working memory and shortterm memory abilities in accomplished multilinguals

Working Memory and Short-TermMemory Abilities in AccomplishedMultilingualsADRIANA BIEDRONThe Pomeranian Academy in S!upskArciszewskiego 22a76-200 S!upskPolandEmail: [email protected]

ANNA SZCZEPANIAKThe Pomeranian Academy in S!upskArciszewskiego 22a76-200 S!upskPolandEmail: [email protected]

The role of short-term memory and working memory in accomplished multilinguals was inves-tigated. Twenty-eight accomplished multilinguals were compared to 36 mainstream philologystudents. The following instruments were used in the study: three memory subtests of theWechsler Intelligence Scale (Digit Span, Digit-Symbol Coding, and Arithmetic, which consti-tute a memory and resistance to distraction index); two short-term memory tests of the ModernLanguage Aptitude Test (Part I [Number Learning] and Part V [Paired Associates]); and theverbal Intelligence Quotient (IQ), the nonverbal IQ, the general IQ, and a working mem-ory test, the Polish Reading Span (PRSPAN). The results of the accomplished multilingualswere compared to the results of 1st-year English philology students (mainstream). The analysisrevealed that short-term memory and working memory abilities in the accomplished multilin-guals were higher than in the mainstream philology students. Results might contribute to theunderstanding of the controversial role of working memory and short-term memory abilitiesin accomplished multilinguals. A suggestion that the two components of working memory(the phonological loop and the central executive) are significant factors in determining theoutcome of learning a foreign language is discussed.

IN THE LITERATURE ON SECONDlanguage acquisition (SLA), it is often statedthat working memory plays a role in determin-ing the outcome of foreign language learning(Dornyei, 2005; Ellis, 2001; Miyake & Friedman,1998; Robinson, 2009; Sawyer & Ranta, 2001).Although there is a large body of research onwhat combinations of individual characteristicscontribute to success in the learning of foreignlanguages (i.e., Dewaele, 2007; Ehrman & Ox-ford, 1995; Griffiths, 2008), there is a markedlack of research on the memory abilities ofaccomplished multilinguals.

The purpose of the study reported herein wasto identify and analyze the characteristics of the

The Modern Language Journal, 96, ii, (2012)DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01332.x0026-7902/12/290–306 $1.50/0C!2012 The Modern Language Journal

memory of accomplished multilinguals. (We char-acterized learners as accomplished multilingualsif they spoke at least one foreign language at levelC1/C21 and a number of other languages at differ-ent levels of proficiency, varying from A1 to B2.)In particular, the extent to which working memorycapacity can serve as a strong predictor of foreignlanguage learning success was investigated.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Working Memory and Short-Term Memory

Memory is probably the most significant fac-tor in the theory of foreign language aptitude,often called “memory ability” in the contempo-rary literature (Dornyei, 2005; Ellis, 1996; Sawyer& Ranta, 2001). The term “short-term memory”(STM) is used to describe a sort of static memorythat is held for a short period of time (less than

Adriana Biedron and Anna Szczepaniak 291

20 seconds). In contrast, working memory (WM)involves the temporary storage and manipulationof information that is necessary for the perfor-mance of a wide range of cognitive tasks (Badde-ley, 2003). Hence, WM is seen as “fundamentallya form of memory, but it is more than memory,for it is memory at work” (Conway, Jarrold, Kane,Miyake, & Towse, 2008, p. 3). WM comprises anumber of components that perform several cog-nitive functions that encompass mechanisms forthe storage of information and mechanisms forexecutive control of information. It is the mecha-nisms of executive control that differentiate WMfrom STM (Conway et al., 2008).

The multicomponent WM model is now ac-cepted universally. It was formulated by Baddeleyand Hitch (1974). They originally proposed divid-ing memory into three subsystems: (a) the phono-logical loop, which processes verbal and acousticinformation, (b) the visuospatial sketchpad , whichprocesses visual information, and (c) the centralexecutive , which is a supervisory attention-limitedcontrol system. Later, they proposed a fourth fac-tor, the episodic buffer , which stores information(Baddeley, 2000). In subsequent research on WM,the findings of correlation analyses have providedevidence that WM plays an important role in anumber of complex cognitive abilities, such as lan-guage learning, reasoning, comprehension, andcognitive control, and that WM measures are anindicator of intellectual ability (Kane, Conway,Hambrick, & Engle, 2008).

The concept of WM is crucial in research on in-dividual differences because it plays a central rolein intellectual functioning in general. It has beenshown to be relevant to many everyday tasks, suchas reading, making sense of spoken discourse,problem solving, and mental arithmetic. Given itsimportance, it is now the focus of considerableresearch efforts in cognitive psychology and cog-nitive neuroscience (Conway et al., 2008, p. vii).

WM has limited capacity, which constrains cog-nitive performance. Individuals differ with respectto their WM capacity. People with greater WMcapacity perform better on a variety of cogni-tive tasks, such as complex learning, reading andlistening comprehension, and reasoning, thanpeople with smaller WM capacity. The capacity de-pends on a number of variables, such as age, braindamage, and disease in general. Older childrenoutperform younger children, healthy adults out-perform patients with frontal-lobe damage, and,generally, WM deteriorates from around age 65.This variation, measured by span tests, is believedto affect human cognitive functioning (Conwayet al., 2008).

Many issues regarding WM have yet to be inves-tigated fully. What causes variation in WM perfor-mance is one of them. Several candidates for thecause of the variation have been proposed, suchas mental speed, inhibition of attention, executiveattention, goal maintenance, and conflict resolu-tion (Conway et al., 2008). Kane et al. (2008),for example, proposed a theory of WM capacityas being determined by executive attention, us-ing individual differences among healthy youngadults as a basis. They postulate that sources ofvariation are multiple, including domain-specificskills and strategies, and a domain-general atten-tion capability. Attention capability accounts forthe predictive validity of WM span tests and un-derlies other cognitive abilities, including fluidintelligence (Gf). The issue of whether WM is do-main general or domain specific remains contro-versial, but many arguments support the idea thatthe source of variation in WM is domain general(Conway et al., 2008).

Working Memory, Short-Term Memory, and theGeneral Cognitive Factor

There is an ongoing discussion about the re-lationship between STM, WM, and Gf (Conwayet al., 2008; Engle, Laughlin, Tuholski, & Conway,1999; Kane et al., 2008). The first to address thequestion “To what extent are the terms STM andWM different terms for the same construct and towhat extent do they refer to different but more orless related constructs?” were Engle et al. (1999,p. 309). Having tested 135 participants for theirWM capacity, STM, and Gf, they concluded thatWM and STM are separate, but substantially corre-lated constructs (correlation .68). The researchersfound that the correlation was based on theshared feature representing storage, coding, andrehearsal, although some shared variance was alsolikely to be due to executive attention. It was theincreased demand on executive attention that wasfound to cause the unique, residual variance inWM.

The accuracy of measures of WM capacity andSTM span is debatable. Kane et al. (2008) arguethat although WM span tasks are reasonably goodmeasures of executive attention, due to their dualnature, a measure of WM capacity does not needto be dual to measure control of attention. Adual task requires participants to maintain accessto information outside of conscious awareness inthe face of proactive interference. However, someSTM span tasks seem to measure executive con-trol, for example, some spatial STM tasks or STMtasks that include long lists of verbal items. Due

292 The Modern Language Journal 96 (2012)

to the fact that STM can hold only four items ata time and the phonological loop can hold itemsfor only 2 seconds, tests with more than four itemswould require some degree of executive atten-tion, which means that, in fact, they measure WMcapacity. Given the foregoing, it would behooveresearchers to exercise great caution in analyzingdata and drawing conclusions regarding measure-ments of WM capacity.

Kane et al. (2008) found that only WM ca-pacity, but not STM, predicted variance in Gf,which suggests that greater attentional demandsof WM span tasks resulted in WM–Gf correla-tion. Researchers generally agree that variationin WM capacity causes significant variation ingeneral cognitive ability and that executive at-tention is the central factor in this variation. Nomatter how highly correlated they are, WM andGf are not the same (Conway et al., 2008; Kaneet al., 2008; Oberauer, Suß, Wilhelm, & Sander,2008).

Although WM is generally considered to be do-main general, some studies report a low corre-lation between individual verbal and spatial WMabilities, which suggests that WM is domain spe-cific. In this regard, Kane et al. (2008) found thatWM and STM were much more domain specific inpeople in high-IQ groups than in lower IQ groups,in that verbal and spatial WM abilities were cor-related much less in high-IQ than in lower IQgroups. They concluded that such differences be-tween verbal and spatial WM abilities might resultfrom testing participants from a group in whichgeneral cognitive ability is high and in which therange of ability is small, for example, the major-ity of university students. The researchers suggestthat when the range of general cognitive ability isnarrow, any variability in cognitive performanceresults from other factors, such as domain-specificabilities, skills, or strategies.

The Role of Memory Abilities in Foreign LanguageLearning

Some researchers claim that WM, in particu-lar the phonological loop, is a significant fac-tor determining a foreign language learning out-come (Baddeley, 2003; Baddeley, Gathercole, &Papagno, 1998; Service, 1992). There is evidenceto suggest that both children and adults who havepoor memories (as measured by digit span andnonword repetition) have poor language skills(Baddeley et al., 1998).

If deficiencies in WM result in delayed lan-guage development and generally poor languageabilities in both children and adults (Gather-

cole & Baddeley, 1990), might a talent for learn-ing languages be the result of an exceptionallyefficient phonological loop? Research findingssuggest that it is. Papagno and Vallar (1995) com-pared gifted and average foreign language learn-ers with respect to their memory abilities. Theresults showed that better learners significantlyoutperform poorer learners in phonologicalmemory tests, that is, digit span and nonword rep-etition, which means that their abilities to learnnew words are greater. The general intellectualabilities, as well as nonverbal abilities, of the twogroups of learners were comparable. It may beconcluded that having a good phonological work-ing memory makes it easier to learn unfamiliarphonological material. The most important con-clusion drawn by Baddeley et al. (1998) as a resultof Papagno and Vallar’s work is that “[t]he caseof gifted language learners suggests that a natu-ral talent for language learning may arise directlyas a consequence of excellent phonological loopfunction” (p. 166).

In line with Baddeley and his colleagues, Ske-han (1998) concluded that it is excellent memoryabilities that underlie linguistic talent. They basedtheir conclusions on the results of research ontalented foreign language learners to the effectthat such learners do not have exceptional intel-ligence but all possess exceptional verbal mem-ory (cf. Ioup, Boustagi, El Tigi, & Moselle, 1994;Morgan, Smith, Tsimpli, & Woll, 2007; Obler,1989; Sawyer & Ranta, 2001; Schneiderman & Des-marais, 1988).

Contemporary models of foreign language ap-titude include memory as a relevant factor. Ske-han (1998, 2002) proposed a “Processing StageModel of Aptitude,” in which memory is used atbasically all stages of SLA. In the first processingstage, noticing , learners pay attention to some as-pect of a language and rehearse it in WM. Notic-ing is considered to be an ability (cf. Robinson,2002) and the capacity to notice differs amonglearners. Skehan associates noticing with Carroll’sphonemic coding ability (Carroll & Sapon, 2002),but he relates it primarily to WM capacity. Inthe second stage, patterning , learners detect andmanipulate patterns in the foreign language. Atthis stage, the learners analyze and generalize in-put. Skehan finds correlates to these processesin Carroll’s grammatical sensitivity and induc-tive language learning. However, the processes ofanalyzing patterns and extrapolating from inputundoubtedly require WM and long-term mem-ory engagement. The learning of new itemsseems to be mediated by both the phonologi-cal loop and long-term phonological knowledge


(Baddeley et al., 1998). In addition, Stage 3, con-trolling , during which learners build a fluent lin-guistic repertoire by automatizing and procedu-ralizing information, relies on the retrieval of in-formation from memory. Finally, Stage 4, lexicaliz-ing , is also connected with the automatization oflanguage use and gaining fast access to linguisticknowledge. Memory storage and retrieval seem tobe required for these processes. Skehan’s modelsuggests that learners may possess different mem-ory abilities that affect performance at the dif-ferent stages of learning, which might affect theoverall learning outcome.

WM is often treated as a key component offoreign language aptitude. For example, Miyakeand Friedman (1998) emphasize its central rolein language processing in both language pro-duction and language comprehension. Languageprocessing is a linear process that requires thesimultaneous integration and storage of incom-ing sequences of symbols (cf. Ellis, 1996). Ac-cording to Miyake and Friedman, Baddeley’s WMtheory matches this SLA model perfectly in thatit contains both the storage and the processingcomponent.

Robinson (2002, 2003, 2007, 2009) includesmemory in his “Aptitude Complex Hypothesis.”He proposes four aptitude complexes, each ofwhich includes one or more of a variety of memoryfactors. For example, aptitude for learning fromrecasting contains the aptitude for noticing the gapand memory for contingent speech. When learningspoken language from a teacher, the learner firstutters a word or expression. Then the teacher re-peats it with correct pronunciation (he recasts theutterance). The learner holds the teacher’s recastin memory (called memory for contingent speech)and compares the teacher’s pronunciation withhis own, simultaneously noticing the gap betweenthem.

These abilities depend on the capacity andspeed of the learner’s WM. Robinson’s conclu-sions are similar to Skehan’s. People differ withrespect to their ability to remember, which affectstheir linguistic outcomes. Moreover, aptitude pro-files for older learners might be more varied thanfor younger learners (Robinson, 2002). Robin-son’s important contribution to the understand-ing of the role of WM in SLA is a postulate, basedon empirical evidence, that it correlates signifi-cantly and positively with language proficiency inall learning conditions, including implicit and in-cidental learning. Therefore, his findings contra-dict the view of Krashen (1981) and Reber (1993)that implicit and incidental learning are insensi-tive to individual differences.

