In:Processing Perspectives on Task Performance
Edited by Peter Skehan
[Task-Based Language Teaching 5] 2014
► pp. 155–186
Chapter 6. Structure, lexis, and time perspective
Influences on task performance
Published online: 30 April 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.06wan
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.06wan
The Cognition and Tradeoff Hypotheses account for task performance in different ways. The former sees task complexity as the driver for higher accuracy and structural complexity whereas the latter, within the constraints of limited attentional capacities, sees performance as being accounted for through the interaction of influences from task characteristics and task conditions. This chapter reports on a study which contrasts these two accounts, manipulating task structure (as an influence on primarily accuracy, but secondarily complexity), vocabulary difficulty (as a disruptor of smooth processing during performance), and time perspective (as a method of operationalising task complexity). The results do simultaneously produce raised accuracy and complexity, but this is best accounted for through the separate contribution of task structure and a there-and-then perspective (analysed differently to that within the Cognition Hypothesis), rather than through greater task complexity. Vocabulary difficulty did not have the predicted impact. The results are discussed in terms of the Tradeoff and Cognition Hypotheses.
References (47)
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shilcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: CUP.
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: Longman.
Ellis, R. (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.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.
. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 185–214.
. (2013). Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency of L2 language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review 69, 3, 249–273.
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 886–896.
. (2011). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61(suppl.1), 37–72.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, J. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354−75.
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473.
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effects of task complexity and language proficiency on task- based language performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(4), 193–225.
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401–436.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 261–284.
. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104.
Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5–19.
Michel, M., 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.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.
. (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.
Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task complexity, task condition, and variation in L2 oral discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Queensland, Australia.
Richards, B.J., & Malvern, D.D. (1998). A new research tool: Mathematical modelling in the measurement of vocabulary diversity (Award reference no. R000221995). Final Report to the Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon, UK.
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140.
. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.
. (2001b). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: CUP.
. (2007). 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, 193–214.
. (2011).Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(Suppl. 1, June 2011), 1–36.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL, 45, 161–176.
Sawaki, Y., Stricker, L.J., & Oranje, A.H. (2009). Factor structure of an internet-based test. Language Testing, 26(1), 5–30.
Skehan, P. (2009a). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.
. (2009b). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In H. Daller, D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, B. Richards, & J. Treffers-Daller. (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107–124). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
. (2009c). Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In A. Benati. (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 202–215). London: Continuum.
. (2011). Researching tasks: Performance, assessment, pedagogy. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
. (manuscript). Conventions for coding complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis: The use of TaskProfile. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 16–33.
. (2008).Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard, & I. Vedder. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 263–284). Brussels: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts.
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van den Branden, K., Bygate M., & Norris, J. (2009). (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (21)
Cited by 21 other publications
Qahl, Taghreed & Craig Lambert
Vásquez Fernández, Claudia
Vásquez Fernández, Claudia
Aaj, Ali, Parviz Maftoon & Masood Siyyari
Mora-Plaza, Ingrid, Joan C. Mora, Mireia Ortega & Cristina Aliaga-Garcia
Skehan, Peter, Gavin Bui, Zhan Wang & Sabrina Shum
Wang, Qiong, Shaofeng Li & Martin East
2024. Measuring L1 Chinese speakers’ anxiety when completing an English as L2 video narration task. Journal of Second Language Studies 7:1 ► pp. 99 ff.
Zou, Yumei, Sathiamoorthy Kannan & Gurnam Kaur Sidhu
Albarqi, Ghadah & Parvaneh Tavakoli
Awwad, Anas & Parvaneh Tavakoli
Farahanynia, Mahsa & Mohammad Khatib
Williams, Simon
Michel, Marije, Andrea Révész, Danni Shi & Yanmei Li
2019. The effects of task demands on linguistic complexity and accuracy across task types and L1/L2 speakers. In Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy [Task-Based Language Teaching, 13], ► pp. 133 ff.
Wang, Qiong & Shaofeng Li
2019. The relationship between task motivation and L2 motivation. In Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy [Task-Based Language Teaching, 13], ► pp. 67 ff.
Xing, Jiaxin & Shaoqian Luo
2019. The effects of reasoning demands on Chinese EFL learners’ oral performance and cognitive processes. In Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy [Task-Based Language Teaching, 13], ► pp. 153 ff.
Skehan, Peter
2015. Limited Attention Capacity and Cognition. In Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT [Task-Based Language Teaching, 8], ► pp. 123 ff.
Skehan, Peter
2016. Sidesteps towards applied linguistics. In Becoming and Being an Applied Linguist, ► pp. 89 ff.
Skehan, Peter
Skehan, Peter
2022. Performance on second language speaking tasks. In Second Language Acquisition Theory [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 14], ► pp. 211 ff.
Skehan, Peter
[no author supplied]
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.
