48

Theoreti'cal approaches to exp!t1ining second language !ea1?Zing

~~.!:ww-n., P. ~( s ~k-, !\l. 1i trw- ~""""' ~

"ov.,,J 4 O~.\-~: ov P
<f.

FACTOkS A\FECTING
SECOND LANGUAGE
LEARNING

Pica, T. 1994. 'Research on negoriarion: What does it reveal about second

language acquisirion? Condirions, processes, andourcomes.' Lan(fuave Leanting

:~~27.

In Chaprer 1, it \Vas pointed out rhar ali normal children, given a normal
upbringng, are successful in rhe acquisition of rheir firsr language. This
contrasts with our experience of second language learners, whose success
vares greatly.

Nany of us believe that learners have certan characreri.sri.cs which !ead ro

more or less successful language learnng. 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 wh 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:i:ristisfothet factors generally

consideted. to be televant to language learning areintelligenceaptitude,
motivat_iob.-) and itttt1d.s. Another imporrant factor, as suggesred. in our
discussion of rhe Crirical Period Hyporhesis for first !anguage acquisirion, is
rhe age ar \vhich learning begns
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 acquisiton 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'

53

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
envronn1ent. Neverrheless, ali normal children eventu:i!ly master rheir firsr
!J.ngu;ige.

o-.....

'1

In second language learning, it has been observed coundess dmes rhar in rhe

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.

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 ~olloAting 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 . teacher - which characrerisrics seem to you most
likeiy to be assoc1ated wuh success in second lanauao-e acquisition in rhe
. . b to expecr
b
e1assroom.'Wh'ch
I
ones would you be less 1ncl1ned
in a successfu1
learner?

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 acquisiron through
the use of IQ tests.

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 wlHng and accurare guesser

b tries to get a message across even if specific

language knowledge is lad<lng

e is wl!Hng to make mistakes

d constancly !ooks for pattems in the /anguage

e practises as often as possible

begin.s !earning in childhood

has an above-average !Q

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.

ana!yses his or her own speech and the speech

of others
g attends to whether his or her performance

meets the standards he or she has learned

h enjoys grammar exercises

k has good academic skills

has a good self-image and lots of confidence

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 languge 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.

------Photo-coplab!e Oxford Unlversity Press

54

fzctors afficting second language !earning

Factors affecting serond lanbl1uzgc leaming

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

1
orher studies. W'hat rhis suggesrs is rhar, \vhle 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.

"

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

_J~_ i~-i~E?_~ra~r -~~ ke~_ej__r:!_,pi~d ~h~-~- _'.i~l~!!jgen~i ___ i_~ ___<;9.~P!~~~---rh~~

ind_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_?~_f 1_Q~~es_ts. Jn ollr experience, many students whose

proficiency test rhan Iearners ~Nith much less morivarion ro learn rhe second
language. One explanarion which has been offered for rhese conflicring

- aCadtffiTCpert~-~~;~1Ch;~-been w'eak have experienced considerable success

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

\\

<6"'-'

<;

'

p<?C' a\\

There is evidence in the research lirerarure rhar ,~-m_~j,n.dixidJJibl2.,h~,..Q

",'Ct:!2IL~lliJlllI:>1rtJ!.d~'Jor lang\1'l!l".,l~ami11~_ Lorraine Ob:er (1989) '.epons

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.

rhar a man, whom she calls,.Q. has such a speoalized abny.

CJ is !laf.e

~J2~aki;~r2fJ~:r:gE2b \vho g~~~~_gt!jQ~DJ;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.. SpDi~b, and L~i;j_n,~vhile in ~!gh sch~ol.
A.t au(2) 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

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
n1otivaron 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.

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!

Kteanng 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

Intelligence

efficienc learners ofa foreign !anguage in a c!assroom setnng. The-mosrw1dely

used- aptitd<;:_te~t~:-~~e :th-e_Mo4~!~,J,_0_gg~~.:~J:,:i::!~:!_:" Test (f'..1LAT) and .rhe

The term~Ji~ has tradtogallybee11u.se.drnreferr9 erf;irmgwe14Q

cerra1n k1n_ds oI~rs.:Tfiese tests are ofren aS:sociated \Virh sccess 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
1
(~Q j reses and differenr merhods of aSsessing Ianuuage
learninu have found
~
e
b
thar IQ seores vere a good means ofpredicring hov successfuI a learnervould
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~rlS-~I-~~~ateiro ~ertan_ 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~-~--~- rhe developmenr ofFrench
second lanl!U:l.O-e rf'::i.--lino- crr1mm.-..- .,..,,.l "~~~J.-.. .. L __ :~ ____ _
1

~.n r~~~~~r~:~ learning

AJ;tituae ->"~~. . . o.\ o.\,, \J r """

Pms.leur. Lang(lage.\ptitude Barrery (PLAB). Borh ~.are bs;,\l.QrcikYJ.!;)cV

rharca?ude is co.mpos"'1~~iffere11t tzpesofabilidesc
(1) rhe abilig;,ro;,denrifilH!c!).c{;f!>;orize nr;;y;;;;;~\f\!J1ds.; (2) the abilry to

@~rS;;_n_ d- rbe funct()fi__ ()~J?':lr~-ic~l_~,,,~~!1.,~}E~,~-~~';, C'1) th'.'. ab_i__Liry ro ___

Ifgllf~~iii: fi!:~~~riC:il _r:ul_~s_ f.tlJrnJang:1ay;e~saroel~i!~i;.l (4J.11~~~~X~!1QX,-"',
~. While e:irlier research revealed a substanna1 reiauonsh1p benveen

55

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
reachng "\Vas based on grammar translaon or audiolingual merhods. (see

53

rac;urs "l.JJCr.:ang secona tanguage learntng

Factors affcting second language learning

r?e process oflanguage acquisirion. Unfortunately, this means rhar relatively

bno1h~raspec,!JlfJ2S!.2.!!i!lYwhichhas been srudied /s inhibitorr. Ir has been

suggesred rhat..___phbit?~- --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 _--8-~rtic~_~F
pJ?-Olen1-foi-~21_~~:._"\vho are _I_!lrC-s_e_If~_cons~i2~~~~!1,YOunger learnei:.~_.

lmle res~arch has acrually explored whether having a skill such as the 'ability

~o 1 den~1fy ?d memorize new sounds' is advantageous when classroom

rnstrucnon 1s meaning-orienred rarher than focused on drills or
metalinguistic explanarions.

r;;a series of studies, Alexander Guiora and his collegues found support for

~u~cessful langu~g~ _Ie~rners may nor be srrong in all of che comoonenrs of

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

:r.t~
Sorne 1nd1v1duals may have srrong memories but only average
ab1lmes' the other components of aptirude. Ideally, one could determine

;ubj;c:_t's w'ho r~cehe~foii~Il d()S_es_of~~ohol di9.]2.err,e;,n prowJsi:\!i~n tests

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

rhan rhose-who...4i~_!12,~J'it"ili a~v a}52_.hcl. While resulrs such as rhese are

ii-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.petq;;n:iifilcet;ha1uxi~h.le;wing.
We may also note, in passing, that when larger doses of alcohol were
adminisrered, pronunciation rapidly deteriorat~d!

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 signiicantly
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 aprtude pro.files.

