1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Processing Perspectives on Task Performance
  4. Chapter

Chapter 2. On-line time pressure manipulations

L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions

image of Chapter 2. On-line time pressure manipulations

This chapter is concerned with an investigation of the underlying mechanisms of second language speaking. It reports on an experiment containing five different types of planning and repetition conditions, each relevant to certain processes and stages of speech production. The five conditions were two forms of strategic planning, two forms of on-line planning, and task repetition. Data were collected from 77 undergraduates (L1: Chinese and L2: English) doing a video narrative task in English. Speech samples were transcribed and coded. The study found: (1) strategic planning improved speech complexity and fluency, suggesting that support for the conceptualization stage in speech production helps language complexity and fluency; (2) on-line planning solely focusing on the formulation stage did not enhance speech complexity and accuracy, whereas on-line planning supported by an earlier opportunity to watch the video did, indicating a ‘meaning priority’ principle in speaking; (3) repetition enhanced speech complexity, fluency, and accuracy, suggesting that repetition is a robust way to improve speaking quality. Based on the results, an instructional model of L2 speech intervention is proposed. It argues that speech monitoring is the key to accuracy. Interventions at the speech formulation stage, which are often emphasized in pedagogy, work for accuracy only when speakers are instructed to attend to monitoring.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Pittsburgh

References

  1. Ahmadian, M.J. , & Tavakoli, M
    (2011) The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59. doi: 10.1177/1362168810383329
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, J.R
    (1983) The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, J.R. , & Lebiere, C
    (1998) The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, J.R. , Bothell, D. , Byrne, M.D. , Douglass, S. , Lebiere, C. , & Qin, Y
    (2004) An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.111.4.1036
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baddeley, A.D
    (1986) Working Memory. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2003) Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208. doi: 10.1016/S0021‑9924(03)00019‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bell, H
    (2003) Using frequency lists to assess L2 texts. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Swansea.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bygate, M
    (1996) Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 134–146). London: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (1999) Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27(1), 33–48. doi: 10.1016/S0346‑251X(98)00048‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00048-7 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate , et al. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bygate, M. , & Samuda, V
    (2005) Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.05byg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.05byg [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen, J
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.112.1.155
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1994) The earth is round (p <.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003. doi: 10.1037/0003‑066X.49.12.997
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cortina, J.M. , & Nouri, H
    (2000) Effect size for ANOVA Designs. State University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–129. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781412984010
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984010 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crookes, G
    (1989) Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–83. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100008391
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008391 [Google Scholar]
  17. De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A
    (2011) Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00620.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Dörnyei, Z. , & Scott, M.L
    (1997) Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173–210. doi: 10.1111/0023‑8333.51997005
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.51997005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Doughty, C
    (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, R
    (2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474−507. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp042
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–20. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100006483
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006483 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2005) Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. 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]
  24. (2008) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in l2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp042
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G
    (2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Foster, P
    (1996) Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 126–135). Oxford: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (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. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Foster, P. , Tonkyn, A. , & Wigglesworth, J
    (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354−75. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  30. Foster, P. , & Skehan, P
    (1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1999) The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching research, 3, 185–214. doi: 10.1177/136216889900300303
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300303 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gass, S. , Mackey, A. , Álvarez-Torres, M.J. , & Fernández-García, M
    (1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581. doi: 10.1111/0023‑8333.00102
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gilabert, R
    (2007) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL, 45, 215–240. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Guará-Tavares, M.G
    (2008) Pre-task planning, working memory capacity and L2 speech performance. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hinkel, E
    (2004) TOEFL test strategies with practice tests (3rd ed.) Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Housen, A. , & Kuiken, F
    (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp048
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hulstijn, J.H. , & Hulstijn, W
    (1984) Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1984.tb00994.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00994.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Hunter, J.E. , & Schmidt, F.L
    (1990) Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kawauchi, C
    (2005) The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of leaners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11.09kaw
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.09kaw [Google Scholar]
  40. Kello, C.T , & Plaut, D
    (2003) Strategic control over rate of processing in word reading: A computational investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 207–232. doi: 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00512‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00512-0 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kello, C.T
    (2004) Control over the time course of cognition in the tempo-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(5), 942–955. doi: 10.1037/0096‑1523.30.5.942
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.942 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kello, C.T. , & Plaut, D.C
    (2000) Strategic control in word reading: Evidence from speeded responding in the tempo-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 719–750. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.26.3.719
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.719 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kello, C. , Plaut, D. , & MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The task-dependence of staged versus cascaded processing: An empirical and computational study of Stroop interference in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 340–360. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.129.3.340
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.340 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kempen, G. , & Hoenkamp, E
    (1987) An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kormos, J
    (2006) Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kroll, J.F. , & Stewart, E
    (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lashley, K.S
    (1951) The problem of serial order in behavior. In L.A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (pp. 112–146). New York, NY: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Levelt, W.J.M , Roelofs, A. , & Meyer, A.S
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.10.1017/S0140525X99001776
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776 [Google Scholar]
  49. Levelt, W.J.M
    (1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 33, 41–103. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90026‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar]
