Evidence for the Decreasing Impact of Cognitive Ability on Second Language Development as Proficiency Increases

Abstract

This study investigated whether the role of working memory capacity varies over the course of second language (L2) morphosyntactic development. Eighty-seven beginning, intermediate, and advanced university L2 Spanish learners completed two nonverbal tasks measuring executive function (EF) and phonological working memory (PWM) in their native language (English) and two tasks measuring knowledge of ten grammatical structures in Spanish at three points during and after a semester of instruction. Robust relationships between both working memory components, especially PWM, and L2 performance, emerged only for lower level learners, particularly at the start of instruction and 3.5 months later. Findings demonstrate that the facilitative effects of cognitive ability appear to lessen with increasing L2 proficiency and empirically support a developmental perspective of L2 learning.

Exploring the Dynamic Long‐Term Interaction Between Cognitive and Psychosocial Resources in Adult Second Language Development at Varying Proficiency

“…That is, while executive function was clearly the more meaningful WM component for advanced learners, the phonological loop component of working memory played a clear role for beginners and intermediate learners, which underscores reliance on phonemic coding and phonological processing skills in the initial phases of language learning (Skehan, , ). This also adds to previous research reporting that PWM mediates L2 development at low but not high proficiency in instructed L2 settings (e.g., Hummel, ; Serafini & Sanz, ).…”

“…Learners’ composite scores reflect both processing and storage accuracy (42 points each, 84 points total). The storage score was calculated following Absolute (A), Total (T), and Lenient (L) scoring methods varying in strictness based on recommended procedure (Conway et al., ; see Serafini & Sanz, , p. 618, for further explanation). Given the significant inter‐correlations among the three methods, indicating high reliability (OSpan (A)*OSpan (T), r = 0.90, p = 0.00**; OSpan (A)*OSpan (L), r = 0.84, p = 0.00**; OSpan (T)*OSpan (L), r = 0.88, p = 0.00**), composite scores reflecting the strictest scoring method (A) are used in subsequent analyses in order to best reflect the limits of learners' WM capacity (e.g., Logie, ).…”

“…One of the few studies to date to include learners at a range of developmental stages who completed the same tasks within the same study, Serafini and Sanz () did not find WM (EF or PWM) to play a role in L2 grammatical development and retention for advanced L1 English−L2 Spanish learners over a semester of instruction or after 1 month without L2 exposure. However, robust roles emerged for PWM for the beginning and intermediate proficiency groups, supporting the facilitative impact of PWM at low proficiency reported for other languages, such as L2 English (Hummel, ) and L2 Chinese (Winke, ).…”

The Roles of Working Memory and Oral Language Abilities in Elicited Imitation Performance

“…Longitudinal data that follow the same learners over time and map the trajectories of WM, linguistic abilities (e.g., via CAF measures), and EIT performance is an important next step in this research agenda. Serafini and Sanz (), for example, tracked the relationship between PSTM and elicited oral imitation scores in the same learners over 14 weeks; their results showed a consistent interaction between proficiency level and WM effects on oral performance over time. Longitudinal designs that track learners over longer time periods and that incorporate participants from a wider range of proficiency levels will further our ability to unravel and understand the intricate relationship among memory, language ability, and learners’ performance on proficiency assessment tasks like EIT.…”

“…Previous studies support that PSTM capacity (measured in the L1) in particular is significantly correlated with overall L2 proficiency (Winke, ), L2 vocabulary (e.g., Speciale, Ellis, & Bywater, ), L2 oral production skills (e.g., O'Brien et al., ), and L2 grammatical accuracy (e.g., N. C. Ellis & Sinclair, ). Furthermore, a number of studies (Cheung, ; Hummel, ; O'Brien et al., ; Serafini & Sanz, ) have demonstrated that the impact of memory capacity on L2 performance can be contingent upon learner proficiency or the stage of L2 development. That is, PSTM predicted L2 performance only for lower level learners and not for advanced learners, suggesting that PSTM is implicated in L2 performance at early stages of language learning.…”