Alan Juffs

7/30/2019 Alan Juffs

1/50

Cognitive factors:

Working memory and lexicaldevelopment

Alan Juffs


2/50

Support

National Science Foundation

SBR-9709152

Thanks to RSAs:

Jenifer Larson-Hall

Greg Mizera

Jessica Giesler

Sean Coyan

Vivian Chen


3/50

Publications

Dekeyser, R and A. Juffs. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning.Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. 437-454. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a

second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199-226. Juffs, A. (2005). Some effects of first language and working memory in the

processing of long distance wh- questions. Second Language Research 21,121-151.

In press a. Processing reduced relative vs. main verb ambiguity in English

as a Second Language: a replication study with working memory. Afestschrift for XXXX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


4/50

Structure of talk

Sketch of working memory models

Brief Sketch of sentence processing

Experiment in working memory andsentence processing in English as a

second language

Memory, aptitude, and low educatedlearners


5/50

Baddeleys Working Memory Model 1

Figure 1. Standard Working Memory Model, Baddeley (2000a).

Central control

Slave system

Shaded area: crystalli zed cognitive systems capable of accumulating long-term knowledg

Visuospatialsketchpad

Phonologicalloop

Central

Executive

Visual Episodic


6/50

Baddeleys Working Memory Model 2

Figure2. Further Development of the Working Memory Model, Baddeley (2000a).

Central control

Slave system

Shaded area: crystallized cognitive systems capable of accumulating long-term knowledg

Visuospatialsketchpad

Phonologicalloop

Central

Executive

Visual Episodic

Episodicbuffer


7/50

Behavioural Measures

Central executive

Reading Span Task (Daneman and

Carpenter, 1980)

What does the RST claim to measure?


8/50

Relative clause types and WM

1. Animacy effects in reduced relative clauses The evidence [inanimate] examined by the lawyer was convincing.

The witness [animate] examined by the lawyer was convincing.

2. Subject and object asymmetry in relativeclauses. The reporter that the senator attacked ____ regretted the error.

The reporter that ___ attacked the senator regretted the error.

3. Reduced relatives and cue strength. The bad boys seen during the game were playing in the park.

- no ambiguity; good cue for ambiguity resolution

The bad boys watched almost every day were playing in the park.

ambiguity + bad cue for ambiguity resolution.


9/50

Phonological Loop

Non-word span, digit span What does this measure?

acquisition ofnew words, and does not reflect theknowledge base.

Gathercole, Baddeley, & Papagno (1998, p. 159, Table 1)in partial correlations for 3 year-olds, non-word repetitionis more strongly correlated with vocabulary measures thandigit span (0.31 vs. 0.16 (ns),

whereas for 8 year-olds neither span is correlates (0.22(ns) vs. 0.23 (ns)).

The data they report for 13 year olds, simple digit span isrelated to vocabulary measures (r= .46, p = .05).


10/50

Phonological loop in adults

May be important in ability to learn new words in

adults, but it has not been implicated in studies of

on-line ambiguity resolution.

These now you see it, now you dont effects ofPSTM in L1 learning are not reflected in L2

reviews of the literature.


11/50

Issue and controversies

Does the reading span tap general or

specifically linguistic capacity?

Does WM reflect experience?

Which test is a better test of WM?

What is the role of the phonological loop?

The role of memory as a key componentof aptitude


12/50

Recent L2 WM research

Myles etal.

19981999

PSTM English-speakinglearners of French

Productiondata

Superior ability inchunking related tohigher WM. Laterbetter chunkers betterat creative use.

Kroll etal

2001 W ater sandCaplanRST

English-speakinglearners ofSpanish andFrench

Translation toand fromwords in theL2

Failed to find a reliablerelationship betweenWM and translationprocessing.

Robinson 2002 Osaka&OsakaRST

17 Japaneselearners ofSamoan in a labsetting

ErgativesIncorporationLocatives

WM memory, and notgeneral intelligencefound to be bestpredictor, but onlyshort-term, easystructures. Problemwith manycorrelations. Reliablecorrelations only on GJlistening. I.e. Of 24

correlations with WMreported, only 4reliable. None above.52. Amount ofvariance explained notclear. No attempts atregression.


13/50

Recent L2 researchMackeyet al

2002 Plausible-nonplausibleversions ofRST;Non w ordrecall

30 Japaneselearners of ESL

WM andinteractionalfeedback

Variablecorrelationsbetween RS Ts andnon-word recall.Composite scoresdeveloped becauseof the correlations.No reliablerelationship foundbetween WM andnoticing. Otherfactors at wo rk? p.202. Non wordrepetition did N OTcorrelate with L2listening. p. 209.