  50. (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (1993) Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In G. Blanken , J. Dittmann , H. Grimm , J.C. Marshall , & C–W. Wallesch , (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies (pp. 1–15). Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (1999) Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (2001) Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98(23), 13464–13471. doi: 10.1073/pnas.231459498
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.231459498 [Google Scholar]
  54. Long M. , & Robinson, P
    (1998) Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Lynch, T. , & Maclean, J
    (2000) Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–50.10.1177/136216880000400303
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400303 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2001) Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Malvern, D. , & Richards, B
    (2002) Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104. doi: 10.1191/0265532202lt221oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt221oa [Google Scholar]
  59. 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]
  60. Meehl, P.E
    (1990) Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66, 195–244. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195
     https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mehnert, U
    (1998) The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108. doi: 10.1017/S0272263198001041
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001041 [Google Scholar]
  62. Meyer, D.E. , & Gordon, P.C
    (1985) Speech production: Motor programming of phonetic features. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 3–26. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90013‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90013-0 [Google Scholar]
  63. Mochizuki, N. , & Ortega, L
    (2008) Balancing communication and grammar in beginning level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization, Language Teaching Research, 12, 11–37. doi: 10.1177/1362168807084492
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807084492 [Google Scholar]
  64. Norris, J.M. , & Ortega, L
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in 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]
  65. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. doi: 10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  66. Ortega, L
    (1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. doi: 10.1017/S0272263199001047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001047 [Google Scholar]
  67. Read, J
    (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511732942
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732942 [Google Scholar]
  68. Richards, B.J. , & Malvern, D.D
    (1998) A new research tool: Mathematical modelling in the measurement of vocabulary diversity (Award reference no. R000221995). Final Report to the Economic and Social Research Council , Swindon, UK.
  69. 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]
  70. (2011) Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(Suppl. 1), 1–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00641.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x [Google Scholar]
  71. Roelofs, A
    (1997) The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(97)00027‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00027-9 [Google Scholar]
  72. Rosenthal, R
    (1991) Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412984997
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984997 [Google Scholar]
  73. Samuda, V. , & Bygate, M
    (2008) Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230596429
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429 [Google Scholar]
  74. Sangarun, J
    (2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.08san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.08san [Google Scholar]
  75. Sawaki, Y. , Stricker, L.J. , & Oranje, A.H
    (2009) Factor structure of the TOEFL internet-based test. Language Testing, 26(1), 5–30. doi: 10.1177/0265532208097335
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208097335 [Google Scholar]
  76. Schmidt, R
    (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  77. Schneider, W. , & Chein, J.M
    (2003) Controlled & automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27, 525–559. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2703_8
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2703_8 [Google Scholar]
  78. Schriefers, H. , Meyer, A.S. , & Levelt, W.J.M
    (1990) Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(90)90011‑N
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N [Google Scholar]
  79. Seidenberg, M.S
    (1997) Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 275, 1599–1603. doi: 10.1126/science.275.5306.1599
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1599 [Google Scholar]
  80. Shiffrin, R.M. , & Schneider, W
    (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing, II: Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.84.2.127
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127 [Google Scholar]
  81. Skehan, P
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. (2009a) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp047
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  83. (2009b) Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In H. Daller , D. Malvern , P. Meara , J. Milton , B. Richards , & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107–124). London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230242258_7
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230242258_7 [Google Scholar]
  84. 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(3), 16–33. doi: 10.1177/136216889700100302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  85. (1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9922.00071
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071 [Google Scholar]
  86. (2005) Strategic and online planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.12ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.12ske [Google Scholar]
  87. (2008) Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In S. Van Daele , A. Housen , F. Kuiken , M. Pierrard , & I. Vedder , (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 263–284). Brussels: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Skehan, P. , Bei, X. , Li, Q. , & Wang, Z
    (2012) The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 170–187. doi: 10.1177/1362168811428414
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811428414 [Google Scholar]
  89. Squire, L.R
    (1987) Memory and brain. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Tajima, M
    (2003) The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 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]
  92. 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. 239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav [Google Scholar]
  93. Ullman, M.T
    (2001a) The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1), 37–69. doi: 10.1023/A:1005204207369
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005204207369 [Google Scholar]
  94. (2001b) The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105–122. doi: 10.1017/S1366728901000220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000220 [Google Scholar]
  95. (2004) Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  96. (2008) The role of memory systems in disorders of language. In B. Stemmer & H.A. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of language (pp. 189–198). Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑045352‑1.00018‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045352-1.00018-5 [Google Scholar]
  97. Ullman, M.T. , Pancheva, R. , Love, T. , Yee, E. , Swinney, D. , & Hickok, G
    (2005) Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: Evidence from the production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language, 93(2), 185–238. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  98. VanPatten, B
    (1990) Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100009177
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177 [Google Scholar]
  99. Wendel, J
    (1997) Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Temple University, Japan.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Wigglesworth, G
    (1997) An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85–106. doi: 10.1177/026553229701400105
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400105 [Google Scholar]
  101. Yuan, F. , & Ellis, R
    (2003) The Effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologicoral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–2. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Ahmadian, M.J. , & Tavakoli, M
    (2011) The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59. doi: 10.1177/1362168810383329
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, J.R
    (1983) The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, J.R. , & Lebiere, C
    (1998) The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, J.R. , Bothell, D. , Byrne, M.D. , Douglass, S. , Lebiere, C. , & Qin, Y
    (2004) An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.111.4.1036
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baddeley, A.D
    (1986) Working Memory. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2003) Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208. doi: 10.1016/S0021‑9924(03)00019‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bell, H
    (2003) Using frequency lists to assess L2 texts. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Swansea.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bygate, M
    (1996) Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 134–146). London: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (1999) Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27(1), 33–48. doi: 10.1016/S0346‑251X(98)00048‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00048-7 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate , et al. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bygate, M. , & Samuda, V
    (2005) Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.05byg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.05byg [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen, J
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.112.1.155
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1994) The earth is round (p <.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003. doi: 10.1037/0003‑066X.49.12.997
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cortina, J.M. , & Nouri, H
    (2000) Effect size for ANOVA Designs. State University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–129. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781412984010
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984010 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crookes, G
    (1989) Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–83. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100008391
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008391 [Google Scholar]
  17. De Jong, N. & Perfetti, C.A
    (2011) Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00620.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Dörnyei, Z. , & Scott, M.L
    (1997) Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173–210. doi: 10.1111/0023‑8333.51997005
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.51997005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Doughty, C
    (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, R
    (2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474−507. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp042
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–20. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100006483
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006483 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2005) Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. 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]
  24. (2008) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in l2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp042
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G
    (2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Foster, P
    (1996) Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 126–135). Oxford: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (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. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Foster, P. , Tonkyn, A. , & Wigglesworth, J
    (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354−75. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  30. Foster, P. , & Skehan, P
    (1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100015047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1999) The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching research, 3, 185–214. doi: 10.1177/136216889900300303
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300303 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gass, S. , Mackey, A. , Álvarez-Torres, M.J. , & Fernández-García, M
    (1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581. doi: 10.1111/0023‑8333.00102
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gilabert, R
    (2007) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL, 45, 215–240. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Guará-Tavares, M.G
    (2008) Pre-task planning, working memory capacity and L2 speech performance. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hinkel, E
    (2004) TOEFL test strategies with practice tests (3rd ed.) Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Housen, A. , & Kuiken, F
    (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp048
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hulstijn, J.H. , & Hulstijn, W
    (1984) Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1984.tb00994.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00994.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Hunter, J.E. , & Schmidt, F.L
    (1990) Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kawauchi, C
    (2005) The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of leaners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11.09kaw
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.09kaw [Google Scholar]
  40. Kello, C.T , & Plaut, D
    (2003) Strategic control over rate of processing in word reading: A computational investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 207–232. doi: 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00512‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00512-0 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kello, C.T
    (2004) Control over the time course of cognition in the tempo-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(5), 942–955. doi: 10.1037/0096‑1523.30.5.942
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.942 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kello, C.T. , & Plaut, D.C
    (2000) Strategic control in word reading: Evidence from speeded responding in the tempo-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 719–750. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.26.3.719
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.719 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kello, C. , Plaut, D. , & MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The task-dependence of staged versus cascaded processing: An empirical and computational study of Stroop interference in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 340–360. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.129.3.340
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.340 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kempen, G. , & Hoenkamp, E
    (1987) An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1102_5 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kormos, J
    (2006) Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kroll, J.F. , & Stewart, E
    (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lashley, K.S
    (1951) The problem of serial order in behavior. In L.A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (pp. 112–146). New York, NY: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Levelt, W.J.M , Roelofs, A. , & Meyer, A.S
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.10.1017/S0140525X99001776
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776 [Google Scholar]
  49. Levelt, W.J.M
    (1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 33, 41–103. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90026‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4 [Google Scholar]
  50. (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (1993) Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In G. Blanken , J. Dittmann , H. Grimm , J.C. Marshall , & C–W. Wallesch , (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies (pp. 1–15). Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (1999) Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (2001) Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98(23), 13464–13471. doi: 10.1073/pnas.231459498
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.231459498 [Google Scholar]
  54. Long M. , & Robinson, P
    (1998) Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Lynch, T. , & Maclean, J
    (2000) Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–50.10.1177/136216880000400303
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400303 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2001) Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Malvern, D. , & Richards, B
    (2002) Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104. doi: 10.1191/0265532202lt221oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt221oa [Google Scholar]
  59. 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]
  60. Meehl, P.E
    (1990) Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66, 195–244. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195
     https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mehnert, U
    (1998) The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108. doi: 10.1017/S0272263198001041
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001041 [Google Scholar]
  62. Meyer, D.E. , & Gordon, P.C
    (1985) Speech production: Motor programming of phonetic features. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 3–26. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90013‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90013-0 [Google Scholar]
  63. Mochizuki, N. , & Ortega, L
    (2008) Balancing communication and grammar in beginning level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization, Language Teaching Research, 12, 11–37. doi: 10.1177/1362168807084492
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807084492 [Google Scholar]
  64. Norris, J.M. , & Ortega, L
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in 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]
  65. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. doi: 10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  66. Ortega, L
    (1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. doi: 10.1017/S0272263199001047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001047 [Google Scholar]
  67. Read, J
    (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511732942
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732942 [Google Scholar]
  68. Richards, B.J. , & Malvern, D.D
    (1998) A new research tool: Mathematical modelling in the measurement of vocabulary diversity (Award reference no. R000221995). Final Report to the Economic and Social Research Council , Swindon, UK.
