life-changing
adjustments to fulfil their potential in their new country, and we do not
advocate a unidirectional perspective on adjustment, even from a linguistic
standpoint. There is often a misapprehension that, in interactions between L2
speakers and native speakers, the L2 individual is entirely responsible for
communicative success. In fact, native speakers sometimes abdicate their
own responsibilities in such exchanges (Terrell 1990; Varonis and Gass 1982).
However, as Derwing et al. (2002) have shown, some native speakers, at
least, can be helped to see that they can play a greater role in ensuring
successful interactions. Post-secondary institutions and workplaces with
diverse populations should consider implementing not only anti-racism and
cross-cultural awareness programmes, but practical guidelines for enhancing
NS interlocutors’ ability to converse (and understand) second language users.
Current severe labour shortages, a low birth rate, and the looming
retirement of baby boomers in Canada ensure high rates of immigration long
into the future. The federal government views language instruction for adult
newcomers as a crucial component of their integration into Canadian society.
However, as this study has demonstrated, the instruction the participants
received appeared to do very little to enhance their oral fluency and
comprehensibility in ways that could be recognized by naive native speaking
listeners. There appears to be a relationship between the SLS’s greater
(although limited) success and their exposure to English outside the
classroom. Although we have not established a direct causal link in this
study, our findings support MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) suggestion that the
376 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

principal objective of the L2 language class should be to cultivate a

willingness to communicate. If learners are unable to initiate conversations
with co-workers, neighbours, or other potential interlocutors, the classroom

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

setting should provide them with support in (i) strategies for small talk;
(ii) background information on issues of topical interest; and (iii) motivation.
One of our MAS indicated that because she is not yet a Canadian citizen,
Canadian politics do not interest her. However, she regrets not having
Canadian friends because of her limited English. What she may not recognize
is that to create connections with others, some common ground is necessary,
and that the favourite Canadian pastime of complaining about politicians
may help serve that purpose. Unless an ESL programme is able to clarify for
her that her ultimate goal of making Canadian friends might be achieved
by learning something that does not seem relevant to her at the moment, she
may never identify topics that will bring her closer to her neighbours.
Another pedagogical implication of WTC is to motivate students to learn
the L2. Dörnyei (2001, 2003) offers practical suggestions for language
teachers that apply across diverse pedagogical contexts. Some students may
also benefit from Murphey and Arao’s (2001) proposal for ‘near peer role
modeling’ as a means of challenging unproductive beliefs about learning and
encouraging engagement in speaking activities. Without opportunities to
speak, learners lose the benefits of input, feedback, and reflection on their
own productions (see Swain and Lapkin 1995). In addition to ensuring that
students experience optimal conditions for instilling motivation, contact
activities with people outside the classroom could be utilized extensively.
For instance, some learners may wish to volunteer in an English-speaking
setting. When examining adult immigrant students’ volunteering experi-
ences, Dudley (2007) found that although many participants professed a
desire to meet English-speakers, and an interest in volunteering, very few
had actually arranged to do so on their own. Of those who had, only some
succeeded in improving their opportunities to access English conversations.
Dudley recommends that ESL programmes identify satisfactory opportunities
in the larger community and systematically place students in mutually
beneficial settings. Guidelines for both the receiving agency and the student
should be established, and the experiences should be carefully monitored
to prevent exploitation of students.
A further recommendation motivated by these findings is that ESL
programmes provide targeted instruction that includes tasks to enhance
different components of fluency (Nation 1989; Bygate 1996; Foster and
Skehan 1996; Guillot 1999; Bygate et al. 2001). The results of such previous
research suggest that the students in this study could have benefited from
the development of formulaic sequences, ease with paraphrase, appropriate
pause placement, and increased speaking rate, in addition to structured
encounters with English speakers (Derwing et al. 2004).
The comprehensibility of the MAS did not improve significantly over time,
yet this is a crucial aspect of language learning. Other studies have shown
 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON 377

that comprehensibility is related to particular accent features, such as stress

assignment (Hahn 2004) and other aspects of segments and prosody (Munro
and Derwing 1995a; Derwing and Munro 1997). It has been demonstrated

