In:Writing and Language Learning: Advancing research agendas
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 56] 2020
► pp. 183–206
Chapter 8Task modality, communicative adequacy and CAF measures
The moderating role of task complexity
Published online: 20 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.08vas
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.08vas
Abstract
In this study we looked into the learning affordances of task modalities as mediated by task
complexity. A group of intermediate learners performed an argumentative task with two levels of complexity orally and
in writing and their performance was rated for adequacy, and assessed in terms of the CAF (complexity, accuracy, and
fluency) measures. In both oral and written modes, communicative success was found to be linked to lexical complexity
and fluency. However, adequacy was associated with accuracy only in speech and with propositional complexity (idea
units) only in writing. Task complexity did not moderate the links between communicative adequacy and the CAF
dimensions. Based on these findings, implications for task design and for language-learning potential across
modalities are drawn.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Task complexity and task modality in SLA research
- CAF and communicative adequacy
- The present study: Research questions
- Method
- Participants
- The experimental task
- Data collection procedures
- Data analysis procedures
- CAF measures
- Communicative adequacy raters and scale
- Statistical analyses
- Results
- Discussion
- Similarities and differences across modalities
- Implications of the findings for the connection between L2 writing and L2 learning
- Conclusion
Acknowledgements References Appendix
References (48)
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing
and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second
Language
Writing, 26, 42–65.
Bulté, B., Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Van Daele, S. (2008). Investigating
lexical proficiency development over time–the case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in
Brussels. Journal of French Language
Studies, 18(3), 277–298.
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based
language learning. Insights from and for L2
writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Council of
Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of references for
languages: Learning, teaching,
assessment. Cambridge: CUP.
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Facets
of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 34(1), 5–34.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice
in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive
psychology. Cambridge: CUP.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The
effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task
performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning
and task performance in a second
language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring
spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied
linguistics, 21(3), 354–375.
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects
of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral
production. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 45(3), 215–240.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic
and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech
acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions
of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in
SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed
levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied
Linguistics, 29(1), 24–49.
Kormos, J. (2014). Differences
across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative
tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based
language learning. Insights from and for L2
writing (pp. 193–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2014). Rating
written performance: What do raters do and why? Language
Testing, 31(3), 329–348.
(2017). Functional
adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language
Testing, 34(3), 321–336.
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R. (2010). Communicative
adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2
writing. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative
proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing
research (pp. 81–100). Eurosla
Monographs Series 1.
Long, M. (2014). Second
language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
MacWhinney, B. (1996). The
CHILDES system. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 5(1), 5–14.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating
accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical
diversity. Language
Testing, 19(1), 85–104.
Manchón, R. M. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-write
and writing-to-learn in an additional
language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2014). The
internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about
learning through writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based
language learning. Insights from and for L2
writing (pp. 27–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn
in instructed language learning contexts. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jordá (Eds.), Intercultural
language use and language
learning (pp. 101–121). Berlin: Springer.
Manchón, R. M., & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language
learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and empirical
evidence. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of language
learning (pp. 341–362). Cambridge: CUP.
Manchón, R. M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2
writing and SLA studies. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), The
handbook of second and foreign language
writing (pp. 567–586). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Meara, P. M., & Miralpeix, I. (2006). Y_Lex:
The Swansea advanced vocabulary levels test (Version
2.05)[Computer
software]. Swansea: Lognostics.
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated
evaluation of text and discourse with
Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: CUP.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards
an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of
complexity. Applied
Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic
complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2
writing. Applied
Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF:
Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied
Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.
Révész, A. (2013). Towards
a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands
and processes. Applied
Linguistics, 35(1), 87–92.
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The
effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task
performance. Applied
Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task
complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential
framework. Applied
Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.
(2011). Second
language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and
performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second
language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and
performance (pp. 3–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring
the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and
learner variables. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 28, 1–19.
Sato, T. (2012). The
contribution of test-takers’ speech content to scores on an English oral proficiency
test. Language
Testing, 29(2), 223–241.
Tannen, D. (1982). The
oral/literate continuum in discourse. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken
and written language: Exploring orality and
literacy (pp. 1–16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline
complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking
tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based
language learning. Insights from and for L2
writing (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vasylets, O., & Gilabert, R. (2013). Communicative
adequacy: The neglected component in L2 writing assessment. Paper presented at
the conference of Urban Multilingualism & Education, University of
Ghent, Belgium, March
7–8.
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2017). The
effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language
Learning, 67(2), 394–430.
(2019). Contribution
of oral and written modes to lexical, syntactic and propositional complexity in L2 performance in instructed
contexts. Instructed Second Language
Acquisition, 3(2), 206–227.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., Kim, H. Y., Kim, H. Y., & Inagaki, S. (1998). Second
language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, &
complexity (p. 187). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Yang, W. (2014). Mapping
the relationship among the cognitive complexity of independent writing tasks, L2 writing quality, and
complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 writing (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Georgia State University. Retrieved from <[URL]> (26 May, 2020).
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Lu, Xiaojun & Yui Suzukida
Gomez Laich, Maria Pia & Naoko Taguchi
Kim, Minkyung & Scott A. Crossley
Vasylets, Olena, Raquel Criado & Joaquín Gris-Roca
Leow, Ronald P., Rosa M. Manchón & Charlene Polio
2022. Writing. In Research methods in instructed second language acquisition [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 305 ff.
Sasayama, Shoko & John M. Norris
2022. Designing speaking tasks for different assessment goals. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:2 ► pp. 184 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. 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.
