ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014
YEAR ONE: INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
#8: APTITUDE AND INTELLIGENCE
(extracted in part from: Majer, J. 2010.  Second language acquisition and foreign language learning .
In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.), New Ways to Language. A
ódz
: A
ódz
University Press. 352-375).
1. Key cognitive factors  intelligence vs. linguistic aptitude
In the context of second language acquisition, two factors are typically associated with the cognitive
aspects of an individual's ability to learn, namely (i) INTELLIGENCE and (ii) a set of more specific
learning capabilities termed APTITUDE. According to Stansfield (1989), general aptitude for learning
a skill can be defined for operational purposes as  the amount of time it takes an individual to learn
the task in question . Thus, individuals typically differ not in whether they can learn a task or not
learn it, but rather in the length of time it takes them to learn it or to reach a given degree of
competency. This is also true of linguistic aptitude.
Stansfield asks further: is linguistic aptitude actually different from general aptitude or
intelligence? The answer, based on a number of studies (Carroll 1962, 1980; Gardner & Lambert
1965; Wesche et al. 1982), seems to be  yes . Clearly, an indicator of the quality of a foreign
language aptitude test is the degree to which it exceeds a general intelligence test in the prediction
of success in learning a foreign language. A number of FOREIGN LANGUAGE APTITUDE TESTS, though
not all of those that have been developed, have demonstrated the ability to do so.
As argued above, tests designed to operationalize the psychological constructs of intelligence
and aptitude can be used to predict a future language learning performance. However, where the
prognostic value of tests measuring one's cognitive ability is concerned, two important reservations
have to made. For one thing, intelligence and linguistic aptitude seem to play a much less important
role in the process of first language acquisition, at least not in children without cognitive deficits
(Gass & Selinker 2008: 416). Secondly, their effect on the process of naturalistic second language
acquisition also appears to be less significant than in the case of learning academic skills (reading,
grammar and vocabulary) in the formal conditions of a L2 classroom. In fact, intelligence turns out
"largely unrelated to ratings of oral productive ability (Ellis 1994: 497; after Genesee 1976). In
contrast, aptitude does indeed provide  a more precise assessment of language processing ability ,
particularly  the ability to handle decontextualized language , and is therefore  a more powerful
predictor of language learning success than intelligence (Skehan 1989: 172).
2. Aptitude
It has always been observed that some students are better at learning languages than others, but
the idea that it should be possible to predict a learner s future progress on the basis of linguistic
aptitude tests did not materialize until the 1950s and 1960s. Among the most popular language
aptitude tests developed around that time are the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) and the
Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB).
The MLAT, aimed predominantly at adults and adolescents, has been used extensively for
selection, placement, and guidance by North American schools as well as government agencies for
over 40 years. Carroll and Sapon divided their test into five sections (after Larsen-Freeman & Long
1991: 168):
1
Ä…ð number learning  aimed to measure learners memory and their auditory abilities;
Ä…ð phonetic script  measuring the ability of associations between speech sounds and written
symbols;
Ä…ð spelling clues  checking the ability to relate a graphic symbol to the appropriate word;
Ä…ð words in sentences  measuring the grammatical associations of words;
Ä…ð paired associates  designed to assess the ability of memorizing words and structures.
Carroll & Sapon (1967) also developed an elementary version of MLAT, sometimes called the
MLAT-E or other times referred to as the EMLAT, for use with children in grades 3 to 6.
The PLAB, aimed at teenagers, consists of six somewhat different components (Pimsleur 1966;
after Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991: 168):
Ä…ð grade point average Ä…ð vocabulary Ä…ð sound discrimination
Ä…ð interest Ä…ð language analysis Ä…ð sound-symbol
correspondence
Prognostic tests of this kind break down the construct of language aptitude into four components.
Testees are given a diversity of specifically language-related tasks which elicit data on four dimensions
that appear to contribute to successful L2 learning (Stansfield & Read 2004), viz.:
·ð Phonetic coding ability: the ability to discriminate among foreign sounds and memorize new
sounds, i.e. to form associations between sounds and unfamiliar symbols representing them,
and to retain these associations so that they can be recalled later; the ability to segment and
identify distinct sounds. This is a rather unique auditory component of foreign language
aptitude  a skill involved in successful L2 learning (Gass & Selinker 2008: 418).
·ð Grammatical sensitivity: a skill or aptitude for the learning of linguistic rules; the ability to
recognize the grammatical function of words or other linguistic structures in sentences. As
pointed out by Gass & Selinker (2008: 418),  it appears logical that skill in being able to do
this helps in learning another language .
·ð Rote learning ability: the skill of storing and retrieving verbal information, which may or may
not be meaningful, by learning associations between sounds and meanings rapidly and
efficiently, as well as retaining these associations. Gass & Selinker (2008) suggest that L2
learning  is much more an accomplishment of memory for text than of the analysis of text.
That is, much more is memorized than is broken into parts and subjected to rule formation
and/or generalizations (p. 418).
·ð Inductive language learning ability: the ability to infer and induce language rules underlying
complex linguistic material, given samples of language data that permit such inferences. This
is the ability to figure out the rules that govern the use of language. Gass & Selinker (2008:
418) argue that a student predisposed to inductive language learning is less reliant on rules
presented by the teacher or generalizations formed in the textbook.
2
A more recent aptitude test, grounded in cognitive theory, has been compiled by Grigorenko et
al. (2000). Known as the Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language (CANAL-FT),
it approaches aptitude testing from a perspective of intelligence. In the words of Gass & Selinker
(2008: 421), the CANAL-FT  takes as its base abilities that are necessary in daily life, as opposed
to those needed for successful school learning . Grigorenko et al. s (2000) aptitude test battery is
based on the idea that a capacity for L2 learning requires the ability to cope with novelty and
ambiguity.
3. Criticism of language aptitude tests
Harmer (2007: 85) writes that aptitude tests are flawed in a number of ways. For one thing, even
though they claim to look for linguistic talents, they appear to merely measure general intellectual
ability. Secondly, they appear to favour analytic-type learners over more holistic learners, which results
in the fact that the tests are particularly suited to individuals who have no difficulty doing form-focused
tasks (cf. also Sasaki 1996; Andreou et al. 2005).
Skehan (1989) claims that there exist two different profiles of language aptitude  some learners
possess an analytic aptitude, and others are more memory-oriented. He speculates that analytic and
memory orientations represent different routes to the same language learning success, and that success
is achievable by either, provided the learners play to their strengths. In his more recent work, Skehan
(1998: 234) concedes, however, that analytic aptitude may not be the critical factor in success in
language learning. He states that what distinguishes exceptional language learners from other students
is unusual memory, especially for the retention of things they hear. Larsen-Freeman (2001) states that
another question that has persisted with regard to aptitude is whether components of aptitude are
equally relevant for both formal (i.e. classroom) and informal (i.e. naturalistic) settings. In the light of
research studies, e.g. Robinson (1997; 2002), it appears that they are.
Another weakness of aptitude tests, according to Harmer (2007: 86), is that, while they discriminate
between the most and the least talented learners, they at the same time fail to distinguish between very
capacious intermediate categories which fall between the two extremes. They may also have a
demotivating effect on those learners whose scores are low, as well as inspire teachers to favour those
students whose scores are high. Harmer thinks that aptitude tests end up being self-fulfilling
prophecies. However, despite the criticism,  the result of aptitude research in general has tended to
confirm the notion of aptitude as a relatively stable and educationally important characteristic of the
individual (Johnson & Johnson 1998: 14). In the last decade, there has been a resurgence of interest
in the aptitude construct and related research, some of which is reported in Robinson (2002).
