The DOI matches its Crossref record; 164 of the 164 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 107 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow
Open accessAbstract
Foreign language (FL) aptitude generally refers to a specific talent for learning a foreign or second language (L2). After experiencing a long period of marginalized interest, FL aptitude research in recent years has witnessed renewed enthusiasm across the disciplines of educational psychology, second language acquisition (SLA) and cognitive neuroscience. This paper sets out to offer a historical and an updated account of this recent progress in FL aptitude theory development and research. As its subtitle indicates, the paper centres on three major issues: following the introduction and clarification of basic concepts, Section 1 traces the early conceptions of FL aptitude dominated by John Carroll's pioneering work. Section 2 summarizes and examines more recent theoretical perspectives and FL aptitude models proposed by researchers from multiple disciplines that have significantly broadened the conventional research traditions associated with Carroll's original conception. Based on the research synthesis of current FL aptitude models, Section 3 suggests the directions FL aptitude theory and research might take in coming years. We conclude that a working memory perspective on FL aptitude presents one promising avenue for advance, as does the development of new aptitude tests to predict speed of automatization, implicit learning and greater control over an emerging language system. In addition, it is argued that issues of domain-specificity versus domain-generality for aptitude tests may lead to aptitude theory and research becoming more central in applied linguistics.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review traces foreign language aptitude theory from Carroll’s four-factor model through contemporary cognitive, SLA, and neuroscience perspectives, arguing that aptitude research has broadened from prediction toward explanation. It concludes that working memory is a promising core component for future aptitude theory and testing, alongside new tests for automatization, implicit learning, and control over an emerging L2 system.
Key findings
- Carroll’s four-factor model—phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning ability, and associative memory—remains the most influential portrayal of FL aptitude, though later models add components such as L1/L2 phonology/orthography, working memory, and aptitude complexes.
- Meta-analytic evidence cited shows positive aptitude–L2 outcome links: Li (2015) reported r = 0.34 between MLAT scores and ultimate L2 learning outcomes across 34 studies (N = 3239), and another Li (2015) synthesis of 33 studies (3,106 learners) reported r = .31, 95% CI = .25–.36; Linck et al. (2014) reported a working memory–L2 population effect size of 0.255 across 79 samples (748 effect sizes, 3,707 participants).
- Sparks et al. (2011) found four L2 aptitude components—L1/L2 phonology/orthography, L1/L2 language analysis, IQ/memory, and self-perceptions of L2 motivation/anxiety—explained 76% of variance in ultimate oral and written L2 proficiency.
- In Hi-LAB validation work, the Paired Associates test, Letter Span of phonological short-term memory, and Implicit Learning test best distinguished “successful” from “very successful” learners; executive working memory, processing speed, and auditory tests did not distinguish the groups. CANAL-F did not significantly outperform the MLAT in predictive validity.
Methods
- Design: historical and integrative review of FL aptitude theory and testing, organized as “Yesterday, today and tomorrow.”
- Data/sample: no new primary data; the paper synthesizes prior theoretical models, empirical studies, and meta-analyses, including Carroll’s MLAT tradition, LCDH, CANAL-F, Skehan’s Macro-SLA model, Robinson’s Aptitude Complexes, Hi-LAB, and cognitive neuroscience findings.
- Main analysis: narrative conceptual synthesis and model comparison, with future directions proposed around working memory, micro aptitude research, knowledge vs. control, and domain-specificity/generality and explicit–implicit contrasts.
Limitations
- The paper states that FL aptitude research has suffered marginalized interest and relatively limited empirical work; it also notes that Skehan’s aptitude model remains speculative and needs empirical support, that Robinson’s framework has little data testing its hypotheses, and that Hi-LAB has only limited publicly available empirical evidence.
- The paper states that CANAL-F validation results did not significantly outperform the MLAT in predictive validity.
- Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not report a systematic search strategy, inclusion criteria, or formal quality appraisal, and its recommendations for working memory and future aptitude tests are programmatic rather than empirically settled.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
31 Sources not found · 23 Own interpretation · 21 Not checked yet · 17 No full text of the sources · 7 No basis given · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
In the paper
“It was found that first-order factor analysis of the aptitude and intelligence scores confirmed they were separate.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sasaki 1996
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“although there have been some criticisms and skepticism, the concept of FL aptitude has stood the test of time and remained a valid concept despite the big changes that have happened in classroom practice from structure-based methods, such as audiolingualism, to the more current communicative language teaching (Erlam 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Erlam 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“a recent meta-analysis conducted by Li (2015) of 34 sampled FL aptitude studies (N = 3239) in the past 50 years has produced a statistically significantly positive correlation (r = 0.34) between MLAT scores and ultimate L2 learning outcomes among children and adults.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelationaln = 3,239- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Carroll (1962Carroll ( , 1981Carroll ( , 1990Carroll ( , 1993) ) conceptualized the FL aptitude construct as comprising four distinct and measurable abilities: PHONETIC CODING ABILITY, GRAMMATICAL SENSITIVITY, INDUCTIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING ABILITY and ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Carroll 1962
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Carroll 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Carroll 1993 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result of this marginalized interest, knowledge about FL aptitude has not developed very much since it started some 50 years ago.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“among all ID factors (except for the indisputable age factor; see Skehan 1989Skehan , 1998;;Dörnyei 2005;Granena & Long 2013 for detailed reviews) that are purported to influence L2 learning, only L2 motivation can manage to perform on a par with FL aptitude in predicting ultimate learning outcomes”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, a second-order factor analysis corroborated the existence of a common factor, namely analytic ability, which accounted for the variance in some of the aptitude variables as well as that in the intelligence quotients (IQ).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sasaki 1996
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Other aptitude factors in Carroll's original model (1962Carroll's original model ( , 1981)), such as phonetic coding ability and memory, did not correlate with intelligence.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Carroll 1962
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Carroll 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Viewed this way, it seems fair to claim that FL aptitude theory has lagged far behind L2 motivation theory.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Robinson's conception of FL aptitude is similar to Skehan's model in that it also seeks to provide an explanation that aims to account for observable IDs in the final learning outcome among L2 learners.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 37
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Aptitude could be linked to this research (Schumann 2004;Carpenter 2008;Xiang et al. 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schumann 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Carpenter 2008Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.2 (page unavailable) proposes that variation in neural systems involved in memory may affect L2 grammar learning and yield traits relevant to aptitude. That supports a possible link between aptitude and neurolinguistic research, but the passage does not specifically link aptitude to brain connectivity networks; connectivity appears in the References (page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Xiang et al. 2012 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“recent years have witnessed significant progress in both language aptitude test construction (e.g. from MLAT to CANAL-F, LLAMA and Hi-LAB) and theoretical conceptualization as well as research paradigms (from MLAT-based 'predictive' correlation studies to current interactional studies that aim to both predict and 'explain' SLA).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“recent years have witnessed significant progress in both language aptitude test construction (e.g. from MLAT to CANAL-F, LLAMA and Hi-LAB) and theoretical conceptualization as well as research paradigms (from MLAT-based 'predictive' correlation studies to current interactional studies that aim to both predict and 'explain' SLA).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the actual number of empirical studies (Table 2) is relatively limited, which indicates a clear lack of interest among researchers in this topic until recent years (Li 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“he regarded aptitude as a sort of ability, namely a latent trait that is relatively stable and relatively resistant to training, and which refers to the potential for achievement provided instruction is optimal.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Carroll 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This conceptual framework of FL aptitude, as Skehan (2002) cogently puts it, has proved to be more enduring than even the MLAT test battery itself and to date it is still the most influential portrayal of FL aptitude available (Skehan 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Skehan 2002 source
- Not matchedcites Skehan 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“John Carroll (1993), clearly differentiated the terms 'ability', 'aptitude' and 'achievement'.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Carroll 1993 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, an ability is an aptitude if it predicts the rate and speed of learning.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To begin with, 'FL aptitude' should be considered an umbrella term consisting of a set of COGNITIVE abilities, thus making it a COMPONENTIAL concept (Carroll 1981(Carroll , 1993;;Skehan 1998;Sparks et al. 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Carroll 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Carroll 1993 source
- Not matchedcites Skehan 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“this body of research has shown that the role of language aptitude is not just confined to traditional formal/instructed settings (as originally postulated by Carroll 1962), but is also viable under different learning conditions and in different learning contexts (Wesche 1981;Reves 1982), as well as in today's communicative classrooms (Robinson 1996”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wesche 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Reves 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Robinson 1996 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Sasaki concluded that intelligence and analytic ability are interrelated, whereas phonetic coding ability and memory factors are separate components of FL aptitude, independent of the g factor”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sasaki 1996
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the number of empirical studies on the neurological substrates of FL aptitude is growing, producing accumulating evidence that is consistent and replicable across studies (Biedroń 2015; also see Li, Legault & Litcofsky 2014).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Robinson's (2005Robinson's ( , 2007Robinson's ( , 2012) ) 'Aptitude Complexes/Ability Differential' framework.As its name clearly denotes, there are two closely interlocking hypotheses incorporated in the framework.”
