Inhibitory Control, Working Memory and L2 Interaction

  • Susan M. Gass
  • Jennifer N. Behney
  • Baburhan Uzum
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

This study considers how second language (L2) learners’ working memory capacities and their abilities to inhibit interfering information relate to their success at learning from conversational interaction. Participants were given a reading span task in English and a Stroop test in English, their first language, and in Italian (L2), and participated in an interactive picture description task in Italian in which they were provided feedback on grammatical gender and number. In addition, the learners completed pretests and posttests. Learners were divided into two groups based on how much they learned from an interactive task. Working memory and inhibition scores were examined for each group. The results showed that the major contributing factor to learning gains was L2 Stroop test scores.

Keywords

Inhibitory Control Work Memory Capacity Incongruent Trial Color Word Stroop Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D. 1992. Working memory. Science 255: 556-559. Google Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. D. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science 4: 417-423. Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. D. and G. J. Hitch. 1974. Working memory (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bates, E., A. Devescovi, A. Hernandez and L. Pizzamiglio. 1996. Gender priming in Italian. Perception & Psychophysics 58: 992-1004. Google Scholar
  5. Brauer, M. 1998. Stroop interference in bilinguals: The role of similarity between the two languages. In Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention, eds. A. Healy and L. E. J. Bourne, 317-337. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Caplan, D., G. Waters and G. Dede. 2007. Specialized verbal working memory for language comprehension. In Variation in working memory, eds. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake and J. Towse, 272-302. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, H. and C. Ho. 1986. Development of Stroop interference in Chinese–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 12: 397-401. Google Scholar
  8. Chiappe, D. and P. Chiappe. 2007. The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 5: 172-188. Google Scholar
  9. Conway, A., N. Cowan and M. Bunting. 2001. The cocktail party phenomenon revisted: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8: 331-335. Google Scholar
  10. Conway, A., M. Kane, M. Bunting, D. Hambrick, O. Wilhelm and R. Engle. 2005. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12: 769-786. Google Scholar
  11. Daneman, M. and P. A. Carpenter. 1980. Individual-differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19: 450-466. Google Scholar
  12. De Bot, K. 1996. The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning 46: 529-555. Google Scholar
  13. Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, N. 2001. Memory for language. In Cognition and second language instruction, ed. P. Robinson, 33-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, N. 2005. At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 305-352. Google Scholar
  16. Ellis, N. and R. Schmidt. 1997. Morphology and longer distance dependencies: Laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 145-171. Google Scholar
  17. Ellis, R., S. Loewen and R. Erlam. 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 339-368. Google Scholar
  18. Gass, S. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Gass, S. 2003. Input and interaction. In The handbook of second language acquisition, eds. C. Doughty and M. H. Long, 224-255. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Gass, S. and J. Lee. 2011. Working memory capacity, inhibitory control, and proficiency in a second language. In Modeling bilingualism: From structure to chaos, eds. M. Schmid and W. Lowie, 59-84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  21. Gass, S. and A. Mackey. 2006. Input, interaction and output: An overview. In AILA Review, eds. K. Bardovi-Harlig and Z. Dörnyei, 3-17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Gass, S. and A. Mackey. 2007. Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In Theories in second language acquisition, eds. B. VanPatten and J. Williams, 175-199. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Gass, S. and E. Varonis. 1994. Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 283-302. Google Scholar
  24. Goldfarb, L. and J. Tzelgov. 2007. The cause of the within-language Stroop superiority effect and its implications. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60: 179-185. Google Scholar
  25. Juffs, A. 2004. Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society 102: 199-225. Google Scholar
  26. Kane, M. and R. Engle. 2003. Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132: 47-70. Google Scholar
  27. Kane, M., D. Hambrick, S. Tuholski, O. Wilhelm, T. Payne and R. Engle. 2004. The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 133: 189-217. Google Scholar
  28. La Heij, W., E. de Bruyn, E. Elens, R. Hartsuiker, D. Helaha and L. van Schelven. 1990. Orthographic facilitation and categorical interference in a word translation variant of the Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology 44: 76-83. Google Scholar
  29. La Pointe, L. and R. Engle. 1990. Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 15: 1118-1133. Google Scholar
  30. Leeman, J. 2003. Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 37-63.Google Scholar
  31. Leeser, M. and G. Sunderman. 2009. Methodological issues of working memory tasks for L2 processing research. Manuscript submitted for publication. Google Scholar
  32. Long, D. and C. Prat. 2002. Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation. Memory & Cognition 30: 294-301. Google Scholar
  33. Long, M. H. 1980. Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California. Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  34. Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Handbook of language acquisition (Vol. 2): Second language acquisition, eds. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 413-468. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Long, M. H. 2007. Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Lyster, R. and K. Saito. 2010. Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A metanalysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 265-302. Google Scholar
  37. Mackey, A. 2002. Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research 37: 379-394. Google Scholar
  38. Mackey, A. 2007. Introduction. The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, ed. A. Mackey, 1-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mackey, A., R. Adams, C. Stafford and P. Winke. 2010. Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning 60: 501-533. Google Scholar
  40. Mackey, A., S. Gass and K. McDonough. 2000. Learners’ perceptions about feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 471-497. Google Scholar
  41. Mackey, A. and J. Goo. 2007. Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, ed. A. Mackey, 407-452. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mackey, A., J. Philp, T. Egi, A. Fujii and T. Tatsumi. 2002. Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Individual differences and instructed language learning. Vol. 1. Language learning and language teaching. Vol. 2, ed. P. Robinson, 181-209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Mackey, A. and C. Polio., eds. 2008. Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. MacLeod, C. 1991. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrated review. Psychological Bulletin 109: 163-203. Google Scholar
  45. MacLeod, C. 1992. The Stroop task: The “golden standard” of attentional measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 121: 12-14. Google Scholar
  46. McDonough, K. 2005. Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 79-103. Google Scholar
  47. Miller, N. and J. Kroll. 2002. Stroop effects in bilingual translation. Memory & Cognition 30: 614-628. Google Scholar
  48. Miyake, A. and N. Friedman. 1998. Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention, eds. A. Healy and L. Bourne, 339-365. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Miyake, A. and P. Shah, eds. 1999. Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nicholas, H., P. Lightbown and N. Spada. 2001. Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning 51: 719. Google Scholar
  51. Nobuyoshi, J. and R. Ellis. 1993. Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. English Language Teaching 47: 203-210. Google Scholar
  52. Osaka, M. and N. Osaka. 1992. Language-independent working memory as measured by Japanese and English reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30: 287-289. Google Scholar
  53. Papagno, C. and G. Vallar. 1992. Phonological short-term memory and the learning of novel words: The effect of phonological similarity and item length. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 44A: 47-67. Google Scholar
  54. Philp, J. 2003. Constraints on noticing the gap: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 99-126. Google Scholar
  55. Roberts, L., T. Marinis, C. Felser and H. Clahsen. 2007. Antecedent priming at trace positions in children’s sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36: 175-188. Google Scholar
  56. Robinson, P. 1995. Attention, memory, and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning 45: 283-331. Google Scholar
  57. Sagarra, N. 2007a. From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, ed. A. Mackey, 229-248. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sagarra, N. 2007b. Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms. In Understanding second language process, ed. Z.-H. Han, 133-147. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  59. Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention. In Cognition and second language instruction, ed. P. Robinson, 3-32. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schmidt, R. and S. Frota. 1986. Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, ed. R. Day, 237-326. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  61. Service, E. and F. Craik. 1993. Differences between young and older adults in learning a foreign vocabulary. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 608-623. Google Scholar
  62. Service, E. and V. Kohonen. 1995. Is the relation between phonological memory and foreign language learning accounted for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied Psycholinguistics 16: 155-172. Google Scholar
  63. Service, E., M. Simola, O. Metsaenheimo and S. Maury. 2002. Bilingual working memory span is affected by language skill. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 14: 383-407.Google Scholar
  64. Skehan, P. 2002. Theorising and updating attitude. In Individual differences and instructed language learning, ed. P. Robinson, 69-93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  65. Spada, N. and Y. Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60: 263-308. Google Scholar
  66. Stroop, J. 1935. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12: 643-662. Google Scholar
  67. Sumiya, H. and A. Healy. 2004. Phonology in the bilingual Stroop effect. Memory and Cognition 32: 752-758. Google Scholar
  68. Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Input in second language acquisition, eds. S. Gass and C. Madden, 235-253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  69. Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson, eds. G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer, 125-144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Swain, M. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, ed. E. Hinkel, 471-483. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  71. Trofimovich, P., A. Ammar and E. Gatbonton. 2007. How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies, ed. A. Mackey, 171-195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Varonis, E. and S. Gass. 1985. Non–native/non–native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6: 71-90. Google Scholar
  73. Wagner–Gough, K. and E. Hatch. 1975. The importance of input in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning 25: 297-308. Google Scholar
  74. Waters, G. S. and D. Caplan. 1996. The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A 49: 51-79.Google Scholar
  75. Williams, J. and P. Lovatt. 2003. Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning 53: 67-121. Google Scholar
  76. Zied, K. M., A. Phillipe, P. Karine, H.-T. Valerie, A. Ghislaine, R. Arnaud and L. G. Didier. 2004. Bilingualism and adult differences in inhibitory mechanisms: Evidence from a bilingual stroop task. Brain and Cognition 54: 254-256.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan M. Gass
    • 1
  • Jennifer N. Behney
    • 2
  • Baburhan Uzum
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Youngstown State UniversityYoungstownUSA

Personalised recommendations