Learning English as a second language in adulthood

By: Jason Geyser

Introduction

There are fundamental differences in the way children and adults learn second languages.
Second language acquisition is incredibly complex and there are so many processes
which underlie the learning of a second language in adults. Understanding the ways in
which adults learn second languages and the differences in the way children and adults
learn second languages, has significant implications for TESOL. Considering the
differences will allow us to effectively evaluate the methods we apply and the decisions
we make when teaching adults. As is generally known, there are a number of commonly
held beliefs about age and second language acquisition. Some people are the opinion that
children acquire languages more quickly and less effortlessly than adults. Pinker (1994)
suggests that language acquisition is guaranteed for young children until the age of
puberty and rare thereafter. This, he says, applies to both first language and second
language acquisition. Others believe that adults are faced with numerous barriers to
learning which is why they rarely meet with much success. Harmer (2001) although
accepting that there is some truth in many of these beliefs, these assumptions suggest that
everyone is the same. This is simply not the case. Much of the focus of this essay will
consider a comparison of second language acquisition in children and adults with
particular emphasis on learning English as a second language in adulthood. To further
explore these issues, we will examine the neurological, cognitive, affective and linguistic
considerations of age and language acquisition. Due the complexities of many of the
issues, the wide range of contributing factors underlying many of these considerations
and the constraints of such an essay, it is not possible to cover all aspects in any
considerable detail. A general overview however, of the many variables in second
language acquisition will provide significant perspectives on learning English as a second
language in adulthood.

Neurological Considerations

At the centre of issue of age and language acquisition, is whether there is a critical period
for language acquisition. The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) put forward the idea
that there is in fact a neurological ‘critical period’ for acquiring a first language and that
learning a second language within this so-called ‘window’ period would lead to native-
like fluency. This idea was further promulgated by Lenneberg (1967) who stated that
after the ‘critical period’ the two hemispheres of the brain become specialized in what
was termed the process of cerebral lateralization. This resulted in a loss of plasticity.
Supporting evidence came from studies of children and adults who had suffered similar
brain injuries affecting those areas of the brain responsible for speech. There is argument
and debate as to the age at which this process of lateralization occurs. Lenneberg (1967)
suggested that the critical period for second language acquisition occurs around the age
of puberty. Krashen (1973) on the other hand, believed this process to be complete by the
age of five.

Neurological research has shown evidence that certain functions are assigned to either the
left or right hemispheres of the brain. It would therefore appear that language functions
are essentially controlled by the left hemisphere of the brain. As Brown (2000) points
out; an accident victim suffering damage to the left hemisphere of the brain will suffer a
degree of language impairment less likely if that person had suffered damage to the right
hemisphere. He also goes on further to point out that some patients who suffer similar
injuries to the left hemisphere of the brain have been able to understand and produce
amazing amounts of language. Children who suffered injury to the left hemisphere of the
brain before the age of puberty were able to re-assign linguistic functions to the right
hemisphere and effectively re-learn their first language. Thomas Scovel (1969) suggested
that the plasticity of a child’s brain enables them to acquire both a first and second
language. He concludes that it is this process of lateralization that makes it difficult for
people to acquire fluent command of a second language. Scovel’s research considered the
possibility that the critical period hypothesis can be extended beyond first language
acquisition to include second language acquisition.

The Critical Period Hypothesis assumes that it is near impossible to successfully learn a
language after the age of twelve or thirteen. Evidence has yet to confirm that
lateralization in fact impairs the ability to acquire a second language. This assumption
seems to highlight the role of accent as a determining factor in successful language
learning.

Although some adults have been known to acquire an authentic accent in a second
language, such cases are relatively few and isolated. Research supports the notion of a
critical period in the acquisition of authentic control of the phonology (accent) of a
second language. Brown (2000) refers to the hundreds of muscles used in the articulation
of speech. It is these muscles which gradually develop until the age of puberty; when
complete phonemic control is attained. Different languages require different muscles to
produce the sounds unique to that particular language and it is more difficult for adults to
reproduce these new sounds. Flege (1980) supported this idea with research that
concluded that sounds which occurred in the first language were easier to reproduce in
the second language than those that never occurred. Adults must therefore mimic new
articulatory gestures, which seem easier for children while still in the earlier stages of
developing phonetic patterns in their first language.

Further compelling evidence for a critical period in the acquisition of authentic control of
the phonology (accent) of a second language came from Scovel’s (1998) evidence for a
sociobiological critical period in various species of mammals and birds. This evidence
pointed toward the development of accent at puberty in order to establish bonds of social
community and to attract mates in order to continue the species. Walsh and Diller (1981)
further concluded that different aspects of a second language are learned better at
different ages of maturity. Pronunciation was seen as being dependant on early maturing
which explained why foreign accents were difficult to mimic after childhood. Functions
such as semantic relations however, were more dependant on the later maturing process
explaining why college students showed greater command of grammar and vocabulary
than elementary students.

Research on age and accent acquisition provides us with strong evidence of a critical
period for accent. Brown (2000) however, cautions against regarding pronunciation of a
second language as the most important criterion for acquisition. Acquisition of the
communicative and functional purposes of a language is, in most cases, seen as more
important than the command of a near perfect native accent. Brown makes reference to
the former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who had a distinct German accent, yet
who was more eloquent in his use of the English language than most native English
speakers. Cook (1952:52) warns against using native accent as the yardstick in upholding
the standard of monoligualism.

Cognitive Considerations

In the previous discussion we focused on the neurological and phonological

considerations and their impact on learning English as a second language in adulthood.
We will know discuss the cognitive considerations such as a cognitive critical period;
capacity for abstract thought; ambiguity tolerance; rote and meaningful learning; aptitude
and intelligence; reflectivity and impulsivity; visual and auditory input and their role in
learning a second language in adulthood. Piaget (1972) outlined the various stages of
intellectual development in childhood. He suggests that cognitively, there is a critical
period of language acquisition which develops rapidly during the first sixteen years and
less rapidly thereafter. It is at the age of puberty, that a person becomes capable of
formal, abstract thought and is able to understand a context-reduced segment of
language. Ausubel (1964) further supported this consideration by stating that adults may
in fact benefit from dissecting and examining certain linguistic items, which would
otherwise be pointless for a child. The benefits of such explanations however, depend on
the explanation of the teacher and its suitability within the context.

It is important to consider the question of whether an adult’s capacity for formal and
abstract thought has a facilitating or inhibiting effect on second language learning. Ellen
Rosansky (1975) attempted an explanation by noting that a child is egocentric, lacking
flexibility when initial language acquisition takes place. She further states that as children
are not aware that they are acquiring language, it may be possible that this lack of
flexibility on their part may be necessary for language acquisition. This leads her to the
conclusion that difficulty in learning a second language in adulthood may therefore arise
because they are consciously aware of what they are doing. Counterevidence would
assume that the superior intellect of an adult should facilitate the complex nature of
learning a second language. Furthermore, evidence has shown that successful adult
second language learners have been extremely conscious of the processes of language
acquisition. Another suggestion comes from our earlier discussion on the processes of
lateralization, where the left hemisphere of the brain (controlling analytical and
intellectual functions) takes dominance, leading adults to overanalyze the processes of
second language learning. Moreover, the superior intellect of adults and by virtue of their
age, allows them to draw on a variety of life experiences.

Continuing with the cognitive domain, we will consider the Piagetian notion of
equilibration which refers to the development of cognition as a process of moving from
situations of uncertainty (disequilibrium) to situations of certainty (equilibrium). Piaget
(1970) suggested that up to the age of puberty, these periods of uncertainty
(disequilibrium) marked cognitive development. It is at this age of fourteen or fifteen that
this process becomes organized and equilibrium is reached. Piaget claimed that it is this
period of disequilibrium (where the child is cognitively ready) which provides the
motivation necessary for language acquisition. As a result of equilibrium being reached
and the development of intellectual maturity, the child becomes increasingly aware of
contradictions and ambiguities. It is at this stage that the learner becomes aware of the
complexities of learning a second language and therefore becomes discouraged when
faced with the ‘whole picture’ as opposed to a child who approaches the activity a little
step at a time. This intolerance of contradictions and ambiguities may be an inhibitive
factor in the learning of a second language as the adult becomes to rigid and narrow
minded.

An obvious shortcoming of this notion is that it assumes that all adults are intolerant of
ambiguities. Some adults are in fact more open minded and tolerant of ambiguity than
others. As Brown (2000) notes, there is a great deal of contradictory information when
encountering a second language and the person who is tolerant of ambiguity will be less
affected by the ambiguities of learning a second language. Excessive tolerance, on the
other hand, may inhibit successful integration of linguistic rules allowing the person to
become accepting of almost every proposition placed before them. Research conducted
by Chapelle and Roberts (1986), in studying learners of English as a second language in
Illinois, found that those students with a high tolerance of ambiguity were slightly more
successful in some language tasks. Although these findings do show that ambiguity
tolerance is a factor worth consideration in second language learning, the evidence is far
from compelling. In my experience, adults tend to be more disciplined, on the whole, and
unlike children they have a clear understanding of why they are learning and what they
hope to gain. Adults generally have clear and definite goals and are able to maintain high
levels of motivation necessary for successful learning of a second language.

An important consideration of the cognitive domain is the distinction between rote and
meaningful learning. Brown (2000) makes the comparison between adults learning a
second language utilizing rote methods and children learning a second language in a
natural, meaningful context. In this situation, the child’s learning meets with greater
success which would suggest that perhaps this success is not attributed to the age of the
person but to the context in which the learning takes place. For the child, the learning
process is meaningful, whereas for the adult it is not. As mentioned earlier, adults can
engage with abstract thought which would imply that adults do not have to rely on
activities which are exclusively meaningful as they can draw on a diverse range of
experiences. Although authenticity and meaningfulness are still important, adults may
find it easier to understand a context-reduced segment of language.

One of the most controversial issues in learning a second language is the relevance of
aptitude and intelligence. Do some people in fact have a natural or a so-called ‘knack’
for learning foreign languages? The emergence of the Modern Language Aptitude Test
(MLAT) in 1958 and the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB) in 1966 were
intended to predict the success a learner could expect in learning a foreign language.
Initially, these tests met with success, but this steadily declined as it became apparent that
these tests measured the general intelligence of a student with little no regard to factors of
motivation and determination. Another problem arose with the actual interpretation of a
language aptitude test and the self-fulfilling prophecy of either success or failure.
Weaknesses in the constructs of aptitude or ‘knack’ in learning a foreign language, as
Brown (2000) noted, has focused attention on the question of intelligence and foreign
language learning.

In relating intelligence to second language learning, we may be tempted to state that an

intelligent person would meet with success as memory has an important role in the
learning process. Traditionally, intelligence has been defined in terms of our notion of IQ
(intelligence quotient) which measures linguistic and logical mathematical abilities.
Gardner (1983) proposed a controversial theory of intelligence which added five more
forms of intelligence: special, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal
.Musical intelligence attributed to the ease at which some learners perceived and
produced intonation patterns of a language. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence attributed to
the learning of the phonology of a language. Interpersonal intelligence had relevance in
the communicative process while intrapersonal intelligence referred to personality factors
that contribute to language learning. Gardner further showed that our Westernized
definition of intelligence was culture-bound and did not account for the ‘sixth sense’ of a
hunter in Guinea or the navigational abilities of a sailor in Micronesia. Goleman gave
credence to the bias of traditional tests of intelligence by placing emotion at the forefront
of driving and controlling intellectual functioning.

Brown (2000:101) concludes that with the expansion by Gardner of the constructs of
traditional intelligence (IQ), we are able to discern a relationship between intelligence
and second language learning’ as ‘people within a wide range of IQs have proven to be
successful in acquiring a second language’. Brown also suggests that Goleman’s
emotional quotient may be one of the most important factors accounting for second
language success.

