This study investigates whether linguistic outcomes of second language (L2) learners’ performance are consistent across oral and written modalities and, if so, whether the consistency remains across proficiency levels. The study also explores whether the linguistic outcomes of speaking, writing, or both are related to working memory capacity. Eighty-six L2 learners, from beginner to advanced, described a series of pictures within time constraints in speech and in writing, and completed two working memory tests. The study found greater syntactic complexity and lexical sophistication in the written than in the oral modality. However, the oral task elicited more lexical diversity, and the advanced learners produced more subordinate clauses in the oral task than in the written task. Learners with more working memory capacity produced marginally more complex structures in the oral task than learners with less working memory capacity. These findings have implications for the effective implementation of speaking and writing activities in L2 learning.
BaayenR.DavidsonD.BatesD. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
2.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.
3.
BaddeleyA.HitchG. (1974). Working memory. In BowerG.H. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Volume 8 (pp. 47–89). Academic Press.
4.
BarrD.J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH.J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
5.
BourdinB.FayolM. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 591–620.
6.
BrownJ.McDonaldJ.BrownT.CarrT. (1988). Adapting to processing demands in discourse production: The case of handwriting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 45–59.
7.
BultéB.HousenA. (2009). The development of lexical proficiency in L2 speaking and writing tasks by Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels. Unpublished paper presentation, Third Biennial International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Lancaster, UK.
8.
ByrnesH.ManchónR. (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing: An introduction. In ByrnesH.ManchónR. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1–27). John Benjamins.
9.
ChoM. (2018). Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72, 85–98.
10.
ConwayA.KaneM.BuntingM.HambrickD.WilhelmO.EngleR. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786.
11.
ConwayA.JarroldC.KaneM.MiyakeA.TowseJ. (Eds.). (2007). Variation in working memory. Oxford University Press.
12.
DanemanM. (1991). Working memory as a predictor of verbal fluency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 445–464.
13.
DanemanM.GreenI. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 1–18.
14.
DraheimC.HarrisonT.EmbretsonS.EngleR. (2018). What item response theory can tell us about the complex span tasks. Psychological Assessment, 30, 116–129.
15.
GassS.LeeJ. (2011). Working memory capacity, inhibitory control, and proficiency in a second language. In SchmidM.LowieW. (Eds.), Modeling bilingualism: From structure to chaos (pp. 59–84). John Benjamins.
16.
GathercoleS.LamontE.AllowayT. (2006). Working memory in the classroom. In PickeringS. (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 219–240). Academic Press.
17.
GilabertR.ManchónR.VasyletsO. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135.
18.
GranfeldtJ. (2007). Speaking and writing in L2 French: Exploring effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. In van DaeleS.HousenA.KuikenF.PierrardM.VedderI. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 87–98). University of Brussels.
19.
HwangH.JungH.KimH. (2020). Effects of written versus spoken production modalities on syntactic complexity measures in beginning-level child EFL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 104, 267–283.
20.
JuddC.WestfallJ.KennyD. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69.
21.
KelloggR. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In LevyC.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
KelloggR. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175–191.
23.
KimY.PayantC.PearsonP. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581.
24.
KnochU.ElderC. (2010). Validity and fairness implications of varying time conditions on a diagnostic test of academic English writing proficiency. System, 38, 63–74.
25.
KormosJ. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance. In ByrnesH.ManchónR. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–216). John Benjamins.
26.
KormosJ.SáfárA. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 261–271.
27.
KormosJ.TrebitsA. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 267–285). John Benjamins.
28.
KormosJ.TrebitsA. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472.
29.
KozanK.ErçetinG.RichardsonJ.C. (2015). Input modality and working memory: Effects on second language text comprehension in a multimedia learning environment. System, 55, 63–73.
30.
KuikenF.VedderI. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). John Benjamins.
31.
LeveltW. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
32.
LinckJ.A.OsthusP.KoethJ.T.BuntingM.F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 861–883.
33.
LuX. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 474–496.
34.
LuX. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36–62.
35.
LuX. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 190–208.
36.
McCutchenD. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325.
37.
Ministry of Education. (2015). The English national curriculum. Ministry of Education.
38.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
39.
OswaldF.McAbeeS.RedickT.HambrickD. (2015). The development of a short domain-general measure of working memory capacity. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1343–1355.
40.
PapageorgiouS.TannenbaumR.J.BridgemanB.ChoY. (2015). The association between TOEFL iBT® test scores and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels. Research Memorandum No. RM-15-06. Educational Testing Service.
41.
PayneS.RossB. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning and Technology, 9, 35–54.
42.
PayneS.WhitneyJ. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.
43.
PolioC. (2017). Second language writing development: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 50, 261–275.
44.
RavidD.TolchinskyL. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29, 417–447.
45.
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed October 2022).
46.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
47.
SerranoR.TragantE.LlanesÀ. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of one year abroad. Canadian Modern Language Review, 68, 138–163.
48.
SonM. (2021). L2 language development in oral and written modality. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
49.
TavakoliP. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In ByrnesH.ManchónR. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217–236). John Benjamins.
50.
VasyletsO.GilabertR.ManchonR.M. (2017). The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67, 394–430.
51.
WeissbergB. (2000). Developmental relationships in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs. speech. Learning and Instruction, 10, 37–53.
52.
WilliamsJ. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.
53.
WuJ.ErlamR. (2016). The effect of timing on the quantity and quality of test-takers’ writing. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 22, 21–34.
54.
YuG. (2010). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31, 236–259.
55.
ZalbideaJ. (2017). ‘One task fits all’? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 335–352.
