Attention control, working memory, and second language experience in second language performance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research investigated the roles of linguistic attention control and working memory (WM), and second language (L2) experience that may underlie L2 proficiency. A series of three experiments were conducted in which the L2-specific index was computed by subtracting the L1 RT from the L2 RT. Participants were English-French bilinguals whose levels of proficiency in the L2 were operationalized as lexical access on a speeded living/nonliving semantic classification task. Experiment I investigated the hypothesis that there was a greater difficulty of shifting attention with grammaticized elements as opposed to concrete and abstract nouns in both L1 and L2. Attention control was operationalized as efficiency of attention shift judgments in a nonmatching-to-sample task with concrete, abstract, and grammaticized words as stimuli. Experiment II explored the hypothesis that there existed a relationship between a language-specific form of grammatical attention and working memory in L2 performance, after controlling for general attention and WM skills. In a reading memory span task WM reading comprehension was operationalized as efficiency of reading sentences, and WM storage capacity was operationalized as the number of recalled words. Experiment III tested the hypothesis about whether there existed a relationship between L2-specific idiom recognition skills and certain social and communicative aspects of L2 exposure and practice. The dependent measure of critical interest from the living/nonliving task was the measure of processing efficiency. The coefficient of variation (CV) of the RT provided this measure of efficiency. L2 proficiency was assessed by partialling out the L1 CV from the L2 CV. Idiom recognition skill was operationalized as speed of deciding an idiom is correctly expressed or not. The Montreal Index of Linguistic Integration provided self-report measures of contact with speakers in the L1 and the L2 where experience using everyday idioms was likely to be had. As predicted, the present findings support the view that proficiency in the L2 is associated with basic cognitive processes such as linguistic attention or executive control and WM, and the amount and type of contact the L2 learner has with members of the L2 community.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».