Volume 7 (2016) Issue 1
Melissa
Baralt / Roger Gilabert / Peter Robinson (eds.): Task Sequencing and
Instructed Second Language Learning. London: Bloomsbury 2014 (ix +
237 pp.) (ISBN 978-1-6236-6276-2).
Task-based
learning in Second Language Learning (SLL) can be said to have
started in 1984 with Candlin’s radical proposal for new forms of
syllabus design, which would shift the focus of language learning
from pre-determined learning sequences towards language learning
activities, such as tasks, which place meaning and real-world
language use in the foreground, while engaging the learners’
cognitive faculties in the search for solutions to complete the tasks
appropriately. Such tasks are claimed to be both motivating and
challenging as well as serving to show the learners where they have
gaps in their knowledge and need to do something about filling those
gaps. In the intervening thirty years, research into task-based
learning (TBL) has been prolific (Ellis 2003, Robinson 2011), but
there is still a great deal of uncertainty among practising teachers
as to how TBL can be implemented successfully. Hence the present
volume on task sequencing, co-edited by one of the leading
researchers into TBL, Peter Robinson, provides a welcome contribution
to the current discussion.
Task
Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning
presents a number of empirical studies into sequencing, all of which
have been devised to investigate Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis in
instructed SLL. It should be emphasised at this point that the
volume, following Robinson’s hypothesis, is concerned with
sequencing tasks in terms of cognitive complexity rather than
linguistic complexity, meaning that the demands placed on learners’
conceptual, attention, memory and reasoning faculties should
determine the sequence of tasks. Put simply, learners should start
with cognitively simple tasks and gradually move on to more complex
versions. The theory predicts that the simpler tasks will permit
greater fluency while the more complex tasks will push the learners
towards more complex output and accuracy, and ultimately lead to
greater progress in L2 acquisition.
To
operationalise the Cognitive Hypothesis within language learning,
Robinson has elaborated what he calls the Triadic Componential
Framework, which enables tasks to be graded systematically. This
framework is intended to determine (1) task complexity, i.e. features
which can be manipulated to make the task more cognitively demanding,
(2) task difficulty, i.e. how the learners will cope with the task
with the personal resources they have at their disposal at the time
of working on the task and (3) task conditions, e.g. the interactive
demands in the classroom context.1
In a pedagogical context, only cognitive complexity is sequenced, so
tasks which involve the learners having to use, for example,
knowledge of the world or call upon rational thought beyond the input
features of the task are considered more complex than those which do
not require more than having to exchange information. The language
learning dimension is captured in a model with the acronym SSARC:
Stabilize, Simplify, Automatize, Restructure, Complexify, which
provides for consolidation and change in the interlanguage system.
This model forms a kind of blueprint for drawing up the syllabus in
terms of the current state of interlanguage and how it can be
developed until it corresponds more closely to native-like language
norms. The Triadic Componential Framework and the SSARC model form
the point of departure for the studies assembled in the book.
The
volume is divided into two sections:
- Experimental Studies of Task Sequencing
- Educationally Situated Studies of Task Sequencing in Natural Classroom Contexts.
These
two sections are preceded by an Introduction (Ch. 1, pp.
1-34),
which takes the readers through a potted history of Task Sequencing
in SLL and is essential reading for a better understanding of the
scope of the book and the terminology it adopts. Although the concept
of task
is not defined2,
there appears to be agreement among the authors whose work is
reviewed in the Introduction that cognitive processing is the
outstanding feature that distinguishes TBL from other holistic
approaches such as a communicative approach. The editors are critical
of many studies undertaken so far as they fail to operationalise the
concept of complexity in a reliable manner, e.g. Prabhu (p. 6), who
used
common sense judgement to sequence the tasks and devise the syllabus,
or Long & Crookes
(p. 7-8), who fail to “provide specific suggestions about how to
implement sequencing based on the complexity level of a task” (p.
8). The need for explicit criteria for sequencing tasks was
articulated by Skehan in the 1990s, but, despite the pedagogical
merits of his scheme, the editors state that it lacks a “principled
set of criteria” (p. 9) for sequencing and empirical testing.
Furthermore, though Ellis’ task grading proposals include the
consideration of classroom procedures adopted by teachers to teach
the task (p. 12), they lack clear guidelines on how complexity can be
determined.
The
chapter continues with an introduction to Robinson’s work on task
sequencing (outlined above) and summarises the individual
contributions in the book.
