See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44612659

Two by Two: A Twin Study of Second-Language

Acquisition
Article in Psychological Science May 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0956797610368060 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

161

4 authors, including:
Philip S Dale

Claire M A Haworth

University of New Mexico

University of Bristol

216 PUBLICATIONS 8,236 CITATIONS

110 PUBLICATIONS 3,210 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Robert Plomin
King's College London
1,100 PUBLICATIONS 49,647 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Origins of learning difficulties and behaviour problems: from behavioural genetics to behavioural
genomics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip S Dale on 19 January 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Psychological Science
http://pss.sagepub.com/

Two by Two : A Twin Study of Second-Language Acquisition

Philip S. Dale, Nicole Harlaar, Claire M.A. Haworth and Robert Plomin
Psychological Science published online 16 April 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0956797610368060
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/04/15/0956797610368060

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Psychological Science

Additional services and information for Psychological Science can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://pss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://pss.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Kiel Christianson on May 4, 2010

Psychological Science OnlineFirst, published on April 16, 2010 as doi:10.1177/0956797610368060

Research Report

Two by Two: A Twin Study of SecondLanguage Acquisition

Psychological Science
XX(X) 16
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0956797610368060
http://sagepub.com

Philip S. Dale1, Nicole Harlaar2, Claire M.A. Haworth3,

and Robert Plomin3
1

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; 2Ohio State University; and 3Kings College London

Abstract
In this report, we provide initial results of the first application of the classic twin design to second-language acquisition. The
analysis was conducted on assessments teachers made using United Kingdom National Curriculum standards and included 604
pairs of 14-year-old twins. The results demonstrate substantial heritability (.67) and low influence of shared environment (.13)
on this measure of second-language acquisition.The heritability of second-language acquisition at 14 years is comparable to the
heritability of the two first-language acquisition measures obtained at 12 and 14 years, respectively, and is higher than heritability
estimates previously published for first-language acquisition in early childhood. Multivariate behavior genetic analyses suggest
very high, but not complete, overlap of genetic influences on first- and second-language acquisition, and less overlap between
shared environmental influences on the two domains.
Keywords
second-language acquisition, genetics, twin study
Received 4/14/09; Revision accepted 10/5/09

The ability to learn and effectively use a second or later language (L2) is increasingly important as economies, education,
and societies become more interconnected. Yet the outcomes
of L2 acquisition are enormously variable, regardless of the
context of learning (e.g., formal classroom instruction, L2
immersion as an educational program or as a consequence of
migration). A wide range of explanations has been proposed
for this variability (Ellis & Laporte, 1997; Genesee, Paradis, &
Crago, 2004; Skehan, 1989; Young, 1999). Some focus on
social factors, such as family background and relative societal
support for L2 and the first language (L1). Others focus on
educational factors, such as the teaching method and the structure of the curriculum. Still others hinge on intrapersonal variables, such as the nature and strength of motivation (instrumental
or integrative) and reluctance to make errors. But at the core of
almost all accounts of variability in L2 learning is the concept
of aptitude, that is, language learning ability (Dornyei, 2005,
p. 32). Notably, aptitude is generally characterized as affecting
the rate of development rather than success or failure (i.e., the
asymptotic level of performance).
Although characterizations of L2 aptitude vary, there is consensus that it derives from multiple cognitive factors. Carroll
(1981) identified four key abilities: phonetic-coding ability,
grammatical sensitivity, rote-learning ability, and inductivelearning ability. Skehan (1989) proposed a somewhat shorter

list: phonetic-coding ability, language-analytic ability, and

memory. Hummel (2009) provided evidence for a substantial
role for phonological memory as indexed by nonword repetition tasks. There has been little consideration of the origins of
these specific aptitude abilities, though the wording of many
discussions suggests an implicit assumption that stable, internal, individual factors play an important role. Furthermore,
many of the proposed abilities are similar to abilities that have
been shown to have significant genetic components. Thus, it is
surprising that the classical twin method has not been applied
to L2 acquisition. To our knowledge, there are no published
studies of this type.
Behavior genetic analyses using twin data (Plomin,
DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2008; Rijsdijk & Sham,
2002) provide a valuable tool for exploring the sources of individual differences. Comparisons of correlations between
monozygotic (MZ; identical) twins, who share 100% of their
genetics, and dizygotic (DZ; fraternal) twins, who share on
average 50% of their genetics, make it possible to analyze the
total variance on a measure into three components:
Corresponding Author:
Philip S. Dale, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of
New Mexico, 1700 Lomas Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87131
E-mail: dalep@unm.edu

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Kiel Christianson on May 4, 2010

Dale et al.

Variance due to genetic variation among individuals

(symbolized as a2 or h2)
Variance due to shared environmental factors, such
as neighborhood and socioeconomic status, that are
common to family members and that tend to make
siblings similar to each other (symbolized as c2)
Variance due to nonshared environmental factors,
that is, those that affect individual children, such as
illness, and thus tend to make siblings less similar to
each other (symbolized e2)
Multivariate extensions of this analytic approach (Plomin
et al., 2008) permit the investigation of the etiology of the relationships among two or more measures. Multivariate analysis
provides an estimate of the genetic correlation (rA) of two
measures, that is the overlap of genetic influences on the two
measures. Roughly speaking, the genetic correlation is the
probability that a gene that influences one measure will also
influence the other measure. The shared-environment correlation (rC) and the nonshared-environment correlation (rE) provide analogous estimates of the overlap of shared environmental
influences and the overlap of nonshared environmental influences on the two measures.
In this report, we present initial results from a study of
twins learning an L2 at school in adolescence. The sample is
representative of the population (adolescents at school in the
United Kingdom, who are required to study a foreign language). Because these twins are part of a larger longitudinal
study, measures of L1 acquisition were also available. This
made possible a comparison of the etiology of L2-acquisition
variance with the etiology of L1-acquisition variance at two
points in development, as well as a multivariate analysis of the
two learning processes.

Method
Participants
The twins in this sample were participants in the Twins Early
Development Study (TEDS), a longitudinal study of twins
ascertained from population records of live twin births in England and Wales (Kovas, Haworth, Dale, & Plomin, 2007; Oliver & Plomin, 2007). The data in this report are restricted to
the first cohort from TEDS (children born between January 1
and August 31, 1994), for whom teachers assessments of
foreign-language achievement (described in the Measures section) were available. The measure of L2 acquisition, other
teacher assessments, and test results were provided to the
TEDS project by the parents. Twin pairs were excluded for the
standard genetic, medical, and data-quality reasons used by
TEDS (see Kovas et al., 2007, for details). In addition, twin
pairs were included only if English was the primary language
of their home and the L2 being studied was French, German,
Italian, or Spanish. These were the most frequent modern

languages studied. The final sample included 604 twin pairs

(231 MZ and 373 DZ). Because of the relatively small sample
size, and the general absence of sex differences in etiology for
cognitive phenotypes, DZ same-sex and opposite-sex pairs
were combined for behavior genetic analyses, although we
provide descriptive information by gender.
Zygosity was determined by a combination of parent questionnaires (administered when the children were ages 18
months, 3 years, and 4 years) and DNA tests for a subsample
of pairs whose zygosity was doubtful or whose parents
requested it. (See Kovas et al., 2007, for details on this
determination.)
The sample used in this study remains representative of the
general population and the original TEDS sample in terms of
key demographic indices. United Kingdom census data for
families with children indicate that 93% of children are White,
32% of mothers have at least one A-level (i.e., they completed
at least one of the exams that are taken by students finishing
secondary school who plan to go to university), and 49% of
mothers and 89% of fathers are employed (Office for National
Statistics, 2002). For the entire TEDS sample of more than
10,000 twin pairs who completed an initial booklet (i.e., who
enrolled), the comparable percentages are 92%, 35%, 43%,
and 92%, respectively. For the TEDS sample of 7,500 pairs
who participated at 12 years, the percentages are 93%, 41%,
47%, and 93%, respectively.

Measures
L2 acquisition at 14 years. The twins performance in their
foreign-language course was assessed by teachers using the
United Kingdom National Curriculum (NC) criteria (Department for Education and Skills, 2004; National Curriculum
Assessments, 2007). For this study, the NC Teacher Assessments at Key Stage 3 were used. These are familiar evaluation
rubrics for teachers. For Modern Foreign Languages, teachers
evaluate students on four standard, 9-point rating scales that
have rubrics for each of nine levels. Example items from the
rating scales at Levels 3 and 6 (i.e., a score of 3 or 6,
respectively) are provided in Table 1. The teachers are asked
to consider these four ratings and provide a single, overall
measure (also on a 9-point scale, with a 1 being the lowest
rating, and a 9 being the best) that best reflects the students
level of L2 (the L2 NC measure).
L1 acquisition: teacher ratings at 14 years. A similar
assessment rubric is specified for English in the NC. Again,
there are four specific scales, which are combined in a single
overall measure of L1 (the L1 NC measure, which is on the
same 9-point scale as the L2 NC measure).
L1 acquisition: direct testing at 12 years. Via Internet testing,
participants completed four measures of language skill when
they were 12 years old. The measures included Vocabulary (an

