Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-fr72s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-20T08:44:36.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic complexity in second language writing: Insight from studies on task planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2024

Mark D. Johnson Open the ORCID record for Mark D. Johnson [Opens in a new window]  and
Mahmoud Abdi Tabari Open the ORCID record for Mahmoud Abdi Tabari [Opens in a new window]
Mark D. Johnson*
Affiliation:
East Carolina University, Greenville, USA
Mahmoud Abdi Tabari
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno, USA
*
Corresponding author: Mark D. Johnson; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Task planning and its effect on the complexity of second language (L2) written production have been studied extensively. However, the results of these studies are inconclusive, and at times contradictory, potentially as a result of variation in metrics of linguistic complexity. This study is an extension of earlier research syntheses and quantitative meta-analyses on the effects of planning on oral and written L2 production. It examines the identification and selection of linguistic complexity metrics in previous research on planning and its subsequent effects on the linguistic complexity of written L2 production. This research-focused synthesis of studies surveys construct definitions and operational definitions of linguistic complexity in the research domain and provides an overview of rationales for metric selection in the included studies. Methodological implications for future research are discussed in light of the findings.

Type
Study
Information
Language Teaching , First View , pp. 1 - 13
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Note: Studies marked with an asterisk were included in the systematic review.Google Scholar
*Abdi Tabari, M. (2016). The effects of planning time on complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexical variety in L2 descriptive writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), Article 10. doi:10.1186/s40862-016-0015-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Abdi Tabari, M. (2017). Investigating the effects of planning time on the complexity of L2 argumentative writing. TESL-EJ, 21(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
*Abdi Tabari, M. (2018). The effect of planning time conditions on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language written narratives [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation]. Oklahoma State University.Google Scholar
*Abdi Tabari, M. (2020). Differential effects of strategic planning and task structure on L2 writing outcomes. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 36(4), 320–338. doi:10.1080/10573569.2019.1637310CrossRefGoogle 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, Article 100814. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Abdi Tabari, M. (2022). Investigating the interactions between L2 writing processes and products under different task planning time conditions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 55, Article 100871. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Abdi Tabari, M. (2023). Unpacking the effects of different lengths of pre-task planning time: L2 writing outcomes and learners’ perceptions. The Language Learning Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09571736.2023.2213237Google Scholar
*Abdi Tabari, M., & Wang, Y. (2022). Assessing linguistic complexity features in L2 writing: Understanding effects of topic familiarity and strategic planning within the realm of task readiness. Assessing Writing, 52, Article 100605. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2022.100605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Abrams, Z. I., & Byrd, D. R. (2016). The effects of pre-task planning on L2 writing: Mind-mapping and chronological sequencing in a 1st-year German class. System, 63, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Abrams, Z., & Byrd, D. R. (2017). The effects of meaning-focused pre-tasks on beginning-level L2 writing in German: An exploratory study. Language Teaching Research, 21, 434–453. doi:10.1177/1362168815627383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Aref, G. S., & Mojavezi, A. (2019). The impact of pre-task instruction and task rehearsal on fluency, accuracy, and complexity of Iranian EFL learners’ writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(2), 281–288. doi:10.17507/jltr.1002.09CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.244483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2013). Pay attention to the phrasal structures: Going beyond T-units—A response to WeiWei Yang. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 192–201. doi:10.1002/tesq.84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2020). Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (2022). Rationale and hypothesis for the study of writing development from the RF perspective. In Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. (Eds.), The register-functional approach to grammatical complexity: Theoretical foundations, descriptive research findings, application (pp. 276–290). Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
*Biria, R., & Karimi, Z. (2015). Contributory role of pre-task planning in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing of argumentative essays: The case of accuracy and complexity. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(5), 1026–1036. doi:10.17507/tpls.0505.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2014). Conceptualizing FL writing in collegiate settings: A genre-based systemic functional linguistics approach. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 191–219). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Chong, S., & Plonsky, L. (2023). A typology of secondary research in Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 15(4), 1569–1594. doi:10.1515/applirev-2022-0189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–34). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2021). The effects of pre-task planning on second language writing: A systematic review of experimental studies. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 44(2), 131–165. doi:10.1515/CJAL-2021-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effect of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. doi:10.1017/S0272263104026130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Farahani, A. A. K., & Meraji, S. R. (2011). Cognitive task complexity and L2 narrative writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 445–456. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.2.445-456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Farshi, N., Tavakoli, M., & Ketabi, S. (2013). The effect of different online planning conditions on EFL learners’ writing test performance. The Iranian EFL Journal, 9(4), 325–345.Google Scholar
*Fazilatfar, A. M., Kasiri, F., & Nowbakht, M. (2020). The comparative effects of planning time and task conditions on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 writing by EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 93–110.Google Scholar
*Fei, F. (2015). Formulaic language use in L2 Chinese: The role of pre-writing planning [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.Google Scholar
*Gauthier, M. (2007). The effects of structured pre-task writing plans in L1 and L2 on high school learners’ FSL writing performance [Unpublished Master's thesis]. The University of Toronto.Google Scholar
*Golparvar, S. E., & Azizsahra, M. (2023). The effect of graph complexity and planning on graph writing performance and descriptive strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 56, 117–143. doi:10.1111/flan.12676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Hsu, H. (2012a). Planning and language development in task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Texas at San Antonio.Google Scholar
