Learner Contributions to Language Learning

New Directions in Research

Michael Breen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780582404755
• eBook ISBN: 9781317876946
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Since it was first established in the 1970s the Applied Linguistics and Language Study series has become a major force in the study of practical problems in human communication and language education. Drawing extensively on empirical research and theoretical work in linguistics, sociology, psychology and education, the series explores key issues in language acquisition and language use.

What the learner contributes is central to the language learning process. Learner Contributions to Language Learning provides a uniquely comprehensive account of learners' personal attributes, their thinking, their feelings, and their actions that have been shown to have an impact upon language learning.
Containing specific chapters from leading names in the field, this book provides both a review of what has been discovered from previous research and identifies important future directions for research on learner contributions. It is a landmark volume setting the agenda for language learning research in the 21st century and it provides invaluable information for all those engaged in language teaching.
The contributors to the volume are-
Michael P. Breen Bonny Norton
Anna Chamot Rebecca Oxford
Rod Ellis Anna Pavlenko
James P. Lantolf Anita Wenden
Diane Larsen-Freeman

Chapter 1

____________________________

Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success in second language acquisition

Diane Larsen-Freema, School for International Training, Vermont

INTRODUCTION

It is significant that the central theme of this book is learner contributions. For while the learner has not been ignored in second language acquisition (SLA) rEsearch, more attention has been paid to characterizing an acquisition process that is common to all learners. Thus ‘mainstream’ SLA research has been largely concerned with the role of the LI, acquisition orders, developmental sequences, negotiated input, the role of a biologically-specified universal grammar (UG), sequence learning, etc. From a UG perspective, the only ‘contribution’ of the learner is an innate predisposition for language acquisition, at least with regard to the acquisition of core grammar. From an interactionist perspective, the learner’s ‘contribution’ is a willingness to utilize second language input, obtained usually through negotiating meaning with a more proficient speaker of the language. Of course, it is recognized by advocates of both perspectives that unlike first language acquisition, success in learning a second language is considerably more variable, and it is left to the research on individual learner factors to explain this differential success.

For some time, it seems to me, we have underestimated the significance of the learners’ role in the SLA process. Unlike first language learners, second language learners can, and sometimes do, refuse to engage with the SLA process at all. Conversely, some learners will succeed when the conditions of learning do not appear conducive to success. Almost twenty years ago (Larsen-Freeman, 1983), I argued that the learner was not merely a passive recipient of customized native speaker input. I did not question the value of comprehensible input in the SLA process, but I questioned why the responsibility for increasing the comprehensibility of the input should be perceived as a unilateral process. To illustrate my point, I reported on the case of a Dutch speaker who claimed to have successfully acquired German without receiving any modified input. The Dutch speaker’s sole source of input was from German radio broadcasts. Of course the learner was aided in the SLA endeavour by the similarity between the two languages; however, I cited this admittedly unusual case to support my contention that a second language learner has a great deal to do with the outcome of the process and is not merely passively dependent on some benevolent, skilful, more proficient interlocutor.

This volume signals an increased appreciation of the role of second language learners, affecting not just how much they succeed, but what they do to meet with success. In what follows, I review the largely experimental research literature of the last decade (updating Larsen-Freeman, 1991) from the perspective of individual cognitive/affective learner contributions. I am defining ‘contributions’ to include what learners bring, that is, who they are (attributes: age, aptitude, personality, learning disabilities, social identities), how they conceptualize second language acquisition (conceptualization: motivation, attitude, cognitive style, beliefs), and what they do (actions: learning strategies). After addressing these three categories in turn, I conclude by making a more global comment regarding the evolution of the construction of the learner in the second language acquisition field.

LEARNER ATTRIBUTES

Age

In my 1991 survey of the literature, I concluded that the available evidence for an age-related effect in SLA was inconsistent. However, the evidence seemed to favour the critical period hypothesis (CPH), whereby only those who begin the acquisition of an L2 before the end of a limited developmental period, coinciding about the time of the onset of puberty, can attain nativelike levels of proficiency, at least for pronunciation in the L2. This position continues to receive support (Long, 1993b; Patkowski, 1994). For instance, Hurford and Kirby (1999) have used computer simulations to show how language complexity and speed of acquisition converge at puberty, demonstrating that a critical period for language acquisition is an evolutionary advantage. Then, too, Weber-Fox and Neville (1999) present evidence from event-related brain potential differences and grammatical judgement tasks to show that neural organization is different for early and late language learners. Most recently, Moyer (1999) reported that, with one exception, highly proficient L2 learners, who had begun their study of German after puberty, were not judged native-like in their pronunciation of German despite their high level of motivation and the fact that they had been immersed in the language while residing in Germany.

However, several recent studies have also challenged the CPH (see Birdsong, 1999 for a collection of papers divided evenly between supporters, for example, Eubank and Gregg (1999) and detractors of the CPH, for example, Bialystok and Hakuta (1999)). Flege (1995) and Yeni-Komshian, Flege and Liu (1997) found that L2 learners’ ability to pronounce a foreign language does decline with age; however, they maintain that the ability declines linearly, that is, there is no sudden drop at puberty, which one might expect, given the CPH. Flege (1999) does acknowledge, however, that none of the 240 native Italian participants in his 1995 study, who began learning English after the age of fifteen, could be said to have learned to speak English without a detectable foreign accent. In contrast, Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi and Moselle (1994) report on a case of an adult English learner who has apparently acquired native proficiency in Egyptian Arabic in an untutored setting. The authors account for this individual’s success by arguing that the woman’s language learning talent is an innate, inherited trait, associated with characteristics belonging to the Geschwind cluster such as left-handedness, twinning and allergies, among others. While not all the native speaker judges rated the woman’s pronunciation as native, in a study by Bongaerts, Planken and Schils (1995), native English-speaking judges were indeed unable to distinguish ten highly proficient Dutch learners of English from a group of native speakers of English. None of the learners had begun studying English before the age of twelve. However, there was also speculation on the part of the researchers that since the learners spoke the supraregional, prestigious dialect of British English, called Received Pronunciation, the judges may have been persuaded to award higher scores than they would have had the subjects spoken a less prestigious dialect. Thus, in a follow-up study in 1997 (Bongaerts et al., 1997), judges and learners were matched in the dialect of British English that they spoke. The main result from the second study was that some, although not all, learners received ratings from judges comparable to those given the native speakers in a control group. Finally, Bongaerts (1999) reports that four of a pool of nine Dutch learners of French achieved Flege, Munro and MacKay’s (1995) criterion of native-likeness on their speech samples judged by native speakers of French. Bongaerts argues that such results may be interpreted as evidence suggesting that claims concerning an absolute biological barrier to the attainment of a native-like accent in a foreign language are too strong. Having said this, Bongaerts acknowledges that native4ike attainment in the domain of pronunciation seems to be a fairly exceptional phenomenon.

Research in the area of syntax, based on grammaticality judgements, also shows that native-like performance is possible in postpubertal learners (Birdsong, 1992; White and Genesee, 1996; but see Pulvermuller and Schumann, 1994). It should be noted, however, that all these learners were specially selected because of their exceptional ability. For instance, in Birdsong’s study, all of the subjects, foreign language learners of French, were fluent and had been living in France for at least three continuous years prior to being tested.

Recent hypotheses about what helps some postpubertal learners succeed include brain organization (Ioup et al., 1994), high motivation and training, (Bongaerts et al., 1995; Klein, 1995; Moyer, 1999), continued access to abundant, authentic L2 input (Klein, 1995), training in speech perception (Flege, 1995), and multiple explanations, including possibly sociocultural factors and sustained access to auditory perception (Wode, 1994). Such findings remain to be corroborated when the LI and L2 are less typologically closely related (Bialystok, 1997; Bongaerts et al., 1997; Kellerman, 1995).