Personality

'

A rmmberofers~naliryc}rao;.i;_ia;o,s have been R'Rose<jl'!likdy ro affecr

f"C()}li.ilp_,uag: for!!lg, 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;-1ngug~_le:-<!_r,_~n,g._ differell r srud-ies
~~casunng a s1_~~-4~--?~~~-s_9_ggl}_ Q'_If;l~Lp.r0,d_uce differ_ent.sesults. For exampie,

Se.Y~.~ o~~~alirvcharacreristi~.?uchasself~esreern, 5.!!!l1J!,~2min;.l)X_e) '

E~ti~en~~' an~_~soonsiveness__ ~ve_ also_ ~~.Q-.st-~e~ Ho,vever, in general,

_..cmeava-rJ;::;rg~rson

u;_:_1toten.ar:gi::~~-rhatn-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:!EQQiltl~_-;ggs_!~!9_n. i\Jrhough,some
studres ,have found rhat success--in,_-_langl!&l'--- learniug--ls~,~uela_tecl-Wirh

~~~~~-;,;,~Jtion.~d;as i~di~~ttdearlier, tlieID;jr

ty in investigaring personalry characreristics is rhat of iden rificarion and

rneasurement. Another explanatiorr which has been offered for the mixed
findings of personality srudies is
personali~.l:2cria.hl;" ma: be,ll..ll'L'?.r
fact<_>roitlyl\!Jh~::S'loijpgi,f.;..~-i;::1~~I',i~.\!!)H J&a,<:;c.tiriji9Jl.Qf
ITteraq~!QIIS:Tfe confused picrure of the research on personality factors may
. be ruec!n parrto the fact that comparisons are made between smdies rhat

!h.'

J~~Ln~rs ~01:~~-~?1~-"~~E~~~:::is~!~~:of~~~. ~s,?ci_a_i;$_4_ ,~_h 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~-fl

language fearne-rs ~ot g_et high-scores-on rneasures f extroy_e_rsiEE:!

'"C!l(loes not show a cb.dy.de__ 11e .$.laonshipberween

56

55

56

Factors ajfecting second language !earning

.Factors affecting second language learning

One factor \vhich often affeci::s morivation is rhe social dyn2mi_c_ Q_r p_9_\VC[.
rfarionshipberWeenrhe languag~. Th_-~~-~memt.~IS-~-f q___rninoriry__group.
---~~arn_~~~ili~-l~Qg~_<!gc;_Qf a _rnajoriIT$[Q!JP ma,y ha_y_~Jiiffrrf11Latri~JJdn.and
motivarion from those of majoriry group members_ learning_ a minority
IarlC..lla.e_ EVe-1 thouah-r Is -i-ripOS.Sihie to Predict rhc exacr effecr of such
~o~eralf1ctors on secbond Ianguage learning, i::he t"'acr rhar b_ngu:iges exist in
social contexcs cannot be overlooked 1,vhen we seek to undersrand the
variables \vhich atTect success in learning. Chi!dren as \Vell as adults are
sensirive to sociai dynamics and po\ver relai:ionships,

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.
,

Motivation in the classroom setting

In a reacher's mind, motivared students are usually those who participare
activelv in class, express interesr in rhe subjecr-matrer, and srudy a great deal.
Teach~rs can easilv recogn.ize characreristics such as rhese. They also have
more opporruniry,ro inR~ence these characteristics rhan srudents' reasons ~or
studyng the second language or rheir arrirudes to\vard the b.ngt~age and_ tts
speakers. If \Ve can make our classrooms places \vhere srudenrs enJOY ~orr:1.ng
because rhe conrenr is interesting and relevant ro rheir age and level ot abiliry,
\vhere rhe learning goals are challengingyet manageable and clear, and where
rhe atmosphere is supportive and non-threatening, \Ve can make a posirive
contriburion ro studenrs' motivation ro learn.

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&t,td~

a_nd ~-orhrari_?.~. ar:_::l~te~-~-- si:~~~~~~~~3!~~~-':1~~--lang9ge _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_~y_~ti9_9
is re_lated to l~ar11ing. As indica red above, \Ve do not know wherher ir is rhe
mrvarlon 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

Although lirde research has been done to investigare how pedagog interacts
wirh motivation in second language classrooms, considerable work has been
done \Virhin rhe fi.eld of educacional psychology. In a review of sorne of this
work, Graham Crookes and Richard Schmidt (1991) poinr to severa! areas
\vhere educational research has reporred increased levels of morvation for
srudenrs in relarion to pedagogical pracrices. Included among rhese are:

Moriva~ion-in second language learning is a comp!_ex ph_enomenon which_cari

be_ d_~fii~1'J})_=t~i!!![Of tw'!_ fi1_C!Qt,s: Jear-n-rs-'- ~Otnrtii'h:~U~Ye- n<!!cls:<~d ;(fi~fr

~~ri_~~es_- to\:ards-_the ~ec~_nd_--~~!tg_~tgi~<;>r:ri_rngn!_rJ,,_ jf 1~~~;~~~-~- ~n~~-d~-~p~;k

de s:cond language in a ,vide range ofsocial situarions orto fu1fil professional
ambitions, they,vilI perceive the communicacivevalue ofrhe second lano-uao-e