*Hsu, H. (2012b). Investigating the effects of planning on L2 text chat performance. CALICO Journal, 29(4), 619–638. doi:10.11139/cj.29.4.619-638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Hsu, H. (2017). The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 359–385. doi:10.1093/applin/amv032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D. (2022). Task complexity studies. In Manchón, R. M. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 52–64). Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., & Abdi Tabari, M. (2022). Task planning and oral L2 production: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 43(6), 1143–1164. doi:10.1093/applin/amac026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D., & Abdi Tabari, M. (2023). Planning in L2 writing: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. System, 118, 103152. doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264–282. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Kang, S., & Lee, J. (2019). Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 61–72. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2019.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1987a). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory and Cognition, 15(3), 256–266. doi:10.3758/bf03197724CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellogg, R. T. (1987b). Writing performance: Effects of cognitive strategies. Written Communication, 4(3), 269–298. doi:10.1177/0741088387004003003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 327–342. doi:10.2307/1423213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., Turner, C. E., Cahill, M., & Mertens, A. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5(2), 159–190. doi:10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.1Google Scholar
*Kherzlou, S. (2020). Training planning in second language narrative writing. ELT Journal, 74(1), 49–62. doi:10.1093/elt/ccz050Google Scholar
*Khorasani, R., Pandian, A., & Ismail, S. A. M. M. (2012). The effect of strategic planning on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of written narrative task production. Language in India, 12(7), 422–446.Google Scholar
*Kim, N. (2018). The effects of online planning on CAF in L2 spoken and written performance. English Teaching, 73(3), 3–28. doi:10.15858/engtea.73.3.201809.3Google Scholar
*Kim, Y., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2020). Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26(6), 1106–1132. doi:10.1177/1362168820912354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*Liang, M., & Xie, Y. (2023). Exploring the effects of planning conditions and peer familiarity on Chines EFL learners’ argumentative writing. System, 115, 103057. doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Liao, J. (2018). The impact of face-to-face oral discussion and online text-chat on L2 Chinese writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 27–40. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2018.06.005Google Scholar
*Lin, Y. (2013). The effects of task planning on L2 writing [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley.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(1), 36–62. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.240859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Luo, X. (2022). The effect of manipulating task complexity along resource-dispersing dimension on L2 written performance from the perspective of complexity theory. English Language Teaching, 15(9), 151–159. doi:10.5539/elt.v15n9p151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchόn, R. M. (2014). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–52). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*McDonough, K., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2019). Comparing the effect of collaborative and individual prewriting on EFL learners’ writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2019.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Meraji, S. R. (2011). Planning time, strategy use, and written task production in a pedagogic vs. a testing context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 338–352. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.2.338-352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2014). Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 107–136). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. doi:10.1093/applin/amp044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Ong, J., & Zhang, L. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2022). Commentary on “understanding variability in second language acquisition, Bilingualism, and cognition: A second language acquisition perspective”. In Kersten, K. & Winsler, A. (Eds.), Understanding variability in second language acquisition, bilingualism, and cognition: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 323–336). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Piri, F., Barati, H., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of pre-task, on-line, and both pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy: The case of Iranian EFL learners’ written production. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 158–167. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n6p158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of task complexity and planning conditions on L2 argumentative writing production. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 726–742. doi:10.1080/0163853x.2017.1336042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Rahimpour, M., & Safarie, M. (2011). The effects of on-line and pre-task planning on descriptive writing of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 274–280. doi:10.5539/ijel.v1n2p274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45–105.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1–33. doi:10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Rostamian, M., Fazilatfar, A. M., & Jabbari, A. A. (2018). The effect of planning time on cognitive processes, monitoring behavior, and quality of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research, 22(4), 418–438. doi:10.1177/1362168817699239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Salimi, A., Alavinia, P., Hosseini, P., & Shafaei, A. (2012). The impact of task complexity and strategic planning time on EFL learners’ accuracy and fluency in written task production. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(7), 104–116. doi:10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.7p.104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Salimi, A., & Fatollahnejad, S. (2012). The effects of strategic planning and topic familiarity on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ written performance in TBLT. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2308–2315. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.11.2308-2315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Sattarpour, S., & Farrokhi, F. (2017). Exploring the interplay of planning time, reasoning demands, and language learning aptitude in Iranian EFL learners’ written production. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(4), 736–754. doi:10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.4.10.736Google Scholar
*Seyyedi, K., Ismail, S. A. M. M., Orang, M., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). The effect of pre-task planning time on L2 learners’ narrative writing performance. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 1–10. doi:10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17–30). Heinemann.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215–247. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.445Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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(4), 532–553. doi:10.1093/applin/amq001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149–183. doi:10.1177/0741088316631527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217–236). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Xie, Y., & Zhu, D. (2023). Effects of participatory structure of pre-task planning on EFL learners’ linguistic performance and alignment in the continuation writing task. System, 114, 103008. doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Ziegler, N. (2018). Pre-task planning in L2 text-chat: Examining learners’ process and performance. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 193–213. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44664Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Johnson and Abdi Tabari supplementary material

Johnson and Abdi Tabari supplementary material
Download Johnson and Abdi Tabari supplementary material(File)
File 42.2 KB