1887
Volume 14, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Multiple theories predict that word learning is intimately linked to episodic memory, at least in the early phases of learning. However, it is unclear to what degree this link reflects more domain-specific (i.e., those dedicated to language or the lexicon) or more domain-general episodic memory processes that operate outside of language. One way to address this possibility is by using a behavioral individual differences design. This study examined whether behavioral individual differences in episodic memory abilities predicted adult word learning abilities. If behavioral performance in a nonlinguistic episodic memory task is predictive of behavioral performance in word learning, then it is likely that they share a common underlying nonlinguistic, memory-based mechanism. The results revealed that individual differences in episodic memory abilities predicted word learning abilities shortly after learning but not two days later. These behavioral results are consistent with prior neuropsychological observations (e.g., in amnesia: Kensinger, Ullman, & Corkin, 2001) as well as with theories positing a shift in reliance in lexical development from episodic memory to a distributed neocortical memory system after a period of sleep (e.g., Davis & Gaskell, 2009).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19019.ham
2020-05-13
2020-09-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using {lme4}. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:  10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  2. Breitenstein, C., Jansen, A., Deppe, M., Foerster, A.-F., Sommer, J., Wolbers, T., & Knecht, S.
    (2005) Hippocampus activity differentiates good from poor learners of a novel lexicon. NeuroImage, 25(3), 958–968. doi:  10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.019 [Google Scholar]
  3. Davis, M. H., Di Betta, A. M., Macdonald, M. J., & Gaskell, M. G.
    (2009) Learning and consolidation of novel spoken words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(4), 803–820. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21059
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21059 [Google Scholar]
  4. Davis, M. H., & Gaskell, M. G.
    (2009) A complementary systems account of word learning: neural and behavioural evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1536), 3773–3800. 10.1098/rstb.2009.0111
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0111 [Google Scholar]
  5. Eichenbaum, H.
    (2012) The cognitive neuroscience of memory: an introduction (2nd ed). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans, V.
    (2009) How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Retrieved fromwww.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001/acprof-9780199234660. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gaskell, M. G., & Ellis, A. W.
    (2009) Word learning and lexical development across the lifespan. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1536), 3607–3615. doi:  10.1098/rstb.2009.0213
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0213 [Google Scholar]
  8. Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B., & Hirsh-Pasek, K.
    (1994) Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language, 21, 125–155. 10.1017/S0305000900008692
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900008692 [Google Scholar]
  9. Hamrick, P.
    (2015) Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in incidental language learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 9–15. doi:  10.1016/j.lindif.2015.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hamrick, P., Lum, J. A. G., & Ullman, M. T.
    (2018) Child first language and adult second language are both tied to general-purpose learning systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(7), 1487–1492. doi:  10.1073/pnas.1713975115
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713975115 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hamrick, P., & Rebuschat, P.
    (2012) How implicit is statistical learning?InP. Rebuschat & J. N. Williams (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition. (pp.365–382). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hamrick, P., & Sachs, R.
    (2018) Establishing evidence of learning in experiments with artificial linguistic systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(1), 153–169. 10.1017/S0272263116000474
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000474 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T.
    (2002) The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. doi:  10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jiang, N., & Forster, K. I.
    (2001) Cross-Language Priming Asymmetries in Lexical Decision and Episodic Recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(1), 32–51. doi:  10.1006/jmla.2000.2737
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2737 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kensinger, E. A., Ullman, M. T., & Corkin, S.
    (2001) Bilateral medial temporal lobe damage does not affect lexical or grammatical processing: evidence from amnesic patient H.M. Hippocampus, 11(4), 347–360. doi:  10.1002/hipo.1049
    https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.1049 [Google Scholar]
  16. Markman, E. M.
    (1990) Constraints children place on word meanings. Cognitive Science, 14, 57–77. 10.1207/s15516709cog1401_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_4 [Google Scholar]
  17. Markson, L., & Bloom, P.
    (1997) Evidence against a dedicated system for word learning in children. Nature, 385(6619), 813–815. doi:  10.1038/385813a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/385813a0 [Google Scholar]
  18. Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. C. M.
    (2014) Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 56–72. doi:  10.1017/S1366728912000715
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000715 [Google Scholar]
  19. Pufahl, A., & Samuel, A. G.
    (2014) How lexical is the lexicon? Evidence for integrated auditory memory representations. Cognitive Psychology, 70, 1–30. doi:  10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Qiao, X. & Forster, K. I.
    (2013) Novel word lexicalization and the prime lexicality effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1064–1074.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Qiao, X., & Forster, K. I.
    (2017) Is the L2 lexicon different from the L1 lexicon? Evidence from novel word lexicalization. Cognition, 158, 147–152. 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.026
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.026 [Google Scholar]
  22. Qiao, X., Forster, K. I., & Witzel, N.
    (2009) Is banara really a word?Cognition, 113, 254–257. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  23. Smith, L. B.
    (2001) How domain-general processes may create domain-specific biases. InM. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development. (pp.101–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620669.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620669.006 [Google Scholar]
  24. Takashima, A., Bakker, I., van Hell, J. G., Janzen, G., & McQueen, J. M.
    (2017) Interaction between episodic and semantic memory networks in the acquisition and consolidation of novel spoken words. Brain and Language, 167, 44–60. doi:  10.1016/j.bandl.2016.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  25. Trahan, D. E., & Larrabee, G. J.
    (1988) Continuous Visual Memory Test. Odessa, FL: Assessment Resources.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ullman, M. T.
    (2004) Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1–2), 231–270. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  27. [Google Scholar]
  28. (2015) The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. InTheories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp.135–158). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2016) The Declarative/Procedural Model. InNeurobiology of Language (pp.953–968). Retrieved fromlinkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780124077942000766. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑407794‑2.00076‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00076-6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ullman, M. T., Lum, J. A. G., & Conti-Ramsden, G. M.
    (2014) Domain specificity in language development. InP. Brooks & V. Kempe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Languages Development (pp.163–166). Los Angeles: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Witzel, N. O., & Forster, K. I.
    (2012) How L2 words are stored: the episodic L2 hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1608–1621. doi:  10.1037/a0028072
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028072 [Google Scholar]
  32. Yee, E., Jones, M., & McRae, K.
    (2018) Semantic memory. InJ. Wixted & S. Thompson-Schill (Eds.), The Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience (4th ed., Vol.3, pp.319–356). New York: Wiley. 10.1002/9781119170174.epcn309
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn309 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19019.ham
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19019.ham
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): episodic memory , individual differences and word learning
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