Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Phonological short-term memory (PSTM) capacity is the ability to retain verbal information briefly (Archibald & Gathercole, 2006). Since PSTM facilitates the storage of verbal material, one expects a positive relationship between PSTM and several aspects of second language (L2) learning. Some studies have found a relationship between PSTM and oral production skills, such as fluency (e.g., O’Brien et al., 2006). This paper reports on the results of a study that looked at the inter-relations between complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF), and between these dimensions and PSTM. One hundred and thirty-five L2 learners of Spanish participated in the study. Results showed that performance in one L2 speech dimension did not have a negative impact on performance in another dimension, but that as complexity increased or decreased, there was a better chance of fluency than accuracy also increasing or decreasing. PSTM capacity was related to complexity and fluency, but not to accuracy. These results were interpreted as lending some support to Skehan’s Trade-off Hypothesis (Skehan, 2009).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atkins, P. W. B., & Baddeley, A. D.
    (1998) Working memory and distributed vocabulary learning. Applied psycholinguistics, 19, 537–552. 10.1017/S0142716400010353
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010353 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baddeley, A.
    (2003) Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 537–552. 10.1016/S0021‑9924(03)00019‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G.
    (1974) Working memory. InG. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp.47–89). New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W.
    (2005) Working memory span tasks: A review and a user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786. 10.3758/BF03196772
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cho, M.
    (2018) Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72, 85–98. 10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  7. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A.
    (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90312‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ellis, N. C.
    (1996) Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126. 10.1017/S0272263100014698
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014698 [Google Scholar]
  9. Engle, R. W.
    (2002) Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00160
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160 [Google Scholar]
  10. Foster, P., Bolibaugh, C., & Kotula, A.
    (2014) Knowledge of nativelike selections in an L2: The influence of exposure, memory, age of onset and motivation in foreign language and immersion settings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 101–132. 10.1017/S0272263113000624
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000624 [Google Scholar]
  11. Foster, P., & Skehan, P.
    (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. 10.1017/S0272263100015047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  12. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375. 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  13. Freed, B.
    (2000) Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder?InH. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp.243–265). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gilabert, R.
    (2007) The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and +/− here-and-now: Effects on L2 oral production. InM. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in a formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilabert, R., & Munoz, C.
    (2010) Differences in attainment and performance in a foreign language: The role of working memory capacity. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 19–42. 10.6018/ijes/2010/1/113961
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/1/113961 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goo, J.
    (2012) Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474. 10.1017/S0272263112000149
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000149 [Google Scholar]
  17. Granena, G.
    (2019) Cognitive aptitudes and L2 speaking proficiency: Links between LLAMA and Hi-LAB. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 313–336. doi:  10.1017/S0272263118000256
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000256 [Google Scholar]
  18. Guiraud, P.
    (1954) Les charactères statistiques du vocabulaire. Essai de méthodologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M.
    (1992) L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38. 10.1017/S0272263100010457
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010457 [Google Scholar]
  20. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.1–19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.01hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.01hou [Google Scholar]
  21. Ishikawa, T.
    (2008) The effects of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5, 29–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S.
    (2013) The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367. 10.1111/lang.12008
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kahneman, D.
    (1973) Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W.
    (2012) Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. InA. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp.21–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kormos, J., & Trebits, A.
    (2011) Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. InP. Robinson, J. M. Norris, M. Bygate, & K. Van Den Branden (Eds.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.267–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.17ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.17ch10 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2007) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 261–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Levelt, W. J.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Levelt, W.
    (1999) ‘Language production: A blueprint for the speaker’ InC. Brown and P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, S.
    (2013) The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.12030.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Linck, J., Hughes, M., Campbell, S., Silbert, N., Tare, M., Jackson, S.,
    (2013) Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566. 10.1111/lang.12011
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12011 [Google Scholar]
  31. Malvern, D. D., & Richards, B. J.
    (1997) A new measure of lexical diversity. InA. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp.58–71). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Meara, P.
    (2005) LLAMA language aptitude tests. Swansea: Lognostics.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Michel, M., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2007) The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 241–259. 10.1515/iral.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  34. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P.
    (1998) Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. InA. F. Healey & L. J. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Nielson, K. B.
    (2014) Can planning time compensate for individual differences in working memory capacity?Language Teaching Research, 18, 272–293. 10.1177/1362168813510377
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510377 [Google Scholar]
  36. O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B.
    (2006) Phonological memory and lexical narrative, and grammatical skills in second language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377–402. 10.1017/S0142716406060322
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060322 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ortega, L.
    (1995) Planning and second language oral performance (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Hawai’i, Honolulu.
  38. Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J.
    (2002) Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. Calico Journal, 20, 7–32. 10.1558/cj.v20i1.7‑32
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v20i1.7-32 [Google Scholar]
  39. Robinson, P.
    (2001) Task Complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. InP. Robinson, M. H. Long, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2003) Attention and memory during SLA. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.631–678). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  41. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532. 10.1093/applin/amp047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2015) Limited attention capacity and cognition. InM. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp.123–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.8.05ske
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.05ske [Google Scholar]
  44. Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
    (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. 10.1177/136216889700100302
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  45. Steiger, J. H.
    (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. 10.1037/0033‑2909.87.2.245
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tagarelli, K. M., Borges Mota, M., & Rebuschat, P.
    (2015) Working memory, learning conditions, and the acquisition of L2 syntax. InZ. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp.224–247). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783093595‑017
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093595-017 [Google Scholar]
  47. Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W.
    (2005) An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. 10.3758/BF03192720
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720 [Google Scholar]
  48. Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. P. M.
    (2016) How do verbal short-term memory and working memory relate to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar? A comparison between first and second language learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 65–82. 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.015 [Google Scholar]
  49. Vermeer, A.
    (2000) Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17, 65–83. 10.1177/026553220001700103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220001700103 [Google Scholar]
  50. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D.
    (1996) The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103, 761–772. 10.1037/0033‑295X.103.4.761
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.761 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wen, Z.
    (2016) Phonological and executive working memory in L2 task-based speech planning and performance. Language Learning Journal, 44, 418–435. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1227220
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1227220 [Google Scholar]
  52. Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P.
    (2003) Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53, 177–233. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00211
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00211 [Google Scholar]
  53. Yilmaz, Y.
    (2013) Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368. 10.1093/applin/ams044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams044 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zuniga, M., & Simard, D.
    (2019) Factors influencing L2 self-repair behavior: The role of L2 proficiency, attentional control and L1 self-repair behavior. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 43–59. 10.1007/s10936‑018‑9587‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9587-2 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error