This chapter reviews a wide range of issues in language aptitude. After a contextualizing, historical introduction, sections then cover the role of context in aptitude functioning; the relationship of aptitude and dyslexia; and the wider analysis of memory that is now relevant for aptitude. Then some contemporary aptitude debates are explored, comprising the relevance of aptitude to second language acquisition (SLA), the importance of aptitude in understanding critical period effects, and proposals which have been made for aptitude complexes. A brief survey is provided of developments in aptitude measurement, as well as a discussion of the pedagogic implications of aptitude work. This leads to a conclusion which assesses current perceptions of the nature and relevance of aptitude, and outlines challenges for the future.
Accounts of foreign language aptitude often start with an historical introduction, as though the study of aptitude is mostly in the past. This review will also, but it will later attempt to justify the claim that aptitude research has recently been one of the revitalized areas in applied linguistics and SLA. It is now changing from a marginal position to one where it is center-stage.
The dominating figure in language aptitude research has been J. B. Carroll. Carroll was a cognitive psychologist (before that term became commonplace), and the approach he took to foreign language aptitude was typical of his wider approach to studying the structure of cognitive abilities (as represented in his life's work, published in 1993, Human Cognitive Abilities). The assumptions he gave us were that (a) the constellation of abilities that capture the notion of foreign language aptitude is distinct from other cognitive abilities, including intelligence, (b) aptitude is fairly stable in nature, and (c) is itself componential. Carroll's contributions fall into two areas. First, he has been the most significant theorist of language aptitude with his four factor view of aptitude. The factors are phonemic coding ability (the capacity to retain, through appropriate coding, unfamiliar auditory material); inductive language learning ability (a talent to find generalizations based on language input, and then be able to extrapolate and produce language based on such generalizations); grammatical sensitivity (the ability to identify the functions of words in sentences); and associative learning (the capacity to make links between verbal elements such as first language (L1) and second language (L2) words). His second area of contribution is more practical. He devised a large number of potential foreign language aptitude sub-tests, administered these to large numbers of people, as well as achievement tests in the languages they were learning, and then explored the relationships (a) between the different aptitude tests themselves, and (b) between the aptitude tests and the achievement tests. On this basis he rejected the tests which did not predict achievement, and he also rejected tests that duplicated one another. In so doing, and through exploratory factor analysis, he had empirical support for the four factor view of aptitude outlined above.
This led to the culmination of his more practical work. With Stanley Sapon, he was the creator of the Modern Languages Aptitude Test (MLAT) (Carroll and Sapon, 1957), a practical and comprehensive system, with associated norms, for assessing aptitude. This test battery contains five sub-tests, respectively Number Learning, Phonetic Script, Hidden Words, Words in Sentences, and Paired Associates. Curiously, and rather disappointedly, the focus in this test is on achieving predictive power, rather than explanation (Robinson, 2005). So sub-tests, somewhat ironically, are not always direct measures of the four constructs Carroll proposed, for example, number learning measures both phonemic coding ability and associative memory. In addition, one of the constructs, inductive language learning ability, is not represented in the battery at all. In any case, as prediction goes, the MLAT (and other aptitude batteries (see below)) have been successful. They generally produced correlations of between 0.30 and 0.55 between MLAT scores and subsequent achievement tests. Generally these validity coefficients are higher when instruction is carried out in more controlled conditions, for example, intensive instruction, and with unselected students. These correlations may not seem exceptional, but by the standards of correlations in language learning, these values are about as high as one gets, with only motivation scores being comparable.
Carroll's view of aptitude, and the MLAT as a practical measurement tool, have been dominant since the late 1950s. Other batteries were subsequently developed, for example, Pimsleur's Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB) (Pimsleur, 1966; which targets younger, i.e., school-age, learners and emphasizes a more auditory perspective), the Defense Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB) (Petersen and Al-Haik, 1976) developed by the US military and intended, not particularly successfully, to be more discriminating than the MLAT with high ability learners; and VORD (Parry and Child, 1990), where VORD means word in the artificial language which was used in this test. There were also other less comprehensive tests, such as the York Language Aptitude Test (Green, 1975), which only assesses inductive language learning ability. The original MLAT test was for English L1 speakers learning other languages. Now versions are available in other languages. Some of these, such as for French, are fairly directly translated (and validated) forms, while others, such as for Hungarian or Japanese (Sasaki, 1991, 1996), required considerably more modification and validation. More recently developed measurement tools will be covered later in this chapter.
The MLAT and the PLAB especially were constructed largely in relation to the prediction of success in instructed language learning contexts and at a time when the prevailing methodology, at least in the USA, was audiolingualism. Language teaching has changed considerably since then, and the field of SLA has grown hugely. During the 1970s and 1980s, therefore, there was a widespread belief that aptitude was only relevant to a bygone age (Krashen, 1981). A particularly relevant type of aptitude research is therefore anything which explores the potential of aptitude measures for acquisition-rich or informal learning.
