This study investigated the role of procedural memory in adult second language acquisition. The researchers hypothesized that participants with stronger procedural memory would show higher proficiency, particularly under implicit training conditions. In a mixed factorial design, participants were trained in an artificial language under implicit or explicit conditions and assessed at two time points. Results provided evidence that procedural memory is an individual difference, with the greatest performance differences in the implicit training condition at the later assessment. This supports theories of procedural memory involvement in language learning and an aptitude-treatment interaction, suggesting cognitive strengths should be matched to learning contexts.

1. The Role of Procedural Memory in
Adult Second Language Acquisition
CogSci 2014
Katherine A. Brill-Schuetz
& Kara Morgan-Short
July 25, 2014

2. Adult L2 Development
• Adult second language (L2) learners have
shown varying degrees of development
and final attainment (Newport, 1990; DeKeyser, 2000; White
& Genesee, 1996; Clashen & Felser, 2006)
• This variation may be due to differences in
cognitive abilities (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995)
• The effect of these differences on L2
development may depend on learning
context (Ellis, 1993; Robinson 1997, 2001)

3. Procedural Memory in L2 Development
• Theory posits an important role for
procedural memory in L2 development
• Declarative/Procedural Model (Ullman, 2001, 2004, 2005)
• L2: as proficiency increases, there is a potential
shift of certain grammar processing to procedural
memory
• Skill Acquisition Theory of L2 (DeKeyser, 2007)
• Procedural memory has significant role in final
stages (proceduralization and automatization)

4. Empirical Support
• Procedural memory has been shown to
play a role in L2 development
• High scores on measures of procedural
memory correlated to success in learning an
artificial morphophonological rule (Ettlinger, Bradlow
& Wong, 2010)
• Procedural memory correlated with successful
learning of an artificial language in implicit
training conditions (Carpenter, 2008; Morgan-Short, Faretta-
Stutenberg, Brill-Schuetz, Carpenter, Wong, 2014)

5. Aptitude Treatment Interaction
• Role of procedural memory may be
affected by learning context
• An aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI)
suggests tasks will differentially recruit
cognitive abilities (Cronbach, 1957, 1975)
• Ability Differentiation Hypothesis - important
to match L2 learners to conditions of practice
that favor their cognitive strengths (Robinson, 2007)

6. Motivation and Goals
• Investigate role of procedural memory in L2
development
• Multiple measures of procedural memory
• Implicit and explicit training conditions
• Investigate ATI involving procedural memory

7. Predictions/Hypotheses
• The role of procedural memory changes
depending on learning context
• Prediction: Participants with stronger
procedural memory will show higher levels of
proficiency at final assessment, particularly
under implicit training conditions

8. Design
• Mixed factorial design:
2 (High vs. Low Procedural Memory) x
2 (Implicit vs. Explicit training) x
2 (Time 1 vs. Time 2)
Day 1:
Training
and
practice
session 1
Day 2:
Grammar
Judgment
Task 1
Day 3:
Training and
practice
session 2
Day 4:
Grammar
Judgment
Task 2
C o g n i t i v e A s s e s s m e n t s

9. Experimental Design: Methods
• Participants:
• 26 (16 female) participants recruited from
psychology subject pool and were paid
participants
• Age 18-30 years old
• All native English speakers with no cognitive,
learning or hearing impairments
• Varied experience with L2

10. Methods: Artificial Language
• Brocanto2
• Syntactically productive, based on universal
requirements of natural languages
• 4 nouns, 2 adjectives, 2 articles, 4 verbs, 2 adverbs
• Follows a different word order than English
• Example:
• Blom neimo lu neep li praz noyka
• Blom square the neep the switches vertically
• “The square blom switches vertically with the neep.”

11. Methods: Artificial Language
• Learned B2 in order to make game
moves on a computer-based
gameboard
• Trained either in explicit or implicit
conditions
• Practice in meaningful context
• Alternated between sets of 2
comprehension and 2 production
modules (total 400 trials)

12. Grammar and
Cognitive Assessments
• Grammaticality Judgment Task:
• 120 novel sentences, half correct and half
violation
• Administered at Time 1 and Time 2
• Procedural Memory:
• Alternating Serial Response Task (Howard &
Howard, 1997)
• Weather Prediction Task (Knowlton, Squire, & Gluck,
1994)

13. Results
• Participants performed significantly better
at later stages of learning when compared
to early stages

14. Results
Explicit Training Implicit Training
Implicit Explicit

15. Discussion
• High procedural memory performed better
overall (p = .06)
• Greatest difference in performance was in
implicit training condition at Time 2
• Consistent with predictions

16. Discussion
• Consistent with previous studies
• Supports theories in regards to procedural
memory involvement (DeKeyser, 2007; Ullman, 2001,
2004, 2005)
• Suggests there may be an ATI in L2
learning (Cronbach, 1957, 1975; Robinson, 2007)

17. Conclusions/Implications
• Provides evidence for procedural memory
as an individual difference in L2 learning
• L2 learning may be enhanced by matching
a training condition to specific cognitive
strengths (Ability Differentiation Hypothesis)
• L2 training conditions may differ in task
demands such that cognitive abilities are
recruited differentially across learning
contexts, as well as over time

18. Thank you!
• Special Thanks to:
• CogSLA Lab members
• Sam Cralli
• Namrata Shah
• Karla Cabrera-Perez
• Fatima Saeed
• Allison Lee

19. Questions?