alan juffs
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
1/50
Cognitive factors:
Working memory and lexicaldevelopment
Alan Juffs
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
2/50
Support
National Science Foundation
SBR-9709152
Thanks to RSAs:
Jenifer Larson-Hall
Greg Mizera
Jessica Giesler
Sean Coyan
Vivian Chen
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
3/50
Publications
Dekeyser, R and A. Juffs. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning.Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. 437-454. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing and working memory in a
second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199-226. Juffs, A. (2005). Some effects of first language and working memory in the
processing of long distance wh- questions. Second Language Research 21,121-151.
In press a. Processing reduced relative vs. main verb ambiguity in English
as a Second Language: a replication study with working memory. Afestschrift for XXXX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
4/50
Structure of talk
Sketch of working memory models
Brief Sketch of sentence processing
Experiment in working memory andsentence processing in English as a
second language
Memory, aptitude, and low educatedlearners
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
5/50
Baddeleys Working Memory Model 1
Figure 1. Standard Working Memory Model, Baddeley (2000a).
Central control
Slave system
Shaded area: crystalli zed cognitive systems capable of accumulating long-term knowledg
Visuospatialsketchpad
Phonologicalloop
Central
Executive
Visual Episodic
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
6/50
Baddeleys Working Memory Model 2
Figure2. Further Development of the Working Memory Model, Baddeley (2000a).
Central control
Slave system
Shaded area: crystallized cognitive systems capable of accumulating long-term knowledg
Visuospatialsketchpad
Phonologicalloop
Central
Executive
Visual Episodic
Episodicbuffer
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
7/50
Behavioural Measures
Central executive
Reading Span Task (Daneman and
Carpenter, 1980)
What does the RST claim to measure?
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
8/50
Relative clause types and WM
1. Animacy effects in reduced relative clauses The evidence [inanimate] examined by the lawyer was convincing.
The witness [animate] examined by the lawyer was convincing.
2. Subject and object asymmetry in relativeclauses. The reporter that the senator attacked ____ regretted the error.
The reporter that ___ attacked the senator regretted the error.
3. Reduced relatives and cue strength. The bad boys seen during the game were playing in the park.
- no ambiguity; good cue for ambiguity resolution
The bad boys watched almost every day were playing in the park.
ambiguity + bad cue for ambiguity resolution.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
9/50
Phonological Loop
Non-word span, digit span What does this measure?
acquisition ofnew words, and does not reflect theknowledge base.
Gathercole, Baddeley, & Papagno (1998, p. 159, Table 1)in partial correlations for 3 year-olds, non-word repetitionis more strongly correlated with vocabulary measures thandigit span (0.31 vs. 0.16 (ns),
whereas for 8 year-olds neither span is correlates (0.22(ns) vs. 0.23 (ns)).
The data they report for 13 year olds, simple digit span isrelated to vocabulary measures (r= .46, p = .05).
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
10/50
Phonological loop in adults
May be important in ability to learn new words in
adults, but it has not been implicated in studies of
on-line ambiguity resolution.
These now you see it, now you dont effects ofPSTM in L1 learning are not reflected in L2
reviews of the literature.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
11/50
Issue and controversies
Does the reading span tap general or
specifically linguistic capacity?
Does WM reflect experience?
Which test is a better test of WM?
What is the role of the phonological loop?
The role of memory as a key componentof aptitude
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
12/50
Recent L2 WM research
Myles etal.
19981999
PSTM English-speakinglearners of French
Productiondata
Superior ability inchunking related tohigher WM. Laterbetter chunkers betterat creative use.
Kroll etal
2001 W ater sandCaplanRST
English-speakinglearners ofSpanish andFrench
Translation toand fromwords in theL2
Failed to find a reliablerelationship betweenWM and translationprocessing.
Robinson 2002 Osaka&OsakaRST
17 Japaneselearners ofSamoan in a labsetting
ErgativesIncorporationLocatives
WM memory, and notgeneral intelligencefound to be bestpredictor, but onlyshort-term, easystructures. Problemwith manycorrelations. Reliablecorrelations only on GJlistening. I.e. Of 24
correlations with WMreported, only 4reliable. None above.52. Amount ofvariance explained notclear. No attempts atregression.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
13/50
Recent L2 researchMackeyet al
2002 Plausible-nonplausibleversions ofRST;Non w ordrecall
30 Japaneselearners of ESL
WM andinteractionalfeedback
Variablecorrelationsbetween RS Ts andnon-word recall.Composite scoresdeveloped becauseof the correlations.No reliablerelationship foundbetween WM andnoticing. Otherfactors at wo rk? p.202. Non wordrepetition did N OTcorrelate with L2listening. p. 209.
