The Role of Working Memory, Language Proficiency, and Learners’ Age in Second Language English Learners’ Processing and Comprehension of Anaphoric Sentences

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-370
Author(s):  
Mohammad Nowbakht
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moussa Ahmadian ◽  
Sajjad Pouromid ◽  
Mehdi Nickkhah

The role of the learners’ first language (L1) in learning second language (L2) writing has recently become a focus in SLA research. There have been many studies focusing on different aspects of this phenomenon. The results of these studies have shown how L1 use may play facilitative roles in producing writing in the second language. Many variables, such as task type and language proficiency, have also been studied in this regard. Yet, there seems to be a paucity of research on whether L1 use can significantly improve the quality of written productions in L2. The present study was therefore designed to peruse this question and find what aspects of writing may improve with L1 use. To this end, the written productions of 36 Persian-speaking intermediate English learners writing an argumentative paragraph were analyzed. 6 of the 12 groups were asked to collaborate in their first language and the others were limited to using the second language in their collaborations. The results of statistical comparisons between the first language and second language groups revealed that L1 use can significantly improve the overall score gained by the L2 writers. It was also found that L1 use improves the quality of L2 written productions in terms of organization/unity, development, structure, and mechanics.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1163-1167
Author(s):  
Muhammad Saleem Rana ◽  
Muhammad Irfan Rai ◽  
Muhammad Zubair ◽  
Noor Muzammil

This article looks into the competence of second language acquisition investigating that how a language learner does learn English as a second language effectively by using his own abilities.Many studies have examined the function of Self-Efficacy in academic achievement, though as Pajares (2000) mentioned the relation of language achievement and Self-Efficacy has not been studied well and there has been small research in this regard. This made the researcher to investigate the relationship between Pakpattan ESL learners' language achievements and their Self-Efficacy. It also studies the variations of ESL learners’ Self-Efficacy and their majors. Besides, it explores the differences between ESL learners' majors and their language achievements. Population of this study was 200 ESL learners of The University of Lahore Pakpattan campus but 60 ESL learners from different departments of The University of Lahore Pakpattan campus selected for the sample of present study in order to measure ESL learners' language proficiency. Different types of tests applied for its measurement. A questionnaire was prepared and conducted. Computer statistical program SPSS XXII was used for statistics. Literature were reviewed and the work cited mentioned as well.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 189
Author(s):  
Saudin Saudin ◽  
Iis Sulyaningsih ◽  
Lina Meilinda

The important role of collocation in learners’ language proficiency has been acknowledged widely. In Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), collocation is known as one prominent member of the super-ordinate lexical cohesion, which contributes significantly to the textual coherence, together with grammatical cohesion and structural cohesion (Halliday & Hasan, 1985). Collocation is also viewed as the hallmark of truly advanced English learners since the higher the learners’ proficiency is, the more they tend to use collocation (Bazzaz & Samad, 2011; Hsu, 2007; Zhang, 1993). Further, knowledge of collocation is regarded as part of the native speakers’ communicative competence (Bazzaz & Samad, 2011); and lack of the knowledge is the most important sign of foreignness among foreign language learners (McArthur, 1992; McCarthy, 1990). Taking the importance of collocation into account, this study is aimed to shed light on Indonesian EFL learners’ levels of collocational competence. In the study, the collocational competence is restricted to v+n and adj+n of collocation but broken down into productive and receptive competence, about which little work has been done (Henriksen, 2013). For this purpose, 49 second-year students of an English department in a state polytechnic were chosen as the subjects. Two sets of tests (filling in the blanks and multiple-choice) were administered to obtain the data of the subjects’ levels of productive and receptive competence and to gain information of which type was more problematic for the learners. The test instruments were designed by referring to Brashi’s (2006) test model, and Koya’s (2003). In the analysis of the data, interpretive-qualitative method was used primarily to obtain broad explanatory information. The data analysis showed that the scores of productive competence were lower than those of receptive competence in both v+n and adj+n collocation. The analysis also revealed that the scores of productive and receptive competence in v+n collocation were higher than those of productive and receptive competence in adj+n collocation. The finding comes as a surprise since it turns out adj+n collocation is more problematic than v+n collocation both productively and receptively. Much research, by contrast, has reported that mistakes in v+n collocation are typical (Al-Zahrani, 1998; Nesselhauf, 2003; Liu, 1999; Sun, 2004). A conclusion has even been drawn that “v+n collocation is more difficult than adj+n collocation” (Kuo, 2009, p. 148). Though more studies are needed to support its finding, this research suggests the type of collocation deserve to get more attention from researchers.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilina Kachinske ◽  
Robert DeKeyser

Abstract Despite numerous positive findings of explicit instruction, this topic continues to engage scholars worldwide. One issue that may be crucial for the effectiveness of explicit instruction is the interaction between cognitive individual differences (language aptitude and working memory) and types of instruction. In this experiment, 128 learners of Spanish were randomly assigned to four experimental treatments and completed comprehension-based practice for interpreting object-verb and ser/estar sentences in Spanish. Results revealed that the various combinations of rules and practice posed differential task demands on the learners and consequently drew on language aptitude and working memory to a different extent. We argue that not only are rules and practice both necessary, but that their suitable integration ameliorates task demands, reducing the burden on the learner, and accordingly mitigates the role of participants’ individual differences, thus making a substantial difference for the learning of second language grammar.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAN JUFFS

Cunnings (2016) provides welcome insights into differences between native speaker (NS) sentence processing, adult non-native speaker processing (NNS), and working memory capacity (WMC) limitations. This commentary briefly raises three issues: construct operationalization; the role of first language (L1); and context.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuria Sagarra

Adults demonstrate difficulty and pronounced variability when developing second language (L2) grammatical knowledge and reading skills. We examine explanations in terms of individual differences in working memory (WM). Despite numerous studies, the association between WM and adult second language (L2) acquisition remains unclear, and longitudinal studies are scarce and contradictory. This study investigates whether WM affects L2 grammar and reading development in beginning classroom learners, using WM tests with (Waters and Caplan’s 1996 test) and without (Daneman and Carpenter’s 1980 test) a demanding processing task. In Experiment 1, 82 beginning first language (L1) English learners of Spanish completed Daneman and Carpenter’s test, and grammar and reading pretests and posttests one year apart. In Experiment 2, 330 beginning English learners of Spanish completed the same tests as in Experiment 1 and Waters and Caplan’s test. The results reveal that only Waters Caplan’s test (response time, recall span) yielded WM effects, and that response time (processing) negatively correlated with recall span (storage). These findings reveal longitudinal WM effects on L2 grammar and reading development at early acquisition stages, support resource-sharing WM models, and urge scholars to adopt WM tests with a processing task performed under timed conditions, and to analyse response time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document