Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T06:37:12.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aptitude and pedagogical conditions in the early development of a nonprimary language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2016

BEATRIZ LADO
BEATRIZ LADO*
Affiliation:
City University of New York Lehman College and The Graduate Center
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Beatriz Lado, Lehman College, City University of New York, Carman Hall, Room 257, 250 Bedford Park Boulevard West, Bronx, NY 10468–1589. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article summarizes results from a study investigating the role of aptitude on initial learning of Latin morphosyntax. The study includes two different computerized conditions: with or without metalinguistic information, provided during input-based practice with right/wrong feedback. Four aptitude measures were included: linguistic analytic ability, rote memory, working memory, and phonological short-term memory. The results revealed that linguistic analytic ability gave learners an advantage under the metalinguistic information condition when processing sentences for meaning, although only working memory (and rote memory to a lesser extent) had a role in development of grammatical sensitivity to the form. In contrast, except rote memory in immediate aural interpretation, none of the aptitude measures predicted learning under the nonmetalinguistic information condition.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , May 2017 , pp. 679 - 701
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 8. Advances in research and theory (pp. 47–90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–13). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Individual Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGraaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, S., Cox, J. G., Serafini, E. J., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual differences in the study abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language development during short-term intensive language exposure. Modern Language Journal, 99, 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, S., Williams, J. N., & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Incidental exposure and L3 learning of morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 611–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, K. (2009). Aptitude, phonological memory, and second language proficiency in nonnovice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisition and learning. In Diller, K. C. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning (pp. 155–175). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lado, B., Bowden, H., Stafford, C., & Sanz, C. (2014). A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research, 18, 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lenet, A. E., Sanz, C., Lado, B., Howard, J. H., Jr., & Howard, D. V. (2010). Aging, pedagogical conditions, and differential success in SLA: An empirical study. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. P. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 73–84). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The differential roles of two aptitude components in mediating the effects of two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. In Sanz, C. & Lado, B. (Eds.), Individual differences, L2 development and language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 32–52). Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Fujii, A., Egi, T., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Robinson, P. & Skehan, P. (Eds.), Individual differences in L2 learning (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 118, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious (Vol. 19). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfield and Hernstadt (1991). In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R. (2013a). Optimizing the noticing of recasts vis computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R. (2013b). Computer-delivered feedback and L2 development: The role of explicitness and working memory. In Sanz, C. & Lado, B. (Eds.), Individual differences, L2 development, and language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 53–70). Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., Lin, H.-J., Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., & Stafford, C. A. (2009). Concurrent verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: Two CALL studies. Language Learning, 59, 33–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C., Lin, H., Lado, B., Bowden, H. B., & Stafford, C. A. (2014). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/applin/amu058 Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp. 69–93). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36, 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, C. A., Bowden, H. W., & Sanz, C. (2012). Optimizing language instruction: Matters of explicitness, practice, and cue learning. Language Learning, 62, 741–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Borges Mota, M., & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Working memory, learning conditions, and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In Zhisheng, W., Mota, M. Borges, & McNeill, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Ruiz, S., Moreno, J. L., & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2005). Processing instruction. In Sanz, C. (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 267–281). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S., & Doughty, C. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273–292). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Winke, P. (2013). An investigation into second language aptitude for advanced Chinese language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar