ESP-4492

Published

2026-02-11

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 2 (2026): Publishing

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Xu Han, Ngee Thai Yap* and Fatin Nabila Binti Abd Razak

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Xu Han, Ngee Thai Yap, & Fatin Nabila Binti Abd Razak. (2026). Differential Effects of Online Task Planning on Formulaic Language Use and Working Memory over Time. Environment and Social Psychology, 11(2), ESP-4492. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i2.4492

Differential Effects of Online Task Planning on Formulaic Language Use and Working Memory over Time

Xu Han

Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 43400,Malaysia

Ngee Thai Yap

Faculty of Languages and Communication, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Fatin Nabila Binti Abd Razak

Faculty of Languages and Communication, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v11i2.4492


Keywords: online task planning; formulaic sequences; working memory; psychological experience; L2 speaking

Abstract

Despite sustained pedagogical emphasis on communicative competence, oral fluency remains a persistent challenge for EFL learners, particularly in task-based speaking contexts involving time pressure. While previous research has examined the effects of task planning on linguistic performance, less attention has been paid to learners’ psychological experiences during task execution and how these experiences interact with cognitive and linguistic resources over time.

This study investigates how three online task planning conditions—pressured online planning (POP), unpressured online planning (UOP), and hybrid online planning (HOP)—shape learners’ use of formulaic sequences (FSs), with a focus on both frequency and variation, as well as their relationship with working memory (WM). Ninety Chinese EFL undergraduates participated in an eight-week longitudinal intervention and completed dialogic narrative tasks at pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test. Quantitative analyses examined changes in FS deployment and exploratory associations with WM capacity. To complement these analyses, stimulated recall interviews were conducted to capture learners’ perceived pressure, emotional responses, and strategic decision-making under different planning conditions.

The results reveal condition-sensitive and time-dependent patterns in FS use, with distinct profiles emerging across planning conditions. Interview data suggest that these patterns are closely associated with learners’ psychological regulation under task constraints, particularly their tendency toward risk avoidance, reliance on familiar expressions, and prioritization of fluency under pressure. Together, the findings highlight the importance of integrating psychological perspectives into the interpretation of task-based language performance and offer implications for the design of planning conditions in L2 speaking instruction.

References

[1]. 1.Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839.

[2]. 2.Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261.

[3]. 3.Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Longman.

[4]. 4.Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). John Benjamins.

[5]. 5.Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available at https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/

[6]. 6.Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.

[7]. 7.Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(3), 375–408.

[8]. 8.Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.

[9]. 9.Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–34). John Benjamins.

[10]. 10.Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509.

[11]. 11.Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.

[12]. 12.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.

[13]. 13.Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2014). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375.

[14]. 14.Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 200–213.

[15]. 15.Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Lawrence Erlbaum.

[16]. 16.Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second. Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.

[17]. 17.Kormos, J. (2014). Speech production and second language acquisition. Routledge.

[18]. 18.Kormos, J., & Michel, M. (2017). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 217–247.

[19]. 19.Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory, and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 261–271.

[20]. 20.Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 oral task performance: The role of working memory. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 379–399.

[21]. 21.Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.

[22]. 22.Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.

[23]. 23.MacIntyre, P. D. (2012). The psychology of willingness to communicate in second language. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning (pp. 43–64). Palgrave Macmillan.

[24]. 24.Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford University Press.

[25]. 25.Malone, J. (2018). Applied statistics for linguistics with R. Routledge.

[26]. 26.Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299–320.

[27]. 27.Michel, M. (2017). Task complexity and L2 performance. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 163–182). Routledge.

[28]. 28.Mizera, G. J. (2006). Working memory and L2 oral fluency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

[29]. 29.O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(4), 557–581.

[30]. 30.Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 427–443.

[31]. 31.Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education.

[32]. 32.Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). Longman.

[33]. 33.Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2017). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(2), 217–247.

[34]. 34.Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity (pp. 3–37). John Benjamins.

[35]. 35.Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 161–176.

[36]. 36.Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge.

[37]. 37.Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.

[38]. 38.Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.

[39]. 39.Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge.

[40]. 40.Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge University Press.

[41]. 41.Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 240–273.

[42]. 42.Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512.

[43]. 43.Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–277). John Benjamins.

[44]. 44.Tavakoli, P., & Uchihara, T. (2020). To plan or not to plan: The effects of task planning on second language oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(2), 405–433.

[45]. 45.Uchihara, T., & Saito, K. (2019). Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 253–275.

[46]. 46.Wang, Z., et al. (2019). The role of working memory in L2 speech production under task complexity. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2(1), 1–25.

[47]. 47.Wen, Z. (2016). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. Multilingual Matters.

[48]. 48.Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 13–33.

[49]. 49.Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency. Continuum.

[50]. 50.Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language. Bloomsbury.

[51]. 51.Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.

[52]. 52.Wray, A. (2013). Formulaic language. Cambridge University Press.

[53]. 53.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.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com