RESUMO
Based on Kellogg's writing model, Skehan's Limited Attentional Capacity Model (LACM), and Robinson's Cognition Hypothesis, our study investigated the effects of cognitive task complexity on syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, accuracy, fluency, and functional adequacy in Chinese L2 students' argumentative writing, when students were under an online planning condition. Sixty-eight participants from a Chinese university were recruited to complete two writing tasks with task complexity varied in terms of [+ argument elements]. The findings showed that increasing task complexity led to decreased subordination in terms of clauses per T-unit and dependent clauses per clause, increased phrasal elaboration in terms of coordinate phrases per clause, and no changes in mean length of T-unit, T-units per sentence, mean length of clause, and complex nominals per clause. Neither significant differences in accuracy nor fluency were found as a function of increasing task complexity. Detrimental effects on functional adequacy in content, organization, and overall scores were identified with the increases in task complexity. The trade-offs between syntactic and lexical complexity and between syntactic complexity and functional adequacy support the basic principle of Skehan's LACM that human's information processing capacity is limited and Kellogg's claim that learners have a limited central executive capacity in writing. Implications of the results of this research are discussed.
RESUMO
Scholars have underscored the importance of raising students' awareness and understanding of stance-taking in academic writing. However, studies on the effects of the pedagogical intervention are just a few. To strengthen this line of inquiry, this paper reports on an intervention study with explicit instruction of stance metalanguage based on the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) Engagement framework and its effects on EFL students' perceptions of stance as well as on their beliefs about academic writing. A treatment group (n = 26) and a comparison group (n = 24) were involved. An eight-week writing intervention was provided in the treatment group, while the comparison group received regular curriculum-based instruction. Data from multiple sources were collected prior to and after the writing intervention, including two five-point Likert-scale questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and reflective journals, to examine possible changes in students' self-reported perceptions of stance and writing beliefs. Results showed that the intervention was effective in enhancing students' stance awareness and transactional writing beliefs. Qualitative results further revealed that while the comparison group retained a preference for tentative stance after the writing instruction, intending to avoid potential challenges from readers, the treatment group exhibited a shift in preference for assertive stance valuing the strengths of claims. The treatment group further exhibited an inclination to adopt a wider range of stance options for various rhetorical purposes. Pedagogical suggestions are discussed.
