The contributions of proficiency, exposure, and working memory capacity to second language learners’ comprehension of indirect speech

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-147
Author(s):  
Clevia J. Pérez ◽  
Janet L. McDonald

Abstract Pragmatic inferencing necessary to interpret indirect speech can be problematic for second language (L2) learners and could be influenced by factors such as L2 proficiency and L2 exposure as well as the difficulty of inference to be made (e.g., conventional vs. nonconventional inference) – particularly difficult inferences could tax working memory capacity. The comprehension of direct speech (acceptances and refusals), conventional indirect speech (acceptances and refusals – some with introductory phrases), and nonconventional indirect speech (opinions) was measured in adult Spanish-English bilinguals (n = 58) and native English speakers (n = 38). L2 speakers generally performed worse than native speakers and were influenced by inference difficulty. They more accurately and quickly comprehended direct speech than nonconventional indirect speech, and most conventional indirect speech items fell between these extremes. L2 proficiency was found to be a strong predictor of both conventional and nonconventional inferencing, with L2 exposure also having some impact. Importantly, L1 working memory capacity was shown to independently contribute to L2 learners’ accuracy on one type of conventional and one type of nonconventional inference. Thus, some pragmatic inferencing may require both enough skill to process the second language and enough working memory capacity to make the inference.

2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 607-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen J. Serafini ◽  
Cristina Sanz

This study investigated whether the role of working memory capacity varies over the course of second language (L2) morphosyntactic development. Eighty-seven beginning, intermediate, and advanced university L2 Spanish learners completed two nonverbal tasks measuring executive function (EF) and phonological working memory (PWM) in their native language (English) and two tasks measuring knowledge of ten grammatical structures in Spanish at three points during and after a semester of instruction. Robust relationships between both working memory components, especially PWM, and L2 performance, emerged only for lower level learners, particularly at the start of instruction and 3.5 months later. Findings demonstrate that the facilitative effects of cognitive ability appear to lessen with increasing L2 proficiency and empirically support a developmental perspective of L2 learning.


Author(s):  
Mona Roxana Botezatu ◽  
Taomei Guo ◽  
Judith F. Kroll ◽  
Sarah Peterson ◽  
Dalia L. Garcia

Abstract We evaluated external and internal sources of variation in second language (L2) and native language (L1) proficiency among college students. One hundred and twelve native-English L2 learners completed measures of L1 and L2 speaking proficiency, working memory, and cognitive control and provided self-ratings of language exposure and use. When considering learner-external variation, we found that more frequent L2 exposure predicted higher L2 and L1 proficiency, while earlier L2 exposure predicted higher L2 proficiency, but poorer L1 maintenance. L1–L2 distance limited crosslinguistic transfer of print-to-sound mappings. When considering learner-internal variation, we found that L1 and L2 proficiency were highly correlated and that better working memory, but not cognitive control, accounted for additional variance in L2 and L1 proficiency. More frequent L2 exposure was associated with better cognitive control.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Masrai

AbstractListening comprehension constitutes a considerable challenge for second language learners, but little is known about the relative contribution of individual differences in distinct factors to listening comprehension. Since research in this area is relatively limited in comparison to that focusing on the relationship between reading comprehension and factors such as vocabulary knowledge and working memory, there is a need for studies that seek to fill the gap in our knowledge about the specific contribution of aural vocabulary knowledge, written vocabulary knowledge and working memory capacity to explaining listening comprehension. Among 130 non-native speakers of English, the present study examines what proportion of the variance in listening comprehension is explained by aural vocabulary knowledge, written vocabulary knowledge, and working memory capacity. The results show that aural vocabulary knowledge is the strongest predictor of listening comprehension, followed by working memory capacity, while written vocabulary knowledge contributes only marginally. The study discusses implications for the explanatory power of aural vocabulary knowledge and working memory to listening comprehension and pedagogical practice in second language classrooms.


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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Hyon Kim ◽  
Kiel Christianson

In this study, we report the results of two self-paced reading experiments that investigated working memory capacity effects on the processing of globally ambiguous relative clauses by advanced Korean second language (L2) learners of English. Consistent with previous monolingual literature on the processing of temporary ambiguity, we found that working memory capacity was a factor that also affected the processing of globally ambiguous relative clauses. High working memory capacity was positively correlated with a processing disadvantage reflected as slower reading times at the region where the ambiguity becomes detectable, and longer response times to decide on a correct disambiguation for the target structure. Furthermore, a similar pattern was also found in the same participants’ processing of L2 ambiguity. We conclude that for highly advanced L2 learners, the processing strategies employed for ambiguous structures are not qualitatively different between the same individual’s first language (L1) and L2, but rather differ across readers of different working memory capacities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document