Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T07:14:16.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does learner cognition count on modality? Working memory and L2 morphosyntactic achievement across oral and written tasks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2020

Janire Zalbidea Open the ORCID record for Janire Zalbidea [Opens in a new window]  and
Cristina Sanz
Janire Zalbidea*
Affiliation:
Temple University
Cristina Sanz
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: janire.zalbidea@temple.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates how working memory (WM) abilities are implicated in second language (L2) learners’ (a) morphosyntactic achievement and (b) perceptions of required mental effort and task difficulty under oral versus written task modality conditions. Beginning-level learners of L2 Spanish completed two computerized focused tasks in which they produced output and received feedback in oral form (Speaking group) or written form (Writing group). Two grammatical structures varying in their relative level of salience were targeted. After each task, participants rated their perceptions of mental effort required and task difficulty. Production and written and aural acceptability judgment tasks were employed to measure immediate and sustained L2 morphosyntactic achievement. Executive, phonological, and visuospatial WM abilities were gauged using automated operation span, nonword recognition, and forward Corsi block-tapping tasks, respectively. Regression analyses revealed that WM capacity was predictive of L2 morphosyntactic outcomes and task perception ratings in the Speaking group only. Specifically, phonological and visuospatial WM were associated with production and acceptability judgment performance accuracy, whereas executive WM was related to learners’ ratings of perceived mental effort. Differences were also observed based on the target structure.

Keywords

second languageworking memorymodalitylearner perceptionssalience

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 5 , September 2020 , pp. 1171 - 1196
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abu-Rabia, S. (2003). The influence of working memory on reading and creative writing processes in a second language. Educational Psychology, 23, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Wen, Z., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17–28). Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2017). Modularity, working memory, and language acquisition. Second Language Research, 33, 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Seufert, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Measuring cognitive load. In Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 181–202). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, K., & Anderson, D. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). Springer.Google Scholar
Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity and modality: Exploring learners’ experience from the perspective of flow. Modern Language Journal, 102, 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Salience. In Hundt, M., Mollin, S., & Pfenninger, S., (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 71–92). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Sinclair, S. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 234–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangopadhyay, I., Davidson, M., Ellis Weismer, S., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2016). The role of nonverbal working memory in morphosyntactic processing by school-aged monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 142, 171–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Hall, M., & Peaker, S. M. (2001). Dissociable lexical and phonological influences on serial recognition and serial recall. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, L. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “Natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, J. (2010). Speaking, writing, and memory span in children: Output modality affects cognitive performance. International Journal of Psychology, 45, 28–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanley, J. R., Young, A. W., & Pearson, N. A. (1991). Impairment of the visuo-spatial sketch pad. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 101–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hicks, K. L., Foster, J. L., & Engle, R. W. (2016). Measuring working memory capacity on the web with the online working memory lab (the OWL). Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 478–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeon, E. H. (2015). Multiple regression. In Plonsky, L. (Ed.), Advancing qualitative methods in second language research (pp. 131–158). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (2007). Are written and spoken recall of text equivalent? American Journal of Psychology, 120, 415–428.Google ScholarPubMed
Kessels, R. P. C., Van Zandvoort, M. J. E., Postma, A., Kappelle, L. J., & De Haan, E. H. F. (2000). The Corsi Block-Tapping Task: Standardization and normative data. Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 252–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning–Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–216). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lado, B. (2017). Aptitude and pedagogical conditions in the early development of a nonprimary language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, J. (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2017). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction: A synthetic review. In Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 41–70). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 693–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 379–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L. III, McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). The relationship between working memory capacity and executive functioning: Evidence for a common executive attention construct. Neuropsychology, 24, 222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Healy, A. & Bourne, L. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–365). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moorman, C. M. (2017). Individual differences and linguistic factors in the development of mid vowels in L2 Spanish learners: A longitudinal study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexical, narrative, and grammatical skills in second-language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts oral fluency gains. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 557–582.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Paas, F. G., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). Phonological short-term memory and foreign-language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 1, 7–32.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal, 100, 538–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 703–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, Spring, 45–105.Google Scholar
Russell, V. (2014). A closer look at the output hypothesis: The effect of pushed output on noticing and inductive learning of the Spanish future tense. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R. (2010). Individual differences and the effectiveness of visual feedback on reflexive binding in L2 Japanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. (2013). Working memory in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C. (1996). The problem of variation in SLA theory and research. In Alatis, J. E., Straehle, C. A., Ronkin, M., & Gallenberg, B. (Eds.), Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Language Variation: Current Trends and Future Prospects (pp. 236–251). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., Lin, H. J., Lado, B., Stafford, C. A., & Bowden, H. W. (2014). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics, 37, 669–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a “complex” task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, M., & Sporer, S. L. (2011). Written vs. spoken eyewitness accounts: Does modality of testing matter? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 846–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77–101). Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serafini, E. J., & Sanz, C. (2016). Evidence for the decreasing impact of cognitive ability on second language development as proficiency increases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 607–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2016). Foreign language aptitude, acquisitional sequences, and psycholinguistic processes. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O., & Yilmaz, Y. (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition (pp. 17–40). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speidel, G. E. (1993). Phonological short-term memory and individual differences in learning to speak: A bilingual case study. First Language, 13, 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, G. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–32). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Z., Biedroń, A., & Skehan, P. (2017). Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Language Teaching, 50, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53, 67–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalbidea, J. (2017). “One task fits all”? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. Modern Language Journal, 101, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalbidea, J. (2020). On the scope of output in SLA: Task modality, salience, L2 grammar noticing, and development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar