Does learner cognition count on modality? Working memory and L2 morphosyntactic achievement across oral and written tasks

Abstract

This study investigates how working memory (WM) abilities are implicated in second language (L2) learners’ (a) morphosyntactic achievement and (b) perceptions of required mental effort and task difficulty under oral versus written task modality conditions. Beginning-level learners of L2 Spanish completed two computerized focused tasks in which they produced output and received feedback in oral form (Speaking group) or written form (Writing group). Two grammatical structures varying in their relative level of salience were targeted. After each task, participants rated their perceptions of mental effort required and task difficulty. Production and written and aural acceptability judgment tasks were employed to measure immediate and sustained L2 morphosyntactic achievement. Executive, phonological, and visuospatial WM abilities were gauged using automated operation span, nonword recognition, and forward Corsi block-tapping tasks, respectively. Regression analyses revealed that WM capacity was predictive of L2 morphosyntactic outcomes and task perception ratings in the Speaking group only. Specifically, phonological and visuospatial WM were associated with production and acceptability judgment performance accuracy, whereas executive WM was related to learners’ ratings of perceived mental effort. Differences were also observed based on the target structure.

Introduction to the special issue on working memory and L2 writing: Implications for SLA individual differences research

“…Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that individual differences in WM capacity predict grammar development (Lado, 2017;Serafini & Sanz, 2016; for a comprehensive review, see McCormick & Sanz, 2022), and comprehension (Sagarra, 2017), for example. The contribution that WM capacity makes to production, including writing, has received less attention, but recent studies (see Table 1) show that individual differences in WM influence second language written texts (but see Manchón et al, 2023, in this issue) and writing processes (especially regarding pausing behavior; see Révész et al, 2023 andTorres, 2023 in this issue); that task demands and different modes of production -oral or written-differentially tax second language processes that involve WM; and that, regardless of individual WM skills, writing tasks afford better opportunities for effective grammar learning compared with oral tasks, as evidenced in Zalbidea (2017) and Zalbidea and Sanz (2020).…”

“…Also worthy of comment is that aptitude has been predicted to be fully implicated in communicative practice, in monitoring output, and in learning from producing comprehensible output, which would surely include comprehensible written output. Equally relevant from a pedagogical angle would be a consideration of the attested effects of IDs (including L2 proficiency and working memory) in learning and task performance across modalities (Zalbidea, 2021; Zalbidea & Sanz, 2020; see a review in Johnson, 2021; Manchón & Vasylets, 2019; Vasylets & Gilabert, 2021).…”

Language aptitude: Multiple perspectives

“…The final contribution to this issue, from Pawlak and Biedroń, is titled "Working memory as a factor mediating explicit and implicit knowledge of English grammar." As noted previously, many researchers conclude that WM is a part of LA (Doughty, 2019 andrecent work by Jackson, 2020;Vasylets & Marín, 2020;Zalbidea & Sanz, 2020). As in the Lambelet piece, Pawlak and Biedroń report on a subset of results from a larger scale study.…”

Exploring working memory and language dominance in heritage bilinguals’ writing processes

“…Concerning morphosyntax in L2 Spanish writing, in particular, Zalbidea’s (2017) study found a significant negative correlation between WM and Spanish gender agreement errors in the writing of participants who completed a complex writing task. However, Zalbidea and Sanz (2020) reported that WM was more strongly associated with accurate morphosyntactic performance in their speaking condition relative to the written one; however, visuospatial WM contributed to written accuracy for a less salient Spanish linguistic structure. In a study examining the relationship between WM measures and L2 writing processes, Révész et al (2017) found the following significant correlations: (a) visuospatial span and less frequent pauses to gaze at task instructions, (b) operation span measuring updating ability and fewer pauses between paragraphs, and (c) color–shape task measuring task-switching abilities and longer pauses between sentences.…”