Pre-task planning and discourse cohesion: Analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ referential use in oral narratives

Abstract

While the research on pretask planning has concentrated on its effects on learners’ task performance in terms of fluency, accuracy, and complexity, its possible influence on the overall discourse level, such as discourse management and coherence, has been largely ignored. The present study addresses the inadequacy by uncovering the potential effects of pretask planning on Chinese EFL (English as a foreign language) learners’ selection of referential expressions in oral narratives. Fifty-six intermediate-level learners were tasked with retelling the story of Modern Times under one of two conditions, that is, either with 10-minutes strategic planning or without any planning time. An additional 25 native speakers (NSs) also narrated the same story under the same task conditions. Their narratives were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded based on a coding scheme that distinguished the roles of characters, types of reference, and discursive status of reference. A combination of statistical analysis and discourse analysis showed that (1) compared with NSs, the EFL learners were overexplicit in using noun phrases and proper names to refer to singular characters, but not so in joint reference to the major characters; and (2) pretask planning facilitated more target-like selection of referential expressions when major characters were referred to, although it did not bring the learners’ performance up to NS standards. However, the impact of planning time on referential use seemed to be moderated by the role prominence. These findings were explained within the framework of Levelt’s speech production model and Skehan’s Limited Attentional Capacity Hypothesis.

Keywords

pre-task planning discourse cohesion referential expression overexplicitness oral narrative

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ariel

(1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 65–87.

Ariel

(1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London / New York: Routledge.

Ariel

(2004). Accessibility marking: Discourse functions, discourse profiles, and processing cues. Discourse Process, 37, 91–116.

Bui

(2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency level. In Skehan

(Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63–93). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Bui

Huang

(2018). L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: Performance, measurement, and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 22, 94–114.

Chini

(2005). Reference to person in learner discourse. In Hendriks

(Ed.), The structure of learner varieties. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crookes

(1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383.

Ellis

(1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–19.

10.

Ellis

(2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam!/!Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

11.

Ellis

(2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.

12.

Gullberg

(2006). Handling discourse: Gestures, reference tracking, and communication strategies in early L2. Language Learning, 56, 155–196.

13.

Hickmann

Hendriks

(1999). Cohesion and anaphora in children’s narratives: A comparison of English, French, German, and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language, 26, 419–452.

14.

Kang

J.Y.

(2004). Telling a coherent story in a foreign language: Analysis of Korean EFL learners’ referential strategies in oral narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1975–1990.

15.

Kim

(2013). Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. Tesol Quarterly, 47, 8–35.

16.

Klein

Perdue

(1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

17.

Klein

von Stutterheim

(1991). Text structure and referential movement. Sprache and Pragmatik, 22, 1–32.

18.

Leclercq

(2013). Discourse cohesion and accessibility of referents in oral narratives: A comparison of L1 and L2 acquisition of French and English. Discours, 12, 3–31.

19.

Levelt

(1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MA: MIT Press.

20.

Chen

Sun

(2015). The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. Tesol Quarterly, 49, 38–66.

21.

Mochizuki

Ortega

(2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12, 11–37.

22.

Ortega

(1995). The effect of planning in L2 Spanish oral narratives. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

23.

Ortega

(2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In Ellis

(Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

24.

Plonsky

Oswald

F.L.

(2014). How big Is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.

25.

Pang

Skehan

(2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In Skehan

(Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–127). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

26.

Qin

(2016). Effects of long-term practice in pre-task planning on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of Engish pronouns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China.

27.

Qin

(2019). Effects of repeated practice in pre-task planning on the acquisition of English personal pronouns by Chinese EFL learners. System, 81, 100–109.

28.

Qiu

Y.Y.

(2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21, 681–698.

29.

Ryan

(2015). Overexplicit referent tracking in L2 English: Strategy, avoidance, or myth? Language Learning, 65, 824–859.

30.

Skehan

(1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31.

Skehan

(Ed.) (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

32.

Skehan

(2016). Tasks versus conditions: two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34–49.

33.

Tavakoli

Skehan

(2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis

(Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

34.

Wang

(2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In Skehan

(Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–61). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

35.

Wigglesworth

Elder

(2010). An investigation of the effectiveness and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7, 1–24.

36.

Liu

(2014). Person reference in Chinese EFL learners’ spoken English narrative. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (Waiyu yu Waiyu Jiaoxue), 275, 54–59.

37.

Yuan

Ellis

(2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.

38.

Zribi-Hertz

(1992). Review of ‘Mira Ariel, Accessing noun-phrase antecedents, London – New York, Routldege, 1990’. Lingua, 87, 257–266.