November 11 2011 enda ct|v|ty Cne Warmup eflnlLlon maLchlng ntroduct|on L1 fluency and L2 fluency developmenL ct|v|ty 1hree Applylng Lheory Lo pracLlce D|scuss|on Conc|us|on CNL 1WC IIL 1nkLL ICUk ct|v|ty 1wo 8evlew of asslgned readlng roup 1 Jalaa 8eem !leun Summer roup 2 LaLlfa Lrlc Ahmad 8abak roup 3 Llndsey kelsey eLer khalld karen roup 4 rancols Abby onna Ash ct|v|ty Cne lease assemble lnLo groups as llsLed below ntroduct|on L1 fluency and L2 fluency developmenL erwlng Munro 1homson and 8osslLer (2009) presenLed resulLs of longlLudlnal sLudy L1 and L2 Lngllsh fluency was compared aL Lhree dlfferenL Llmes over a span of Lwo years luency raLlngs were [udged by naLlve speakers 1emporal aspecLs of oral producLlon were relaLed Lo Lhe speaker and Lhe llsLener lnferences were made regardlng exposure Lo spoken Lngllsh Showed LhaL a varleLy of facLors conLrlbuLe Lo fluency developmenL JhaL ls Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween speaker and lnLerlocuLor? 1he llsLener ls [usL as lmporLanL as Lhe speaker llsLener may noL hear whaL Lhe speaker lnLended Lo be heard ntroduct|on L1 fluency and L2 fluency developmenL 1 Pow ls Lhe concepL of LralL" deflned ln Lhe readlng? An lnnaLe and relaLlvely permanenL characLerlsLlc speclflc Lo an lndlvldual 2 JhaL abouL Lhe concepL of sLaLe"? A condlLlon broughL abouL by a cerLaln conLexL s f|uency overned by an under|y|n tra|t? An s there a re|at|onsh|p between L1 f|uency and L2 f|uency deve|opment? kesearch uest|on 1o what extent do tempora| character|st|cs of speakers' L1 product|ons pred|ct the same character|st|cs |n L2? 8y erwlng Munro 1homson 8osslLer (2009) L1 I|uency L2 I|uency Deve|opment L2 ILULNC DLILLCMLN1 L1 ILULNC roup 1 a) Models of fluenL speech producLlon roup 2 a) L2 fluency research raLlonale for currenL sLudy roup a) MeLhod roup 4 a) 8esulLs ct|v|ty 1wo kev|ew of ass|ned read|n 1ralL vs sLaLe 1ransfer of L1 pauslng paLLerns (language speclflc) overcome by L2 proflclency AuLomaLlzaLlon Jorklng memory and sLorlng knowledge SLudy abroad eclaraLlve (facLual/sLaLlc) and procedural (Lask performance) knowledge Mode|s of f|uent speech product|ons DndersLand developmenL of L2 fluency over Llme lcLure sLory Lask more dlfflculL for speakers Lhan when glven freedom of lexlcal and grammaLlcal cholce (conversaLlons) Cverall exposure Lo spoken Lngllsh L2 f|uency research rat|ona|e for current study 16 adulL naLlve speakers of Mandarln and 16 naLlve speakers of Slavlc lcLure narraLlons were descrlbed ln boLh L1 and Lngllsh LlghL naLlve speakers each of Mandarln 8usslan and Lngllsh LlghL naLlve speakers each of Mandarln 8usslan and Lngllsh LnLlre 0 samples were llsLened Lo Lhen [udged Method 1empora| measures pauses lexlcal heslLaLlons self correcLlons selfrepeLlLlons false sLarLs nonlexlcal fllled pauses and asldes lease form Lhe followlng palrs a) Abby Llndsey b) rancols kelsey c) onna eLer d) Ash khalld karen e) LaLlfa Jalaa f) Lrlc 8eem g) Ahmad a !leun h) 8abak Summer ct|v|ty 1hree 1heory to pract|ce 1hose fluenL ln L1 would be fluenL ln L2? luency a LralL or sLaLe? Mlnlmal fluency lncrease durlng Lhe lengLh of sLudylonger sLudy needed Lo allow for slgnlflcanL lncrease ln fluency developmenL? SLrucLural slmllarlLles beLween L1s and L2s affecL L2 fluency developmenL? LlsLener expecLaLlons brlng abouL harsher [udgemenLs? D|scuss|on &$ - A straight-forward relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency can't be made. - Factors: structural property of L1; proficiency level of speakers; degree of exposure. - Time must be made for oral practice outside of the classroom. -Longer research period is needed. - Other L1s need to be studied. - ndividual learner performance. 1nNk CU!!