Cognitive factors:Cognitive factors:Working memory and lexical Working memory and lexical

developmentdevelopment

Alan JuffsAlan Juffs

SupportSupport

National Science FoundationNational Science Foundation

SBR-9709152

Thanks to RSAs: Jenifer Larson-Hall Greg Mizera Jessica Giesler Sean Coyan Vivian Chen

PublicationsPublications 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. A festschrift for XXXX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Structure of talkStructure of talk

Sketch of working memory modelsSketch of working memory models Brief Sketch of sentence processingBrief Sketch of sentence processing Experiment in working memory and Experiment in working memory and

sentence processing in English as a sentence processing in English as a second languagesecond language

Memory, aptitude, and low educated Memory, aptitude, and low educated learnerslearners

Baddeley’s Working Memory Model 1Baddeley’s Working Memory Model 1

Figure 1. Standard Working Memory Model, Baddeley (2000a).

Central control ‡

Slave system ‡

Shaded area: ‘crystallized cognitive systems capable of accumulating long-term knowledge’

Visuospatialsketchpad

Phonologicalloop

Central Executive

Visual Episodic LanguageSemantics LTM

Baddeley’s Working Memory Model 2Baddeley’s 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 knowledge’

Visuospatialsketchpad

Phonologicalloop

Central Executive

Visual Episodic LanguageSemantics LTM

Episodicbuffer

Behavioural MeasuresBehavioural Measures

Central executiveCentral executive Reading Span Task (Daneman and Reading Span Task (Daneman and

Carpenter, 1980)Carpenter, 1980) What does the RST claim to measure?What does the RST claim to measure?

Relative clause types and WMRelative clause types and WM

1. Animacy effects in reduced relative clauses1. Animacy effects in reduced relative clauses• The evidence [inanimate] The evidence [inanimate] examined by the lawyer was convincing.examined by the lawyer was convincing.• The witness [animate]The witness [animate] examined by the lawyer was convincing.examined by the lawyer was convincing.

2. Subject and object asymmetry in relative 2. Subject and object asymmetry in relative clauses.clauses.

The reporter that the senator The reporter that the senator attacked attacked ________ regrettedregretted the error. the error.

The reporter that ___The reporter that ___ attacked the senator attacked the senator regrettedregretted the error the error.. 3. Reduced relatives and cue strength.3. Reduced relatives and cue strength.

The bad boys seen during the game The bad boys seen during the game were playingwere playing in the park. in the park. - no ambiguity; good cue for ambiguity resolution- no ambiguity; good cue for ambiguity resolution

The bad boys watched almost every day The bad boys watched almost every day were playingwere playing in the park. in the park.

ambiguity + bad cue for ambiguity resolution.ambiguity + bad cue for ambiguity resolution.

Phonological LoopPhonological Loop

Non-word span, digit spanNon-word span, digit span What does this measure?What does this measure? acquisition of new words, and does not reflect the

knowledge base. Gathercole, Baddeley, & Papagno (1998, p. 159, Table 1)

in partial correlations for 3 year-olds, non-word repetition is more strongly correlated with vocabulary measures than digit 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 is related to vocabulary measures (r= .46, p = .05).

Phonological loop in adultsPhonological 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 don’t’ effects of PSTM in L1 learning are not reflected in L2 reviews of the literature.

Issue and controversiesIssue and controversies

Does the reading span tap general or Does the reading span tap general or specifically linguistic capacity?specifically linguistic capacity?

Does WM reflect experience?Does WM reflect experience? Which test is a better test of WM?Which test is a better test of WM? What is the role of the phonological loop?What is the role of the phonological loop? The role of memory as a key component The role of memory as a key component

of aptitudeof aptitude

Recent L2 WM researchRecent 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 WatersandCaplanRST

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, ‘easy’structures. Problemwith manycorrelations. Reliablecorrelations only on GJlistening. I.e. Of 24correlations with WMreported, only 4reliable. None above.52. Amount ofvariance explained notclear. No attempts atregression.

Recent L2 researchRecent L2 researchMackeyet al

2002 Plausible-nonplausibleversions ofRST;Non wordrecall

30 Japaneselearners of ESL

WM andinteractionalfeedback

Variablecorrelationsbetween RSTs andnon-word recall.Composite scoresdeveloped becauseof the correlations.No reliablerelationship foundbetween WM andnoticing. Otherfactors at work? p.202. Non wordrepetition did NOTcorrelate with L2listening. p. 209.

Williams& 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 was.PSTM Morestrongly related toRATE of learningthan ultimate level.Exp. 2. Fewcorrelations,specifically nonebetween PSTMand vocabulary.Effect of languagebackground NOTmediated bymemory measures.Learning thatoccurred wasexplicit. Can not beassumed that rulesemerge frommemoryrepresentations ofinput sequences.(Contra Ellis)

The grammar and the parserThe 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-line application of constraints.

Frazier & Clifton (1996, 24-25): Licensing grammars, based on current versions of GB

theory, may be developed so that they provide attractive 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 of use, acquisition, pathology, cellular mechanisms, …’

Hence Chomsky includes ‘use’ in the MP?

Second Language AcquisitionSecond Language Acquisition

Development of the L2 lexicon: ‘what’:Development of the L2 lexicon: ‘what’: Projectionist accounts (Principles and Projectionist accounts (Principles and

Parameters)Parameters) constructionist accounts (Goldberg, 1995)constructionist accounts (Goldberg, 1995)

Process of acquisition: ‘how’Process of acquisition: ‘how’ Processing break downProcessing break down Accumulation of chunks/structuresAccumulation of chunks/structures

L2 vocabulary: Nation 1990L2 vocabulary: Nation 1990

1. The spoken form of a word1. The spoken form of a word 2. The written form of a word2. The written form of a word 3. 3. The grammatical behaviour of a wordThe grammatical behaviour of a word 4. The collocational behaviour of a word4. The collocational behaviour of a word 5. How frequent the word is5. How frequent the word is 6. The stylistic register constraints on a word6. The stylistic register constraints on a word 7. 7. The conceptual meaning of a wordThe conceptual meaning of a word 8. The associations a word has with other 8. The associations a word has with other

related wordsrelated words

Experiment - QuestionsExperiment - Questions

Do measures of working memory correlate in the Do measures of working memory correlate in the L1 and L2?L1 and L2?

Can individual differences in Can individual differences in working memoryworking memory account for individual differences in account for individual differences in sentence sentence processing based on verb meaningprocessing based on verb meaning??

What is the effect of the What is the effect of the L1L1 on L2 processing? on L2 processing?

Method -1Method -1

Proficiency measureProficiency measure Measure of Reading Span in L1 and L2Measure of Reading Span in L1 and L2 Measure of Word Span in L1 and L2Measure of Word Span in L1 and L2

Method 2Method 2

Data from on-line reading: record word by Data from on-line reading: record word by word reading timesword reading times

MethodMethod The ‘moving window’ paradigmThe ‘moving window’ paradigm

WithoutWithout herher contributions contributions wouldwould bebe ImpossibleImpossible Possible or not possible?Possible or not possible?

ParticipantsParticipants30 Chinese 28 Japanese 30 Chinese 28 Japanese

46 Spanish 21 English speakers46 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 2,102 .0002

Grammar 29.8 b 6.0 25.07 b 5.28 26.89 7.26 4.042 2,102 .0205

Total 58.03 c 12.59 45.46 c d 10.32 53.45 d 13.96 7.29 2,102 .0011

*Means that are co-superscripted are reliably different.

ResultsResults Working memoryWorking memory

Sentence processingSentence processing

Chinese-speaking learnersChinese-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

Japanese-speaking learnersJapanese-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

Spanish-speaking LearnersSpanish-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

Chinese WM & ProficiencyChinese WM & Proficiency

Vocabulary GrammarL1 Word Span 0.29 0.27

L2 Word Span 0.27 0.35*

L1 Reading Span 0.07 0.10

L2 Reading Span 0.04 0.02

Japanese WM & ProficiencyJapanese WM & Proficiency

Vocabulary GrammarL1 Word Span 0.11 0.09

L2 Word Span 0.26 0.04

L1 Reading Span 0.22 0.28

L2 Reading Span 0.08 0.06

Spanish WM & ProficiencySpanish WM & Proficiency

Vocabulary GrammarL1 Word Span 0.22 0.20

L2 Word Span 0.11 0.24

L1 Reading Span 0.30* 0.31*

L2 Reading Span 0.28* 0.29*

Sentences that impose Sentences that impose processing loadprocessing load

Garden Path sentencesGarden Path sentences After the children cleaned the house looked After the children cleaned the house looked

neat and tidyneat and tidy

The doctor knew the nurses liked the man The doctor knew the nurses liked the man from Englandfrom England