and will rherefore be morivared ro acquire proficiency in ir. Like\vf~e, if
le~rners.have f'Jvourable arr_irudes towards rhe speakers of rhe language, rhey
\VIII des1re more con raer \VIth rhen1. Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert
~1972) coined rhe rerms /!!fegra_tive._mrfva_t{q_n_JQ_rf:fer_.toJanguageJ_earoing
to.~ personal $f()_\vth and _cu_lrll_ral _ enrich_me_11t, and_instrt_tftlez~almo_th-'ltton for
Gngliage iearni~g for m-or-iffi~edJ-at~ r p;~.crica_f o-o:tls. -Res;;r~h h~ sho1,vn
thai-rhese- t})es -f rri-otivation are relared to--;L;~ce;~ in second language
learning.
On rhe other hand, \Ve should keep in mind rhat an individual's idenrirv is
closely linked \virh rhe 1,vay he or she speak~. Ir follows rhat when speaki~o- a
new language one is adopting sorne ofthe identity markers ofanorher cultu~al
group. Depending on rhe learner's attirudes, learning a second language can
be a source of enrichment or a source of resentmenr. If rhe speaker's only
,.,,,.,,..,....~ C--1~---=---l--~---.J

r_

Moti.'vating students into the lesson At rhe opening stages of Iessons (and
\Vithin rransirions), ir has been observed rhat remarks reachers make abour
forthcominab activiries can lead to hicrher
levels ofinteresr on the part of rhe
b
srudents.

Yrying the activ;ties, tasks, and 1naterials Students are reassured by rhe
existence of classroon1 rourines which they can depend on. Ho\vever, lessons
which ahvays consisr of rhe same rourines, panerns, and formats h::i.ve been
sho"vn ro lead to a decrease in arrention andan ncrease in boredorn. Varying
rheactiviries, tasks, and marerials can help ro avoid rhis and increase srudenrs'
interese levels.

57

Using co-operatve rather than co1'npetitive goals Co-operatve learning

acrivities are rhose in \Vhich sruden[S n1usrwork rogerher in order to complete
1

.-

- ~ _L -

57

f<actors aJJectzng secona tanguage tearn1ng

ractors affecttng second fanguage feflrning

11

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-rerm--'rearnTng-Sryfe;-_Eas-beCn _US~d ro ~~sc-;a;~ an indivi<lual's natural,

_ha&irua1~ -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

Learner beliefi

based learning sryles, considerable research has focused on a ,_92gD_ith_::c

Learni.J.!~s<xk.sfiin,;tio fbR>J'".enJi.t.fcLi!11ftJ1.endsnt3nd .~!:.111f.nt
learners. This refers to wherher an in<lividuJ.l tends to se arate details from

and opinions abour how their instrucrion should be dehvered. I.li.~se behefa

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

add a physical action ro rhe learning process. InZo~nrrast to these perceprually

are usually based on previous_ l_earn!~~~~~J~::~.~~_:-~i-.:~~~~::1.E~Jt~W-~

ofwing)ihfa JartiCularcy~eoTinstruc_rio~:~r.11.:_~5."'::':'.':tfor_t!:.;:_!11-:'2 1.~~i:l!.:

'T"L~~--- a- 'n--0~rnera'ie"i-Wiie-reTirTe \vofkhas been done. However, che a~a1labl_e

-t?~i~7i~~-~1IbaCT~~OUrlC!O~r-~o _ s~~ ~-G~~-~?.i~Jl<?l~~~~eili:' AnOther caeg~ry ~f

1earr;111gs't)1es1s-oase<rO'ii~ rhe"Indrvi<lual's remperamenr or personaliry.

d.

iulS IS

f;

research indicares rhat learner beliefs can be srrong me ianng ~crors in .r e1r
experence in the classroom. For example: i1: a survey of rnrernan~nal
srudents learning ESL in a highly commun1canve progra1n at an ~ngh_sh.
ry Carlos Yorio (1986) found high levels of dissansfacuon
~ ak ~=~5 1
d
enrs. The rvpe 0 f communicanve 1nstrucr1on they rece1ve
among rhe Stud
.
. . .
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
absence of arrention ro language form, correcnve feedback, or
nora blv
, ' [he
'
.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

\Vhile recenryears have seen rhe developmenrofmany 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 consderably more research on learning sryles,

when learners express a preference for seeng something wrirren or for
memorizng 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 sut the

. .

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 inluence 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

needs of ali learners.

58

.JY

.. T
60

Facrors zfficting second !anguage learnng

Factors affictng second l--:ngrr,1ge !earning

Age ofacquisition

and rhe expression of much more ~omplcared 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.

