Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:15:43.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TASK COMPLEXITY, LANGUAGE-RELATED EPISODES, AND PRODUCTION OF L2 SPANISH VOWELS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2016

Megan Solon ,
Avizia Y. Long  and
Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
Megan Solon*
Affiliation:
University at Albany, SUNY
Avizia Y. Long
Affiliation:
University of Guam
Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Megan Solon, University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, Humanities 216, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222. E-mail: msolon@albany.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study tests the theoretical predictions regarding effects of increasing task complexity (Robinson, 2001a, 2001b, 2007, 2010; Robinson & Gilabert, 2007) for second language (L2) pronunciation. Specifically, we examine whether more complex tasks (a) lead to greater incidence of pronunciation-focused language-related episodes (LREs) and (b) positively impact accuracy of phonetic form during task completion. Seventeen dyads of intermediate L2 Spanish learners completed simple (+few elements) and complex (-few elements) information-gap map tasks in which the pronunciation of Spanish vowels was made task essential through the inclusion of minimal pair street names (e.g., Calle Copa “Copa Street” and Calle Capa “Capa Street”). Results revealed no statistical difference in learner-produced pronunciation-related LREs in the simple and complex tasks. Vowel production, however, moved in a targetlike direction for one of five segments (/e/) during the complex task. Results therefore point to some benefits of task complexity manipulations for L2 pronunciation.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 39 , Special Issue 2: TBLT and L2 Pronunciation: Do the Benefits of Tasks Extend Beyond Grammar and Lexis? , June 2017 , pp. 347 - 380
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank the instructors who permitted us to use their classes for data collection as well as the students who partook in the study’s activities. We also thank all contributors to this issue and audience members at the 2015 TBLT Conference colloquium for their feedback on the original presentation. Thanks also go to the Indiana Statistical Consulting Center at Indiana University for its assistance with the statistical analyses. Finally, we extend our thanks to the SSLA editors and anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved the manuscript. All remaining errors are our own.

References

REFERENCES

Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 59–122). London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (Eds.). (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2004). The relationship between the negotiation of meaning and language learning: A longitudinal study. Language Awareness, 13, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, R. A., Hancock, P. A., & Zakay, D. (2010). How cognitive load affects duration judgments: A meta-analytic review. Acta Psychologica, 134, 330–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.85. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in foreign language pronunciation: The case of very advanced late language learners. In Birdsong, D. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 133–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. A., Toth, P. D., & Adams, R. J. (2014). A comparison of L2–L2 and L2–heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 92, 497–517.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R. (1995). A comparative acoustic study of English and Spanish vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1916–1924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradlow, A. R., Pisoni, D. B., Akahane-Yamada, R., & Tohjura, Y. (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2012). Focus on form and negotiation of meaning in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad. System, 41, 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, K., & Simonet, M. (2015). Adult second language learning of Spanish vowels. Hispania, 98, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, M., & Simonet, M. (2015). Second language acquisition of Spanish /e/ and /ei/ by native English speakers. Hispania, 98, 750–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, R. (1997). On the teaching and acquisition of pronunciation within a communicative approach. Hispania, 80, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of “new” and “similar” phones in a foreign language: Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flege, J. E., Takagi, N., & Mann, V. (1995). Japanese adults can learn to produce English /r and /l/ accurately. Language and Speech, 38, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. D. P. (2005). Interactional strategies for interlanguage communication: Do they provide evidence for attention to form? In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 383–405). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (1992). English phonology: An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, À. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. IRAL, 47, 367–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, J. I. (2005). The sounds of Spanish. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Issacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (2012). Deconstructing comprehensibility: Identifying the linguistic influences on listeners’ L2 comprehensibility ratings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 475–505.Google Scholar
Jackson, D., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 8–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety and the development of past tense. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 287–306). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2016). lmerTest: Tests in liner mixed effects models (Version 2.0-32). Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.html.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (2006). A course in phonetics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bjatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1998). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 16, 35–49.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In Byran, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 597–603). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, M. R. (2010). The acquisition of Spanish vowels by native English-speaking students in Spanish immersion programs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Menke, M. R., & Face, T. L. (2010). Second language Spanish vowel production: An acoustic analysis. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 3, 181–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2008). Segmental acquisition in adult ESL learners: A longitudinal study of vowel production. Language Learning, 58, 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuevo, A.-M. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and interaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Nuevo, A.-M., Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner-learner interaction. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 175–2020). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). Pronunciation revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 207–225.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, P. A. (1983). Variations in the conversations of adult learners of English as a function of the proficiency level of the participants (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.2.4) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL, 45, 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Pütz, M. & Sicola, L. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition (pp. 243–268). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61 (Suppl. 1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL, 45, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K. (2013). The acquisition value of recasts in instructed second language speech learning: Teaching the perception and production of English /ɹ/ to adult Japanese learners. Language Learning, 63, 499–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012a). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62, 595–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012b). Investigating the pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, K., Trofimovich, P., & Issacs, T. (2015). Using listener judgments to investigate linguistic influences on L2 comprehensibility and accentedess: A validation and generalization study. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanako Corporation. (2013). Sanako Study Lab 1200 (Version 6.10) [Computer software]. Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwegler, A., Kempff, J., & Ameal-Guerra, A. (2010). Fonética y fonología españolas (4th ed.) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sicola, L. (2008). “No, they won’t ‘just sound like each other’”: NNS-NNS negotiated interaction and attention to phonological form on targeted L2 pronunciation tasks (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Simoẽs, A. R. M. (1996). Phonetics in second language acquisition: An acoustic study of fluency in adult learners of Spanish. Hispania, 79, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 28, 510–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solon, M. (2013, October). Measuring proficiency in cross-sectional L2 phonetic production studies: An examination of three methods. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
Solon, M. (in press). Interaction and phonetic form in task completion: An examination of interlocutor effects in learner-learner and learner-heritage speaker interaction. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Examining learners, instructors, and researchers. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., & Bowen, D. (1965). The sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomas, E. R., & Kendall, T. (2012). NORM (Version 1.1) [Software]. Retrieved from http://ncslaap.lib.ncsu.edu/tools/norm/biblio1.php.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research: “Clozing” the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 339–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/Non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, E. W. (2005). An initial examination of Southwest Spanish vowels. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 24, 185–198.Google Scholar
Willis, E. W. (2008). No se comen, pero sí se mascan: Variación de las vocales plenas en la República Dominicana. Actas del XV Congreso Internacional de la Asociación de Lingüística y Filología de América Latina (ALFAL), Montevideo, Uruguay. p. 6.Google Scholar