Attention control, working memory, and second language experience in second language performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".