The use of conjunctions in cognitively simple versus complex oral L2 tasks

Modern Language Journal

Volumn 97, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 178-195

  Michel, Marije C ^a  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874205258     PISSN: 00267902     EISSN: 15404781     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01431.x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21-46). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2. Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced L2 writing development in a collegiate curriculum: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal, 94, Supplement.
3. Cadierno, T., & Robinson, P. (2009). Language typology, task complexity and the acquisition of L2 lexicalization patterns for reference to motion. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 245-276.
4. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.
5. Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 193-220.
7. Evers-Vermeul, J. (2005). The development of Dutch connectives: Change and acquisition as windows on form-function relations. Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT-Dissertation Series.
8. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA/London: Sage.
9. Fiksdal, S. (2000). Fluency as a function of time and rapport. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency (pp. 128-140). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
10. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354-375.
11. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215-240.
12. Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners' interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 367-395.
13. Givón, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1008-1025). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the±here-and-now-dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. d. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136-156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
15. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 261-284.
16. Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Boston: MIT Press.
17. Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interaction. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 8, 1-26.
18. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In S. M. Gass & G. Crookes (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
20. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Michel, M. C. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141-173). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Michel, M. C., 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.
23. Newton, J., & Kennedy, G. (1996). Effects of communication tasks on the grammatical relations marked by second language learners. System, 24, 309-322.
24. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Measurement for understanding: An organic approach to investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555-578.
25. Nuevo, A.-M. (2006). Task complexity and interaction. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
26. Oostdijk, N. (2002). The design of the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), New frontiers of corpus research (pp. 105-114). New York/Amsterdam: Rodopi.
27. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590-601.
28. Perrez, J. (2004). Het gebruik van connectieven door franstalige leerders van het Nederlands: Een eerste verkenning.[The use of connectives by French learners of Dutch: A first inquiry]. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen [Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics], 71, 81-92.
29. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-226.
30. Plomp, F. (1997). Een empirisch onderzoek naar het effect van lexicale structuur-markeringen op teskstbegrip in de eerste en in de tweede taal.[Empirical research into the effect of lexical structure-marking on the understanding of texts in the first and the second language]. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen [Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics], 56, 47-61.
31. Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437-470.
32. Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162-181.
33. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
34. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1-32.
35. Robinson, P. (2007a). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. d. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-27). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
36. Robinson, P. (2007b). 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, 193-213.
37. Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Mind, time, and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 533-554.
38. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 161-176.
39. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Sink, C. H., & Stroh, H. R. (2006). Practical significance: Use of effect sizes in school counseling research. Professional School Counseling, 9, 401-411.
41. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
43. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532.
44. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193-218). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
45. Slobin, D. (1996). From "thought and language" to "thinking for speaking." In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Spooren, W. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24, 149-168.
47. Spooren, W., & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 2003-2026.
48. Stukker, N. (2005). Causality marking across levels of language structure: A cognitive semantic analysis of causal verbs and causal connectives in Dutch. Utrecht, Netherlands: LOT-Dissertation Series.
49. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and L2 performance. Language Learning, 58, 429-473.
50. Vedder, I. (1998). Dunque l'Italia ha perso il suo fascino? Io penso di no: Argumenterend schrijven in een tweede taal. Een analyse van argumentatieve teksten van Nederlandse studenten Italiaans. [So, Italy has lost its attractiveness? I don't think so. Argumentative writing in a second language. An analysis of argumentative texts of Dutch learners of Italian]. LOT-Dissertation Series. Den Haag, Netherlands: Holland Academic Graphics.
51. Wickens, C. D. (2007). Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 177-191.