1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. TASK
  4. Volume 5, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-1748
  • E-ISSN: 2666-1756
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper illustrates how the description of tasks and task performances can benefit from a methodological and interpretative framework called the Register Functional (RF) approach. The paper first discusses research goals, conceptions of context and linguistic interpretation of task performances in TBLT and the RF approach and then provides a sample study that analyzes two different tasks with respect to methods used in some TBLT research and an RF approach to task description and performance. We then illustrate how the RF approach can be used to functionally interpret lexico-grammatical variation by reference to specific situational characteristics of tasks that allow for linguistic interpretation. The paper ends with a discussion of how the RF approach can aid TBLT issues such as language development, task as process vs. task as workplan, and communicative adequacy.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/task.24003.cra
2025-08-08
2026-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/task.24003.cra
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alquaraishi, M.
    (2020) Studying linguistic variation in interactive spoken assessment tasks and its relation to task characteristics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
  2. Becker, A.
    (2021) Exploring multiple profiles of highly collaborative paired oral tasks in an L2 speaking test of English. InW. Crawford (Ed.). Multiple perspective on learner interaction: The corpus of collaborative oral tasks (pp.81–122). Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501511370‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511370-006 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2006) University language. A corpus based study of spoken and written registers. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
    (2022) The register-functional approach to grammatical complexity: Theoretical foundation, descriptive research findings, application. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman. Also published asBiber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (2021) Grammar of spoken and written English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z232
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z232 [Google Scholar]
  8. Breen, M.
    (1989) The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. InR. K. Johnson (Eds.), The second language curriculum (pp.187–206). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524520.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524520.014 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
    (2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.21–46). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul [Google Scholar]
  10. Bygate, M.
    (1996) Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. InJ. Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.). Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.136–146). Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bygate, M., Samuda, V., & Van den Branden, K.
    (2021) A pedagogical rationale for task-based language teaching for the acquisition of real-world language use. InM. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp.27–50). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108868327.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868327.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Byrnes, H.
    (2002) The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate foreign language curriculum. Language Testing, 19(4), 419–437. 10.1191/0265532202lt238oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt238oa [Google Scholar]
  13. (2014) Theorizing language development at the intersection of ‘task’ and L2 writing Reconsidering complexity. InH. Byrnes & R. Manchón (Eds.). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp.79–103). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.7.04byr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.04byr [Google Scholar]
  14. Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R.
    (2014) Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. An introduction. InH. Byrnes & R. Manchón (Eds.). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp.1–23). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.7.01byr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.01byr [Google Scholar]
  15. Crawford, W., McDonough, K., & Brun-Mercer, N.
    (2019) Identifying linguistic markers of collaboration in L2 peer interaction: A lexico-grammatical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 531, 180–207. 10.1002/tesq.477
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.477 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crawford, W. J., & Zhang, M.
    (2021) How can register analysis inform task-based language teaching?. Register Studies, 3(2), 180–206. 10.1075/rs.20021.cra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20021.cra [Google Scholar]
  17. Crawford, W., & Zhang, M.
    (2022) How can register analysis inform task-based language teaching?Register Studies3(2), 180–206. 10.1075/rs.20021.cra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20021.cra [Google Scholar]
  18. (2023) A linguistic analysis of task as process and its implications for task as workplan. Presented atAmerican Association of Applied Linguists. Portland, OR.
  19. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2020) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment — Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved on25 March 2025fromhttps://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Csomay, E.
    (2005) Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education, 15(3), 243–274. 10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Jong, N., Steinel, M., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J.
    (2012) The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and nonnative speakers. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. (pp.121–142). John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32.06jon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.06jon [Google Scholar]
  22. Egbert, J., & Biber, D.
    (2023) Key feature analysis: A simple, yet powerful method for comparing text varieties. Corpora18(1), 121–133. 10.3366/cor.2023.0275
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2023.0275 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2012) Investigating performance of tasks. InR. Ellis (Ed.). Language teaching research & language pedagogy (pp.196–235). Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118271643.ch7
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118271643.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C.
    (2020) Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F.
    (2005) The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. InR. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (167–192). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.11ell [Google Scholar]
  27. Foster, P.
    (1996) Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. InJ. Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.126–135). Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics21(3), 354–375. 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & IATBLT
    (n.d.). The TBLT Language Learning Task Bank. https://tblt.indiana.edu
  30. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1989) Spoken and written language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Ishikawa, T.
    (2007) The effects 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). Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N.
    (2013) The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction?System, 41(3), 829–840. 10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2011) Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.91–104). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lambert, K. & Kormos, J.
    (2016) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics35(5), 607–614. 10.1093/applin/amu047
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu047 [Google Scholar]
  35. Long, M. H.
    (1996) The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413–468). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Long, M., & Crookes, G.
    (1992) Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 261, 27–56. 10.2307/3587368
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587368 [Google Scholar]
  37. LxGrTgr
    LxGrTgr. (n.d.). Retrieved on16 January 2025fromhttps://github.com/kristopherkyle/LxGrTgr
  38. Manchón, R.
    (2014) The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. InH. Byrnes & R. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp.27–52). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.7.02man
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.02man [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Pallotti, G.
    (2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics30/41: 590–601. 10.1093/applin/amp045
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 [Google Scholar]
  41. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J.
    (1993) Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. InG. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.). Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp.9–34). Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. 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]
  44. Qin, J.
    (2022) Potential contribution of SFL to task-based research: An examination of planning effects using genre-based theme analysis. System1041, 102695. 10.1016/j.system.2021.102695
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102695 [Google Scholar]
  45. Qin, J., & Lei, L.
    (2022) Research trends in task-based language teaching: A bibliometric analysis from 1985 to 2020. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching12(3), 381–404. 10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.3.3
     https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.3.3 [Google Scholar]
  46. Reppen, R.
    (2012) Grammar and beyond. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139344067
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139344067 [Google Scholar]
  47. Robinson, P.
    (2007) Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 451, 193–213. 10.1515/iral.2007.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2015) The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. InM. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp.87–122). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.8.04rob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.04rob [Google Scholar]
  49. Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y.
    (2009) Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 301, 533–554. 10.1093/applin/amp046
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp046 [Google Scholar]
  50. Roever, C., & Kasper, G.
    (2018) Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 35(3), 331–335. 10.1177/0265532218758128
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sangarun, J.
    (2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. InR. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.111–142). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.08san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.08san [Google Scholar]
  52. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning, Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (2001) Tasks and language performance assessment. InM. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.). Researching pedagogic tasks second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.167–185). Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2015) Limited attentional capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. InM. Bygate (Ed.). Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. (pp.123–155) John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.8.05ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.05ske [Google Scholar]
  55. Spada, N.
    (2021) Reflecting on task-based language teaching from an Instructed SLA perspective. Language Teaching, 55(1), 74–86. 10.1017/S0261444821000161
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000161 [Google Scholar]
  56. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2007) Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. InM. P. García Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.157–177). Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Samuda, V. & Bygate, M.
    (2021) Exploring the Nuts and Bolts of Task Design. InM. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching. (pp.262-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Taguchi, N.
    (2007) Task difficulty in oral speech act production, Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 113–135. 10.1093/applin/aml051
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml051 [Google Scholar]
  59. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P.
    (2008) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output, Language Learning, 581, 439–73. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00446.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J.
    (Eds.) (2009) Task-based language teaching: A reader. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.1 [Google Scholar]
  61. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R.
    (2003) The effects of pre-task 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]
/content/journals/10.1075/task.24003.cra
Loading
Describing and interpreting task performance using a register functional approach
task 5, 115 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/task.24003.cra
/content/journals/10.1075/task.24003.cra
/content/journals/10.1075/task.24003.cra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): key-feature analysis; lexico-grammatical analysis; linguistic interpretation; register functional approach; task description; task performance

Most Cited

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