Re-thinking for speaking, the

Cognition Hypothesis, task

classification and task
sequencing
Peter Robinson, Aoyama Gakuin University
peterr@cl.aoyama.ac.jp
 The Cognition Hypothesis

 The fundamental pedagogic claim of the Cognition

Hypothesis is that pedagogic tasks should be
sequenced for learners in an order of increasing
cognitive complexity. This promotes L2 development
and improvements in the ability to perform target tasks
in the L2. Such task sequences should form the task
syllabus.

 The Triadic Componential Framework houses this

claim in a taxonomy of task characteristics which aims
to meet three purposes and satisfy three constraints.
 Three purposes of and constraints on a
taxonomic system for L2 task
classification
 1. The characteristics a task taxonomy describes
should map on to, in conceptually coherent and
descriptively adequate ways the behaviors involving
language use identified by the needs analysis.
 2. They should also be operationally feasible for
task designers, using them to produce materials.
 3. The characteristics, and taxonomic system
structure should be motivated by a theory of how
characteristics, and combinations of them, lead to
learning and development of the L2 system, and the
ability to act successfully using it.
used in used in
materials needs
design analysis
feasible descriptively adequate

task
classification
taxonomy

theoretically motivated

promotes
language
learning
 The Triadic Componential Framework
Distinguishes three broad categories, and
subcategories, of task characteristics
 1) Task Complexity concerns cognitive factors
affecting their intrinsic cognitive challenge (e.g., doing
simple addition versus calculus). There are two
subcategories of task complexity.
 Resource- directing variables make cognitive
conceptual demands (e.g. + intentional reasoning)
which direct learner attention and effort at
conceptualization in ways which the linguistic L2
system can help them meet (e.g., through the use
cognitive state terms and complement constructions-
she suspected, believed, realized that, etc. to reason
about mental states guiding behavior).
 In contrast Resource-dispersing variables make
performative procedural demands which increase task
complexity but without directing learner attention and
effort at conceptualization to any particular aspects of
language code (e.g. - planning time)

 2) Task Condition concerns interactive factors divided

into Participation variables making interactional
demands (e.g. +/- one way flow) and Participant
variables making interactant demands (+/- familiar)

 3)Task Difficulty concerns factors contributing to

between learner variation in learning and performing any
one task (as differences in aptitude for math would likely
differentiate learning and performing calculus for two
learners) and these are divided into Ability variables and
Affective variables
 Concomitant theoretical claims of the
Cognition Hypothesis

 Cycles of simple to complex pedagogic task demands will

have the following effects …

 Claim 1: Speech production. On resource-directing

dimensions there will be increased accuracy, complexity
and less fluency on complex (e.g., + reasoning/+ there-
and-then) versus simpler tasks, as measured using
general indices of production. On complex resource-
dispersing dimensions (e.g., - planning time, - single task)
all three will decrease.
 Claim 2: Measures of production. On resource-
directing dimensions making cognitive/conceptual
demands specific measures (motivated e.g., by
cognitive linguistic, developmental, and SLA theory)
may in some cases be more sensitive than general
measures to increasing attempts at rethinking-for-
speaking, on complex tasks, so as to match their
conceptual demands to L2 linguistic resources.

 Claim 3: Interaction, uptake, memory and focus on

form. Increasing task complexity on resource-directing,
versus dispersing, dimensions will also lead to more
opportunities for learning, and so greater amounts of
interaction, uptake and long term memory for forms
made salient in the task-input through proactive (e.g.,
premodified input floods) and reactive (e.g. recasts)
focus on form techniques.
 Claim 4: Individual differences task complexity
interactions. On complex versions, on either type of
dimension, individual differences in task-relevant cognitive
abilities and affective factors will play a much greater role
in dissipating the above claimed effects than on simpler
versions.

 Claim 5: Access and analysis. Staged increases in the

performative/ procedural demands of tasks promotes
access to, control of, and automatization of existing L2
resources. Staged increases in the cognitive/conceptual
demands of tasks promotes analysis, development and
interlanguage change.

