Influence of planning time and task type on lexis in L2 oral performance

Abstract

Building up a stock of vocabulary with operational sufficiency is a formidable task for L2 learners. An adequate portion of their vocabulary needs to be readily accessible and retrievable for productive use in real communication. This study investigated the possible effects of the availability of planning time and task type on L2 learners’ lexical production in oral performance. It employed a 2x2 experimental design, where there were two independent variables (planning time and task type), each with two levels (no planning and with planning; descriptive and narrative). Participants were 102 (51 females and 51 males) intermediate level Preparatory School university students at an English-medium university in Turkey. The 51 dyads performed oral descriptive and narrative tasks under no planning and with planning conditions. The oral production of the participants were analyzed using two major measures: lexical complexity, and lexical accuracy. Lexical complexity was measured by word length in syllables and by lexical richness/variation with sub-measures of type-token ratio, lexical word range, grammatical word range, lexical-to-grammatical ratio and lexical density. Lexical accuracy was measured by the number of error-free clauses. The results revealed that lexical use is predominantly determined by task type rather than planning time. Narrative tasks elicited more complex and richer vocabulary than descriptive tasks. Availability of planning time appeared to positively influence the accuracy of lexis used, but at the cost of lower degree of richness/variation. The results also indicated that a focus on lexis could be induced through task design, which fosters various aspects of L2 lexical use.

Keywords

• Lexical accuracy
• lexical complexity
• lexical richness/variation
• planning time
• task type

İkinci dil sözlü performansta planlama zamanı ve görev türünün sözcük kullanımına etkisi

Abstract

İşlevsel yeterliliğe sahip bir sözvarlığı oluşturmak ikinci dil öğrenenler için zorlu bir görevdir. Özellikle, gerçek iletişimde üretken kullanım için sözvarlığının yeterli bir bölümünün kolayca erişilebilir ve geri çağrılabilir olması gerekmektedir. Bu çalışma, planlama zamanının varlığı ve görev türünün ikinci dil öğrenenlerin sözlü performansta sözcüksel üretimi üzerindeki olası etkilerini araştırmıştır. Her biri iki seviyeli (planlamasız ve planlamalı; betimsel ve öyküleyici) iki bağımsız değişkenin (planlama zamanı ve görev türü) olduğu 2x2’lik bir deneysel tasarım kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar, eğitim dili İngilizce olan Türkiye’deki bir üniversitenin Hazırlık Okulu’nda öğrenim gören orta düzey dil yeterliğine sahip 102 (51 kadın ve 51 erkek) öğrenciden oluşmuştur. Ellibir (51) çift planlamasız ve planlamalı koşullarıyla sözlü betimsel ve öyküleyici görevleri gerçekleştirmiştir. Katılımcıların sözlü üretimleri iki ana ölçü kullanılarak çözümlenmiştir: sözcüksel karmaşıklık ve sözcüksel doğruluk. Sözcüksel karmaşıklık sözcüklerin içerdiği hece sayısı ve sözcüksel zenginlik/değişkenlik ölçütleri kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Sözcüksel zenginlik/değişkenlik, alt-ölçütleri olan tür-belirteç oranı, içeriksel sözcük aralığı, dilbilgisel sözcük aralığı, içeriksel sözcük-dilbilgisel sözcük oranı ve sözcük yoğunluğu ile ölçülürken, sözcüksel doğruluk hatasız tümcelerin sayısıyla ölçülmüştür. Sonuçlar, sözcüksel kullanımın planlama zamanından ziyade ağırlıklı olarak görev türü tarafından belirlendiğini ortaya koymuştur. Öyküleme gerektiren görevler betimleme gerektiren görevlerden daha karmaşık ve daha zengin sözcük kullanımına yol açmıştır. Planlama zamanının varlığı kullanılan sözcüklerin doğruluğunu olumlu yönde etkilediği görülmüştür ancak bu daha düşük derecede sözcüksel zenginlik ve çeşitlilik pahasına gerçekleşmiştir. Sonuçlar ayrıca ikinci dil sözcük kullanımının çeşitli yönlerini besleyen görev tasarımı yoluyla sözvarlığına odaklanmanın sağlanabileceğini göstermiştir.

Keywords

• görev türü
• planlama zamanı
• sözcüksel doğruluk
• sözcüksel karmaşıklık
• sözcüksel zenginlik/değişkenlik

References

1. REFERENCES Bui, G. (2019). Influence of learners’ prior knowledge, L2 proficiency and pre-task planning on L2 lexical complexity. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, vol., 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0244
2. Cambridge International Dictionary of English. (1995). Cambridge University Press.
3. Coles, M. (1982). Word perception, first language script and learners of English as a second language. MA dissertation, University of London, Birkbeck College.
4. Corson, D. (1995). Using English words. Kluwer.
5. Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-383.
6. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 182-193.
7. DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 125-151). Cambridge University Press.
8. Derwing, T. M. (2017). L2 fluency development. In The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 246-259). Routledge.