Chapter
Two, “Task sequencing in the
L2 Development of Spatial Expressions” (pp.37-70), describes
an empirical study on the L2 development of spatial expressions in L2
English by learners at B1 level during an intensive summer school.
Levkina & Gilabert start their contribution with a survey of TBL
and the selection of cognitive complexity as the rationale for
sequencing tasks. The survey goes over the ground already covered in
the general introduction to the volume but is well worth reading as
it adds more detail in parts and gives a slightly different take on
the previous research. It also reprints a table drawn up by Robinson
showing the main features of the Triadic Componential Framework (p.
43), allowing the reader to take in all of the design characteristics
of the Framework at a glance (or two).
The
research questions here concern the impact of “Task Sequencing in
the L2 Development of Spatial Expressions”, and in particular
whether the order of presentation of three task formats (simple –
+complex – ++complex) affects the learning and long-term retention
of new target items related to expressions of spatial relations. In
the study, 48 learners took a pre-test to establish their familiarity
with the spatial expressions in question and were then randomly
divided into three treatment groups with three task sequences: (1)
simple – +/++complex, (2) ++/+complex – simple, (3) randomised
(+complex – simple – ++complex). There was no control group.
After completing
the tasks,
the learners took a post-test and a delayed post-test two weeks
later. The tasks centred around the arrangement of furniture in a new
flat, with a written (email) description of a room already furnished,
drawing the location of the items on a floor plan, a multiple choice
test of the spatial expressions and, at the final level of cognitive
complexity (++), the furnishing
of a new kitchen. The cognitive complexity is summarised in a table
on pp. 48-49, and the task items themselves are described in a series
of appendices (pp. 57-63).
The
results turned out to be somewhat ambiguous, though the participants
clearly did learn something. The hypothesis that the SSARC model with
the complexity sequence simple – +/++complex (Group 1) would
produce better results could not be confirmed in the first test
condition: Group 2, with the ++/+complex – simple order, scored
higher. All groups showed significant vocabulary gains in the delayed
post-test, but this
time, Group 1 members were able to improve their scores, which would
speak for the SSARC
model. The authors conclude that sequencing the tasks from simple to
complex has the potential to aid retention over time, but more
research is needed. Nevertheless, the study is a useful starting
point and the task material used for study is a good example of how
cognitive complexity can be increased while keeping the language
demands relatively simple.
Chapter
Three discusses “The Role of Task Sequencing in
Monologic Oral
Production” (pp.
71-93).
In her introduction, Malicka raises the topic of skill learning and
the question of how the criteria for deciding on what is simple or
complex can be determined. Her discussion centres around two
competing approaches, namely Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis and
Skehan’s Trade-off Hypothesis. By now, the basic premises of
Robinson’s ideas should be clear, but the juxtaposition with
Skehan’s work permits further insights. Task complexity comes about
through the interplay of attentional, memory, reasoning and other
information-processing demands. Whereas Robinson differentiates
between cognitive, interactive and learner factors, Skehan
distinguishes between code complexity, cognitive complexity and
communicative stress. In any case, though both call for the
sequencing of tasks in a principled manner, they disagree on how
learners distribute their attention in a complex task. For Robinson,
attentional resources are unlimited so linguistic accuracy should not
suffer when cognitive complexity is increased, while for Skehan, they
are limited and so accuracy and complexity may be in competition for
resources, leading to a trade-off in language production (see pp.
72-74 for a more detailed explanation). This section of the chapter
continues with a review of studies pertinent to both hypotheses,
finally calling for further research. XXX
Malicka’s
own research project attempts to search for more evidence for or
against these two hypotheses as well as to
ascertain out
how performance is affected by sequencing conditions. Her
participants (N = 50) were learners of L2 English with L1 Spanish /
Catalan. Half of the group were given a series of tasks with a
sequencing order of simple, complex and +complex3.
The other half were given the tasks in five different randomised
sequences. As the learners were in the tourism field, they were asked
to play the role of a hotel receptionist and leave a message in
English on answering machines belonging to clients whose room
reservations had to be changed. Complexity was increased by giving
the “receptionists” a client profile (in Spanish) with the
requirement to choose whether the client should be given a different
room or moved to a different hotel.
In
all of the complexity levels, the number of elements was kept the
same, but reasoning demands were manipulated in terms of the number
of different speech acts needed to complete the task, e.g.
describing,
apologising,
justifying.
The simple
task condition
only required the transfer of information; the complex task required
an apology, explanation of the options and recommendation for one of
them. The +complex
task
required a justification for the change in addition to requirements
of the complex task condition. The planning time was limited so that
the learners could familiarise themselves with the task but not plan
the answer. After completing the task, the participants filled
out an affective variables questionnaire. The student monologues were
scored on fluency, lexical
complexity, structural complexity and accuracy. The results make for
interesting reading: in three of the measures, fluency,
lexical
complexity
and accuracy,
there was no significant difference between the two groups’
performance, but in structural complexity the complex task triggered
more complexity in the simple – complex group, whereas the simple
task triggered more structural complexity in the randomised group.
The
second question concerned interaction between task complexity and
sequencing from simple to complex. Here there the sequencing order
had no influence on production. Malicka concludes that “overall
performance was heavily
affected by cognitive complexity”
and that fluency deteriorates on the +complex
task
(p. 88). Since the patterns of performance varied across the four
measures, she suspects that other phenomena known in SLA research,
such as Kellerman’s U-shaped behaviour, were at work but also that
attention switches may have taken place. Importantly, the differences
between the complex
and +complex
tasks were enough to trigger performance changes (p. 89). The
results, however, did not provide support for the hypothesis that the
simple – complex sequence is the ideal order. Despite the somewhat
inconclusive results, the study was well-planned and implemented,
opening up new channels of research. Like the previous study, it
shows how the concept of cognitive complexity can be operationalised
in a meaningful way, not just for research purposes but also for
classroom pedagogy.
Chapter
Four deals with a new challenge to practitioners, namely the role of
task sequencing and online pedagogy. Like all of the studies reported
on so far, Melissa
Baralt’s
contribution “Task Complexity and Task Sequencing in Traditional
Versus Online Language Classes”, starts with a presentation of
Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis and the SSARC model of task
sequencing. Her introduction emphasises two variables, which have not
been mentioned in this review so far but are part of Robinson’s
cognitive complexity construct. These are: resource-dispersing
variables
which affect the learner’s ability to direct attention to
non-linguistic features of the task and access the L2 system, for
example, planning time, which would reduce the pressure and make the
task “simpler”. The second variable encompasses
resource-directing
features,
governing how attention is directed to language and the need for
particular language forms: in a task involving intentional reasoning
features such as causality or conditionality, which require specific
language forms, make the task more complex. With these two variables,
the teacher can adjust the complexity of the tasks in preparation for
real-world communication.
One
of the main characteristics of task-based learning is interaction, so
one may well ask how this can be achieved in online learning. Baralt
has
opted for
online chat as a medium to guarantee interaction in online tasks
in her research. In particular, she adopts synchronous
computer-mediated communication (SCMC) which not only permits
interaction but also allows focus on form and feedback. The fact that
there is a delay in response times may even be an additional
advantage as the learners have more time to plan. In a previous
study, Baralt looked into the efficacy of feedback in face-to-face
and online situations, using a simple – complex task design. In the
complex task, learning was better in the face-to-face mode, whereas
in the simple task, the SCMC mode worked better. Studies by other
researchers, summarised in a table (p. 102), indicate
that complex tasks lead to more clarification requests,
language-related episodes (LREs) and self-correction, all of which
lead to language development.
In
the present study, Baralt investigated the impact of different
sequences of cognitive complexity on learning opportunities and L2
development. The tasks were intended to force the learners to use the
Spanish past subjunctive, a form which had been covered in regular
textbook-based class sessions. The learners were required to read
part of a story in their L1 (English) and retell it to their partners
in Spanish with the help of comic strip pictures. Complexity, in
terms of +/- intentional reasoning, was increased in some of the
tasks, which were completed in different complexity sequences (p.
108).
XXX
The results showed that whenever the learners in the classroom group
had to deal with complex tasks, they produced more LREs, and this
affected the learning outcome positively. The learners in the online
group, however, produced no LREs at all regardless of the task
complexity sequences, meaning that the results of Baralt’s previous
study could not be confirmed. Baralt concludes that more complex
tasks are more effective than simple ones for language development
and reports
that the learners in the classroom group had enjoyed the tasks but
missed getting feedback since they did not construe the
learner-learner dialogues as “feedback”.
