Cover not available
Article published In:
Register in L1 and L2 Language Development
Edited by Bethany Gray and Jesse Egbert
[Register Studies 3:2] 2021
► pp. 180–206

How can register analysis inform task-based language teaching?

ORCID logo | Northern Arizona University
ORCID logo | Texas Tech University
For over 30 years, corpus research on register variation has expanded our understanding of language use by illustrating how linguistic features co-occur and vary in different situations of use (Biber & Conrad 2019). Over the same period, Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) has provided a theoretical and empirical basis for research in instructed Second Language Acquisition/SLA (Ellis 2012). This paper illustrates how the methods and approaches used in register analysis offer a useful framework for understanding critical issues in TBLT (e.g., describing tasks and interpreting task performance). The paper compares register analysis and TBLT and then draws upon recent empirical work demonstrating how a register approach (a) identifies a wider range of linguistic and non-linguistic variables than are generally in TBLT; and, (b) provides a useful framework to functionally interpret task performance. The paper ends by discussing how a register perspective can benefit future areas of investigation in task-based second language research.
Keywords: corpus research, grammatical complexity, instructed SLA, register analysis, task-based language teaching
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linguistic analyses in TBLT research and register analysis
    • 2.1Analyzing linguistic performance in TBLT research
    • 2.2Analyzing language variation in register analysis
  • 3.How can methods of register studies inform linguistic analyses in TBLT?
    • 3.1Task input: Situational analysis and task description
    • 3.2Task output: Lexico-grammatical, lexical bundle, and multidimensional analysis
      • 3.2.1Lexico-grammatical analysis and TBLT research
      • 3.2.2Lexical bundle analysis in TBLT research
      • 3.2.3Multi-dimensional analysis and its potential use in TBLT research
  • 4.Future directions applications of RA to TBLT
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 7 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20021.cra
References (60)
References
Alquraishi, M. & Crawford, W. (2021). Exploring areas of linguistic variation in the corpus of collaborative oral task. In W. Crawford (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on learner interaction: The corpus of collaborative oral tasks (pp. 17–40). DeGruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from [URL]
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2019). Text linguistic approaches to register variation. Register Studies, 1 1, 42–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14 (3), 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Corpus-based analyses of discourse: Dimensions of variation in conversation. In K. V. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp.100–114). Routledge.Google Scholar
(1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26 (3), 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT test: A lexico-grammatical analysis. TOEFL iBT Research Report (TOEFL iBT-19). Educational Testing Service. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 1, 2–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37 (5), 639–668. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2020). Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46 1, 100869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Reppen, R., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2020). Exploring the longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disciplinary writing of L2-English university students. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6 (1), 38–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2020). Some directions for the possible survival of TBLT as a real world project. Language Teaching, 53 1, 275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crawford, W. & McDonough, K. (2021). The corpus of collaborative oral tasks. In W. Crawford (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on learner interaction: The corpus of collaborative oral tasks (pp. 7–16). DeGruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crawford, W., McDonough, K., & Brun-Mercer, N. (2019). Identifying linguistic markers of collaboration in L2 peer interaction: A lexico-grammatical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 53 1, 180–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J. & Biber, D. (2016). Do all roads lead to Rome? Modeling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14 1, 233–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Position paper: Moving Task-based Language Teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50 (4), 507–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. & Tonkyn, A. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 211, 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. (2014). Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23 1, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gan, Z. (2012). Complexity measures, task type, and analytic evaluations of speaking proficiency in a school-based assessment context. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9 (2), 133–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 1, 117–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. (2016). Lexical bundles. In P. Baker & J. Egbert (Eds.), Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus linguistic research (pp. 33–56). Routledge.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A. & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2012). Is the Second Language Acquisition discipline disintegrating? Language Teaching, 46 1, 511–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (4), 377–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreyer, R., & Schaub, S. (2018). The development of phrasal complexity in German intermediate learners of English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 4 (1), 82–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34 (3), 321–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C. & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35 (5), 607–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T. & Kaatari, H. (2020). Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in) formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45 1, 100850. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Litunen, P. & Mäkilä, M. (2014). Measuring syntactic complexity in spoken and written learner language: Comparing the incomparable? Research in Language, 12 1, 377–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 1, 5–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazgutova, D. & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29 1, 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. & L. Ortega. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 1, 555–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Northbrook, J. & Conklin, K. (2019). Is what you put in what you get out? – Textbook-derived lexical bundle processing in beginner English learners. Applied Linguistics, 40 1, 816–833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J. & Musgrave, J. (2014). Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14 1, 48–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 1, 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37 1, 828–848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 87–122). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (2020). WordSmith Tools version 8, Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on task. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 123–155). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staples, S. (2021). Exploring the impact of situational characteristics on the linguistic features of spoken oral assessment tasks. In W. Crawford (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on learner interaction: The corpus of collaborative oral tasks (pp. 123–144). DeGruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Braden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based Language Teaching: A reader. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M. (2018a). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76 1, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Investigating native and target language use in collaborative L2 writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
(2021). Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25 (3), 338–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., & Crawford, W. J. (2021). Attention to form in collaborative writing: language-related episodes in L1 and L2 use conditions. Language Awareness, 11–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

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
Zhang, Yongping, Zaibo Li, H. Wang, M.N. Nordin & G. Guan
2023. Application of Register Analysis in College English Teaching. SHS Web of Conferences 168 ► pp. 01026 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Chunjing & Yaxiang Fan
2022. Research on the Use of Task-Based Language Teaching Method in English Language Teaching Based on Big Data 5G IoT Scenario. Journal of Sensors 2022 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. Textbook English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 116], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 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.