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Robinson's theoretical conception of FL aptitude differs from previous models with its most articulate emphasis on the DYNAMIC interactions between learner ability factors (either of lowerlevel core cognitive abilities or higher-level aptitude complexes) and the inherent task characteristics (or 'task complexity' in his own terms, Robinson 2005Robinson , 2007Robinson , 2012)).Such aptitude”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This theory emphasizes the ability to handle novelty and ambiguity when learning an L2.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Grigorenko et al. 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it can be argued that the aptitude components of 'phonetic coding ability' and working memory are most likely to be related to the initial stage of input processing and to noticing.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The motivation for this development has been a perceived need to develop an aptitude battery suitable for the prediction and explanation of high levels of L2 proficiency, targeted particularly at talented post-critical-period language learners.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Doughty et al. 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is, as yet, little data on how these hypotheses have been tested.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This evidence is intriguing and encouraging, but not conclusive in terms of validation for the Hi-LAB.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As for language analytical ability (a combination of Carroll's original 'grammar sensitivity' and 'inductive language learning' as well, again, as working memory), Skehan believes they should be related to the stages of pattern identification and restructuring, and extending.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Despite its theoretical appeal, Skehan's conception of FL aptitude remains at a speculative stage and, therefore, further empirical support is necessary before this model can be fully operationalized and put into practice”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Skehan 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The first, the Aptitude Complexes Hypothesis (based on the ideas of 'aptitude complexes' by Snow 1987Snow , 1994) ) claims that a set of basic cognitive abilities (such as 'processing speed', 'pattern recognition', 'phonological working memory capacity,') combine to form higherorder aptitude complexes (such as 'noticing the gap' and 'memory for contingent speed') that are being drawn on in”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Snow 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Snow 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“if a student experiences difficulties in L1 phonology/orthography, his/her subsequent L2 learning will likely suffer as well (Sparks & Ganschow 2001: 97).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sparks & Ganschow 2001 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“However, it slightly differs from Skehan's approach in that it tries to provide a finer-grained representation of the complex structure of human cognitive abilities (Carroll 1993) and also makes clearer reference to specific educational contexts.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Carroll 1993 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the tests which seemed more effective here tended to probe long-term memory (consistent with Skehan's 1998 speculation that memory is more important at higher levels of achievement) and also tended to be tests with more prominent language-specific material”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Skehan 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“the basic premise of the LCDH model lies in the argument that native language (L1) literacy skills are essential for predicting L2 learning.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yang & Li 2012) which found that the explicit learners engaged more of a network that relies on the insula as a relay station, whereas their implicit counterparts evoked a more direct frontalstriatal network in language learning and processing.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yang & Li 2012 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“The second, the Ability Differentiation Hypothesis claims that L2 learners demonstrate variations within the set of cognitive abilities (with strengths in some of them and weaknesses in others), thus leading to differentiated profiles in corresponding aptitude complexes.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Robinson 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Robinson is proposing that relevant 'aptitude' is not always the same, and that content of learning, or instructional conditions interact with the aspects of aptitude that are most relevant.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“there are four 'aptitude complexes' in the framework.They are namely, an aptitude for a focus on form; an aptitude for incidental learning, via oral content; an aptitude for incidental learning via written content; and an aptitude for explicit rule learning.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Robinson 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these brain-based neurological explorations can be divided into two types: those that focus on the STRUCTURAL aspects of brain anatomy and those connected with FUNCTIONAL aspects of brain activation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The concept has remained intact -a relatively fixed trait that is not subject to malleability by later learning experience -and until the twenty-first century the research conventions barely changed”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the tests of executive working memory did not distinguish between the groups, nor did processing speed or the auditory tests.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Linck et al. 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Such research may provide clues as to possible brain localization and neural substrates linked to performance on explicit or implicitly oriented aptitude tests (Li & Grant 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Li & Grant 2015 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“On this basis, DeKeyser (2000) proposes that such compensation derives from a high level of talent for explicit language learning.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites DeKeyser 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: A critical period for language learning may exist.
