Content uploaded by S P P Goswami
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by S P P Goswami on Oct 05, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 37
Research & Reviews: A Journal of Health Professions
ISSN: 2277-6192 (Online), ISSN: 2348-9537 (Print)
Volume 10, Issue 1
www.stmjournals.com
Verbal Working Memory in Bilinguals: An Exploratory
Study
Darshan H.S.1,*, Deepak P.1, Archana Rao R.2, S.P. Goswami3
1Junior Research Fellow, Department of Speech Language Pathology, All India Institute of Speech
and Hearing, Mysore, Karnataka, India
2Assisstant Professor, Department of Speech Language Pathology, Naseema Institute of Speech and
Hearing, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
3Professor of Speech Pathology, Department of Speech Language Pathology, All India Institute of
Speech and Hearing, Mysore, Karnataka, India
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to investigate Verbal Working Memory (VWM) abilities in bilinguals.
Since previous literatures mainly focused on nonverbal aspects of memory, the present study
aims to proliferate knowledge on the linguistic aspects of working memory. A total of 30
bilinguals aged between 18 and 30 years were recruited for the study. However, bilingual group
had further breakdown into two groups with 15 in each based-on age of second language (L2)
acquisition. Wherein, participants performed sentence judgement and recall task
simultaneously. These tasks encompassed of two grammatical classes of words: nouns and
verbs. However, participants performances were scored as correct or incorrect response based
on binary scoring system, i.e., ‘0’ for incorrect and ‘1’ for correct responses. Results of the
study revealed that there was no significant difference between the performances of both groups
on verbal working memory span and sentence judgement task. On the other hand, the present
study found there was a within group differences. Apparently, when comparing within group
performance, nouns performance was larger than verbs. In summary, the present study exploits
the knowledge on linguistic aspects of working memory. However, paradigm used in the study,
aids in understanding the processing involved in working memory. Furthermore, the result of
the present study delineates the notion of cognitive advantage in bilinguals’ group. However,
researcher found intriguing performance across different grammatical class of words.
Keywords: Bilinguals, cognition, linguistics, nouns, verbs, working memory
*Author for Correspondence E-mail: darshanhs23@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
Cognitive linguistic abilities have been
extensively studied in bilinguals over the last
few decades. Literature has evinced that
bilinguals show cognitive advantage compared
to monolinguals, in inhibiting the interference
occurring from competing cues [1–3]. These
cognitive advantages have been extended to
several domains such as executive functions,
problem solving, meta-cognitive awareness,
divergent thinking, and attentional control,
through dual language management. Bilinguals
profoundly train their executive control
mechanisms in order to successfully ignore
task-incongruent information [3, 4–6]. Dual
language management mechanism aids in
solving the competition between their two
language repertoires constantly [7–9]. In
bilinguals, the process of language selection to
be used during the communicative interaction
considered to be better than the appropriate
lexicon search process [10]. These diverse
views in the literature share the same
assumption that bilingualism enhances better
executive control than monolinguals.
On the other hand, the breadth of cognitive
gains in bilinguals is not restricted to inhibition,
but also found gains in executive control,
cognitive flexibility, task switching, concept
formation, abstract thinking and memory
processes. The virtue of bilingual advantage has
been assumed to extensively facilitate the
ability to store and manipulate information in
Verbal Working Memory in Bilinguals: An Exploratory Study Darshan H.S. et al.
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 38
Working Memory (WM) process. “Working
memory” refers to a system that is used
temporarily for storing and managing
information which is necessary to perform
complex cognitive tasks [11]. A dynamic part of
WM which is actively involved in our day to day
verbal communication is Verbal Working
Memory (VWM). VWM is an integral part of the
memory system that is responsible for
maintaining temporary information during
mental operations such as communication. The
specific processes involved in VWM may vary
across tasks [12–14], albeit there is no clear
consensus as to whether working memory
reflects the capacity to allocate resources to
processing and storage activities [15] or the
capacity for controlled, sustained attention in the
presence of interference or distraction [16–19].
It is highly believed that dual language
processing evidenced in bilinguals works on two
important school of thought. Firstly, bilingual
causes heavier cognitive load on their VWM.
Secondly, language load from two activated
languages might work in the favour of VWM
because of their efficient mechanism for
managing two activated languages. One such
study on WM between Korean monolinguals
and Korean-English bilinguals with different
level of second language (L2) proficiency
included and used auditory and visual digit span
task. The results did not stipulate bilingual WM
advantage over monolinguals. Further, it was
confounded that digit span task used in the study
focused only on storing the digits and recalling
the same in forward and backward direction. It
was speculated that performance might be better
for the participants who had familiarity or usage
of digits in their day to day life situations [20].
On reviewing the Indian literature, we found
there was paucity of studies pertaining to
working memory in regional languages of India.
A study investigated the executive loaded WM
skills in Kannada-English bilingual children.
The study compared verbal and visuo-spatial
working memory skills between monolingual
and bilingual children of two different age
groups and found that bilinguals perform better
than monolinguals on two different working
memory tasks. However, this study supports the
notion of bilingual advantage in general [21].
Apparently, researchers have tried to
investigate WM abilities in different
dimensions. For instance, researcher [22] aimed
to find WM abilities across L1 and L2 in young
adults, investigated English-Japanese bilingual
adults using reading span task in Japanese (L1)
and English (L2) languages. The participant’s
task was to read the sentences aloud and recall
the last word of each sentence where researcher
found no significant differences across L1 and
L2 in the aforementioned task. This finding
helps researcher to comment on working
memory and its relationship with their
languages. However, the paradigm was used for
older adults in German French bilinguals.
Results of the study indicated working memory
is independent of language in general [23].
These studies gave some insight on assessing
working memory using linguistic aspects in
general. Based on these preliminary findings,
researcher has further explored verbal working
memory abilities using different paradigms.
A study done by the researcher [24] was the
first of many studies in the literature to
investigate the VWM in bilingual children on
processing tasks like Competing Language
Processing Task (CLPT) or Dual Processing
Comprehension Task (DPCT) which revealed
no significant difference in the performance of
bilinguals over the monolinguals. This finding
suggests that differences in working memory
capacity may relate to differences in capability
for controlled attention, or the notion that
working memory may be constrained by one’s
ability to use controlled processing [25]. In
contrary, a study done on Spanish-English
bilinguals proved an interfering effect of the L2
on the L1 in the linguistic aspects like verbal
working memory and syntactic comprehension
[26]. Although there are various literature
pertaining to WM in the last few decades, there
is a shortfall of knowledge on assessing WM
using linguistic stimuli in general.
These studies in the literature highlight only the
differences between the VWM in bilinguals and
monolinguals but talked less about the
importance of age of L2 acquisition as a
variable. Bilingual groups will have different
level of language proficiency which reflects
their L1, L2, mode of learning, culture and
other environmental factors [27]. As each
Research & Reviews: A Journal of Health Professions
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2277-6192 (Online), ISSN: 2348-9537 (Print)
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 39
bilingual group might exhibit its own
distinctive way to learn and L2 practice, the use
of language pattern might have a unique impact
on their cognitive gain. Whatsoever there is no
clear evidence of the relationship between
bilinguals’ cognitive advantage and age of L2
acquisition. Most of the studies done on
bilinguals have considered children/adults who
have learnt L1 and L2 simultaneously and have
emerged as balanced bilinguals. Not much
research has been done on age of L2
acquisition. In the previous literature, the
researchers have extensively studied the
bilingual advantage on executive control,
inhibition capacity etc. But limited and diverse
tasks are used to assess the VWM process
advantage in bilinguals across all the age
groups. Albeit, research related to WM has used
non-linguistic tasks and particularly which
facilitate storage component of WM
mechanism. This creates a need to study the
possibility of bilingual advantage on VWM,
which is one of the cognitive processes
important in encoding and decoding of
language. As it is believed that bilinguals’ dual
language processing imposes a heavier
cognitive load on their WM, it leads towards
hypothesizing two possibilities about two type
of bilinguals’ WM function. The first
hypothesis is that bilinguals irrespective of their
age of L2 acquisition might not lead to
difference in performance. The alternative
hypothesis is that they might have a difference
in WM function among two types of bilinguals.
To our knowledge, only handful studies have
used linguistic task to examine WM across
different type of bilinguals. At this juncture,
studying VWM in Indian scenario becomes
conducive. Thus, the current study is focused
on using linguistic task which assess both
storage and processing component of WM
process in bilinguals.
Aim of the Study
To study the VWM abilities in sequential and
simultaneous bilinguals with respect to the
sentence judgment and recall abilities of nouns
and verbs which are embedded in the sentences.
Objectives
1. To compare the performance on sentence
judgment for nouns and verbs across two
groups of bilinguals, i.e., who have
acquired L2 before and after age four.
2. To compare the recall abilities of sentences
embedded with nouns and verbs in across
two groups of bilinguals, i.e., who have
acquired L2 before and after age four.
3. To find the correlation between the
performance on sentence judgment and
recall abilities across two groups of
bilinguals, i.e., who have acquired L2
before and after age four.
METHODS
Participants
A total of 30 neuro-typical bilinguals were
recruited from All India Institute of Speech and
Hearing, Mysore (INDIA). A written consent
was taken from the participants before
subjecting them to the study. Whose primary
language was Kannada (L1) and English (L2);
they were aged between 18 and 30 (M=22.4)
years. These participants were further
subdivided into two groups based on the age of
L2 acquisition, Group 1 consists of 15
bilinguals who had exposure to L1 (Kannada)
predominantly till four years of age, after which
L2 (English) was introduced under formal
instruction. Group 2 consists of 15 bilinguals
who had exposure to both L1 and L2 before the
age of four years.
Note: Kannada is the regional language, which
is spoken in Karnataka state, which is in India.
Materials and Development of Stimulus
All participants selected for the study were
residents of Mysuru (INDIA) and had
minimum 10 years of formal education in L2
language. All participants belonged to mid or
high socio-economic status (I–III) as per the
NIMH socioeconomic scale [28]. The ‘WHO
ten questions disability screening checklist’
[29] was administered to exclude participants
with any history of auditory disorders, hearing
loss, speech/language problems, neurological
deficits or any other sensory, motor or cognitive
problems.
Development of stimuli was carried out in two
phases, in the first phase; a corpus of 200
Kannada sentences was developed by the
investigators, using textbooks of primary and
Verbal Working Memory in Bilinguals: An Exploratory Study Darshan H.S. et al.
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 40
higher primary grades. These sentences were
validated by three experienced Speech
Language Pathologist (SLP) for the familiarity
and grammaticality of the sentences. The SLPs
were asked to rate on 3-point rating scale with
scores: 2-very familiar, 1-familiar, 0-least
familiar. The stimuli rated “2” and “1” were
selected for the final set of stimuli, which
included total of 60 sentences. In the second
phase, 60 sentences, further divided into 27
sentences ending with nouns. Similarly, other
27 sentences ended with verbs. In addition, six
sentences were used for practice trial. The
stimuli selected for the study was presented in
using DMDX software Version 5.0 software
[30]. The stimuli were presented in blocks,
where each block varied in their complexity,
i.e., starting from simple to more complex
blocks. For instance, first block was presented
with two sentences; likewise, sixth block was
presented with seven sentences. Sentences
ending with nouns and verbs were presented
separately as blocks one after the other.
However, specific care was taken regarding the
length of the sentence in all the blocks. There
are few examples, which are mentioned below
regarding what the stimuli composed of and
how it was presented.
Examples of nouns:
1st block: / sebina baNNa kempu/ (apple color red)
/ haalina baNNa biLi/ (milk color white)
2nd block
/ manejannu kaajuva praNi simha/ (home is
guarded by animal lion)
/ karnaaTakada raadzadhaani ma:gaLU:ru/
(Karnataka capital mangalore)
/viSwavikjaati maisUru dasara/ (world famous
Mysuru dasara)
Procedure
Participants were seated in the testing room with
minimal background noise and with less visual
distractions. The instruction given to the
participants were to carefully read and judge
each sentence for its semantic appropriateness
and respond by pressing ‘0’ for incorrect and ‘1’
for correct from the keyboard. In addition, he/she
should recall the last words in each sentence.
Further, the recall of the words was done at the
end of each block. It will be indicated through
text message displayed in the screen by saying
‘’recall’’. Also, there was provision of taking
breaks for about 2–3 minute after 2–3 blocks, if
subjects insisted on. This was basically done to
reduce the fatigue of the subjects. Also, all the
subjects were subjected to practice sessions,
those responses were excluded for the analysis.
A set of stimuli was presented using laptop
(Lenovo, Z570, 14.5-inch display screen)
through DMDX Auto-mode, (software Version
5.0) [30] programmed to a timing of 1500
milliseconds of stimulus presentation in visual
mode and with an inter-stimulus interval of 1000
milliseconds. Presentation of sentences was
counterbalanced across the participants with
respect to sentences ending with nouns and
verbs. The entire paradigm consisted of two
tasks. The first task was the judgment task,
where the participants were instructed to judge
the meaning of the sentences by pressing the
button “1” if the sentence was correct and “0” if
the sentence was incorrect. Further, second task
of the participant was to verbally recall the
nouns/verbs of all sentence in a block,
irrespective of the correctness of the sentence.
Further, after the completion of each block.
Accuracy response was automatically recorded
by the DMDX software. The verbal responses
were recorded using audio –video recorder
(Sony HDR-PJ410).
Scoring
In the first task, participants were scored “1” for
correct judgement of the sentence and “0” for
incorrect judgement of the sentence. However,
these responses were recorded automatically in
DMDX software. Likewise, accuracy score was
analysed for all the blocks, respectively. In the
second task, participants were scored “1” if the
last word of the sentences, i.e. nouns/verbs were
verbally recalled without any errors and “0” if
the participant failed to recall the nouns/verbs.
Further these scores were analysed to obtain the
“Verbal Working Memory Span Score”, where
the participant was scored “1” if he/she could
judge the stimuli correctly/incorrectly but
verbally recall the target stimuli accurately and
“0” if the participant judged the stimuli correctly
but still failed to recall the nouns/verbs.
Example:/sebina banna kempu/ (Apple colour
red)
Research & Reviews: A Journal of Health Professions
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2277-6192 (Online), ISSN: 2348-9537 (Print)
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 41
In the above example, participant should first
judge the sentences based on semantic
appropriateness. In the example, if subject press
‘1’ than the subjects had correctly judge the
sentence. In this case subject receives score of
‘1’. Or in other case if subject press ‘0’ he/she
receives score of ‘0’. Likewise, if subject
recalled the word /kempu/(RED), then he/she
received score of ‘1’ under section of accuracy
response of nouns. On the other hand, if subject
recalled incorrect word. Take for instance,
kappu/(Black) then he/she receives score of ‘0’.
1st block: / sebina baNNa kempu/
/ haalina baNNa biLi/
2nd block: / manejannu kaajuva praNi simha/
/karnaaTakada raadzadhaani
manga:LUru/
/ viSwavikjaati maisUru dasara/
In the above example of block 1, if participants
were able to recall /kempu/ and /biLi/
participants score of VWM span score will be 2.
Likewise, in block 2, if participant able to recall
/simha/, /mangaLUru/ and /dasara/ than VWM
span score will be 3. Subsequently, if the
participant fails in 3rd block, then the VWM
span score of participants will be 3.
RESULTS
The results presented in our study enlightens the
knowledge of VWM in bilingual population.
Firstly, researchers aimed to study the VWM
abilities in both groups of bilinguals which are
divided based on their age of L2 acquisition.
Through, which it taped both storage and
processing outcomes of VWM mechanism.
Secondly, comparing the performance with
respect to the different grammatical class of
words, i.e., nouns and verbs, which were
embedded as the last word in each sentence were
compared. The task for the participants was to
accurately judge the sentence and recall the last
word of each of the sentence at the end of each
block. In sum, this study might give new
dimensions in measuring VWM. The finding of
the present study has been discussed below.
The data was subjected to statistical analysis,
since the data did not follow normal distribution.
Hence, nonparametric tests were used for
analysis and the following are the statistical test
procedure done.
Descriptive statistics was carried out to find the
mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of
measures nouns and verbs of both groups of
bilinguals. Mann Whitney U test was performed
to compare the performance of verbal working
memory span and accuracy scores of nouns and
verbs in both sequential and simultaneous
bilinguals. Wilcoxon signed rank test was
carried out to compare the performance of verbal
working memory span and accuracy scores
within both groups of bilinguals. Spearman
correlation test was performed to check the
correlation between accuracy scores and verbal
working memory span within both groups of
bilinguals.
The results of the present study are explained
under following headings:
Accuracy scores of judgments of sentence
ending with nouns and verbs in bilinguals
who have acquired L2 after age four
Performance of bilinguals who have acquired L2
after age four on judgment of sentences revealed
greater accuracy scores for sentence ending with
nouns (M=26.56, SD=0.80) compared to verbs
(M=25.30, SD=1.89) (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Further to compare the accuracy scores of
sentence judgment of nouns and verbs sets,
Wilcoxon signed rank test were used, which
revealed significant difference (|Z|=2.88,
p<0.05) across nouns and verbs performances.
Wherein, sentences which contain nouns yielded
better performance than verbs.
Accuracy scores of judgments of sentences
ending with nouns and verbs in bilinguals
who have acquired L2 before age four
Similar pattern of results was obtained in
bilinguals who have acquired L2 before age
four as observed from Table 1 and Figure 1.
Where mean and SD for the nouns were
M=26.21, SD=1.67. Likewise, for verbs
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation Values
for Accuracy Scores of Judgments of
Sentences Ending with Nouns and Verbs in
Simultaneous and Sequential Bilinguals.
Groups
AS
Mean
S D
Sequential
bilingual
Nouns
26.56
0.80
Verbs
25.30
1.89
Simultaneous
bilingual
Nouns
26.21
1.67
Verbs
25.36
2.30
Note: AS=Accuracy scores S D=standard deviation
Verbal Working Memory in Bilinguals: An Exploratory Study Darshan H.S. et al.
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 42
Fig. 1: Mean Values for Accuracy Scores of
Judgments of Sentence Ending with Nouns and
Verbs in Simultaneous and Sequential
Bilinguals.
M=25.36, SD=2.30. Further to examine
significant difference between accuracy scores
of nouns and verbs, Wilcoxon signed rank test
was used and the results revealed that there was
a significant difference between accuracy
scores of judgments of sentence ending with
nouns and verbs. Results revealed performance
on nouns was significantly better than verbs
(|Z|=2.36, p<0.05).
Accuracy scores of judgments of sentence
ending with nouns and verbs across two
groups of bilinguals, i.e., who have acquired
L2 before and after age four
Initially descriptive statistics was applied to
analyse the accuracy scores of judgment of
sentence ending with nouns across Group 1 and
Group 2 and the mean and SD values are almost
similar in both Group 1 (M=26.56 SD=0.80)
and Group 2 (M=26.21 SD=1.61), as shown in
Table 1 and Figure 1, respectively. Likewise,
similar results were obtained for accuracy
scores of judgments of sentences ending with
verbs for Group 1 (M=25.30, SD=1.89) and
Group 2 (M=25.36, SD=2.30). Further, Mann-
Whitney U test was used and the results
revealed there was no significant difference
between accuracy scores of judgment of
sentence ending with nouns (|Z|=2.41,
p>0.05).and verbs (|Z|=7.48, p>0.05) in Group
1 and Group 2 bilinguals.
Verbal working memory span of sentences
ending with nouns and verbs in bilinguals
who have acquired L2 after age four
From Table 2 and Figure 2, verbal working
memory span is observed to be more for nouns
(Mean=4.41 SD=0.69) than verbs (M=2.93,
SD=0.47). Further, Wilcoxon signed rank test
was performed and the results revealed that
there was a significant difference between
verbal working memory span of nouns and
verbs (|Z|=3.38, p<0.05). Further, from the
results it was evinced that nouns VWM span
was more compared to verbs.
Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation Values
of Verbal Working Memory Span of Sentences
Ending with Nouns and Verbs in Simultaneous
and Sequential Bilinguals.
Groups
VWM
Mean
S D
Sequential
bilingual
Nouns
4.41
0.69
Verbs
2.93
0.47
Simultaneous
bilingual
Nouns
3.21
1.12
Verbs
2.69
0.94
Note: VWM=Verbal working memory, S D=standard
deviation
Fig. 2: Mean Values for Verbal Working
Memory span of Sentence Ending with Nouns
and Verbs in Simultaneous and Sequential
Bilinguals.
26.56
26.21
25.3 25.36
24.6
24.8
25
25.2
25.4
25.6
25.8
26
26.2
26.4
26.6
26.8
Sequential bilingual Simulanetous
bilingual
Nouns Verbs
4.41
3.21
2.93 2.69
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Sequential bilingual Simulanetous
bilingual
Nouns Verbs
Research & Reviews: A Journal of Health Professions
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2277-6192 (Online), ISSN: 2348-9537 (Print)
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 43
Verbal working memory span of sentences
ending with nouns and verbs in bilinguals
who have acquired L2 before age four
As shown in Table 2, VWM span of bilinguals
who have acquired L2 before age four is greater
for nouns (M=3.21, SD=1.12) than verbs
(M=2.69, SD=0.97). Further, to assess any
significant difference in VWM abilities across
different grammatical class of words, i.e.,
nouns and verbs, Wilcoxon signed rank test was
used. The results revealed that there was no
significant difference across verbal working
memory span of nouns and verbs (|Z|=1.56,
p>0.05).
Verbal working memory span of sentences
ending with nouns and verbs across two
groups of bilinguals, i.e., who have acquired
L2 before and after age four
Performance of Group 1 and Group 2 on recall
abilities of last word of the sentence (which is
considered as verbal working memory span)
were analysed using the descriptive statistics.
From the Table 2 and Figure 2, it was observed
that almost similar scores were noted in Group
1 (M=4.41, SD=0.69) and Group 2 (M=3.21,
SD=1.12). In order to find the difference in
performance between the groups, Mann-
Whitney U test was used. The results revealed
that there was no significant difference between
working memory span of nouns (|Z|=2.86,
p>0.05) and verbs (|Z|=1.60, p>0.05) among
Group 1 and Group 2.
Correlation between accuracy scores and
verbal working memory span across two
groups of bilinguals, i.e., who have acquired
L2 before and after age four
To study the correlation between accuracy
scores and VWM span in Group 1 and Group 2.
Spearman correlation test was used. It was
found that there was no correlation between
accuracy scores of judgments of sentences
ending with nouns and working memory span
of nouns (p> 0.05). Similar finding was noted
for the correlation between accuracy scores of
judgments of sentences ending with verbs and
working memory span of verbs (p> 0.05).
Similarly, the same trend of results is portrayed
in Group 2 when analysing correlation.
DISCUSSION
Working memory system is proactively
involved in simultaneously maintaining and
updating of information. Further, it also aids in
processing the information in tasks like
executive functions, conversation, reading,
recalling etc. Literature has equi-vocal results
on performance of bilinguals over
monolinguals in cognitive-linguistic tasks [31].
Bilingualism is a variable in the performance of
certain linguistic tasks. The use of two
languages and age of acquisition of second
language might influence cognitive abilities.
Considering this, the present study explored the
verbal working memory function in view of age
of second language acquisition as a variable.
