Chapter 4
Discourse performance in L2 task repetition
Zhan Wang | South University of Science and Technology of China
‘Repetition’ in language practice has often been associated with behavioristic drills, typically regarded as giving rise to habit formation, and often excluded from mainstream language teaching approaches. However, this study, drawing upon Bygate’s (1999) argument that task is a context for the framing and reframing of language, shows that repetition in meaningful tasks does not necessarily involve passive performance repetition; instead, L2 learners are actively re-constructing the narrative discourse. This study provides support to this argument through the analysis of the speech samples from thirteen learners performing an immediate exact L2 task repetition. The participants were asked to perform a video-based monologue story narration twice to an imagined listener, and the comparison of the learners’ first and second speech performances shows that the learners enhanced their discourse performance with: (1) increased quantity of discourse (evidenced by more Total Words, Total Propositions, and higher P-density); (2) increased cohesion (evidenced by higher ratio of given words to new words in sentences based on latent semantic analysis, i.e., LSA Given/New value); and (3) increased quality of lexis (evidenced by higher Noun Hyperonymy value, indicating more specific nouns used). The results suggest that task repetition, in addition to its effects on language complexity, accuracy, and fluency, has an impact on learners’ speech performance at the discourse level.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Effects of task repetition on speech performance (CALF)
- Discourse competence in language teaching, learning, and assessment
- Discourse competence
- Discourse competence in language teaching and learning
- Discourse performance in language assessment (CEFR)
- Discourse performance measures in this study
- Research questions
- Methodology
- Participants
- Immediate task repetition
- Data collection procedure
- Measures of discourse performancest
- Discourse quantity
- Cohesion
- Lexical quality
- Analysis
- Results
- Results for discourse quantity
- Results for cohesion
- Results for lexical quality
- Discussion
- Discourse performance in TBLT
- Implications for TBLT pedagogy
- Conclusion and future research
-
Acknowledgement
-
Notes
-
References
References (71)
References
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (release 2). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, C., Snodgrass, T., Kemper, S., Herman, R., & Covington, M. (2008). Automatic measurement of propositional idea density from part-of-speech tagging. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 540–545.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27(1), 33–48.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richard & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2–14). London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. (Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crossley, S. A., Cobb, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications. System, 41(4), 965–981.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60(3), 573–605.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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, 474–509.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fellbaum, C. (1998) WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 321–340.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 371–398.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223–234.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Graesser, A., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193–202.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hempelmann, C. F., Dufty, D., McCarthy, P. M., Graesser, A. C., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Using LSA to automatically identify givenness and newness of noun phrases in written discourse. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 941–946). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. (2004). TOEFL test strategies (3rd ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jarvis, S. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63(supplement 1), 87–106.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kintsch, W. A. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167–196.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levelt, W. J. M., & Indefrey, P. (2000). The speaking mind/brain: Where do spoken words come from? In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 77–93). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–50.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Malvern, D. D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCarthy, P. M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2014). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCarthy, P. M., Dufty, D., Hempelman, C., Cai, Z., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Newness and givenness of information: Automated identification in written discourse. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 457–478). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCrum-Gardner, E. (2008). Which is the correct statistical test to use? British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 46(1), 38–41.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. (2005, January 1). Coh-Metrix version 1.4. Retrieved from <[URL]> (2 July, 2016).
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292–330.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. (1990). Five papers on WordNet (Technical Report No. 43). Princeton, NJ: Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University. Retrieved from <[URL]>
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Qiu, X., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 681–698.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(Supplement 1), 1–36.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Widdowson, H. G. (1980). Conceptual and communicative functions in written discourse. Applied linguistics, 1, 234.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, M. D. (1988). The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 20(1), 6–11.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Sima Khezrlou & Yu Tian
2024.
Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 62:2
► pp. 871 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Santos, Sara
2023.
Efeitos da repetição procedimental e da complexidade cognitiva da tarefa no desempenho oral em português língua estrangeira: estudo exploratório .
Diacrítica 36:2
► pp. 9 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Wang, Zhan, Peter Skehan & Gaowei Chen
2019.
The effects of hybrid online planning and L2 proficiency on video-based speaking task performance.
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 3:1
► pp. 53 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.