Beata Grymska University of Silesia New Conceptualizations of Language Aptitude — The Potential of Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) A b s t r a c t: Foreign language (FL) aptitude is generally understood as a talent for foreign language learning. For many years, it has been researched and combined with intelligence and language proficiency. At present, foreign language aptitude construct is experiencing a growing interest in its memory component which was slightly bypassed in its research history. The paper sheds light on new conceptualizations of foreign language aptitude by emphasiz- ing the role of working memory (WM) in the second language acquisition (SLA) process. It is organized into 3 sections. The first section of the paper presents a brief historical overview of the research on language aptitude based on John Carroll’s work. The second part elaborates on the working memory construct, discussing Baddeley’s multi-component model of WM and its functions. Further discussion concentrates on a combination of two significant notions by proposing to incorporate working memory as a crucial component of language aptitude con- struct. In light of the issue mentioned above, the third section of the article focuses on the newest and original empirical evidence which supports the role of WM in different aspects of L2 learning, i.e. speaking and bilingual interpretation as well as vocabulary and grammar learning. Its concluding part reflects upon the relevance of language aptitude, paving the way for future research. K e y w o r d s: language aptitude, working memory, Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Language Aptitude—A Brief Overview It is generally agreed that individuals have different capabilities for foreign language learning (Skehan, 1998, p. 185). Undoubtedly, there are people who acquire foreign languages at a fast and easy rate. But on the other hand, others have difficulties with this process no matter how hard they try and how high their motivation is (Carroll, 1981, p. 85). Gardner and Lambert (1972, p. 2) Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition vol. 2 (1) 2016, pp. 103–118 104 Beata Grymska point out that people could differ in the ease and rate of achieving a satisfac- tory level of mastery in foreign language acquisition. The issues mentioned above are strongly connected with the notion of language aptitude. As Oxford (1990, p. 74) emphasizes language aptitude seems to be a simple notion, but in fact it is complicated to define it. John Carroll, an American psycholinguist whose contribution to the development of foreign language aptitude research cannot be denied, provided a comprehensive definition of language aptitude: “Foreign language aptitude is considered as the individual’s initial state of readiness and capacity for learning a foreign language” (Carroll, 1981, p. 86). Gardner and Lambert (1972, p. 2) define this term as ‘a knack’ for learning a foreign language. Gardner and McIntyre (1992), however, name it a ‘cogni- tive sponge’ meaning that new knowledge and skills are associated with those already acquired. Language aptitude can also be described as a specific talent for learning languages (Dornyei & Skehan, 2003). As we can see, there are many attempts to clarify this notion which slightly differ from each other and as a result we still do not know precisely what language aptitude is (Arabski, 1998, p. 9; Grymska, 2015, p. 30). The golden period of language aptitude research. Research on language aptitude had its golden period in the 1950s and 1960s (Rees, 2000) thanks to the work done by Carroll, who provided the following three theses referring to language aptitude: there is a distinction between language aptitude and other cognitive abilities, including intelligence; aptitude is relatively fixed and hard to modify; and it is componential (Skehan, 2014, p. 381). His fundamental contributions can be subdivided into two areas: he is the author of a four- component view of language aptitude, and the second area refers to the measures of language aptitude. Carroll (1981, p. 105) indicated that there are four major components of language aptitude: • phonetic coding ability—the ability to make distinctions between sounds, to associate sounds and symbols representing them and keep them in mind; • grammatical sensitivity—the ability needed for recognizing grammatical func- tions of words in sentences; • rote learning ability for foreign language materials—the ability to distinguish sounds and meanings at a fast rate and to retain them; • inductive language learning ability—a talent to induce both explicit and implicit rules from the chaos of language material (Arabski, 1998, p. 9) and to be able to produce language based on the generalizations (Skehan, 2014, p. 381). The second area of his work and contribution was more practical. As Skehan (2014, pp. 381–382) indicates, Carroll developed a large number of foreign language aptitude tests. Together with Stanley Sapon, he was the author of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (the MLAT) (Carroll & Sapon, 1959) which 105New Conceptualizations of Language Aptitude… was devised to measure several separate components that form an individual’s aptitude to learn a foreign language (Parry & Child, 1990, p. 37). As Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014, p. 66) note, the MLAT measured the rate at which a per- son could learn a foreign language, but, which is worth emphasizing, it