Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
 -- 2043 2022-06-08 10:52:10 |
2 format correct
Vivi Li
 + 21 word(s) 2064 2022-06-09 04:27:24 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Wen, Z.; , .; Zeng, Y. Working Memory Models in Language and Bilingualism Research. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23815 (accessed on 27 April 2024).
Wen Z,  , Zeng Y. Working Memory Models in Language and Bilingualism Research. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23815. Accessed April 27, 2024.
Wen, Zhisheng, , Yong Zeng. "Working Memory Models in Language and Bilingualism Research" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23815 (accessed April 27, 2024).
Wen, Z., , ., & Zeng, Y. (2022, June 08). Working Memory Models in Language and Bilingualism Research. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23815
Wen, Zhisheng, et al. "Working Memory Models in Language and Bilingualism Research." Encyclopedia. Web. 08 June, 2022.
Working Memory Models in Language and Bilingualism Research
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/brainsci12060729

Working memory (WM) generally refers to our ability to ‘mentally maintain information in an active and readily accessible state while concurrently and selectively processing new information’. WM, as the primary memory, plays a fundamental role in multiple facets of human cognitive life, including language learning and processing.

working memory affective working memory language bilingualism emotion regulation N-back task

1. Introduction

Working memory (WM) generally refers to our ability to ‘mentally maintain information in an active and readily accessible state while concurrently and selectively processing new information’ [1]. Since its inception in the 1960s (e.g., [2]), WM has become a buzzword concept permeating a broad range of disciplines in the cognitive sciences (cf. [3][4][5]), straddling psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, human–computer interactions, anthropology, and philosophy as well as the more applied domains of human cognition and communication, such as cognitive development, education, and language learning/teaching. The implications of WM capacity and executive functions are pervasive and consequential for constraining and shaping everyday cognitive activities in language comprehension, arithmetic, reasoning, and many other cognitive tasks [6].
Affective WM (AWM), also called emotional WM, can be defined as the ability to successfully deploy WM in emotionally stressful contexts [7]; cf. [8]). However, previous theoretical and empirical studies on WM have predominantly focused on exploring its structure and functions in human cognition from multiple theoretical perspectives [9], while its emotional connotation, or affective WM, has received much less attention in general psychology and neuroscience, not to mention more practical domains such as language learning and bilingual development. In the realms of the WM–language enterprise [10][11][12][13], most previous and current research has adopted cognitive WM models (e.g., those listed in [4][14][15]) as conceptual and theoretical frameworks to investigate the putative effects of WM with a view to investigating the overall or specific implications of multiple WM components (e.g., Baddeley’s model) and executive control functions (e.g., Cowan’s and Engle’s model) for miscellaneous domains of language acquisition and bilingual processing [16]. In sharp contrast, research probing the role of affective WM (AWM) in language and/or bilingualism/SLA has been meager until recently [17]; see also [18].
To fill the gap, this entry proposes not only that WM in language and bilingualism/SLA has cognitive implications but also that its affective dimensions should not be neglected. It is argued that affective WM may hold great promise in making distinctive and unique theoretical and methodological contributions to future SLA/bilingualism research. Towards this goal, researchers first summarize the cognitive approaches to WM conceptions and the assessment procedures implemented in current language and bilingualism/SLA research, unearthing some remaining issues besetting theory and methodology. Following these, researchers turn to elaborate on the construct of affective WM and integrate it with cognitive WM perspectives on bilingualism/SLA studies. To facilitate future studies, researchers also propose some practical guidelines for constructing a series of affective WM span tasks that can be readily implemented in future affective WM–language research as complementary to current cognitive paradigms. Overall, researchers argue that both cognitive and affective WM dimensions provide important, albeit distinctive, insight into the WM–language nexus [19][20], and therefore, future research in the language sciences and bilingualism/SLA should incorporate both perspectives.

2. Cognitive WM Models and Measures in Language and Bilingualism/SLA

WM, as the primary memory (cf. [21]), plays a fundamental role in multiple facets of human cognitive life, including language learning and processing [10][22][23]. Research on WM drawing on the integration of a large number of empirical investigations of typical and nontypical participants constituted a major source of and the catalyst for the formulation of the seminal multicomponent model by Baddeley and colleagues [10][24]. This multicomponent model of WM by Baddeley [25][26] has thus become the most widely cited framework across multiple disciplines, including language and bilingualism/SLA research [27][28][29].
Among the four components as conceived in Baddeley’s fractionated WM model, the phonological loop (or phonological WM; [20]), comprising a phonological store and an articulatory rehearsal mechanism, has been postulated to play an instrumental role in the storage and processing of novel phonological forms [30], rendering it the ‘language learning device’ [25]( see also [31]). Inspired by this hypothesis, numerous empirical studies adopting diverse research methodologies have corroborated the positive links between phonological WM (measured by some simple storage-focused versions of memory-recall tasks such as the digit span and the nonword recognition/repetition span; [32]) and a broad range of language-learning domains among both typical and non-typical developmental participants [33]. These language domains include, most obviously, the acquisition and development of lexical knowledge or word learning in both L1 and L2 (e.g., [30][34][35][36]). Longer linguistic units, such as phrases or multi-unit formulaic chunks, have been found to rely on phonological WM as well (e.g., [37][38][39][40]), though its role in morpho-syntax or grammatical structure is debatable (largely depending on the different epistemological stances on the very definition of ‘grammar’ and the specific models of language; cf. [41][42]).
Additionally, phonological WM, with its putative articulatory rehearsal mechanism, has also been found to be closely related to oral fluency and development at the early stages of language learning in both L1 and L2 (e.g., [43][44][45]). As such, the pivotal role of phonological WM as conceived in Baddeley’s multicomponent model in storage- and sound-based language acquisitional and developmental aspects is now firmly established (see also [46][47][48]. In contrast to phonological WM, other WM components, such as visuospatial WM and the episodic buffer in Baddeley’s model, have received much less enthusiasm among second-language researchers [22][49], nor have the linguistics- and psycholinguistics-oriented components, such as semantic WM and orthographic WM, been vigorously researched (e.g., [50]). In more recent years, though, Baddeley and colleagues [26] have explored the role of the episodic buffer in binding visual information such as objects. This emerging trend will hopefully renew momentum towards investigating the implications of visuospatial WM and the episodic buffer for sentence recall (e.g., [51][52]) and for following spoken instructions (i.e., the enactment effect) [53][54].
Despite the paucity of empirical studies directly probing the central executive in language and SLA/bilingualism and adopting Baddeley’s structural view of WM [22], other functional WM models have witnessed increasing theoretical and empirical investigations into the individual variations in the executive control or attentional control aspects of WM [55]. Two theoretical frameworks are gaining increasing prominence in this line of inquiry, namely the embedded-processes model by Cowan [9] and the executive control or attentional control paradigm touted by Engle [56][57]. Though controversies and debates still linger over the sources of such inherent variations [1] and constituent sub-processes, executive WM conceived this way (i.e., EWM in [20]) is generally operationalized and measured by more cognitively demanding dual-processing (e.g., storage plus manipulation) span tasks in both the psychological and language sciences [58][59], including bilingualism/SLA research [60][61].
These ‘complex’ versions of executive WM span tasks include the seminal reading span task that measures sentence judgment accuracy and serial recall of final words [62], the scoring procedures of which have been further refined by Waters and Caplan [63] to also take into account participants’ reaction time for the judgment component. Other formats of the complex memory span tasks are gaining popularity [60], including the domain-general operation span task, which taxes participants’ dual-processing ability to solve arithmetic equations and recall final items [64] as a way to avoid confounding linguistic proficiency in the reading span paradigm. Another format, i.e., the N-back task, is commonly applied in both neuropsychology (e.g., cognitive and WM training); [65]) and language-cum-SLA/bilingualism research ([66]), though its underlying mechanism is far more controversial [67].
Regarding the effects of these executive aspects of WM (i.e., EWM [20]), empirical studies have pointed to their close links with cognitively demanding language processes and activities both online and offline during L1 reading and parsing (e.g., ambiguity resolutions, morphological and grammatical processing, e.g., [68][69]) and L2 sub-skills such as listening, speaking, reading, writing, and bilingual interpreting (e.g., [70][71][72]).
The most recent trend of executive functions related to WM is the ‘unity and diversity’ framework [73][74] that is making its inroads into language and SLA/bilingualism research. Scholars endeavor to explore the componential and separate effects of these executive functions (e.g., updating, task switching, and inhibitory control) on L1 and L2 learning and development [16]. Among the three key executive functions, memory updating and inhibitory control, as measured respectively by the running memory span task [75] and the N-back task [76], have garnered increasing attention in SLA (e.g., [77]) and task-based language-teaching research [18][28][78]. Similarly, the well-articulated attentional control paradigm by Engle and colleagues [79][80] has been cited widely in the language sciences (cf. [81]) and interpreting models [82].
Overall, an increasing body of empirical studies as discussed in comprehensive narrative reviews [15][20] and meta-analytic surveys (e.g., [69][71][83]; see also [47][84]) has reinforced the positive links between the putative WM components (esp., phonological WM and executive WM) and executive control functions (e.g., updating, task-switching, inhibitory control, attentional control, etc.) as they relate to nuanced language-learning domains and skills in L1 and L2. These emerging patterns, when effectively integrated and synthesized further, lend theoretical support and empirical evidence to the formulation of an integrated cognitive account that portrays the intricate relationships between WM components and functions on the one hand, and language as well as bilingualism/SLA on the other. These hypothetical links thus culminate in the phonological/executive (P/E) model [12][20][85][86].
Moreover, as the theoretical models of WM evolve, WM measurement procedures are also evolving [61]. As such, the integrated account of WM and language/SLA has also identified and regrouped the array of WM span tasks currently available from cognitive psychology and neuroscience (e.g., [58][59]). Specifically, the P/E model [20] has stipulated that the simple (storage-only) versions of memory span tasks (e.g., digit span, nonword repetition span) are approximating phonological WM, while the complex (storage-plus-processing) versions of memory span tasks serve as a proxy for executive WM. Furthermore, in alignment with the emerging ‘unity and diversity’ framework, finer-grained sub-process-oriented WM measures (e.g., storage, articulatory rehearsal, updating, task switching, inhibitory control) are in place to tap into granulated executive or attentional control mechanisms and functions that impact language and bilingualism/SLA domains.
To sum up, previous and current empirical studies adopting cognitive WM perspectives have pointed to the positive, albeit distinct, roles of phonological WM and executive WM as they relate to specific SLA domains and L2 sub-skill learning ([20]; cf. [87] for semantic WM vs. phonological and orthographic WM). For example, Linck et al. [71] reported an overall (population) effect size of 0.255 between WM and L2 processing and products. Such an effect size is small, but the reasons behind this finding are still unclear. On the one hand, it is possible that WM may be a necessary but not an essential factor in SLA. On the other hand, such a small effect size can also be partly due to the differences in methodology such as the inconsistency of WM span tasks across the empirical studies [60]. Though an enormous number of studies have adopted these dominant cognitive paradigms to investigate WM effects and their potential consequences for language and bilingualism/SLA, they are not the only approaches and are not readily embraced by all linguists and psycholinguists. It is even true that in ‘mainstream’ theoretical linguistics and psycholinguistics, for example (cf. [88]), the role of WM or general memory as a whole is generally downplayed and marginalized, sometimes to the extent of negligibility (e.g., [89][90]; cf. [91]).
