Cover not available
Part of
Aptitude-Treatment Interaction in Second Language Learning
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser
[Benjamins Current Topics 116] 2021
► pp. 153–171

Phonological short-term memory capacity and L2 oral performance

 | Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
 | Indiana University
phonological short-term memory (PSTM) capacity is the ability to retain verbal information briefly (Archibald & Gathercole, 2006). Since PSTM facilitates the storage of verbal material, one expects a positive relationship between PSTM and several aspects of second language (L2) learning. Some studies have found a relationship between PSTM and oral production skills, such as fluency (e.g., O’Brien et al., 2006). This paper reports on the results of a study that looked at the inter-relations between complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF), and between these dimensions and PSTM. One hundred and thirty-five L2 learners of Spanish participated in the study. Results showed that performance in one L2 speech dimension did not have a negative impact on performance in another dimension, but that as complexity increased or decreased, there was a better chance of fluency than accuracy also increasing or decreasing. PSTM capacity was related to complexity and fluency, but not to accuracy. These results were interpreted as lending some support to Skehan’s Trade-off Hypothesis (Skehan, 2009).
Keywords: phonological short term memory, complexity, fluency, accuracy, L2 speech production, task-based performance
Article outline
  • Theoretical background
    • The relationship between complexity, accuracy, and fluency
    • The working memory system
    • CAF and memory capacity
    • Present study
  • Methodology
    • Participants
    • Instruments
      • Oral production task
      • Phonological short-term memory test
    • Procedure
    • Scoring
      • Oral production task
      • Phonological short-term memory test
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.116.07gra
References (54)
References
Atkins, P. W. B., & Baddeley, A. D. (1998). Working memory and distributed vocabulary learning. Applied psycholinguistics, 19, 537–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 537–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 47–89). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.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 review and a user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72, 85–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Bolibaugh, C., & Kotula, A. (2014). Knowledge of nativelike selections in an L2: The influence of exposure, memory, age of onset and motivation in foreign language and immersion settings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 101–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freed, B. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 243–265). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and +/− here-and-now: Effects on L2 oral production. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in a formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
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, 19–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2019). Cognitive aptitudes and L2 speaking proficiency: Links between LLAMA and Hi-LAB. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 313–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guiraud, P. (1954). Les charactères statistiques du vocabulaire. Essai de méthodologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2008). The effects of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5, 29–63.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 21–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In P. Robinson, J. M. Norris, M. Bygate, & K. Van Den Branden (Eds.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 267–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 261–284.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1999). ‘Language production: A blueprint for the speaker’ In C. Brown and P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linck, J., Hughes, M., Campbell, S., Silbert, N., Tare, M., Jackson, S., et al. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D. D., & Richards, B. J. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp. 58–71). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests. Swansea: Lognostics.Google Scholar
Michel, M., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 241–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healey & L. J. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nielson, K. B. (2014). Can planning time compensate for individual differences in working memory capacity? Language Teaching Research, 18, 272–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexical narrative, and grammatical skills in second language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1995). Planning and second language oral performance (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Hawai’i, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. Calico Journal, 20, 7–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task Complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson, M. H. Long, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 123–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Borges Mota, M., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Working memory, learning conditions, and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 224–247). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2016). How do verbal short-term memory and working memory relate to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar? A comparison between first and second language learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 65–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17, 65–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103, 761–772. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wen, Z. (2016). Phonological and executive working memory in L2 task-based speech planning and performance. Language Learning Journal, 44, 418–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53, 177–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuniga, M., & Simard, D. (2019). Factors influencing L2 self-repair behavior: The role of L2 proficiency, attentional control and L1 self-repair behavior. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 43–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar