Phonological Memory and Implications for the Second Language

Classroom

Kirsten M. Hummel, Leif M. French

The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues

vivantes, Volume 66, Number 3, March / mars 2010, pp. 371-391 (Article)

Published by University of Toronto Press

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/376734

Access provided by University of Warwick (20 Oct 2017 18:08 GMT)

 Phonological Memory and
Implications for the Second
Language Classroom

Kirsten M. Hummel
Leif M. French

Abstract: There is mounting evidence that phonological memory

(PM), a sub-component of working memory, is closely related to various
aspects of second language (L2) learning in a variety of populations,
suggesting that PM may be an essential cognitive mechanism underlying
successful L2 acquisition. This article provides a brief critical review of the
role of PM in the L2 context, examines the issue of trainability associated with
PM, and discusses pedagogical techniques that may facilitate or enhance
PM function in the L2 classroom. Communicative classrooms, as a result of
their emphasis on oral input, place heavy processing demands on PM. The
authors argue that more recourse to audio-lingual activities and reliance on
written and visual support, including text-supported oral input, may help to
offset the burden on PM and enhance L2 learning, particularly for individuals
with low PM capacity.

Keywords: phonological memory (PM), second language learning,

individual differences

Resume : Il est de plus en plus manifeste que la memoire phonolo-

gique (MP), une sous-composante de la memoire de travail, est etroitement liee
a differents aspects de lapprentissage dune langue seconde (L2) chez diverses
populations, ce qui suggere que la MP peut etre un mecanisme cognitif
essentiel a la reussite de lapprentissage dune langue seconde. Le present
article offre un resume critique du role de la MP dans le contexte L2, examine la
question de laptitude a la formation associee a la MP, et discute des methodes
pedagogiques pouvant faciliter ou ameliorer la fonction MP dans une classe L2.
En particulier, les auteurs font valoir que les classes communicatives, parce
quelles sont axees sur la communication orale, imposent une charge intensive
a la MP lors du traitement, et que le fait davoir davantage recours a des acti-
vites audio-orales et de se fier plus globalement a un support visuel et ecrit, y
compris la communication orale a laide dun texte, peut aider a reduire la
pression sur la MP et permettre alors dameliorer lapprentissage de la langue
seconde, en particulier pour les personnes ayant une faible memoire
phonologique.

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391 doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.3.371
372 Hummel and French

Mots cles : memoire phonologique, apprentissage dune langue

seconde, differences individuelles

Second language (L2) teachers have long observed that learners vary
enormously in both their rate of learning and their ultimate achieve-
ment levels. A number of factors are thought to contribute to such indi-
vidual variation, including instructional context (e.g., Wesche, 1981),
the degree and type of motivation learners bring to the classroom
and its tasks (e.g., Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994; Gardner,
Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997; Noels, 2001; Oxford & Shearin, 1994),
and the age at which instruction begins (e.g., Johnson & Newport,
1989; Oyama, 1976). Working memory (WM), and in particular phono-
logical memory (PM), has increasingly been linked to success in
various aspects of L2 acquisition across research settings, including
the classroom.
Although recent L2 research with both children and adults suggests
that PM may play a direct role in the development of vocabulary (e.g.,
French, 2006; Service & Kohonen, 1995) and grammar skills (e.g.,
French & OBrien, 2008; Williams & Lovatt, 2005), as well as in oral
fluency (e.g., French, 2009; OBrien, Segalowitz, Collentine, & Freed,
2006; OBrien, Segalowitz, Freed, & Collentine, 2007), there has been
a notable lack of review of existing research on the relevance of PM
to L2 teaching. This brief review is an attempt to fill this gap by eval-
uating evidence for the relationship between PM and L2 learning
and by discussing possible implications for the L2 classroom.

Phonological memory and L1 acquisition

Current views consider working memory to be a limited-capacity

system responsible for the simultaneous storage and processing of
information in real time, such as takes place during the comprehension
of verbal material. One crucial sub-component of working memory is
often referred to as phonological memory. (Other terms found in the lit-
erature include verbal short-term memory, phonological working memory,
phonological short-term memory, and phonological loop.) Phonological
memory has been considered to play a prominent role within the
highly influential working memory framework developed by
Baddeley and colleagues (e.g., Baddeley, 1986; Baddeley & Hitch,
1974), which views working memory as consisting of several com-
ponents (see Figure 1): (1) a central executive, an attention control