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 ofmuch Hvelydebare.

The Critical Period Hypothesis has been challenged in recenr years from
severa! different poinrs of vew. 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~-~~dy,:?,!:!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 __ Jba _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

Ir has been widely obser,ved rhar children from_if1migf"'lLfufilfe2.'C{"!lt'1llY

sp~;~ r~'Fiag~~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 Polsh 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 learnng
rhe language while rhey '\Vere very young.

anecdotes abour older learners (adolescenrs and adulrs) who have reached
hgh levels 0 f proficency n 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.

One explanarion for rhis differenc:e i~_xhat. a:s in first language acquistion,
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

Critica! Period Hypothesis: More than just accem?

Most srudies of the relari~nship benveen age of acquisirion and s:c~nd hill~age

human devel?pmer~wlli;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 -~~_!!-~~

development have focused on learners' phonologcal (prommrnnon) ach1evemenr. In general, these sn1dies have concluded rhat older learne~ al~o~t

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
.!:!_~1:12."~e-~ner~ _le_arnng abil_ri_i:s - r~_e sa~_'=-..9!:!~~- rh~LI1!igh1__1,1i_e ro leyn

inevtably 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

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__t;>~.rty,---but sorne researchers

rhese quesrions was done by Mark Parkowski ( 1980).

o( l<}-:_g~~gL~~51uJ~iSiQIJ,~&cordng ro chis- vie,v, language learning which

orher kindsot' skills ori!llormar~-, is argued rhar rhese general learning

lvfastery ofthe spoken language

suggeStTr"'~OUJ~rb~eeven ~arlie~:

Ofcourse, 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- t h3r- and --use the- Jangua.ge in
environmenrs \vhere rhey do norexperience-s-trong pressre-ro speak-fluendy
and accurarely from the verybeginning.-Fur(hermore, their early imperfecr

ef-Tort.; :irP n/-fpn nr~;.,.,,,.,-l .. ,. ~,. 1~---

----

--

r-..

'

'

'

59

...

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
educaton served as a sort of baseline of what rhe second languJ.ge learners
might be rryng 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

62

J~actors

ttjjecting second tanguage Learning

f'actors aJJecttng secona tanguage learning

A lengrhy interview wirh each of rhe subjects in rhe srudy was rape recorded.

someonewho had arrived ar rhe age of 18 but had only lived there for 1Oyears.

Because Patkowski wanted to remove rhe possibiliry that che resulrs \Vould be

Similarly, amount of instruction, when separared from age, did not predict
success ro rhe exrent that age ofimmigracion did.

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 traned 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.

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- andpost-puberty learners
ofEng/ish (Patkowski 1980).

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

22

discussed above, he also compared learners on che basis of orher characterstics

20

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.

10

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

2+

3+

4+

Pre-puberty learners

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

20

variery made rhe performance of chis group look more like rhe sort of
performance range one would expecr if one were measuring success in

12

(}

learning a!most any kind ofski!l or knowledge.

"~ 10

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

6
4

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 '

2+

3+

4+

Post-puberty learners

'

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

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

years might speak better than one who had been there for only 1Oyears, ir was

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

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

next srudy by Johnson and Newporr.

and had lived rhere for 20 years did not score significanrly better rhan

60

b:J

64
:-

Factors affecting second !anguage learnng

''T

Factors ajfecting second !anguage !eanng

In an audrory 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.

lntutions ofgrammaticaliry
Jacqueline Johnson and Elissa Newporr conducred a srudy of46 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)'.

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

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.

English, learners were asked ro complete sentences such as 'Here is one boy.
'
No\v rhere are rwo of rhem. There are rwo

When rhey seo red rhe tests, Johnson and Ne\.vparr found rhar age of arrival in
the U ni red Srares was a significant predicrorofsuccess on rhe test. \Vhen rhey
grouped the learners in rhe same ""Y 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.

The jentence repetition rask required learners ro repear 37 sentences of

increasing lengrh and grammatical complexicy.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Is younger really better?

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.

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.

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.

Pronuncation \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

61

65

Activty

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:

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 .n 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 ycar (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).

1 Sorne of rhe tasks, (for example, senrence judgemenr or rranslation) were

too hard for young learners. Even 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.

Table 3.1: Comparison oflanguage learning at diffirent ages

Task
Pronunciacion

Child

Adoiescent

Adult

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

A u di tory discrmination

XY

languageon adailybasis in social, personal, professional, oracademicinteracrion.

Morpholo0j

XY

At what age shou.ld second language instruction begin?

Sentence rcpetitlon

XY

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 ofan 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.

Sen.tence uanslalion

XY

Senrence judgement

XY

Peabody picture vocabulary test

XY

Scory comprehension

Storyteiling

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.

* 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 e a<l?le:cents h.ad already made the most progress in learning Durch. As rhe
1
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.

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.

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!!.

62

68

Factors ajfecting second !anguage learning

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 n which
virrually all learners can be successful in learning a second language.

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.

Sources and suggestions far farther reading

\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 ofinsrrucron perweek,
learners who srarr larer (for example, ar age 1O, 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.

General discusson ofindividual difJ'f:rences

Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H. H. Stern, and A. Todesco. 1995. The Good
Language Learner. Clevedon, UK: Mu1rlingual 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 n Second Language Lerrrning. London:
Edward Arnold.

The case ofCj

Obler, L. 1989. 'E-xceptional second !anguage learners' in S. Gass, C.
Madden, O. Prestan, and L. Sdnker (eds.): Vtiriation in Second Langmige
Acquisition, Vol !!: Psycho!inguistic Issues. Clevedon, UK/Philadelphia, Pa.:
Mulrilingual Matters, pp. 141-59.

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
learnng 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 lrde 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,

lvfotivaton and attitudes

Crookes, G. and R. Schmidt. 199!. 'Morivaon: "Reopening the research
agenda".' Language Learning4 !14: 469-512.
Gardner, R. 1985. Social Psycho!ogy and Second Language Learning: The Role
ofAttitudes 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 theoretcal framework.' Modern Language]ournal 7811: 12-28.

!11hibiton nnd secontl la11gu11ge learning

63

Guora. A., B. Beit-Hallahami, R. Brannon, C. Dull, and T. Scovel. 1972.

'Thr f'ff,.,rr..: ,.,F P.vnP.rim,,_.,,.-..,J!,, ;,...,1,,,..,. ...-h ... ,,.,....,..,; .....

_.,.,...~ ~~~~.;~

- - --- - -

69