Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Second Language Acquisition
Citation preview
48 Theoreti'cal approaches to exp!t1ining second language !ea1?Zing
Pica, T. 1994. 'Research on negoriarion: What does it reveal about second language acquisirion? Condirions, processes, andourcomes.' Lan(fuave Leanting «:~~27. ••
~~.!:ww-n., P. ~( s ~k-, !\l. 1i trw- ~""""'° ~ o-..... ~ "ov.,,J 4 O~.\-~: ov P o <f.
FACTOkS A\FECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
In Chaprer 1, it \Vas pointed out rhar ali normal children, given a normal upbringíng, are successful in rhe acquisition of rheir firsr language. This contrasts with our experience of second language learners, whose success varíes greatly.
Níany of us believe that learners have certaín characreri.sri.cs which !ead ro more or less successful language learníng. Such beliefs are usualh·· based on anecdoralevidence, ofren our own ex erience or rhar ofindividual eople \Ve have .own. For example, many reachers are convinced that exiroverred learners whü inreracr wirhout inhibition in their second b.nguage and find
man y opportunities to practise __ la_ngua_?e,_. :~_kills .::"_ill _be the mosr successful learners. In addition to. personality charo:ái:ristiésfothet factors generally consideted. to be televant to language learning areintelligence¡aptitude, motivat_iob.-) and iíttítt1d.és. Another imporrant factor, as suggesred. in our discussion of rhe Crirical Period Hyporhesis for first !anguage acquisirion, is rhe age ar \vhich learning begíns
In rhis chapter, we will see whether anecdoral evidence is supporred by research findings. To what exrent can \Ve predicr differences in rhe success of second language acquisitíon in rwo individuals ifwe have informo.don abour rheir personalii::ies, rheir general andspecific inrellecrual abi!ities, their morivarion, or their age?
Activity
Characteristics of the 'good language learner'
lt seems rhar sorne people have a much easier rime of learning than others. Rare of development varies \videly among firsr !anguage learners. Sorne children can string rogerher five-, six-, and seven-\vord senrences at an age \vhen orher children are just beginning ro label irems in their immediare envíronn1ent. Neverrheless, ali normal children eventu:i!ly master rheir firsr !J.ngu;ige. 53
~
' 1 1
In second language learning, it has been observed coundess dmes rhar in rhe same classi:-001:1 setting, sorne srudenrs progress rapidly rhrough rhe' inicial srages of learn1ng a new language while others struggle along making very slow progress. Sorne learners never ::i.chieve native-like command of a second language. Are rhere personal characterisrics rhar make one Iearner more successful than another, and if so, whar are rhey?
The ~ollo•Ating is a lisr of sorne of the ~haracterisrics commonly rhoughr ro conrr1bure to successful language learn1ng. In your experience _as a second l~nguage Iearner ~nd as ª. teacher - which characrerisrics seem to you most likeiy to be assoc1ated wuh success in second lanauao-e acquisition in rhe 1 'Wh'ch . . b b e assroom. I ones would you be less 1ncl1ned to expecr in a successfu1
learner?
In each case rate the characteristic as follows:
1 = Very important 2 =Quite importanr 3 = lmportant 4 = Not very imponanr
5 = Not at all important.
A good !anguage learner:
a is a wílHng and accurare guesser 2 3 4 5 b tries to get a message across even if specific
language knowledge is lad<lng 2 3 4 5 e is wl!Hng to make mistakes 2 3 4 5 d constancly !ooks for pattems in the /anguage 2 3 4 5 e practises as often as possible 2 3 4 5 f ana!yses his or her own speech and the speech
of others 2 3 4 5 g attends to whether his or her performance
meets the standards he or she has learned 2 3 4 5 h enjoys grammar exercises 2 3 4 5
begin.s !earning in childhood 2 3 4 5 has an above-average !Q 2 3 4 5
k has good academic skills 2 3 4 5 has a good self-image and lots of confidence 2 3 4 5
-·------Photo-coplab!e © Oxford Unlversity Press
Ali of rhe characrerisrics lisred abovecan be classified in ro five main categories: morivation, aprirude, personality, intelligence, and learner preferences. However, many of rhe characteristics cannor be assigned exclusively to one caregory. For example, rhe characreristic 'is willing to make mistakes' can be considered a personality and/or a morivational factor if rhe learner is willing ro make misrakes in order to get the message across.
Research on learner characteristics Perhaps rhe best way ro begin our discussion is ro describe how research on rhe influence oflearner characreristics on second language learning has been carried out. When researchers are inrerested in finding out whether an individual facror such as motivation affects second language learning, they usually select agroup oflearners andgive rhem a questionnaire to measure the rype and degree of their motivation. The learners are then given a test to measure their second language proficiency. The test and rhe questionnaire are both scored and the researcher performs a corre!ation on rhe nvo measures, ro see wherher learners with high seores on rhe proficiency test are also more likely to have high seores on the morivation questionnaire. If chis is rhe case, rhe researcher concludes that high levels of morivation are correlared with success in language learning. A similar procedure can be used ro assess the relarionship bet\veen intelligence and second language acquisiríon through the use of IQ tests.
Alrhough rhis procedure seems srraighrforward, rhere are severa! difficulries with ir. The first problem is rhat it is not possible to directly observe and measure qualiries such as motivation, exrroversion, or even intelligence. These are just labels for an entire range of behaviours and charactcristics. Furthermore, because characreristics such as these are not independent, irwill come as no surprise rhat different researchers have ofren used rhe same labels ro describe different sets ofbehavioural traits.
For example, in motivation questionnaires, learners are often asked whether theywillingly seek out opportunities to use their second language wirh native speakers and if so, how ofren they do rhis. The assumprion behind such a question is rhat learners who report rhat they often seek out opporruniries ro interact with speakers of the second languáge are highly morivared to learn. Although this assumption seems reasonable, it is problematic because if a learner responds by saying 'yes' ro rhis question, we may assume thar rhe learner has more opportuniries fur language practice in informal conte."\:tS. Because ir is usually impossible to separare these rwo factors (i.e. \.villingness to inreract and opporruniries to interacr), sorne researchers have been criticized for concluding rhar it is the mocivarion rarher chan the opporruniry which makes the grearer conrribution to success.
