Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Acquisition
PETER ROBINSON
of ultimate attainment in the L2, but only that they would take longer to do this than those
who scored high on his test.
Since the MLAT measure of aptitude is very similar to other, currently available tests
that have been developed (e.g., Pimsleur, 1966; Petersen & Al-Haik, 1976), and is the
measure most widely used, to date, in SLA research, I will describe it, and problems
associated with it in some detail. The MLAT is a paper and pencil test, composed of five
parts, and three of these are described below.
informal phrases and expressions needed at work, and when socializing. The MLAT doesnt
measure the abilities for learning these. Based on these considerations Robinson (2005b)
has argued that aptitude for language learning develops as the abilities drawn on in the
initial stages of language learning reconfigure and are supplemented by abilities drawn
on in later stages of learning. No current test of aptitude operationalizes this developmental
perspective, though Robinson (2005b) has nominated clusters of abilities that should be
important to aptitude for learning at beginning, intermediate, and advanced stages of L2
learning.
The second problem of situational insensitivity referred to above concerns the match
between the abilities measured by an aptitude test, and the processing conditions under
which learners are exposed to L2 input. For example, how do we learn new words or new
grammar, or how to pronounce words in the L2? One way, of course, is to listen to a
teacher explaining and demonstrating each of these, and then to remember and practice
yourself. This is explicit learning: it is something you do intentionally and it requires effort
and concentration. In contrast, children do not learn their first language (L1) in this way.
Very young children have no explicit memory for the past. They have no long-term
memory, and very limited short-term memory and attention spans. Consequently, children
learn the patterns of the L1 implicitly and they are very sensitive to the frequencies with
which forms co-occur (Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996). They learn these co-occurring forms
and patterns of language from exposure alone, and not as a result of explicit instruction.
There is no doubt that adults learn a lot of the L2 explicitly, by concentrating only on
what they have to learn, and then later remembering it. But they also have the ability to
learn the L2 incidentally, and this is closely related to child L1 implicit learning. Incidental
learning is unintentional learning. You go to a birthday party, and next day you can
remember names and faces of people you met there that you didnt know before. You
read a book in the L2 and afterwards you know the meaning of some new words, but you
didnt intend to learn themyou read the book to find out what happens to the main
character.
In fact, many situations in which the L2 can be learned (like parties, the workplace,
watching subtitled movies) require the abilities for incidental learning. One could argue
that for advanced L2 learning, the ability to learn incidentally is particularly important.
Some adults are good at learning the L2 incidentally, while others need more help in such
situations. But the MLAT and other current aptitude tests dont measure ability for inci-
dental learning. They measure only abilities for explicit, intentional learning. Robinson
(1997, 2005a) showed that the paired associates, and words in sentences subtests of MLAT
do not predict incidental L2 learning, though they do predict explicit instructed L2 learning,
and correlate significantly and positively with measures of verbal intelligence. To this
extent, measures of aptitude such as MLAT are situationally insensitive, predicting learning
under explicit, but not incidental processing conditions.
Clearly, since the 1950s and 1960s when aptitude batteries such as the MLAT were first
researched, piloted, and then published there has been a great deal of SLA research (see
Ellis, 2008). These early aptitude batteries were developed without the benefit of findings
from this research. Similarly, important psychological constructs and phenomena such as
priming (Kinoshita & Lupker, 2003), task switching (Monsell, 2003), implicit, episodic, and
working memory (Baddeley, 2007), were simply not conceived of, theorized and researched,
at that time.
There is therefore a clear need to update our current theories, and measures, of aptitude,
accommodating, where necessary, these recent findings from SLA and cognitive psycho-
logy research. Skehan (2002) has proposed such an updated theory of aptitude, proposing
that processing input for meaning; organizing what has been heard and relating it to what
is already known; and producing language in response to task demands, are three differ-
4 aptitude in second language acquisition
ent stages that correspond to different abilities and aptitudes for successful L2 learning
and performance. Robinson (2002, 2007) has proposed a theory of aptitude describing how
different clusters of cognitive abilities are related to learning from explicit instruction;
incidental learning from written input, and from oral input; and from corrective recasting
of output. For example, individual differences between learners in the extent to which
prior exposure to a word or form primes and so speeds their subsequent recognition
of it is proposed to be related to their success in incidental learning from speech or text.
On the other hand, the ability to switch attention between the communicative content
of speech, and a form made salient by recasting or input enhancement is proposed to be
related to individual differences in task-switching abilitiesthose with better task-switching
abilities being better able to process and learn the recast or enhanced form. Researching
the issues raised by these more recent theories of aptitude is to be encouraged for the light
this can cast on explanations of SLA phenomena, as well as for its potential relevance to
pedagogy, and the issue of matching learner aptitudes to optimal conditions of instructional
exposure.
SEE ALSO: Carroll, John B.; Explicit Learning in Second Language Acquisition; Implicit
Learning in Second Language Acquisition; Incidental Learning in Second Language
Acquisition; Individual Differences in the Classroom; Working Memory in Second Language
Acquisition: Phonological Short-Term
References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native
second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481509.
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser
(Ed.), Training research and education (pp. 87136). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York, NY: The
Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499513.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction and second language acquisition. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Kinoshita, S., & Lupker, S. (Eds.). (2003). Masked priming: The state of the art. Hove, England:
Psychology Press.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 13440.
Petersen, C., & Al-Haik, A. (1976). The development of the Defense Language Aptitude Battery.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36(2), 36980.
Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB). New York, NY: The Psychological
Corporation.
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit
second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 4599.
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A framework for research
and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning
(pp. 11333). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2005a). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength and frequency effects in artificial
grammar and incidental second language learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld and
Hernstadt (1991), and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance to SLA. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 27, 23568.
aptitude in second language acquisition 5
Robinson, P. (2005b). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 25, 4573.
Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in
second language learning (pp. 25686). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Roehr, K. (2008). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners.
Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 17399.
Saffran, J., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science,
274, 19268.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences
and instructed language learning (pp. 6994). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Symonds, P. (1930). Foreign Language Prognosis Test. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Suggested Readings
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Corno, L., Cronbach, L., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D., Mandinach, E., Portues, A., & Talbert, J.
(2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Parry, T., & Stansfield, C. (Eds.). (1990). Language aptitude reconsidered. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (Eds.). (2003). The psychology of abilities, competencies and expertise.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.