The results of the study are discussed below in
the following heading. However, the headings
used in the results section has been concise and
made into three broad heading in discussion
section for better understanding.
Accuracy scores of judgments of sentences
embedded with nouns and verbs in s two
groups of bilinguals, i.e., who have acquired
L2 before and after age four
There was no statistical difference between
Group 1 and Group 2 with respect to accuracy
scores of judgments of sentences embedded
with nouns and verbs. Previous studies have
speculated that cognitive advantage might be
greater for the bilinguals who have higher
degree of conflict and weaker for the bilinguals
who exhibits lesser degree of conflict while
using the two languages [32]. But the present
study results differed from the previous study
findings. Both groups of bilinguals in the
present study performed equally. However, this
finding is stipulated only when measuring
performance between both groups.
Alternatively, the result differed when
measuring within group’s difference across
both grammatical class of words, i.e., this can
be attributed to the simpler syntactic sentences
used in both the sets (sentence length was of
four to five words). Participants had to judge
only the semantic aspect of the sentences,
though the participants had to store the last
word of the sentence and recall it at the end of
each block. Secondly, it could be due to the fact
Verbal Working Memory in Bilinguals: An Exploratory Study Darshan H.S. et al.
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 44
that the present study used simpler sentences
which would have made the participants of both
groups to use surface structure of language
system which requires less proficiency of
language and thus in-turn resulted in less
conflict.
However, the present study findings are in
consensus with an earlier study [20] which
aimed in assessing WM between Korean
monolinguals and Korean-English bilinguals
with two different level of second language
(L2) proficiency indicated no significant
bilingual WM advantage across the degree of
L2 proficiency over monolinguals. Further, the
present study result is also in consensus with
the interpretation [4]. A study [33] found that
bi-modal bilinguals did not perform
significantly better when compared to
monolinguals on tasks which tap cognitive
advantage. It seems difficult to point out among
simultaneous and sequential bilinguals; which
group exhibits the discussed conflict while
using the two languages. Further, in sentence
judgment, a significant difference between the
nouns and verbs was observed. When analysing
the groups within Group 1 and Group 2, it was
observed higher accuracy scores for sentences
embedded nouns at the end, compared to
sentences with verbs at the terminal end. It
could be due to involvement of separate lexical
mediation system for nouns and verbs. Present
study interpretation is in agreement with the
traditional views of neural basic of nouns and
verbs [34]. Recall of verbs were found to be
difficult which could be attributed to its
complex structure i.e., verb has PNG and tense
argument embedded in it. Further verbs are
morpho-phonologically complex, and they are
less imaginable than nouns.
Verbal working memory span score of nouns
and verbs in two groups of bilinguals, i.e.,
who have acquired L2 before and after age
four
Subsequently, the second analysis of the study
investigated the differences between Group 1
and Group 2 with respect to verbal working
memory span. Present study results revealed no
significant difference between the two groups
of bilinguals in the VWM span. This could be
due to complexity of paradigm involved in the
study, where subjects need to remember words
varying across 1–6 blocks, i.e., subjects need to
recall 2–7 words in the order, it is quiet mental
taxing for any groups, and needs subject’s
complete attention. This could be the variable
which could affect the performance. But
significant differences were observed in VWM
span of nouns compared to verbs. This was
observed while assessing the groups
individually. The results indicated higher
verbal working memory span for nouns than
verbs in both the group of bilinguals. This result
of the study was not in consensus [23]. Better
performance towards recalling nouns from the
sentence could be because of the better lexical
semantic network for nouns and hence
participants could remember and recall it
because of the rich attributes available for the
nouns. In addition, it could also be because
noun referents are more imaginable than verb,
where verbs are more abstract [35]. Verbs
referents are momentary and fleeting, whereas
noun referents are stable and static [35]. Verbs
possess arguments and they are described by
relations of nouns; this implies that nouns have
simple arguments structures compared to verbs.
This makes processing and judgement of verbs
difficult compared to nouns.
Correlation between Accuracy scores and
verbal working memory span scores
Correlation between the accuracy scores and
verbal working memory span between the two
bilingual groups was analysed using spearman
correlation and it was found that no significant
correlation between the ability to judge the
correctness of the sentence and recalling the
nouns/verbs embedded in those sentences.
Concerning the correlation between the two
tasks, our results were contradicted the earlier
studies [36, 37]. Though the performance on
judgment task was close to ceiling level, WM
span/storage component did not correlate with
the processing component, indicating that there
was a trade-off between storage and processing
component.