The implications of reflectivity and impulsivity are numerous for language acquisition.
Research in the cognitive domain has been conducted to determine the degree to which
people make impulsive (quick) guesses at a solution to a problem or more reflective
(calculated) decisions. Doron (1973), in her study relating to adult second language
learners, revealed that reflective learners were more accurate, yet slower than impulsive
learners when it came to reading. Jamieson (1992), in another study of adult ESL
learners, revealed that ‘fast accurate’ learners were better language learners as measured
by the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). She however warned against
assuming that impulsive learners were always accurate, as some of her subjects were fast
yet inaccurate. Brown (2000) concludes that reflectivity and impulsivity have some
important impacts for second language learning and teaching. He mentions that teachers
often judge mistakes too harshly especially when dealing with impulsive learners who are
more willing to take a risk at offering an answer than their more reflective counterparts.
The teacher may also have to exercise a greater deal of patience with a reflective person,
allowing them more response time. Brown further conceives that impulse people make
rapid stage transitions in terms of second language learning whereas reflective people
may remain longer at a certain stage.

Another important dimension in the way in which learners learn a foreign language in a
formal classroom setting, is the preference which the display towards either visual or
auditory input. Visual learners prefer reading and studying graphic information whereas
auditory learners prefer to listen to lectures. As Brown (2000) noted, successful learners
generally utilize both visual and auditory input, although tending to ‘lean; slightly to one
or the other. Joy Reid (1987) conducted a study of adult ESL learners using a self-
reporting questionnaire where subjects rated their own preferences on a five point scale
ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Results showed that Korean students
were more visually orientated than English speaking Americans and Japanese and
Chinese students were the least auditory. Factors such as gender, academic field of study
and level of education were found to have an impact on the preferences of her subjects.
These findings highlighted the importance of recognizing the various style preferences of
learners and of not assuming that they are necessarily related to cultural and linguistic
factors alone.

Affective Considerations
We should never underestimate the emotional factors that are associated with the
learning of a second language. Humans are essentially emotional beings. This brings us
to the affective (emotional) domain which includes a variety of variables such as
empathy, self esteem, anxiety, inhibition, extroversion – to mention but a few. Brown
(2000) suggests that egocentricity assumes an important role in human development.
Young children are seen as being extremely egocentric, with themselves at the ‘centre of
their universe’. Brown illustrates this point with the analogy of a baby holding a rattle;
the rattle merely being an extension of the baby and ceasing to exist when dropped. With
time, children are seen as becoming more self-conscious as they seek to define their own
identities and thereafter developing inhibitions about this self-identity in preadolescence.
During puberty, these inhibitions are heightened with the onset of physical, cognitive
and emotional changes.

Alexander Guiora (Guiora et al. 1972b) proposed what he termed the language ego when
researching the different personality variables in second language learning. Guiora
claimed that one’s self-identity is inseparable and connected to one’s language as it is
through this communicative process that such self-identities are ultimately shaped and
molded. Guiora suggested that it is the language ego that may inhibit second language
learning in adulthood. The child’s ego is seen as being dynamic and flexible with a new
language posing little threat to the ego. The onset of physical, cognitive and emotional
changes around the age of puberty gives rise to a language ego defensive mechanism
which in turn results in a real fear of taking risks or making a fool of oneself when
speaking a second language. Young children are less concerned with making mistakes as
they are less aware of language forms. Brown (2000) concludes that adults must
overcome a defensive wall of inhibitions which protect the ego in order to become
successful second language learners. Overcoming these inhibitions however, and
assuming a second identity is no easy feat, yet may present less of a threat to those
people who already acquired a second language as children and are attempting to learn a
third in adulthood. It is these inhibitions which surface in both the language classroom
and the non-classroom setting.

Brown (2000) refers to the important affective variable of peer pressure when
comparing child-adult learning of a second language. Children are exposed to a greater
degree of pressure to conform and it is this pressure which extends to language. Adults,
on the other hand, experience less peer pressure and are more tolerant of linguistic
differences. Errors in a second language in adults will usually be politely excused,
encouraging them to be more complacent. Children however, are less tolerant of
differences and harsh criticism will often apply a necessary pressure on children to learn
the second language.

We will now consider a number of specific personality factors in human behaviour and
their effects on second language learning. We begin with the role of attitude in second
language learning. It seems obvious that a negative attitude towards learning any skill
will have an affect on acquiring success. Macnamara (1975) noted that a child, who is
uprooted from their country and settled on a foreign country, will quickly learn the
language of their adopted country irrespective of their feelings towards the native people.
Macnamara goes on to mention that as a child reaches school age they begin to acquire
attitudes to stereotypes of people which are learnt from their parents or peers. It is these
negative attitudes towards the speakers of the second language which will inhibit learning
of this language in school age children and adults.
Self-esteem may be considered as an all-encompassing aspect of human behaviour.
Without some degree of self-esteem and self-confidence, successful cognitive and
affective activity may be limited. Brown (2000) ascribes self-esteem to an accumulation
of life experiences interacting with other people and the physical world around us. Brown
cites three levels of self esteem: global self-esteem which is the assessment of one’s own
self worth; situational self esteem which considers one’s self-appraisals in certain life
situations (work, education etc.) and task self-esteem which relates to a certain task in a
specific situation such as command of subject matter in the educational domain. Gardner
and Lambert (1972) among others, included measures of self-esteem in their studies of
second language learning success. These studies revealed that self-esteem was an
important variable in second language learning especially in view of cross-cultural
differences. MacIntyre, Dornyei, Clement and Noels (1998) noted that an ability to
communicate does not necessarily lead to a willingness to communicate, which signaled
the importance of self- confidence in learning a second language. Brown (2000) raised
the question of whether high self-esteem was a contributing factor in successful language
learning, or whether success in a language contributed to high self-esteem. The answer to
this question, he claims, is unclear although both are clearly interacting factors. This
further raised the issue of whether a teacher should attempt to facilitate the improvement
of global self-esteem or focus on a learner’s proficiency, allowing self esteem to develop
as a result. Heyde (1979) and Andres (1999) both agreed that successful classroom
techniques that focused on both linguistic goals and the personalities of students had a
positive and influential effect on the students.

The previous discussion on self-esteem has a close connection to the risk-taking factor
as those students with a high self-esteem are not particularly daunted by the fear of
feeling foolish at the prospect of making a mistake. As pointed out by Rubin and
Thompson (1982), a characteristic of a good language learner is one who attempts
intelligent guesses. As discussed earlier, inhibitions and the protection of one’s language
ego can be detrimental to successful language learning. Beebe (1983) outlined some of
the negative ramifications that cultivate a fear of risk-taking such as failing and exam,
embarrassment, fear of alienation and fear of a loss of identity. Difeu (1994) suggests that
in order for learners to overcome their fear of risk-taking, it is important to create a
comfortable classroom environment that will stimulate self-confidence and acceptance,
allowing them to take risks without embarrassment. We may be tempted to assume that
high risk-taking is a precursor to success in a second language. This is usually not the
case as shown in a study cited by Beebe (1983) which revealed that people who are
extremely motivated to achieve are moderate as opposed to high risk-takers. Rubin
(1994) concurs, suggesting that successful language learners tend to make both willing
and accurate guesses. Beebe (1983) further notes that the incorporation of certain patterns
of error (fossilization) may be due to learners being unwilling to take risks. Brown (2000)
concludes that teachers should encourage learners to make more willing guesses than
they are otherwise prone to doing; at the same time reducing the dominance of high risk-
takers with their wild guesses.

Anxiety plays an important affective role in the learning of a second language and is
closely associated with self-esteem and risk-taking. Scovel (1978) associates anxiety with
feelings of uneasiness, frustration, self doubt or worry. Does what has now been termed
language anxiety have a debilitative or facilitative affect on language learning? Bailey’s
(1983) study found that facilitative anxiety was closely related to competitiveness and an
important factor in the success of second language learning. Her self-analysis revealed
that competitiveness sometimes hindered her success and caused her to skip class. At
other times she was motivated to study harder. We may be led to conclude that anxiety
may indeed be both debilitative and facilitative and that too much or too little anxiety
may inhibit the process of second language learning. Finding an optimal level of anxiety
for students may well prove challenging for teachers in the classroom setting.

Intricately intertwined with the other aspects of human behaviour is the role of empathy
and extroversion as factors in second language learning. Empathy has been described as
an understanding of what another person is feeling. In more sophisticated terminology,
Guiora (1972b: 142) defined empathy as ‘a process of comprehending in which a
temporary fusion of self-object boundaries permits an immediate emotional apprehension
of the affective experience of another.’

As noted by Brown (2000), effective communication requires a sophisticated degree of

empathy where one person is able to understand another person’s affective and cognitive
states based on certain accurate assumptions. It is easy to achieve empathetic oral
communication due to immediate feedback where ambiguities and misunderstandings can
be rephrased for clear interpretation. Written communication, on the other hand, cannot
rely on immediate feedback from the reader so the writer must communicate by means of
empathetic intuition. Empathy therefore has important implications for the processes of
second language learning as the speaker must identify cognitive and affective sets in the
listener and in a language in which they are insecure. Misinterpretations of second
language learners by native speakers often results in linguistic, cognitive and affirmative
information not being transferred effectively.

Extroversion and introversion are also potentially important factors in second language
learning. Stereotypical western views of extroversion are misleading where outspoken
participants in classroom discussions are admired and viewed favorably by teachers.
Extroverts are not necessarily outspoken and talkative yet generally require the
affirmation of others. Introverts, on the other hand, do not seek this affirmation from
others and may in fact have an inner strength of character no found in extroverts.
Teachers also need to consider cultural differences and norms in the classroom, where in
certain societies it is considered improper to speak out in the classroom. Brown (2000)
also points out that although extroversion is often related to empathy this may simply be
a defensive mechanism whereby the extroverted person is merely protecting their ego. An
introvert may show high empathy with a more reserved outward expression of this
empathy. Research undertaken by Busch (1982), exploring the relationship of
extroversion and introversion to proficiency in Japanese learners of English in Japan,
found no significant effect for extroversion in successful second language learning.
Furthermore, although it is highly conceivable that extroversion may be a factor in
developing oral competence, certain classroom techniques (role-play, drama) which
facilitate extroversion should be carefully considered in light of both cultural norms and
whether such extroversion is really necessary.

Linguistic Considerations

In the course of this essay, we have so far focused on the issues affecting language
learners themselves in terms of age and acquisition of a second language. Research
studies into the linguistic processes of second language learning reveal how these
processes differ in children and adults.
It is evident that child learning a second language acquires it much in the same way as
acquiring their first language. As pointed out by Hansen- Bede (1975), among others,
children apply similar strategies and linguistic principles in learning both their first and
second languages. Examination of an English speaking three year old learning Urdu upon
moving to Pakistan did not appear to show any first language interference. Similar rules
and strategies were evident for both languages. The linguistic processes in adults learning
a second language however, seem more prevalent to the affects of first language
interference. Brown (2000) suggests that adults will attempt to formulate linguistic rules
on the basis of whatever information is readily available to them, often drawing from the
solid foundation of the first language. This may result in more interference as the adult
attempts to fill in the gaps in the second language. Brown further adds that interference
from the first language may not only be an inhibiting factor, but a facilitating factor in
second language learning. Brown (2000: 68) also points out that ‘adults learning a second
language manifest some of the same types of errors found in children learning their first
language’.

Conclusion

In the course of this essay, we have touched on several significant aspects of age and
language acquisition. Although consideration of the neurological, cognitive, affirmative
and linguistic domains has in many cases provided research which is less than conclusive,
it has on many levels been revealing. However, by considering and comparing various
perspectives of age on acquisition of a second language, we are better able to construct an
understanding of the implications of teaching and learning English as a second language
in adulthood.

In the introductory paragraph, attention was called to the myth that children are better
second language learners than adults and that adults seldom reach success due to a
number of inhibiting factors. Although there certainly appears to be a number of
advantages in learning a second language in early childhood, there does not seem to be
any evidence which concludes that an adult cannot overcome all these disadvantages,
except that of accent. Accent however, is hardly considered an all-important criterion for
effective communication as long as it is clear and intelligible. Scovel (1999) on
considering all the aspects of language acquisition noted that adult learners have proven
to be superior learners in terms of literacy, vocabulary, pragmatics, schematic knowledge
and syntax.
References

Andres, Veronica. 1999. Self-esteem in the classroom or the metamorphosis of

butterflies. In Arnold 1999.

Ausubel, David A. 1963. Adults vs. children in second language learning: Psychological
considerations. Modern Language Journal 48: 420-424.

Bailey, Kathleen M. 1983. Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language

learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In Seliger and Long 1983.

Beebe, Leslie M. 1983. Risk-taking and the language learner. In Seliger & Long 1983.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Addison

Wesley Longman, Inc – fourth edition.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc – second edition.

Busch, Deborah. 1982. Introversion-extroversion and the EFL proficiency of Japanese

students. Language Learning 32: 109 -132.

Chapelle, Carol A. and Roberts, Cheryl. 1986. Ambiguity tolerance and field
independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language
Learning 36: 27-45.

Doron, Sandra. 1973. Reflectivity-impulsivity and their influence on reading for

inference for adult students of ESL. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.

Gardner, Howard. 1983. Frames of Mind: The theory of Multiple Intelligences. New
York: Basic Books.

Goleman, Daniel. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York. Bantam Books.

Guiora, Alexander Z., Brannon, Robert C., and Dull, Cecilia Y. 1972b. Empathy and
second language learning. Language Learning 24: 287-297.

Hansen-Bede, Lynn. 1975. A child’s creation of a second language. Working Papers on

Bilingualism 6: 103-126.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education
Limited.

Heyde, Adelaide. 1979. The relationship between self-esteem and the oral production of a
second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Jamieson, Joan. 1992. The cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field

independence and ESL success. Modern Language Journal 76: 491-501.

Krashen, Stephen. 1973. Lateralization, language learning, and the critical period: Some
new evidence. Language Learning 23: 63-74.
Lambert, Wallace E. 1972. Language, Psychology, and Culture: Essays by Wallace E.
Lambert. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. The Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

MacIntyre, Peter D.; Dornyei, Zoltan; Clement, Richard; and Noels, Kimberley. 1998.
Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2
confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal 82: 545-562.

Macnamara, John. 1975. Comparison between first and second language learning.
Working Papers on Bilingualism 7: 71-94.

Piaget, Jean. 1972. The Principles of Genetic Epistemology. New York: Basic Books.

Pinker, Stephen. 1994. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New
York: William Morrow.

Reid, Joy M. 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21:
87-111.

Rosansky, Ellen J. 1976. Methods and morphemes in second language acquisition

research. Language Learning 26: 409-425.

Rubin, Joan and Thompson, Irene. 1982. How to Be a More Successful Language
Learner: Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Second Edition, 1994.

Scovel, Thomas. 1969. Foreign accents, language acquisition and cerebral dominance.
Language Learning 19: 245-254.

Scovel, Thomas. 1978. The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review f the
anxiety research. Language Learning 28: 129-142.

Scovel, Thomas. 1999. ‘The younger the better’ myth and bilingual education. In
Gonzalez, Roseann, and Melis, Ildiko (Eds.). Language Ideologies: Critical Perspectives
on the English Only Movement. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Walsh, Terence M and Diller, Karl C. 1981. Neurolinguistic considerations on the

optimum age for second language learning. In Diller 1981.