Effects of gloss type, gloss position, and working memory capacity on second language comprehension in electronic reading

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Burcu Varol ◽  
Gülcan Erçetin
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Electronic Reading

Working memory capacity predicts language comprehension in schizophrenic patients

1996 ◽  
Vol 20 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Condray ◽  
Stuart R. Steinhauer ◽  
Daniel P. van Kammen ◽  
Annette Kasparek
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Schizophrenic Patients

Exploring the impact of individual differences in aural vocabulary knowledge, written vocabulary knowledge and working memory capacity on explaining L2 learners’ listening comprehension

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Masrai
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Listening Comprehension ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Pedagogical Practice ◽  
The Impact

AbstractListening comprehension constitutes a considerable challenge for second language learners, but little is known about the relative contribution of individual differences in distinct factors to listening comprehension. Since research in this area is relatively limited in comparison to that focusing on the relationship between reading comprehension and factors such as vocabulary knowledge and working memory, there is a need for studies that seek to fill the gap in our knowledge about the specific contribution of aural vocabulary knowledge, written vocabulary knowledge and working memory capacity to explaining listening comprehension. Among 130 non-native speakers of English, the present study examines what proportion of the variance in listening comprehension is explained by aural vocabulary knowledge, written vocabulary knowledge, and working memory capacity. The results show that aural vocabulary knowledge is the strongest predictor of listening comprehension, followed by working memory capacity, while written vocabulary knowledge contributes only marginally. The study discusses implications for the explanatory power of aural vocabulary knowledge and working memory to listening comprehension and pedagogical practice in second language classrooms.

Construct operationalization, L1 effects, and context in second language processing

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALAN JUFFS
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
First Language ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Second Language Processing

Cunnings (2016) provides welcome insights into differences between native speaker (NS) sentence processing, adult non-native speaker processing (NNS), and working memory capacity (WMC) limitations. This commentary briefly raises three issues: construct operationalization; the role of first language (L1); and context.

Working memory capacity and strategy use in second language learning

2018 ◽  
Vol 169 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-292
Author(s):  
Rahim Najjari ◽  
Mohammad Mohammadi
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Second Language Learning ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Cognitive Strategies ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Strategy Use ◽  
Language Learning Strategies

Abstract This study investigated the relationship between working memory capacity (WMC) and second language learning strategies. To this end, 151 participants took three working memory tasks: one simple span task and two complex span tasks. They then completed the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Finally, they were put into three groups of individuals with high, mid, and low WMC. The results of descriptive and inferential statistics (one-way ANOVA tests) revealed that individuals with high WMC reportedly used compensatory and cognitive strategies more than the other two groups. Then, two-way factorial designs of WMC with the variables of age, sex, and language proficiency were conducted on reported frequency of compensatory and cognitive strategy use. The findings demonstrated that the main and interaction effects of the variables were not statistically significant except for WMC. This study has implications for language learning strategies and working memory studies in second language learning settings.

Foreign Language Proficiency and Working Memory Capacity

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 289-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurits W.M.L. van den Noort ◽  
Peggy Bosch ◽  
Kenneth Hugdahl
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Digit Span ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Foreign Language Proficiency ◽  
Linguistic Groups

In this study, the hypothesis that working memory capacity interacts with (foreign) language proficiency was tested on multilinguals, who were native (L1) Dutch speakers, were fluent in their second (L2) language, German, and had recently started the acquisition of their third (L3) language, Norwegian. So far, the results of second-language studies on simple and complex working-memory tasks are mixed. In previous second-language studies, however, languages that belong to different linguistic groups were used. The question arises whether the interaction between working memory capacity and language proficiency is language-specific. In our multilingualism study we, therefore, controlled for this. Both simple (digit-span) and complex working-memory tasks (reading-span task and letter-number ordering) were used. The general results show that differences in performance between L1, L2, and L3 can be found on both simple and complex working-memory tasks, supporting the working memory capacity interaction hypothesis.

The contributions of proficiency, exposure, and working memory capacity to second language learners’ comprehension of indirect speech

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-147
Author(s):  
Clevia J. Pérez ◽  
Janet L. McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Learners ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
Direct Speech ◽  
Indirect Speech ◽  
L2 Learners

Abstract Pragmatic inferencing necessary to interpret indirect speech can be problematic for second language (L2) learners and could be influenced by factors such as L2 proficiency and L2 exposure as well as the difficulty of inference to be made (e.g., conventional vs. nonconventional inference) – particularly difficult inferences could tax working memory capacity. The comprehension of direct speech (acceptances and refusals), conventional indirect speech (acceptances and refusals – some with introductory phrases), and nonconventional indirect speech (opinions) was measured in adult Spanish-English bilinguals (n = 58) and native English speakers (n = 38). L2 speakers generally performed worse than native speakers and were influenced by inference difficulty. They more accurately and quickly comprehended direct speech than nonconventional indirect speech, and most conventional indirect speech items fell between these extremes. L2 proficiency was found to be a strong predictor of both conventional and nonconventional inferencing, with L2 exposure also having some impact. Importantly, L1 working memory capacity was shown to independently contribute to L2 learners’ accuracy on one type of conventional and one type of nonconventional inference. Thus, some pragmatic inferencing may require both enough skill to process the second language and enough working memory capacity to make the inference.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document