CONCLUSION
In summary, it was noted that there was no
difference in performance in sentence judgment
task between Group 1 and Group 2. On the
other hand, it was found that better performance
Research & Reviews: A Journal of Health Professions
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2277-6192 (Online), ISSN: 2348-9537 (Print)
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 45
on nouns when compared to verbs on recall task
which was measured as a working memory
span score. Simple working memory tasks like
digit backward span, digit forward span, and n-
back task taps only the storage capacity of
working memory mechanism. But complex
working memory tasks, like reading span task
and task which uses linguistic stimuli which
simultaneously taps both processing and
storage component within the task of working
memory mechanism yields a better dimensions
in assessment of working memory mechanism.
Using linguistic based verbal working memory
task which taps both storage and processing
component of working memory mechanism is
realistic as it interferes with the rehearsal of
remembering the items. Also, the task is closer
to the linguistic activities which are carried in
day to day situations like conversation, reading
etc. Hence the present study throws light on
assessing working memory using linguistic
stimuli. It becomes pivotal because WM is
important for any kind of task, which we
encounter in our daily life and understanding
the nature of VWM is important in normal
bilinguals in Indian scenario. As India is the
land of different cultures and it is considered as
hub of several languages. Thus, targeting some
of the regional languages becomes imperative.
Yet this enlightens the knowledge on different
nature of bilingualism and able to trace any
intriguing factors which was absent in other
type of bilinguals. However, the present study
result has one such intriguing element that there
was no significant difference across both types
of bilinguals. Although, the present study
results should be generalized with caution.
However, there is profound scope of replicating
this study to understand the consistency in the
performance across bilinguals. Also, it
strengthens the theoretical knowledge
regarding bilingualism. Likewise, this study
might provide a path for future research in
various communication disorders and in
understanding the nature of Kannada languages
(regional language of Karnataka, India).
REFERENCES
1. Adesope OO, Lavin T, Thompson T,
Ungerleider C. A systematic review and
meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of
bilingualism. Rev Educ Res. 2010 Jun;
80(2): 207–45p.
2. Barac R, Bialystok E, Castro DC, Sanchez
M. The cognitive development of young
dual language learners: A critical review.
Early Child Res Q. 2014 Oct 1; 29(4): 699–
714p.
3. Hilchey MD, Klein RM. Are there bilingual
advantages on non-linguistic interference
tasks? Implications for the plasticity of
executive control processes. Psychon B
Rev. 2011 Aug 1; 18(4): 625–58p.
4. Bialystok E, Craik FI. Cognitive and
linguistic processing in the bilingual mind.
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2010 Feb; 19(1): 19–
23p.
5. Bialystok E, Martin MM. Attention and
inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence
from the dimensional change card sort task.
Dev Sci. 2004 Jun; 7(3): 325–39p.
6. Garbin G, Sanjuan A, Forn C, Bustamante
JC, Rodríguez-Pujadas A, Belloch V,
Hernández M, Costa A, Ávila C. Bridging
language and attention: Brain basis of the
impact of bilingualism on cognitive
control. Neuroimage. 2010 Dec 1; 53(4):
1272–8p.
7. Jared D, Kroll JF. Do bilinguals activate
phonological representations in one or both
of their languages when naming words? J
Mem Lang. 2001 Jan 1; 44(1): 2–31p.
8. Poarch GJ, van Hell JG. Executive
functions and inhibitory control in
multilingual children: Evidence from
second-language learners, bilinguals, and
trilinguals. J Exp Child Psychol. 2012 Dec
1; 113(4): 535–51p.
9. Green DW, Abutalebi J. Language control
in bilinguals: The adaptive control
hypothesis. J Cogn Psychol. 2013 Aug 1;
25(5): 515–30p.
10. Costa A, Hernández M, Costa-Faidella J,
Sebastián-Gallés N. On the bilingual
advantage in conflict processing: Now you
see it, now you don’t. Cognition. 2009 Nov
1; 113(2): 135–49p.
11. Baddeley A. Working memory: looking
back and looking forward. Nature Rev
Neurosci. 2003 Oct; 4(10): 829p.
12. Adams AM, Bourke L, Willis C. Working
memory and spoken language
comprehension in young children. Int J
Psychol. 1999 Oct 12; 34(5–6): 364–73p.
13. Gathercole SE, Pickering SJ. Assessment
of working memory in six-and seven-year-
Verbal Working Memory in Bilinguals: An Exploratory Study Darshan H.S. et al.
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 46
old children. J Educ Psychol. 2000 Jun;
92(2): 377p.
14. Swanson HL, Ashbaker MH, Lee C.
Learning-disabled readers' working
memory as a function of processing
demands. J Exp Child Psychol. 1996 Apr;
61(3), 242–275p.
15. Hitch GJ, Towse JN, Hutton U. What limits
children's working memory span?
Theoretical accounts and applications for
scholastic development. J Exp Psychol:
General. 2001 Jun; 130(2): 184p.
