Keywords
input
input repetition
lexical use
speaking
task repetition
How to Cite
Number of views: 1025
Number of downloads: 1092
Abstract
The present study investigates the impact of meaningful input on L2 learners’ vocabulary use and their fluency in oral performance (immediate and repeat tasks), as well as whether the effects are mediated by learners’ prior vocabulary knowledge and working memory. Ninety university students learning English as a foreign language were randomly assigned to one of three groups: input (N = 29), input repetition (N = 32), and no-input (i.e., baseline group) (N = 29). The input group watched L2 videos prior to performing an immediate oral task, whereas the input repetition group watched the same videos not only before but also after the immediate oral task. The no-input group only performed the oral tasks without watching the videos. The three groups repeated the same oral task after two days. Results did not show a significant effect of task repetition, input, and input repetition on learners’ lexical use and fluency. However, the fluency and lexical complexity in learners’ L2 speech can be predicted by their receptive vocabulary knowledge and working memory capacity to some extent.
References
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4
Bakdash, J. Z., & Marusich, L. R. (2017). Repeated measures correlation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(456). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977-990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). PRAAT. Retrieved May 12, 2012 from http:// www.praat.org
Boston, J. S. (2008). Learner mining of pre-task and task input. ELT Journal, 62(1), 66-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm079
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146). MacMillan Heinemann.
Bygate, M. (2018). Introduction. In Bygate, M. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 1-25). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.intro
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language (pp. 37-74). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.05byg
Clenton, J., de Jong, N. H., Clingwall, D., & Fraser, S. (2020). Vocabulary knowledge and skills can predict aspects of fluency for a small group of pre-intermediate Japanese L1 users of English (L2). In Clenton, J. & Booth, P. (Eds.), Vocabulary and the four skills: Pedagogy, practice, and implications for teaching vocabulary (pp. 146-165). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429285400-15
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing, 28(4), 561-580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210378031
Crossley, S. A., Cobb, T., McNamara, D. S. (2013). Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications. System, 411(4), 965-981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.002
De Jong, N. H. (2016). Predicting pauses in L1 and L2 speech: The effects of utterance boundaries and word frequency. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54(2), 113-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9993
De Jong, N. H., & Wemp, T. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 385-390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.385
De Jong, N. H., & Bosker, H. R. (2013). Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech (DiSS) (pp. 17-20). Royal Institute of Technology.
Durbahn Quinteros, M., Rodgers, M., & Peters, E. (2019). The relationship between vocabulary and viewing comprehension. System, 88, 1-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102166
Duong, P.-T., Montero Perez, M., Desmet, P., & Peters, E. (2021a). Learning vocabulary in spoken input- and output-based tasks. TASK 1(1), 100-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/task.00005.duo
Duong, P.-T., Montero Perez, M., Nguyen, L.-Q., Desmet, P., & Peters, E. (2021b). Incidental lexical mining in task repetition: The role of input, input repetition and individual differences. System, 103, 1026-1050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102650
Duong, P.-T., & Le, H. H. V. (2022). How working memory and prior vocabulary knowledge influence the impact of task repetition on L2 oral performance: Insights into Vietnamese EFL learners. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 26(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26103a12
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108643689
Enayat, M. J., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). Vocabulary size and depth as predictors of second language speaking ability. System.
Fehringer, C., & Fry, C. (2007). Hesitation phenomena in the language production of bilingual speakers: The role of working memory. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae, 41(1-2), 37-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.41.1-2.37
French, L. (2004). Phonological working memory and L2 acquisition: A developmental study of Francophone children learning English in Quebec. Edwin Mellen Press.
Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20, 321-340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815570142
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354-375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354
Gass, S., Macket, A., Alvarez-Torres, M., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549-581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102
Hoang, H., & Boers, F. (2016). Re-telling a story in a second language: How well do adult learners mine an input text for multiword expressions? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 513-535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.7
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000509
Kang, O., Rubin, D., & Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of language learner proficiency in oral English. Modern Language Journal, 94, 554-566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01091.x
Khatib, M., & Farahanynia, M. (2020). Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: Effects on L2 oral performance. System, 93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102297
Kim, Y., Crossley, S., Yung, Y., Kyle, K., & Kang, S. (2018). The effects of task repetition and task complexity on L2 lexical use. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language though task repetitions (pp. 75-96). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.03kim
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757-786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.194
Kyle, K. (2020). Measuring lexical richness. In S. Webb (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 454-476). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429291586-29
Kyle, K., Crossley, A. S., & Jarvis, S. (2020). Assessing the validity of lexical diversity indices using direct judgements. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18(2), 154-170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1844205
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229901600103
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000085
Lambert, C., Aubrey, S., Leeming, P. (2020). Task preparation and second language speech production. TESOL Quarterly. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.598
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
Lynch, T. (2018). Perform, reflect, recycle: Enhancing task repetition in second language speaking classes. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 193-222). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.08lyn
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt221oa
Meara, P., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2000). Lex30: An improved method of assessing productive vocabulary in an L2. System, 28, 19-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00058-5
Miller, L. M. S., Cohen, J. A., & Wingfield, A. (2006). Contextual knowledge reduces demands on working memory during reading. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1355-1367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193277
Montero Perez, M. (2020). Incidental vocabulary learning through viewing video: The role of vocabulary knowledge and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(4), 749-773. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000706
Nguyen, L. T. C., & Nation, P. (2011). A bilingual vocabulary size test of English for Vietnamese learners. RELC Journal, 42(1), 86-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210390264
Nguyen, C. D., & Boers, F. (2018). The effect of content retelling on vocabulary uptake from a TED Talk. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 5-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.441
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexical, narrative, and grammatical skills in second language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377-402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060322
Pawlak, M. (2021). Investigating individual learner differences in second language learning. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75726-7
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.1) [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
Skehan, P. (2003). Task based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Tavakoli, P., & Wright, C. (2020). Second language speech fluency: From research to practice. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589109
Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 369-393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.232
Uchihara, T., & Clenton, J. (2018). Investigating the role of vocabulary size in second language speaking ability. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 540-556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818799371
Uchihara, T., & Saito, K. (2019). Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability. Language Learning Journal, 47(1), 64-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1191527
Wang, Z. (2014). Online time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp. 27-61). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.02wan
Webb, S. (2020). Incidental vocabulary learning. In S. Webb (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 225-239). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429291586-15
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Addison-Wesley.
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Phuong-Thao Duong, Maribel Montero Perez, Long-Quoc Nguyen, Piet Desmet, Elke Peters
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.