Advertisement

How do L2 learners and L1 writers differ in their reliance on working memory during the formulation subprocess?

  • Cecilia Gunnarsson-LargyEmail author
  • Nathalie Dherbey
  • Pierre Largy
Article

Abstract

L1 and L2 writers attend to different aspects of the formulation subprocess of writing. L2 writers devote more time and attention to low-level aspects such as grammar correction and spelling (Barbier 1998; Fagan and Hayden 1988; Whalen and Ménard 1995), leading to better spelling performances than L1 writers (Gunnarsson-Largy 2013). In deep-orthography languages such as French or English, L1 writers retrieve a phonological form of the word and then tend to automatically transcribe the most frequent corresponding orthographic form, whereas L2 writers seem to directly retrieve the exact orthographic form. For L2 writers, the visuo-orthographic form of the word therefore seems to prevail over the phonological one. Accordingly, we hypothesized that L1 and L2 writers rely differently on working memory (WM). To test this hypothesis, we designed an experiment where two groups (Levels B1 and C1) of instructed L2 French learners and an L1 French control group wrote dictated sentences, with compulsory negation marking in an ambiguous phonological context. While writing, they performed a concurrent task that induced a cognitive load on either phonological or visual WM, in order to identify the nature of the form maintained in WM during semantic checking. Results indicated that L2 French learners gradually move from a visual to a more phonological form of retrieval.

Keywords

Formulation subprocess L2 spelling Word form retrieval Visual WM Phonological WM 

Notes

References

  1. Audacity Team. (2015). Audacity(R): Free audio editor and recorder [computer application]. Version 2.1.1. Retrieved from https://audacityteam.org. Accessed 21 June 2016.
  2. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. D. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barbier, M.-L. (1998). Rédaction en langue première et en langue seconde: Comparaison de la gestion des processus et des ressources cognitives. Psychologie Française, 43(4), 361–370.Google Scholar
  7. Bassetti, B. (2017). Orthography affects second language speech: Double letters and geminate production in English. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bassetti, B., & Atkinson, N. (2015). Effects of orthographic forms on pronunciation in experienced instructed second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(01), 67–91.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bethell-Fox, C. E., & Shepard, R. N. (1988). Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(1), 12–23.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunner, E., Domhof, S., & Langer, F. (2002). Nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Brunet, E. (2002). Mots les plus fréquents de la langue écrite française (XIXe et XXe siècles). Retrieved from http://eduscol.education.fr/cid47916/liste-des-mots-classee-par-frequence-decroissante.html. Accessed 1 Sept 2016.
  12. Buetler, K. A., de León Rodríguez, D., Laganaro, M., Müri, R., Nyffeler, T., Spierer, L., et al. (2015). Balanced bilinguals favor lexical processing in their opaque language and conversion system in their shallow language. Brain and Language, 150, 166–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buetler, K. A., de León Rodríguez, D., Laganaro, M., Müri, R., Spierer, L., & Annoni, J.-M. (2014). Language context modulates reading route: An electrical neuroimaging study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, V. J. (1997). L2 users and English spelling. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(6), 474–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cutler, A., Treiman, R., & van Ooijen, B. (2010). Strategic deployment of orthographic knowledge in phoneme detection. Language and Speech, 53(3), 307–320.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910371445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delattre, P. (1947). La liaison en français, tendances et classification. The French Review, 21(2), 148–157.Google Scholar
  17. De Neys, W. (2006). Automatic–heuristic and executive–analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 1070–1100.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980543000123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dherbey, N., & Gunnarsson-Largy, C. (in review). Categorisation of L2 phonemes induces a cognitive load. Second Language Research.Google Scholar
  19. Dijkstra, T., Roelofs, A., & Fieuws, S. (1995). Orthographic effects on phoneme monitoring. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Durand, J., & Lyche, C. (2008). French liaison in the light of corpus data. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(01).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269507003158.
  21. Escudero, P., & Wanrooij, K. (2010). The effect of L1 orthography on non-native vowel perception. Language and Speech, 53(3), 343–365.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910371447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fagan, W. T., & Hayden, H. M. (1988). Writing processes in French and English of fifth grade immersion students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 44(4), 653–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fay, M. P., & Proschan, M. A. (2010). Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules. Statistics Surveys, 4, 1–39.  https://doi.org/10.1214/09-SS051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fayol, M. (1997). Des idées au texte: psychologie cognitive de la production verbale, orale et écrite. Paris: Presses Univ. de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fayol, M., Largy, P., & Lemaire, P. (1994). When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors. A study in French written language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Gaudron, J.-P. (2016). R commander: Petit guide pratique 1. Statistiques de base. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/other-docs.html#nenglish.
  28. Gunnarsson-Largy, C. (2013). Utiliser l’erreur pour détecter les automatismes et l’expertise en production écrite en FLE. In C. Gunnarsson-Largy & E. Auriac-Slusarczyk (Eds.), Ecriture et réécriture chez les élèves : Un seul corpus, divers genres discursifs et méthodologies d’analyse (pp. 287–302). Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia.Google Scholar
  29. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework of understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. Michael Levy & Sarah Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Hayes-Harb, R., Nicol, J., & Barker, J. (2010). Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. Language and Speech, 53(3), 367–381.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910371460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigating instructed second language. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1–27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jakimik, J., Cole, R. A., & Rudnicky, A. I. (1985). Sound and spelling in spoken word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behaviour, 24, 165–178.Google Scholar
  34. Katz, L., & Feldman, L. B. (1983). Relation between pronunciation and recognition of printed words in deep and shallow orthographies. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Kellogg, R. T., Olive, T., & Piolat, A. (2007). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory in written language production. Acta Psychologica, 124(3), 382–397.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koda, K. (2012). Second language reading, scripts and orthographies. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encycolopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken.Google Scholar
  39. Largy, P. (2002). Apprentissage et mise en œuvre de la morphologie flexionnelle du nombre (Thèse d’habilitation à diriger la recherche). Rouen: Université de Rouen.Google Scholar
  40. Largy, P., Fayol, M., & Lemaire, P. (1996). The homophone effect in written French: The case of verb-noun inflection errors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(3), 217–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Le Bigot, N., Passerault, J.-M., & Olive, T. (2012). Visuospatial processing in memory for word location in writing. Experimental Psychology, 59(3), 138–146.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Martin, K. I. (2017). The impact of L1 writing system on ESL knowledge of vowel and consonant spellings. Reading and Writing, 30(2), 279–298.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9673-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meisner, C. (2010). A corpus analysis of intra- and extralinguistic factors triggering ne -deletion in phonic French. In Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française - CMLF 2010 (pp. 1943–1962). Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.  https://doi.org/10.1051/cmlf/2010091.
  45. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 621–640.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muneaux, M., & Ziegler, J. (2004). Locus of orthographic effects in spoken word recognition: Novel insights from the neighbour generation task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(5), 641–660.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. New, B., & Pallier, C. (2001). Gougenheim 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.lexique.org/public/gougenheim.php. Accessed 1 Sept 2016.
  48. Oberauer, K., & Lange, E. B. (2008). Interference in verbal working memory: Distinguishing similarity-based confusion, feature overwriting, and feature migration. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 730–745.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2008). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory demands during text composition. Applied Psycholinguistics.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408080284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ota, M., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Haywood, S. L. (2010). Is a FAN Always FUN? Phonological and orthographic effects in bilingual visual word recognition. Language and Speech, 53(3), 383–403.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910371462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pacton, S., Sobaco, A., Fayol, M., & Treiman, R. (2013). How does graphotactic knowledge influence children’s learning of new spellings? Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pattamadilok, C., Morais, J., Colin, C., & Kolinsky, R. (2014). Unattentive speech processing is influenced by orthographic knowledge: Evidence from mismatch negativity. Brain and Language, 137, 103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peereman, R., Dufour, S., & Burt, J. S. (2009). Orthographic influences in spoken word recognition: The consistency effect in semantic and gender categorization tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 363–368.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rapp, B., Epstein, C., & Tainturier, M.-J. (2002). The integration of information across lexical and sublexical processes in spelling. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19(1), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0264329014300060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rapp, B., Purcell, J., Hillis, A. E., Capasso, R., & Miceli, G. (2016). Neural bases of orthographic long-term memory and working memory in dysgraphia. Brain, 139(2), 588–604.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rastle, K., McCormick, S. F., Bayliss, L., & Davis, C. J. (2011). Orthography influences the perception and production of speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1588–1594.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shea, C. (2017). L1 English/L2 Spanish: Orthography–phonology activation without contrasts. Second Language Research, 33(2), 207–232.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316684905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shelton, J. R., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Deficits in lexical and semantic processing: Implications for modes of normal language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shelton, J. R., & Weinrich, M. (1997). Further evidence of a dissociation between output phonological and orthographic lexicons: A case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14(1), 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slowiaczek, L. M., Soltano, E. G., Wieting, S. J., & Bishop, K. L. (2003). An investigation of phonology and orthography in spoken-word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vallar, G., & Baddeley, A. D. (1984). Phonological short-term store, phonological processing, and sentence comprehension: A neuropsychological case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1, 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Berkel, A. (2004). Learning to spell in English as a second language. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching.  https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2004.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang, S., & Allen, R. J. (2018). Cross-modal working memory binding and word recognition skills: How specific is the link? Memory, 26(4), 514–523.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1380835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00084-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wauquier-Gravelines, S. (1996). Organisation phonologique et traitement de la parole continue [Phonological organization and connected-speech processing]. Paris: Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
  66. Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381–418.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00447.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ziegler, J. C., & Ferrand, L. (1998). Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ziegler, J. C., Ferrand, L., & Montant, M. (2004). Visual phonology: The effects of orthographic consistency on different auditory word recognition tasks. Memory & Cognition, 32(5), 732–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.URI Octogone-Lordat (EA4156)Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès, Université de ToulouseToulouse Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Institut de plurilinguismeFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations