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. 217–236

Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks

Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) research has provided ample evidence that cognitive complexity is an important aspect of task design that influences learner performance in terms of fluency, accuracy, and syntactic and lexical complexity. Task features such as the degree of structure and storyline complexity contribute to task complexity and affect different aspects of L2 performance. Two of the current models of task complexity (i.e. Skehan 1998, and Robinson 2001), have further encapsulated different dimensions of task complexity and have provided both a framework for evaluating and predicting task complexity and a detailed discussion of the factors that may affect cognitive complexity. These models by principle are assumed to be pertinent to all tasks regardless of their purpose, type, or mode. However, little is known about whether cognitive complexity affects writing and speaking tasks in similar ways, or whether it has similar influences on L2 oral and written performance. By replicating previous research in oral task performance (Tavakoli & Foster 2008), the current study investigates the effects of storyline complexity on L2 learners writing in narrative tasks. The findings indicate that, although cognitive complexity affects both written and spoken performances, the way it affects the syntactic complexity of writing and speaking differs to some extent. In addition to presenting empirical data that provides insights into the effects of cognitive complexity on L2 learners’ writing and speaking, the main contribution of the chapter is to help extend our understanding of how task complexity plays out with the syntactic complexity of L2 performance in the two different modes, and to allow for a more in-depth understanding of the ways in which task complexity contributes to L2 writing. In that fashion, the findings of the current study can also begin to answer the question of whether or not a single model of task complexity can account for both writing and speaking tasks.

Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.09tav
References
Allan, D
(1992) Oxford Placement Test 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P
(1994) Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Donato, R
(2000) Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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
(2005) The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R
(1980) The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Foster, P
(2001) Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 75–95). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P
(1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P
(2009) Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59, 866–896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R
(2007) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 production. IRAL, 45, 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, T
(2006) The effects of manipulating task complexity along the ( ± Here-and-Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In C.M. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R.T
(1996) A model of working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Randsell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kormos, J
(2005)  Speech production and second language acquisition . London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 215–240. 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
(2007) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL, 45, 261–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Task complexity and linguistic 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). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W
(1989)  Speaking: From intention to articulation . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohan, B.A
(1986) Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D
(1989)  Designing communicative tasks for language classrooms . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ong, J., & Zhang, L
(2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students' argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London, Longman.Google Scholar
Platt, E., & Brooks, F
(1994) The “acquisition-rich environment” revisited. Modern Language Journal, 78, 497–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rahimpour, M
(1997) Task condition, task complexity and variation in oral L2 discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Robinson, P
(1995) Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) 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: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects of L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task complexity. IRAL, 45, 193–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., Murphy, L., & Marín, J
(2008) The foreign language writer's strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P
(1998)  A cognitive approach to language learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P
(1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P
(2009a) Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding the effects of task design. System, 37, 482–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Learner and teacher perceptions of task complexity. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25. 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, 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
Cited by

Cited by 13 other publications

Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud
2020. Differential Effects of Strategic Planning and Task Structure on L2 Writing Outcomes. Reading & Writing Quarterly 36:4 ► pp. 320 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
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
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
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
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
Poole, Frederick J. & Charlene Polio
2023. From sci-fi to the classroom. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 3:2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Rahimi, Muhammad
2019. Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing. Language Teaching Research 23:5 ► pp. 633 ff. DOI logo
Son, Myeongeun
2022. The role of modality and working memory capacity in L2 production. Language Teaching Research 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
Zhang, Meixiu
2022. Collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting: the role of task complexity. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Child L2 Writers [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 32], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 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.