Cover not available
Part of
Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan
Edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen and Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
[Task-Based Language Teaching 13] 2019
► pp. 133–152

Chapter 6
The effects of task demands on linguistic complexity and accuracy across task types and L1/L2 speakers

 | Groningen University & Lancaster University
 | University College London, UK
 | University College London
 | University of Barcelona
The relationship between task variables and linguistic production has been the object of much second language (L2) research. This study contributes to this line of research by investigating the extent to which increasing cognitive task demands affects the syntactic complexity and accuracy of L2 performance across different speaker groups (first and second language) and task types. An additional goal of the study was to explore how various measures of linguistic accuracy and complexity pattern together. The participants were English L1 speakers (N = 16) and German L2 speakers of English (N = 16), who performed cognitively less and more demanding versions of three task types (decision-making, map, and narrative). Syntactic complexity was evaluated in terms of measures of overall, subordination and phrasal complexity, and accuracy was assessed with error-free clause and weighted clause ratios. Reflecting predictions by Skehan (2009, 2015), the results showed that the effects of cognitive task demands on syntactic complexity and accuracy varied according to task type and speaker status. Subordination complexity had a strong positive relationship with overall complexity, but correlated negatively with phrasal complexity. A limited number of trade-offs between the syntactic complexity and accuracy measures was also attested.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The Limited Attention Capacity Model
    • Theoretical assumptions
    • Empirical findings: Task effects
    • Empirical findings: Speaker status
  • Research questions
  • Methodology
    • Design
    • Participants
    • Tasks
    • Procedure
    • Linguistic analyses
    • Statistical analyses
  • Results
    • Cognitive demands, task type and speaker status
    • Relationships between measures of linguistic complexity and accuracy
  • Discussion
    • Task-related effects
    • Relationships between linguistic complexity and accuracy measures
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 28 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.07mic
References (45)
References
Breen, M. P. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. N. Candlin & D. F. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education, Vol. 7, pp.23–46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
Bui, H. Y. G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.63–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2000). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin & D. F. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp.5–22). London: Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
Dave, A. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.121–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866–896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.105–138). Amsterdam: 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. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 367–395.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2011). Speech production and the Cognition Hypothesis. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (p.39–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development (pp.77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 27–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (p.141–173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2010, September). Understanding instructed SLA: Constructs, contexts, and consequences. In Plenary address delivered at the annual conference of the European Second Language Association (EUROSLA), Reggio Emilia, Italy.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35, 87–92. 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
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.287–318). Cambridge: 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
(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, 45, 193–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 161–176. 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, 23–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime (Version 2.0). [Computer software and manual]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
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: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks . In M. Bygate (Ed.). Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp.123–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Shum, S. (2014). Structure and processing condition in video-based narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.). Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.187–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.239–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z., & Skehan, P. (2014). Structure, lexis, and time perspective: Influences on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.155–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Mora-Plaza, Ingrid, Joan C. Mora, Mireia Ortega & Cristina Aliaga-Garcia
2024. Is L2 pronunciation affected by increased task complexity in pronunciation-unfocused speaking tasks?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pallotti, Gabriele
2023. Constructive dialogue, disruptive criticism and the complex dynamics of academic life. Instructed Second Language Acquisition 7:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Rogers, John
2023. Spacing Effects in Task Repetition Research. Language Learning 73:2 ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 november 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.