Accessible (NNS) fluency is central

The fluency scale is explicitly NS-referenced, a point that made self-assessment ambiguous. For example, the account in 8.3 suggests this reference to be irrelevant to professional communication.

(8.3) <I> all right on this spoken fluency chart where would you place yourself </I> (…)

<I> all right er </I> <C> [i th-]think this is a little bit crazy this reference to

native speaker that's not, here it no-not the real question how well i can speak with na-native speakers ok @@ in so-some@@ occasions but there

might be </C>

<I> so would this description be relevant for a lecturer here </I>

<C> not exactly so, if i need some more (xx) then it's technically to be able to

communicate with someone non-native that's still, it's more relevant definitely </C>

Unlike 8.3, the next account seems to accept the NS as a normal assessment criterion. (8.4) <I> and er let’s begin with the same first two questions, where would you place

yourself for everyday use and for professional use </I>

<E> erm just something comes to my mind that i like, i’d like to say that i think

this er describing the interaction with a native speaker is <READING> possible without imposing a strain on either party </READING> i think that’s er an excellent phrase to describe</E> <I> [which one]</I>

<E> that’s b2 lower b2 it was already in the earlier place also and i think that’s a

very nice that’s a very nice er quality to or kind of conceptual description of this a strain on either party the emphasis on either party is quite nice so that also the mother tongue is the mother tongue speaker the native speaker isn’t getting crazy with more talking with the persons @@ that’s a good quality @@ </E>

However, as indicated by ‘also the mother tongue …’, the account seems to imply that “without imposing strain on either party” (Europe 2001:129) is a good quality for NNS spoken fluency, including NS-NNS and ELF interaction. The demands for achieving this aspect of communication, however, may change with the situation and role. As the next account suggests, fluency in everyday conversation does not generally require discussing conceptually difficult topics, whereas lectures do.

(8.5) <E> (…) but well it just came to my mind a very nice way of saying that, yes erm i would as earlier say that private life since i don’t have i don’t talk

so often about conceptually difficult subjects in private <LIFE> what does

that tell about me@@ but@@maybe rarely@@but anyway i would say that

it’s <SPOKEN FLUENCY> smoother in private life, lecturer environment is always a bit difficult but i like the description that longer and er complex stretches of speech which in lectures for example is such a thing talking for 90 minutes </E>

For lectures, the descriptors ‘conceptually difficult’ and ‘lengthy utterance’ are not surprising. As the account implies, changing the situation and roles places different demands on fluency. An additional problem is the assumption of a generic context, a point further discussed in the next paragraph.

Perceived fluency adopts a listener perspective, which consists of the impression the listener forms about the speech planning and production as functioning easily (Lennon 2000:27). In a cooperative exchange, such as a lecture, the goal of the speaker is to hold the attention of the listener in the given situation. In EMI lectures, the fluency variables include NNSs (primarily) and a teacher-student relationship. The NNS context means listeners need to deal with high variability in spoken language (due to a wide variety of L2 accents). The teacher-student relationship also means listeners must deal with cognitively demanding content. Given these contextual variables as well as the monologic nature of lectures, pausing is a necessary feature for comprehension, as the account in 8.6 suggests. In terms of fluency, what the contextual variables suggest is that the monologic character of lectures and the cognitively demanding content are more appropriate for determining the degree to which listener attention is held in lectures than the generic CEFR fluency scale anchored in NS-NNS interaction. For holding listener attention in lectures, the account in 8.6 identifies the key phrase “a fairly even tempo” (Europe 2001: 129) from the B2 (lower) descriptor as a desirable feature.

(8.6) <E> erm so it does sometimes happen that i speak maybe not for 90 minutes but

anyway a fairly long time before something something is discussed or so,

that’s i think that describes the the lecturer situation quite nicely </E> (…)

<I> would you also would that be the level you think would be appropriate as well for a lecturer </I>

<E> oh i think er this b2 lower <READING>fairly even tempo </READING>

and sometimes pauses, ok i think i think that’s still acceptable in a lecture environment so b2 lower </E>

<I> all right </I>

<E> but then but then it would become too difficult for the students if it is b1 which sometimes i said even b1 is good enough but well it’s different obviously </E>

Even though the B2 descriptor makes reference to regular interaction with NSs, the accounts (8.4-.6) do not suggest this skill to be necessary or relevant to lecturer fluency. Rather, the accounts pinpoint other descriptive phrases as important, such as some pauses and no strain imposed on either party, as well as discussing conceptually difficult topics. With the exception of maintaining ’a fairly even tempo’, the key phrases seem to coincide with one of Fillmore’s (1979) criteria for spoken fluency, coherence, which is defined as “the ability to talk in coherent, reasoned and ‘semantically dense’ sentences” (1979 [2000]:51, emphasis original). Here, ‘semantically dense’ could be perceived as conceptually more demanding, thus making it appealing for describing spoken discourse in lectures.

To gain insight into temporal variables, I asked lecturers to elaborate on their experiences with pauses in lectures. The accounts suggest that pausing occurs due to time required for managing lexical gaps and for conceptualizing ideas.

(8.7) <E> <ON PAUSING> but mostly it’s really terminology i think it’s technical

terms lacking suddenly, that’s it </E>

<I> so how do you handle that </I>

<E> yeah well in different ways i suppose sometimes the lecture slides help </E> (8.8) <I> ok, so you were saying these gaps and slowing down </I>

<C> yeah. (…) i i don't know what is the process for me@@to find the words in English@@but sometimes even some very common words i don't just remember, ok what is yesterday i had this i couldn't remember what is

feedback er-ah-er-ah i was a little bit er@@disappointed in myself@@i i miss sometimes very common words in english </C>

<I> yeah it's funny that those gaps sometimes come so what did you do </I> <C> i i erm i’m not sure i think i er gave them the paper </C>

The accounts in 8.7-.8 suggest lexical gaps to include both infrequently and commonly used words. While the account in 8.7 implies common words to be suddenly missing, the response in 8.8 explicitly states common words as being forgotten. The accounts also suggest that lexical gaps include infrequently used words, such as terms for classroom management and specialty areas. Although lexical gaps occur, the accounts indicate that different strategies are employed for overcoming them. Unlike these accounts, example 8.9 suggests pausing occurs due to the need to conceptualize ideas in a way that makes them accessible to students.

(8.9) <I> ok in what kinds of situations <DO YOU PAUSE> or for what reasons </I> <A> er sometimes just looking for the right word </A>

<I> and how about other times </I>

<A> sometimes thinking about the matter itself how to explain something which you just have an idea in mind but you still don't know how to explain it not

in terms of language but in general, even if you are speaking your own

now or this concept to the students then you have to think first of the logics of the thing and then put that logic in words then comes the language of course when you try to put it in words </A>

While lexical gaps may be L2-related, pausing linked to message conceptualization could apply to any speaker (Ln). Either way, some pausing for natural reasons seems acceptable in lectures. This view aligns with the literature on dysfluencies discussed in 5.3.3, which also shows the CEFR descriptors for pragmatic competence to be prescriptive and unnatural.

Central to lecturing is the ability to communicate ideas and to stimulate interest in the topics, as this next example implies.

(8.10) <I> er what do you feel that you need to be able to do to lecture well </I>

<D> well of course i have to be on top of the substance and be able to explain it in, not only in the correct way in a way that you know is professionally correct and right and so on but in a way that actually er that how how should i put it that that explains it that makes it clear by power of example

by power of-of metaphors also the the real time aspect the fluency you need it to be able to create sentences in real time and then the lecture notes have to be good with lots of graphics and perhaps other materials too </D>

Example 8.10 seems to suggest the main focus when lecturing to be on demonstrating adequate knowledge of the subject matter under the pressure of real-time processing, which entails articulating the content both in an accessible and engaging manner. In this way, the account implies that these aspects of spoken fluency are closely integrated into lecture discourse.

In all, the accounts seem to imply that spoken fluency descriptors for professional communication should target accessible fluency rather than drawing attention to native- like fluency. In order to achieve the goal of accessible fluency, it appears that the target level should include descriptors relevant to the ability to engage the listener. A suitable description would also consider situation, as fluency demands for everyday conversation differ from those for professional discourse. With lecturing, for example, the accounts seem to suggest that accessible fluency requires the ability to speak about content matter that may be conceptually difficult but which is presented in an accessible manner, where accessibility seems to refer to the ability to express ideas clearly through explanations and examples at an appropriate level of conceptualization. It also seems to include the ability to employ ‘semantically dense’ utterances without imposing strain on the listener and to pause naturally and accommodatingly.