Fluency

As with so many other terms in relation to oral competence, the concept of fluency also lacks a solid definition and as Segalowitz (2010, 41) puts it, ‘research to date has not revealed compelling, consistent patterns of oral production features that may be considered reliable markers of fluency’. Due to the incomplete definitions and information on the topic he also reports that there seems to be a tendency to ‘shy away’

Table 6. Spoken fluency (CEFR 2001, 129).

Proficient User

C2 Can express him/herself at length with a natural, effortless, unhesitating flow.

Pauses only to reflect on precisely the right words to express his/her thoughts or to find an appropriate example or explanation.

C1 Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Only a conceptually difficult subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language.

Independent User

B2 Can communicate spontaneously, often showing remarkable fluency and ease of expression in even longer complex stretches of speech.

Can produce stretches of language with a fairly even tempo; although he/she can be hesitant as he/she searches for patterns and expressions, there are few noticeably long pauses. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party.

B1 Can express him/herself with relative ease. Despite some problems with formulation resulting in pauses and ‘cul-de-sacs’, he/she is able to keep going effectively without help.

Can keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evident, especially in longer stretches of free production.

Basic User

A2 Can make him/herself understood in short contributions, even though pauses, false starts and reformulation are very evident.

Can construct phrases on familiar topics with sufficient ease to handle short exchanges, despite very noticeable hesitation and false starts.

A1 Can manage very short, isolated, mainly pre-packaged utterances, with much pausing to search for expressions, to articulate less familiar words, and to repair communication.

Table 7. Propositional precision (CEFR 2001, 129).

Proficient User

C2 Can convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide range of qualifying devices (e.g. adverbs expressing degree, clauses expressing limitations). Can give emphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity.

C1 Can qualify opinions and statements precisely in relation to degrees of, for example, certainty/ uncertainty, belief/doubt, likelihood, etc.

Independent User

B2 Can pass on detailed information reliably.

B1 Can explain the main points in an idea or problem with reasonable precision.

Can convey simple, straightforward information of immediate relevance, getting across which point he/she feels is most important. Can express the main point he/she wants to make comprehensibly.

Basic User

A2 Can communicate what he/she wants to say in a simple and direct exchange of limited information on familiar and routine matters, but in other situations he/she generally has to compromise the message.

A1 No description available.

from using the term (ibid, 179-180). However, fluency is a highly relevant concept in the field of oral competence and Saleva (1997, 52), for example, provides an important argument by stating that ‘the non-native speaker’s fluency affects the native speakers’

willingness to seek interaction with him’. She refers to Albrechtsen, Henriksen and Faerch’s (1980, cited in Saleva 1997, 52) study, according to which native speakers

portrayed most negative reactions towards speakers whose speech was marked by hesitation and the use of communication strategies. According to Saleva, Fillmore (1979, cited in Saleva 1997, 52-53) also argues that it is natural for native speakers to seek contact with speakers with whom they feel that understanding is fairly easy. In addition to the aspects presented above, there is another argument, which Saleva (1997, 53) points out – one that I feel, is quite a significant one: the speaker’s oral fluency also affects the interlocutor’s judgment about his or her personality, attitude and intellectual capacity. Hence, even though described fluency can be tricky it is nonetheless worth the effort.

As communicative competence became the main goal of language teaching in the 1970s, the study of fluency became more dominant as well (Saleva 1997, 53). Charles Fillmore was one of the pioneers of this branch of study and he presented a broad view, which covered both quantity and quality and he described a fluent speaker as being able to speak for a long time using coherent and reasoned sentences which were appropriate to the context in addition to being creative and imaginative. Saleva (1997, 53) reports that according to Fillmore ‘a fluent speaker had to be able to speak at length, use coherent and reasoned sentences, have appropriate things to say in different contexts, and even be creative and imaginative in his language use’. However, Saleva (1997, 53) also points out that Fillmore did not expect these four varieties to be combined in one person but rather treated them as separate abilities. More recent definitions that have been presented for fluency are, for example, Kormos’ (2006 xxvi) view that most L2 learners’ aim is to achieve a high level of fluency, which basically means ‘to learn how to produce speech smoothly, efficiently, and within the time constraints of real-life communication’.

