1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing
  4. Chapter

Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks

image of Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks

Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) research has provided ample evidence that cognitive complexity is an important aspect of task design that influences learner performance in terms of fluency, accuracy, and syntactic and lexical complexity. Task features such as the degree of structure and storyline complexity contribute to task complexity and affect different aspects of L2 performance. Two of the current models of task complexity (i.e. Skehan 1998, and Robinson 2001), have further encapsulated different dimensions of task complexity and have provided both a framework for evaluating and predicting task complexity and a detailed discussion of the factors that may affect cognitive complexity. These models by principle are assumed to be pertinent to all tasks regardless of their purpose, type, or mode. However, little is known about whether cognitive complexity affects writing and speaking tasks in similar ways, or whether it has similar influences on L2 oral and written performance. By replicating previous research in oral task performance (Tavakoli & Foster 2008), the current study investigates the effects of storyline complexity on L2 learners writing in narrative tasks. The findings indicate that, although cognitive complexity affects both written and spoken performances, the way it affects the syntactic complexity of writing and speaking differs to some extent. In addition to presenting empirical data that provides insights into the effects of cognitive complexity on L2 learners’ writing and speaking, the main contribution of the chapter is to help extend our understanding of how task complexity plays out with the syntactic complexity of L2 performance in the two different modes, and to allow for a more in-depth understanding of the ways in which task complexity contributes to L2 writing. In that fashion, the findings of the current study can also begin to answer the question of whether or not a single model of task complexity can account for both writing and speaking tasks.

References

  1. Allan, D
    (1992) Oxford Placement Test 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Coughlan, P. , & Duff, P
    (1994) Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Donato, R
    (2000) Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ellis, R
    (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100006483
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006483 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2003)  Task-based language learning and teaching . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ellis, R. , & Yuan, F
    (2005) The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.11ell [Google Scholar]
  7. Flower, L.S. , & Hayes, J.R
    (1980) The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Foster, P
    (2001) Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 75–95). London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Foster, P. , & Skehan, P
    (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  10. Foster, P. , & Tavakoli, P
    (2009) Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59, 866–896. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00528.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Gilabert, R
    (2007) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 production. IRAL, 45, 215–240. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ishikawa, T
    (2006) The effects of manipulating task complexity along the ( ± Here-and-Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In C.M. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Kellogg, R.T
    (1996) A model of working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Randsell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kormos, J
    (2005)  Speech production and second language acquisition . London: Routledge. doi: 10.1017/s0272263105220211
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105220211 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 215–240. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kormos, J. , & Trebits, A
    (2012) The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00695.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I
    (2007) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL, 45, 261–284. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2011) Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Levelt, W
    (1989)  Speaking: From intention to articulation . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.5860/choice.27‑1947
     https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.27-1947 [Google Scholar]
  20. Mohan, B.A
    (1986) Language and content.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1986.tb00368.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb00368.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Norris, J. , & Ortega, L
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–577. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp044
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nunan, D
    (1989)  Designing communicative tasks for language classrooms . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ong, J. , & Zhang, L
    (2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students' argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pawley, A. , & Syder, F
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Platt, E. , & Brooks, F
    (1994) The “acquisition-rich environment” revisited. Modern Language Journal, 78, 497–511. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1994.tb02067.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02067.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Rahimpour, M
    (1997) Task condition, task complexity and variation in oral L2 discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Robinson, P
    (1995) Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00964.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00964.x [Google Scholar]
  28. (2001) Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2007) Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects of L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task complexity. IRAL, 45, 193–213. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2011)  Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Roca de Larios, J. , Manchón, R. , Murphy, L. , & Marín, J
    (2008) The foreign language writer's strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  32. Skehan, P
    (1998)  A cognitive approach to language learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1177/003368829802900209
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900209 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. doi: 10.1017/S026144480200188X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X [Google Scholar]
  34. (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp047
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  35. Skehan, P. , & Foster, P
    (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–212. doi: 10.1177/136216889700100302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  36. Tavakoli, P
    (2009a) Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding the effects of task design. System, 37, 482–495. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.02.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.013 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2009b) Learner and teacher perceptions of task complexity. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2009.00216.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00216.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Tavakoli, P. , & Foster, P
    (2008) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00446.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Tavakoli, P. , & Skehan, P
    (2005) Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Allan, D
    (1992) Oxford Placement Test 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Coughlan, P. , & Duff, P
    (1994) Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Donato, R
    (2000) Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ellis, R
    (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100006483
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006483 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2003)  Task-based language learning and teaching . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Ellis, R. , & Yuan, F
    (2005) The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.11ell [Google Scholar]
  7. Flower, L.S. , & Hayes, J.R
    (1980) The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Foster, P
    (2001) Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 75–95). London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Foster, P. , & Skehan, P
    (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  10. Foster, P. , & Tavakoli, P
    (2009) Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59, 866–896. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00528.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Gilabert, R
    (2007) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 production. IRAL, 45, 215–240. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ishikawa, T
    (2006) The effects of manipulating task complexity along the ( ± Here-and-Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In C.M. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Kellogg, R.T
    (1996) A model of working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Randsell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kormos, J
    (2005)  Speech production and second language acquisition . London: Routledge. doi: 10.1017/s0272263105220211
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105220211 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 215–240. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kormos, J. , & Trebits, A
    (2012) The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00695.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I
    (2007) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL, 45, 261–284. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2011) Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Levelt, W
    (1989)  Speaking: From intention to articulation . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.5860/choice.27‑1947
     https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.27-1947 [Google Scholar]
  20. Mohan, B.A
    (1986) Language and content.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1986.tb00368.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb00368.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Norris, J. , & Ortega, L
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–577. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp044
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nunan, D
    (1989)  Designing communicative tasks for language classrooms . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ong, J. , & Zhang, L
    (2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students' argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pawley, A. , & Syder, F
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Platt, E. , & Brooks, F
    (1994) The “acquisition-rich environment” revisited. Modern Language Journal, 78, 497–511. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1994.tb02067.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02067.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Rahimpour, M
    (1997) Task condition, task complexity and variation in oral L2 discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Robinson, P
    (1995) Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00964.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00964.x [Google Scholar]
  28. (2001) Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2007) Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects of L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task complexity. IRAL, 45, 193–213. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2011)  Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Roca de Larios, J. , Manchón, R. , Murphy, L. , & Marín, J
    (2008) The foreign language writer's strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  32. Skehan, P
    (1998)  A cognitive approach to language learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1177/003368829802900209
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900209 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. doi: 10.1017/S026144480200188X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X [Google Scholar]
  34. (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp047
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  35. Skehan, P. , & Foster, P
    (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–212. doi: 10.1177/136216889700100302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  36. Tavakoli, P
    (2009a) Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding the effects of task design. System, 37, 482–495. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.02.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.013 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2009b) Learner and teacher perceptions of task complexity. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2009.00216.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00216.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Tavakoli, P. , & Foster, P
    (2008) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00446.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Tavakoli, P. , & Skehan, P
    (2005) Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269713-tblt.7.09tav
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269713-tblt.7.09tav
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269713
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