Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.247-260
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2021
Received 25 Jan 2021 Revised 15 Mar 2021 Accepted 25 Mar 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202103.247

An In-Depth Analysis of Errors in L2 Writing: The Effects of Task Complexity and Task Closure

Jiyong Lee
Postdoctoral researcher, Dept. of English Education, Konkuk Univ luvvie0123@gmail.com


© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Although accuracy is among the common dimensions of L2 performance that is investigated in the majority of task-based research, a limited range of measures—usually the number of error-free units or number of total errors per unit—are used to measure this feature. The present study attempted to conduct an in-depth analysis of the specific types of errors that are more susceptible to task closure and increases in task complexity. The written performance of 45 Korean learners of English was examined, and errors were divided into six major categories. It was found that increasing task complexity led to significantly greater numbers of noun ending errors and article errors. A significant interaction between task complexity and task closure was also found on the number of lexical errors. Findings are interpreted in terms of Skehan’s (1996, 1998) Trade-Off Hypothesis, the nature of the tasks, and participants’ L2 proficiency level.

Keywords:

task complexity, task closure, L2 writing, errors, error-analysis

References

  • Brown, J. D. 1980. Relative merits of four methods for scoring cloze tests. The Modern Language Journal 64(3), 311–317. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1980.tb05198.x]
  • Engle, R. W., J. Cantor and J. J. Carullo. 1992. Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: A test of four hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18(5), 972-992. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.972]
  • Ferris, D. and B. Roberts. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10(3), 161-184. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X]
  • Ferris, D. R. and J. Hedgcock. 2013. Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. London, UK: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813003]
  • Housen, A. and F. Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics 30(4), 461-473. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048]
  • Hunt, K. 1964. Differences in Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels (Cooperative Research Project No. 1998). Florida State University.
  • Ishikawa, T. 2007. The effect of manipulating task complexity along the (+Here-and-Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. d. P. G. Mayo, ed., Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, 136-156. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-010]
  • Johnson, M. D. 2017. Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing 37, 13-38. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001]
  • Kuiken, F., M. Mos and I. Vedder. 2005. Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. Eurosla Yearbook 5(1), 195-222. [https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.5.10kui]
  • Kuiken, F. and I. Vedder. 2008. Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of second language writing 17(1), 48-60. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003]
  • Lee, J. 2019. Task complexity, cognitive load, and L1 speech. Applied linguistics 40(3), 506-539. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx054]
  • Lee, J. 2020. Task closure and task complexity effects on L2 written performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 50. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100777]
  • Loschky, L. and R. Bley-Vroman. 1993. Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes and S. Gass, eds., Tasks and Language Learning, 123-167. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Long, M. H. 1985. A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann, eds., Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition, ???-???. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
  • Long, M. H. 1989. Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL 8(2), 1-26. (Reprinted in S. Anivan, ed., Language Teaching Methodology for the Nineties, 31-50, 1990, Singapore: SEAMEO.)
  • Malone, J. 2018. Incidental vocabulary learning in SLA: Effects of frequency, aural enhancement, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(3), 651-675. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000341]
  • Meara, P. 2005. LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Lognostics.
  • Montero, F. 2018. Effects of task complexity and task closure on the speech of L2 learners of Spanish. Ms. University of Maryland, MD, USA.
  • Norris, J. M. and L. Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied linguistics 30(4), 555-578. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044]
  • Pallotti, G. 2009. CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied linguistics 30(4), 590-601. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045]
  • Révész, A., M. Michel and R. Gilabert. 2015. Measuring cognitive task demands using dual task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(4), 1-35.
  • Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson, ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 287-318. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012]
  • Robinson, P. 2005. Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43(1), 1-32. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1]
  • Robinson, P. 2011. Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson, ed., Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance, 3-37. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2]
  • Sasayama, S. 2016. Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal 100(1), 231-254. [https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12313]
  • Sasayama, S., A. Malicka and J. Norris. 2015. Primary challenges in cognitive task complexity research: Results of a comprehensive research synthesis. In 6th Biennial international Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Leuven, Belgium.
  • Skehan, P. 1996. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17(1), 38-62. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38]
  • Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press.