Cover not available
Part of
Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing
Edited by Heidi Byrnes and Rosa M. Manchón
[Task-Based Language Teaching 7] 2014
► pp. 193–216

Differences across modalities of performance

An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks

This study investigated the linguistic and discourse differences between oral and written narrative performance on two tasks of different degrees of cognitive complexity. The participants of the study were 44 secondary school students in their second academic year of an English-Hungarian bilingual educational program in Hungary. Two narrative tasks were administered in speech and in writing. Three global linguistic aspects of students’ performance were assessed: lexical diversity and variety, accuracy, and grammatical complexity. Task specific measures included the ratio of correctly used relative clauses and past-tense verbs as well as the ratio of relative clauses compared to the total number of clauses. The frequency of positive and negative additive, temporal, causal, and logical connectives was measured using the Coh-Metrix 2.0 program. Spatial, temporal, intentional, and causal cohesion indices were also calculated with the help of Coh-Metrix 2.0. My findings indicate that, in writing, the participants were more accurate and used more varied vocabulary than in speech, but their performance was similar in terms of syntactic complexity. The analysis of cohesion revealed that students used significantly more positive and negative additive and causal connectives in speech than in writing in both types of tasks. The research presented in this chapter provides new insights into the nature of task complexity and complexity of performance in the field of L2 writing and elucidates potentials of writing tasks in furthering language development.
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.08kor
References (75)
References
Adams R.(2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 7–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral–literate connection (pp. 243–266). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Andringa S.J., de Glopper C.M, & Hacquebord, H.I. (2011). The effect of explicit and implicit instruction on free written response task performance. Language Learning, 61, 868–903. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albert, A. (2007). Creativity and task performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V (.2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H.H., & Norris, J.M. (2010). Realizing advanced FL writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal, 94 (Supplement s-1).Google Scholar
Cameron, C., Lee, K., Webster, S., Munro, K., Hunt, A., & Linton, M. (1995). Text cohesion in children’s narrative writing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 257–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 141–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse. Learning to write across the years of schooling . London: Continuum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (1998). An academic word list (ELI Occasional Publications, Vol. 18). Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dasinger, L., & Toupin, C. (1994). The development of relative clause functions in narrative. In R. Berman & D.I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in a narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study (pp. 452–514). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's 'speaking' model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deerwester, S.S., Dumais, T., Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 391–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Granfeldt, J. (2008). Speaking and writing in L2 French: Exploring effects on fluency, accuracy and complexity. In A. Housen, S. van Daele, & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching . Brussels, March 29–30, 2007.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2002). On spoken and written modes of meaning. In J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar (pp. 323–351). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English . London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heatley, A., Nation, I.S.P., & Coxhead, A. (2002). RANGE and FREQUENCY programs. [URL].
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the ( ± Here-and-Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M.P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R.T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Task performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T.K., & Dumais, S.T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing . London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M.M. (2002). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 15–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D.D., & Richards, B.J. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language . Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Manchón, R.M, & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language contexts. In E. Alcón & P. Safont (Eds.), The intercultural speaker. Using and acquiring English in instructed language contexts (pp. 101–121). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R.M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2011). Writing to learn FL contexts: Exploring learners’ perceptions of the language learning potential of L2 writing. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 181–207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R.M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes: Implications for theory. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P.M., & Jarvis, S. (2007). A theoretical and empirical evaluation of vocd . Language Testing. 24, 459–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P.M., & Jarvis, S.A. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behaviour Research Methods, 42, 381–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., & Graesser, A.C. (2002). Coh-Metrix: Automated Cohesion and Coherence Scores to Predict Text Readability and Facilitate Comprehension . Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ong, J., & Zhang, L.J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 219–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1984). Methods of morpheme quantification: their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition. Processability theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model . Journal of Child Language, 29, 419–448. 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
. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis of adult, task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–107.Google Scholar
. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning . Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T.J.M., Spooren, W.P.M., & Noordman, L.G.M. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 15, 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts. Learning, teaching and research (pp. 77–101). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking to speaking”. In J.J. Gumperz & S.C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought (pp. 157–191). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Languaging, agency, and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1982). Spoken and written language. Exploring orality and literacy . Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension . New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words . London: Longman.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualization in language production. Linguistics, 41, 851–881. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R.A., & Radvansky, G.A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (21)

