Cover not available
Part of
Learning Language through Task Repetition
Edited by Martin Bygate
[Task-Based Language Teaching 11] 2018
► pp. 97–116

Chapter 4
Discourse performance in L2 task repetition

 | South University of Science and Technology of China
 | University of Hong Kong
‘Repetition’ in language practice has often been associated with behavioristic drills, typically regarded as giving rise to habit formation, and often excluded from mainstream language teaching approaches. However, this study, drawing upon Bygate’s (1999) argument that task is a context for the framing and reframing of language, shows that repetition in meaningful tasks does not necessarily involve passive performance repetition; instead, L2 learners are actively re-constructing the narrative discourse. This study provides support to this argument through the analysis of the speech samples from thirteen learners performing an immediate exact L2 task repetition. The participants were asked to perform a video-based monologue story narration twice to an imagined listener, and the comparison of the learners’ first and second speech performances shows that the learners enhanced their discourse performance with: (1) increased quantity of discourse (evidenced by more Total Words, Total Propositions, and higher P-density); (2) increased cohesion (evidenced by higher ratio of given words to new words in sentences based on latent semantic analysis, i.e., LSA Given/New value); and (3) increased quality of lexis (evidenced by higher Noun Hyperonymy value, indicating more specific nouns used). The results suggest that task repetition, in addition to its effects on language complexity, accuracy, and fluency, has an impact on learners’ speech performance at the discourse level.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Effects of task repetition on speech performance (CALF)
  • Discourse competence in language teaching, learning, and assessment
    • Discourse competence
    • Discourse competence in language teaching and learning
    • Discourse performance in language assessment (CEFR)
  • Discourse performance measures in this study
  • Research questions
  • Methodology
    • Participants
    • Immediate task repetition
    • Data collection procedure
    • Measures of discourse performancest
    • Discourse quantity
    • Cohesion
    • Lexical quality
  • Analysis
  • Results
    • Results for discourse quantity
    • Results for cohesion
    • Results for lexical quality
  • Discussion
    • Discourse performance in TBLT
    • Implications for TBLT pedagogy
  • Conclusion and future research
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.04wan
References (71)
References
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (release 2). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, C., Snodgrass, T., Kemper, S., Herman, R., & Covington, M. (2008). Automatic measurement of propositional idea density from part-of-speech tagging. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 540–545.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 134–146). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
(1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27(1), 33–48.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richard & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 2–14). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. (Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Cobb, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications. System, 41(4), 965–981.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & Salsbury, T. (2010). Using lexical indices to predict produced and not produced words in second language learners. The Mental Lexicon, 5(1), 115–147.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60(3), 573–605.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in l2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (1998) WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 321–340.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Álvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 371–398.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223–234.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193–202.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hempelmann, C. F., Dufty, D., McCarthy, P. M., Graesser, A. C., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Using LSA to automatically identify givenness and newness of noun phrases in written discourse. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 941–946). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. (2004). TOEFL test strategies (3rd ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63(supplement 1), 87–106.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. A. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167–196.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., & Indefrey, P. (2000). The speaking mind/brain: Where do spoken words come from? In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 77–93). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–50.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D. D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2014). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., Dufty, D., Hempelman, C., Cai, Z., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Newness and givenness of information: Automated identification in written discourse. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 457–478). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCrum-Gardner, E. (2008). Which is the correct statistical test to use? British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 46(1), 38–41.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. (2005, January 1). Coh-Metrix version 1.4. Retrieved from <[URL]> (2 July, 2016).
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292–330.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. (1990). Five papers on WordNet (Technical Report No. 43). Princeton, NJ: Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Qiu, X., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 681–698.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(Supplement 1), 1–36.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., Bei, X., Li, Q., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 170–187.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate M., & Norris, J. (Eds.) (2009). Task based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Eds.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp. 27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1980). Conceptual and communicative functions in written discourse. Applied linguistics, 1, 234.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. D. (1988). The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 20(1), 6–11.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Sima Khezrlou & Yu Tian
2024. Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 62:2 ► pp. 871 ff. DOI logo
Santos, Sara
2023. Efeitos da repetição procedimental e da complexidade cognitiva da tarefa no desempenho oral em português língua estrangeira: estudo exploratório . Diacrítica 36:2 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 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.