CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

APTITUDE AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Robinson, Peter·2005·Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
DOI 10.1017/s0267190505000036
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent second language acquisition (SLA) research into the cognitive abilities implicated in implicit, incidental, and explicit learning, and in learning and performance on tasks differing in their information processing demands has prompted new theoretical frameworks for conceptualizing L2 aptitude. This research is reviewed and related to measures of abilities operationalized in existing aptitude tests, as well as to measures of abilities that are the focus of more recent research in cognitive psychology. Finally, prospects for developing aptitude tests to serve the purposes of predicting both early and advanced level language learning success are discussed in the light of the SLA findings and aptitude frameworks reviewed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0267190505000036

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Explicit aptitude may primarily predict achievement at beginner levels.

    “Whereas explicit aptitude may primarily predict achievement at beginner levels (Linck et al., 2013;Robinson, 2005)”

    From Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Robinson, 2005

  • Robinson's framework involves several embedded levels of analysis, progressing from fundamental and general abilities to more specific and variable educational contexts.

    “Robinson presents the framework as involving several embedded levels of analysis.For example, basic cognitive abilities belong to the most deeply embedded and fundamental level, while aptitude complexes represent less core, embedded abilities, and finally task aptitudes, as well as actual performance, are the least embedded and most real-world aspects of the model.”

    From Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (2017) · cites this paper as Robinson 2005

  • Explicit aptitude may be relevant in both explicit and implicit learning conditions, and may be more important in naturalistic learning conditions where no scaffolding is available.

    “While surprising at first glance, this finding chimes with earlier theoretical arguments that (explicit) aptitude may be relevant in both explicit and implicit learning conditions (Robinson, 2005;Skehan, 2002), and that (explicit) aptitude may in fact be more important in naturalistic (i.e., implicit, or at least incidental) learning conditions where no scaffolding is available (Abrahamsson & Hylt”

    From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Robinson, 2005

  • L2 instruction can play to learners' strengths.

    “This line of reasoning suggests that L2 instruction can play to learners' strengths (DeKeyser, 2012”

    From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Robinson, 2005

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 104

  1. Parry T. , & Stansfield C. 1990.(Eds.)Language aptitude reconsidered.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
  2. Robinson P. 2001b.Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA.In P. Robinson Cognition and second language instruction(pp. 287–318).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  3. Miyake A. , & Friedman N. 1998.Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working Memory as language aptitude.In A. Healy & L. Bourne Jr. (Eds.),Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention(pp. 339–364).Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  4. Robinson P. 2002c.Individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory during adult incidental second language learning: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991).In P. Robinson (Ed.)Individual differences and instructed language learning(pp. 211–266).Amsterdam:Benjamins. · DOI
  5. Sternberg R. J. 2002.The theory of successful intelligence and its implications for language aptitude testing.In P. Robinson Individual differences and instructed language learning(pp. 13–44).Amsterdam:Benjamins. · DOI
  6. Ellis R. (Ed.)(in press).Planning time and second language learning.Amsterdam:Benjamins.
  7. Doughty C. & Varela E. 1998.Communicative focus on form.In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition(pp. 114–138).New York:Cambridge University Press.
  8. Costa P. T. , & McCrae R. R. 1985.The NEO Personality Inventory manual.Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.. · DOI
  9. Snow R. E. , Kyllonen P. C. , & Marshalek B. 1984.The topography of ability and learning correlations.In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.)Advances in the psychology of human intelligence(pp. 47–103).Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
  10. Robinson P. 2002a.(Ed.).Individual differences and instructed language learning.Amsterdam:Benjamins. · DOI
  11. Tokowitcz N. , & MacWhinney B. (in press).Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27,2. · DOI
  12. Niwa Y. 2000.Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence and aptitude.Unpublished master's dissertation,Department of English, Aoyama Gakuin University,Japan
  13. Robinson P. (in press b).Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength and frequency effects in implicit Artificial Grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27 (2). · DOI
  14. Dörnyei Z. (in press).Individual differences and second language learning.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  15. Snow R. E. 1994.Abilities in academic tasks.In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.),Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence(pp. 3–37).New York:Cambridge University Press.
  16. Sands W. , Waters B. , & McBride J. 1997.(Eds.)Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation.Washington, DC:American Psychological Corporation. · DOI
  17. Schmidt R. , & Frota S. 1986.Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese.In R. Day Talking to learn: Conversation in second language learning(pp. 237–322).Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
  18. Reed D. , & Stansfield C. 2004.An interview with John B. Carroll: The story behind the Modern Language Aptitude Test.Language Assessment Quarterly,1,21–38.
  19. Pashler H. E. 2000.Task switching and multitask performance.In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes(pp. 277–308).Cambridge, MA:MIT Press. · DOI
  20. Rosenthall R. , Hall J. , Rogers P. L. , & Archer D. 1979.Sensitivity to nonverbal communications: The PONS test.Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press. · DOI
  21. Kenyon D. M. , & MacGregor D. (Eds.).2004.Final report of the Defense Language Aptitude Battery II project.Washington, DC:Center for Applied Linguistics.
  22. Rahimpour M. 1999.Task complexity and variation in interlanguage.In N. O. Jungheim & P. Robinson (Eds.),Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the Third Pacific Second Language Research Forum,Vol. 2(pp. 115–134).Tokyo:PacSLRF.
  23. Hulstijn J. H. 2003.Incidental and intentional learning.In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),Handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 349–381).Oxford:Blackwell. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Diller K. C. (Ed.)1981.Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude.Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
  25. Baddeley A. 2000.Working memory and language processing.In B.E. Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.),Language processing and simultaneous interpreting(pp. 1–16).Amsterdam:Benjamins. · DOI
  26. Lohman D. F. 2000.Complex information processing and intelligence.In R. J. Sternberg Handbook of intelligence(pp. 285–340).New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  27. Ellis N. C. (in press).At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27 (2).
  28. Robinson P. 1999.Second language classroom research in Japan: Issues, studies, and prospects.In T. Fujimura , Y. Kato & R. Smith (Eds.),Proceedings of the 10th IUJ Conference on second language research(pp. 93–116).Tokyo:International University of Japan.
  29. Harley B. , & Hart D. 2002.Age, aptitude and second language learning on a bilingual exchange.In P. Robinson Individual differences and instructed language learning(pp. 301–330).Amsterdam:Benjamins. · DOI
  30. Clark A. 1997.Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press. · DOI
  31. Nagata H. , Aline D. , & Ellis R. 1999.Modified input, language aptitude, and the acquisition of word meanings.In R. Ellis (Ed.)Learning a second language through interaction(pp. 133–150).Amsterdam:Benjamins. · DOI
  32. Long M. H. (in press).Recasts: The story so far.Problems in SLA.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  33. Ehrman M. E. 1996.Understanding second language learning difficulties.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. · DOI
  34. Ellis R. 2004.Task-based teaching and learning.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
  35. Robinson P. (in press c).Aptitude, abilities, contexts and practice.In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.)Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology.New York:Cambridge University Press.
  36. Mayer J. D. , Salovey P. , & Caruso D. 2000.Models of emotional intelligence.In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),Handbook of intelligence(pp. 396–420).New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  37. Sternberg R. J. , & Grigorenko E. L. 2003.(Eds.)The psychology of abilities, competencies and expertise.New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  38. Liddicoat A. , & Crozet C. 2001.Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction.In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.),Pragmatics in language teaching(pp.125–144).New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  39. Dai D. Y. , & Sternberg R. J. (Ed.).2004.Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. · DOI
  40. Chapin F. S. 1967.The social insight test.Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.
  41. Anderson M. 1992.Intelligence and development: A cognitive theory.Oxford:Blackwell.
  42. Doughty C. , & Williams J. 1998.Pedagogical choices in focus on form.In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition(pp. 197–262).New York:Cambridge University Press.
  43. Ellis R. (Ed.).1999.Learning a second language through interaction.Amsterdam:Benjamins. · DOI
  44. Grigorenko E. L.2002.Language-based learning disabilities.In P. Robinson Individual differences and instructed language learning(pp. 95–113).Amsterdam:Benjamins. · DOI
  45. Baron-Cohen S. 1995.Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind.Oxford:Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  46. DeKeyser R. M. 2003.Implicit and explicit learning.In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),Handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 313–348).Oxford:Blackwell. · DOI
  47. de Jong N. (in press).Is listening enough for grammar acquisition? The effect of an aural training on reception and production in a second language.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27,2.
  48. Archer D. 1983.The encoding of meaning: A test of three theories of social interaction.Sociological Enquiry,50,393–419 · DOI
  49. Ackerman P. L. 1999.Traits and knowledge as determinants of learning and individual differences: Putting it all together.In P. L. Ackerman , P. Kyllonen , & R. Roberts (Eds.),Learning and individual differences: Process, trait and content determinants(pp. 437–462).Washington, DC:American Psychological Association. · DOI
  50. Oxford R. , Cho Y. , Leung S. , & Kim H. 2004.Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use.International Review of Applied Linguistics,42,1–48.
  51. Sternberg R. J. 2004.Comments on the ‘Summary of the DLAB 2 project.’In D. M. Kenyon , & D. MacGregor (Eds.),Final report of the Defense Language Aptitude Battery II project,(Appendix I,pp.1–14).Washington, DC:Center for Applied Linguistics.
  52. Logan G. D. 2004.Working memory, task switching and executive control in the task span procedure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133,218–236.
  53. Robinson P. (in press a).Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design.International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,43 (1).. · DOI
  54. Nelson K. 1987.Some observations from the perspective of the rare event, cognitive comparison theory of language acquisition.In K. Nelson & A. vanKleek (Eds.),Childrens' language(pp. 289–331).Norwood, NJ:Erlbaum. · DOI
  55. Collentine J. , & Freed B. F. (Ed.).2004.Language context and its effects on second language acquisition [Special issue].Studies in Second Language Acquisition,26, 2.
  56. Snow R. E. 1987.Aptitude complexes.In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.),Aptitude, learning and instruction, Vol. 3: Conative and affective process analysis(pp. 11–34).Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
  57. Carroll J. B. 1990.Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now.In T. Parry & C. Stansfield (Eds.),Language aptitude reconsidered(pp. 11–29).Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
  58. Carroll J. B. 1981.Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude.In K. C. Diller (Ed.),Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude(pp. 83–118).Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
  59. Levinson S. C. 1995.Interactional biases in human thinking.In E. Goody Social intelligence and interaction(pp. 221–260).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  60. Goldin-Meadow S. , Alibali M. W. , & Church C. 1993.Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind.Psychological Review,100,279–297.
  61. Segalowitz N. 2003.Automaticity and second language acquisition.In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),Handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 382–408).Oxford:Blackwell. · DOI
  62. Chee M. W. , Soon C. S. , Lee H. L. & Pallier C. 2004.Left insula activation: A marker for language attainment in bilinguals.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,101 2 15265–15276.
  63. Hulstijn J. H. , & DeKeyser R. M. 1997.Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Special Issue.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,19,2 · DOI
  64. Robinson P. 2003a.Attention and memory during SLA.In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),Handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 631–678).Oxford:Blackwell. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Bygate M. 2001.Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language.In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.),Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing(pp. 23–48).Harlow:Longman.
  66. VanPatten B. 2004.(Ed.)Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. · DOI
  67. Robinson P. , Ting S.C-C. , & Urwin J. 1995.Investigating second language task complexity.RELC Journal,26,62–79.
  68. DeKeyser R. M. (Ed.)(in press).Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology.New York:Cambridge University Press.
  69. Farley A. 2004.Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed?In B. VanPatten (Ed.),Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary(pp. 227–240).Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  70. Robinson P. 2001.(Ed.).Cognition and second language instruction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  71. Sawyer M. , & Ranta L. 2001.Aptitude, individual differences and instructional design.In P. Robinson Cognition and second language instruction(pp. 319–353).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Fleishman E. A. , & Quaintance M. K. 1984.Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks.New York:Academic Press.
