Individual Differences in Second Languag

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333
Individual Differences in Second Language

Learning: Introduction
Leah Roberts
University of York and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Antje Meyer
Radboud University and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
The topic of the workshop from which this volume comes, “Individual Differ-
ences in Second Language Learning,” is timely and important for both practical
and theoretical reasons. The practical reasons are obvious: While many peo-
ple have some knowledge of a second or further language, there is enormous
variability in how well they know these languages. Much of this variability is,
of course, likely to be due to differences in the time spent studying or being
immersed in the language, but even in similar learning environments learners
differ greatly in how quickly they pick up a language and in their ultimate level
of proficiency. For purposes of selecting and advising learners, and for identify-
ing those who may require specific types of intervention, it would be extremely
useful to be able to predict how quickly and how well an individual learner will
acquire a new language and which type of instruction would suit them best.
To offer such guidance we need suitable ways of assessing proficiency and
we need tests that predict an individual’s speed and learning success. During
the workshop much of the discussion centered on these questions: how factors
such as proficiency and language aptitude can be best defined and assessed;
what assessable precursors of good second language learning might be; and
how assessment tools can be developed, improved, and validated. These dis-
cussions are reflected in many of the articles in this volume (Dale, Harlaar, &
Plomin; Andringa, Olsthoorn, van Beuningen, Schoonen, & Hulstijn; Sparks;
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leah Roberts, Centre for Language
Learning Research, Department of Education, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD,
UK. Internet: leah.roberts@york.ac.uk
Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 1–4 1

C 2012 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan
Roberts and Meyer Introduction
DeKeyser). With regard to precursors to successful language learning, one im-

portant topic of a number of articles is the relationship between skills in one’s
L1 and L2 learning ability. For instance, Sparks reports an impressive program
of longitudinal studies, showing that individual differences in early L1 skills
(e.g., in phonological awareness and word decoding) are related to differences
in L2 learning ability. Also taking a longitudinal approach, Dale et al. discuss
data from the Twins Early Development Study which show that the genetic
factors that contribute to individual differences in L2 success may be in the
main distinct from those that influence L1 achievement.
There are also important theoretical reasons for studying individual differ-
ences in second language learning and in psycholinguistics in general. Much
of adult psycholinguistics has been oriented toward understanding the average
speaker or listener. This is largely because of the affinity of psycholinguistics
to general psychology, dealing with what is common to all people (as opposed
to differential psychology, dealing with differences between people) and to
linguistics, which is primarily concerned with the knowledge shared by all
speakers of a language. Yet a comprehensive psychological theory of a skill
or type of behavior should not only make predictions about average behavior,
but also about individual differences. For instance, a theory that entails that
working memory is required to learn grammatical rules predicts that differ-
ences in working memory capacity between learners should be associated with
differences in their ability to learn grammatical rules. If this prediction is not
borne out, the theory may need to be revised.
Thus, examining individual differences is an important way of testing and
refining psychological theories. In fact, considering individual variation is often
the best way of testing hypotheses. This is because it can be difficult to induce
variation experimentally that exists naturally between people. This holds, for
instance, for variables such as general intelligence or age. Their effects on
language learning can only be assessed by comparing groups of learners dif-
fering in age or general intelligence or by examining how differences in age
or intelligence within a group are related to learning outcomes. Correlational
approaches—relating differences in predictor variables to differences in learn-
ing outcomes—are also an excellent way of studying how several variables
jointly affect a target behavior. Many authors in this volume advocate the use
of correlational approaches and experimental designs that allow for the mod-
eling of continuous individual-level characteristics (e.g., proficiency), rather
than forming post hoc groups of participants (DeKeyser; Roberts; Van Hell
& Tanner), and the articles by Andringa et al., Sebastián-Gallés and Dı́az,
and DeKeyser illustrate the benefits of the use of correlational approaches for

