This document discusses language learning aptitude, which refers to an individual's ability to learn a second language. It covers several key points: 1) Researchers like Carroll have identified various factors that contribute to language aptitude, including phonemic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning ability, and rote learning ability. 2) Studies have shown aptitude is strongly correlated with second language proficiency, though all learners can achieve some proficiency regardless of aptitude. Aptitude enhances the rate and ease of learning. 3) Skehan proposed aptitude involves three components - auditory ability, linguistic ability, and memory ability - that relate to different phases of the second language acquisition process.

1. Aptitude
Mahsa Farahanynia
PhD student
Allameh Tabataba'iUniversity

2. Why is it that people differ so greatly in
their ability to learn L2?
Do certain people have a knack for
learning L2?
language learning aptitude

3. What is aptitude
 Carroll (1981) defines general aptitude as “Capability of
learning a task’, which depends on ‘some combination
of more or less enduring characteristics of the learner”.

4. What is language aptitude?
 Language aptitude is the capability involving a special propensity
for learning an L2 (Carroll, 1981) or “a general ability to learn
languages” (Nunan, 2001, p.301), and a complex of “basic
abilities that are essential to facilitate foreign language
learning”(Carroll & Sapon, 1959, p.14).

5. Role of aptitude in L2 proficiency
 Aptitude measures are strongly correlated with L2 proficiency
(Carroll, 1981; Dekeysser, 2000; Ehrman &Oxford, 1995; Ellis,
2012).
 In Gardern and MacIntyre’s words: “research makes it clear that
in the long run language aptitude is probably the single best
predictor of achievement in a second language” (1992, p. 215).

6. Carroll’s claims about aptitude and L2 proficiency
1) Aptitude is separate from achievement: Conceptually and
empirically speaking, there is no relationship between measures
of aptitude and measure of proficiency at the beginning of a
language program, but that there is a relationship at the end of the
program.
2) Aptitude must be shown to be separate from motivation:
Gardner (1985) has consistently shown that aptitude and
motivation are separate factors, and in his Socio-Educational
Model of L2 learning depicts his claims visually.

7. Carroll’s claims about aptitude and L2 proficiency
(cont.)
3) Aptitude must be seen as a stable factor, perhaps even innate:
Carroll refers to studies which show that learner’s aptitude is
difficult to alter through training.
4) Aptitude is to be viewed not as a prerequisite for L2
acquisition: All learner’s irrespective of their aptitude may
achieve a reasonable level of proficiency. But aptitude can be
taken as a capacity that enhances the rate and ease of learning.

8. Carroll’s claims about aptitude and L2 proficiency
(cont.)
5) Aptitude must be found to be distinct from general
intelligence: Aptitude is a special propensity or knack for
learning a foreign language. Intelligence has a broader meaning,
referring to a general sort of aptitude that is not limited to a
specific performance area but is transferable to many sorts of
performanc.
Both intelligence and language aptitude involve a range of
cognitive factors some of which, but not all, clearly overlap. We
can expect considerable but not perfect correlation between the
two higher-order factors.
They overlap in linguistic ability but less related in memory and
phonemic coding ability.

9. Carroll’s factors of language aptitude
 Involving more in psychology and learning and adopting componential
nature and modular form of aptitude, Carroll (1981, p.105) introduces
four abilities for language aptitude:
1. Phonemic coding ability (the most important one):An ability to
identify distinct sounds to form associations between these sounds
representing them, and to retain these associations” (involving coding,
assimilation, and remembering of phonetic material)
2. Grammatical sensitivity: The ability to recognize the grammatical
functions of words (or other linguistic entities) in sentence structures”
(awareness of grammatical relationship)
3. Inductive language learning ability: The ability to infer or induce the
rules governing a set of language materials, given samples of language
materials that permit such inferences” (identifying patterns and
relationships involving grammatical form and meaning).
4. Rote learning ability: The ability to learn association between sounds
and meanings rapidly and efficiently to retain those
associations”(remembering large amounts of L2 materials)

