Language Aptitude

n It is undeniable that individuals learn languages at different rates

n What is open to dispute, however, is just why this is the case

n Can some of these differences be attributed to an aptitude for learning languages?

Language Aptitude

n This is an important issue, if for no other reason than ‘opinions’ about aptitude have effects on the everyday teaching of language

n The history of the use of language aptitude testing in public schools is not generally a very good one

Language Aptitude

n Aptitude has been used in schools to prevent some individuals from receiving language instruction

n Historically, it has been the disadvantaged student who is most likely to suffer from this

Language Aptitude

n On the other hand, if:

n (a) an aptitude measure is accurate, but

n (b) students are placed in an instructional program for which they have little aptitude, and

n (c) it is possible to either increase their aptitude or place them in another instructional setting for which they have greater aptitude

Language Aptitude

n Then failure to consider aptitude would penalize students unfairly

n IOW, aptitude can have real-life consequences for students, both positive and negative

n The name most associated with studies of second language learning aptitude is J.B. Carroll

Language Aptitude

n Carroll used ‘multiple regression analysis’ to separate measures of aptitude

n (‘multiple regression analysis’ is used when one wants to know what the unique and significant predictors are of a particular criterion, in this case SL aptitude)

Language Aptitude

n Carroll proposed that language learning aptitude consisted of four independent abilitites:

n (Skehan calls this the ‘Standard Four Component’ view of language aptitude)

Language Aptitude

n 1. Phonemic coding ability

n The ability to identify distinct sounds

n To form associations between those sounds and symbols representing them

n To retain those associations

Language Aptitude

n Put together: The ability to discriminate among foreign sounds and to encode them in a manner such that they can be recalled later

Language Aptitude

n 2. Grammatical sensitivity

n The ability to recognize the grammatical functions of words (or other linguistic entities) in sentence structures

n (It does not measure an ability to name or describe the functions)

Language Aptitude

n Rather, it is the ability to discern whether or not words in different sentences perform the same function

Language Aptitude

n 3. Inductive language learning ability

n The ability to infer, induce, or abduct rules or generalizations about language from samples of the language

Language Aptitude

n A learner proficient in this ability is less reliant on well-presented rules of generalizations from a teacher or from materials

Language Aptitude

n 4. Memory and learning

n The ability to learn associations between sounds and meanings rapidly and efficiently and to retain those associations

n The ability to make and recall associations between words and phrases in a language

Language Aptitude

n Skehan questions the appropriateness of separating grammatical sensitivity and inductive learning ability

n He suggests that they be combined into on ability: language analytic ability

Language Aptitude

n These four (or three) abilities seem to be reasonable predictors of second language learning success

n A person who is excellent in one or more of these abilities would seem to be at an advantage in learning a second language

Language Aptitude

n No reason to believe that individuals will be equally skilled in all areas

n It is one thing to agree that these abilities would be useful in language learning

n Another thing to say that one has a measure of these abilities

Language Aptitude

n Best-known test of language aptitude is Carroll and Sapon’s Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) that dates to 1959

n Consists of five subtests

n Part One: Number learning

Language Aptitude

n The student is taught, on tape, the number system of an invented language from 1 to 4, plus the “tens” and “hundreds” forms

n Then tested by hearing numbers which are combinations of these elements (312, 122, 41, etc.)

n Aims to test associative memory

Language Aptitude

n Part Two: Phonetic script

n The student learns a system of phonetic notations for some English phonemes

n The student then must associate graphic symbols and English speech sounds by underlining sounds he or she hears

n Aims to test phonetic coding ability

Language Aptitude

n Part Three: Spelling clues

n This is a highly speeded test that measures both native language vocabulary and phonemic coding ability

n Examinees must detect an English word when given a phonetic rendition of it

Language Aptitude

n Part Four: Words in sentences

n Examinees identify the word or phrase in one sentence that functions the same way as word or phrase in another sentence

n Two sentences are presented, with one word in the first sentence underlined

Language Aptitude

n In a second sentence, five words are underlined

n The student has to decide which of the underlined words in the second sentence fulfills the same function as the underlined word in the first sentence

Language Aptitude

n Part Five: Paired associates

n Examinees study foreign-language translations for native-language words for a short time

n Then take a multiple-choice test in which they must recognize the translations

n This also tests associative memory

Language Aptitude

n Carroll admitted a weakness in the test

n The first three components of language aptitude (phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning ability) are measured by at least one of the subtests