Cited by 21 other publications

Mostafaei Alaei, Mahnaz & Abbas Mansouri
2024. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Wu, Qiaoxia & Ágnes Albert
2024. Learner agency and potential for creativity in writing task design and Chinese EFL students’ flow experiences in writing: A contextual perspective. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Zhan, Ju, Qiyu Sun & Lawrence Jun Zhang
2024. Effects of manipulating writing task complexity on learners’ performance in completing vocabulary and syntactic tasks. Language Teaching Research 28:3 ► pp. 1011 ff. DOI logo
Barkaoui, Khaled
2023. Exploring task effects on register variation in second language learners’ writing. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 3:1 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Jingwen & Rod Ellis
2023. The effect of pre-task planning on computer-based second language writing. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Yamaguchi, Yumiko & Hiroko Usami
2023. Chapter 11. Testing the validity of Processability Theory through a corpus-based analysis. In Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 9], ► pp. 280 ff. DOI logo
Yoo, Hyunbin & Hyunwoo Kim
2023. A cross-modal analysis of lexical sophistication: EFL and ESL learners in written and spoken production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Zhang, Xiaopeng, Baoshan Zhao & Wenwen Li
2023. N-gram use in EFL learners’ retelling and monologic tasks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:3 ► pp. 939 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Hyunwoo & Haerim Hwang
2022. Assessing Verb‐Construction Integration in Young Learners of English as a Foreign Language: Analyses of Written and Spoken Production. Language Learning 72:2 ► pp. 497 ff. DOI logo
Son, Myeongeun
2022. The role of modality and working memory capacity in L2 production. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Allaw, Elissa
2021. A learner corpus analysis: Effects of task complexity, task type, and L1 & L2 similarity on propositional and linguistic complexity. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 59:4 ► pp. 569 ff. DOI logo
Lázaro-Ibarrola, Amparo & María Ángeles Hidalgo
2021. Give me a second chance. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2 ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
HWANG, HAERIM, HYEYOUNG JUNG & HYUNWOO KIM
2020. Effects of Written Versus Spoken Production Modalities on Syntactic Complexity Measures in Beginning‐Level Child EFL Learners. The Modern Language Journal 104:1 ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Kang, Dae-Min
2020. A native-like adult L2 Korean learner’s agentive acquisition of Korean relative clauses. International Journal of Bilingualism 24:5-6 ► pp. 1017 ff. DOI logo
KIM, KATHY MINHYE & ALINE GODFROID
2019. Should We Listen or Read? Modality Effects in Implicit and Explicit Knowledge . The Modern Language Journal 103:3 ► pp. 648 ff. DOI logo
Vasylets, Olena, Roger Gilabert & Rosa M. Manchón
2017. The Effects of Mode and Task Complexity on Second Language Production. Language Learning 67:2 ► pp. 394 ff. DOI logo
Zalbidea, Janire
2017. ‘One Task Fits All’? The Roles of Task Complexity, Modality, and Working Memory Capacity in L2 Performance. The Modern Language Journal 101:2 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Abrams, Zsuzsanna
2016. Exploring collaboratively written L2 texts among first-year learners of German in Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning 29:8 ► pp. 1259 ff. DOI logo
Abrams, Zsuzsanna
2023. Chapter 5. Examining the role of peer collaborative feedback processing and task repetition in task-based L2 writing. In L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 59], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Amiryousefi, Mohammad
2016. The differential effects of two types of task repetition on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: a focus on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning 29:5 ► pp. 1052 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz-Funes, Marcela
2015. Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing 28 ► pp. 1 ff. 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.