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 373

system responsible for integrating information from different working

memory subsystems and long-term memory, allocating resources, and
overseeing basic working memory operations; (2) the phonological
loop, responsible for the temporary maintenance of acoustic- or
speech-based material; (3) the visuo-spatial sketchpad, which
handles visual images and spatial information; and (4) an episodic
buffer, involved in the binding of information from subsidiary
systems and long-term memory into a unitary episodic representation
(Baddeley, 2000).
The phonological loop, considered to sub-serve phonological
memory, has been by far the most examined working memory
subsystem and is thought to be largely responsible for the temporary
maintenance of acoustic- or verbal-based information. In the phonological
loop system, encoded information or representations are believed to
decay rapidlyusually within two secondsunless rehearsed
subvocally.
Phonological memory has been highlighted as a potentially impor-
tant source of individual differences in information processing in first
language (L1) acquisition (for reviews, see, for example, Baddeley,
1986; Baddeley, 1996; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993) and in second
language (L2) learning (Gathercole & Thorn, 1998; Harrington &
Sawyer, 1992; Papagno, Valentine, & Baddeley, 1991).
Typical tasks used to measure PM include digit- and word-span
tasks, requiring repetition of sequences of digits or words. It has
been pointed out, however, that such tasks reflect knowledge of
already familiar items and therefore include input from long-term
memory (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993, p. 48). To lessen the contri-
bution of long-term memory, a non-word repetition task is more
often used, in which participants are asked to repeat non-words of

FIGURE 1
Multi-component working memory model (sources: Baddeley, 1986, 2000;
Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
374 Hummel and French

various syllable lengths. Other tasks involving non-words, such as

non-word span and serial non-word recognition, have also been used
as a measure of PM. The non-words generally consist of semantically
empty items that follow the phonotactic structure of real words (e.g.,
bannifer, thickery, stopograttic). Some studies indicate a correlation
between such tasks and vocabulary development in young children
(Adams & Gathercole, 1996; Avons, Wragg, Cupples, & Lovegrove,
1998; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989; Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, &
Baddeley, 1992). Findings in these studies suggest that PM supports
the long-term learning of new sound patterns and, as such, is closely
linked to L1 vocabulary acquisition.
Although a robust relationship has been reported between
non-word repetition tasks and L1 vocabulary learning, some studies
employing these tasks appear to indicate that PM may play a declining
role in L1 vocabulary development from as early as five years
(Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989; Gathercole et al., 1992). Gathercole and
Baddeley (1989) reported that PM predicted vocabulary development
between four and five years old, while the reverse relationship was
reported in the five- to six-year-old period. This decreasing effect of
PM involvement in older children has been attributed to the increasing
role played by long-term phonological and lexical knowledge as a
childs vocabulary grows.
However, it appears that while contributions from PM to vocabulary
learning generally decrease as a function of increased vocabulary size
in older children (see also Jarrold, Baddeley, Hewes, Leeke, & Phillips,
2004), they do not disappear altogether. In one study, Gathercole and
her colleagues (Gathercole, Service, Hitch, Adams, & Martin, 1999)
found a correlation between phonological memory skill and vocabu-
lary knowledge in children as old as 13, although the size of the corre-
lation was smaller than that usually reported with young children. This
suggests that PM may remain important for individuals whose lexical
knowledge is well beyond the early stages of development.

Phonological memory and L2 acquisition

Paralleling the focus on the phonological loop found in the L1 litera-

ture, research has also examined the role of PM in L2 learning in a
variety of experimental settings. Overall, the research findings are gen-
erally positive, pointing to a specific role for PM in L2 acquisition with
children and adults across various levels of L2 proficiency.

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 375

In particular, Services (1992) longitudinal study reported a strong

relationship between PM (as measured by non-word repetition) at
the start of English instruction and the performance of
Finnish-speaking elementary school children on tests of reading and
listening comprehension as well as written production nearly three
years later. In a follow-up study over a longer period, Service and
Kohonen (1995) found that the relationship between PM (again
non-word repetition) and L2 tasks such a reading comprehension
was evidence of a specific relationship between PM and vocabulary
acquisition. Applying a similar longitudinal design, Dufva and
Voetens (1999) study showed that both native language literacy and
phonological memory had positive effects on foreign language
(English) learning when Finnish-speaking Grade 1 students were
later examined on English listening comprehension and active vocabu-
lary skills at the end of Grade 3. Together, the findings from these and
other developmental studies (e.g., French, 2006) point to PM as a strong
predictor of L2 achievement, particularly vocabulary acquisition,
during the early school years.
Other studies have reported a direct link between PM and childrens
vocabulary development (Masoura & Gathercole, 1999, 2005); however,
the extent of the relation is not always clear. For example, Masoura and
Gathercole (1999) found significant correlations between both L1
(Greek) and L2 (English) vocabulary measures and non-word rep-
etition tasks in each language in 8- to 11-year-old children. Since the
children had already received an average of three academic years of
English language study, it is likely that they had already gained
some familiarity with English phonotactics and word structure. It is
difficult to determine, therefore, to what extent the association found
in this study between high English vocabulary scores and high per-
formance on the English-based non-word repetition task consisting
of items with a high degree of wordlikeness may be attributed pri-
marily to students pre-existing familiarity with English.
In intensive ESL programs, PM has also been directly linked to chil-
drens actual L2 improvement in both vocabulary (productive and
receptive) and grammar skill (morphosyntactic knowledge). Using
non-word repetition tasks, French (2006) examined the PM of
French-speaking elementary school children at the start of a five-month
intensive ESL program and found that PM strongly predicted increases
in individuals ability to understand and use new vocabulary at the
end of the program, even after taking into account the effects of
general intelligence, school motivation, and prior L2 skill. In a sub-
sequent study with ESL intensive learners, French and OBrien (2008)

