Content uploaded by John W. Schwieter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John W. Schwieter on Sep 19, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Zhisheng Edward Wen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zhisheng Edward Wen on Apr 17, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
40
Toward an Integrated
Account of Working
Memory and Language
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen and John W. Schwieter
40.1 Introduction
According to George Miller (1956), a pioneer of the “cognitive revolution”’
and proponent of the buzzword concept of the “magical number seven,”
cognitive science in the modern sense had only started in the 1950s and
gradually took shape in the mid-1970s. Based on Miller’s(2003) historical
account, cognitive science as a scientificfield of study originally comprised
six core disciplines, spanning psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience, as
well as anthropology, artificial intelligence, and philosophy. Over the last
half-century, cognitive scientists have probed into the underlying mechan-
isms and processes of human cognition, encompassing perception, atten-
tion, consciousness, reasoning, planning, learning, and memory, among
many other topics. The six constituting disciplines have all flourished and
complement each other, giving rise to a new set of interdisciplinary
research agendas subsuming language acquisition and cognitive
development, psycholinguistics and language processing, second language
acquisition and bilingualism/multilingualism, and so forth.
Meanwhile, the concept of working memory had also made its debut
appearance some 60 years ago (Miller et al., 1960, p. 65). But then, with the
advent of the seminal model of working memory by the British cognitive
psychologists Baddeley and Hitch (1974), ensuing research enthusiasm into
its nature, structure, and implications for essential facets of human cogni-
tion has grown exponentially. Expanding waves of research endeavors from
laboratories across the Atlantic (Andrade, 2001) have given rise to the
propagation of a multitude of theoretical perspectives and models of
working memory (Baddeley, 2012; Conway et al., 2007; Cowan, 2017;
Logie et al., 2021; Miyake & Shah, 1999). A majority of these influential
We would like to thank Alan Baddeley and Nelson Cowan for their constructive comments and suggestions made to the
earlier drafts of the chapter. All remaining limitations and shortcomings are our own responsibilities.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
working memory models are also featured in this current handbook, par-
ticularly in Part II, and they have been augmented with a particular focus
on their unique ramifications for language acquisition and processing
domains, as well as language impairments and intervention issues.
Building on these emerging patterns and insights gleaned from strands of
previous research, we aim, in this concluding chapter, to briefly summarize
the progress that has been made in both working memory and language
sciences, with a view to further aligning putative working memory com-
ponents and processes with nuanced language acquisition domains and
processing activities. These reviews then culminate in an integrated
account of working memory and an operational taxonomy for its imple-
mentations in future language and bilingualism research. It is hoped that
through such an integrated account, we will not just reflect on the fruitful
results of previous and current endeavors by key laboratories and scholars
in the multiple fields of cognitive science, but also will prompt new and
upcoming researchers from different disciplines to collaborate and contrib-
ute to the “working memory-language”enterprise (Wen, 2016).
40.2 Unifying Theories of Working Memory
In terms of theoretical conceptions of working memory, the pioneering
multiple-component view by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) is arguably the
most seminal model that has exerted extensive and far-reaching influence
within psychology and beyond. Inspired by this standard model either
directly or indirectly, at least a dozen other models have subsequently been
proposed by working memory theorists and practitioners (Cowan, 2017;
Logie et al., 2021; Miyake & Shah 1999). Distinguished from Baddeley’s
classic model, for example, the “embedded-processes model”of working
memory as proposed by Nelson Cowan (1999, 2019; see also Adams et al.,
this volume) has emphasized “focus of attention”as embedded in the
activated part of the broader long-term memory system (aLTM). In a similar
vein, the long-term working memory (LTWM) model focuses on the long-
term knowledge structure and the efficient retrieval mechanisms that are
essential for domain-specific expert performance (Adams & Delany, this
volume; Ericsson & Delany, 1999; Ericsson, & Kintsch, 1995).
Other cognitive psychologists such as Engle and Kane (2004) have under-
scored the executive control aspect of working memory in maintaining
task-relevant information and inhibiting task-irrelevant distractors (see
also Engle, 2002, 2018). In continental Europe, Barrouillet and Camos
(2012, 2021, this volume) in their Time-Based Resource Sharing (TBRS)
model have highlighted the temporal constraints and cognitive load of
working memory tasks within the realm of human cognitive activities.
Besides cognitive models, there are also other models that have been
informed by distinctive perspectives including from neuroscience (see
910 ZHISHENG (EDWARD) WEN AND JOHN W. SCHWIETER
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
D’Esposito & Postle, 2015; Eriksson, et al., 2015; Zahn et al., this volume;
Purg et al., this volume) and computational modeling (see Burgess & Hitch,
2005; Hitch et al., this volume), among many others that are not discussed
here due to space limitations and scope.
Overall, the diverse approaches to working memory have, on the one
hand, provided contrasting and complementary perspectives on the differ-
ent facets of the construct. On the other hand, however, their seemingly
disparate research paradigms and distinctive foci can sometimes lead to
incompatible definitions of the very same construct from different labora-
tories, such as those held between the British versus the North American
traditions (Andrade, 2001), not to mention the inconsistent research meth-
odologies in variegated memory span tasks and assessment procedures (e.g.,
Burgoyne et al., this volume; Conway et al., 2005). Thus far, a generalizable
model or theory of working memory that transcends multiple perspectives
and models is still lacking (cf., Logie, 2019; Logie et al., 2021; Oberauer
et al., 2018). Such a situation can sometimes cause confusion as countless
other researchers from neighboring disciplines are looking for theoretical
frameworks and measurement tools in cognitive science to investigate
more practical issues of human cognition (such as academic learning or
educational implications, cognitive training and interventions, etc.; Dehn,
2008; Fenesi et al., 2015; Forsberg et al., 2021; Novick et al., 2019).
With the goal of addressing these thorny issues and mitigating the
confusion therein, scholars have recently attempted to mobilize concerted
efforts to reconceptualize the working memory construct to be more applic-
able in practical-oriented domains such as academic learning or education
(e.g., Dehn, 2008; Fenesi et al., 2015). For example, to reconcile the conflict-
ing views of working memory across the different laboratories, recent years
have witnessed the successful launch of the “adversarial collaboration”
project initiated by Logie in Edinburgh and joined by three major working
memory laboratories to investigate the same phenomenon and related
issues (Cowan et al., 2020; Logie, et al., 2021). So far, encouraging progress
has been achieved on several fronts toward building unifying theories of
working memory, particularly in (1) extracting some unifying theories and
characterizations of working memory from different research camps, con-
tributing to a consensus understanding of the construct (Logie et al., 2021;
Miyake & Shah, 1999, 2021); and (2) identifying and compiling an extensive
list of agreed-upon “benchmarks”for constructing working memory
models (e.g., Oberauer et al., 2018).
Indeed, when multiple theories and models of working memory are thus
systematically compared vis-à-vis each other, particularly when the propon-
ents of different models are prompted to answer an edited set of common
questions (e.g., Logie et al., 2021; Miyake & Shah, 1999), it can be concluded
that these distinctive perspectives and models are reflecting more of differ-
ences in research focus or emphasis, rather than fundamental disagree-
ments (Forsberg et al., 2021). As suggested equivocally by Miyake and Shah
Toward an Integrated Account 911
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
(2021), the 6 themes derived from the 10 major theoretical models of
working memory some 20 years ago (1999) are still valid and relevant today
(see Table 40.1). These “consensus themes”thus constitute the common
characterizations of working memory, which pave the ground for a unified
account of the construct.
Among the “consensus themes,”items 1, 3, and 5 offer more general and
basic principles in understanding and conceptualizing working memory,
while items 2, 4, and 6 spell out key putative components and processes of
the construct. Together, they serve to provide essential criteria for arriving
at a comprehensive and viable definition of working memory, which can
now be stated as:
Working memory refers to the limited cognitive capacity that
encompasses maintenance and executive control functions that are
interacting with long-term knowledge.
It is evident from this definition that the capacity of working memory in
simultaneous holding and processing of information is limited. This repre-
sents its signature feature (Carruthers, 2013; Klingberg, 2008), as opposed
to the presumably “unlimited”long-term memory. Furthermore, working
memory limitations are manifested in two ostensible ways (Baddeley, 1994).
First, in terms of the memory span in our immediate consciousness, this
capacity normally ranges between 7 unrelated units as originally conjec-
tured by Miller (1956) and 4 chunks as later revised by Cowan (2001); also
see Lu and Wen (this volume) for a distinction between the two in relation
to language parsing complexity. Then, information stored in our working
memory is very short-lived, normally lasting for just around 5 to 20
seconds, unless rehearsed repeatedly (Waugh & Norman, 1965). In their
latest interpretation, these now-or-never bottleneck effects are constrained
and shaped by the human brain and are pervasive and ubiquitous in human
cognition (Christiansen & Chater, 2008, 2016a).
Items 2, 4, and 6 in Table 40.1 further elaborate on the multidimensional
or multifaceted nature of working memory, as opposed to being conceived
as a unitary construct. Specifically, these three items represent the key
Table 40.1 A unified understanding of working memory
Nature of working memory Structure of working memory
1. Working memory is not a structurally
separate box or place in the mind or brain.
2. Working memory’smaintenance
function is in the service of complex
cognition.
3. Capacity limits reflect multiple factors and
may even be an emergent property of the
cognitive system.
4. Executive control is integral to working
memory functions.
5. Neither a completely domain-general nor a
completely domain-specificview of working
memory holds.
6. Long-term knowledge plays an integral
role in working memory performance.
912 ZHISHENG (EDWARD) WEN AND JOHN W. SCHWIETER
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
components or the executive control functions subsumed by the working
memory system. That is to say, working memory does not just serve to
maintain information in immediate consciousness (item 2), but also encom-
passes such executive control or attentional functions (item 4; also see Engle,
2002, 2018) as articulatory rehearsal and memory retrieval, subsuming
such executive processes as information updating, task-switching, and
inhibitory control (Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Miyake et al., 2000).
Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that the contents stored and
processed by the short-term storage buffers (the phonological loop and the
visuospatial sketchpad, as perceived in Baddeley’s original model) are nor-
mally domain-specific(such as auditory/sound and visuospatial materials),
while the executive control functions operating on these materials are
domain-general. In this sense, it may be best to conceive working memory
as a multicomponent system that consists of both domain-specificstorage
buffers and domain-general executive control functions (Conway et al., 2005).
Therefore, neither a completely domain-general nor a completely domain-
specific view of working memory holds (item 4).
Finally, item 6 postulates that the contents of working memory storage and
processing come from either external stimuli or input in the environment, or
it can also be readilyretrieved from the activated portion of long-term memory
(aLTM). After processing, such information will then either get lost from
working memory or be channeled back to the long-term memory knowledge
base (Ellis, 1996). Conceived this way, working memory is rendered as a
gateway that allows information to travel back and forth between itself and
long-term memory, an idea that is embraced by most working memory theor-
ists (Baddeley, 2012; Forsberg et al., 2021). Despite their elusive relationship, it
is still necessary and beneficial to distinguish between short-term memory,
working memory, and long-term memory in terms of their capacity, duration,
and functions (e.g., Baddeley, 2012; Norris, 2017; cf. Cowan, 2008, 2019).
In short, these six consensus themes constitute the unifying character-
izations of working memory that are fundamental to a comprehensive
understanding of the construct gleaned from cognitive science. For this
reason, they should be fully considered when the concept is to be defined,
implemented, and/or incorporated into any conceptual framework or the-
oretical model of human cognition. As we will further argue next, these
common characterizations of working memory have also lent great support
to the integrated account that we are now elaborating as a viable frame-
work to scrutinize its putative roles in more specific aspects of language
acquisition, processing, impairments, and intervention.
40.3 Integrating Science of Language
At the other end of the “working memory-language nexus”(Wen, 2016,
2019), language sciences have also witnessed exponential developments
Toward an Integrated Account 913
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
and shifts of paradigms over the last 50 years parallel to working memory
advances in cognitive science discussed above. In terms of theoretical para-
digms, Chomsky’s(2005, 2011) generative approach (e.g., the parameter-
principle and the merge paradigms; see also Hauser et al., (2002) maintains
a central position within linguistics (Everaert et al., 2015) (cf., Christiansen &
Chater, 2017). Notwithstanding, its very core concept of a prewired language
faculty (aka, Universal Grammar, UG) has been critically challenged by
emerging alternative approaches (Dabrowska, 2015; Ellis, 2019) such as
connectionist- (Joanisse & McClelland, 2015), emergentist (MacWhinney,
1999; MacWhinney & O’Grady, 2015;O’Grady, 2021), and usage-based
(Tomasello, 2003), construction-oriented (Goldberg, 2003), functional
approaches (Bybee, 2010; Trousdale & Hoffman, 2013). In the fields of second
language acquisition and bilingualism/multilingualism, similar trends are
also taking shape, with more and more scholars subscribing to these alter-
native approaches (e.g., Atkinson, 2011; VanPatten et al., 2020).
Also similar to the working memory conundrum, diverse approaches to
language and SLA/bilingualism are coexisting peacefully most of the time,
with different schools of thought thriving prosperously with their own
distinctive research paradigms and methodologies. Nonetheless, conversa-
tions between them are rare and they seldom endeavor in meaningful
collaborations to explore similar issues. And at times, there are fierce, tense
debates. For example, the recent “critique-reply-rejoinder”style exchanges
(Kaneman, 2003) between the generative approaches (Rothman &
Slabakova, 2018; Slabakova et al., 2014, 2020) and the complex, dynamic,
systems theory (CDST) approach (de Bot, 2015) to SLA demonstrate the stark
divide between the conflicting epistemological stances regarding the three
putative factors pertaining to language design and acquisition (Chomsky,
2005, 2011; Hauser et al., 2002; Yang et al., 2017):
1. Genetic endowment (Universal Grammar), which determines the gen-
eral course of the development of the language faculty.
2. Experience (comprehensive input), which leads to (narrow) variations.
3. Principles of data analysis and computation efficiency.
In this respect, the generative camp tends to conceive Universal Grammar
as the first and primary factor in language acquisition, thus relegating
other factors such as input (experience) and computation efficiency to the
periphery. On the contrary, the usage-based and functional accounts listed
above (e.g., the CDST approach; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) are
embracing the second factor, namely, experience or language exposure.
Still, the emergentist account (MacWhinney & O’Grady, 2015;O’Grady,
2012) and the processing accounts (Chafe, 1994; Hawkins, 2014, this
volume; Jackendoff, 2007, 2011), have all emphasized the third factor,
namely computation efficiency (disguised as working memory limitations;
see Lu & Wen, this volume) as the most critical factor that constrains and
shapes language evolution, acquisition, and processing from phonology to
914 ZHISHENG (EDWARD) WEN AND JOHN W. SCHWIETER
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
grammatical structure (Christiansen & Chater, 2016b, 2017; Gómez et al.,
submitted; O’Grady, 2017). In a similar vein, Liu and colleagues (2017;Xu&
Liu, this volume) and Gibson et al. (2019) have recently adopted the depend-
ency grammar and linguistic typological perspectives in which they argue
that computation efficiency constitutes the overarching principle of human
language structure and linguistic complexity.
At the present, the jury is still out as to which school of thought may be
most accurate ultimately. That said, it can be argued that, similar to the
diverse approaches to working memory discussed in Section 40.3, these
seemingly disparate approaches to language/linguistics/SLA also differ in
their priorities or emphases in positioning the purported factors potentially
explaining the process/route and final attainment of language acquisition,
regardless of whether it is first language or second language acquisition.
Regarding these issues, it is our hope that multiple disciplines of linguis-
tics, psychology, and neuroscience will join together in working toward
constructing an “integrated science of language”that incorporates multi-
disciplinary perspectives, accounts for a range of methodologies, and illu-
minates and triangulates evidence (Christiansen & Chater, 2016b, 2017;
Walenski & Ullman, 2005). It is also based on these integrated views of
language sciences that we will now turn to discuss the operational tax-
onomy of working memory for language and bilingualism research.
40.4 An Integrated Account of Working Memory, Language,
and Bilingualism
Though dominant research of working memory in cognitive science has
mostly focused on its nature (capacity limitations) and structure (embedded
components and subprocesses), studies exploring its relationship with and
implications for language have created an important line of inquiry since
the inception of the concept (e.g., Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Gathercole
& Baddeley, 1993). Over the years, strands of working memory-language
research endeavors have gradually developed into fruitful lines of inquiry,
such as those following Baddeley’s multiple components view (Baddeley,
2003, this volume; Baddeley et al., 1998; Gathercole and Baddeley, 1993),
and others that tap into the individual differences of working memory
capacity (e.g., Caplan & Waters, 1999; Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Just &
Carpenter, 1992). In recent years though, working memory-language
models have emerged, flourished, and gained increasing prominence in
laboratories based across the world (e.g., Contributors to this volume come
from more than 20 countries/regions).
After some 50 years of empirical investigations and theoretical advances,
we have now accumulated a growing body of both empirical and theoretical
research probing the “working memory–language nexus”by researchers
across the globe (also see Wen et al., forthcoming). The present handbook is
Toward an Integrated Account 915
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
a testament to these interdisciplinary endeavors. Building on emerging
patterns, we believe that it is now time to comprehensively evaluate and
scrutinize their research findings more closely and systematically, with a
view to building an integrative account. Strides toward this integration are
clearly demonstrated in the chapters of the current handbook. This inte-
gration is not only beneficial to the development of the two fields independ-
ently, but also illuminates issues related to other domains of cognitive
science. In the following sections, we will focus on the two well-established
strands of working memory-language explorations, namely, (1) a component-
oriented approach that explores the relationship between phonological
working memory and language acquisition as inspired by Baddeley’s sem-
inal multicomponent view; and (2) a process-oriented approach that examines
the roles of finer-grained working memory executive functions in language
processing. These reviews will then culminate in the integrative
Phonological/Executive model as a viable taxonomy for implementing
working memory in future language and bilingualism research (Wen,
2016, 2019; Bunting & Wen, forthcoming; Wen et al., forthcoming).
40.4.1 Phonological Working Memory and Language Acquisition
Early experimental and developmental psycholinguistic research related to
working memory has followed the multicomponent model of working
memory by Baddeley and colleagues (Baddeley, 2003, 2017, this volume;
Baddeley et al., 1998; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993). Their empirical explor-
ations elaborated the key components of working memory as they each
relate to native language acquisition domains as well as nonnative (second
or third, etc.) language learning (e.g., Atkins & Baddeley, 1998; Baddeley,
2003, 2015, 2017). The majority of their early studies had targeted the
relationship between the phonological loop (i.e., phonological working
memory or phonological short-term memory) in language acquisition and
development (Baddeley et al., 1998). Phonological working memory can be
further demarcated into two main cognitive mechanisms: phonological
(short-term) store and articulatory rehearsal.Simple versions of the storage-
only memory span tasks such as the digit/letter span or the nonword
repetition span have been demonstrated to provide a reliable approxima-
tion of phonological working memory (Gathercole 2006;Gathercoleetal.,
1994).
Since the cognitive mechanisms contained in phonological working
memory play important roles in the subsequent consolidation and
chunking of phonological forms (Ellis, 1996; Huang & Awh, 2018), empir-
ical studies have shown that phonological working memory is particularly
related to the acquisition and development of lexical knowledge, grammat-
ical knowledge, and collocational knowledge of the native language (see
Llompart & Dabrowska, 2020 for a recent review), and at early developmen-
tal stages of L2 oral skills (e.g., O’Brien et al., 2007; Granena & Yilmaz,
916 ZHISHENG (EDWARD) WEN AND JOHN W. SCHWIETER
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
2019), L2 vocabulary knowledge (Service & Simard, this volume), and L2
grammar development (French, 2006; Leseman & Verhagen, this volume;
McCormick & Sanz, this volume). In view of its instrumental role in acquir-
ing the novel phonological forms among monolingual and bilingual chil-
dren and adults, phonological working memory, as characterized in this
manner, is best positioned to be conceptualized as a “language learning
device”(Baddeley et al., 1998; Papagno, this volume). On the reverse side,
deficits in phonological working memory have been found to result in
language learning delay among children (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990;
Pierce et al., 2017), and adults’inability to acquire phonological forms of
new words (Llompart & Dabrowska, 2020).
40.4.2 Executive Working Memory and Language Processing
In contrast, cognitive psychologists probing the constraint effects of indi-
vidual differences of working memory capacity have paid more attention to
the relationship between the executive control functions subsumed by
working memory (i.e., executive working memory, including its embedded
cognitive mechanisms and processes; cf. Danemen & Carpenter, 1980;
Miyake & Friedman, 2012) and their consequences for language processing
activities. Particular focus has been given to sentence processing (Caplan &
Waters, 1999; Cunnings, this volume), and reading comprehension
(Daneman & Merikle, 1996; Peng et al., 2018). Researchers in these diverse
paradigms generally opt to employ complex storage-plus-processing memory
tasks in which participants are subject to dual tasks, either in the form of
semantics/grammaticality judgments (i.e., the reading span task; Daneman
& Carpenter, 1980) or calculation judgments (the operation span task;
Turner & Engle, 1989), plus recalls of the final items in the ascending lists
(also see Conway et al., 2005; Burgoyne et al., this volume). Both early and
recent large-scale studies and meta-analyses have shown that individual
differences in executive functions of working memory and the outcomes of
reading comprehension are positively correlated (Daneman & Merikle,
1996; Peng et al., 2018), and such a close relationship also exists between
executive working memory and L2 comprehension and production (Linck
et al., 2014; also see Wen & Jackson, forthcoming).
40.4.3 The Phonological/Executive Model
From our discussion thus far, it can be seen that the main research camps
of working memory have focused on either phonological or executive
working memory, respectively, in specific domains and processing activities
in language and bilingualism. Empirical explorations have tapped into their
distinctive roles in various aspects of acquisition and processing, contrib-
uting finer-grain details to fulfilling the juxtapositioned alignments
between these two key working memory components and processes with
Toward an Integrated Account 917
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
corresponding language domains and skills. These juxtapositions are then
synthesized to culminate in the theoretical foundation of the integrated
Phonological/Executive (P/E) Model (Wen, 2012, 2016, 2019; also see Wen &
Li, 2019; Wen & Skehan, 2021). As such, the P/E model stipulates that
phonological working memory underlies the acquisitional and developmental
domains of language, such as the acquisition and development of lexical
knowledge, grammatical and discourse knowledge, and collocational know-
ledge; while executive working memory modulates cognitively demanding
language processes and subskills, such as language comprehension (Adams
& Delany, this volume), interaction (An & Li, this volume), production/
performance (Skehan, this volume), and bilingual interpreting (Zheng &
Kuang, this volume).
40.5 Conclusion and Future Directions
Above, we have described the design features, structure, and functions of
working memory as extracted from multidisciplinary perspectives of cog-
nitive science, which are then further aligned with well-attested
associations with specific domains and skills of first and second language
acquisition and processing. Overall, although working memory and lan-
guage sciences have both made substantial progress as separate and inde-
pendent disciplines in both theory and methodology, the integration
between them is still in its infancy (c.f., Wen, 2016; Williams, 2015). In
view of the fact that both concepts belong to core pillar disciplines of
cognitive sciences (Miller, 2003), we have proposed an integrated account
of working memory and language sciences couched within the P/E Model as
a viable taxonomy framework to conceptualize and implement working
memory in future language acquisition and bilingualism research. No
doubt, interdisciplinary research efforts will be a driving force for future
development in the further reintegration between the two disciplines. We
thus end the chapter by proposing directions for future research.
For cognitive scientists and neuroscientists, as well as linguists and
psycholinguists, future research can continue to use advanced and sophis-
ticated scientific methods and technologies to unveil the distinctive roles of
multiple working memory components and functions in specific language
learning and processing activities, particularly finer-grained executive func-
tions such as memory updating, task switching, and inhibition (Miyake &
Friedman, 2012), as well as the roles of the underexplored components of
working memory such as the episodic buffer (Baddeley, 2015) and related or
emerging functions such as binding and chunking (e.g., Baddeley, this
volume; Baddeley et al., 2011; Huang & Awh, 2018; Norris & Kalm, 2021)
and elaboration (Bartsch & Oberauer, 2021). Such technologies as eye
tracking, event-related potential technology (ERP), and functional magnetic
resonance brain imaging technology (fMRI) can be applied to reveal the
918 ZHISHENG (EDWARD) WEN AND JOHN W. SCHWIETER
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
intricate relationship between working memory and language acquisition
and processing (Bialystok, 2017; Purg et al., this volume; Zahn et al., this
volume). That said, working memory-language researchers also need to
conduct behavioral experimental design and research (through the use of
correlational, experimental, and longitudinal research designs) to further
explore their complex relationship (Wen, 2016).
Previous working memory and language research conducted in major
working memory laboratories, in Britain, North America, Europe, and
across the globe, has focused on the native language, that is, monolinguals
for assessment purposes (Burgoyne et al., this volume). However, the major-
ity of the world’s population knows and speaks more than one language. To
this end, we thus call on the linguistics and psycholinguistics community,
as well as scholars of bilingualism/second language acquisition and specific
language impairments to play a more proactive role in exploring second
language-oriented working memory measures targeting bilingual/multilin-
gual populations (e.g., Shin & Hu, this volume; Wen et al., 2021), rather
than passively relying on the existing research paradigms and measure-
ment tools offered by cognitive psychology from a monolingual perspective
(Juffs & Harrington, 2011). It can be expected that perspectives based on
bilingual advantage and cross-linguistic switching may provide innovative
insights to illuminate the sophisticated working memory-language nexus
that may not be available from monolingual-oriented studies alone.
(Grundy & Timmer, 2017)
Indeed, in the context of increasing globalization and cross-cultural
communication, there are even more bilinguals or multilinguals than
monolinguals (Grosjean & Li, 2013). This means that studying bilingualism
and cognition is becoming more and more important and critical (Altarriba
& Isurin, 2013; Schwieter, 2015, 2019), with some researchers calling for
the bilingual/multilingual mind to be viewed as “the default”rather than
the exception (Libben, 2017; Libben & Schwieter, 2019). As suggested by
Bialystok (2017), it may now be time to rethink the concept of working
memory from this bilingual perspective. In this sense, we suggest that
working memory-language research should begin to incorporate the “bilin-
gual/multilingual turn”(cf. Ortega, 2013), and to further reveal the cognitive
psychological processes of working memory in tandem with first and
second or even third language acquisition and processing (Altarriba &
Isurin 2013; Wen et al., 2015).
Finally, given that both fields of working memory and language sciences
have been embraced by diverse approaches, and that collaboration between
theoretical and empirical adversaries is rare (cf. Kahneman, 2003; Ellemers,
2021), it is hoped that extended and programmatic collaborative efforts
between multiple laboratories of working memory and language sciences
can be further explored and mobilized to yield complementary and novel
insights and contribute to theoretical integration and joint advancement
(Cowan et al., 2020; see also Ellemers, 2021). Future endeavors can emulate
Toward an Integrated Account 919
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
the five guidelines listed in Ellemers et al. (2020) to integrate incompatible
results from different groups into agreed-on new empirical research to test
competing hypotheses by (1) leveling the playing field, (2) capitalizing on
curiosity, (3) producing measurable progress, (4) working toward mutual
gain, and (5) being aware of the downside alternative. For example,
researchers can learn valuable lessons from the successful example of the
“Working memory across the life span”collaborative project (Cowan et al.,
2020; Doherty et al., 2019; Logie et al.,, 2021).
Of course, as both Kahneman (2003) and Ellemers (2021) cautioned, par-
ticipating in collaborations in which opposing sides are brought together
successfully requires “openness to new ideas rather than a focus on the
achievement of specifically prescribed outcomes”(Ellemers, 2021, p. 17).
Thus, to end on a positive note, it is our editors’sincere hope that the current
handbook will achieve its dual goals in not only reporting the latest develop-
ments in working memory and language sciences research, but in leveling
the field for more meaningful and seamless integration and collaboration
from now on. These fruitful integrations would be the culmination of the
ultimate joy and reward we shall embrace in putting together this enormous
project despite all the adversities brought by the global pandemic.
References
Altarriba, J., & Isurin, L. (Eds.), (2013). Memory, language, and bilingualism:
Theoretical and applied approaches. Cambridge University Press.
Andrade, J. (2001). Working memory in perspective. Taylor & Francis.
Atkins, P., & Baddeley, A. (1998). Working memory and distributed vocabu-
lary learning. Applied Psycholinguistics,19, 537–552.
Atkinson, D. (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition.
Routledge.
Baddeley, A. (1994). The magical number seven: Still magic after all these
years? Psychological Review,101(2), 353–356.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of
Communication Disorders,36(3),189–208.
Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies.
Annual Review of Psychology,63,1–30.
Baddeley, A. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z.
Wen, M. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language
acquisition and processing (pp. 17–28). Multilingual Matters.
Baddeley A. (2017). Modularity, working memory, and language acquisi-
tion. Second Language Research,33(3), 299–311.
Baddeley, A., Allen, R., & Hitch, G. (2011). Binding in visual working
memory: The role of the episodic buffer. Neuropsychologia,49(6), 1393–1400.
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The
psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). Academic Press.
920 ZHISHENG (EDWARD) WEN AND JOHN W. SCHWIETER
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as
a language learning device. Psychological Review,105, 158–173.
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2012). As time goes by: Temporal constraints in
working memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science,21(6), 413–419.
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2021). The time-based resource-sharing model
of working memory. In R. Logie, V. Camos, & N. Cowan (Eds.), Working
memory: State of the science (pp. 85–115). Oxford University Press
Bartsch, L., & Oberauer, K. (2021). The effects of elaboration on working
memory and long-term memory across age. Journal of Memory & Language,
118, 104215.
Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate
experience. Psychological Bulletin,143, 233–262.
Bunting, M. F., & Wen, Z. E. (forthcoming). Working memory in language
and bilingual development. In R. Logie, Z. Wen, S, Gathercole, N. Cowan,
& R. Engle, (Eds.), Memory in science for society. Oxford University Press.
Burgess, N., & Hitch, G. (2005). Computational models of working memory:
Putting long term memory into context. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,9,
535–541.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence
comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,22(1), 77–126.
Carruthers, P. (2013). The evolution of working memory. Proceedings of
National Academy of Sciences,110(2), 10371–10378.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. University of Chicago
Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry,
36(1), 1–22.
Chomsky, N. (2011). Language and other cognitive systems: What is special
about language? Language Learning and Development,7, 263–278.
Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences,31, 489–509.
Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (2016a). The now-or-never bottleneck:
A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral & Brain Sciences,39, e62.
Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (2016b). Creating language: Integrating evolu-
tion, acquisition, and processing. MIT Press.
Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (2017). Towards in integrated science of
language. Nature Human Behaviour,1, 163.
Conway, A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. (Eds.) (2007).
Variation in working memory. Oxford University Press.
Conway, A., Kane, M., Bunting, M., Hambrick, D., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R.
(2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s
guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 769–786.
Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In
A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active
maintenance and executive control (pp. 62–101). Cambridge University Press.
Toward an Integrated Account 921
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory:
A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behaviour and Brain
Sciences,24,87–185.
Cowan N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term,
and working memory? Progress in Brain Research,169, 323–338.
Cowan, N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term
storage. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,24(4), 1158–1170.
Cowan, N. (2019). Short-term memory based on activated long-term
memory: A review in response to Norris (2017). Psychological Bulletin,145
(8), 822–847.
Cowan, N., Belletier, C., Doherty, J., Jaroslawska, A., Rhodes, S., Forsberg,
A., Naveh-Benjamin, M., Barrouillet, P., Camos, V., & Logie, R. (2020).
How do scientific views change? Notes from an extended adversarial
collaboration. Perspectives on Psychological Science,15, 1011–1025.
Dabrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone
seen it? Frontiers in Psychology,6, 852.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working
memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour,19,
450–466.
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. (1996). Working memory and language com-
prehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 422–433.
de Bot, K. (2015). Moving where? A reaction to Slabokov et al. (2014). Applied
Linguistics,36(2), 261–264.
D’Esposito M., & Postle, B. (2015). The cognitive neuroscience of working
memory. Annual Review of Psychology,66, 115–142.
Dehn, M. (2008). Working memory and academic learning: assessment and inter-
vention. Wiley.
Doherty, J., Belletier, C., Rhodes, S., Jaroslawska, A., Barrouillet, P., Camos,
V., Cowan, N., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Logie, R. (2019). Dual-task costs in
working memory: An adversarial collaboration. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,45, 1529–1551.
Ellemers, N. (2021). Science as collaborative knowledge generation. British
Journal of Social Psychology,60(1), 1–28.
Ellemers, N., Fiske, S., Abele, A., Koch, A., & Yzerbyt, V. (2020). Adversarial
alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory
building toward cumulative science. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences,117, 7561–7567.
Ellis, N. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and
points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18,91–126.
Ellis, N. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. Modern
Language Journal,103,39–60.
Engle, R. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current
Directions in Psychological Science,11,19–23.
Engle, R. (2018). Working memory and executive attention: A revisit.
Perspectives on Psychological Science,13, 190–193.
922 ZHISHENG (EDWARD) WEN AND JOHN W. SCHWIETER
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Engle, R., & Kane, M. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity,
and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology
of learning and motivation (pp. 145–99). Elsevier.
Ericsson, K., & Delaney, P. (1999). Long-term working memory as an alter-
native to capacity models of working memory in everyday skilled per-
formance. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory:
Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 257–297.
Cambridge University Press
Ericsson, K., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological
Review,102, 211–245.
Eriksson, J., Vogel, E., Lansner, A., Bergström, F., & Nyberg, L. (2015).
Neurocognitive architecture of working memory. Neuron,88(1), 33–46.
Everaert, M., Huybregts, M., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R., & Bolhuis, J. (2015).
Structures, not strings: Linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences 19, 729–743.
Fenesi, B., Sana, F., Kim, J., & Shore, D. (2015). Reconceptualizing working
memory in educational research. Educational Psychology Review,27(2),
333–351.
Forsberg, A., Adams, E., & Cowan, N. (2021). The role of working memory in
long-term learning: Implications for childhood development. Psychology of
Learning and Motivation,74,1–45.
French, L. (2006). Phonological working memory and second language acquisition:
A developmental study of francophone children learning English in Quebec. Edwin
Mellen.
Gathercole, S. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of
the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics,27(4), 513–543.
Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in
language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of
Memory and Language,29, 336–360.
Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1993). Working memory and language.
Erlbaum.
Gathercole, S., Willis C., Baddeley, A., & Emslie, H., (1994). The children’s
test of nonword repetition: A test of phonological working memory.
Memory,2(2), 103–127.
Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S., Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L.,
& Levy, R. P. (2019). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences,23(5), 389–407.
Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7(5), 219–224.
Gómez-Rodríguez, C., Christiansen, M., & Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. (submitted).
Memory limitations are hidden in grammar. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908
.06629.
Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y. (2019). Phonological short-term memory capacity
and L2 oral performance. Journal of Second Language Studies,2, 317–335.
Grosjean, F., & Li, P. (2013). The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Wiley.
Toward an Integrated Account 923
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Grundy, J., & Timmer, K. (2017). Bilingualism and working memory cap-
acity: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Second Language Research,33,
325–340.
Hauser, M., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. (2002). The faculty of language: What
is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science,298, 1569–1579.
Hawkins, J. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford University
Press.
Huang, L., & Awh, E. (2018). Chunking in working memory via content-free
labels. Scientific Reports,8(23).
Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language pro-
cessing. Brain Research,1146,2–22.
Jackendoff, R. (2011). What is the human language faculty? Two views.
Language,87, 586–624.
Joanisse, M., & McClelland, J. (2015). Connectionist perspectives on lan-
guage learning, representation and processing. WIREs Cognitive Science,6,
235–247.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learn-
ing. Language Teaching,44, 137–166.
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension:
Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review,99,
122–149.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Experiences of collaborative research. American
Psychologist,58, 723.
Klingberg, T. (2008). The overflowing brain: Information overload and the limits of
working memory. Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied lin-
guistics. Oxford University Press.
Libben, G., & Schwieter, J. W. (2019). Lexical organization and reorganiza-
tion in the multilingual mind. In J. W. Schwieter (Ed.), The handbook of the
neuroscience of multilingualism (pp. 297–312). Wiley-Blackwell.
Libben, M. (2017). Non-selective language activation and bilingualism as the
default mental lexicon. In M. Libben, M. Goral, & G. Libben (Eds.), Bilingualism:
A framework for understanding the mental lexicon (pp. 103–122). Benjamins.
Linck, J., Osthus, P., Koeth, J., & Bunting, M. (2014). Working memory and
second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,21(4), 861–883.
Liu, H., Xu, C., & Liang, J. (2017). Dependency distance: A new perspective
on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Physics of Life Reviews,21,
171–193.
Llompart, M., & Dabrowska, E. (2020). Explicit but not implicit memory
predicts ultimate attainment in the native language. Frontiers in
Psychology,11, 569–586.
Logie, R. (2019). Converging sources of evidence and theory integration in
working memory: A commentary on Morey, Rhodes, and Cowan (2019).
Cortex,112, 162–171.
924 ZHISHENG (EDWARD) WEN AND JOHN W. SCHWIETER
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Logie, R., Belletier, C., & Doherty, J. (2021). Integrating theories of working
memory. In R. Logie, V. Camos, & N. Cowan (Eds.), Working memory: State
of the science (pp. 389–429). Oxford University Press.
Logie, R., Camos, V., & Cowan, N. (2021), Working memory: State of the science.
Oxford University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (1999). The emergence of language. Lawrence Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady, W. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of language
emergence. Wiley-Blackwell.
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number of seven, plus or minus two: Some
limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review,63,
81–97.
Miller, G. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences,7(3), 141–144.
Miller, G., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behav-
ior. Holt.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N., Emerson, M., Witzki, A., Howerter, A., & Wager,
T. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contri-
butions to complex “frontal lobe”tasks: A latent variable analysis.
Cognitive Psychology,41,49–100.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. (2012). The nature and organization of individ-
ual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current
Directions in Psychological Science,21(1), 8–14.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active
maintenance and executive control. Cambridge University Press.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (2021). Foreword. In R. Logie, V. Camos, & N. Cowan
(Eds.), Working memory: State of the science (pp. vi–viii). Oxford University Press.
Norris, D. (2017). Short-term memory and long-term memory are still
different. Psychological Bulletin,143(9), 992–1009.
Norris, D., & Kalm, K. (2021). Chunking and data compression in verbal
short-term memory. Cognition,208, 104534.
Novick, J., Bunting, M., Dougherty, M., & Engle, R. (2019). Cognitive and
working memory training: Perspectives from psychology, neuroscience, and human
development. Oxford University Press.
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G., Conway, A., Cowan, N.,
Donkin, C., Farrell, S., Hitch, G., Hurlstone, M., Ma, W., Morey, C., Nee,
D., Schweppe, J., Vergauwe, E., & Ward, G. (2018). Benchmarks for
models of short-term and working memory. Psychological Bulletin,144(9),
885–958.
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological
memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition,29, 557–581.
O’Grady, W. (2012). Three factors in the design and acquisition of language.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science,3, 493–99.
O’Grady, W. (2017). Working memory and language: From phonology to
grammar. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(6), 1340–1343.
Toward an Integrated Account 925
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
O’Grady, W. (2021). Natural syntax: An emergentist primer. University of
Hawaii at Manoa. http://ling.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/OGrady-
Natural-Syntax-2021-1.pdf
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdis-
ciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning,63
(S1), 1–24.
Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H., Dardick, W.,
& Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and
working memory. Psychological Bulletin,144,48–76.
Pierce, L., 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.
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). State of the scholarship: The generative
approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition,40(2), 417–442.
Schwieter, J. W. (Ed.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of bilingual processing.
Cambridge University Press.
Schwieter, J. W. (Ed.). (2019). The handbook of the neuroscience of multilingual-
ism. Wiley-Blackwell.
Slabakova, R., Leal, T., & Liskin-Gasparro, J. (2014). We have moved on:
Current concepts and positions in generative SLA. Applied Linguistics,35,
601–606.
Slabakova, R., Leal, T., Dudley, A. & Stack, M. (2020). Generative second
language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Trousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of construc-
tion grammar. Oxford University Press.
Turner, M., & Engle, R. (1989). Is working memory task dependent? Journal
of Memory and Language,28, 127–154.
VanPatten, B., Keating, G., & Wulff, S. (2020). Theories in second language
acquisition: An introduction. Routledge.
Walenski, M., & Ullman, M. (2005). The science of language. The Linguistic
Review,22, 327–346.
Waugh, N., & Norman, D. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological Review,72,
89–104.
Wen, Z. (2012). Working memory and second language learning.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics,22,1–22.
Wen, Z. (2016). Working memory and second language learning: Towards an
integrated approach. Multilingual Matters.
Wen, Z. (2019). Working memory as language aptitude: The Phonological/
Executive Model. In Z. Wen, P. Skehan, A. Biedron, S. Li, & R. Sparks
(Eds.), Language aptitude: Advancing theory, testing, research and practice (pp.
189–214). Routledge.
926 ZHISHENG (EDWARD) WEN AND JOHN W. SCHWIETER
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Wen, Z., Baddeley, A., & Cowan, N. (forthcoming). Working memory in first
and second language: A tale of two paradigms. Cambridge University Press.
Wen, Z., & Jackson, D. (forthcoming). Working memory. In L. Shaofeng, P.
Hiver, & M. Papi (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
and individual differences. Routledge.
Wen, Z., Juffs, A., & Winke, P. (2021). Measuring working memory. In
P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
acquisition and testing (pp. 167–176). Routledge.
Wen, Z., & Li, S. (2019). Working memory in L2 learning and processing. In
J. W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language
learning (pp. 365–389). Cambridge University Press.
Wen, Z., Mota, M., & McNeill, M. (2015). Working memory in second language
acquisition and processing. Multilingual Matters.
Wen, Z., & Skehan, P. (2021). Stages of acquisition and the P/E Model of
working memory: Complementary or contrasting approaches to foreign
language aptitude? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,41,6–24.
Williams, J. (2015). Working memory in SLA research: Challenges and
prospects. In Z. Wen, M. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in
second language acquisition and processing (pp. 301–307). Multilingual
Matters.
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. (2017). The
growth of language: Universal Grammar, experience, and the principle
of computation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,81, 103–119.
Toward an Integrated Account 927
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108955638.048 Published online by Cambridge University Press
