On the Relationship between Aptitude and
Intelligence in
Second Language Acquisition
Jim Teepen1
Teachers College, Columbia University
ABSTRACT
Better
understanding of the varied factors that account for successful second language
acquisition is the goal that is of obvious interest to anyone within the field
of language study. Before the influence of these factors can be adequately
understood, of course, they must be defined and utilized in an accurate and
consistent way. This paper endeavors to explore and clarify the ambiguity
surrounding usage of the terms intelligence
and aptitude in second language
acquisition in effort to understand the more central issue of how the qualities
designated by this terms relate to second language acquisition. This should
enable the clearer picture to emerge about the relative importance of
intelligence and aptitude among the constellation of factors associated with
second language acquisition.
INTRODUCTION
The
role and meanings of terms intelligence
and aptitude as they have been used
in second language acquisition (SLA) discourse are significant for virtually
all aspects of SLA. If it were the case that only individuals with what for the
moment will be called exceptionally high innate
abilities are able to become highly proficient in second language, then it may
be sensible to arrange academic programs based on this facts. If alternatively
it terms out the intellectual abilities
are not predictive of success in second language, the pedagogical ramifications
are clearly quite different. Similar significant consequences follow for other
elements within the domain of SLA. To mention just a couple, it is probable
enriched understanding of innate capacity will result both in modifications of
theories about how second languages are learned and more effective ways to
teaching them. If it turns out that individuals exhibit certain patterns of intellectual
ability, it may be possible to devise a pedagogy that caters to these patterns
and results in more effective teaching.
After an initial discussion of the
background and current status of research on innate abilities in SLA, the task
will turn to ascertaining precisely what SLA researchers mean by aptitude and
intelligence. Are there real differences in these terms? If so, what are they?
This will be done through careful analysis of how the terms are employed in the
most salient research articles on the topic. More specifically, articles by
researchers such as Skehan (1989), Miyake and Friedman (1989), and McLaughlin
(1990) will be examined. As these researchers are some of the most prominent in
the field, they will serve as representatives of others doing similar work.
Once the semantic issues have been clarified, the more central task of the
paper can be undertaken: The exploration of the role of innate capacity in actually
acquiring a second language. The project here is twofold. The first is to
establish the immutable nature of intelligence. The notion that intelligence is
largely the product of genetic factors and essentially fixed will be argued for
through the examination of studies involving identical twins. This will provide
the proper context for dealing with the second task – treating the studies that
specifically apply to the relationship between intelligence and second language
acquisition. Through addressing these issues, we should be in a better position
to characterize the importance of innate capacity for learning a second
language.
BACKGROUND
Any effort to describe the role of
innate intellectual ability in SLA studies must first acknowledge the
relatively minimal amount of research that has actually taken place.
Contemporary researchers would readily agree with this assessment (McLaughlin,
1990; Obler, 1989; Skehan, 1989). Not only is there a small amount of research,
but the conceptual framework has remained almost unchanged since the late 1960s
when it was established by researchers such as Caroll, Sappon, and Pinsleur
(Skehan, 1989). The emphasis then was on creating predictive tests whose
interrelationships could be compared and evaluated. Trough analysis of these
tests, Caroll (1965) posited a notion of aptitude that included four distinct
components: phonetic coding, associative memory, grammatical memory, and
inductive language learning ability. These four components are independent of
each other and likely to vary within an individual. Thus each individual will
display different patterns of ability. One person may be strong in phonetic
coding, but weak on associative memory. As will be shown, research along these
lines represents the primary effort of SLA researchers to grapple with the
issues of aptitude, intelligence and acquisition.
Why did this limited research end in the
late 1960s? Skehan (1989) speculates that the dominance of communicative
teaching and acquisition-oriented approaches played a major role. These
approaches afforded little place for the study of innate capacity. As will be
seen later, the research does seems to show that intelligence plays little or
no role in determining basic success in oral communication for second language
learners. This may explain why those sympathetic to the theories in vogue after
Caroll (1965) had little interest in aptitude. If anyone could succeed with
oral communication, the study of intelligence may seem superfluous. Other
approaches taken by SLA researchers, such as those inspired by Chomsky (1981)
and his work on L1 acquisition and universal grammar, continued to emphasize
the lack of individual differences within a speech community. Clearly, the
agenda of these theorists was not likely to include the role of individual
intelligence.
The circumstances are different now.
Given development in other related fields, such as psychology and neuroscience,
one may suspect that the situation will soon change. It seems also true that no
single ideological agenda dominates the field in the way it may have in earlier
periods. This should allow more room for pursuit from various theoretical
perspectives. All of these factors increase the likelihood of finding more satisfactory
and definitive answers in the foreseeable future.