10. Pimsleur’s Factors of language aptitude
 Involving more in linguistics, Pimsleur (1966) conceptualized the
aptitude for learning a modern language in terms of three factors:
1) Verbal intelligence: That is the knowledge of words and ability
to reason analytically in using verbal materials”
2) Motivation
3) Auditory ability: The ability to receive and process information
through the ear.
 Dornyie (2005)
Pimsleur’s verbal intelligence = Carroll’s grammatical sensitivity
Pimsleur’s Auditory ability = Carroll’s phonetic coding ability

11. Foreign language aptitude and SLA
 The majority of studies focus on aptitude and L2 proficiency
rather than on the role of aptitude in cognitive processes
involved in L2 acquisition (which is related to SLA).
 Second language learning aptitude is viewed as “strengths
individual learners have…in the cognitive abilities and
information processing during L2 learning and performance
in various contexts and at different stages” (Robinson, 2005,
p. 46).
 In SLA, the relationship of aptitude to learning under
different conditions of instructional exposure is important.
 According to Ellis (2012), the following issues should be
considered:

12. 1. Is language aptitude relevant to informal (naturalistic) as
well as formal language learning?
 Krashen (1981): L2 aptitude is related to learning and explicit L2
knowledge.
 Ellis (2012): L2 aptitude is related to both formal and informal
learning.
 Grigorenko, Sternberg, and Ehrman (2000): Linguistic-analytic ability
is related to formal learning and phonemic coding and memory abilities
to informal learning.
 Gradner (1985): L2 aptitude is directly related to formal leaning and
indirectly to informal learning (Socio-Educational Model of L2
learning).
 In formal settings, the input is organized in a way to make its structure
more accessible (input flooding or input enhancement) so aptitude is
less important; but in informal learning, it is incumbent on the learner
to bring structure to unstructured material, so aptitude is more
important.

13. 2. Is language aptitude best viewed as a cumulative
aggregation of abilities or as differentiated, affording more
than one route to success?
 Skehan (1986): The extent to which the effect of aptitude is to be
viewed ‘globally’ as the aggregation of aptitude strengths in
different components, or ‘differentially’ with learners finding
different routes to success in language learning.
 He distinguished analytic-oriented leaners (who focus on the
development of rule-based system and have great verbal
analyzability aptitude) and memory-oriented learners (who focus
on the real-time performance and fluency and have high memory
accessibility aptitude). Both types can achieve high levels of
success.

14. 3. Is there any relationship between L1 language skills and second
language aptitude? Studies shows that those with strong L1 skills
were also strong in L2 aptitude. In their linguistic coding difference
hypothesis (LCDH), Sparks and Ganschow (2001) claim that one’s
capacity to learn an L2 is closely related to the individual’s L1
learning skill and L2 learning difficulties stem in part from native
language difficulties.
4. To what extent is language aptitude immutable or responsive to
training? There is no conclusive findings. Some found it is
responsive to training (e.g., Sparks, Ganschow, Fluharty, and Little,
1995), and some found it is immutable (e.g., Sawyer, 1992).

15. 5. To what extent and in what ways language aptitude
related to the processes of L2 acquisition?
 The focus here is on the role of aptitude in facilitating,
or inhibiting cognitive processes drawn on during L2
learning under particular learning conditions, from FonF
techniques, or task manipulations.

16. Aptitude and Current SLA Research
Skehan’s process-sensitive aptitude
 Skehan (1998) makes an attempt to relate three aptitude
components to the different phases of the SLA process:
1. Auditory ability (phonetic coding ability): This allows
the learner to process input more readily and thus to get
to more complex areas of processing more easily. It
provides processable input and comprehensible input
for the next stage of processing

17. Skehan’s process-sensitive aptitude (Cont.)
2. Linguistic ability (Inductive language learning ability +
Grammatical sensitivity): The capacity to infer rules of language
and make generalization and extrapolations. The input of this
stage is the product of the phonemic coding stage.
(grammatical sensitivity) (inductive language learning ability)
Word pattern
Implicit explicit
Passive (recognition) active (construction)

18. Skehan’s process-sensitive aptitude (Cont.)
3. Memory ability (rote learning ability): It deals with the
acquisition of new information, their storage, and retrieval. The
emphasis is on how memory ‘items’ can be retrieved efficiently in
real-time to handle conversational demands (fast-access memory
system).
 Relation of three components of aptitude to macro stages in SLA:
SLA stages Aptitude components
Input Auditory ability
Central processing Linguistic ability
Output Memory ability

19. SLA stages and aptitude constructs
(Skehan, 1998)

20. SLA stages and aptitude constructs
 Noticing: Difference in noticing relevant qualities of input (due to
having better working memory, or being field independent).
 Pattern identification: Difference in pattern extraction capacities
and generalization
 Pattern restructuring and manipulation (anti-fossilization stage of
development): Difference in changing the existing rules in
interlanguage
 Pattern control: Difference in having control over an emerging IL
(Focus is on accuracy and automaticization in production)
 Pattern integration (more production oriented): Difference in
producing a pattern (lexicalized chunks) that can be accessed as a
whole based on formulaic piece of language (Focus is on
routinazation).

21. Skehan’s process-sensitive aptitude (Cont.)
 Regarding phonemic coding ability, at elementary
stages it is the most important component, but in later
stages it loses its importance.
 Regarding memory, it gains more and more
prominence as the level of proficiency increases for
the purpose of having native-like selection and native-
like fluency (enriching the exemplar-based system
and idiomatic language)
 Language analytic ability is equally important in all
stages and has a linear relationship with proficiency
level (enriching rule-based system)
Language = language analytic ability
Phonemic = phonemic coding ability
D = unusual neurological conditions
The relationship between
aptitude components and
proficiency level

22. Robinson’s aptitude complex/ability
differentiation framework (2001, 2005)
 Aptitude complex hypothesis: Learning draws on different
combinations of cognitive abilities (Snow’s aptitude complexes)
depending on the conditions of instructional exposure
(Cronbakh’s aptitude-treatment interaction approach). In other
words, different learners with different aptitude clusters will
respond to different instructional treatments differentially.
 Focus: situational dependence of aptitude and the interaction
between aptitude and situational variable (e.g., type of instruction,
types of tasks) (Dornyie, 2005)

23. Aptitudes, development,
and learning contexts
(Robinson, 2005)
Interaction between task
demands, language
aptitude, and language
learning

24. Robinson’s aptitude complex hypothesis
(Cont.)
 Abilities(inner circle, initial input-based learning): Processing
Speed (PS); Pattern recognition (PR); Phonological Working
Memory Capacity (PWMC); Phonological Working Memory
Speed (PWMS); Semantic Priming (SP); Lexical Inferencing
(IN); Text Working Memory Capacity (TWMC); Text Working
Memory Speed (TWMS); Grammatical Sensitivity (GS); Rote
Memory (RM)
 Aptitude Complexes(second circle, input-based learning):
Noticing the Gap (NTG); Memory for Contingent Speech (MCS);
Deep Semantic Processing (DSP); Memory for Contingent Text
(MCT); Metalinguistic Rule Rehearsal (MRR)

25. Robinson’s aptitude complex hypothesis
(Cont.)
 Task Aptitudes(third circle, output practice and complex task
performance): Single Task (+/- ST); Planning Time (+/- PT);
Background Knowledge (+/- BK); Here-and-Now (+/- H&N); Few
Elements (+/- FE); Reasoning (+/- R); Open Task (+/- O); 1-Way Task
(+/- 1way); Convergent Task (+/- CON); Same Gender Participants (+/-
SG); Same Proficiency Participants (+/- SP); Familiar Participants (+/-
FAM)
 Pragmatic/Interactional Abilities/Traits(fourth circle, transfer of task
performance to real-world interactive settings): Interactional
Intelligence (II); Self Presentation/Impression Management (SP/IM);
Mind Reading (MR ); Pragmatic Ability (PA); Social Insight (SI);
Emotional Intelligence (EI); Self-Efficacy (SE); Openness to Experience
(OTE); Gesture Reading (GR); Nonverbal Sensitivity (NVS )

26. Aptitude and Awareness
 If “noticing” and awareness are necessary for SLA then an issue
for aptitude research is to identify individual differences in
abilities that promote them across a range of pedagogically
relevant conditions of exposure to the L2.
 Processing input for meaning creates no opportunities for rote
memorization or for the intentional application of explicit
metalinguistic knowledge to input (no awareness). However, it
does draw on the ability to process for meaning while
simultaneously switching attention to form during problems in
semantic processing—an ability strongly related to working
memory capacity.

27. Aptitude and working memory
 “Working memory capacity may be the key to elaborating the concept of
language aptitude itself and to clarifying its relationship with the second
language acquisition (SLA) process.” (Sawyer & Ranta, 2001, p. 340)
 Miyake and Friedman (1998) proposed the “working memory as language
aptitude” hypothesis, claiming that working memory may be the central
component of language aptitude.
Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
Phonological loop:
phonological store+
articulatory rehearsal
process

28. Aptitude and Focus on Form (FonF)
Techniques
 FonF Techniques: Different kinds of intervention (such as input
flooding, input enhancement, recasting, structured input
processing with and without rule explanation) that aim to direct
learner’s attention to L2 form during activities which have a
primary focus on meaning.
 Dornyie & Skehan, (2003): Aptitude may be a central construct
when there is a focus on form in SLA.
 Mixed results about the effect of FonF instruction: Since some L2
learners’ aptitudes, or sets of abilities are more suited to learning
from one FonF technique versus another (Robinson, 2005).

29. Aptitude and Task Design
 Aptitude may interact with L2 task characteristics with
differential information processing demands (such as
single versus dual task) to systematically affect speech
production, uptake and learning, such that one type of
learner may be systematically more fluent, more
accurate, or notice and use more new information
provided in the task input, on one type of task versus
another.
 It leads to L2 task-aptitude profiles that can be used to
maximize on-task practice, and learning opportunities
for learners

30. Instruments used to measure aptitude
a) First test design period of 1920/1930: Prognostic tests with no
firm theoretical foundation (Spolsky, 1995)
b) Golden period of scientific language aptitude testing(Carroll,
1981)
1) The modern language aptitude test (MLAT) (Carroll & Sapon
1959)
2) The Pimsleur language aptitude battery (PLAB, 1966)
3) Cognitive ability for novelty in acquisition of language as
applied to foreign language test (CANAL-FT) by Grigorenko, et al.
(2000)

31. The Modern language Aptitude Test (MALT)
 It was developed by Carroll and Sapon (1959) who followed a
“Psychometric approach” and administered it to 5000 persons.
 Carroll and Sapon’s MLAT does not include separate measure of
inductive language learning ability, perhaps this is very close to
grammatical sensitivity.
 It is comprised of the following sections: Number learning,
Phonetic script, Spelling clues, Words in sentences, Paired
associates.

32. The Pimsleur language aptitude battery (PLAB)
 It was developed as an alternative to MLAT, measures a very
similar range of abilities to MLAT, but has no test of verbal
memory.
 Greater emphasis on auditory factors, and less on memory
 PLAB is composed of six parts: Grade point Average, Vocabulary,
Interest in foreign language learning, Language analysis, Sound
discrimination, Sound symbol of association

33. Cognitive ability for novelty in acquisition of language
as applied to foreign language test (CANAL-FT)
 Unlike MALT and PLAB, it is theory-driven and based on
Sternberg’s (2002) triadic theory of human intelligence (theory of
successful intelligence).
 Main focus: How people cope with novelty and ambiguity in their
learning.
 Five knowledge acquisition processes: Selective encoding,
accidental encoding, selective comparison, selective transfer,
selective combination
 Operationalized at four language level (lexical, morphological,
semantics, and syntactic) and in two modes (visual and oral)
 Assessed based on immediate recall or delayed recall

34. Drawbacks of such tests (Harmer, 2007; Skehan, 1998;
Dornyie, 2005)
 Simply reflect the general intelligence or academic ability of a student
even though they ostensibly look for linguistic talents.
 Just focus on the ability to perform analytical and context-reduced
activities and hardly deal with the kinds of learning strategies and styles
which are central to the acquisition of communicative competence in
context-embedded situations (more associated with audio-lingual method).
 They favor analytic-type learner over their more ‘holistic’ counterparts
(grammar focused tasks).
 Such tests can bias both teachers and learners and a self-fulfilling
prophecy may occur (it may lead to the demotivation of students with low
scores and to their failure as well as to the special treatment of teachers
towards students with high scores). It is better to be optimistic.
 They do not predict the very high levels of attainment or do not measure
the ability to profit from incidental L2 exposure.

35. Applications of aptitude research
 Aptitude-treatment-interaction (ATI) research designs: There is
no single best method but that it is the combination of specific
method type with specific aptitude profile which creates optimal
leaning condition.
 The constructs underlying aptitude should connect with what goes
on in the classroom, which requires profile-based information of
students’ aptitude for the design of effective interventionist
techniques

36. Future path of research
 Future path:
1. Investigating the influence of cognitive skills associated with L1
learning on the capacity to learn an L2 (Sparks and Ganschow’s
LCDH proposal)
2. Exploring the role of working memory in SLA and language
aptitude complex (Mtyake and Friedman’s working-memory-as-
language-aptitude proposal)
3. Exploring aptitude measures in combination with other ID
variables in various trait complexes (Robinson’s proposal)
4. Scrutinizing the link between certain aptitude components with
specific phases of the SLA processes (Skehan’s proposal)

37. References
 Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The
psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp.
47–89). New York: Academic Press.
 Carroll, J.B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In
K.C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude
(pp. 83-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
 Carroll, J.B., & Sapon, S. (1959). The modern language aptitude test. San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
 Dekeysser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22 (4), 493-533.
 Dornyie, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual difference in
second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 Dornyie, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning.
In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long, The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
589-630). UK : Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

38. References
 Ehrman, M.E., & Oxford, R.L., (1995). Cognition plus: correlates of language
learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79 (1), 313-330.
 Ellis, R. (2012). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
 Gardern R.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (1992). A students’ contributions to second
language learning. Part I: Cognitive variables. Language Testing, 25, 211-220.
 Grigorenko, E., Sternberg, R., & Ehrman M.E. (2000). A theory based approach to
the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The Canal-F theory and test.
Modern Language Journal, 84 (3), 390-405.
 Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Harlow:
Longman.

39. References
 Krashen (1981). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language
acquisition and learning. In K.C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and
universals in language learning aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
 Miyake, A. & N. P. Friedman (1998). Individual differences in second
language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F.
Healy & L. E. Bourne (eds.), Foreign Language Learning:
Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention, (pp. 339-364). Mahwah.
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 Pimsleur, P. (1966). The Pimsleur language aptitude battery. NewYork:
Harcourt,Brace, Jovanovic.
 Robinson (1995). Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the ‘noticing’
hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331
 Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude
complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second
Language Research, 17(4), 368-392.

40. References
 Robinson, (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics (2005) 25, 46–73.
 Sawyer, M. (1992). Language aptitude and language experience: Are they
related? The Language Programs of the International University of Japan
Working Papers, 3, 27-45.
 Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and
instructional design. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 319-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Skehan, P. (1986). Cluster analysis and the identification of learner types. In V.
Cook (ed.), Experimental Approaches to Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 81-94.
 Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Sparks, R.L., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a forging
language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90-111.