PART A
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effect of task complexity and language proficiency on task- based
language performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(4), 193-225.
1. If an idea is only referred from another work but not directly quoted, or ideas from an
entire book and article are referred, only reference to the author and year of publication
are needed in the in-text reference.
 Early attempts in India described for instance by Prabhu (1987) attracted attention
to, Long and Crookes’ (1993) influential paper paved the way for the use of
pedagogical tasks within the context of second language (L2) teaching and second
language acquisition (SLA) research.
 In contrast, language proficiency, which have been defined in various ways in
pedagogical and research contexts (see Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, & Kim, 1998),
can be conceived as a type of individual differences that defy external
manipulation.
 The present study adopts Robinson’s triadic framework because it is one of the
most comprehensive and systematic TBLT frameworks (also see Skehan, 1998,
for another framework).
 Although macro-planning imposes attentional demands (Levelt, 1989), given the
nature of writing as opposed to speaking and the permission of planning time (i.e.,
five minutes), the current study’s processing conditions may offer sufficient
opportunities to make the discourse more plannable.
 First, task complexity refers to pedagogic tasks’ information processing demands
on memory, attention, and reasoning (Robinson, 2001a).
2. If an idea from another work is paraphrased, only reference to the author and year of
publication are needed in the in-text reference, and page number is encouraged.
 Kawauchi (2005, pp. 162-164) also reports her participants’ uptake of L2 input (i.e.,
low frequency lexical items and problematic structural items) from reading texts
given prior to task performance (or during strategic planning activities) (also see
Raupach, 1984, p. 120, for a similar finding).
 Robinson (2001a, b, 2005, 2006) has argued that increasing the cognitive demands of
L2 tasks leads to increases in the accuracy and complexity of L2 speech production,
and also to greater learning of task input.
 According to Robinson (2001b), task condition is largely constrained by the target
task that is identified by needs analysis and is to be approximated by series of
pedagogic tasks; therefore, whereas task condition is a crucial factor if a series of
pedagogic tasks are to bear a close similarity to a target task, it does not play a central
role concerning sequencing decisions.
3. If a direct quotation is included from other people’s work, the author, year of
publication, and the page number should be cited for the references.
 They may capture the assumed deeper semantic processing in terms of
subordinating and embedding clauses, which are associated with the discourse
structure of narratives and with “the construction of higher-order events in which
event phases are subordinated and interrelated” (Berman & Slobin, 1994, p. 13).
 This is similar to Bartlett’s (1932) conception of “effort after meaning,” which
helps to establish elaborated semantic representations prior to task performance
(Dechert, 1987; Levelt, 1989).
4. Capitalise proper nouns, hyphenated compound words in titles, first word after a colon/
dash.
 The content of the directions was as follows:
(a) you are allowed to view a strip cartoon for five minutes;
(b) you may take notes (only words and/or phrases) during the cartoonviewing session but the notes will be removed before writing (see Crookes,
1989);
(c) you are not allowed to name the characters in the strip cartoon (see S.
Ishikawa (1995) for a similar treatment to elicit articles);
(d) you will be required to write a narrative
5. Italicise titles of longer works such as books, edited collections, movies, documentaries.
 In addition, if a learner wrote shoppingcart for shopping cart, such instances were
counted as two words.
 The same held in the frequent reliance on basic words such as take, put, or know.
The female returnee’s narrative was characterized by additional layers of
vocabulary (e.g., grab, replace, insist, or discover to name a few).
6. Use open and close quotation marks for titles of shorter work such as journal, articles,
television shows and songs.
 Within this task performance context, six English phrases (“pre-modified input”
in Robinson’s term) were presented to the information giver only for each task,
which were controlled in structural terms across the three tasks and given in
written form on the information giver’s picture prompts (e.g., is carrying a plank
for the simple task; is hailing a taxi for the complex task).
 Despite the rapidly growing interest in TBLT, the effect of learner proficiency on
task performance has been a relatively neglected area (but see Robinson, 2005).
7. Citation of work with two authors - include both names.
 In narratives, a canonical use of articles is introducing a participant and
subsequent mentions to the same participant (e.g., Celce-Murcia & LarsenFreeman, 1999).
8. Citation of work with 3- 5 authors, the first time it is referred, include all names. The next
time you refer to the work, shorten the citation and use the words et al.
 Kuiken, et al. (2005) interpreted these findings as follows: (a) the significant task
complexity effect on accuracy on the part of the high proficiency learners was
taken as support for Robinson’s prediction that greater task demands lead to
greater accuracy (Robinson, 2001a); (b) the lack of task complexity effect on the
part of the low proficiency learners was ascribed to the existence of a threshold
level, beyond which task complexity effects could be observed.
 In the preceding oral production studies (e.g., Gilabert, 2006; Rahimpour, 1999;
Robinson, 1995), the listener was present in both HN and TT conditions;
therefore, the context was shared between the speaker and the listener.
9. Citation of a work with six authors (or more), cite only the last name of the first author
and use the words et al.
 Such taken-up linguistic items are not task-essential but useful or “helpful” as
options (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993; Robinson, 2004; Smuda, 2001) and are
predicted to be retained longer under greater task demands (e.g., Robinson,
2001a; Schneider, Healy, & Bourne, 2002) or strongly perceived to be needed by
the learner (e.g., Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001).
10. Arrange multiple citations alphabetically.
 In the preceding oral production studies (e.g., Gilabert, 2006; Rahimpour, 1999;
Robinson, 1995), the listener was present in both HN and TT conditions;
therefore, the context was shared between the speaker and the listener.
 In fact, recent publications on TBLT (Ellis, 2003; Garcia Mayo, 2006; Nunan,
2004; Robinson, 2001a; Skehan, 1998, to name a few) all speak volumes for the
importance and potential of the use of tasks in L2 teaching, learning, and
performance.
 Furthermore, this type of attention shifting requires overt eye movements from the
writing sheet to the cartoon and vice versa (see Ellis, 2005a; Robinson, 2003;
Wickens & Hollans, 2000).
Part B
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic
development study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., Norris, J., & Bonk, W. (2002). An investigation of second language
task-based performance assessments. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center,
University of Hawaii.
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language learners. In
J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136148). Oxford: Macmillan.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In
M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second
language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow, Essex: Pearson.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001) Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, &M. Swain
(Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and
testing (pp. 120). Harlow, Essex: Pearson.
Celce-Murcia M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFLteacher’s
course(2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Crookes,G. (1989) Planning and interlanguage
LanguageAcquisition, 11, 367-383.
variation.
Studies
in
Second
Dechert, H. (1984). Second language production: Six hypotheses. In H. Dechert, D. Möhle &
M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 211-230). Tübingen: Gunter
Narr.
Dechert, H. (1987). Understanding producing. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.),
Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 229-237). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and
second language instruction (pp. 125-151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Egusa, C., & Yokoyama, Y. (2004). The effects of task types on second language speech
production among Japanese university students: Fluency, accuracy, complexity and
trade-off effects. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 15, 129138.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (Ed.) (2005a). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Mayo, P. (Ed.) (2006). Investigating tasks in formal language learning.
Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Gilabert, R. (2006). The simultaneous manipulation along the planning time and +/- Hereand-Now dimensions: Effects on oral L2 production. In P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.),
Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44-68). Philadelphia, PA:
Multilingual Matters.
Givon, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The
crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1 (pp. 1008-1025). Hillsdale, NJ.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hirano, K. (1991). The effect of audience on the efficacy of objective measures of EFL
proficiency in Japanese university students. Annual Review of English Language
Education in Japan, 2, 21-30.
Hunt, W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: The
National Council of Teachers of English.
Ishikawa, S.(1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 4,51-69.
Ishikawa, T. (2005). Investigating the relationship between structural complexity indices of
EFL writing and language proficiency: A task-based approach [EFL writing ni okeru
kouzoutekifukuzatsusa no hattatsusihyouto fukuzatsusano kannkeino kenshou: task ni
motozuku approach]. JACET Bulletin, 41, 51-60.
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effect of increasing task complexity along the [±Here-and-Now]
dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In P. Gracia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating
tasks in formal language learning (pp. 117-135). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual
Matters.
Ishikawa, T. (in press). On learner uptake: Manipulable sources of variation, motivating factors,
and psycholinguistic processes. Thought Currents in English Literature, 79,
xxx-xxx. The
English Literary Society of Aoyama Gakuin University.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In
search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics,
24, 168-196.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with
low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task
performance in a second language (pp. 143-164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote
student language awareness. Language Awareness,3, 73-83.
Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language
writing performance. In S. Foster-Cohen, M.P. García-Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.),
Eurosla Yearbook, Volume 5 (pp. 195-222). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The
construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Long, M. (Ed.) (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task. In G.
Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and
practice (pp. 9-54). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on from: Theory, research, and practice. In
C.Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition (pp. 14-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task based methodology. In G.
Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and
practice (pp. 123-167). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
MacWhinney,B. (2000). The CHILDES system: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum. oi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement:
Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms.
Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics
12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 51-80). NY: Academic Press.
Ortega, L. (2000). Understanding syntactic complexity: The measurement of change in the
syntax of instructed L2 Spanish learners. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.
Potter, M. C. & Lombardi, L. (1990). Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences.
Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 633-654.
Rahimpour, M. (1999). Task complexity and variation in interlanguage. In N. Jungheim & P.
Robinson (Eds), Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the third Pacific Second
Research Forum, Vol. 2, (pp. 115-134). Tokyo: PacSLRF.
Raupach, M. (1984). Formulae in second language narrative production. In H. Dechert, D.
Möhle & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp.114-137). Tübingen:
Gunter Narr.
Robinson P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language
Learning, 45, 99-140.
Robinson, P. (1996). Consciousness, rules, and instructed second language acquisition. NY:
Lang.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic
framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Robinson, P. (2 001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring
interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
Robinson, P. (Ed.) (2002), Individual differences in instructed language learning. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2003) Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.),
The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-678). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Robinson, P. (2004). Comprehension, cognitive complexity, and task-based language
production and acquisition. In D. Smith, S. Nobe, P. Robinson, G. Strong, M. Tani, &
H. Yoshiba (Eds.), Language comprehension: Perspectives from linguistics and
language education (pp. 187-240). Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential
framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 43, 1-32.
Robinson, P. (2006). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In P. Garcia Mayo
(Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-26). Philadelphia, PA:
Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between from and meaning during task performance:
The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Researching
pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.
119-140).
Harlow,
Essex: Pearson.
Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (2002). What is learned under difficult
conditions is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary
acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 419-440.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test
discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85-106.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing:
Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Second Language Teaching &
Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
Wickens, C., & Hollans, J. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yule, G . (1997). Referential communication tasks. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.