Impact of Task Complexity Korean Students 2015

Promoting Task-Based Pragmatics Instruction in EFL Classroom Contexts: The Role of Task
Complexity
Author(s): YOUJIN KIM and NAOKO TAGUCHI
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 99, No. 4 (Winter 2015), pp. 656-677
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44135288
Accessed: 08-04-2019 19:22 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wiley are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal
This content downloaded from 201.131.90.36 on Mon, 08 Apr 2019 19:22:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Promoting Task-Based Pragmatics
Instruction in EFL Classroom
Contexts: The Role of Task
Complexity
YOUJIN KIM NAOKO TAGUCHI
Georgia State University Carnegie Mellon University

Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL Department of Modern Lansuases
25 Park Place , Suite 1500 BH160 CMU
Atlanta , GA 30303 Pittsburgh , PA 15232
Email: ykim39@gsu.edu Email: taguchi@andrew.cmu.edu
Robinson's (2001) Cognition Hypothesis claims that more complex tasks promote interaction
guage development. This study examined the effect of task complexity in the learning of request
expressions. Task complexity was operationalized as [+/- reasoning] following Robinson's fram
The study employed a pretest-posttest research design and was conducted over 6 weeks. Korea
high school students from 3 classes (N= 73) were assigned to one of the following groups: simp
plex, or control. Both task groups performed a pretest, 2 collaborative tasks, and 2 posttests,
the control group performed the pre- and posttests only. Learners' oral interaction during tasks
diorecorded and analyzed by the number of pragmatic-related episodes (PREs). Learners' kn
of request expressions was measured by a discourse completion test (DCT) . The results indica
task complexity levels influenced the occurrence of PREs, but no difference was found in the qu
task outcome between the simple and complex groups. In terms of learning outcomes, both tas
outperformed the control group, but no difference was found on the immediate posttest. Howev
complex group maintained its gain on the delayed posttest.
Keywords: task-based pragmatics instruction; task complexity; classroom-based research; English
eign Language (EFL)
THIS STUDY BRINGS TOGETHER TWO LINES implementation of collaborative oral and writ-
of instructed second language acquisition
ten (SLA)
tasks, researchers in this developing domain
research: task complexity and the development
of instructed pragmatics research have largely
of second language (L2) pragmatics knowledge.
focused on implicit versus explicit instructional
To date, many studies in instructed SLAteaching
have in-methods; few studies have investigated
vestigated language learning in both lab-based
the potential role of task complexity in improving
and classroom contexts. However, most of this pragmatic knowledge through task-based instruc-
research has focused on the short-term devel- tion and interaction. In order to address this gap,
opment of morphosyntax in learner interlan-the current study examines the effects of task com-
guage. Few studies have addressed pragmatics as
plexity on the occurrence of interaction-driven
the target area of learning. Despite a growing
learning opportunities and the learning of prag-
matic knowledge.
As pragmatics and task complexity research
The Modern Language Journal, 99, 4, (2015) both examine interactions of form, function, and
DOI: 10.1111 /modi. 1 2273 context, it is a natural extension to see whether
0026-7902/ 1 5/656-677 $1 .50/0 task complexity could also inform the study of
©2015 The Modern Language Journal pragmatics development. Pragmatics involves two
Youjin Kim and Naoko Taguchi 657
interdependent knowledge
attention to form bases:
and attentionpragmalingu
to meaning dur-
tics and sociopragmatics (Leech,
ing task performance 1983;
(Skehan, Thom
1998; Skehan &
Foster, 1999,to
1983). The former refers 2001).
theIn contrast, Robinson's (2001,
linguistic for
that are available for2003, 2005) Cognition Hypothesis
performing predicts that fu
a language
tion, while the latter learners
refers are able
totoaaccess multiple and user's
language noncom- u
petitional pools
derstanding of the context of attention.
in which According
those to Robin-
ling
tic forms are utilized.son, there
These is no trade-off
twobetween attention to ac-
knowledge b
are connected in language learning:
curacy and attention to complexity L2 learn
of language
must know linguisticproduction;
forms, increasing
and taskat
complexity
the may same pro- t
they must also understand
mote more accurate the and layers
more complex of language
cont
(Robinson, 2007,
tual information. Hence, the 2010).
linguistic aspect
While Skehan
pragmatics is an extension of doesprevious
not make specifictask-ba
claims
research focusing on aboutgrammar and in
the role of task complexity vocabula
task-based
learner-learner interaction, Robinson
and the addition of sociopragmatics in hypothe-
this st
sizes that increasing the
presents a unique opportunity tocomplexity
test of collabo- co
task
rative tasks wouldthe
plexity effects in promoting promote more interactional
combined kno
edge of linguistic and features such as negotiation
social variables. for meaning and cor-
In this study we focusrective feedback,
on which in turn can lead tocompe
pragmatic lan-
tence by studying the guage development (cf.
learning of Robinson,
request-mak2001, 2007,
expressions. We define 2011, for more details on thecompetenc
pragmatic Cognition Hy-
as the knowledge of pothesis). Because the current study forms
pragmalinguistic was con- t
are associated with ducted
a set in task-based, learner-learner interaction
of contextual param
contexts, we examined This
eters (i.e., sociopragmatics). the effect ofknowledge
task com-
operationalized as the plexity based on thisto
ability claim understand
of the Cognition si
ational characteristics Hypothesis.(power, distance, and
gree of imposition) and In terms ofto identifying
producetask complexity inpragmali
guistic forms and semantic his Triadic Componential
moves Framework,thatRobin- corresp
to the situation. In terms son (2001, 2007)of makesidentifying
a distinction between learni
we assumed that learners' resource-dispersinguse and resource-directing
of correct task pragm
linguistic forms reflects characteristics.their
Resource-dispersing variables
understanding
sociopragmatic variables. place performative
Thus, demands
inon this
learners andstudy, pr
matic knowledge is approximate real-life conditions. Increasing task
operationalized as learne
correct use of request-making complexity along resource-dispersing dimen-
expressions i
given situation. sions taps into learners' existing knowledge and
may increase access and control over their L2
TASK COMPLEXITY AND THE COGNITION knowledge. For example, task complexity along
HYPOTHESIS resource-dispersing dimensions can be increased
by requiring learners to perform more than one
Cognitive-interactionist theories of SLA task claim
simultaneously [- single task].
that task characteristics can affect SLA processes, On the other hand, increasing task complex-
as well as the quality and quantity of L2ity along resource-directing dimensions directs
produc-
tion during task performance (Robinson, learners'
2011). attentional and memory resources
Research on task complexity has received to promote
a greatthe noticing of linguistic features
deal of attention as an important task (Robinson, design 2001, 2007). Noticing of the L2
characteristic, and both Skehan's (1998) Limited system increases the rate of interlanguage de-
Capacity Hypothesis and Robinson's (2001) Cog- velopment in meaning-oriented domains and
nition Hypothesis are guiding theoretical frame- encourages learners to use more complex lan-
works that have mostly informed this line of work. guage structures. According to Robinson (2007),
The Limited Capacity Hypothesis states that learn- increasing task complexity along resource-
ers' attentional resources are limited and that directing dimensions should promote processing
more cognitively demanding tasks require and use of task-induced linguistic structures. Task
learn-
ers' attentional resources. As a result of such complexity along resource-directing dimensions
attention being devoted to a difficult task, canless
be increased
at- by requiring learners to use rea-
tention is available for learners to focus on lin- soning skills [+ reasoning demands], to consider
guistic codes (Skehan, 1998). Moreover, it manyhas elements [- few elements] simultaneously,
also been argued that a trade-off exists between and/or to narrate events that are displaced in
658 The Modern Language Journal 99 (2015)
time and space [- here and now].
tional Robinson
features by requiring the same group of
claims that more complex tasks facilitate
students learners
to perform three different tasks types
(a narrative reconstruction
to activate task-specific linguistic structures task, an in
instruction-
order to functionally achieve givingtask goals.
map task, In sum, task) un-
and a decision-making
increasing the complexity of resource-directing
der both simple and complex conditions. The in-
variables is theorized to promote interlanguage
teractional features examined in that study were
development, particularly for those
clarification that
requests, are task
confirmation checks, com-
specific. prehension checks, recasts and LREs, and repairs.
To date, an increasing number of empirical Their results indicated that more complex ver-
studies have focused on the effects of task com- sions of tasks tended to result in more interac-
plexity in interaction-driven language learningtional moves and opportunities for negotiation
opportunities and subsequent language develop-for meaning. However, this relationship was me-
ment (e.g., Baralt, 2013; Kim, 2012). Given thatdiated by task type. For example, although the
the current study examines interaction-driven lan-complex version of the narrative reconstruction
guage learning in classroom contexts, our litera-task resulted in significantly more clarification re-
ture review focuses on only those studies that werequests, LREs, and repairs, there were significantly
conducted during collaborative task performancefewer confirmation checks. As for the map task,
in classroom settings. While some studies exam-the complex version led to significantly more con-
ined the effects of task complexity on features offirmation and comprehension checks, but there
task-based, learner-learner interaction (e.g., Gi-were no significant differences on the frequency
labert & Barón, 2013; Gilabert, Barón, & Lianes,of recasts. The decision-making task only showed
2009; Kim, 2009; Révész, 2011), others investi- a significant task complexity effect on the num-
gated the effects of task complexity on learningber of repairs. Gilabert et al. therefore concluded
outcomes, as a result of carrying out tasks with dif-that not all interactional features are influenced
ferent complexity levels (e.g., Baralt, 2013; Kim,by task complexity in the same way. Révész (201 1)
2012; Kim 8c Tracy-Ventura, 2011; Nuevo, 2006; also examined interaction-driven learning oppor-
Nuevo, Adams, & Ross-Feldman, 2011). tunities, this time with learners from an intact
The first group of studies, which tested the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom
relationship between task complexity and inter-who carried out argumentative tasks with differ-
action, operationalized interactional features orent complexity levels. Révész found that the more
learning opportunities during task performancecomplex task led to a greater amount of LREs dur-
as the occurrence of different feedback types suching learner-learner interaction. However, she did
as recasts (i.e., reformulation of learners' erro- not find an effect for the amount of different types
neous production) and language-related episodes of corrective feedback features, thereby partially
(LREs; any part of learners' discussion on lan- supporting the Cognition Hypothesis.
guage production, questions regarding their own In terms of the relationship between task com-
or interlocutor's language use, or correction of plexity, interactional features, and L2 develop-
themselves or others, e.g., Swain 8c Lapkin, 1998). ment, Nuevo (2006) explored the role of [+/-
To date, previous studies generally found that car- reasoning demands] on L2 learning opportuni-
rying out more cognitively demanding tasks leads ties and development, focusing on English past
to more interaction-driven learning opportunities tense and locative prepositions. She analyzed nine
in classroom contexts, especially when learning different interactional features such as recasts,
opportunities were operationalized as LREs. How- clarification requests, and confirmation checks.
ever, learner factors and task type tended to medi- Nuevo found that different task complexity con-
ate the effects of task complexity on interactional ditions promoted different sources of learning
features. For instance, Kim (2009) found that opportunities, a finding that has since been sup-
more proficient learners produced more LREs ported by similar work by Gilabert et al. (2009)
during the complex version of a picture narration and Révész (2011). In terms of L2 development,
task than the simple version; the opposite pattern Nuevo 's results showed no association between
was found for less proficient learners. Although task complexity and L2 learning.
task complexity did not appear to significantly me- Unlike Nuevo (2006), Kim's (2012) results
diate resolution of LREs, a slightly higher percent- supported Robinson's hypothesis by observing a
age of LREs were correctly resolved during the greater number of LREs during complex tasks,
more complex tasks. which in turn facilitated Korean English as a
Gilabert et al. (2009) examined the effects of foreign language (EFL) learners' development
task complexity on the occurrence of interac- of English questions. Similarly, Baralt (2014)
analyzed learner-learner interaction

