The construction of a coherent text mental representation demands multiple comprehension processes such as the activation and maintenance of the most important ideas of the text, the retrieval of related information from long-term memory, the generation of information that has not been explicitly mentioned (e.g., inference making), the detection of possible inconsistencies, that is, , comprehension monitoring,, as well as the suppression of no longer relevant information (i.e., updating information). Although it is well known that working memory is essential for language comprehension, it is less clear how individual differences in working memory might explain high-level comprehension processes such as inference making, monitoring, and updating information. In the present chapter, we review some of the literature showing how these cognitive processes are supported by working memory during online comprehension in the first and second language. Overall, working memory is especially necessary when text comprehension requires updating of the situation model, by inhibiting no longer relevant competing information in the native language. In contrast, a more complex pattern results from text comprehension in a second language

In this chapter, I pick up the theme advanced in Chapter 8 where I distinguished between ascription of understanding to subjects whether by parent, teacher, or scientist, to the ascription of understanding by subjects themselves. We adults ascribe understanding to children when we judge that their behavior meets the criteria for understanding, namely correctness and intersubjectivity. It is we as ascribers who make the judgment. Here I focus on the second part, namely how the children ascribe understanding whether to themselves or to others. That is, I consider the benefits that accrue to the children when they themselves learn to make ascriptions of understanding. I have already hinted at the answer: To ascribe is to judge that an interpretation has met the standards of correctness and intersubjectivity and to justify the ascription by appeal to the evidence that can warrant the judgment.