As far as the online group is concerned, it may be the case
that learners simply need a different type of task which matches
their online experience outside the classroom. This would make
comparability across groups more difficult to achieve, but would be
worth trying out. This study is well planned and implemented and
stands out not just for its scientific merits but also because for
once, we are not just reading about the acquisition of L2 English!
Chapter
Five, the last in this section of the book, deals with “The Effects
of Guided Planning, Task Complexity and Task Sequencing on L2 Oral
Production”. In this contribution, we return to the competing
hypotheses of Robinson and Skehan. Colin Thompson reviews a study by
Mochizuki & Ortega on the production of relative clauses by
Japanese learners who were given guided planning to complete the
tasks. He concludes that the results of this study can be used in
support of both of these hypotheses, but detects a limitation in the
study in that the effects of planning were not monitored adequately.
In his replication study, Thompson focused on the notions of task
complexity and task difficulty, which, according to Robinson, are
distinct constructs (p. 128). He hypothesised that with guided
planning the learners would be more likely to produce the particular
form (relative clause), that learners would find the more complex
tasks more difficult and that the task completion would be less
successful.
The
learners, who were divided into a guided planning and an unguided
planning group, were asked to recount a story to a researcher with
the help of a series of pictures. The story was always a narrative,
but the storylines were varied so that there was no element of
repetition in subsequent trials. Increased complexity was achieved by
increasing intentional reasoning, which resulted in having to produce
more relative clauses. Following the tasks, the learners took an
immediate post-test, followed by a delayed post-test, and completed a
questionnaire. The whole study spanned a seven-week period. The
results showed that the learners produced more relative clauses in
both post-tests than they had in the pre-test, although they did not
produce all of the expected relative clauses, partially confirming
the hypothesis. Regarding the benefits of guided planning, the
results could only be partially confirmed. Although the learners who
had been given planning help showed greater gains in the immediate
post-test, there was no substantial difference
between the
groups’ performance in the delayed post-test. The perception of
task difficulty did not vary between the two groups: both found the
simple task the least difficult while the most complex task was
judged to be more stressful.
Thompson
concludes that the elicitation task was unsuccessful in the pre-test,
but this is not so surprising since of the seven example sentences
given on p. 145, only two require an obligatory relative clause.
However, after completing the tasks, the learners produced more
relative clauses in subsequent narratives. Thompson states that with
guided planning and increased task complexity, both groups showed
significant gains, pointing out that his learners could draw on their
declarative knowledge and did so once they were primed towards
producing relative clauses. He also claims that sequencing tasks in
terms of increasing intentional reasoning along the lines of the
Cognitive Hypothesis encourages learners to turn their efforts
towards producing more complex output. Sequencing the tasks and
offering guided planning may have facilitated proceduralisation of
knowledge enabling the learners to produce the intended form in
natural speech. Hence, even with high proficiency learners, it may be
useful to provide guided planning in more complex tasks.
The
results of the questionnaire of the learners’ perceptions of task
difficulty showed that more complex tasks are considered more
difficult, but that there was no advantage for the group which had
received guided planning help. The study once more underlines the
importance of increasing task complexity as a means of promoting
language knowledge, especially with learners who are capable of
stretching themselves to meet the challenge.
Chapter
Six opens the section on task sequencing in natural classroom
contexts. Kim
& Payant start
their contribution, “A Pedagogical Proposal for Task Sequencing: An
Exploration of Task Repetition and Task Complexity on Learning
Opportunities”, by summarising Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis
and SSARC model, reminding the reader of the main types of syllabus
design: synthetic
and analytic.
They recommend developing tasks that will generate large numbers of
LREs, which will focus attention on form and so ultimately benefit
the learners’ language use outside the EFL classroom. They also
review the secondary literature on task repetition but find that the
issue of the interaction between task repetition and task complexity
has been largely ignored. Their contribution attempts to fill this
gap and discover how task complexity and task repetition interact,
creating opportunities for LREs, which should lead to further
learning.
Although
the study was set in a normal classroom context, it did not actually
reflect teaching conditions in a primarily task-based classroom, as
the learners worked on the task in only three teaching sessions of a
syllabus which was normally
four-skills-based
with communicative elements (p. 159). Since the task-based teaching
was presumably quite a novelty, the learners may have been more
motivated to work under these conditions than in the regular context.
