Second Language Acquisition

Hannah Roddy 3rd year

Mini-systematic review of Working Memory in Bilingualism/ L2 learners

Introduction:

Working memory has been described as a “temporary storage system” and a type of interactive processing aiding in the retrieval and processing of information within our short-term memory (Wen, 2016), (Martin, Jaime, Ramos, & Robles, 2021). It is composed of four subsections. Those being the central executive which oversees attentional control, the phonological loop which handles auditory processing, the visuospatial sketchpad to store both visual and spatial information, and lastly the episodic buffer, which was later proposed to store visual and verbal coding as well as material quantities (Baddeley, 2003).

Working memory’s relationship with language learning and language use has been a topic of extensive research specifically in regard to bilingualism. Barker & Bialystok (2019) suggested that bilingualism can enhance certain executive controls, but do these enhancements transcend into working memory capacities? The aim of this mini-systematic review is to explore the research conducted within working memory and bilingualism/L2 learners from the journal Bilingualism: Language and Cognition between 2017 and 2022. This will be done by analysing what theories and hypotheses were constructed throughout research as well as the method used, and general findings discussed throughout.

Theories:

When investigating earlier research in this field, a range of theories and models were discussed. A common theme was the discussion of the working memory model. Baddeley’s (2003) working memory model was discussed to form a foundation of research by Morrison, Kamal, Le & Taler (2020) to assist in gaining an initial understanding of how working memory operates and which subsets oversee certain cognitive functions. This model later informed the decision of which task should be administered to target working memory. Similarly, relationships between the phonological loop and language acquisition were discussed regarding working memory and second language acquisition

(Atkins & Baddeley, 1998) by Morrison & Taler (2022) when referencing its controls over attention and problem-solving. Blom, Kuntay, Messer, Varhagen & Leseman (2014) was referenced by Cockcroft, Wigdorowitz, & Liversage (2017) to explore how bilinguals typically outperformed monolinguals when working memory demands were expanded for both verbal and visuospatial processing. This was further research addressing the working memory model (Baddeley, 2003). A second common area of literature covered was cognitive variables. Wamington, Kandru-Pothineni & Hitch (2018) discussed the concept of learning being concerned with the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Learning is shown to be enabled by cognitive controls such as executive processes (Abrahamse, Braem, Notebaert, & Verguts, 2016). This was similarly discussed in Yu & Dong’s (2021) research on the Dynamic System theory which bases the role of interaction around variables becoming a crucial part of motivation for development. Other cognitive variables explored within their topic include monolingual readers’ ability to subcategorize features (Van Gompel & Pickering, 2001). This was noted by Brothers, Hoversten, & Traxler (2021) as they aimed to test if this differs for bilinguals and how it affects working memory performance. Continuous research has been performed throughout this field on whether bilinguals have underlying advantages compared to monolinguals. Following this, there are also texts which explore whether or not interpreting students have preexisting enhancements prior to training in comparison to translation students (Babcock, Capizzi, Arbula, & Vallesi, 2017). In Nour, Struys & Stengers (2020) research exploring this showed none. Kuperberg & Jaegar (2016) were referenced by both Coulter et al (2020) and Ito, Corley, & Pickering (2017), who explore different aspects of working memory’s effects on bilingualism. Ito focused on how constructs are made by participants which can aid in the prediction of what may be to come. Coulter et al (2020) was mainly focused on how N400 amplitudes reflect working memory functions. It was discussed that N400 can make identifying semantic access within language comprehension easier. Other ways of measuring neural activity were also important within this topic. Kok (2001) was cited by Morrison, Kamal, & Taler (2019) regarding P300 latency scores. These scores measure the processing speed of information which is believed to be increased within bilinguals. This was suggested to be because of a higher number of cognitive resources.

Methods:

Electroencephalography (EEG) was a common practice within the research of working memory and bilingualism (Coulter, et al., 2020), (Morrison & Taler, 2022), (Morrison, Kamal, & Taler, 2019), & (Morrison, Kamal, Le, & Taler, 2020). It was used to track brain activity when completing certain working memory tasks such as the following: both forwards and backwards digit span tasks, letter and number sequencing tasks, Stroop tasks, Wisconsin card sorting tasks, Boston naming tasks and the written and verbal digit substitution subset of the Wechsler adult intelligence scale-III. However, Coulter et al (2020) administered fewer of these tasks. EEG was used to help examine how bilingualism directly affects working memory (Morrison, Kamal, & Taler, 2019) as well as the differences in neural activity between monolinguals and bilinguals (Morrison, Kamal, Le, & Taler, 2020). The effects of other features such as linguistic distance (Morrison & Taler, 2022) and semantic context (Coulter, et al., 2020) on enhancements to working memory for bilinguals were also analysed through this process. Throughout the EEG testing, most participants were in the 18 to 30-year-old age group and all were university students.

Eye tracking was also an important part of data collection for research carried out on this topic. Both Brothers, Hoversten, & Traxler (2021) and Ito, Corley, & Pickering (2017) used the Eyelink 1000 software within their research to explore whether working memory had an effect on sentence processing for bilinguals (Brothers, Hoversten, & Traxler, 2021) as well as whether proficiency and cognitive load affect predictive eye movement (Ito, Corley, & Pickering, 2017). Both studies recruited university students who were either native English-speaking monolinguals or late bilinguals. While both were tracking eye movement, the tasks used to measure working memory were completely different for both studies. Brothers, Hoversten & Traxler (2021) had participants complete an individual differences test battery including the forward digit span task and an operation task-specific to working memory. Ito, Corley & Pickering (2017) focused more on eye movement when faced with auditory and visual stimuli.

The effects of interpreting on working memory were explored by both Nour, Struys, & Stengers (2020) and Yu & Dong (2021). In these research papers, forwards, backwards and sequencing digit span tasks were administered as well as reading span tasks. Experiment procedures differed according to the slight differences in research topics. The research focused on interpreting training’s effects on working memory administered an additional LEAP-Q to measure the proficiency of participants (Nour, Struys, & Stengers, 2020). Research on the relationship between interpreting competence and training administered the listening span task, TEM 4, TEM 8 and a CI performance task (Yu & Dong, 2021). There was a vast difference in participants within these studies. Yu & Dong (2021) focused on Chinese undergraduate students pre- and post-interpreting masters courses while Nour, Struys & Stengers (2020) compared interpreting students with translation students prior to and after training, as well as later comparing them to interpreting professionals.

Bilingualism’s effects on working memory were also studied by Wamington, Kandru-Pothineni, & Hitch (2018) and Cockcroft, Wigdorowitz, & Liversage (2017). Both had participants consisting of monolinguals and bilinguals which complete digit recall, nonword recall, listening recall, dot matrix task, block recall, odd one out task and special recall. Cockcroft, Wigdorowitz & Liversage (2017) did, however, carry out further testing consisting of automated working memory assessments, word recall, counting recall, backwards digit recall, mazes memory task and the Mister X task. Their research differed method-wise due to slight variance in topics, as Cockcroft, Wigdorowitz and Liversage’s study concerns multilinguals as well as bilinguals. While Wamington, KandruPothnineni & Hitch (2018) were also focused on whether bilingualism creates advantages within working memory capacities, they were also exploring if these advantages translated into novel word learning.

Findings:

In half of the studies discussed in this mini systematic review, results suggest that working memory and bilingualism are indeed related somehow. When exploring different neural activities between monolinguals and bilinguals, it was shown that bilinguals do demonstrate enhanced working memory capacities and other cognitive processes such as inhibition control (Morrison, Kamal, Le, & Taler, 2020), (Wamington, Kandru-Pothineni, & Hitch, 2018). Bilinguals have different processes by which they retrieve information to monolinguals (Morrison, Kamal, Le, & Taler, 2020). This could be due to working memory’s role within language competence. Results also showed that language experience is directly related to working memory capacities as larger amounts of experience correlated with larger capacities (Yu & Dong, 2021). Similarly, when putting this research in the context of interpreting training, it was shown that working memory was also related to improvement within this setting (Nour, Struys, & Stengers, 2020). Monolinguals did show a larger N2 score when completing working memory tasks, showing a greater amount of effort needed to complete certain cognitive functions (Morrison & Taler, 2022).

This was suggested to be a difference within processing taking place within the phonological loop subsection of working memory.

On the other hand, the other half of this research typically showed a lack of contrast between working memory within bilinguals compared to monolinguals. It was commonly demonstrated that the monolinguals and bilinguals had no significant differences in working memory use (Brothers, Hoversten, & Traxler, 2021), (Morrison, Kamal, & Taler, 2019), (Cockcroft, Wigdorowitz, & Liversage, 2017). In more specific areas of research conducted there was a greater relationship between executive functions in regard to subcategorization, novel word learning and multilinguals than there were relationships for working memory (Brothers, Hoversten, & Traxler, 2021), (Cockcroft, Wigdorowitz, & Liversage, 2017), (Wamington, Kandru-Pothineni, & Hitch, 2018). This could suggest that working memory plays a larger role in generalised research while more specific areas are overseen by differing cognitive functions.

More specific research conducted around semantic context and eye tracking related to cognitive load also showed limited differences between monolinguals and bilinguals (Coulter, et al., 2020) (Ito, Corley, & Pickering, 2017).

Working memory was shown to delay certain predictive eye movements as more cognitive resources were needed to complete certain tasks within the experiment. However, this was common throughout both bilinguals and monolinguals showing no significant difference related to bilingualism (Ito, Corley, & Pickering, 2017). While it was found bilinguals do benefit from certain semantic contexts, there was no significant N400 effect portrayed with working memory (Coulter, et al., 2020). When testing semantic context’s relationships with bilingualism and working memory, it was suggested it may differ for an older participant pool or experimenting with participants who have hearing disabilities, and research should be carried out specifically catered to this.

Conclusion:

Overall, there is an extensive amount of research surrounding working memory in bilingualism and L2 learners. From recent research, we can assume that there are differences between monolinguals and bilinguals in regard to working memory capacities. However, it is unclear which specific subset of these capacities is expanded due to language learning. I would suggest that going forward, research should be conducted with older participant pools in order to see if age is a variable affecting working memory within a bilingual setting. If another minisystematic review were to be completed, I would draw from multiple journals as sources to further compare methodologies and findings across a larger scale.

References:

Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin , 693-728.

Atkins, P. W., & Baddeley, A. D. (1998). working memory and distributed vocabulary learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 537-552.

Babcock, I., Capizzi, M., Arbula, S., & Vallesi, A. (2017). Shortterm memory imporovment after simultaneous interpretation training. Journal of Cognitive enhancement , 254-267.

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and langauge: an overview. Journal of communication disorders, 198-208.

Barker, R., & Bialystok, E. (2019). Processing differences between monolingual and bilingual young adults on an emoticon nback task. Brain and cognition, 29-43.

Blom, E., Kuntay, A. C., Messer, M., Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. (2014). The benefits of being bilingual: Working memory in bilingual Turkish-Dutch children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 105-119.

Brothers, T., Hoversten, L. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2021). Bilinguals on the garden path: Individual differences in syntactic ambiguity resolution . Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 612-627.

Cockcroft, K., Wigdorowitz, M., & Liversage, L. (2017). A multilingual advantage in the components of working memory . Bilingualism: Langauge and cognition, 15-29.

Coulter, K., Gilbert, A. C., Kousaie, S., Baum, S., Gracco, V. L., Klein, D., . . . Phillips, N. A. (2020). Bilinguals benefit from semantic context while perceiving speech in noise in both of their langauges: Electrophisiological evidence from the N400 ERP. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 344-357.

Ito, A., Corley, M., & Pickering, M. J. (2017). A cognitive load delays predictive eye movements similarly during L1 and L2. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 251-264.

Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 557-577.

Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in langauge comprehension. Language & Neuroscience , 32-59.

Martin, L., Jaime, K., Ramos, F., & Robles, F. (2021). declarative working memory: A bio-inspired cognitive architecture proposal. Cognitive system research, 30.

Morrison, C., & Taler, V. (2022). ERP differences between monolinguals and bilinguals: the role of linguistic distance . Bilingualism: Langauge and Cognition , 1-14.

Morrison, C., Kamal, F., & Taler, V. (2019). The influence of bilingualism on working memory event-related potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 191-199.

Morrison, C., Kamal, F., Le, K., & Taler, V. (2020). Monolinguals and bilinguals respond differently to a delayed matching-tosample task: An ERP study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 858-868.

Nour, S., Struys, E., & Stengers, H. (2020). Adaptive control in interpreters: Assessing the impact of training and experience on working memory. Bilinguals: language and Cognition, 772-779.

Van Gompel, R. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2001). Lexical guidance in sentence processing: A note on Adams, Clifton and Mitchell (1998). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8, 851-857.

Wamington, M. A., Kandru-Pothineni, S., & Hitch, G. J. (2018). Novel-word learning, executive control and working memory: A bilingual advantage. Bilingualism: Langauge and cognition, 763-782.

Wen, E. (2016). Phonological and executive working memory in L2 based speech planning and performance . Langugae learning journal, 418-435.

Yu, Z., & Dong, Y. (2021). The emergence of a complex language skill: Evidence from the self-organization of interpreting competence in interpreting students. Bilingualism: Language and cognition , 269-282.