Willi ams& Lovatt

2003 Non-wordPSTM testbased ontarget vocab.

1. 20 English-speaking learners

2. 21 English-speaking learners

1.Laboratorystudy ofdeterminersin Italian.2. Inventedlang basedon Japanese,determinersagain.

Exp. 1Priorlanguageexperience mostrelated to success,Languagebackground w as.PSTM Morestrongly related toRATE of learningthan ultimate level.Exp. 2. Fewcorrelations,specifically nonebetween PSTMand vocabulary.Effect of languagebackground N OTmediated bymemory measures.Learning thatoccurred wasexplicit. Can not beassumed that rulesemerge frommemoryrepresentations ofinput sequences.(Contra Ellis)


14/50

The grammar and the parser

Crain and Fodor (1985, p. 126) suggested: a theory of grammar that will be useful to a theory of

parsing is one that is compatible with the on-lineapplication of constraints.

Frazier & Clifton (1996, 24-25): Licensing grammars, based on current versions of GB

theory, may be developed so that they provideattractive alternatives [to head projection models]

Chomsky (2000, p. 91) the major problem is to discover the principles and

parameters and to proceed beyond, to the study ofuse, acquisition, pathology, cellular mechanisms,

Hence Chomsky includes use in the MP?


15/50

Second Language Acquisition

Development of the L2 lexicon: what:

Projectionist accounts (Principles and

Parameters) constructionist accounts (Goldberg, 1995)

Process of acquisition: how

Processing break down Accumulation of chunks/structures


16/50

L2 vocabulary: Nation 1990

1. The spoken form of a word

2. The written form of a word

3. The grammatical behaviour of a word

4. The collocational behaviour of a word 5. How frequent the word is

6. The stylistic register constraints on a word

7. The conceptual meaning of a word

8. The associations a word has with otherrelated words


17/50

Experiment - Questions

Do measures of working memory correlate in the

L1 and L2?

Can individual differences in working memoryaccount for individual differences in sentence

processing based on verb meaning?

What is the effect of the L1 on L2 processing?


18/50

Method -1

Proficiency measure

Measure of Reading Span in L1 and L2

Measure of Word Span in L1 and L2


19/50

Method 2

Data from on-line reading: record word by

word reading times


20/50

Method

The moving window paradigm

Without

her

contributions

would

be

Impossible

Possible or not possible?


21/50

Participants30 Chinese 28 Japanese

46 Spanish 21 English speakers

Table 1. Michigan Test Results: Raw Scores.

Chinese Japanese SpanishMichigan M* SD M SD M SD F df p

Vocabulary 28.33 a 7.67 20.39 a 6.21 26.65 7.58 9.6

29.8 b 6.0 25.07 b 5.28 26.89 7.26 4.042

58.03 c 12.59 45.46 c d 10.32 53.45 d 13.96 7.29

*Means that are co-superscripted are reliably different.


22/50

Results

Working memory

Sentence processing


23/50

Chinese-speaking learners

L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 ReadingSpan

L2 ReadingSpan

L1 Word Span 1

L2 Word Span 0.34* 1

L1 Reading

Span

0.02 0.05 1

L2 Reading

Span

-0.18 0.17 0.62*** 1


24/50

Japanese-speaking learners


L2 ReadingSpan

L1 Word Span 1

L2 Word Span 0.28 1

L1 Reading

Span

0.41** 0.54** 1

L2 Reading

Span

0.30 0.44** 0.56*** 1


25/50

Spanish-speaking Learners


L2 ReadingSpan

L1 Word Span 1

L2 Word Span 0.48* 1

L1 Reading

Span

0.44** 0.28 1

L2 Reading

Span

0.24 0.09 0.46** 1


26/50

Chinese WM & Proficiency

Vocabulary Grammar

L1 Word Span 0.29 0.27L2 Word Span 0.27 0.35*

L1 Reading Span 0.07 0.10



27/50

Japanese WM & Proficiency

Vocabulary Grammar

L1 Word Span 0.11 0.09L2 Word Span 0.26 0.04




28/50

Spanish WM & Proficiency

Vocabulary Grammar

L1 Word Span 0.22 0.20L2 Word Span 0.11 0.24

L1 Reading Span 0.30* 0.31*

L2 Reading Span 0.28* 0.29*


29/50

Sentences that impose

processing loadGarden Path sentences

After the children cleaned the house looked

neat and tidy

The doctor knew the nurses liked the man

from England


30/50

Unconscious GP Processing

Unconscious Garden Path

400

600

800

1000

1200

the doctor knew the nurses liked the man f rom England

Word by Word


31/50

Garden Path Processing- L1

Garden Path Sentence

400

600

800

1000

1200

After the chil dren cle aned the house loo ked very neat and tid y

Words by Word

i

illi

Chinese

English

Japanese

Spanish


32/50

Garden Path Processing - WM

Working Me mory and Parsin

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

After children Det VERB neat tidy

Structure/word

HI-GP

LO-GP

HI-Non-GP

LO-Non-GP


33/50

Transitivity and cue type

(1)

a. The experienced soldiers warned about thedangers conducted the midnight raid.

