An exploration of aptitude and modularity in second language ...

Cylcia Bolibaugh
Working title for PhD research:
An exploration of aptitude and modularity in second language acquisition
Research Overview
The proposed research concerns the broad question of whether there is such a thing
as a particular talent for learning languages and, given its existence, the ways in
which such a talent might enable or constrain learning. It also seeks to update
conceptions and operationalisations of language specific talent developed under a
behaviourist model of learning
Information processing perspectives on language posit a number of stages where
input is perceived, coded, analysed, and retrieved. These also hypothesise that
language might be mentally represented in multiple systems. Such an understanding
of language use and learning sits uneasily with a unitary variable posited to affect all
stages equally. Though stemming from a different research tradition, psychometric
efforts to isolate language learning talent in the 1950s and 60s resulted in a battery
of components widely shown to correlate with learning success or failure. This
conception of a multifaceted language learning talent, or aptitude, has endured to the
present day as embodied in the Modern Languages Aptitude Test (MLAT).
Extensive research carried out in the 1950s and 1960s resulted in impressive
correlations between the four factor model isolated by Carroll and Sapon (1959) and
success as measured by either rapidity of learning or level of ultimate attainment.
Studies have also indicated that the components isolated by Carroll et al are distinct
from general intelligence. Unfortunately the grounding of the original work in
discredited behaviourist psychological models has meant that little aptitude research
has been carried out since the original effort.
New interest in individual learner differences has resulted in efforts to rehabilitate
aptitude by restoring its theoretical underpinnings. One of the most comprehensive
efforts has been Skehan’s (1998) attempts to link components of aptitude to stages

of language acquisition. This work was largely based on case studies of learners
deemed exceptional; in other words those whose success or failure could be shown
to lie outside a normal distribution. From a survey of such cases, Skehan developed
a model in which particular stages are mediated by individual components of the
aptitude complex. While explicitly speculative, the model linked the stages of input,
processing and retrieval to the aptitude components of phonetic coding ability,
language analytic ability and memory.
One means of testing this model would be to move away from cases of exceptional
learners and instead chart the aptitudinal profiles of those falling at either end of a
normal distribution, i.e. learners who might be deemed, given a certain set of
circumstances, to be either ‘normally’ poor or talented. This research proposes to
continue the work of a pilot study conducted by the author at MA level which
investigated normal learners who had reached levels deemed far above or below
what could normally be expected given sufficient time and motivation.
Though based on a very small sample, the aforementioned study suggested that
learners who had spent at least two years attempting to learn a language as an adult
with little result had lower levels of phonetic coding ability than successful learners
(who had either learnt at least two languages to a high operational level, or learnt
only one but within a very short time), while these same successful learners
displayed elevated memory abilities when operationalised as working rather than
rote memory. Thus the so-called ‘peripheral’ components of aptitude seemed to be
the most likely explanatory variables of variability in ultimate attainment.
The proposed research can therefore be considered under two headings. The first
would seek to replicate the aforementioned study but on a larger scale and with
modifications suggested by the results of the original. Thus by charting aptitudinal
profiles of learners identified as having made gains far above or below what could be
expected, it would seek to confirm the mediating role of various components of the
aptitude complex at differing stages of acquisition. More specifically these link input
with phonetic coding ability, processing with language analytic ability, and memory
with the output stage. Within such a study, the role of memory would receive
particular attention as it has been implicated in initial coding as well as retrieval.

The second part of the research actually precedes the first and concerns the
operationalisation of the individual aptitudinal components. Advances in cognitive
psychology have cast doubts on some of the original constructs while suggesting
alternatives. One example is the relative downplaying of the importance of rote
memory in favour of a more nuanced model. Recent interest in working memory
measures from applied linguists has resulted in suggestions that these be added to
any aptitude battery. Similar questions have been raised regarding the
operationalisation of phonetic coding ability as a sound to orthography pairing and it
has been suggested that non-word repetition may be a better test of the construct.
The initial part of the research would therefore seek to update operationalisations of
the memory and phonetic coding ability components of the aptitude complex
embodied in the MLAT.
Research Questions:
• (Part II) Aptitude and proficiency:
Are the cognitive profiles (as measured by original and modified subtests of
the MLAT as well as working memory tests) of so-called normally poor or
talented learners qualitatively similar to profiles of so-called exceptional
learners? It is predicted that results obtained in the pilot study mentioned
above will be replicated, specifically:
o good learners are expected to achieve PCA levels above 80% with
poor learners coming in below 60%
o language analytic ability is not expected to demonstrate any systematic
relationship with good or poor learners
o rote memory ability is not expected to demonstrate any systematic
relationship with good or poor learners
o good learners are expected to demonstrate a significantly greater
working memory capacity than poor learners