Cover not available
Part of
Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan
Edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen and Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
[Task-Based Language Teaching 13] 2019
► pp. 279–302

Chapter 12
Task-induced second language development

A micro-genetic study

| Curtin UniversityPerth, Australia
The present study provides a fine-grained analysis of how a 22-year-old Japanese English learner (Miwako) structured and restructured her language resources across a sequence of tasks which progressively increased in referential demand. It provides a picture of how language was tailored to communicative task demands through performance. The method of microgenetic analysis employed (Siegler, 2006) considers fluctuations in variability as well as the path, rate and breadth of change in the form-to-function mappings used in completing the task. It also considers sources of variability and possible mechanisms of change. In so doing, the discussion focuses on the emergence of two language forms that allowed the speaker to complete the task more effectively and efficiently (relative clauses and comparative structures) and relates this developmental variation to general fluctuations in CALF. The results indicate that over the course of the task sequence the learner’s L2 use showed evidence of:(1) an initial state of stabilized language use in completing easy versions of the task, (2) the destabilization of these routine linguistic strategies and a period of high variability in response to increased referential demand, and (3) subsequent organization of novel linguistic strategies in response to repeated exposure to these increased demands. The analysis thus demonstrates how task-induced L2 variation related to local-level change in the language the speaker used. It also shows how the processes of change over approximately an hour of task performance were parallel to those that have been documented over months (Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Verspoor, Lowie & van Dijk, 2008; Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010). Finally, it was found that CALF provided a complementary perspective that was broadly consistent with the microgenetic analysis in this case but masked variables in task-induced L2 change that may confound findings in other cases.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • The present study
  • Research questions
  • Methods
    • The participant
    • Materials
    • Procedures
    • Analysis
  • Results
    • Micro-genetic analysis
    • Quantitative analyses
    • Discussion
  • Conclusions
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 28 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.13lam
References (44)
References
Berman, R. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language, 35, 735–771. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.216–236). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistics database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N., Steinel, M., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 893–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fazio, L., & Siegler, R. (2013). Microgenetic learning analysis: A distinction without a difference. Human Development, 56, 52–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken discourse: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilhooly, K., & Logie, R. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 395–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givon, T. (1985). Function, structure and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 2: Theoretical issues (pp.1005–1027). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 61(Suppl. 1), 87–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2005). Semantics of comparatives. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp.690–694). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1993). Utterance structure. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives: The results (pp.3–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Denes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally-based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 5(5): 607–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1): 167–196. DOI logoGoogle 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, 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp.103–106). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2012). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (Electronic edition), Part 1: The CHAT transcription format. Retrieved April 2014, from < [URL]Google Scholar
. (2014). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (Electronic edition), Part 2: The CLAN programs. Retrieved April 2014, from < [URL]>Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady, W. (2015). The handbook of language emergence. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nippold, M., Hegel, S., Sohlberg, M., & Schwarz, I. (1999). Defining abstract entities: Development in pre-adolescents, and young adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 473–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nippold, M., Hesketh, L., Duthie, J., & Mansfield, T. (2005a). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1048–1064. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nippold, M., Ward-Lonergan, J., & Fanning, J. (2005b). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic development. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A., Yuille, J., & Madigan, S. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 945 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polat, B., & Kim, Y. (2014). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced L2 development. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 184–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30, 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M., Verspoor, M., & MacWhinney, B. (2011). Coding and extracting data. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.) A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp.39–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegler, R, (2006). Microgenetic analysis of learning. In D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 2: Cognition, perception and language (6th ed., pp.464–510). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1): 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31, 532–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L. (1984). The comparative compared. Journal of Semantics, 3, 143–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Comparative constructions. In K. Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp.686–690). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toglia, M., & Battig, W. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2006). Acquiring linguistic constructions. In D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 2: Cognition, perception and language (6th ed., pp.255–298). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Behrens, H. (2011). Dynamic systems theory and a usage based approach to second language development. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp.25–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.) (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92, 214–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lambert, Craig, Scott Aubrey & Paul Leeming
2021. Task Preparation and Second Language Speech Production. TESOL Quarterly 55:2 ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. 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.