Chinese as a Second Language Learners’ Speech Competence and Speech Performance in Classroom Contexts: Cognitive, Affective, and Socio-Cultural Perspectives

Abstract

People learn another language to be able to communicate. Nevertheless, most people are rarely able to speak an L2 with the same degree of, or even close to, the same skill of their L1s (Segalowitz, 2010). An underlying reason could be the existence of an L2 speech discrepancy/gap between speech competence and speech performance in all learners. Such a discrepancy/gap often leads to the breakdown of L2 speech performance no matter how good speech competence is. Although many researchers have explored L2 speech/speaking from cognitive (e.g., Segalowitz, 2010), affective (e.g., Chakrabarti & Sengupta, 2012), or sociocultural (e.g., Hernández, 2010) perspectives in an attempt to reveal the underlying reasons that may cause the discrepancy between speech competence and speech performance, little research, to date, has been conducted to investigate, comprehensively and systematically, the same cohort of L2 learners, particularly L2 Chinese learners, on the understandings of how these various aspects may contribute to a discrepant/unbalanced development of L2 learners’ speech competence and speech performance. To fill this research gap, 152 Chinese as a second language (CSL) learners were recruited for this mixed methods study, with 118 for a quantitative investigation and 34 for an in-depth qualitative enquiry, informed by major theoretical and conceptual frameworks relating to L2 speech. These theoretical and conceptual frameworks include Krashen’s (1982) affective filter hypothesis, MacIntyre and associates’ (1998) L2 willingness to communicate (WTC) model, Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 motivational self system, and Levelt’s (1989) and Segalowitz’s (2010) L2 speech production models, in order to examine CSL learners’ speech competence and speech performance from cognitive, affective, and socio-cultural perspectives concurrently. The quantitative results of the study, on the one hand, revealed that age, anxiety, WTC, and L2 cultural interest were the predictors for CSL learners’ speech competence, while kinaesthetic/tactile learning style, processing speed, anxiety, and attitudes towards L2 classes were the predictors for CSL learners’ speech performance. Moreover, it was suggested that speech competence and speech performance were not in a simple positive linear relationship. The qualitative results, on the other hand, implied that group learning style, practice strategy, extrinsic motivation, communication apprehension, speaking self-efficacy, and WTC might account for the CSL learners’ speech competence/performance development. In brief, the present study adds to our understanding of the complex nature of speech competence and speech performance from an integrated lens, namely, cognitively, affectively, and socio-culturally. The implications of the study in terms of what support could be provided to minimise the discrepancy/gap between CSL learners’ speech competence and speech performance are discussed, and limitations and suggestions for future research explored.