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Kiel Christianson on May 4, 2010

Second-Language Acquisition
Table 1. Example Items From the National Curriculum Rating System for Modern Foreign Languages
Attainment target

Level 3

Level 6

Listening and responding

Pupils show that they understand short passages

made up of familiar language that is spoken at
near normal speed without interference. These
passages include instructions, messages and
dialogues. Pupils identify and note main points
and personal responses, but may need short
sections to be repeated.

Speaking

Pupils take part in brief prepared tasks of at least

two or three exchanges, using visual or other
cues to help them initiate and respond. They use
short phrases to express personal responses.
Although they use mainly memorised language,
they occasionally substitute items of vocabulary
to vary questions or statements.
Pupils show that they understand short texts and
dialogues, made up of familiar language, printed
in books or word processed. They identify and
note main points and personal responses. They
are beginning to read independently, selecting
simple texts and using a bilingual dictionary or
glossary to look up new words.

Reading and responding

Writing

Pupils write two or three short sentences

on familiar topics, using aids. They express
personal responses. They write short phrases
from memory, and their spelling is readily
understandable.

Pupils show that they understand short narratives and

extracts of Spoken language, which cover various
past, present and future events, and include familiar
language in unfamiliar contexts. They cope with
language spoken at normal speed and with some
interference and hesitancy. They identify and note
main points and specific details, including points of
view, and need little repetition.
Pupils take part in conversations that include past,
present and future actions and events. They apply
their knowledge of grammar in new contexts.
They use the target language to meet most of their
routine needs for information and explanations.
Although they may be hesitant at times, pupils make
themselves understood with little or no difficulty.
Pupils show that they understand a variety of texts
that cover past, present and future events and
include familiar language in unfamiliar contexts. They
identify and note main points and specific details,
including points of view. They scan written material,
for stories or articles of interest, and choose books
or texts to read on their own, at their own level.
They are more confident in using context and their
knowledge of grammar to work out the meaning of
language that they do not know.
Pupils write in paragraphs, using simple descriptive
language, and refer to past, present and future
actions and events. They apply grammar in new
contexts. Although there may be a few mistakes, the
meaning is usually clear.

Note: These examples are from the Department for Education and Skills (2004).

adaptation of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

third edition United Kingdom Vocabulary subtest; Wechsler,
1992), the Listening Grammar subtest of the Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (Hammill, Brown, Larsen, & Wiederholt, 1994), and the Figurative Language and Making
Inferences subtests of the Test of Language Competence
(Wiig, Secord, & Sabers, 1989). (See Haworth et al., 2007, for
more information about the measures.) These scores were
standardized in the full TEDS sample, and then each childs
four z scores were averaged to form a composite 12-year L1
measure.

Analysis
We calculated intraclass twin correlations separately for each
measure. If correlations for MZ twins are greater than correlations for DZ twins, this would suggest a genetic effect; if correlations for DZ twins are greater than half the magnitude of
the correlations for MZ twins, this would suggest shared
environmental influences; and if correlations for MZ twins
are less than 1.0, this would suggest some influence of

nonshared environment, as well as measurement error. We

extended these correlation analyses with standard univariate
models (Neale & Maes, 1999) in order to estimate the extent
to which genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental factors contribute to individual differences in each
measure. Finally, we conducted bivariate analyses to estimate
genetic and environmental correlations for each pair of language-acquisition measures. All analyses were undertaken in
the Mx statistical program (Neale, Boker, Xie, & Maes,
2003), which allows the estimation of 95% confidence intervals and also includes a formal test of the significance of
parameter estimates.

