Cover not available

In:Learning Language through Task Repetition
Edited by Martin Bygate
[Task-Based Language Teaching 11] 2018
► pp. 43–73

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 2
Grammatical structures and oral fluency in immediate task repetition

Trigrams across repeated performances

 | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
 | Independent researcher
Published online: 25 September 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.02jon
Abstract
In this study we examine to what extent words and grammatical structures are re-used when a speaking task is repeated with the same content (i.e., specific task repetition). We examine this re-use, which has been argued to support proceduralization and fluency development (N. de Jong & Perfetti, 2011), under both constant and increasing time pressure, and we investigate the correlation between re-use and fluency. The analyses are performed not only on individual words but also on trigrams, which are sequences of three words (e.g., the red car; here: lexical trigrams) or three parts of speech (e.g., det adj noun: POS trigrams), to capture grammatical structure. Thirty-nine adult ESL speakers completed repeated retellings of one to three picture stories. One group followed the 4/3/2 procedure (Nation, 1989), which involves three iterations with gradually increasing time pressure; for the other group the available time was constant. The extent of re-use of words and grammatical structures across task iterations was calculated using cosine similarity with tf-idf weighting (Manning, Raghavan, & Schütze, 2008), which adjusts for the frequency of words or trigrams, both within an iteration and across iterations and speakers. It was found that immediate task repetition had a strong effect on re-use at the level of individual words and trigrams, but increasing time pressure did not. The relationship between re-use and fluency was variable, but showed higher re-use for speakers struggling with fluency. We conclude that, if fluency development is to be stimulated by re-use of words and grammatical structures, it can be done with specific task repetition, whether under increasing time pressure or not.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Immediate task repetition
  • What speakers do when they repeat a task
  • Measuring similarity between iterations
    • What to count: Similarity at the level of the word and above
    • How to compute similarity: Using frequency to estimate informativeness
    • How to compute similarity: Cosine similarity with tf-idf weighting
  • Research questions
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Analysis
  • Results
    • Re-use between and within prompts
    • Re-use under constant and decreasing time and by iteration
    • Correlations between similarity and fluency
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (46)
References
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 181–189). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F. (2014). A reappraisal of the 4/3/2 activity. RELC Journal, 45, 221–235.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breen, M. 1989. The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R.K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (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: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Y-H., & Baker, P. (2016). Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner rssays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37, 849–880.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Cock, S. (2004). Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures, 2, 225–246.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Jong, N. (2012). Does time pressure help or hinder oral fluency? In N. De Jong, K. Juffermans, M. Keijzer, & L. Rasier (Eds.), Papers of the Anéla 2012 Applied Linguistics Conference (pp. 43–52). Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Jong, N., & Vercellotti, M. L. (2016). Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts. Language Teaching Research, 20, 387–404.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Steinel, M., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 893–916.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2009). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of second language teaching (pp. 119–138). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Tasks in SLA and language pedagogy. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 1–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, W. S., Corral, N. I., Jones, M. L., & Sáenz, S. P. (2008). Decomposition of Repetition Priming Components in Picture Naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 566–590.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66, 327–336.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heaton, J. B. (1966). Composition Through Pictures. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2008). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics and speech recognition (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41, 829–840.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauttamus, T., Nerbonne, J., & Wiersma, W. (2007). Detecting syntactic contamination in emigrants: The English of Finnish Australians. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 20, 273–307.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill Acquisition Theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M. del P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martinez Adrian (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–91). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 1–21). New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33, 299–320.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., Hall, C., Duran, N. D., Doiuchi, M., Fujiwara, Y., Duncan, B., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Analyzing journal abstracts written by Japanese, American, and British scientists using Coh-Metrix and the Gramulator. The ESPecialist, 30, 141–173.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2009). Using priming methods in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17, 377–384.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paquot, M., & Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sample, E., & Michel, M. (2014). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 31, 23–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shafer, D. (2006). Revolution: Software at the speed of thought. Monterey, CA: Shafer Media.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snellings, P., Van Gelderen, A., & De Glopper, K. (2004). The effect of enhanced lexical retrieval on second language writing: A classroom experiment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 175–200.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 369–393.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Doe, Timothy
2025. Fluency development in an EFL setting: A one-semester study. Language Teaching Research 29:1 ► pp. 363 ff. DOI logo
Rogers, John & Peilin Li
2025. The time between tasks in task repetition research: A systematic review. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Suzuki, Yuichi, Ryo Maie & Bronson Hui
2025. Research timeline: Automatization in second language learning. Language Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Yamaoka, Koichi & Osamu Takeuchi
2025. Effects of repeated practice on fluency and accuracy in picture description activity: implicit learning by frequency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Gu, Qianqian & Kris Van den Branden
2024. The effects of two methods of on-line planning on L2 task-based speaking performance and strategy use. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Hanzawa, Keiko
2024. Development of second language speech fluency in foreign language classrooms: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research 28:3 ► pp. 816 ff. DOI logo
Kakitani, Joe & Judit Kormos
2024. The effects of distributed practice on second language fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 46:3 ► pp. 770 ff. DOI logo
Hanzawa, Keiko & Yuichi Suzuki
2023. How do learners perceive task repetition? Distributed practice effects on engagement and metacognitive judgment. The Modern Language Journal 107:2 ► pp. 451 ff. DOI logo
Rogers, John
2023. Spacing Effects in Task Repetition Research. Language Learning 73:2 ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Meng, Na Yi & Dandan Zhou
2023. The Effects of Task Repetition Schedules on L2 Fluency Enhancement. Languages 8:4 ► pp. 252 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Yuichi, Masaki Eguchi & Nel de Jong
2022. Does the Reuse of Constructions Promote Fluency Development in Task Repetition? A Usage‐Based Perspective. TESOL Quarterly 56:4 ► pp. 1290 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Yuichi & Keiko Hanzawa
2022. MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44:2 ► pp. 536 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Yuichi
2021. Individual differences in memory predict changes in breakdown and repair fluency but not speed fluency: A short-term fluency training intervention study. Applied Psycholinguistics 42:4 ► pp. 969 ff. DOI logo
Sánchez, Alberto J., Rosa M. Manchón & Roger Gilabert
2020. The effects of task repetition across modalities and proficiency levels. In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue