The effects of increasing cognitive complexity on L2 narrative oral production Roger Gilabert Blanquerna Communication Studies Department Universitat Ramon Llull Barcelona, Spain Leuven 2005

Context 2 main research agendas into task features: - Interactionist perspective: how certain conversational episodes (e.g. CR or CC), caused by task design, may lead to acquisition (Long, 1985, 1989, 2000). - Information-processing approach: how manipulating the cognitive features of tasks can lead to differentials in the fluency, complexity, and accuracy of learners’ performance.

Context: research into cognitive task features degree of familiarity: (Bygate, 1999, 2001; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Plough & Gass, 1993; Robinson, 2001) 1996; Plough & Gass, 1993; Robinson, 2001) number of elements: (Kuiken & Vedder, 2004; Robinson, 2001) single and dual task performance: (Niwa, 2000) pre-task and on-line planning time: (Crookes, 1989; Ellis, 1987; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997; Yuan & Wigglesworth, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) Ellis, 2003) degree of complexity along displaced, past time reference: (Iwashita et al. 2001; Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997). Rahimpour, 1997). Concerned with: how Task Complexity affects performance; how balanced performance may lead to better use and acquisition; and how tasks can be best sequenced according to their cognitive complexity

Context: Skehan / Robinson Most studies concerned with the issue of competition for attention during task performance. Predictions for performance: competition exists (Skehan, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 2001 ) competition exists (Skehan, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 2001 ) it depends: resource-directing vs. resource-dispersing it depends: resource-directing vs. resource-dispersing (Robinson, 2001; 2003; 2005) (Robinson, 2001; 2003; 2005) + cognitively complex = - fluency + cognitively complex = - fluency + complexity + complexity + accuracy + accuracy Claims based on studies which have manipulated task features in isolation (e.g. planning time studies and +/- here-and-now studies). GOAL: of this study is to provide further evidence regarding the two widely researched variables of planning time and +/- Here-and-Now, and to explore the synergistic effects of manipulating them simultaneously.

Previous findings Planning time studies: Fluency increases (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Ortega, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) Higher structural complexity (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003; only a trend in Skehan & Foster, 1997) Ellis, 2003; only a trend in Skehan & Foster, 1997) No significant effects on lexical complexity: (Ortega, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003). Mixed results for accuracy: higher accuracy (Foster & Skehan, 1997) no differences (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Yan & Ellis, no differences (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Yan & Ellis, 2003) 2003) mixed restuls (Ortega, 1999) mixed restuls (Ortega, 1999)

Previous findings Here-and-Now/There-and-Then studies: Fluency decreases: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997) Increased lexical complexity: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997) No differences in structural complexity: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997) 1997) Higher accuracy: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997; Iwashita et al.)

Research question How does manipulating Task Complexity simultaneously along planning time and the +/- here- and-now variables affect production?

I. Pre-task planning time will positively affect the areas of fluency and structural complexity, with no effects on lexical complexity or accuracy. - cognitive complexity + cognitive complexity - cognitive complexity + cognitive complexity + fluency - fluency + fluency - fluency + structural complexity - structural complexity + structural complexity - structural complexity = lexical complexity = lexical complexity = lexical complexity = lexical complexity = accuracy = accuracy = accuracy = accuracy II. More complex tasks, in the there-and-then, will trigger more accurate and complex speech at the expense of fluency. - cognitive complexity + cognitive complexity - cognitive complexity + cognitive complexity + fluency - less fluency + fluency - less fluency - structural complexity + structural complexity - structural complexity + structural complexity - lexical complexity + lexical complexity - lexical complexity + lexical complexity - accuracy + accuracy - accuracy + accuracy Hypotheses

Experimental design Story 1Story 2Story 3Story 4 Group A + planning time There-and-Then - planning time There-and-Then + planning time Here-and-Now - planning time Here-and-Now Group B - planning time There-and-Then + planning time Here-and-Now - planning time Here-and-Now + planning time There-and-Then Group C + planning time Here-and-Now - planning time Here-and-Now + planning time There-and-Then - planning time There-and-Then Group D - planning time Here-and-Now + planning time There-and-Then - planning time There-and-Then + planning time Here-and-Now Condition 1: Planned Here-and-Now Condition 2: Unplanned Here-and-Now Condition 3: Planned There-and-Then Condition 4: Unplanned There-and-Then Simple Complex

Begin the story like this: YESTERDAY Mr. Brown was shopping at the supermarket. He was checking his shopping list and looking at prices. An employee was putting price tags on the products. Experimental design: example of comic strip

Participants 48 volunteers among lower-intermediate, first- and second- year university students. Ages Similar number of years of instruction. No significant differences in proficiency (C-Test)

Measures Fluency:Rate A (syllables x minute in unpruned speech) Rate B (syllables x minute in pruned speech) Structural Complexity:S-Nodes per T-unit Lexical Complexity:Percentage of Lexical Words Ratio of Lexical / Function Words Guiraud’s Index of Lexical Richness Accuracy:Error-free T-units TLU of Articles Percentage of Self-repairs Repaired to Unrepaired Errors

Why self-repairs? Self-repairs are the result of wrong formulation (Levelt, 1989), and may be used to correct an inappropriate syntactic structure, a lexical problem, faulty morphology, or a phonetic error. Self-repairs, whether other-initiated or self-initiated Schegloff’s (1977), denote students’ awareness of form and can be interpreted as learners’ attempts at being accurate. Self-repairs require conscious attention. Some of the functions of self-repairs are: Learners automatize the retrieval of target language knowledge they already have. They revise their hypotheses about the target language (Lyster and Ranta, 1997:57). They noticing a hole in their own interlanguage that may direct their attention to relevant input (Swain, 1998:66; Dörnyei & Kormos, 1999). They check their speech, both internal and overt, against their receptive knowledge (De Bot, 1996:551).

Statistical analysis Sphericity of data achieved by means of detecting (by means of box plots) and eliminating outliers from the calculation. Repeated-measures ANOVAS for stories and conditions. Post hoc Scheffe’s comparisons to identify exact location of differences. Transcription and coding Intrarater and interrater measures used for transcription and coding Intrarater agreement 97% Interrater agreement on 10% of the data reached 93.7%

Hypothesis 1 +/- Planning time Speech Rate A Speech Rate B Hypothesis 2 Here-and-Now/There-and-then Fluency Results As predicted, fluency is negatively affected by increases in cognitive complexity along both variables

Hypothesis 1 Planning time Hypothesis 2 Here-and-Now/There-and-then Lexical Complexity Results Against prediction, providing planning time had a significant impact on lexical complexity Against prediction, increasing complexity along +/- Here-and-Now had NO significant impact on lexical complexity Percentage of Lexical words Ratio of Lexical to Function words Guiraud’s Index

Hypothesis 1 +/- Planning time Hypothesis 2 Here-and-Now/There-and-then Structural Complexity Results Against prediction, structural complexity was not significantly affected by planning time or by increasing along +/- Here-and-Now S-Nodes per T-Units

Hypothesis 1: Planning time Hypothesis 2: Here-and-Now/There-and-then Accuracy Results As predicted, planning time had no impact on accuracy Partially in line with prediction, increasing complexity along +/- Here-and-Now triggered more attention to form Error-free T-Units TLU of articles Percentage of self-repairs Ratio of repaired to unrepaired errors

Discussion: Planning time and fluency Conceptualization during pre-task planning allows faster retrieval during performance Conceptualization during pre-task planning allows faster retrieval during performance Instantiation of words (i.e. lemmas and forms) or chunks in WM Instantiation of words (i.e. lemmas and forms) or chunks in WM Problem-solving mechanisms, rehearsal, and memorization (Ortega, 1999) Problem-solving mechanisms, rehearsal, and memorization (Ortega, 1999)

Discussion: +/- Here-and-Now and fluency Lack of contextual support Lack of contextual support Efficient scheduling and attention- allocation policies Efficient scheduling and attention- allocation policies

Discussion: planning time and lexical and structural complexity More elaborate conceptualization More elaborate conceptualization Consideration of more alternatives Consideration of more alternatives Access to less activated terms Access to less activated terms

Discussion: +/- Here-and-Now and lexical and structural complexity Interpropositional coherence Interpropositional coherence Dependence on lexical meaning Dependence on lexical meaning

Discussion: Planning time and accuracy It facilitates all dimensions of production It facilitates all dimensions of production Does not necessarily draw attention to form during performance Does not necessarily draw attention to form during performance

Discussion: +/- Here-and-Now and accuracy It draws attention to form It draws attention to form Changes in macro and micro planning Changes in macro and micro planning Stretch interlanguage (Klein & Perdue, 1992) Stretch interlanguage (Klein & Perdue, 1992) Comparison of how L1 and L2 grammatize notions (Talmy, 2000) Comparison of how L1 and L2 grammatize notions (Talmy, 2000)

Discussion: Simultaneous manipulation of both variables 1) Attention may be allocated to complexity and accuracy simultaneously 2) Keeping tasks simple along resource- dispersing dimensions and complex along resource-directing one may be beneficial for language development

Simultaneous manipulation Guiraud’s IndexPercentage of self-reapairs

Conclusions Task Complexity is a robust and testable construct. Competition for attention may only happen when Task Complexity is increased along resource-dispersing variables. Attention to both complexity and accuracy may be possible if tasks are kept simple along resource-dispersing variable and complex along resource- directing variables. More research is needed regarding the synergistic effects of combining resource-directing and resource-dispersing variables. Do the results in this study apply to other task types and other dimensions?

Thank you