Translanguaging has thrived as a pedagogy for second language (L2) acquisition because of its potential in maximizing L2 learners’ communicative repertoire. However, limited attention has been paid to how translanguaging can influence L2 speaking within the framework of task-based language teaching (TBLT). This study explored how different language use (i.e., L2 only and translanguaging) in collaborative pre-task planning contributed to L2 learners’ subsequent monologic speaking performance, as measured by complexity, accuracy, fluency (CAF), and idea units. The planning behaviours were also examined to offer explanations for the differences in learners’ speaking performance. Altogether 72 undergraduate students from a Chinese university voluntarily participated in this study. The results showed that translanguaging planning contributed to the conceptualization stage of speech processing, as evidenced by gains in syntactic complexity and idea units. This positive effect might have resulted from enhanced communication efficiency due to translanguaging planning. The translanguaging group also generated more turns, produced more ideas on average, and devoted more time to vocabulary talk and task management. This was because translanguaging planning enabled learners to prioritize their language use for better task execution. In other words, the flexibility of translanguaging allows for a more strategic approach to language use, which can enhance collaborative efforts to successfully complete tasks. In contrast, the L2-only planning contributed to the formulation stage of speech processing, as was manifested in fewer mid-clause pauses. A trade-off between complexity and fluency was also observed in the study. Implications for the use of translanguaging in L2 speaking pedagogy are discussed.
AntónM.DiCamillaF.J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–247.
2.
AubreyS.LambertC.LeemingP. (2020). The impact of first as opposed to second language pre-task planning on the content of problem-solving task performance. Language Teaching Research, 26, 867–892.
3.
AubreyS.PhilpottA. (2022). Use of the L1 and L2 in strategic planning and rehearsal for task performances in an online classroom. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221077421
4.
BuiG.TaiK. (2022). Revisiting functional adequacy and task-based language teaching in the GBA: Insights from translanguaging. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7, Article 40.
5.
CarlessD. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal, 62, 331–338.
6.
ChenF.TsaiS.C.TsouW. (2019). The application of translanguaging in an English for specific purposes writing course. English Teaching and Learning, 43, 65–83.
7.
De JongN.H.BoskerH.R. (2013). Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. In EklundR. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th workshop on disfluency in spontaneous speech (DiSS), Stockholm, Sweden (pp. 17–20). KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
8.
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.
9.
DrydenS.TankosićA.DovchinS. (2021). Foreign language anxiety and translanguaging as an emotional safe space: Migrant English as a foreign language learners in Australia. System, 101, Article 102593.
10.
EllisR. (2005). Planning and task-based performance. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–34). John Benjamins.
11.
EllisR. (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.
EllisR. (2018). Reflections on task-based language learning. Multilingual Matters.
13.
EllisR.SkehanP.LiS.ShintaniN.LambertC. (Eds.) (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
14.
EntezariM.TadayonifarM. (2023). Task complexity and task type: L1 use and functions. TASK Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning, 3, 336–360.
15.
FangF.ZhangL.J.SahP.K. (2022). Translanguaging in language teaching and learning: Current practices and future directions. RELC Journal, 53, 305–312.
16.
FarahanyniaM.KhatibM. (2022). Participatory structure of planning and cognitive task complexity in L2 oral performance: A processing perspective. Language Learning Journal, 50, 777–802.
17.
Galdeano ChascoM.García MayoM.P. (2024). L1 use in pre-task planning by child EFL learners. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 8, 64–88.
18.
GaoJ.SunP.P. (2023). To correct or not: The role of L1 fluency in understanding and measuring L2 fluency. TESOL Quarterly, 57, 643–655.
19.
GaoJ.SunP.P. (2024). How does learners’ L2 utterance fluency relate to their L1? A meta-analysis. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34, 276–291.
20.
García-AmayaL. (2023). Investigating the relation between L2 pauses, syntactic complexity, and pause location: Longitudinal data from L2-spanish study-abroad learners. Second Language Research, 40, 399–429.
21.
