A learner corpus analysis: Effects of task complexity, task type, and L1 & L2 similarity on propositional and linguistic complexity
-
Elissa Allaw
Abstract
Learner corpora provide researchers with a rich pool of resources that can complement experimental studies. The purpose of the present paper is to provide task complexity researchers, for the first time, with further insight regarding interactive effects of task complexity, task type, task modality, and L1 background on linguistic and propositional complexity. Analyzing 720 intermediate-level (B1) written texts that were extracted from open access online language learning platform, the EF-Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCAMDAT) revealed that there was a significant interaction effect among task design features (task complexity, task type, and L1 background) that influenced linguistic and propositional complexity of written texts. This suggests that task complexity does not function in isolation of other task design features such as task type and L1 background.
References
Alexopoulou, T., M. Michel, A. Murakami & D. Meurers. 2017. Task effects on linguistic complexity and accuracy: A large-scale learner corpus analysis employing natural language processing techniques. Language Learning 67(S1). 180–208.10.1111/lang.12232Search in Google Scholar
Baker, P. & E. Levon. 2015. Picking the right cherries? A comparison of corpus-based and qualitative analyses of news articles about masculinity. Discourse and Communication 9(2). 221–236.10.1177/1750481314568542Search in Google Scholar
Baralt, M. 2013. The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(04). 689–725. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000429.Search in Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & D. Ravid. 2009. Becoming a literate language user: Oral and written text construction across adolescence. In D. R. Olson & N. Torranced (eds.), Cambridge handbook of literacy. 92–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609664.007Search in Google Scholar
Biber, D. & S. Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511814358Search in Google Scholar
Bulté, B. & A. Housen. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 21–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32.02bulSearch in Google Scholar
Bulté, B. & A. Housen. 2014. Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 26. 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005.10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005Search in Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. & R. M. Manchón. 2014. Task-based language learning–Insights from and for L2 writing TBLT as a researched pedagogy, vol. 7. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tblt.7Search in Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. & P. Robinson. 2009. Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7(1). 245–276.10.1075/arcl.7.10cadSearch in Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, USA: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cho, M. 2018. Task complexity and modality: Exploring learners’ experience from the perspective of flow. The Modern Language Journal 102(1). 162–170. doi:10.1111/modl.12460.Search in Google Scholar
Choong, K. P. 2011. Task complexity and linguistic complexity: An exploratory study. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 11(1). 1–28.Search in Google Scholar
De Bot, K., W. Lowie & M. Verspoor. 2007. A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1). 7–21.10.1017/S1366728906002732Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & G. Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Frear, M. W. & J. Bitchener. 2015. The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 30. 45–57. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009.Search in Google Scholar
Geertzen, J., T. Alexopoulou, A. Korhonen, et al. 2014. Automatic linguistic annotation of large scale L2 databases: The EF-Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCAMDAT). In R. T. Millar (ed.), Selected proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum: Building bridges between disciplines, 240–254. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2008. Learner corpora. In A. Ludeling & M. Kyto (eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, 259–275. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1990. Spoken and written language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jackson, D. O. & S. Suethanapornkul. 2013. The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning,63 330–367. doi:10.1111/lang.12008Search in Google Scholar
Jeffery, J. V. 2009. Constructs of writing proficiency in US state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability. Assessing Writing 14(1). 3–24.10.1016/j.asw.2008.12.002Search in Google Scholar
Jeong, H., M. Sugiura, Y. Sassa, T. Haji, N. Usui, M. Taira & R. Kawashima. 2007. Effect of syntactic similarity on cortical activation during second language processing: A comparison of English and Japanese among native Korean trilinguals. Human Brain Mapping 28(3). 194–204.10.1002/hbm.20269Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D. 2017. Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing 37(1). 13–38. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001.Search in Google Scholar
Kane, T. S. 2000. The Oxford essential guide to writing. New York, NY: The Berkley Publishing Group.Search in Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. 2006. Professional writing expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 389–402. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.022.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Y. 2012. Task complexity, learning opportunities and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34. 627–658. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000368.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & N. Tracy-Ventura. 2011. Task complexity, language anxiety, and the development of the simple past. In P. Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance, 287–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.2.18ch11Search in Google Scholar
Kormos, J. 2011. Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 20(2). 148–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001.10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001Search in Google Scholar
