The influence of working memory on the explicit and implicit knowledge of a foreign language
Abstract
The paper touches upon one of the urgent problems in teaching a foreign language is individual differences and their influence on mastering a foreign language. The author reports the findings of a study that investigated the relationship between phonological short-term memory, working memory capacity and the level of mastery of a foreign language. As an example, we offer to use the English passive voice because it should be noted that the English passive poses considerable difficulty in terms of both explicit and implicit knowledge Grammatical mastery was operationalized as the ability to produce and comprehend English passive voice with reference to explicit and implicit (or highly automatized) knowledge. In the study two tests on measuring the working memory capacity and four tests on estimating explicit and implicit (or highly automatized) knowledge were used. We also considered the final grades the participants received in a grammar class. A correlational analysis showed that phonological short-term memory was related to implicit productive knowledge while working memory capacity was linked to explicit productive knowledge. However, those relationships were weak and mediated by overall mastery of target language grammar. The results show that higher grades played more positive role indicating that overall mastery of English grammar is a stronger influence on the knowledge of the passive than working memory. All this indicates that the impact of working memory is more likely to production than comprehension of grammar.
About the Author
E. P. Turbina
ShadriShadrinsk State Pedagogical Universitynsk
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Shadrinsk
References
1. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
3. Pawlak, M. (2020). Individual differences and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 121–132). Cambridge University Press.
4. Baddeley, A. D. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen, M. B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17–28). Multilingual Matters.
5. Wen, E. Z., Biedroń, A, & Skehan, P. (2017). Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Language Teaching, 50, 1–31.
6. Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The associations between cognitive ability and L2 development under five different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(3), 693–722.
7. Wen, Z., & Li, S. (2019). Working Memory in L2 Learning and Processing. In J. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language (pp. 365–389). Cambridge University Press.
8. DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in SLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). Routledge.
9. Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological STM and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 379–413.
10. 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: theory, research and commentary (pp. 224–247). Multilingual Matters.
11. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.
12. Ellis, R. (2006). Modeling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 431–463.
13. Zychowicz, K., Biedroń, A, & Pawłak, M. (2018). Polish Nonword Span (PNWSPAN): A new tool for measuring phonological loop capacity. Glottodidactica, XLV/2, 309–327.
14. Zychowicz, K., Biedroń, A, & Pawłak, M. (2017). Polish Listening SPAN: A new tool for measuring verbal working memory. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7, 601–618.
15. Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883.
16. Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Exploratory research on second language practice distribution: An Aptitude × Treatment Interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(1), 27–56.
Review
For citations:
Turbina E.P. The influence of working memory on the explicit and implicit knowledge of a foreign language. Vestnik of North-Eastern Federal University. Pedagogics. Psychology. Philosophy. 2022;(3):70-77. (In Russ.)
Views:
132
Email this article 