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

that comprehensibility can be significantly improved through appropriately-
focused pronunciation instruction (Derwing et al. 1998). Therefore, we
recommend that Canadian ESL programmes, many of which currently do not
offer pronunciation instruction, consider the comprehensibility needs of their
students (Breitkreutz et al. 2001). Other inner circle countries have limited
offerings in this area as well (Burgess and Spencer 2000; MacDonald 2002).
Finally, the ultimate goal of immigrant language programmes is to facilitate
integration such that newcomers can access all the opportunities that other
citizens enjoy. Clearly there are additional stakeholders who share this
responsibility, but language instruction is a crucial factor in the process.
Final version received June 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the participants of the study for their willingness to meet with us seven times; they
were very generous and candid in sharing their experiences. We appreciate the comments of
Marian Rossiter, Kim Noels, and the anonymous reviewers. We thank NorQuest and Metro
Colleges for their cooperation. The Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada funded
this research.

APPENDIX: RELEVANT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1 What has been the most difficult thing about adjusting to life in Canada?
2 Describe how you use English during a normal day.
3 What have been the most difficult things about learning English?
4 What are the easiest things about learning English?
5 Is it difficult to make small talk? (Why?, why not?)
6 What did you find most useful about your language classes? What was
the least useful?
7 Is there anything you think you missed in language classes?

NOTE
1 ‘Visible minority’ is a legal term in Canada referring to ‘persons, other than
aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.’
Employment Equity Act, 1995, c 44, retrieved 3 April 2006 from http://
laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-5.401/text.html

