Planning to perform: Association of pre-task strategies with linguistic complexity and cohesion in argumentative essays
Keywords:
syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, cohesion, pre-task planning, prewriting strategiesAbstract
While much research has examined the effects of pre-task planning on L2 writing performance, little attention has been paid to what writers actually do during planning and how their strategies relate to the linguistic features in their writing. To address these gaps, this study explores the relationship between pre-task planning strategies and language use in L2 argumentative writing. We manually coded 511 timed essays for pre-task strategy use, type, language, and depth of elaboration. The essays were then analyzed for linguistic and cohesion features. Using principal component analysis, we found five constructs tapping into syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, and semantic cohesion. Linear models were used to examine whether pre-task planning and its characteristics predicted variation in these constructs. The results indicated that essays written with one or more pre-task strategies demonstrated significantly higher lexical sophistication. Further, greater elaboration and the use of exploratory or mixed strategies were positively associated with lexical diversity and sophistication. In contrast, no strong relationships were found between planning strategies and syntactic complexity or cohesion. These findings highlight the lexical benefits of pre-task planning and offer implications for research and pedagogy in L2 writing
References
Abdi Tabari, M. (2019). Differential effects of strategic planning and task structure on L2 writing outcomes. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36, 320–338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1637310
Abdi Tabari, M., & Golparvar, S. E. (2024). Cohesion in L2 writing: Assessing the role of pre-task planning and topic familiarity through a task-readiness lens. The Language Learning Journal, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2024.2437370
Abrams, Z. I., & Byrd, D. R. (2016). The effects of pre-task planning on L2 writing: Mind-mapping and chronological sequencing in a 1st-year German class. System, 63, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.011
Ai, H., & Lu, X. (2013). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing. In A. DÍaz-Negrillo, N. Ballier, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 249–264). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins.
Chai, C. (2006). Writing plan quality: Relevance to writing scores. Assessing Writing, 11, 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2007.01.001
Crossley, S.A. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11, 415–443. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 984–989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text coherence and judgments of essay quality: Models of quality and coherence. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1236–1241). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7
Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & Dascalu, M. (2019). The Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Cohesion 2.0: Integrating semantic similarity and text overlap. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1142-4
Durrant, P., Brenchley, M., & Clarkson, R. (2020). Syntactic development across genres in children's writing: The case of adverbial clauses. Journal of Writing Research, 12, 419–452. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.04
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034
Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 109–125). Cambridge University Press.
Gillis, M. K., & Olson, M. (1990). Do college students who plan before writing score better on essay exams? In T. V. Rasinski, N. D. Padak, & J. Logan (Eds.), Reading is knowledge (pp. 7-9). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association, Kansas City.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hyltenstam, K. (1988). Lexical characteristics of near- native second-language learners of Swedish. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1988.9994320
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A., (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011
Kellogg, R. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 327–342. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423213
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kessler, M., Ma, W., & Solheim, I. (2022). The effects of topic familiarity on text quality, complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A conceptual replication, TESOL Quarterly, 56, 1163–1190. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3096
Khezrlou, S. (2020). Training planning in second language narrative writing. ELT Journal, 74, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz050
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829402500202
Loewen, S., & Gonulal, T. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 182–212). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic measurement of syntactic complexity in child language acquisition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.1.02lu
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232.x
Manchón, R. (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
Meraji, S. R. (2011). Planning time, strategy use, and written task production in a pedagogic vs. a testing context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 338–352. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.2.338-352
Michalke, M. (2018). koRpus: An R Package for Text Analysis (Version 0.11-5). Retrieved from https://reaktanz.de/?c=hacking&s=koRpus
Ong, J., & Zhang L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Polio, C. (2017). Second language writing development: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 50, 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000015
Polio, C., & Park, J.-H. (2016). Language development in second language writing. In R. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 287–306). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rau, P. S., & Sebrechts, M. M. (1996). How initial plans mediate the expansion and resolution of options in writing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49, 616–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755642
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rostamian, M., Fazilatfar, A. M., & Jabbari, A. A. (2018). The effect of planning time on cognitive processes, monitoring behavior, and quality of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research, 22, 418–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817699239
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004
Yoon, H., & Polio, C. (2017). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 275-301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.296
Zhang, J. (2018). The effect of strategic planning training on cohesion in EFL learners’ essays. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1506371
Ziegler, N. (2018). Pre-task planning in L2 text-chat: Examining learners’ process and performance. Language Learning & Technology, 22, 193–213. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44664
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hyung-Jo Yoon, Stephanie Hyeri Kim, Anna Dina L. Joaquin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
