This study is aimed to identify the effects of task complexity on first language (L1) use and the functions it may serve when two groups of learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) work on collaborative tasks. Twenty-four pairs of Chinese EFL learners from two universities were assigned to a lower-proficiency and a higher-proficiency group, each with twelve pairs. Each group completed two collaborative tasks of different cognitive complexity. The results showed that task complexity had an appreciable impact on the use of L1 and its functions. It is also found that the impact of task complexity was dependent on learners’ English proficiency. Specifically, the higher-proficiency group employed more L1 to perform complex tasks than they did in the simple versions of the tasks. These learners also devoted significantly more L1 turns to fulfill the functions of metacognitive and grammar talk to complete the complex tasks. These trends did not hold for the lower-proficiency group.
Al MasaeedK. (2016). Judicious use of L1 in L2 Arabic speaking practice sessions. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 716–728.
2.
Alegría de la ColinaA.García MayoM.P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 325–345.
3.
AntónM.DiCamillaF. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–342.
4.
AzkaraiA.García MayoM.P. (2015). Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19, 550–571.
5.
AzkaraiA.García MayoM.P. (2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21, 480–495.
6.
CarlessD. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35, 595–608.
7.
CarlessD. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal, 62, 331–338.
8.
ChengL.QiL. (2006). Description and examination of the National Matriculation English Test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 53–70.
9.
ChoongK.P. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic complexity: An exploratory study. SALT –Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 11, 1413.
10.
DiCamillaF.J.AntónM. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 160–188.
11.
García MayoM.P.HidalgoM.d.l.Á. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132–145.
12.
García MayoM.P.Lázaro IbarrolaA. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40–54.
13.
GilabertR. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning and +/− here-and-now: Effects on L2 oral production. In García-MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
14.
GilabertR.BarónJ.LlanesÀ. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 367–369.
15.
IshikawaT. (2006). The effects of task complexity and language proficiency on task-based language performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3, 193–225.
16.
KimY. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner–learner interaction. System, 37, 254–268.
17.
KimY. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658.
18.
MichelM.C.KuikenF.VedderI. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 241–259.
19.
MooreP.J. (2013). An emergent perspective on the use of the first language in the English-as-a-foreign-language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 97, 239–253.
20.
PhilpJ.AdamsR.IwashitaN. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.
21.
RévészA. (2012). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.
22.
RévészA.MichelM.GilabertR. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 703–737.
23.
RévészA.SachsR.HamaM. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–650.
24.
RobinsonP. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140.
25.
RobinsonP. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
RobinsonP. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
27.
RobinsonP. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis: Task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–105.
28.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.
29.
RobinsonP. (2007a). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings (pp. 7–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
30.
RobinsonP. (2007b). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 193–213.
31.
RobinsonP. (2011a). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32.
RobinsonP. (2011b). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36.
33.
SolonM.LongA.Y.Gurzynski-WeissL. (2017). Task complexity, language-related episodes, and production of L2 Spanish vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 347–380.
34.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14, 355–375.
35.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting?TESOL Quarterly, 37, 760–770.
36.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2000). Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251–274.
37.
ThomsJ.LiaoJ.SzustakA. (2005). The use of L1 in an L2 on-line chat activity. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 161–182.
38.
TogniniR.OliverR. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms and its contribution to learning. In Alcón SolerE.Jordá SafontM.P. (Eds.), Discourse and learning across L2 instructional contexts (pp. 53–78). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
39.
YangS.HuangY.Y. (2004). The impact of the absence of grammatical tense in L1 on the acquisition of the tense–aspect system in L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42, 49–70.