A cumulative body of evidence demonstratesa strong correlation between first language (L1)WM capacity and second language (L2) WM ca-pacity, and between WM capacity and L2 profi-ciency (Berquist, 1998; Daneman & Carpenter,1980; Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Mackey, Philip,Egi, Fujii, & Tatsumi, 2002; Miyake & Friedman,1998; Osaka, Osaka, & Groner, 1993; Robinson,2002; Sagarra, 1998). Miyake et al. (1998) founda positive relationship between WM, L2 linguis-tic knowledge, and L2 listening comprehension.Harrington and Sawyer (1992), using a versionof Daneman and Carpenter’s reading span test,reported a positive correlation between L2 WMcapacity and L2 reading proficiency. Miyake andFriedman (1998) found a positive correlation be-tween L1 WM capacity, L2 WM capacity, and sen-tence comprehension. All the aforementionedstudies, contrary to Engle et al.’s (1999) findings,reported no correlation between STM, as mea-sured by digit span, and language proficiency orWM. Moreover, a positive relationship was foundbetween L1 WM and L2 WM, which suggests thatperformance on WM measures may be languageindependent (Mackey et al., 2002). This findingupholds the general vision in cognitive sciencethat WM is not domain specific (Kane et al., 2008).A suggestion that was in agreement with the afore-mentioned studies was offered by Skehan (1982),who did not find any correlation between STMand learning outcomes using a span test. Hav-ing analyzed the results of research on WM (Har-rington & Sawyer, 1992; Robinson, 2002), Skehan(2002) argues that the reading span test is an ef-ficient tool for measuring WM capacity becauseit requires both storage and processing of infor-mation, thus involving the phonological loop andthe central executive.

Dornyei (2005) considers WM one of the mostpromising issues in research on language apti-tude. He upholds Baddeley’s concept of WM,especially its verbal component, the phonologi-cal loop, which he considers “to be an ideallysuited memory construct for SLA” (Dornyei, 2005,p. 55). In addition to its STM component, itcontains an attention component, which is a sig-nificant source of individual difference in SLA(cf. DeKeyser, 2003; Robinson, 2003). In linewith Dornyei, Ellis (2001), Miyake and Fried-man (1998), and Sawyer and Ranta (2001) allagree that WM capacity may be the conceptthat will revolutionize research on language ap-titude. If attention is necessary for learning andif it is limited by WM capacity, there must bea close relationship between WM capacity andlearning outcomes (Sawyer & Ranta, 2001). They


hypothesize that WM is a system that integrates allother components of foreign language aptitude(Sawyer & Ranta, 2001).

Summing up, there is cumulative evidence thatindividual differences in WM affect SLA. Gener-ally, there is consensus among researchers on theadequacy of Baddeley’s model of WM, with itsphonological loop and central executive compo-nents as subsystems that are decisive in learning aforeign language.

STUDY

The purpose of the study reported herein wasto examine the role of STM and WM in accom-plished multilinguals. The study consisted of twoparts. First, the accomplished multilinguals’ cog-nitive factors (STM, WM, foreign language apti-tude, and IQ) were presented in order to provideevidence of their exceptionality. Second, 28 ac-complished multilinguals were compared to 36mainstream English philology students in orderto identify differences in memory factors betweenthe two groups.

Hypotheses

Using the findings described in the previoussection as a basis, we formulated the followinghypotheses.

1. Accomplished multilinguals will scorehigher on STM and WM tests than mainstreamphilology students.

2. Accomplished multilinguals will scorehigher on items with linguistic material onSTM and WM tests than mainstream philologystudents.

3. A positive pattern of intercorrelationsamong memory tests scores will be observed.

4. The WM score will correlate to general IQscore.

METHODOLOGY

Operationalization of WM and STM Constructs

WM was operationalized as the ability to men-tally maintain information in an active and read-ily accessible state, while concurrently and se-lectively processing new information (Conway etal., 2008). STM was operationalized as a kindof static memory that is held for a short periodof time (less than 20 seconds). The mechanismsof executive control differentiate WM from STM(Baddeley, 2003; Baddeley et al., 1998; Conwayet al., 2008; Engle et al., 1999; Kane et al., 2008).

Participants

There were two groups of learners: accom-plished multilinguals and mainstream philologystudents. The accomplished multilinguals groupconsisted of 28 students who were identified basedon proficiency scores, the number of languagesthey had learned, language learning history, rec-ommendation of their teachers, and the Mod-ern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) score. Themainstream philology students were 1st-year En-glish philology students at a Polish university—the Pomeranian Academy in S!upsk. They wereintermediate learners of English as a foreign lan-guage.

Accomplished Multilinguals

The sample consisted of 28 accomplished mul-tilingual foreign language learners. Twenty-onewere female and seven were male. All of themwere native speakers of Polish, but two were dom-inant in other languages: one in German andone in French. They were mainly philologicalstudents from Polish universities (n = 17), butthere were also teachers in foreign language de-partments at university (n = 6), school teachersof English (n = 2), one student of mathematics,and two translators. The participants were mainlyundergraduates and postgraduates who had beennominated by their teachers; 6 were doctoral stu-dents. Their age varied from 21 to 28 years; themean age was 24. All the participants were ex-perienced language learners. The age of onsetvaried for different learners and for different lan-guages. In the case of English, the average ageof onset was 11 years. For Chinese and Japanese,it was generally 19 years. For other languages, itvaried from 19 to 27 years. The period of learn-ing also varied, from 15 years to a few months.Many of the participants had a break in theirlearning. Some learned for some time and thenstopped. Some declared that they had learned alanguage well, but had forgotten most of it be-cause of lack of practice. Some learned and usedlanguages regularly, some others practiced themonly once a week or occasionally. The participantslearned in formal settings, such as school and uni-versity, and most of them had a chance to studyabroad. The length of their stay abroad variedfrom a few weeks to 5 years. One participant wasborn in Austria (German dominant, but fluentin Polish because her mother was Polish) andone attended primary school in Switzerland (bal-anced in French and Polish). Each learner’s lan-guage learning history was different, so it would


be difficult to categorize them into subgroups.The level of proficiency of the sample in at leastone foreign language was advanced (C1/ C2). Allthe participants were highly advanced in English.Twenty-three were highly advanced in two for-eign languages (including English), three werefluent in three languages, one in one language,and one in four. If they spoke more than twoforeign languages, their level of proficiency inthe additional languages was usually communica-tive (A2/B1+). The number of languages theywere learning varied from one to ten (four aver-age) and included European and non-Europeanlanguages. European languages included English(n = 28), German (n = 20), French (n = 11),Italian, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Spanish,Portuguese, Irish, Welsh, Russian, Hungarian, Ro-manian, Croatian, and Latin. Non-European lan-guages encompassed Chinese (n = 10), Japanese(n = 5), Tibetan, Hindi, Turkish, Arabic, Mongo-lian, Korean, and Hebrew. Altogether, the groupconsisted of 1 bilingual, 13 trilinguals, 6 quadrilin-guals, and 3 pentalinguals; 5 participants spokemore than five languages, the highest number be-ing ten languages. The terms “bilingual,” “trilin-gual,” and “quadrilingal” were adopted from De-waele (2007) and do not refer to proficiencylevels. All the achievements were formally con-firmed by official documents: certificates acknowl-edged in Poland and diplomas from universi-ties2 in the case of advanced level of a language.If elementary/communicative level was declared,end-of-course grades were accepted as a proofof the level of advancement. In the case of Chi-nese (n = 8) and Japanese (n = 3) philologystudents, both their native and nonnative teach-ers evaluated their rate of progress in compari-son to their classmates. One of the Chinese lan-guage teachers evaluated the level of Chineseof her students according to the Council of Eu-rope norms. The best students were nominatedto participate in the research. These measureswere undertaken to ensure the advanced level ofthe participants. Only participants whose generalMLAT score placed them within at least the 95thpercentile were accepted for the research.