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
376 Hummel and French

investigated the relationship between PM and performance on a discrete-

point grammar test designed to assess knowledge of the morphosyn-
tactic structures (tense, aspect, inflections, negation, question form,
adjective order, and possessive determiners), that are typically
covered in a five-month intensive curriculum and that also pose a par-
ticular challenge to young francophone learners. The findings clearly
showed that non-word repetition accuracy significantly predicted
gains in morphosyntactic knowledge at the end of the program and
that the prediction remained highly significant even after removing
the influence of general intelligence and initial grammar skill.
Together, these studies provide strong evidence that PM may be a
particularly important factor for the successful development of both
vocabulary and grammar skills in an L2 classroom context.
Significant relationships between L2 proficiency and performance
on measures of phonological memory in young populations are not
consistently found in the L2 literature. For example, Cheungs 1996
study found a relationship between phonological memory and L2
(English) word acquisition only for adolescent students whose
English vocabulary size was below the group median. A favoured
interpretation for this finding is that PM may play a more direct role
in L2 learning at earlier stages of development when long-term knowl-
edge about the lexical-phonological properties of the L2 is less avail-
able to help drive new learning, especially vocabulary learning.
Other studies (e.g., French, 2006; French & OBrien, 2008) have
reached a similar conclusion with other groups of children learning
English, showing that the involvement of PM in L2 learning declines
as a result of increases in L2 proficiency.
Studies have also examined the role of phonological memory in
adult L2 acquisition (Papagno, Valentine, & Baddeley, 1991; Papagno &
Vallar, 1992, 1995). In particular, Papagno and Vallar (1995) interpreted
their findings, in which multilinguals received higher results than
monolinguals on a non-word repetition task and in a paired-associate
learning test, as indicating that phonological memory plays an
important role in foreign language learning. Atkins and Baddeley
(1998) used digit-span and letter-span tasks to measure PM in
their study of vocabulary learning of English Finnish word pairs
over one week. Their results revealed that span measures were reliable
predictors of vocabulary learning success.
Other research with adult L2 learners has shown a direct relation-
ship between PM and speech production. OBrien and her colleagues
(OBrien et al., 2006, 2007) assessed PM skill (as referenced by serial
non-word recognition) and Spanish speech production in groups of

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 377

English-speaking adults learning Spanish in a typical foreign language

classroom or in the context of study abroad. They found (OBrien et al.,
2006) that PM measured at the beginning of the semester significantly
predicted participant improvement on an oral interview at the end of
the semester with respect to the correct use of Spanish function
words and subordinate clauses. They also reported (OBrien et al.,
2007) that PM explained 4.5% to 9.7% of the variance in actual oral
fluency gains as measured by total speech volume and fluidity
(speech rate and hesitations/pauses). These findings therefore
suggest that PM makes important contributions to L2 oral fluency
development, both in terms of the accuracy of utterances and the effi-
ciency with which they are produced in real-time speech.
Some studies (Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Hummel, 2002; Mizera,
2006) examining adults have failed to find significant correlations
between PM tasks (e.g., digit-span, word-span, and non-word rep-
etition) and L2 proficiency. However, it is difficult to determine in
some cases whether the reported findings were perhaps influenced
by certain methodological factors. For instance, Mizera used
non-word repetition tasks designed for children with his adult partici-
pants; and Harrington and Sawyer (1992) did not take into account
potential native language effects or lexicality effects on span measures.
Nevertheless, in a recent study of young adults, Hummel (2009) found
that the relationship between PM (as measured by non-word rep-
etition) and L2 proficiency remained significant in non-novice learners
but disappeared at the most advanced proficiency stage. This finding
provides further empirical evidence that the role of PM in L2 learning
appears to decrease as a function of language proficiency level and not
necessarily of age.
To summarize, the research carried out in various L2 contexts
suggests that tasks that draw on PM are related to childrens overall
L2 achievement (Dufva & Voeten, 1999; French, 2006; Service, 1992),
vocabulary acquisition in children and adolescents with low to moder-
ate levels of L2 proficiency (Cheung, 1996; French, 2006; Service &
Kohonen, 1995) and, in some cases, predict childrens improve-
ment in grammar and vocabulary skills over time (French, 2006;
French & OBrien, 2008). In adult L2 learners, while some research
has failed to find significant correlations between PM tasks and L2 pro-
ficiency (Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Hummel, 2002; Mizera, 2006),
other research has reported significant relationships between PM and
aspects of L2 proficiency in adults beyond an elementary learning
stage (e.g., Hummel, 2009). Still other research has reported a specific
association between PM and L2 oral production skill in less proficient

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
378 Hummel and French

adults, and oral gains in function words with more proficient learners
(OBrien et al., 2006, 2007). Given the mounting evidence from various
research settings and proficiency groups, PM appears to be an essential
memory component throughout much of L2 development.

