Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOlkkonen, Sanna
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-16T06:17:34Z
dc.date.available2017-05-16T06:17:34Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationOlkkonen, S. (2017). Processing limitations in L2 fluency : Analysis of inaccuracies in lexical access. <i>Apples : Journal of Applied Language Studies</i>, <i>11</i>(1), 19-41. <a href="https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201704252081" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201704252081</a>
dc.identifier.otherCONVID_26978408
dc.identifier.otherTUTKAID_73643
dc.identifier.urihttps://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/53956
dc.description.abstractOral fluency is widely included in second language assessments, but its relationship to language proficiency is not straightforward. In the current study, data gathered in an experimental setting were examined with an exploratory fluency analysis. The aim was to examine the relationship between fluency of lexical access and proficiency in foreign language (L2). Fluency of the lexical access was studied by analysing inaccuracies in one word recognition and one word retrieval task. To see if proficiency had an effect on the number and the type of inaccuracies, lexical access tasks were carried out for 563 Finnish school children from grades 4, 8, and 11 in their L2 (English). Proficiency in L2 was expected to develop during school education. The inaccuracies were proposed to stem from processing limitations in language use, i.e., inefficiency of lexical access, or from control of attention. The hypothesis was that if lexical access is not automatized, there are less resources for attention-control in recognising and retrieving words. Therefore, the inaccuracies in L2 relating to inefficiency were hypothesised to decrease with proficiency, whereas the ones relating to control of attention were proposed to be more stable or to increase. Furthermore, the fluency of L1 lexical access was used as a control measure. The results offered some confirmation to these hypotheses. For example, some evidence for more available resources in correcting and monitoring speech was found for the older students. The overall results highlight caution in assessing L2 fluency, as not all types of inaccuracies were connected with lower proficiency.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherCentre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä
dc.relation.ispartofseriesApples : Journal of Applied Language Studies
dc.relation.urihttp://apples.jyu.fi/article/abstract/467
dc.subject.otheroral proficiency
dc.subject.otherinformation-processing
dc.subject.otherlexical access
dc.titleProcessing limitations in L2 fluency : Analysis of inaccuracies in lexical access
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:jyu-201704282113
dc.contributor.laitosSoveltavan kielentutkimuksen keskusfi
dc.contributor.laitosCentre for Applied Language Studiesen
dc.contributor.oppiaineSoveltava kielentutkimusfi
dc.contributor.oppiaineApplied language studiesen
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle
dc.date.updated2017-04-28T06:15:03Z
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.description.reviewstatuspeerReviewed
dc.format.pagerange19-41
dc.relation.issn1457-9863
dc.relation.numberinseries1
dc.relation.volume11
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
dc.rights.copyright© The Author(s)
dc.rights.accesslevelopenAccess
dc.subject.ysosujuvuus
dc.format.contentfulltext
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p21865
dc.relation.doi10.17011/apples/urn.201704252081
dc.type.okmA1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record