  69. 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]
  70. (2011) Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(Suppl. 1), 1–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00641.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x [Google Scholar]
  71. Roelofs, A
    (1997) The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(97)00027‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00027-9 [Google Scholar]
  72. Rosenthal, R
    (1991) Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412984997
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984997 [Google Scholar]
  73. Samuda, V. , & Bygate, M
    (2008) Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230596429
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429 [Google Scholar]
  74. Sangarun, J
    (2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.08san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.08san [Google Scholar]
  75. Sawaki, Y. , Stricker, L.J. , & Oranje, A.H
    (2009) Factor structure of the TOEFL internet-based test. Language Testing, 26(1), 5–30. doi: 10.1177/0265532208097335
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208097335 [Google Scholar]
  76. Schmidt, R
    (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  77. Schneider, W. , & Chein, J.M
    (2003) Controlled & automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27, 525–559. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2703_8
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2703_8 [Google Scholar]
  78. Schriefers, H. , Meyer, A.S. , & Levelt, W.J.M
    (1990) Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596X(90)90011‑N
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N [Google Scholar]
  79. Seidenberg, M.S
    (1997) Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science, 275, 1599–1603. doi: 10.1126/science.275.5306.1599
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1599 [Google Scholar]
  80. Shiffrin, R.M. , & Schneider, W
    (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing, II: Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.84.2.127
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127 [Google Scholar]
  81. Skehan, P
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. (2009a) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp047
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  83. (2009b) Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In H. Daller , D. Malvern , P. Meara , J. Milton , B. Richards , & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107–124). London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230242258_7
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230242258_7 [Google Scholar]
  84. 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(3), 16–33. doi: 10.1177/136216889700100302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  85. (1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9922.00071
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071 [Google Scholar]
  86. (2005) Strategic and online planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.12ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.12ske [Google Scholar]
  87. (2008) Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In S. Van Daele , A. Housen , F. Kuiken , M. Pierrard , & I. Vedder , (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 263–284). Brussels: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Skehan, P. , Bei, X. , Li, Q. , & Wang, Z
    (2012) The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 170–187. doi: 10.1177/1362168811428414
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811428414 [Google Scholar]
  89. Squire, L.R
    (1987) Memory and brain. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Tajima, M
    (2003) The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 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]
  92. 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. 239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav [Google Scholar]
  93. Ullman, M.T
    (2001a) The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1), 37–69. doi: 10.1023/A:1005204207369
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005204207369 [Google Scholar]
  94. (2001b) The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 105–122. doi: 10.1017/S1366728901000220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000220 [Google Scholar]
  95. (2004) Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  96. (2008) The role of memory systems in disorders of language. In B. Stemmer & H.A. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of language (pp. 189–198). Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑045352‑1.00018‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045352-1.00018-5 [Google Scholar]
  97. Ullman, M.T. , Pancheva, R. , Love, T. , Yee, E. , Swinney, D. , & Hickok, G
    (2005) Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: Evidence from the production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language, 93(2), 185–238. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  98. VanPatten, B
    (1990) Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100009177
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177 [Google Scholar]
  99. Wendel, J
    (1997) Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Temple University, Japan.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Wigglesworth, G
    (1997) An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85–106. doi: 10.1177/026553229701400105
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400105 [Google Scholar]
  101. Yuan, F. , & Ellis, R
    (2003) The Effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologicoral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–2. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1 [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270412-tblt.5.02wan
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270412-tblt.5.02wan
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270412
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