Transcript Working memory: how current issues in mainstream

Cognitive factors:
Working memory and lexical
development
Alan Juffs
Support

National Science Foundation


Thanks to RSAs:





Jenifer Larson-Hall
Greg Mizera
Jessica Giesler
Sean Coyan
Vivian Chen
SBR-9709152
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
Baddeley’s Working Memory Model 1
Figure 1. Standard Working Mem ory Model, Baddeley (2000a).
Central control 
Slave system 
Visual
Semantics
Central
Executive
Visuospatial
sketchpad
Phonological
loop
Episodic
LTM
Language
Shaded area: Ôcrystallized cognitive systems capable of accumulating long-term knowledgeÕ
Baddeley’s Working Memory Model 2
Figure2. Further Development of the Working Mem ory Model, Baddeley (2000a).
Central control 
Slave system  Visuospatial
sketchpad
Visual
Semantics
Central
Executive
Episodic
buffer
Episodic
LTM
Phonological
loop
Language
Shaded area: Ôcrystallized cognitive systems capable of accumulating long-term knowledgeÕ
Behavioural Measures
 Central


executive
Reading Span Task (Daneman and
Carpenter, 1980)
What does the RST claim to measure?
Relative clause types and WM
 1. Animacy
effects in reduced relative clauses
• The evidence [inanimate] examined by the lawyer was convincing.
• The witness [animate]
examined by the lawyer was convincing.
 2.
Subject and object asymmetry in relative
clauses.

The reporter that the senator
attacked ____

The reporter that ___
attacked the senator
 3.




regretted the error.
regretted the error.
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 don’t’ 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.
Kroll et
al
1998 P STM
1999
2001 Waters
and
Caplan
RST
Robinson 2002 Osaka
&
Osaka
RST
English-speaking Production
learners of French data
English-speaking
learners of
Spanish and
French
17 Japanese
learners of
Samoan in a lab
setting
Translat ion to
and from
words in the
L2
Ergat ives
Incorporat ion
Locat ives
Superior abilit y in
chunking related to
higher WM. Later
bet ter chunkers bet ter
at creat ive use.
Failed to find a reliable
relat ionship between
WM and translat ion
processing.
WM memory, and not
general intelligence
found to be best
predictor, but only
short-term, ÔeasyÕ
st ructures. P roblem
with many
correlat ions. Reliable
correlat ions only on GJ
listening. I.e. Of 24
correlat ions wit h WM
report ed, only 4
reliable. None above
.52. Amount of
variance explained not
clear. No at tempt s at
regression.
Recent L2 research
Mackey
et al
2002 P lausible-non 30 Japanese
plausible
learners of ESL
versions of
RST ;
Non word
recall
Williams 2003 Non-word
& Lovat t
P STM test
based on
target vocab.
WM and
interact ional
feedback
1. 20 English1.
speaking learners Laborat ory
study of
2. 21 Englishdeterminers
speaking learners in Italian.
2. Invented
lang based
on Japanese,
determiners
again.
Variable
correlat ions
between RSTs and
non-word recall.
Composite scores
developed because
of the correlations.
No reliable
relat ionship found
between WM and
not icing. Other
factors at work? p.
202. Non word
repetit io n did NOT
correlate with L2
listening. p. 209.
Exp. 1Prior
language
experience most
related t o success,
Language
background was.
P STM More
st rongly related to
RAT E of learning
than ultimate level.
Exp. 2. Few
correlat ions,
specifically none
between P STM
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
representat ions of
input sequences.
(Cont ra Ellis)
The grammar and the parser

Crain and Fodor (1985, p. 126) suggested:


Frazier & Clifton (1996, 24-25):


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]
Chomsky (2000, p. 91)


‘ 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?
Second Language Acquisition
 Development


Projectionist accounts (Principles and
Parameters)
constructionist accounts (Goldberg, 1995)
 Process


of the L2 lexicon: ‘what’:
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.
Michigan
Chinese
M*
Vocabulary
28.33 a
7.67
20.39 a
6.21
26.65
7.58
Grammar
29.8 b
6.0
25.07 b
5.28
26.89
Total
58.03 c
12.59
45.46 c d
10.32
53.45 d
SD
Japanese
M
SD
Spanish
M
*Means that are co-superscripted are reliably different.
SD
F
df
p
9.6
2,102
.0002
7.26
4.042
2,102
.0205
13.96
7.29
2,102
.0011
Results
 Working
memory
 Sentence
processing
Chinese-speaking learners
L1 Word Span
L2 Word Span
L1 Reading
Span
L1 Word Span
1
L2 Word Span
0.34*
1
L1 Reading
0.02
0.05
1
-0.18
0.17
0.62***
L2 Reading
Span
Span
L2 Reading
Span
1
Japanese-speaking learners
L1 Word Span
L2 Word Span
L1 Reading
Span
L1 Word Span
1
L2 Word Span
0.28
1
L1 Reading
0.41**
0.54**
1
0.30
0.44**
0.56***
L2 Reading
Span
Span
L2 Reading
Span
1
Spanish-speaking Learners
L1 Word Span
L2 Word Span
L1 Reading
Span
L1 Word Span
1
L2 Word Span
0.48*
1
L1 Reading
0.44**
0.28
1
0.24
0.09
0.46**
L2 Reading
Span
Span
L2 Reading
Span
1
Chinese WM & Proficiency
L1 Word Span
Vocabulary
0.29
Grammar
0.27
L2 Word Span
0.27
0.35*
L1 Reading Span
0.07
0.10
L2 Reading Span
0.04
0.02
Japanese WM & Proficiency
L1 Word Span
Vocabulary
0.11
Grammar
0.09
L2 Word Span
0.26
0.04
L1 Reading Span
0.22
0.28
L2 Reading Span
0.08
0.06
Spanish WM & Proficiency
L1 Word Span
Vocabulary
0.22
Grammar
0.20
L2 Word Span
0.11
0.24
L1 Reading Span
0.30*
0.31*
L2 Reading Span
0.28*
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
RT in milliseconds
1000
800
600
400
the
doctor
knew
the
nurses
liked
Word by Word
the
man
from
England
Garden Path Processing- L1
Garden Path Sentence
1200
Chinese
English
Japanese
Spanish
RT in milliseconds
1000
800
600
400
After
the
children
cleaned
the
house
W ords by W ord
looked
very
neat
and
tidy
Garden Path Processing - WM
Work ing M e m ory and Pars ing
1200
1000
800
RT Milliseconds
HI-GP
LO-GP
HI-Non-GP
600
LO-Non-GP
400
200
0
Af ter
children
Det
VERB
Structure/word
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.
 2.


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.
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
RT MSEC
700
C hines e
J apanes e
Spanis h
E nglis h
650
600
550
500
450
400
U nambig- G
U nambig- B
A mbig2 - G
A mbig2 - B
A mbiguity and Cue Type
A mbig3 - G
A mbg3 - B
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 don’t
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. Bialystok’s 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 & SCHÜTZE, 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, MÖBIUS, PETER & KIM, CHOONKYONG, 2001. ‘Native and nonnative processing of English wh- questions: parsing strategies and plausibility constraints,’
Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509-40.