4. Intelligence
A dictionary definition of INTELLIGENCE states that it is  the ability to learn, understand, and think
about things (Longman Advanced American Dictionary, 2000: 750), though this construct can also
be described to as the ability to solve problems, utilise logic and think critically. It seems that an
individual s intelligence is contained in his or her general intellect. But the way a person
comprehends, examines and responds to outside stimuli depends on how the intellect is constructed.
That is why, as Reid claims,  probably no aspect of contemporary psychology is more
misunderstood by the general public than intelligence (1998: 1).
Our understanding and evaluation of intelligence is firmly grounded in the psychometric
tradition of IQ tests, going back to the achievement of the German psychologist Wilhelm Stern,
who in 1912 invented the so-called INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT (IQ). Mathematically, the IQ score
stands for the ratio of a participant s mental age to his/her chronological age, with the final figure to
be multiplied by 100. Thus, for example, an IQ of 100 means that an individual is as intelligent as
they could be expected for their age, while someone scoring above 130 is thought to be very
intelligent.
3
IQ testing is still regarded as a standard procedure. Developed by American psychologists Lewis
Terman and Robert Yerkes, IQ tests became very popular in the 1920s and 1930s. As pointed out
by Gardner (1993: 13),  by the mid-1920s, the intelligence test had become a fixture in educational
practice in the United States and throughout much of western Europe . A more modern mutation of
the IQ test, known as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, version III (WAIS-III)  is an expanded
version that produces a measure called  g , or  general intelligence . It assesses 13 mental faculties
such as arithmetic, sequencing, vocabulary and processing speed (Fleetham 2006: 18). Its  less
mature version, called the WISC IQ test (The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), has been
used since 1950 and administered to juniors aged 6 to 16 (Flynn 2007). Because IQ tests also rely
on verbal skills, they can be used as indirect predictions of success or failure in L2 study.
5. Multiple Intelligences
Yet intelligence tests have always been a highly controversial issue. Though accepted and widely
used, they were often questioned in terms of their validity and relevance, in particular for
superficiality and possible cultural biases (e.g.  intelligence is what the tests test ). For instance,
Fleetham (2006) writes that  the items in an IQ test measure only a limited set of human talents,
including verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, visual thinking and logical problem solving (p.
18). Furthermore, the American educational psychologist Howard Gardner argues that such tests
 have predictive power for success in schooling, but relatively little predictive power outside the
school contexts, especially when more potent factors like social and economic background have
been taken into account (Gardner 1983: 16). Especially ever since the idea of MULTIPLE
INTELLIGENCES was put forth, educators and psychologists have been expressing reservations
towards this conventional form. More and more people are beginning to realize that such tests do
little to judge a learner s potential. It is claimed by opponents of the IQ tradition that what they can
do is merely to demonstrate whether or not a child is good at standardized tests.
For Howard Gardner, the scope of psychometric tests is much too narrow. Instead of relying on
the results of psychometric instruments, he invented a new way of perceiving an individual s
intelligence. In his book Frames of Mind (1983), Gardner came up with the theory of multiple
intelligences. In brief, it is a pluralized way of understanding the intellect. He claims that humans do
not possess a single intelligence, but a range of intelligences. Originally, Gardner grouped human
capabilities into seven categories with easily definable conceptual ranges:
·ð verbal/linguistic ·ð musical/rhythmic
·ð logical/mathematical ·ð interpersonal
·ð visual/spatial ·ð intrapersonal
·ð bodily/kinaesthetic
Fleetham (2006) argues that  multiple intelligences are the different skills and talents a learner
uses to make products and solve problems  to demonstrate learning (p. 10). All individuals are
intelligent, albeit apparently in varying degrees. Gardner explains that people possess intelligences
which are better or worse developed, depending on each person s individual profile. He challenges
the traditional way of assessing people by the IQ test score and regarding them as either intelligent
or not.
4
Since its emergence, the concept of multiple intelligences has acquired more types, which has
raised some doubts about the consistency of the original idea. Thus, Gardner himself has since
added an eighth type which he calls naturalist intelligence (Gardner 1993) to account for the ability
to recognize and classify patterns in nature. In his later book, Intelligence Reframed (1999) he
added another intelligence: existential. He explains his view thus:  human mind is better thought of
as a series of relatively separate faculties, with only loose and nonpredictable relations with one
another, than a single, all-purpose machine that performs steadily at a certain horsepower,
independent of content and context (1993: 32). Brook Peterson has also added cultural intelligence
(Peterson 2004), while Daniel Goleman has put forward emotional intelligence (Goleman 1996).
This includes the ability to empathize, control impulse, and self-motivate.
Irrespective of the strength of the potential correlation between tests of multiple intelligences and
success or failure in L2 study, there are important implications for language pedagogy. For example,
Harmer (2007: 47) writes that if different intelligences predominate in different people, then the same
learning task may not be appropriate for all students. While learners with strong logical/mathematical
intelligence might respond well to a complex grammar explanation, different students might need the
comfort of diagrams and physical demonstration because their strength is in the visual/spatial area. Still
different learners, who have a strong interpersonal intelligence, may require a more interactive climate
if their learning is to be effective.
REFERENCES
Andreou, G., Vlachos, F. & Andreou, E. 2005. "Affecting factors in second language learning". Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 34/5: 429-438.
Carroll, J. B. 1962. "The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training". In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Training
Research and Education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 87-136.
Carroll, J. B. 1980. "Neurolinguistic processing of a second language". In Scarcella, R. & Krashen, S. D. (Eds.),
Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 81-86.
Carroll, J. B. & Sapon, S. M. 1967. Modern Language Aptitude Test-Elementary. San Antonio: Psychological
Corporation.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fleetham, M. 2006. Multiple Intelligences in Practice. Enhancing Self-esteem and Learning in the Classroom. Stafford:
Network Continuum Education.
Flynn, J. R. 2007. What Is Intelligence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. 1993. Multiple Intelligences. The Theory of Practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. 1965. "Language aptitude, intelligence and second-language achievement". Journal of
Educational Psychology 56: 191-99.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. Third Edition. New York:
Routledge.
Genesee, F. 1976. "The role of intelligence in second language learning". Language Learning 26: 267-280.
Goleman, D. 1996. Emotional Intelligence. Why Can it Matter More than IQ? Bloomsbury.
Grigorenko, E., Sternberg, R. & Ehrman, M. E. 2000,  A theory based approach to the measurement of foreign
language learning ability: the CANAL-F theory and test . Modern Language Journal 84: 390 405.
Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Fourth Edition. Harlow: Longman.
Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. 1998. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London and New
York: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001. "Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success in second
language acquisition". In Breen, M. P. (Ed.), Learner Contributions to Language Learning. New Directions in
Research. Harlow: Longman. 12-24.
Peterson, B. 2004. Cultural Intelligence. A Guide to Working with People from Other Cultures. Yarmouth, MA:
Intercultural Press.
Pimsleur, P. 1966. The Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. New York: Harcourt Brace Jobanovich.
Reid, J. M. (Ed.) 1998, Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall Regents.
5
Robinson, P. 1997. "Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language
learning". Language Learning 47: 45-99.
Robinson, P. 2002. Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Sasaki, M. 1996. Second Language Proficiency, Foreign Language Aptitude, and Intelligence: Quantitative and
Qualitative Analyses. New York: Peter Lang.
Skehan, P. 1989. Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. London: Arnold.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stansfield, C. W. 1989. "Language aptitude reconsidered". ERIC Digest 073.
Stansfield, C. W. & Read, D. J. 2004. "The story behind the Modern Language Aptitude Test: An interview with John
B. Carroll (1916 2003)". Language Assessment Quarterly 1/1: 43 56.
Wesche, M., Edwards, H., & Wells, W. 1982. "Foreign language aptitude and intelligence". Applied Psycholinguistics
3/2: 127-140.
6