16. Conway AR, Engle RW. Working memory
and retrieval: A resource-dependent
inhibition model. J Exp Psychol: General.
1994 Dec; 123(4): 354p.
17. Engle RW, Conway AR, Tuholski SW,
Shisler RJ. A resource account of
inhibition. Psychol Sci. 1995 Mar; 6(2):
122–5p.
18. Engle RW, Kane MJ, Tuholski SW.
Individual differences in working memory
capacity and what they tell us about
controlled attention, general fluid
intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal
cortex: In A. Miyake & P. Shah
(Eds.), Models of working memory:
Mechanisms of active maintenance and
executive control.1999:102–134p.
19. Rosen VM, Engle RW. The role of working
memory capacity in retrieval. J Exp
Psychol: General. 1997 Sep; 126(3): 211p.
20. Yang E. Bilinguals’ working memory
(WM) advantage and their dual language
practices. Brain Sci. 2017 Jul; 7(7): 86p.
21. Raju S, Nataraja NP. Assessment of
working memory in bilingual children.
Indian J Positive Psychol. 2016 Jun 1; 7(2):
159p.
22. Osaka M, Osaka N. Language-independent
working memory as measured by Japanese
and English reading span tests. Bull
Psychonomic Soc. 1992 Oct 1; 30(4): 287–
9p.
23. Osaka M, Osaka N, Groner R. Language-
independent working memory: Evidence
from German and French reading span
tests. Bull Psychonomic Soc. 1993 Feb 1;
31(2): 117–8p.
24. Gutierrez-Clellen VF, Calderón J, Weismer
SE. Verbal working memory in bilingual
children. J Speech Lang Hear R. 2004 Jan;
47(4):863-876p.
25. Tuholski SW, Engle RW, Baylis GC.
Individual differences in working memory
capacity and enumeration. Mem Cognition.
2001 Apr 1; 29(3): 484–92p.
26. Ardila A. Language representation and
working memory with bilinguals. J
Commun Disord. 2003 May 1; 36(3): 233–
40p.
27. Heredia RR, Altarriba J. Bilingual
language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-
switch? Curr Directions Psychol Sci. 2001
Oct; 10(5): 164–8p.
28. Venkatesan S. Readapted from 1997
Version National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH) socioeconomic status scale.
National Institute for the Mentally
Handicapped, Secunderabad. 2009.
29. Singhi P, Kumar M, Malhi P, Kumar R.
Utility of the WHO Ten Questions screen
for disability detection in a rural
community—the north Indian experience. J
Trop Pediatrics. 2007 Jun 7; 53(6): 383–
7p.
30. Forster KI, Forster JC. DMDX: A
Windows display program with
millisecond accuracy. Behav Res Meth Ins
C. 2003 Feb 1; 35(1): 116–24p.
31. Harris JG, Cullum CM, Puente AE. Effects
of bilingualism on verbal learning and
memory in Hispanic adults. J Intl
Neuropsychol Soc. 1995 Jan; 1(1): 10–6p.
32. Macnamara BN, Conway AR. Novel
evidence in support of the bilingual
advantage: Influences of task demands and
experience on cognitive control and
working memory. Psychonomic Bull Rev.
2014 Apr 1; 21(2): 520–5p.
33. Emmorey K, Luk G, Pyers JE, Bialystok E.
The source of enhanced cognitive control in
bilinguals: Evidence from bimodal
bilinguals. Psychol Sci. 2008 Dec; 19(12):
1201–6p.
34. Damasio AR, Tranel D. Nouns and verbs
are retrieved with differently distributed
neural systems. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 1993 Jun 1;
90(11): 4957–60p.
35. McDonough C, Song L, Hirsh‐Pasek K,
Golinkoff RM, Lannon R. An image is
worth a thousand words: Why nouns tend
to dominate verbs in early word learning.
Dev Sci. 2011 Mar; 14(2): 181–9p.
Research & Reviews: A Journal of Health Professions
Volume 10, Issue 1
ISSN: 2277-6192 (Online), ISSN: 2348-9537 (Print)
RRJoHP (2020) 37-47 © STM Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved Page 47
36. Kane MJ, Hambrick DZ, Tuholski SW,
Wilhelm O, Payne TW, Engle RW. The
generality of working memory capacity: a
latent-variable approach to verbal and
visuospatial memory span and reasoning. J
Exp Psychol: General. 2004 Jun; 133(2):
189p.
37. Waters GS, Caplan D. The capacity theory
of sentence comprehension: critique of Just
and Carpenter. Psychol Rev. 1992; 103(4):
761–772p.
Cite this Article
Darshan H.S., Deepak P., Archana Rao R.,
S.P. Goswami. Verbal Working Memory in
Bilinguals: An Exploratory Study.
Research & Reviews: A Journal of Health
Professions. 2020; 10(1): 37–47p.