Mainstream Philology Students

There were 26 females and 10 males in the sam-ple. The mean age of the mainstream philologystudents was 20 years. They were monolingual Pol-ish learners of English as a foreign language. Atthe time the study was conducted, they had beenlearning English for 7–10 years. All of them hadprivate lessons in addition to their regular course

at school. Exactly 90% of them did not practiceEnglish in a natural setting. Their proficiency levelwas generally assessed as intermediate (B1/B2).However, individual learners varied from inter-mediate to advanced with respect to the levels ofproficiency at particular skills. Their speaking andlistening abilities were higher than their readingand writing skills, while grammar was the weak-est point of the majority of the learners. Theirmastery of English was sufficient to complete onlyParts 1 and 5 of the MLAT, which do not requireadvanced English. The information about theirlevel was based on end-of-semester grades.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In the first part of the study, the accomplishedmultilinguals were tested. Data were collected us-ing the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R [PL]), the MLAT(Carroll & Sapon, 2002), anda working memory test, the Polish Reading Span(PRSPAN), which was designed by the authors ofthe study. The study lasted 16 months, from Febru-ary 2008 until May 2009, and was conducted atPolish universities. The tasks were administeredover 2 days. On Day 1, the participants completedthe MLAT and the PRSPAN, and on Day 2 theWechsler scale. The instruments are describedbelow under the heading “Instruments.” The in-telligence test was conducted by a professionalpsychologist in order to provide credibility andvalidity, as well as to comply with formal require-ments. The data were analyzed using Pearson’scoefficient of correlation and descriptive statis-tics. The descriptive statistics include calculationof means, maximal and minimal results, and stan-dard deviations.

In the second part of the study, the mainstreamphilology students were tested and compared tothe accomplished multilinguals. The mainstreamphilology students completed MLAT 1, MLAT 5,the PRSPAN, Digit Span, and Digit-Symbol Cod-ing tests. The scores of the accomplished multi-linguals on MLAT 1, MLAT 5, the PRSPAN, DigitSpan, and Digit-Symbol Coding tests were com-pared to the scores of the mainstream philologystudents. The results were submitted to a univari-ate analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by aposthoc Tukey’s Honestly Significant Differencetest. The level of significance for all analyses wasp < .05.

INSTRUMENTS

The following instruments were used in thisstudy.


Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R [PL])

This scale is an adaptation of the Weschler scalefor use with the Polish population by Brzezin-ski, Gaul, Hornowska, Machowski, & Zakrzewska(1996). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales are aseries of standardized tests used to evaluate in-tellectual abilities in adults. The test is used todetermine vocational ability, to assess adult intel-lectual ability in the classroom, and to determineneurological deficiencies. Intelligence testing re-quires a clinically trained examiner. The scalesshould be administered, scored, and interpretedby a trained professional, preferably a psycholo-gist. The complete test takes 60–90 minutes toadminister. The test is standardized. The scaleshave a mean score of 100 and a standard deviationof 15. The standard deviation indicates how farabove or below the norm the participant’s scoreis. A person taking the test receives a full-scale(general) IQ score, a verbal IQ score, and a non-verbal (performance) IQ score, as well as scaledscores on each of the subtests.

The Polish version of the Wechsler scales is com-posed of eleven subtests (six verbal and five non-verbal) comprising the full test.

The verbal scale involves six subtests:

1. Similarities: abstract verbal reasoning (e.g.,“In what way are a dog and a lion alike?”)

2. Vocabulary: The degree to which one haslearned to comprehend and verbally express vo-cabulary (e.g., “What is a tomato?”)

3. Information: degree of general informationacquired from culture (e.g., “What city is the cap-ital of Italy?”)

4. Comprehension: ability to deal with abstractsocial conventions (e.g., “Why should we not beatchildren?”)

5. Arithmetic: ability to solve mental mathemat-ical problems. It tests working memory, atten-tion, and numerical reasoning (e.g., “How manymonths are in three-quarters of a year?”)

6. Digit Span: attention, concentration, andmental control. In this subtest, participants aregiven sets of digits to repeat initially forward thenbackward (e.g., “Repeat the numbers 2, 4, 9 inreverse order”).

The nonverbal scale involves five subtests:

1. Digit-Symbol Coding : visual motor speed andshort-term visual memory. The subtest involvescopying a coding pattern. Symbols are matchedwith numbers according to a key.

2. Block Design: spatial perception, abstract vi-sual processing, and problem solving.

3. Picture Completion: ability to perceive visualdetails quickly.

4. Object Assembly: the ability to create a wholeby discovering relations between elements. In-volves jigsaw-type puzzles.

5. Picture Arrangement : pattern recognition. In-volves arranging pictures into a logical sequence.

At the second stage of the analysis, the scores forthe three indices of verbal comprehension, per-ceptual organization, and memory and resistanceto distraction are determined. For the purposeof this study, the subtests Digit Span, Digit-SymbolCoding, and Arithmetic were analyzed. These sub-tests constitute a memory and resistance to distrac-tion index.

Split-half reliabilities for the WAIS-R (PL) were.88–.93 for the full scale, .86–.91 for the verbalscale, and .79–.88 for the nonverbal scale, depend-ing on age. The validity coefficients (correlationswith other intelligence tests, e.g., Raven’s Matri-ces) were .39–.60, depending on a test for the fullscale (Brzezinski et al., 1996).

Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT)

The MLAT (Carroll & Sapon, 2002) is a lan-guage aptitude test that is useful for predictingsuccess in learning a foreign language (Skehan,1998). The MLAT is entirely in English and issuitable for native and near-native speakers of En-glish. It measures aptitude traits by five scores:

1. Number Learning : measures verbal STM, inparticular, “auditory alertness,” which might playa role in auditory comprehension of a foreignlanguage.

2. Phonetic Script : measures the ability to asso-ciate sounds with symbols, that is, the ability tolearn the correspondence between speech soundsand orthographic symbols. It also measures mem-ory for speech sounds and the ability to mimicspeech sounds.