Results
All of the behavior genetic analyses reported here were based
on standardized measures. However, for comparative purposes, we note that the mean for the raw L2 NC measure was
5.40 (SD = 1.10), and the mean for the raw L1 NC measure
was 5.69 (SD = 1.09). Table 2 provides descriptive information on performance. Because of the small size of the sample,

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Kiel Christianson on May 4, 2010

Dale et al.
Table 3. Phenotypic Correlations Among the L2 and L1 Measures

Table 2. Mean Performance on the L2 and L1 Measures

L2 NC
assessment

L1 NC
assessment

L1 12-year
composite

0.00
(1.00; 1,208)

0.00
(1.00; 1,201)

0.01
(0.99; 707)

0.20
(1.07; 523)
0.15
(0.92; 685)
0.35

0.19
(1.11; 516)
0.14
(0.88; 685)
0.33

0.03
(0.99; 279)
0.01
(0.99; 428)
0.04

0.02
(0.96; 462)
0.02
(1.02; 746)
0.04

0.02
(1.01; 459)
0.01
(0.99; 742)
0.03

0.03
(0.96; 285)
0.01
(1.01; 422)
0.04

Group
Whole sample
Divided by sex
Boys
Girls
Cohens d
Divided by
zygosity
Monozygotic
Dizygotic
Cohens d

Note: Standard deviations are given in parentheses, followed by the number

of individuals. L1 = first language; L2 = second or subsequent language;
NC = National Curriculum.

the results are divided by sex and by zygosity, but not by both
simultaneously. There were significant sex differences in
means and variances on both the L2 NC measure, t(1029.56)
= 5.96, p < .001, and the L1 NC measure, t(957.20) = 5.53,
p < .001. On both measures, females scored significantly
higher than males, and males showed significantly greater
variance than females. There were no sex differences for
means or variances in the 12-year L1 measure, t(705) =
0.463, p > .05. Given the observed sex differences, the
means and variances of all three measures were modeled
separately for males and females in subsequent structural
equation analyses. These differences do not themselves
affect the variance components estimated from the models
because those components are based on the variance and
covariance of MZ and DZ twins. Sex-limitation models
(details may be requested from the authors) confirmed that
there were no significant differences in any of the parameter
estimates as a function of gender.
The phenotypic correlations among the measures are presented in Table 3. L2 acquisition scores were only modestly

Measure
L1 NC assessment
L1 12-year composite

L2 NC assessment

L1 NC assessment

.57 (.53, .60)

.44 (.38, .49)

.49 (.43, .54)

Note: The 95% confidence intervals are given in parentheses. L1 = first

language; L2 = second or subsequent language; NC = National Curriculum.
All correlations were significant, p < .01.

predicted by L1 measures (r = .57 and r = .44), which account

for about a quarter of the variance in the L2 NC measure.
Intraclass correlations and model-fitting parameters are
presented in Table 4. The correlations for MZ twins were
higher than those for DZ twins for all measures, reflecting a
genetic influence on language learning. For L2 learning in particular, the MZ twin correlation was not twice the size of the
DZ twin correlation and was much less than unity; this pattern
implicates some shared environmental influence and moderate
to substantial nonshared environmental influences as well (the
latter including measurement error). These preliminary estimates were confirmed by the results of the model fitting. The
heritability (a2) of L2 acquisition was nonsignificantly higher
than the heritability for either L1 measure. The shared environmental influence (c2) was much lower than heritability for
all measures, and the three measures confidence intervals for
shared environmental influence overlapped.
Results of the three bivariate analyses are included in Table 5,
and the main results are illustrated in Figure 1. The genetic
correlations among the measures were all high (rs = .64.99),
and the genetic correlation between the L1 and L2 NC
measures was statistically indistinguishable from 1.00. (Note
that this was not due to a halo effect in rating, as the phenotypic correlation of these measures was only .57.) The sharedenvironment correlations between the L1 measures and L2 NC
were low (r = .07 and .09), whereas the shared-environment
correlation for the two L1 measures (r = .61) was much higher.
However, the confidence intervals of the three values for rC
overlapped because of the limited statistical power of this
sample for multivariate analysis, and so no conclusion about
the relative contribution of shared environment to the L1 and
L2 measures can be drawn. All nonshared-environment correlations were very low.

Table 4. Intraclass Correlations and Model-Fitting Parameters for the L2 and L1 Measures
Measure

MZ correlations

DZ correlations

a2

c2

e2

L2 NC assessment
L1 NC assessment
L1 12-year composite

.78 (.72, .82; 231)

.78 (.73, .83; 228)
.68 (.58, .76; 135)

.48 (.40, .55; 373)

.55 (.47, .61; 370)
.40 (.26, .51; 198)

.67 (.52, .80)

.46 (.33, .56)
.63 (.37, .75)

.13 (.01, .27)

.32 (.23, .44)
.07 (.00, .28)

.20 (.17, .24)

.22 (.19, .26)
.30 (.24, .39)

Note: The 95% confidence intervals are given in parentheses, followed by the number of pairs. MZ = monozygotic twins;
DZ = dizygotic twins; a2 = heritability; c2 = shared environmental influence; e2 = nonshared environmental influence;
L1 = first language; L2 = second or subsequent language; NC = National Curriculum.

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Kiel Christianson on May 4, 2010

Second-Language Acquisition

Discussion
The most important contribution of this study is the demonstration of substantial heritability (.67) for a measure of L2
acquisition. A larger sample size with increased power will be
necessary to determine if L2 heritability is in fact higher than
that for either L1 measure. However, it is clearly higher than
heritability estimates based on early-childhood L1 development (Dale et al., 1998; Spinath, Price, Dale, & Plomin, 2004),
a finding that is consistent with a general pattern of increasing
heritability across development for language and cognitive
measures (Plomin et al., 2008).
Although high heritability necessarily limits shared-environmental influence, the results for this component are still notably
low. This result could have been due to a substantial proportion
of twins studying a different language than their sibling, and
therefore being assessed by a different teacher. However, this
situation applied to less than 10% of the twin pairs, and therefore it is likely that other aspects of the nonshared environment
had a major effect. This is a difficult issue to address, however,
as nonshared environment includes both measurement error
and genuine individual differences in experience.
Although L1 acquisition and L2 acquisition were only
moderately correlated phenotypically, the genetic correlations
demonstrated considerable overlap. This is particularly true
for the L2 and L1 NC ratings. Given that both measures were
based on classroom performance, they shared a considerable
emphasis on linguistic awareness and decontextualized language skills necessary for the learning of language as an object
in itself. These skills may well have a strong heritable base, as
would be suggested by generalizing the research findings on
phonological awareness to other levels of linguistic awareness. Phonological awareness has been demonstrated repeatedly to have substantial heritability (e.g., Kovas et al., 2005).
The pattern of shared-environment correlations is also
highly suggestive of a distinction between L1 and L2 learning.
Family, neighborhood, and school influences are likely to
affect all measures of L1 development, whereas L2 learning
at least in this contextis more specifically tied to aspects of
the L2 classroom. However, we acknowledge the overlapping

L2 NC
Assessment

rC = .07

rC = .09

rA = .99

rA = .64
rA = .74

L1 NC
Assessment

L1 12-Year
Composite

rC = .61
Fig. 1. Genetic correlations (rA) and shared-environment correlations (rC)
among the first-language (L1) and foreign-language (L2) acquisition measures.
NC = National Curriculum.

confidence intervals for the rC estimates, which limit the evidence for such a distinction.
This report is only a first examination of our behavior
genetic analysis of L2 acquisition, and it suggests numerous
future directions for research. These include examining
L2 acquisition in other contexts (migration, other teaching
approaches, L2 languages more distant from L1, L1 and
L2 having different social status) and at other stages of
acquisition. Even more illuminating would be the examination of specific skills that are part of the aptitude package,
such as phonological memory and grammatical sensitivity.
In this study, we were limited to teachers assessments of
achievement, though there is considerable evidence for the
validity of this type of information (e.g., Dale, Harlaar, &
Plomin, 2005). Direct testing would add to confidence in our
conclusions.
Our sample size was small by twin-study standards, particularly for multivariate analysis. It required that we aggregate across languages studied, and across the amount of time
the language had been studied. However, these factors are
likely to have reduced the estimates of effect sizes, and thus
make the tests more conservative. The results provide evidence for substantial genetic influence on L2 aptitude and
for substantial but less than complete overlap of genetic

Table 5. Genetic and Environmental Correlations for the L2 and L1 Measures

Genetic or environmental correlation
Comparison

rA

L2 NC assessmentL1 NC assessment
L2 NC assessmentL1 12-year composite
L1 NC assessmentL1 12-year composite

.99 (.86, 1.00)

.64 (.43, .86)
.74 (.51, .93)

rC

rE

.07 (.00, .41)

.09 (.00, 1.00)
.61 (.00, 1.00)

.04 (.00, .15)

.05 (.00, .21)
.00 (.00, .18)

Note: The 95% confidence intervals are given in parentheses. rA = genetic correlation; rC = shared environmental
correlation; rE = nonshared environmental correlation.

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Kiel Christianson on May 4, 2010

Dale et al.

influences on L1 and L2 learning. They also illustrate the

value of a genetically sensitive research design in this domain.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the ongoing contribution of the Twins
Early Development Study twins and their families. The research in
this report was stimulated by discussions in the Further Language
Acquisition Twin Study Working Group, convened by members of
the Language and Cognition Research Centre of the University of
New England, Australia, with financial support provided by the
Language Learning Roundtable Conference Program.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Funding
The Twins Early Development Study is supported by a program
grant (G0500079) from the United Kingdom Medical Research
Council.

References
Carroll, J.B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83118). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Dale, P.S., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2005). Telephone testing and
teacher assessment of reading skills in 7-year-olds: I. Substantial
correspondence for a sample of 5544 children and for extremes.
Reading and Writing, 18, 385400.
Dale, P.S., Simonoff, E., Bishop, D.V.M., Eley, T.C., Oliver, B., Price,
T.S., et al. (1998). Genetic influence on language delay in 2-yearold children. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 324328.
Department for Education and Skills. (2004). The National Curriculum: Handbook for secondary teachers in England, Key Stages 3
and 4 (revised). London: Author.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ellis, N.C., & Laporte, N. (1997). Contexts of acquisition: Effects
of formal instruction and naturalistic exposure on second
language acquisition. In A.M.B. de Groot & J.F. Kroll (Eds.),
Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 5383).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M.B. (2004). Dual language development and disorders. Baltimore: Brookes.
Hammill, D.D., Brown, V.L., Larsen, S.C., & Wiederholt, J.L. (1994).
Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (TOAL-3). Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.

Haworth, C.M.A., Harlaar, N., Kovas, Y., Davis, O.S.P., Oliver, B.R.,
Hayiou-Thomas, M.E., et al. (2007). Internet cognitive testing
of large samples needed in genetic research. Twin Research and
Human Genetics, 10, 554563.
Hummel, K.M. (2009). Aptitude, phonology memory, and second
language proficiency in nonnovice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 225249.
Kovas, Y., Haworth, C.M.A., Dale, P.S., & Plomin, R. (2007). The
genetic and environmental origins of learning abilities and disabilities in the early school years. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 72(3, Serial No. 288).
Kovas, Y., Hayiou-Thomas, M.E., Oliver, B., Dale, P.S., Bishop,
D.V.M., & Plomin, R. (2005). Genetic influences in different
aspects of language development: The etiology of language skills
in 4.5-year-old twins. Child Development, 76, 632651.
National Curriculum Assessments. (2007). Key Stage 3 assessment
and reporting arrangements 2008. London: Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority.
Neale, M.C., Boker, S.M., Xie, G., & Maes, H.M. (2003). Mx: Statistical modeling (6th ed.). Retrieved March 3, 2010, from Virginia
Commonwealth University, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and
Behavioral Genetics Web site: http://www.vipbg.vcu.edu/~vipbg/
software/mxmanual.pdf
Neale, M.C., & Maes, H.H.M. (1999). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Office for National Statistics. (2002). Living in Britain: Results from the
2000/01 General Household Survey. London: Stationery Office.
Oliver, B.R., & Plomin, R. (2007). Twins Early Development Study
(TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems from childhood through
adolescence. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10, 96105.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J.C., McClearn, G.E., & McGuffin, P. (2008).
Behavioral genetics (5th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.
Rijsdijk, F.V., & Sham, P.C. (2002). Analytic approaches to twin data
using structural equation models. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 3,
119133.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Spinath, F.M., Price, T.S., Dale, P.S., & Plomin, R. (2004). The
genetic and environmental origins of language disability and
ability: A study of language at 2, 3, and 4 years of age in a large
community sample of twins. Child Development, 75, 445454.
Wechsler, D. (1992). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Childrenthird
edition UK (WISC-III UK) manual. London: Psychological Corp.
Wiig, E.H., Secord, W., & Sabers, D. (1989). Test of Language Competenceexpanded edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corp.
Young, R. (1999). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 19, 105132.

Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Kiel Christianson on May 4, 2010

View publication stats