Cover not available
Part of
Cognitive Individual Differences in Second Language Processing and Acquisition
Edited by Gisela Granena, Daniel O. Jackson and Yucel Yilmaz
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 3] 2016
► pp. 205–222

Working memory and L2 English speakers’ primed and subsequent production of passives

 | Concordia University
 | Georgia State University
Although first language researchers have investigated the relationship between individual differences and structural priming (Kaschak, Kutta, & Jones 2011; Kidd 2012a, b), fewer studies have explored this relationship in second language (L2) speech production (McDonough, Kielstra, Crowther, & Smith 2016). This chapter describes an empirical study that tested the relationship between English L2 speakers’ (N = 64) primed and subsequent production of passives and working memory. Results indicated a significant positive correlation between the participants’ primed production and working memory scores, but only when no intervening material occurred between prime and target sentences. Furthermore, there was no relationship between their subsequent production of passives and working memory scores. Implications are discussed in terms of dual-account explanations of structural priming.
Article outline
  • 1.Method
    • 1.1Participants
    • 1.2Design
    • 1.3Materials
      • 1.3.1Priming task
      • 1.3.2Baseline and post-priming production task
    • 1.4Working memory test
    • 1.5Procedure
    • 1.6Analysis
  • 2.Results
  • 3.Discussion
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 23 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.3.10mcd
References (49)
References
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biria, R., Ameri-Golestan, A., and Antón-Méndez, I. (2010). Syntactic priming effects between modalities: A study of indirect questions/requests among Persian English learners. English Language Teaching, 3, 111–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31, 163–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., Dell, G. S., Chang, F., & Onishi, K. (2007). Structural persistence from language comprehension to language production. Cognition, 104, 437–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bringing the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Cleland, A. (1999). Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 635–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Validating running memory span: Measurement of working memory capacity and links with fluid intelligence. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 563–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F. (2008). Implicit learning as a mechanism of language change. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 115–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G., Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 217–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Janciauskas, M., & Fitz, H. (2012). Language adaptation and learning: Getting explicit about implicit learning. Language and Linguistics Compass 6/5, 259–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. J. (1997). Children’s memory scales. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Conroy, M. & Antón-Méndez, I. (2015). A preposition is something you can end a sentence with: Learning English stranded prepositions through structural priming. Second Language Research, 31, 211–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conway, C. M., Bauernschmidt, A., Huang, S. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010). Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key. Cognition, 114, 356–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J., Kerr, B., & Streissguth, A. P. (1995). Correlational analyses of procedural and declarative learning performance. Intelligence, 20, 87–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., & Bock, K. (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 1011–1029. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., Bock, K., Wilson, M. P., & Cohen, N. J. (2008). Memory for syntax despite amnesia. Psychological Science, 19, 940–946. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gomez, R. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13, 431–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., & Vanderelst, D. (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Kutta, T. J., & Coyle, J. M. (2014). Long and short term cumulative structural priming effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 728–743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Kutta, T. J., & Jones, J. L. (2011). Structural priming as implicit learning: Cumulative priming effects and individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 1133–1139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Kutta, T. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Memory & Cognition, 39, 381–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jimenez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E. (2012a). Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Developmental Psychology, 48, 171–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b). Individual differences in syntactic priming in language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 393–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutta, T., & Kashak, M. (2012). Changes in task-extrinsic context do not affect the persistence of long-term cumulative structural priming. Acta Psychologica, 141, 408–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Altmann, G., & St Claire, M. (2013). Priming of verb inflections in L1 and L2 French: A comparison of ‘redundant’ versus ‘non-redundant’ training conditions. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 51, 271–298.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 179–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Eliciting wh-questions through collaborative syntactic priming activities during peer interaction. In P. Trofimovich, & K. McDonough (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching, and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp. 131–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, (2014). Using structural priming tasks in an EAP context. Contact, 40(2), 51–67.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2012). Prompt type frequency, auditory pattern discrimination, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 355–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., Kielstra, P., Crowther, D., & Smith, G. (2016). Structural priming in L2 speech production: Examining relationships among English L2 speakers’ production, cognitive abilities, and awareness. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 112–131). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 386–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M., & Ferreira, V. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Psychological Corporation. (1997). WAIS-III – WMS-III technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Raven, J. (2004). Coloured Progressive Matrices and Chrichton Vocabulary Scale. London: Pearson Assessment.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reitter, D., Keller, F., & Moore, J. D. (2011). A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 35, 587–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C., Chang, F., Ambridge, B., Pine, J., & Lieven, E., (2012). The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition, 125, 49–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, J. A., & Christianson, K. (2012). Structural priming and second language learning. Language Learning, 62, 931–964. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In J. S. B. T. Evans, & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55–88). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Individual differences in working memory capacity and learning: Evidence from the serial reaction time task. Memory & Cognition, 33, 213–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wheeldon, L., & Smith, M. (2003). Phrase structure priming: A short-lived effect. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 431–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Lee, Andrew H.
2024. The effects of proactive form-focused instruction and individual differences on second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research 28:6 ► pp. 2354 ff. DOI logo
Li, Shaofeng
2024. Individual differences and task-based language teaching. In Individual Differences and Task-Based Language Teaching [Task-Based Language Teaching, 16], ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
Kim, YouJin, Stephen Skalicky & YeonJoo Jung
2020. The Role of Linguistic Alignment on Question Development in Face‐to‐Face and Synchronous Computer‐Mediated Communication Contexts: A Conceptual Replication Study. Language Learning 70:3 ► pp. 643 ff. DOI logo
Kim, YouJin, YeonJoo Jung & Stephen Skalicky
2019. LINGUISTIC ALIGNMENT, LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS, AND THE PRODUCTION OF STRANDED PREPOSITIONS IN RELATIVE CLAUSES. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41:5 ► pp. 937 ff. DOI logo
Jackson, Carrie N.
2018. Second language structural priming: A critical review and directions for future research. Second Language Research 34:4 ► pp. 539 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.