(p. 50). In pragmatics, and sub
however, task complexity
may best be operationalized
quent learning in classroom contexts:as a combination
Studen
in a Spanish Foreign
of bothlanguage
cognitive and social (FL)
demands. classro
This is
produced more LREs during
because the
pragmatics reflects complex
a wide range of ele- tas
which required the use
ments: forms, of the
functions, Spanish
contexts, conventions of pa
subjunctive. These findings,
practice, and community however,
norms of interaction. were
replicated in the online environment
To our knowledge, Taguchi (2007) is the where
only s
dents interacted with
studyeach other
that has examined in task
pragmatic synchron
demands
computer-mediated that reflect sociocultural variables such as inter-
chat.
locutor relationships and setting. She investigated
TASK COMPLEXITY AND THE the effects of task difficulty on L2 English learn-
DEVELOPMENT OF PRAGMATIC ers' production of requests and refusals. In order
KNOWLEDGE to develop situations of differing task demands,
she incorporated social and interpersonal factors.
While a number of studies have examined the In one situation type, interlocutors' power rela-
relationship among task complexity, interaction,
tionship was equal, their social distance was small,
and language development, they have largely andfo-the degree of imposition was small. In the
cused on areas of morphosyntax. The only excep-other situation type, the interlocutors had differ-
ent power relationships, and the social distance
tion is Gilabert and Baron's (2013) study, which
and the degree of imposition were large. Learn-
investigated the extent to which task complexity
impacts learners' use of pragmatic moves (e.g.,ers' requests and refusals produced in these two
requests and suggestions). Thirty-six EFL learn-
situation types were analyzed for appropriateness,
ers completed a simple and a complex version planning
of time, and speech rate. Results showed
collaborative problem-solving as well as decision-
that learners' speech acts in the first situation type
received higher appropriateness scores, shorter
making tasks. The results indicated that learners
produced a higher number of pragmatic moves planning time, and faster speech rate, indicating
while performing the complex tasks. However, a clear effect of sociocultural task demands (dif-
fering degrees of power and imposition) on the
there was no significant effect of task complexity
on the variety of the pragmatic moves produced production of the request speech act.
(e.g., different request and suggestion-making Although
ex- both Taguchi (2007) and Gilabert
and Barón (2013) uncovered the effects of in-
pressions) . The authors claim that more complex
tasks encouraged learners to discuss more creasing
rea- task demands on L2 pragmatics, neither
sons and possible solutions, which led to the study
use addressed how an increase in task complex-
of more pragmatic moves. However, the demands ity affects the development of pragmatics knowl-
of the complex tasks may not have necessarily edge over time as a result of instruction. While
pushed learners to use a wider range of moves. Gilabert and Barón found that carrying out cogni-
tively complex tasks encouraged learners to pro-
It is possible that learners relied on a few moves
that were familiar to them. Gilabert and Barón duce more pragmatic moves (e.g., requests and
(2013) suggest that task complexity alone may suggestions),
not it is unclear whether the increased
be sufficient to push learners to use a wider useva-
of the moves leads to better learning and re-
riety of moves, including newer moves. Instead,tention of those moves. It is also not clear whether
carrying out tasks with different complexity lev-

they state, the provision of pedagogical interven-
tion prior to task performance might encourage els draws learners' attention to sociopragmatic
factors or how their attention guides their deci-
learners to use unfamiliar and more diverse prag-
matic moves. sion on what pragmalinguistic forms to use. As
A related important question is which task has been shown in previous work at the intersec-
complexity variables would most effectively tion of task complexity and L2 learning (Baralt,
draw learners' attention to pragmatics-related 2013; Kim, 2012; Nuevo, 2006), the relationship
information (i.e., sociopragmatics and pragma- among task complexity, task performance qual-
linguistics). Although they studied pragmaticity, and the development of pragmatic knowledge
development, Gilabert and Barón (2013) opera- in classroom contexts requires further study. Re-
search of this kind would extend the environment
tionalized task complexity with purely cognitive
for testing Robinson's Cognition Hypothesis to
criteria: "coordinated use of multiple cognitive
processes such as comparing, classifying, in- language use in social contexts, with the expecta-
duction, deduction, error analysis, constructing
tion of insights into task complexity that are spe-
support, abstracting or analyzing perspectives"cific to pragmatic knowledge.
Also, such research would expand
language learning,the theoreti-
a variety of linguistic targets
cal scope of the research literature and tasks shouldin the area
be examined. of
Pragmatics has
L2 pragmatics instruction. been The last few
a particularly decades
underinvestigated area of task-
have seen a steep increasebased in research.
instructional
Following Robinson's in- claim that
tervention studies that compared the develop
task-specific features effective-
when they increase
ness of different teachinginmethods task complexity, in improving
pragmatic tasks need to incor-
L2 pragmatic knowledge in porateboth laboratory
pragmatics-specific features,andnamely form-
classroom settings. Although several
function-context studies
mappings. on require
Tasks that
pragmatics acquisition exist, learnersmanyto attend to use an forms
pragmatic ex- and contex-
plicit versus implicit methods comparison
tual features andrelationship,
(e.g., interlocutor are de-
guided by Schmidt's (2001) greenoticing hypothesis
of imposition) associated with those forms
(Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Takahashi, 2010;
are necessary, for
and a review,
task performance and learn-
see Taguchi, 2011, 2015). Recently, ing outcomes need the to befield
assessed hason these asso-
also seen growth in the adaptation ciations. of cognitive
models (e.g., input processing Although and skillofacquisi-
the majority previous task com-
tion) and socially oriented paradigms
plexity (e.g.,in col-
studies were conducted intact classes,
laborative dialogues and sociocultural they did not confirm theory;
whether andfor how target
a review, see Taguchi, 2015). structures fit within
The the curricula of thoseHy-
Cognition courses.
pothesis, then, may provideToaincrease stillthe wider
ecologicallens
validityto en-
of instructed
hance our understanding of SLA research,
pragmaticsresearch studies need to be con-
teaching
and learning. ducted targeting structures that are introduced in
In terms of measuring pragmatics learners' regular school teaching
curricula. This also con-
and learning, the extension firms their of task-based
developmental readiness forin-learning
struction and complexity the may structures.
enhance existing
methods in the field of pragmatics. Finally, previous Pragmatics
studies that focused on
research traditionally utilizes a variety
learner-learner interactionof tasks
during -
collaborative
production, recognition, tasks and
have not consciousness-
reported the quality of their task
raising tasks - in teaching pragmatics
performance (Taguchi,
and task outcomes. From a process
2015). Those tasks include a structured writ- and product oriented task-based research per-
ten task, such as a discourse completion task spective (Ortega, 2005), it is important to analyze
(DCT; Alcón-Soler, 2007), a role play task instudents' task outcomes in order to examine
which learners act out a scenario featuring thethe quality of task performance and ensure that
target speech act (Félix-Brasdefer, 2008), peer-to-
tasks with different conditions were performed as
peer metapragmatic discussion (Takimoto, 2012), intended.
and metapragmatic analysis and judgment tasks

(Li, 2012).
These tasks provide learners with platforms in
THE PRESENT STUDY
which they may attend to, process, and prac-
tice target pragmatic forms through recycled use, The current study examines the extent to which
which may be considered a precursor to acqui-task complexity impacts interaction-driven learn-
sition. However, L2 pragmatics research has de-ing opportunities for pragmalinguistic forms and
fined tasks in ways that might be too general sociopragmatic factors targeting request-making
(i.e., any instructional materials) to be consid-during collaborative written tasks as well as the
ered as tasks in the domain of task-based lan-
quality of outcomes in terms of using the target
guage teaching (cf. Ellis, 2003). As a result, forms.
there Furthermore, it examines the effects of
has been little systematic investigation intotaskdif-
complexity on the development of request-
ferent task demands as variables that could po- expressions. It is guided by the following
making
tentially affect pragmatic learning outcomes. To questions:
research
that end, Robinson's task complexity taxonomy,
together with pragmatics-specific properties RQ1as. How does task complexity impact Korean
previously described, serves as a useful frame- EFL learners' production of interaction-
driven learning opportunities and the
work for operationalizing task features and de-
quality of task outcomes in terms of using
signing different task types in the teaching of the speech act of request?
pragmatics. RQ2. How does task complexity impact the
To summarize, in order to understand the learning of request-making expressions by
role of task complexity in interaction-driven Korean EFL learners?
METHODOLOGY power, small distance, and with a low level of im-
position (e.g., asking a friend for a pen). PDR-
Participants
high requests were chosen as a target structure
Participants were recruited among second-year because they appeared in the participants' cur-
junior high school students using convenience riculum and also in their English textbook under
sampling. Participants included 73 Korean female the section titled "speak out" (Lee et al., 2010,
junior high school students from three intact p. 135).
classes in South Korea. Participants' average age A pilot study was conducted to confirm differ-
was 13.71, ranging from 13 to 14. All had com- ences between PDR-high and PDR-low request
pleted about 5 years of formal English education, situations that were used in designing tasks and
and their current mandatory English subject cur- written Discourse Completion Tests (DCT). The
ricula included 3 hours of English instruction by a participants in the pilot study were 34 students at
Korean English teacher and 1 hour by a native En- the same grade level and at the same school as the
glish speaker teacher weekly. Their required En- study participants. We administered a survey in
glish textbook, which is organized by various top- Korean including a total of 14 PDR-high and -low
ics, targets all four language skills. However, read- request scenarios, which had been adapted from a
ing skills, listening skills, and new expressions are previous study (Taguchi, 2012). Participants were
often the main goals of lessons (Lee et al., 2010). asked to indicate the degree of psychological ease
Participants' English proficiency was measured or difficulty in performing the request on a Lik-
using the Test of English for International Com- ert scale from 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult) . They were
munication (TOEIC) Bridge. Based on their also asked to indicate the degree of plausibility of
TOEIC Bridge scores, the participants' general each situation on a scale from 1 (not plausible)
proficiency level is between high beginner and to 5 (plausible). Finally, an open question section
high intermediate (M= 134.33, SD= 15.03, Min in the survey asked students to provide examples
= 98, Max = 172). Each intact class was assigned of PDR-high and PDR-low requests that they had
to one of the following groups based on the level experienced in their everyday school lives.
of complexity of task: complex (n = 24), simple The pilot results revealed that PDR-high situ-
(n = 25), or control (n = 24). With regard to ations received a mean difficulty rating of 2.64
participants' English proficiency, the ANOVA test (SD = 1.24) on a 5-point scale, while the mean of
results revealed that the scores of TOEIC Bridge PDR-low situations was 1 .78 (SD = 1 .06) . A paired-
were not significantly different among the three sample i-test confirmed a significant difference
groups at the time of data collection (complex between these two situation types, t = -9.00 (p <
.001), Cohen's d = .75, which indicates that PDR-
group: M= 132.00, SD= 14.11; simple group: M
= 131.76, SD= 16.76; control group: M= 139.33, high requests were perceived as more difficult to
SD = 13.29, iļ2,70] = 2.04, p = .14) . perform psychologically than PDR-low requests.
From the 14 situations included in the survey, we
chose the PDR-high situations that received a rat-
ing of 2.5 or higher, and PDR-low situations that
Target Pragmalinguistic Forms
received a rating of 1 .5 or lower for task scenarios
This study examined the effect of task complex- and DCT scenarios. We also confirmed plausibil-
ity on the development of pragmatic knowledge, ity of these items using the survey in order to en-
defined as the knowledge of appropriate prag- sure that each teaching situation represents real
malinguistic forms associated with situational pa- life in Korea. Finally, we analyzed participants' re-
rameters. To examine this knowledge, we targeted sponses to the open-ended question and adapted
the speech act of request. Brown and Levinson's their descriptions when writing scenarios. See Ap-
(1987) three contextual variables were used to pendix A for the sample scenarios included in
operationalize the target request situation: power instructional tasks. Although PDR-high requests
(P), distance (D), and degree of imposition (R). were the instructional target, we introduced them
The target request was operationalized as a re- with PDR-low requests in order to highlight the
quest that has higher levels of imposition and is contrast.
made to someone in a greater power and distance Our focus was to improve students' un-
relationship (PDR-high). An example of this type derstanding of sociopragmatic factors and
of request would be for a student to ask a profes- pragmalinguistic forms (i.e., pragmalinguistic
sor for an extension on an assignment. This PDR- features) of request-making expressions. So-
high request contrasts with its PDR-low counter- ciopragmatic factors in this study referred to
part, which is a request made to someone of equal situational parameters involved in PDR-high
TABLE 1
Target Pragmalinguistic Forms
Form Example
Head Act
Mitigated preparatory Reference to the hearer's ability, will and possibility or reference to the
speaker's want or wish in an embedded question or sentence (biclausal
structures). Forms taught: I'm wondering if + clause, Is there any way + clause
e.g., I'm wondering if I could take the test at some other time. Is there any way
that I could take the test at some other time?
Modifications, External
Preparators Semantic moves used to prepare the hearer for the request
e.g., Do you have time? May I ask you something?
Grounders Reason or explanation used to support the request
e.g., I have a doctor's appointment this Friday, and I have to miss a class.
Modifications, Internal
Hedges Single words and phrases that minimize self-expression. Hedges taught: maybe
and possibly
e.g., I'm wondering if I could possibly take the test at some other time.
Amplifiers Single words that strengthen self-expression. Amplifiers taught: really and very
e.g., I really need to see a doctor that day.
request situations (i.e., high power, large social requests. Mitigated preparatory (i.e., I'm wonder-
distance, and high levels of imposition). In these ing if + clause; Is there any way + clause) ap-
PDR-high situations, two categories of pragma- peared 73% of the time as a head act in PDR-high
linguistic forms were targeted in the task-based requests. However, this form only appeared in
instruction: request head act and modifications, 4% of the PDR-low requests, which suggests that
as shown in Table 1. A request head act is the mitigated preparatory is a characteristic of PDR-
core unit that conveys the illocutionary force of high requests. Grounders and preparators were
request (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989). common supportive moves, appearing 98% and
For this head act category, we focused on mitigated 13% of the time, respectively, while they were ab-
preparatory structures , which involve syntactic forms sent in PDR-low situations. Hedges and amplifiers
that make reference to the hearer's ability or will were also common, appearing at the rate of 52%,
in a biclausal structure (e.g., I was wondering if while they never appeared in PDR-low requests.
+ verb; Takahashi, 1996). In the category of Based on these findings, along with previous stud-
request modifications, on the other hand, two ies that revealed L2 English learners' difficulty in
types of modification were targeted: external learning request expressions (e.g., Taguchi, 2012;
and internal. An external modification involves Takahashi, 2001), these forms were selected as
semantic moves that occur externally to the head instructional targets.
act and mitigate its force (Blum-Kulka et al.,
1989). These involve a preparator (a group of Simple and Complex Tasks for Instruction
semantic moves that prepare a hearer for an
upcoming request) and a grounder (a group of All data were collected during participants' reg-
semantic moves that provide an explanation or ular English class sessions. Both simple and com-
reason for the request). An internal modification plex groups carried out two collaborative writing
involves lexical and phrasal forms that occur tasks entitled 'drama script construction task' over
within the head act and mitigate the force of two consecutive days (totaling 90 minutes of in-
the request (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). These struction time). Situated within the participants'
involve hedges that soften the tone of speech (e.g., regular course and using their required textbook,
'possibly') and amplifiers that can strengthen the target structure was supposed to be taught
one's self-expression (e.g., 'very'). during one class session (Lee et al., 2010). How-
We selected these pragmalinguistic forms based ever, considering that the participants do not of-
on baseline data collected from native speakers ten carry out similar collaborative writing tasks in
of English (Taguchi, 2012). For that study, 24 class, two class sessions were devoted to task-based
students in a U.S. university completed a DCT, instruction on target request expressions. Pre-
which included two PDR-high and two PDR-low vious task-based SLA studies have implemented
various guided pretask

group was planning techniques
not given any specific descriptions of
the scenarios or the characters in order to in-
support learners' interaction-driven langu
learning during task performance.
tentionally elicit reasoning processes One amongof
par- t
effective guided pretask
ticipants (seeplanning
Appendix A) . Because technique
information
to provide information about theabout
interlocutortargetrelationship and structur
size of re-
(Mochizuki & Ortega, quest was left .
2008) out, participants
Thus, in in the complex
this stu
participants were provided group had to with engage in reasoning
a handout processes in or-
inclu
ing explicit explanation der to offiguretarget
out what was pragmatic
being requested, as well for
in two dialogues, one as to featuring
determine sociopragmatic parameters and
a PDR-high
quest and the other construct featuring request forms athat
PDR-low
were most appropri-requ
as part of guided pretask ate given theplanning
situation type (PDR-high
(e.g., or -low).
Lapk
Swain, 8c Smith, 2002; We anticipated
Leeser, that, because
2004; of the ambiguity &
Swain of L
kin, 2001). This part theof situation,
guided the complex task condition
pretask would
plann
lasted 5 minutes; pragmalinguistic generate more cognitive reasoning forms processes
and
ciopragmatic variables (e.g., comparing,
were analyzing introduced perspectives), and in in ea
dialogue. turn promote a greater amount of interaction
After receiving the direct metapragmatic infor- and negotiation around the context. This would
mation, the simple and complex task groups pro- inherently elicit more discussion on socioprag-
ceeded to the drama script construction task. In matic information as well as pragmalinguistic
terms of task outcome, both groups were asked forms associated with the context.
to complete a drama script (i.e., creating a dia- All materials were pilot tested with three
logue involving a request) based on the pictures. Korean junior high school students and the
This task was considered authentic and relevant to participants' regular English teacher. Any am-
participant needs and interests because TV dra- biguous pictures and directions were modified.
mas are very popular among the target popula- Additionally, pilot participants were asked to
tion, and all scenarios in the tasks were directly share their perceptions of task difficulty with the
related to school life in Korea. two [+/- complex] versions of the task. Partici-
Task complexity was operationalized as [+/- pants confirmed that the complex version of the
reasoning demands] based on Robinson's (2011) tasks pushed them to consider the relationships
task complexity framework. For the simple tasks between the characters in the pictures/scenarios
[- reasoning demands], participants were pro- and appropriate types of request-making
vided with detailed scenario descriptions expressions.
and
matching pictures. Each picture included di- To ensure participants' understanding of what
alogue bubbles in which participants inserted was expected for task performance, they viewed a
request-making forms. Because the relationship 2-minute video clip in a pretask modeling session
between the main characters (e.g., school prin- that demonstrated collaborative learner- learner
cipal, student representative) and the specific interaction (Kim, 2013). Following this pretask
events (e.g., requesting new computers for a modeling,
lab) participants in the simple and com-
were clearly described in the scenario, partici- plex groups completed the tasks, which were au-
pants did not need to engage in reasoning pro- diorecorded. The entire treatment session (pre-
cesses to figure out what was being requested task planning and task interaction) took about
as well as the relationships between characters 45 minutes. The same procedures were repeated
(e.g., power difference, social distance), or the on the second instruction day with different sce-
nature of the request (high or low imposition; narios (two PDR-high and -low scenarios). Dur-
see Appendix A). Given that the situation type ing these instructional sessions, the control group
(PDR-high or PDR-low request) was immediately received regular English instruction.
accessible to the participants, they were presum-
ably able to arrive at the target request-making Assessment of Learning Outcome: Discourse
forms that matched the situation without de-
Completion Test (DCT)
pending on reasoning processes. In other words,
A written DCT instrument was used to measure
they did not have to discuss contextual features
learning
(power, distance, imposition) extensively and jus- outcomes of target request-making ex-
tify their choice of pragmalinguistic formspressions.
in or- A DCT was judged to be appropriate
der to complete the simple task. because this study focused on participants' prag-
The complex group [+ reasoning demands] matic knowledge, namely their understanding of
contextual
was provided with the same picture; however, this factors (sociopragmatic knowledge)
and their knowledge of request
Data Analysis expressions
Procedures that
would be appropriate in the context (pragmalin-
The purpose of the study was twofold: (a) to ex-
guistic knowledge) rather than their performance
amine
(i.e., ability to perform pragmatic how task acts
complexity
in affects the occurrence
authen-
tic interaction). Participants' choice and use ofknowl-
of learning opportunities for developing
edge of thein
certain pragmalinguistic forms speech act of naturally
DCTs request and the qual-
reflect their understanding ity of participants' task performance, and (b) to
of sociopragmatic
factors, because contextual investigate the effects of task
parameters complexity on the
(inter-
learning of request-making
locutors' power relationship and social distance, expressions in situa-
tion in EFL classroom contexts.
degree of imposition) guide their choice of prag-
To answer the
malinguistic forms. Data elicited first researchDCTs
through question, the in-
is considered to reflect learners' knowledge complex
teraction data in the simple and of task
groups were transcribed,
normative use of pragmalinguistic forms and se- coded, and analyzed
mantic strategies in speechforactspragmatic-related episodes (PREs). Follow-
(Félix- Brasdefer,
2010). In this study, the DCTing Swain
wasand Lapkin's
also (1998) definition of
considered
LREs, PREs were defined
to conform to the principle of transfer appropriate as any discussions on,
questions about, or corrections
processing , which means that transfer of a skill from of pragmatic-
a treatment task to a novel task typically occurs were
related language production. PREs if further
coded for pragmatic
the cognitive operations involved in thetargets:
novel sociopragmatic
task fac-
tors (contexts: discussing
resemble those in the treatment task (DeKeyser, the relationship and
distancein
2007) . The treatment task used between
thisthe characters
study was and athe degree
of imposition of
drama script construction task, which shared the the target request) and pragma-
same modality of writing withlinguisticthe
formsDCT,
(preparator, grounder, head acts,
in which
participants were asked to hedges,
write and amplifiers) .
pragmalinguistic
forms based on a hypothetical Example 1 shows a PRE targeting a request
situation.
There were 15 items in the DCT: four PDR- head act (pragmalinguistic form). In this exam-
ple, two participants are constructing a dialogue
high requests, four PDR-low requests, and seven
for the scenario in which a student asks his teacher
filler items involving nontarget speech acts (e.g.,
thanking, compliment response). We selectedtotar-
cancel assignments because of the upcoming
midterm.
get request situations that were most successful in In this example, the participants discuss
how to formulate an appropriate request head act
the pilot study and that were also different from
those that appeared in the treatment tasks. (IEach
am wondering if . . . ).
DCT item had a situation written in Korean in or-
EXAMPLE 1:
der to ensure students' understanding of the sit-
uation. Participants were asked to follow the first
PRE Targeting a Request Head Act
turn or prompt provided in English and to write
the speech act in English. In order to minimize 1 Participant 1: ^ļ-§-ūļ-^
a potential practice effect, three versions of the
DCT were prepared by making minor modifica- 'We need to make a polite
request.'
tions in wording and used as the pretest, immedi-
2 Participant 2: I'm wondering -8* āti*}.
ate posttest, and delayed posttest. Different filler
'Let's use I'm wondering .'
items were included in each version. Appendix B 3 Participant 1: nsfl . ('OK') I was wondering . . .
contains sample DCT items. 4 Participant 2: I'm wondering . . .
5 Participant 1 : I was wondering . . .
Instructional and Assessment Procedure 6 Participant 2: I am.
7 Participant 1: I was ĪL
'We need to use I was'
The study was conducted over 6 weeks (see
Figure 1). Participants took the pretest, and two 8 Participant 2: I was wondering. If ... I could . . .
task groups performed a practice task to become 9 Participant 1: you could ... If you could . . .
cancel the homework.
familiar with recording devices. On Day 7 and
Day 9, the simple and complex groups performed
tasks with a different complexity level. All par- A second rater independently coded 20% of
ticipants took the immediate posttest and the task performance data for the PREs; 94% agree-
TOEFIC Bridge on Days 10 and 14, respectively. ment was obtained. Any disagreements were then
Four weeks after the immediate posttest, the par- discussed until the two raters agreed on a final
ticipants took the delayed posttest. coding. Once the PREs were coded for targets,
FIGURE 1
Summary of the Instructional and Assessment Procedures
Session | | Simple | | Complex | | Control

Session Pretest (DCT 1) Pretest (DCT 1 ) Pretest
1 Practice task Practice task (DCT 1)
(Day 1)
Session Task Performance (35 Task Performance (35 Reading activity

2 min; 1 high-PDR andl min; 1 high-PDR andl
(Day 7) low-PDR) low-PDR)
• Explicit information (5 • Explicit information (5
min) min)
• Task modeling video • Task modeling video
(2 min) (2 min)
• Drama Script • Drama Script
Construction Task Construction Task
(audiorecorded) (audiorecorded)
Session
3 2 (35 min; 2 high-PDR 2 (35 min; 2 high-PDR
(Day 9) and 1 low-PDR) and 1 low-PDR)
• Explicit information (5 • Explicit information (5
min) min)
• Task modeling video • Task modeling video
(2 min) (2 min)
• Drama Script • Drama Script
Construction Task Construction Task
Session Immediate posttest Immediate posttest Immediate posttest

4 (DCT 2) (DCT 2) (DCT 2)
(Day 10) Background questionnaire Backgro
I I f
Session TOEIC Bridge TOEIC Bridge TOEIC Bridge
5
(Day 14)
Sessio
6 (DCT 3) (DCT 3) (DCT 3)
(Day 38)
students' written outcomes of the task perfor- ences in head act scores and in the frequency of
mance were coded. We first assigned scores on the request modifications. We focused on the head
request head acts for each scenario. Two points act score and the frequency of the modifications
were given if the head act contained one of the to address the inherent differences in the nature
target forms (i.e., I'm wondering if + clause or Is of the head acts and modifications. For example,
there any way + clause) and was grammatically ac- although a head act occurs only once in a single
curate. One point was given if the head act took speech act, modifications typically co-occur over
the target form but was ungrammatical. No points multiple times, which renders the analysis of fre-
were given for a nontarget form or a missing re- quency more relevant. In addition, the request
sponse. head act, which was taught in this study, contained
In addition to the head act, the frequency ofspecific linguistic structures (two biclausal struc-
request modifications was also examined. The oc-tures) . As the instruction focused on the accuracy
currences of preparators, grounders, hedges, andof the target biclausal forms, we evaluated the par-
amplifiers were counted. Because the data did ticipants' performance both on their use of the
not confirm normal distribution, nonparametricinstructed forms and accuracy of those forms.
tests, the Mann-Whitney U tests were run to ex- The second research question addressed the
amine whether or not there were group differ-effect of task complexity on learning outcomes.
TABLE 2
The Frequency of PREs
Simple Group/ Complex Group/

No Reasoning (n = 25) Reasoning ( n = 24)
PRE Targets
Context 4.76 2.96 7.42 2.81