Unconscious GP ProcessingUnconscious GP ProcessingUnconscious Garden Path

400

600

800

1000

1200

the doctor knew the nurses liked the man from England

Word by Word

RT in milliseconds

Garden Path Processing- L1Garden Path Processing- L1Garden Path Sentence

400

600

800

1000

1200

After the children cleaned the house looked very neat and tidy

Words by Word

RT in milliseconds

Chinese

English

Japanese

Spanish

Garden Path Processing - WMGarden Path Processing - WM

Working Memory and Parsing

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

After children Det VERB neat tidy

Structure/word

RT Milliseconds

HI-GP

LO-GP

HI-Non-GP

LO-Non-GP

Transitivity and cue typeTransitivity and cue type

(1) a. The experienced soldiers warned about the

dangers conducted the midnight raid. b. The experienced soldiers chosen for their skills

conducted the midnight raid. 2.

a. The bad boys criticized during the morning were playing in the park.

b. The bad boys criticized almost every day were playing in the park.

6 Sentence types6 Sentence types

Unambiguous good and bad cuesUnambiguous good and bad cues Two way ambiguous, good and bad cuesTwo way ambiguous, good and bad cues Three way ambiguous, good and bad cuesThree way ambiguous, good and bad cues

Easiest: unambiguous, good cueEasiest: unambiguous, good cue The bad boys chosThe bad boys chosenen during the gameduring the game were playingwere playing

in the park.in the park. Most difficult: three way ambiguous, bad cueMost difficult: three way ambiguous, bad cue

The bad boys watched The bad boys watched almost every dayalmost every day were playingwere playing in the park. in the park.

Processing reduced relativesProcessing reduced relativesThe bad boys XXX The bad boys XXX were playingwere playing

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

RT MSEC

Chinese

Japanese

Spanish

English

Working memory and Working memory and reduced relativesreduced relatives

No correlations with WM and processing No correlations with WM and processing at key point for any of the groups at any at key point for any of the groups at any point in parsing except early onpoint in parsing except early on

All weak correlations, suggesting much of All weak correlations, suggesting much of the variance can be explained by other the variance can be explained by other factorsfactors

Main effects for language robustMain effects for language robust

Points to rememberPoints to remember

L1 a better predictor of performance than L1 a better predictor of performance than WMWM

WM does not correlate with individual WM does not correlate with individual differences in processingdifferences in processing

L2 speakers show reading profiles L2 speakers show reading profiles analagous to natives in many casesanalagous to natives in many cases

Use of WM tests need to be fully justified Use of WM tests need to be fully justified in L2 researchin L2 research

Overemphasis of WM when results don’t Overemphasis of WM when results don’t support itsupport it

More points to rememberMore points to remember

More careful regression analysesMore careful regression analyses Clearer acknowledgement of the role of prior Clearer acknowledgement of the role of prior

linguistic knowledge is necessary.linguistic knowledge is necessary. Role of the ‘new’ link proposed by Baddeley Role of the ‘new’ link proposed by Baddeley

between visual spatial ability and the PL and between visual spatial ability and the PL and language needs to be looked atlanguage needs to be looked at

Aptitude and Aptitude and ultimate attainmentultimate attainment

DeKeyser 2000DeKeyser 2000 Replication of Johnson and Newport 1989Replication of Johnson and Newport 1989 Added MLAT measureAdded MLAT measure 58 Hungarian-speaking learners of ESL58 Hungarian-speaking learners of ESL Findings: replicated Johnson and NewportFindings: replicated Johnson and Newport The only adults who succeed are those who score The only adults who succeed are those who score

high on the aptitude batteryhigh on the aptitude battery Cf. Bialystok’s commentary and replyCf. Bialystok’s commentary and reply http://www.pitt.edu/~rdk1/http://www.pitt.edu/~rdk1/

Skehan 2001Skehan 2001

Aptitude: speed or ultimate attainment?Aptitude: speed or ultimate attainment? DeKeyser (2000, p. 518) aptitude has a role in DeKeyser (2000, p. 518) aptitude has a role in

ultimate attainmentultimate attainment Skehan (2001, p. 93) points out that the MLAT Skehan (2001, p. 93) points out that the MLAT

was designed to predict RATE and not was designed to predict RATE and not ultimate attainment, contra (?) DeKeyser ultimate attainment, contra (?) DeKeyser 2000)2000)

Does the MLAT measure communicative Does the MLAT measure communicative competence? Or an ability on discrete point competence? Or an ability on discrete point items?items?

Mackey et al. 2001Mackey et al. 2001

RST and WM testRST and WM test Combined measure:Combined measure:

• Low WM tended to notice less at lower Low WM tended to notice less at lower developmental stages than High WMdevelopmental stages than High WM

• High WM - more development in delayed post-testHigh WM - more development in delayed post-test• High WM tended to notice moreHigh WM tended to notice more

Robinson 2001Robinson 2001

Implicit learning: not related to higher IQ or Implicit learning: not related to higher IQ or aptitude measures?aptitude measures?

Incidental learning: unintentional and Incidental learning: unintentional and uncontrolled?uncontrolled?

Explicit learning: does relate to higher IQ Explicit learning: does relate to higher IQ measures?measures?

Dual system for implicit/explicit Dual system for implicit/explicit knowledge?knowledge?

Robinson 2001Robinson 2001

Japanese learners of SamoanJapanese learners of Samoan Relationship between IQ and explicit learning Relationship between IQ and explicit learning

confirmedconfirmed Surprising: low IQ scores outperform high IQ Surprising: low IQ scores outperform high IQ

scores on implicit learningscores on implicit learning GJ judgements and production are also GJ judgements and production are also

unrelated to individual differencesunrelated to individual differences learning of locatives, and may be incorporation, learning of locatives, and may be incorporation,

but not ergatives. Learning clearer in production but not ergatives. Learning clearer in production tasks compared to GJ taskstasks compared to GJ tasks

Concluding remarksConcluding remarks

Research on cognitive abilities is deeply Research on cognitive abilities is deeply divided between those who maintain divided between those who maintain access to UG in some form (dual system, access to UG in some form (dual system, encapsulated) and those who believe in encapsulated) and those who believe in critical period/general learning.critical period/general learning.

Aptitude measures do seem to predict Aptitude measures do seem to predict performance on SOME discrete point item performance on SOME discrete point item tests of the Johnson and Newport typetests of the Johnson and Newport type

ConclusionsConclusions

Evidence suggests that the L1 exerts the Evidence suggests that the L1 exerts the greatest influence on L2 processinggreatest influence on L2 processing

Lexical learning and processing shows Lexical learning and processing shows that verb transitivity (a highly complex that verb transitivity (a highly complex system) is acquired and affects L2 reading system) is acquired and affects L2 reading and processing and is NOT predicted by and processing and is NOT predicted by IDs in working memoryIDs in working memory

Unlikely that this is ‘generalized’ Unlikely that this is ‘generalized’ knowledgeknowledge

ConclusionsConclusions

Therefore it is PREMATURE to conclude Therefore it is PREMATURE to conclude that adults are unable to master details of that adults are unable to master details of a linguistic system unless they have some a linguistic system unless they have some higher aptitude: this is because the higher aptitude: this is because the learners in these studies showed that they learners in these studies showed that they can use complex information in can use complex information in millisecond by millisecond parsing millisecond by millisecond parsing decisions.decisions.

FinallyFinally

For ‘low-educated’ learners, this is an For ‘low-educated’ learners, this is an important issue because it means that low important issue because it means that low aptitude/IQ/education does not preclude aptitude/IQ/education does not preclude successful language learning (= successful language learning (= achievement of communicative achievement of communicative competence) given competence) given exposureexposure and and motivationmotivation and cultural conditions and cultural conditions

Selected ReferencesSelected References• BADDELEY, ALAN, 2000. ‘Short-term and working memory,’ in Endel Tulving & Fergus Craik (eds.), BADDELEY, ALAN, 2000. ‘Short-term and working memory,’ in Endel Tulving & Fergus Craik (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of The Oxford Handbook of