The
learners, Korean learners of L2 English, completed tasks under four
experimental conditions involving repeating the content and repeating
the procedure, each in simple / complex formats and with a new
partner for each different session. The data revealed two types of
LREs:
lexical and grammatical, which were sub-categorised as resolved by
learner-learner dialogue, by learner-teacher dialogue or incorrectly
resolved and unresolved. The results are too extensive to be dealt
with in detail here but show, for example, that while the procedural
repetitions yielded more lexical LREs, the number of lexical LREs
decreased in all groups after each task session, indicating that some
learning had taken place and the learners had fewer problems. With
grammatical LREs, the story is not so clear cut: with procedural
repetition, there was an increase in grammatical LREs in Task 2 but,
overall, procedural repetition tended to require more teacher-learner
resolution than the task repetition mode where the learners were able
to solve the problems themselves. In all conditions, the number of
successful resolutions outweighed the number of incorrectly resolved
or unresolved solutions.
Repetition
of activities is a standard procedure in EFL classrooms whatever
syllabus is chosen, as it allows the learners to consolidate their
knowledge and attend to form. Kim & Payant claim that task
repetition does not merely lead to duplication of production but may
lead to increased automatization, promoting proceduralisation. It is
still an open question, however, as to how many repetitions are
optimal and whether content or procedural repetitions are preferable.
The study focused on the number of LREs generated and while the
authors point out that the number of LREs is not the same as language
learning, there was no other measure of learning in the design of the
study. No tailor-made post-tests, which would have indicated whether
learning had really taken place, were administered.
This
is an interesting study that reveals more gaps in our thinking about
TBL and shows that other dimensions such as language proficiency and
the ecological validity of the tasks would also need to be taken into
account in the research design. The Cognition Hypothesis’s focus on
complexity as the main sequencing principle could not be confirmed
here: task repetition would have to be included as a factor in
developing task sequencing proposals but the optimal type of
repetition and the timing of such interventions are still topics for
further research.
Chapter
7, “Teachers’ Application of the Cognition Hypothesis when Lesson
Planning: A Case Study”, by Baralt, Harmath-de Lemos & Werfelli
raises the question of how teachers perceive TBL and implement it in
the classroom. The chapter reports on the experience of two teachers’
attempts to devise TBL units during an in-service training course.
They had been introduced the Cognition Hypothesis and the notion of
sequencing tasks in TBL according to complexity on Day One of the
course: Day Two was reserved for practical work on preparing lesson
plans for TBL sessions in their own classrooms.
The
chapter summarises the Cognition Hypothesis and the features of the
Triadic Componential Framework, as well as previous research on
teachers’ operationalisation of these theoretical concepts. The
research in this field is limited: Van den Branden reported that
teachers were unhappy about using tasks they considered too difficult
for their students and preferred traditional PPP approaches, while
Gurzynski-Weiss found that teachers’ beliefs, perceptions of their
students’ abilities and institutional factors were among the
reasons for not implementing TBL (see pp. 183-5 for more details).
The
two teachers in this study taught Spanish and Italian, respectively,
at a US university. In the workshop, they were introduced to the idea
of sequencing tasks from simple to complex, shown examples and then,
working collectively with other participants and the researcher as
well as on their own, prepared their own plans for up-coming class
sessions. These TBL planning sessions were organised as a mixture of
interactive group phases and individual think-aloud recordings, all
of which were recorded and later evaluated by the researcher. The
teachers had volunteered for the workshop and were positively
disposed towards TBL. Their current teaching was described as
communicative but both felt restricted by a grammar-based syllabus
which was imposed on them by their institution. Both teachers drew on
materials which they had already devised to teach a particular
grammatical structure (present perfect) and adapted them to create a
task-based unit consisting of simple and more complex tasks with
pre-task, task and post-task activities. The results, however,
revealed that their understanding of the Cognitive Hypothesis and the
Triadic Componential Framework did not entirely correspond to the
principles underlying the approach. Their interpretation was to
extend these principles to their current teaching practice, which
would involve teaching the grammatical structure explicitly before
letting their students loose on the tasks. In other words, they
doubted that the tasks could be a vehicle for learning without prior
teaching and were simply using them as additional practice material.
This
qualitative study reveals the gap between theory and practice in
teacher training and indicates the inability of teachers to adjust
their teaching methods in accordance with new insights into language
learning pedagogy rapidly. A two-day training course is clearly not
sufficient to change the habits of many years, even if the
participants, like the teachers described here, find TBL a plausible
and potentially effective means of learning language. It also
indicates that TBL may have to be introduced as an institution-wide
project with large teams of teachers cooperating to devise TBL units
and share on-the-job insights. In the long run, textbook publishers
with their greater resources will probably make the running here and
flood the market with ready-made solutions.
The
final contribution by Craig Lambert & Peter Robinson, “Learning
to Perform Narrative Tasks: A Semester-long Classroom Study of L2
Task Sequencing Effects”, takes a macro-learning perspective as
opposed to the micro-learning examples, e.g. spatial expressions,
present perfect or relative clauses which have been the topics in the
volume so far. The pedagogical goal was to teach students to
summarise texts and give an opinion on what they had read. The
research goal was to lend support to the Cognitive Hypothesis and its
ramifications. To this end, the chapter starts with a summary of the
Cognition Hypothesis and the SSARC model of task sequencing.
Two
student groups taking part in regular basic courses were arbitrarily
divided into an experimental group and a control group. They both
received the same instruction in the first half of the term to enable
them to analyse short stories (e.g. plot, characters) and organise
their opinions on what they had read. In order to be able to compare
the groups, the researcher also collected extensive data on language
proficiency, motivation and educational background of all
participants (pp. 220-221). In the second half of the term, the
control group continued analysing stories and writing summaries,
while the experimental group underwent a six-session treatment phase
of narrating a story from pictures, then with the addition of further
pictures attributing mental states to the actors (complex
version)
and then summarising an authentic story (real-world
task).
Before the task-based phase began, all students summarised a short
story as a pre-test and at the end of the term, a post-test was
administered. These summaries were analysed for syntactic complexity,
explicit reasoning and grammatical accuracy. It is not clear how much
feedback was given to the two groups during the experiment, if any at
all. Here more information about the classroom routines would help
readers to evaluate the role of the task-based intervention. As it
is, there was little difference between the two groups, but so many
other variables played a role in the experimental design that one
cannot attribute this finding exclusively to the SSARC model. It may
also be the case that narrating from pictures draws on different
skills than summarising.
The
study is an attempt to confirm the Cognitive Hypothesis under
real-life conditions, but it showed that it is almost impossible to
isolate one single factor in the language learning process for
empirical testing. The range of dimensions investigated, such as
working memory capacity, are an indication of what might be involved
in learning gain, but it is well-nigh impossible to capture all of
these in a single study.
On
the whole, the volume gives much food for thought. While the notion
of working from simpler versions of a task through more complex
versions until target-like language is produced will intuitively
appeal to most teachers (Ch. 7), even without the SSARC model, the
finding that the reverse sequence of complex to simple (Ch. 3) turned
out to lead to qualitative changes in output is more than intriguing.
All of the contributions cover the Cognitive Hypothesis and SSARC
model in more or less detail, but fail to give much detail about the
learners concerned – are they beginners, advanced learners,
schoolchildren, young adults? What is their previous learning
experience? What are their needs? How much TBL have they already
experienced? What is the learning culture in the country of the
experiment? This kind of information would help the readers gain a
more general perspective and enable them to judge the outcomes of the
studies better.
The
question of task sequencing is certain to be a subject of further
research and is certainly one that is worth answering. The present
volume makes an interesting starting point for anyone looking for a
challenging research topic. It is to be hoped that more research is
forthcoming, particularly with languages other than English: German
with its morphological complexity and its increasing appeal as a
second language would be an excellent candidate.
References
Ellis,
Rod (2003). Task-based
Language Learning and Teaching.
Oxford: OUP.
Robinson,
Peter (2011). Task-Based Language Learning: A Review of Issues.
Language
Learning, Vol. 61, Sup. 1,
pp. 1-36.
Author:
Prof.
Dr. Veronica Smith, MA
Alpen-Adria-Universität
Institut
für Anglistik und Amerikanistik
Universitätsstraße
65-67
9020
Klagenfurt
Austria
Email:
veronica.smith@aau.at
1
The
Triadic Componential Framework is described in more detail in the
contribution by Levkina & Gilabert in Chapter 2, p. 43. The
authors list factors which should be taken into account, showing how
complexity can be increased in a step-by-step manner.
3
The
terminology has not been unified in the different contributions. The
authors’ use of the symbols +
and ++
has been maintained in this review, despite the potential ambiguity.