54
fízctors afficting second language !earning
Ano[her facrorwhich makes irdifficulrto reach conclusions abour relarionships bet\veen individual learner characrerisrics and second lanauaae learning is how
" " language proficiency is defined and measured. To illustrate rhis point ler us refer once again ro 'morivarion'. In rhe second language Iearning lirerarure
1 sorne studies reporr rhar learners wirh a higher leve! of morivariqn are more successtu1 language 1earners rhan rhose wirh lower motivarion, \vhile orher srudies reporr rhar highly morivared learne-rs do nor perform any berter on- a proficiency test rhan Iearners ~Nith much less morivarion ro learn rhe second language. One explanarion which has been offered for rhese conflicring findings is rhat ilie language proficiency resrs used in differenr srudies do nor
me~sure r~e same k}nd ofknowledge. Thar is, in intOrrnal language Iearning) serr1ngs, h1ghly monvated!earners may6e more successful \vhen rhe pnaticiency
t~ measure oral communication skill§~ In orher srudies, ho\vever, high!x: mouvated learners may nor be more successful because rhe resrs are primarily
measures of metalinguisric knowled~. Results such as rhese imply rhat motrvauon to learn a second language may be n1ore relared ro particular aspecrs oflanguage proficiency rhan ro orhers.
Finally, rhere is rhe problem of inrerprering rhe correlarion of t\Vo factors as being due ro a causal relarionship bet\veen rhem. Thar is, rhe facr rhar nvo rhings rend ro occur rogerher <loes nor necessarily mean rhar one caused rhe orher. While ir may be rhar rhar one tJ.cror influences rheorher, ir mayalso be rhe case rhar borh are influenced by somerhinu else entirelv. Research on
n1otivaríon is perhaps rhe besr conrexr in whicl~ ro illustrar~ rhis. Learners who are successfuJ may indeed be highly morivared. Bur can \Ve con elude rhar rhey became successful because of rheir morivarion~ Ir is also plausible rhar early success heighrened rheir morivarion or rhar borh success and motivarion are due ro rheir special aprirude for Ianguage Iearning or rhe favourable contexr in \vhich rhey are learning.
Intelligence ··
The term~Ji~ has tradítíogallybee11u.se.drnreferr9 ¡¡erf¡;irmgwe14Q cerra1n k1n_ds oI~rs.:Tfiese tests are ofren aS:sociated \Virh süccess in school
and a lj!lliJi.~n i_~~Jli~~~ an~~~fqnd-lancruagejJe~auo~t;tl,m.~~ been re,t_?,?rte_d. O~e years, many_ studies using a variery of inreiligence (~Q1j reses and differenr merhods of aSsessing Ianuuage learninu have found
~ e b thar IQ seores •vere a good means of predicring ho•v successfuI a learner•vould
be. ~o_me recen~_-s_tu~~-~~ have sho_•vn r~a_r t~ese Irl~ __ a_s_ure-s of_~-~~~-~JJj_g~!!,~~!r.1-~Y be ~ore str~ºrlS-~I-~~~atei·ro ~ertaín_ kinds of S(:_~~!'ld_h1nguagc; .. ·?:~il_it_i~~~'.~h~n ~o .?_thers. Fo_r examp1e, in a srudywirh French immersion srudents in Cana da, ir was found rhat, \vhile inre_:gi_g~n~5: __ ~':'-~.s-~elar~-~--~º- rhe developmenr ofFrench second lanl!U:l.O-e rf'::i.--lino- crr1mm.-..- .,..,,.l "~~~J.-.. .. L __ :~ ____ _ 1 • •
~ 1
1
Factors affecting serond lanbl1uzgc leaming
orher studies. W'hat rhis suggesrs is rhar, \vhíle inrelligence, especially as measured by verbal IQ tests, may be asrrong factor when ir comes to learning \vhich involves language analysis and rule learning, inre!ligence may play a less imporranr role in classroorr1s \vhere rhe insrrucrion focuses more on cornmunicarion and interacrion.
_J~_ i~-i~E?_~ra~r -~~º ke~_ej__r:!_,pi~d ~h~-~- _'.i~l~!!jgen~i ___ i_~ ___ <;9.~P!~~ªº~---rh~~ indí_vid_u_al_s_have _ma11y, __ kin_ds of abiliries and sr._re~g-r:hs_, nor all ?f:Vl~_ii:~-~r,e measured-by-t-rldi~_i_?ñ~_f 1_Q~~es_ts. Jn ollr experience, many students whose
-aCadtffiTCpert~-~~;~1Cé·h;~-be·en w'eak have experienced considerable success
/ ~.n r~~~~~r~:~ learning • \ \ <; p<?C' a\\ y AJ;tituae ->"°~~ ..... o.\ o.\,, \J r """ <6"'-' ' 1
There is evidence in the research lirerarure rhar §,~-m_~j,n.dixidJJibl2.,hª~,.ª.Q ",'Ct:!2IL~lliJlllI:>1rtJ!.d~'Jor lang\1'l!l".,l~ami11~_ Lorraine Ob:er (1989) '.epons rhar a man, whom she calls,.Q. has such a speoalized abny. CJ is• !lafü.e ~J2~aki;~r2fJ~:r:gE2b \vho g~~~~_gt!jQ~ªDJ;ng_U?J1~b_9~91,e. His J}x5J true :2rprrti;;n.c;,e::_ wirh __ ,,~ secon_d la_na:_u:a~ ca.me ar rhe age oJ1,2 .. ~hen he began learntng 1~1~11i;;;,_,h~." i;;"~'~h,~~C''Cj;Tu,~~~!_~]L~ Gqm~D .. SpªDi~b, and L~i;j_n,~vhile in ~!gh sch~ol. A.t aué(2ü) he~~ade a brief visir to Germany. CJ reporred rhat JUSt heanng Ger~a~SPoken for a shorr time was enough for him ro 'recover' the German
he had Iearned in school. Larer, CJ worked in Morocco where he reponed learning Moroccan Arabic rhrough borh formal insrrucrion and informal irnmersion. He also spenr sorne time i.n Spain and Ira1y, v.¡here he apparendy 'picked up' both Spanish and ltalian in a 'marrer of weeks'. A remarkable ralent indeed!
Kteanüng quick:ly"'iS:--t.~fi::4iiiiii,i,,g~ilihlfli:-f~-~E~-~~ .. :.-§L~RifLlt4~; The 'apritude' ;_~~r has b~en r;;~;~·ig;~-~d- m~st ·ri~tensively by researchers interesred in developing tests which can be used ro predict \vherhe: individuals \V~ll b_e efficienc learners of a foreign !anguage in a c!assroom setnng. The-mosrw1dely
used- aptitµd<;:_te~t~:-~~e :th-e_Mo4~!~,J,_0_gg~~.:~J:,:i::!~:!_:" Test (f'..1LAT) and .rhe Píms.leur. Lang(lage.¡\ptitude Barrery (PLAB). Borh ~.are b¡¡s;,\l.QrcikYJ.!;)cV rharca¡?ü¡ude is co.mpos"'1~~iffere11t tzpesofabilidesc
(1) rhe abilig;,ro;,¡denrifilH!c!).c{;f!í>¡¡¡;¡¡orize nr¡;;y;;;;;~\f\!J1ds.; (2) the abilíry to ¡í@~rS;;_n __ d- rbe· functÍ()fi __ ()~J?':lr~-ic~l_¡¡~,,,~~!1.,~}E~,~-~~';, C'1) thé'.'. ab_i__Liry ro ___ Ifgllfé~~iii: fi!:~~~riC:il _r:ul_~s __ f.tlJrnJang:1ay;e~saroel~§i!~i;.l ( 4 J .11~~~~X~!1QX,-"', ~. While e:irlier research revealed a substanna1 reiauonsh1p benveen p~rfo~ffiance on rhe IvfLA.T or PLAB and performance in foreign b.nguage learning, rhese srudies were conducred ar a time when secon.d language reachíng "\Vas based on grammar translaúon or audiolingual merhods. (see
53
55
'
1
rac;urs "l.JJCr.:ang secona tanguage learntng
r?e process oflanguage acquisirion. Unfortunately, this means rhar relatively lmle res~arch has acrually explored whether having a skill such as the 'ability ~o 1den~1fy ª?d memorize new sounds' is advantageous when classroom rnstrucnon 1s meaning-orienred rarher than focused on drills or metalinguistic explanarions.
~u~cessful langu~g~ _Ie~rners may nor be srrong in all of che comoonenrs of :r.t~ Sorne 1nd1v1duals may have srrong memories but only average
ab1lmes' the other components of aptirude. Ideally, one could determine learners profiles of strengths and \veaknesses and use rhis informarion ro place SLu~ents in o.ppropriate teaching programs. An example ofhowrhis can be done ~ described by Marjorie Wesche (198 l). In a Canadian language prog1am ior ~dult learners ofFrench, srudenrs were placed in an instrucrional program :vh1ch ~as compatible wirh their apritude profile and informarion about their learn1ng experiences. Srudents who were high on analyric abiliry, but aver~ge on memory, vvere assigned to teaching rhat focused on gran1~au~al srructures, while learners strong in memory but average on analync s~Hs \vere placed in a class where the teaching was organized around the funcnonal use of the second language in specific siruarions. Wesche reported a high leve1 of srudent and reacher sarisfaction when srudenrs were matched with cornparible teaching environments. In addition sorne e:-idcncc .i.ndicarcd. rhar marched srudents were able to artain signiÍicantly higher levcis of ach1evement than those who were unmarched.
While fe\V second language teaching contexrs are able to offer such choices ro their students, teachers may find rhat knowing the aptitude profile of rheir srud_ents -.,v1ll help them in selecting appropriate classroom activities for pan:1cu_lar groups of studenrs. Or, if rhey do not have such inforrnarion, they may w1sh to ensure thac their reaching acriviries are sufficienrly varied to accommodate 1earners \.virh different aprítude pro.files.
Personality
A rmmberof¡¡ers~naliryc}¡¡¡rao;.¡i;_¡iaí;o,s ha ve be en R'ºRose<j¡íl'!likdy ro affecr f"C()}li.il¡¡p_¡¡,uag¡: fo¡¡r!!l¡¡g, bue ir has l)Qt been ~ toJiemonsrra.r<;; rb.eireffects ~n" ~~p~.'itlldks. As wirh orher research invesrigali~-g--th~- effe~t;~-of ~~g~~;f_4~AL"--~~h:ar~_cx.eris_d,g_ c¿~---~~9JJ4 _ _1;-1nguªg~_le:-<!_r,_~Ún,g._ differell r srud-ies ~~casunng a s1_~~-4~--?~~~-s_9_ggl} __ Q'_If;l~Lp.r0,d_uce differ_ent.sesults. For exampie, u;_:¡_1to€ten.ar:gi::~~-rhatán-e?Z-E~()Ye!t~d-oerson--i~_'W.t;Us~i-~~fl tttli!tt$-U,~!,gf:zjjrig. Hov~ever, J~~ffi-S:-~f~h dp.~~:Rl21~3YUJ:!EQQiltlü~_-;ggs_!~!9_n. i\Jrhough,some studres ,have found rhat success--in,_-_langl!&§l'--- learniug--ls~,~uela_tecl-Wirh J~~Ln~rs ¿~01:~~-~?1~-"~~E~~~:::is~!~~:of~~~. ~s,?ci_a_i;$_4 __ ,~_Üh· exrrove¡;sion.su.ch as -~~rttv.en"~$S an~{~_$n,turQ~!ieSs" o_thers have fou~1d lhat m,_ap,y_st,tc~c:s~-fµl language fearne-rs ~ot g_et high-scores-on rneasures µf extroy_e_rsiEE:!
Factors affécting second language learning
bno1h~raspec,!JlfJ2S!§.2.!!i!lÜYwhichhas been srudied /s inhibitíorr. Ir has been suggesred rhat.._ __ phíbití?~- --Qi_ttgY-Aflges ri~~~3:hl.I?.l?Mwhich _ _is ___ necessarv ."fQ.f progress -in la_0_a11_age ~.Qing~ '(his E_~g_fr~~,~,i;Q_I}~_dS!~-4::J!L be _-ª-8-~rtic~_~F pJ?-Olen1-foi-~21_~~:._"\vho are _I_!lórC-s_e_If~_cons~i2~~~~!1,YOunger learnei:.~_. ·r;;a series of studies, Alexander Guiora and his colleágues found support for the clairn thar inhibition is a negative force, at least for se_cond language pronunciation performance. On~~Qh:~ ___ a_g__an.;iJ~-~i~}?,.ftP.e$;~~ qf smalldoses ofalcohol onpronunciation (Guioraet al. 1972). Thevfound rhat ;ubj;c:_t's w'ho r~ceh·e~foii~Il d()S_es_of~~ohol di9.]2.err,e¡;,¡¡n prowJÍsi:\!i~n tests rhan rhose-who ... 4i~_!12,~J'it"ili a~v a}52_.hcl. While resulrs such as rhese are íii-teresting, as \vell as amusing, they ar~~Pl~!.~lx CQ~y_i_r,ising, since the experiments are far removed from rhe realiry of-the classroom siruation. Furthermore, they~_;iy_haye.m9'"e~ith.pe¡tq;;n:iifilcet;ha1uxi~h.le;¡wing. We may also note, in passing, that when larger doses of alcohol were adminisrered, pronunciation rapidly deteriorat~d!
