The proposals that (a) nonword repetition and word learning both rely on phonological storage and (b) both are multiply determined are two of the major foci of Gathercole's (2006) Keynote Article, which marshals considerable evidence in support of each. In my view, the importance of these proposals cannot be overstated: these two notions go to the heart of the relationship between nonword repetition and word learning. Indeed, they figure prominently in the approach that my colleagues and I have taken to studying that relationship (e.g., Gupta, 2006; Gupta, Lipinski, Abbs, & Lin, 2005; Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997). An important aspect of our approach has been the attempt to construct a computational model that can simulate performance in a nonword repetition task and in a word learning task, the rationale being that a computational model that achieved this would constitute a proposal about the processing mechanisms that may underlie the relationship. In this Commentary, I describe how our computational work offers a concrete way of thinking about how nonword repetition and word learning may rely on phonological storage, and about how these abilities may be multiply determined. Such computational work is, I suggest, a valuable tool in further investigating the important relationship that has been revealed by Gathercole's influential work, and that is analyzed in the Keynote Article.
Word learning, phonological short-term memory, phonotactic probability and long-term memory: towards an integrated framework