Speech production and second language acquisition

By Judit Kormos. 2006

501 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8c19f0113791f0202ac272b563880aac571c6999

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning * (2008, background): “Speaking in L2 is the task that poses very high attentional demands on learners (Kormos, 2006), therefore the high correlations between backward digit span and speaking scores probably reflect that working memory is also responsible for regulating attention in cognitive processing (Baddeley, 2003).”
Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A Classroom-Based Study. (2011, background): “This was included because self-repair behavior is claimed to indicate “accuracy in process,” as it reflects self-monitoring and learners’ resulting attempts at correcting their own speech production (Gilabert, 2007, p. 221; Kormos, 2000, 2006).”
The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production (2011, background): “…that underlie speech production as conceptualized by Levelt could be reduced to one sentence: ‘People produce speech first by conceptualizing the message, then by formulating its language representation (i.e. encoding it), and finally by articulating it’ (Kormos, 2006, p. 7; emphasis added).”
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “Selfcorrections, which can be argued to be ‘overt manifestations of the monitoring process’ (Kormos 2006: 123) and are included in Swain & Lapkin’s (1998) definition of LREs, are hypothesized to facilitate L2 processing in the same way as modified output triggered by feedback (de Bot 1996).”
Fluency Training in the ESL Classroom: An Experimental Study of Fluency Development and Proceduralization (2011, background): “, phrase and clause structure building) and in articulation, whereas declarative knowledge is associated with retrieval of lexical items and their syntactic information as well as conceptualizing and monitoring (Kormos, 2006; Levelt, 1989, 1999; Towell et al., 1996).”
PEER INTERACTION AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK FOR ACCURACY AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2012, background): “That is, the functionality of monitoring the execution of corrected utterances can be triggered by an external factor in the process of “making repairs upon the confi rmation or clarifi cation requests of the interlocutor” (Kormos, 2006 , p. 135), the only difference being who perceives the error.”
Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language (2012, background): “Because De Bot (1992) and Kormos (2006) maintained the basic distinctions and processes of Levelt’s model of speech production in their adaptations of the model for L2 learners, we also use the same distinctions and processes to arrive at tasks tapping L2 cognitive fluency.”
Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability (2019, background): “…suggested that L2 learners with larger vocabularies might be equipped with well-organised lexical networks (Meara 1990, 2006), and therefore might be able to retrieve L2 words more economically and immediately in real-time communication (de Bot 1992; Kormos 2006; Levelt 1989; Skehan 2009).”
Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination (2012, methodology): “In addition to CF, another interactional move was quantified: self-initiated modified output (SMO), which is ‘overt manifestations of the monitoring process’ (Kormos, 2006, p. 123).”
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN L1 FLUENCY AND L2 FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2009, unknown): “More recently, Kormos ( 2006) developed a comprehensive model of L2 speech production, also based on Levelt’s work, which takes into account previous theoretical constructs and empirical research.”
Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production (2016, background): “Kormos (2006) developed a speech model for second language (L2) speakers, and maintains that ‘there is a common episodic and semantic memory for L1 [first language] and L2, a shared store for L1 and L2 lemmas and lexemes’ (2006: 167).”
LINGUISTIC DIMENSIONS OF COMPREHENSIBILITY AND PERCEIVED FLUENCY: AN INVESTIGATION OF COMPLEXITY, ACCURACY, AND FLUENCY IN SECOND LANGUAGE ARGUMENTATIVE SPEECH (2019, methodology): “Furthermore, pause locations, which are theoretically underpinned by psycholinguistic models of L2 speech production (Kormos, 2006), have recently been employed in L2 perceived fluency studies (Kahng, 2018; Saito et al., 2018).”
The many faces of study abroad: an update on the research on L2 gains emerged during a study abroad experience (2011, background): “There is mounting evidence that phonological memory (PM) and working memory (WM) may determine the success in L2 acquisition (French, 2006; Kormos, 2006; Kormos & Sáfár, 2008; Service & Kohonen, 1995), particularly in L2 vocabulary acquisition.”
Modelling Second Language Performance: Integrating Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency, and Lexis (2009, background): “These differences cause difficulties for second language speakers regarding modular parallel processing (Kormos 2006), leading them to ‘shift down’ to more serial processes on occasions.”
Does a Speaking Task Affect Second Language Comprehensibility (2015, background): “, Trofimovich & Isaacs, 2012)—despite evidence that linguistic resources needed for speakers to successfully complete a task depend on several variables, including task formality and complexity (Kormos, 2006; Robinson, 2005; Segalowitz, 2010; Skehan, 2009).”
Task-Based Language Learning (2011, background): “…should affect L2 speech performance, as have others who have been more generally concerned with identifying the mechanisms involved in producing L2 speech and responding to negative feedback on it (e.g., Bygate, 1999; Doughty, 2001; Izumi, 2003; Kormos, 2006, 2011; see also de Bot, 1996, 1998).”
Working Memory and the Observed Effectiveness of Recasts on Different L2 Outcome Measures. (2012, background): “Given that the oral tasks predominantly elicited the use of the same construction (past progressive), participants might often have been able to retrieve a recently processed chunk from short-term memory when forming their subsequent utterances, which probably reduced the need for conscious encoding”