)1 fercsaPr..

,RuthKdn4y & IosephFalodun

Pi.a l: 1987Intendguageadjustflents asd ont.oneof Ns NNSnegoliatcd ints"tio' rat'gut'

Learhit&33,45 13.
Pi.a, T & Doughtt, C 1931a.Non-nalirc steaker intencnon in rhc ESL clssrum' In s Cts &
C. Madden (EdsI In?ll t r.otd ld,glage d.,l!n,non Ro$lcr' MA: NewbnrvHousc
Fica. T. & Doughry,C 193sb fte role oi grouP u,rk h cla$rcom se'ond languagca'quisition
Taskcomplexity, cognitive resources,
Sttdiestn Se.ofldLangrag. A.quisition,7,Bl 44. and syllabusdesign
rici, T., Hollidalr l-., Lewis,N. & Morgdtahalei L 1989.conPEhdsibl€ ouFtrt .s m oukone of
Linguisti.denandson thelearnerSbtdiz\in seondLaryuag.Acqun ion,tI $ 9n' A triadic frameworkfor examining
Pica,T., Houida,v,L., tewn, N., Bdduei, D. & Neman,l. 1990 \'dtiio. in Ns NNS negptiaL€d
intera.tion: Din'erentialcontnbunons ol intnocutor gdder md inaormation'onkol Pape' task influenceson SLA*
prcsenredar Sccondr,angmgeResrch ForuD, lugde, OEgon, ]9a9-ln Protedi^gs of sLRt

Pica, 1.,Holliday,L., Lewis,N., Berdft.| D & Newman,l. 1991 S€condtangu.g€laming tnrclgh
inte.acrion:wlrat rcle ddesge crpltf Studiesin stondlangugeActui\itio^ 13 343 '-6
P,.a, T., Youn8,R & Dougbq,C 1937 ftd inpact oa ioleract'onon .omPrehennonltsol
QuartetLl,21,737 5a.
lrabbu, N.S. 1937.s4dd langage /edd8!8r odord: Or_fordUniversiryPGs
l{i!crs, W I 937 lnrda.nte l,,gudge ted.lt,8: Canbndge cambndge unicbitv PGs
Rd,ks,c. 1931.?tredn rropd'r.L$io, @rtrool Rotlev,MA: llewbuqrEo6e
Ro!,M 1990ain.hiflgthJdn8aa8.lzarr,r& Lo on:l.ngljd
Ro{, M & L.nce, l. r 934.PAIidIeb: nanonv5 Jar pair kork l.kyo: hnguar House
Rulor, K & M.cr.ary. l. 1986 Neg{niation ol @ntenr teachefflonted ed smanBronP int€r
tion. In R. Dat lEd.), ?dl&,,gto letm: canveratidfl]n se@ndbtgudS€z.4uturnon Ro*l''1 }la
schach&al 19s3.Nunnionalne€dsof lingnigeleaDed.ln M Cldk€ & t Hads.omb€iE"!' ) o'
TESOLs2, Pa.if't tts?eet?5 ah tanyase td.hing ond ledftiaA wshinglon, nC: TEsoL
Scha.htei l. r 936. nnee approa.hesb de studl of inPnr r,ng!"g. Iataia& J6 2r-26'
S\€in, M. 193s.Comidiative con!€lence S.n€ rdes of conPrcbennbL idput and codPeh€n
siblc outpnt in its In s Gds & C Madden(Eds.) r,put ]n se.od laryug' acqui'i
develoPnenr'
tio,. Rowlq. MA, Ncwbuiy Xouse.
Ur, P 1931.Ir5.rJd,r ,hdr ,or&. Cambridge,cmbridge Urivesity Pres
CanbridgeUriEattP6
Ur,P.198!..Teoehi"glistenin!.onPl4,1?aio,.Canbridge
Peter Robinson
ln this .hapter I dGffibe a theorelical nriomle for od, where possible, empnical r€search
into criteri! to be ldopted wlren progressively increasing the cognitive demands of secord
luguaEe (L2) lask. These critena I argue, provide a basis for decisions about sequen.ing
tasks in a t*k-bded sy'l.bus as we]l as a trmewo.k for siudying the etrects of increa$
ing 12 t6k complqity on producrion, comprehension dd learning. I disiinguish task
corplerrr, (ihe iask dependent and proactivell mmipdable cognidve den.nds of task,
Itu *k difrdlry ldependent on leaft€r facto.s such as .ptitude, confidence, moriwtion,
ek.) ed t 5k cordtiorJ (the intdadive demands of task), dEuing that tles. influflr4
on taik perfomd.e dd leaming are ditrerdt in ldnd, and have nor been su{icjentiy
distinguisbed in p@iou apprcaches to conceptualizing the options i., and consequences
o[ sequencing task from lhe rynabu designert persp.ctive. ]vry focus in rhis chapter
is on the issue of ldk complexit',, which I rgue shodd be the sole basis of frospective
seqDdcing ddisions since most learno factors implicated in de.isions .bout rdsk dittr,
cdg ld only be diagnosed tr iit! sd in process, so canror be uticipat€d in advance of
implementation of a s)llab6 md therefore can be of no ue to the prospedne maierials
ud sllabs designe. Those iearner factoB whnh co be diagnoscd in adknft of s),1-
labs impleme.ration (e.9., aptitude and cog.itive sryle) have not io dare been shown ro
ham stable etrects on rask perfommce at the diiTerent levels of complelry proposed here.
However if asessed ir sit/, ledner fadois contriburing ro task difficury .o!ld potemially
nfluence on line methodoloSrcal choi.. ofoptrons, such s how to pan and group learn*s
Dder ditre.ing tasl.ondftions, rhough here again there is titrlc res€ar.h evidence to date
suggestitrghos this codd be done most effec$d).

dD'is ariicle o.iginrly .pted€d in Robinson, P (E.1.).(2001) coghitian ond se.ond

lory&ge
instruti'n (pp.2a7 3r3) CambrjdgecUP

With ttrese issrcs and distindiols in mind, i! thc 66t sction I .evi4 the issue of
i l . " mpe .I fro m d Pe ddSogr dldldr r om r r hc o' eli\ alP4'p e c ( i \ e l t o m r P f l 8 o A
cal perspecti'e I relate task compiexity, cognitivelir defned, to oPtions in syUab6 design
dd to othe! issuesin the implementationnd assessment of task_basslnst.uttion- I then
sumna.ize previous aptroaches to conceptualizing ard theorizing trk codplqit.Y, PaF
ticulirryworkbIG BioM, r.ndeson, Shillcockand Yule (1984).B.indley (1987) Cd
dlin (1987),Nuntn (1989),md Prabhu (1987) Gee aho Skehd & Foster,200l). while
there is some overlap between the proposals reli€wed there n als considftble disPa.itv
between them nr scope, theoretical motietion dd rekarch suPport ln the s€ond sec
tion, therefore, I p.opo* a ndrower but, I believe, more oP€€tionaliable frmework for
studling task complexiti ud for the design of ldguage le{ning male.ials dd task bed
syl.blses that &a${ on sone previous SIA resedch as wel! as on some cu(4t \b.k in
applied .ognit(€ psycholo$a I also relate lnis frme&ork to issuesin the study of memorli
atlention,xutomaticit),and $e procesesimplicatedin fo.6 on forn duing taskPerfor
r)ance uhich dre discu$ed jn Sreate!delailby N. !]lis (200r), S.lmidt (2001) DeKevF.
(200I) drd Doughty (2001).Aft€r suntuarizing lindi.gs fron the few studiesto darcbased
on this theortical fra,neslrk, I b.ienl.onsidd further imPlicaliootofth. flde\ork dd
indings dernbed tbr sequencingtsk in task-basedaPPrcehesto #labE design
la5l ba'ed langu.,ge redching: lhe gradjngud sequenrin8 is\ue
Pedagogical perspe.tives
S/labus design is b.sed essentially oD a de.nion about the !fliri of.lsvoon activiqv,
and the se.ircrc, in which they de to be performed, dd the* tm decisioos harc co6e
quen.cs for the role of the harner in asituilaiing ihe laDguageencountered id dasrcoms.
A brief summary ol options in choice of u'it, sequetce and l€ener rcle is givd he.e in
order to contrast two contedporar) task basedapp.oaches,those of l-ong (1985, 1998;
Lonq & Crookes, 1992)ud Skehan(1996, 1998a,1998b;Skeh.n & Foster,200r) with
other app.oach* to pedagoSy ud syltabus desigr.
here de options in the unih to be adoPted in sylabus detLgn Units an be baed
on dn anallsis of ihc la,gua8? to be learned, h te.ms of g€Dmaii.al skuctures as d
R. Ellis (1993,r997)i lexicalitems and coilocarions,s in willn (1990);ProPositioralrela
tions. s in Crombie {1985)i or nolios and tutcnoB, $ in \{ilkins (1976) 4d Finocchiarc
and Brumlit (198,1).Units mal also bc basedon an analysn ofthe.odPonent5 ofrkid.d
bsAa,tol i! the 12, such as the reldirg microskilh described by Richdds (1990) and
(
t.D. A.oM ( 199s), or the comnunicatie skill5 lbrming P{t of MunbYt 1978)comuni@-
(
tile needs lronler, and Johnsonii 1996) recent worlc ln onlrut, in task based aPP.oaches
to insirudion, paniculariy as derribed by Long and Skehu, Mits of uallris de rElagogi.
,alk or SEdual .pproxinatLons to real wo.ld tugct lasks,such d sening mearson
Taskcomplerit),.og.Lr,vc..n,ui!.s, ind syLhbut n.nBr
airplane(t ng,198s,1998)j iindinga journalarrichin a llbrarr usinglibrarytechnology
(Robi@n & Ro$, 1996)jor bliDg pan in an .cadenic dn.ussion (Robilson, Strons,
Whittle & Nobe, 2001).Long arguesa needsanalsis is nece$ary to identi6, real Mrld
targct tdk fttr specificgroupsof leabcn ud basedon thesethe syllabusdesignd plansa
*n6 ofFdagogi. tasls . . . rhsc de a senesof initiauysimple,progessiveryno.e compler
approximatioc lo the targettask (long, 1998:10).
while Lng plaas grearinponance on th€ .e€.LsanalFis stageof task basednrstruc
tion. .nd on the oppo.tunities1ofocuson form ir thecontdr ofmeaningfirlinteractjonthat
tdk work prc-ides, in line wilh his intenctionist theoryof I-2 d€velopment(Long, i 996),
Sk€hm tales a noft cognitirt, infomation prcce$ing, apprcachto task ba\€d insrru.-
tion andrhecrire.iafor selecring andsequencing rad6,ackrcwledging a needianllysisis
desndbb,but not alwa)sposible (Skene, 1998a:96). Like rong, Skehm rejech lingustic
g.ading d a cirsion for raskdd tilabu design,definjnSa tdk asd a.rivity in which,
'Meaningis primatr thereis sme coomunicationpoblem to solve;thereis somesort
of relationshipto .omparablereal world activities;Laskcompletionhassomepriority; L\e
sesmmr of $e t.sk tu in rems of ourcome(sLehan,1998a:9s). skehan.ondud€sth
ths definition rolesout m actMty that lbcuseson ldguage itrlf su.h as a nansforna
tjon drill, or the co.sciousne$ raisingtask dsdbed bI R. Illis (1997),a.d many of the
Lasksin Nuan (1989)whi.h fal eithin thr categoryoftsks Skehandescrib$ as\trucrure.
Eappingli.e,.lesigneda a.o ext fo.the displayud pracnceoflnguisti. itens andwhich
theftfo.e fom part oflhe implemenlationofa linguistic,structurzlslllabu.
Along with .troicesin the uis lo b€ adopt€d th€re are choicesin the sequencein
whicb the) cm b€ p.esnted. A s)Uabu cao corsist of a prospe.rrr.de.ision about what
to teach,dd in $'hal ordei ln this casethe sylabus wm be a dclinition of the contents
of d*rmm aclivity. A sequocing de.ision cd alsobe madeoi ltre, during clasroom
activity,d in Breen:procesisyll.bus(BreeD, 1984;Cluke, l99l).In this.6€ the initial
s)rlabuswil onll'guide, bul Dol constnin, the cl$srcoh activities.linally Candlii has
propostd that a sylab6 cd be renospe.tive.i w;bich.aseno svllabuswill eherge until
anerrhe cou6c ofiDsrrucrion.I. rhis cae the syilabustunctionsoily asa.eco.d of $ hat
1B done, imposing no controlling constrtnt on the dssroom negotiation of content
(CddI4 1984;Clarke,1991).In thetaskbded proposals of l.ongandSkehan sequen.ing
n bded in ldge pan on a prosp€ctiE d€cisionabo the i!.reajng conpldiry of peda-
gogicta*s for the learner,arrhoughI wjll slggestthat impl€mentationaltuctorsma)'resulr
in on line di8hdts to lh€s decislonsfor resons describedlate. in this ciapter
Anothe. disrinctnn in coneprualizing options in syllabusdesignwasmadc inirialry
b. \t'ilkins (1976;se alsoR. Wlne, 1988)andrefeEto the learner's rol€in.$imilatjng
the contenl provided du.iDg grcup inslrucrion md applyingil indiyidually ro real world
ldguage pcrfomdce dd intdlaguage (Ir) deitlopnent. S/atirnc syllabus€sinrolve a
focuson specincebment ofthe languageslstem, often s€.ially and in a linear seguence,
suchasgnmarical sbu.turesor languag€ functions.Theeasiest, mostlearn.ble,most

fr.quent, or mosi communicativelyimportait (sequeDcing decisionsan be bsed on each
ol ihse ultimakry non cohptemcntu)' crneria, and on othert de present€db.lore lnen
harde! late.learned, le$ ftequent, and more communiatitlY redundantcounterParts.
'n,esc syllabses *sume the leamer will b€ able to pul togethcr, or slnthesize j! rell *ond
performuce, dr parts of the language slstem they h.!e been cxPo*d to sPtatery
In conlrast, arallti. syllabuses, of $hich task based sylabses are one variety do not
divlde up the langdage to be lresented in cllss.ooms tJut iDvolve holistn se oflmguag€ to
perforD com nunicarive activities. l|e learnert role in these syLlabuscsis to uatze or attend
to aspe.ts ofluguage use md stru.tue as lhe communicatilt activitics.eqllre them tq rn
line withi a) then develoting iiterldfgra+e Vstems;b) ptefened leatnitg style nn .ptitutt
trorlei and c) ro the extent that they are morimred to develop to d &uaq lerel wbi.h ma)
noi be requnedbv tfie .ommuDiative demds of the tasll lor theseredons Iong (1998)
dnd Sk€han(1998a,1998b) hatt ar8led that anabri. aPProaches to slllabusdesignd€ not
scnsnive to sl,A pro.esses dnd learner vdilbles tbu rheii slnthetic counterPatts
wh,le there are sonredifiercncesof scopeand implemen{ationaldehilin rheir ratio
n!le5 Lr task bdsedtustrn*iot, Long aDdskchan are in broad.Breementabout rhe SLA
ni.t,varion for Dalitic syllabuses,dd task baseds)Iabusesin Panicdar, citrng.€scd.h
n,o$ i ig rh rcc froblems nr sequencing decisiols in stnth€ric amroehs |o ryUabusdesign
th{t adopt languageitems as uirs of anal)'sis.Iistll, SLA res.rch hs reicaled evidence
of resiructuing and the nor linearit]., ard pun.tuaied equfibrim (cf Eldred€e & Gould
1972) ol acquisitionprocsscs. Leirncrs aPPeaito restruclureiL in line with dertloP_
mental .onsrraintsiprodrcing prcg.e$ivel) no.e comPlexgllrldatical forms (Cazden,
Canciro, Rosansky& Schumann,1975!Kana$r 1994iN{acke,v, 1999;PiereDmn 1989)
lcxis (Laufea 1997),and p.agmaii. behavior(K$per & Schmidt,1996), $hile al eachstlge
i, the restructuring process producing DanI forns I'hich arc non t rgetlik€- Hobcver.
developner r c.r,L ..,,nE . . nor a ado r t e I ned, Pr o! e s r \ \ , t n r n e '( s r 'u ! t u t r l
syllabusesseemio imp\t since the.e is eridcn t ofla.klidj.18 md U{haPed learning
demo.strating d appmnt urledning ofearlie. acquned forms dd functions (Kellelmn'
1985iLlrsen-lrecman & Lonq, 1991),as well as suddenshifts in d@€lopnent Second\,
SLA research has shoan that lea.ners difer Nith resPect to rate ol devcloPm€nl through
certain slntactic dnd morphological domlins, maldng lt yobledatic to treat learne6
honogeneoudy ovcr tinc (R. liIs, l991ar Skehan,1989). Ihndl), there c iDsuificienr
eidence dbout the learnabilitl of tnc maiority of tunctions ard stru.tures in English
so acqu\ition sensitivesequencinSdecisions- cven sere they fe.sible 8ive. indifidual
dif{ences (ID, in rate ofprogre$ could on1-vbe made for ! 5na1lportion oflnglish
(Paulston,l98l iWhile & Robi.son, r 99sjlviddowson, 1990).Additional\id Long (1998)
udwiddosson ( l9t8) hlve ?onrled out,linguktic gilding as.equned by mmy rynlhetic
nructural apprca.hes,at lcasr,n th€ erlt srages,resultsin snPlified dasr@m iuguage
and tc{rs wh,.h are ion.rrolally and hrguisticall) nporerished, ProhibitingeiPosue to
iorns rnd l!tr,clnrrs leinMs r).! be reldytoleam, or needtouse
Tdk mmplexiry, .ogntiv. rcutr os,rnilsllhbrIlr\ Sr
Task-basedappro{bes ditrer frcm languagebNed ryr.aches to syllabLs deriBD
in the folowing respeds.The,rhave a l)erfonnanceenlihasr ard are not predicrted on
tbc asumption rhar le\rls oftafger lik€ accura.v (ben.h marks ofsytrrhed. (rudural
s.vuabuses) qillbe achievedin an ac.umulatiye nanner follonlnglo.k sr.p instrlction
targetedat specifc units ofldguage (an unrealistic a$umption gi\cn the nor linearity
ol restructuringprocessesand IDs in rateoflirogn$ rhrough dereLopnenratseguences
reiirred lo above).Achievementduring tasl'based instr!ction n therefo.epefo flnar.e,
nol st tcn referenc€d,and basedon a decisionabourwhelher Dd ro I hat degreetrarn.
e6 cnn suc.estully pedorm ihe pedlgogic and targertasksihat are the ibcus ofinsrruc
tio. {Eaker,l990i Caftoll, 1980jHauptman, LcBlanc& l{esche, 1985j McNamar!, t996i
Norris, Brown, Hudson & \bshioka, 1998! Robhson et al.,2001j Robinson & Ross,
r996). Consequently,in task based approachessu.h as those oflong, exposureto t.r
get languageform predomi.and) taks plac€ in the context ot.ommunicarive pdi. or
group workactjvities, maliing tuncrionslco ordinatesof grimmarical structlre (as well
as speechacts and lexn) availableto learners,along with thet purely formal aslecls,
thus potentially providing rich tues h lcdneF (Nlacwhinne[ 2001), and opportuni
riet lor dabonrivc p.occsing (Hulsrijn,2001) of l:orn function mal})ings' (Donghtl,
20ol) while sFthetic ryllabusesadoptinglinguistic units ofanalysisDal.lso bc imple
mented b.va methodologl whnh provid.s considerableopfortunities for communica
rive practi.e, dis is usuall) lcss.ommon than ir task based approaches,and in tuany
ca\espracticeis focued on ilnctionally sd linguisticalll simpliied texis and dialogues
encouRsfg recoSnnion,and repetition offo.ms rargetedfor dplaration in a! eldier
presentationphaseG.e wiliis,1996; Sk.han & Fosier,2001).finally, andlarticuldrly in
&c approachof Long, ldopting task.s the uit ofanal)-sishelpsto ensurea high dcgr€e
of real world releran.e, since lhq,de basedon a needsanalysisof targct performance
obietircs, therebl mosr lik€l)' increasingstudert nneresr od morivltioD in cldssroom
pedagogicactivities,and lhe po$ibihl of dir€.r t.esfe. of the abillties developcd in
clssrcoos to simih snu.tional .onl*$.
D.cisiotu about sequencing ba€d on the reldtive .omllcxity of ped!9o61. task
@ntent aie one elementm the deliveryof task basedinst.uction.Taskcomplexiryis rel,ted
to other eieoents,such as me&odoLog)-&d a$e$ment in ligure L Bolh nralerjals..Ll
s!,labus design ft decisions.bou 6& correrrihicb begin wirh.olledion ofla.Eu:ge
input dala relaant to targel task performan.€. ?\n option in decisiols abour la.guage
inpor is wheihd to simplily, linguisticall),orelaboratively,the authem,. dara to facilitat.
proccsirg b) le$ proncienr learneN (see Chaudron, 1988;ryn.h, 1996iYaro, lors &
Ro$, 1994).Task conditionsrefersto the intera.tile dehands of pedagogictasks,i.e , lhe
distribution of infomation and the extnt of collaboration .equired to reach a solurion
G.e Du1i, 1986 Long, i989j Pica, Xanlgy & Falodu, 1993).Choice of tedagogic task
.onditions is .onstrain€d bl' th€ nalue of the target task being alProximat€d. !o. example,
listding to m aft.r hous tapcd tclcphonc dcacription of bak olening dd dosing rim$
r93 ?eterRobltron Ta \kco m p l e xi r n .o g n i l i v€ r e so u r ..s,a n d syl h b L sd {sj 8 n ,y,

M.thodological Fqlh.e F(rs on iom./Mn€nt

L Lmguge nput > PMlive

a) pani.ipatjon vanables
€€ nooding

. t Re.ctire 1 no r€Mning rlenr.b

2. Peda€ogi.1ask '-
?€rfolDoce d+, tdttrulc

3. Tdt codgl*ity l. As*sn€nl oftaJget ldk .- AsMentoflanguag€

e g., i sinslet sk (pefomanc. rcftrcndd) ' {sFt d rtfePndd)

t feweleDentshteps
IiAtrrc2, Atdadof tak@nplsftt .orditio.mddificdlytactoN
-/- no reasoninS
d€maDds

Figur€ r. Elenents in rhe deliveiy ofpedagogi. tdk

and othd serviceswould best be.pproiimlted via a seri* ofone my closed task.
Making actual trdsactidns md enqunies orr the couter duing baDking hou6 wo'tld
.equire two way tasks. Trsk com?lexiq is rep.esented as t series of optios whi.h .b
be mdipulated to progresively inoease the cogn'tiw dcddds of Pedagogic tasks, so
they approach tbe tuI codplexig ofthe targe( task. Resealch into those identifed here
is desciibed in more detail in tbe following sectiods of tbk ch^pt t. ahe netho.lologt.al
seqle'.e of tast components requires language to be folored by PedaSogic task
'nput tdk abilities 8iry Perfomoce-
performlnce, and dtituatery by assessment of larget
referenced tests. l.inked to tbe language input stage de ptocctts optios in focus on
fo.n, and linked to the task peiformance stl8e are Bdtve options in focus on form
(Doughq,,2001j Doughty & Willims, 1998b). Tdget languge abilit)', in tems ofstage
of developme.t, acculacl a.d fluency can also b. asssed via sFten referenced tests
peiodicaly throughout the couise of instruction as a eay of eEmining the dtent to
calibnted with 8!rE in knoF'l
which succes in achieving performdce obje.tives
's 1996:Baler, 1990;Robison &
edge ofthe ldnguagesyslen (see Bachno & Palmer,
A triadi. framework for investigating task innEnces on SLA
If tasks are to bc stquenced on the basis ofthet rclative comPlaity, dd not on the bdis
of linSuislic criterla, how is this to be done? Figure 2 distitrguisher tbre grouPs of fac'
rors, which interact to influence tak performance, ard leding. Ihe fiFl group of tuctos
concern lask .onplexity. I'hese &e represenled 4 dibensions, pl6 or minus a feature,
bur cd also be rboughrof in somecass as.ontinuum, alongwhich relativ€lymore of
a featft is prescntor absqt. f,:ch ofrhese is discused in more detail Laterin rhis DaDer
Tb6r dinmsionsol comptery. I dg!e. re de(gn rp,rure'ot r,v. do d1e[imp.;m;n
tation vhich @ be mdipdated lo indease o. les! the cogD'tivedemandst sksmake
on the l€der duing rast perfolfu.e. Fo. e'mpt€, tdks requiri.g simpte desc.ip
tion ofdents happeningnow,in a shd€d cont.n (+ hereand Dowi,lrhere few etements
(+ fq dmors) haE to be describeddd dntinguishedaret€ssconsuning of atrentionat,
memoryand rdoning r6ource rhantask reqDiing refe.enceto eventsthat happened
els.whft (- hd€ dd now), in the past,wherem&y €lementshaveto be distilguished
( ffl elements),dd shere reasoN have ro be given to sutport statemenh made
(+ resonD8} simildt, tark wheft plmnirs time od prior knowtedseare availabte,
rcquirhg. singledMty (for tuple describinga route from A to B d.awn on a mapof
a fanilid dea) arels @gnitivelydemdding rhantask witho ploning time, or prior
ttuwledge support requinng idners to siDulrdmusty perform rwo stepsjn rhe task
(f,. qarplq quicHy thinking up md dscribing rhedirectjon froh A to B on a mapof an
unfrmilid ara)- R6earch into lhe efrectsofth6e dimensionsofcompteit$, on language
producrionis reportedlarerin this paps.
It is imporrdt to note,Iowever,a 6fihe. distin lion madebetwe€nthesedimensions
in ligurc 2. Some/aort . I're.ttra dimersionsof.omplexity iodeae the denmds made
on l@m6'cogtrilive tuu.es while at tbesme time poreti.tly dir€ctingrheirresosces
to 6pccr5 ofldgeEe co.lethai canbe urilisedio complding rhe ta.k (for qample, usi.g
P|est or p.st ienre forDs to d*dib€ rhingshappding now versusi! the pasi,or using
attlibutik adjectiB dd/or rclrrive dausesro dirringuishbetweenmanysinitar etements).
On the other hd4 rdk cd ircreasein compbfty along /.srute-depleti4|di,mensiaos,
dd bake dtm rceuce dddds (relariveto tdks sinpler alongthesedin€nsiont which

cdnot be met th.ough the use ofanl particular featues of the language ode. Such is the
casewhen making a tak more comPlex bv .€moling Prior knowledge supPort or mahng
it a dual. not sinsl€ usk.
The factoB contnbuting ro task .onpl.tttl, then, .re design telturs of tasks {hich
arc prcetNely muiPulable by the tsk desiglea .nd.an be used as the basis ofsequedc
ing decisions. lolohing Spilsbury Stukov and Roberts (1990) I a!8ue that these fadors
need to be distinguished from the learner factors @nhibutirg to lask rfcdrl. Iask d{
frculty concerns ledneri psl.eptloru of the denands of the task, and thde de determined
by both af..t'd variabLesGuch s molivation to comPlete th. task) aDd by ariltry facto6
such as aptitude, T$o lcarners, that is, difiering in motivation, or aptitude may 6nd Lhe
sane talk easier or more dim.ult the cach other s a res'nt of these dili:eences betsten
tlen more motilated learne6, or learnss higher in aPtitude fnding th€ t6k edier than
less molilated lcarncrs, or those with los'er aptitude. I-asl dimcukv should thereforc helP
explainldnahon in task performan e betneeft tuo Larnea Performingthe saDe task
^fly
...'.rr., n, . omplex, \hered. .o+ conPkril \houlo helPerplM wnhir h;''., rdrdlion
in perbrmuce on anl t{o task GimPle ud comPld)- Sine afe.tive v.riables ontribut
irg to task difiiculty are hard, or imposibL, 1odiagno* in advance ofcngagement with thr
lask in .onr.xt, and cu sometimes be unpredidabl-v influelced by Parti.iPdt nriabls
ftey can thereforc play lttle role n 4 prlori &cisions abou. tak seqoenc'n& .lthough the-v
are e{tiemely importdt to asscs on line duing clssroon activity-
Ii nally, dsbriefiy described abore, iask .o"lttot factors concern the natuft of the p4'
f,,pr,,o|equ -ed on rdw eS. whether inrormrrion goesone brv or r$o ha . sh.rher
the task solotion is closcd or opcn), dd atso tdrt.ita't va.iables, such d whether the
groups or pans dre same/difere.t gendet or previouly fadiliar/unfamitid bith e&h
oth{. Ar ugued above, .hoice of P€dagogic tsk condiiotr js Idgely cotrtrained b} the
.atun of the t.rget task being appronmated. Iherefore, one again, I wodd suggsr Par
ticipation md particilani facto6.re unlikery to be t use6n basn tor a I'i'r, seq@n.irg
decisions, since |hel will largely h.ve been sfecid€d on the b4s olthe needs analsis and
idelit) to lhe target task pe.forhmc€ rhc pedagogic taskr de aiming to tacilitate
Historical perspectives
The distinciion mlde above bet$€en task codpldiqv md (ask difficdt has not been
adotted in previous proposals tbr 8rlding and sequcn ing tasks $tile I acknowledge thlt
tasL codplexity ud lask dificulty, as well as lsk condition f!cto6, inldact to deiemift
perfornance outcom$, they n,ust in p.inciple be distingushed in orde. to establish ! dd
basis for a prioli task sequenchg decisions. Howwer, Previous disclsion of this d@ ha
tended to conflate all th'.c facro6. An ihPort! edly conributron to r*arch into tdk
basedread,in8,rnd lhc i$ue of gradingind sequening tdks, is that of P.abhu( 1987)who
derribes the thcoreri.alrurioMle for, and ploceduresusedto delivd, the Bdgdore Psiect
'Iiskconpldxiry,cognihver.*,urces,a.d
sylt$u\ d.sjgn !o,
betwen 1979and 1984 This Foject imptenenreda task based pro.edulal, syllabusin a
nMber of hiEh schools in South E$t India which ftj(ted tinguis:tic gra.ling ofnare.ials
md lh€ prcvision of grmmar rutcs and *pianarions or eaplicit corccrive fee.lback as
nett'odological Focedures for fo.using tedners anemion oo torm. fte prcled used
tad<s (s!.tr as Dderstuding md utrlg milway or school curicdum tim€tableo ro D.o
m o r . d f r d o p m sto r L h em e e . o t.o m n Jn ..a L d n ..d e n d .d a r h e p r o .e d r e ,Je o l ;ve d
n succssfrrXy! ofreyinS Inrormabon.B,\ n8 rcAoo. &d qprA,,r8 o!,n,on.. prdbll.
claim is ihat the efion dpended by leam.B in usng thcse prc.edures to work out meanine
otrrsr is .. a @ndruon whicl r I'avoBblero Lt. \uolonrriob dbsrrd. .".
"-..s.,'
rive fdtmtion of language srroctu.e (1987, 70), . daim which potentialty conflich with
Schmidit dgumenrs (2001) fo. the importaDce ofnoticing in SLA, and fo. the nrionale
ofercd by Doughty (200t ) for the imporrdce of focus on fon. prabhui crieria for .rad
i n g d d c e q u e n .i n g ta l cM b d * d o n d d .r m .r i o n b e r w e e nr h r e , r r l q p e , r r o m a r n n
gap (sinple rrdsfe. of infomation)j reae,ing gap (inform.tion tr.^sformation requninp
d l c r o . i n 8 .d e d u .r ,u n d d o r l e r 'e Jh n r n g .k]l ,,.r d o p .n .n g o o ,",p * ...o "o tp * ,".
des, attiludes, fe€liogs dd beti€fs). p€bhu d.$nbes sequencing .rite I ia, $hbtished ds a
result oihis ob*Bation oftbk long term p.oject, in the fouowing wqr.
Ttqe may be a cae tor Ddi.g gdenlly fron informatjon gap t reasoning gap to
o?inion gap a.li\ill aslcdnea prog.es i. iheir lalgua8e a.quniri6n, though genuine
opmion gap a.rivity is tik€ry to be feNibl€ onlr ar vcN adva.ced stages. . raks wiibin
a giv.n squdce (i.e., rask5ot lhe so€ type ibming the b6is ofsev*al le$ons) w€r€
ordded b) a comomeNe judsemenr ofjncre$in8 comll€xiry, rhe later task beinq
.ither rn.lui!e ot Lheerlrr une, or,nvotvir€ tdSer rmo-n . ol idtrr ruon o d,
o f th ' ksd o " e d o M s d o n ee a rl i 'r
'n Pn \o n .p r a o h L r o s- .p fb 4 &r o
Thc de admittedly intuitire dd limiled, bur also itntrag conclusions abour sequendhs
cnrsir 1o bae *qucn! ing d(botu on d \hrft rom inrorodr,on g,o o re.,"nin8
eap,nJ
rhd opinion gdp rark coNtniN rhe oltiotu amitable to the tak designer in .l€veloping
pedagogn taski to .pproxinate the p€rfmance objectircs o{ rarger tasks since, s ben
noned psiouly, @tain .eai world rrget task obje.tircs may rcquire pracrice under onc
Etry of Iask .onditions, opd ve^us cled or one way ve.su two wax but nor others
simildty, ihe ilistinctior berwen amouh of info.mation, Dd the reasonin! denands of
task limits tle tlsk dsigncr in the conplsity diffarenriats they can manipulate in desgning
lasks to Det a vei€9 of perfoIfuce objechvs. r have also rgued abov€ rhat the distinc
tion belrem iDfo.mation dd redoning gap wss opinio. gap, is esentialty one berween
tak conditiors (ddFd vds open tasts), wirh tie fotuer nece$dity requnjng nore inre.
action and intdlo.utor participlrion than the l.na the commonsose o e.ia prabhu .elb.s
tq sucll as difl@nces in lhe Mount of iifomation on raL or the reasonins d.mands of
ta{:. {e.lifi.ed! k1rulr,om rhe d{)|]auol ind re",oug gap q\u\ opinion
B.p o !
'n
tinction, sin e th6e do refer to the .ognitive demuds oftasks, deined independsdy oftask