Kormos (2006, 154-155) also reports that fluency is often understood in two senses, either as global oral proficiency, which means that the speaker has high command of the language in general, or as being just one component of oral proficiency, something that is used as one of the aspects when assessing oral competence. Lennon (1990, 388) already presented this view in the early 90s by stating that within the EFL context, the term fluency seems to have two senses – a broad one and a narrow one. In the broad sense fluency seems to function as an umbrella term for oral proficiency in general, meaning that being fluent represents the highest point on such a scale that measures speaking skills in a foreign language. According to him there rarely exists a level beyond ‘fluent’, when for example measuring foreign language ability for employment

or study abroad purposes. Lennon (ibid, 389), however, also points out that ‘being fluent’ can mean very different things to different people and that the term itself tends to have a rather subjective presentation in people’s minds. The narrow sense, on the other hand, stands for any ‘presumably isolatable, component of oral proficiency’ (ibid, 389.) Such features are the ones that are often being specifically measured in some way, for example appropriateness, pronunciation or lexical range, among others. He provides two examples provided by teachers who evaluate their students as ‘fluent but grammatically inaccurate’ or speaking correctly but not very fluently (ibid, 390). Thus, fluency is used as one component of the measuring scale among other features of language proficiency. Even though the two senses are not unrelated it seems that the narrow sense is being used to cover other elements of oral proficiency and fluent delivery in performance is the ‘overriding determiner of perceived oral proficiency’

whereas other features seem to be of lesser importance (ibid, 391). Lennon (ibid, 391-392) also describes fluency as reflecting the speaker’s ability to present a finished message instead of ‘inviting the listener to focus on the working of the production mechanisms’ (p. 391). He furthermore proposes that fluent delivery might direct the listeners’ attention away from deficiencies in other areas, such as phonology, grammar or syntax (ibid.).

As for what characteristics fluency has, Paananen-Porkka (2007, 97) states the same as Segalowitz (2010) by saying that the concept can be hard to define unambiguously and it has received many definitions over the years. While Paananen-Porkka (2007, 97) refers to definitions given by dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary, she also points out that these definitions are quite vague, since they do not explain what linguistic phenomena underlies these attributes that are often associated with fluency (smooth, easy, quick etc.). She then moves on to pointing out that the Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics provides a slightly more detailed view with its two definitions of fluency, the first being a more general description and the second taking into account the aspect of second language acquisition:

1. 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.

2. In second and foreign language teaching, fluency describes a level of proficiency in communication, which includes:

a) The ability to produce written and/or spoken language with ease

b) The ability to speak with a good but not necessarily perfect command of intonation, vocabulary, and grammar

c) The ability to communicate ideas effectively

d) The ability to produce continuous speech without causing comprehension difficulties or a breakdown of communication.

It is sometimes contrasted with accuracy, which refers to the ability to produce grammatically correct sentences but may not include the ability to speak or write fluently.

(Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics 1985, 107-108.)

Obviously, as Paananen-Porkka (2007, 98) points out, such notions as ‘with ease’ and

‘efficiently’ are left unexplained, which brings us back to the problem that was discussed earlier: due to a lack of solid definition, perceived fluency can often be a result of the hearer’s judgment. The simplest definitions describe fluency as ‘smooth, rapid and error-free flow of speech which is produced with ease’ (Paananen-Porkka 2007, 99-100). Moreover, Paananen-Porkka (ibid.) points out that these definitions associate fluency with speaker’s performance only. The more detailed definitions, on the other hand, include the interactive aspect of fluency and she suggests that interactivity should be considered a key concept because the situation and feedback that a speaker receives appear to have the most effect on their fluency.

Another aspect that should be considered in relation to that of fluency is accuracy.

Whereas fluency in a communicative situation can be described as the sufficient flowing and effortlessness of speech, which is not interrupted by disturbing pauses or hesitations, accuracy refers to the perceived flawlessness of the utterance as well as the appropriateness to the context in question. The term scope is also added to this context and it refers to the versatility and content of the utterance. (Hildén 2000.) Hildén (2000) names these three aspects as the tripartite of speech communication and according to her it would be ideal if these three aspects would come true in a communicative situation. Often language learners tend to favor one of these aspects and the teachers’

task is to direct the learning into correct direction so that it serves the development of all aspects needed for successful communication (ibid.). Jaakkola (2000, 151) also mentions fluency in the context of FL teaching in which fluency is often emphasized in relation to communicative language teaching, whereas linguistic accuracy often depends largely on the situation in which the language is being used; in some work situations, for example, accurate speech might be necessary in order to give a proper impression but often being understood suffices. According to Jaakkola, in teaching, balance between fluency and accuracy would be an ideal goal, since it takes into account the needs of both the stronger and weaker learners.