REFERENCES
Bradac, J. 1990. ‘Language attitudes and impression (eds): Handbook of Language and Social Psychology.
formation’ in H. Giles and W. P. Robinson Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 387–412.
378 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT
Breitkreutz, J., T. M. Derwing, and M. J.
Rossiter. 2001. ‘Pronunciation teaching prac-
tices in Canada,’ TESL Canada Journal 19/1:
51–61.
Burgess, J. and S. Spencer. 2000. ‘Phonology and
pronunciation in integrated language teaching
and teacher education,’ System 28/2: 191–215.
Bygate, M. 1996. ‘Effects of task recognition:
Appraising the developing language of learners,’
in J. and D. Willis (eds): Challenge and Change
in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann,
pp. 136–46.
Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. 2001.
Researching Pedagogical Tasks: Second Language
Learning, Teaching and Testing. New York: Long-
man.
Canadian Coalition of Community-Based
Employability Training. 2005. Pan-Canadian
Sector Council and Immigrant Dialogue: Barriers
Affecting the Integration of Non-regulated Occupation
Immigrants into the Canadian Labour Market.
Retrieved 11 July 2006 from http://www.
savie.qc.ca/ccocde/an/Recherche/Rapports/
DialogueFinalReportEn.pdf.
Carroll, D. 2004. ‘Restarts in novice turn begin-
nings: Disfluencies or interactional achieve-
ments?’ in R. Gardner and J. Wagner (eds):
Second Language Conversations. London: Conti-
nuum, pp. 201–20.
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks.
http://www.language.ca/display_page.asp?page_
id ¼ 217
Derwing, T. M. and H. Krahn. in press. ‘Attrac-
tion and retention of immigrants to second tier
cities,’ Journal of International Migration and Inte-
gration
Derwing, T. M. and M. J. Munro. 1997. ‘Accent,
comprehensibility and intelligibility: Evidence
from four L1s,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion 19/1: 1–16.
Derwing, T. M. and M. J. Munro. 2001. ‘What
speaking rates do nonnative listeners prefer?’
Applied Linguistics 22/3: 324–37.
Derwing, T. M., M. J. Munro, and G. E. Wiebe.
1998. ‘Evidence in favor of a broad framework
for pronunciation instruction,’ Language Learning
48/3: 393–410.
Derwing, T. M., M. J. Rossiter, and M. J. Munro.
2002. ‘Teaching native speakers to listen to
foreign-accented speech,’ Journal of Multilingual-
ism and Multicultural Development 23/4: 245–59.
Derwing, T. M., M. J. Rossiter, M. J. Munro, and
R. I. Thomson. 2004. ‘L2 fluency: Judgments
on different tasks,’ Language Learning 54/4:
655–79.
Derwing, T. M., R. I. Thomson, and M. J.
Munro. 2006. ‘English pronunciation and flu-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023
ency development in Mandarin and Slavic
speakers,’ System 34/2: 183–93.
Dewaele, J. M. 2002. ‘Individual differences in L2
fluency: The effect of neurobiological correlates,’
in V. Cook (ed.): Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, pp. 219–50.
Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Motivational Strategies in the
Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Dörnyei, Z. 2003. ‘Attitudes, orientations, and
motivations in language learning: Advances in
theory, research and applications,’ Language
Learning 53/s1: 3–32.
Dudley, L. 2007. ‘Connecting L2 learners to the
larger community,’ Canadian Modern Language
Review 63/4: 539–61.
Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1996. ‘The influence of
planning and task type on second language
performance,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion 18/3: 299–323.
Freed, B. F. 1995. ‘What makes us think that
students who study abroad become fluent?’
in B. F. Freed (ed.): Second Language Acquisition
in a Study-abroad Context. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 123–48.
Government of Canada. 1995. Employment
Equity Act, (1995), c 44, retrieved 3 April
2006 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-5.401/
text.html
Guillot, M.-N. 1999. Fluency and its Teaching.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hahn, L. D. 2004. ‘Primary stress and
intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching
of suprasegmentals,’ TESOL Quarterly 38/2:
201–23.
Hum, D. and W. Simpson. 1999. ‘Wage opportu-
nities for visible minorities in Canada,’ Canadian
Public Policy—Analyse de Politiques 25/3: 379–94.
Kormos, J. 1999. ‘The effect of speaker variables
on the self-correction behaviour of L2 learners,’
System 27/2: 207–21.
Krahn, H., T. M. Derwing, M. Mulder, and
L. Wilkinson. 2000. ‘Educated and under-
employed: Refugee integration into the Cana-
dian labour market,’ Journal of International
Migration and Integration 1/1: 59–84.
Lennon, P. 1990. ‘Investigating fluency in EFL:
A quantitative approach,’ Language Learning
40/3: 387–417.
 TRACEY M. DERWING, MURRAY J. MUNRO, and RON I. THOMSON
Lennon, P. 2000. ‘The lexical element in spoken
second language fluency’ in H. Riggenbach (ed.):
Perspectives on Fluency. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Li, P. 2001. ‘The market worth of immigrants’
educational credentials,’ Canadian Public
Policy—analyse de politiques 27/1: 23–38.
Li, P. 2004. ‘Social capital and economic outcomes