García MayoM.P.de los Ángeles HidalgoM. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132–145.
22.
García MayoM.P.LuquinM. (2023). Does repeated pre-task planning have an impact on form-focused LREs?Language Teaching for Young Learners, 5, 149–169.
23.
GoliA. (2023). Translanguaging instruction and reading comprehension skills of Japanese EFL learners: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Language and Education, 9, 60–76.
24.
GötzS. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. John Benjamins.
25.
JohnsonM.D.TabariM.A. (2022). Task planning and oral L2 production: A Research synthesis and meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 43, 1143–1164.
26.
KahngJ. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64, 809–854.
27.
KangO.YanX. (2018). Linguistic features distinguishing examinees’ speaking performances at different proficiency levels. Journal of Language Testing and Assessment, 1, 24–39.
28.
KhatibM.FarahanyniaM. (2020). Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: Effects on L2 oral performance. System, 93, Article 102297.
29.
KimY.J.PayantC. (2017). Impacts of task complexity on the development of L2 oral performance over time. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 55, 197–220.
30.
KormosJ. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49, 303–342.
31.
KormosJ. (2011). Speech production and the cognition hypothesis. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 39–60). John Benjamins.
32.
LambertC.AubreyS.LeemingP. (2021). Task preparation and second language speech production. TESOL Quarterly, 55, 331–365.
33.
LeveltW. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. The MIT Press.
34.
LiL.ChenJ.SunL. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 38–66.
35.
LiW. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39, 9–30.
36.
LiuY.YeungP. (2023). The effects of using L1 Chinese or L2 English in planning on speaking performance among high- and low-proficient EFL learners. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second Language and Foreign Language Education, 8, Article 35.
37.
LuX. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 190–208.
38.
McCarthyP.M.JarvisS. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.
39.
McNamaraD.GraesserA.McCarthyP.CaiZ. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.
40.
NieM.LuJ.ZhengY.ShenQ. (2024). Facilitating learners’ participation through classroom translanguaging: Comparing a translanguaging classroom and a monolingual classroom in Chinese language teaching. Applied Linguistics Review, 15, 1507–1529.
41.
NunanD. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
42.
OrtegaL. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language learning (pp. 77–109). John Benjamins.
43.
PangF.SkehanP. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and L2 performance in narrative retelling. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). John Benjamins.
44.
RahimiM.ZhangL.J. (2017). Effects of task complexity and planning conditions on L2 argumentative writing production. Discourse Processes, 55, 726–742.
45.
SealsC.A.NewtonJ.AshM.NguyenB.T.T. (2020). Translanguaging and task based language teaching: Crossovers and challenges. In TianZ.AghaiL.SayerP.SchisselJ.L. (Eds.), Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging lens: Global perspectives (pp. 275–292). Springer.
46.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
47.
SkehanP. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.
48.
SkehanP. (2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks.In BygateM. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 123–156). Benjamins.
49.
SkehanP.FosterP.ShumS. (2016). Ladders and snakes in second language fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54, 97–111.
50.
SunP.P.ZhangL.J. (2022). Effects of translanguaging in online peer feedback on Chinese university English-as-a-foreign-language students’ writing performance. RELC Journal, 53, 325–341.
51.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251–274.
52.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance (pp. 239–273). John Benjamins.
53.
WangZ. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–61). John Benjamins.
54.
XuJ.FanY. (2024). Task complexity, L2 proficiency and EFL learners’ L1 use in task-based peer interaction. Language Teaching Research, 28, 346–365.
55.
XuT.S.ZhangL.J. (2023). Effects of cognitive task complexity and online planning on second language learners’ argumentative writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1121994.
56.
XuT.S.ZhangL.J.GaffneyJ.S. (2023). A multidimensional approach to assessing the effects of task complexity on L2 students’ argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 55, Article 100690.
57.
ZunigaM.SimardD. (2022). Exploring the intricate relationship between foreign language anxiety, attention and self-repairs during L2 speech production. System, 105, Article 732.
