Referent Similarity and TBLT

  • Craig Lambert


This chapter discusses implications of the study for task-based L2 research and pedagogy. In the first half of the chapter, the findings regarding each of the research hypotheses are first discussed, and key theoretical issues regarding the role of tasks in L2 production are identified. In the second half of the chapter, practical task design principles are outline and illustrated with examples that both teachers and researchers will find useful in applying the ideas discussed in the book to the design and sequencing of tasks for task-based L2 research and instruction.


  1. Camaioni, L., & Ercolani, A. (1988). The role of comparison activity in the development of referential communication. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 11, 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ellis, R. (2001). Non-reciprocal tasks, comprehension and second language acquisition. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 49–74). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Lambert, C., & Engler, S. (2007). Information distribution and goal orientation in second language task design. In M. P. García-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 27–43). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  4. Lambert, C., & Hailes, A. (2005). A task-based approach to second language materials development. Kitakyushu University Faculty of Foreign Studies Bulletin, 113, 63–89.Google Scholar
  5. Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in task-based research: Toward more developmentally-based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35, 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lambert, C., & Nakamura, S. (2018). Language proficiency and language use: A study of English as a first and second language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics.
  7. Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Ravid, D., & Berman, R. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Robinson, P. (2011a). Task-based language learning: A review of the issues. Language Learning, 61(Suppl. 1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Robinson, P. (2011b). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Skehan, P., Xiaoyue, B., Qian, L., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16, 170–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. White, R., & Robinson, P. (1995). Current approaches to syllabus design: A discussion with Ron White. Guidelines, 17, 93–101.Google Scholar
  16. Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig Lambert
    • 1
  1. 1.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations