YEAR TWO Second Language Acquisition ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-2012
#12: Aptitude
1. 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 operationalise 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. First of all, intelligence and linguistic aptitude seem to play a much less important role in the
process of first language acquisition. 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. Language aptitude tests
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 materialise until the 1950s and 1960s. Among the most
popular language aptitude tests developed around that time are the MLAT and the PLAB, i.e. the Modern Language Aptitude Test and the
Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery.
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):
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 memorising 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
By and large, aptitude tests give learners a diversity of specifically language-related tasks and discover four dimensions that appear to
contribute to successful L2learning (Carroll 1962; Pimsleur 1966; Lightbown & Spada 2001; Stansfield & Read 2004):
żð phonetic coding ability: the ability to discriminate and memorize new sounds, i.e. to form associations between sounds and unfamiliar
symbols representing them, and to retain these associations; the ability to segment and identify distinct sounds. This is a rather
unique auditory component of foreign language aptitude. It is especially important in classes that emphasise spoken language.
żð 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. This component may be especially important in classes that emphasise an analytical
approach to learning a foreign language.
żð 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. Rote learning is a kind of general
memory, but individuals seem to differ in their ability to apply their memory to the foreign language situation.
żð inductive language learning ability: the ability to infer 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. Again, this component is
probably like general inductive learning ability, but individuals may vary in their ability to apply it to the foreign language learning
situation.
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). There has been a resurgence of interest in the aptitude construct and related research, some of
which is reported in a book edited by Robinson (2002).
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.
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. 1965. "Language aptitude, intelligence and second-language achievement". Journal of Educational
Psychology 56: 191-99.
Genesee, F. 1976. "The role of intelligence in second language learning". Language Learning 26: 267-280.
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.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. 2001. "Factors affecting second language learning". In Candlin, C. N. & Mercer, N. (Eds.), English Language
Teaching in its Social Context. A Reader. London: Routledge. 28-43.
Pimsleur, P. 1966. The Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. New York: Harcourt Brace Jobanovich.
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.