Phonological memory: Applied aspects

In light of the research pointing out the important role PM appears to

play in both L1 and L2 development, an interesting theoretical and
practical question arises: Can PM capacity be improved in order to
enhance L2 language skills? In the related L1 literature, researchers
have explored the role of PM in learners with language- and
literacy-related disorders and deficits. Findings from some of these
studies have led in turn to research on the possible benefits of interven-
ing with specific training to enhance PM or related processing.
One prominent type of general language learning deficit that has
been examined with regard to the role of PM is known as Specific
Language Impairment, or SLI. Studies and meta-analyses (e.g.,
Archibald & Gathercole, 2006; Ellis Weismer et al., 2000; Graf-Estes,
Evans, & Else-Quest, 2007; Gray, 2006) have revealed that there
appears to be a link between children diagnosed with SLI and PM
ability (as referenced by non-word repetition tasks). Children with
SLI tend to have large impairments in non-word repetition, with differ-
ent versions of the task leading to significantly different effect sizes
(Graf-Estes et al., 2007). Dyslexia is another language-related disorder,
typically characterized by reading and spelling difficulties, which has
been found to be related to PM ability (for an in-depth discussion, see
Snowling, 2000).
A link between non-word repetition performance and children with
L2 learning difficulties has also been found. In one study, Palladino and
Cornoldi (2004) examined two groups of children matched for general
cognitive skill and found that PM, as measured by two different PM
tasks (non-word repetition and forward digit recall), was the strongest
variable linked with children identified as having a foreign language
learning disability (FLLD) compared to children within normal profi-
ciency ranges based on test scores that included various aspects of
English knowledge.
Given the evidence that PM appears to be one important locus of
language disorders or deficits, intervention that targets PM improve-
ment might ultimately lead to improved L2 language skills.
However, whether individuals can be trained to improve their PM

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 379

abilities and, further, whether any improvement would have an impact

on L2 learning remains relatively unexamined. Gathercole (2006) cites
evidence with twins that heredity but not environment appears to play
a role in differentiating non-word repetition performance and suggests
this is an indication that training would not have a substantial effect on
PM as measured by non-word repetition performance.
Despite the view that phonological memory may be a relatively
fixed individual trait, some L1 research has in fact revealed training
effects for the overall working memory system, while other studies
suggest effects for phonological memory in particular. Studies
(Klingberg et al., 2005; Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002)
have indicated a training effect with certain WM tasks in children
with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), who are
thought to have a WM deficit. Furthermore, other studies (Olesen,
Westerberg, & Klingberg, 2004; Westerberg & Klingberg, 2007) have
reported WM training effects in adults in terms of increased cortical
activity. Of note, a recent study (McNab et al., 2009) found that
healthy males (aged 20 to 28) were able to increase their working
memory capacity following training on WM tasks for 35 minutes a
day over a five-week period. This study also found there were
changes in brain biochemistry (at the level of dopamine receptors)
associated with the WM changes.
Evidence that WM can be trained suggests similar effects may be
possible for the PM subsystem of WM. A direct training effect on PM
has in fact been reported in an L1 study with children.
Maridaki-Kassotaki (2002) found that Greek-speaking children (aged
six to nine) who received training on a non-word repetition task (15
minutes a day, four days a week) throughout their first school year out-
performed matched children who did not receive such training when
later tested on both non-word repetition and L1 reading tasks. This
study provides support for the notion that PM capacity can be devel-
oped through specific training, with additional beneficial effects on
reading skills.
A strong indirect training effect on PM has also been reported in two
recent L2 studies. French (2009, March) and French and OBrien (2008)
assessed young French-speaking children on both Arabic and English
non-word repetition tasks at the beginning and end of a five-month
intensive ESL program. The findings revealed that both repetition
tasks were highly correlated, providing almost the same measure of
PM throughout the study. However, only performance on English
non-word repetitionand not Arabic non-word repetitionincreased
significantly, suggesting that intensive classroom practice (i.e., training)

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
380 Hummel and French

of the lexical, phonological, and prosodic structures of English resulted

in greater long-term knowledge of these structures, which, in turn, had
a significant positive effect on PM performance (as measured by
English non-word repetition). Also emerging from this finding is that
although basic phonological memory capacity remained unchanged
over time (as observed by the lack of significant increases in Arabic
non-word repetition skill), the efficiency with which information was
processed within this basic capacity did clearly appear to improve
(as seen by significant increases in English non-word repetition skill).
This suggests that although basic phonological memory capacity
may indeed be a fixed trait, the relative processing efficiency under-
lying this capacity appears sensitive to the effects of training.
Clearly only a few studies to date have examined the direct or indir-
ect effects of PM training on L2 learning. However, taken together,
results from the preceding L1 and L2 studies suggest that the feasibility
of specific PM training merits further investigation.