Se.Y~.~ o~~~alirvcharacreristi~.?uchasself~esreern, 5.!!!ºªlÁ1J!,~2min;.l)X_e) ·' E~ti~en~~'· an~_~soonsiveness __ ~ve_ also_ ~~.Q-.s¡t-~e~ Ho,vever, in general,
_ .. cmeava-rJ;:¡:;r- •'"C!l(loes not show a cb.dy.de __ 11e .$.laúonshipberween g~rson ~~~~~-;,;,~Jtion.~d;·as i~di~~ttdearlier, tlieID;j¿r
· ty in investigaring personalíry characreristics is rhat of id en rificarion and rneasurement. Another explanatiorr which has been offered for the mixed findings of personality srudies is !hª.' personali~.l:2cria.hl;" ma¡: be,ll..ll'ªL'?.r fact<_>roitlyl\!Jh~::S'loi§jpgi¡,¡¡f.¡;..~-i;::1~~I',i~.\!!)H ¡J¡&a,<:;c¡.t¡ir¡iji9Jl.Qf ITteraq~!QIIS:Tfíe confused picrure of the research on personality factors may
. be ruec!n parrto the fact that comparisons are made between smdies rhat
55
56
56 Factors ajfecting second language !earning
measure cornmunicarive abilityand srudies thar measure grammarical accuracv or meralinguisric knowledge. Personaliryvariables seem ro be consisrentlv relared ro rhe former, bur nor ro rhe larrer. ,
There has been a great deal of research un rhe role ofartirudes and morivario:
in second language learni.~g'. !!:._e. ?-'.'."~r§)_!Ji!_l_qi.!lg~.-~_hp~y thA~Q,~_i',ti~~ff-t&Ít,tíd~ a_nd ~-orhrari_?.~. ar:_::l~te~-~-º- si:~~~~~~~~3!~~~-':1~~--lang9áge _J~-~-f!1!fig'_ ( Gardner 1 ~5J. Unfortunately'. __ ~~~--1:.<:~~a_r_c_~ __ c~_~no_~_ in~~-i~_a,r_~_pn:;cis_i:;l_y/J,0~·}11Q_~Áy_~ti9_9 is re_lated to l~ar11ing. As indica red above, \Ve do not know wherher ir is rhe mÜrívarlon th;-~ -produces successful learning or successful learning rhat enhances motivarion or wherher borh are affecred bv other facrors. As noted by Peter Skehan (!989), the question is, are learner; more hi&h!v motivated because they are successful, or are they successful because die~ are hio-hJv motivared? . :::i •
Moriva~ion-in second language learning is a comp!_ex ph_enomenon which_cari be_ d_~fii~ª1'J})_=t~i!!
1 11 i
' '
ractors affecttng second fanguage feflrning
in a co-operarive taskhas an imporrant role ro play. Knowing rhat rheir teammates are counring on them can increase students' n1otivarion.
Clearly, cultural and age differences will dererrnine rhe mosr appropriareway for tcachers to motivare studenrs. In sorne classrooms, students mayrhrive on con1petitive interaction, -...vhile in others, co-operarive acriviries \vill be more successful.
Learner preferences
Learncrs ha ve c1ear preferences tOr ho-vv- they go J.bout lea.rning ne~~aterial: --·"r?e-re·r·m--'re·arnTng-Sryfe;·-_Eas-beCn _US~d ro ~~sc-;a;~ an indivi<lual's natural,
_ha&iru·a1~ -an¿·-p-rererrea-w;y=~f:~~j~?!~1~~~~9-~~-~~~~a~d -~~!_al~}~i~~_ge~ irifor11oa(j(,[]a;;;J:S_kfll~ (Reid 1995). We have all heard people say rhar rhey cannot learn sorr1erhing unril they have seen ir. Such learners would fall inro rhe group called 'visual' learners. Orher people, who may be >alled~.i!.'1L"1.'. learners, seem rO ne;;f~ly ro hear something once or rwice befo re they know ir. For others, who are referred to as 'kinaesthetic' learners, rhere is a need ro add a physical action ro rhe learning process. InZo~nrrast to these perceprually based learning sryles, considerable research has focused on a ,_92gD_ith_::c
Learni.J.!~s<xk.sfüiin,;tio fbR>J'"§.enJi.t.fcLi!11ftJ1.endsnt3nd .~!:.111Íf.nt learners. This refers to wherher an in<lividuJ.l tends to se arate details from
-t?~i~7i~~-~1IbaCT~~OUrlC!O~r-~o __ s~~ ~-G~~-~?.i~Jl<?l~~~~eili:'· AnOther caéeg~ry ~f 1earr;111g·s't)1·es1s-oase<rO'ii~ rhe"Indrvi<lual's remperamenr or personaliry.
\Vhile recenryears have seen rhe developmenrof man y learningstyle assessment instrumenrs, ver¡ littie research has examined rhe interaction berween different learning sryles and success in second language acquisirion. At present, the only learning sryle that has been exrensively invesrigared is the fieJd indcpendcnce/dependcnce distincrion. The results from rhis research have sho\vn rhat \vhilc field in dependen ce is relared to sorne degree ro performance on cerrain kinds ot rasks, it is nota good predictor of perfOrmance on orhers.
Although there is a need for consíderably more research on learning sryles, when learners express a preference for seeíng something wrirren or for memorizíng material which we fe{'J should be learned in a Iess formal wJ.y, we should not assurne rhat their ways of working are \.Vrong. Insread, we should encourage rhem ro use a11 means available ro them as they work ro learn another languJ.ge. Ar a mini1num, research on learning styles should make us sceptical of clai1ns that a particular reaching method or texrbook will suít the needs of ali learners.
f<actors aJJectzng secona tanguage tearn1ng
Learner beliefi Second language learners are not al\vays conscious of rheir individual learn~ng sryles, but virtually all learners, particularly older learner~, have strong bel~efs and opinions abour how their instrucrion should be dehvered. I.li.~se behefa are usually based on previous_ l_earn!~~~~~J~::~.~~_:-~i-.:~~~~::1.E~Jt~W-~ ofwióng)iháfa ¡JartiCularcy~eoTinstruc_rio~:~r.11.:_~5."'::':'.':tfor_t!:.;:_!11-:'2 1.~~i:l!.: 'T"L~~--- a-'n--0~rner·a'i·e"i-Wiie-reTiérTe \vofkhas been done. However, che a~a1labl_e iulS IS d. · f; h research indicares rhat learner beliefs can be srrong me ianng ~crors in .r e1r experíence in the classroom. For example: i1: a survey of rnrernan~nal srudents learning ESL in a highly commun1canve progra1n at an ~ngh_sh-
ak. · 5·1ry Carlos Yorio ( 1986) found high levels of dissansfacuon ~ ~=~ , . . . . d
h Studenrs. The rvpe 0 f communicanve 1nstrucr1on they rece1ve among r e . . . . focused exclusively on meaning and sponraneous ~omn~un1canon 1~ g:o~p-\vork interaction. In rheir responses [0 a quesnonnar:e·. rhe m~JOflty of studenrs expressed concerns abour severa! aspecrs of rhe1r u~structton. most
blv [he absence of arrention ro language form, correcnve feedback, or nora , ' ' .d d. ti . teacher-cenrred insrrucrion. Alrhough rhis srudy d1 not . Lrec Y :xam1ne learners' progress in relarion ro rheir opinions a~out rhe instrucnon _rhey received, several 0 f rhem were convinced rhat r,he1r progrc~s was n~ganvel_y affected by an insrructional approach which \vas not cons1stenr \Vith rhelf
beliefs abour the best ways for rhem to learn.
Learners' preferences for learning, \vherher due to rheir learning sry~e or ro their beliefs abour ho\-v languages are learned, will iníluence the kinds ~f strareuies rhey choose in order ro learn ne\v material. Tcac.hers can ~se this · t ~ation to help learners expand their repertoire oflearn1ng srrareg1es ~nd lll or f ch. l l una rhU.s-develop grearer flexibiliry in rheir,vays o approa 1ng anguage ean 0·
.JY
58
60 Facrors •zfficting second !anguage learníng
Age of acquisition
We no\v turn to a learnercharacterisric ofa different type:_ag~;~_rfhis characrerisric is easier to define and measure than personaliry, aptitude, or motivation. Neverrheless, rhe relarionship benveen a learner's age and his or her porenrial for success in second Ianguage acquisirion is rhe subject of much Hvelydebare.
Ir has been widely obser,ved rhar children from_ifí1migf"'lLfufilfüe2.'C{"!lt'1ªllY sp~;~ r~'Fiaüg~~g~:9ft[~I~=!i-~1~s!im~Wii.fil0C~i!~t!Lii~a~~-lik~JtuengJ!Mi:rti~ir p~~r~i:el)'..ach~".:'.".§Uc~)righ.levels.C>f[ll!S''!YJlf!lE.s!2Ql<;gi_langt¡~Tu be su re, rhere are cases where adulr second language learners have distinguished themselves by their exceprionaJ pertOrmance. For example, one ofren sees reference ro Joseph Conrad, anarive speaker of Polísh who became a majar wrirer in rhe English language. Many adulr second language learners become
capable of communicating very successfully in rhe language bur, for most, differences of accenr, word choice, or grammarical fearures disringuish rhem from narive speakers and from second lang:uage speakers i.vho began learníng rhe language while rhey '\Vere very young.
One explanarion for rhis differenc:e i~_xhat. a:s in first language acquisítion, rhere_ is a crirical period fo'r secohd language acquisirion. As discussed in Chaprer 1, rhe Critical- Period Hypothesis sugg_esrs that there_ is a time in human devel?pmerú~wlléi;jllel)rain i> p[.;JJsi><:is~d:for g;g;;§~:in.lang.uage. l~_arn~& Developmenral changes in rhe brain, it is argued, aff~cr_ the ·º-~~_!!-~~ o( l<}-¿:_g~~gL~~51uJ~iSiQIJ,~&cordíng ro chis- vie,v, language learning which occurs_ afrer rhe end of-the critical period may not be based on rhe innare biologica1 strucrures beiieved ro conrribure to firsr language acquisicion or second languageacquisirion in early chiidhood. Rath_er, older t~~.r[ler2_~f?.c;!Ld º.!:!_~1:12.°"~e-~ner~ _le_arníng abil_íri_i:s - r~_e sa~_'=-..9!:!~~- rh~LI1!igh1__1,1i_e ro leyn orher kindsot' skills ori!llormaríüñ~-¡, is argued rhar rhese general learning abilities are nor as successful for language learning as rhe more specific, innare capaciries \vhich are available ro che young child. Ir is mosr ofren ciaimed rhar
rhe criric:al _-P_~riod ends·-sof11e~here ar9_':!!!fl_12_µ_t;>~.rty,---but sorne researchers suggeStTr"'~OUJ~rb~eeven ~arlie~:
Of course, as \Ve sa'\v in Chaprer 2, ir is difficulr to comparechildren and adu1rs as second language learners. In addirion to rhe possible bioiogical differences suggesred by rhe Crirical Period Hyporhesis, rhe condirions for language learning are ofi:en very differenr. Youn-ger.-Jearners in informal language learning environmenrs usualiy ha ve more rime ro devore ro learning Ianguage. They ofren have more. opportunities- tó hé3r- and --use the- Jangua.ge in environmenrs \vhere rhey do norexperience-s-trong pressüre-ro speak-fluendy and accurarely from the very·beginning.-Fur(hermore, their early imperfecr ef-Tort.; :irP n/-fpn nr~;.,.,,,.,-l .. ,. ~,. 1~--- ---- -- J r-.. 1 ' ' ' • •
... T Factors affictíng second l--:ngrr,1ge !earning
and rhe expression of much more ~omplícared ideas. Adulrs are ofren embarrassed by rheir lack of masrery ot rhe language and rhey may develop a sense of inadequacy after experiences of frusrrarion in trying ro say exacrly whar rhey mean.
The Critical Period Hypothesis has been challenged in recenr years from severa! different poinrs of víew. Sorne srudies of rhe second language development of older and younger learners who are learning in similar circumstances have shown rhat, ~!l~1st in t~-~~ªdy,:?,!:!ges of s~coild l_angt~e dev~!c:i_pr:iiei!rt __ o~.4~~-J~~-rp~_r_~ __ a_r~. ~_or_~ ,,~ffi._c .. i~D .. t __ Jbaµ _ y_q~1_rrg~r~l~es.r~~:. In ~ducational research, ir has been reporred rhar learners 'vho b~gan learn1ng a second language ar rhe primary school level did not fare berter in rhe long run than rhose who beQ'an in early adolescence. Furrherrnore, rhere are coundess anecdotes abour older learners (adolescenrs and adulrs) who have reached hígh levels 0 f proficíency ín a second langmge. ~aes this mean rhar rhere rs no critica! period for second language acqu1s1non.
In rhe follo\vingpages, wewili revie'\v sorne studies designed ro i~vestigate the Critica! Period Hyporhesis as it relates to second language learn1ng.
Critica! Period Hypothesis: More than just accem? Most srudies of the relari~nship benveen age of acquisirion and s:c~nd hill~age development have focused on learners' phonologícal (prommrnnon) ach1evemenr. In general, these sn1dies have concluded rhat older learne~ al~o~t inevítably have a noriceable 'foreign accenr'. But whar of orher lrngu1st1c fearures? Is svnta..-ic (word arder, overall senrence strucrure) 1s dependenr on age of acqui;irion as phonological develo~ment? What Jb?ur morphnlogy (for example, grammarical morphemes wh1ch mark such th1ngs as verb tense or the nun1be~ and gender of nouns)? One study rhat attempred to answer rhese quesrions was done by Mark Parkowski ( 1980).
lvfastery ofthe spoken language ... Mark Parko-'ivski srudied rhe effect of age on rhe acqtusrnon of fe:itures of a second language orher rhan accent. He h~porhe~ized that, even if acce~r-..vere io-nored. onlv rhose -..vho had begun learn1ng rheir second !angu:ige beiore rhe a~e of 15 c.ould ever achieve full, narive-like mastery of rhar language. P~rkoi.vski exan1ined the spoken Englishof 67 high!yeducated immigranrs ro the Unired States. They had srarred ro learn English at various o.g:s,_ b~t 3!! ha~ lived in rhe United Srates fOr more than five years. The spoken Engl!sh of 1) narive-born Americans English speakers from a similar!y high level of educatíon served as a sort of baseline of what rhe second languJ.ge learners might be rryíng ro arrain as rhe targer l~nguage. ln~!'.Jsion of rhe native .;nt":lkf'r_.:;- :1ko nrnvlr--lf'r--1 evir--lf'nrF" ronrf'rnino- rhf' v~lirlirv of rhr> rf'«f':1rrh
61
59
62 J~actors ttjjecting second tanguage Learning
A lengrhy interview wirh each of rhe subjects in rhe srudy was rape recorded. Because Patkowski wanted to remove rhe possibiliry that che resulrs \Vould be affected by accent, he did nor ask rhe raters to judge the tape-recorded interviews themselves. Instead, he transcribed five-minure samples from the interviews. These sJlnplcs (from \vhichany identifyingor revealing information about in1migration hisrory had been removed) were rated by traíned narivespeaker judges. The judges \vere asked to place each speaker on a raring scale from O, rcprcsenting no knowlcdge of rhe 1anguage, ro 5, representing a leve! ofEnglish expecred from an educated narive speaker.
The main question in Parko\vski's research was: 'Witl rhere be a difference berween learners who began ro learn English before puberry and those who began learning English later?' However, in the light of sorne of the issues discussed above, he also compared learners on che basis of orher characterístics and experienccs which son1e people have suggested might be as good as age in predicting or expiaining a learner's eventual success in mastering a second language. For example, he looked ar the relationship berween eventual mastery and rhe total amount of time a speaker had been in rhe U ni red Srares as well as the amounr of formal ESL insrruction each speaker had had.
The findings were quite dramaric. Thirry-two out of 33 subjects who had begun leaming English befo re the age of 15 seo red ar rhe 4+ or the 5 level. The homogeneiry of the pre-puberty learners seen1ed to suggest rhat, for this group, succes5 in learning asecond language was almosr inevitable (see Figure 3. 1). On the other hand, there was much more variery in the levels achieved by the post-pubercy group. The majorityof the post-puberry learners cenrred around the 3+ leve!, bur there was a wide disrribution oflevels achieved. This variery made rhe performance of chis group look more like rhe sort of performance range one would expecr if one were measuring success in learning a!most any kind ofski!l or knowledge.
Parko\vski's first qucstion, 'Will there be a differcnce between Iearners who began to learn English before puberry and those who began learning English la ter?', was answered with a very resounding 'yes'. When he examined rhe other facrors which might be rhought to affect success in second language acquisition, the picture was much less clear. There was, naturally, sorne relationship ben..vecn rhese other factors and Iearning success. However, it often turned out that age was so closely relared to the other factors rhar ir was ' not really possible ro separare rhem complerely. For example, lengrh of residen ce in the United Statcs somctimes seemed to be a fairly good predictor. Hovvever, 'Nhilc it was true rhar a person who had lived in the counrry for 15 years might speak better than one who had been there for only 1 O years, ir was often the case lhal the one \Vith longer residence had also arrived aran earlier age. Ho\vever, a person who had arrived in rhe United States at rhe age of 18 and had lived rhere for 20 years did not score significanrly better rhan
f'actors aJJecttng secona tanguage learning
someonewho had arrived ar rhe age of 18 but had only lived there for 1 O years. Similarly, amount of instruction, when separared from age, did not predict success ro rhe exrent that age ofimmigracion did.
Thus, Patkowski found that age of acquisirion is a very important factor in setting limits on the development of narive-like mastery of a second language and rhar this limitation does not apply only to accenr. These resu1ts gave addedsupporr ro rhe Critica! Period Hyporhesis forsecondlanguage acq uisirion.
Figure 3.1: Bar d1arts showing the language levels ofpre- and post-puberty learners ofEng/ish (Patkowski 1980).
22
20
10
2+ 3 3+ 4 4+ 5 Pre-puberty learners
20
(} 12 " 9 ~ 10 ~ 6
2 4
2+ 3 3+ 4 4+ 5 Post-puberty learners
'
Experience and research have shown rhat narive-like masrery of the spo_ken language is difficulr ro arrain by older learners. Surprisin_gly, even rhe abd1ry ro disringuish berween grammatical and ungrammancaI sen~ences_ in a second language appears to be affected by the age factor, as we \Vtll see 1n rhe next srudy by Johnson and Newporr.
b:J
60
64
:-·
Factors affecting second !anguage learníng
lntuítions of grammaticaliry Jacqueline Johnson and Elissa Newporr conducred a srudy of 46 Chinese and Korean speakers \Vho had begun ro learn English ar different ages. A.11 subjecrs were srudenrs or faculry ar an American universiry and a1l had been in rhe United Srates far ar least three vears. The srudv also included 23 native speakers ofEnglish (Johnson anlNewporr 1989)'.
The participanrs in the study were given a judgernent of grammaricality rask which resred 12 rules of English morphology and synrax. They heard senrences on a rape and had to indicare \Vherher or nor each senrence was correcr. Half of rhe senrences \Vere grammarical, half were nor.
When rhey seo red rhe tests, Johnson and Ne\.vparr found rhar age of arrival in the U ni red Srares was a significant predicrorof success on rhe test. \Vhen rhey grouped the learners in rhe same ""ªY as Parko\vski, comparing rhose who began their inrensive exposure ro English benveen rhe ages of 3 and 15 wirh rhose \vho arrived in rhe United Srares benveen the ages of 17 and 39, once again they found char there '.vas a strong relarionship bet\veen an early starr to language learning and better performance in the second language. Johnson and Newporr nored rhar for rhose who began befare the age of 15, and especiallybefore the age of 1 O, rhere were few individual differences in second Ianguage abiliry. Those \vho began larer did not have native-like language abiliries and were more likely ro differ gready from one another in ultimare attainment.
This srudy, rhen, furrher supporrs rhe hyporhesis rhar rhere is a crirical period for arrainingfull narive-Iike n1asreryof a second language. Neverrheless, rhere is sorne research \vhich suggests thar older learners may have an advanrage. ar least in rhe early srages of second Ianguage 1earning.
Is younger really better?
In 1978, Carherine Snow and Marian Hoefnagel-Hohle published an arride based on a research project rhey had carried our in Holland. They had studied rhe progress of a group of English speakers \Vho were learning Durch as a second language. Whar made rheir research especiaIJy valuable was thar the learners rhey were follo\ving included children as young as rhree years old as well as older children, adolescents, and adulrs. Furrhermore, a large number of rasks w35 used, ro measure differenr rypes of langllage use and language knowledge.
Pronuncíation \vas resred by having learners pronounce 80 Ourch words nvice: rhe first rime imn1ed.iately afrer hearing a native speaker say the \Vord; the second rime, a few minutes larer, rhey were asked to say rhe \Vord represenced in a picture, wirhout a inodel to imitare. Tape recordin~s of rhe
''T 1
Factors ajfecting second !anguage !eanúng
In an audírory discrimination rest, Iearners sa\v pictures of four objecrs. In each o-roup offourtherewere t\vo whose names formed a min imal pair, rhar is, alike ~xcepr for one sound (an example in English would be 'ship· and 'sheep'). Learners heard one of rhe words and were asked ro indicare "vhich picture was
named by rhe word rhey heard.
Morphology "\VJS resred using a procedure like rhe \vug test', \vhich required learners ro complete sen ten ces by adding rhe correcr grammJric1l markers to \Vords\vhich were supplied by the researchers. Again, to take an example from English, learners were asked ro complete sentences such as 'Here is one boy. No\v rhere are rwo of rhem. There are rwo '
The jentence repetition rask required learners ro repear 37 sentences of
increasing lengrh and grammatical complexicy.
For sentence translation, learners \vere given 60 senrences to rranslate from English to Dutch .. A point was given for each gramm:itical srrucrure which \Vas rendered inro the correct Durch equivalent.
In rhe sentence judgement task, learners were to judge "\-vhich of t\VO senrences \vas better. The same conrent was expressed in both sentences, bur one senrence \vas grammatically correct while the orher contained errors.
In the Peabody Picture Voaibu!dry Test, learners saw four pictures and heard one isolared word. Their task was ro indicare which picture marched rheword
spoken by rhe resrer.
For rhe stor)' con1pi-ehcnsion task, learners heard a srory in Durch :nd \vere then asked ro re~ell rhe srory in English or Durch (according ro rheir preference).
FinaIIy) the storytelling task required learners to tell a srory in Dutch, using a ser ofpicrures rhey \.Vere given. Rare ofdelivery of speech marrered more rhan rhe expression of conrent or formal accuracy.
The learners were divid~d into several age groups, bur for our discussion \Ve \vil! divide rhem in to jusr rhree groups: children (aged 3 ro 10), adolescenrs (12 ro 15 years), and adults (18 ro 60 years). The children and adolescenrs ali acrended , Durch schools, Sorne of rhe J.dults \Vorked in Dutch work environn1ents, bur mosr of rheir Durch colleagues spoke English \vell. Orher aduhs \vere par~nrs who did nor \vork ourside i:heir homes and rhus had some,vhat less contacr\virh Durch rhan mosr of rhe orher subjects.
The !earners \verc resred rhree times, ar four- to five-month intervals. They \vere first rested \Vithin six months of !i:heir arriva! in HoHand and \vithin six \veeks of rheir srarring school or \vork in a Durch-language environmenr.
65
61
Activíty
Comparing child, adolescent, and adu.lt language learners Which group do you think did best on the fitst test (that is, who learned fastest)? Which group do you rhink was best by rhe end of the year? Do you thrnk sorne gr~ups would do better on certain tasks than others? For example, who do you thmk would do best on the pronunciation tasks, and who would
do b~st .ºn th~ tasks requiring more meralinguistic awareness? Compare your pred1cn~n~ :vlt~ thc results for the diffcrent tasks which are presenred in Table 3.1. An X i11d1cates thar the group was rhe best on the test ar the beainninoof rhe y car (an indication of the rate oflearning), anda 'Y indicares th~ gro u; that d1d best at the end of the year (an indication of eventual attainmenr).
Table 3.1: Comparison oflanguage learning at diffirent ages
Task Child Adoiescent Adult
Pronunciacion y y X
A u di tory discrímination XY
Morpholo0j XY
Sentence rcpetitlon XY
Sen.tence uanslalion * XY
Senrence judgement • XY
Peabody picture vocabulary test XY
Scory comprehension y X
Storyteiling y X
* These tests were roo difficu1t for child learners.
In rhe Snow and Hoefoagel-Hohle srudy, the adolescents were byfarrhe most successful learners. They were ahead of everyone on ali bur one of the rests (pronunciation) on the firsr test session. That is, wirhin the first few months th
1e a<l?le:cents h.ad already made the most progress in learning Durch. As rhe
taole ind1caces, 1t was the aduits who were better than the children and
adolescents on pronunciation in the first test session. Surprisingly, it\vas also the adu!ts, not the chifdrcn, whose seores were second besr on rhe ocher resrs ar the first cest session. In other words, ado!escenrs and adules learned fasrer rhan children in rhe firsr few momhs of e.xposure to Dutch.
By the end of the year, the children were catching up, or had surpassed, rhe adults on severa! rneasurcs. Nevertheless, it was rhe adolescents who rerained the highcst levds of performance overa!!.
Snow and. Hoefnagel-Hohle conduded that their results provide evidence that rhere is no critica! period for language acquisirion. However, their resuits can be inrerprered in sorne orher ways as well:
1 Sorne of rhe tasks, (for example, senrence judgemenr or rranslation) were too hard for young learners. E ven in rheir native language, these rasks would have been unfamiliar and difficult. In fact, young Dutch native speakers ro whom the second language learners were compared also had trouble with thcse rasks.
2 Adults and adolescents may learn fastet in the early stages of second language development (especially if rhey are learning a language which is similar to their first language). Young children eventually catch up and even surpass rhem if their exposure to the language rakes place in contexts where rhey are surrounded by rhe language on a daily basis.
3 Adulrs and adolescenrs can make considerable and rapid progress rowards mastery of a second language in contexts where rhey can make use of rhe languageon adailybasis in social, personal, professional, oracademicinteracrion.
At what age shou.ld second language instruction begin? Even people ·who know norhing abour rhe critica! period research are certain that, in school programs for second or foreign language reaching, 'younger is berter'. Ho"vever, borh experience and research show rhat older learncrs can attain high. if not <na ti ve', levels of proficiency in their second language. Furthermore, ir is essential to rhinkcarefullyaboutthegoals of an instructional program and rhe contexr in which it occurs befare we jump to conclusions about rhe necessicy- or even the desirabilicy- of the earliest possible srart.
The role of rhe critical period in second language acquisition is srill much debated. For every researcher \vho holds that rhere are marurational constraints on 1anguage acquisition, rhere is anorher who considers rhat rhe age factorcannoc be separared from factors such as motivation, social idenricy, and rhe condirions for learning. Theyargue thar older learners maywell speak wich an accent because rhey wanr to continue being idendfied with rheir first language cultural group, and adules rarely gec access ro the same quanricy and qualiry oflanguage input that children receive in play settings.
Many peo ple con dude on rhe basis of studies such as rhose by Parkowski or Newporr and Johnson char ir is betcer to begin second language insrrucrion as early as possible. Yer ir is very imporranr ro bear in mind the conrexr of these srudies. Theydeal with the highest possible leve! ofsecond language skills, rhe level ar which a second language speaker is indisringuishable from a native speaker. Bur achieving a native-like masrery of the second language is noc a goal for ali second language learning, in aH con[exts.
62
68 Factors ajfecting second !anguage learning
When rhe objecrive of second 1anguage learning is narive-like masrery of rhe rarger Ianguage, ir is usually desirable tOr rhe Jearner ro be complerely surrounded by rhe language as early as possible. Ho,vever, as \Ve saw in Chapter 1, early intensive exposure ro rhe second Ianguage may enrail rhe loss or incomplere development of rhe child's firsr language.
\X!hen rhe goal is basic communicarive abiliry for all srudenrs in a school setring, and when it is assumed rhar rhechild's narivelanguage,vill remain rhe primary language, ir may be more efficienr ro begin second orforei'gn language reaching larer. When learners receive onlya fe\v hours ofinsrrucríon perweek, learners who srarr larer (for example, ar age 1 O, 11, or 12} ofi:en carch up \Virh rhose who began earlier. We have often seen second or foreign language programs \vhich begin wirh very young learners but offer only minimal contact with the language. Even when studenrs do make progress in rhese early-srart programs, rhey sometimes find rhemselves placed in secondary school classes \virh srudents\vho have had no previous insrruction. Afreryears of classes, learners feel frustrated by rhe lack of progress, and their morivation ro conrinue may be diminished. SchooI programs should be based on realisric estimares ofhow long ir rakes to Iearn a second language. One or nvo hours a week \viH nor produce very advanced second language speakers, no marrer how young rhey were when rhey began.
Summary The learner's age is one of rhe characrerisrics which derermine the wav in which an individual approaches second language learning. But , rhe opporrunities for Iearning (borh inside and ourside rhe classroom), rhe morivarion ro learn, and individual differences in apritude for language learníng are also imporranr derermining facrors in borh rate oflearning and evenrual success in learning.
In rhis chaprer, we have looked ar rhe ways in which inreiligence, aprirude, personaliry and morivarional characrerisrics, learner preferences, and age have been found ro influencesecond language learning. \-X:'e have le:uned rhar the study of individual Iearner variables is not easy and rhar rhe resulrs of r~search are not enrirely sarisfacrory. This is pardy beca use of rhe lack of clear definirions and methods for measuring rhe individual characreristics. Ir .is also due ro rhe facr rhar rhese learner characrerisrics are nor independent of one anorher: leJ.rner variables inreracr in complex ways. So far, researchers know very lírde abour rhe narure of rhese con1plex inreracrions. Thus, ir remains difficult ro n1ake precise predicrions abour ho\v a particular individuaI's characreristics influence his or her success as a language learner. Nonerheless,
T !
Factors affecting second !anguage learning
in a classroom, a sensirive reacher, \Vho rakes learners' individual personaliries and learning sryles in to accounr, can creare a !earningenvironment ín which virrually all learners can be successful in learning a second language.
Sources and suggestions far farther reading
General discussíon ofindividual difJ'f:rences
Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H. H. Stern, and A. Todesco. 1995. The Good Language Learner. Clevedon, UK: Mu1rílingual Matters.
Skehan, P. I 991. 'Individua! differences in second langu::tge learning.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1312: 275-98.
!ntelligence
Genesee, F. 1976. '1~he role of inreiligence in second language learning.'
Language Learning 2612: 267-80.
Aptitude
Skehan, P. 1989. Individua! Differences ín Second Language Lerrrning. London:
Edward Arnold.
The case of Cj
Obler, L. 1989. 'E-xceptional second !anguage learners' in S. Gass, C. Madden, O. Prestan, and L. Sdínker (eds.): Vtiriation in Second Langmige Acquisition, Vol !!: Psycho!inguistic Issues. Clevedon, UK/Philadelphia, Pa.: Mulrilingual Matters, pp. 141-59.
lvfotivatíon and attitudes
Crookes, G. and R. Schmidt. 199!. 'Morivaüon: "Reopening the research agenda".' Language Learning4 !14: 469-512.
Gardner, R. 1985. Social Psycho!ogy and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. and W: E. Lambert. 1972.Attitudesandivfotivation inSecondLitnguagl:' Learning. Ro"vley, fvfass.: Ne\vbury House.
Oxford, R. andJ. Shearin. 1994. 'Language Iearningmotivarion: Expanding rhe theoretícal framework.' Modern Language]ournal 7811: 12-28.
!11hibitíon nnd secontl la11gu11ge learning
Guíora. A., B. Beit-Hallahami, R. Brannon, C. Dull, and T. Scovel. 1972. 'Thr f'ff,.,rr..: ,.,F P.vnP.rim,,_.,,.-..,J!,, ;,...,1,,,..,.Á ...-h ... ,,.,....,..,; ..... _.,.,...~ ~~~~.;~ - - -··-·- ·- - ·
69
63
