How do L2 learners and L1 writers differ in their reliance on working memory during the formulation subprocess?
Saved in:
| Title: | How do L2 learners and L1 writers differ in their reliance on working memory during the formulation subprocess? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Gunnarsson-Largy, Cecilia1 (AUTHOR) gunnars@univ-tlse2.fr, Dherbey, Nathalie2 (AUTHOR), Largy, Pierre1 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Reading & Writing. Oct2019, Vol. 32 Issue 8, p2083-2110. 28p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Short-term memory, *Cognitive load, *Authors, *Lexical access, *Experimental design, *Phonological awareness, French language |
| Abstract: | L1 and L2 writers attend to different aspects of the formulation subprocess of writing. L2 writers devote more time and attention to low-level aspects such as grammar correction and spelling (Barbier 1998; Fagan and Hayden 1988; Whalen and Ménard 1995), leading to better spelling performances than L1 writers (Gunnarsson-Largy 2013). In deep-orthography languages such as French or English, L1 writers retrieve a phonological form of the word and then tend to automatically transcribe the most frequent corresponding orthographic form, whereas L2 writers seem to directly retrieve the exact orthographic form. For L2 writers, the visuo-orthographic form of the word therefore seems to prevail over the phonological one. Accordingly, we hypothesized that L1 and L2 writers rely differently on working memory (WM). To test this hypothesis, we designed an experiment where two groups (Levels B1 and C1) of instructed L2 French learners and an L1 French control group wrote dictated sentences, with compulsory negation marking in an ambiguous phonological context. While writing, they performed a concurrent task that induced a cognitive load on either phonological or visual WM, in order to identify the nature of the form maintained in WM during semantic checking. Results indicated that L2 French learners gradually move from a visual to a more phonological form of retrieval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Reading & Writing is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 138631471 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: How do L2 learners and L1 writers differ in their reliance on working memory during the formulation subprocess? – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gunnarsson-Largy%2C+Cecilia%22">Gunnarsson-Largy, Cecilia</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> gunnars@univ-tlse2.fr</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dherbey%2C+Nathalie%22">Dherbey, Nathalie</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Largy%2C+Pierre%22">Largy, Pierre</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Reading+%26+Writing%22">Reading & Writing</searchLink>. Oct2019, Vol. 32 Issue 8, p2083-2110. 28p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Short-term+memory%22">Short-term memory</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+load%22">Cognitive load</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Authors%22">Authors</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lexical+access%22">Lexical access</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experimental+design%22">Experimental design</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonological+awareness%22">Phonological awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22French+language%22">French language</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: L1 and L2 writers attend to different aspects of the formulation subprocess of writing. L2 writers devote more time and attention to low-level aspects such as grammar correction and spelling (Barbier 1998; Fagan and Hayden 1988; Whalen and Ménard 1995), leading to better spelling performances than L1 writers (Gunnarsson-Largy 2013). In deep-orthography languages such as French or English, L1 writers retrieve a phonological form of the word and then tend to automatically transcribe the most frequent corresponding orthographic form, whereas L2 writers seem to directly retrieve the exact orthographic form. For L2 writers, the visuo-orthographic form of the word therefore seems to prevail over the phonological one. Accordingly, we hypothesized that L1 and L2 writers rely differently on working memory (WM). To test this hypothesis, we designed an experiment where two groups (Levels B1 and C1) of instructed L2 French learners and an L1 French control group wrote dictated sentences, with compulsory negation marking in an ambiguous phonological context. While writing, they performed a concurrent task that induced a cognitive load on either phonological or visual WM, in order to identify the nature of the form maintained in WM during semantic checking. Results indicated that L2 French learners gradually move from a visual to a more phonological form of retrieval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Reading & Writing is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=138631471 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11145-019-09941-y Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 28 StartPage: 2083 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Short-term memory Type: general – SubjectFull: Cognitive load Type: general – SubjectFull: Authors Type: general – SubjectFull: Lexical access Type: general – SubjectFull: Experimental design Type: general – SubjectFull: Phonological awareness Type: general – SubjectFull: French language Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: How do L2 learners and L1 writers differ in their reliance on working memory during the formulation subprocess? Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Gunnarsson-Largy, Cecilia – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Dherbey, Nathalie – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Largy, Pierre IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 10 Text: Oct2019 Type: published Y: 2019 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 09224777 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 32 – Type: issue Value: 8 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading & Writing Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
