The effects of increasing cognitive complexity on L2 narrative oral production

1. The effects of increasing cognitive complexity onL2 narrative oral production Roger Gilabert rogergg@blanquerna.url.edu Blanquerna Communication Studies Department Universitat Ramon Llull Barcelona, Spain Leuven 2005

2. 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 .

3. Context: research into cognitive task features degree of familiarity: (Bygate, 1999, 2001; Foster & Skehan, 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; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) degree of complexity along displaced, past time reference: (Iwashita et al. 2001; Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997).

4. 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 ) it depends: resource-directing vs. resource-dispersing (Robinson, 2001; 2003; 2005) + cognitively complex = - fluency + complexity + accuracy Claims based on studies which have manipulated task features in isolation (e.g. planning time studies and +/- here-and-now studies).

5. Previous findings Planning time studies: Fluency increases (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Ortega, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003) Higher structural complexity (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999; Yuan & 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, 2003) mixed restuls (Ortega, 1999)

6. 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) Higher accuracy: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997; Iwashita et al.)

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

8. 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 + fluency - fluency + structural complexity - structural complexity = lexical complexity = lexical complexity = accuracy = accuracy More complex tasks, in the there-and-then, will trigger more accurate and complex speech at the expense of fluency. - cognitive complexity + cognitive complexity + fluency - less fluency - structural complexity + structural complexity - lexical complexity + lexical complexity - accuracy + accuracy Hypotheses

9. Experimental design

11. Participants

12. 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

13. 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; D�rnyei & Kormos, 1999). They check their speech, both internal and overt, against their receptive knowledge (De Bot, 1996:551).

14. 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.

15. Hypothesis 1+/- Planning time

16. Hypothesis 1Planning time

17. Hypothesis 1+/- Planning time

18. Hypothesis 1: Planning time

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

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

21. Discussion: planning time and lexical and structural complexity

22. Discussion: +/- Here-and-Now and lexical and structural complexity

23. Discussion: Planning time and accuracy

24. Discussion: +/- Here-and-Now and accuracy

25. Discussion: Simultaneous manipulation of both variables

27. Conclusions

28. Thank you