 Claim 6: Task sequencing. Procedural/performative

demands of pedagogic tasks should first be increased in
complexity, followed by increases in their cognitive/
conceptual demands.
 Focus on Claims 1 & 2: Predictions for
effects of task complexity on L2
production
 On Resource-directing dimensions Complex tasks
will elicit more accurate, and complex, but less fluent
production when compared to simpler versions
 On Resource-dispersing dimensions Complex tasks
will elicit less accurate, complex and fluent production
when compared to simpler versions
 But there will likely be synergies between the two
types of variable e.g. stronger effects for resource-
directing variables on complex tasks, when the task is
simultaneously simple with respect to a resource-
dispersing variable
 A psycholinguistic rationale for effects of
resource-directing dimensions on TBLL
 In Levelt et al.’s (1999) terms increased conceptual
preparation for speech production that complex resource-
directing dimensions implicate should promote ‘paring
down’ of lexical concepts for L2 lexical expression in the
preverbal message leading to the increasing
differentiation of L1/L2 lexical concepts.
 It should also promote checking and resetting of diacritic
parameters that have to be set for lemmas during lexical
selection, and subsequent grammatical encoding,
such as features for person, tense etc., for English verbs.
 Internal and external monitoring of self and other
production encourages these processes, in response to
communicative task demands.
 Some compatible rationales (1) Functional—
Language and Processing Mode (e.g. Givon)
 ‘What is it that provokes a learner to further analysis of
the input?…acquisition is pushed by the communicative
tasks …which the learner takes part in’ (Perdue,
2003,p.53). Givon describes this in terms of the shift from
a Pragmatic mode used in simple communicative tasks,
early child L1 and SLA (characterized by 1. Topic
comment structure 2. Loose coordination 3. Small chunks
under one intonation contour 4. Low noun/verb ratio 5.
No grammatical morphology) to a Syntactic mode used
in complex communicative tasks, late child L1 and SLA
 (characterized by 1. Subject predicate structure 2. Tight
subordination 3. Large chunks under one intonation
contour 4. High noun verb 5. Extensive grammatical
morphology).Communicative tasks making complex
cognitive/ conceptual demands should elicit syntactic
mode features.
 Some compatible rationales (2)
Developmental — Parallels in Child and
Adult Language Acquisition (e.g.ESF Project)
 Cromer’s Cognition Hypothesis proposed that in many
domains L1 conceptual development pushed linguistic
development, e.g., 1) from the ability to conceptualize the
Here/Now -> There/Then which ushers in development
of (past) tense and deictic systems; 2) from the ability to
conceptualize topological relations of neighborhood and
containment (next to, in) -> projective notions of location
viewed from a fixed point which ushers in (in a fixed
order) reference on the vertical (above, below), lateral
(left/right) and sagital axes (front/back); 3) from
belief/desire psychology -> having a ‘theory of mind’
which ushers in the use of cognitive state terms and
complex subordination, (think, know, suspect, that etc.)
 In naturalistic adult SLA, similar sequences of linguistic
development occur (Klein & Perdue, ESF project)
 Some compatible rationales (3) Conceptual
— Re-Thinking for Speaking (Slobin)
 Slobin (1993), discussing these parallels, specifically in
the domain of spatial language, comments ‘For the child
the construction of the grammar and the construction of
semantic/pragmatic concepts go hand-in-hand. For the
adult construction of the grammar often requires a
‘revision’ of semantic/pragmatic concepts, along with
what may well be a more difficult task of perceptual
identification of the relevant morphological element…the
parallels, though, cannot be attributed to the same
underlying factors. In the case of L1A one appeals to
cognitive development: the projective notions simply are
not available to very young children. But in the case of
ALA all of the relevant cognitive machinery is in place.
Why then should learners have difficulty in discovering
the necessary prepositions for spatial relations that they
already command in their first language. There are at
least two possibilities…
 ‘(1) adult learners retain a scale of conceptual
complexity, based on their own cognitive
development, and at first search the target
language for the grammatical marking of those
notions which represent some primordial core of
basicness or simplicity; and/or (2) these most basic
notions are also used with greater frequency in the
target language.It is likely that speakers, generally,
have less recourse to the encoding of complex notions,
and that the learners are simply reflecting the relative
frequency of occurrence of various prepositions in the
linguistic input…Or it may be that the complex relations
are, indeed, communicated above some threshold of
frequency and that learners ‘gate them out’ due to their
complexity..’ (p. 243)
 Measuring effects of task complexity on L2
speech production and learning
 And so, what might we expect the effects of increasing
the complexity of task demands along resource-
directing dimensions to be, following these rationales?