Another age-related hypothesis that has been challenged is Krashen, Long and Scarcella’s (1979) generalization, based on a synthesis of research studies published up to that time, that older children are initially faster than younger learners when it comes to the acquisition of morphosyntax. Slavoff and Johnson (1995) report that their subjects’ age of arrival played no role in predicting the subjects’ rate of acquisition. Performance was very similar between the two age groups they examined – 7–9 and 10–12-year olds upon arrival – throughout the three years of their study. Thus, there was no initial older learner advantage. They offer as an explanation for their contrary finding the fact that their learners were acquiring a language – English – that was very different typologically from the Li’s of their subjects – Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese – and of the Li’s studied previously. Clearly, many questions remain to be investigated with regard to age effects and second language acquisition.

Aptitude

As I stated in 1991, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that individual learners learn at different rates. Skehan (1989) has called language aptitude ‘one of the central individual differences in language learning’ (1989: 25) and ‘consistently the most successful predictor of language learning success’ (1989: 38). What constitutes an aptitude for language learning and its precise relationship to IQ has been unclear, however, with previous research finding correlations between aptitude and IQ that varied from low to moderate (for discussion, see Skehan, 1998). After testing 160 Japanese college students studying EFL, Sasaki (1993a) found a high correlation between a general second language proficiency factor and a general cognitive or intelligence factor. But while they were correlated, they remained mutually distinct. In a subsequent qualitative study, Sasaki (1993b) observed that the general proficiency factor may be related to her subjects’ ability to use the information available to them to find the correct answers to a cloze test. This observation is supported by Sasaki’s (1996) factor analytic study of aptitude, showing a relationship among verbal intelligence, reasoning and foreign language aptitude.

Relevant to a discussion of research addressing the former issue, the question of the nature of aptitude, is Skehan’s (1989) contention that there exist two different profiles of language aptitude – some learners possess an analytic aptitude, and others are more memory-oriented. Previous research on aptitude had tacitly assumed that the components of aptitude aggregate in cumulative fashion to influence language-learning success. Skehan speculates that analytic and memory orientations represent different routes to the same language learning success, and that success is achievable by either, provided that learners play to their strengths. The memory route to proficiency draws some support from the suggestion by N. Ellis (1996) that differences in learners’ short-term memories may account for learners’ differential success.

Another question that has persisted with regard to aptitude is whether components of aptitude are relevant for informal as well as formal learning environments (Krashen, 1981; Skehan, 1989). Work by Robinson (1997), who looked at individual differences in aptitude under different conditions of learning, would suggest that they are. Robinson found that when an individual’s aptitude matched the demands of a task performed under any condition, incidental or instructed, rule-se ude often led to awareness, which was associated with superior levels of learning. Earlier Robinson (1995) found the highest correlations between aptitude and performance when subjects’ focus was away from form and towards meaning.

Although strictly speaking distinct from language aptitude, Howard Gardner’s concept of multiple intelligences is relevant here. Gardner (1983) grouped human capabilities into seven categories which he called ‘intelligences’: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, body-kinesthetic, musical-rhythmic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. According to Gardner, each person possesses all seven intelligences to varying degrees. While I am unaware of any SLA research that relates multiple intelligences to individual differences in language learning outcomes, I agree with Schmidt (1997) that it would seem that this area warrants further investigation, especially since it has attracted a great deal of attention in language teaching circles.

Personality

In my 1991 review of the research literature, I discussed many different individual personality traits thought to facilitate or inhibit SLA: self-esteem, extraversion, anxiety, risk-taking, sensitivity to rejection, empathy, inhibition, and tolerance of ambiguity. Since then, although a great deal of research has been conducted, most has centred on learners’ reactions to anxiety. Perhaps this should not be surprising for Gardner and Maclntyre claim that ‘the single best correlate of achievement is language anxiety’ (1993: 183). Anxiety not only causes difficulty in oral performance, but also in second language reading (Saito et al., 1998) and writing (Cheng et al., 1999). Its influence also seems to extend to different contexts. Aida (1994) found that consistent with research using western languages, language anxiety was found to be significantly negatively related to American students’ performance in Japanese. Its effects are so pervasive that one research study has shown that it even interferes with students’ estimation of their L2 competence, with anxious students underestimating their competence relative to less anxious students (Maclntyre et al., 1997).

