The goal of this study was to explain individual differences in both native and non‐native listening comprehension; 121 native and 113 non‐native speakers of Dutch were tested on various linguistic and nonlinguistic cognitive skills thought to underlie listening comprehension. Structural equation modeling was used to identify the predictors of individual differences in listening comprehension and to test for differences between the native and non‐native participants. Listening comprehension for native speakers was found to be a function of knowledge of the language and the efficiency with which one can process linguistic information, while listening comprehension for non‐native speakers was a function of knowledge and reasoning ability. Working Memory did not explain unique variance in listening comprehension in either group. Differences in experience with the Dutch language are likely to explain the observed pattern of results for both groups.

Grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding (in sentence production and comprehension, respectively) are often portrayed as independent modalities of grammatical performance that only share declarative resources: lexicon and grammar. The processing resources subserving these modalities are supposed to be distinct. In particular, one assumes the existence of two workspaces where grammatical structures are assembled and temporarily maintained—one for each modality. An alternative theory holds that the two modalities share many of their processing resources and postulates a single mechanism for the online assemblage and short-term storage of grammatical structures: a shared workspace. We report two experiments with a novel “grammatical multitasking” paradigm: the participants had to read (i.e., decode) and to paraphrase (encode) sentences presented in fragments, responding to each input fragment as fast as possible with a fragment of the paraphrase. The main finding was that grammatical constraints with respect to upcoming input that emanate from decoded sentence fragments are immediately replaced by grammatical expectations emanating from the structure of the corresponding paraphrase fragments. This evidences that the two modalities have direct access to, and operate upon, the same (i.e., token-identical) grammatical structures. This is possible only if the grammatical encoding and decoding processes command the same, shared grammatical workspace. Theoretical implications for important forms of grammatical multitasking—self-monitoring, turn-taking in dialogue, speech shadowing, and simultaneous translation—are explored

We compared 121 native and 114 non-native speakers of Dutch (with 35 different first languages) on four digit-span tasks, varying modality (visual/auditory) and direction (forward/ backward). An interaction was observed between nativeness and modality, such that, while natives performed better than the non-natives on the auditory tasks (which were performed in the non-natives' second language), performance on the visual tasks (which was performed in participants' dominant language) did not significantly differ between natives and non-natives. The interaction between nativeness and modality disappeared when the data were corrected for Dutch proficiency. Correction for Dutch proficiency elevated non-native speakers' scores on the auditory tasks, without altering the non-natives' digit-span rank order. Despite considerable differences in mean length of the digit names zero to nine in the non-natives' first languages, these differences were not significantly correlated with their visual digit-span scores. While further research is needed on the sources of variation in digit-span performance, we recommend the use of the visual digit-span task (forward or backward) for cross-linguistic research and advise researchers to be aware of the association between language proficiency and verbal workingmemory performance. KeywordsBilingual digit span, visual digit span, auditory digit span, forward digit span, backward digit span, verbal working memory