conditrons, sd clearly make d,trerentiat deMds on lhe attertional dd memo.y reeu..6
of the learner -An imporrdt empi.ical isue, theo, not ad.besFd by Pnlhtr at this ea.h
stage,is whether changing the natwe ofthe solution to the tak (from closed to oPen) dd
intera.L with dd compound the etrects ofincreding cognitive comPldjq4 Recent
'sarch
(described iD the folowing setion) has begm to emine the inleraction of t tk ompleht-v
dd condition on mesu.es of leame. pedolrMce Other re*dch idlo tbe interrtion of
talk condition and tsk difficulty (also d$cribed io the folowng *cuon) suggsls. contary
ro Prabhut specdation. thai .losed |asks may lead to gr€atcr 'ddiculty for ledr6 ftd
oDen tasks when afiectire raiables suc! d uietv dd motiEtion de a$sed, since .losed
task nay lead to Sreater annety (Holthoue, 1995) ud one study h^ tound them to be
signincody les notivating thd open tasks (Jacob,1996). Resdch hd aho shoen thal dil
ferentlais in ability variabls su.h asthe proiciency leEls ofp!.tnus d sigtu-6@ntl.vafre.t
thc Drobabilih of succe$ on closed tdks (Y!le & MacDonatd, 1990)- In other words while
being a festicted dd constraining basn lbr seqEncing tdkr the claim that oPen, oPinion
gap task de mofe dcnanding thm closed inform.tion gaP t sks is 6lso a sinPlification,
ignoring the poteniial interactjon ol lemer factor rith the* task @nditions
Simil& criteria for sequencing taskr to those desc.ibed by P.abhu werc idcntilied b.v
cortlolled expc.imental rescar.h into rask performuce by G. BrcF! et al. {1984) taking
place conculrently with the B@Salorc prolect. Aimed at Producing gnding and dse$ment
criteria for tasks to piomote the devetopnent of spealing skilts bv DaiiE English speaking
\ or.rh, h oo l.l-, d cr 6 . B, ohner J . . onduder har
$.e hav." foud that dife'ent t?6 of tasks eli.it difierent q?€s of langu,€e dd
pose diiierent conmun'cative problems for the spe.ker Frcm our studid ofPuPilJ
p*forndc$ ve have foud tiar therc is d ascending sc,le of dificulty anong
diiferent t ask qpes. Task l hich invohe tbe speak r in desc.jbi ng static r€lationshiPs
anong obje.ts are fairly e6y to .omnunicare to n hedei if therc are relativ€lt lew
objects and the tlationships among Lhsn de tunly sihPle l:sks whi.h nnolYe
drmmi. relaiionships amoDg reople or objects, whcE a sPeal@ 16 to dcrribe
everts $hich .halge over timc and slace, ae Dore .lifficutt. Td'c snich r€quire th€
speakerto comunicate .bs[a.t notions, for insian e itr aryud€nr or jNtihationr
dre nore diflicult *ain
(c- arcqr et ,r res{: j r )
' Rrmdle' (1987) md Nunan 0989) propose more parsimonious,and e$enrially
dditionllllr G. Brom et al. clain that tasksofeach 9?e ce be made moe comPlex
by incrcasing the amount of infomation on tdks, i.e-, that tdk wth mmy eldents,
relationships and .hara.te6 arc hdder ild thos€ with fewer cledents, elationshiPs md
.haractes. G. Brown et ali researchwd lot intendedto addres tbe issueof seque.cing
L2 (asksand like the condusiotu oilrabhu regardingsequencingcfteria thek distinc
Liur. Jl . rnd .Lb red l) ' oo l, ht r , ng r or ddr enlL and. yu a b u d e s i g n e 6d n , f l n e d
wilh seqreDcinspedagogictasksto meet a wid€ vdiet) ofcal k'odd obiectiYes- It is tlso
trtrc rhJI tr lfg. parr of G. Broivn et aLr work is concemed sith the etfect of mdiPulatitg
Task.omplexirt ..8nlve i$ortr!'s, xl :)rll$h rtf\t8r rr
a th ird grcup of learncr factorsnor ircluded in Figure2, whi.h a.e pow.r/sotidlritv vari
ablessud asage status, inrerlocuto! fmiliariry and gende., and thdir €ffects on interactivc
lask pe.formdce I will not be conccrned $,nh thesc variabLeshe.e, for rea$ns of spa.e
md sincethe fo.s ofriis chapteris on cogniive factors (though for some (.ork in this
a.easeeG-Br(JM, l995i cass & va.onis, 1986jplough & ca$, t99l)
Fouo*ing the suggcstiveeart enpiri.al work of lrabhu and c. Brown et al. a nuftber
of speculalions about task sequencirg and .omplexjry $,ere made by resed.hers working
rogether ar MacQuarie L'niv€Firv in rhe mid dd late l98os. tn contrast b rhe tinited scoDe
o{rdlier poposals, Cd.Iin (1987),Bri'dley (1987)dd Nunan (1989)laise a much wider
@ge ofisus. Candlin brieft describessix sitena b pronote discussio! dd experin,eDt,
(1987: l5) but with no guidda aboul how thescae to br ope.ationatized. The tusr, .oSnriivd
lodd, 'a gadual in ftas ir cognitirc .onpleiry' s essentially the c.irerion fq sequencins
b!r\ prcpoied n dJ\! hrpre,.s dlbhed,n | ,guk \ | a,r.z ad de..noea in ure-o
""rnc
{e(ron. Hobfl?r, Cindh\ exmph oi,J. h u in.red,e rr.t,io omgd. ea, r.,onutori
.r*quen eaodi ,olvin8 indiidual a.tions of individual characten, vetsus hore complex
dd cognilsely dodding tasts wi&out ! clear chronological doelolhenr, witi mdtitle
actio$ ddacb6 compod& a number ofscpdable lroce$ing dimeroions G€fcnilg to
ddrs der time a.d nrmber of etementskhmcte6 and actiono. Other suggestedsequenc
inA criteria indude .ou //'itrrt'e srB, asd€sdbed b,c. Brown et al. ( l9s4), ie., rhe con
nunicative .f,fi.dties posd by diferences in intcrlocutor powe./solidari\,; ,ode .onplciry
Md intdprctiw d%ity, t..., iE linguntic md argmentarive conlbnry of rexh sed on
t ski proces .o,rrur,, i.e, le.deri om decisions abour sequen.ilg l€dning tasksi .o,r.nt
cortilt{/, i.e., ihe extent to whicb ft€ pedagog,c rask is modetcd on, and alprcxlmares, the
real worfd taJgd takj dd pa a"d gendoLizabih/, rhe lovelq/ and siuarion speci
6citF ve6os ron spccifi.iry of ^ielatiry
rasls. Cledly this is a dispd.te co|ecrion of crireria which,
d Skehd ( 1998a) notes, ofer .o trmspatut guidelines to narerials ud s).thtus designers
and l.hich ee nor complmentnry in md],ways. For t:rdpt€, a task rvhich closely approxi
Dat6 Ealnodd pdfomd.e (ud s &€refore e$ier CandID rgues, hamg more conrcnt
ontinlnI), may well iNolve g€arer cotmhi.ari!3 stres (Md so be more diiijculr) rha. a
simplifi€4 le$ contot conti.uou \esion ofrhe tak wherc re.j rvorld dilib.enriats in power
relatioDslips betwen inre.iocutors havc been equalized o. nullified.
ide|liol clNifcations offacio^ in then p.oposalsfor scquen.ing de.isions. Brindlc!
distilguishes Leamea Tdk ud Ten fa.toB, whereas h"und distinguig$ Lefn€r, Acr rvirv
ed Input facto6. Brindle,vilearn€rfadoro in.lude contjdencedd motivation,alons wirh
prior lemiDg erpe.ier.e, abilirl ro lea6 at thc pace requi.ed, and pose$ion 01 neccs
sar-aluguage sk s and releEnt culiural k osledge. Having atlofrhese, Brindleyctdims,
mak6 task edid, and I would agrcc, since rhey atrect Aimculrl,l but aie of limited usc
ro prospccrivedecisionsabout scquencingrasks,b€i.g h.rd dr impo$ibte ro diaSn.senr
adhnce of inskuclion. Task fado$ in.lude degreeof coSnitivecomplcxix nunrber ol

steps, dount of .ontext suppo.t aDd amount of time P.ovided l1r* I would argue de
of use lo prospective syllabus designe6 od coniribute to last comPlsity along some of
the dimensiors illusb.led in Figure 1 and described in the folowing section- Brindey's
proposed ter:t facto.s include, L\e iength, .larily md fmiliarity of tdts wd on tasks
Ilow€ver rhe ta(ual Languageinput to tasks, I have argued, shile.n element in the deci-
sions made about task content (see Flgure l) is ind€Pendent of the cognitive &Ildds of
task, and co be adjusted to leamcr factore such s Proficiency lel without tfficting tht
design md sequencing of taks themselves. lohnson (1996) too streses the independence
oftdk complent), and linguistic input facto.s:
ln rne past, g.ading h6 gen{all,v been in term of languageontent An erer.ne m
consid{ed nore or lcs dfficdt thd dother one Largelyin terB of whlt Lngugc
iiems it included. So mrcises eqe.ting the pr6ot pnf(r Passie mdd' lcr qmPle
be regdrdedasmore compld thm lhoF exPdting ih€ Prsent simPle.It is entnr b a
proce$in8 aPProachta lan-aagetea.hing, howeveathat wha!lerlM qlc qPered b do
with languageis asimportdt asthc actual.ontent ofthat ladguge FFm this st tdPoint
n is pcrfectlt leasibleto hav€a challerging, dificult trrci* lbat N5 relatiely sinPle
stinciures and an e&sierexe.ciP which usesmore 6mPlq langu,gc
oohnFn. 1996:l5o l5l).
Ihere is a dmger also, that uing ljnguistic terl factors to gmde dd sequena tasks may
result in those structu.e t.appng tasl<sddcribed by Sk€Ih, which Nc task to iDPlemm{ a
linguistic sylabus. Nuns (1989) cleuly advo.ates this Positiod He argE the uittetr inPu!
to a task mal be more Drle$ comtlexj the activity required (e.9 , ticking d osw or Miting
it dtr1in senterce or pangraph forh) tuv be nore or lessconPlex; md that degre of lemer
noti'ation dd contidence makes task morc compld, then .onduds tnar the iob ofthe task
desiSneris to t.cate m interesting/relei ot text or task al the aPptuPdate l4el of dilficulq4
and rhen seewhat iteDs on the h*uistic syllabus @ b€ taught tbrcugh iL In \liddossonS
ternN Nrlld advocatesthe use oftsks to realizd or imPlemenr a lnrguistic sylabE
Recognizing rhis and other p.oblems witb thc prcPosak b dale regrding the isue of
task complexrty and sequcncing widdowson ( 1990) srote:
But rhe ut of probl€m soiving 1askl as units of stlabus 6ntdt. as disrinct frcm
activili esfor svlabus fealiationi encounleis a nmbq oadi lliculti€t By Nhat critcria'
for eenPle, ate such task to bc sequentially dranged! Ia the seqrence is to be in
accord with nliural learniry, as it sould only be cosistenl ro requic' then reliablc
infonnatior is need€dabout cognti\e develoPnert at dilferett stagcsol maturttion
aboutthe conditions,pst.hologiol md social,shich attend!b€ emcrS€nce in tr€
mind of generalproblen solvirg caPabilities.Arned witb su.h infornation {e codd
perhapsrelarethesecaPabilities to cdtain laskrlTes,mallted into their consiiiumt
fealures. and lhen gjlen token realiatiols dd arrmged id d ord€r of insesinS
comDlexitySu.h infornalion is not, to ny mind,.unendy a€ilable
1l4_rddoson.1990:rt7 r.!8)
Task.omplorirnognnivc lcn{'r.e\.rn(t srttrbusn$irn :o,
In line wirh the aboveobser.tiors of Widdowson and lohnson,and conplemtnrarvkr
lrngt (1985,1998)Foposakfor raskbasedlanguage t€aching,in the foltowingsecrion
I dscrib€ rtkrch i.ro a frDsorl for datyzng pedagogi.rasksjrto rheircognitire
tonsliluenr featureJ so the), can be anangedin ?n order of increasingconplexiq,, for
Cognitive dimensions of tsk complexity
l1rc cognition hypothesis oftask based L2 ds,elopmen
Gradualy Doeasing the cognitiyedemandso{raks so thev approachrhe full complexity
ofautbcntic, real world pcrtormece can bejusrifiedbj' the rarionlte that it enabtesledn,
ers to a.hievethe tndi of ledning identinedby a needsanatysis,i.€., abitity ro conptcte
a mge of performanceobjectiv€s.Ihn rationatefor adopting rhe approa.b ro sylabus
designptuposedheren no ditrerent from thar underlytnSedu.auonatdecisionmaking
in other domaitu such a pilol trainilg or marhematicsedtrcarionwhich approdchth;
dd?lopment ofconplq slils md lroblem{otviog abjtities(landirg an airc.aft in a bliz,
dd, dong calculn, lhmugh pmdi.e on initiaUysimple,tten progressive\,nore complex
tasks.But rhis saysrorhing aboutlmguge dev.lopmentdd tbe proces of L2 tednin;. A
cotullary of this approach,rhen,is the claim that schedr ing tasla forlanguge learneBi.
tcns o{ rheir iDcreasingcognirivecomptexitywilt facititaterhe.meansoflangu.gelearn
ing,dd thereforeled ro a transtion in rheleamc.t knowledgesrates.Iis is becaur task
maling increasing.onceptuallcommunicativede@ds increasingtyergage coSnitivc
rdources, which progresivery exploit lea.nirg mechaoismsleading to greate.analysis,
modifcation tud ftstru.ru.ing ofrl with consequent perfomanceeilc.ts (tulty aniculatedj
tbis aDosnB to whar ceg& 2OOl,following Cumins, 1983,ref€rsto asa r.ansition the
orr. IiBUre 3 summa.tes thse relationshipsand in whar foUowsI slecutateabout the
etreclsof increastrgtaskcomplenty on ledning md perforhance.
Tdk ddanils are the aLtenrional,menory Md reaoning demods of tasks that
in.reaseth€ mental sorkload the leaher engag4in perforning rhe task.Thesededands
Oo8ltiv€ t€ming ?crforma.ce
m€cndisms €ff<rs
loinpuvoutput instace ie.rning/ morc moddcation of outpi,r
ddnori.i.A/ stagcsbihv
r.h@sdin proced$alizanod
ncmory ce srcngthming
tigm 3. Taski, resourc6, kdnhg ad ?eiforndc
 raskrodplel(y. coSnn,ve
resrtrc.1 ntrnrllhhor.l.istr 107

