ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY AND L2 SPEECH DEVELOPMENT

FINARDI, KYRIA; WEISSHEIMER, JANAINA · 2009 · Crossref

DOI: 10.5216/sig.v20i2.6085

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates whether working memory capacity varies as a function of second language (L2) speech proficiency. Motivated by cognitive psychology models suggesting that L2 acquisition relies heavily on working memory due to the lack of automatization in L2 processing, the authors sought to determine if working memory scores change across different stages of L2 development. The research posits that as learners advance and linguistic procedures become more automatic, the cognitive load on working memory decreases, potentially altering measured capacity. The study employed a quasi-experimental, quantitative design with 79 university students from Brazil, divided into basic (n=47) and intermediate (n=32) proficiency groups. Participants were categorized based on oral proficiency assessments: the basic group underwent an oral interview, while the intermediate group performed a picture-cued narrative judged by three raters. To measure working memory, all participants completed an L2 adaptation of Daneman’s Speaking Span Test (SST). This test required participants to recall words and produce grammatically acceptable sentences using them. Scores were calculated using two metrics: a "strict" score, requiring exact word forms and order, and a "lenient" score, allowing for morphological variations. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and paired samples t-tests to compare mean scores between proficiency levels. The results indicated that the intermediate group achieved higher mean scores on the L2 SST than the basic group. Specifically, the mean strict score for the intermediate group was 26.125, compared to 16.979 for the basic group. Statistical analysis revealed that this difference was significant for the strict scores (p < .05) but not for the lenient scores (p = .05), although the latter approached significance. The authors interpret these findings through the lens of skill acquisition theory, suggesting that the higher scores in the intermediate group reflect greater automatization of L2 speech production processes. The strict scores, which demand more controlled processing, showed significant differences because they are more sensitive to working memory constraints, whereas lenient scores involve less controlled processing. The study concludes that working memory capacity, as measured by the L2 SST, appears to vary with L2 speech proficiency, supporting the hypothesis that increased proficiency leads to more automatized processing and reduced reliance on controlled working memory resources. The authors acknowledge limitations, including the cross-sectional design and sample size, and recommend future longitudinal studies to track individual learners over time. They also suggest using both L1 and L2 working memory measures to disentangle general cognitive capacity from language-specific proficiency effects. These findings contribute to the understanding of individual differences in L2 acquisition and highlight the role of cognitive resources in language development.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• working memory