The goal of this study is to investigate the role of working memory capacity in L2 attainment and performance. The study uses an L1 reading span task to measure working memory of a group of 59 high-intermediate/advanced learners of English, and a film retelling task to measure their oral production. The analysis first showed a moderate to high correlation between proficiency measured by a general proficiency test and learners' fluency, lexical complexity, and accuracy but not structural complexity on the retelling task. Secondly, no correlation was found between overall proficiency and working memory. Thirdly, a weak correlation was found between fluency and lexical complexity, and working memory. When the group was split into top and bottom levels of proficiency, moderate correlations were found between lexical complexity and working memory only for the high-proficiency group. The results are discussed in the light of previous research. KEY WORDS: Working memory, language learning aptitude, fluency, lexical complexity, structural complexity, accuracy, narrative performance. RESUMEN El objetivo de este estudio es investigar el rol de la capacidad de memoria operativa en la proficiencia y la producción en una L2. El estudio utiliza una tarea de reading span en la L1 para medir la memoria operativa de un grupo de 59 estudiantes de inglés de nivel intermedio alto/avanzado, y una tarea narrativa para medir su producción oral. Los análisis muestran correlaciones significativas entre la proficiencia medida por un test de proficiencia general y la fluidez, complejidad léxica, y corrección, aunque no con la complejidad estructural. Las correlaciones también son positivas y significativas entre la memoria operativa y la fluidez y complejidad léxica, pero no se observa una correlación significativa entre la proficiencia general y la memoria operativa. Cuando se divide el grupo entre los niveles más altos y más bajos se encuentran correlaciones moderadas entre la complejidad léxica y la memoria operativa sólo para el grupo de proficiencia alta. Los resultados se analizan en base a los escasos trabajos previos.

Recently, doubts were raised about the existence of the bilingual advantage in cognitive control. The aim of the present review was to investigate the bilingual advantage and its modulating factors. We searched the Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and ERIC databases for all original data and reviewed studies on bilingualism and cognitive control, with a cut-off date of 31 October 2018, thereby following the guidelines of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocol. The results of the 46 original studies show that indeed, the majority, 54.3%, reported beneficial effects of bilingualism on cognitive control tasks; however, 28.3% found mixed results and 17.4% found evidence against its existence. Methodological differences seem to explain these mixed results: Particularly, the varying selection of the bilingual participants, the use of nonstandardized tests, and the fact that individual differences were often neglected and that longitudinal designs were rare. Therefore, a serious risk for bias exists in both directions (i.e., in favor of and against the bilingual advantage). To conclude, we found some evidence for a bilingual advantage in cognitive control; however, if significant progress is to be made, better study designs, bigger data, and more longitudinal studies are needed.

The Reading Span Test (RST) is a verbal working-memory test. The original RST ( Daneman & Carpenter, 1980 ), and derivatives of it, are being used increasingly as assessments of central executive functioning and for research on aging-associated cognitive decline ( Whitney, Arnett, Driver, & Budd, 2001 ). Several versions have been made in order to further improve the test or to develop a version in a different language. However, all versions changed different things, making direct comparisons of the results with the RST between different research groups and across different languages impossible. This paper presents the results of testing a new standard computerized version of the RST in four languages (Dutch, English, German, and Norwegian). The new RST meets strict methodological criteria that are the same for all four language versions. A plausibility test, an abstract-concrete rating scale, and a pilot-study were conducted on native speakers to test the new RST. In addition, the internal and external reliability and the ecological validity of the new RST were tested. The results showed that the new RST is a suitable test to investigate verbal working memory. Finally, an important advantage of the new RST is that the different language versions make cross-linguistic comparisons of RST results possible.