9. Duff, P. A. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147-181). Newbury House.
10. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: style-shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1-20.
11. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based research: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 3-34). John Benjamins.
12. 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.
13. Foster, P. (2020). Oral fluency in a second language: A research agenda for the next ten years. Language Teaching, 53(4), 446-461.
14. Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324.
15. Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215-247.
16. Foster, P. & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-869.
17. Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/- Here-and-Now): Effects on L2 oral production. In M. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (pp. 44-68). Multilingual Matters.
18. Goldrick, M. (2014). Phonological processing: The retrieval and encoding of word form information in speech production. In M. Goldrick, V. S. Ferreira, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Production (pp. 228-244). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735471.013.015
19. Hamada, M. (2017). Influence of L1 orthography on multi-syllabic word recognition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1101-1118.
20. Hobbs, J. (2005). Interactive lexical phrases in pair interview tasks. In C. Edwards et al. (eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 143-156). Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L. & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264-282.
22. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice Hall.
23. Kang, S. & Lee, J.-H. (2019). Are two heads always better than one? The effect of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 61-72.
24. Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). Cambridge University Press. Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
25. Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(01), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776
26. McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-128.
27. Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L., Waksler, R. & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101, 3-33.
28. Meara, P. (1990). A note on passive vocabulary. Second Language Research, 6, 150-154.
29. Meara, P. (1997). Towards a new approach to modelling vocabulary acquisition. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 109-121). Cambridge University Press.
30. Meara, P., & Miralpeix, I. (2017). Tools for researching vocabulary. Multilingual Matters.
31. Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83-108.
32. Melka Teichroew, F. J. (1982). Receptive vs. productive vocabulary: a survey. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 6, 5-33.
33. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
34. Nation, I. S. P. & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Heinle Cengage Learning.
35. Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
36. Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. Discourse and Syntax, 12, 51-80.
37. 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, 218-233.
38. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
39. Pawley, A. & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 191-226). Longman.
40. Phillips, T. (1981). Difficulties in foreign language vocabulary learning and a study of some of the factors thought to be influential. MA dissertation, University of London, Birkbeck College.
41. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice (pp. 9-34). Multilingual Matters.
42. Qui, X. (2020). Functions of oral monologic tasks: Effects of topic familiarity on L2 speaking performance. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 745-764.
43. Qui, X. & Cheng, H. (2021). The effects of task types on L2 oral production and learner engagement. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), http://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2020-0128
44. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press.
45. Revesz, A., Ekiert, M. & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral performance. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 828-848.
46. Robinson, P. (2001). 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 University Press.
47. Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45-105.
48. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1-33.
49. Rodgers, T. (1969). On measuring vocabulary difficulty: an analysis of item variables in learning Russian-English vocabulary pairs. IRAL, 7, 327-343.
50. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
51. Schmidt, R. W. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
52. Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report 9), pp. 1-63. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
53. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
54. Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary. Palgrave Macmillan.
55. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55-88.
56. Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, pp. 382-408. Blackwell Publishing.
57. Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
58. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
59. Skehan, P. (2009a). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In B. Richards, H. M. Daller, D. D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107-124). Palgrave Macmillan.
60. Skehan, P. (2009b). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532.
61. Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.
62. Stock, R. D. (1976). Some factors affecting the acquisition of foreign language lexicon in the classroom. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois.
63. Suzuki, M. (2017). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures in oral pre-task planning: A synthesis. Second Language Studies, 36(1), 1-52.
64. Tabari, M. A. (2016). The effects of planning time on complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexical variety in L2 descriptive writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1, 10, 1-15. DOI: 10.1186/s40862-016-0015-6
65. Tabari, M. A. (2020). Differential effects of strategic planning and task structure on L2 writing outcomes. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36, 320-338.
66. Uchihara, T. & Clenton, J. (2020). Investigating the role of vocabulary size in second language speaking ability. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 540-556.
67. Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. E. Perren & J. L. M. Trim (Eds.), Applications of Linguistics (pp. 443-52). Cambridge University Press.
68. Webb, S. (2009). The effects of receptive and productive learning of word pairs on vocabulary knowledge. RELC, 40(3), 360-376. DOI: 10.1177/0033688209343854
69. Webb, S., Sasao, Y. & Ballance, O. (2017). The updated Vocabulary Levels Test. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168, 33-69.
70. Wen, Z. E. & Ahmadian, M. J. (Eds.) (2019). Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan. John Benjamins. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13
71. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford University Press.
72. Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85-106.
73. Wood, D. (2001). In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach it? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 573-589. DOI: 10.3138/cmlr.57.4.573
74. Yu, G. (2009). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 236-259.
75. Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.