(Ky’s) Preview of Chapter 6: FOREIGN LANGUAGE APTITUDE

Throughout my earlier days of learning foreign languages (English, French, and Cantonese Chinese), I had felt there was something special in me that facilitated, or sometimes hindered, every move I made towards the acquisition of various aspects of those languages. That something special became even more evident as I progressed nearer to the desired destination of English language ownership, especially as I compared my learning process with that of others around me. Then I became an EFL teacher, and again my hypothesis was consolidated with the observation of my students’ diverse behaviors and performances in the classrooms. At times I thought the explanation could be intelligence, motivation, good memory, or merely diligence, or even a combination of all the above elements, but the doubt in me was never settled. Not until I started reading this chapter in Dr. Ortega’s forthcoming book did it dawn on me that foreign language aptitude was to be the best answer, among others. Or at least, it is soothing to learn that “aptitude and achievement explain each other or overlap with each other by 16% to 36%” (p. 4), which is a remarkable magnitude.

Of course, as the author noted, despite its significance, aptitude is not the almighty force in language learning. By analyzing the concepts of cognition, conation, and affect in psychology and SLA (pp. 3-4), the author helped to clarify that there are complex connections among various factors in L2 acquisition, and that it takes so much more time and effort if we are to explain those intertwining relationships. The review of the famous cases of Kaplan vs. Watson was helpful in that it not only provided evidence and illustration of aptitude but also activated critical thinking among readers about the issue.

Personally, I was very impressed with the high predictive validity of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (p. 5). If there remains no counter-evidence, we can certainly make use of this test to develop language instruction strategies that facilitate learning for different L2 aptitude profiles, like in the case of Wesche’s (1981) study cited by the author on page 17. However, as Dr. Ortega pointed out, beside grammatical sensitivity, phonetic coding ability, and memory capacity, Carroll did not at all address inductive language learning ability, the fourth component of aptitude (see table 6.1 on page 21 for more details). I believe this can be a good question for discussion in class. Why wouldn’t Carroll include inductive language learning ability in his famous test?

In this chapter, the author also introduced thorough analyses of many other aspects of aptitude in L2 learning. To begin with, she asserted that despite the partial overlap between language aptitude and intelligence and first language ability, we should give each a distinct treatment while doing research. The author also cited various studies to address the question of whether failure to master an additional language is due to lack of aptitude or general language-related difficulties (pp. 7-8). She then tactfully moved on to highlight the important role of memory capacity in L2 aptitude and their complex interrelationship by examining different forms of memories. The issue of age and L2 aptitude was also discussed, in which several cited studies demonstrate that late-starters may enjoy more benefits from their aptitude for language learning. As to the question of whether L2 aptitude matters under explicit and implicit learning conditions, the author suggested that more studies are needed if we are to fully understand the dynamics of this construct and thus make full use of it in L2 teaching and learning.

It is important to note that beside valuable information and insightful comments, the author also raised many interesting questions, both implicitly and explicitly, for further analysis and future research. For example, in section 6.3, she indicated that “our success in understanding L2 aptitude has been limited … partly because much less effort has been invested in explaining the construct than in developing tests that measure it”, which suggests that as future SLA researchers, we should pay more attention to decoding the findings from aptitude tests rather than just strictly follow what have been done by our predecessors. Most importantly, as future (and current for some) L2 teachers and researchers, we should try to answer the question: Can we really take advantage of individual L2 aptitude to effectively teach and learn additional languages, and if yes, how?

All in all, in my personal experience, this is an enlightening chapter about the most (or is it not?) important component of individual differences in SLA. However, as the author noted at the end, it is not easy to read. For better understanding of the chapter, I suggest you read the summary first, and then proceed with each section. Should further information about any of the comments or analyses is needed, you should turn to Google using the key words in that specific part. A second or even third reading of the summary is highly recommended because I believe it will help consolidate and make a connection between what you have learned throughout the chapter.

Bonus:

For those of you who are interested in the story behind the development of the Modern Language Aptitude Test, the following website provides access to a pdf copy of an interview with the late psychologist John B. Carroll (1916 – 2003) which appeared on Language Assessment Quarterly (2004, Vol. 1, No. 1). Sorry you must buy membership to view the article :(
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15434311laq0101_4

If you want to have an idea of what a Language Aptitude Test is like other than the MLAT, the following website provides free access to the full version of the Oxford Language Aptitude Test http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Classics/CUCD/test.html