The second language classroom

In addition to the suggestion that specific training of PM may ulti-

mately be effective, another way to apply what has been learned
about the relation between PM and L2 learning is to adapt current
classroom techniques and materials to enable learners to make
maximal use of their PM capacity.
In their recent book, Gathercole and Alloway (2008) provide a com-
prehensive discussion of practical classroom techniques designed to
compensate for poor WM, the aspect of memory responsible for activi-
ties requiring simultaneous storage and processing. They suggest
specific classroom strategies (p. 69), including (a) reducing the
amount of material to be remembered; (b) repeating important infor-
mation; (c) encouraging the use of memory aids; and (d) developing
the childs own strategies to support memory. Many of the activities
they present are also relevant as ways to compensate for poor PM,
the short-term storage of verbal information, and could be adapted
for use in language classrooms.
Second language classrooms have witnessed the rise and fall of
numerous teaching methodologies across the years. Particularly promi-
nent throughout a good part of the twentieth century was the audiolin-
gual method (e.g., Fries, 1945), in which it was thought that constant
repetition by means of language drills would install good language
habits and break old native language habits in students. The

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 381

audiolingual method included techniques of drawing students atten-

tion to patterns in the target language, and specifically highlighted the
teaching of phonological, lexical, and grammatical forms and patterns.
As will be mentioned later in this section, there may still be a useful
role for such procedures in view of maximizing PM resources.
The artificial nature of audiolingual-based exercises divorced from
any real communicative practice led to a rejection of this method in
its strong form. In the past few decades more communicative
approaches have come to be widely adopted in classrooms. In these
approaches, the objective is to enable the classroom to resemble
insofar as possible a naturalistic context in which the target language
is used for personal expression of needs, desires, and observations.
Communicative approaches tend to emphasize listening to and under-
standing messages in a primarily oral format. Emphasis is often placed
on expressing meaning with little or no explicit focus on formal aspects
of language.
It can be argued that PM plays a particularly important role in com-
municative classroom contexts (as well as immersion contexts), in
which learners are required to make sense of large amounts of oral
data. Recently, French (2006, 2009) reported that in intensive ESL class-
rooms adopting a strong version of the communicative approach (i.e.,
considerable pedagogical emphasis on the conveying and understand-
ing of messages transmitted orally), PM accounted for a large pro-
portion of variation in young adolescents listening and speaking
skills (72% and 62%, respectively). Interestingly, the variation remained
even after removing the confounding effects of general intelligence and
prior L2 skill. This suggests, in particular, that learners rely quite
heavily on phonological loop processing to develop efficient word rec-
ognition and word retrieval skills in contexts consisting primarily of
oral input.
Some researchers (e.g., McLaughlin, 1998; Sawyer & Ranta, 2001)
have pointed out that the observed relation between working
memory and L2 competence may be explained by the fact that a
more efficient general working memory allows learners to notice
important aspects of the language input by freeing necessary atten-
tional resources that would otherwise be tied up in processing incom-
ing material. Given the findings discussed earlier in this article, we can
similarly suggest that the PM component of working memory plays
this specific role with regard to processing auditory and acoustic
material associated with a given language. The better the ability to
rapidly process, retain, and repeat new phonological material, the
better equipped the learner is to process the new patterns in a language

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
382 Hummel and French

being learned. Techniques that ultimately allow individuals to opti-

mize their PM processing speed or overall capacity could be expected
to free resources that could then be devoted to processing other aspects
of the input, such as syntactic patterns and semantic content. More effi-
cient processing could allow learners to pay closer attention to formal
aspects of linguistic input at the same time that they are using the
target language to understand and convey messages.
Specific exercises that target increased L2 fluency may be particu-
larly beneficial in compensating for poor PM capacity. Hulstijn (2007)
argues that activities leading to increased automaticity of word recog-
nition and retrieval should be given high priority in the classroom.
Similarly, Gatbonton and Segalowitz (2005) argue that communicative
classrooms need to promote automaticity and fluency by integrating
tasks requiring repetition of useful phrases and structures. Although
criticized because of their connection to behaviourism, audiolingual-
type activities requiring learners to memorize information through
rehearsal and repetition may be of benefit for learners with low PM
capacity who appear to have difficulty making and retaining accurate
phonological representations. The same type of activities may also help
to accelerate basic fluency in learners with normal or more efficient PM
function. Specifically, within current L2 communicative contexts, tea-
chers might opt for a strategy in which learners are trained to repeat
aloud (or subvocally) new lexical items (e.g., single words as well as
phrases or chunks) they encounter both inside and outside the class-
room. Exercises in the language laboratory may be useful in this
regard.
In addition, learners might also be trained via language awareness
strategies (e.g., Simard & Wong, 2004) to make phonological, lexical,
and semantic associations between their existing lexical knowledge
(both L1 and L2) and newly encountered L2 lexical items. Increased
reliance on long-term knowledge for learning would therefore help
to reduce the processing load on PM, which may be particularly ben-
eficial for learners with less efficient phonological processing skills.
Overall, strategies such as these and other activities promoting basic
fluency are likely to allow L2 learners to automatize aspects of the
target language, thereby leaving additional attentional resources to
be directed to other, more complex L2 features.
An ongoing issue taking place against the backdrop of communica-
tive teaching approaches is whether it is desirable, and in what ways, to
highlight aspects of linguistic form, as in drawing attention to gramma-
tical structures in the context of meaning-based lessons, as represented
by the literature on focus on form (e.g., Long, 1991). Although there is