did not predict whether an individual could learn a language at all or not. The battery consists of five sub-tests: Number Learning, Phonetic Script, Spelling Clues, Words in Sentences and Paired Associates (Skehan, 2014, p. 382; Dornyei, 2005, p. 37). Carroll’s particular view of aptitude construct and the MLAT have been employed since the 1950s, beginning the golden period of language aptitude research (Rees 2000). Language aptitude—Post-Carroll research. After the publication of the MLAT we can observe the culmination of further test development as apti- tude measurement tools, e.g., the widely used PLAB (the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery, Pimsleur, 1966), the York Language Aptitude Test (Green, 1975), the Defense Language Aptitude Battery (Petersen & Al-Haik, 1976), the German Aptitude Test (Miller & Phillips, 1982) and VORD (Parry and Child, 1990). Another instance of aptitude measurement is CANAL-FT (Grigorenko et al., 2000) which in contrast to the MLAT is theory driven, especially based on the theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 2002). It is generally agreed in the literature that the new batteries did not exceed the MLAT in superi- ority (Dornyei, 2005; Sparks & Ganschow, 2001; Sawyer & Ranta, 2001). Parry and Child concede: “the MLAT was the best overall instrument for predicting language-learning success” (Parry & Child, 1990, p. 52). In order to deepen and enrich our understanding of the research on language aptitude, it is worth adding that the MLAT was somewhat modified. On Polish ground it functions as FLAT-PL (Foreign Language Aptitude Test-Polish) and consists of 6 parts emphasizing the role of inductive language learning ability (see Rysiewicz, 2011). Most of the research studies referring to language aptitude, which spread after the creation of the MLAT, can be subdivided into three areas: the research aiming at measurement of language aptitude and publication of aptitude tests; research referring to the components of aptitude construct as proposed by Carroll; and research on the relationship between language aptitude and treat- ment (Wen & Skehan, 2011, p. 18). It is worth adding that even though language aptitude was criticized in the 1970s and 1980s, it is still essential in the research concerning second language acquisition (SLA). Wen and Skehan (2011, p. 18) emphasize that the research concentrating individually on the components of language aptitude construct is scarce, especially with the memory component. As Dornyei (2005, p. 63) observes, the role of working memory in second language acquisition (SLA) as well as language aptitude is an area of future research which now is revealing 106 Beata Grymska a growing interest. More attention referring to working memory and its role in SLA as the component of language aptitude will be drawn in next sections. Working Memory (WM) Construct For the purposes of illustrating what working memory is, we must look at the following explanation by Ellis (2005, p. 338): “If I ask you what 397 x 27 is, you do not look up the answer from long-term memory, you work it out.” Working memory has its origin in unitary short-term memory that is the site of temporary storing of small amounts of material in short periods of time (Baddeley, 1992; 2009). Baddeley (1992) explains that working memory is ‘a brain system’ which is needed to hold information (the storage function of working memory) and to manipulate new information with known material (processing function). As Baddeley adds, the system is necessary in keeping information in mind while performing everyday cognitive tasks, for example, remembering a phone number or doing mental arithmetic (Williams, 2014, p. 427) as well as problem solving, academic achievement, mapping, language comprehension, learning and reasoning (Baddeley, 1992; Rysiewicz, 2013; Profozic, 2013). Working memory, like language aptitude, is a multi-component construct (Wen & Skehan, 2011, p. 21). A current model of working memory was worked out by Baddeley (2015, p. 21) and consists of four components: central execu- tive, phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, and episodic buffer. Central executive is described as the core which controls entire system of working memory (Baddeley, 1998, p. 50). Different authors have tried to enumerate the most significant functions of the central executive and they are the following: • the central executive coordinates information coming from different sources (Baddeley, Pressi, Della Sala, Logie, & Spinnler 1991; Baddeley & Logie, 1999); • it controls two tasks which are performed simultaneously (Baddeley, 1986); • supervising operations which are performed in mind (Baddeley, 1996; 1997; Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, & Howeter, 2000); • the central executive enables us the access to information stored in our long- term memory (Baddeley & Logie, 1999). The second component of WM—phonological loop—is responsible for stor- ing and rehearsing phonological information. In order not to forget the informa- tion which is needed, it must be kept in a special place in our mind—this means processing, and apart from this, information must be constantly rehearsed, which is called rehearsal. If the information is not rehearsed, it disappears from our 107New Conceptualizations of Language Aptitude… memory system. Such phenomenon is called retention. Thanks to the functions mentioned above, phonological loop has on influence on the understanding of language and both L1 and L2 acquisition (Service, 1992). The third component, visuo-spatial sketchpad, handles information referring to spatial location, color and shape as well as information concerning touch and kinesthesis. Similarly as in phonological loop, in visuo-spatial sketchpad information is in constant motion (Piotrowski, 2004, p. 25). The last component of WM, episodic buffer, is a new component which was added to the model a few years ago by Baddeley (2000). It is a buffer kind of memory which links information between different components of WM. Furthermore, it also combines information from working memory with long-term memory. Baddeley and Hitch (1974) add that working memory is the place of execu- tive control as well as consciousness. Furthermore, it functions as “the home of explicit induction, hypothesis information, analogical reasoning, prioritization, control, and decision-making” (Ellis, 2005). It must be highlighted that this is the place where metalinguistic insights referring to L2 are developed, improved, and applied (Ortega, 2009, p. 90). To deepen and enrich our understanding of working memory, two features must be analyzed. First, working memory is of limited capacity (Baddeley, 2007), in contrast to long-term memory, meaning that in normal conditions, the information can exist in WM for two seconds, and after that it is forgotten unless it can be rehearsed in the phonological loop (the component of working memory that has been discussed above). The second feature of WM is called temporary activation. Cowan (2005) observes that activation is a central characteristic of working memory, meaning that it is a part of the entire memory system and WM is activated in a processing event. It is important to note that working memory functions as a kind of gateway to our long-term memory, because the material we store and process in WM may become a part of long-term memory. This is the reason why WM is different from short-term memory (Wen & Skehan, 2011, p. 22). Working memory in SLA process. As was indicated in the section The golden period of language aptitude research, the height of the research on lan- guage aptitude was the 1950s and 1960s, but in those days the role of memory in foreign language learning was considered to be nothing but rote learning which takes place mechanically or refers to creating associations between in- formation (Wen, 2015, p. 10). But, the growing interest in working memory in SLA has occurred since the mid-1990s (Ortega, 2009, p. 90). It has been combined with one of the aspects of SLA—individual differences. It is obvi- ous that WM, being dependent on developments in modern cognitive science, may be a crucial point to evolve the concept of foreign language aptitude. Wen (2015, p. 10) adds that this proposal should be based on the following condi- tion: there are individual differences among learners in their WM which can 108 Beata Grymska be measured. Furthermore, Miyake and Friedman (1998, p. 340) propose that “WM may be one (if not the) central component of language aptitude.” There are some reasons why this concept is so significant. First, the elements of lan- guage aptitude construct proposed by Skehan (the model of language aptitude presented by Skehan in 1998)—language analytic capacity, memory ability, and phonetic coding ability—function as cognitive elements and are strongly con- nected with WM. Second, based on the available research findings, the process of developing skills and achieving proficiency in L1 is strongly related to the role of WM. Therefore, it is likely to influence learning of L2 in a significant way. Third, some research finds that for typical adults who learn L2, the stage of language acquisition can be limited, for example, from phonological or syn- tactic points of view, because maturational changes occur in the critical period (Johnson & Newport, 1989). Because of this, the L2 learning process may be based on general learning mechanisms and principles more than L1 acquisition. It is the working memory which plays an important role in the acquisition of knowledge and development of skills, for example, logical problem solving or computer programming (Shute, 1991; Kyllonen & Stephens, 1990) and this is the reason why it can be a ‘candidate mechanism’ (Miyake & Friedman). Wen and Skehan (2011, p. 24) provide that a number of SLA and cognitive psychol- ogy researchers built their arguments for incorporating WM as language aptitude component on the following three assumptions: • first language acquisition is based on universal grammar while second lan- guage acquisition is built on general learning mechanisms where working memory is one of them. • first language acquisition is based on “automatic processing” while SLA is strongly connected with “controlled processing” in which cognitive resources dependent on WM are necessary (Wen & Skehan, 2011, p. 24). • the role of WM in SLA is self-evident because the elements of WM take part in different stages of SLA which are “input processes, central processing and output processing” (Skehan, 1998; Wen & Skehan, 2011, p. 24), as well as cognitive processes and operations in SLA (pattern recognizing or noticing). Both SLA and cognitive psychology researchers have proposed to implicate WM as the crucial component of the language aptitude model, aiming at modi- fying Carroll’s language aptitude construct or even replacing it by emphasizing the role of WM in the entire process of foreign language learning (Miyake & Friedman, 1998; Wen, 2007; Sawyer & Ranta, 2001). 