Abstract
Although differentiating between fluency, accuracy and complexity, while assessing L2 task performance, is becoming a standard practice, lexical complexity as a distinctive area has received less attention in the task-based language teaching (TBLT) literature. This study re-examines previous frameworks of lexical complexity and investigates three lexical dimensions, lexical diversity, lexical sophistication and lexical density, using a structured 2 × 2 × 2 split-plot experimental design. The participants were divided into a non-planning group and a planning group and each group was further dichotomised into two proficiency levels. Each participant was assigned one familiar and one unfamiliar oral narrative task. The results show that one’s prior knowledge about a subject is associated with higher lexical diversity and sophistication, while pre-task planning promotes lexical density. The effects of proficiency seem to be largely overridden by the effects of prior knowledge and pre-task planning and show little impact on overall lexical performance. Interestingly, lexical diversity and lexical sophistication are independent of each other, and lexical density is moderately correlated with both lexical diversity and lexical sophistication. The results are discussed with reference to the Levelt model of speech production with some pedagogical implications on content-based language instruction. The exploration of the relationships between the lexical measures reveals a need for deeper and subtler characterisation of L2 lexical complexity.
Funding statement: This work was supported by Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee, Funder Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002920, Grant Number: UGC/FDS14/H01/14
References
Biber, D. 1988. Linguistic features: Algorithms and functions in variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Search in Google Scholar
Bui, G., M. Ahmadian & A. M. Hunter. 2019. Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System 81. 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006.Search in Google Scholar
Bui, G. & Z. Huang. 2018. L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: Performance, methodology and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 22(1). 94–114.10.1177/1362168816656650Search in Google Scholar
Bui, G. & P. Skehan. 2018. Complexity, fluency and accuracy. In J. Liontas (ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1–7. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0046Search in 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, 63–94. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.5.03gavSearch in Google Scholar
Bulté, B. & A. Housen. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 21–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32.02bulSearch in Google Scholar
Bygate, M. 1996. Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching, 136–146. Oxford: Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar
Bygate, M. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language. In M. Bygate, M. Swain & P. Skehan (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, 23–48. London, UK: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (ed.). 2018. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11Search in Google Scholar
Crookes, G. 1989. Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11(4). 367–383.10.1017/S0272263100008391Search in Google Scholar
Daller, H., J. Milton & J. Treffers-Daller (eds.). 2007. Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667268Search in Google Scholar
Daller, H., R. Van Hout & J. Treffers-Daller. 2003. Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics 24(2). 197–222.10.1093/applin/24.2.197Search in Google Scholar
De Bot, K. 1992. A bilingual production model: Levelt’s speaking model adapted. Applied Linguistics 13. 1–24.10.1093/applin/13.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. & L. Katona. 1992. Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL learners. Language Testing 9. 187–206.10.1177/026553229200900206Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (ed.). 2005. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11Search in Google Scholar
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(4). 474–509.10.1093/applin/amp042Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2017. Task-based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition, 108–125. London, UK: Routledge.10.4324/9781315676968-7Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2019. Task preparedness. In Z. Wen & M. Ahmadian (eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honor of Peter Skehan, 15–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.13.02ellSearch in Google Scholar
Faul, F., E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner & A.-G. Lang. 2009. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41. 1149–1160.10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149Search in Google Scholar
Foster, P. & A. M. Hunter. 2016. When it’s not what you do but the way that you do it. In B. Tomlinson (ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning, 280–298. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Foster, P. & P. Skehan. 1996. The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3(3). 215–247.10.1177/136216889900300303Search in Google Scholar
Foster, P. & G. Wigglesworth. 2016. Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36. 98–116.10.1017/S0267190515000082Search in Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C. 2001. Psychological statistics using SPSS for windows. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Gass, S., A. Mackey, M. Fernandez & M. Alvarez-Torres. 1999. The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning 49. 549–580.10.1111/0023-8333.00102Search in Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. 2007. The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/- here-and-now): Effects on oral production. In M. Garcia-Mayo (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, 44–68. London: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599286-006Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Spoken and written language. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martine. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Search in Google Scholar
Housen, A. & F. Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 461–473.10.1093/applin/amp048Search in Google Scholar
Jackson, H. & E. Z. Amvela. 2007. Words, meaning and vocabulary: An introduction to modern English lexicology. 2nd edn. London: Continuum.10.5040/9781350934047Search in Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. 2002. Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19(1). 57–84.10.1191/0265532202lt220oaSearch in Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. 2013. Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning 63(suppl. 1). 87–106.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00739.xSearch in Google Scholar
Kormos, J. 2006. Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Kuiken, F. & I. Vedder. 2008. Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(1). 48–60.10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003Search in Google Scholar
Kyle, K. & S. A. Crossley. 2015. Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings and application. TESOL Quarterly 49(4). 757–786.10.1002/tesq.194Search in Google Scholar
Laufer, B. & P. Nation. 1995. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16. 307–322.10.1093/applin/16.3.307Search in Google Scholar
Laurén, U. 2002. Some lexical features of immersion pupils’ oral and written narration. Lund University Working Papers in Linguistics 50. 63–78.Search in Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lynch, T. & J. Maclean. 2000. Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research 4. 221–250.10.1177/136216880000400303Search in Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Malvern, D. & B. Richards. 2002. Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19(1). 85–104.10.1191/0265532202lt221oaSearch in Google Scholar
Malvern, D. D. & B. J. Richards. 2007. Validity and threats to the validity of vocabulary assessment. In H. Daller, J. Milton & J. Treffers-Dallers (eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge, 79–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667268.007Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M. & S. Jarvis. 2010. MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods 42(2). 381–392.10.3758/BRM.42.2.381Search in Google Scholar
Meara, P. & H. Bell. 2001. P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect 16(3). 5–19.Search in Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. 1998. The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 83–108.10.1017/S0272263198001041Search in Google Scholar
Michel, M. 2013. The use of conjunctions in cognitively simple versus complex oral L2 tasks. The Modern Language Journal 97(1). 178–195.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01431.xSearch in Google Scholar
Michel, M. 2017. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 production. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition, 50–68. London, UK: Routledge.10.4324/9781315676968-4Search in Google Scholar
Michel, M., F. Kuiken & I. Vedder. 2007. The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL 45. 241–259.10.1515/iral.2007.011Search in Google Scholar
Milton, J. 2004. Comparing the lexical difficulty of French reading comprehension exam tests. The Language Learning Journal 30(1). 5–11.10.1080/09571730485200171Search in Google Scholar
Norouzian, R. & L. Plonsky. 2018. Eta- and partial eta-squared in L2 research: A. cautionary review and guide to more appropriate usage. Second Language Research 34(2). 257–271.10.1177/0267658316684904Search in Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. & L. Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30. 555–578.10.1093/applin/amp044Search in Google Scholar
Ortega, L. 1999. Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21. 109–148.10.1017/S0272263199001047Search in Google Scholar
Ortega, L. 2005. What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 77–109. Amsterdam: John Bejamins.10.1075/lllt.11.07ortSearch in Google Scholar
Pallant, J. 2013. SPSS survival manual. 5th edn. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rahimpour, M. & F. Hazar. 2007. Topic familiarity effect on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of L2 oral output. The Journal of Asia TEFL 4(4). 191–211.Search in Google Scholar
Read, J. 2000. Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511732942Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task productions: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22(1). 27–57.10.1093/applin/22.1.27Search in Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. 2010. Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203851357Search in Google Scholar
Sheppard, C. 2006. The effects of instruction directed at the gaps second language learners noticed in their oral production. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Auckland.Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 1996. Second language acquisition and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching, 17–30. Oxford: Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 2003. Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36. 1–14.10.1017/S026144480200188XSearch in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 2009. Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language learning tasks. In B. Richards, H. Daller, D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton & J. Treffers-Daller (eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application, 107–124. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230242258_7Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (ed.). 2014. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.5Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 2018. Second language task-based performance. London, UK: Routledge.10.4324/9781315629766Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, P., X. Bei, Q. Li & Z. Wang. 2012. The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 16(2). 170–187.10.1177/1362168811428414Search in Google Scholar
Tajima, M. 2003. The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language. Unpublished Dissertation. Purdue University.Search in Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. & P. Skehan. 2005. Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 239–277. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11.15tavSearch in Google Scholar
Ure, J. 1971. Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. Perren & J. L. M. Trim (eds.), Applications of linguistics, 443–452). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Z. 2014. On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance, 27–62. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.5.02wanSearch in Google Scholar
Wendel, J. 1997. Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Japan: Temple University.Search in Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. 1997. An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse, Language Testing 14(1). 85–106.10.1177/026553229701400105Search in Google Scholar
Yuan, F. & R. Ellis. 2003. The effects of pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24(1). 1–27.10.1093/applin/24.1.1Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
