Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:48:22.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Considering the (separable) influences of phonological sensitivity and working memory on language learning outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2017

Lisa M. D. Archibald
Lisa M. D. Archibald*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their keynote article examining links between early experience, phonological working memory, and language outcomes, Pierce, Genessee, Delcenserie, and Morgan (2017) present, what I argue, is a two-pronged hypothesis. In brief, the thesis is that the timing of language exposure and the quality and quantity of language input during an early sensitive period of phonological development shape the quality of phonological representations later used by the phonological working memory system to support short- and long-term language learning. The hypothesis is two-pronged because it hinges on (a) qualitative differences in the development of phonological representations, resulting in (b) variations in the efficiency of working memory as the key constraint on language learning. In this commentary, I examine support for these two prongs in detail.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , November 2017 , pp. 1301 - 1304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Archibald, L. M. D., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Short-term and working memory in specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41, 675–693.Google Scholar
Archibald, L. M. D., & Harder-Griebeling, K. (2015). Rethinking the connection between working memory and language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858–886.Google Scholar
Briscoe, J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Frazier Norbury, C. (2001). Phonological processing, language, and literacy: A comparison of children with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss and those with specific language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 329–400.Google Scholar
Briscoe, J., & Rankin, P. M. (2009). Exploration of a “double-jeopardy” hypothesis within working memory profiles for children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 44, 236–250.Google Scholar
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of working meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114.Google Scholar
Fiegenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2008). Conceptual knowledge increases infants’ memory capacity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 105, 9926–9930.Google Scholar
Fowler, A. E. (1991). How early phonological development might set the stage for phoneme awareness. In Brady, S. A. & Shankweiler, D. P. (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman. Hilllsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gangopadhyay, I., Davidson, M. M., Weismer, S. E., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2016). The role of nonverbal working memory in morphosyntactic processing by school-aged monolingual and bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 142, 171–194.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E. (1995). Is nonword repetition a test of phonological memory or long-term knowledge? It all depends on the nonwords. Memory & Cognition, 23, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513–543.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E., Tiffany, C., Briscoe, J., Thorn, , , A., & the ALSPAC Team. (2005). Developmental consequences of poor phonological short-term memory function in childhood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 598–611.Google Scholar
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49, 270–291. doi:10.1037/a0028228 Google Scholar
Noonan, N. B., Redmond, S. M., & Archibald, L. M. D. (2014). Contributions of children's linguistic and working memory proficiencies to their judgments of grammaticality. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 979–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierce, L. J., Chen, J. K., Delcenserie, A., Genesee, F., & Klein, D. (2015). Past experience shapes ongoing neural patterns for language. Nature Communications, 6, 10073.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierce, L. J., Genesee, F., Delcenserie, A., & Morgan, G. (2017). Variations in phonological working memory: Linking early language experiences and language learning outcomes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1265–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clair-Thompson, H. St., & Holmes, J. (2008). Improving short-term and working memory: Methods of memory training. In Johansen, N. B. (Ed.), New research on short-term memory. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar