___

• Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35–59.
• Ahmadian, M. J., Tavakoli, M., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2015). The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 speech. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 41-56.
• Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35.
• Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising 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). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2018). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 147–164.
• De Clercq, B., & Housen, A. (2017). A cross-linguistic perspective on syntactic complexity in L2 development: syntactic elaboration and diversity. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 315–334.
• Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics. Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and Meta-Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style in the use of past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12-20.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3- 34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299- 323.
• Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 354-375.
• Heaton, J. B. (1966). Composition through pictures. Essex: Longman.
• Heaton, J. B. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman.
• Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
• Hulstijn, J.. & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.
• Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Kormos, J. (2011). Speech production and the cognition hypothesis. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 39-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 267–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 1-34.
• Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91-104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35, 606-614.
• Larson-Hall, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65(S1), 127-159.
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Michel, M., Shi, D., & Li, Y. (2019). The effects of task demands on linguistic complexity and accuracy across task types and L1/L2 speakers. In Z. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (eds.) Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan, (pp. 133-152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Miestamo, M. (2009). Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (eds) Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 80–97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Measurement for understanding: An organic approach to investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.
• Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.
• Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31, 117–134.
• Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 203-235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
• Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193-213.
• Sasayama, S. (2015). Validating the assumed relationship between task design, cognitive complexity, and second language task performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
• Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473.
• Trebits, A. (2016). Sources of individual differences in L2 narrative production: The contribution of input, processing, and output anxiety. Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 155-174.
• Tuzcu, A. (2018). Task type and online planning as mediating factors in the oral performance of L2 learners. Unpublished master’s thesis. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
• Tuzcu, A., & Yalçın, Ş. (2019). The combined effects of manipulating tasks in two dimensions on L2 speech performance. In H. Wilson et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2017 Second Language Research Forum, (pp. 175-184). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
• Vercellotti, M. L. (2019). Finding variation: assessing the development of syntactic complexity in ESL Speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 233-247.
• Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In Peter Skehan (ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85–106.
• Yoon, H. J., & Polio, C. (2017). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 275-301.
• Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.