CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLanguage Acquisition and Education

The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance

Open access
Kormos, Judit, Trebits, Anna·2012·Language Learning
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The study reported in this paper investigated the relationship between components of aptitude and the fluency, lexical variety, syntactic complexity, and accuracy of performance in two types of written and spoken narrative tasks. We also addressed the question of how narrative performance varies in tasks of different cognitive complexity in the written and spoken modes. Our findings indicate a complex interaction between aptitude components and task performance under different conditions. The components of aptitude that seemed to be most strongly related to the complexity and accuracy of production were inductive ability and grammatical sensitivity. The results also show that in writing the participants used more varied vocabulary than in speech, but their performance was similar in terms of syntactic complexity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • L2 learners exhibit higher syntactic complexity in oral English and more lexical richness in writing.

    “Previous studies have argued that L2 learners exhibit higher syntactic complexity in oral English and more lexical richness in writing.”

    From Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels (2021) · cites this paper as Kormos and Trebits (2012)

    The Implications and limitations section reports that 44 upper-intermediate Hungarian learners of English used more varied vocabulary in writing than in speech. It also reports similar syntactic complexity across the two modes, rather than higher syntactic complexity in speech; the Differences between modes of performance section explicitly describes a lack of difference. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The written vocabularies of L2 learners are richer than their oral vocabularies.

    “This indicates that the written vocabularies of L2 learners are richer than their oral vocabularies, as has been claimed by Kormos and Trebits (2012) and Zalbidea (2017).”

    From Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels (2021) · cites this paper as Kormos and Trebits (2012)

    The results (Insert Table 2 around here) report more varied vocabulary in written than oral versions of both tasks. The paper measures lexical variety in the output of 44 upper-intermediate learners, however, not whether L2 learners generally have richer written vocabularies than oral vocabularies. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The findings of this study are similar to those of Kormos and Trebits (2012), Zalbidea (2017), and Cho (2018).

    “The findings are similar to those of Kormos and Trebits (2012), Zalbidea (2017), and Cho (2018).”

    From Syntactic Networks of Interlanguage Across L2 Modalities and Proficiency Levels (2021) · cites this paper as Kormos and Trebits (2012)

    The Implications and limitations section reports Kormos and Trebits’s findings on written and spoken narrative performance. The citing sentence does not say which findings of the citing study are similar, so our copy cannot establish the claimed similarity. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Albert, Á. (2007). Creativity and task performance. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.
  2. Allport, D.A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A.F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395-419). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  3. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Carroll, J B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In Karl C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and univerals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119-154).
  5. Chafe, W.L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen, (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp.35-54).
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Dasinger, L,. & Toupin, C. (1994). The development of relative clause functions in narrative. In R. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in a narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study (pp. 452-514). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  9. Ehrman, M E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.
  10. Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Barcelona.
  11. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language. Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Granfeldt, J. (2008) Speaking and writing in L2 French: Exploring effects on fluency, accuracy and complexity. In A. Housen, A., S. van Daele, and M. Pierrard (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching. Brussels March 29-30, 2007.
  13. Grigorenko, E L., & Sternberg, R. J., Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84, 390-405
  14. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 213-236.
  15. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48-60.
  16. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2009). The influence of task complexity on linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking. Paper presented at the 3 rd Biennial Task-based Language Learning Conference, Lancaster UK, 14 th September 2009.
  17. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  18. Malvern, D. D., & Richards, B. J. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A. Ryan and A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  19. Niwa, Y. (2000). Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence, and aptitude. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo
  20. Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45-73.
  21. Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1-32.
  22. Robinson, P. (2007a). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from cognitive psychology and applied linguistics (pp. 256- 286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Robinson, P. (2007b). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 237-257.
  24. Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69-93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: a meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard & I. Vedder (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language use, learning, and teaching (pp. 207-226). Brussels: University of Brussels Press.
  28. Wickens, C. D. (2007). Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 177-191.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A.
Affiliations
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • Eötvös Loránd University (HU)
Corresponding author
Kormos, Judit
ORCID
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-21
Volume
62
Issue
2
Pages
439-472
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x
OpenAlex
W1892891730
Cited by
173
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
74.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Language Learning (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Acquisition and Education
Keywords
narrative production, aptitude, task complexity, modality, grammatical sensitivity, lexical diversity, syntactic complexity, fluency, accuracy, second language writing, second language speaking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review