For example, Chomsky [92] has unequivocally speculated that the language acquisition device (LAD; or universal grammar) should be unaffected by such ‘grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying knowledge of the language in actual performance’. (p. 3) Contrary to Chomsky’s dominant view in mainstream linguistics, other processing- and performance-oriented theoretical linguists (e.g., [41][93]) as well as emergentist-oriented (e.g., [94]) and typological or dependency grammar–oriented linguists ([95]; cf. [96]), have all attached great emphasis to the role of WM, holding the view that WM limitations are part and parcel of the language parser (or the language device; [84][91]). It is even claimed that WM limitations play a pervasive, albeit sometimes ‘hidden’, role in key domains of language design, acquisition, and processing of linguistic structures and constructions ranging from phonology to grammar and discourse ([94]; cf. [97]). Other psycholinguists-cum-neuroscientists (e.g., [29]) have recently advocated studies of domain-specific WM components such as semantic WM and orthographic WM alongside the prevailing phonological WM, derived from distinct neural correlates from neuropsychological evidence (e.g., [29][87]). On a cautionary note, some psycholinguists (e.g., [90]) have not ruled out the possibility that WM may be no more than an ‘emergent’ (parasitic) by-product of language comprehension and production (cf. [89][98]).

References

  1. Conway, A.R.A.; Jarrold, C.; Kane, M.J.; Miyake, A.; Towse, J.N. Variation in Working Memory; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007.
  2. Miller, G.; Galanter, E.; Pribram, K.H. Plans and the Structure of Behavior; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: Austin, TX, USA, 1960.
  3. Miller, G. The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2003, 7, 141–144.
  4. Miyake, A.; Shah, P. Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999.
  5. Oberauer, K.; Lewandowsky, S.; Awh, A.; Brown, G.D.A.; Cowan, N.; Donkin, C.; Farrell, S.; Hitch, G.J.; Hurlstone, M.; Ma, W.; et al. Benchmarks for models of working memory. Psychol. Bull. 2018, 144, 885–958.
  6. Cowan, N. Working Memory Capacity; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2005.
  7. Ma, X.; Ma, X.; Li, P.; Liu, Y. Differences in working memory with emotional distraction between proficient and non-proficient bilinguals. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1414.
  8. Mikels, J.A.; Reuter-Lorenz, P.A. Affective working memory: An integrative psychological construct. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 14, 543–559.
  9. Cowan, N. Working memory development: A 50-year assessment of research and underlying theories. Cognition 2022, 224, 105075.
  10. Baddeley, A.D. Working memory and language: An overview. J. Commun. Disord. 2003, 36, 189–208.
  11. Gathercole, S.; Baddeley, A. Working Memory and Language; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hove, UK, 1993.
  12. Wen, Z.; Schwieter, J. Towards an integrated account of working memory and language. In The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Schwieter, J., Wen, Z., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 909–927.
  13. Wen, Z.; Baddeley, A.; Cowan, N. Working Memory in First and Second Language; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.
  14. Baddeley, A.D.; Hitch, G.J.; Allen, R. A multicomponent model of working memory. In Working Memory: State of the Science; Logie, R.H., Camos, V., Cowan, N., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 10–43.
  15. Schwieter, J.; Wen, Z. The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.
  16. Bunting, M.F.; Wen, Z. Working memory in language and bilingual development. In Memory in Science for Society; Logie, R., Wen, Z., Gathercole, S., Cowan, N., Engle, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2022.
  17. Janus, M.; Bialystok, E. Working memory with emotional distraction in monolingual and bilingual children. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1582.
  18. Wen, Z.; Teng, F.; Han, L. Affective working memory in task-based language teaching research. In The Affective Dimension of Task-Based Language Teaching Research; Lambert, C., Aubrey, S., Bui, G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022.
  19. Wen, Z. Working memory and second language learning. Int. J. Appl. Linguist. 2012, 22, 1–22.
  20. Wen, Z. Working Memory and Second Language Learning: Towards an Integrated Approach; Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK, 2016.
