IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN APTITUDE FOR LEARNING FOREIGN LANGUAGES?

MARIA LEODORA

“IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN APTITUDE

FOR LEARNING FOREIGN LANGUAGES?”

JANUARY 2013

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, COMMUNICATION AND LANGUAGE SCIENCES

NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY

of 23

ABSTRACT

This essay seeks to address the question of whether there is such a thing as an aptitude for

learning foreign languages by providing the theoretical and empirical materials regarding

the concept of foreign language aptitude, the aptitude tests, and the correlation between

aptitude and second language acquisition. All the materials provided will be critically

evaluated by presenting contradicting and/or supporting arguments and explanation with

evidence from the various researches conducted. This essay will first give a brief overview

with regards to the use of language in human communication and the importance of foreign

language learning in the present context. It will then critically evaluate theories regarding

the foreign language aptitude concept and the aptitude test batteries. The implication this

topic has for pedagogy will also be described. Finally, the need for further research on the

impact of foreign language aptitude especially in pedagogical settings will be highlighted.

INTRODUCTION

Language is an integral part of human behaviour (Bonvillain, 2008:1) and is one of the most

uniquely human capacities that our species possesses (Ortega, 2009:1). It is the primary

means of interaction between people (Bonvillain, 2008:1). Human language manifests itself

in spoken, signed and written systems (Ortega, 2009:2). However, some linguists reserve the

term ‘language’ exclusively for the code of vocal symbols (Miller, 1951:10). Moreover,

according to Miller, writing, gestures, Braille, etc., are also codes that can be used for human

communication but are not dignified by the title of languages (Ibid:10).

Language is enriched by the uses that people make of it. These uses, and the meaning

transmitted, are situational, social, and cultural (Bonvilllain, 2008:1). Furthermore, we

employ the symbolic system of language to make meaning with other fellow humans

(Ortega, 2009:1). Bonvillain also added that we learn about people through what they say

of 23

and how they say it; we learn about ourselves through the ways that other people react to

what we say, and we learn about our relationships with others through the give-and-take of

communicative interactions (Bonvillain, 2008:1).

Language to communicate is so pervasively important in all walks of life that every branch

of the social sciences is concerned with it, studies it, and adds to the general fund of

knowledge about it (Miller, 1951:1). Within applied linguistics itself, the study of the

communicative functions of language has taken on an increasingly important role, owing to

the goal of language teaching, which is to enable learners to use language in ways which are

communicatively effective and appropriate (Richards and Schmidt, 1983:xi).

The process of learning a language is multifaceted (Bonvillain, 2008). Even though first

language acquisition has a high degree of similarity in the early language of children

(Lightbown and Spada, 2006), in fact it involves a number of complex processes (Bonvillain,

2008). The behaviourist perspective hypothesized that when children imitate the language

produced by those around them, their attempts to reproduce what they hear receive

‘positive reinforcement’ (Lightbown and Spada, 2006:10). This theory attaches great

importance to the environment as the source of everything the child needs to learn (Ibid,

2006). However, the innatist perspective presented by Chomsky (1959) points out that

children are biologically programmed for language and that language develops in the child

in just the same way that other biological functions develop. Chomsky says that children are

born with a specific innate ability to discover for themselves the underlying rules of a

language system on the basis of the samples of a natural language they are exposed to (Ibid,

2006:15). Bonvillain (2008) also suggests that linguistic discovery and creativity are universal

processes, which are not only inherent in human experience but also contain the principles

that are universal to all human language.

of 23

Moreover, another argument comes from the developmental perspectives which have

focused more on the interplay between the innate learning ability of children and the

environment in which they develop (Lightbrown and Spada, 2006). They see language

acquisition as similar to, and influenced by, the acquisition of other kinds of skill and

knowledge, rather than as something that is different from and largely independent of the

child’s experience and cognitive development (Ibid, 2006:19).

Despite these multifaceted and complex processes, children normally achieve overall success

in their first language acquisition (Cook, 2010), and so the next argument to arise is whether

people acquire a second language in the same way as their first.

Foreign language learning

Based on the statistics documented by Ethnologue, there are more than 6,900 living languages

documented across the globe (Lewis (ed.), 2009). In this case, many people will learn at least

a few words and phrases in a foreign language (Ortega, 2009). Many others will be forced by

life circumstances to learn enough of the additional language to fend for themselves in

selected matters of daily survival, compulsory education or job-related communication (Ibid,

2009:1)

To study other languages and be able to communicate with native speakers of other

languages is not a luxury but a necessity (Alvarez-Sandoval, 2005:3). Linguistically,

interdependence stresses the give-and-take of real communication (Philips, 1979:2). Foreign

language learning is a vital connection in the interdependent relationships of the next

century, since true interaction can occur only when each community experiences the

of 23

language lifestyle of the other, where no group achieves dominance by imposing its

language structure on the other (Ibid:2).

A distinction is sometimes made between learning in a ‘foreign language’ setting, which is

learning a language that is not generally spoken in the surrounding community and a

‘second language’ setting, which is learning a language that is spoken in the surrounding

community (Yule, 2006). In either case, they are simply trying to learn another language, so

the expression second language learning is used more generally to describe both situations

(ibid, 2006). However, the term will be used interchangeably in this essay.

The language teaching profession has explored many alternatives in the search to find more

effective methods for successful second language learning (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). One of

the responses has been “to see whether approaches to second language teaching which

connect with first language acquisition hold out any promise” (Skehan, 1998:1).

While there are many similarities between first and second language learning, the variation

in situation and other factors also produces many differences (Cook, 2000). Children mostly

acquire their first language in different settings with different exposure to language than

second language learners, and they are at different stages of mental and social maturity

(Cook, 1969). Thus, it may be inherently impossible to compare equivalent first and second

language learners (Cook, 2000).

Individual differences

The research of second language acquisition has been aimed at establishing how learners are

similar and which processes of learning are universal (Skehan, 1989). However, one

alternative research thread is the study of the differences between learners (Ibid, 1989).

of 23

Individual differences in second language learning, predominantly foreign language

aptitude, motivation, and opportunity have generated the most consistent predictors of

second language learning success and the essential characteristics of good language learners

(Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003; Rubin, 1975).

In terms of language aptitude, Marjorie Wesche (1981) stated that investigations of its

aspects can be very helpful in diagnosing learning problems and in placing students in

foreign language classes which are appropriate to their learning abilities (pp.120-121).

However, Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) stated that for many, some areas of language learner

differences, including aptitude, have not drawn much theoretical or practical interest owing

to other areas associated with universal processes appearing to have greater promise. These

include the route of second language development, or features of input or interaction

hypothesized to promote second language development. This essay hence attempts to

discuss aptitude, as one of the areas of individual difference, as an aspect worth further

consideration in the improvement of foreign language learning and teaching.

THE APTITUDE FOR LEARNING FOREIGN LANGUAGE

The concept of foreign language aptitude

Preliminary work on foreign language aptitude was undertaken by John B. Carroll (1916 –

2003), who conducted the relevant research during the 1950s, and with Stanley Sapon, who

devised a practical aptitude test battery (Carroll and Sapon, 1959). The concept of aptitude

introduced by Carroll resembles the notion that “in approaching a particular learning task or

programme, the individual may be thought of as possessing some current state of capability

of learning that task, if the individual is motivated, and has the opportunity of doing so”

(Carroll, 1981:84). Carroll also emphasized that aptitude here does not include motivation or

of 23

interest and that capability is presumed to depend on some combination of the more or less

enduring characteristics of the individual (Ibid, 1981).

Recent studies in favour of Carroll’s initial work on foreign language aptitude describe the

concept as follows. Ortega (2009) stated that language aptitude is the psychological

formulation behind the intuition that some people have a gift for additional language

learning while others seem to struggle. Additionally, Robinson (2012) said that aptitude for

foreign language learning is the ability to successfully adapt to, and profit from, instructed

or naturalistic exposure to foreign language (p. 57). Ortega also further explained that “at a

theoretical level, language aptitude as a construct is thought to be made up various

cognitive abilities, some better understood than others, but all related to two broad types:

analytical abilities and memory abilities” (Ortega, 2009:166). Nonetheless, this concept of

aptitude has not escaped criticism from other academics.

Hubbard (1975) argues that aptitude is not a valid predictor of achievement. He suggests

that success in acquiring a foreign language depends essentially on the learner’s motivation

and the attitude of both the learner and teacher. Similar to Hubbard, Roeming (1966)

suggested that an aptitude test based on linguistics cannot be considered too seriously in

predicting a person’s success in second language learning. His argument continued by

saying that “a person who attaches very limited meaning to words and expressions which

describe his physical environment or abstract concepts in his native language is not likely to

promise success at second language learning on the basis of a test” (p.2). Moreover, Gerald

G. Neufeld (1978), although accepting of the concept of foreign language aptitude as

“readiness” (Carroll 1981:84), disagreed with Carroll and argued that if children do not

manifest a talent for acquiring their first language, we should not prematurely conclude that

such talent exists or is necessary for acquiring the second language in natural or uncontrived

of 23

settings (Neufeld, 1978:231). Nevertheless, in response to these criticisms, Carroll persists in

believing that aptitude is “a valid concept, highly worthy of scientific examination and

study, and sufficiently powerful to serve as a basis for practical uses of aptitude

measurements” (Carroll, 1981: 83). This will be further discussed below.

FLA Research and Tests

Despite the critiques, numerous studies in favour of the concept of FLA have been

undertaken. There are two central assumptions of FLA made by the researchers. The first

one states that there is a specific talent for learning foreign languages which exhibits

considerable variation between learners (Skehan, 1998; Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003); the

second is that such an aptitude is stable in nature, is not susceptible to easy training, and is

not environmentally influenced, to any significant degree (Skehan, 1998). Furthermore,

Skehan (1989) once stated that there is no more instructive way of finding out about

language aptitude than following the stages that J. B. Carroll and S. Sapon took in the

construction of the aptitude battery – the Modern Languages Aptitude Test (MLAT: Carroll and

Sapon, 1959).

Based on his research with Sapon in 1959, Carroll’s (1962) subsequent conception of FLA

comprised four components: phonemic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language

learning ability, and rote learning ability for foreign language materials (Carroll, 1981). Carroll and

Sapon (1959) published an aptitude test battery which operationalized these four underlying

factors. The test, the MLAT, contains five sections, and provides a total score, as well as the

potential for some detailed profile analysis. However, Skehan (1998) saw an interesting issue

in retrospect of this test, which is while the explanatory phase of Carroll’s aptitude research

emphasized the distinct contributions of each of the four factors of aptitude, the actual test

battery consisted of sub-tests which were often not pure measures of each of the factors. In

of 23

fact, one of the proposed factors, inductive language learning ability, is not measured at all

(p.191). The underlying four-factor account illuminated the actual tests, but was not

represented in them in any pure form. This was partly the result of prediction and also

reflects the difficulty of producing ‘pure’ tests, since most language-related activities cannot

avoid drawing on integrated abilities. Nevertheless, Skehan (1982) stated that this tension in

aptitude research between explanation and prediction has pervaded almost all research in

the area. Nonetheless, he further respected Carroll’s work by saying that at least the theory

underlying the MLAT was recoverable (Skehan, 1998), since the connection between MLAT

sub-tests and underlying theory was clear from the original research project (Skehan, 1998;

Carroll, 1965).

After the MLAT was produced by Carroll and Sapon, other works followed aimed at the

production of aptitude test batteries. One of these is that of Pimsleur (1966), who produced

the commercially available battery, the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB), which

was targeted at high school students. This set of sub-tests is broadly similar to the MLAT,

but places greater emphasis on auditory factors, and less on memory (Dörnyei and Skehan,

2003).

Controversy on FLA

Neufeld (1979) is probably the best known critic of language aptitude research. He disagrees

with Carrol’s and Pimsleur’s position that observations of students’ performance in artificial

and uncontrolled language learning situations constitute the best means of studying the

nature of language learning ability. Neufeld saw that there is no reason to distinguish the

kind of degree of capacity to acquire the first language and the aptitude to acquire the

second (Neufeld, 1979: 230-231). In this regard, he also argues that critical period data,

which leads to claims that adults are less effective learners than children, in all language

of 23

domains, phonological and otherwise, is invalid, and that ‘exceptions’ to the critical period

hypothesis—people who successfully learn a second language to native-like levels—

demonstrate that everyone has the potential to learn a second language (Skehan, 1998).

However, this critique has been claimed to be unwarranted by research undertaken by other

scholars.

Wells (1986) suggests that despite the claim that everyone is the same in first-language

learning ability, in fact, there is considerable variation in the rate of acquisition. Bley-

Vroman (1989) strengthens this argument by saying that there is considerable evidence of

failure in second language acquisition, suggesting that there are important differences

between the two areas. In addition, Skehan (1998) says that these points suggest that there is

variation in first language abilities, that there are similarities and differences between first

and second language learning abilities, and that there is even greater variation in the second

language case (Skehan, 1998:205)

Neufeld’s (1979) next critique on FLA is that we do not understand sufficiently well what

aptitude tests actually measure, particularly in terms of processes of learning, and whether

language aptitude tests are cognitively or linguistically based. With regard to this point, he

suggests that he knows no one who would categorically or tentatively explain what

language learning processes or strategies are. Moreover, he speculates that ‘hundreds of

other seemingly irrelevant independent variables might conceivably have correlated as

highly or higher, had they been examined (Neufeld, 1979; Skehan, 1998:188-189). However,

Skehan (1998) argues that this critique of Neufeld is seen as misplaced.

Skehan (1998) suggests that the theory underlying the MLAT is clear and justifiable in

information-processing terms. In addition, Skehan also pointed out that aptitude tests are

of 23

not simply predictive instruments which have no explanatory power. They have a rationale

in relation to language learning processes, and then an even wider justification through

general psychological processes. They are not arbitrary in any sense, even though the

successful sub-tests from aptitude research have emerged rather inductively (Skehan, 1998:

205).

In further research on FLA, other attempts to produce complete aptitude batteries have had

a more restricted quality. The Defense Language Aptitude Battery - DLAB (Petersen and Al-

Haik, 1976) was first produced for the US military owing to the sense that the MLAT did not

discriminate sufficiently well at the higher end of the language aptitude range. The DLAB

was intended to be more searching for high-aptitude learners. It emphasized Carroll’s

inductive language learning ability, and also phonemic coding ability and memory (Dörnyei

and Skehan, 2003: 594). The battery did not really produce more effective predictions than

the MLAT, and the “closed” nature of research has meant that the battery has not proved to

be particularly influential (Ibid, 2003). The same is true for subsequent developments with

aptitude batteries produced in association with military contexts, such as VORD (Parry and

Child, 1990). A different and the latest approach to reconceptualising aptitude is found in

the work of Grigorenko, Sternberg, and Ehrman (2000), who have developed the Cognitive

Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language – Foreign (CANAL-F) battery (Grigorenko, 2002;

Grigorenko, et.al. 2000), based on the view that a central ability underlying successful

language learning is the ability to cope with novelty and ambiguity (Ranta, 2008: 143). This

approach focuses on recall and inferencing with linguistic material under immediate and

delayed conditions (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003:595).

Regardless of all the hard work and research done in FLA, criticisms are still addressed to

this research area. Krashen (1981) is also critical of the FLA work, but from a different

of 23

perspective. In the context of his Monitor Model (Krashen, 1985), which includes a

distinction between acquisition and learning, he proposes that aptitude tests are

methodology dependent, and work only when used in formal learning contexts. He suggests

that only the achievements of learners exposed to methodologies which target conscious

learning and focus on individual elements of language will be predicted by aptitude

research. Krashen (1981) draws attention to the bulk of the validation studies with aptitude

tests being conducted with such methodologies, thus constituting a limitation in the

generalizability of aptitude constructs (Skehan, 1998: 189). However, one limitation of this

critique is that it does not see that if we take the components of aptitude on more theoretical

grounds to reflect different stages of the information processing of linguistic material,

several factors argue for a greater involvement for aptitude in informal rather than formal

ones (Skehan, 1989).

Furthermore, in response to this critique, Reves (1983) investigated and demonstrated that

aptitude actually functions as an effective predictor on second as well as foreign contexts

(Skehan, 1989; 1998). Reves’ findings are consistent with Skehan’s (1989) proposal that

aptitude should be equally relevant in second language contexts precisely because learners

have to confront situations in which there is no pedagogic selection of materials which

attempts to structure the sequences in which learning takes place (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003:

595).

The need to process unstructured input, the need to extract systematicity and rule-

governedness in non-pedagogic material, as well as the capacity to assimilate the large

number of exemplars that underlie fluent performance, run directly contrary to the claim

made by Krashen. This is because they represent greater difficulty in informal contexts

of 23

(Skehan, 1998:206). Robinson’s (1995) acquisition-based research also questions the force of

this critique (Skehan, 1998).

Aptitude research has not been popular, and examining the lack of substance in criticisms is

an important stepping-stone to progress (Skehan, 1998). Rubin (1975) identified aptitude,

motivation, and opportunity as three factors that account for differential success in language

learning. With respect to aptitude, she argued that aptitude tests predict success but do not

provide sufficient information to guide pedagogical decision making (Ranta, 2008:142).

Reconceptualization of FLA

After Carroll’s research, Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) stated that it is only in recent years that

the interesting and challenging reconceptualizations of FLA have emerged. Recent efforts to

reconceptualize language aptitude beyond the two kinds of broad ability have been made by

Skehan and Robinson, which will be discussed further in the following paragraphs. The

strength of both proposals is that they make it possible to study second language aptitude as

a well-motivated, textured set of cognitive capacities that correspond to theoretically

postulated processing demands that are specific to second language learning (Ortega, 2009).

At a practical level, FLA can be measured by existing tests that predict how well someone is

likely to do when embarking on the formal study of an additional language. Two challenges

have limited the ability to understand FLA in the past: the investment of much less effort in

explaining the construct than in developing tests that measure it; and the difficulty of

extracting the cognitive abilities from the cognative, affective and contextual affordances of

the environments in which second language learning happens (Ortega, 2009:145).

of 23

Robinson (2012) argues that currently available aptitude tests cannot be used to identify

‘complexes’ of abilities or aptitudes for types of situated pedagogic activity. An aptitude

battery that assesses the strengths and weaknesses in such complexes would be of great

diagnostic value in matching learners to optimal learning contexts (Robinson, 2012: 57).

Robinson (2001; 2002) has reconceptualized the components of aptitude into a hierarchical

arrangement of aptitude complexes, which are combinations of aptitude variables that

jointly influence learning in particular situations. Instead of talking about a learner’s overall

aptitude, Robinson proposes elements of aptitude which consist of a learner’s own

utterances along with an interlocutor’s recasts, such as “aptitude for focus on form via

recasts”, which is made up of the ability to “notice the gap” and “memory for contingent

speech”. This, more differentiated, view of aptitude promises to offer a better framework for

investigating how influences learners’ uptake of specific instructional activities (Ranta, 2008:

144).

Robinson (2012) proposes models of aptitude that could be developed into tests, consisting

of a number of sub-tests, which could be used as the basis of candidate selection, while at

the same time providing information which is pedagogically useful about diagnosed areas

of likely weakness, and also information which can be used to match learners to optimally

effective instructional options. Robinson also suggests that aptitude does not have its effects

alone; it has its effects in the instructional contexts which draw, differentially, on the

numerous sets of abilities that aptitude tests measure (Robinson, 2012: 63)

FLA and other variables

Most researchers have no longer tended to explore how new aptitude batteries can be

produced, but instead focus on particular aspects of the aptitude construct, or on particular

of 23

contexts in which aptitude might operate (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003). Examples are found

in the research done by Wesche (1981), Reves (1983), and DeKeyser (2000). The results of

their research in reporting an interaction between learner characteristics and instructional

conditions are essential, since they bring out the potential of aptitude information to go

beyond global scores and to provide potentially vital diagnostic information (Dörnyei and

Skehan, 2003:595).

Krashen (1981) once proposed that aptitude was not relevant for acquisition and the

subconscious induction and internalization of language rules that he advocated. The

discussions which have arisen among some researchers have also focused on the way that

aptitude has been perceived as largely unrelated to the broader issues in SLA. However,

Skehan (1998) proposed a “processing stage” model of aptitude, which explained that

different components of aptitude could be related to stages of information processing in SLA

(Skehan, 1998; Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003; Robinson, 2012).

Skehan (1989) attempted to update the concept of aptitude and argued that it is more

appropriate to view aptitude as consisting of three components: auditory ability, linguistic

ability, and memory ability (Skehan, 1998:201). Auditory ability is essentially the same as

Carroll’s (1965) phonemic coding ability (Skehan, 1998), while linguistic ability brings

together Carroll’s grammatical sensitivity and inductive language learning ability (Ibid,

1998).

The third component, memory, is unchanged in its general nature. This three-component

view of aptitude can be related to stages within a flow of information processing (Skehan,

1998). Phonemic coding ability can be related to input processing, while language analytic

ability (grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning) can be related to central

of 23

processing, and memory-as-retrieval can be related to output and fluency. Thus, Skehan

concluded that such a set of linkages shows how aptitude, at a fairly general level, is

consistent with a cognitive view of SLA (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003).

Other researchers have also explored the relationship between FLA and other variables,

such as age and intelligence (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003). Harley and Hart (1997) have

shown that the predictive qualities of different aptitude components change with age. With

younger children, the stronger correlations were with the memory components of aptitude.

On the other hand, with older learners, it was the language analysis sub-tests which have

the higher correlations (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003).

Sasaki (1996) examined the relationship between FLA and intelligence. At a first-order level

of factor analysis, an analysis based on the matrix of correlations between the different

measures, she showed that aptitude and intelligence were distinct. However, the second-

order analysis, an analysis based on the factor loadings of the first-order analysis, showed

connections between aptitude and intelligence (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003). Furthermore,

Ortega (2009) stated that language aptitude partially overlaps with traditional intelligence

and with early first language ability. Language aptitude and traditional intelligence may

share a subset of academic abilities implicated in both types of test; language aptitude and

early first language ability may share a common subtract of grammatical sensitivity and

analytical kinds of abilities (Ortega, 2009). Ortega also specified that differential memory

capacities are thought to play a central part in creating differential likelihoods of success

when learning a foreign language. Memory alone is thought to help predict how well people

will learn new vocabulary, what levels of comprehension they will achieve in listening or

reading, how much they may benefit from recasts or how easily they will learn grammar

rules (Ortega, 2009).

of 23

Nevertheless, Carroll once argued that even if no measures of foreign language aptitude

were available, there would be general agreement that individuals appear to differ in their

capability of learning foreign languages (Carroll, 1981:85).

IMPLICATIONS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING

The pedagogic implication is that instructional efficiency could be improved by taking the

strengths and weaknesses of people with the same overall aptitude but different component

abilities into account, and designing instruction accordingly (Skehan, 1989: 137). Nunan

(1999) has argued that it is not unreasonable to expect teachers to have the responsibility of

adjusting instruction to accommodate a learner’s aptitude profile since it is a role that is

consistent with the principle of learner-centeredness that is central to communicative

language teaching (as cited in Ranta, 2008).

Aptitude, that is, would give information for pre-emptive course design decisions which

would predict the learning difficulties to come, and do something about them (Dörnyei and

Skehan, 2003:623). A design factor for such a course could be made based on the information

derived from using any kind of FLA tests.

FLA profiles may enable students to learn more effectively and more satisfactorily (Wesche,

1981; Erlam, 2005) and allow teachers to identify and manage foreign language learning

problems more successfully when used appropriately (Ehrman, 1996), for example by

matching learners with specific instruction methods (Wesche, 1981; Ranta, 2008; Wen, 2011),

or by using the compensatory individualized instruction, where students are assigned to

special activities to help them develop their area of weakness (Rivers and Melvin, 1981 as

cited in Ranta, 2008).

of 23

CONCLUSION

The concept of aptitude merits an active research programme (Dörnyei and Skehan, 2003),

and, although long regarded as out of date, it has much to offer, but needs new

conceptualizations to link it to insights and findings from SLA research (Ibid, 2003).

Research has indicated that the concept is not just reasonably effective as a predictor, but

also equitable to learners and has a wide explanatory value (Ibid, 2003). It has also

developed considerably from being assumed as a stable and unitary fixed trait, to being

considered as more dynamic and multiple sets of malleable abilities that interact with other

internal ‘learner attributes and attitudes’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2001), such as motivation and

learning styles (Dörnyei, 2010) and with external contextual affordances (Ranta, 2008:151).

The concept of aptitude for learning a foreign language would always be linked to Carroll’s

influential work. Based on his work, although reconceptualizations of aptitude have

emerged, many academics and researchers have admitted that the best known and most

widely employed test for practical and research proposes is still the MLAT.

Sasaki (2012) also stated that, in recent times, a larger number of researchers working from

information processing viewpoints have started to pay more attention to the relationship

between aptitude and foreign language learning processes, and tests based on the

expansions of the aptitude construct have been proposed (e.g. Skehan’s 2002 model).

Nevertheless, these newer tests have tended to complement the MLAT rather than

supersede it, and their validation has tended to include the MLAT as ‘the benchmark’

(Grigorenko et al., 2000:397).

of 23

There are also two questions which have been considered by Ortega (2009) as being of

extreme theoretical and practical importance yet have not been sufficiently studied to date:

whether FLA matters only or mostly for late second language starters and whether the

equally strong differences in FLA emerge when the learning conditions call for memory-

driven, implicit ways versus analytical, explicit ways of processing the new material (p.166).

Consequently, more research is required to determine the most effective ways to deal with

students with varying levels of aptitude in the learning of a foreign language.

of 23

REFERENCES

Abello-Contesse, C., Chacón-Beltrán, R., López-Jiménez, M. D., Torreblanca-López, M. Mar.

(eds) (2006) Age in L2 Acquisition and Teaching. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Alvarez-Sandoval, E. (2005) The Importance of Learning a Foreign Language in a Changing

Society. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

Atkinson, D. (ed.) (2011) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Abingdon:

Routledge.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989) The logical problem of second language learning. In Gass, S. and

Schachter, J. (eds.) Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. pp.41-68.

Bonch-Bruevich, X., Crawford, W. J., Hellermann, J., Higgins, C., Nguyen, H. (eds) (2001)

The Past, Present, and Future of Second Language Research: Selected Proceedings of the 2000

second Language Research Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Bonvillain, N. (2008) Language, Culture, and Communication: The Meaning of Messages. New

Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. (5th edition).

Carroll, J. B. (1981) Twenty Five Years of Research on Foreign Language Aptitude. In Diller, K. C.

(ed.) (1981) Individual Differences & Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley,

Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. pp.83-118.

Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Cook, V. J. (1969) The analogy between first and second language learning. IRAL VII/3, 207-216,

(On-line version:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/IRAL69.htm --retrieved

on 28 November 2012)

Cook, V. J. (2000) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition: One Person with Two Languages

Aronoff and Rees-Miller, Blackwell Handbook of Linguistics. (On-line version:

of 23

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/L1%20and%20L2.htm --retrieved on

28 November 2012)

Cook, V. J. (2010) The Relationship Between First and Second Language Learning Revisited. (On-

line version:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/L1&L22008.htm --

retrieved on 28 November 2012).

Dörnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003) Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. In

Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (eds). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.

Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp.589-630.

Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J., Wu, S., Su, J., Burgess-Brigham, R., Gezer, M. U., Snow, C.

(2012) What We Know About Second Language Acquisition: A Synthesis From Four

Perspectives. In Review of Educational Research, Vol. 82, No. 1. AERA. pp.5-60.

Hall, J. K., Gergana, V., Marchenkova, L. (eds) (2005) Dialogue with Bakhtin on Second and

Foreign Language Learning: New Perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Inc.

Krashen, D. S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon

Press Ltd.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Muñoz, C. (ed.) (2006) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters Ltd.

Lewis, P. M. (ed.) (2009) Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas, TX: SIL International. (16th

edition, web version edition: http://www.ethnologue.org.uk/ accessed on 26

November 2012).

Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (2006) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford

University Press (3rd edition).

of 23

Miller, G. A. (1951) Language and Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company

Inc.

Neufeld, G. G. (1978) Towards a Theory of Language Learning Ability. Language Learning, 29:

227–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01066.x

Ortega, L. (ed) (2009) Understanding Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education.

Philips, J. K. (ed.) (1979) The Language Connection: From the Classroom to the World. ACTFL

Education Series, Vol. 9. Skokie, Ill: National Textbook

Ranta, L. (2008) Aptitude and Good Language Learners. In Griffiths, C. (ed.) (2008) Lessons from

Good Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.142-155.

Richards, J. C., and Schmidt, R. W. (1983) Language and Communication. Essex: Longman

Group Ltd.

Robinson, P. (2005) Aptitude and Second Language Acquisition. In Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.46-73.

Robinson, P. (2012) Individual Differences, Aptitude Complexes, SLA Processes, and Aptitude Test

Development. In Pawlak, M. (ed.) (2012) New Perspective on Individual Differences in

Language Learning and Teaching, Second Language Learning and Teaching. Berlin:

Springer.

Sasaki, M. (2012) The Modern Language Aptitude Test (Paper-and-Pencil Version). In Language

Testing (29). Sage publications. pp.315-321.

Skehan, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sparks, R. and Ganschow, L. (2001) Aptitude for Learning a Foreign Language. In Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics, 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.90-111.

Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Ganschow, L. Should the Modern Language Aptitude Test Be Used to

Determine Course Substitutions for and Waivers of the Foreign Language Requirement?. In

Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 38, No. 2. pp.201-210.

of 23

Sparks, R., Patton, J. Ganschow, L., Humbach, N. Subcomponents of Second-Language Aptitude

and Second-Language Proficiency. In The Modern Language Journal. pp. 253-273.

Stansfield, C. and Winke, P. (2008) Testing Aptitude for Second Language Learning. In Shohamy,

E. and Hornberger, N. H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Vol. 7:

Language Testing and Assessment. Springer Science+Business Media LLC. pp.81-94

Wen, Z. (2011) Foreign Language Aptitude. In ELT Journal Vol. 66. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Yule, G. (2006) The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3rd edition

Wesche, M. B. (1981) Language Aptitude Measures in Streaming, Matching Students with

Methods, and Diagnosis of Learning Problems. In Diller, K. C. (ed.) (1981) Individual

Differences & Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley, Massachusetts:

Newbury House Publishers, Inc. pp.119-154.

Williams, M. and Burden, R. L. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist

Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN APTITUDE FOR LEARNING FOREIGN LANGUAGES?

Documents

Transcript of IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN APTITUDE FOR LEARNING FOREIGN LANGUAGES?