for immigrants and ethnic minorities,’ Journal
of International Migration and Integration 5/2:
171–90.
McCroskey, J. C. and V. P. Richmond. 1991.
‘Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view,’
in M. Booth-Butterfield (ed.): Communication,
Cognition and Anxiety. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
pp. 19–37.
MacDonald, S. 2002. ‘Pronunciation—views and
practices of reluctant teachers,’ Prospect 17/3:
3–18.
MacIntyre, P. D., R. Clément, Z. Dörnyei, and
K. A. Noels. 1998. ‘Conceptualizing willingness
to communicate in a L2: A situational model of
L2 confidence and affiliation,’ Modern Language
Journal 82/4: 545–62.
Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 1995a. Foreign
accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility in
the speech of second language learners. Language
Learning 45/1: 73–97.
Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 1995b.
Processing time, accent, and comprehen-
sibility in the perception of native and foreign-
accented speech. Language & Speech 38/3:
289–306.
Munro, M. J. and T. M. Derwing. 2001.
‘Modeling perceptions of the accentedness and
comprehensibility of L2 speech: The role of
speaking rate,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion 23/4: 451–68.
Munro, M. J., T. M. Derwing, and S. Morton.
2006. ‘The mutual intelligibility of L2 speech,’
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28/1:
11–131.
Murphey, T. and H. Arao. 2001. ‘Changing
reported beliefs through near peer role model-
ing,’ TESL-EJ 5/3: 1–15.
Nation, P. 1989. ‘Improving speaking fluency,’
System 17/3: 377–84.
Norton, B. and K. Toohey. 2001. ‘Changing
perspectives on good language learners,’ TESOL
Quarterly 35/2: 307–22.
Ortega, L. 1999. ‘Planning and focus on form in
L2 oral performance,’ Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 21/1: 109–48.
379
Ortega, L. and G. Iberri-Shea. 2005. ‘Longitu-
dinal research in second language acquisition:
Recent trends and future directions,’ Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 25: 26–45.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023
Pendakur, K. and R. Pendakur. 1998. ‘The
colour of money: Earnings differentials among
ethnic groups in Canada,’ Canadian Journal of
Economics 31/3: 518–48.
Reitz, J. 2001. ‘Immigrant skill utilization in the
Canadian labour market: Implications of human
capital research,’ Journal of International Migration
and Integration 2/3: 347–78.
Riggenbach, H. 1991. ‘Towards an understanding
of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker
conversations,’ Discourse Processes 14/4: 423–41.
Riggenbach, H. 2000. Perspectives on Fluency. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Schmidt, R. 1992. ‘Psychological mechanisms
underlying second language fluency,’ Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 14/4: 357–85.
Schumann, J. 1976. ‘Social distance as a factor in
second language acquisition,’ Language Learning
26/1: 135–43.
Segalowitz, N. and B. F. Freed. 2004. ‘Context,
contact and cognition in oral fluency acquisition:
Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad
contexts,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Special Issue 26/2: 173–99.
Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 1999. ‘The influence of
task structure and processing conditions on
narrative retellings,’ Language Learning 49/1:
93–120.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1995. ‘Problems in
output and the cognitive processes they gener-
ate: A step towards second language learning,’
Applied Linguistics 16/3: 371–91.
Terrell, T. 1990. ‘Foreigner talk as comprehensible
input,’ in J. Alatis (ed.): Georgetown University
Roundtable on Language and Linguistics. Washing-
ton, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp.
193–206.
Towell, R. and J.-M. Dewaele. 2005. ‘The role of
psycholinguistic factors in the development of
fluency amongst advanced learners of French,’ in
J.-M. Dewaele (ed.): Focus on French as a Foreign
Language: Multidisciplinary Approaches. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, pp. 210–39.
Towell, R., R. Hawkins, and N. Bazergui. 1996.
‘The development of fluency in advanced lear-
ners of French,’ Applied Linguistics 17/1: 84–119.
Trofimowich, P. and W. Baker. 2006. ‘Learning
second language suprasegmentals: Effect of
L2 experience on prosody and fluency
380 ESL LEARNERS’ FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT

characteristics of L2 speech,’ Studies in Second Wigglesworth, G. 1997. ‘An investigation of plan-

Language Acquisition 28/1: 1–30. ning time and proficiency level on oral test
Varonis, E. and S. Gass. 1982. ‘The comprehensi- discourse,’ Language Testing 14/1: 85–106.
bility of non-native speech,’ Studies in Second Yuan, F. and R. Ellis. 2003. ‘The effects of pre-task

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/29/3/359/152627 by University College London user on 31 March 2023

Language Acquisition 4/2: 114–36. planning and on-line planning on fluency,
Wennerstrom, A. 2001. The Music of Everyday complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral
Speech. New York: Oxford University Press. production,’ Applied Linguistics 24/1: 1–27.