Head act 2.96 1.31 3.75 0.85
Preparators 2.52 0.87 3.58 1.21
Grounders 2.72 1.24 3.33 1.13
Hedges 1.52 1.30 1.58 0.97
Amplifiers 1.84 1.11 1.50 1.06
Note. Head act refers to the mitigated-pre
The DCT data, morewhich PREs targetingmeasured le

contextual features, head
comes, were analyzed following
acts, and preparators th
than the simple group
lytical procedure as p the
(z = 3.04, < .001, d task perfo
= .92; z = 3.01, p < .001,
(i.e., head act score
d = .71; zand
= 2.48, p=modification
.01, d = 1.01, respectively).
Based on the four PDR-high
Based on Plonsky requ
and Oswald's (2014) analysis
the DCT, scores offor
L2 research, the
these effect sizes are considered
request hea
0-8) and frequency
large. However,counts of
there were no significant differ-the r
ifications were ences
compared
between the two groups onwithinthe number of an
simple task, complex
PREs that focused ontask, and
grounders, amplifiers, and con
The normality ofhedges all
(z = .91, pdata
= 37; z = .96, distributio
p = .34; z = .37,
using the Shapiro-Wilk
p= .71, respectively). Normality t
the data did not Infollow
addition to the numbernormal
of PREs, we also distr
Kruskal-Wallis test
analyzed was used
task performance based on to examin
the partic-
ferences. When there was
ipants' drama scripts a produced
that were significan
dur-
ference, the Mann-Whitney
ing tasks. Previous LRE studies that used U
collab- test
pairwise comparisons. In the
orative oral tasks reported addition,
extent to which w
analysis was conducted by (e.g.,
learners resolved LREs correctly usingKim & th
signed ranks test.
McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004); however, be-
Both authors coded all DCT data and discussed cause the current study implemented collabora-
any disagreement until they reached 100% agree- tive writing tasks, analyzing the resolution of PREs
ment on scoring and frequency count of the head based on interaction data would not have been
act and modifications. The alpha level was set valid.
at Thus, the written task outcome data were
.05 for all statistical tests.
used to understand the extent to which partici-
pants resolved PREs correctly. First, we scored re-
quest head acts in three scenarios over two task
RESULTS
sessions using the rubric described in the previous
section (on a scale of 0-2, for a total of 6 points) .
Effects of Task Complexity on the Occurrence of PREs
The results of the Mann-Whitney U test showed
and Task Performance
that there was no difference between the complex
(M= 5.25, SD - 1.19) and the simple (M= 5.28,
The first research question investigated
whether carrying out cognitively more de-groups on their request head acts scores
SD = .85)
(z= -.421, />=.672).
manding tasks leads to increased learning
In addition to scoring of request head acts,
opportunities for request-making expressions.
we analyzed
We operationalized a learning opportunity as request modifications in partici-
a PRE. Table 2 shows the frequency ofpants'
targetwritten task output. We coded differ-
ent request
PRE forms focusing on contextual factors for modifications and counted the fre-
sociopragmatics, request head acts and quency
requestof each request modification. Table 3
showstwo
modifications for pragmalinguistics during the frequency of request modifications
produced
task sessions with three PDR-high scenarios. Thein two groups' written task outcome
during two task sessions (three drama script
results of the Mann-Whitney U tests revealed
scenarios).
that the complex group produced significantly
TABLE 3
Frequency of Request Modifications on Task Output
Simple Group/ Complex Group/

No Reasoning (n = 25) Reasoning (n = 24)
PRE Targets M SD M SD
Preparators 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00

Grounders 2.92 0.28 2.75 0.85
Hedges 2.04 1.17 2.08 1.14
Amplifiers 1.92 1.04 2.33 1.79
TABLE 4
Descriptive Statistics for Request Head Act Scores
Group Test Mean SD Min Max
Complex (n = 24) Pretest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Immediate posttest 4.75 3.37 0.00 8.00
Delayed posttest 2.04 3.12 0.00 8.00
Simple (n= 25) Pretest 0.04 0.20 0.00 1.00
Control (n = 24) Pretest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Note. Each student produced four PDR-high requests. Each head act
0-8. The delayed posttest was given 1 month later.
Overall, the two groupsThe showed

pretest data a similar
showed that only 1 out of 292
head acts (73The
amount of request modifications. participants
resultsx 4 items
ofon DCT) con-
the Mann-Whitney U test tained revealed
the targetthat there
expression (mitigated prepara-
were no differences betweentory).
the The rest of the
simple head com-
and acts typically took a
plex groups on the frequency form of ofability inquiry (e.g., Can you + verb) or
preparators,
permission question
grounders, hedges, and amplifiers (z =(e.g.,
.00, MaypI +=verb), indi-
1.00; z = .81, p = .42; z = cating
.04,that p the= knowledge
.97; z of =the.44,
target mitigated
p= .69, respectively). preparatory forms was almost completely absent
To summarize, the complex among group produced
the participants before the instruction.
significantly more PREs that Thetargeted
Kruskal-Wallis contexts,
test revealed no significant
group the
preparators, and head acts than difference
simpleat the group.
pretest (x2 = 1.92, p =
However, no significant group .38), but difference
a difference was found was at the immedi-
found in the outcome of task ate performance
posttest (x2 = 41.65, pin < .001,
the rf = .58) and
area of request headacts or again at the delayed posttest (x2 = 12.93, p= .002,
modifications.
r f = .17). Based on the Mann-Whitney U test,
both simple and complex groups outperformed
Effects of Task Complexity on Learning of
the control group at the immediate posttest (z =
Request-Making Expressions
60.00, p < .001, d = 1.99 for the complex group
and z = 24.00,
Analysis of Request Head Acts. The p <second
.001, d = 3.59
re-for the simple
search question examined thegroup) , but there
effect ofwastask
no significant
com- difference be-
tween the simple and complex
plexity on the learning of request-making expres-group (z = 215.50,
p = .071 ) by
sions. This learning was studied . In contrast, at delayed posttest,
analyzing the the com-
plex group
production of the target head act outperformed the simple group (z =
and modifica-
219.50,/?=
tions on the written DCT. Table .033, d= 0.58).descrip-
4 displays Furthermore, the com-
tive statistics of the head act scores. plex group outperformed the control group (z =
180.00, p < .001, d = 1.42), but the simple group
As shown in Table 4, the three groups demon-
did not (z = 264.00, p = .083).
strated no prior knowledge of target head acts.
TABLE 5
Descriptive Statistics for the Frequency of Preparators

Simple (n= 25) Pretest 0.28 0.61 0.00 2.00
Control ( n = 24) Pretest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Note. Mean = mean frequency of preparators in four PDR-high request
A long-term effect of thethat the participants

reasoning used preparators in more
condition
in the complex group was also than twosupported
out of the four by the
PDR-high situations after
within-group analyses. The the instruction. While
complex group the mean
wasfrequency in
the only group that maintained the simple thegroupgain
dropped atslightly
the at the delayed
delayed posttest. The Wilcoxon posttest, the complex
signed ranks grouptest
further increased
revealed a significant difference their usebetween
of this strategythe at the
pre-delayed posttest.
and immediate posttest (z However, = -3.87, preparators
p < .001, almostd never
= appeared in
1.99) and between the pre- the and control group's data
delayed over time. The Kruskal-
posttest
(z = -2.69, p = .01 1 , d = .93) . The
Wallis simple
tests revealed group,
a significant group difference
on the other hand, showed ata the immediate
gain from posttest
the(x2 = 35.29, p < .001,
pre-
to immediate posttest (z = Y]2 = .49) and
-4.31, p the delayed d
< .001, posttest
= (x2 = 30.58,
3.55) only. However, 1 month p < .001,
laterT]2 =their
.42). Theperfor-
effect sizes for both of
mance went back to the pretest those level,
tests are considered
as theirlarge. per- Mann-Whitney
formance of the delayed posttest did not
U tests for pairwise differ
comparisons showed that both
significantly from that of treatment the pretest groups significantly
(z = -1.60, outperformed the
p = .109) . This ran counter to Control
thegroup at both immediate
complex group, and delayed
whose development of headposttests. However, no significant
acts sustained at the differences
delayed posttest. were detected between the two treatment condi-
To sum up, there was a strong tions in either

effect posttest: z = 0.54, p = .59 at the
of task-
based instruction on the learning immediate posttest and z = 0.89, p = .34 at the
of appropri-
ate request head act forms,delayed as found
posttest. in the two
task groups' superior performance As shown in atTable 6, grounders appeared
immediate
posttest over the control group. frequently at the pretest
Although theacross
ef- three groups,
fect was similar between the two task conditions indicating that the participants were already fa-
immediately after the classroom instruction, itmiliar
was with this supportive move prior to the in-
found to be enduring for the complex group, struction. Because of this ceiling effect, there was
whose members retained their lead over the con- no instructional effect. The Kruskal-Wallis test
supported this, revealing no significant group dif-

trol group at the delayed posttest and maintained
their knowledge of the target pragmatic forms ference in any of the test sessions: x2 = 2.17, p =
one month after the instruction. .34 at the pretest; x 2 = 3.50, p = . 1 7 at the immedi-
ate posttest; and x2 = 1-29, p = .52 at the delayed
Analysis of Request Modifications. Tables 5
posttest.
through 8 present descriptive statistics of the
Analyses of internal modifications in the forms
frequency counts of request modifications that
of hedges and amplifiers were also conducted.
appeared in the DCT. As shown in Table 5, Hedges were almost completely absent in the par-
preparators were almost absent at the time of the
ticipants' pretest data across all three groups, as
pretest, but they increased in use in the two treat-
shown in Table 7, but they showed a large in-
ment groups immediately after the task-based
crease in both treatment groups after instruction.
instruction. The average frequency of 2.54 and
A Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant group
2.76 for the complex and simple group meansdifference at the immediate posttest, x2 = 22.39,
TABLE 6
Descriptive Statistics for the Frequency of Grounders
Complex (n= 24) Pretest 3.58 0.65 2.00 4.00

Simple (n= 25) Pretest 3.36 0.81 1.00 4.00
Note. Mean = mean frequency of grounders in four PDR-high request
TABLE 7
Descriptive Statistics for the Frequency of Hedges

Complex (w = 24) Pretest 0.04 0.20 0.00 1.00
Simple (n = 25) Pretest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Note. Mean = mean frequency of hedges in four PDR-high request item
TABLE 8
Descriptive Statistics for the Frequency of Amplifiers

Simple (n = 25) Pretest 0.16 0.47 0.00 2.00
Note. Mean = mean frequency of amplifiers in four PDR-high request item
were compared,
p < .001, rf- = .31. Both task groups there was no signi
outperformed
ence at posttest
the control group at the immediate the immediate
(z = posttest (z
3.91 yp< .001, <¿=1.21 for the or at the delayed
complex group andposttest (z = .60,
z = 4.81, p < .001, d= 1.58 for Unlike hedges,
the simple amplifiers appear
group).
Based on Plonsky and Oswaldfrequently at the
(2014), these pretest, particular
effect
trol group's
sizes are considered large. However, data, although there w
the instruc-
tional advantage did not last cant group
long, as no difference,
group x2 = 5.12
difference was found at the Table
delayed8).posttest:
Also contrasting
x2 with t
hedges, no advantage
= 0.43, p= .81. When the two treatment groups of the instruct
and preparators.
found on the use of amplifiers, as there This supports
was no Robinson's
sig- (2001,
nificant group difference at 2007)
theclaims on the benefits of post
immediate carrying out
(X2 = 1.04, p = .60) or at the delayed
complex postattention
tasks for participants' (x2 = to task-
.02, p =.99). induced target linguistic forms and expands the
In sum, a frequency comparison
findings of previous of studies exter-
targeting morphosyn-
nal (preparators and grounders)
tax (e.g., Baralt,and2013; Kim,internal
2012) to instructed
(hedges and amplifiers) modifications
pragmatics. To illustrate the benefitacross of complex
tasks, we present
groups resulted in mixed findings. Atsample theinteraction
pretest, data from
no group difference was found in inany
two participants ofgroup.
the complex these These two
modifications. At the immediate posttest,
participants had a picture of two both
main characters
task groups outperformed the control
(one person was an oldergroup on per-
male and another
the production of preparators son was aand hedges
young male) without any but
descriptions
not on the use of grounders about the and
setting, andamplifiers.
they were asked to create
One month after instruction, this
a drama instructional
script involving a speech act of request.
advantage remained only inPrior theto linecase of 2,prepara-
1 in Example Participant 1 and Par-
tors. Most notably, the two treatment
ticipant groups
2 had discussed contextual factors for the
(complex and simple) did not targetdiffer in had
script (e.g., they the pro-
to reason in order to
duction of any of these four modification
determine the roles of each character ele- and a loca-
ments. These findings for external and internal
tion of the conversation). They then decided that
modifications contrast starkly with
one person would those of and
be a teacher re- the other per-
quest head acts. For the latter, the be
son would complex group
a student. Example 2 displays these
excelled at retaining the knowledge
participants' of target
interaction whilehead
creating a drama
act forms (mitigated preparatory)
script basedcompared
on their contextual with decisions.
their simple group counterpart.
EXAMPLE 2:
DISCUSSION Learner- Learner Interaction by a Pair in the

Complex Group
The purpose of the current study was to inves-
tigate the effects of task complexity during col-
laborative task performance on the learning of 1:
1 Participant
the speech act of request in a Korean EFL class-
room context. The main findings of the study 'They are talking to each
indicate that, based on participants' written task other in an individual
outcomes, task complexity did not significantly study room.'
affect the quality of task performance 2observed.
Participant 2: &7' ^ ^ g.$ o] o>
More specifically, both the scores of head act pro-
The teacher's face does not
duction and the frequency of request modifica-
look happy. It looks like
tions during task performance suggest that re-
he is scolding the
gardless of the task condition, participants were student.'
able to produce request-making expressions cor-
3 Participant 1: ^^ļ-JL, Ô1
rectly in almost all scenarios, specifically for head tí) . . AU -g- ®
acts and external modifications (preparators and
grounders). Participants' successful task perfor- 'The person [student] who
mance in both conditions suggests that both is making a request is a
male. The teacher is
simple and complex task conditions were appro-
priate for participants' current linguistic and cog- receiving a request.'
(several turns later)
nitive levels. However, it is important to note that
4 Participant 2: iE- 31 ^ šļ-*l?
their successful task performances in both condi-
'What is he requesting?'
tions were followed by the guided planning time
5 Participant 1: ^ Ô1 ^ -êr ìi^I
with explicit information of request-making ex- V'- ^"^1 i
pressions. 'Since the teacher is
With respect to the occurrence of interaction- holding a book, should
driven learning opportunities, complex tasks we say that the student is
[+ reasoning demands] promoted more produc- asking for the answers to
tion of PREs that targeted contexts, head acts, the problem sets?'
6 Participant 2: . quest). Because participants in this group had
'OK.' to create their own scenarios, they used more
7 Participant 1: 5Li=L^- -g-^1 ^3} reasoning skills to determine specific contextual
JL ^ ô. t information (e.g., analyzing the relationship and
'Yeah, he is asking socialfor
distance between the characters, taking
the answers to the
characters' perspectives and intentions). Accord-
unfamiliar problem
sets.' ingly, they produced significantly more PREs tar-
8 Participant 2: oļ oļ . n^7ļļ Š' 31 geting the context than the simple group did
«H. (e.g., discussing whether the drama script that
'Ok, that sounds good.' they were creating requires big requests; see lines
9 Participant 1: tfl ^ °1 7} . . . ^ -*<§ tl • • • 10 and 19).
^ ūļ- Based on the task outcome data, the partici-
*1. pants in the simple group were also able to use
'Daehyun . . . Teacher appropriate request forms when creating a script
. . . what should we
involving a PDR-high request. However, because
say first?'
the specific information regarding the scenario
10 Participant 2: Ô1 7] . . . °1 *1 ?
'This . . . what is this?' was directly given to the simple group (i.e., the
relationship and social distance between the char-
1 1 big request vļ v'. ^ ^šļ-
Ą *11 ô> acters; content of request), there was less nego-
'Since it is a big request, tiation of contextual cues related to using the
[he] has to be polite.' appropriate speech act of request in the simple
12 Participant 1 : 3kö'. group, as suggested by the interaction data. Ex-
'That's right.' ample 3 shows two participants' interaction in the
13 Participant 2: Hello, Mr. Park. I'm simple group. They were working on a drama
here to talk about my script for a scenario in which a student representa-
math problem.
tive requests new computers from the school prin-
(several turns later)
cipal. Shown in lines 1-5, Participant 1 was read-
14 Participant 2: 31 °]Ą Mr. Park°ļ
"Sure, what is it?" ing the scenario out loud and then immediately
realized that a big request is appropriate for the
'Then Mr. Park can say given setting based on the information directly
"Sure, what is it?" Is given in the scenario (line 5).
that right?'
15 Participant 1: 51 £^5}- ūļ-^ļ EXAMPLE 3:
&ô>?
'Shouldn't he say that Learner- Learner Interaction by a Pair in the Sim-
he needs help?' ple Group
16 Participant 2: Can I help you?
17 Participant 1 : ŤErtf] ö'v}
Can H 7} S
1 Participant 1: ^ ^ -Br ^ <4 ir ^2- Í
'But we talked about
"can . . ." is not polite 'Jeongyeon is a student
enough before.' representative of Youngshin
18 Participant 2: ü1 middle school.'
A? 2 «Mll-ol -2-^
'Then would you mind
giving me an answer?'
(using honorific 'Many students ha
expressions in complained that
Korean) computers in the
19 Participant 1: I was wondering if I . . . old.'
M-e-ļ
As shown in Example 2, the participants in 'Jeongyeon went to see the

