Starting with this chapter, I demonstrate that the integrated perspective on theorizing and measuring the WM construct can facilitate a reconceptualization of WM in specific SLA research areas. To achieve this goal, in this chapter I explore the possible links between WM and the L2 acquisition and development domains and sub-skills learning and processing. In the first three sections, I recapitulate the findings of current WM–SLA studies and single out the distinct and separate roles of PWM and EWM in specific domains of L2 acquisition and development. Then, based on these findings, in the fourth section I propose an integrated model, namely the phonological/executive (P/E) model, to accommodate these patterns. The summary section outlines the theoretical and methodological implications of this integrated P/E model for future WM–SLA research and concludes the chapter.

WM in the L2 Acquisitional and Developmental Domains

WM in the acquisition of L2 lexis/vocabulary

To recall, although previous reviews of the European WM–language studies (e.g. Baddeley, Gathercole and colleagues) have focused on the relationship between WM and L1 learning (especially the relationship between the phonological loop and L1 vocabulary learning, as reviewed in Chapter 4), researchers have also investigated the relationship between WM and L2 learning (e.g. Atkins & Baddeley, 1998; see Baddeley, 2015). For example, Gathercole and colleagues (Gathercole & Thorn, 1998; Masoura & Gathercole, 1999) postulated that WM, in particular PWM, may play an even more important role in L2 vocabulary learning than in L1 vocabulary learning. To that effect, Gathercole and Thorn (1998) showed that PWM was strongly correlated with children's vocabulary knowledge, with correlation coefficients ranging between 0.4 and 0.6, and the correlation seemed to be independent of non-verbal intelligence.

In another study, Masoura and Gathercole (1999) tested children's PWM (as measured by the non-word repetition span task) and L1 (Greek) and L2 (English) vocabulary knowledge. They found that PWM was correlated with both L1 and L2 vocabulary knowledge and the correlations were independent of general factors (non-verbal ability, age).