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 383

considerable disagreement over the most effective ways to do so, a

general consensus in the literature is that some explicit attention
should be given to linguistic grammatical forms to allow learners in
communicative classrooms to attend to and learn L2 grammatical
structures (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Long, 1991; Norris &
Ortega, 2000). The arguments for highlighting formal aspects of mean-
ingful input underscore the value in providing stable, visual support to
the L2 in the classroom. Given the constraints associated with the
short-term capacity of PM and the advantages of rehearsal and rep-
etition in allowing retention, it can be argued that visual support
allows the learner to compensate for limited PM storage capacity and
facilitates attention to form. Oral exposure makes it much more diffi-
cult for a capacity-limited system like PM to retain information long
enough to attend to formal features of the input, including grammati-
cal structures. In a similar view, Randall (2007) argues that because
visual or written input is largely permanent, unlike most forms of
oral input, it serves to replace the temporary storage function of PM,
thereby allowing longer stretches of language to be processed.
Individuals whose phonological memory may be less efficient or
who appear to be less equipped to handle large amounts of oral
input may thus benefit from visual or written aides that put less of a
burden on their memory capacity.
A number of studies (e.g., Lund, 1991; Murphy, 1997; Wong, 2001)
are consistent with this view, as they indicate that exposure to tasks
in the written mode is superior to the aural mode in L2 learning. For
instance, Wong found that in L2 tasks requiring attention to form, com-
prehension was sacrificed when the tasks were presented in an aural
mode, while this was not the case in the equivalent written mode.
This distinction between allocation of resources between meaning
and form in an aural versus written mode is likely to be even more
crucial in individuals with low PM capacity.
Some research appears to indicate that individuals with low PM
capacity can in fact overcome their limitations when provided with
appropriate learning tools. For instance, in a small-scale study with
students learning German (N 13), Chun and Payne (2004) found
that students with low PM capacity, as indicated by a non-word rep-
etition task, looked up words three times as often as students with a
higher PM capacity. However, when overall comprehension and voca-
bulary recall scores of low and high PM groups were compared, no sig-
nificant differences were found. The authors suggest that the learning
tool, a multimedia CD-ROM for learning German, which included
features for looking up vocabulary and definitions, allowed learners

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
384 Hummel and French

to compensate for a low PM capacity. Other studies similarly report

that more frequent consultation of electronic glosses results in better
word acquisition (e.g., Ben Salem, 2007, April). A number of online
tools that have been developed to assist learners in retaining L2 voca-
bulary may be useful in this regard (see, for instance, Horst, Cobb, &
Nicolae, 2005).
Further evidence in support of the benefits associated with a written
format is found in a L2 study by Payne and Ross (2005), who found that
students with lower non-word repetition scores actually had greater L2
output measures (greater number of words per utterance) in text-based
computer chatroom discourse than did students with higher non-word
repetition scores. The authors suggest that low-span students were
taking advantage of the reduced cognitive burden introduced by the
chatroom to produce more extensive and elaborate constructions,
something they may have found difficult in a [face-to-face] setting
(p. 15).
Rather than giving priority to communicative activities done in a
largely oralaural mode, a procedure that characterizes implemen-
tations of the communicative approach, students could be given sub-
stantial visual/written support for language interactions, particularly
in beginning phases of learning. Concretely, this could involve
having students use and even develop their own written transcripts
of communicative activities, such as dialogues, which they are
allowed to refer to during classroom activities. Note that Gathercole
and Alloway (2008) similarly encourage recourse to visual memory
aids as a classroom strategy to compensate for poor working
memory. A greater emphasis on written presentation of material in
and outside the classroom may ultimately lessen the impact of low
PM capacity on L2 learning outcomes.
On a related issue, a number of studies (e.g., Trahey & White,
1993; White, 1998) have specifically looked at whether various input
enhancement techniques or input flooding lead to positive effects
on L2 performance, without clear long-term positive effects. Still,
while input enhancement may not play a significant role in L2
comprehension in a general population, it remains to be seen
whether L2 learners with low PM capacity might be particularly sus-
ceptible to benefit from such techniques. This question has yet to be
investigated.
Other text-based activities, such as reading aloud, might also benefit
PM function. Although criticized by communicative language teaching
theorists because of its low communicative value in the classroom
and also because it is thought to make it more difficult for the reader

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 385

to access meaning, reading aloud may ultimately prove to have an

important cognitive benefit for language learners: it may activate,
via rehearsal, the phonological loop component of WM, which, as
discussed previously, is an important mechanism for the automatiza-
tion of basic fluency skills, particularly vocabulary skill. By having
L2 learners read, either out loud or subvocally, one may help these
learners to activate their PM through rehearsal and repetition, which
in turn may help them to better transfer material to long-term or
declarative memory. Consequently, in communicative contexts, regu-
larly using a variety of L2 reading aloud activities (individually or
in groups), as well as training students to read aloud on their
own both in and out of class, may be beneficial to all learners for
improving and/or accelerating L2 fluency skills that depend on PM
processing.
Knowledge about the role of PM in L2 learning, while increasing, is
still relatively scarce. However, there is mounting evidence that PM
plays an important role in early to intermediate stages of L2 learning.
In addition, evidence from language-impaired children (e.g., Archibald &
Gathercole, 2006; Graf-Estes et al., 2007) reveals connections
between PM functioning and language skills. Furthermore, a number
of studies with language-impaired children and normal adults
report benefits from training on tasks associated with WM (e.g.,
Klingberg et al., 2005; McNab et al., 2009), suggesting that PM may
be similarly trainable. At least one study directly targeting PM
(Maridaki-Kassotaki, 2002) indeed reports beneficial training effects
in children. More research is needed to verify whether specific training
and techniques aimed at enhancing PM capacity and efficiency can be
successfully taught to L2 learners. Such techniques might ultimately be
useful in improving aspects of L2 learning.
Similarly, more research is needed to determine whether classroom
intervention techniques aimed at compensating for a less efficient PM
can make a difference in L2 learning. Recourse to fluency-based exercises;
strategies aimed at automatizing word recognition and retrieval; ensuring
considerable visual/written support for the L2 in the form of written texts,
dialogues, and other exercises; regular use of online resources; and
occasional strategic use of oral reading are just a few of the pedagogical
tools that might lead to enhancing the L2 acquisition process, particularly
for learners with a less efficient PM. Of the preceding strategies, providing
substantial visual/written support may be particularly effective and rela-
tively easy to add to the typical language classroom.
An important final consideration is that systematic use of various
techniques may allow for a more enjoyable L2 learning experience

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
386 Hummel and French

for learners otherwise hampered by the taxing cognitive demands

associated with acquiring the intricacies of a new language.

Correspondence should be addressed to Kirsten M. Hummel, Departement

de langues, linguistique et traduction, 1030, ave. des Sciences-Humaines,
Universite Laval, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6. E-mail: kirsten.hummel@lli.ulaval.ca

References

Adams, A.-M., & Gathercole, S.E. (1996). Phonological working memory and
spoken language development in young children. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 49A(1), 216 233.
Archibald, L.M., & Gathercole, S.E. (2006). Short-term and working memory in
Specific Language Impairment. International Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders, 41, 675 693.
Atkins, P.W.B., & Baddeley, A.D. (1998). Working memory and distributed
vocabulary learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 537552.
Avons, S.E., Wragg, C.A., Cupples, L., & Lovegrove, W.J. (1998). Measures of
phonological short-term memory and their relationship to vocabulary
development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 583 601.
Baddeley, A.D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A.D. (1996). The concept of working memory. In S.E. Gathercole
(Ed.), Models of short-term memory (pp. 1 27). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A.D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component to working
memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4(11), 417423.
Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The
psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 4790). New York:
Academic Press.
Ben Salem, E. (2007, April). The influence of electronic glosses on word
retention and reading comprehension with Spanish language learners.
Dissertation Abstracts International: A. The Humanities and Social Sciences,
67(10), 3785.
Cheung, H. (1996). Nonword span as a unique predictor of second-language
vocabulary learning. Developmental Psychology, 32, 867873.
Chun, D., & Payne, S.S. (2004). What makes students click: Working memory
and look-up behavior. System, 32, 481 503.
Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence and
group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44,
417 448.

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 387

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dufva, M., & Voeten, M.J.M. (1999). Native language literacy and phonological
memory as prerequisites for learning English as a foreign language. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 20, 329 348.
Ellis Weismer, S., Tomblin, J.B., Zhang, X., Buckwalter, P., Chynoweth, J.G., &
Jones, M. (2000). Nonword repetition performance in school-age children
with and without language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 43, 865 878.
French, L.M. (2006). Phonological working memory and L2 acquisition: A
developmental study of Quebec francophone children learning English. New York:
Edwin Mellen Press.
French, L.M. (2009, March). Phonological memory, intensive language instruction
and L2 oral fluency development. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Association of Applied Linguistics, Denver, CO.
French, L.M., & OBrien, I. (2008). Phonological memory and childrens L2
grammar learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 463487.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Gardner, R., Tremblay, P.F., & Masgoret, A.-M. (1997). Toward a full model of
second language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language
Journal, 81, 344 362.
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language
teaching: A focus on access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 61(3), 325 353.
Gathercole, S.E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of
the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513543.
Gathercole, S.E., & Alloway, T.P. (2008). Working memory and learning. A Practical
guide for teachers. London: Sage Publications.
Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A.D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological
STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 200 213.
Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A.D. (1993). Working memory and language.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gathercole, S.E., Service, E., Hitch, G.J., Adams, A.M., & Martin, A.J. (1999).
Phonological short-term memory and vocabulary development:
Further evidence on the nature of the relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
13, 6577.
Gathercole, S.E., & Thorn, A. (1998). Phonological short-term memory and
foreign language learning. In A.F. Healy & L.E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign
language learning: Psycholinguistic studies in training and retention
(pp. 141 158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
388 Hummel and French

Gathercole, S.E., Willis, C.S., Emslie, H., & Baddeley, A.D. (1991). The
influences of number of syllables and wordlikeness on childrens repetition
of nonwords. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 349367.
Gathercole, S.E., Willis, C.S., Emslie, H., & Baddeley, A.D. (1992). Phonological
memory and vocabulary development during the early school years:
A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 28, 887898.
Graf-Estes, K., Evans, J.L., & Else-Quest, N.M. (2007). Differences in nonword
repetition performance of children with and without Specific Language
Impairment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 50, 177 195.
Gray, S. (2006). The relationship between phonological memory, receptive
vocabulary and mapping in young children with specific
language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(5),
955969.
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2
reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25 38.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Nicolae, I. (2005). Expanding academic vocabulary with
an interactive online database. Language Learning and Technology, 9(2),
90 110.
Hulstijn, J.H. (2007). Psycholinguistic perspectives on language and its
acquisition. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), The international handbook
on English language teaching (pp. 701 713). Norwell, MA: Springer.
Hummel, K.M. (2002). Second language acquisition and working memory.
In F. Fabbro (Ed.), Advances in the neurolinguistics of bilingualism:
Festschrift for Michel Paradis (pp. 95 117). Udine, Italy: Forum.
Hummel, K.M. (2009). Aptitude, phonological memory, and second language
proficiency in nonnovice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30,
225 249.
Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A.D., Hewes, A.K., Leeke, T.C., & Phillips, C.E. (2004).
What links verbal short-term memory performance and vocabulary level?
Evidence of changing relationships among individuals with learning
disability. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 134148.
Johnson, J.J., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language
learning: The influence of maturational state on acquisition of ESL.
Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60 99.
Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P.J., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P.,
Dahlstrom, K., et al. (2005). Computerized training of working memory
in children with ADHD: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 177186.
Klingberg, T., Forssberg, H., & Westerberg, H. (2002). Training of working
memory in children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 24, 781 791.

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 389

Long, M.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching

methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign
language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3952). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lund, M. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading
comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75, 196 204.
Maridaki-Kassotaki, K. (2002). The relation between phonological memory
skills and reading ability in Greek-speaking children: Practical
applications. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 1, 63 73.
Masoura, E.V., & Gathercole, S.E. (1999). Phonological short-term memory and
foreign language learning. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 383388.
Masoura, E.V., & Gathercole, S.E. (2005). Contrasting contributions of
phonological short-term memory and long-term knowledge to vocabulary
learning in a foreign language. Memory, 13, 422429.
McLaughlin, B. (1998). Second language learning revisited: The
psycholinguistic perspective. In A.F. Healy & L.E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign
language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 399
411). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McNab, F., Varrone, A., Farde, L., Jucaite, A., Bystritsky, P., Forssberg, H., et al.
(2009). Changes in cortical dopamine D1 receptor binding associated with
cognitive training. Science, 323, 800 802.
Mizera, G.J. (2006). Working memory and L2 oral fluency. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Murphy, V. (1997). The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task.
Second Language Research, 13, 34 65.
Noels, K.A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Toward
a contextual model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and
motivation. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second
language acquisition (pp. 4368). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research
synthesis and quantitative meta analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417528.
OBrien, 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.
OBrien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological
memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 29, 557 582.
Olesen, P.J., Westerberg, H., & Klingberg, T. (2004). Increased prefrontal and
parietal activity after training of working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 7(1),
7579.

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
390 Hummel and French

Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the
theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12 28.
Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period in the acquisition of a non-native
phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 26185.
Palladino, P., & Cornoldi, C. (2004). Working memory performance of Italian
students with foreign language learning difficulties. Learning and individual
differences, 14(3), 137 151.
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. (1991). Phonological short-term
memory and foreign-language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and
Language, 30, 331 347.
Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1992). Phonological short-term memory and the
learning of novel words: The effects of phonological similarity and item
length. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 4767.
Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1995). Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary
learning in polyglots. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A,
98 107.
Payne, J.S., & Ross, B.M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2
oral proficiency development. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3), 3554.
Randall, M. (2007). Memory, psychology and second language learning.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and
instructional design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 319 353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign-language learning.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 21 50.
Service, E., & Kohonen, V. (1995). Is the relation between phonological memory
and foreign language learning accounted for by vocabulary acquisition?
Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 155 172.
Simard, D., & Wong, W. (2004). Language awareness and its multiple
possibilities for the L2 classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 96 110.
Snowling, M. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and pre-emption in the second
language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181204.
Wesche, M.B. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching
students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. Diller
(Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude
(pp. 119 154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Westerberg, H., & Klingberg, T. (2007). Changes in cortical activity after
training of working memory: A single-subject analysis. Physiology and
Behavior, 92(12), 186192.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners attention: A typographical input
enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391
 Phonological Memory 391

classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85 113). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Williams, J.N., & Lovatt, P.J. (2005). Phonological memory and rule learning: II.
Language Learning, 55(1), 177 233.
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345368.

# 2010 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
66, 3 (March/mars), 371 391