Working Memory (WM) and Language Learning

Introduction

In their article “The courage to be a language learner”, MacIntyre, Gregersen and Abel

(2015) distinguish two types of language learners. There are those for whom language learning is

easy and pleasurable experience. They learn a new language very fast and master it almost to the

level of native language speaker. Then, there are those for whom language learning is a daunting

and frustrating and frightening endeavor. They slog for a protracted period of time but never

reach the desired level (MacIntyre, Gregersen & Abel (2015). Why is there such differential

success in language acquisition? This question has engaged the researchers for more than forty

years now (Kormos & Sáfár, 2008). To account for this differential success, various affective,

cognitive and personality-trait factors have been put forth (Dewaele, 2009). Motivation, language

anxiety and self-confidence are among the affective factors whereas intelligence, foreign

language aptitude and working memory are listed as cognitive factors (Kormos & Sáfár, 2008).

Gardner (2006 as cited in Dewaele, 2009)) predicted that learners possessing higher level

of ability will be more successful language learners. For Gardner, ability consisted of

intelligence and aptitude. Miyake and Friedman (1998) have suggested that the central

component of language aptitude is the working memory (WM) capacity. They claimed that a

higher WM capacity is linked to the acquisition of appropriate linguistic cues and better

comprehension of complex sentence structures in the L2 (Miyake & Friedman, 1998). Wen

(2015) claims that many aspects of L1 and L2 comprehension heavily depend on WM capacity.

First and second language vocabulary leaning, reading, listening comprehension and writing

proficiency positively correlate with working memory (Wen, 2015; Atkins & Baddeley, 1998,

Baddeley, 2000).
 Among various cognitive processes, working memory (WM) is receiving a sustained

attention from cognitive psychology and second language acquisition researchers. Since first

proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), the construct has been the focus of extensive research.

Working Memory construct

Working memory (WM) generally refers to the cognitive capacity that allows us to

temporarily hold and process a very small amount of information in real time (Wen & Skehan,

2011). According to Oberauer et al. (2003) WM is responsible for monitoring ongoing cognitive

processes and action and engaging selective attention to relevant representations and suppressing

irrelevant and distracting ones (Oberauer et al., 2003).

Wen (2015) uses the analogy ‘mental workspace of the mind’ to describe WM. The

activities from formulating a daily plan to following the direction to some destination on a

labyrinthine market street would not be possible without the active role of WM (Wen, 2015).

Ellis (2005, p. 338 as cited in Grymsk, 2016) presents a lucid illustration of WM: “If I ask you

what 397x27 is, you do not look up the answer from long-term memory, you work it out.”

Wen (2012) has highlighted three-point characteristics of the working memory construct.

First, WM has a structure with multiple components that contain temporary storage for

information and executive control of information. Secondly, WM is limited by capacity and time.

According to Cowan (2010) WM can hold only 3-5 items at a given point of time for about two

seconds; thereafter the information starts decaying (Cowan, 2009). Baddeley (2000) reinforces

the assertion that WM can hold limited amount of information and it is accessible only a limited

period of time (Baddeley, 2000; Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). Thirdly, it is closely connected

to long-term memory (Wen, 2012; Wen & Skehan, 2011; Cowan, 2008).
 One of the important functions of WM system is to prevent potentially irrelevant or

distracting information from gaining access to our consciousness (Wen, 2013).

The distinction between short-term memory and working memory

There is a huge confusion in literature regarding the distinction between short-term

memory and working memory (Cowan, 2008). This lack of clarity regarding the distinction of

these two terms is largely due to the use of different definitions by the investigators. The real

distinction is in the conception of these two terms. Originally, short-term memory was conceived

as a thing or storage while the working memory is conceived as a temporary storage plus

processing engaged simultaneously. Secondly, the activation of the short-term memory may not

be in conscious awareness. To cite the example given by Cowan (2008), “If you are speaking to

a person with a foreign accent and inadvertently alter your speech to match the foreign speaker’s

accent, you are influenced by what was until that point an unconscious aspect of your short-term

memory (Cowan, 2008). Working memory on the other hand is accessible and is available in the

consciousness.

