Cognitive factors: Working memory and lexical development

Alan Juffs

Support

National Science Foundation

SBR-9709152

Thanks to RSAs:

Jenifer Larson-Hall Greg Mizera Jessica Giesler Sean Coyan Vivian Chen

Publications

Dekeyser, R and A. Juffs. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. 437454. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199-226. Juffs, A. (2005). Some effects of first language and working memory in the processing of long distance wh- questions. Second Language Research 21, 121-151. In press a. Processing reduced relative vs. main verb ambiguity in English as a Second Language: a replication study with working memory. A festschrift for XXXX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Structure of talk
Sketch

of working memory models Brief Sketch of sentence processing Experiment in working memory and sentence processing in English as a second language Memory, aptitude, and low educated learners

Baddeleys Working Memory Model 1

Figure 1. Standard Working Memory Model, Baddeley (2000a). Central control Central Executive

Slave system

Visuospatial sketchpad Episodic LTM

Phonological loop Language

Visual Semantics

Shaded area: crystalli zed cognitive systems capable of accumulating long-term knowledge

Baddeleys Working Memory Model 2

Figure2. Further Development of the Working Memory Model, Baddeley (2000a). Central control Central Executive

Slave system Visuospatial sketchpad

Episodic buffer

Phonological loop

Visual Semantics

Episodic LTM

Language

Shaded area: crystalli zed cognitive systems capable of accumulating long-term knowledge

Behavioural Measures
Central

executive

Reading Span Task (Daneman and Carpenter, 1980) What does the RST claim to measure?

Relative clause types and WM

1. 2.

Animacy effects in reduced relative clauses

The evidence [inanimate] examined by the lawyer was convincing. The witness [animate] examined by the lawyer was convincing.

Subject and object asymmetry in relative clauses.

The reporter that the senator The reporter that ___ attacked ____ attacked the senator regretted the error. regretted the error.

3.

Reduced relatives and cue strength.

The bad boys seen during the game were playing in the park. - no ambiguity; good cue for ambiguity resolution The bad boys watched almost every day were playing in the park.
ambiguity + bad cue for ambiguity resolution.

Phonological Loop

Non-word span, digit span

What does this measure? acquisition of new words, and does not reflect the knowledge base. Gathercole, Baddeley, & Papagno (1998, p. 159, Table 1) in partial correlations for 3 year-olds, non-word repetition is more strongly correlated with vocabulary measures than digit span (0.31 vs. 0.16 (ns), whereas for 8 year-olds neither span is correlates (0.22 (ns) vs. 0.23 (ns)). The data they report for 13 year olds, simple digit span is related to vocabulary measures (r= .46, p = .05).

Phonological loop in adults

May be important in ability to learn new words in adults, but it has not been implicated in studies of on-line ambiguity resolution. These now you see it, now you dont effects of PSTM in L1 learning are not reflected in L2 reviews of the literature.

Issue and controversies

Does

the reading span tap general or specifically linguistic capacity? Does WM reflect experience? Which test is a better test of WM? What is the role of the phonological loop? The role of memory as a key component of aptitude

Recent L2 WM research
Myles et al. 1998 PSTM 1999 English-speaking Production learners of French data Superior abili ty in chunking related to higher WM. Later better chunkers better at creative use. Failed to find a reliable relationship between WM and translation processing. WM memory, and not general intelligence found to be best predictor, but only short-term, easy structures. Problem with many correlations. Reliable correlations only on GJ listening. I.e. Of 24 correlations with WM reported, only 4 reliable. None above .52. Amount of variance explained not clear. No attempts at regression.

Kroll et al

2001 Waters and Caplan RST Robinson 2002 Osaka & Osaka RST

English-speaking learners of Spanish and French 17 Japanese learners of Samoan in a lab setting

Translation to and from words in the L2 Ergatives Incorporation Locatives

Recent L2 research
Mackey et al 2002 Plausible-non plausible versions of RST; Non word recall 30 Japanese learners of ESL WM and interactional feedback Variable correlations between RSTs and non-word recall. Composite scores developed because of the correlations. No reliable relationship found between WM and noticing. Other factors at work? p. 202. Non word repetition did NOT correlate with L2 listening. p. 209. Exp. 1Prior language experience most related to success, Language background was. PSTM More strongly related to RATE of learning than ultimate level. Exp. 2. Few correlations, specifically none between PSTM and vocabulary. Effect of language background NOT mediated by memory measures. Learning that occurred was explicit. Can not be assumed that rules emerge from memory representations of input sequences. (Contra Ellis)

Willi ams 2003 Non-word & Lovatt PSTM test based on target vocab.

1. 20 English1. speaking learners Laboratory study of 2. 21 Englishdeterminers speaking learners in Italian. 2. Invented lang based on Japanese, determiners again.

The grammar and the parser

Crain and Fodor (1985, p. 126) suggested:

a theory of grammar that will be useful to a theory of parsing is one that is compatible with the on-line application of constraints. Licensing grammars, based on current versions of GB theory, may be developed so that they provide attractive alternatives [to head projection models]
the major problem is to discover the principles and parameters and to proceed beyond, to the study of use, acquisition, pathology, cellular mechanisms, Hence Chomsky includes use in the MP?

Frazier & Clifton (1996, 24-25):

Chomsky (2000, p. 91)

Second Language Acquisition

Development

of the L2 lexicon: what:

Projectionist accounts (Principles and Parameters) constructionist accounts (Goldberg, 1995)

Process

of acquisition: how

Processing break down Accumulation of chunks/structures

L2 vocabulary: Nation 1990

1. The spoken form of a word 2. The written form of a word 3. The grammatical behaviour of a word 4. The collocational behaviour of a word 5. How frequent the word is 6. The stylistic register constraints on a word 7. The conceptual meaning of a word 8. The associations a word has with other related words

Experiment - Questions

Do measures of working memory correlate in the L1 and L2? Can individual differences in working memory account for individual differences in sentence processing based on verb meaning?

What is the effect of the L1 on L2 processing?

Method -1
Proficiency

measure Measure of Reading Span in L1 and L2 Measure of Word Span in L1 and L2

Method 2
Data

from on-line reading: record word by word reading times

Method
The moving window paradigm

Without her contributions would be Impossible Possible or not possible?

Participants
30 Chinese 28 Japanese 46 Spanish 21 English speakers

Table 1. Michigan Test Results: Raw Scores.

Chinese M* 28.33 a 29.8 b 58.03 c Japanese M SD 20.39 a 25.07 b 45.46 c d 6.21 5.28 10.32 Spanish M 26.65 26.89 53.45 d

Michiga n Vocabulary Grammar Total

SD 7.67 6.0 12.59

SD 7.58 7.26 13.96

F 9.6 4.042 7.29

df 2,102 2,102 2,102

p .0002 .0205 .0011

*Means that are co-superscripted are reliably different.

Results
Working

memory processing

Sentence

Chinese-speaking learners
L1 Word Span L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 Reading Span L2 Reading Span -0.18 0.17 0.62*** 1 1 0.34* 0.02 1 0.05 1 L2 Word Span L1 Reading Span L2 Reading Span

Japanese-speaking learners
L1 Word Span L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 Reading Span L2 Reading Span 0.30 0.44** 0.56*** 1 1 0.28 0.41** 1 0.54** 1 L2 Word Span L1 Reading Span L2 Reading Span

Spanish-speaking Learners
L1 Word Span L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 Reading Span L2 Reading Span 0.24 0.09 0.46** 1 1 0.48* 0.44** 1 0.28 1 L2 Word Span L1 Reading Span L2 Reading Span

Chinese WM & Proficiency

L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 Reading Span L2 Reading Span

Vocabulary 0.29 0.27 0.07 0.04

Grammar 0.27 0.35* 0.10 0.02

Japanese WM & Proficiency

L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 Reading Span L2 Reading Span

Vocabulary 0.11 0.26 0.22 0.08

Grammar 0.09 0.04 0.28 0.06

Spanish WM & Proficiency

L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 Reading Span L2 Reading Span

Vocabulary 0.22 0.11 0.30* 0.28*

Grammar 0.20 0.24 0.31* 0.29*

Sentences that impose processing load

Garden

Path sentences

After the children cleaned the house looked neat and tidy The doctor knew the nurses liked the man from England

Unconscious GP Processing
Unconscious Garden Path
1200

1000
RT in milliseconds

800

600

400 the doctor knew the nurses liked the man f rom England

Word by Word

Garden Path Processing- L1

Garden Path Sentence
1200

Chinese English Japanese Spanish 1000

RT in milliseconds

800

600

400 After the children cl eaned the house Words by Word looked very neat and tidy

Garden Path Processing - WM

Working M e mory and Parsing
1200

1000

800 HI-GP

RT Milliseconds

LO-GP HI-Non-GP 600 LO-Non-GP

400

200

0 After children Det Structure/w ord VERB neat tidy

Transitivity and cue type

(1)

a. The experienced soldiers warned about the dangers conducted the midnight raid. b. The experienced soldiers chosen for their skills conducted the midnight raid.
a. The bad boys criticized during the morning were playing in the park. b. The bad boys criticized almost every day were playing in the park.

2.

6 Sentence types

Unambiguous good and bad cues Two way ambiguous, good and bad cues Three way ambiguous, good and bad cues

Easiest: unambiguous, good cue

The bad boys chosen during the game were playing in the park.

Most difficult: three way ambiguous, bad cue

The bad boys watched almost every day were playing in the park.

Processing reduced relatives

The bad boys XXX were playing
Main verb mean processing time
850 800

750

700 Chinese Japanese Spanish English

RT MSEC

650

600

550

500

450

400 Unambig-G Unambig-B Ambig2-G Ambig2-B Ambig3-G Ambg3-B Ambiguity and Cue Type

Working memory and reduced relatives

No

correlations with WM and processing at key point for any of the groups at any point in parsing except early on All weak correlations, suggesting much of the variance can be explained by other factors Main effects for language robust

Points to remember
L1

a better predictor of performance than WM WM does not correlate with individual differences in processing L2 speakers show reading profiles analagous to natives in many cases Use of WM tests need to be fully justified in L2 research Overemphasis of WM when results dont support it

More points to remember

More

careful regression analyses Clearer acknowledgement of the role of prior linguistic knowledge is necessary. Role of the new link proposed by Baddeley between visual spatial ability and the PL and language needs to be looked at

Aptitude and ultimate attainment

DeKeyser 2000

Replication of Johnson and Newport 1989 Added MLAT measure 58 Hungarian-speaking learners of ESL Findings: replicated Johnson and Newport The only adults who succeed are those who score high on the aptitude battery Cf. Bialystoks commentary and reply http://www.pitt.edu/~rdk1/

Skehan 2001
Aptitude:

speed or ultimate attainment?

DeKeyser (2000, p. 518) aptitude has a role in ultimate attainment Skehan (2001, p. 93) points out that the MLAT was designed to predict RATE and not ultimate attainment, contra (?) DeKeyser 2000) Does the MLAT measure communicative competence? Or an ability on discrete point items?

Mackey et al. 2001

RST

and WM test

Combined measure:
Low WM tended to notice less at lower developmental stages than High WM High WM - more development in delayed post-test High WM tended to notice more

Robinson 2001
Implicit

learning: not related to higher IQ or aptitude measures? Incidental learning: unintentional and uncontrolled? Explicit learning: does relate to higher IQ measures? Dual system for implicit/explicit knowledge?

Robinson 2001

Japanese learners of Samoan Relationship between IQ and explicit learning confirmed Surprising: low IQ scores outperform high IQ scores on implicit learning GJ judgements and production are also unrelated to individual differences learning of locatives, and may be incorporation, but not ergatives. Learning clearer in production tasks compared to GJ tasks

Concluding remarks
Research

on cognitive abilities is deeply divided between those who maintain access to UG in some form (dual system, encapsulated) and those who believe in critical period/general learning. Aptitude measures do seem to predict performance on SOME discrete point item tests of the Johnson and Newport type

Conclusions
Evidence

suggests that the L1 exerts the greatest influence on L2 processing Lexical learning and processing shows that verb transitivity (a highly complex system) is acquired and affects L2 reading and processing and is NOT predicted by IDs in working memory Unlikely that this is generalized knowledge

Conclusions
Therefore

it is PREMATURE to conclude that adults are unable to master details of a linguistic system unless they have some higher aptitude: this is because the learners in these studies showed that they can use complex information in millisecond by millisecond parsing decisions.

Finally
For

low-educated learners, this is an important issue because it means that low aptitude/IQ/education does not preclude successful language learning (= achievement of communicative competence) given exposure and motivation and cultural conditions

Selected References
BADDELEY, ALAN, 2000. Short-term and working memory, in Endel Tulving & Fergus Craik (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory, New York: Oxford University Press, 77-92. BADDELEY, ALAN, GATHERCOLE, SUSAN & PAPAGNO, COSTANZA, 1998. The phonological loop as a language learning device, The Psychological Review 105, 158-73. BERQUIST, BRETT, 1997. Individual differences in working memory span and L2 proficiency: capacity or processing capacity?, Paper presented at Proceedings of the GALA 97 Conference on Language Acquisition, Edinburgh, UK. CARPENTER, PATRICIA, JUST, MARCEL Adam & REICHLE, ERIC D., 2000. Working memory and executive function, Current Opinion in Neurobiology 10, 195-99. DANEMAN, Meredith & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, 450-66. ELLIS, NICK C., 1996. Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 91-126. ELLIS, NICK C., 2002. Frequency effects and language processing: investigating formulaic use and input in future expression, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 143-88. GIBSON, EDWARD & SCHTZE, CARSON T, 1999. Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus frequency, Journal of Memory and Language 40, 263-79. HARRINGTON, MICHAEL W, & SAWYER, MARK, 1992. L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skills, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 25-38. JUFFS, ALAN, 1998. Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing, Language Learning 48, 107-47. JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA A & WOOLLEY, JACQUELINE D., 1982. Paradigms and processes and in reading comprehension, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 3, 228-38. JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA & KELLER, Timothy, 1996. The capacity theory of comprehension: new frontiers of evidence and arguments, The Psychological Review 103, 773-80. JUST, MARCEL ADAM & VARMA, SHASHANK, 2002. A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christianson 2002, Psychological Review 109, 55-65.

Selected References
MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C & CHRISTIANSEN, MORTEN H, 2002. Reassessing working memory: comment on Just and Carpenter 1992 and Waters and Caplan 1996, Psychological Review 109, 35-54. MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C, 1994. Probablistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution, Language and Cognitive Processes 9, 157-201. MACDONALD, MARYELLEN, JUST, MARCEL & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1992. Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity, Cognitive Psychology 24, 56-98. MACKEY, ALISON, PHILP, JENEFER, EGI, TAKAKO, FUJII, AKIKO & TATSUMI, TOMOAKI, 2002. Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development, in Peter Robinson (eds.) Individual Differences And Instructed Language Learning, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181209. MYLES, FLORENCE, HOOPER, JANET & MITCHELL, ROSAMOND, 1998. Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in the foreign language classroom, Language Learning 48, 323-64. MYLES, FLORENCE, MITCHELL, ROSAMOND & HOOPER, JANET, 1999. Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 49-80. OSAKA, MARIKO & OSAKA, NAOYUKI, 1992. Language independent working memory as measured by Japanese and English reading span tests, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30, 287-89. PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS, 1988. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing, Language 64, 539-76. PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS,1992. Grammatical Competence And Parsing Performance. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Selected References
ROBERTS, ROSE & GIBSON, EDWARD, 2003. Individual differences in sentence memory, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31, 573-98. ROBINSON, PETER, 2002a. Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on incidental SLA, in Peter Robinson (ed.), Individual Differences And Instructed Language Learning, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211-51. WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996a. Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences, Memory and Cognition 24, 342-55. WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996b. The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology- Human Experimental Psychology, 49A, 51-79. WEINBERG, AMY, 1999. A minimalist theory of human sentence processing, in Sam Epstein &Norbert Hornstein (eds.) Working Minimalism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 287-315. WHITE, LYDIA, 2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press. WILLIAMS, JOHN N, MBIUS, PETER & KIM, CHOONKYONG, 2001. Native and nonnative processing of English wh- questions: parsing strategies and plausibility constraints, Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509-40.