Verb argument construction complexity indices and L2 written production: effects of task complexity and task repetition

References

• Abdi Tabari, M. 2020. “Differential Effects of Strategic Planning and Task Structure on L2 Writing Outcomes.” Reading & Writing Quarterly 36 (4): 320–338. doi:10.1080/10573569.2019.1637310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdi Tabari, M. 2021. “Task Preparedness and L2 Written Production: Investigating Effects of Planning Modes on L2 Learners’ Focus of Attention and Output.” Journal of Second Language Writing 52: 100814. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdi Tabari, M., S. Khezrlou, and Y. Tian. 2022. “Task Complexity, Task Repetition, and L2 Writing Complexity: Exploring Interactions in the TBLT Domain.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Advance online publication. doi:10.1515/iral-2022-0123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdi Tabari, M., X. Lu, and Y. Wang. 2023. “The Effects of Task Complexity on Lexical Complexity in L2 Writing: An Exploratory Study.” System 114: 103021. doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amiryousefi, M. 2016. “The Differential Effects of two Types of Task Repetition on the Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Computer-Mediated L2 Written Production: A Focus on Computer Anxiety.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 29 (5): 1052–1068. doi:10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, D., and S. Conrad. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., B. Gray, and S. Staples. 2014. “Predicting Patterns of Grammatical Complexity Across Language Exam Task Types and Proficiency Levels.” Applied Linguistics 37: 639–668. doi:10.1093/applin/amu059.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolker, B. M., B. Gardner, M. Maunder, C. W. Berg, M. Brooks, L. Comita, E. Crone, et al. 2013. “Strategies for Fitting Nonlinear Ecological Models in R, AD Model Builder, and BUGS.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4 (6): 501–512. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, S. 1998. “Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method and its Application.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (the Statistician) 47 (1): 69–100. doi:10.1111/1467-9884.00117.
   Google Scholar
• Bygate, M. 2001. “Effects of Task Repetition on the Structure and Control of Oral Language.” In Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing, edited by M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain, 23–48. Harlow: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Bygate, M., and V. Samuda. 2005. “Integrative Planning Through the use of Task Repetition.” In Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, edited by R. Ellis, 37–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Casal, J. E., Y. Shirai, and X. Lu. 2022. “English Verb-Argument Construction Profiles in a Specialized Academic Corpus: Variation by Genre and Discipline.” English for Specific Purposes 66: 94–107. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2022.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, M. 2018. “Task Complexity, Modality, and Working Memory in L2 Task Performance.” Journal of Second Language Writing 72: 85–98. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010.
   Google Scholar
• Cui, Y., and S. Luo. 2022. ““Writing-to-Learn”: The Influence of Task Repetition on CSL Writers’ Attention to Form.” Applied Linguistics Review 0 (0). doi:10.1515/applirev-2022-0001.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M. 2010. “The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the First Reliable Monitor Corpus of English.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 25 (4): 447–464. doi:10.1093/llc/fqq018.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. C. 2002. “Frequency Effects in Language Processing.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 143–188. doi:10.1017/S0272263102002024.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. 2019. “Task Preparedness.” In Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In Honor of Peter Skehan, edited by Z. Wen, and M. J. Ahmadian, 15–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. C., and F. Ferreira-Junior. 2009. “Construction Learning as a Function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function.” The Modern Language Journal 93 (3): 370–385. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4781.2009.00896.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. C., M. B. O’Donnell, and U. Römer. 2013. “Usage-based Language: Investigating the Latent Structures That Underpin Acquisition.” Language Learning 63 (1): 25–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00736.x.
   Google Scholar
• Frear, M. W., and 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hadfield, J. D. 2010. “MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmm R Package.” Journal of Statistical Software 33: 1–22. doi:10.18637/jss.v033.i02.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond, J. 2017. “Literate Talk: Supporting EAL Students’ Academic Writing.” In Teaching Writing for Academic Purposes to Multilingual Students: Instructional Approaches, edited by J. Bitchener, N. Storch, and R. Wette, 130–144. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Indrarathne, B. 2013. Effects of Task Repetition on Written Language Production in Task-Based Language Teaching [Paper presentation]. Lancaster, England: Lancaster University.
   Google Scholar
• Kellogg, R. T. 1996. “A Model of Working Memory in Writing.” In The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications, edited by M. Levy, and S. Ransdell, 57–71. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Kellogg, R. T., A. P. Whiteford, C. E. Turner, M. Cahill, and A. Merlens. 2013. “Working Memory in Written Composition: An Evaluation of the 1996 Model.” Journal of Writing Research 5 (2): 159–190. doi:10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.1.
   Google Scholar
• Khezrlou, S. 2020. “The Role of Task Repetition with Direct Written Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency.” Journal of Second Language Studies 3 (1): 31–54. doi:10.1075/jsls.19025.khe.
   Google Scholar
• Khezrlou, S. 2022. “Effects of Task Repetition with Consciousness-Raising in Wiki-Mediated Collaborative Writing on the Development of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge.” Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Advance Online Publication, doi:10.1080/09588221.2022.2033789.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khezrlou, S. 2023. “Repeated Academic Writing with Synchronous and Asynchronous Teacher Electronic Feedback: How are Macro and Micro Aspects Affected?” In Using Technology in Second Language Writing: Composing, Pedagogy, Assessment, and Research, edited by J. Qin, and P. Stapleton, 63–79. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., S. Crossley, Y. Jung, K. Kyle, and S. Kang. 2018. “The Effect of Task Repetition and Task Complexity on L2 Lexical use.” In Language Learning Through Task Repetition, edited by M. Bygate, 75–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., S. Kang, H. Yun, B. Kim, and B. Choi. 2020. “The Role of Task Repetition in a Korean as a Foreign Language Classroom: Writing Quality, Attention to Form, and Learning of Korean Grammar.” Foreign Language Annals 53 (4): 827–849. doi: 10.1111/flan.v53.4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., and C. Payant. 2015. “A Pedagogical Proposal for Task Sequencing: An Exploration of Task Repetition and Task Complexity on Learning Opportunities.” In Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning, edited by M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, and P. Robinson, 151–177. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, M., and K. Johnson. 2013. Applied Predictive Modeling. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken, F., and I. Vedder. 2007. “Task Complexity and Measures of Linguistic Performance in L2 Writing.” IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45: 261–284. doi:10.1515/IRAL.2007.012.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken, F., and I. Vedder. 2008. “Cognitive Task Complexity and Written Output in Italian and French as a Foreign Language.” Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 48–60. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuiken, F., and I. Vedder. 2012. “Syntactic Complexity, Lexical Variation, and Accuracy as a Function of Task Complexity and Proficiency Level in L2 Writing and Speaking.” In Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in SLA, edited by A. Housen, F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder, 143–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kyle, K. 2016. Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine-grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication. [Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University].
   Google Scholar
• Kyle, K., and S. Crossley. 2017. “Assessing Syntactic Sophistication in L2 Writing: A Usage-Based Approach.” Language Testing 34 (4): 513–535. doi:10.1177/0265532217712554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyle, K., S. Crossley, and M. Verspoor. 2021. “Measuring Longitudinal Writing Development Using Indices of Syntactic Complexity and Sophistication.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43 (4): 781–812. doi:10.1017/S0272263120000546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen-Freeman, D. 2006. “The Emergence of Complexity, Fluency, and Accuracy in the Oral and Written Production of Five Chinese Learners of English.” Applied Linguistics 27 (4): 590–619. doi:10.1093/applin/aml029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. 2018. “Task Complexity, Cognitive Load, and L1 Speech.” Applied Linguistics 40 (3): 506–539. doi:10.1093/applin/amx054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. 2020. “Task Closure and Task Complexity Effects on L2 Written Performance.” Journal of Second Language Writing 50, doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levshina, N. 2015. Bayesian logistic models with MCMCglmm: A brief tutorial. Retrieved from http://www.natalialevshina.com/Documents/MCMCglmm_Tutorial.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Levshina, N. 2016. “When Variables Align: A Bayesian Multinomial Mixed-Effects Model of English Permissive Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 27 (2): 235–268. doi:10.1515/cog-2015-0054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X. 2011. “A Corpus-Based Evaluation of Syntactic Complexity Measures as Indices of College-Level ESL Writers’ Language Development.” TESOL Quarterly 45: 36–62. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.240859.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X., and H. Ai. 2015. “Syntactic Complexity in College-Level English Writing: Differences among Writers with Diverse L1 Backgrounds.” Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 16–27. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunn, D., C. Jackson, N. Best, A. Thomas, and D. Spiegelhalter. 2013. The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manchón, R. M. 2014. “The Internal Dimension of Tasks: The Interaction Between Task Factors and Learner Factors in Bringing About Learning Through Writing.” In Task-based Language Learning. Insights to and from Writing, edited by H. Byrnes, and R. M. Manchón, 27–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• McElreath, R. 2020. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Mei, W. S. 2006. “Creating a Contrastive Rhetorical Stance.” RELC Journal 37 (3): 329–353. doi:10.1177/0033688206071316.
   Google Scholar
• Mostafa, T., and S. Crossley. 2020. “Verb Argument Construction Complexity Indices and L2 Writing Quality: Effects of Writing Tasks and Prompts.” Journal of Second Language Writing 49 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100730.
   Google Scholar
• Ninio, A. 1999. “Pathbreaking Verbs in Syntactic Development and the Question of Prototypical Transitivity.” Journal of Child Language 26 (3): 619–653. doi:10.1017/S0305000999003931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitta, R., and K. Baba. 2014. “Task Repetition and L2 Writing Development: A Longitudinal Study from a Dynamic Systems Perspective.” In Task-based Language Learning: Insights from and for L2 Writing, edited by H. Byrnes, and R. M. Manchón, 107–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Nitta, R., and K. Baba. 2018. “Understanding Benefits of Repetition from a Complex Dynamic Systems Perspective. The Case of a Writing Task.” In Learning Language Through Task Repetition, edited by M. Bygate, 285–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega, L. 2015. “Syntactic Complexity in L2 Writing: Progress and Expansion.” Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 82–94. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahimi, M. 2019. “Effects of Increasing the Degree of Reasoning and the Number of Elements on L2 Argumentative Writing.” Language Teaching Research 23 (5): 633–654. doi:10.1177/1362168818761465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Révész, A. 2011. “Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A Classroom-Based Study.” The Modern Language Journal 95: 162–181. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Révész, A., M. Michel, and R. Gilabert. 2016. “Measuring Cognitive Task Demands Using Dual Task Methodology, Subjective Self-Ratings, and Expert Judgments: A Validation Study.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38 (4): 703–737. doi:10.1017/S0272263115000339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2001. “Task Complexity, Cognitive Resources, and Syllabus Design: A Triadic Framework for Examining Task Influences on SLA.” In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, edited by P. Robinson, 287–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2003. “The Cognition Hypothesis of Adult, Task-Based Language Learning.” Second Language Studies 21: 45–107.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2011. “Second Language Task Complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, Language Learning, and Performance.” In Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance, edited by P. Robinson, 3–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Roothooft, H., A. Lázaro-Ibarrola, and B. Bulté. 2022. “Task Repetition and Corrective Feedback via Models and Direct Corrections among Young EFL Writers: Draft Quality and Task Motivation.” Language Teaching Research. doi:10.1177/13621688221082041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez, A. J., R. M. Manchón, and R. Gilabert. 2020. “The Effects of Task Repetition Across Modalities and Proficiency Levels.” In Writing and Language Learning: Advancing Research Agendas, edited by R. M. Manchón, 121–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Serafini, J. E., J. B. Lake, and M. H. Long. 2015. “Needs Analysis for Specialized Learner Populations: Essential Methodological Improvements.” English for Specific Purposes 40: 11–26. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2015.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sercu, L., L. De Wachter, E. Peters, F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder. 2006. “The Effect of Task Complexity and Task Conditions on Foreign Language Development and Performance: Three Empirical Studies.” ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics 152 (1): 55–84. doi:10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017863.
   Google Scholar
• Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Skehan, P. 2018. Second Language Task-Based Performance: Theory, Research, and Assessment. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vasylets, O., R. Gilabert, and R. M. Manchón. 2017. “The Effects of Mode and Task Complexity on Second Language Production.” Language Learning 67 (2): 394–430. doi:10.1111/lang.12228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, L., and C. Jin. 2022. “Effects of Task Complexity on Linguistic Complexity for Sustainable EFL Writing Skills Development.” Sustainability 14 (8): 4791. doi:10.3390/su14084791.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, H., M. Chen, and X. Li. 2021. “Developmental Features of Lexical Richness in English Writings by Chinese Beginner Learners.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 1–15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.665988.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar