The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading

Abstract

Reading span as a measure of L1 or L2 working memory capacity is shown to be related to L2 reading comprehension. Albeit limited, there is research on the relationship between both L1 and L2 reading spans and their roles in L2 reading comprehension, yet these studies take reading as a global construct rather than delving into its multi-level representational architecture. This study differentiates itself from previous research in that it investigates the relationship of both L1 and L2 reading spans to L2 reading comprehension, while taking into account two reading dimensions, namely, literal understanding and inferential comprehension. Findings reveal no significant difference between L1 and L2 storage capacities, although task processing in L1 is more accurate compared to that in L2. Generally, L1 and L2 processing tasks correlate positively as do L1 and L2 storage tasks. Finally, only L2 reading span has a meaningful relationship with L2 inferential comprehension.In a broad sense, working memory (WM) is needed in a wide variety of cognitive operations that require controlled processing. With its dual functions of processing and storage, it is characterised by executive attention procedures, and is a limited-capacity system that is necessary for conducting numerous linguistic and conceptual tasks (Just & Carpenter, 1992). These include context-based vocabulary learning (Despite some differences of opinion regarding the operationalisation of WM capacity, span tasks (counting span, operation span and reading span) seem to be the most widely acknowledged measures for assessing WM, as they are found to have satisfactory validity and reliability (Conway et al., 2005). Span tasks involve a dual-task paradigm, which combines a memory span measure with a concurrent processing task. Based on the notion of a trade-off between processing and storage as interdependent components, they operate on the assumption that an increase in the amount of processing demands leads to a decrease in the number of storage items and vice versa. 1 In the case of reading, what is commonly used to measure WM capacity is the sentence-based reading span test (RST), although other span tests (e.g. operation span

Input modality and working memory: Effects on second language text comprehension in a multimedia learning environment

“…The expert was asked to revise the test items, which were prepared mainly based 1 High internal consistency reliability has been reported for the test (Alptekin & Erçetin, 2009, 2010, 2011. In addition, the RST scores in English were found to correlate with RST scores in the L1 (Alptekin & Erçetin, 2010), in line with previous research indicating that WM capacity is independent of particular languages (Osaka & Osaka, 1992;Osaka, Osaka, & Groner, 1993). The test scores were also found to correlate with reading comprehension scores (Alptekin & Erçetin, 2011), providing evidence for the predictive validity of the test.…”

Working memory capacity in L2 processing

“…Furthermore, we assume that WM capacity is language independent -that is, it is a cognitive capacity that varies from individual to individual but that remains constant across languages (e. g., Osaka and Osaka 1992). Reading-and listening-span scores are lower in the L2 than in the L1, because processing the target language is less automatic and thus more effortful and taxing than processing the L1; however, everything else being equal, L2 reading-and listening-span scores co-vary with L1 reading-and listening-span scores, as we should expect if WM capacity is language independent (Alptekin and Erçetin 2010;Coughlin and Tremblay 2013;Harrington and Sawyer 1992;Service et al 2002;Van den Noort et al 2006). Caplan and Waters (1999) propose that only post-interpretive processes (i. e., processes that use the meaning of a sentence to perform other operations) degrade as WM capacity decreases and as WM load increases; according to their separate-sentence-interpretation-resource model, interpretive processes (i. e., processes that assign a syntactic structure to sentences) are not differentially affected by WM capacity or WM load (see also Waters 1995, 1996;Waters et al 1996aWaters et al , 1996bWaters et al , 1996c.…”

Critical Reading Ability and its Relation to L2 Proficiency of Malaysian ESL

“…Engaging in these comprehension tasks may be too cognitively demanding for the students. Inferential comprehension is deemed more difficult because they involve more resource-demanding control processes that essentially go beyond text-level cognitive processes and involve automatic schematic integration (Alptekin & Ercetin 2010). Due to this, second language research consistently points out the difficulty many poor readers experienced in their response to inferential comprehension tasks (Hansen & Pearson 1983).…”