1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT
  4. Chapter

Limited Attention Capacity and Cognition

Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks

image of Limited Attention Capacity and Cognition

The chapter is part of a Point-Counterpoint (with Robinson, this volume), exploring the Limited Attention Capacity (LAC) and Cognition Hypotheses (CH) as alternative accounts of second language task performance. It starts by presenting five principles which underlie the LAC, covering memory and attentional functioning; the dimensions of performance; the role of research on task characteristics and conditions; the linkage with Levelt’s model of speaking; and the notion of, and influences on task difficulty. Then a survey is presented of the empirical work that is relevant to the LAC, organised in terms of the stages of the Levelt Model. Next, the Cognition Hypothesis is described, particularly resource-directing and resource-dispersing features, and the hypothesis is critiqued, both in relation to the constructs of the model and in relation to relevant evidence. This leads to a comparison between the two approaches, regarding hinterland, regarding how influences on second language task performance are analysed, and regarding what the two approaches say, or do not say, about acquisition. Finally some suggestions are made as to how the two approaches may be brought into resolution, at least to some degree.

  • Affiliations: 1: St. Mary’s University, Twickenham

References

  1. Baddeley, A
    (2015) Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen , M.B. Mota , & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theories, research, and commentaries (pp.17–28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baralt, M.L
    (2010) Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Georgetown University.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bialystok, E
    (1994) Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–168. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100012857
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012857 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, G. , Anderson, A. , Shilcock, R. , & Yule, G
    (1984) Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bui, H.Y.G
    (2014) Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.03gav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.03gav [Google Scholar]
  6. Bygate, M
    (2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.23–48). Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bygate M
    (2006) Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Uso-Juan & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp.159–186). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197778.3.159
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197778.3.159 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bygate M. , & Samuda V
    (2009) Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interactional approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp.90–116). New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cowan, N
    (2015) Second-language use, theories of working memory, and the Vennian mind. In Z. Wen , M.B. Mota , & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theories, research, and commentaries (pp.29–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Bot, K
    (1992) A bilingual production model: Levelt's “Speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24. doi: 10.1093/applin/13.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, D
    (2011) The role of task complexity in the linguistic complexity of native speaker output. Qualifying Paper, Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition program. College Park, MD.: University of Maryland.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, R
    (2005) Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.3–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.03ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.03ell [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, R. , & Yuan, F
    (2005) The effect of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.11ell [Google Scholar]
  14. Foster, P. , & Skehan, P
    (1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–324. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2012) Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp.199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32.09fos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.09fos [Google Scholar]
  16. (2013) Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency of L2 language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(3), 249–273. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249 [Google Scholar]
  17. Foster, P. , & Tavakoli, P
    (2009) Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866–896. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00528.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Garcia-Mayo, M.P
    (2007) Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Givón, T
    (1985) Function, structure, and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1 (pp.1008–1025). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoey, M
    (1983) On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Jackson, D.O. , & Suethanapornkul, S
    (2013) The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–367.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim, Y
    (2013) Investigating learners’ cognitive processes by using stimulated recall methodology in task-based research. In A. Revesz & R. Gilabert (Organizers), SLA methodological advances in TBLT research: Measurement of task demands and processes. Colloquium presented at American Association for Applied Linguistics 2013 conference, Dallas, TX.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kormos, J
    (2006) Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Levelt, W.J.M
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (1999) Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp.83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Li, Q
    (2014) Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners' oral performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.129–154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.05qia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.05qia [Google Scholar]
  27. Long, M.H
    (1985) A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development (pp.77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lynch, T
    (2001) Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal, 55, 124–132. doi: 10.1093/elt/55.2.124
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.2.124 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2007) Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61, 311–320. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccm050
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm050 [Google Scholar]
  31. Malicka, A. , & Levkina, M
    (2012) Measuring task complexity: Does L2 proficiency matter?In A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp.43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.4.06mal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.4.06mal [Google Scholar]
  32. Meara, P. , & Bell, H
    (2001) P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16(3), 5–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Michel, M.C
    (2011) Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.141–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Miller, G
    (1956) The magical number 7, plus or minus 2: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 [Google Scholar]
  35. Norris, J.M. , & Ortega, L
    (2009) Towards and organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp044
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ortega, L
    (2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.07ort
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.07ort [Google Scholar]
  37. Pang, F. , & Skehan, P
    (2014) Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.95–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.04pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.04pan [Google Scholar]
  38. Plough, I. , & Gass, S
    (1993) Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp.35–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Revesz, A
    (2009) Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 437–470. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109090366
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090366 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2014) Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 93–98. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt039