  21. James, W. Principles of Psychology; McMillan & Company: London, UK, 1890; Volume 1.
  22. Baddeley, A.D. Working memory in second language learning. In Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing; Wen, Z., Mota, M., McNeill, A., Eds.; Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK, 2015; pp. 17–28.
  23. Baddeley, A.D. Modularity, working memory and language acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 2017, 33, 299–311.
  24. Baddeley, A.D. Developing the concept of working memory: The role of neuropsychology. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2021, 36, 861–873.
  25. Baddeley, A.D.; Gathercole, S.; Papagno, C. The Phonological Loop as a Language Learning Device. Psychol. Rev. 1998, 105, 158–173.
  26. Baddeley, A.D.; Hitch, G.J.; Allen, R.J. Working memory and binding in sentence recall. J. Mem. Lang. 2009, 61, 438–456.
  27. Ellis, R. Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language; John Benjamins: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005.
  28. Ellis, R.; Skehan, P.; Li, S.; Shintani, N.; Lambert, C. Task-Based Language Teaching: Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020.
  29. Martin, R.C. The critical role of semantic working memory in language comprehension and production. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2021, 30, 283–291.
  30. Service, E.; De Borba, E.; Lopez-Cormier, A.; Horzum, M.; Pape, D. Short-Term Memory for Auditory Temporal Patterns and Meaningless Sentences Predicts Learning of Foreign Word Forms. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 549.
  31. Unsworth, N.; Redick, T.S.; Heitz, R.P.; Broadway, J.M.; Engle, R.W. Complex working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: A latent-variable analysis of the relationship between processing and storage. Memory 2009, 17, 635–654.
  32. Gathercole, S. Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2006, 27, 513–543.
  33. Pierce, L.; Genesee, F.; Delcenserie, A.; Morgan, G. Variations in phonological working memory: Linking early language experiences and language learning outcomes. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2017, 38, 1265–1300.
  34. Cheung, H. Nonword span as a unique predictor of second-language vocabulary learning. Dev. Psychol. 1996, 32, 867–873.
  35. French, L. Phonological Working Memory and Second Language Acquisition: A Developmental Study of Francophone Children Learning English in Quebec; Edwin Mellen Press: Lewiston, NY, USA, 2006.
  36. Service, E.; Simard, D. How measures of working memory relate to L2 vocabulary. In The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Schwieter, J., Wen, Z., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 529–549.
  37. Ellis, N.C.; Sinclair, S. Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 1996, 49, 234–250.
  38. Foster, P.; Bolibaugh, C.; Kotula, A. Knowledge of nativelike selections in an L2: The influence of exposure, memory, age of onset and motivation in foreign language and immersion settings. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 2014, 36, 101–132.
  39. Martin, K.I.; Ellis, N.C. The roles of phonological STM and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 2012, 34, 379–413.
  40. Skrzypek, A. Phonological short-term memory and L2 collocational development in adult learners. EUROSLA Yearb. 2009, 9, 160–184.
  41. Hawkins, J.A. Have grammars been shaped by working memory and if so, how? In The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Schwieter, J., Wen, Z., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 275–303.
  42. Kallens, P.C.; Christiansen, M.H. Models of language and multiword expressions. Front. Artif. Intell. 2022, 5, 781962.
  43. O’Brien, I.; Segalowitz, N.; Collentine, J.; Freed, B. Phonological memory and lexical, narrative, and grammatical skills in second language oral production by adult learners. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2006, 27, 377–402.
  44. O’Brien, I.; Segalowitz, N.; Collentine, J.; Freed, B. Phonological memory predicts L2 oral fluency gains in adults. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 2007, 29, 557–582.
  45. French, L.M.; O’Brien, I. Phonological memory and children’s second language grammar learning. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2008, 29, 463–487.
  46. Juffs, A.; Harrington, M. Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Lang. Teach. 2011, 44, 137–166.
  47. Wen, Z.; Li, S. Working memory in L2 learning and processing. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning; Schwieter, J.W., Benati, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 365–389.
  48. Williams, J.N. Working memory and SLA. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition; Gass, S., Mackey, A., Eds.; Routledge/Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2012; pp. 427–441.
  49. Baddeley, A.D. Working memory and challenges of language. In The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Schwieter, J., Wen, Z., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.
  50. Pratto, F.; John, O.P. Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 61, 380–391.
  51. Allen, R.J.; Baddeley, A.D. Working memory and sentence recall. In Interactions between Short-Term and Long-Term Memory in the Verbal Domain; Thorn, A., Page, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009.
  52. Baddeley, A.D.; Hitch, G.J. Working memory. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Memory; Bower, G.H., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974; Volume 8, pp. 47–89.
  53. Yang, T.; Gathercole, S.E.; Allen, R.J. Benefit of enactment over oral repetition of verbal instruction does not require additional working memory during encoding. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2014, 21, 186–192.
  54. Allen, R.J.; Waterman, A.H.; Yang, T.X.; Jaroslawska, A.J. Working memory in action: Remembering and following instructions. In Memory in Science for Society: There is Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory; Logie, R.H., Wen, Z., Gathercole, S.E., Cowan, N., Engle, R.W., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2022.
  55. Conway, A.R.A.; Moore, A.B.; Kane, M.J. Recent trends in the cognitive neuroscience of working memory. Cortex 2009, 45, 262–268.
  56. Engle, R.W. Working memory capacity as executive attention. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2002, 11, 19–23.
  57. Engle, R.W. Working memory and executive attention: A revisit. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 13, 190–193.
  58. Conway, A.; Kane, M.; Bunting, M.; Hambrick, D.; Wilhelm, O.; Engel, R. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2005, 12, 769–786.
  59. Burgoyne, P.; Jessie, A.; Martin, D.; Mashburn, C.A.; Tsukahara, J.S.; Draheim, C.; Engle, R.W. Measuring individual differences in working memory capacity and attention control and their contribution to language comprehension. In The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Schwieter, J., Wen, Z., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 247–273.
  60. Shin, J.; Hu, Y. A methodological synthesis of working memory tasks in L2 research. In The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Schwieter, J., Wen, Z., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 722–745.
  61. Wen, Z.; Juffs, A.; Winke, P. Measuring working memory. In The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Testing; Winke, P., Brunfaut, T., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 167–176.
  62. Daneman, M.; Carpenter, P.A. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 1980, 19, 450–466.
  63. Waters, G.S.; Caplan, D. The measurement of verbal working memory and its relation to reading comprehension. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 1996, 49, 51–74.
  64. Sweller, J.; Roussel, S.; Tricot, A. Cognitive load theory and instructional design for language learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Schwieter, J., Wen, Z., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 859–880.
  65. Novick, J.M.; Bunting, M.F.; Dougherty, M.R.; Engle, R.W. Cognitive and Working Memory Training: Perspectives from Psychology, Neuroscience, and Human Development; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019.
  66. Sáfár, A.; Kormos, J. Revisiting problems with foreign language aptitude. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Teach. 2008, 46, 113–136.
  67. Owen, A.M.; McMillan, K.M.; Laird, A.R.; Bullmore, E. N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2005, 25, 46–59.
  68. Daneman, M.; Merikle, P.M. Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1996, 3, 422–433.
  69. Peng, P.; Barnes, M.; Wang, C.; Wang, W.; Li, S.; Swanson, H.L.; Dardick, W.; Tao, S. A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychol. Bull. 2018, 144, 48–76.
  70. Li, S. Cognitive differences and ISLA. In The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition; Loewen, S., Sato, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 396–417.
  71. Linck, J.A.; Osthus, P.; Koeth, J.T.; Bunting, M.F. Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2014, 21, 861–863.
  72. Shin, J. A meta-analysis of the relationship between working memory and second language reading comprehension: Does task type matter? Appl. Psycholinguist. 2020, 41, 873–900.
  73. Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P.; Emerson, M.J.; Witzki, A.H.; Howerter, A.; Wager, T. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 2000, 41, 49–100.
  74. Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P. The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 21, 8–14.
  75. Bunting, M.F.; Cowan, N.; Saults, J.S. How does running memory span work? Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2006, 59, 1691–1700.
  76. Calvo, N.; Ibáñez, A.; García, A.M. The Impact of Bilingualism on Working memory: A Null Effect on the Whole May Not Be So on the Parts. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 265.
  77. Gass, S.; Lee, J. Working memory capacity, inhibitory control, and proficiency in a second language. In From Structure to Chaos: Twenty Years of Modeling Bilingualism: In Honor of Kees De Bot; Schmid, M., Lowie, W., Eds.; John Benjamins: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 59–84.
  78. Skehan, P. Working memory and L2 speaking tasks. In The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Schwieter, J., Wen, Z., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.
  79. Burgoyne, A.P.; Engle, R.W. Attention control: A cornerstone of higher-order cognition. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 25, 299.
  80. Draheim, C.; Pak, R.; Draheim, A.A.; Engle, R.W. The role of attention control in complex real-world tasks. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2022, 1–55.
  81. Green, D.W.; Abutalebi, J. Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2013, 25, 515–530.
  82. Dong, Y.; Li, P. Attentional control in interpreting: A model of language control and processing control. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2020, 23, 716–728.
  83. In’nami, Y.; Hijikata, Y.; Koizumi, R. Working memory capacity and L2 reading: A meta-analysis. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 2021, 1–26.
  84. Wen, Z.; Jackson, D.D. Working memory. In Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Individual Differences; Li, S., Hiver, P., Papi, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 54–66.
  85. Wen, Z. Working memory as language aptitude: The Phonological/Executive Model. In Language Aptitude: Advancing Theory, Testing, Research and Practice; Wen, Z., Skehan, P., Biedroń, A., Li, S., Sparks, R., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 187–214.
  86. Wen, Z.; Skehan, P. Stages of acquisition and the P/E Model of working memory: Complementary or contrasting approaches to foreign language aptitude? Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 2021, 41, 6–24.
  87. Purcell, J.; Rapp, B.; Martin, R.C. Distinct neural substrates support phonological and orthographic working memory: Implications for theories of working memory. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12, 681141.
  88. Christiansen, M.H.; Chater, N. Towards an integrated science of language. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2017, 1, 0163.
  89. Juffs, A. The importance of grain size in phonology and the possibility that phonological working memory is epiphenomenal. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2017, 38, 1329–1333.
  90. Schwering, S.C.; MacDonald, M.C. Verbal working memory as emergent from language comprehension and production. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 68.
  91. Lu, B.; Wen, Z. Short-term and working memory capacity and the language device: Chunking and parsing complexity. In The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language; Schwieter, J., Zhisheng, W., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 393–417.
  92. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1965.
  93. Hawkins, J.A. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004.
  94. O’Grady, W. Working memory and language: From phonology to grammar. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2017, 38, 1340–1343.
  95. Liu, H. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. J. Cogn. Sci. 2008, 9, 159–191.
  96. Gibson, E.; Futrell, R.; Piantadosi, S.T.; Dautriche, I.; Mahowald, K.; Bergen, L.; Levy, R.P. How efficiency shapes human language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2019, 23, 389–407.
  97. MacDonald, M.C. Memory limitations and chunking are variable and cannot explain language structure. Behav. Brain Sci. 2016, 39, E84.
  98. Postle, B.R. Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain. Neuroscience 2006, 139, 23–38.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Linguistics
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Zhisheng Wen
,
,
Yong Zeng
View Times: 1.1K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 09 Jun 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback