Cover not available
Article published In:
TASK
Vol. 1:2 (2021) ► pp.227–265

Effects of task complexity on L2 suggestions

An exploratory study on trade-offs between accuracy and complexity

ORCID logo | Charles University , Czech Republic
ORCID logo | University of Barcelona , Spain

This exploratory study aims at determining whether increased task complexity affects performance of second language (L2) pragmatics. 34 Spanish learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) undertook simple and complex interactive tasks targeting the speech act of suggesting. Although previous analyses of learner-learner interaction have demonstrated that increasing the cognitive load of a task may affect the number of speech acts in conversation, not enough evidence to support this premise was found. In addition, the assessment of suggestions as provided by native speakers of American English shows that increased task complexity along number of elements, social distance, and degree of imposition is likely to promote accuracy and complexity of pragmatic moves without making L2 learners trade off either accuracy or complexity. Pedagogical implications in the fields of L2 pragmatics and task-based language teaching (TBLT) are further discussed.

Keywords: L2 pragmatics, speech act, suggestion, task complexity, trade-offs
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Task complexity and L2 oral production
    • L2 suggestions and task complexity
    • Research questions and hypotheses
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Tasks
    • Data collection procedure
    • Coding of suggestions
    • Assessment of suggestions
    • Interrater reliability
    • Statistical analyses
  • Results
    • Task difficulty
    • Impact of task complexity on the number of speech acts
    • Impact of task complexity on the accuracy and complexity of speech acts
      • Accuracy and complexity scores
      • Trade-offs between accuracy and complexity
      • Assessment criteria of raters
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.20007.mar
References
Abolfathiasl, H., & Abdullah, A. N.
(2013) Pragmatic strategies and linguistic structures in making ‘suggestions’: Towards comprehensive taxonomies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2 (6), 236–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aminifard, Y., Safaei, E., & Askari, H.
(2014) Speech act of suggestion across language proficiency and gender in Iranian context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3 (5), 189–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aufa, F.
(2014) The use of discourse completion task (DCT) as explicit instruction on Indonesian EFL learners’ production of suggestion acts. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 2 (6), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, J., & Carrell, P. L.
(1988) Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language Learning, 38 (3), 313–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M.
(2013) The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 1, 689–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(2012) Pragmatics in SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147–162). Routledge.Google Scholar
(2013) Development of L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63 1, 68–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S.
(1993) Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 1, 279–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
(1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chalak, A., & Abbasi, S.
(2015) The effects of explicit and implicit pragmatic instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ production of suggestion speech act in the context of distance learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2 (4), 275–284.Google Scholar
COE
(2018) CEFR companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Darweesh, A. D., & Al-Aadili, N. M.
(2017) Investigating Iraqi EFL learners’ performance in utilizing the speech acts of advice and suggestion. International Journal of English Linguistic, 7 (4), 179–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekin, M. T. Y.
(2013) Do current EFL coursebooks work for the development of L2 pragmatic competence? The case of suggestions. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93 1, 1306–1310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farnia, M., Sohrabie, A., & Sattar, H. Q.
(2014) A pragmatic analysis of speech act of suggestion among Iranian native speakers of Farsi. Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics, 2 (2), 47–61.Google Scholar
Fernández-Guerra, A., & Martínez-Flor, A.
(2006) Is teaching how to “suggest” a good “suggestion”? An empirical study based on EFL learners’ accuracy and appropriateness when making suggestions. Porta Linguarum, 5 1, 91–108. [URL]
George, D., & Mallery, P.
(2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Fourth edition (11.0 update). Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R.
(2007a) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 (3), 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007b) The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning and +/− here-and-now: Effects on L2 oral production. In M. P. García Mayo. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R., & Barón, J.
(2013) The impact of increasing task complexity on L2 pragmatic moves. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey. (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse contexts (pp. 45–70). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 (3–4), 367–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gu, T.
(2014) A corpus-based study on the performance of the suggestion speech act by Chinese EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4 (1), 103–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, T.
(2008) The effects of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5 (1), 29–63.Google Scholar
(2011) Examining the influence of intentional reasoning demands on learner perceptions of task difficulty and L2 monologic speech. In P. Robinson. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 307–330). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S.
(2013) The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63 1, 330–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D.
(2017) Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37 1, 13–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S.
(1993) Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 3–17). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2009) The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37 (2), 254–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Payant, C.
(2017) Impacts of task complexity on the development of L2 oral performance over time. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 55 (2), 197–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koike, D. A.
(1996) Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu. (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 257–281). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2007) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45 (3), 261–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (1), 48–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R.
(2012) The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 171–197). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, J.
(2011) Testing interlanguage pragmatics knowledge. In A. Trosborg. (Ed.), Pragmatics across language and cultures (pp. 467–488). Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, B., & Wang, D.
(2012) Learning to make suggestions in a U.S. chemistry lab: A case study of a Chinese ITA. In G. Gorsuch. (Ed.), Working theories for teaching assistant development: Time-tested & robust theories, frameworks, & models for TA & ITA learning (pp. 655–671). New Forums Press.Google Scholar
Malicka, A., & Levkina, M.
(2012) Measuring task complexity. Does EFL proficiency matter? In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 43–66). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A.
(2004) The effect of instruction on the development of pragmatic competence in the English as a foreign language context: A study based on suggestions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of English Studies, Universitat Jaume I.
Martínez-Flor, A.
(2005) A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 18 1, 167–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. J.
(2005) The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33 (3), 463–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, S.
(2003) Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24 (4), 465–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. C.
(2011) Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141–174). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) The use of conjunctions in cognitively simple versus complex oral L2 tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 97 (1), 178–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 production. In S. Loewen & M. Sato. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2007) The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL, 45 1, 241–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuevo, A.
(2006) Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Georgetown University.
Nuevo, A. M., Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L.
(2011) Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner-learner interaction. In P. Robinson. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 175–202). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2015) A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31 (1), 117–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pishghadam, R., & Sharafadini, M.
(2011) Delving into speech act of suggestion: A case of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2 (16), 152–160.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
(2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A.
(2011) Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95 (s1), 162–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R.
(2016) Measuring cognitive task demands using dual task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38 (4), 703–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rintell, E.
(1979) Getting your speech act together: The pragmatic ability of second language learners. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 17 1, 97–106.Google Scholar
Robinson, P.
(1995) Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45 (1), 99–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001a) 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 University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001b) Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21 (2), 45–105.Google Scholar
(2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43 (1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. P. García Mayo. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–27). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roever, C.
(2006) Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23 (2), 229–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sample, E., & Michel, M.
(2014) An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 31 (8), 23–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S.
(2011) Cognition hypothesis and second language performance: Comparison of written and oral task performance. Second Language Studies, 29 (2), 107–129.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S., & Izumi, S.
(2012) Effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on EFL learners’ oral production. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 23–42). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5 (1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, and fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
(2001) Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N.
(2007) Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28 (1), 113–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production? Analysis of appropriateness, accuracy, and fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49 1, 265–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 313–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C.
(2017) Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S.
(2005) Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics 26 (1), 90–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Awareness and learning in second language pragmatics. Language, Culture, and Communication, 5 1, 53–76.Google Scholar
Youn, S. J.
(2014) Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 pragmatic production- investigating relationships among pragmatics, grammar, and proficiency. System, 42 1, 270–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Barón, Júlia
2023. Chapter 13. A task-supported language approach to teaching L2 pragmatics. In L2 Pragmatics in Action [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 58], ► pp. 319 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.