oa Pitfalls of production data analysis for investigating L2 cognitive mechanism

References

1. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
   (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
   https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
2. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R.
   (1991) Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314. 10.1037/0033‑2909.110.2.305
   https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305 [Google Scholar]
3. Borsboom, D., & Cramer, A. O. J.
   (2013) Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 91, 91–121. 10.1146/annurev‑clinpsy‑050212‑185608
   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185608 [Google Scholar]
4. Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J., Kievit, R. A., Zand Scholten, A., & Franić, S.
   (2009) The end of construct validity. InR. W. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity (pp.135–170). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J.
   (2004) The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. 10.1037/0033‑295X.111.4.1061
   https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061 [Google Scholar]
6. Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J.
   (2017) An experimental approach to linguistic representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 401, e282. 10.1017/S0140525X16002028
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16002028 [Google Scholar]
7. Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
   (2018) Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 147–164. 10.1111/ijal.12196
   https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12196 [Google Scholar]
8. Cartwright, N.
   (1983) How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/0198247044.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/0198247044.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
9. Churchland, P.
   (1995) The engine of reason, the seat of the soul: A philosophical journey into the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/2758.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2758.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
10. Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S.
    (2008) Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.013 [Google Scholar]
11. Declerck, M., & Kormos, J.
    (2012) The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 782–796. 10.1017/S1366728911000629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000629 [Google Scholar]
12. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P.
    (2000) On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155–174. 10.1037/1082‑989X.5.2.155
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155 [Google Scholar]
13. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L.
    (1982) Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452. 10.1177/002224378201900406
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378201900406 [Google Scholar]
15. Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P.
    (2009) Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language learning, 59(4), 866–896. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00528.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x [Google Scholar]
16. Fukuta, J., Goto, A., Kawaguchi, Y., Kurita, A., & Murota, D.
    (2018) Syntactically–driven algorithmic processing of PP-attachment ambiguity in a second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(3), 253–277. 10.1515/iral‑2017‑0038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0038 [Google Scholar]
17. Fukuta, J., Goto, A., Kawaguchi, Y., Murota, D., & Kurita, A.
    (2015) Japanese EFL learners’ implicit knowledge and algorithmic processing of dative alternation: Perspective from syntactic priming in reading comprehension. ARELE: Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 261, 221–236. 10.20581/arele.26.0_221
    https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.26.0_221 [Google Scholar]
18. Fukuta, J., & Yamashita, J.
    (2015) Effects of cognitive demands on attention orientation in L2 oral production. System, 531, 1–12. 10.1016/j.system.2015.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.010 [Google Scholar]
19. García Mayo, M. D. P.
    (Ed.) (2006) Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599286
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286 [Google Scholar]
20. Gilabert, R.
    (2007a) The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+ / - here-and-now): Effects on L2 oral production. InM. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.44–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gilabert, R.
    (2007b) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 215–240. 10.1515/iral.2007.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010 [Google Scholar]
22. Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, À.
    (2009) Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3), 367–395. 10.1515/iral.2009.016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.016 [Google Scholar]
23. Hacking, I.
    (1983) Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814563
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814563 [Google Scholar]
24. Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E.
    (2004) Is Syntax Separate or Shared Between Languages?: Cross-Linguistic Syntactic Priming in Spanish-English Bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15(6), 409–414. 10.1111/j.0956‑7976.2004.00693.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00693.x [Google Scholar]
25. Hiver, P., & Al-hoorie, A. H.
    (2016) A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 741–756. 10.1111/modl.12347
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12347 [Google Scholar]
26. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F.
    (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. 10.1093/applin/amp048
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 [Google Scholar]
27. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (Eds.) (2012) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32 [Google Scholar]
28. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J.
    (1958) An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. the growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence. A. Parsons & S. Milgram (Trans.). New York: Basic Books. 10.1037/10034‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000 [Google Scholar]
29. Ishikawa, T.
    (2007) The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+ / - here-and-now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. InM. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Ishikawa, T.
    (2008) The effect of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 51, 29–63.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Izumi, E., Uchimoto, K., & Isahara, H.
    (2004) The NICT-JLE Corpus: Exploiting the language learners’ speech database for research and education. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 12(2), 119–125.
    [Google Scholar]
32. 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. 10.1111/lang.12008
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12008 [Google Scholar]
33. Jolliffe, I. T.
    (2002) Principal component analysis (2nd ed). New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kaan, E., & Chun, E.
    (2018) Priming and adaptation in native speakers and second-language learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(2), 228–242. 10.1017/S1366728916001231
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916001231 [Google Scholar]
35. Kaan, E., Futch, C., Fuertes, R. F., Mujcinovic, S., & Fuente, E. Á. D. L.
    (2019) Adaptation to syntactic structures in native and nonnative sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 3–27. 10.1017/S0142716418000437
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000437 [Google Scholar]
36. Khezrlou, S.
    (2020) The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3(1), 31–54. 10.1075/jsls.19025.khe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe [Google Scholar]
37. Kim, Y.
    (2009) The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 371, 254–268. 10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003 [Google Scholar]
38. Koizumi, R., & In’nami, Y.
    (2014) Modeling complexity, accuracy, and fluency of Japanese Learners of English: A structural equation modeling approach. JALT Journal, 36(1), 25–46. 10.37546/JALTJJ36.1‑2
    https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ36.1-2 [Google Scholar]
39. Kormos, J., & Trebits, A.
    (2012) The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 621, 439–472. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00695.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x [Google Scholar]
40. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2007) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 451, 261–284. 10.1515/iral.2007.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012 [Google Scholar]
41. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2008) Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 171, 48–60. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003 [Google Scholar]
42. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2012) Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp.143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.07kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.07kui [Google Scholar]
43. Lambert, C., & Kormos, J.
    (2014) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 607–614. 10.1093/applin/amu047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu047 [Google Scholar]
44. Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D.