second language acquisition research. For instance, Andringa et al. report that
variation in both their native and non-native groups’ listening comprehension
ability was affected by linguistic knowledge. However, the authors’ use of a
multivariate design allowed for the assessment of variables in conjunction with
each other, and they were also able to show that, for native speakers, differences
in listening ability were also a function of processing speed, whereas, for the L2
learners, it was reasoning ability (IQ) that made a smaller, but still significant
contribution.
The outcomes of such research can have broad theoretical consequences,
especially when second language learning is compared to first language acqui-
sition or when first and second language use in adult speakers are compared.
Such comparisons can provide important clues about the way knowledge of the
first language might support or hinder the acquisition of a second language. It
can also illuminate how important general cognitive skills and abilities such as
attention, inhibition and working memory, are in using a first or second language
and whether the contributions of such general cognitive components to using
language depend on the speakers’ linguistic proficiency. Van Hell and Tanner
discuss studies that investigate the relationship between L1 and L2 lexical pro-
cessing. They demonstrate that with increased L2 proficiency one observes an
influence on L1 processing and increased attentional and cognitive control as
well as an increased ability to filter out irrelevant or inappropriate information.
Similarly, such work can shed light on the architecture of the cognitive system
generally, as shown in the work discussed by Sebastián-Gallés and Dı́az on L1
and L2 speech perception. In other words, studying individual differences in
second language learning can contribute to a better understanding of one of the
key issues in current cognitive science, which is how general cognitive skills
and domain-specific skills jointly determine behavior.
Currently, research aiming to develop and improve tools for the assessment
of second language proficiency and research using individual differences to
understand theoretical issues in language learning are distinct research fields.
As Dale observes, questions of general mechanisms and questions of individual
differences are different scientific research tasks and typically require different
research methodologies. The articles in this volume clearly reflect this. The
research goals range from assessing broadly defined constructs, especially
language aptitude (e.g., Andringa et al.; Xiang, Dediu, Roberts, van Oort,
Norris, & Hagoort), to assessing very specific skills, such as the ability to learn
novel vowel contrasts (Hanulı́ková, Dediu, Fang, Bašnaková, & Huettig) and the
assessment methods range from collecting large quantities of questionnaire data
(Sparks) and teachers’ ratings of ability over a number of years (Dale, Harlaar, &
3 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 1–4

Plomin) to tracking the learners’ success in consonant discrimination tasks over

several experimental sessions (Hanulı́ková et al.) to investigate the activation
of language pathways in the brain (Xiang et al).
The division of labor between classroom-based and laboratory-based re-
search is in part dictated by practical considerations; many state-of-the-art
laboratory techniques cannot be exported to the classroom and used for testing
large groups of learners. However, portable versions of many classic psy-
cholinguistic tools have been developed (e.g., there are lexical decision apps
for smartphones), and this development will undoubtedly continue. Therefore
it will be increasingly possible to quickly assess learners on a variety of tasks
and determine how well their performance in tasks measuring specific skills
(e.g., speeded lexical access or syntactic parsing) correlates with broad as-
sessments of their linguistic proficiency through language aptitude tests or
teachers’ ratings. This is an important development because it should lead to
a better understanding of what laboratory tasks, questionnaires, and ratings
actually measure. As DeKeyser notes, this in turn, will improve theories of sec-
ond language learning and support the development of assessment instruments
that are grounded in both educational practice and knowledge of the cognitive
processes underlying language use.
In sum, the articles in this volume provide an overview of what we currently
know about individual differences in second language learning and offer a
wealth of ideas from researchers in different disciplines as to how to develop
the field of individual differences in second language learning. This is fertile
ground for new research that has the potential to impact language learning and
general psychological theory, as well as educational practice.

Individual Differences in Second Languag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Individual Differences in Second Languag

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Individual Differences in Second Languag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Individual Differences in Second Language

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 1–4 1

DeKeyser). With regard to precursors to successful language learning, one im-

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 1–4 2

3 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 1–4

Plomin) to tracking the learners’ success in consonant discrimination tasks over

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 1–4 4

You might also like