key concepts in elt

Foreign language aptitude

Zhisheng Wen

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 F L A presumed a relatively stable
talent for learning a foreign language that differs between individuals
(Dornyei 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. Carrolls (1962) subsequent conception of F L A
comprised four components:
n phonemic coding ability (i.e. the ability to identify and retain sounds and
link them to phonetic symbols);
n sensitivity towards the grammatical functions that words fulfil in
a sentence;
n the ability to learn inductively (i.e. to infer and generalize linguistic
structures from language samples); and
n 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 MLATs 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 F L A in terms of
a linguistic coding differences hypothesis (LCDH). The LCDH stresses the
importance of analysing L1 skills (particularly orthographic decoding skills
E LT Journal Volume 66/2 April 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccr068

The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication November 1, 2011

233

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 F L A.
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, Robinsons
(2005) Aptitude complexes framework strives to capture the dynamic
interplay between a learners F L A profile (i.e. different combinations of
abilities) in relation to specific language tasks which they need to complete
in real-life situations. Both Skehans and Robinsons 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 SL A from a dynamic F L A 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 SL A 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 SL A 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 (LarsenFreeman 2001) such as motivation and learning styles (Dornyei 2010) and
with external contextual affordances (Ranta 2008: 151). In terms of E LT
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.).
References
Carroll, J. B. 1962. The prediction of success in
intensive foreign language training in R. Glaser
(ed.). Training Research and Education. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

234

Zhisheng Wen

Carroll, J. B. and S. Sapon. 1959. Modern Language

Aptitude Test (M L AT). New York, NY: The
Psychological Corporation.
Dornyei, Z. 2010. The relationship between
language aptitude and language learning

motivation: individual differences from a dynamic

systems perspective in E. Macaro (ed.). Continuum
Companion to Second Language Acquisition. London:
Continuum.
Dornyei, Z. and P. Skehan. 2003. Individual
differences in second language learning in
C. Doughty and M. Long (eds.). The Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ehrman, M. E. 1996. Understanding Second Language
Learning Difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ellis, R. 2004. Individual differences in second
language learning in A. Davies and C. Elder (eds.).
The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Erlam, R. 2005. Language aptitude and its
relationship to instructional effectiveness in second
language acquisition. Language Teaching Research
9/2: 14771.
Gathercole, S. E. and A. D. Baddeley. 1993. Working
Memory and Language. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Grigorenko, E. L., R. J. Sternberg, and M. E. Ehrman.
2000. A theory-based approach to the measurement
of foreign language aptitude: the C A NA L -F theory
and test. Modern Language Journal 84/3: 390405.
Juffs, A. and M. Harrington. 2011. Aspects of working
memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching 44/2:
13766.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001. Individual cognitive/
affective learner contributions and differential
success in second language acquisition in M. Breen
(ed.). Learner Contributions to Language Learning.
Harlow: Longman.
McLaughlin, B. 1995. Aptitude from an
information processing perspective. Language
Testing 11: 36481.
Miyake A. and N. P. Friedman. 1998. Individual
differences in second language proficiency:
working memory as language aptitude in A. F. Healy
and L. E. Bourne (eds.). Foreign Language Learning:
Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ranta, L. 2008. Aptitude and good language

learners in C. Griffiths (ed.). Lessons from Good
Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Robinson, P. 2005. Aptitude and second language
acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25:
4673.
Sawyer, M. and L. Ranta. 2001. Aptitude, individual
differences and L2 instruction in P. Robinson (ed.).
Cognition and Second Language Instruction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language
Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. 2002. Theorising and updating aptitude
in P. Robinson (ed.). Individual Differences and
Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sparks, R. and L. Ganschow. 2001. Aptitude for
learning a foreign language. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 21: 90111.
Spolsky, B. 1995. Prognostication and language
aptitude testing192562. Language Testing 12/3:
32140.
Wen, Z. 2012 forthcoming. Working Memory and
Second Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Wesche, M. B. 1981. Language aptitude measures in
streaming, matching students with methods, and
diagnosis of learning problems in K. C. Diller (ed.).
Individual Differences and Universals in Language
Learning Aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Williams, M. and R. Burden. 1997. Psychology for
Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Foreign language aptitude

235

The author
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen is currently an Assistant
Professor at Hong Kong Shue Yan University. Over
the last decade, Dr Wen has lectured, researched, and
published in S LA and psycholinguistics. His current
research foci are issues surrounding Working
memory as foreign language aptitude in SLA.
Email: wenzhisheng@hotmail.com