Kormos, J. 2014. Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchón (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 Writing, 193–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.7.08korSearch in Google Scholar
Kuiken, F. & I. Vedder. 2007. Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45(3). 261–284. doi:10.1515/iral.2007.012.Search in Google Scholar
Lambert, C. & P. Robinson. 2014. Learning to perform narrative tasks: Asemester-long classroom study of L2 task sequencing effects. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert & P. Robinson (eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning, 207–230. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2002. Language acquisition and language use form a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives, 33–46. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Manchon, R. M. 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. Manchon (eds.), Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing, 27–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.7.02manSearch in Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., A. C. Graesser, P. McCarthy & Z. Cai. 2014. Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511894664Search in Google Scholar
Niwa, Y. 2000. Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence and aptitude (Master’s thesis). Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan.Search in Google Scholar
Norris, J. & L. Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30. 555–578. doi:10.1093/applin/amp044.Search in Google Scholar
Ong, J. & L. J. Zhang. 2010. Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 19(4). 218–233. doi:10.1016/J.JSLW.Search in Google Scholar
Ortega, L. 2015. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing 29. 82–94.10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008Search in Google Scholar
Parra Paños, L. 2015. Defining and operationalizing propositional complexity into idea units: Effects of mode, discourse type, task type and task complexity (MA thesis). University of Barcelona. Barcelona, Spain.Search in Google Scholar
Pienemann, Manfred. 1998. Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.15Search in Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Y. Kim. 2016. Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36. 73–97. doi:10.1017/S0267190516000015.Search in Google Scholar
Révész, A. 2009. Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(03). 437–470. doi:10.1017/S0272263109090366.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22(1). 27–57. doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.27.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2003. The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies 21(2). 45–105. doi:10.1515/IRAL.2007.007.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2005. Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43(1). 1–32. doi:10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2007. Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, 7–26. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599286-004Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. 2007. Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45. 161–176. doi:10.1515/IRAL.2007.007.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2010. Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (eds.), Cognitive processingin second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind, vol. 13, 243. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.10.1075/celcr.13.17robSearch in Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2015. The cognition hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 125–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/tblt.8.04robSearch in Google Scholar
Salimi, A., S. Dadaspour & H. Asadollahfam. 2011. The effect of task complexity on EFL learners’ written performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 29. 1390–1399. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.378.Search in Google Scholar
Samuda, V. & M. Bygate. 2008. Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230596429Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1177/003368829802900209Search in Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological andcontextual perspectives, 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Relating events in narrative.Search in Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. 2014. Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchon (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing, 217–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.7.09tavSearch in Google Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N. & F. Myles. 2015. The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1). 58–95.10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.03traSearch in Google Scholar
Vasylets, O. 2017. Task-modality effects: A study of task complexity effects in speech and writing (Doctoral thesis). University of Barcalona. Spain.Search in Google Scholar
Vasylets, O. & R. Gilabert 2013. Testing the Cognition Hypothesis in L2 writing: Critical review of the accumulated findings. Poster presented at the EuroSLA Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Search in Google Scholar
Vasylets, O., R. Gilabert & R. M. Manchon. 2017. The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning 67(2). 394–430.10.1111/lang.12228Search in Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N. 2012. The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal 96. 576–598. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01401.x.Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Q. 2016. Application of learner corpora to second language learning and teaching: An overview. English Language Teaching 9(8). 46–52.10.5539/elt.v9n8p46Search in Google Scholar
Yoon, H. J. & C. Polio. 2017. The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly 51(2). 275–301. doi:10.1002/tesq.296.Search in Google Scholar
Yoon, H.-J. & C. Polio. 2016. The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly doi:10.1002/tesq.296.Search in Google Scholar
Appendices
A Appendix A
Englishtown skill levels in relation to CEFR standards
| Level | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Englishtown | 1–3 | 4–6 | 7–9 | 10–12 | 13–15 | 16 |
| CEFR | A1 | A2 | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 |
Appendix B: Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics for task type x task complexity
| DV | IV1 | IV2 | Mean | SD | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WBMV | Simple | Descriptive | 0.026 | 0.013 | 150 |
| Narrative | 0.018 | 0.008 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.026 | 0.017 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.026 | 0.014 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.025 | 0.014 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 0.034 | 0.020 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.026 | 0.017 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.034 | 0.020 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.025 | 0.014 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.032 | 0.019 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.023 | 0.011 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.032 | 0.017 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.024 | 0.015 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.026 | 0.015 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 0.028 | 0.015 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.022 | 0.013 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 0.031 | 0.019 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.025 | 0.014 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.028 | 0.017 | 720 | ||
| MLS | Simple | Descriptive | 0.146 | 0.049 | 150 |
| Narrative | 0.133 | 0.065 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.146 | 0.059 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.131 | 0.036 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.143 | 0.052 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 0.165 | 0.065 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.144 | 0.062 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.165 | 0.062 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.122 | 0.045 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.156 | 0.062 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.104 | 0.028 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.142 | 0.040 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.132 | 0.051 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.127 | 0.046 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 0.151 | 0.054 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.127 | 0.056 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 0.156 | 0.060 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.129 | 0.046 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.145 | 0.056 | 720 | ||
| NP | Simple | Descriptive | 3.929 | 1.074 | 150 |
| Narrative | 4.089 | 1.180 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 3.866 | 1.162 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 3.328 | 0.786 | 45 | ||
| Total | 3.841 | 1.092 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 4.377 | 1.196 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 3.489 | 0.836 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 4.123 | 1.168 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 3.915 | 0.943 | 45 | ||
| Total | 4.077 | 1.133 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 3.267 | 0.800 | 30 | |
| Expository | 3.519 | 0.886 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 3.012 | 1.114 | 60 | ||
| Total | 3.202 | 1.003 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 4.057 | 1.125 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 3.615 | 1.006 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 3.970 | 1.152 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 3.378 | 1.038 | 150 | ||
| Total | 3.828 | 1.133 | 720 | ||
| VP | Simple | Descriptive | 2.668 | 0.940 | 150 |
| Narrative | 2.457 | 0.670 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 2.937 | 0.870 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 2.574 | 0.405 | 45 | ||
| Total | 2.712 | 0.850 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 3.093 | 1.218 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 2.636 | 0.889 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 2.785 | 0.896 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 2.146 | 0.682 | 45 | ||
| Total | 2.733 | 0.983 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 2.074 | 0.696 | 30 | |
| Expository | 2.849 | 0.738 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 2.226 | 0.726 | 60 | ||
| Total | 2.344 | 0.776 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 2.789 | 1.042 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 2.389 | 0.786 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 2.843 | 0.871 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 2.306 | 0.653 | 150 | ||
| Total | 2.659 | 0.904 | 720 | ||
| PP | Simple | Descriptive | 0.997 | 0.407 | 150 |
| Narrative | 1.000 | 0.369 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 1.110 | 0.424 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.768 | 0.249 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.997 | 0.403 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 1.031 | 0.445 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.978 | 0.430 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.994 | 0.451 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 1.081 | 0.460 | 45 | ||
| Total | 1.014 | 0.448 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.688 | 0.303 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.765 | 0.394 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.763 | 0.366 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.745 | 0.357 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 1.007 | 0.417 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.889 | 0.394 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 1.007 | 0.446 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.860 | 0.394 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.962 | 0.425 | 720 | ||
| MTLD | Simple | Descriptive | 0.701 | 0.376 | 150 |
| Narrative | 0.925 | 0.314 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.731 | 0.300 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.694 | 0.243 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.730 | 0.338 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 0.775 | 0.435 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.778 | 0.315 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.724 | 0.331 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.344 | 0.356 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.681 | 0.385 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.386 | 0.338 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.386 | 0.294 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.662 | 0.305 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.524 | 0.338 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 0.723 | 0.394 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.696 | 0.392 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 0.689 | 0.333 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.576 | 0.339 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.676 | 0.364 | 720 | ||
| Log Celex | Simple | Descriptive | 0.027 | 0.007 | 150 |
| Narrative | 0.027 | 0.007 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.027 | 0.005 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.024 | 0.004 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.026 | 0.006 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 0.028 | 0.006 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.025 | 0.006 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.026 | 0.006 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.024 | 0.006 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.026 | 0.006 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.023 | 0.005 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.024 | 0.006 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.020 | 0.006 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.022 | 0.006 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 0.027 | 0.006 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.025 | 0.006 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 0.026 | 0.006 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.022 | 0.006 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.025 | 0.006 | 720 | ||
| Mean Celex | Simple | Descriptive | 0.030 | 0.010 | 150 |
| Narrative | 0.033 | 0.009 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.034 | 0.007 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.030 | 0.005 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.031 | 0.009 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 0.035 | 0.008 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.032 | 0.007 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.035 | 0.008 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.031 | 0.007 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.034 | 0.008 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.029 | 0.006 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.031 | 0.008 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.026 | 0.008 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.028 | 0.008 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 0.032 | 0.010 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.031 | 0.007 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 0.034 | 0.008 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.029 | 0.007 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.032 | 0.009 | 720 | ||
| Total idea unit | Simple | Descriptive | 0.125 | 0.038 | 150 |
| Narrative | 0.127 | 0.048 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.121 | 0.031 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.103 | 0.026 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.121 | 0.036 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 0.138 | 0.043 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.109 | 0.020 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.123 | 0.043 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.139 | 0.040 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.127 | 0.042 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.158 | 0.039 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.154 | 0.032 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.106 | 0.039 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.131 | 0.045 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 0.129 | 0.040 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.131 | 0.042 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 0.126 | 0.040 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.115 | 0.039 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.125 | 0.040 | 720 | ||
| Idea unit | Simple | Descriptive | 0.100 | 0.037 | 150 |
| Narrative | 0.090 | 0.039 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.092 | 0.034 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.072 | 0.035 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.093 | 0.037 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 0.114 | 0.048 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.090 | 0.027 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.094 | 0.043 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.119 | 0.038 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.102 | 0.043 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.130 | 0.036 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.120 | 0.026 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.071 | 0.036 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.098 | 0.043 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 0.104 | 0.040 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.103 | 0.039 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 0.096 | 0.039 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.085 | 0.042 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.097 | 0.041 | 720 | ||
| Extended idea unit | Simple | Descriptive | 0.018 | 0.018 | 150 |
| Narrative | 0.025 | 0.020 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.020 | 0.016 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.022 | 0.016 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.020 | 0.017 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 0.020 | 0.016 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.013 | 0.014 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.019 | 0.017 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.015 | 0.015 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.018 | 0.016 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.016 | 0.012 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.020 | 0.015 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.027 | 0.017 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.023 | 0.016 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 0.019 | 0.017 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.018 | 0.017 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 0.019 | 0.017 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.022 | 0.017 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.019 | 0.017 | 720 | ||
