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
(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 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 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 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 233

ª The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Downloaded from Advance Access publication November 1, 2011
https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/2/233/362776
by guest
on 03 May 2018
 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, Robinson’s
(2005) ‘Aptitude complexes’ framework strives to capture the dynamic
interplay between a learner’s 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 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 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’ (Larsen-
Freeman 2001) such as motivation and learning styles (Dörnyei 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. and S. Sapon. 1959. Modern Language

Carroll, J. B. 1962. ‘The prediction of success in Aptitude Test (M L AT). New York, NY: The
intensive foreign language training’ in R. Glaser Psychological Corporation.
(ed.). Training Research and Education. Pittsburgh, Dörnyei, Z. 2010. ‘The relationship between
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. language aptitude and language learning

234 Zhisheng Wen

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/2/233/362776
by guest
on 03 May 2018
 motivation: individual differences from a dynamic Ranta, L. 2008. ‘Aptitude and good language
systems perspective’ in E. Macaro (ed.). Continuum learners’ in C. Griffiths (ed.). Lessons from Good
Companion to Second Language Acquisition. London: Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
Continuum. University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. and P. Skehan. 2003. ‘Individual Robinson, P. 2005. ‘Aptitude and second language
differences in second language learning’ in acquisition’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25:
C. Doughty and M. Long (eds.). The Handbook of 46–73.
Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. Sawyer, M. and L. Ranta. 2001. ‘Aptitude, individual
Ehrman, M. E. 1996. Understanding Second Language differences and L2 instruction’ in P. Robinson (ed.).
Learning Difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Cognition and Second Language Instruction.
Publications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 2004. ‘Individual differences in second Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language
language learning’ in A. Davies and C. Elder (eds.). Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Skehan, P. 2002. ‘Theorising and updating aptitude’
Blackwell. in P. Robinson (ed.). Individual Differences and
Erlam, R. 2005. ‘Language aptitude and its Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam/
relationship to instructional effectiveness in second Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
language acquisition’. Language Teaching Research Sparks, R. and L. Ganschow. 2001. ‘Aptitude for
9/2: 147–71. learning a foreign language’. Annual Review of
Gathercole, S. E. and A. D. Baddeley. 1993. Working Applied Linguistics 21: 90–111.
Memory and Language. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Spolsky, B. 1995. ‘Prognostication and language
Associates. aptitude testing—1925–62’. Language Testing 12/3:
Grigorenko, E. L., R. J. Sternberg, and M. E. Ehrman. 321–40.
2000. ‘A theory-based approach to the measurement Wen, Z. 2012 forthcoming. Working Memory and
of foreign language aptitude: the C A NA L -F theory Second Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual
and test’. Modern Language Journal 84/3: 390–405. Matters.
Juffs, A. and M. Harrington. 2011. ‘Aspects of working Wesche, M. B. 1981. ‘Language aptitude measures in
memory in L2 learning’. Language Teaching 44/2: streaming, matching students with methods, and
137–66. diagnosis of learning problems’ in K. C. Diller (ed.).
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001. ‘Individual cognitive/ Individual Differences and Universals in Language
affective learner contributions and differential Learning Aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
success in second language acquisition’ in M. Breen Williams, M. and R. Burden. 1997. Psychology for
(ed.). Learner Contributions to Language Learning. Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
Harlow: Longman. University Press.
McLaughlin, B. 1995. ‘Aptitude from an
information processing perspective’. Language The author
Testing 11: 364–81. Zhisheng (Edward) Wen is currently an Assistant
Miyake A. and N. P. Friedman. 1998. ‘Individual Professor at Hong Kong Shue Yan University. Over
differences in second language proficiency: the last decade, Dr Wen has lectured, researched, and
working memory as language aptitude’ in A. F. Healy published in S LA and psycholinguistics. His current
and L. E. Bourne (eds.). Foreign Language Learning: research foci are issues surrounding ‘Working
Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention. memory as foreign language aptitude’ in SLA.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Email: [email protected]

Foreign language aptitude 235

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/66/2/233/362776
by guest
on 03 May 2018