MemoryMemory, New York: Oxford University Press, 77-92. , New York: Oxford University Press, 77-92. • BADDELEY, ALAN, GATHERCOLE, SUSAN & PAPAGNO, COSTANZA, 1998. ‘The phonological loop as a language learning BADDELEY, ALAN, GATHERCOLE, SUSAN & PAPAGNO, COSTANZA, 1998. ‘The phonological loop as a language learning

device,’ device,’ The Psychological ReviewThe Psychological Review 105, 158-73. 105, 158-73.• BERQUIST, BRETT, 1997. ‘Individual differences in working memory span and L2 proficiency: capacity or processing capacity?,’ 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.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,’ CARPENTER, PATRICIA, JUST, MARCEL Adam & REICHLE, ERIC D., 2000. ‘Working memory and executive function,’

Current Opinion in NeurobiologyCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology 10, 195-99. 10, 195-99.• DANEMAN, Meredith & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1980. ‘Individual differences in working memory and reading,’ DANEMAN, Meredith & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1980. ‘Individual differences in working memory and reading,’ Journal of Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal BehaviorVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, 450-66. 19, 450-66.• ELLIS, NICK C., 1996. ‘Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order,’ ELLIS, NICK C., 1996. ‘Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order,’ Studies in Second Language Studies in Second Language

AcquisitionAcquisition 18, 91-126. 18, 91-126.• ELLIS, NICK C., 2002. ‘Frequency effects and language processing: investigating formulaic use and input in future expression,’ ELLIS, NICK C., 2002. ‘Frequency effects and language processing: investigating formulaic use and input in future expression,’

Studies in Second Language AcquisitionStudies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 143-88. 24, 143-88.• GIBSON, EDWARD & SCHÜTZE, CARSON T, 1999. ‘Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus GIBSON, EDWARD & SCHÜTZE, CARSON T, 1999. ‘Disambiguation preferences in noun phrase conjunction do not mirror corpus

frequency,’ frequency,’ Journal of Memory and LanguageJournal of Memory and Language 40, 263-79. 40, 263-79.• HARRINGTON, MICHAEL W, & SAWYER, MARK, 1992. ‘L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skills,’ HARRINGTON, MICHAEL W, & SAWYER, MARK, 1992. ‘L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skills,’ Studies in Second Studies in Second

Language AcquisitionLanguage Acquisition 14, 25-38. 14, 25-38.• JUFFS, ALAN, 1998. ‘Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing,’ JUFFS, ALAN, 1998. ‘Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in second language sentence processing,’ Language Language

LearningLearning 48, 107-47. 48, 107-47.• JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA A & WOOLLEY, JACQUELINE D., 1982. ‘Paradigms and processes and in JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA A & WOOLLEY, JACQUELINE D., 1982. ‘Paradigms and processes and in

reading comprehension,’ reading comprehension,’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: GeneralJournal of Experimental Psychology: General 3, 228-38. 3, 228-38.• JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA & KELLER, Timothy, 1996. ‘The capacity theory of comprehension: new JUST, MARCEL Adam, CARPENTER, PATRICIA & KELLER, Timothy, 1996. ‘The capacity theory of comprehension: new

frontiers of evidence and arguments,’ frontiers of evidence and arguments,’ The Psychological ReviewThe Psychological Review 103, 773-80. 103, 773-80.• JUST, MARCEL ADAM & VARMA, SHASHANK, 2002. ‘A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and JUST, MARCEL ADAM & VARMA, SHASHANK, 2002. ‘A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and

Christianson 2002,’ Christianson 2002,’ Psychological ReviewPsychological Review 109, 55-65. 109, 55-65.

Selected ReferencesSelected References• MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C & CHRISTIANSEN, MORTEN H, 2002. ‘Reassessing working memory: MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C & CHRISTIANSEN, MORTEN H, 2002. ‘Reassessing working memory:

comment on Just and Carpenter 1992 and Waters and Caplan 1996,’ comment on Just and Carpenter 1992 and Waters and Caplan 1996,’ Psychological ReviewPsychological Review 109, 35-54. 109, 35-54.• MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C, 1994. ‘Probablistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution,’ MACDONALD, MARYELLEN C, 1994. ‘Probablistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution,’

Language and Cognitive ProcessesLanguage and Cognitive Processes 9, 157-201. 9, 157-201.• MACDONALD, MARYELLEN, JUST, MARCEL & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1992. ‘Working memory MACDONALD, MARYELLEN, JUST, MARCEL & CARPENTER, PATRICIA, 1992. ‘Working memory

constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity,’ constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity,’ Cognitive PsychologyCognitive Psychology 24, 56-98. 24, 56-98.• MACKEY, ALISON, PHILP, JENEFER, EGI, TAKAKO, FUJII, AKIKO & TATSUMI, TOMOAKI, 2002. MACKEY, ALISON, PHILP, JENEFER, EGI, TAKAKO, FUJII, AKIKO & TATSUMI, TOMOAKI, 2002.

‘Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development,’ in Peter ‘Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development,’ in Peter Robinson (eds.) Robinson (eds.) Individual Differences And Instructed Language LearningIndividual Differences And Instructed Language Learning , Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181-, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181-209. 209.

• MYLES, FLORENCE, HOOPER, JANET & MITCHELL, ROSAMOND, 1998. ‘Rote or rule? Exploring the MYLES, FLORENCE, HOOPER, JANET & MITCHELL, ROSAMOND, 1998. ‘Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in the foreign language classroom,’ role of formulaic language in the foreign language classroom,’ Language LearningLanguage Learning 48, 323-64. 48, 323-64.

• MYLES, FLORENCE, MITCHELL, ROSAMOND & HOOPER, JANET, 1999. ‘Interrogative chunks in French MYLES, FLORENCE, MITCHELL, ROSAMOND & HOOPER, JANET, 1999. ‘Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction?’ L2: A basis for creative construction?’ Studies in Second Language AcquisitionStudies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 49-80. 21, 49-80.

• OSAKA, MARIKO & OSAKA, NAOYUKI, 1992. ‘Language independent working memory as measured by OSAKA, MARIKO & OSAKA, NAOYUKI, 1992. ‘Language independent working memory as measured by Japanese and English reading span tests,’ Japanese and English reading span tests,’ Bulletin of the Psychonomic SocietyBulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30, 287-89. 30, 287-89.

• PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS, 1988. ‘Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS, 1988. ‘Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing,’ processing,’ LanguageLanguage 64, 539-76. 64, 539-76.

• PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS,1992. PRITCHETT, BRADLEY LOUIS,1992. Grammatical Competence And Parsing PerformanceGrammatical Competence And Parsing Performance . Chicago: . Chicago: Chicago University Press.Chicago University Press.

Selected ReferencesSelected References• ROBERTS, ROSE & GIBSON, EDWARD, 2003. ‘Individual differences in sentence memory,’ ROBERTS, ROSE & GIBSON, EDWARD, 2003. ‘Individual differences in sentence memory,’

Journal of Psycholinguistic ResearchJournal of Psycholinguistic Research 31, 573-98. 31, 573-98.• ROBINSON, PETER, 2002a. ‘Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and ROBINSON, PETER, 2002a. ‘Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and

working memory on incidental SLA,’ in Peter Robinson (ed.), working memory on incidental SLA,’ in Peter Robinson (ed.), Individual Differences And Individual Differences And Instructed Language LearningInstructed Language Learning , Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211-51. , Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211-51.

• WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996a. ‘Processing resource capacity and the WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996a. ‘Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences,’ comprehension of garden path sentences,’ Memory and CognitionMemory and Cognition 24, 342-55. 24, 342-55.

• WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996b. ‘The measurement of verbal working WATERS, GLORIA S. & CAPLAN, DAVID, 1996b. ‘The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension,’ memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension,’ Quarterly Journal of Experimental Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology- Human Experimental PsychologyPsychology- Human Experimental Psychology , 49A, 51-79., 49A, 51-79.

• WEINBERG, AMY, 1999. ‘A minimalist theory of human sentence processing,’ in Sam WEINBERG, AMY, 1999. ‘A minimalist theory of human sentence processing,’ in Sam Epstein &Norbert Hornstein (eds.) Epstein &Norbert Hornstein (eds.) Working MinimalismWorking Minimalism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 287-315. , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 287-315.

• WHITE, LYDIA, 2003. WHITE, LYDIA, 2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal GrammarSecond Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar . New York: . New York: Cambridge University Press.Cambridge University Press.

• WILLIAMS, JOHN N, MÖBIUS, PETER & KIM, CHOONKYONG, 2001. ‘Native and non-WILLIAMS, JOHN N, MÖBIUS, PETER & KIM, CHOONKYONG, 2001. ‘Native and non-native processing of English wh- questions: parsing strategies and plausibility constraints,’ native processing of English wh- questions: parsing strategies and plausibility constraints,’ Applied PsycholinguisticsApplied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509-40., 22, 509-40.