Working Memory and Second Language Speaking Tasks

doi:10.1017/9781108955638.035

29 - Working Memory and Second Language Speaking Tasks

from Part V - Bilingual Acquisition and Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 July 2022

Peter Skehan

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

This chapter starts by providing brief accounts of both first and second language speaking, and then surveys empirical work, measurement issues, and theory on the use of second language speaking tasks – the sort of tasks, often with real-world connections, used in communicative language classrooms to nurture second language development and performance. The main section of the chapter is concerned with the relationships between working memory and performance on such tasks. Broadly it is argued that, as yet, there are not many systematic findings relating task characteristics, working memory, and actual performance. In contrast, the conditions under which second language speaking tasks are done (such as planning opportunities, repeated tasks) do show some interesting results. Based on such research, it is argued that working memory plays more of a role in the Formulation stage of speech production. Proposals are made regarding the areas where it would be most helpful to research working memory connections with second language speaking tasks.

Keywords

working memory second language speaking task characteristics and conditions on-line planning the Levelt Model the Cognition Hypothesis the Limited Attentional Capacity approach

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language , pp. 635 - 655
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.035 [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

Ahmadian, M. (2012). The relationship between working memory capacity and L2 oral performance under task-based careful online planning conditions. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 1, 165–175.Google Scholar

Ahmadian, M. (2013). Working memory and task repetition in second language oral production. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching. 23, 37–55.Google Scholar

Albarqi, G. (2019). Self-monitoring behaviour of L2 learners: Proficiency level, dual task paradigm and working memory capacity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading).Google Scholar

Anderson, J. (1995). Learning and memory. John Wiley.Google Scholar

Awwad, A. & Tavakoli, P. (2019). Task complexity, language proficiency, and working memory: Interaction effects on second language speech performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0378 CrossRef Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–30.Google Scholar

Bui, H. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In Skehan, P. (Ed.). Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63–94). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bui, G. & Skehan, P. (2018). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency. In Nassaji, H. (Ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Wiley.Google Scholar

Bui, G., Skehan, P., & Wang, Z. (2018). Task condition effects on advanced level foreign language performance. Malovrh, P. & Benati, A. (Eds.), Handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition. (pp. 219–238). Wiley.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Longman.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2018). Learning language through task repetition. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72, 85–98.Google Scholar

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behaviour and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.Google Scholar

Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (1993). Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R., & Juffs, A. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research: Second language teaching and learning (pp. 437–454). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Duran-Karaoz, Z. (2020). An exploratory study of second language oral performance: Fluence and lexical complexity in L1 Turkish and L2 English (Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading).Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effect of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. (pp. 167–192). John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (2013) The effects of post-task activities on the accuracy of language during task performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 249–273.Google Scholar

Georgiadou, E., & Roehr-Brackin, K. (2017). Investigating executive working memory and phonological short-term memory in relation to fluency and self-repair behavior in L2 speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(4), 877–895.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gilabert, R. & Munoz, C. (2010). Differences in attainment and performance in a foreign language: The role of working memory capacity. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 19–42.Google Scholar

Guará-Tavares, M. G. (2013). Working memory capacity and L2 speech performance in planned and spontaneous conditions: A correlational analysis. Trabalhos Em Linguística Aplicada, 52(1), 9–29.Google Scholar

Guará-Tavares, M. G. (2016). Learners’ processes during pre-task planning and working memory capacity. Ilha do Desterro, 69(1), 79–94.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.). Second language task complexity (pp. 267–285). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 1670150196.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. (1999). Language production: A blueprint for the speaker. In Brown, C. & Hagoort, P. (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Li, Q. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 129–154). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Li, S., & Fu, M. (2016). Strategic and unpressured within-task planning and their associations with working memory. Language Teaching Research, 20, 1–24.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley.Google Scholar

Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.Google Scholar

Mota, M. (2003). Working memory capacity and fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical density in L2 speech production. Fragmentos, 24, 69–104.Google Scholar

Nielson, K. (2013). Can planning time compensate for individual differences in working memory capacity? Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 272–293.Google Scholar

Pang, F. & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In Skehan, P., Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Recio, M. (2011). The effects of task complexity on L2 oral production as mediated by differences in working memory capacity (Master’s thesis, University of Barcelona).Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2011a). Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2011b). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity (pp 3–38). John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M. (Ed.). Domains and directions in the development of TBLT. (pp. 87–122). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sanders, A. (1998). Elements of human performance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2009b). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In Richards, B., Daller, H., Malvern, D. D., Meara, & P. (Eds.). Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application. (pp. 107–124). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2013). Nurturing noticing. In Bergsleithner, J., Frota, S. N., & Yoshioka, J. K. (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 169–180). National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2014a). Processing perspectives on task performance. John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2014b). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 1–26). John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks vs. conditions: Two perspectives on task research and its implications for pedagogy. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 34–49.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, and assessment. Routledge.Google Scholar

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.Google Scholar

Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–276). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Tavakoli, P. & Wright, C. (2020). Second language speech fluency: From research to practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wen, Z. (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: The phonological/executive model. In Wen, Z., Mota, N., & McNeill, A. (Eds.). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. (pp. 41–62). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Williams, J. (2015). Working memory in SLA research: Challenges and prospects. In Wen, Z., N. Mota, , & McNeill, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 301–308). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zalbidea, J. (2017). “One size fits all”? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 335–352.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.