THE
SEMANTICS OF APTITUDE AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUSITION
Some SLA researchers regard
intellectual ability as something that can be defined by performance on a
standardized test. While they acknowledge that the issue is open to theoretical
debate, they accept the general validity of the IQ test as a measure of
intelligence (Genesee, 1976). Others utilize IQ and a combination of other test
in their analyses (Obler, 1989). For them, IQ represents one of several valid
intelligence indicators. An additional group of researchers does not directly
employ IQ, but nevertheless is confortable using the term intelligence (McLaughlin, 1990). The term aptitude is preferred by a number of other researches, in contradistinction
to IQ. For them, aptitude is something both independent and unrelated to IQ.
Researchers such as Skehan (1989) speak extensively about aptitude and almost
never about IQ. Characteristic also amongst aptitude proponents is the absence
of the word intelligence in their
accounts of causal factors in second language acquisition. Explanation for the
abandonment of the term intelligence
is almost never given. Instead, the new term aptitude appears in places where one may have expected to find intelligence. For some, though, aptitude assumes even greater
significance than as a substitute for intelligence. Indeed, for Skehan (1989),
aptitude implies a “talent for learning languages that is independent of
intelligence” (p. 276). From reading Skehan, it is exceedingly difficult to
determine exactly what aptitude is. What does it come from? What precisely are
the mental properties associated with it? As may be seen below, Skehan does, in
fact, have some notion about what aptitude is. This, however, does not induce
him to declare that these properties are connected to intelligence.
Other researchers also speak little
or nothing about intelligence, but attempt to make more specific their notion
of aptitude in a way that Skehan (1989) does not. Miyake and Friedman (1989)
regard aptitude as working memory (WM). They note that researches have
correctly identified aptitude as a crucial determinant of L2 proficiency, but
have failed to determine precisely what that aptitude consist of. WM represents
the attempt by Friedman and Miyake to provide such as account. Their model
maintains that three components of language aptitude – language analytic
capacity, memory ability, and phonetic coding ability – are distinct cognitive
functions frequently associated with MW and are practically synonymous with
those described by Skehan. They go on to argue that these components are
important determinants in L1 and L2 proficiency and that the WM is primary
common denominator in both L1 and L2 success2 and is at the core of
linguistic aptitude. They assume that some individuals have greater WM
resources than others to perform a given cognitive task. That is, some
individuals have greater aptitude than others and this result in greater or
lesser L2 attainment. Miyake and Friedman then attempt to break down the
components and subcomponents of WM by examining how particular data, from both
L1 and L2 subjects, reveals features of the WM system. They hope to establish
what they call an “operational capacity” of the WM (Miyake & Friedman,
1989). This would allow them to better understand the way WM constrains
specific language processes in both L1 and L2, leading to a clearer conception
of aptitude and its implications for both L1 and L2 linguistic attainment.
|
2
The
Bristol Language Project studies described below and utilized by Skehan
(1989) constitute a vital connection in this work, as they show the
relationship between the rate of L1 acquisition and later L2 proficiency
|
It is now appropriate to ask: Does
aptitude get at something that intelligence does not? Do intelligence tests
miss something crucial that aptitude better explains? To address this issue, it
might be useful to first say something about IQ. What does an IQ score
indicate? A normal full scale IQ score reflects, among other things, individual
performance on tests of spatial understanding, memory, pattern recognition, and
linguistic knowledge of various sorts. The final numerical score results from a
mathematical operation that incorporates the various score on the subsections
in one overall score. The result is that a person with an IQ score of 100 could
have a very different individual intellectual profile than five other people
with the same IQ score. Each person could perform better or worse on the
various parts of the test, yet each could still have a composite score of 100.
In theory, this means that one person with an IQ score of 100 could be much
better in math than another person with the same score. This, of course, could
happen if his intellectual strengths were in areas pertaining to mathematics.
The situation is much the same as it pertains to language acquisition. A person
could be unusually gifted in capacities associated with language acquisition, yet
still have an overall IQ score which is not necessarily even above average.
While it may be unusual, such a scenario can and does happen.
The case of CJ, chronicled by Obler
(1989), is most interesting in this regards. CJ has an exceptional ability to
learn languages. He achieved native-like proficiency in several languages after
the onset of puberty. His success was confirmed by native speakers who
interviewed CJ and attested to his proficiency. They note that he lacked a
foreign accent and confirmed the speed and ease of his language acquisition. At
the time of the study, CJ was a 29-years-old single Caucasian male who was a
graduate student in education. He was a native English speaker from a
monolingual home. His first experience with a second language came at the age
of 15 with formal instruction in French in high school. He excelled in French
and began studying German and Spanish as well. Upon graduating from college, CJ
learned Moroccan Arabic and Italian through a combination of immersion and
formal instruction. It would appear that CJ provides researchers with an
excellent opportunity to explore the relationship between intelligence, aptitude,
and second language acquisition. To do this, it is necessary to examine CJ’s
performance on an IQ test.
In two areas of the IQ test, CJ
performed extremely well (Obler, 1989). These areas involved vocabulary and
code learning. On the vocabulary portion of the test he was asked to define
words of increasing difficulty. He not only knew most of the words, but was
able to give precise one-word synonyms for word such as burden for encumber and foreboding for ominous. The other tests on which CJ displayed superior functioning
required him to decide which of six choices correctly completed a pattern with
a piece missing. On this he scored in the 95th percentile. One
additional test corroborated his strength in pattern recognition. On this test
he was required to find out what relations obtain among a series of letters,
numbers of words. He scored in the 93rd percentile. CJ’s performance on most
other portions of the test was unexceptional. Interestingly, the tests showed
that he does not use words in a very abstract or sophisticated way. Proverbs
proved difficult for him interpret. He also displayed a relatively poor
performance on visual-spatial tasks. It might then be accurate to claim that CJ
is highly intelligent in areas that pertain to second language acquisition, but
only average or below average in other areas.
One may conclude that an
exceptionally high IQ, or even one above average, is not necessary for
successful second language acquisition. The overall IQ score measures many
different, disparate abilities. Yet, it is equally clear that two aspects of
CJ’s IQ were measured and incorporated in to his overall score. Had he not
performed as well on these tests, his overall score would have dropped. These
tests, then, were part of CJ’s intellectual profile and measured by IQ. This
would seem to refute Skehan’s (1989) notion that aptitude in independent of
intelligence. CJ’s linguistic abilities, in particular his aptitude, are
confirmed by his performance on the IQ test. The contention that aptitude and
intelligence are independent entities is therefore demonstrably invalid. For
Skehan or anyone else to successfully claim otherwise, they would have to find
an adult L2 learner, that is, one who has clearly learned an L2 following the
offset of the Critical Period, who could easily acquire second languages
without displaying features associated with second language acquisition on IQ
tests. Until that is done, the use of the term aptitude should be considered synonymous with intelligence, and it appears that there is no reason to retain the
category of aptitude.
INTELLIGENCE AND
SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
Having disambiguated the problems
reading the issues the intelligence and aptitude, and securing the place of
intelligence in the discourse, it is now appropriate to directly address the
role of intelligence in the acquisition of a second language. Skehan (1989)
states that “aptitude is at least as important, and usually more important,
than any other variable investigated” (p. 38). Here, of course, intelligence should be substituted for aptitude. Virtually all researchers
agree that performance on reading and language usage tests correlates strongly
with IQ level. That is, those with higher IQ scores tend to do better on these
tasks. In the work of Genesee (1976) students were divided by IQ scores and
tested in grades 4, 7, and 11. Their performance in second language acquisition
(French) was compared with those placed in the lower groups based on IQ scores.
Those in the highest group performed in a way that the IQ profile might predict
on the reading and language usage tests. In all cases, the above-average IQ
group performed better than the average group which performed better than the
below-average students (except in the 11th grade case which included
no below-average students). These results led Genesee to suggest that a second
language program whose goals are centered on academic language should consider
results of such tests as IQ in determining which students should be placed in
the programs.
Other studies appear to corroborate
the findings of Genesee (1976). McLaughlin (1990) is impressed with Skehan’s
(1989) findings with regard to the rate of first language development had been
monitored as part of the Bristol Language Project and whose scores had later
been compared with results on foreign language aptitude tests, Skehan noted
significant correlations. To explore this data, something must first be said
about the study. Skehan was interested in studying the origin of language
aptitude. He was aware of the work Wells (1985) had done in the Bristol
Language Project, which evaluated the rate of L1 acquisition. The original
study involved about 125 children. These children’s L1 acquisition rate was
studied when the children were between 3 and 5 years of age. This data was
later compared by Skehan with the same children’s scores on foreign language
aptitude tests when they were 13, who found a significant correlation (as high
as 0,50) between these two sets of measures. What was not explicitly shown at
this time was whether or not the higher performance on the aptitude tests truly
demonstrated a greater ability to learn a second language. Though the link
seemed plausible, demonstrable proof was necessary.
Subsequent work with the same
children did demonstrate that those children whose first language developed
quickly and who performed better on the foreign language aptitude test also
performed better in learning second language. Roughly 100 of the original 125
children were studied as teenagers learning a second language in a classroom
setting (McLaughlin, 1990). The success of these learners with L2 acquisition
was most closely connected to their L1 MLU (those who exhibited a longer
average length of utterance in their L1 acquisition did better as L2 learners)
and sentence structure complexity displayed during L1 acquisition. For Skehan
(1989) and McLaughlin, this is evidence of an innate aptitude (intelligence)
for languages these conclusions should surprise no one. The intuitive appeal of
the notion that a more intelligent child will learn his or her L1 more quickly
is most powerful. Many capacities measured by intelligence tests are employed
in language acquisition. The innateness of these capacities, demonstrated in
accelerated L1 achievement, makes it logical to predict that those processing them
would have better success with l2 acquisition. The work done by Skehan
describes above seems to extend beyond the intuitive appeal of the notion and
empirically demonstrate its validity.
A point which has thus far remained
in the background, but which now deserves explicit attention, is the issues of
the innateness of intelligence. Does it change over time? To properly regard
intelligence as a primary causal factor in language acquisition, it should be
shown that it is a fixed entity. While most researchers do believe that what
they call aptitude or intelligence is relatively fixed, some argue that it
develops (Gass & Selinker, 2001). They may claim that a person who exhibits
greater ease in learning Italian after having learning French, simply relies on
more sophisticated study techniques or profits from the lexical and structural
similarities of the two languages. The accelerated proficiency is not therefore
a product of enhanced aptitude. The argument offered by these critics seems
persuasive. The numerous related words in each language can only serve to make
the task of mastering the lexicon much easier. The same is true with the basic
structural similarities between the two languages. The advantages of these
similarities clearly go a long way in explaining why the L2 acquisition is
easier. No account of greater aptitude or intelligence is needed. No positive
evidence exists that would snow how either aptitude or intelligence actually
increases through second language study.
An even stronger argument about the
innateness and relative immutability of intelligence involves twin studies.
What has the evidence shown about genetic twins and their linguistic
attributes? Lenneberg (1967) reviewed a number of studies of normal and
disordered voice, speech, and language development. He ascertained that 90% of
identical twin pairs have a similar developmental history for speech and
language compared with 40% of fraternal pairs.
He attributed the greater similarity between identical twins to their
shared genetic inheritance.
Subsequent work by other researchers
confirms his findings. Receptive grammatical development was studied by
Munsinger and Douglass (1967), who used the Northwestern Syntax Screening Test
to estimate the language heritability of various sets of twins. Similar to
Lenneberg (1967), they found the highest correlation with identical twin pairs
(r=0.831), and a lower correlation with fraternal twin pairs (r=0.436). The
correlation among fraternal twin pairs was almost identical to that among siblings
(r=0.492). They concluded that 80% of the variance in language development was
due to inherited factors, but only around 10% to environmental factors. The
remainder was attributed to error in measurement.
The important issues in the above
studies are the way in which they show how genetic factors have a powerful role
in determining the rate of language development. While these studies are about
L1 acquisition, their relevance is not diminished for the project here. One
must consider the findings in terms of how they apply to the Bristol Language
Project described above. The evidence then falls into place and forms a strong
case for the role of intelligence in second language acquisition. It is
entirely reasonable to assume that had these identical twins been studied for
second language acquisition, either before or after puberty, they would have
shown similar results to those found in the original study by Wells (1985) and
extended by Skehan (1989), and these results would have been based on their intellectual
profiles.
If the researchers are unified on
the relationship between higher intelligence and greater success with academic
L2 language, they are equally convinced that higher intelligence plays little
or no role in many communicative tasks (Genesee, 1976; McLaughlin,1990).
Genesee points out that IQ scores played no role in the ability of individuals
to acquire certain communicative aspects of a second language. On such skills
as interpersonal communication, pronunciation, and listening comprehension,
higher IQ scores were shown to be insignificant. Interpersonal communication
data was established through individual interview of each student by one of two
native French speakers. The students were asked to describe the story depicted
by a cartoon and then engage in a short conversation based on the cartoon. The
entire interview was conducted in French and was recorded for later analysis.
The speech sample was then rated independently by two native French speakers in
five separate categories: listening comprehension, pronunciation, grammar,
vocabulary, and communicativeness. The raters did not know which IQ group each
individual belonged to at the time of the interviews. In each grade level no
statistically significant differences occurred in any of the different IQ
groups with regard to listening comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, and
communicativeness. On this basis, it is argued that three should be no
restrictions on who should be placed in a second language program. If the goals
of the program are primarily communicative, there is no justification for
excluding anyone.
It may, however, be useful to
scrutinize more carefully the evidence and claims made by Genesee (1967) before
unconditionally accepting them. The first issue involves the adequacy of what
could be called communicative tests. Is it possible that the tests are
insufficiently sophisticated to allow meaningful distinctions to be made among
those who take them? What if the tests are simply not intellectually demanding
enough for the more advanced examinees? Because of this, the individuals who
take the tests may do uniformly well. Though the information provided by
Genesee (1987) in her report of the communicative elements of her tests is
highly informative about the procedures undertaken to obtain the results, it is
somewhat less satisfactory about establishing the adequacy of the tests in the
context of the questions just posed. Clearly, these issues demand greater
scrutiny.
Another problem involves the data
itself. The ability to collect and analyze data is obviously much easier with a
written test. If they follow a multiple-choice format, written exams can be
stored quickly and consistently and do not require the amount of type of
training necessary for those administering oral test. The logistic for
conducting an effective large-scale test that involves a significant listening
and speaking component are often prohibitive. If one wanted to test a truly
large population, how would all of the testers be trained? How would
consistency and accuracy be ensured? Written exams are less susceptible to
these difficulties, and their results are often considered more objective
measures. While people may argue about the validity of the results, the data
itself will be consistent. Furthermore, the results can easily be compared
among large populations. Finally, statistical analysis enables researchers to
construct tests that include questions of different levels of difficulty. Oral
data presents more difficulty for researchers. Will one evaluator have the same
opinion as another with regard to a student’s proficiency? Is there time for an
interviewer to conduct a probing discussion which might provide revealing data?
Skehan (1989) himself acknowledges the need for a wider view of what is meant
by language performance.
CONCLUSION
The field of SLA is in need of much
more extensive work in the area of intelligence and acquisition. Recent
developments in related field and a climate that is conducive to new inquiry
make the situation promising. The developments in fields such as neuroscience
appear to have great applicability. The capacity to evaluate what is going in
the brain during the given cognitive task seems to be expanding daily. It is
entirely reasonable to believe that disciplines like neuroscience and the
various branches of psychology will make marked progress in their abilities to
represent the connection between cognitive faculties and languages. The
sophistication and amount of new, pertinent information will continually
increase. It is quite possible that qualitative jumps in understanding will be
made under these auspicious circumstances.
It has also been shown that it is
proper to regard intelligence as the collect term to characterize the innate,
genetically endowed individual ability. The fixed nature of intelligence was
established though twins studies, which showed just how significant genetic
factors are in predicting L1 acquisition. The extraordinarily similar way in
which identical twins learn L1 and the way this was connected to biological
factors was confirmed by the fact that other siblings, including fraternal
twins, exhibited a much less close correlation in L1 development. This fact
renders invalid the argument that the similarity in development shown by the
identical twins is due to environmental factors. These studies were then
connected to L2 studies by speculating on what would happen if the twins had
been studied in the same way as the participants in the Bristol Language
Project, which demonstrates the connection between L1 and L2 acquisition. It was
argued that identical twins would have the same results as those revealed in
the Bristol Language Project, in other words, each identical twin pair would
have achieved a level of L2 acquisition based on their rates of L1 attainment
and the linguistic intellectual capacities evidenced by that attainment. This
would demonstrate both the fixedness of intelligence and its role in L2
acquisition. However, as mentioned earlier, this remains speculative, however
well founded it may be. Further empirical research is needed.
The argument was later made that
efforts to label intelligence something else only serve to confuse matters.
Those who regard innate capacity as aptitude fail to show how aptitude is fundamentally
different from intelligence and what is indicated on an intelligence test. The
concept of aptitude was thus shown to be empty. When the evidence of the
significance of individual intelligence was considered in relation to
individual second language acquisition, with the aptitude studies properly
reconceived and integrated into the new interpretation, the impact was shown to
be great. The evidence that higher IQ scores correlated with better performance
on academic aspects of second language acquisition proved strong. It was also
argued that the claims that IQ is irrelevant to communicative second language
tasks are somewhat dubious. Various questions were presented both about the
abilities of the oral studies to ascertain their objectives and the theoretical
barriers for implementing a valid study. As is true of SLA research in general,
only further research can resolve these questions.
