Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning (review)

This book, comprising twelve theoretical and empirical chapters, presents work on language aptitude predicting attainment in second language acquisition and individual differences (IDs) that apparently lead adults to learn second languages with variable success, unlike the invariantly successful L1 acquisition.

In Ch. 2, Robert Sternberg proposes the notion of ‘successful intelligence’, as against more general measures of intelligence that traditionally discriminate against people who possess practical and creative intelligences, and that, when combined with matched instructional techniques, will lead to successful language learning.

Peter D. MacIntyre (Ch. 3) calls for the use of emotion as a construct in motivation studies. This is based on the fact that motivation is not static and that contradictory emotional processes (e.g. feelings of pleasure and aversion) seem to operate during language learning. In Ch. 4, Peter Skehan proposes the existence of an autonomous system in the precritical period (putatively before the age of twelve or so) that engages with primary linguistic data to effect modular learning of languages that is unavailable in the postcritical phase. Nonetheless, in light of the fact that a very heterogeneous population of foreign-language learners with language learning disabilities exists, Elena L. Grigorenko (Ch. 5) proposes the identification and use of teaching techniques matched with specific learning impairments (e.g. deficits in phonological and morphological awareness).

Peter Robinson (Ch. 6) hypothesizes that aptitude complexes covary with IDs when adults are meaning-focused and are processing language tasks. This, however, runs counter to Arthur Reber’s (Implicit learning and tacit knowledge, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) and Stephen Krashen’s (Principles and practice in second language acquisition, Oxford: Pergamon, 1982) claim that implicit and incidental learning is insensitive to IDs with regard to cognitive skills. It also contradicts Bill VanPatten’s (Studies in second language acquisition 12.287–301, 1990) finding that input (listening to verb endings) needs to be comprehended before it can be noticed. The poor recall scores that VanPatten obtained, attributed to a lack of salience of the bound morphemes in the input, is in turn attributed by P. Ilangovan (Research News: The Newsletter of the IATEFL Research SIG 7.13–18, 1996) to the necessity of having to recognize the verbs in the input before noticing the verb endings, leading to an overload of attention-related resources.

In Ch. 10, Peter Robinson presents evidence that IDs in IQ are negatively correlated with implicit learning, which contrasts with Reber’s finding (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 17.888–96, 1991). Characterizing Paul Tremblay, Michelle Goldberg, and Robert Gardner’s trait and state motivations (‘Trait and state motivation and the acquisition of Hebrew vocabulary’, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 27.356–70, 1995) as static conceptualizations, Zoltan Dornyei (Ch. 7) presents a dynamic, process-oriented approach to studying motivation that also factors in interlocutor effects in dyadic learning. In Ch. 8, Leila Ranta’s study finds that grade six learners fall into two groups based on their scores on an L1 metalinguistic task, correlating either strongly or weakly with L2 proficiency measures—pointing to the fact that communicative classes cannot counteract language aptitude.

Ch. 9 (Alison Mackey, J. Philip, Takako Egi, Akiko Fujii, and Tomoaki Tatsumi) describes learners with higher working memory (WM) capacity who take a longer time to show benefits from reformulations and negative feedback in interaction than those with lower WM. Steven Ross, Naoko Yoshinaga, and Miyuki Sasaki (Ch. 11) find precritical-period Japanese bilinguals outperforming postcritical-period learners on grammaticality judgments such as WH-movement violation detection, although they do not match native speakers’ scores. Birgit Harley and Doug Hart’s (Ch. 12) finding supports the view that precritical-period learners rely more on memory than postcritical-period learners who rely on language analytical ability to learn an...