| Non extended idea unit | Simple | Descriptive | 0.006 | 0.011 | 150 |
| Narrative | 0.012 | 0.014 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.009 | 0.012 | 90 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.009 | 0.013 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.008 | 0.012 | 315 | ||
| Medium | Descriptive | 0.004 | 0.006 | 60 | |
| Narrative | 0.006 | 0.008 | 30 | ||
| Expository | 0.010 | 0.012 | 150 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.005 | 0.009 | 45 | ||
| Total | 0.008 | 0.011 | 285 | ||
| Complex | Narrative | 0.012 | 0.009 | 30 | |
| Expository | 0.014 | 0.012 | 30 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.008 | 0.009 | 60 | ||
| Total | 0.011 | 0.010 | 120 | ||
| Total | Descriptive | 0.006 | 0.010 | 210 | |
| Narrative | 0.010 | 0.011 | 90 | ||
| Expository | 0.010 | 0.012 | 270 | ||
| Persuasive | 0.008 | 0.010 | 150 | ||
| Total | 0.008 | 0.011 | 720 |
Descriptive statistics for task complexity and L1 background
| DV | IV1 | IV2 | Mean | SD | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WBMV | French | ||||
| Simple | 0.025 | 0.014 | 164 | ||
| Medium | 0.028 | 0.015 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.025 | 0.015 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 0.026 | 0.015 | 149 | |
| Medium | 0.035 | 0.022 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.026 | 0.015 | 58 | ||
| MLS | French | Simple | 0.144 | 0.052 | 164 |
| Medium | 0.144 | 0.053 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.130 | 0.048 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 0.140 | 0.051 | 149 | |
| Medium | 0.167 | 0.069 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.126 | 0.044 | 58 | ||
| NormNP | |||||
| French | Simple | 3.789 | 1.073 | 164 | |
| Medium | 3.974 | 0.989 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 3.152 | 0.949 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 3.893 | 1.120 | 149 | |
| Medium | 4.177 | 1.245 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 3.270 | 1.073 | 58 | ||
| NormVP | |||||
| French | Simple | 2.755 | 0.795 | 164 | |
| Medium | 2.594 | 0.853 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 2.359 | 0.695 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 2.655 | 0.908 | 149 | |
| Medium | 2.858 | 1.079 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 2.353 | 0.858 | 58 | ||
| NormPP | |||||
| French | Simple | 0.951 | 0.366 | 164 | |
| Medium | 0.970 | 0.412 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.693 | 0.352 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 1.052 | 0.435 | 149 | |
| Medium | 1.056 | 0.474 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.802 | 0.363 | 58 | ||
| MTLD | French | Simple | 0.747 | 0.292 | 164 |
| Medium | 0.855 | 0.308 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.675 | 0.280 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 0.708 | 0.382 | 149 | |
| Medium | 0.527 | 0.385 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.374 | 0.327 | 58 | ||
| Log Celex | French | Simple | 0.027 | 0.006 | 164 |
| Medium | 0.026 | 0.006 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.022 | 0.005 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 0.026 | 0.006 | 149 | |
| Medium | 0.026 | 0.007 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.022 | 0.007 | 58 | ||
| Mean Celex | French | Simple | 0.030 | 0.009 | 164 |
| Medium | 0.033 | 0.007 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.028 | 0.007 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 0.034 | 0.008 | 149 | |
| Medium | 0.035 | 0.009 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.028 | 0.008 | 58 | ||
| Total idea unit | French | Simple | 0.124 | 0.037 | 164 |
| Medium | 0.128 | 0.034 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.136 | 0.046 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 0.118 | 0.035 | 149 | |
| Medium | 0.127 | 0.048 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.126 | 0.043 | 58 | ||
| Simple idea unit | French | Simple | 0.097 | 0.038 | 164 |
| Medium | 0.105 | 0.038 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.100 | 0.047 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 0.089 | 0.035 | 149 | |
| Medium | 0.098 | 0.047 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.095 | 0.040 | 58 | ||
| Extended idea unit | French | Simple | 0.020 | 0.017 | 164 |
| Medium | 0.015 | 0.014 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.023 | 0.016 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 0.019 | 0.018 | 149 | |
| Medium | 0.020 | 0.018 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.022 | 0.015 | 58 | ||
| Complex | 0.023 | 0.016 | 120 | ||
| Non extended idea unit | French | Simple | 0.007 | 0.011 | 164 |
| Medium | 0.007 | 0.010 | 133 | ||
| Complex | 0.012 | 0.012 | 60 | ||
| Taiwan | Simple | 0.010 | 0.013 | 149 | |
| Medium | 0.008 | 0.011 | 150 | ||
| Complex | 0.009 | 0.009 | 58 |
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- “How Dare You Have Another Relationship!”: An analysis of cross-cultural and interlanguage corrections
- Noticing without negotiation?: What L2 Spanish learners report hearing in peer-produced language
- A Vygotskian approach to mediating learner intercultural competence during study abroad
- Influence of learners’ prior knowledge, L2 proficiency and pre-task planning on L2 lexical complexity
- A learner corpus analysis: Effects of task complexity, task type, and L1 & L2 similarity on propositional and linguistic complexity
- Online task planning and L2 oral fluency: does manipulating time pressure affect fluency in L2 monologic oral narratives?
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- “How Dare You Have Another Relationship!”: An analysis of cross-cultural and interlanguage corrections
- Noticing without negotiation?: What L2 Spanish learners report hearing in peer-produced language
- A Vygotskian approach to mediating learner intercultural competence during study abroad
- Influence of learners’ prior knowledge, L2 proficiency and pre-task planning on L2 lexical complexity
- A learner corpus analysis: Effects of task complexity, task type, and L1 & L2 similarity on propositional and linguistic complexity
- Online task planning and L2 oral fluency: does manipulating time pressure affect fluency in L2 monologic oral narratives?