In the paper
“he notes that a relationship with aptitude may have a different time course with explicit and implicit conditions, growing in impact with implicit conditions after showing little relationship initially, whereas effects with explicit manipulations emerge sooner, and do not grow”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Skehan 2015a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Granena (2013Granena ( , 2015) ) argues that LLAMA D is a measure of implicit learning since it contains no explicit presentation and was also distinct from other (more explicit) aptitude measures in a factor analytic study while nonetheless loading similarly to other implicit measures.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Granena 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Granena 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“since there have been proposals that suggest different brain connectivity networks for implicit and explicit learning (Yang et al. 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yang et al. 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“due to the marginalized interest in the concept of FL aptitude, advances in both theoretical conception and methodological innovation have been limited”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The concept of FL aptitude has been marginalized in applied linguistics/SLA.
In the paper
“But new tests are needed if we are to be able to account for, and predict, advanced level language achievement”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Doughty et al. 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In contrast, with implicit feedback, aptitude links with complexity of L1-L2 relationship.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Skehan 2015a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A first point to make about this research is that aptitude has shown effects over quite short time intervals, and in a way more clearly related to acquisitional processes.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“we argue that the 'working memory-based perspective on FL aptitude', to use the words from Snow's (1992) title, represents an aptitude theory 'for tomorrow'.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Snow 1992 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“since each may have areas of greater relevance, e.g.explicit for instructional contexts, implicit for more naturalistic domains.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The studies in Li's (2015) review have broadly indicated that aptitude has an effect even in such short-duration, focused studies, and that aptitude tends to generate larger effect sizes with explicit rather than implicit treatments”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“With explicit instruction or feedback, aptitude is more likely to enter into stronger relationships with learning when focal grammar points are redundant for communication.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Skehan 2015a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“particularly dwarfed when compared to the enormous developments with its individual difference counterpart of L2 motivation”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The concept of FL aptitude has been marginalized in applied linguistics/SLA.
In the paper
“Granena & Long (2013) report a less strong compensatory role for aptitude.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Granena & Long 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: A critical period for language learning may exist.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the analysis demonstrates that FL aptitude does not exist in a vacuum.The nature of aptitude sub-tests, and more especially the nature of the sub-tests that work, provides a commentary on fundamental issues in language learning.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the proposal of incorporating working memory as a central component of FL aptitude, and the theoretical linkages between aptitude components and learning or acquisition processes, can greatly compensate for some limitations in previous interpretations of the construct.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“several studies have suggested (DeKeyser 2000;Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam 2008;Biedroń & Pawlak 2016) that high aptitude has a compensating function and is associated with the capacity to reach close to native-like L2 levels after a critical period has closed”
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: A critical period for language learning may exist.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the proposal of incorporating working memory as a central component of FL aptitude, and the theoretical linkages between aptitude components and learning or acquisition processes, can greatly compensate for some limitations in previous interpretations of the construct.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
The left parietal cortex is pertinent to auditory and articulatory aspects and sub-serves phonological working memory.
“This area (left parietal cortex), generally assumed to be pertinent to auditory and articulatory aspects, is believed to sub-serve phonological working memory as well.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The left caudate and fusiform regions mediate language control functions and are involved in resolving competition arising from L1 during L2 use.
“The left caudate and fusiform regions are usually thought to mediate language control functions and likely are involved in resolving competition arising from L1 during L2 use.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A critical period for language learning may exist.
“If we do assume, though, for this discussion, that a critical period may exist”
The paper relies on this without support.
The concept of FL aptitude has been marginalized in applied linguistics/SLA.
“due to the marginalized interest in the concept of FL aptitude”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The MLAT has traditionally proven useful in predicting broader languagelearning outcomes, including sound-symbol association, memory, and analytic languagelearning ability (Carroll & Sapon, 2002;Wen et al., 2017).”
From On English Language Learners’ Prosody: The Possible Impact of L2 Aptitude, Musical Ability, and Proficiency on Nuclear Accent Placement in Spanish L1 Contexts (2026) · cites this paper as Wen et al., 2017
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“More recently, scholars have likewise pointed out that ATI effects are to be expected (Grañena, 2013c;Kormos, 2013;Wen et al., 2017).”
From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Wen et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 3.2
“The CANAL-F test contains nine sections.”