In fact, it may be that the study of language anxiety no longer belongs in a discussion of general personality factors at all. For while it was once thought that anxiety was a trait factor, indicative of a person’s tendency to become anxious in any situation (Maclntyre and Gardner, 1991a), a more likely explanation according to Maclntyre and Gardner (1991b) is that there is a special form of anxiety, language anxiety, or ‘the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically associated with second language contexts’, which Maclntyre and Gardner (1994) claim can be discriminated reliably from other types of anxiety and which many people experience.

One of the interesting issues debated in the research on the effect of anxiety on second language achievement is the controversy sparked by Ganschow, Javorsky, Sparks, Skinner, Anderson and Patton (1994) and Ganshow and Sparks (1996), raising the now familiar question of directionality: ‘Does anxiety impair second language performance as Maclntyre and Gardner claim, or does poor performance lead to anxiety as a consequence?’ (1994: 42). In Maclntyre’s (1995) response to Ganschow et al.’s challenge, he affirms his beliefs that the evidence supports a strong initial influence of affective factors on student performance, not only in the learning of a second language, but also in demonstrating what he or she has learned. He also adds, however, that ‘the cyclical relation between anxiety and task performance suggests that as students experience more failure, their anxiety level may increase even more’ (Maclntyre, 1995: 97).

Another personality trait which has received some recent attention in the research literature is extraversion (for a review, see Dewaele and Furnham, 1999). Dewaele and Furnham (2000) discovered a significant positive correlation between extraversion, as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory, and the fluency of French–English bilinguals, especially in interpersonally stressful situations. However, other research conducted by Carrell, Prince and Astika (1996), Ehrman (1993, 1995, 1996), Ehrman and Oxford (1995), and Oxford and Ehrman (1993), in which the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been used to assess personality type and learning style, has found that extraversion is not an especially good predictor of language learning success.

There were very few other direct relationships between personality traits and language performance measures in this research, although in their sample of 855 language learners, mainly adult learners of varying languages from the US Department of State, Ehrman and Oxford found that ‘students who reported themselves as defiant were slightly ahead of their compliant classmates in both speaking and reading’ (Ehrman and Oxford, 1995: 80). For the same two skills, ‘thin’ ego boundaries (an operationalization of the concept of tolerance of ambiguity, as determined by the subjects’ answers on the Hartmann Boundary Questionnaire (Hartmann, 1991)), were associated with proficiency outcomes. Interestingly, in support of Skehan’s (1989) claim, far more robust correlations held for the aptitude measures (the MLAT) than for any personality traits.

A personality trait that was not mentioned in the earlier review is ‘willingness to communicate’. Willingness to communicate is said to reflect a stable predisposition to talk in various situations and is therefore essentially a personality trait (Maclntyre et al., 1998). Using path analysis, Maclntyre and Charos (1996) concluded that each of the ‘Big Five’ personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to new experiences) contributes to developing motivation for language learning or to willingness to communicate, or to both. They argue, though, that the effect of personality seems to be channelled through more specific variables, such as intergroup attitudes and confidence in the second language.

Learning disabilities

Since the 1991 review, much has been written in the general education literature on learning disabilities. Among students who have foreign language learning difficulties, no differences have been found between the LI skills and foreign language aptitude of students classified as learning disabled and students not classified as learning disabled (Sparks et al., 1998). Whether or not such students with learning disabilities achieve differentially in an L2 from students without learning disabilities is an empirical question (Sparks and Javorsky, 1999). However, it is the case that learning disabilities can m...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• General Editor
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Author's Acknowledgements
• Publisher's Acknowledgements
• List of Contributors
• General Editor's Preface
• Introduction: Conceptualization, affect, and action in context
• 1. Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success in second language acquisition
• 2. The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition
• 3. Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: the neglected variable
• 4. The metaphorical constructions of second language learners
• 5. 'The bleached bones of a story': learners' constructions of language teachers
• 6. Overt participation and covert acquisition in the language classroom
• 7. (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: understanding second language learners as people
• 8. Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom
• Postscript: New directions for research on learner contributions
• Reference
• Author Index
• Subject Index