Language Aptitude

n The fourth component (memory and learning) is only weakly reflected in the MLAT

n Skehan (1989): The “words in sentences” subtest seems to have the best correspondence with the ability it seeks to measure

n The “paired associates” subtest relies on models of memory that are no longer generally accepted

Language Aptitude

n Far greater problems:

n The “spelling clues” test appears to depend heavily on so-called Standard American English

n This produces a heavy bias against certain social and regional dialects (since different dialects will have different pronunciations for the same spelling)

Language Aptitude

n So what is a good clue for a speaker of one variety may be a poor clue for a speaker of another variety

n Greatest criticism: actually testing ‘literacy’ ability

n This gives a great bias to the advantaged over the disadvantaged

Language Aptitude

n In the end, the abilities themselves are much more persuasive at first glance than the subtests used to measure them

n Another well-known test of aptitude is Pimsleur’s Language Aptitude Battery (LAB) dating from 1966

Language Aptitude

n Specifically designed for adolescents

n Composed of six parts:

n 1. Grade point average

n 2. Interest

n 3. Vocabulary

n 4. Language analysis

Language Aptitude

n 5. Sound discrimination

n 6. Sound-symbol correspondence

n Designed to tap three components of language aptitude that Pimsleur alleges to exist:

n 1. Verbal intelligence – which measures familiarity with words and an ability to reason analytically about verbal material

Language Aptitude

n 2. Motivation

n 3. Auditory ability

n An obvious area of difference between Carroll and Pimsleur: whether motivation is seen to be independent of aptitude (Carroll) or an integral part of it (Pimsleur)

Language Aptitude

n Another major difference is the degree to which verbal intelligence is seen to contribute to aptitude

n Pimsleur considers it an important part of aptitude and includes two subtests (3. vocabulary and 4. language analysis) designed to measure it

Language Aptitude

n Overall, both the MLAT and the LAB have a pretty good track record in the prediction of student achievement in adolescent and adult language training programs

n Garnder (1980) found that aptitude accounts for approximately 16% of total variance in grade levels

Language Aptitude

n Overall criticisms:

n Language learning goes well beyond the knowledge of grammar and sound systems featured in both tests

n The ability to communicate in a language is not tested in either

Language Aptitude

n We should note, however, that the ability to communicate is often not included in the measure of student achievement (final course grade)

n This may be why the tests work so well: because there is a concordance between the test and formal classroom study

Language Aptitude

n Not because the test is measuring innate language learning ability

n It has also been posited that language aptitude is simply due to intelligence in general

n Neufeld (1978) has suggested that all humans are equipped to master basic language skills

Language Aptitude

n Humans, however, vary with respect to their mastery of higher-level skills

n The extent of the mastery of these skills is determined by an individual’s intelligence

n Therefore, there is no specific innate faculty called language aptitude

Language Aptitude

n This does not seem to be the case

n Statistical investigations have demonstrated that language aptitude cannot be explained simply on the basis of the most common measurement of intelligence, IQ tests

n (Which, of course, have their own problems)

Language Aptitude

n Also, psychologists disagree on whether there really is such a thing as a construct like ‘general intelligence’

n Many argue that there are actually ‘multiple intelligences’

n Some studies have found it to be a better predictor of success in informal, naturalistic settings

Language Aptitude

n Another distinction that can be made: introduced by Cummins (1979)

n Cummins sets up an opposition between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)

n These are two quite distinct areas comprising language proficiency

Language Aptitude

n BICS are those that are cognitively-undemanding and include known ideas, vocabulary and syntax

n They are the aspects of communication that are used daily in routine communicative exchanges (e.g., while dressing, eating, bathing, playing, etc.)

Language Aptitude

n BICS skills represent the informal aspects of social talk as well as skills that do not require a high degree of cognition (e.g., naming objects and actions, referring to non-existence, disappearance, rejection, and negation, and so forth)

Language Aptitude

n CALP takes much longer that BICS to develop; usually about 5-7 years

n CALP skills are those that are necessary for literacy obtainment and academic success

n CALP enables students to have academic, analytical conversation and to independently acquire factual information

Language Aptitude

n CALP is used to use information acquired to find relationships, make inferences, and draw conclusions

n Thus, it may be that language aptitude tests assess CALP but ignore BICS

n On the other hand, Cummins cautions that students should not be placed in learning situations in which an L2 is used just because they have adequate L2 BICS