3. Spelling Clues: this partly measures the exam-inee’s native vocabulary knowledge and partly theability to associate sounds with symbols, but to alesser extent than subtests 1 and 2.

4. Words in Sentences: measures sensitivity togrammar structure and the student’s ability tolearn the grammar of a foreign language.

5. Paired Associates: measures the rote memoryaspect of foreign language learning.

Split-half reliabilities for the MLAT were.92–.97, depending on the grade or age.For college students, the validity coefficients(correlations with course grades) provided in the


MLAT Manual (Carroll & Sapon, 2002) were.18–.69.

The MLAT was used for two reasons. First, allthe participants were highly advanced in English.Second, the MLAT is considered the best avail-able predictor of language learning success andof extremely good and bad language learners(Ehrman, 1998). The U.S. version was used be-cause there is no Polish version of the MLAT,or its equivalent. For the purpose of this study,subtests 1 and 5 and the general score were ana-lyzed.

Polish Reading Span (PRSPAN)

The PRSPAN is a Polish adaptation of the Amer-ican Reading Span (RSPAN) (Engle et al., 1999),designed by the authors of the study. The RSPANis referred to as a prototypical WM test, which is amodified version of the reading span task (Dane-man & Carpenter, 1980). The reading span test isconsidered to be a valid and reliable instrumentfor measuring WM capacity (Conway et al., 2008).In accordance with Daneman and Carpenter’s(1980) classical reading span test, the PRSPAN is adual task that requires the participant to read a se-ries of sentences and, simultaneously, keep trackof the last word displayed, so that the words canbe recollected later.

The test comprises eight sets of sentences,which contain three, four, five, six, seven, eight,nine, and ten sentences in Polish, respectively.Some of the sentences are sensible in the con-text of everyday life and others are not, but all aregrammatically correct. The length of each sen-tence is approximately ten words. There is an un-related word at the end of each sentence, which isa two-syllable noun. Participants read aloud sen-tences that are shown on the monitor, while try-ing to remember the unrelated words at the endof the sentence. The sentences are displayed onesentence at a time. A participant reads the sen-tence aloud and marks whether the sentence isacceptable (A) or unacceptable (U) in an answersheet. Beforehand, the participants are told thatthe criterion that they should use for determiningwhether or not a sentence is acceptable is whetherthey think it fits easily into everyday communica-tion. For example, the sentence “It is a nice daytoday” is acceptable, whereas the sentence “A frogsaid that it is a nice day today” is not. The partici-pants are asked to judge the acceptability or oth-erwise of the sentences to ensure that they attendto the sentences. After each sentence, the experi-menter presses a key that causes the next sentenceto be presented. The sentences are presented at

3-second intervals. After the last sentence in eachset, a blank slide is displayed as a cue for the par-ticipant to write down the words he rememberedin the answer sheet. The sentences are presentedfrom the shortest set (three) to the longest (ten)one. The PRSPAN score is the cumulative numberof words recalled perfectly in all the trials.

For example:

Od wielu lat jego .zona i rodzina pracowali na farmie.RYBA(His wife and family have worked at a farm for many years.FISH)

Poniewa.z by!o duszno wysz!am na dwor zaczerpn !actroch !e swie.zego powietrza. WATA

(Because it was stuffy I went out to get some air.COTTON)

Jedzenie warzyw i czasopism bogatych w witaminysprzyja odpornosci organizmu. DRZEWO

(Eating vegetables and magazines rich in vitamins im-proves natural immunity. TREE)

The validity of the test was assessed by sevencompetent judges. Highly convergent results wereinterpreted as evidence that the judges agreed onwhether the participants’ answers met the criteriaof evaluation. The competent judges came fromtwo groups. In one group were four cognitive psy-chologists who conduct research in the field ofvisual processing, memory, problem solving, andlanguage. They are practicing professionals whoare familiar with the methodology of psychologi-cal testing. In the other group were three mem-bers of faculty in the Philological Department ofGdansk University who do research on appliedlinguistics. The data were analyzed using Fried-man’s ANOVA and Kendall’s coefficient of con-cordance. The Kendall’s coefficient of concor-dance for the whole test was 0.898, p < .05. Allfour of the psychologists decided that the test isa valid measure of WM (the mean result on ascale of 1 to 7 was 6.75). The concordance of thejudges was very high, which strongly indicates thatthe test is valid.

The concurrent validity of PRSPAN was testedwith four standard STM tests. The PRSPAN corre-lated significantly with all the memory tests. Thecorrelations with MLAT 1, MLAT 5, Digit-SymbolCoding, and Digit Span were .45, .47, .30, and .49,respectively, p < .05.

A factor analysis was conducted to verify thehypothesis that more than one factor is neededto explain the variance among the test results.The factor analysis (varimax) indicated that onefactor, memory, was present in all the tests: WM(PRSPAN), MLAT 1, MLAT 5, Digit-Symbol Cod-ing, and Digit Span. This factor accounted for


TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics for the Accomplished Multilinguals (n = 28)

Mean Minimum Maximum SD

MLAT 1 40.892 28.000 43.000 3.247MLAT 5 22.571 16.000 24.000 1.989MLAT G 161.428 149.000 178.000 9.378WM 40.357 23.000 52.000 7.171D_SPAN 15.392 10.000 19.000 2.499ARITHM 14.428 8.000 18.000 2.588DS_COD 14.428 11.000 19.000 2.044MEM 130.142 102.000 147.000 9.800IQ VERB 129.892 113.000 145.000 8.891IQ NONV 118.321 96.000 137.000 9.951IQ G 125.357 108.000 139.000 8.215

Note . MLAT G = general score, WM = PRSPAN, D_SPAN = Digit Span, ARITHM = Arithmetic, DS_ COD =Digit-Symbol Coding, MEM = Memory and resistance to distraction, IQ VERB = Verbal IQ, IQ NONV =nonverbal IQ, IQ G = general IQ, SD = standard deviation.

52% of the variance altogether, which means thatall the tests measure a similar factor—memory.

To establish whether the PRSPAN is reliable,the test–retest method was applied. The correla-tion between the test and the retest, which tookplace 2 weeks apart, was 0.89 (n = 36), p <

.05. The Cronbach alpha for the reliability ofinternal consistency for the PRSPAN was .69 andthe standardized item alpha was .76.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The descriptive statistics for the accomplishedmultilinguals are presented in Table 1.

The results presented in Table 1 distinctly showthat the accomplished multilinguals have strongability. Their mean MLAT score is 161.4 (99thpercentile). The minimal result is 149 (95th per-centile), the maximal 178 (99th percentile, 92%of correct answers). In comparison to the re-sults obtained by Ehrman (1998) in research onthe language aptitude of participants in intensivelanguage courses, these results are very high. InEhrman’s research, the mean general score forthe participants who were the best at speaking(14 persons selected out of 295) was 151.2.

The results for all the memory tests indicatehigh, although not homogenous, abilities in thisfield. Very high results were obtained in MLAT1 (95.3%), MLAT 5 (94.6%), and WM (76.5%).The results for the Wechsler memory subscalesare high, hence, the memory and resistance todistraction index is also high, but not as high as inthe MLAT results. The verbal intelligence of theparticipants is high, and higher than nonverbal in-telligence. The results for the PRSPAN that mea-

sured WM capacity are varied (Mean = 40.357,SD = 7.171). However, some of the participantsmanaged to recollect about 90% of the words,the highest result being 100%. This score wasrecorded by 2 participants. One of these was a 28-year-old university lecturer, a polyglot working in aSinology department. This person knows one lan-guage at level C2 (near-native) (Chinese), threelanguages at level C1 (advanced) (English, Turk-ish, and German), and is able to communicate insix other languages: Japanese, Hebrew, Swedish,Russian, Croatian, and French. It is worth men-tioning that she started to learn Chinese at theage of 19. The other participant was a 21-year-old Japanese philology student, learning six lan-guages. Her MLAT score was 175 (91% of correctanswers).

The PRSPAN was correlated (using a Pearsoncorrelation) with standard STM tests: the firstpart of the MLAT (Number Learning), the fifthpart of the MLAT (Paired Associates), and thememory subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelli-gence Scale, that is, Digit-Symbol Coding, DigitSpan, and Arithmetic, which compose the mem-ory and resistance to distraction index. More-over, the PRSPAN results were correlated with theverbal and nonverbal (performance) subscales,as well as with the general intelligence quotientand the general MLAT score. The results forthe accomplished multilinguals are presented inTable 2.

As expected, there is a general pattern ofpositive intercorrelations among measures. ThePRSPAN correlates positively with MLAT 1 andMLAT 5, Digit Span, memory and resistanceto distraction index, and verbal and nonverbal


TABLE 2Correlation Matrix for the Accomplished Multilinguals (n = 28)

DS_ IQ IQTest MLAT 1 MLAT 5 MLAT G WM D_SPAN ARITHM COD MEM VERB NONV IQ

MLAT 1 1.00 .02 .48" .40" .45" .60" .04 .59" .33 .51" .49"

MLAT 5 .02 1.00 .35 .40" .21 .37 .16 .40" .29 .25 .32MLAT G .48" .35 1.00 .23 .18 .52" .09 .43" .28 .26 .33WM .40" .40" .23 1.00 .49" .25 #.11 .38" .40" .49" .53"

D_SPAN. .45" .21 .18 .49" 1.00 .48" #.15 .77" .69" .20 .55"

ARITHM .60" .37 .52" .25 .48" 1.00 #.11 .79" .68" .40" .65"

DS_ COD .04 .16 .09 #.11 #.15 #.11 1.00 .26 #.08 .27 .09MEM .59" .40" .43" .38" .77" .79" .26 1.00 .74" .46" .72"

IQ VERB .33 .29 .28 .40" .69" .68" #.08 .74" 1.00 .45" .87"

IQNONV .51" .25 .26 .49" .20 .40" .27 .46" .45" 1.00 .83"

IQ .49" .32 .33 .53" .55" .65" .09 .72" .87" .83" 1.00

Note. MLAT G = general score, WM = PRSPAN, D_SPAN = Digit Span, ARITHM = Arithmetic, DS_ COD =Digit-Symbol Coding, MEM = memory and resistance to distraction, IQVERB = verbal IQ, IQNONV =nonverbal IQ, IQ = general intelligence quotient."p <. 05.

TABLE 3Means and Standard Deviations for the Accomplished Multilinguals and the Mainstream Philology Students(n = 64)

MLAT 1 MLAT 5 WM D_SPAN DS_COD

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Accomplished 40.892 3.247 22.571 1.989 40.357 7.171 15.392 2.499 14.428 2.044Mainstream 31.805 8.481 16.750 5.748 26.944 8.860 12.750 2.442 12.361 2.002All 35.781 8.070 19.296 5.341 32.812 10.518 13.906 2.781 13.265 2.255

Note. D_SPAN = Digit Span, DS_COD = Digit-Symbol Coding, WM = working memory.

IQ. The highest correlation observed is withgeneral IQ, at .53. In addition, the memory andresistance to distraction index shows high andvery high correlations with all the measures.These results are in agreement with previousresearch results (Engle et al., 1999) and thetheory of the working memory capacity, whichstates that WM shares a common field with STMand is related strongly to intelligence through theattentional component (central executive)(Conway et al., 2008; Engle et al., 1999, Kaneet al., 2008).

The PRSPAN correlates with memory subscalesof the aptitude test, the MLAT. Part 1 (Num-ber Learning) requires of the testee to memo-rize twelve numbers in an artificial language andthen recollect them in three-digit combinations,such as 123, or 401 in a listening task. This ac-tivity seems to require a reasonable amount ofattention; more, for example, than a digit spantask. Listening recall is regarded as the central ex-ecutive measure (Pickering & Gathercole, 2001).In contrast, Part 5 (Paired Associates) is a classi-

cal STM task that requires the testee to memo-rize twenty-four words of an unknown language.Digit Span, which is considered to be a standardSTM task, also correlates with the WM capacity.This task requires repeating strings of digits af-ter the researcher, forward and backward. Bothdigit recall and word list recall are considered tobe measures of the phonological loop (Pickering& Gathercole, 2001). It is likely that backwardrepetition engages the central executive morethan forward repetition. Arithmetic is consideredto be a measure of WM in the U.S. version ofthe Wechsler scale. Thus, it is correlated stronglywith memory and resistance to distraction andwith intelligence. WM correlates moderately pos-itively with Arithmetic. However, the correlationis not statistically significant. The lack of signifi-cance might be due to the specificity of the tasks:The PRSPAN includes lexical material, whereasArithmetic draws on the ability to do mathe-matical calculations. Generally, Arithmetic is theweakest component for the accomplished mul-tilinguals (Table 1), which significantly lowered


TABLE 4One-Way ANOVA of Differences Between the Accomplished Multilinguals and the Mainstream PhilologyStudents (p < .05)

Test Sum of Squares Test of Significance

Effect Error F(1;58) p

MLAT 1 1300.62 2802.32 28.776 0.001MLAT 5 533.75 1263.61 26.189 0.001WM 2833.43 4136.32 42.471 0.001D_SPAN 110.01 377.43 18.071 0.001DS_COD 67.32 253.16 16.487 0.001


FIGURE 1Accomplished Multilinguals–Mainstream Philology Students Group Differences for Working Memory

WORKING MEMORY

Num

ber o

f obs

.

LEARNER: AM

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60LEARNER: MPS

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

their memory and resistance to distraction in-dex. In addition, WM does not correlate signif-icantly with the general MLAT score. It seemsthat Part 3 of the MLAT, which requires knowl-edge of English vocabulary, and Part 4, whichmeasures sensitivity to grammar, and thus relieson analytical ability, contributed to the lack ofcorrelation.

The only subscale that does not correlate withother measures is Digit-Symbol Coding. This taskmeasures visual memory and visual motor rateof learning, which are abilities that are proba-bly not connected directly to foreign languageabilities.

Group Differences Analysis

The results of the accomplished multilingualswere compared to the results of 36 mainstreamphilology students. It was decided to compare theresults of three tests that are based on linguisticmaterial, that is, the PRSPAN, MLAT 1, and MLAT5, and the results of two tests that are based on nu-merical material, that is, Digit-Symbol Coding andDigit Span. The purpose of this comparison wasto demonstrate whether there are any differencesin the memory abilities between the two groups oflearners and whether the differences depend onthe type of material in a test.


FIGURE 2Accomplished Multilinguals–Mainstream Philology Students Group Differences for MLAT 1

MLAT 1

Num

ber o

f obs

.

LEARNER: AM

0

5

10

15

20

25

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50LEARNER: MPS

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

FIGURE 3Accomplished Multilinguals–Mainstream Philology Students Group Differences for MLAT 5

MLAT 5

Num

ber o

f obs

.

LEARNER: AM

0

5

10

15

20

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26LEARNER: MPS

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26


FIGURE 4Accomplished Multilinguals–Mainstream Philology Students Group Differences for Digit Span

DIGIT SPANN

umbe

r of o

bs.

LEARNER: AM

0

2

4

6

8

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20LEARNER: MPS

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

FIGURE 5Accomplished Multilinguals–Mainstream Philology Students Group Differences for Digit-Symbol Coding

DIGIT SYMBOL

Num

ber o

f obs

.

LEARNER: AM

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20LEARNER: MPS

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20


FIGURE 6Mean Scores for Accomplished Multilinguals and Mainstream Philology Students for MLAT 1, MLAT 5, WM,Digit Span, and Digit-Symbol Coding

MLAT_1 MLAT_5 WM D_SPAN DS_COD

Means

LEARNER

Valu

es

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

AM MPS


The results of the analysis showed that despitethe high level of differentiation of the group(ages, languages, and professions), the standarddeviations of the accomplished multilinguals arelower than those of the mainstream philologystudents for memory tests that are based onlinguistic material, which indicates a balancedhigh level among members of the accomplishedmultilinguals group. As expected, there are bigdifferences in the memory abilities of the twogroups, with those of the accomplished multilin-guals being higher (Hypothesis 1). The differencein the PRSPAN (WM) is significant: 24.7%. Theresults for comparison are presented in Table 3.

The mean score for the accomplished multilin-guals for MLAT 1 is 41 points, which is close tothe maximum score of 43. The result of MLAT 1for the mainstream philology students is signifi-cantly lower: 32 points. The same pattern occursfor MLAT 5. The results are higher for the accom-plished multilinguals: 23 points; and lower for themainstream philology students: 17 points (max24). The biggest difference between the accom-plished multilinguals and the mainstream philol-ogy students is for WM, as measured by PRSPAN:

40 and 27, respectively. Differences between themean scores for Digit Span and Digit-Symbol Cod-ing are less striking.

A statistical analysis one-way ANOVA was con-ducted in order to estimate differences inmemory factors between the two groups. Theone-way ANOVA revealed statistically significantdifferences between the two groups of learnerswith respect to all the memory measures. Thebiggest differences were for lexical tests: WM,MLAT 1, and MLAT 5. The differences weresmaller for tests based on numerical material:Digit Span and Digit-Symbol Coding. The resultsare presented in Table 4.

Differences between WM scores for the twogroups are presented in the histogram in Figure 1,differences for MLAT 1 in Figure 2, differences forMLAT 5 in Figure 3, differences for Digit Span inFigure 4, and differences for Digit-Symbol Codingin Figure 5. Figure 6 illustrates the mean scoresfor the accomplished multilinguals and the main-stream philology students for MLAT 1, MLAT 5,WM, Digit Span, and Digit-Symbol Coding.

The posthoc Tukey’s Honestly Significant Dif-ferences tests showed significant differences


between the accomplished multilinguals andmainstream philology students as follows: for WM:mean multilinguals = 40.357, mean mainstream= 26.944, p = 0.001; for MLAT 1: mean multi-linguals = 40.893, mean mainstream = 31.806,p = 0.001; for MLAT 5: mean multilinguals =22.571, mean mainstream = 16.750, p = 0.001; forDigit Span: mean multilinguals = 15.393, meanmainstream = 12.750, p = 0.001; and for Digit-Symbol Coding: mean multilinguals = 14.429,mean mainstream = 12.361, p = 0.001.

It is evident that both WM and STM abilitiesare much higher in the accomplished multilin-guals than in the mainstream philology students.The differences are especially high for memorytests based on linguistic material, in particular forthe WM test, which is in Polish, and for which,therefore, the results were not influenced by aknowledge of English.

CONCLUSION

The analysis shows that the WM and STM abil-ities of the sample of accomplished multilingualsare greater than those of the sample of main-stream philology students. The mean memoryand resistance to distraction index of the ac-complished multilinguals is high (129.83). Thus,Hypothesis 1 is confirmed. The accomplishedmultilinguals obtained higher scores than themainstream philology students on memory teststhat are based on linguistic material (MLAT 1,MLAT 5, PRSPAN) than on tests based on nu-merical material (Digit Span, Digit-Symbol Cod-ing, Arithmetic). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed.The results of the present study are in agreementwith Kane et al.’s (2008) hypothesis that WM andSTM are much more domain specific in peoplewith high IQ, for example, university students,than in those from lower IQ groups. The groupof accomplished multilinguals comprised highlyselected foreign language learners, characterizedby high general and high verbal IQ.

There was a positive pattern of intercorrelationsamong the memory tests, which confirms Hypoth-esis 3. These results are in line with Engle et al.’s(1999) conclusion that neither STM nor WM tasksare pure reflections of these constructs. To the ex-tent that STM tasks demand controlled attention,they also reflect the WM construct. Moreover, thetest results reflect individual differences betweenthe participants with regard to their intelligenceor level of cognitive development. As a result, whatis clearly a STM task for one participant could bea WM task for another.

As far as Hypothesis 4 is concerned, the WMscore correlated significantly with verbal IQ, non-verbal IQ, and general IQ scores. This result sup-ports the view that WM is a significant source ofvariation in general cognitive ability and that thefactor of executive attention is the central aspectof this variation (Conway et al., 2008; Kane et al.,2008; Oberauer et al., 2008).

According to Conway et al. (2008), WM is astructure comprising a number of componentsand that performs several cognitive functions.Those cognitive functions encompass mecha-nisms for storage of information (the phonolog-ical loop) and mechanisms for cognitive control(the central executive). The mechanisms of exec-utive control differentiate WM from STM. Giventhat the accomplished multilinguals gained gen-erally high scores in all memory tests, we mayconclude that they have superior memory abili-ties with respect to the phonological loop and thecentral executive component. At this point, it can-not be determined whether the superior memoryabilities of the accomplished multilinguals are thecause of their achievement or if it is, rather, theirexperience in foreign language learning that pre-disposed them toward a certain kind of memorytasks, that is, those that involve linguistic mate-rial. Given that, in general, memory improves withpractice, it is likely that the two factors are inter-twined.

The results confirm Robinson’s (2003) pointof view that WM capacity is a powerful factor indetermining SLA outcome. Further research on abigger sample of learners and analyzing other vari-ables, such as the number of languages learned,the proficiency level in particular languages, andthe age of onset, might extend our understandingof the effect of WM capacity on success in SLA.

NOTES

1Levels of advancement are described in the Com-mon European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learn-ing, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). issued by the Councilof Europe (Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf). Levels A1 andA2 denote elementary level, which means the ability tocommunicate in simple, everyday situations. Level B1denotes intermediate level, which is “limited operationalproficiency”; B2 means that a person can fluently andspontaneously communicate with a native speaker in anatural conversation. Levels C1 and C2 indicate pro-ficiency level. C1 refers to the ability to communicatecomplex, difficult, and detailed messages. A person atlevel C1 can study in the target language. C2 “mastery”level denotes near-native proficiency.


2At Polish universities, modern European languagesare taught and evaluated according to the Council ofEurope norms. It might, therefore, be assumed that aperson who has graduated from the best Polish univer-sities, such as Warsaw University, Gdansk University, theJagiellonian University in Krakow, or Adam MickiewiczUniversity in Poznan, in a European language and withthe highest grade, will be at level C1 or C2. In the caseof Oriental languages, the norms can be less transpar-ent, due to the specificity of the process of learning. Inaddition, students usually start learning at the 1st yearof studies, from level 0. In the case of Chinese (to usean example), the HSK exam result can be taken intoaccount, as well as the rate of progress, as evaluated byteachers.

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new com-ponent of working memory? Trends in CognitiveSciences, 4, 417–123.

Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory and language:An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders,36 , 189–208.

Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998).The phonological loop as a language acquisitiondevice. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory.In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning andmotivation (vol. 8, pp. 47–90). New York: AcademicPress.

Berquist, B. (1998, March). Working memory models ap-plied to second language acquisition. Paper pre-sented at the annual conference of the AmericanAssociation of Applied Linguistics, Seattle, WA.

Brzezinski, J., Gaul, M., Hornowska, E., Machowski, A.,& Zakrzewska, M. (1996). Skala inteligencji D. Wech-slera dla doros!ych. Wersja zrewidowana. WAIS–R(Pl). Podrcznik. [Wechsler adult intelligence scale. Arevised version. WAIS-R (Pl). Manual]. Warszawa:Pracownia Testow Psychologicznych PTP.

Carroll, J. B., & Sapon S. (2002). Modern Language Apti-tude Test. MLAT. Manual 2002 edition. N. Bethesda,MD: Second Language Testing.

Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., &Towse, J. N. (2008). Variation in working memory:An introduction. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold,M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Varia-tion in working memory (pp. 3–17). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differ-ences in working memory and reading. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 19 , 450–466.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 313–349). Oxford:Blackwell.

Dewaele, J. M. (2007). The effect of multilingualism,sociobiographical, and situational factors on com-municative anxiety and foreign language anxiety

on mature language learners. International Journalof Bilingualism, 11, 391–409.

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner .Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ehrman, M. (1998). The Modern Language AptitudeTest for predicting learning success and advisingstudents. Applied Language Learning , 9(1–2), 31–70.

Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus:Correlates of language learning success. ModernLanguage Journal , 7 , 67–89.

Ellis, N. (1996). Sequencing and SLA: Phonologicalmemory, chunking and points of order. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 18, 91–129.

Ellis, N. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robin-son (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruc-tion (pp. 33–68). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Engle, R. W., Laughlin, J. E., Tuholski, S. W., & Con-way, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-termmemory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy: General , 128, 309–331.

Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Phonolog-ical memory deficits in language disordered chil-dren: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Mem-ory and Language , 29 , 336–360.

Griffiths, C. (Ed.). (2008). Lessons from good lan-guage learners. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working mem-ory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 14, 25–38.

Ioup, G., Boustagi, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994).Re-examining the CPH: A case study of successfuladult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 16 , 73–98.

Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle,R. W. (2008). Variation in working memory ca-pacity as variation in executive attention and con-trol. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A.Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in workingmemory (pp. 21–49). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition andsecond language learning . Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T.(2002). Individual differences in working mem-ory, noticing interactional feedback and L2 de-velopment. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual dif-ferences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual dif-ferences in second language proficiency: Workingmemory as language aptitude. In A. Healy & L.Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Morgan, G., Smith, N., Tsimpli, I., & Woll, B. (2007).Classifier learning and modality in a polyglot sa-vant. Lingua, 117 , 1339–1353.

Oberauer, K., Suß, H., Wilhelm, O., & Sander, N.(2008). Individual differences in working memory


capacity and reasoning ability. In A. R. A. Conway,C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse(Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 49–76).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Obler, L. (1989). Exceptional second language learners.In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker(Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Psy-cholinguistic issues (pp. 141–159). Clevedon, Eng-land: Multilingual Matters.

Osaka, M., Osaka, N., & Groner, R. (1993).Language-independent working memory: Evi-dence from German and French span tests.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 117–118.

Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1995). Verbal short-term mem-ory and vocabulary learning in polyglots. Quar-terly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38A, 98–107.

Pickering, S., & Gathercole, S. (2001). The working mem-ory test battery for children. London: PsychologicalCorporation.

Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge:An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford, Eng-land: Clarendon Press.

Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude com-plexes and SLA: A framework for research andpedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differ-ences and instructed language learning (pp. 113–133). Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA.In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The hand-book of second language acquisition (pp. 631–679).Oxford: Blackwell.

Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, andpractice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second

language (pp. 256–286). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Robinson, P. (2009). Individual differences, aptitudecomplexes, SLA processes and aptitude test devel-opment. In Pawlak, M. (Ed.), Studies in pedagogyand fine arts. New perspectives on individual differ-ences in language learning and teaching (vol. 8, pp.89–109). Poznan-Kalisz: Faculty of Pedagogy andFine Arts in Kalisz Adam Mickiewicz University inPoznan.

Sagarra, N. (1998, March). The role of working memory inadult L2 development: A longitudinal study. Paperpresented at the annual conference of the Amer-ican Association for Applied Linguistics, Seattle,WA.

Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L.(2001). Aptitude, individual dif-ferences, and instructional design. In P. Robin-son (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction(pp. 319–354). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Schneiderman, E. I., & Desmarais, C. (1988). The tal-ented language learner: Some preliminary find-ings. Second Language Research, 4, 91–109.

Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, andforeign language learning. Quarterly Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology, 45A, 21–50.

Skehan, P. (1982). Memory and motivation in language ap-titude testing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of London.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learn-ing . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude.In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and in-structed language learning (pp. 69–95). Philadel-phia: Benjamins.

working memory and shortterm memory abilities in accomplished multilinguals

Documents

memory ability

role of shortterm memory

memory wminvolves

shortterm memory tests

accomplished multilingualsif

accomplished multilingualswere

shortterm memorymemory

working memory test