Working memory capacity refers to the ability to store and process information simultaneously in real time and has been shown to correlate highly with first language (L1) reading skill. This study examines the sensitivity of second language (L2) working memory capacity to differences in reading skill among advanced L2 learners. The index of working memory capacity used was the reading span test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). Subjects with larger working memory capacities scored higher on measures of reading skill, in contrast with the lack of strong correlations between measures of passive short-term storage (memory for strings of random words or digits) and the same reading measures. This result is consistent with an interpretation of the reading span test as an index of working memory capacity, in which capacity is defined functionally in terms of a trade-off between active processing and storage. Issues involved in investigating working memory capacity are discussed and the role of capacity limitations in models of L2 comprehension is considered.

This article reviews research on working memory (WM) and its use in second language (L2) acquisition research. Recent developments in the model and issues surrounding the operationalization of the construct itself are presented, followed by a discussion of various methods of measuring WM. These methods include word and digit span tasks, reading, listening and speaking span tasks. We next outline the role proposed for WM in explaining individual differences in L2 learning processes and outcomes, including sentence processing, reading, speaking, lexical development and general proficiency. Key findings are that WM is not a unitary construct and that its role varies depending on the age of the L2 learners, the task and the linguistic domain. Some tests of WM may in fact be tests of differences in ability to attend to aspects of the L2. Future research will focus on matching tests of WM more closely with linguistic tasks and using more standardized, replicable measures of WM in new areas including writing in non-alphabetic scripts, instructional interventions and cognitive neuropsychology.

Performance on the Yes/No test (Huibregtse et al., 2002) was assessed as a predictor of scores on the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT), a standard test of receptive second language (L2) vocabulary knowledge (Nation, 1990). The use of identical items on both tests allowed a direct comparison of test performance, with alternative methods for scoring the Yes/No test also examined (Huibregtse et al., 2002). Overall, performance on both tests by English L2 university students ( n - 36) was similar. Mean test accuracy on the various Yes/No methods ranged from 76-82%, comparable to VLT performance at 83%. However, paired t-tests showed the scoring methods used to correct raw hit performance increased the difference between the Yes/No test and criterion VLT scores to some degree. All Yes/No scores were strong predictors of VLT performance, regardless of method used, r = .8. Raw hit rate was the best predictor of VLT performance, due in part to the >5% false alarm rate. The low false alarm rate may be due to the participants, drawn primarily from non-Latin alphabet first languages (L1s), and the nature of the instructions. The results indicate the Yes/No test is a valid measure of the type of L2 vocabulary knowledge assessed by the VLT, with implications for classroom application.

This article expands on Juffs & Harrington's (1995) investigation of the parsing performance on wh‐movement sentences by Chinese‐speaking learners of English. We compare the difficulty L2 learners have in parsing subject wh‐traces in embedded finite and nonfinite clauses with the problems they have in parsing Garden Path (GP) sentences. Using the moving window technique (Just, Carpenter, & Woolley, 1982), 25 Chinese‐speaking learners of English supplied word‐by‐word reading times and grammaticality judgments on a range of wh‐extraction structures and GP sentences in English. Analysis of the error and accurate judgment data and the word‐by‐word reading profiles supports the hypothesis that L2 learners of English may have a parsing, rather than a competence, deficit in judging grammatical wh‐extraction.

No abstract