Foreign language aptitude

Abstract

Experience tells us that some people learn a second or foreign language with greater ease, more quickly, or with apparently better results than others. One perspective on this phenomenon is the concept of Foreign Language Aptitude (FLA). Originally, the notion of FLA presumed a relatively stable talent for learning a foreign language that differs between individuals (Dörnyei and Skehan 2003: 590). However, whether FLA is fixed/innate or amenable to training has become the departure point for most research in this area.

Research into FLA first became established during the late 1950s and early 1960s (Spolsky 1995). The most influential achievement in this period was the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) (Carroll and Sapon 1959), with variants developed for specifically targeted groups such as younger learners and military personnel. Carroll’s (1962) subsequent conception of FLA comprised four components:

▪ ‘phonemic coding ability’ (i.e. the ability to identify and retain sounds and link them to phonetic symbols);

▪ sensitivity towards the grammatical functions that words fulfil in a sentence;

▪ the ability to learn inductively (i.e. to infer and generalize linguistic structures from language samples); and

▪ the ability to rote learn vocabulary items paired with their associated translations.

This approach served as the blueprint for most ensuing research.

From the 1970s onwards, however, enthusiasm for the concept of FLA and aptitude testing began to fade, influenced in part by developments in mainstream educational psychology (Williams and Burden 1997). Language teachers became increasingly sceptical of the value of testing and subsequently labelling learners according to an aptitude score; meanwhile, the MLAT’s focus on rote learning and grammatical patterns favoured audio-lingual teaching methods that were perceived as an irrelevance in the more communicative classrooms which prevailed in the 1970s and 1980s (Skehan 1998: 189). However, after experiencing a prolonged period of ‘little theorizing’ and ‘little empirical work’ (Skehan 2002: 69), research into FLA has recently regained momentum (Ellis 2004). Among others, Sparks and Ganschow (2001) advocate reconsidering FLA in terms of a ‘linguistic coding differences hypothesis’ (LCDH). The LCDH stresses the importance of analysing L1 skills (particularly orthographic decoding skills in reading) for predicting FLA. In another development, Grigorenko, Sternberg, and Ehrman (2000) proposed a CANAL-F theory (i.e. Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language (Foreign)) that highlights learners’ cognitive ability to handle fresh linguistic material in new learning situations/contexts. Both approaches, therefore, emphasize the importance of skills and skills development as part of FLA.

Additionally, Skehan (1998, 2002) postulates that the cognitive processes that are central to all major developmental stages of SLA (for example noticing, linguistic pattern identification, pattern restructuring) result from the interaction of multiple FLA components (for example phonetic coding ability, language analytical ability, memory ability). Similarly, Robinson’s (2005) ‘Aptitude complexes’ framework strives to capture the dynamic interplay between a learner’s FLA profile (i.e. different combinations of abilities) in relation to specific language tasks which they need to complete in real-life situations. Both Skehan’s and Robinson’s proposals, then, demonstrate the potential to go beyond traditional FLA research (which relied heavily on the predictive power of aptitude scores) and offer insights into the theoretical underpinnings of SLA from a dynamic FLA perspective.

The latest attempt to reconceptualize FLA is via the concept of working memory (WM), i.e. the cognitive capacity to temporarily store and process linguistic materials simultaneously (McLaughlin 1995; Miyake and Friedman 1998). Given the robust role WM plays in L1 learning (Gathercole and Baddeley 1993) and SLA activities (such as vocabulary learning, sentence processing, and L2 skills development (Juffs and Harrington 2011)), the concept of WM seems a viable addition to the current understanding of FLA (Sawyer and Ranta 2001). Consequently, researchers are seeking to clarify further the finer-grained associations between aspects of WM (for example its phonological short-term storage capacity and its executive control mechanism) and their implications for specific SLA areas, such as L2 task-based speech planning and performance (Wen 2012).

To conclude, the concept of FLA has developed considerably over the last 15 years, from being seen 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). In terms of ELT pedagogy, FLA research suggests that FLA profiles, when used appropriately (for example by matching learners with specific instruction methods), may enable students to learn more effectively and more satisfactorily (Wesche 1981; Erlam 2005) and allow teachers to identify and manage L2 learning problems more successfully (Ehrman 1996; Sparks and Ganschow op.cit.).