Working Memory and L2 Sentence Processing

doi:10.1017/9781108955638.033

27 - Working Memory and L2 Sentence Processing

from Part V - Bilingual Acquisition and Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 July 2022

Ian Cunnings

Edited by

John W. Schwieter and

Zhisheng (Edward) Wen

Show author details

John W. Schwieter: Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen: Affiliation:
Hong Kong Shue Yan University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Working memory based limitations have increasingly been proposed as a way of explaining differences between native (L1) and non-native (L2) sentence processing. However, while there has been increasing interest in the role that working memory may play in L2 sentence processing, different approaches to L2 processing rely on different conceptualisations of the role that working memory plays in sentence processing. These different conceptualisations lead to different predictions about both the source of L1/L2 differences in sentence processing, and how individual differences in L2 processing should be measured. In this chapter, I critically evaluate different models of working memory during L2 sentence comprehension, review existing studies that have examined how working memory influences L2 sentence processing, and discuss the importance of considering how individual differences in working memory and sentence processing can be measured.

Keywords

second language processing working memory capacity-based theory similarity-based interference

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language , pp. 593 - 612
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.033 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36, 353–372.Google Scholar

Cheng, Y., Rothman, J., & Cunnings, I. (2021). Parsing preferences and individual differences in nonnative sentence processing: Evidence from eye movements. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42, 129–151.CrossRef Google Scholar

Conway, A. R. A., 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.Google Scholar

Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 615–646.Google Scholar

Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1158–1170.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.Google Scholar

Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 659–678.Google Scholar

Cunnings, I., & Fujita, H. (2020). Quantifying individual differences in native and nonnative sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1–21.Google Scholar

Dallas, A., DeDe, G., & Nicol, J. (2013). An Event-Related Potential (ERP) investigation of filler-gap processing in native and second language speakers: ERP study of L2 filler-gap processing. Language Learning, 63, 766–799.CrossRef Google Scholar

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.Google Scholar

Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 443–472.CrossRef Google Scholar

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.Google Scholar

Farmer, T. A., Fine, A. B., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Reading span task performance, linguistic experience, and the processing of unexpected syntactic events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 413–433.Google Scholar

Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.CrossRef Google Scholar

Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in a second language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.Google Scholar

Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T., & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 453–489.Google Scholar

Felser, C., Sato, M., & Bertenshaw, N. (2009). The on-line application of binding Principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 485–502.CrossRef Google Scholar

Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 187–220.Google Scholar

Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.Google Scholar

Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1166–1186.Google Scholar

Hemforth, B., Fernandez, S., Clifton, C., Frazier, L., Konieczny, L., & Walter, M. (2015). Relative clause attachment in German, English, Spanish and French: Effects of position and length. Lingua, 166, 43–64.Google Scholar

Hopp, H. (2014). Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition, 21, 250–278.Google Scholar

Hopp, H. (2018). The bilingual mental lexicon in L2 sentence processing. Second Language, 17, 5–27.Google Scholar

Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 316–339.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jäger, L. A., Mertzen, D., Van Dyke, J. A., & Vasishth, S. (2020). Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study. Journal of Memory and Language, 111, 104063.Google Scholar

Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21, 121–151.CrossRef Google Scholar

Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137–166.Google Scholar

Just, Marcel A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.Google Scholar

Just, Marcel Adam, Carpenter, P. A., & Keller, T. A. (1996). The capacity theory of comprehension: New frontiers of evidence and arguments. Psychological Review, 103, 773–780.Google Scholar

Keating, G. D. (2010). The effects of linear distance and working memory on the processing of gender agreement in Spanish. In VanPatten, B. & Jegerski, J. (Eds.), Language acquisition and language disorders (Vol. 53, pp. 113–134). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 154–169.Google Scholar

Kim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2017). Working memory effects on L1 and L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses by Korean L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 33, 365–388.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375–419.Google Scholar

Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447–454.Google 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.Google Scholar

MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35–54.Google Scholar

Mathy, F., Chekaf, M., & Cowan, N. (2018). Simple and complex working memory tasks allow similar benefits of information compression. Journal of Cognition, 1, 31.Google Scholar

McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 381–401.Google Scholar

McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L. (2003). Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 67–91.Google Scholar

Miller, A. K. (2014). Accessing and maintaining referents in L2 processing of wh -dependencies. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 167–191.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Pan, H.-Y., & Felser, C. (2011). Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua, 121, 221–236.Google Scholar

Pan, H.-Y., Schimke, S., & Felser, C. (2015). Referential context effects in non-native relative clause ambiguity resolution. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 298–313.CrossRef Google Scholar

Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501–528.Google Scholar

Parker, D., Shvartsman, M., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2017). The cue-based based retrieval theory of sentence comprehension: New findings and new challenges. In Escobar, L., Torrens, V., & Parodi, T. (Eds.), Language processing and disorders (pp. 121–144). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Parsons, S., Kruijt, A.-W., & Fox, E. (2019). Psychological science needs a standard practice of reporting the reliability of cognitive-behavioral measurements. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 378–395.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016). Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: A visual word study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 636–643.Google Scholar

Shin, J. (2020). A meta-analysis of the relationship between working memory and second language reading comprehension: Does task type matter? Applied Psycholinguistics, 41, 873–900.Google Scholar

Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81.Google Scholar

Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.Google Scholar

Van Dyke, J. A., & Johns, C. L. (2012). Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension: Interference in comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 193–211.Google Scholar

Van Dyke, J. A., Johns, C. L., & Kukona, A. (2014). Low working memory capacity is only spuriously related to poor reading comprehension. Cognition, 131, 373–403.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Vasishth, S., Nicenboim, B., Engelmann, F., & Burchert, F. (2019). Computational models of retrieval processes in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 968–982.Google Scholar

Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (2003). The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 550–564.Google Scholar

Witzel, J., Witzel, N., & Nicol, J. (2012). Deeper than shallow: Evidence for structure-based parsing biases in second-language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 419–456.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.