Working memory effects on L1 and L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses by Korean L2 learners of English

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Hyon Kim ◽  
Kiel Christianson
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
First Language ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
L1 And L2

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.

Does the shallow structures proposal account for qualitative differences in first and second language processing?

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-84
Author(s):  
Laura Sabourin
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
First Language ◽  
Qualitative Difference ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Lexical Knowledge ◽  
Second Language Processing ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L1 And L2

In their Keynote Article, Clahsen and Felser (CF) provide a detailed summary and comparison of grammatical processing in adult first language (L1) speakers, child L1 speakers, and second language (L2) speakers. CF conclude that child and adult L1 processing makes use of a continuous parsing mechanism, and that any differences found in processing can be explained by factors such as limited working memory capacity and incomplete lexical knowledge. The authors then suggest that the existing differences between L1 (both adult and child) and L2 processing provide evidence that parsing mechanisms are qualitatively different between these groups. They posit that this qualitative difference between L1 and L2 is due to L2 speakers having shallower and less detailed syntactic representations than L1 speakers. This commentary focuses on discussing this shallow structures account and considers what this means for L2 processing.

Construct operationalization, L1 effects, and context in second language processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAN JUFFS
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
First Language ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Second Language Processing

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.

scholarly journals The Worst Performance Rule, or the Not-Best Performance Rule? Latent-Variable Analyses of Working Memory Capacity, Mind-Wandering Propensity, and Reaction Time

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew S. Welhaf ◽  
Bridget A. Smeekens ◽  
Matt E. Meier ◽  
Paul J. Silvia ◽  
Thomas R. Kwapil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Latent Variable ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Empirical Finding ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Better Than

The worst performance rule (WPR) is a robust empirical finding reflecting that people’s worst task performance shows numerically stronger correlations with cognitive ability than their average or best performance. However, recent meta-analytic work has proposed this be renamed the “not-best performance” rule because mean and worst performance seem to predict cognitive ability to similar degrees, with both predicting ability better than best performance. We re-analyzed data from a previously published latent-variable study to test for worst vs. not-best performance across a variety of reaction time tasks in relation to two cognitive ability constructs: working memory capacity (WMC) and propensity for task-unrelated thought (TUT). Using two methods of assessing worst performance—ranked-binning and ex-Gaussian-modeling approaches—we found evidence for both the worst and not-best performance rules. WMC followed the not-best performance rule (correlating equivalently with mean and longest response times (RTs)) but TUT propensity followed the worst performance rule (correlating more strongly with longest RTs). Additionally, we created a mini-multiverse following different outlier exclusion rules to test the robustness of our findings; our findings remained stable across the different multiverse iterations. We provisionally conclude that the worst performance rule may only arise in relation to cognitive abilities closely linked to (failures of) sustained attention.

scholarly journals WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY AND L2 READING

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Yo In’nami ◽  
Yuko Hijikata ◽  
Rie Koizumi
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
First Language ◽  
L2 Reading ◽  
Reading Measures ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
Analysis Models ◽  
Measurement Practices ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The relationship between working memory (WM) and second-language (L2) reading has been extensively examined, with mixed results. Our meta-analysis models the potential impact of underresearched variables considered to moderate this relationship. Results from 74 studies (228 correlations) showed a significant, small relationship between WM and L2 reading (r = .300). Of the eight moderators examined, the WM–L2 reading relationship differed between studies using first-language (L1) and L2 WM tasks and between studies reporting and not reporting WM task reliability. Methodological features of reading comprehension measures or learners’ proficiency did not moderate the relationship. These results suggest that measurement practices of WM—rather than L2 reading measures or learner characteristics—matter in understanding the WM–L2 reading relationship. Implications and future directions are discussed.

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
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Direct Speech ◽  
Indirect Speech ◽  
L2 Learners

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.

scholarly journals Working memory capacity in L2 processing

Probus ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert V. Reichle ◽  
Annie Tremblay ◽  
Caitlin Coughlin
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
Current State ◽  
Report Data

AbstractIn this paper, we review the current state of the second language (L2) processing literature and report data suggesting that this subfield should now turn its attention to working memory capacity as an important factor modulating the possibility of (near)-native-like L2 processing. We first review three major overarching accounts of L2 processing (Clahsen et al. 2006a, Grammatical processing in language learners.

Effects of modality preference and working memory capacity on captioned videos in enhancing L2 listening outcomes

ReCALL ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-230
Author(s):  
Emily Fen Kam ◽  
Yeu-Ting Liu ◽  
Wen-Ta Tseng
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Visual Aid ◽  
Visual Learners ◽  
L2 Listening ◽  
Modality Preference ◽  
The Impact

AbstractCaptioned video is widely used to enhance second language (L2) learners’ exposure to oral input beyond the classroom setting, and captioning has been found to provide an instantaneous, useful visual aid for parsing and understanding L2 oral discourse. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis has shown that captioning exerts a selective effect on L2 learners with different profiles. This study investigated whether L2 learners’ modality preferences (visual vs. auditory) and working memory capacity (high vs. low) would modulate the effect of full captions on L2 listening outcome. Results from 60 participants revealed that both cognitive variables affected their L2 listening to different extents. Notably, working memory capacity modulates the impact of L2 learners’ preferred modality on their listening outcome. Modality preference did not exert any significant impact on the listening outcome of L2 learners with lower working memory capacity. For L2 learners with high working memory capacity, their modality preference played a pivotal role in modulating their listening outcome; in this case, auditory learners had the best listening performance viewing the video without captions, whereas visual learners did best when watching the captioned video. These findings speak to the need for taking individual differences into consideration when employing captioned videos.

Second language sentence processing in reading for comprehension and translation

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
JUNG HYUN LIM ◽  
KIEL CHRISTIANSON
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
First Language ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
L2 Processing ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Native Speakers Of English

A self-paced reading and translation task was used with learners of English as a second language (L2) to explore what sorts of information L2 learners use during online comprehension compared to native speakers, and how task (reading for comprehension vs. translation) and proficiency affect L2 comprehension. Thirty-six Korean native speakers of English and 32 native English speakers read plausible and implausible subject relative clauses and object relative clauses. Reading times, comprehension accuracy, and translations were analyzed. Results showed that L2 learners were able to use syntactic information similarly to native speakers during comprehension, and that online L2 processing and offline comprehension were modulated by reading goals and proficiency. Results are interpreted as showing that L2 processing is quantitatively rather than qualitatively different from first language processing, i.e. strategically “good enough”.

L2 Working Memory Capacity and L2 Reading Skill

1992 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Harrington ◽  
Mark Sawyer
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
First Language ◽  
Reading Skill ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Reading Span ◽  
L2 Reading ◽  
Span Test ◽  
Reading Measures ◽  
Processing And Storage

Working memory capacity refers to the ability to store and process information simultaneously in real time and has been shown to correlate highly with first language (L1) reading skill. This study examines the sensitivity of second language (L2) working memory capacity to differences in reading skill among advanced L2 learners. The index of working memory capacity used was the reading span test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). Subjects with larger working memory capacities scored higher on measures of reading skill, in contrast with the lack of strong correlations between measures of passive short-term storage (memory for strings of random words or digits) and the same reading measures. This result is consistent with an interpretation of the reading span test as an index of working memory capacity, in which capacity is defined functionally in terms of a trade-off between active processing and storage. Issues involved in investigating working memory capacity are discussed and the role of capacity limitations in models of L2 comprehension is considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document