 Givon effects- increasing complexity of

communicative demands leads to general increases in
grammaticization/ syntacticization (TLU, S nodes per T
or C unit, etc.)
 Slobin effects- increasing complexity of conceptual
demands leads to ‘revision’ of specific semantic
concepts and/or noticing how they are coded in
language (based on greater attention to input, L1-L2
mismatches, and attention to output, in response to the
effortful demands of the task).
 - this means task complexity can lead to
‘rethinking for speaking’ in the conceptual
domain the task involves- and progressing
from simple to complex along resource-directing
dimensions in some cases (e.g., here and now->
there and then) preserves the ‘natural order’ in
which function-form, concept-language relations
are established in L1 development, recapitulating
the sequence they are established in childhood
for adults.
 Summary: Some points of contrast between
Robinson and Skehan
 I distinguish Task complexity, task condition, and task
difficulty
 I distinguish resource-dispersing and resource-directing
dimensions of cognitive complexity, and their effects on
general and specific measures of production
 I argue tasks should be graded and sequenced on the
basis of increases in cognitive complexity
 I argue increasing task complexity can lead to greater
amounts of interaction, uptake of and memory for forms
made salient in the input-so promoting learning
 I argue a taxonomic system for pedagogic task
classification should be used not only in materials design,
but in task sequencing decisions, syllabus design, and in
mapping pedagogic tasks to characteristics of target tasks
identified during needs analyses
 Task classification, sequencing and program
design
 The first session showed how I think the Cognition
Hypothesis motivates the taxonomic structure of the
Triadic Componential Framework—fulfilling the purpose
that pedagogic decisions based on the taxonomy lead to
learning, under the constraint that those decisions are
theoretically motivated.
 In what follows I describe principles that follow from the
taxonomic structure described for task design, sequencing
and syllabus construction. I also address the other two
purposes of, and constraints on, a taxonomic description
of tasks, i.e.,1) Characteristics it describes should map on
to, in conceptually coherent and descriptively adequate
ways the behaviors involving language use identified by
the needs analysis; and 2) They should also be
operationally feasible for task designers, using them to
produce materials.
 Three levels of program design
 1) The Cognition Hypothesis assumes behavior
descriptions of needs, and target tasks for populations of
learners are the starting point for pedagogic task
development (level 1), as illustrated in the following Figure.

 2) Based on behavior descriptions the interactional and

cognitive demands of target tasks are classified using the
task characteristics distinguishing them in terms of
participation/participant and resource-directing/dispersing
variables. These classifications are the operational basis
for pedagogic materials and syllabus design (level 2).

 3) Preceding, or concurrently with instruction, learners’

abilities in various domains relevant to task demands are
sampled and used to develop task-aptitude profiles, and
individualized task-practice regimes (level 3).
Stage, domain, analyses and outcomes of
task classification and sequencing
procedures

Stage Domain Analyses Outcomes

Needs Real-world Behavior and Target task and
identification target discourse performance-
language use descriptive referenced test
and specifications
performance
Syllabus design Target task Information- Pedagogic task
descriptions theoretic sequences
Learner Pedagogic tasks Ability Task aptitude
assessment requirements profiles
 Principles of task sequencing
 The Cognition Hypothesis claims that sequencing tasks
from simple to complex leads to learning and
development and also gains in automaticity since it
facilitates the executive processes of scheduling, and
coordinating the component demands of complex tasks
(Sarno & Wickens, 1995). In this view, simple tasks can
be seen as “scaled worlds” which preserve certain
functional relationships of a complex task environment
while paring away others, enabling each to be practiced
separately, before being combined in complex task
performance under real-world conditions.

 There are three principles and decision points for

secquencing and syllabus design in this approach.
 Principle 1: Interactional demands are not graded
and sequenced
 The task conditions, e.g., +/- one way flow, +/- equal
status and role, are replicated each time pedagogic task
versions are performed. A rationale for this, offered only
briefly here, is that holding task conditions constant is
important to ensuring transfer of training to real-world
contexts. The more task conditions are practiced in
pedagogic versions, the more elaborate and consolidated
the scripts become for real-world performance, and on
which successful transfer will draw, outside the classroom.
 Cognitive demands of pedagogic tasks, however, are
graded and sequenced. Simpler versions with respect to
all relevant cognitive demand characteristics are
performed first, and then task complexity (i.e., cognitive
demands) is gradually increased on subsequent versions
to target task levels. Task complexity is therefore the
sole basis of pedagogic task sequencing.
 Principle 2. Resource-dispersing performative
dimensions are first increased in complexity
 There are two stages in which task complexity is
increased, and which are decision points for task and
syllabus design. In each sequence of pedagogic tasks,
relevant resource-dispersing variables are first increased
in complexity (so if the target task requires dual task
performance, without planning time, then planning time is
provided, and the dual task characteristics are performed
separately).
 The rationale for this is to first promote access to, and
consolidate the learner’s current L2 interlanguage system
during performatively simple pedagogic tasks.
Subsequently increasing performative/procedural
demands to target task levels, thereby promotes
increased automatic access to, and learner ‘control’
over, the current system in responding to complex
pedagogic task versions.
 Principle 3. Resource-directing developmental
dimensions are then increased in complexity
 In the second stage, once the performative/procedural
demands have reached target like levels, then
cognitive/conceptual demands are gradually increased to
target like levels. As described above, I argue these can
direct learners attentional and memory resources to
aspects of the L2 system needed to code increasingly
complex concepts, and to meet increasingly complex
functional demands requiring their expression in language.
This promotes analysis and development of the current
interlanguage system.
 Increasing these demands should lead to more accurate
and complex learner production, more noticing of task
relevant input, and heightened memory for it, and so lead
to more uptake of forms made salient in the input. This is
basically a control then analysis and interlanguage
redescription rationale. For example…
Task sequencing: A generic matrix
First increase resource-dispersing, performative
demands (the horizontal dimension from 1- 2) and then
resource-directing, developmental demands (the
vertical dimension from 3 - 4).
+ many elements + many elements
+ reasoning + reasoning
+ There-and Then + There-and Then

+ planning - planning
+ prior knowledge -prior knowledge
+ single task - single task
3 4
LOW PERFORMA TIVE AND HIGH PERFORMA TIVE AND
HIGH DEV ELOPME NTA L HIGH DEV ELOPME NTA L
COMP LEXITY COMP LEXITY

+ few elements + few elements

+ no reasoning + no reasoning
+ Here-and-Now + Here-and-Now

+ planning - planning
+ prior knowledge - prior knowledge
+ single task - single task
1 2
LOW PERFORMA TIVE AND HIGH PERFORMA TI VE AND
LOW DEV ELOPMENT AL LOW DEV ELOPMENT AL
COMP LEXITY COMP LEXITY
A specific example:Increasingly cognitively
complex versions of a direction giving map
task
Let’s say the target task is to give passenger directions
to a driver on how to find a location, using a road map,
while driving through an unknown area. The first version
performed is simple on all dimensions. Then the three
resource-dispersing dimensions are each increased in
complexity, and finally the resource-directing dimension.
Simple Complex
Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5
of complexity

plannin g time + - - - -
(before speaking)
single task + + - - -
(route marked)
prior knowledge + + + - -
( a famili ar area)
few elements + + + + -
(a small area)
(simplified data/map) (authentic data/map)
 Selected issues for research
 - Do the Task Complexity characteristics described, and
combinations of them on resource-directing and resource
dispersing dimensions, result in the predicted effects on
learning and performance across a wide variety of
carrier content. One could look at this in terms of +
intentional reasoning first with, and then without planning
time for different content domains of intentional reasoning
(summarizing a dispute during a business meeting about
contract terms versus summarizing a dispute during an
office party about who should drive who home).
 - Are the task characteristics I have described
operationally feasible during decisions about materials
design and operationally reliable across different
contexts and programs?
 - Are the task characteristics descriptively adequate to
the job of reducing target task demands to pedagogic
task versions?
 - Is sequencing increases in performative resource-
directing dimensions of complexity first, followed by
resource-directing dimensions the optimal option?
What would be the learning and performance effects
of the reverse choice?
 - How are the abilities contributing to successful task
performance on the dimensions of cognitive
complexity and interactional demands to be identified,
and used in the assessment of task-aptitude
profiles?
 - Do the task characteristics and pedagogic task
sequences such as those described lead to transfer
of complex task performance outside the task-
based classroom?
Cognition Hypothesis references
Robinson, P. (1995a). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99-140.
Robinson, P. (1995b). Attention, memory and the 'noticing' hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
Robinson, P. (1996). (Ed.), Connecting tasks, cognition and syllabus design. Task complexity and second language syllabus deign: Data-based
studies and speculations. pp. 1-15. University of Queensland Working Papers in Language and Linguistics (Special issue).
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework.
Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA.
In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2001c). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes, and learning conditions in SLA. Second Language Research,
17, 368-392.
Robinson, P. (2003a). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M.H.Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp.631-
678).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Robinson, P. (2003b). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, (2), 45-107.
Robinson, P. (2005a). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a Componential Framework for second language task
design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43,1-32.
Robinson, P. (2005b). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46-73.
Robinson, P. (2007a). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M.P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language
learning, (pp. 7-27). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, P. (2007b). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice. In R.M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning:
Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. (pp. 256-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2007c). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions
of task difficulty. In P. Robinson, & R. Gilabert (Eds.), Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language instruction.
Guest-edited special issue. International Review of Applied Linguistics 45, 193-215. Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter.
Robinson, P. (in press). Syllabus design. In M.H. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language teaching. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Robinson, P. & Ellis, N.C. (2008). Conclusions: Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and L2 instruction-Issues for research. In
P.Robinson & N.C.Ellis (Eds.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 489-546). London: Routledge.
Robinson, P. & Gilabert, R. (2007a). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. In P. Robinson,
& R. Gilabert (Eds.), Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language instruction. Guest-edited special issue International
Review of Applied Linguistics 45, 161-177. Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007b). (Eds.), Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language instruction. Guest-edited special issue
International Review of Applied Linguistics . Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter.
Robinson, P., Ting, S.C-C., & Urwin, J. (1995). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC Journal, 26, 62-79.