elementsin. rask that need to be distingunhed and ref.fied to, and in.reasingthc fc!
are operationalized as dimensions of complexrty (illustiated in ligure 1 and d*dibed in
sonj.g demodr oftasls. ftese are vhat I have reGred to above as resourccdne.rds.
more delail below) dd can be increased, for exdPle when the ledner Performs taks
as opposed ro resouice defleting dihensions So, lbr erample, performing a nanative
*ith little planning time, without suflicient readil-Yaccesibl€ backgroud knowledge or
descnbing events that happened in thc pasr, somcwher else (and the.efore r'ith no conrext
is forced to divide attention $hen performing oDe or t*o *cond.ry tasks simultd&usly
suppon), is facilitatedbI control oyer a dder rangeofmorphology (pasttense)ed synrax
with the main task. As illustQted in Figure 3, incr€*s in task @nPlexity re PoPosed lo
(mbedded adverbials of tine dd location, sentencecoNecto6), conpared to desribing
have tedorm:nce etredsi m odiicanoi af output, sd ikcorPoranon of iflput \t$\tle the*
mnts that de happening now' in .ontext, before ou €rs (Sachs,1983; Meisel, 1987). I}is
de relaled, thcy are seParabie Phenomena, since the latter logi.allv entads the former'
lan6, fuctionally les dmodiDgllere md Now nd.atiE is also le$ cogn,tivdy compld,
though the revene is not trtre. I will deal list with outPut modification
mal.ing fewd denmds on memory resources thd the lbrher There and Tho ndrative
Simildb', perfomdcc oD a task that ftqunes dre leder to distinguish one peno! fron
Task complexity and output modification
a group of four or fiw simila peopb n facilitated bI control over the use of a wide rangc
lncreasing the cognitive and concePtualdemands ofthe tdk, I suggest,mav lead the of {ici.tic expftssions, relative clarses and therefore produ.tion of mor. complex syntu
leader to lush outPut (Ssain, 1985, 199s) to meet those dem.rds causing @nalvsis when compfed to a task requiri!8 the dcscription of a single person, while also being
and restructuring of current linguisiic .esouces There are two motintions for this more lttentionaLly demanding (C. BroM, 1995j G. BroM et al., 1984).
claimt']ne comtuuflicdtite coflsequetces, and tte functio^al rcquireneftt' of incteaiag
rask co,nPldity tirstlx Swain and LaPkin ( 1995) note tt6t Pushed outPut cM be extdnalv Task compknty dd incorporatiotr ofnput
u l r r ' i n u m P R h e n 'i u o
' ndu. o o ) "n 'n rerlo .Lr o! g\ I ng ex r er ndl' . c dbr . l' abourd i R i ' 'lhe diferential comunicative coDsequenc4 ard functional requirenents of simple
and it is likely that increasing tbe cogniti\t deDmds of tdkr would otun havc th6e com
vcrsus@mpla lasks.an aho be expectedto atre.t lelrner perceptionsofinput salience
municative consequences, iesujting in increNing comP.ehensiot ditrculq md greater
d subsquent incorporation ofinput inro production following the a.guments above. A
numb{s of.larificarion requesLsed comPrchssion check (Robinson' 20{l)' Pushed
nmbd ofstudies haE qamiDed tbe efiects of increding input salience v1ainterventionist
outrut can also be induced b) internal feedback or self monito.iog dd corre'tion' inYolv
tcchnique such d dderlinrg or hghlightng of forns D Mitten irput to tasks (Alan.n,
ing cogD ive compafison ofleaner utterance ud input models or recdts s dcsdibed
or dternal fedback 1995; DougtrtF r99r; Shook, 1994;j. White, 1998) or lia targ€ted recastsof ungram m aticll
by Doughty (2001). Swan dd Lapkin sPe.date that such ilt'rml
ldnd Mitten (Doughtv & \'a.ela, 1998) ud oral produdion (Doughtv & V.reld, 1998;
caus€dby comnudi.ation difficultY:
Llrter & Rmta, 1997;Oliver, 1995). Wlile some of liese studies hare shoM positir cfic.ts
. . pusheithelednertonodifyhG/he.outPutlndoingso thel€m{oaysdennes fo. lelmtr uptaLe and incorporation oft*gered folm mad€ saliert in these ways, others
be forced into a more syniaciic Proce$ing oode thd mght occu in have not (e9., Shook, 1994;I. White, 1998). I would suggestthat tsk complelty is lil<ely to
'omPrehm$on'
'Ihus, outlut nal sel noticinS in train tigg€ring thc mmsl Foce$6 drt lad b be a facto. heft, not tuined to daie in such studles, and that uptale and incorporntion
nodined oulPur ' . Producing lmsuage lorcs leureF to r€ognize what th€v do offorms is more lilely to be sidcni on morc.omplex tasks,since$ese more effectiv.ly
lot tnod o. know only ldtia]lt ThG mry triSgd an aalvsis of inconing data th'r
direcr leener atlention to the tdgeted input due to their gleater communicative conse
is, a slnlacli. malFis of the lnPut, o. it nay trig8er an mdlds ot qisling interDal
queDcs (mdifested, as descnbed above, in comunication breakdoMs, comprehensn,n
li'sistic resouces in order !o o" *'t"''"ot',:i:.,,
* ,.okin, rej: .rz2 & 3zs) .hecks and .larifcation requests),andtunctional (andthereforestrudural) reqlireNnls.
Ihal n, incftasingly complex tasks ma_r|rompt learneF to look for more and mo.e help in
A second motilation for the daim that mor cogtitive! .omPler t!sk5 Mv l@d to dore lhe inpul, atending Lofacilitative forms nade salienl by teachei intervention $ing onr or
oftdks- Givon (198s more ofthe foc6 on fom techniques d€scnbed by Doughty (2001).'
fushed dd modined outPut conc€rns the fim.tional requnenents
1989i seealso Sato, 988,I 1990) has argued that structural con9lexitv tends to eomPany
t ur. r on dl . on ph lq in d r r ' e dnd : r i' r ner e' nt . t . a' on , b l e l o r $ m e r h a ri n m s v
'(o
casesindeasingry .ognitivell deddding tasks {i! make in reasing tunctiotul de@ds r . 'r h e r . l a i m scd b e se e n d a fti m to l cr o n e r t( r 9 9 l ,C n .r l co g n l ti o n h '"o d € si so i l .l
on thelearner,with tber a{teDdant lingunnc consequences. l$resing the @mplebt_ or ddelopnd! witn the dif€r.nce that for adult L2 del?lopmert, it is not (as h childhood) cogni
taskson Jorz of$e dimelsions of ligurc 2 husbeen sho$n to havejut thesetunctional tie m.tuFtion lnd d€yelopnenr rlar d€arcs tne orccptual inpetus foi language.hange kee
€-g., Gopnit & Meltzotr, 1934;M.ndler, 1992;Weisr, Lyytinen, qsocta & Atanasova, 1997)
and lingustic cons€que.ces,i e, removing contdtual suPport,inctasing lhe tumb€r of
 Tdk.onlilexn,v,iosninveresourc$. d rylhl$ lr{gn ,oe

ofa<uncy, conpleriry dd Auency,and alsoro ds(ibe the units ofanalvsis adopted in

ihe greatd the cogtrt
In summar)', the relationshiPs illustratcd iD Figure 3 suggestthat this resedcb. Il*e are the subjects of the following fdion
(aftention and memor) J
tile .lenands of a r^sk, the nore they englge dos?"ive ruJordd
pe4otnatue ellects
and so are likely to focus attention on inPut and ouFul, whichwnihue
ana\sis of lL thd sin
More compld tasks should lead to more pushing of outPul' and [tre.ts oftask complqity otr lmguage production
(as delincd bv Schmidq 20ol) of
p]"r cou"terp-ts. lln should lead to rore noticinS
Lading to mo€ D@r Validating propo*d dimensions of complqity for t2 tasks inmlvcs predictirg dilferenrial
releunt forns in the input md Problemttic fDrns in the outPur €fieds of simple dd coDplex tasls (along a dimension) on pelfolmaDce, both gerrrdlt
jnPut) modfcatron (of pobldatic in ouQut)- While
Doration (of form in the and
in terms of whether and lo what extent tbe t6ft olt on. was achiev€d, and Jpd.'t.dl, n
pt-,i"r betu€en task dendds 'ots
ogtritire re$urces dd
ii"". a*-ir"a iehtioshiP6
of Figure 3' le4a!t3 terds of then eflcds on l.am./ /.r8raae. The.e a.e a numbe. of general indi.cs 8ed by
perform&ce efiects, I hlve omitted nention of thc thlrd comPonent
!re a number ofcandi- applied cogtutive psrbologrsts to ase$ lhe efiects of iask difliculty and ment.l work
n.dtansiflJ. i will not sPeci4' these in detlil here, though thet
in Robinso' (20or)- one load on tdk pdfomance (seeGopher, 1992:sed.rs, 1998i\!'ickens, 1992)that can be
dnres,nany ofwhich are describedeke{here in more detail
to inslane theories applied, pih some modi6.alions, lo validating complexity dimensions of L2 tasks. Such
is srrcnSlheningof instanceielresentation in m€mory imPortant m€surcs ifflude ehethe. or not the lask Ms cohpleted, and ifso the time taken ro rask
(DeKe{ser' 2o0l: Logd' 1988) a mecnanfm
ol knovledge reP..sentationand acces
of inPut' such d.flood completion, the ledners'ntings oftask diftcr tv, and the extenl ofinlerference and intu
likcly to be aliected by lechniquesto facilitate incorpomlion
dd sion on the Dain task by secondary tasks. Compl$ tasl6 are less likery to be su.cessfulry
hg,',r t""tual highlighting of forms. Another is Pro'eduraliation PodEtion
compl€t€d; rake longe. thD simple codterpartsr are rated by learners 6 more diflicultl
aotomaticilY
.;DihLio!, impo;tant to rule based iheo'ies of sKll development aDd
haE physiologidl consequences (e.g., pupillary dilation, indeased heart rdie)i and are
(An;enon,lggliDeKeFer'1997,2001) amechanisdlikelytobeimPliotedinattedPts
to the model ot moE sseptible to irterfemce frcm competing tasks. Su?risingly, no srudies of L2 task
to Dush ourput A thifd is cue4rrengthening,imPortdt 'omPetition .otupl*ity to date have adopt€d th€se Sener.l irdices, despiie thei. obvious releenc€, and
to knowledge rePre*nta
Mewhi.ney (2001) and to othe. connectionist approaches
rcquire-arten- .lespite the fa.t that tle wo.kload models thehs€lves whi.h incorPorate and weight th$e
tion (N. Ellis, 2001i Hadngton,2o0l) A1l ofthese putative mechNGms
2ool) as d@s (though sepaEte irdi.es (e.9., Tthe line Anabso aid Pftdnnon, Pdk & Botreck, 1989rand Wo*
tion io input & thearsal in memorv (Hdstijn 2o0l; Schmidt' ]&zd I'der, Noith & Riley, 1989) de often supported by sophisticated theoretical models
holds that ttt€ntioo to
to al.ssei"*tent) u fourth.andidar€ Unive6al crannar' h.hich
co'e grmar (Gibson & of .ttention mdattention switching.
aspectsol input clD kigger pddete. resettingof dPects of
\4'ith Fgard to iask etrects or languge produciion, the out.ome mtasures are offen
W,.er laa 4:.n J Cre8 8 2 001)
ledng mecna ddified in tems of acnn n flu€n.y and compldily oflelrner language. Skehanhas sug'
Admittedly, these relationshjPs bct{een tasl codPlentv resoud'
in md) of the deas gsted 6ing supporling aidence ftom perfornmce on pltuned Md unplanned tlsks, thlt
n$m @d performuce efiects de specridhe $ith fe(' findings vet
on the accua''" a.cuacy dd compknry nal be in competidon fo. atredional .csour.6 (r€ Skehan &
des.ribed. Howerea findings regarding the eftect of task dmPlditv
frcm a number ot Iosrd, 20ol) but makes no 6rm F.di.tions about the eliects of task complexity on thes€
flu€ncI ud comPlent-v of langua€e production have been obtaited
th6c' it is masures. skehd d@s argue, following va'Pattetr (1990) and adoptLng, like VanPat-
st.die. the tme"rrkproPosed in this chapter Beforesdmhdiz'ng
"dopti"g ten, a limiled-capacirF single resource model of attention that more compl.x tlsks
comPbntv on merurd
nccessary1omotivate .lirectional hlpotheses fo! the etl€cts oftask requir more attertion to content dd that this likel,v involves withdralval of ailcntbn t{r
fom- Ho*evd, the assunptions of limitcd capacitv, single resource modeh are qu{.
tioned by recent r6cd.h irto the rcle of aftention i! peicePtion and tdsk p.rfonnrn.f
: n. r e. i 8 s om Ple{ F m N n {m e t J s
oL. lhe oemdd . o * P r.. - \ r . o b! 'u P 't u (e+., Navon, 1989j Neumm., 1987, 19961and, $ Sande6 (1998) not$, prcsLnr drl
l"r.ro. . uu 'eo r'orcg-i c r r n8. o\ . r r in' I n' h ldl' oodr eg b , t e q u t m Sr c r e r n P n r \ 'I o
oorogrner'rrrt norrvtr€ theorizing on dual task performan.€ md divided atiedlion is ralidly moving dwdy l()nr
h€ de .{' o \oL .nd '\.n 'o r\e fte'e dd t\'n \\he'l-r' \d'h (1998: 357). Cotrtquentll I would argue tbat fdn rnd
lho optinDm lor the dwelopmenr ot the limited .apacity pro.esi
ircremenral ch.ng€s i. task comPledrv Pro\ide 'ontexts qldtion Not€ c'omcr
is an interesftlg content need not alwaysbe in competition for scar.e attentional r€sodrces(Robinson,
.""aJ i"'l *r",i"tl 1",- r"ctio! mPPinss in rhe L2
i it" ir'.li *-. t. *r." strong rom or ns cognitio" hworhesis a'cPtins thlt innab' r995b, to appear),and lhat alt€mative models of attention and rime{hlrin8 based on
* .+* "'.a 'r'e
r noahJ s e I det eloen m r i n d c P m d € n rol tf $ n e r 'l multiple resour@rheort, (Navon & Gopher, 198q Wickens, 1989),which do nol enlirl
,
' ..' i. " "'y - ' o s ur d' d
..."' "".",','"" h owe \ , r hc $' ilabl\ or ' ulLnos ledLer or d u l t D l e d m 'i ! r d 's P U L d thn *umptio., may be suitable for L2 task resear.h, in lhe same w.t $.y hrvc h.cn
lol d 'f r e E n 'P e r p eu! t G r '
. . ; uRsE.)uo l. r' I J\o I lh 2J |) landv r \ ^hr r "\ ' lonl
/
r
-o
P.t".nou"*"'
l k .ompl .x ,l r- !.fnrrLv e' f!\L' (.i .i tr(l ri l L' l trtrri r![i

ve6us simplelasts fuincethercwiLlbe nanrphrdsdlor on. h1trd ,.\tr)n!s ro IL.r ilL.il or

h other
applie.l to stu.lies of elTects of .tilided attention and dual tasl Pedormtnce
Brickner & Nalon 1982; Sarno & requesBdd comprebension.heck). tharis, greateramoutrrsol nrterr.tion, ri8ltcrc(tby
do;ains (illpolt, Anrons & Re-vnolds,1972iGoPher'
capacnv constraints on attendon the.omplex task,w'll often lead participanisto inteiilpl, and s. nitigite Lhcir .rrt.mi)ts
Wickers, i 995). ftis vies ProPosesthere are no geneial
al syntacti. cohdenty. How€rq, rhe predictiors for ac.ura.)' and fluen.y on n!,nolo8n
(Nelnann, l987), and ther€foreno comPetnronfor ancttion unlessthis invoiks artention
bdseeo task should stil hold.
s$it.iing (anexecutile/adion controlPrcblem,not a caPaciryPrcblcn) 'esouc 'Il,es effectsshould be found when increasing.omptcxirl alo!8
sim'n thosr.ogniiive
pools (Wick€ns,1989) Consequently.where t.sks are mrde inct'singly comPlex
there shodd be no dimeNioN idemilied i. Figu.e 2 which make ncnasing funcuonal demands oD t|e
ianeouslyatongdlnensions Nhich dnw on difiereDtresourcePools'
lmguage uer, i.e,+ here dd Dow, few rlements,l no reasonlngdcmdds sinceinoea!
comPetitio. for attentronalresourc$ -
ouQlt (dd ing compleit.y along thesedimensions, as menrionedpreviousll..is a Deans of dtd.ri,a
It is, ofcourse, an empirical question shether stableeffecrson learner
ltskt comPlexit)' resoorcesto a wider lage of tunctional and lingundc reqqirements.h contrast,t.strs
incorporalion ofinPut) cd be achievcdbY mmiPulating dimensionsofa
fitdings Ackno$l manipulating l planning time, I prior l<nowledge,or t singie task denrandsleads ro a
and ;hicb nodel of attertional resouf.cs.an best accommodatethcf
inio tasl eff'cts on drpretor of attentional dd h.mory resources on morc complex ve6ions. Slnergisrjc
edgjng this, and in thc inteests ofpromoting SlA_m'dared research
etrefs ofsim,nbncously i..reaing conpldiry a]onSthesercsaute d*ecting tsource-
o"ipui .o-p"."o^ .inndings aco$ studies Predictionsfo' L2 s?6h Productio!
""a depleri"a dime'sions can be erpeded and research is needed to invcstigate ^\d
sinph .",1 co".plex of so,o/o{ic tdh are iuustrated in ligure 4 bded on the lhes€ issnes
"e^l"ns
-'lollowing assumptions, d) structural .omPbntv tends to accompdl frrcilonal comPle{ I. generalthe researcblindings suma.ized below show rhe prcdictions tor fluencl to
oi oral hold faniy consntedy, acros all dinen$ons, on morologic tlsks, with lessclear results
ity in di;cooFe (Givon, 1985, 1989iSato, 1988, 1990) aDd thereforecomplexitv
to the increasi.gl,v comPlex nrctional demods the for a.cuacy ud complqity. Horv€ver, th€r harc been lerl few studies of the efe.rs of
p;oduction sill ,tseloP in resPonse
attdtion ro SL sP€ech induced bv d€se dimensionsof compl€nry on inte.acrire, non monotogic rask produdion (thongh
harner has as a developitg comuicatorib) S.edrer
tlsks, olien results in highe' l€veb ol accunc)
the conrmuni.ative deDunds of sPecilic
(Huktijn' t989i hschk} & One obvioDs.aicat to th. claim abour a..!racy n that it should idealh be n$e$ed
on task{devant, non communicatively redunddt language
& ?arrish, 1988)i lnd c) high comuni'atrve wirh referenceto the ledner! cuf€nr ]evel of ability and stageof dev€topnenr,md not
ljet vioman, 1993;Tdone, 1985iTarone
1o (S$ain' 1985 1995) nece$arily with rererence to the targ€t language (Blq, Vrome, r 983) sin.e SLA research
and cognitivetasl demandscan lead learne6 Push P'oduction
lhe addiiioDaL mental efiort on Production has sbown consistmdy tbar in mrnl domains iemers progre$ i\rough a series ofdevel
'stretchlDterlanguage (Long, 1989) and dPend
(S.hmidt t98l) opmental stagesbefore acqoiring natilr like control ovei forms, ea.h stagebflng evirlcn.c
that leadsto destabilizationof 5tabilizedfords
ofl€arnin8 but cbara.tertcd by ungrammaticalit] and cror }'hen compared to native
spe.ke. noms (ct Doughry & var€las, 1998,intcrlsgulge salvsn of pasr tenseuse).ft
complq must also be slessed rhat clDice of rhe unir of anabsis is detedined jn large part by ils
I 0uency, .onP eaiiy, a..urz.)' luenq, + ac.un.Y + conPlexitY validitv as ! neasur€ oI th€ dilicrencesin complentl hporhesned for rhe rask,gilor its
intetuctive, input m.i oulput modality demd&. ftc ksue ol $ hi.h urits of anaLysisro
adopt in rcsearch i.to the efie.ts oftask poductiod is currently a problematic one as ske
conPl€r
a.cuF!r- h.n and foster(2001) ato acknohl€dge,though tuI discusion of rhis rsueisbel,ond thc
+ iluency, a..nrMt. fluenct
-
comprehcnsion.hecxs/ + comprciennon .heck/
clarih.atidr r.qu€ns + .larilidtion requcsG

2l"dg
fisur. 4. Propos.dedeclsof hsk .onllexrtv .n a.cua'* fluncv and'onPlexnl 'Iark demands and task prodtr.tion: previorls research
Esource direchngdnncnsn,ns
R*dcI n'dings concerning the etrech of increasing r4k complerty along rhe dinen
tasksnust tlke lccount ofthe fact that grealer'oh sions illusrrated in liguft 2 h.ve a.cmular€d in r€c€nr veds, but hive tended to focus
The Pfcdictronsfor
'r,eru.tn on the isue oI etre.ls on monologi. task ploduction. ]1le dimension of I A.r-z,d-,ot
plexity is lilely lo lcdl to grearer amounts ofnegotiatioo for meadn& and hent' 8'eater
an.l comPrehensiot (Iong 1983!) lhis should has been studied by Robinson (l99sa) and parlialiy repl.aied bv Rahimpour ( t 997, 1999),
.f ch,irl-ri o re,l,Ests 'heck
"..tr,. and comPltuty of utte'dces on cooPld wlo opeBtionaliad it asa distinction bctw€en nemriks pedorned in rhe Here od Now'
have thr crli.r ol rcdu.n,8 the ortu1l length
 Taskconplexir),.ognirive
resources,
andsylLahus
design

at PictuG iUs pertorMce occDr when d secondary task is added. fte aim of this resedch is to erimine
when learnes describ€ a series of 4enrs in the present iense I'hjle looking
dd ]lEn when leafres fi6t !ie$ the ielative difficulty, md attentional denm.ls oflrimary rasks (nrore auenrion.demandirg
trating them, ve$us narradves perforned in the There
6on Demory wiihout l@king at tdk de more susceptible to interfe.ence frcm the secondary task), and to exanine rhe
the il;stration, then de required to perforh the ndrative
q; $udies oflr devcloPmcnt Ehich extert to which primary md secondary task draw on separareanentional r€sou.ce pook,
fie lictures, md deliver il ; the Past tenr' Motivated
tetse cooten suPPorted dd so .I bc $c.estulb time shared.Robituon ed lim (t9931 operationalizedsingle
sho; displaced, past time tference to emeryc later tho Present
dd b,v sinilar findngs lion Ersu dual t6k performance for L learne.s in the following watr Using a repeated mca,
referen; G-g., Crome! 1991; Eisenberg, 198sr Sacls 1983)
of TaroDe (1985) on cffats of slrs desl8n, wiih ordd ofsingle md dual task conditions counte.bahnced, speak€s we.e
Sr-4. re$rci (I{eiset, tss;), and also in pdt bv the work
the @nPld Theft andjlhen asl€d ar gire dir€.tions liom pobt A to poini B or a map to a palher who had only point A
aticntion to speech on accuracy Robinson {1995a) found
greater dysflEnc-v but with no mad(ed on the map. h the sinSle iask .ondirion the rcute was mdrd on the map for thc
coDditioo elicited more accurate sPeech, sith a trend to
speke4 *bne in the dual task co.dition the route Ms not mdked, following thc think
sigrilicant lin.lings for syntactic conPlenh/- Holveve( there {6 significudY 8@icr lexical
was medured via Targetlike u* ing that in this latter.ondition the spealcr wodd have to both thinl trp rhe bst route
c;nDhxitv it rhe ]lEfe-dd Then condition ,\cclldv
and nuobeB olwords ud describ€ it (two tasks) ompded to simply describing d idenrified roure (one task).
(IIll dal$$ ofarticles (Pio 1984)i fluencvbv numbes ofPausd
trttednes (S!t'\ Robinsd md Lim foDd performuce on rhe rcutr not-meked ma! rask 6 Ie$ fluent
p* tn*"t* tt--t, 1990): an.l conPltxitl bv ndtiProPositioMl
rd bv a mesuie oflencal thm on the rcnte.mark€d tak with no diferences 1d accuracy and compldit.y, usjng the
;990), S-nodesper'[ unit (tsardoviHdli& r992i Crcokes'1990)
soe medures adopted in Robr$n (199sa). ftis is clearty a dimension of complexiry
.nn pleln. L l'er.lio o lle\'. " r o Sr m nr r c als or d'
(1997 1999) P'rtial rcPli@tion of the iD need of futhd resedcb, ud one which is relatively easy to manipulate in 12 mareri
Sinna findings emerged f'on RlhinPous
ofa seneral masure at design, falling within, pe.haps, the area Sketd (1996, 1998a) has .all€d rhe ?egree of
study- Adopting the same measures as Robinson, wiih the additio'
1e78) RahinPour foud sFuclud t6k mate.i.ls impose on lemd performance. Ihis dimension i! ako lelared io
of peic-uge of oro.free T units (Ldsen !r€da'
"curc1 more tccurate (in terms of errer work in maistrem educ.tional pq.hology (of porertial reletu.c to mateiials Miters
ompl"* ih* md_rto nu.atives to be significdt'
Robinsonl 6dier dd tdk dGigndt inro the eilects ol increasing tognitiyc load on academic rask pc.foF
free i uniG. but not TIrr of anicles) md ndre dlrfloenl Goilg belond
a tdk ondition lactor mance, for e'mple, the work of Sw€ter ( 1988) who has examined wars of optimizing lhe
study RahimPou. also crossed the task comPlexiry h'to' *nh
tdk wde Perftrmed ude' inregration ofillustraiions dd explmations in physics, maths and orher texts, inding that
ope! tsus closed tasks Half of lhe simple and conpl4
(where the duator sinplv des'rit€d cdtain alragemenrs minimize dMsion of attenlion betwed explanatory text dd dia-
tie open cor,titions adopted in Robison! studv
half were in a gr@, .educhg c%nitive ioad (ud ihe dual task demuds of relding sepdated terl and
fi" ,"qo".* of r*tated in the pictures) dd Performed
'ksed illustration) dd thts imprcving leaning and perfornuce.
""""tt to deli\tr the ndration so that the Brener
condition (where the spe.ker was instru.ted
In conEdr to th€ abow desc.ib€d dimensions of task comtlexiiy, a growing bodl
could pla.e the sequence ol Pictues i. de order)- RahimPod found that op€n
'orr€ct tuBtives elicited moe fluent of 1.2 ese.rch h$ qdined ibe ellectsof mmipulating 1plarrtrg Itne. since nndings
condrrions. for both Here-and Now dd l}let and_ihen
These findings Pa(iauv ircm thn rcsearch de desdibed in Ertal detail b' Skehan and loster, 200r, only a brief
production, $ith !o effects for accuracl or comPbnry' 'on6m
on tdk prcdudion made smmary is giren hcre. \,ftne the.e have been d!{erences ac.oss srudies iD critical fearures
;he redicrions for the effects of in.reasi.S coSrnitive compbnty
comPldiiv weft obtained of the operationaliaiion oflhis dimesion, such as tength of tlaeing time allowed, and
above. Unfortunately, no gereral measures of the efects oftdk
tine taken to @mPl€rion erc' whether a task familidtatiob pbM was allowed in both conditions, o. lot (see Orre*a,
in thest studies, such as learner ratings of dilicultv, 'ate
that tbn is a nlid operationaliTi 1999, for m d*iew), in g€nenl, findings frod the stldies regading accuracy and cob
etc. However, findings for the Production data suggest
tbe mount ot contexi pldity he ben in the BeBe direction to those predi.ted in Figure 4. \^hen learn€rs arc
tion ofan imPonant diDension ofthc cognitiveden'nds oftasks
alls (1984) similar conclusions gne! lime ro think, dd pld *hat they wil sal or write (the simple condition), ther€ is
support sfeakes and heare.sreceive(cf also G Bro$n et
sone €vidcnce of gains in accuacy md complent). R. Elis (1987) found more accu.ate
o".ed on In e,r'rL dre ..t nat r dne per lor n' n. el
dioentiod oi t2 iask production of past ters morlhemes on plMed Esus uplaqned ndratik$ and Crcokes
Onl) one, unPublished.srudy has examinedan'iher cdndidate (1989) foud a tEnd for more @npld sI d on planned resu unplann€d informalion
of tsedch in other
coftplexity, I Jirgle r45kd.ndtd. HoNever'a consid'rable dodt
for the laliditl ofths gap tad6.Io$d dd Skehe (1996)foudpleningtime led to inced€s in fluency,ac.u
dotnahs ofE, i; fsy.hologi.ll enquir) ofiea iheoretical suPpon
Wickes' 1992) ln such racy ud complexiry Onega (199) and Utndel (1997) also foud incr€ased accu.aq- as
dinensio' (*c g . Hc*., r 9e6! Sddels, 1998iShokov lg8T;
" *'hat extentd<remenrs It a r6dt ofalowing platuing rime. Howevcr, Ting (1996i Robinson, Ting & Urwin, 199s)
rcsearch,Pdtirnnun.( o! ! Prnnary task k exmined 1oseeto

found cquivalert accuracy and complexily on PlanDedand unPlanned sPeakingand
writing tasks, bui with greater fluency on pldnted speaking lasks- Undoubtedl)" Srving
plmning lime, aDd turthermore fcusirrg atrention dddg PLading tim€ on rel4ant
aspectsof task strudure ( Skehan,I 9e,la),makesa tlsk easier 'Ihe efe€G for greatera<u
racy or simple. planned tdsks alo.g rh$ dimension ee Po$tly dM in parr b ledncr
avoidarceofproblenatic forms (S.hachkr 1974)udto a nd.os ing of then Prcducti\e
repertoireto rhe tried and tlusted.
ol conplennt ! pnor k^o|9bdge rc.ei'vs @nsiderable suPPo.t
-{ fourth drmension
ftom previous resea(h botb $ithin dd outside (Fe fcr ej@Ple,,AndeMn l98li B.inen &
T.e${, 1982i iorph & Dl1tr, r 984) &€ 6e1dof SLA. I1lde is eviden e lhat Prior knos l
edgeofibrmar ud conrenrschemataboth tuciliiateL2 rea.Ing (e&, CureU 1987)'andthat
prior kdowledge of the de of &€ brener makes sPealing tasks die. (G. B.own, l99si
G. Bro$n et al., 1984i Yule & MacDonald" 1990), asdoes Prior knowledge of' dd aamiliditl
rvith, the content dohain of the speakiDgtask (Scl:r&e. & Dougld, 1985). Robitro. (2ml )
showed $Dt prjor knowlcdgt of d ma described by a map led to norc fludnt (mod sords
knowl
l]er commutication unio Prcdu.Eon on a dndtion Siving tsls cooPded to do Prior
edge,but this had no etrect on accuracy or slntactic @mPkn+ Rsults also showed signifi
.rdt greate! souts of neSoliation (nedued in onfrmation check md clffilication
requestt on the no Prio. kno{Iedgc tdL How6er, q?. o{ Prior knsledge (e& ofform or
cDntert) mar have difierstial etrectson 12 .omprtieNon. Ll a study of the eft€t of Pnor
knorvledge or academic lis|ening task performuce, UMin (1999) foud thar Prior knowl
edge of the content of an acad€mi. lcctue (given duriDg a Pre tdk &hich invoked listoing
to a lecture in a schematnaly simild domain) led to gr@ter tnldrdag ability thm did P.ior
l1u$l.dge ol ro-T 'gnrn du dg , ore rr* ro milff subi(rs wrth its orgMronal
struchne). Bolh prior knowledge goups $tre equiElent in resil offacts, {d both outPo
forned a no prior knowledge control grouP on both mesud oflistening comprehetrion-
Researchby C. Rrown et al. (198.1iG.Brown & YuIe, l98l) dd the observationsof
Prabb! (1987) regarding task dificulty in the BmgaLoreProject de inferertial suPPort
for the remailing dinensions of coDplexity p.oposed in F igtte |, ! reBokint demaflds
4rd ! ndry elements.Bott, C. Brown et ai. and Prabhu claim that tasksrequiring selec
tive information tansmissioD plus rcasoning to establishclusalit) and justifiation of
bellefs based on abstact concepts,such as dorality, goodne$, APP.oPnacv'are morc
.ohplex than tasks requning non seLectileinformation transmksion {ithout these
denands, and that tasks which .equi.€ fe{ clearly diferent elemenls to be described
and distingukhed from each other (e.g., applcs, trees and doudr' are simPler than
task which lequn€ mary similar elementsto b€ distinguisbed arom each othe. (eg
ca6 in a tramc jam, buildin8s and sfeels on a DaP, or susPectsin a Police line uP)
Complex taskson both ofthese diDensions {ould seen likel,vto .€qui.€ the learner 10
u.e r qder run 8cu l nS uFt t r , e\ oune. lhr n qm Pl. r ! ounr e 'P d 'i \ i e I E t e a r e u
r \ing
oflosical connectorsard subordinar.clauses,nore comPLexnounPhnses and a wide.
Task.omplexity,.ognitivr reRnk..!,.nd ly[abus n.si8n
variety of.ttiburive adjeclives,and relative ctaus€s,see c. BrowD, 1995!pF. l]8
139:
C. Brcwn & t'!le, r98l: l3s).
In a srud/ of the etredj of increasilg reasonjngdenands on n&rarive rask produc
t i o n . N r w a t2 0 OO:R o b i n so n& \'* c to Jp p e a r ,to u d t^ !r r h . To J, o m p te \ n :( d \t
ot fou produced (in a .epeared measure design, usiDg fou pictuie $rip seguencesf.om
tle picture amgement subtest of$e W€chsler Adult rnteligence Scaie as
lroftpts for
the nerive9 rcsdred in mor€ comptex producrion rhb the ieast comDL€x narrativc.
m e a s u r e d S n u d s p o t si l H o b e \e r .r o n r r d r yr o r t.tr e d r \r o n .r e F.r h r r .h e r e
'n
no dirIerd.B in speech nre, and *en g.eater fluency on the most codptex vesus
leasr
complex mrative, medured as longer mem tength ofp€riod ofphonation. tnt€restjnAlx
N r w a r 2 0 u o )a d d r ti o n ,U yto u n d r h a r tD , D a b d i N td c,o r (
"p l u Je , WM ..p .cr tv,;d
n t r l l i S e n \e ..o l e l a r p d {g n ,h ,d r t) h vr m cr u r r , u r p r o d u cr i o no r ,t e m o ,r .o m p te r
"r r h
nanalive, .ompaftd b only one on th€ sihplest nar.arive, suggesting that s lasks jn-case
in fteir cognitive denuds, so IDs in rele@nt cognirire abilities jncreainqty differentiate
p d r o m u c e. Th n @s ( o ,\p e cu l r o r fl u e n ,\ Th o .e w i l n h g h e ! a p r i u d e d , d w l \l
apacrty were signfitutly les Iluent on th. most complex versio,.
rutber sludies of rh€ .ognitive dimensions of conplexity described above are
mucb needed,as are theoreri.ally morivated studies of orher dihensions of.ohplex
t h a l c e b e ,p p l ,e d r o r d ,k d e ( i g n fte .o g 1 ,r ,vr d ,m e n ,o r I n r \c ,j e {r i b e l {e
't y
nor overlapping,and consequentl)pedagogictasts can be nade no.e complex
on an
ind€aing ndber ofrhen, as iltusLraredin Figur€ s. rn this task learners ar.. inniallv
pre$nted kirh a map ofa snal area th€/ are fahiliar with, wjrh the foute narked
on, and are given plmningrim. ro decide how to descrjbeihe route to a partrer Task
.omplexjt) cd be increas€dby tust removing ptanning time, tten askr* tedneA to
B i v e d r e ( t ,o n 'fr o o r m r t\r r h o d r r r o u te m .r ke d o q .r h e o a "i n g r h e .,.e .,r t. map
o f ! n u n l a D r l ,r r d c,.r n d u n r l l l i r .r e ".i n g r h e n n o r l h " n r p .o .t d . m "l r 'e l e n e n B
, h o u s e s . r oa Jsr n d o r h e r l r n d m a r t.) h ^ e r o b e d ..tr n SJi ,h e d tsv n l e Ai g p e d a BU B.
rdk complexiry in thn *?y, learncrs gradualy approinate the performancedemands
of real wodd targer tasks.
Sequencing, workload, auromati.irv md aliect
Ihe proposals for tak sequs.ing des.ribed above raise a nunber of comDld and inDoF
rmr isues Nhi. h !an only be rouoed o. bleny her. \rr8"d .unul*rve in. rea.^ ir
u.
coSn ivc demdds of talc, in rhe mannd illusrrdted in FiSuie 5, are tikely to have at least
tlo positive .on$qErc6 for 12 ledners nor so fd consideredr et.re,r schedulins ofiasl
e l r m e n t sr o r l n e l e d n e r l .,d o 8 r o Ed n , d j u r o m r l r a r .o n ,D e Ke r e i _ 0 0 ,. tu ;.r i o n d l
napping dd restnctuirg (Doryhr,t,2oo\), nd equitiblatiofl oJpdceeed wo/ktoad Brcsl
IErfo.mde on simple dd final complex versios leading to positive etrects on afecdve
kiablB such s aNieqr and motiyatior.

d trcn sio rsl2 l4
i-8e rr.l
pro r,o" "nd"
G snall do)
Gimplfed data/Dap)
Figures. In..easnrgltconplcxverionsof a nap task
Eflicient scheduling of.onponent steps in tdks h necessdy to inc.eascthe efli
cicncy of, and the probabiliry ol succes duritg tlsk performaDce lor eemPle in thc
tlskdescribed br li8ure 5, the learne! has to bolh look at the maP to thinl op the best
route, and then des.ribe il By removitg the n€ed to Perform the fi6t steP (thinking uP
the route) on the first tso vc.sions of the task ibe lcader is able to focus more atten
tion on, pra.tise and so automatizethe descriptioo steP before Perfoming under the
dual task conditions of thinking up at the sametime as describing As Sd&B ( 1998)
notes, . schedulingand coordinatingtaskelementsis a skill that developsowr time and
adds to proicient dual task performanceas se! as to the idPte$iE effeclsofPretice'
(1998: 347). fte task scquen.edescribedb) Figure s supportt the le&ner i! the devel
opment ofthis rheduln,g abiliry In Bialystofs telms (1994a),efici€nl schedulingof
.omponenr stePsduring PedaSogictaskPracticcmaybe seenas imPortut to developing
tonlrol of laiguage !sed, $us facLliraiing{he .estru.ru.hg and greater'analysisof lan
guageus€ (as indexed byslntadic complexit-!and accmct efects, as?.edicted e ier
I n . hr' ,l'rpre ', Jn mvre . om pler and. Lhr qu. n, ldr Serr J \ ' \ e , s . o n , r h r r h 5 r a S e d
incredsesin the complexit) oftasks Nould be morc likely to fa.ihale thos€ cognitive
mac.oproces* olnraPPing and rest.u.turinS, discused bt l)o!ght):, (2001),wilh more
ofthh taking pldceon complex vesiors.
Gradually apprcximaring real world targer rask denands rarhe. than moving
di.e.tly from simple to complex versionswouLd also b€ likely to rcdu.€ slress or sub
lectjle per.eprions ofdifficulty, so having Positieeeftectson .itedive variablessuch !s
lelels of!nxiety, confidcn.c.Dd,notivarion rrgononrs r€sear.hby Han.o.k williams
and Manning ( 1995)hrs shown rhar PercePrionsofrask dilficulw are idlhenced b,Ythe
denands ofp,ior rasks TrN suggests,tbr exadple, that! learner performing rtdions I
then 5 in liSuo 5 rbovc would rale 5 to be much dore dilicult than lhey would when
Taskcomplexity,.ognirivr.cvrtr.ds, :nd !yttahN dcliEn
pdforning versions 3 then 5, or 4 rhen 5. tn thrn .esea(h Hancock et al used rhe
Subjectir€Workload lndq (Reid & Nruren, 1988),a weighted indcx ottea.ner rarines
o t t h e m en r a l .r e m p o r a l p. e r l o r h r n \e .n d a Te cr .ved e r Jr u . d r a ,i , n ^ e@( cD tu e ;r
o f s u c h . n i n d e \ fo r sL r J* ,e \e r ,h I d n .m o o .r d n ,d 8 e .,o ai r p m \ n . e co h p l c\r i v
.1 J
seqren.ing effactson task dificully afective E.iables needs to be Dur on !, emDirl
. a l l o o t r .g : r Fo r p ( e n t l r Jd i e ( {R n h n .o n . 2 0 0 t: R o b i l .o n & N * ", to
;",.
a n € m p t . d r o d o th r s. "D o e ,,r
In a repeated Deasures design ,ith 44 Jatanesetearners of Enqtish, with
tlsk
sequence(Sinple 10 Complex, and Complex ro Sihple) counte.balanced,Robinson
(2001) ase$ed perceprions oftask dificulty, ariiety, inte.esr
t€vel, motivation, and
perc.prions of ability on versior 3 and version s ofthc ma! task in lisure
5. Hc did
b v d s}Jn gp d r l r c'p d n r .r o .o m p t.r e I r ^ e .r m r r n g ,. r ,e q _ e ,r i o n n a r r cr r e m .,,,e ..r n e
'h n
p d l r c 'p r nl \'p e r ( r p ti n n \o l e d .h o fr h e .e ta to r ,m n e o ,d te tl to U r \i n q .e r .i ^ n l d r d
v e r s r o n1 n'a p r a sl p e r to r h d n .e Ite \d ,..h o $ e d l h a r . r .g .r d l e ,. o .,( * ,,.e p ,r .r .
, p r n r r . d t ed r h e co m p l d \e n 'o n c m a D i d + r o b e r o l e d r fi .u tr
st.e$ful, but ratings of inteftst i! ard morivatjo, to comltete the raks ",",,.. - j ^ ","
did not ttiffer
significanrly on the lwo versions. Robinson and Niwa (rc appea4 found the sane r€sults
for responsG ro the quesrionnanefoUowjng perfo.mance on nar.alves arar ncrease.l
in then reasonirg denmds. \\aratives requiring .onplex reasorins were .ated
no.e
d r f b ( u l t , nd st,e sr d . r n d co n h d e n ce ,rd b i t.r ){d . to w e ru n ,h r r r h i n o n ,,D D - d n d
6 r , r e s H o w .r e r .l h € co m p l e r n l o t.\e r e d .u n i n g d e n r n d .r cq :i r e o b v r e r a r - a r i ve ,
d i d n o r n eSr r i ve l ya tl e ,I i r te ksr u r m o r ^ d l o n r o , o n p te " r 1 ... n - .
th.t, at ledt on lhe dimensionsof cognitivecodpt€xity operatjonalizedin ".,r .,u e g - ,
thesesturljes,
leamer perc+Iions of dilficulrt, do appear to cofrespond wilh increasesin cosnitireh
d F f r n e d .u m p l e r r ': H ,tr r 'e r e iR o b i n \o nI r n o t) d r d r o r !o n n .m r te r n d r n g ,
i a n co .t
et al. (t99s) for L2 learning task perlorman.e since le{nes performing the "
veBion 3
bap tasxstbcn version 5 map rasks(seeFiEu.€ 5) in thesequenceSihpte-Conplex,
did
not rat. version 5 tes difncutt than they did when theyperformed veBion 5
and th€n
veBion 3 in the seqneoceConplex Sinpte.
Other SI-A resear.I has exmined the afects of mxiely d.l motivarion on the task
.ordtiors illustnted in Figu. L Hokhoue ( t99s) in a srudy of SL tsk anxierv
un.ler
. l o \ e d r n d o p e n .o n e @y.n d ko w ^ .o n d ,o n , u .n g d r e p e Je dm e d u r e ,J^ iqn
"r d
( o u n r e r b a l d ( r d l o r \e q u e n .i n 8 e J . d n e r .o n 'e n r .r o u n d
o n tL j n o l ,i Sn i n cr n r|l tr r
to g&ler anieF/ (nedured by a modifed Esion of the to.eign Loguage cla$room
Adieqr S.ale, Hotritz, Hotrirz & Cope l9s6) under closed, lwoj€y conditions ver
sus otheB. Similff 6ndin&s emerg.d Fom Jacobi (1996) study of r.2 task
,rrtormance
D Singaporean schools. Again, using a r€peared measu.es d€sign coulterbalanced
for
task sequence and content, dd uing holis.ic Gee Maclntyre & cardnea l99t)
as weu as
evic (qurstionnaire) neaurG ofmxiety md notiation atoDgwfth inteniew
data, tacob
found Do sigrficdt dife.er.e in annery levets on open and ctosed task con.litions. bur
 Taskcompk l! cognnive resoure!, od syll.bN delgn ry

tur peforn'n@ manipulltionsjn raskdenandsnade b cla$room tedcheNand materialsdesigners.

signifcantryhigher levelsof motimtion (usingonl,vthe holistic measure)
However, furrhe.dimeosions
will probablyneed
to be p.oposed,noriEted andsrudied
Nn{a to to comtlementlhem.
in summary,rhe only 6n<tngs in this lrea (Robinson 200l; RobiNn &
cquencng d{isions
appea4showthat ledner Per.eptionsof.lifficultv arenot atrectedbv 2. Taskconpleaiq, not'cing,resttuctutingdnd uptake
Regardls
that resultln a gradualapproximaiionof tle cognitlvecomPlqjtv oftdget tdks It will be imponant to a$essthe.trecrs oftast conplexiq. not ontl on compre,trension
!'sions of tdls
of ihe sequenc;in wh'ch they de P€rfoned, .ognitiv€ly more complex dd produdion,but alsoon restrucruring,
dd ultak€ofnewtjnguisti.informa
mesurs
are ludged by leaneB to be more difficult lhu simpler versions sing some 'oricing,
tion.TbeCo8nitionHpothesisI havede$ibed in this chapte.broadlypredictsthdt rhe
bui nol othe6 { interst in dd mott
Guchasratingsof overal dimculry' and stressfulness) grealercognitived€mandsof.ohpld rasksalongresource,dtedirg dinensions s.il leld
1996)
vation io comPletethe task) In addirion,two studiesto date(Holrhouse l995j tlcob' ro greaterattenlional .llo.a tion to\ and rehearealol input jn memory; greatertulcrional
*av
haveshownthat taskcondition factoF su.h !s oPd or closedsolutioN' or oneo' two difrerentialionoflanguageuse;and alsomoreexrensive
suPPort noticirg ofmishatchesbehveen
nxe.action,hav€unPre<licl.bhetrc.ts on Perceptio$ ofdifficul+ Ttrescnndings learnerou9ut and targetinpur Gre Doughty,2oo1).
rhis that
chaPter tAskcomPlcnry alone (coStitivdv de6ned) be
the position advocat€din
rhe basisof prospectilt s)llabusdesiSn md sequencing de'isions- 3. Inttutioas oJ.onpl.ritl and abilitl rdrjdbks
How perfomde on simple and cohplel raskson iiese dimensionsatrectedby dife.
ences'sbetwftn l(:me6 ir ability vsables suchas aptitude and WM capacityi the o.ty
studyto date(Ni*!, 2000)showsrbat IDs in wM, aprirude,dd inteuigen.e,incresjngly
diferentiareperfortumce especiallvfluerq of?rcduct1on asnar.ariversks increasein
the @mpldity oftheir .€asoningdenands.will this lrend be found foi complexraskson
Resear.h intotbeefiectsoflaskcomPleitvonL2leunDghasbareryb sbutitisanarea
otherprcpos€ddimensions?P&suing rhis issueMI rakest.A researchbeneathrhesudace
of grell consequence fo! the delelopmentof theoriesof instrociedSLA' and for pedasogic
ftm€rcrk ofstudiesof the global.trech of aptitlde on learring, or of rh€intcractionsof comtorents
deiisiors abo't gtadi.g an,t sequenci.stasls for ledoers l bavePrcPoseda
task comPlexitv taskdifr'ult,v md tdk ofapitude wirh difterent learnDg .ondrrions (de craafi, 1997;Robinson,1997arSkehan,
to gui.lelh$ researchwbich distinguishes beiwc€n
the bsis of decisions about gnding and 1998a),enablinginrenctio's of raskfactoB and abitity vdi.bles to be charted(RobiNon,
co;ditions.the first, I have argued, should be
Rsear'h into all three ard md in pessl Robinson& Ni$z, lo appe.riSnow 1994).I}is wiil conrributenNh to our
sequencingin prosPe.tLve task based svllabxs design
as well ar resear'l into potendal itteractions und€standingof task co.,plexity and ability variablesalik€.
their efiectson language learning is needed,
add'c$
bet$eenthed. A brief sunnurl s gntn hereof foxr issuesthis reseuchcould a. Ef..ts ol conpte,tty ard vqud.ins oi L'tohobcv a'd afect
'fte issuesraisedbri.fly in the 60!l s€crionofthis paperaie important
I Dineksiorsaf tdskc.nPkntl and in needot
I havedistingushe.lbetwe.ntho cateSories of the cognitivedenandsof lask which research. what arc rhecfiedsof sta8.dincreuesin the.ognirivecomplentyof taskson
dincnsionssuchasallowingorrvirh auronari.ity and skill dorlopment? \4tat are thr efi..ts ofsuch s€qrencingdecisionson
conrribuleto then codplexiiy,resourcedePletiDg
to moliqlion and .diery, md lea.nerperceprionsof difllculry?r havespeculared,
drawingpllnning time,and resour.edire.tingdnn€nsjonssuch's relerrnrs 'lenrs with some
in tnnc aod supportftuh eudics outsidethe areaof SLA, md fion one srudyNasing L2 task pcF
happeningnow,in a sharcdcontexl!tr$s rcferringto eveotsdhplaced
increases the formdce (Robinson, 2ool), thatsuchsequercing
sp..e liansitionsfrom simPlcto comPlexon lh€ forder dntcnsions de.isionsprovideopiimun condirbns
thc Pro"$nl8 for skill developmemdd efi.ienr schedulingof the comporents of task ldio.nance,
NthenricityofpedagogictasksbI Sr.duallyiPProxnnarinB 'onstraints
on real tihe largel iask tnrsilions lh' laller dimensionsin'reases but do not atrectlemer perceptionsof dificulry lurther SIA studiesof theseissuesa..
P$forman.e. 'n
studiesol
thc functionalde'landsoftasks{ith Possibl.lnrguisti'conseqlco'esVor'
n€eded Mdy orherisues rdain, od mustgo lntreated h€.e.EnoughissDes
the efie.rsof cich ol rhesedimcnsi.nson Deaslrcsofl"rner Produ'tionare havebeenraised
'lher <,uld a.ldr.ssPerform.nce on sinPleand conPlcx rasks on one oilhe Proposed in this p!pd, bowev.., to guide tuture r€se&.h inro rsk .onplcxitl rsearch whkh
(udving lhe efleclsoi inc'easing &ou1d.onfibure much to esrablisbingm empi.ical basnfor decjsionsabout
dimensiors,or .r'mine lhe sydeiSvberwtr then bv Sradingand
rask.o'nplexityon { nrn,bc! ofdidensbns snnlhaneousl-v, as iLlunratediD Figure5 seguenci.gtasks,as well asto our undestanding of the efects of task basedinstrlcton
Tlre sir (linl.nsn)ns I hJv. fnrr^cd in thjs PaPer should leDd lhemsclleseasilvto
 Taskconpkxny,.oenirivcr.sou(.r, andrrIabur dcr]sn

Alden, R. (1995).lnput enlurcemenr dd rde pftstation in sftond Lnguge acquintion. ln

;tff {"{i:lffff giJ##:i
:':#Tl:i":,ilt,..ii#i;yfl
tjj},"","",.
dqds'ron. Sr,ns d Spdd /a4gu!? Arlubtton .c,24\
! 5
R.Schmidt{!d.), ,4rre,to, dr, dwd6 n lwtgn I'aguagebmtngand tehkgk'p 259 1n2) d.cafiR.(lca7b' Djt?@hat deL oJ?tphdt i,Fu.hoa aa !,o1d taaguale
Honolulu lll: Univdsny dlH.eii Pres- atq,t it,aa. he
B"$€: Hotlad hrdture of C6@riye Linedsric.
Allport, D.A, Antonn, B.. & Relholds, q (1972).OD th€ divbiM of attetrtiotr:a d'spMf of the D€K€tser,R.M. (199D. aqud dplcit rule leding: auionatirng
sccondlangla8e moryhoslnLax.
singG chonel hporheri. Quartdu loutnal ofE pdimental Psy.l1ologt,24,22s2ts. StodB ia spuntl Languog?At *n_, p, ts, . O I
Ande.son, l.R. (1931). Efiech of prior loowledge oD nenory fo. d€w information. M.norl arr' R {2001).A"r"nrri.jty a.d dro,Drjztion. In p Robinson
Cogntian,9,237246.
3K€tsea iEd ), pp. t 25 I st.
Doughty,c ( r 99r) Srcondh.gnagc ins!ruclion de nake a
difieft".", *ta"i_ r.o- un
Andenon,l.R.(r 993).R!16 o/ &e nirL HiUsdale, Nl: Lawren.eE.lbaud. stodrclSr El.uhauon \tudt^ n vrond t anguag? "-ptra
A,qLr{ro? rJ,4rt bo.
lachmo, 1.. & Palner, A. (1996).Langug. tsti|a in pnrtt. d.|2lot'nq end dsqnn| uel ^LiouBhtv. (200tI Cognirs€udrrprm,c8
ot Iolb on to,m tn p Roob.on,Cd. pp.r0, _<
hngagd 141l,.Oxford: OxIo.d Univebfty Pres. D o u g h r v . ,&V.r
r .t,,F a 8 r .r o n m u r r u vpr R \ d to r h In i . D o r g ,n
n n i i r .* .,r a .,
lddovi liillig, K. (1992). A se6nd looL at t unit alalysir, rdconsid.ring lhc s.nt.n.€. IESO, Foiu,u ton:n,lrwn rtr4 {pp 4 rJ3).\ew y.rl! \y:, *Ui,ag. U.i,.^i,,
e*_.
Quondl, 26, 390 395. r^r o u 8 h t v , ., & w i l l n s I r tsa b r . p r d r 8 o 8 i .J.\o r c.!
i n r cr o r r o m l n r .L r o ,e h L r &
Bialy$ok I (1994a).Ana\ais ad contol in the daelopmc.r of s€condlanguge pre6.iencl 5r!l L wirl'.mr lEd\.,, Fa,r d,Jo,, ti.la{,otu },.arl taaguage
ar*,,,r,,,; ;r_;; *;
ie, i, Se.ondLongtogeAcqukition, 16,\57 -fta. Yort, r\IYrCmbndge Unr€diy prcs.
Biey vrond, R (1933J.Tle .ongaranve f.ll&/ in interl.ngu.g€ studi€sifie 6aof syslemtici+ .:l",nr.iran8u8rLu{r,rm8rd.ro L\f InR ur\ rd . 7dlrusror?,r4.
Langage lzorni& 33, l-17 . -n:'3:1nlTl
Mand h vand taiguage
d*lophcnt I pp.t4?_ t1t r no.t"y ne. r*1,1xoi..
Bren, M. ( 198.1).Proc$ syllabuseslor the Lngnae€dssmm. In C. Bronnl (ErL),Gztudl E4gB[ ,.
bssbd& aR (l%t LhrnS ro dtu nbe pa, expfrienre\,n
ion\rrrion. D,r!o!4e ao.. p<.
ryLhrlr ,l6tr Op.47-601. O:lord: P.rgmor.
BnndF , G. (1987).Fado( aiftcting ta* ditncufty. rn D. NuM (FA), GuiA'8"6 ht &. aevdop .'Y:1 j1.,,. pb, tured.euiribnm rn rie,turv o Dhvh.i-
fle^t aJ.nieuLutu Boufta k p ,t5 56) Adelaide Natiotul Curiculm Rsuce C{tre 19111., g,.du,r..m
r
t.{nowtBd t.Mdebtnpokobiolop,tw2| 2ar.s6.| \i,.o.' e
BroM, C. ( 19951.S?edi!r5 lEtetds anl 6nnuti.4tinn. Cnbddge Cubndg€ UniveGity Pl6 (200tJ 1""."n.
fllb, N to t{8",€s. r, i,noti..on,rd.,,pp ,r os
B.o{n, G,, & Yule,C. {r9$). &uhitg theEokm bnguage-Cmbndgc Cmb.idge Unive6iiy P6. ^4mrory
E I 6 , R {t e 3 T l ..l n te r l a n g u a g e @b,tyD n i r a ti 4 d r q n u p :.h te .n fi h g r n r l e J\e n r
Brown,C., Andeson, A., Sn @cl, R., & Yul€,G. ( 198,1).?i,.r!t { blk sbategi6fu ?ndrctin onA rase ShA^ k krond Languag.llq^tiL tsp r n
s, | 2A
6e$dett. Cdbridgq Cmb.idg€ UniveBitl Pr6- lllb, R 1t993' Th€ ,rrudmt sy ab6 dd se(ondtl
mgrag€ a.quisliol TFSOL euatt.rt,
B'd\ I.D. (r99s). Elm.kn aJ|tngige.uii.ul' - Bo*a,MA: Heinle & H€i.l€. 2:/,s1 rr3.
C.ndlin, C. { 1984).Syllabusdesig! asa &itic.l ptuc6. In c. }rmt6r lEd"), Gdenl Engn* t Wut Fll4R {fea4d).Tn"n r'yDly. ohabngug. urynhon
O{ord uyford Untre,nt pJe*.
d6A,(pp.29 a5).Oxford Pergmon.
Candlir, C. ( 1937).Tov.rds lasl bd€d lmgu?geledi!& In c candlh & D. Murphl (E&.), ta, i::::.:'y:: ?1! l4t"ng"is"i^r,,"pon.a cn"d I ntrsir pr.
'*i ne@l^ l iyy:I. jl*i1..*e,niumao,pradmsed hw,y1. ..ionau,g,,s.p*.o.
gcogel"arnirg t6k! (w. 5 22).lntdnn: Pmtice tlall Jtud'6 M iaoid LanguaS.ALrrbtid, t B Lcc. tl4 ".
CdftI, P (1937).Corre.t dd forml schenatain ESI pedagogy.TESOLQtott n, 2t, 161 4at. d.riE \pf"rei !pe!h modd..uon.onon na,i\e.pe"r
Caroll, B. (r 980).Iert,a .onrunicottue?ethttun@. o\Iotd: lery,mL "*-.: {t :^vrjJ:],,.":tjl:Tt
itua'6 tn tudd rjngwa.".dbm,nAquishon,7,31 5a.
Carden,C., Cdcin.\ H., Rosansky,E., & Schun.m, l. ( l97s). Sron l Leguag. eq"kltid n4ren .s Cib\on,1..& W.rls K (tgoa) TfleBm. UnSvrnnlr4rq,rt,4O _4.4
in .hldreL adole:.entsand aaaLt (Iin,l Eporr, Pojrt Nd ,30744). Wdhington. DC, :{alional c i v o n - 1{r a 3 5 rFm
. cr o b ,sEu ( r u em d td g r a se ..q i Fr ti o , In D \to b ,n .Ed l .I1 l tr o sti r e ,r r r ,L
Iostitute of Education. !uz/otb"8u.g' atquuttid, vol pp. tm* t02., ttL.dr e ! Lrtbrld
chaudrcn, C. (19331.Secod langtdge .lltsnam. r@ch oi t ddliag ana htning. C^bridge -
<iv6n. f. t tqSe\.Miid, ad? ud t onte. ?sab n
?.dgaaht\ H!l\d" tr \r I. I ar ren.eLr,DrJm
Cdbndg€ UniveBitl Pr6s. cophd, D. qe2l. AnatKE ?oa ..rb.o ln L. d.yd.xale p feen e
Clarke, D. (1991). Ihe negoliatd syllabu: what h il ad n it li]l.elyr. work? Applie.l bnguistiet P am€i$n rld\.r r,hdd,t --,*-*, peapatw: "i.i",.t
oa p*hobgttat:*,," ,;t. ,-,;,"
t2, 13 23. (pp.26529|). H sdr., Njj bmceErlbrum ";,;,"":,
Cronbie,W:( 1985). DiJ.o!ror,ndbnruag.|oning a ftlationalap?dA b, abad64gh.O{o.d: God€r, D. Brictra, M., & Narcr! D ( r9s2) Djtremt dimcdry
naniputations inrenct ttitrerentlv
oxlord UniRniq Pre$. qtrr b5* dph-is_evidme for ndiipt€ 6oue.
/@nal;/,.rr' ;^".r"i ,,r^;;;;:;;;;:
Cromei R ( r99l ), tdngla8€ dhd thotght i" somal a*l howlrcapped.fitldan OrI6nI Black$el. P.r.Etjon anApetoma at,146 ts7.
Ctuokes,6. (1939).ll:min8 and irterlanSuagevariatior StudiB h seond ling@ge Ac4dtioL GopnicL A , & Meltzhoff, A. (1984).Setunti. &d cqnniye os€ropne,.
D rs 2r -nonth old chl
]],3 67 -33 1 dreL Jowna!ol ChiLJr,astuK, t j,19rst3.
Croole, C, (1990). Thc un ruce.nd other basic units for s<ond lagua$ disu^e ana4si.. c^'E& x {)00t). rr@bdi.y nd hoDd trnguagrdc4Li,on
rheoB L p RooD\on\t_dI.
APPli.d Lingusti.!,1l, l 3l- 199, pp. 152 la0.
tF*

Ls ! { ,,t,".rr., } ni ti r(!,rr,1 , .t\t

' t,^,t,.l l

tast denmd chdact€'ntiG on *ork rrx.hkl, L, & Blcy,\tomdn,R (1993).(k3n'nar mJ r.Nkl)x\rJ Ddhoio|)gx tjr (; (irr)t6 &
Hancock, P, $'illiams, G & N{mning C. (r99s) Influen"
' "--,"t on Pit,l s . c a r s( E&) ,Ta {ki ,r d n Sr a g a L d r n ,r {h t!fu n l t!tt) tu r yr tu tt.r .,( m .I2 r t6 7 )ce vcd o n l
t"'-.-:" me nei,a;ant pu"a oJuntiDn P,'tbt'sr !?enl kue
"
""" CanttnPatury ksu.s,5, lI) 61-36 tlullilingual N{an€*.
wottbul:
ln P Robinsot(Ed ) pp 9l 12t L.\n h,l ll996j. Cnnnu"Mtion in the.la$ftott Orl,tri (tntrLl lliiv.r! r! pre$
Hdrinston,!{ (2001).Sentence processing
tsttnr' ottt\t l-_lstd,R.,& Ranh,L. (1997)Core.nv. feedba.krnd l.inrcr uprlte ncgorar.rotfo.njn.om
i"""i,i"., o, t.gr*, *., n uin$h., M (rest s.ond la"srcse rthffiane
Pre$ nunicativeclasrcomsSrlltri,, Ss.ordlr,(rlrx/ Arlrrrrrn. 19.ti 66
LhiYeditt of otiawa
I! o NeudaD' & A sanders(li'ls ) ll'r'll'ool 'y'r'r'4' lvlaclnrFe,PD, & GardneaR. (1991).Ldgurge inxi.rt, nr roirrn)n t lo othcrdniiene,.nd ro
tn-* t ittiO. u*l
",1p-itrman.c ( pP I 13 I as ) Nes Yor kNY 'A 'a d e d r 'f i s s procesin nativerd F.ond lanSuagcs I dr{r./t. l..xr&J& 4, 5 13 314
;an a d a .tio,,To l1.dt t k t lan
Holthouse, i. (r995) rl,idfr an d:zn.tul lary'4e len"\l.a\k tlP Untu|l1nr(i M A dn\dn {d)' Mr.k$A.(1999).lnput,ntericrionandse..ndhD8urscdrv.tonnrrtSr!.Jr.Jhs.n,rdl.,,!ri{s
AustFlia. A.4ukition,21,5575A1
Unive*ityof Qlcensland,
anxr'r)_Mo/d'i Macr,ltmel. B. (2001).Ine.odpdirnm nrnlrl r[.'frur rhr.on(.xrindrhehrai| In P RoLjn!,n
Hdrwitz,EK, Horwjt?.MB, & coPc J (19s6) rorcrsn lioSurSe'lasvooD
LanEa4eloutral,7A l2t t\2
letnnns: ol Mddlea l. (1992).Howbhuild2brby,lr .on.epn'.,lrnm(iver pqrrdlo{ln, Rgvr.,.99,58e60.1
s.t.uln,_].tioo'l lnlcntnhalatd In.rdentalst'orr'lldSu!8e vo'xbularl ' "aPPraNl
253 236' M.Nanan,T.(1996) sd.odld,glaj.p.4d,,hdr,. r,rr,L{ lon,lon:tongnid.
r.h*Ni and.donaticnv bPRob'nv'}n(Dd) PP
";boration, pe4dnm'e h Singdparedl nkkl,1. ( 1937).R.fe.€nceto p6tev.ntsrnd r.h.ns Lnrhedcv.lopmonr ot nantralse.ond
lacob, A. (1996).,4n!i?rl ,n, m otlration duing se'andldnguagebsk (quisnjon. rn C. Pi.f (rd.), rri'! Md *,rhJ ln,!u!t t.4ui;irro,
trngur8.
' ddoiU"pu blsh;d MA.di$c r t at i. nNat r onaluDN' s ir f of s in c a p o r e / R D l c s i n g a P o r c ?r,.sr$ (rp 206 2r5)
Ol_ford:Sla'lihrll' Rowts,,MA: NewburyHou*
Johnson,K ( 199;) ra,g!,S. kd.lina dnd rul Lad'& Vunbt, J.(1973).a,a,/,i.ariys ryll.i,b ,{{, ( ;.nnL.i.lser
{ Ll{o ..).1 r qr en' $r r r r r i"lr Pr ne' e* g e o n I l I e d I 'I n CrmbfdScUl Ly.^ y prc$.
' d)rF' i.rrm-r 'o lnc ' ' l f,_rvon, D (1939).Ih.imponan..dib.nrsvisihld rn lh. roleolar€nron rn dnind viewedasdn
r x.o n leor B&q len' r r ' l- d' ' P' o eedt l g 'o l t r 't h o n J ? d n r 'n \ r r n n o
an rhic hreflisen.e syltem |uot.\\ l.nn1!l DJ(igmttu Pit ADl,6,l,t, tet 238
la&unperecaih i" Idpdt t.Pp 109-126) Tolqo: IcU'
sr/dter u \avm. D. & Gopher o. ( l9m) rasl iift( ulry,rtvn(.s .nd doJ rdskp€r{ornra.ce rn R.s Nickeson
K*p:! Z ,-& s.h.i&, R._( r ee;] DstloPneDial issu6 in inrerlansuag' Pnsndics
Gn.),An.ntidndndp?tlbrnta^e.t///(tt.lr7 rl5) Hil\d.Le,Nl hwren.e lrlbrunr
S.ond LanELa!.Acqli\ition n I4S 161
s Gs & C Madden(Eds) Nemm., O (1937).3.f(fi1 .rta.iy: r [n.r1!rJ vlew ofa[ention ln It. Heuer&
Kellernan,! (l-gssj l"putand s€.od langu'ger'qukition theoiv ln ^.
Sande^
lt'\r NeFbuv ltose (Edsj, PeBp..ti'r.ranttrrpti.n nrlalri nrn'n Sfnng.r
rtpur i, second b,;uage ac,lustt'o' (PP 3a5-rs3) Rowlerl
(19;s):An rtiolQua etlf t2'439 444 N-eum.nn,O. (1996) Th.orier of cnr.n I| o Nrun,ann& A. Sa.de^ (Eds), anttbaok al
ksen:Frt.sa., D. !sl,indcxofdevcloPnent
\ t. Ar intn'it'tion ta setond tt'gutgt uqukition rtea'ch ?ercptiondnduhnn, ht 1,!!.rror(fp rNc 146).sm Diego,(:A .dri.pft$
Lesen-Fr.enan, D , & Long lI99I)
Niva, r: (2000) R.,n,r,i! /o,.,,1\ d/ / i nL\A atul L2 ndnti* produabn: ^. .f.ets aJihdjymuut
Ntr York,NY: Longman
mf"r, g. frsqil rvl"ri . t\at ma!€s ft hard or en* sone inbaldic'l iacto^ that af€t the difl.rrtu$ ni Nn,kns
"at,u\
nt,.trdt .\,1
"nttt$rn.t
Unpubhsh.dM.A dtrertation,
--..__ ".rd Adyrn'r(,.'kutr'urnvc^ilr l,rIy!r la! r
r"-'i.g.r *.,a,. r":.t t.rn,t & Nl M.cdlv Gds i. vd obutur:daniPnon'uqukiti'naut
Unr!€'sitl Pt$ \ . 'n \ . l , r r r ow n ,l r ,,r h ki \o n ,r &Yi xh tr ) k.r ,t( 1 t9 3 ) D tve ta tl h g ke a fl d l a h g u a se !.r fo tn ,,k
?.lagogl lPP 14a I 9!). Canbridec Cambrid€e
1".-.. i ltsrol rnvestigaring nucncv in !FI-: a qMtlrrtivc zPprceh Longuge ]?d 'n$ nar llitrtr,luhL,lll lrref^ir) oit{iwrtr P.e$
Nonh. RI & lrrlrl \tr\ ir989) $,ilNl)txr A prtdi.rive nodet of operarorNrrkl.rd. r,r
R?e't* q5'r92 sl; (; ll NIL\l'll,n,,l) 8..vtr, I SiL,l!{ II Slrub,R.Sutron,& L. VanBreda{Iids.),,lprrdiorr
rosan.GD.{l9ss) lbsrrd aninnN.etneor,vofauroDaiiahonPrFologi"i
10 non nanle spe cF sruri'r rr rt htntnt ptth,'nn,t m.,ltt:n j{r?u d.i(n (pp 81 89) Newyork,Ny ptcnun
i.i*, v H itrt.O ,..e"o,'. .nd tunvcslrninaladlusmenrs
t.177 1e} rrr,$, l) rleNe) I)6t!ntnt task:la, th. ..nht,htL.tire d.$oor CambridSeCanrbrdgc
S{ahd I antudleAt4u$lt'an
tr'qunnxrnrrsr lJrsc'j.hr*tr]s'
l,one.M.F (19i5) A iok Iir nrnunion in s(olrJ [n8!r8(
(lldi )"Vd'/'//'''.{ d'kl'sr\'"( !r'nr ol'v.r. R (1,191)N+arne liedba.k in.hild \slNNs .onveraiion stt.ljesin seoatl l rrauall
leachn8 ln K Hyltcn(.m & M P'encnun! "rtr(rl'
t4ill - ' e' P.iili1 t llu h r ll' r lr \1 ft1 ' n(4!nnx,n, r:,.r59 131
d.+
ri 'l ki t o.le8i, L. (1999).Plannin8and 6.us on iorm in ll 06l dis.ou.se.S,!dr.sin s..o,.l Lr,{,n(
Long.M H ( 1 9 8 9 ) .l h s t , 8 n ' u f,3 n d r $ L 8 r ) u r $ lc' r ( lr ) ' N ln i rd!r! '/ ,1.grn ,on,20, 103 l15
r h e L ir Su F l' r ch !' n tr cDt !r \''ton h18urF
P.rk. D., & B.ue.k, c (le'tg) \,lbruoad predi.tion,diagnosis md Loniinuing.halte.gesln
l. onq. N I l { . ( 1 9 9 6 ) l h . d o .l
'wr: (li'li). rtnl|"* r'rrnl /''rirds' rr4'^rr" G.k M.M'llan. D. aeevli !. sala M u Strub, R. Sunor, & L vm Bred. (Eds), .4pltadr.rr
nn.li. e IK Bhr,r
'f olhunan I'e4omanc floaeL b rlten ddign(pp.17 6.11. NervyofL \Yl plenun.
Srnllng.,(l,\ A.a{l.i( I\.s
d l"s" lrbrt''X Paulsron, C.a. (1931). Notjonal syll2buses lsisited: some .omoents. ,,rp!&l t,&rrd.
t-*g, n .ll ii**l rinus,D r{rnr i!\k hr:(il hnsriSc rc&rn)s LrhJw''r
P!r.6 n, l*J. 16.4e 6r
Inrt'. itpfur'h's ro raskbasedsvllabrsdesisnTF-sorQ/dr Pi.a, T. 11931).Me6.ds oi no.ph€me gua.linc.tion fteii efi€.t on thc nrerp.eration of se..nd
l.on8.;l tl &(,rx,[*,(r'(le']l)
l.ngu i8. dita. 5rldta ir sa.o,, LanguageA.qunition, 6, 69 7a.
 -" I orpl -, tr,og1, L-ro.f.p.drd$.,bu,o".g0
.:i