§ 3.2
“The final, fifth, section involves learning language rules.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Associative memory
“a recent meta-analysis conducted by Li (2015) of 34 sampled FL aptitude studies (N = 3239)”
§ 4.1.1 Rationale and empirical evidence
“The first was conducted by Li (2015) and investigated the correlation results between aptitude (mostly MLAT-based; excluding working memory), and L2 outcomes with a total of 33 empirical studies (17 predictive and 16 interactional) that involved 3,106 L2 learners.”
Citations
Cites
(1985) · Cited by 4,527
Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies
Baddeley, A. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 · Cited by 4,271
Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies
Carroll, J. B. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571312 · Cited by 4,121
A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning
Garcia, P., & Skehan, P. (1999) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587891 · Cited by 3,489
Self-citationHuman cognitive abilities a survey of factor-analytic studies
Carroll, J. B. (2004) · Cited by 3,395
Understanding second language acquisition
Ellis, R. (1985) · Cited by 2,937
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196772 · Cited by 2,882
(1998) · Cited by 2,572
Working memory and language: an overview
Baddeley, A. (2003) · Journal of Communication Disorders · doi:10.1016/s0021-9924(03)00019-4 · Cited by 2,565
Teaching and Researching: Motivation
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315833750 · Cited by 2,514
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Wesche M. B. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. C. Diller (ed.), 119–154.
- Green, 1975, The language laboratory in school: The York study
- Reves T. (1982). What makes a good language learner? Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
- Pimsleur, 1966, Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery
- Li S. (2011). Interactions between feedback type, proficiency, linguistic target, and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.
- Tare, 2013, Building a language learner's profile: Characteristics which inform training and pedagogy
- Gathercole, 2008, Cognitive development in K-3 classroom learning: Research applications, 15
- Ehrman, 1998, The Modern Language Aptitude Test for predicting learning success and advising students, Applied Language Learning, 9, 31
- Skehan, 2016, Cognitive individual differences in L2 processing and acquisition, 15
- Bunting M. F. & R. Engle (2015). Foreword. In Z. Wen , M. B. Mota & A. McNeill (eds.), xvii–xxiv.
- Carroll, 1990, Language aptitude reconsidered, 11
- Skehan, 1986, Spoken language, 95
- Sheen, 2007, Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, 301
- Doughty, 2010, Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum, 10
- Aguado, 2012, Individual characteristics in foreign language education: Perspectives from research and practice. Proceedings of the CLaSIC Conference, 51
- Levelt, 1999, Neurocognition of language, 83
- Doughty C. J. , S Jackson & M. Hughes (2015). Implementation of the high-level language aptitude battery at the Foreign Service Institute and the National Security Agency. Paper presented at the East Coast Organization of Language Testers Conference. 9 October 2015.
- Jackson, 2015, A simulation model of aptitude-by-treatment interaction in language training: Quantifying the impact of tailored language training
- Carroll, 1959, Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT)
- Snow, 1987, Aptitude, learning and instruction, cognitive process analyses of aptitude, 11
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Digital Language Learning (DLL): Insights from Behavior, Cognition, and the Brain
Li, P., & Lan, Y. (2021) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728921000353 · Cited by 196
The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching
Nuzzo, E., & Velásquez, D. C. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108868327 · Cited by 138
Incidental L2 vocabulary learning from viewing captioned videos: Effects of learner-related factors
Teng, M. F. (2022) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2022.102736 · Cited by 131
Doughty, C. J. (2018) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12322 · Cited by 105
Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests
Rogers, V., Meara, P., Barnett-Legh, T., Curry, C., & Davie, E. (2017) · Journal of the European Second Language Association · doi:10.22599/jesla.24 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Wen, Z. (., Biedroń, A., & Skehan, P.
- Affiliations
- Macao Polytechnic University (MO)
- Uniwersytet Pomorski w Słupsku (PL)
- St Mary's University Twickenham London (GB)
- Venue
- Language Teaching
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016-12-21
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-31
- ISSN
- 0261-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3049
- OpenAlex
- W2563116162
- Semantic Scholar
- e738c99333e1ca3d50590206fa089902c472e53a
- Cited by
- 248
- References
- 153
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8
- FWCI
- 77.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Language Teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- foreign language aptitude, second language acquisition, John Carroll, working memory, implicit learning, automation, aptitude tests, domain specificity, domain generality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