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt039 [Google Scholar]
  41. Revesz, A. , Sachs, R. , & Mackey, A
    (2011) Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.203–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.14ch8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.14ch8 [Google Scholar]
  42. Revesz, A. , Sachs, R. , & Hama, M
    (2013) Eye tracking as a means of investigating task-based cognitive processes . In A. Revesz & R. Gilabert (Organizers), SLA methodological advances in TBLT research: Measurement of task demands and processes. Colloquium presented atAmerican Association for Applied Linguistics 2013 conference, Dallas, TX.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Robinson, P
    (2011) Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sanders, A
    (1998) Elements of human performance. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Sasayama, S
    (2014) Measuring cognitive task complexity from the learners' perspective. Presentation at TBL In Asia Conference. Osaka, Japan.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Schur, E
    (2007) Insights into the structure of L1 and L2 vocabulary networks: Intimations of small worlds. In H. Daller & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp.182–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Skehan, P
    (1996) A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.1.38
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2009a) Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In A. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp.202–215). London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. (2009b) Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In B. Richards , H. Daller , D.D. Malvern , & P. Meara (Eds.), Studies in first and second language vocabulary acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp.107–124). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (2012), Researching tasks: performance, assessment, pedagogy. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (2013) Nurturing noticing. In J. Bergsleithner , S.N. Frota , & J.K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp.169–180). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (Ed.) (2014a) Processing perspectives on task performance, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2014b) Synthesising and applying task research. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.08ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.08ske [Google Scholar]
  54. Skehan, P. , & Foster, P
    (1997) The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. doi: 10.1177/136216889700100302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  55. Skehan, P. , & Shum, S
    (2014) Structure and processing condition in video-based narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.197–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5 [Google Scholar]
  56. Skehan, P. , Bei, X. , Li, Q. , & Wang, Z
    (2012) The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 170–187. doi: 10.1177/1362168811428414
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811428414 [Google Scholar]
  57. Tavakoli, P
    (2009) Investigating task difficulty: Learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2009.00216.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00216.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Tavakoli, P. , & Foster, P
    (2008) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00446.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x [Google Scholar]
  59. Tavakoli, P. , & Skehan, P
    (2005) Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang, Z
    (2009) Modelling speech production and performance: Evidence from five types of planning and two task structures. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Chinese University of Hong Kong.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. (2014) On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.02wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.02wan [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang, Z. , & Skehan, P
    (2014) Task structure, time perspective and lexical demands during video-based narrative retellings. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.155–186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.06wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.06wan [Google Scholar]
  63. Wickens, C.D
    (2007) Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 177–191. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.008 [Google Scholar]
  64. Willis, J
    (1996) A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Winter, E
    (1976) Fundamentals of information structure: a pilot manual for further development according to student need. Ms., Hatfield Polytechnic, English Department.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Baddeley, A
    (2015) Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen , M.B. Mota , & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theories, research, and commentaries (pp.17–28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baralt, M.L
    (2010) Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Georgetown University.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bialystok, E
    (1994) Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–168. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100012857
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012857 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, G. , Anderson, A. , Shilcock, R. , & Yule, G
    (1984) Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bui, H.Y.G
    (2014) Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.03gav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.03gav [Google Scholar]
  6. Bygate, M
    (2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.23–48). Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bygate M
    (2006) Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Uso-Juan & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp.159–186). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197778.3.159
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197778.3.159 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bygate M. , & Samuda V
    (2009) Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interactional approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp.90–116). New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cowan, N
    (2015) Second-language use, theories of working memory, and the Vennian mind. In Z. Wen , M.B. Mota , & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theories, research, and commentaries (pp.29–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. De Bot, K
    (1992) A bilingual production model: Levelt's “Speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24. doi: 10.1093/applin/13.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, D
    (2011) The role of task complexity in the linguistic complexity of native speaker output. Qualifying Paper, Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition program. College Park, MD.: University of Maryland.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, R
    (2005) Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.3–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.03ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.03ell [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, R. , & Yuan, F
    (2005) The effect of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.11ell [Google Scholar]
  14. Foster, P. , & Skehan, P
    (1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–324. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2012) Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp.199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32.09fos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.09fos [Google Scholar]
  16. (2013) Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency of L2 language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(3), 249–273. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249 [Google Scholar]
  17. Foster, P. , & Tavakoli, P
    (2009) Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866–896. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00528.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Garcia-Mayo, M.P
    (2007) Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Givón, T
    (1985) Function, structure, and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1 (pp.1008–1025). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoey, M
    (1983) On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Jackson, D.O. , & Suethanapornkul, S
    (2013) The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–367.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim, Y
    (2013) Investigating learners’ cognitive processes by using stimulated recall methodology in task-based research. In A. Revesz & R. Gilabert (Organizers), SLA methodological advances in TBLT research: Measurement of task demands and processes. Colloquium presented at American Association for Applied Linguistics 2013 conference, Dallas, TX.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kormos, J
    (2006) Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Levelt, W.J.M
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (1999) Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp.83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Li, Q
    (2014) Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners' oral performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.129–154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.05qia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.05qia [Google Scholar]
  27. Long, M.H
    (1985) A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development (pp.77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lynch, T
    (2001) Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal, 55, 124–132. doi: 10.1093/elt/55.2.124
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.2.124 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2007) Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61, 311–320. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccm050
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm050 [Google Scholar]
  31. Malicka, A. , & Levkina, M
    (2012) Measuring task complexity: Does L2 proficiency matter?In A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp.43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.4.06mal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.4.06mal [Google Scholar]
  32. Meara, P. , & Bell, H
    (2001) P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16(3), 5–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Michel, M.C
    (2011) Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.141–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Miller, G
    (1956) The magical number 7, plus or minus 2: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 [Google Scholar]
  35. Norris, J.M. , & Ortega, L
    (2009) Towards and organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp044
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ortega, L
    (2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.07ort
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.07ort [Google Scholar]
  37. Pang, F. , & Skehan, P
    (2014) Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.95–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.04pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.04pan [Google Scholar]
  38. Plough, I. , & Gass, S
    (1993) Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp.35–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Revesz, A
    (2009) Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 437–470. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109090366
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090366 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2014) Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 93–98. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt039
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt039 [Google Scholar]
  41. Revesz, A. , Sachs, R. , & Mackey, A
    (2011) Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.203–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.14ch8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.14ch8 [Google Scholar]
  42. Revesz, A. , Sachs, R. , & Hama, M
    (2013) Eye tracking as a means of investigating task-based cognitive processes . In A. Revesz & R. Gilabert (Organizers), SLA methodological advances in TBLT research: Measurement of task demands and processes. Colloquium presented atAmerican Association for Applied Linguistics 2013 conference, Dallas, TX.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Robinson, P
    (2011) Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sanders, A
    (1998) Elements of human performance. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Sasayama, S
    (2014) Measuring cognitive task complexity from the learners' perspective. Presentation at TBL In Asia Conference. Osaka, Japan.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Schur, E
    (2007) Insights into the structure of L1 and L2 vocabulary networks: Intimations of small worlds. In H. Daller & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp.182–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Skehan, P
    (1996) A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.1.38
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2009a) Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In A. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp.202–215). London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. (2009b) Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In B. Richards , H. Daller , D.D. Malvern , & P. Meara (Eds.), Studies in first and second language vocabulary acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp.107–124). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (2012), Researching tasks: performance, assessment, pedagogy. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (2013) Nurturing noticing. In J. Bergsleithner , S.N. Frota , & J.K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp.169–180). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (Ed.) (2014a) Processing perspectives on task performance, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2014b) Synthesising and applying task research. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.08ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.08ske [Google Scholar]
  54. Skehan, P. , & Foster, P
    (1997) The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. doi: 10.1177/136216889700100302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  55. Skehan, P. , & Shum, S
    (2014) Structure and processing condition in video-based narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.197–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5 [Google Scholar]
  56. Skehan, P. , Bei, X. , Li, Q. , & Wang, Z
    (2012) The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 170–187. doi: 10.1177/1362168811428414
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811428414 [Google Scholar]
  57. Tavakoli, P
    (2009) Investigating task difficulty: Learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2009.00216.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00216.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Tavakoli, P. , & Foster, P
    (2008) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00446.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x [Google Scholar]
  59. Tavakoli, P. , & Skehan, P
    (2005) Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang, Z
    (2009) Modelling speech production and performance: Evidence from five types of planning and two task structures. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Chinese University of Hong Kong.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. (2014) On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.02wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.02wan [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang, Z. , & Skehan, P
    (2014) Task structure, time perspective and lexical demands during video-based narrative retellings. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.155–186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.5.06wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.06wan [Google Scholar]
  63. Wickens, C.D
    (2007) Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 177–191. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.008 [Google Scholar]
  64. Willis, J
    (1996) A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Winter, E
    (1976) Fundamentals of information structure: a pilot manual for further development according to student need. Ms., Hatfield Polytechnic, English Department.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027267825-tblt.8.05ske
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027267825-tblt.8.05ske
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027267825
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error