One study of this type was conducted in Canada. Wesche (1981) showed that one can use aptitude information to explore interactions between aptitude profiles (analytic vs. memory-oriented learners) and teaching methodology (analytic vs. situational), with matches of learner aptitude profile and methodology leading to satisfaction and higher achievement, and mismatches leading to the reverse. Another early study was that of Reves (1982) who explored whether aptitude is predictive not simply in classroom contexts but also for informal learning. In Israel, she compared L1 Arabic instructed learners of English with comparable informal learners of Hebrew. She showed that aptitude is predictive in both of these situations, and indeed, that aptitude was the strongest predictor of achievement even in the informal situation. These two studies are consistent with aptitude having general relevance, not simply relevance to more conventional classroom situations. Related to Wesche's study, Skehan (1986b) explored language learning in the British Army, and demonstrated that, in the context of a communicative approach to Arabic instruction for English L1 learners, aptitude was a high predictor of achievement. He also argued that one should consider aptitude profiles. Like Wesche he distinguished between analysis-oriented and memory-oriented learners, and showed that success could be achieved either by an analytic profile or a memory profile.
There have been other, more recent studies which have examined whether there is any connection between aptitude and instructional options. Harley and Hart (1997) explored whether there were differences in aptitude relevance as a function of age. Researching in Canada with French immersion programs, they used two measures of memory (one paired associates test from the MLAT, and another measure of memory for text) and one of language analysis, the Language Analysis sub-test from PLAB. They researched with two groups of 11th-grade students—those who had had early immersion (i.e., starting in grade 1) and those who had had late immersion (i.e., starting in grade 7). The early immersion children tended to outperform the late immersion children for oral-aural skills, but were in turn outperformed on tests of writing. Other areas showed no significant differences. Interestingly, the early immersion students generated significant correlations between the memory-oriented aptitude scores and achievement, while the late immersion children showed one significant correlation and that was with the language analysis test.
Erlam (2005) also investigated the relevance of aptitude measures to different instructional contexts. She used a phonemic coding ability test, Part 4 of the MLAT (Words in Sentences), and a working memory test emphasizing the phonological buffer (see below). Participants were 60 students in their second year of the study of French. Three different instructional methods were used: deductive instruction, that is, rule presentation followed by form-focused activities; structured input instruction, that is, rule presentation followed by input-based activities based on VanPatten's work; and inductive instruction, that is, practice activities which induced students to identify rules. All methods targeted object pronouns in French. Broadly, the deductive approach was superior to the Structured Input approach, which in turn was superior to the Inductive approach. The lowest correlations between the aptitude and achievement scores were for the deductive group, suggesting that more structured presentation “equalizes” the effects of instruction (an issue raised by Carroll (1965) many years ago). Correlations were slightly more evident with the other two conditions, particularly for the written achievement test.
Kormos and Safar (2008) have also investigated aptitude linked to instructional context. They studied a group of 15–16 year old beginner Hungarian learners of English following a one-year intensive course, in which they received more than 500 hours of instruction. The course was characterized as communicative. Aptitude was measured through a modified forms of the Phonetic Script sub-test of the MLAT, Pimsleur's Language Analysis sub-test, MLAT IV, Words in Sentences, and MLAT-V, Paired Associates. Proficiency was measured through the Cambridge First Certificate test. No reliability or revalidation indices are given for any of these measures. Correlations between aptitude measures and proficiency measures are low, with values for total proficiency scores at 0.34 (Phonetic Script, p < 0.05); 0.26 (Language Analysis, ns., although two component proficiency tests, Writing and Listening, do generate significant correlations). The authors interpret these as low correlations where aptitude information is used in communicative contexts.
Quite clearly here the jury is still out on the relationship between aptitude testing and communicative teaching contexts. There are correlations, but these vary in strength from study to study. In any case, studies are not strictly comparable. What we can conclude is that one cannot dismiss aptitude as irrelevant from communicative instructional contexts, and that more, finer-grained research may be useful in resolving such issues. (See also Chapter 33 by (Jessica) Williams, this volume.)
Carroll (1965) proposed the construct of phonemic coding ability for the component of aptitude concerned with the processing of sound, that is, the ability to analyze sound as this influences how sounds can be retained for more than a few seconds. In slight contrast, Pimsleur (1968) proposed a sound-symbol association ability, a simpler ability which only reflects the capacity to learn and operate new sound-symbol mappings. This area has been developed considerably but from a different direction since the initial formulation. Sparks and colleagues (Sparks and Ganschow, 1991; Sparks et al., 1992) have argued that tests of phonemic coding ability bear a close relationship to tests for mild dyslexia. In each case, the focus seems to be on how there are differences in the ways sound is processed and how it is related to symbol. Essentially, Carroll's notion of analyzing sound so that it can be retained is close to how symbols can be used to impose some structure on sound that is heard, in such a way that the dual coding involved enables more robust memory. With L2 learners, problems in this area may not mean that there is poorer “raw” discrimination, but rather that sound is not processed efficiently, presumably not being segmented so effectively into words, and certainly not being analysed into a state of distinctness so that it can be more easily retained. With mild dyslexics there is a problem in linking sound representations to the symbols on the page which have to be read. All this seems to argue that it is advantageous to be able to link sound and symbol. With dyslexics, the lack of connection with (well understood native language) sounds means that the symbols on the page have less meaning and processability. With L2 learners it may be the other way around–the sounds do not link with a representational system in another modality. Sparks and Ganschow (1991) propose the Linguistic Coding Deficit hypothesis to account for these two types of difficulty.
The analysis provided of phonemic coding ability and dyslexia suggests that Carroll was extraordinarily prescient in this area. Things are not quite the same with memory. The MLAT, practically, and Carroll's four factor theory focus on associative memory, the form of memory dominant in psychology at the time of development of the MLAT. Psychological perspectives on memory have changed radically since that time. For example, Skehan (1982) argued that the capacity to analyze larger quantities of material so that it can be retained more effectively, and the capacity to memorize material lacking in familiarity are also relevant to aptitude.
But easily the most significant development in the area of memory is the importance now attached to working memory (Baddeley, 2007; Miyake and Shah, 1999). In the current volume, Chapter 26 by (John) Williams explicates working memory functioning. For the purposes of the current chapter, we only need to note different measurement procedures for different working memory components. Measures which emphasize the central executive tend to use span tasks where computation is a major influence on the memory score (Waters and Caplan, 2003), whereas measures which emphasize the phonological buffer tend to use nonword repetition tasks, for example, words like “tablus” and “acklar” (Gathercole, 2006). The correlation between working memory scores on each of these measures is generally in the range 0.30 to 0.40 (Wen, 2009), which suggests (a) they are not measuring exactly the same thing, and that to have a high executive working memory does not mean one has a high phonological buffer, and (b) to use just one of these measures in an aptitude study is not enough: both need to be included. Not only does this measurement problem have an impact on psychological studies, but it is also relevant for any assessment of the relevance of working memory for foreign language aptitude.
One can see the relevance of working memory, and its centrality in language aptitude (Miyake and Friedman, 1998) by considering the following stages in L2 processing, linked with potential working memory involvement:
| Input processing | More phonological memory enables longer stretches of language to be processed, and parsing therefore to be more efficient |
| Noticing and handling form and meaning simultaneously | Greater capacity can enable parts of input to be extracted, and enable form-meaning connections to be made |
| Pattern identification | More input available enables patterns of greater length to be identified |
| Complexification/ restructuring | More capacity enables connections to be made between current working memory and what is held in long-term memory, as well as to enable long-term memory to be changed |
| Error avoidance | More working memory capacity enables attention to be directed to monitoring and error avoided |
| Response to feedback | More memory enables attention to be directed to feedback, and the incorporation of feedback into performance, as well as the potential to change long-term memory |
| Automatization/ Lexicalization | More material in working memory enables chunking which can be transferred to long term memory |
The suggestions in the table, though, are conjecture. We need next to review the evidence on working memory as aptitude. Interestingly, most research has concerned vocabulary learning. Baddeley et al. (1998) propose that the phonological buffer is a “language learning device,” particularly important in the learning of new L1 words by children, as evidenced in research such as Gathercole (1999). Service and Kohonen (1995) have extended these L1 claims to L2 vocabulary learning (English words by L1 Finnish learners), as has Cheung, et al. (1996), with Cantonese L1 and English L2 learning, and Masoura and Gathercole (1999) with Greek L1 and English L2. Papagno and Vallar (1995) made similar claims for older learners with L1 Italian and L2 Russian.
There are different views on the role of phonological working memory (PWM) with grammar and morphology learning. Ellis and colleagues (Ellis and Sinclair, 1996; Ellis, 1996), on the basis of a theoretical outlook emphasizing chunk learning and the importance of frequency, (see Chapter 12 by Ellis, this volume) report data on PWM correlations with morphological learning and agreement rules. Williams and Lovatt (2003, 2005) report relationships between PWM and the learning of sequences of familiar morphemes important in grammar learning with a semi-artificial language. French and O'Brien (2008) report PWM–L2 grammar learning correlations which are independent of measures of vocabulary learning. Strikingly here, most of the studies reporting correlations with vocabulary or grammar learning have used phonological working memory measures rather than executive working memory (EWM) tests (although EWM tests have figured more in studies of performance, rather than learning (Fortkamp, 1999)). A different approach to relating working memory to acquisition is to explore how larger working memory is associated with a greater capacity to benefit from and incorporate feedback. Mackey et al. (2002) investigated this possibility and were able to show that high working memory participants in their study were able to benefit more from feedback, and notice more about the helpful information they were being given incidentally during interaction.
There have also been studies that have examined relationships between (phonological) working memory and L2 development over longer timespans. French (2006) investigated PWM relationships in an L1 French–L2 English five-month intensive program and reported significant correlations at the outset and the end of this program, and also PWM correlated with gain scores but only for the lower proficiency group in the study. O'Brien et al. (2006; 2007) also report significant PWM correlations with L2 oral development in a study abroad context for older learners. Kormos and Safar (2008, and see above) report significant PWM correlations with Hungarian secondary school students on a one-year intensive program performing on a battery of tests taken from the Cambridge First Certificate Exam paper.
Taken together, the various studies do indicate that consistent correlations are obtained between working memory measures and language development measures, and so one can consider that working memory is a fundamental component of a foreign language aptitude (Miyake and Friedman, 1998). But an interesting final point is to ask whether we are dealing with a domain-general or a domain-specific measure (DeKeyser and Juffs, 2005). One additional facet of this debate arises from work by Chan et al. (2011). Influenced by Levelt and Wheeldon's (1994) claim that in early life children acquire L1 syllabaries, Chan et al. (2011) propose that a major task in L2 learning is to acquire the syllable structure of the target language. In effect, this represents the ability to handle and memorize the specific sound sequences of the L2, and goes beyond the more general abilities represented by phonemic coding ability. Chan et al. (2011) propose therefore that tests of phono-logical working memory can be produced more effectively by using nonwords for repetition which reflect the syllable structure of the target language. They are proposing that there is a very domain-specific phonological element in language learning, and phonemic coding ability and phonological working memory can be brought closely together to provide the basis for more effective measures.
At the beginning of this chapter, claims and evidence were discussed on whether aptitude applies to formal learning and not acquisition. One response would be to try to relate aptitude to developments within SLA theory. If an acquisitional process or stage implicates individual differences, then we have the possibility of an aptitude component.
One can focus on six stages that are involved, notionally separately, in the process of gaining control over a L2. (The stages are adapted slightly from those discussed with working memory.):
The first three are concerned with apprehension of the rule-based nature of language, and the capacity to complexify and reorganize these rules as learners are able to move from exemplars to systems (see Chapter 16 by VanPatten on input processing and Chapter 14 by Pienemann and Keβler on processability theory, this volume). This requires flexibility as an interlanguage system grows, and it also requires a capacity to respond to feedback (see chapters by Loewen (Chapter 2), on feedback, and Mackey et al. on interactionist approaches, Chapter 1, this volume). This portrayal clarifies some central questions regarding aptitude. These concern the theories which account for L2 development, and then the ways that any language learning capacity appropriate to acquiring a rule-based system can be sampled and measured. For example, if one subscribes to a Universal Grammar account of SLA, one might use this analysis to clarify what the progression would be for a L2 learner. Similarly, if one takes a cognitive approach, for example, that of Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998, and Pienemann and Keβler, Chapter 14, this volume), then one would expect developmental progression to be consistent with the stages that Pienemann describes, and so any aptitude test could be organized to follow this sequence (as in Skehan and Chan, ms).
What is interesting in the aptitude field, of course, is that the “sampling frames” used in structure-oriented aptitude sub-tests are not informed by any of the above considerations. The Grammatical Sensitivity (Part 4) sub-test of the MLAT appears to have little sampling progression or organization beyond different word categories in English. The various inductive language learning sub-tests are based on some loose sense of increasing complexity of structures, but that is all. This seems a promising area for research.
Returning now to the six points above, the second set of three stages are radically different in nature and are concerned much more with control and access to material already in long-term memory. The implication for aptitude would be more the need to measure speed of learning and proceduralization. One assumes that learners vary in these areas, and so an important part of aptitude would be how learners convert noticing and pattern insight into fluent and error-free performance. Once again, proposals within L2 learning for chunk learning (Ellis, 2005) and frequency effects (Ellis, 2007, and Chapter 12, this volume) would be highly relevant. It may be that speed of learning and automatization are distinct from speed of pattern identification.
The issue of aptitude and acquisition is not all theorizing. There have been some interesting acquisition-aware studies. For example, Robinson (1995) used aptitude results in a study involving four intervention conditions: instructed (in which learners were given explicit instruction, that is, the non-acquisitional context); rule-search (in which they were given material and told to search for a rule); implicit (in which learners were given material to study, but were not told to search the material for the rule it contained); and incidental (in which learners were given a meaning related task, based on material containing the same target rule, but again were uninformed of this rule). The study involved two rules, one deemed easy and one hard. All conditions generated significant correlations between learning and aptitude, except for the incidental one, and this applied to both easy and hard rules. In other words, aptitude (measured by two sub-tests from the MLAT: paired associates and words-in-sentences) seemed relevant for acquisition-rich as well as acquisition-poor contexts. Similarly, DeGraaf (1997) compared a rule-explanation with a non-explanation condition for the learning of an artificial language, and also of Spanish, and also like Robinson, with a comparison of simple and complex rules. DeGraaf also used aptitude information, and correlated this with test performance. He reports significant correlations for both the rule-explanation condition and the non-explanation condition, for both the artificial language and Spanish, and for both the simple and the complex rules. The conclusion seems to be here that aptitude information is relevant for predicting success both with implicit as well as explicit conditions.