  73. Deary I. J. 2000.Looking down on human intelligence: From psychometrics to the brain.Oxford:Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  74. Hulstijn J. H. , & Ellis R. (Ed.)2005.Implicit and explicit second language learning: Special issue.Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27,2. · DOI
  75. Cohen A. D. 2003.The learner's side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies and tasks meet?International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,41,279–292.
  76. Ackerman P. L. & Ciancolo A. 2002.Ability and task constraint determinants of complex task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,8,194–208.
  77. Hulstijn J. H. 2001.Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity.In P. Robinson Cognition and second language instruction(pp. 258–286).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  78. Bardovi-Harlig K. 2001.Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction?In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.),Pragmatics in language teaching(pp. 13–32).New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  79. Skehan P. 1998.A cognitive approach to language learning.Oxford:Oxford University Press. · DOI
  80. Kim J. 1993.Supervenience and mind.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  81. Garlick D. 2002.Understanding the nature of the general factor of intelligence: The role of individual differences in neural plasticity as an explanatory mechanism.Psychological Review,109,116–136.
  82. Sparks R. , & Ganschow L. 2001.Aptitude for learning a foreign language.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,21,90–111.
  83. Benati A. 2004.The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense.In B. Van Patten (Ed.),Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary(pp. 207–226).Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  84. Shavelson R. J. , & Roeser R. W. 2002.(Eds.)A multidimensional approach to achievement validation [Special Issue].Educational Assessment,8,2.
  85. Ellis N. C. 2003.Constructions, chunking and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure.In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),Handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 63–103).Oxford:Blackwell. · DOI
  86. Rose K. , & Kasper G. 2001.Pragmatics in language teaching.New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  87. Daneman M. , & Carpenter P. A. 1980.Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour,19,450–466.
  88. Dörnyei Z. , & Skehan P. 2003.Individual differences in second language learning.In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),Handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 589–630).Oxford:Blackwell. · DOI · Paper page
  89. Pellegrino J. , & Glaser R. 1979.Cognitive correlates and components in the analysis of individual differences.In R. J. Sternberg & D. Detterman (Eds.),Human intelligence: perspectives on its theory and measurement(pp. 61–88).Noorwood, NJ:Ablex.
  90. Iwashita N. , McNamara T. , & Elder C. 2001.Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design.Language Learning,51,401–436. · DOI
  91. Parry T. , & Child J. 1990.Preliminary investigation of the relationship between VORD, MLAT and language proficiency.In T. Parry & C. Stansfield (Eds.),Language aptitude reconsidered(pp. 30–66).Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
  92. Ehrman M. E. , Leaver B. , & Oxford R. 2003.A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning.System,31,313–330.
  93. Skehan P. 1999.Task-based language instruction.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,18,268–286.
  94. Robinson P. 2003b.The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning.Second Language Studies,21 (2),45–107.
  95. Yoshimi D. 2001.Explicit instruction and JFL learners' use of interactional discourse markers.In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.),Pragmatics in language teaching(pp. 223–247).New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  96. Rosenthal R. , Rosnow R. , & Rubin D. 2000.Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach.New York:Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  97. Ceci S. J. 1996.On intelligence… more or less: A bio-ecological treatise on intellectual development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
  98. White J. 1998.Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement study.In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition(pp. 85–113).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  99. Gilabert R. 2004.Task complexity, planning and L2 oral narrative production.Unpublished Ph.D dissertation.Department of Applied Linguistics, University of Barcelona, Spain
  100. Robinson P. 2002b.Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy.In P. Robinson Individual differences and instructed language learning(pp. 113–133).Amsterdam:Benjamins. · DOI
  101. Sternberg R. J. , & Wagner R. K. (Eds.)1994.Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence.New York:Cambridge University Press.
  102. Leeman J. , Artegoitia I. , Fridman B. , & Doughty C. 1995.Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content-based Spanish instruction.In R. Schmidt Attention and awareness in foreign language learning(pp. 217–258).Honolulu, HI:University of Hawai'i Press.
  103. Doughty C. 2004.When PI is focus on form it is very, very good; but when it is focus on forms ….In B. VanPatten (Ed.),Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary(pp. 121–132).Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  104. Doughty C. 2001.Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form.In P. Robinson (Ed.),Cognition and second language instruction(pp. 206–257).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Robinson, P.
Venue
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2005-03
Volume
25
Pages
46-73
ISSN
  • 0267-1905
  • 1471-6356
DOI
10.1017/s0267190505000036
Cited by
187
References
9
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 142 d)

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.

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