    (2017) Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167–196. 10.1017/S0272263116000085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000085 [Google Scholar]
45. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. 10.1093/applin/aml029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
46. Laudan, L.
    (1981) A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48(1), 19–49. 10.1086/288975
    https://doi.org/10.1086/288975 [Google Scholar]
47. Markus, K. A., & Borsboom, D.
    (2013) Frontiers of test validity theory: Measurement, causation, and meaning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203501207
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203501207 [Google Scholar]
48. Mehnert, U.
    (1998) The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83–108. 10.1017/S0272263198001041
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001041 [Google Scholar]
49. Nishimura, Y., Kawaguchi, Y., & Abe, D.
    (2018) The relationship between complexity and fluency in L2 writing: An approach using network analysis. Language Education & Technology, (55), 171–198.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Nishimura, Y., Tamura, Y., & Fukuta, J.
    (2018) Network structures in L2 oral performance: A learner corpus study. ARELE: Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 291, 113–128. CitetononCRdoi:10.20581/arele.29.0_113
    https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.20581/arele.29.0_113 [Google Scholar]
51. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. 10.1093/applin/amp044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
52. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J.
    (2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 [Google Scholar]
53. Pallotti, G.
    (2009) CAF: Defining, refining, and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. 10.1093/applin/amp045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 [Google Scholar]
54. Pallotti, G.
    (2015) A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134. 10.1177/0267658314536435
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536435 [Google Scholar]
55. Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P.
    (1999) Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in cognitive sciences, 3(4), 136–141. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(99)01293‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01293-0 [Google Scholar]
56. Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y.
    (2016) Task-Based Learner Production: A Substantive and Methodological Review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 73–97. 10.1017/S0267190516000015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000015 [Google Scholar]
57. Polat, B., & Kim, Y.
    (2014) Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 184–207. 10.1093/applin/amt013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt013 [Google Scholar]
58. Révész, A.
    (2014) Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 87–92. 10.1093/applin/amt039
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt039 [Google Scholar]
59. Reynolds, C. W.
    (1987) Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. SIGGRAPH ’87: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. Association for Computing Machinery. pp.25–34. 10.1145/37401.37406
    https://doi.org/10.1145/37401.37406 [Google Scholar]
60. Robinson, P.
    (1995) Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45(1), 99–140. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00964.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00964.x [Google Scholar]
61. Robinson, P.
    (2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27 [Google Scholar]
62. Robinson, P.
    (2003) Attention and memory during SLA. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.631–678). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch19 [Google Scholar]
63. Robinson, P.
    (2007) Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. InM. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.7–26). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Robinson, P. J.
    (2011) Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. InP. J. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.2–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1 [Google Scholar]
65. Romeijn, J. W.
    (2008) The all-too-flexible abductive method: ATOM’s normative status. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(9), 1023–1036. 10.1002/jclp.20516
    https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20516 [Google Scholar]
66. Schmittmann, V. D., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Epskamp, S., Kievit, R. A., & Borsboom, D.
    (2013) Deconstructing the construct: A network perspective on psychological phenomena. New Ideas in Psychology, 31(1), 43–53. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.02.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.02.007 [Google Scholar]
67. Sheppard, C.
    (2004) The measurement of second language production: The validity of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. ICU Language Research Bulletin, 191, 139–156.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Skehan, P.
    (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. 10.1093/applin/17.1.38
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38 [Google Scholar]
69. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Skehan, P.
    (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. 10.1093/applin/amp047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
71. Skehan, P.
    (2014) The context researching a processing perspective on task performance. InP. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.01ske
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.01ske [Google Scholar]
72. Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
    (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211. 10.1177/136216889700100302
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
73. Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
    (1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language learning, 49(1), 93–120. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00071
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071 [Google Scholar]
74. Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
    (2005) Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. InR. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.12ske
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.12ske [Google Scholar]
75. Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M.
    (2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–553. 10.1093/applin/amq001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq001 [Google Scholar]
76. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P.
    (2011) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 611, 37–72. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00642.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x [Google Scholar]
77. Van Fraassen, B.
    (1980) The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0198244274.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
78. Vercellotti, M. L.
    (2017) The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 90–111. 10.1093/applin/amv002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv002 [Google Scholar]
79. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
    [Google Scholar]
80. Wright, C.
    (2020) Effects of task type on L2 Mandarin fluency development. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3(2), 157–179. 10.1075/jsls.00010.wri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00010.wri [Google Scholar]
81. Xu, T. S., Zhang, L. J., & Gaffney, J. S.
    (2021) Examining the relative effectiveness of task complexity and cognitive demands on students’ writing in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. 10.1017/S0272263121000310
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000310 [Google Scholar]
82. Yu, H., & Lowie, W.
    (2019) Dynamic paths of complexity and accuracy in second language speech: A longitudinal case study of Chinese learners. Applied Linguistics, 41(6), 855–877. 10.1093/applin/amz040
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz040 [Google Scholar]
83. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R.
    (2003) The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. 10.1093/applin/24.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1 [Google Scholar]