Pic." T., Kda8l', R & Falodun, l. {1993) chooling od uing.o@micarion ta*s for seond s{hmid! R tnpur, a..ulrurarion and thc a.quNDn
langnagereacbrngdd research.In G, Crook6 & S GN (!d!), Drrr d br8!49€ La'inj: _O%t. oi cabm@icanve .ompet.nre tn
intefiating theoryandlraenee @p.9-34) Cl€v.don: Mulhlinglal Matds. o,iu,o,a
i;Jo1il11,11#1,11*"on"gui",u b,guog"-qu.i,.,
1pp,:r-rz+j
Pienenann, M. (r 989) h la8lag. r{h.ble? A?pliedLingvkn3 10,s2-79. sclhrdr R l,,OOlJ Arbuon tn p RobDlon\fo pp i ,.
Plough,I., & Cds, S. (1993) lnt riocutor dd lark famnirity: .fecls on inten.tional structure. **[:
h G. Crcokes & S. Gds (Eds ), T6kt in bryug. leatting integoting that/ anll ?did
o u"'r' wr*uDs{'}.;;ren neo). Appt..d
,to'frr:* ^ortd EJ"ze InBt..
(pp. 9s-I22) Clevedon:Mdtilhgral Marea.
Shoolq D (199a). [/L2 .€ading, Siienadcal
Prabh\ N ( 1987) Sr.ord la,8!ag. lddaop. Odor.l OrdordVnivc6iit PE$. iltorna
_ *n'r ddlh"inD o
aPPtEdt angLag.! @ \ng .i: oJ Dienore'on
'nr"'(e
Ranmpoun M. (1997).ftsl ro'dinan, tsk rbnplz'it/ and hri]trion in atu|L2 ditcot\.. Unpnlr'
hd,vnLd^E.zn ( n .p.ord t_r8!Ls. trd,1_3
li.hed Ph.D ih$enanon, univenity of QE.ndad, Au5rlaha ,,-*",11;l:,.
:lflh, | 'lqq Lo,don.Arnoa
,*"",,o,.he,npfn. !x.,
tunnnpoui M (1999). Task camplqiry od wiation in hterlsguagc In N lunghm &
P Robinson(rds ), P/a8ndn.J anApeaagog, poeeding: al th. 3d Pa.$e se.ona Lanwgc
",,".."" _,, *..,i. ^p,r* r,",,
Xaedr./'rnr,fl, vol.2 (pp lrs r34).TokyorPacsLRF
Skehrn Pll993rl

'*:,iii::'"i::"""'* "'il:;":rfrJf"iffi:;;:11
A.ognnv app.oa.h ta taq,a?.
:::liJJ;'ll'
ha^
Rejd,c.8., & Nygren,T E. (1933) Ihe subj.criv. *drkload as6$em Gchnique 1 sc.ling prc@
dur tor medurilg moial workload. !n !A. Hecock & N. Mohtald lEds), Huwr nentol
;;;"."
?oruoad{pp.13s 21a) Anste.dm:ELdi..
tucbr&,1{1990) 118lang@Eetea.hingnatl, New YorL NY: cdbridge Unikliry Prs.
::'.11i?,'ff Xffi:i::::"tiT**.;ti:H:;] i:;:;#l*,.
RobDson,P (199sa) Tdsl<complenty dd s.od lmgu.ge lr.mtirc dis.ouN !d3uj€ tem'r& ',[""','!;' **-,*, ." ,"-o" ;uuis,nntpp.3-it) ",,,.-**,
.*i,ior.
".. ";.r "[ i,,.?J
sp sbuJr_c , Shntor r & Rob.J6, R (
Robinson,P.{ 1997a).Individual ditreenccs ad rhe nhdmdral simil,rity of iDlln dd qptnn l99o). Th. .fi.crs of. t6t<,i dnn.uit,
p-nMq, o! its corelanon wirh
adult se.ondldguage lemhg. Lngtdge karnfl& 17, 45-99. and t4a,ynuat D,!.4.k,. tt |roe tO//
. ,nkutg.n...
R.binson, P (2001).Task.onpl*iry taskd ncultn ad taskprodnction: erdonng inrendions in a
compone.rial Fameworlc]l?tiiea Lingustis, 22,27 57
trd*ov L 1re3 7) c umpet,nS ra+ 5 & n.k nrLondl
*'-'5'r'ihe
res o
Prind'
Robinson. P, & r-in, J l. ( 1993)cognitiyehon a 6.tuut.-turk dnd
hsheddab, Uoesity of Llawrii ar Mda Depa.unent of ESL,Honolulu, ^a*dnz?taskut||b-
US.A.
'-"i'iilli-:Hi'1'""j::r?klii:li"u:;:'TlH'
h.ffibr.ouFrn jBtrderopn";;:;;;J ::'il;*?::t;l#
iT,:::;;:;i"
44!ni hn4(pp 2J 5-\tr tow ..v MA
Robinson,P, & Njwa, Y (io appea!).Tdk conplentt, prcducrioD ud th. lMing ddmds of ^ N .4un H o6r.
5su. M I I995). T}Jc? funcLonr of ourpur I n

f tug"';lt{l ;"'iii:r'i,:li:ii "I"ii"i";ilJ:

L2 narariv*: what !ol. do im.Iigen.e, aptftude,tu*ing n.@r} dd per&ptioN of talk 5e.ondhne
difiicultv play?In P Rob'hson & P Skdne (lds.), InAividual difdena ad @d baguoge
nrhrcton Amd.rddr JohnBenjdin!
iili';'''"'"
5Mi n,M & L.p kjn, S ea5rp, nbt . mnour
s pur M dr h
lobmson,P. & Ro$, s (1996) ft. a.vciopm.ntoatisk basedte*ing in rnsLirhaorAademic
pu.poss pro8ntu ,lpttzd li,8a$fts, )7,523 549
$' ' abq'
l . Jd\'
. , .rcnd|"''dLa- h*-N**a*',
o sn {.v"to u',,o'.bi,"ri\ \o l * g .0 ".,.
d J,r Bp
R obnson, P ston g 6 wh ftlr, L&N. b. , S ( 200r )Th. dev . lopn. n r o f E A P d i s . u $ r o n a b , t y on o C .- N r ..p 1 .. t-
/La$r' "u r t,A
In J Ilowfld.w & M Pea.ock(Eds.),,r.rdkA prrg..ttrd o, E^!l^h 1., .tolznn pwpa'.s
tltl trrn.l- n, n zniairei.,,. Hnkdal.,NJ:LaEe.ce
(pp 255 27ll N.w Yo.k NY alahbfld8.IJ'!v.6rytr.$
*"i':l;i:;::|"'.,;::f
" -^,^'* ",
*"' *+'"'e sniAins
lrlbaun
Robinso..l. Ting, S. & Urwh, J {1995) INcniSrrn8 r..o.d lrnSurt. rasknnnt't.r!y nfl.(:
l?Tj!'1fi5:"'" n no,pbo,osra'd
s,n
Sachs.J (193r) TalbnS.bour rh. th.r..dd.rh.n ir,..mcrscn.. 01 drpliccd rci.r.n.. rn ut''*'' r*n bscdvaiationh interlansnag€:
thecase
'"'"?:,1;,:r"r'r';1' orarri.resr,,pas,
paent ch ddiscous. ln K NcLon(rd ), CArl.hr'r/,nt!dt. yol , (ft I lr) N.wYtrk, NY

s.nd.6,A (Lee3)!1.r..6oll!n,,,.'trnar.' Mrhwah,Nl r.awrcnc.Irlbrun

"-ili",TiT H,':ilff
:"riiil"l;T, ,H^'..::,1;H#:,:;tr:;.:;i;:
or Bn\Dde
L'""
S amoK ,& wicknr,C (r99 s ) Rol!olm ut r ipl.r 6our . . r r n pr . dr . h . g! J n . s h a r n S . i d c n . y
ryaluationofrhrc. workloadmod.b i. r Fultipk t.rk 3.nin8 Ih.Int|laronal loltnal ol ffi:, "' a;'";".'"'i"; ;:;;'; -
Aviara^Pst.hatog,Spc.tal k:uz oh PnatWatkla.d:t:D,kdpordtyx\us,5, t, t07 ttt) -Jff::"*"*'|o
'T*'|1ffiifftri:fffitri's'6r phDdisserta,ior,
unpubrished Monasn
sato,C. (r 933) ('jBN oiconplexsynh( In InkrlanguaS. dr!.t\pmcnr Studies
"h?/'nt
n S.conA Language vdnlaftpn.B.|990, Atunda8 to rorb
A.{unridn, 10,llTl :195 ad.onrenrr,!. ry'i d
salo,C (r9e0) lld J),,idxo/.onw\aton h tnkaans"oled*rlap'e,r Tubing..:Ndi . s.** - s" .t 1.,g,.)Z^."",",*,-ir-li:" '{P'menr
*';',j#:tj#:f_l;'.1?lJH,.l",?l:;:i;,".il,":;:,.t:l
i,"
s.ha.h1.rJ(Le:ra)I0ftrorf'untrrMlys\ I ang,rg.L.dtiml. 27, tos 2r4
Uw I

ois'
Wendel,l. (r997J, Ploining orn eand bagutge a@atiw produ4'bt Unpoblish'd Dclonl CHAPTER II
srtation, Tenplc Univesity, Tokyd
Whit€, I, O99s). Cetting the l.&€6 attcntior a tt?ograPhiql inPtl enhd@h'ir srudv li
t'co l bnguat' tcquitition
c. Doughiy & I Willius (!ds), Fuu oa hm i^
(pp.8s-113),NewYo.k,NY:C.mbidge Uniksitv P6
'ld@od TheTBL framework
whne, il. (ress). ft' rl-I c!'i culun: d6ig6 tun'!,wnt and id{@drior' otford: Blackrcll
wnn Ro' Thetaskcycle*
white, R, & RDbisotr, P (l99t Cuml apprcachd to 3y'l.bs d'sitn: : di*sion
\N1,1r..RELCGukdines, 17,93 r0r'
Wictm, C. (1989).Attentionandsk edFdol]@e ln D HoldDg (Ed ) t'ltdfl dgli OP Tl 105)-
New Yods Na: lohn Wilel.
laneWillis
Wickens, C. (1992). !,rudritg psyltology d^r! hudon 2ctlotd4'c, 2nd Edn- Ns York r{Y:
'Iht .I.pr€r coveaUEs.condphaF ir rherasl-ba3.dledrnirgfran.wo* _ thc
Otlord: Oxford UnircGitv Pss t.st
Widdow;o4 H,G, (197s).ftt liingta"guageB@ cy.l.. lt d.(ib$ in detail|h. three.onpo'elts of th. rackcFt., t.sk, pl.nnlng snd
^sniation Oxford Univditv Pr6'
Widdomon, l{.G. (1990) , s?e.ts oJbnguaS. Ea.tung OtIord.
cport, sd .xrmjn* rI. mL ol th. r..cier in ea.h.h .hph*iss rh. imporrnc.
Wilkins, D. (1976) Nolid&l tll.t66- Mrd: Orford Univertitv Pres-
(1990). Lotrdon:Colins,
of hritiI8 i! th. l..rninE Foc* andshowstow ft. sr.ga of th. rsk cycl. cAnbc
willis, D. Tn" /dt dl ryddru
.d.pt.d to difl.r.nt r..ching ritlations.
Yano,Y, Long, M., & Ros, S- (1994) Ine .fi€ctt of simPtif'd sd €tabodeda{ts otr loreisn
ldguage rcadlngconPr.hdsid. Llnguagetmiag 14, ra9 219
Yule, G,_&;rDmtd M. (1991))Reslving rdd€nti.l @nficts in L2 interotiot the 'frect o{
prci.i.nct ud intd.ctiE roii Iangu^geL'nin4 40 5a9-556. L lhclrll rt.tr

1...1we halt coftid.r.d v.rio$ rcsons why manl ledners Ieft schooto. coll.g. wtthour
lcaminghow to communic.r.in ihe rargdlangua8e. we €hphajsedrhalbothcj$oNur.
lo Dd ur. of th. t.r8.t l.n8ur8. arevrlilto its r(quisirron.We sawthrt ourpur,Lc.,urc
of lan8u.g., t liLly ro h.lp srimulai. inrak€,i..., a.quisition of new forrns.W. ,rw l. . . J.
th.t l..rn.rC connd.nccgrowswh.n rheyreatiserhel can do som.rhh, wtrhoutth.
rcach.rl dir.cr support. lh. rast srageis therefo.ea vital opportunty for.ll lc.h.r! to
ulc wh.t.v.r l.ngu.8crh.y canmusrer, workitrSsioultaneously, in p.irs or sh.llSroupi,
lo achi.E lh.8o.h of th. taskI...1.

r.r Th. tcacheras monitor

Ifyouarcnorusd to TBL,thehardest lhingro do atfAt isio stopt..chlntdunntih. rul
3rag.and jusi mon or You Deedto havethe $lf-control .nd cour.8c ro !l.nd b.cl .nd
l.t th. l.ad.rs get otr with rhe t.sk on their own. Rcsisrth. r.mpr. on ro go round ond
h.lp (or shorid w. sayinterfere?),fo. qdplq by corftcrinS pronunct.rton or rlll.irtn8
tEtrer paysof doing rhe bsk. Ob$fle and encoMS. from . dighr dhtuc.. lf th. mothrr
tonguecropsup in onegrcup too often,quierly Boovcr .nd ruSg.rr m tnChh r.ftj.rtng,
If one paa is hopelesly stuck,]elp fiem our,bur rh.n wtthdrrw Bdn,
T.y rot ro stand too clo* to 8rcu9s.If you do, th.y wtll t.nd lo $t y ! for wordl
they dont know' rather thu tryirS to thinl of morh.r w.y of .rprqrlng th.h m.mtn8
thensely€sW. mun ask ourrelv.c if pdidtn8 tnfo.mrrtor nol{, hllpr rhrh l!.!n il

'Ihis chipt orgindrr.pFmd i. wiulr, J.( | 916).l,/r.m.m.tht b-11 lrrttlq. rr..htnt

G?-52-6s).^Na York Lonthd. 'j,t*