109New Conceptualizations of Language Aptitude… Working Memory and Different Aspects of L2 Development— Research Studies Overview In order to understand the significant role of working memory in SLA and to support the proposal for incorporating WM as a language aptitude component, it is necessary to analyze the research findings devoted to this subject. The fol- lowing part of the paper will analyze the role of WM in the learning of new vocabulary and grammar in L2. Further discussion will present research findings supporting the importance of WM in the development of two L2 skills: speak- ing and bilingual interpretation, which learners encounter from the beginning of their experience in foreign language learning. The paper will present how WM influences the speed and quality of L2 learning as well. Working memory and vocabulary learning. Available research shows that phonological working memory, which functions as a gateway for storing linguistic knowledge into long-term memory (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998), plays a pivotal role in vocabulary learning. Baddeley et al. (1992) pro- posed that the phonological buffer of working memory functions as a device which is significant in the learning of new vocabulary in L1 by children. The above-mentioned thesis was based on research conducted by Gathercole (1999). According to Gathercole and Thorn (1998, p. 142) the phonological loop influ- ences the learning of sounds of vocabulary in a foreign language. The claim was extended from L1 to L2 vocabulary learning in the study by Service and Kohonen (1995)—L1 Finnish students learnt English words. Similar results were achieved by Cheung et al. (1996) with L1 Cantonese and L2 English. Furthermore, Papagno and Vallar (1995) had similar observations for older students with the following languages: L1 Italian and L2 Russian. Masoura and Gathercole (1999) conducted another research project in which they measured short-term memory and skills at learning vocabulary in children whose L1 was Greek and L2 English. There was a significant correlation between phonologi- cal memory and vocabulary measures both in L1 and L2. The findings of the research studies presented above confirm that the phonological component of working memory has a crucial influence on vocabulary acquisition. Working memory and grammar learning. The following section is going to discuss the role of phonological aspect of working memory in L2 grammar acquisition. Ellis and Sinclair (1996) found correlations between phonological working memory and learning of morphology basing on their theoretical work which focused on chunk learning and emphasized the role of frequency. The research conducted by Williams and Lovatt (2003; 2005) proved that phonologi- cal working memory has an influence on the learning of familiar morphemes 110 Beata Grymska which is significant in grammar learning. There are also research findings on phonological memory and L2 grammar relationships which both emphasize and reject the role of vocabulary learning and its measures. French and O’Brien (2008), however, claim that phonological working memory correlates with the learning of grammar in L2 which is not dependent on vocabulary learn- ing measures. However, another study conducted by Martin (2009) confirmed the importance of vocabulary in memory measures. The study measured both phonological short-term memory (PSTM) and working memory, and these meas- ures correlated strongly with grammar and vocabulary measures. The analysis confirmed that “the relationship between grammar and memory measures was mediated by vocabulary knowledge” (Martin, 2009, p. 2). Skehan (2014, p. 386) emphasizes that the research findings mentioned above do confirm the correlation between working memory and measures of language development, meaning that working memory can be a central compo- nent of language aptitude construct. Chan et al. (2011) observe that a significant issue in the process of L2 learning refers to understanding and acquisition of a syllable structure in the target language. Acquiring syllable structure refers to keeping it in mind and remembering sequences of sounds in L2, which is connected with phonemic coding ability. This is the reason why Chan et al. (2011) propose incorporating non-words for repetition into the tests measuring phonological working memory, because those non-words refer to the syllable structure in the L2. In a non-word repetition task, a student needs to repeat non-words after the examiner who presents them orally. The non-words usually contain a single consonant or consonant cluster (Comblain, 1999). The scholars note that there is a very domain-specific phonological element characteristic of language learning, and phonological working memory and the element of language aptitude—phonemic coding ability—shall be brought together to make the measures more specific and effective. The paragraph emphasized the role of phonological component of working memory in grammar learning which was usually based on vocabulary knowl- edge and its measures. The importance of vocabulary knowledge is strongly emphasized in phonological memory measures. Working memory and L2 speaking. In order to understand the process of speaking better, it is necessary to analyze the language production process. According to Fields, the meaning can be produced by creating and expressing it (Fields, 2004). The process of speech production is much more sophisticated from a neurological and psychological perspective than other linguistic proc- esses (Scovel, 1998). In everyday life people of course are usually unaware of this process. One of the most popular models of speech production was developed by Levelt (1989) and consists of four stages which are the follow- ing: conceptualization, formulation, articulation, and self-monitoring. In the 111New Conceptualizations of Language Aptitude… first stage of speech production, we must have an idea of what we want to say (conceptualization). In the second stage, a speaker needs to change the idea into a particular linguistic plan (formulation). Then the idea and plan can be expressed on the basis of articulators—the organs of speech production (Roach, 2009, pp. 8–10)—this phase is called articulation. The final point in the model is called self-monitoring, because a speaker controls the speech meaning, check- ing what is said and how it happens. Now our attention will be focused on the role of components of working memory in the speech production process in L2. Our attention will be mostly focused on the phonological component of working memory which refers to phonological short-term memory. Gathercole provides a good clarification of this term: the phonological loop contains a phonological store and a subvocal rehearsal process. The store is the place where verbal material is held in pho- nological form, and usually refers to phonemes. The material is usually stored for about two seconds, but it can be prolonged as well. According to Wen (2015, p. 50) it is possible to predict narrative vocabulary at the early stage of learning L2 on the basis of phonological short-term memory (PSTM). Another component of working memory construct—Executive working memory (EWM)—refers to L2 speech accuracy. As Payne & Whitney (2002) note both for fluent and less fluent L2 speakers it is necessary to use their WM resources while speaking, for example, less fluent speakers need to use their attentional resources in deciding which lexemes or phonological elements they need in utterance, checking the correctness of syntax, or in looking for suitable words in their mental lexicon. What is more, the processes mentioned above need the phonological loop to keep their calculations in mind referring to the Levelt’s model (Wen & Skehan, 2011, p. 30). The central executive of working memory is also needed in checking whether chosen lemmas and sound structures are correct. Furthermore, Profozic (2013, p. 66) adds that while speaking, a learner must choose words which are suitable for the intended idea from a semantic point of view. Both storage and processing functions of WM as well as their cooperation are used in the process mentioned. We also need WM to decide what information must be used and retrieved from our long-term memory. For fluent speakers, the above-mentioned processes do not occur so consciously, meaning that their attentional resources can be used in “greater subtleties of expression” (Skehan & Wen, 2011, p. 30). Now we will put greater emphasis on some empirical evidence supporting the importance of WM in L2 speech production. The research conducted at the beginning of the 20th century confirmed that on the basis of WM, it is possible to predict L2 oral development both in computer meditated communication (see Payne & Whitney, 2002; Payne & Ross, 2005) and in the traditional classroom (Mizera, 2006; O’Brien, Segalowitz, Collentine, & Freed, 2006; 2007). The phonological loop can be used differently in various stages of L2 oral develop- 112 Beata Grymska ment: at the early level of L2 speech production it helps in the development of narrative skills and at more advanced L2 levels it also contributes to the correct use of function words in (O’Brien et al., 2006; 2007). These research findings were similar to the study conducted by Payne and Whitney, suggesting that WM plays a different role at different levels of fluency of L2 speakers. Another study conducted by Fortkamp (1999) examined the relationship be- tween working memory capacity (WMC—“the limited capacity of a person’s working memory” (Wilhelm et al., 2013) and L2 speech production in a group of learners whose L1 is Portuguese and L2 English. The research revealed that learners with larger WM capacity have faster speech rates. Working memory and bilingual interpretation. The last skill that will be discussed in the article is bilingual interpretation which is a complex task because it involves language processing (Christoffels & de Groot, 2006). In the process of Simultaneous Interpretation (SI) a learner has to listen to and understand input utterance in a particular language and retain this material in WM until it can be produced in the target language. Each of the tasks mentioned above needs WM resources (Mizuno, 2005, p. 741). Bilingual interpretation involves constant control of two languages and a person needs to understand and produce speech at the same time, and this is the reason why the role of Executive Working Memory must be emphasized (Wen & Skehan, 2011, p. 33). As Wen and Skehan (2011, p. 33) indicate, there have been few studies addressing the relationship and role of WM in Simultaneous Interpretation. Padilla, Bajo, Canas, and Padilla (1996) emphasize that interpreting practice contributes to the development of WM meaning that professional interpreters have a higher working memory capacity than, for example students. Kopke and Nespolous (2006) presented empirical support regarding the significant role of Executive Working Memory (EWM) in interpreting and found the differences between interpreters and a novice group in a free recall task. The research con- ducted by Timarova et al. (2014) emphasizes the significance of EWM as well. The study confirmed that there is a relationship between working memory and simultaneous interpreting, meaning that different functions of WM are predic- tors of simultaneous interpreting processes. Furthermore, particular features of simultaneous interpreting are connected with the central executive component of working memory. This field is still awaiting further research. Working memory and speed and quality of L2 learning. As Miyake and Friedman (1998, p. 347) point out, the SLA research confirmed the interest in the role of WM and the level of L2 proficiency as well as the process of L2 learning itself. There are not many research findings concerning the issues al- ready mentioned, but it is important to have a look at these providing the answer for what the influence of WM on speed and quality of language acquisition is. 113New Conceptualizations of Language Aptitude… First, available research findings suggest that: “older children are capable of juggling more information in their minds than are younger children” (Miyake & Friedman, 1998, p. 347). This means that they can develop knowledge in L2 more quickly than younger children do. Siegel (1994) examined children’s performance in the reading span test (the measure of WM in which students need to read the sentence, state if it is true or false and remember the last word in each sentence (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) and claimed that it increases between 6 and 18 years of age. Miyake and Freidman (1998) suggest that a larger WM capacity influences faster L2 learning. Another study is associated with the quality of WM capacity associated with L2 learning. In this study (Ando et al., 1992) Japanese learners studied English for 20 hours, but they had not attended any English classes before. The English instruction focused on grammar and required learning new abstract rules and using them in language situations. The outcome of the research was the following: “children’s reading and listening spans in L1 before English tuition were best predictors of their post-test performance in L2” (Miyake & Friedman, 1998, p. 347). Conclusion The current article attempted to combine two areas of research, namely, language aptitude and working memory, and to reveal the role of working memory in the SLA process. Presented research findings showed that different components of WM play a key role in L2 skills development. Phonological component of working memory is a crucial element both in acquisition of L2 vocabulary and grammar. L2 speaking can be developed thanks to the role of phonological and executive components of WM. As far as Simultaneous Interpreting is considered, the significance of Executive Working Memory was confirmed in the development of this L2 skill. We have also noted that WM capacity influences the speed and efficiency in L2 learning. On the basis of the research findings cited from recent studies, it is clear that working memory may be a crucial component of language aptitude, because thanks to it learners can develop their L2 skills. It is obvious that working memory should be a subject of further research to follow, because it will allow a detailed clarification of how WM influences and correlates with the development of particular L2 skills. 114 Beata Grymska References Ando, J., Fukunaga, N., Kurahashi, J., Suto, T., Nakano, T., & Kage, T. (1992). A comparative study on the two EFL teaching methods: The communicative and the grammatical approach. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 40(3), 247–256. Arabski, J. (1998). Zdolności językowe a inteligencja. In J. Arabski (Ed.), Nowe tendencje w glot- todydaktyce. Katowice: Wyższa Szkoła Zarządzania Marketingowego i Języków Obcych w Katowicach. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559. Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5–28. Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practise. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Baddeley, A. D. (1998). Pamięć – poradnik użytkownika. Warszawa: Prószyński i S-ka. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. D. (2009). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), 136–140. Baddeley, A. D. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and process- ing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Baddeley, A. D., Bressi, S., Della Sala, S., Logie, R. H., & Spinnler, H. (1991). The decline in working memory in Alzheimer’s disease: A longitudinal study. Brain, 114, 2521–2542. Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S. E., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review 105(1), 158–173. Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation, Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press. Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). The Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: Psychological Corporation. Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences & universals in language learning aptitude. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Chan, E., Skehan, P., & Gong, G. (2011). Working memory, phonemic coding ability and foreign language aptitude: Potential for construction of specific language aptitude tests—The case of Cantonese. ILHA Do Desterro, 60(1), 45–73. Cheung, H., Chan, M., & Chong, K. (1996). Use of orthographic knowledge in reading by Chinese-English bi-scriptal children. Language Learning, 57(3), 469–505. Christoffels, I. K., De Groot, A. M. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 324–345. Comblain, A. (1999). The relevance of a non-word repetition task to assess phonological short- term memory in individuals with Down syndrome. Down’s Syndrome, Research and Practice: The Journal of the Sarah Duffen Centre, 6(2), 76–84. 115New Conceptualizations of Language Aptitude… Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Dornyei, Z. (2005). Language aptitude. In Z. Dornyei (Ed.), The psychology of the language learner—Individual differences in second language acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450–466. Dornyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352 Ellis, N., & Sinclair, S. G. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A(1), 234–250. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and Research. In Planning and task performance in a Second Language (pp. 3–34). John Benjamins, BV. Field, J. (2004). Psycholinguistics — the key concepts. London: Routledge. Fortkamp, M. B. M. (1999). Working memory capacity and aspects of L2 speech production. Communication and Cognition 32, 259–296. French, L., & O’Brien, I. (2008). Phonological memory and children’s second language grammar learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(3), 463–487. Gardner, M. C., & McIntyre, P. (1992). A student’s contributions to second language learning. Part I: Cognitive variables. Language Teaching, 25, 211–220. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Cognitive approaches to the development of short term memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 410–419. Gathercole, S. E., & Thorn, A. S. C. (1998). Phonological short-term memory and foreign lan- guage learning. In A. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. London: Psychology Press. Green, P. (1975). The language laboratory in school: The York study. London: Oliver and Boyd. Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners’ individuality. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Grigorenko, E., Sternberg, R., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory based approach to the measure- ment of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 390–405. Grymska, B. (2015). Krytyka opisu predyspozycji językowych jako przykład nieprecyzyjnego opisu językowego. In J. Arabski, A. Łyda, & M. Będkowska-Obłąk (Eds.), Precyzja w języku i jego opisie. Katowice: Wyższa Szkoła Zarządzania Marketingowego i Języków Obcych w Katowicach. Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. Kopke, B., & Nespolous, J. (2006). Working memory performance in expert and novice interpret- ers. Interpreting, 8(1), 1–23. Kyllonen, P. C., and Stephens, D. L. (1990). Cognitive abilities as determinants of success in acquiring logic skill. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 129–160. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 116 Beata Grymska Martin, K. L. (2009). Phonological and working memory and L2 grammar learning. Unpublished Bachelor of Arts Thesis. Masoura, E. V., & Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Phonological short term memory and foreign language learning. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 383–388. Miller, A., & Phillips, D. (1982). Towards a new language aptitude test. British Journal of Language Teaching, 20, 97–100. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healey & L. J. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. L., Witzki, A. H., & Howeter, A. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100. Mizera, G. J. (2006). Working memory and L2 oral fluency. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation submitted to University of Pittsburgh. Mizuno, A. (2005). Process model for simultaneous interpreting and working memory. Meta, 50(22), 739–752. O’Brien, L., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexi- cal, narrative and grammatical skills in second language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377–402. O’Brien, L., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 557–582. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Routledge. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Connections for language learning. In T. Parry & Ch. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered. New Jersey, the Center for Applied Linguistics. Padilla, P., Bajo, M. T., Canas, J. J., & Padilla, F. (1996). Cognitive processes of memory in simultaneous interpretation. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku. Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1995). Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary learning in polyglots. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 98–107. Parry, T. S., & Child, J. R. (1990). Preliminary investigation of the relationship between VORD, MLAT and language proficiency. In T. S. Parry & Ch. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. (2005). Working memory, synchronous CMC, L2 oral proficiency de- velopment. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3), 35–54. Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32. Petersen, C., & Al-Haik, A. (1976). The development of the Defense Language Aptitude Battery. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 369–380. Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Piotrowski, K. T. (2004). Rola centralnego systemu wykonawczego pamięci roboczej w krótkotrwałym przechowywaniu informacji. Badanie metodą generowania interwałów losowych. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Profozic, M. (2013). Learner individual differences. In M. Profozic (Ed.), The effectiveness of corrective feedback and the role of individual differences in language learning: A classroom study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 117New Conceptualizations of Language Aptitude… Rees, J. (2000). Predicting the future of foreign language aptitude. In S. Cornwell & P. Robinson (Eds.), Individual differences in foreign language learning: Effects of aptitude, intelligence and motivation. Tokyo: Aoyama Gakuin University. Roach, P. (2009). English phonetics and phonology – A practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rysiewicz, J. (2011). Foreign Language Aptitude Test – Polish (FLAT-PL) Test Uzdolnień do Nauki Języków Obcych TUNJO 18 & TUNJO 12. Poznań, Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Rysiewicz, J. (2013). Working memory, and FL aptitude and FL proficiency. Storage or (and) processing. Presentation at Eurosla Conference, 2013. Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences and instructional design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Scovel, T. (1998). Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory and foreign language learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 21–50. Service, E., & Kohonen, V. (1995). Is the relation between phonological memory and foreign language learning accounted for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 155–172. Shute, V. J. (1991). Who is likely to acquire programming skills? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 1–24. Siegel, L. S. (1994). Working memory and reading: A life-span perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 109–124. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2014). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge hand- book of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge. Skehan, P. (2015). Working memory and second language performance: A commentary. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second langauge acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90–111. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). The theory of successful intelligence and its implications for language- aptitude testing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learn- ing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Timarová, S., Čeňková, I., Meylaerts, R., Hertog, E., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2014). Simulta- neous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting, 16(2), 139–168. Wen, Z. (2007). Working memory as foreign language aptitude: Theory and practice Xiandai Waiyu. Modern Foreign Languages, 1, 85–97. Wen, Z. (2015). Working memory as foreign language aptitude. In Z. Wen (Ed.), Working memory and second language learning: An integrated approach. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wen, Z., & Skehan, P. (2011). A new perspective on foreign language aptitude research: Building and supporting a case for “working memory as language aptitude.” Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures and Cultural Studies, 60, 15–44. Wilhelm, O., Hildebrandt, A., & Oberauer, K. (2013). What is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it? Frontiers in Psychology, 433(4), accessed September 3, 2015. Williams, J. N. (2014). Working memory and SLA. In M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London: Routledge. Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. (2005). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 55 (S1), 177–233. 118 Beata Grymska Beata Grymska Neue Betrachtungsweise der Sprachbegabung – Leistungsfähigkeit des Arbeitsgedächtnisses im Prozess des Zweitsprachenerwerbs Z u s a m m e n f a s s u n g Die Sprachbegabung (eng.: language aptitude) heißt Talent für Fremdsprachenlernen haben. Viele Jahre lang wurde sie samt Intelligenz und sprachlicher Gewandtheit zum Forschungsgegenstand. Heutzutage konzentrieren sich solche Forschungen auf das Gedächtnis, das früher von den Forschern kaum behandelt war. Der vorliegende Beitrag präsentiert neue Betrachtungsweise der Sprachbegabung, die die Rolle des Arbeitsgedächtnisses beim Zweitsprachenerwerb (eng.: Second Languuage Acquisition) hervorhebt. Der Beitrag besteht aus drei Teilen. Der erste von ihnen stellt in Grundzügen die Forschungen über Sprachbegabung dar und basiert dabei hauptsächlich auf John Carrolls Leistungen. Der zweite Teil handelt von dem Begriff „Arbeitsgedächtnis“ und be- tont die Bedeutung und die Funktionen des Mehrkomponentenmodells des Arbeitsgedächtnisses von Baddeley. Der Verfasser bemüht sich, zwei bisher behandelte Begriffe – Sprachbegabung und Arbeitsgedächtnis – zu verbinden: das Arbeitsgedächtnis wird zwar ans Modell der Sprachbegabungseigenschaften als Hauptelement des Modells angeschlossen. Im dritten Teil werden neue und originelle Ergebnisse der Forschungen präsentiert, die die Bedeutung des Arbeitsgedächtnisses für die Entfaltung verschiedener Aspekte des Zweitsprachenerwerbs: Sprechen, bilinguales Übersetzen, Wortschatz und Grammatik bestätigen. Im Resümee des Beitrags wird die Wichtigkeit der Sprachbegabung im Prozess des Zweisprachenerwerbs un- terstrichen.