Willi ams& Lovatt
2003 Non-wordPSTM testbased ontarget vocab.
1. 20 English-speaking learners
2. 21 English-speaking learners
1.Laboratorystudy ofdeterminersin Italian.2. Inventedlang basedon Japanese,determinersagain.
Exp. 1Priorlanguageexperience mostrelated to success,Languagebackground w as.PSTM Morestrongly related toRATE of learningthan ultimate level.Exp. 2. Fewcorrelations,specifically nonebetween PSTMand vocabulary.Effect of languagebackground N OTmediated bymemory measures.Learning thatoccurred wasexplicit. Can not beassumed that rulesemerge frommemoryrepresentations ofinput sequences.(Contra Ellis)
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
14/50
The grammar and the parser
Crain and Fodor (1985, p. 126) suggested: a theory of grammar that will be useful to a theory of
parsing is one that is compatible with the on-lineapplication of constraints.
Frazier & Clifton (1996, 24-25): Licensing grammars, based on current versions of GB
theory, may be developed so that they provideattractive alternatives [to head projection models]
Chomsky (2000, p. 91) the major problem is to discover the principles and
parameters and to proceed beyond, to the study ofuse, acquisition, pathology, cellular mechanisms,
Hence Chomsky includes use in the MP?
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
15/50
Second Language Acquisition
Development of the L2 lexicon: what:
Projectionist accounts (Principles and
Parameters) constructionist accounts (Goldberg, 1995)
Process of acquisition: how
Processing break down Accumulation of chunks/structures
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
16/50
L2 vocabulary: Nation 1990
1. The spoken form of a word
2. The written form of a word
3. The grammatical behaviour of a word
4. The collocational behaviour of a word 5. How frequent the word is
6. The stylistic register constraints on a word
7. The conceptual meaning of a word
8. The associations a word has with otherrelated words
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
17/50
Experiment - Questions
Do measures of working memory correlate in the
L1 and L2?
Can individual differences in working memoryaccount for individual differences in sentence
processing based on verb meaning?
What is the effect of the L1 on L2 processing?
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
18/50
Method -1
Proficiency measure
Measure of Reading Span in L1 and L2
Measure of Word Span in L1 and L2
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
19/50
Method 2
Data from on-line reading: record word by
word reading times
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
20/50
Method
The moving window paradigm
Without
her
contributions
would
be
Impossible
Possible or not possible?
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
21/50
Participants30 Chinese 28 Japanese
46 Spanish 21 English speakers
Table 1. Michigan Test Results: Raw Scores.
Chinese Japanese SpanishMichigan M* SD M SD M SD F df p
Vocabulary 28.33 a 7.67 20.39 a 6.21 26.65 7.58 9.6
29.8 b 6.0 25.07 b 5.28 26.89 7.26 4.042
58.03 c 12.59 45.46 c d 10.32 53.45 d 13.96 7.29
*Means that are co-superscripted are reliably different.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
22/50
Results
Working memory
Sentence processing
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
23/50
Chinese-speaking learners
L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 ReadingSpan
L2 ReadingSpan
L1 Word Span 1
L2 Word Span 0.34* 1
L1 Reading
Span
0.02 0.05 1
L2 Reading
Span
-0.18 0.17 0.62*** 1
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
24/50
Japanese-speaking learners
L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 ReadingSpan
L2 ReadingSpan
L1 Word Span 1
L2 Word Span 0.28 1
L1 Reading
Span
0.41** 0.54** 1
L2 Reading
Span
0.30 0.44** 0.56*** 1
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
25/50
Spanish-speaking Learners
L1 Word Span L2 Word Span L1 ReadingSpan
L2 ReadingSpan
L1 Word Span 1
L2 Word Span 0.48* 1
L1 Reading
Span
0.44** 0.28 1
L2 Reading
Span
0.24 0.09 0.46** 1
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
26/50
Chinese WM & Proficiency
Vocabulary Grammar
L1 Word Span 0.29 0.27L2 Word Span 0.27 0.35*
L1 Reading Span 0.07 0.10
L2 Reading Span 0.04 0.02
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
27/50
Japanese WM & Proficiency
Vocabulary Grammar
L1 Word Span 0.11 0.09L2 Word Span 0.26 0.04
L1 Reading Span 0.22 0.28
L2 Reading Span 0.08 0.06
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
28/50
Spanish WM & Proficiency
Vocabulary Grammar
L1 Word Span 0.22 0.20L2 Word Span 0.11 0.24
L1 Reading Span 0.30* 0.31*
L2 Reading Span 0.28* 0.29*
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
29/50
Sentences that impose
processing loadGarden Path sentences
After the children cleaned the house looked
neat and tidy
The doctor knew the nurses liked the man
from England
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
30/50
Unconscious GP Processing
Unconscious Garden Path
400
600
800
1000
1200
the doctor knew the nurses liked the man f rom England
Word by Word
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
31/50
Garden Path Processing- L1
Garden Path Sentence
400
600
800
1000
1200
After the chil dren cle aned the house loo ked very neat and tid y
Words by Word
i
illi
Chinese
English
Japanese
Spanish
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
32/50
Garden Path Processing - WM
Working Me mory and Parsin
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
After children Det VERB neat tidy
Structure/word
HI-GP
LO-GP
HI-Non-GP
LO-Non-GP
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
33/50
Transitivity and cue type
(1)
a. The experienced soldiers warned about thedangers conducted the midnight raid.
b. The experienced soldiers chosen for their skillsconducted the midnight raid.
2.
a. The bad boys criticized during the morningwere
playing in the park.
b. The bad boys criticized almost every day wereplaying in the park.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
34/50
6 Sentence types
Unambiguous good and bad cues
Two way ambiguous, good and bad cues
Three way ambiguous, good and bad cues
Easiest: unambiguous, good cue The bad boys chosenduring the gamewere playing
in the park.
Most difficult: three way ambiguous, bad cue The bad boys watched almost every daywere playing
in the park.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
35/50
Processing reduced relativesThe bad boys XXX were p laying
Main verb mean processing time
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
Unambig-G Unambig-B Ambig2-G Ambig2-B Ambig3-G Ambg3-B
Ambiguity and Cue Type
Chinese
Japanese
Spanish
English
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
36/50
Working memory and
reduced relativesNo correlations with WM and processing
at key point for any of the groups at any
point in parsing except early on
All weak correlations, suggesting much of
the variance can be explained by other
factors
Main effects for language robust
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
37/50
Points to remember
L1 a better predictor of performance thanWM
WM does not correlate with individual
differences in processing L2 speakers show reading profiles
analagous to natives in many cases
Use of WM tests need to be fully justifiedin L2 research
Overemphasis of WM when results dontsupport it
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
38/50
More points to remember
More careful regression analyses
Clearer acknowledgement of the role of priorlinguistic knowledge is necessary.
Role of the new link proposed by Baddeley
between visual spatial ability and the PL andlanguage needs to be looked at
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
39/50
Aptitude and
ultimate attainment DeKeyser 2000
Replication of Johnson and Newport 1989
Added MLAT measure
58 Hungarian-speaking learners of ESL Findings: replicated Johnson and Newport
The only adults who succeed are those who score
high on the aptitude battery
Cf. Bialystoks commentary and reply http://www.pitt.edu/~rdk1/
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
40/50
Skehan 2001
Aptitude: speed or ultimate attainment?
DeKeyser (2000, p. 518) aptitude has a role inultimate attainment
Skehan (2001, p. 93) points out that theMLAT was designed to predict RATE and notultimate attainment, contra (?) DeKeyser2000)
Does the MLAT measure communicativecompetence? Or an ability on discrete pointitems?
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
41/50
Mackey et al. 2001
RST and WM test
Combined measure:
Low WM tended to notice less at lower
developmental stages than High WM High WM - more development in delayed post-test
High WM tended to notice more
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
42/50
Robinson 2001
Implicit learning: not related to higher IQ oraptitude measures?
Incidental learning: unintentional and
uncontrolled? Explicit learning: does relate to higher IQ
measures?
Dual system for implicit/explicitknowledge?
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
43/50
Robinson 2001
Japanese learners of Samoan
Relationship between IQ and explicit learningconfirmed
Surprising: low IQ scores outperform high IQscores on implicit learning
GJ judgements and production are alsounrelated to individual differences
learning of locatives, and may be incorporation,but not ergatives. Learning clearer in productiontasks compared to GJ tasks
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
44/50
Concluding remarks
Research on cognitive abilities is deeply
divided between those who maintain
access to UG in some form (dual system,
encapsulated) and those who believe incritical period/general learning.
Aptitude measures do seem to predict
performance on SOME discrete point itemtests of the Johnson and Newport type
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
45/50
Conclusions
Evidence suggests that the L1 exerts thegreatest influence on L2 processing
Lexical learning and processing shows
that verb transitivity (a highly complexsystem) is acquired and affects L2 readingand processing and is NOT predicted byIDs in working memory
Unlikely that this is generalizedknowledge
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
46/50
Conclusions
Therefore it is PREMATURE to conclude
that adults are unable to master details of
a linguistic system unless they have some
higher aptitude: this is because thelearners in these studies showed that they
can use complex information in
millisecond by millisecond parsingdecisions.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
47/50
Finally
For low-educated learners, this is an
important issue because it means that low
aptitude/IQ/education does not preclude
successful language learning (=achievement of communicative
competence) given exposure and
motivation and cultural conditions
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
48/50
Selected References
BADDELEY, ALAN, 2000. Short-term and working memory, in Endel Tulving & Fergus Craik (eds.), The Oxford Handbook ofMemory, New York: Oxford University Press, 77-92.
BADDELEY, ALAN, GATHERCOLE, SUSAN & PAPAGNO, COSTANZA, 1998. The phonological loop as a language learningdevice,The Psychological Review 105, 158-73.
BERQUIST, BRETT, 1997. Individual differences in working memory span and L2 proficiency: capacity or processing capacity?,Paper presented at Proceedings of the GALA 97 Conference on Language Acquisition, Edinburgh, UK.
CARPENTER, PATRICIA, JUST, MARCEL Adam & REICHLE, ERIC D., 2000. Working memory and executive function,Current Opinion in Neurobiology 10, 195-99.
DANEMAN, Meredith & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading,Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior19, 450-66.
ELLIS, NICK C., 1996. Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order, Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 18, 91-126.
ELLIS, NICK C., 2002. Frequency effects and language processing: investigating formulaic use and input in future expression,Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 143-88.
GIBSON, EDWARD & SCHTZE, CARSON T, 1999. Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpusfrequency,Journal of Memory and Language 40, 263-79.
HARRINGTON, MICHAEL W, & SAWYER, MARK, 1992. L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skills,Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 14, 25-38.
JUFFS, ALAN, 1998. Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing,LanguageLearning48, 107-47.
JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA A & WOOLLEY, JACQUELINE D., 1982. Paradigms and processes and in
reading comprehension,Journal of Experimental Psychology: General3, 228-38. JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA & KELLER, Timothy, 1996. The capacity theory of comprehension: new
frontiers of evidence and arguments,The Psychological Review 103, 773-80. JUST, MARCEL ADAM & VARMA, SHASHANK, 2002. A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and
Christianson 2002,Psychological Review 109, 55-65.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
49/50
Selected References
MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C & CHRISTIANSEN, MORTEN H, 2002. Reassessing working memory:comment on Just and Carpenter 1992 and Waters and Caplan 1996,Psychological Review 109, 35-54.
MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C, 1994. Probablistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution,Language and Cognitive Processes 9, 157-201.
MACDONALD, MARYELLEN, JUST, MARCEL & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1992. Working memoryconstraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity,Cognitive Psychology 24, 56-98.
MACKEY, ALISON, PHILP, JENEFER, EGI, TAKAKO, FUJII, AKIKO & TATSUMI, TOMOAKI, 2002.Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development, in PeterRobinson (eds.)Individual Differences And Instructed Language Learning, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181-
209. MYLES, FLORENCE, HOOPER, JANET & MITCHELL, ROSAMOND, 1998. Rote or rule? Exploring the
role of formulaic language in the foreign language classroom,Language Learning48, 323-64.
MYLES, FLORENCE, MITCHELL, ROSAMOND & HOOPER, JANET, 1999. Interrogative chunks inFrench L2: A basis for creative construction?Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 49-80.
OSAKA, MARIKO & OSAKA, NAOYUKI, 1992. Language independent working memory as measured byJapanese and English reading span tests,Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30, 287-89.
PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS, 1988. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of languageprocessing,Language 64, 539-76.
PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS,1992. Grammatical Competence And Parsing Performance. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
-
7/30/2019 Alan Juffs
50/50
Selected References
ROBERTS, ROSE & GIBSON, EDWARD, 2003. Individual differences in sentence memory,Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31, 573-98.
ROBINSON, PETER, 2002a. Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude andworking memory on incidental SLA, in Peter Robinson (ed.), Individual Differences AndInstructed Language Learning, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211-51.
WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996a. Processing resource capacity and thecomprehension of garden path sentences,Memory and Cognition 24, 342-55.
WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996b. The measurement of verbal workingmemory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension,Quarterly Journal of ExperimentalPsychology- Human Experimental Psychology, 49A, 51-79.
WEINBERG, AMY, 1999. A minimalist theory of human sentenceprocessing, in Sam Epstein&Norbert Hornstein (eds.) Working Minimalism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 287-315.
WHITE, LYDIA, 2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. New York:Cambridge University Press.
WILLIAMS, JOHN N, MBIUS, PETER & KIM, CHOONKYONG, 2001. Native and non-
native processing of English wh- questions: parsing strategies and plausibility constraints,Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509-40.