| |
Abstract:
The relationship between adult second language (L2)
competence and performance is still poorly understood because
little research has been carried out on the way learners process
the L2 on-line (Juffs & Harrington, 1995). This poster reports
on a series of experiments that look at variability in on-line
processing of English-as-a Second-Language by Japanese, Chinese and
Spanish native speakers and how differences in working memory
capacity can explain intra-group variation.
The study formed two parts: the first part was a test of working
memory in the L1 and the L2 English using an adapted version of the
Daneman and Carpenter (1980) reading span measure, as well as a
word span measure. L1 and L2 working memory were found to correlate
(cf. Osaka & Osaka, 1992).
The second experiment involved on-line reading tasks in using
the moving window technique (Just, Carpenter, & Woolley, 1982)
with two structures: sentences containing main verb vs. reduced
relative clause ambiguities (MacDonald, Just, & Carpenter,
1994) and sentences containing long-distance subject and object
extraction.
Two types of analysis were run: ANOVA and Hierarchical
Regression. For the preliminary analysis, the participants were
divided into three groups of working memory capacity based on the
Reading Span Test (Low [1.0 - 2.5], Medium [3.0 - 3.5], and High
[4.0 - 6.0] (King & Just, 1991)). For each set of structures
(e.g.,
wh-
movement; Main verb vs. reduced relative), the initial analysis
will thus be ANOVA with Language and Reading Span as
between-subjects factors, and Structure (Control vs. Target
Structures) as the within-subjects factors. The dependent variables
were (a) accuracy on the judgment and the comprehension questions,
and (b) reading time in the key regions of the sentences. Main
effects for L1 and for Reading Span were found with a reliable
interaction.
Regression analyses were performed on the data in order to
further explore the relative contributions of the effects on
explaining the variance (cf. Pearlmutter & MacDonald, 1995).
The statistical analysis consisted of a set of Hierarchical
Regressions (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). It was found that reading
span scores were the best predictor of both accuracy and of time
taken to read portions of sentences were ambiguity resolution was
required.
These results support a view that working memory capacity can
help explain the variability in second language processing
performance and that such variability is independent of the
influence of first language structures.
References
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983).
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation for the Behavioral
Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in
working memory and reading.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
19, 450-466.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in L2
sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in
wh-
extraction.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
17, 483-516.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of
comprehension: individual differences in working memory.
Psychological Review,
99, 122-149.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982).
Paradigms and processes and in reading comprehension.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
3, 228-238.
King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in
syntactic processing: the role of working memory.
Journal of Memory and Language,
30, 580-602.
MacDonald, M., Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). Working
memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity.
Cognitive Psychology,
24, 56-98.
|