The debate on the existence of a critical period for language development, during which language might be learned in a manner qualitatively different from learning in other domains, has raged for many years (Bialystok and Hakuta, 1994; Johnson and Newport, 1989, and see Byrnes, Chapter 31, and also DeKeyser, Chapter 27, this volume). DeKeyser (2000) working with Hungarian immigrants to the USA, proposed that post-critical period arrivals who had high levels of achievement, that is, learners who seemed to defy the existence of a critical period, had high language aptitude. However, Bialystok (2002) criticized DeKeyser's claims on the basis that numbers were very small.
Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) approached the issue slightly differently. In one of their studies, they identified over 100 Spanish L1 speakers of Swedish who passed for native speakers, from whom they were able to identify two matched groups, distinguished by age on arrival, with the age of 12 set as the cut-off. Both groups were then given aptitude and grammaticality judgment tests, this latter both written and auditory. Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) show that for arrivals before the age of 12, aptitude is widely distributed, and so lower as well as higher aptitude young arrivals generally meet the “pass for native speaker” criterion. In contrast, all those who arrived in Sweden after the age of 12 but who are able to pass for native speakers have high aptitude; in other words, none of the high achievers in Swedish had low foreign language aptitude. Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) interpret this to mean that high foreign language aptitude is required in order to compensate for late arrival. Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) have also explored the role of foreign language aptitude in language attrition and report that higher language aptitude Spanish L1 immigrants to Sweden lost Spanish less than lower aptitude immigrants, suggesting that aptitude here can serve as some sort of compensation for lack of input.
These findings connect with an earlier study by Skehan (1986a). This reported on a follow-up of more than 100 children studied in the Bristol Language Project, whose L1 development was carefully monitored for rate and route (Wells, 1985). Some 12 years after the original L1 data collection, these children were given aptitude tests when they were 13 to 15 years old, and despite the time interval between the collection of the L1 and the foreign language aptitude data, there were significant correlations between rate of L1 development and level of language analytic ability, at around 0.40 to 0.50. In other words, if one assumes that differences in L1 acquisition rate reflect differences in some sort of language endowment, this seems connected with subsequent levels of foreign language aptitude. This is consistent with a speculation of Carroll's that foreign language aptitude is the residue of L1 learning ability (Carroll, 1973).
Earlier there were sections on the linkage between aptitude and context and also on aptitude linked to SLA processes. These insights are developed even further in Robinson's Aptitude Complex Hypothesis (Robinson, 2007). Robinson looks at aptitude abilities not through a componential approach, linked to techniques such as factor analysis, but in terms of acquisition processes. Some of these are similar to the proposals in Skehan (2002), and reflect stages of processing and acquisition. At the most fine-grained level, Robinson proposes primary cognitive abilities, which comprise perceptual speed, pattern recognition, PWM capacity, speed of PWM, analogies, the capacity to infer word meaning, memory and speed of memory for text, grammatical sensitivity, and rote memory. Robinson relates each of these to ability tests, where these are available. But at a higher level, he relates pairs of primary cognitive abilities to even broader ability factors. Hence perceptual speed and pattern recognition come together to underpin noticing the gap, while PWM capacity and speed of PWM underpin memory for contingent speech. The other three broad ability factors are deep semantic processing, memory for contingent text, and metalinguistic rule rehearsal.
Robinson builds upon this structure to discuss aptitude complexes, in which these broader ability patterns are linked to different learning contexts. He emphasizes four such learning contexts. These are:
Each of these learning contexts is linked to particular aptitudinal complexes as shown in the parenthesized material. In each case the two ability factors interact orthogonally, and generate a two-by-two arrangement. The context of learning from recasting, for example, draws upon the ability factors of noticing and memory for contingent speech (MCS), so that one can have people who are high in noticing and high in MCS, low in noticing and low in MCS, high in noticing and low in MCS, low in noticing and high in MCS. The other learning contexts are similarly underpinned by the two ability factors shown.
The assumption is that it is interactions which account for learning, and so it is possible to imagine learners who will do well in one context but poorly in others. The approach, in other words, formalizes the relevance of discussing strengths and weaknesses in learning and how they manifest themselves (cf., the earlier work by Wesche, 1981). What is needed next is a research program to validate the testable claims which are being made. This testing needs to address a range of issues:
We now examine some practical measurement concerns. As indicated earlier, the MLAT and PLAB were developed in the 1950s and 1960s respectively. They are omnibus aptitude test batteries, and were easily available at the time of their development. After a time of difficulty in getting hold of them, they are now available again (www.2lti.com). These two tests are still, many years later, distinguished by their comprehensiveness, their accessibility, and the likelihood that they will still be used in research studies. Since their development, there have been other omnibus test batteries (see above), but each has the major disadvantage that it is restricted, as a result of its development in a military context. More recently we have seen the development of the CANAL-F test (Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language—Foreign). This too has a military history, and is restricted. But it is a little different from the others in the openness and differentness of its rationale (Grigorenko et al., 2002). It was developed with awareness of cognitive psychology, and of attentional function, for example, processes like selective encoding, selective comparison, and selective combination. Its sampling frame includes concern for levels of processing (traditional language levels), modes of input (visual vs. oral), and encoding, storage and retrieval of information, raising the need to have immediate and delayed recall. The test is based on Ursulu, an invented language, and is an integrated test, i.e., the different sub-tests are cumulative in what they assess. There are five sections: learning meanings of neologisms from context, understanding the meaning of passages, continuous paired associates learning, sentential inference, and learning language rules. In validation studies, the CANAL-F scores correlate with MLAT scores, but also indicate distinctness from them, and also generated higher correlation with instructors’ ratings on a language course than did MLAT scores (Grigorenko et al., 2002).
A different development is represented by the LLAMA aptitude test (Meara, 2005). First, this is a computer based test. Second, it is available for free download (www.lognostics.co.uk/tools/llama). Third, it is designed so that it is accessible without the L1 being a factor, beyond understanding initial instructions. The four-part test is loosely based on the MLAT. There are sub-tests on paired associates learning, on targetting sound-symbol association, and assessing grammatical inferencing. Finally there is a sub-test probing sound recognition which requires previously heard sound sequences to be identified in new sequences.
These two batteries can be compared with the MLAT, as Table 23.1 shows:
Table 23.1 A comparison of different foreign language aptitude batteries
| MLAT | LLAMA | CANAL-F | |
| Phonemic Coding Ability | + | + | |
| Grammatical Sensitivity | + | ||
| Inductive Language Learning | + | + | |
| Paired Associates | + | + | + |
| Working Memory | + | ||
| Attentional Processing | + | ||
| Working Memory to Long-term | + | ||
| Memory Connections |
The MLAT seems more limited in coverage, and even omits Carroll's inductive language learning factor. LLAMA is broader, avoids grammatical sensitivity, but adds a receptive interpretation of inductive language ability as well as more focus on working memory. CANAL-F is the broadest battery of all. It focuses on language analysis and memory (although without an overt concern for working memory), downplays sound, but is far more concerned than the other batteries with attentional function and learning.
In principle, knowledge of foreign language aptitude could have considerable implications for language instruction. In practice, there is almost nothing to be said with any conviction! It is of no small interest to try to resolve the paradox implied in these two statements.
One can imagine aptitude information being used to achieve the following educational aims:
The first case would imply administrators being able to make decisions about course admission on the basis of aptitude information. Although, of course, selection is widespread within education, this is not a major application with aptitude. In fact, aptitude researchers have almost all been at pains to stress that aptitude information predicts time to achieve a criterion, and should not be used for exclusion purposes. Counseling and remediation are associated with Pimsleur's work with aptitude (Pimsleur, 1968; Pimsleur et al., 1964). Counseling would imply using aptitude information to explain to learners where they might have difficulties, and so which types of methodology would be easiest. In this way, a reading course, rather than an oral-aural course, might be suggested to learners weak in, for example, phonemic coding ability. One could also counsel learners to be realistic about the length of time it will take them to reach particular levels of achievement. Remediation is also a potential rather than real application of aptitude. Again, imagining a learner with auditory difficulties, it might be suggested that pre-course, auditory training might be appropriate so that when instruction proper starts, the sorts of auditory processing difficulties that would otherwise be encountered could be forestalled.
The major potential area for educational application, however, has to be instructional modification. We have seen through Wesche (1981) such a use. This offers the prospect of increasing the overall effectiveness of instruction, as learners are matched with appropriate methodologies. More recently, through Robinson's work (2007), we have seen more theoretical and acquisition-informed proposals for the same thing. The potential is considerable, and as indicated earlier, it is surprising that more research has not been done in this area. Aptitude has been mainly relevant as a predictor in research studies, or has figured in theorizing language acquisition. Practitioners (the military apart) have avoided its use, perhaps because it is too cumbersome or because it does not fit well with textbooks and materials which assume only one kind of learner.
The aptitude agenda that Carroll shaped half a century ago is still relevant. The changes that have occurred have been in the nature of our understanding of aptitude components and their inter-relationship, and also the addition of a greater concern for working memory and learning.
Carroll proposed a phonemic coding ability factor. We have seen that Sparks and colleagues (Ganschow et al., 1998) have linked this with similar problems experienced by mild dyslexics. The factor has endured well. But a question does remain. Phonemic coding ability involves unfamiliar sound. Phonological working memory generally uses nonword repetition. There might well be a close correspondence here. Perhaps the difference might be in the nature of the nonwordness (and see Chapter 26 in this volume by John Williams). If these are based on the syllable structure of the L1 then the words may not exist, but they may not be unfamiliar either, as it were. If they are based on the L2, as is proposed by Chan et al. (2011) then phonological nonword repetition working memory tests may be remarkably close to phonemic coding ability. Resolving this issue is the first challenge for the future.
Studies researching aptitude now seem to standardly include a measure of inductive language learning. This, and the grammatical sensitivity sub-test, generate the most consistent correlations in such research. These results indicate that aptitude may be central rather than marginal within SLA. As noted above, Carroll (1973) speculated that foreign language aptitude is the residue of a first language learning ability. To recast this insight in more modern, SLA-oriented terms, the issue is whether Universal Grammar is still available, or whether it is partially available (in the various ways “partial” has been defined (White, 2003)), or not available at all. The partial or not-available options might be consistent with L2 learning, in a post-critical period manner, representing explicit learning, perhaps with some specific language material involvement. This would chime with DeKeyser's (2000) interpretations of aptitude and Sasaki's (1996) proposals about aptitude linkages with intelligence. It would also be supported by studies which report a linkage between aptitude and metalinguistic abilities (Alderson et al., 1997; Elder et al., 1999). Roehr (2008), reporting such a connection, contrasts explicit and implicit knowledge systems, and explicit and implicit learning processes, linking aptitude with explicit knowledge and processes. But these interpretations would not chime with Skehan's (1986a) findings on first to foreign language aptitude correlations. The central point, though, is to explore the nature of L2 development through aptitude test studies. Things are not clear at present. As a later paragraph will indicate, perhaps progress here will be dependent on the development of more theory-oriented tests of inductive language learning ability. Establishing whether inductive language learning concerns implicit or explicit knowledge (Carpenter, 2008) is a second challenge for the future, and connects with the question regarding the relationship of aptitude to a critical period for language learning.
The third aptitude component introduced by Carroll was associative memory. As we have seen, this conceptualization of memory is limited, even if still relevant. Much wider interpretations of memory are now used, and in particular, the centrality of working memory has been recognized. Here there is something of a tension between working memory linked to ongoing performance (and so greater capacity to process input and feedback, and greater capacity to manipulate, through executive working memory, the contents of what is being currently held in consciousness) and working memory linked to long-term memory and the capacity for change. It is clear that both facets are important, and the range of studies showing working memory correlations is impressive. Perhaps in the future though, the connection between working memory and learning will become more important, as reflected, for example in the composition of CANAL-F.
What was not anticipated in the earlier aptitude work is the importance of alternative approaches to learning. This showed itself originally in proposals for learner types which contrasted analysis-oriented learners and memory-oriented learners (Skehan, 1986b; Wesche, 1981). More recently, Robinson (2007) has conceptualized the same approach in terms of aptitude complexes. At a theoretical level, this issue is relatively straightforward and addresses the complexity of language learning, integrates aptitude theorizing and SLA processes, and allows learner individuality to emerge. Empirically, though, this is going to be a difficult line to pursue, and it will be interesting to see how these insights lead to data-based studies, and aptitude tests which probe the speed with which learners can gain control of language material. This represents the third challenge for the future.
Next, if one accepts the argument that aptitude has been revitalized, it is clear that there is an urgent need to develop new measures, and also measures which are widely available. This is particularly the case for theory-based measures of a language analytic ability which incorporate insights from SLA research. It would also be useful to have widely available tests of the different components of working memory, integrated perhaps into wider aptitude batteries. And following the lead of CANAL-F, there is considerable scope to develop more measures of learning and memory, to reflect the greater realization now of the importance of proceduralized memory.
Finally, in terms of future challenges, and most urgently of all, we need research to explore Robinson's proposals on aptitude complexes, or, more generally, interactions between learner aptitude components and variations in learning conditions. Such research would transform the perceived instructional relevance of aptitude.
Abrahamsson, N. and Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 481–509.
Alderson, C. J., Clapham, C., and Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude, and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121.
Baddeley, A. (2007).Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S. E., and Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.
Bialystok, E. (2002). On the reliability of robustness: A reply to DeKeyser. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 481–488.
Bialystok, E. and Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The science and psychology of second language acquisition. New York: Basic Books.
Carpenter, H. (2008). A behavioural and electrophysiological investigation of different aptitudes for L2 grammar in learners equated for proficiency level. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Georgetown University.
Carroll, J. B. (1965). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Training, research, and education (87–136). New York: Wiley.
Carroll, J. B. (1973). Implications of aptitude test research and psycholinguistic theory for foreign language teaching. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2, 5–14.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, J. B. and Sapon, S. M. (1957). Modern languages aptitude test. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Chan, E., Skehan, P., and Gong, G. (2011). Working memory, phonemic coding ability and foreign language aptitude: Potential for construction of specific language aptitude tests—the case of Cantonese. ILHA Do Desterro, 60, 34–52.
Cheung, H., Chan, M., and Chong, K. (1996). Use of orthographic knowledge in reading by Chinese-English bi-scriptal children. Language Learning, 57(3), 469–505.
DeGraaf, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–275.
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.
DeKeyser, R. and Juffs, A. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 437–454). Mahwah, NJ: Lawence Erlbaum Associates.
Elder, C., Warren, J., Hajek, J., Manwaring, D., and Davies, A. (1999). Metalinguistic knowledge: How important is it in studying a language at university? Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 81–95.
Ellis, N. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 991–126.
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, N. (2007). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.
Ellis, N. and Sinclair, S. G. (1996). Working memory as the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 234–250.
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.
Fortkamp, M. B. M. (1999). Working memory capacity and aspects of L2 speech production. Communication and Cognition, 32, 259–296.
French, L. (2006). Phonological working memory and L2 acquisition: A developmental study of Quebec francophone children learning English. New York: Edward Mellen Press.
French, L. and O'Brien, I. (2008). Phonological memory and children's second language grammar learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 463–487.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., and Javorsky, J. (1998). Foreign language learning difficulties: An historical perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 248–258.
Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Cognitive approaches to the development of short term memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 410–419.
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513–543.
Green, P. (1975). The language laboratory in school: The York study. London: Oliver and Boyd.
Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., and Ehrman, M. (2002). A theory based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 390– 405.
Harley, B. and Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 379–400.
Johnson, J. and Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.
Kormos, J. and Safar, A. (2008). Phonological short term memory, working memory, and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 261–271.
Krashen, S. (1981). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisition and learning. In Diller K.(Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Levelt, W. and Wheeldon, L. R. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50, 239–269.
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., and Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Masoura, E. V. and Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Phonological short term memory and foreign language learning. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 383–388.
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Lognostics: University of Swansea. (www.lognostics.co.uk/tools/llama).
Miyake, A. and Friedman, D. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. Healy and L. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Miyake, A. and Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., and Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexical, narrative, and grammatical skills in second-language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377–402.
O'Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., and Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second language oral fluence gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 557–582.
Papagno, C. and Vallar, G. (1995). Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary learning in polyglots. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 98–107.
Parry, T. S. and Child, J. R. (1990). Preliminary investigation of the relationship between VORD, MLAT, and language proficiency. In Parry, T. S. and Stansfield, C. W. (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered. Washington, DC.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Petersen, C. R. and Al-Haik, A. (1976). The development of the Defense Language Aptitude Battery(DLAB). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 369–380.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Pimsleur, P. (1968). Language aptitude testing. In A. Davies (Ed.), Language testing: A psycholinguistic approach.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pimsleur, P., Sundland, D. M., and McIntyre, R. D. (1964). Underachievement in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 113–50.
Reves, T. (1982). What makes a good language learner? Unpublished PhD thesis. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Robinson, P. (1995). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27–67.
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.
Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 256–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roehr, K. (2008). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 173–199.
Sasaki, M. (1991) Relationships among second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence: a structural equation modelling approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.
Sasaki, M. (1996). Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence: Quantitative and qualitative analyses. New York: Peter Lang.
Service, E. and Kohonen, V. (1995). Is the relation between phonological memory and foreign language learning accounted for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 155–172.
Skehan, P. (1982). Memory and motivation in language aptitude testing. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of London.
Skehan, P. (1986a). Where does language aptitude come from? In Meara P. (Ed.), Spoken language. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching.
Skehan, P. (1986b). Cluster analysis and the identification of learner types. In V. Cook (Ed.), Experimental approaches to second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Skehan, P. and Chan, E. (ms). Rethinking aptitude: developing a theory-based measure of language analytic ability based on second language acquisition theory.
Sparks, R. E., and Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning differences: Affective filter or native language aptitude differences. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 3–15.
Sparks, R. E., Ganschow, L., Javorsky, J., and Pohlman, J. (1992). Test comparisons among students identified as high-risk, low-risk, and learning disabled in high-school foreign language courses. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 142–158.
Waters, G. S., and Caplan, D. (2003). The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measures. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 550–564.
Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wen, Z. (2009).Effects of working memory capacity on L2 task-based speech planning and performance. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Wesche, M. B. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. and Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53, 67–121.
Williams, J. and Lovatt, P. (2005). Phonological memory and rule learning: II. Language Learning, 55 (Supplement 1), 177–233.