Effects of proficiency and age of language acquisition on working memory performance in bilinguals

Vejnović, Dušan; Milin, Petar; Zdravković, Sunčica

doi:10.2298/psi1003219v

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings also contribute to an increasing number of studies that report a bilingual advantage for verbal WM (e.g. Blom et al, 2014;Kaushaskaya et al, 2014;Vejnovic et al, 2010). The present results go beyond other studies in showing that the simultaneous bilinguals, the early successive bilinguals, and the late successive bilinguals also performed significantly better than the monolinguals on measures of verbal WM.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

The effects of age of acquisition on verbal memory in bilinguals

Delcenserie

Genesee

2016

International Journal of Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives:The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of age of acquisition on verbal working memory (WM) in bilinguals. In light of previous studies that have found a bilingual advantage on non-verbal WM and less consistently on verbal WM, we included participants with native-like second language (L2) proficiency who had benefited from several years of dual language use and who did not differ from the monolinguals in terms of socioeconomic status in order to control for proficiency. Very few studies have looked at bilinguals' performance on measures of both verbal and non-verbal memory, making it difficult to know how bilingualism influences both types of abilities in the same participants. Therefore, we also compared the groups on non-verbal WM. Methodology: Simultaneous bilingual, early successive bilinguals, and late successive bilinguals were compared with monolingual English speakers. All bilingual participants were selected using three different criteria: self-assessment ratings of English abilities, ratings of nativelikeness by a native English speaker, and scores on a L2 Cloze test. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to their L2 proficiency, or on measures of general cognitive ability. Data and analysis: Fifteen simultaneous bilinguals were compared with 15 early successive bilinguals and 15 late successive bilinguals who acquired English between 4-6 years of age and 7-15 years of age, respectively. The bilinguals were compared with 15 English-speaking monolinguals. Participants were compared using verbal and non-verbal short-term memory and WM tests. Findings: All bilingual groups performed significantly better than the monolinguals on tests of verbal and non-verbal WM, thus supporting a bilingual advantage. The early and late successive bilinguals scored significantly lower than the simultaneous bilinguals, suggesting an age-ofacquisition effect among the bilinguals. Originality and implications: This is the first study to find a bilingual advantage on verbal WM in adults, but also the first study to report an age-of-acquisition effect in groups of bilingual adults carefully selected for their nativelikeness in the L2.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

The effects of age of acquisition on verbal memory in bilinguals

Delcenserie

Genesee

2016

International Journal of Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This leaves open the question of age of acquisition (AoA), which is also often confounded with proficiency, but which may uniquely influence the development of PWM because L2 learners are exposed to the L2 after the sensitive period for phonological development. Vejnović, Milin, and Zdravković (2010) examined whether AoA influenced verbal memory abilities in bilingual speakers by testing equally proficient groups of adult successive bilinguals who acquired their L2 at age 4 or age 9, on average. They found that, while both groups performed similarly on verbal memory tasks in their L1, the bilinguals who acquired their L2 earlier performed better on L2 verbal memory tasks than the group who acquired their L2 later.…”

Section: Impoverished and Enriched Language Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in phonological working memory: Linking early language experiences and language learning outcomes

Pierce

Genesee

Delcenserie

et al. 2017

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to build complex language from perceptual input, children must have access to a powerful information processing system that can analyze, store, and use regularities in the signal to which the child is exposed. In this article, we propose that one of the most important parts of this underlying machinery is the linked set of cognitive and language processing components that comprise the child's developing working memory (WM). To examine this hypothesis, we explore how variations in the timing, quality, and quantity of language input during the earliest stages of development are related to variations in WM, especially phonological WM (PWM), and in turn language learning outcomes. In order to tease apart the relationships between early language experience, WM, and language development, we review research findings from studies of groups of language learners who clearly differ with respect to these aspects of input. Specifically, we consider the development of PWM in children with delayed exposure to language, that is, children born profoundly deaf and exposed to oral language following cochlear implantation and internationally adopted children who have delayed exposed to the adoption language; children who experience impoverished language input, that is, children who experience early bouts of otitis media and signing deaf children born to nonsigning hearing parents; and children with enriched early language input, that is, simultaneous bilinguals and second language learners.

show abstract

“…There is a substantial body of research on word recall in relation to WM and how WM processes simple and complex words. Further, many studies have been conducted on prefixed and suffixed words and how they are recalled in WM (Carroll, 2008;Cohen-Mimran, Adwan-Mansour, & Sapir, 2013;Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 2007;McKinnon, Allen, & Osterhout, 2003;Rastle & Davis, 2008;Service & Maury 2014;Service & Tujulin, 2002;Taft & Forster, 1975;Veinovic, Milin, & Zdravcoic, 2010) . Further, in the past several decades, many studies have been conducted on the relationship between WM and L1 and L2.…”

Section: Working Memory Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, there have been a number of studies addressing whether or not a person who has learned the L1 and then the L2 employing the phonological loop system shows different WM capacity in the two languages. This research has also looked at what factors may possibly cause these differences (Veinovic et al, 2010). However, to the best knowledge of the researchers, no study has been conducted investigating word recall in Arabic and English and whether or not prefixed and suffixed verbs are recalled differently in both languages.…”

Section: Working Memory Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, numerous corresponding experiments have been designed to test several theories about how memory works and to examine WM capacity on bilingual and monolingual speakers. The studies done on this topic usually address the issue of how bilingual and monolingual memories store, organize, access, and recall words (Baddeley, 2003;Veinovic et al, 2010). In order to investigate the relationship between WM and L1 and L2, researchers have largely investigated the phonological loop and its relation to vocabulary and grammar learning (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, as cited in Wen et al, 2015, p. 45).…”

Section: Bilingual and Monolingual Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recalling Arabic and English Prefixed and Suffixed Verbs among Arabic-English Bilingual Speakers: An Experimental Study in Relation to Working Memory

Othman

Ahmed

Alasmari

2015

IJALEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study focuses on how prefixes and suffixes in Arabic and English impact one's working memory capacity to recall verbs. Further, it deals with whether or not Arabic-English bilingual speakers recall Arabic and English prefixed and suffixed verbs differently. To investigate this, the study was conducted in the form of two experiments on a group of 10 graduate students. The first experiment was on Arabic prefixed and suffixed verbs, whereas the second experiment was conducted similarly on English. The study concluded that suffixed Arabic verbs were recalled more than the prefixed ones, whereas in English the result was contrary where the participants could recall prefixed verbs more than the suffixed ones. This shows that L2 (Second Language) does not differ from L1 (First Language) in the effort exerted to recall words. Rather, the findings may suggest that it is easier to recall words in the second language, which might be due to the intensive instruction received in the second language. The study also discovered that several other factors played important roles in making the participants recall the items such as word-length effect, frequency and recency of the words.

show abstract

Effects of proficiency and age of language acquisition on working memory performance in bilinguals

Cited by 20 publications

References 15 publications

The effects of age of acquisition on verbal memory in bilinguals

The effects of age of acquisition on verbal memory in bilinguals

Variations in phonological working memory: Linking early language experiences and language learning outcomes

Recalling Arabic and English Prefixed and Suffixed Verbs among Arabic-English Bilingual Speakers: An Experimental Study in Relation to Working Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About