the complex group were involved in more dis- school principal in his office.'
cussion on contextual cues, which are associ- 4 iflVH Afl
5atr*l
ated with sociopragmatic features (e.g., interlocu-
tors' role relationships, setting, imposition of re-
PREs targeting contextual factors, request head
'Jeyongyeon is asking
whether the school can act forms, and preparators produced in the com-
replace the old computers plex task compared with the simple task. These
with new ones.' [reading findings echoed previous classroom-based task
the scenario out loud]
complexity studies, which have revealed larger
5 «MļSl-JL
numbers of LREs or pragmatic moves by com-
ôN*h Big
request-i- plex groupsô1:
than their simple
sfl counterparts
. (e.g.,
'Since this is a conversation Gilabert & Barón, 2013; Gilabert et al., 2009; Kim,
between the student 2012; Révész, 2011).
representative and the The second research question examined the
effects of task complexity on learners' develop-
school principal, we need
to use a big request.'
ment of PDR-high requests. The results showed
6 ifl 7ļ- ^r^-14 . . .
that task complexity, operationalized as the de-
^^]7}
gree of reasoning involved around contextual fea-
'At first, this student . . .
tures and pragmatic forms, influenced the par-
Jeonyeon'
ticipants' knowledge of the target requests. More
7 Participant 2: Ô1 § ^ ô]= sfl .
specifically, although there were no differences in
'This is how you're supposed
to write [her name].' the participants' knowledge of request head acts
8 Participant 1: fr ^1 oļ -g- sĄ o) sļ uļ 77} between the simple and complex task conditions
'We need to write a immediately after the instruction (measured by
preparator.' the DCT), only the complex group maintained
Hello Mr. Kang, do you have their learning 4 weeks after the instruction and
time? May I ask you outperformed both the simple group and control
something? group.
9 Participant 2: Ok.
In the complex task condition, task scenar-
10 Participant 1:
ios were manipulated to increase the ambiguity
'That's the preparator.'
1 1 Participant 2: Hello, Mr. Kang. of request-making situations by withholding con-
textual information. We left out information
12 Participant 1: -g-, Mr. Kang.
'Yeah' about speaker relationships, social distance, and
13 Participant 2: Do you have . . . Do you havedegree of imposition so that participants had to
time? May I ask something? make linguistic inferences regarding these so-
14 Participant 1: You something . . . nsļ ^ cial factors and justify their reasoning behind
Mr. Kang°ļ . . . ^ ^ pragmalinguistic forms to be used in the situa-
tion. It seems that the greater amount of inter-
'Then Mr. Kang would give
action and negotiation occurring in this reason-
permission, right?'
ing process (as supported by the more frequent
15 Participant 2:
'Yes.' instances of PREs in the complex condition) pro-
moted greater attention to and processing of
form- function- context mappings, which essen-
As shown in Example 3, the simple group partici- tially led to the retention of the mappings. Imme-
pants were able to identify whether the given sce- diately after instruction, the simple task condition
narios require a PDR-high or a PDR-low request. was as, if not more, facilitative for learning com-
The simple group participants were also able to pared to the complex task condition. This might
produce similar amounts of request modifications be accounted for by the guided pretask planning
on their written task output compared to the com- prior to task performance and both groups' suc-
plex group. As a result, the current study showed cessful task outcome. However, the simple task
similar quality of task outcome regardless of task condition failed to produce robust learning at
complexity, especially when tasks were provided the delayed posttest. This may be due to the pre-
with guided pretask planning. sumed shallow level of processing involved in this
With regard to the effects of task complexity on condition during task performance. Because the
the amount of interaction-driven PREs, the results participants in this group received explicit contex-
of the current study supports the Cognition Hy- tual information, they did not have to interact or
pothesis. We found that more complex tasks pro- negotiate extensively in order to resolve contex-
moted a greater amount of attention to request tual factors and determine appropriate pragma-
expressions during interaction. This increased at- linguistic forms while performing the tasks. As a
tention can be seen in the greater number of result, there was no need for the participants in
the simple conditionfor to deeply

producing process
modifications, which essentially re- pragma
features. Although this sulted inlevel
delimited retention
of of these forms at de-
processing and
derstanding was enough for
layed posttest. Thisthem
interpretation to retrieve
is supported by t
get pragmatic features the analysis
right of taskafter
performance. the The mean fre-
instruct
it was probably not enough quency of PREs to generated for the headthe
sustain act was learn
knowledge in memory larger4than that for the
weeks four modifications
later at the ex- delay
posttest. amined in this study, both for the complex and
In addition to extending task complexity re- simple task groups.
search to pragmatic instruction and learning, the Another possible explanation for the differ-
present findings add to literature on the long- ent instructional effect between the head act and
term effects of task complexity on learning by modifications is LI transfer. Because the Korean
using delayed posttests (e.g., Baralt, 2014; Kim, language reflects the cultural relevance of inter-
2012). Kim (2012), for example, found that more social relationships through honorifics, we ex-
students who carried out complex versions of pect the participants of the current study to un-
tasks tended to maintain the learning of English derstand readily the differences between PDR-
questions both immediately and two weeks af- high and PDR-low situations. Because some of
ter the instruction compared to those who per- the request modifications also exist in Korean, re-
formed the simple version of tasks. Lending sup- gardless of the treatment condition, participants
port to these findings, the present study revealed were able to produce them even before instruc-
lasting effects of higher level reasoning skills, tion (e.g., grounders) or were able to learn and
induced by complex tasks, in learning request- retain them easily at the delayed posttest (e.g.,
making expressions. preparators) . Hence, it is possible that the dif-
The present study also contributes to the lit- ferences between the simple and complex condi-
erature of pragmatics teaching by expanding its tions manifested more strongly in the pragmalin-
theoretical scope. Adding to the existing frame- guistic forms, which are language specific. A clear
works such as explicit versus implicit teaching, example of this is the request head act because
input processing instruction, and the skill acqui- such biclausal structures do not exist in Korean
sition model (e.g., Taguchi, 2011, 2015; Taka- and were new materials for the learners.
hashi, 2010), the concept of task complexity

and the Cognition Hypothesis could serve as CONCLUSION
a viable theoretical model for pragmatics in-
struction to promote L2 development of prag- Based on the findings of the current study
matic knowledge. Task complexity could be oper- we can suggest implications for theory, researc
ationalized by incorporating pragmatics-specific methodology, and pedagogy from both task com
features (e.g., associations of form, context, and plexity and pragmatics research perspectives.
function) in a way that different task demands First, despite the increasing number of classroom
produce different effects on participants' task based studies on the Cognition Hypothesis, th
performance and subsequent learning of prag- learning of pragmatics has received little atten
matic rules, for both immediate and long-term tion. The current study provides additional sup
learning. port for the Cognition Hypothesis by targeting t
It is worth mentioning that although the advan- interaction-driven learning of requests in Kore
tage of the complex task condition was notable in EFL contexts, particularly with adolescent learn
this study, the benefit was found to be limited to ers. Furthermore, the current study suggests th
the request head act, because there was no dif- the effects of task complexity on language devel
ference on the production of request modifica- opment may not appear immediately after tas
tions between the complex and simple task groups performance. However, task complexity might im
at immediate or delayed posttest. One possible pact long-term learning to a greater degree.
explanation for these contrasting findings is re- In terms of research methods, the current stud
lated to the extent to which the pragmatic tar- is noteworthy in that it examined learners' ta
get features are essential in completing tasks. The performance and learning outcomes from bot
head act is obligatory in the speech act of request process and product perspectives. This is parti
as a core unit that conveys illocutionary force of ularly meaningful for pragmatics instruction
request, but modifications are optional. Partici- previous studies have not documented the pro
pants can opt out for modifications and still con- cess of learning during instruction (as shown
vey their illocutionary intent. It is possible that this the degree of interaction and negotiation aroun
optionality led to fewer during-task opportunities target features), nor have they made connectio
between the process and of learning outcomes.

pragmalinguistics, but it neglects sequential
and discourseoutcomes
In order to interpret learning aspects of speechre-acts. In order
sults meaningfully, it is to broaden the construct
important of pragmatic com-
to investi-
gate how learners performed petence,thefuture researchand
tasks, could how
investigate task
learner- learner interaction during
effects the
on discursive tasks or
pragmatics was
pragmatics-in-
conducted in terms of generating interaction by going beyond
learning isolated pragmalin-
oppor-
tunities. guistic forms and analyzing features of interac-
The current study also provides pedagogical tional competence when accomplishing a prag-
implications for teaching pragmatics knowledge matic act. Turn-taking, joint meaning construc-
(association between pragmalinguistic forms and tion, fluency, and use of communication strate-
contextual factors) in classroom contexts. As com- gies are some of the performance-based, interac-
municative language teaching is increasingly im- tional features that could inform learners' abil-
plemented in EFL contexts, collaborative tasks ity to accomplish a speech act in interaction, and
have received more attention. This study suggests these features can be profitably promoted by task-
that pragmalinguistic forms can be taught us- based instruction.
ing collaborative tasks, which facilitate learner- In the present study, we demonstrated the
learner interaction. Furthermore, promoting rea- benefits of task-based instruction on the learning
soning skills, which push learners to analyze and of request speech acts. Furthermore, the findings
compare language use in context, was found to be suggest a positive role of cognitively demanding
beneficial for long-term retention of pragmatics tasks in learning request modifications. A num-
knowledge. ber of factors affect the process of classroom
When considering the implications of the cur- interaction. It was our intention to investigate
rent study, its limitations must also be acknowl- how reasoning processes among other task
edged. First, the study used only one task type, complexity factors impact interaction-driven
a drama script completion task, which was a learning of request-making expressions. In dy-
collaborative writing task. Previous studies (e.g., namic classroom contexts, it is impossible to
Gilabert et al., 2009; Kim, 2009) have shown that isolate any single factor and claim its indepen-
task type plays a mediating role in the relation- dent effect on learning. It is our hope that
ship between task complexity and interaction- future studies examining various levels of task
driven language learning. Thus future studies complexity and targeting different aspects of
should explore various task types. Furthermore, pragmatics will continue to contribute to our
we did not address individual differences in the understanding of the effects of task complexity
current study, which is a part of Robinson'sinTri- language learning in diverse instructional
adic Component (2011). In order to expandcontexts. our Furthermore, since an important goal
understanding of task complexity effects based of on
task complexity research is to inform task
Robinson's hypothesis, it is necessary to examine sequencing decisions, studies conducted at the
possible interaction effects among the three curricular
com- level are warranted.
ponents: task complexity, task difficulty, and task

condition.
In addition, because the present study was lim-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ited to a single, narrowly defined pragmatic target
(i.e., knowledge of request-making expressions),
future studies should examine the task effects on We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers an
Heidi Byrnes, who provided invaluable comments. Sp
a wider range of pragmatic targets. Different cial
ef- thanks go to Laura Gurzynski-Weiss, Luke Plon-
fects of task complexity on the request headsky,
act and Jack Hardy for their insightful suggestions dur
and modifications found in this study suggest ing
thatthe revision process. Any remaining errors are our
the structure of target pragmatic forms mediates
own.
task effects. Future research that explores the in-

teraction among task type, pragmatic targets, and
learning outcomes could help us understand why
some tasks affect learnability differently across
REFERENCES
pragmatic features.
Finally the choice to use DCT inevitably re-
Alcón-Soler, E. (2007) Fostering EFL learners' aware-
stricts the scope of speech act production to be ness of requesting through explicit and implicit
examined. DCT typically elicits learners' knowl- consciousness-raising tasks. In Maria del Pilar
edge and understanding of normative patterns Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal
language learning (pp.

Kim, Y., 8c221-241).
Tracy- Ventura, N. (2011). Clevedon,
Task complex- UK:
Multilingual Matters. ity, language anxiety and the development of past
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of (Ed.),
tense. In P. Robinson cognitive
Task complexity: Re- complex
on feedback efficacy during online
searching the Cognition Hypothesis of versus
language learn- face-to-
face interactive tasks. ing and performance (pp.
Studies in 287-306).
Second Philadelphia/ Language
Acquisition , 35, 689-725. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity
Lapkin, and
S., Swain, M., 8c Smith, M. (2002). Reformula-task seque
ing in traditional versus tion and
online
the learning of classes.
French pronominal verbs
In M. Bar-
alt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson in a Canadian French immersion context.
(Eds.), Task Modern sequenc-
ing and instructed second Language Journal, 86, 485-507.

language learning (pp. 95-
122). London: Bloomsbury. Lee, I., Kim, S., Yoon, S., Nam, C., Park, S., Hong, Y., 8c
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Orr, T.& Kasper,
(2010). Middle school EnglishG. (1989).2. Seoul: Chon- Cro
cultural pragmatics: Requests JaeGyoYuk. and apologies. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Harlow, UK
Brown, R, & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some uni- Longman.
versais in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus
University Press. on form during collaborative dialogue. Language
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. Teaching Research, 8, 55-81.
VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second Li, S. (2012) . The effect of input-based practice on prag-
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94-113). matic development in L2 Chinese. Language Learn-
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ing, 62, 403-438.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Mochizuki, N., 8c Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing commu-
Oxford: Oxford University Press. nication and grammar in beginning-level foreign
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Pedagogical intervention language classrooms: A study of guided planning
and the development of pragmatic competence in and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12,
learning Spanish as a foreign language. Issues in 11-37.
Applied Linguistics, 16, 49-84. Nuevo, A. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods learning opportunities and development. (Unpub-
in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and lished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown Univer-
verbal reports. In A. Martínez-Flor 8c E. Usó-Juan sity, Washington, DC.
(Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empiri- Nuevo, A., Adams, R., & Ross- Feldman, L. (2011).
cal, and methodological issues (pp. 41-56). Philadel- Task complexity, modified output, and L2 devel-
phia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. opment. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language
Gilabert, R., 8c Barón, J. (2013). The impact of increas- task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis
ing task complexity on L2 pragmatic moves. In K of language learning and performance (pp. 1 75-202) .
McDonough 8c A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
interaction in diverse contexts (pp. 45-70). Philadel- Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-
phia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. driven attention to form during pre-task plan-
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., 8c Lianes, À. (2009). Manipulat- ning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task perfor-
ing cognitive complexity across task types and its mance in a second language (pp. 77-109). Philadel-
impact on learners' interaction during oral perfor- phia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
mance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Plonsky, L., 8c Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is 'big'?
Language Teaching, 47, 367-395. Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language
Jeon, E.-H., 8c Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruc- Learning, 64, 878-912.
tion on interlanguage pragmatic development. In Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2
J. Norris 8c L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research constructions, and individual differences: A
on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal,
Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 95, 162-181.
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on Robinson, P. (2001 ) . Task complexity, task difficulty, and
learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254-268. task production: Exploring interactions in a com-
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities ponential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-
and Korean EFL learners' question development. 57.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627-658. Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task de-
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pre-task modelling on atten- sign, and adult task-based language learning. Sec-
tion to form and question development. TESOL ond Language Studies, 21, 45-105.
Quarterly, 47, 8-35. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task se-
Kim, Y., 8c McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of inter- quencing: Studies in a componential framework
locutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue for second language task design. International Re-
between Korean as a second language learners. view of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43,
Language Teaching Research, 12, 211-234. 1-32.
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying
Takimoto, and
M. (2012). Metapragmatic se-in in-
discussion
quencing pedagogic tasks. Interlanguage
M. P.pragmatics.
García Mayo
Journal of Pragmatics, 44,
1240-1253.
(Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings
(pp. 7-26). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Ap-
Robinson, P. (2010). Situating andplied distributing
Linguistics, 4, 91-109. cogni-
tion across task demands: The SSARC model of
pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola

(Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language ac-
quisition: Inside the learner's mind (pp. 243-268).
APPENDIX A
Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity,
the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and Sample Task Scenarios of Simple and Complex
performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), SecondTasks
lan-
guage task complexity: Researching the cognition hypoth-
Note. Scenarios were given in Korean.
esis of language learning and performance (pp. 3-38) .
Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32) . Simple Task:
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learn- Scenario: Look at the picture which displays a
ing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TV scene. Jeonghyun is a student representative
Skehan, P., 8c Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task at Yongshin middle school. Many students com-
structure and processing conditions on narrative plain about old computers in the computer lab.
retellings. Language Learning, 49 , 93-120. In this scene, you will see Jeonghyun visiting the
Skehan, P., 8c Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In principal's office to discuss this issue. Jeonghyun
P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
makes a request to the school principal politely
instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge
about whether old computers can be replaced by
University Press.
Swain, M., 8c Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second
new computers next year.
language learning: Two adolescent French immer- Write the script for this scene.
sion students working together. Modern Language

Journal, 82, 320-337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through Complex Task:
collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In
M. Bygate, P. Skehan, 8c M. Swain (Eds.), Research- Scenario: Look at the picture which displays a
ing pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching TV scene. In this scene, two people are talking at a
and testing (pp. 99-118). Harlow, UK: Longman. school office. One (circled in red) is making a re-
Taguchi, N. (2007) . Task difficulty in oral speech act pro- quest to the other (circled in blue) for something.
duction. Applied Linguistics, 28, 113-135.
With your partner, discuss their relationship and de-
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and
cide what is being requested. Write the script for this
issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-
scene.
310.
Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and

pragmatic competence. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Mat-
ters.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance:

APPENDIX B
Where instructional studies were, are, and should
be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1-50.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in
Sample DCT items
Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189-223.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in Three versions of the test were prepared to
Note.
developing pragmatic competence. In K R. Rose
minimize practice effect. These three versions dif-
& G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching
fered in character names and settings while main-
(pp. 171-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. taining the target request. The items were coun-
terbalanced between the versions.
Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second
language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Hand- Directions: Imagine that you are in the scenario
book of pragmatics VII (pp. 391-421). Berlin: Mou- and talking to the person in English. Write exactly
ton de Gruyter. what you would say in the situation.
[PDR-high item request

(target
summer vacation. item)]
You want to see the pictures too,
so you ask your friend to show you the pictures.
You are studying for the final exam. You hav
What do you say to Minah?
many questions about math, and you want to a
your teacher, Mr. Rang, to give you an extra revie
session after school. You know your teacher is ve
busy supervising club [Filler
activities.
item] What do you say
Mr. Rang?
You are talking with your father. Your father asks
if you want to go to your grandmother's house for
[PDR-low request item]
dinner. You are leaving early tomorrow morning
This is lunch break. Your friend, Minah, is look- for a camping trip, so you don't want go. What do
ing at pictures from her trip to Jeju Island during you say to your father?

Impact of Task Complexity Korean Students 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Task Complexity Korean Students 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Promoting Task-Based Pragmatics Instruction in EFL Classroom Contexts: The Role of Task

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wiley are collaborating

Georgia State University Carnegie Mellon University

analyzed learner-learner interaction

carrying out tasks with different complexity lev-

and metapragmatic analysis and judgment tasks

Target Pragmalinguistic Forms

various guided pretask

Summary of the Instructional and Assessment Procedures

Session | | Simple | | Complex | | Control

Session Task Performance (35 Task Performance (35 Reading activity

Session Immediate posttest Immediate posttest Immediate posttest

Simple Group/ Complex Group/

Context 4.76 2.96 7.42 2.81

Note. Head act refers to the mitigated-pre

The DCT data, morewhich PREs targetingmeasured le

Frequency of Request Modifications on Task Output

Simple Group/ Complex Group/

Preparators 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00

Descriptive Statistics for Request Head Act Scores

Group Test Mean SD Min Max

Complex (n = 24) Pretest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Overall, the two groupsThe showed

Descriptive Statistics for the Frequency of Preparators

Group Test Mean SD Min Max

Note. Mean = mean frequency of preparators in four PDR-high request

A long-term effect of thethat the participants

To sum up, there was a strong tions in either

supported this, revealing no significant group dif-

Descriptive Statistics for the Frequency of Grounders

Group Test Mean SD Min Max

Complex (n= 24) Pretest 3.58 0.65 2.00 4.00

Note. Mean = mean frequency of grounders in four PDR-high request

Group Test Mean SD Min Max

Note. Mean = mean frequency of hedges in four PDR-high request item

Descriptive Statistics for the Frequency of Amplifiers

Group Test Mean SD Min Max

Note. Mean = mean frequency of amplifiers in four PDR-high request item

DISCUSSION Learner- Learner Interaction by a Pair in the

As shown in Example 2, the participants in 'Jeongyeon went to see the

the simple conditionfor to deeply

hashi, 2010), the concept of task complexity

between the process and of learning outcomes.

ponents: task complexity, task difficulty, and task

In addition, because the present study was lim-

task effects. Future research that explores the in-

language learning (pp.

ing and instructed second Language Journal, 86, 485-507.

pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola

sion students working together. Modern Language

Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and

Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance:

[PDR-high item request

You might also like