The Cognition and Tradeoff Hypotheses account for task performance in different ways. The former sees task complexity as the driver for higher accuracy and structural complexity whereas the latter, within the constraints of limited attentional capacities, sees performance as being accounted for through the interaction of influences from task characteristics and task conditions. This chapter reports on a study which contrasts these two accounts, manipulating task structure (as an influence on primarily accuracy, but secondarily complexity), vocabulary difficulty (as a disruptor of smooth processing during performance), and time perspective (as a method of operationalising task complexity). The results do simultaneously produce raised accuracy and complexity, but this is best accounted for through the separate contribution of task structure and a there-and-then perspective (analysed differently to that within the Cognition Hypothesis), rather than through greater task complexity. Vocabulary difficulty did not have the predicted impact. The results are discussed in terms of the Tradeoff and Cognition Hypotheses.
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shilcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: CUP.
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.
Ellis R. (2003), Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.
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.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 185–214.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2013). Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency of L2 language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review 69, 3, 249–273.
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 886–896.
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2011). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61(suppl.1), 37–72.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, J. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354−75.
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240.
Hinkel, E. (2004). TOEFL test strategies with Practice Tests (3rd ed.) Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473.
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effects of task complexity and language proficiency on task- based language performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(4), 193–225.
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401–436.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 261–284.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104.
Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5–19.
Michel, M., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). the influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 241–259.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.
Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task complexity, task condition, and variation in L2 oral discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Queensland, Australia.
Richards, B.J., & Malvern, D.D. (1998). A new research tool: Mathematical modelling in the measurement of vocabulary diversity (Award reference no. R000221995). Final Report to the Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon, UK.
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.
Robinson, P. (2001b). 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: CUP.
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, 45, 193–214.
Robinson, P. (2011).Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(Suppl. 1, June 2011), 1–36.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL, 45, 161–176.
Sawaki, Y., Stricker, L.J., & Oranje, A.H. (2009). Factor structure of an internet-based test. Language Testing, 26(1), 5–30.
Skehan, P. (2009a). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.
Skehan, P. (2009b). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In H. Daller, D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, B. Richards, & J. Treffers-Daller. (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107–124). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Skehan, P. (2009c). Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In A. Benati. (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 202–215). London: Continuum.
Skehan, P. (2011). Researching tasks: Performance, assessment, pedagogy. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Skehan, P. (manuscript). Conventions for coding complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis: The use of TaskProfile. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 16–33.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2008).Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard, & I. Vedder. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 263–284). Brussels: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts.
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.
Wang, Z. (2009). Modeling L2 speech production and performance: Evidence from five types of planning and two task structure. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologicoral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.
Cited by (16)
Cited by 16 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.
Skehan, Peter, Gavin Bui, Zhan Wang & Sabrina Shum
2024. Re-examining accuracy measures in second language task-based spoken performance. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 100098 ff.
2024. Influence of Task Complexity on Text Features and Writing Scores: Evidence from College Students in Southern China. Sage Open 14:3
Aaj, Ali, Parviz Maftoon & Masood Siyyari
2023. Do young EFL learners benefit from task repetition?. The Language Learning Journal► pp. 1 ff.
Albarqi, Ghadah & Parvaneh Tavakoli
2023. The effects of proficiency level and dual-task condition on L2 self-monitoring behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 45:1 ► pp. 212 ff.
Awwad, Anas & Parvaneh Tavakoli
2022. Task complexity, language proficiency and working memory: Interaction effects on second language speech performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:2 ► pp. 169 ff.
Farahanynia, Mahsa & Mohammad Khatib
2022. Participatory structure of planning and cognitive task complexity in L2 oral performance: a processing perspective. The Language Learning Journal 50:6 ► pp. 777 ff.
Williams, Simon
2022. Conclusion. In Disfluency and Proficiency in Second Language Speech Production, ► pp. 247 ff.
Michel, Marije C., Andrea Révész, Danni Shi & Yanmei Li
2016. Tasks Versus Conditions: Two Perspectives on Task Research and Their Implications for Pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36 ► pp. 34 ff.
2023. Linking second language speaking task performance and language testing. Language Teaching► pp. 1 ff.
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.