b. The experienced soldiers chosen for their skillsconducted the midnight raid.

2.

a. The bad boys criticized during the morningwere

playing in the park.

b. The bad boys criticized almost every day wereplaying in the park.


34/50

6 Sentence types

Unambiguous good and bad cues

Two way ambiguous, good and bad cues

Three way ambiguous, good and bad cues

Easiest: unambiguous, good cue The bad boys chosenduring the gamewere playing

in the park.

Most difficult: three way ambiguous, bad cue The bad boys watched almost every daywere playing

in the park.


35/50

Processing reduced relativesThe bad boys XXX were p laying

Main verb mean processing time

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

Unambig-G Unambig-B Ambig2-G Ambig2-B Ambig3-G Ambg3-B

Ambiguity and Cue Type

Chinese

Japanese

Spanish

English


36/50

Working memory and

reduced relativesNo correlations with WM and processing

at key point for any of the groups at any

point in parsing except early on

All weak correlations, suggesting much of

the variance can be explained by other

factors

Main effects for language robust


37/50

Points to remember

L1 a better predictor of performance thanWM

WM does not correlate with individual

differences in processing L2 speakers show reading profiles

analagous to natives in many cases

Use of WM tests need to be fully justifiedin L2 research

Overemphasis of WM when results dontsupport it


38/50

More points to remember

More careful regression analyses

Clearer acknowledgement of the role of priorlinguistic knowledge is necessary.

Role of the new link proposed by Baddeley

between visual spatial ability and the PL andlanguage needs to be looked at


39/50

Aptitude and

ultimate attainment DeKeyser 2000

Replication of Johnson and Newport 1989

Added MLAT measure

58 Hungarian-speaking learners of ESL Findings: replicated Johnson and Newport

The only adults who succeed are those who score

high on the aptitude battery

Cf. Bialystoks commentary and reply http://www.pitt.edu/~rdk1/


40/50

Skehan 2001

Aptitude: speed or ultimate attainment?

DeKeyser (2000, p. 518) aptitude has a role inultimate attainment

Skehan (2001, p. 93) points out that theMLAT was designed to predict RATE and notultimate attainment, contra (?) DeKeyser2000)

Does the MLAT measure communicativecompetence? Or an ability on discrete pointitems?


41/50

Mackey et al. 2001

RST and WM test

Combined measure:

Low WM tended to notice less at lower

developmental stages than High WM High WM - more development in delayed post-test

High WM tended to notice more


42/50

Robinson 2001

Implicit learning: not related to higher IQ oraptitude measures?

Incidental learning: unintentional and

uncontrolled? Explicit learning: does relate to higher IQ

measures?

Dual system for implicit/explicitknowledge?


43/50

Robinson 2001

Japanese learners of Samoan

Relationship between IQ and explicit learningconfirmed

Surprising: low IQ scores outperform high IQscores on implicit learning

GJ judgements and production are alsounrelated to individual differences

learning of locatives, and may be incorporation,but not ergatives. Learning clearer in productiontasks compared to GJ tasks


44/50

Concluding remarks

Research on cognitive abilities is deeply

divided between those who maintain

access to UG in some form (dual system,

encapsulated) and those who believe incritical period/general learning.

Aptitude measures do seem to predict

performance on SOME discrete point itemtests of the Johnson and Newport type


45/50

Conclusions

Evidence suggests that the L1 exerts thegreatest influence on L2 processing

Lexical learning and processing shows

that verb transitivity (a highly complexsystem) is acquired and affects L2 readingand processing and is NOT predicted byIDs in working memory

Unlikely that this is generalizedknowledge


46/50

Conclusions

Therefore it is PREMATURE to conclude

that adults are unable to master details of

a linguistic system unless they have some

higher aptitude: this is because thelearners in these studies showed that they

can use complex information in

millisecond by millisecond parsingdecisions.


47/50

Finally

For low-educated learners, this is an

important issue because it means that low

aptitude/IQ/education does not preclude

successful language learning (=achievement of communicative

competence) given exposure and

motivation and cultural conditions


48/50

Selected References

BADDELEY, ALAN, 2000. Short-term and working memory, in Endel Tulving & Fergus Craik (eds.), The Oxford Handbook ofMemory, New York: Oxford University Press, 77-92.

BADDELEY, ALAN, GATHERCOLE, SUSAN & PAPAGNO, COSTANZA, 1998. The phonological loop as a language learningdevice,The Psychological Review 105, 158-73.

BERQUIST, BRETT, 1997. Individual differences in working memory span and L2 proficiency: capacity or processing capacity?,Paper presented at Proceedings of the GALA 97 Conference on Language Acquisition, Edinburgh, UK.

CARPENTER, PATRICIA, JUST, MARCEL Adam & REICHLE, ERIC D., 2000. Working memory and executive function,Current Opinion in Neurobiology 10, 195-99.

DANEMAN, Meredith & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading,Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior19, 450-66.

ELLIS, NICK C., 1996. Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order, Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 18, 91-126.

ELLIS, NICK C., 2002. Frequency effects and language processing: investigating formulaic use and input in future expression,Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 143-88.

GIBSON, EDWARD & SCHTZE, CARSON T, 1999. Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpusfrequency,Journal of Memory and Language 40, 263-79.

HARRINGTON, MICHAEL W, & SAWYER, MARK, 1992. L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skills,Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 14, 25-38.

JUFFS, ALAN, 1998. Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing,LanguageLearning48, 107-47.

JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA A & WOOLLEY, JACQUELINE D., 1982. Paradigms and processes and in

reading comprehension,Journal of Experimental Psychology: General3, 228-38. JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA & KELLER, Timothy, 1996. The capacity theory of comprehension: new

frontiers of evidence and arguments,The Psychological Review 103, 773-80. JUST, MARCEL ADAM & VARMA, SHASHANK, 2002. A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and

Christianson 2002,Psychological Review 109, 55-65.


49/50

Selected References

MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C & CHRISTIANSEN, MORTEN H, 2002. Reassessing working memory:comment on Just and Carpenter 1992 and Waters and Caplan 1996,Psychological Review 109, 35-54.

MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C, 1994. Probablistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution,Language and Cognitive Processes 9, 157-201.

MACDONALD, MARYELLEN, JUST, MARCEL & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1992. Working memoryconstraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity,Cognitive Psychology 24, 56-98.

MACKEY, ALISON, PHILP, JENEFER, EGI, TAKAKO, FUJII, AKIKO & TATSUMI, TOMOAKI, 2002.Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development, in PeterRobinson (eds.)Individual Differences And Instructed Language Learning, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181-

209. MYLES, FLORENCE, HOOPER, JANET & MITCHELL, ROSAMOND, 1998. Rote or rule? Exploring the

role of formulaic language in the foreign language classroom,Language Learning48, 323-64.

MYLES, FLORENCE, MITCHELL, ROSAMOND & HOOPER, JANET, 1999. Interrogative chunks inFrench L2: A basis for creative construction?Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 49-80.

OSAKA, MARIKO & OSAKA, NAOYUKI, 1992. Language independent working memory as measured byJapanese and English reading span tests,Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30, 287-89.

PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS, 1988. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of languageprocessing,Language 64, 539-76.

PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS,1992. Grammatical Competence And Parsing Performance. Chicago:Chicago University Press.


50/50

Selected References

ROBERTS, ROSE & GIBSON, EDWARD, 2003. Individual differences in sentence memory,Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31, 573-98.

ROBINSON, PETER, 2002a. Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude andworking memory on incidental SLA, in Peter Robinson (ed.), Individual Differences AndInstructed Language Learning, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211-51.

WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996a. Processing resource capacity and thecomprehension of garden path sentences,Memory and Cognition 24, 342-55.

WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996b. The measurement of verbal workingmemory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension,Quarterly Journal of ExperimentalPsychology- Human Experimental Psychology, 49A, 51-79.

WEINBERG, AMY, 1999. A minimalist theory of human sentenceprocessing, in Sam Epstein&Norbert Hornstein (eds.) Working Minimalism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 287-315.

WHITE, LYDIA, 2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York:Cambridge University Press.

WILLIAMS, JOHN N, MBIUS, PETER & KIM, CHOONKYONG, 2001. Native and non-

native processing of English wh- questions: parsing strategies and plausibility constraints,Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509-40.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rangothri-sreenivasa-subramanyam
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Alan Juffs

Documents