Cover not available
Part of
Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics
Edited by Naoko Taguchi and YouJin Kim
[Task-Based Language Teaching 10] 2018
► pp. 83–109

Chapter 4
Task complexity effects on interaction during a collaborative persuasive writing task

A conversation analytic perspective

| Carnegie Mellon University
| Carnegie Mellon University
This study examined whether task complexity (Robinson, 2011a, b), induced through reasoning demands, affects L2 learners’ interaction patterns during a collaborative writing task that involved the pragmatic act of persuasion. We analyzed interaction of two pairs of students when they co-constructed a persuasive essay in English based on a prompt. One pair completed a ‘simple’ task, which provided explicit information about the arguments, macro-structure of the essay, and linguistic devices to use in a persuasive essay, while the other pair completed a ‘complex’ task in which such information was withheld, and thus they needed to use reasoning skills to figure out the structure of the persuasive essay. Using a conversation analysis-inspired approach, we examined how students co-constructed an essay. Results revealed differences between pairs completing a complex and simple task in terms of (1) pre-writing negotiation over the essay’s structure and (2) during-writing negotiation over sources of trouble. The complex task condition prompted participants to use more reasoning processes to accomplish the task goal, as shown in more extended negotiation sequences and turn taking, frequent pauses, and hesitant ways of speaking (e.g., use of rising intonation and epistemic markers).
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • L2 pragmatics and genre
    • The Cognition Hypothesis: Task complexity and interaction-driven learning opportunities
    • Collaborative writing
    • Purpose of the study
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Instructional targets: Rhetorical moves and linguistic forms in a persuasive essay
    • Conceptualization of task in this study
    • Operationalization of task complexity
    • Data collection procedures
    • Data analysis procedures
  • Results
    • Pre-writing negotiation over the essay’s outline
    • During-writing negotiation over sources of trouble and actions to take
  • Discussion
    • Limitations and directions for future research
  • Note
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 15 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.04gom
References (50)
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: US Department of State, Office of English Language Programs.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. & Tarone, E. (1994). The effects of training on written speech act behavior: Stating and changing an opinion. MinneTESOL Journal, 12, 39–62.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2015). Pragmatics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dippold, D. (2011). Argumentative discourse in L2 German: A sociocognitive perspective on the development of facework strategies. Modern Language Journal, 95 , 171–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, A. (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 , 367–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R., & Barón, J. (2013). The impact of increasing task complexity on L2 pragmatic moves. In A. Mackey & K. McDonough (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 45–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gomez-Laich, M. P. (2017). Effects of task complexity on ESL students’ academic writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2010). They say. I say. The moves that matter in academic writing. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dyadic interaction: Focus on task openings. The Modern Language Journal, 91 , 83–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 38 , 2025–2050. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21 , 66–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 , 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2011). Genres and pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 , 327–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1989). Linguistic strategies and cultural styles for persuasive discourse. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language, communication, and culture: Current directions (pp. 139–156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34 , 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37 , 254–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34 , 627–658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99 , 656–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Basturkmen, H. L. (2005). Interaction in group writing tasks in genre-based instruction in an EAP classroom. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15 , 171–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, R., Mitchell, T., & Pessoa, S. (2014). Valued voices: Students’ use of engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education, 28 , 107–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuevo, A., Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 175–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Kourtali, N., & Mazgutova, D. (2016). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208–241.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003a). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003b). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–105.Google Scholar
(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 in Language Teaching, 45, 3, 193–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011a). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). London: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Street, B. (2009). Hidden features of academic paper writing. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 24, 1–17.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48 , 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Unger, C. (2006). Genre, relevance and global coherence: The pragmatics of discourse type. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wingate, U. (2012). Argument! Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11 , 145–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, H., & Kaufer, D. (2013). DocuScope: Analyzing pragmatic competence in second language writing of genres. In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 235–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Chen, Tzu-Hua
2024. The effects of task complexity on L2 English rapport-building language use and its relationship with paired speaking test task performance. Applied Linguistics Review 15:2 ► pp. 737 ff. DOI logo
Róg, Tomasz
2024. Teaching L2 pragmatics: The effects of different types of task implementation vs a PPP framework. Neofilolog :62/2 ► pp. 502 ff. DOI logo
Gomez Laich, Maria Pia & Naoko Taguchi
2023. Effects of task complexity on the learning of genre specific rhetorical moves and linguistic forms: the case of contrast and argumentative essays. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:2 ► pp. 571 ff. DOI logo
Herraiz-Martinez, Ana & Eva Alcón-Soler
2021. Pragmatic outcomes in the English-medium instruction context. Applied Pragmatics ► pp. 68 ff. DOI logo
Abrams, Zsuzsanna I.
2020. Intercultural Communication and Language Pedagogy, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.