Today, many theorists are in favor of replacing the concept of short-term memory with

the concept of working memory because of the difficulty in drawing a distinction between them

(Cowan, 2008; Robinson, 2007; Biedroń,2012). Cowan (2008) holds that the differences are only

in the semantics; in fact, there is no real differences. He further argues that that short-term

memory is part of working and it is kept in activation by the attentional (Cowan, 2008).

Cowan (2008) concludes that the distinction between short-term memory and working

memory is a matter of semantics and they are not distinctly different from each other.
Models of WM

Miller et al, used the term ‘Working Memory’ for the first time in their influential book

Plans and the Structure of Behavior in which they used the term to describe the memory that was

used to plan and carry out behavior. Millar et al. hypothesized that the “most forward portion of

the primate frontal lobe apparently serves as a ‘working memory’ where Plans can be retained

temporarily when they are being formed, or transformed, or executed” (Miller et al., 1960, p.

207). Since the first use of the term ‘working memory’, the construct has been researched

profusely producing a number of well-developed models of working memory that are quite

diverse in their theoretical scope and emphasis (Miyake & Shah, 1999; Cowan, 2015)). Miyake

and Shah (1999) catalogue at least 11 models of working memory, namely Multiple-Component

Model (Baddeley), Embedded-Processes Model(Cowan), “Controlled Attention” Framework

(Engle, Kane & Tuholski), ACT-R Model (Lovett, Reder, & Lebiere),

Executive-Process/Interactive Control (EPIC) Model (Kieras, Meyer, Mueller, & Seymour), Soar

Architecture (Young &Lewis), Long-Term Working Memory (LT-WM) Framework (Ericsson &

Delaney), Interactive Cognitive Subsystems (ICS) Model (Barnard), Controlled and Automatic

Processing (CAP2) Architecture (Schneider) and Biologically Based Computational Model

(O’Reilly, Braver, & Cohen).

The first two models, namely multi-component model of Baddeley and embedded-

process model of Cowan have drawn much greater attention of the researchers as they have been

adopted as theoretical models of WM in first and second language research (Wen, 2015). These

two models and their implications in language learning will be discussed in the following pages.

Multi-component model of Baddeley

 Baddeley (2015) acknowledges that multi-component model of working memory has its

roots in multistore model of memory proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968). In their model,

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) proposed that working memory consisted of three stores; a sensory

register, short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM). According to this model

information passes in a linear fashion from store to store and the information passes from STM

to LTM only if the information is repeated or rehearsed (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). The

inability of this model to explain the link to LTM and with data from patients whose impaired

verbal STM had little impact on their broader cognition.

For one thing, the Atkinson-Shiffrin model (1968) is essentially sequential: information passes

through short-term memory before entering long-term memory. But neuropsychological data

were showing that this assumption is not correct. Some patients with brain damage (typically to

the parietal lobe) who showed drastic impairments in short-term memory, nevertheless, were

able to store new information in long-term memory in comparison to that of neurologically

healthy people (Shallice & Warrington, 1970). This finding demonstrated that information can

gain access to the long-term memory system even when the short-term memory system was

dramatically impaired. The Atkinson-Shiffrin model could not account for this result: with a

poorly functioning short-term memory, according to Atkinson- Shiffrin, long-term storage

should also be impaired.

 The original working memory model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) contained

three elements: phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad and central executive. Central

executive is responsible for the coordination of information, control and attention allocation.

Phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad are two slave systems responsible for handling

phonological information and visuo-spatial information respectively (Baddeley, 2015; Wen &

Skehan, 2011; Biedrón, 2012, Juffs & Harrington, 2011). The two slave systems, phonological

loop and visuospatial sketchpad are envisaged as bringing together information from a range of

contributory source (Baddeley, 2015).

The phonological loop is described as a language learning device (Baddeley, Gathercole

& Pagagno, 1998). Therefore, from the perspective of language acquisition, this component of

WM is very significant, and it will be discussed in greater detail later in a separate sub-heading.

The fourth component, ‘the episodic buffer’ was added to the model later in in 2000. This fourth

element is assumed to be a multiterminal storage system capable of integrating information from

the visuospatial and verbal subsystems and linking it with further information from perception

and LTM. (Wen & Skehan, 2011).

Embedded-Process Model

In spite of the dominance of multi-component model of WM in the field of cognitive

psychology and its general appeal, other theoretical models have appeared in the scene (Miyake

& Shah, 1999; Wen, Mot & Mcneill, 2013). One prominent among them is ‘embedded-process

model of Cowan (1999). It is viewed as a non-modular, unitary framework unlike that of

Baddeley (Cowan, 2015), consisting of four elements; central executive, long-term memory,

activated memory and the focus of attention; all embedded like a Vennian diagram. The

activated memory is the subset of long-term memory and it is in the focus of attention and
awareness (Cowan, 1999). These faculties are limited by different processing limits. Activation

is limited by time whereas the focus of attention is limited by capacity (Cowan, 1999). Focus of

attention, a subset of the information in the activated part of long-term memory is viewed as

embedded within broader long-term memory processes (Cowan, 1999). It is the unitary storage

and processing system of this model that is appealing to some cognitive psychologists (Wen,

2015) Cowan et al. (as cited in Cowan, 2015) claim the existence of the region in brain that

supports the focus of attention (Cowan, 2015). Cowan (1999) summarizes the working of

Figure 1. Simplified diagram of Cowan's (1988) Embedded-Processes Model.

Focus of attention in language learning

Focus of attention is one of the most significant components embedded-process model. Cowan

(1999) has afforded a special role for attention. Attention has much greater role to play in WM

models that are less modular. Embedded process model is a non-modular model, so the
attentional role is even greater (Eryn, Anh & Cowan, 2018). But like any storage device,

attention is limited in capacity. Attention has its limitations in how much material it can hold at

once. The role of the focus of attention is to preserve information in this model besides storing

information.

In language leaning, focus of attention or awareness has a critical role to play. Attention

leads to noticing of linguistic features. The learner notices a gap between his/her interlanguage

linguistic features and linguistic forms and that of a proficient speaker of the target language.

This noticing of correct linguistic forms, appropriate collocations and chunks helps the learner to

use the correct form of the language. For Schmidt (1995) Attention and noticing are two sides of

the same coin. Schmidt (1995) who proposed the noticing hypothesis, states that noticing is a

necessary condition for L2 acquisition. What learners notice in input is what becomes intake for

learning (Schmidt, 1995). “No noticing, no acquisition" (Thornbury,1997 as cited in Esimaje,

2012)

The claim of Noting Hypothesis, however, has drawn a strong criticism from Truscott

(1998). He argues that the foundations of the hypothesis in cognitive psychology are weak and it

has not been supported by research and clear interpretation. Truscott accuses the hypothesis of

lacking in coherent theory of language. Criticisms have come main from who believe in the

theory of unconscious language learning in natural conditions without noticing that learning is

taking place.

Schmid counters the criticism and asserts the role of noticing by way of answering the

following four questions:

1. Can there be learning without intention?

2. Can there be learning without attention?

 3. Can there be learning without noticing?

4. Can there be learning without understanding?

(Schmidt, 1995. P. 5).

Schmidt also presents several studies supporting the claim that attention is necessary for

encoding in long-term memory. These studies have been made on selective attention and divided

attention. In selective attention paradigm, the subjects are directed to pay attention to one source

of information and ignore others in a cocktail party context amidst the cacophony of information.

The result of the study indicated that attention is important for storage.

Phonological loop as a language learning device

Phonological loop consists of two subcomponents, phonological store and the articulatory

rehearsal process. Phonological store is a limited capacity store capable of holding the

information very briefly. If not attended to, the information in the phonological store is subject to

quick decay. The articulatory rehearsal process is responsible for rehearsal to prevent decay and

maintain the information in the phonological store. Besides the rehearsal function, the subvocal

rehearsal system helps register visual information in the store, if the items can be named. Visual

information needs vocalization or subvocalization in order for better register and retention. For

example, if a subject is presented with a sequence of letters, the subject will subvocalize them in

order for the phonological loop to register. Baddeley (2003) claims that the retention of

sequential letters such as B, W, Y, K, R, X, is considerably than similar sounding letters such as

T, C, V, D, B, G (Baddeley, 2003). This same phenomenon is true of word retention. Different

sounding words are easier to retain than the similar sound words. Likewise, the words falling
under the same semantic field will have greater cognitive load then the words which are different

in meaning.

Phonological loop is the most significant component of WM with regard to language learning.

Baddeley et al. (1998) claim that the very reason why the phonological loop has evolved is

language acquisition (Baddeley, Gathercole & Pagagno, 1998). As has been said earlier the

phonological loop is both the storage and processing device which receives auditory linguistic

inputs as representation in the store. The linguistic representation is subject to rapid decay. But

the decay is offset by a subvocal rehearsal process and keep the representation active. Rehearsal

is a volitional strategy that is closely associated with covert articulatory processes and that does

not typically emerge until after 7 years of age (see Gathercole & Hitch, 1993, for a review).

One of its most basic functions is to help learn new words which is the foundation of language

learning. They explored the relationship between WM and language association, in their study

of the role of phonological loop in learning vocabulary among young children (Baddeley et al.,

1998). They used digit span test and non-word repetition span test (Baddeley et al., 1998) in

order to measure the capacity of the phonological memory. Gathercole (2006) asserts that the

ability to repeat a new phonological form such as woogalamic is one of the most fundamental

and important language abilities. Every word we use today with ease had been once an

unfamiliar nonword to us. These nonwords have become part of our meaningful lexicon only

after they have gone through a process of repetition. Gathercole claims that the ability to repeat

nonwords is the most effective predictor of language learning ability.

Working Memory and Second Language Acquisition

Research on the implication of WM on language learning started with research native

language learning, especially relating to language disorders (Gathercole & Alloway, 2006;

Adams, Nguyen & Cowan, 2018). Baddeley and Gathercole carried out a study in which they

compared a group of children who had developmental language disorders with control groups on

multiple working memory related tasks. Their study showed that the performance of the children

with language disorder on nonword repetition task was lower than the performance of the age-

matched peers and sometimes. In the vocabulary and reading even their younger peers performed

better than them. But it was found that they were not different in their ability to rehearse

information. This led the researchers to conclude that that children with language disorders had

working memory storage deficit. The focus of attention of Baddeley and Gathercole and others

of

An increasing number of SLA researchers have become interested in in the role of WM

in SLA. Drawing upon the insights from cognitive psychology studies enquiring the relationship

between WM and native language learning (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993; Baddeley, 2003)

these SLA researchers also agree with the view that WM plays an important role in SLA (Wen,

2012).

Their views are characterized by two theoretical assumption derived from the

perceivable difference between L1 leaning and SLA. Some SLA and cognitive psychology

researches view that SLA, just like native language learning, involves the process of learning

linguistic chunks (Wen, 2012). They hypothesize that WM plays an instrumental role in the
 chunking process of linguistic sequences thus assigning critical role to WM in vocabulary

acquisition (Wen, 2012). On the other hand, the other group of researchers hold the view that

Second language acquisition is characterized by controlled processing and that WM has much

taxing load on the process.

Bibliography

Sternberg, R. (1987). Most vocabulary is learnt from context. In Mckeown, M. & Curtis, M. (Eds.),

The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Biedrón, A. (2012). Memory abilities in gifted foreign language learners. In (ed.) New perspectives

on individual difference in language learning and teaching, Second language learning and

teaching.

Archibald, L. M. (2017). Working memory and language learning: A review. Child Language

Teaching and Therapy, 33(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659016654206

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its

control processes. In Spence, K. W., & Spence, J. T. The psychology of learning and

motivation (Volume 2). New York: Academic Press. pp. 89–195.

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication

Disorders, 36(3), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4

Baddeley, A. (2012). Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies. Annual Review of

Psychology, 63(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422

Baddeley, A. D. (2017). Modularity, working memory and language acquisition. Second Language

Research, 33(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317709852

Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning

device. Psychological Review, 105(1), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.158

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in

learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1

Barbosa, P. G., Jiang, Z., & Nicoladis, E. (2019). The role of working and short-term memory in

predicting receptive vocabulary in monolingual and sequential bilingual children. International

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(7), 801–817.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1314445

Barrouillet, P., Portrat, S., & Camos, V. (2011). On the law relating processing to storage in working

memory. Psychological Review, 118(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022324

Brown, G. D. A., Poirier, M., Fortin, C., & Neath, I. (2005). Short‐term and working memory: Past,

progress, and prospects. Memory, 13(3–4), 225–235.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09608210344000689

Cowan, N. (2011). Working Memory and Attention in Language Use. In The Handbook of

Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Processes. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203848005.ch4
Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded process model of working memory. In Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (eds.)

Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cabridge:

Cambridge University press.

Cowan, N., Rouder, J. N., Blume, C. L., & Saults, J. S. (2012). Models of verbal working memory

capacity: What does it take to make them work? Psychological Review, 119(3), 480–499.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027791

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6

Friedman, N., Miyake, A., Young, S., Defries, J., Corley, R., & Hewitt, J. (2008). Individual

Differences in Executive Functions Are Almost Entirely Genetic in Origin. Journal of

Experimental Psychology. General, 137, 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201

Fukuda, K., Awh, E., & Vogel, E. K. (2010). Discrete capacity limits in visual working memory.

Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20(2), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2010.03.005

Grundy, J. G., & Timmer, K. (2017). Bilingualism and working memory capacity: A comprehensive

meta-analysis. Second Language Research, 33(3), 325–340.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316678286

Guo, Y. (2016). The Influence of Working Memory on Second Language Learning. Theory and

Practice in Language Studies, 6(9), 1819. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0609.14

Indrarathne, B., & Kormos, J. (2018). The role of working memory in processing L2 input: Insights

from eye-tracking. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(2), 355–374.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000098
Jackson, D. O. (2020). Working memory and second language development: A complex, dynamic

future? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 89–109.

https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.1.5

Jarrold, C., & Towse, J. N. (2006). Individual differences in working memory. Neuroscience, 139(1),

39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.07.002

Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching,

44(2), 137–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000509

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in

working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

295X.99.1.122

Kim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2017). Working memory effects on L1 and L2 processing of

ambiguous relative clauses by Korean L2 learners of English. Second Language Research, 33(3),

365–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315623322

Klingberg, T. (2010). Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,

14(7), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.002

Magnussen, S., Andersson, J., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Endestad, T., Goodman, G. S., Helstrup, T.,

Koriat, A., Larsson, M., Melinder, A., Nilsson, L.-G., Rönnberg, J., & Zimmer, H. (2006). What

people believe about memory. Memory, 14(5), 595–613.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210600646716

Moser, D. C., Fridriksson, J., & Healy, E. W. (2007). Sentence comprehension and general working

memory. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 21(2), 147–156.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200600782526
Oberauer, K., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016). What limits working memory

capacity? Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 758–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000046

Pickering, S. J. (2001). The development of visuo-spatial working memory. Memory, 9(4–6), 423–

432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210143000182

Rankin, T. (2017). (Working) memory and L2 acquisition and processing. Second Language

Research, 33(3), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658316645387

Sagarra, N. (2012). Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The

Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (p. wbeal1286). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1286

Sagarra, N. (2017). Longitudinal effects of working memory on L2 grammar and reading abilities.

Second Language Research, 33(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317690577

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention

and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and

learning. Technical Report No 9, pp. 1-64. Honululu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Working with working memory and language. Second Language

Research, 33(3), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317719315

Szmalec, A., Brysbaert, M., & Duyck, W., (2013). Working memory and (second) language

processing. In (eds.) Altarriba, J., & Isurin, L. (2013). Memory, Language, and Bilingualism.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Truscott, J. (2017). Modularity, working memory, and second language acquisition: A research

program. Second Language Research, 33(3), 313–323.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317696127
Wen, Z. (2013). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: The

phonological/executive model. In (eds.) Wen, Z., Mota, M. B., & Mcneill, A. (2015). Working

Memory and Second Language Acquisition: Innovation in Theory and Research. 23, 21.

Wen, Z., Mota, M. B., & Mcneill, A. (2015). Working Memory and Second Language Acquisition:

Innovation in Theory and Research. 23, 21.

Wen, Z., & Skehan, P. (2011). A new perspective on foreign language aptitude research: Building and

supporting a case for “working memory as language aptitude”. Ilha Do Desterro, 60.

https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2011n60p015

Zychowicz, K., Biedroń, A., & Pawlak, M. (2017). Polish Listening SPAN: A new tool for measuring

verbal working memory. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 601–618.

https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.4.3