The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Foreign language aptitude, acquisitional sequences, and psycholinguistic processes
Abstract
This chapter has two broad aims: to relate aptitude tests and recent aptitude research, including that reported in this volume, to proposed second language acquisition stages; and to relate aptitude testing to the contrasts between domain-generality and domain-specificity, on the one hand, and explicit and implicit processes, on the other. Regarding SLA stages, a broad distinction is made between stages concerned with developing knowledge and those concerned with developing control. It is argued that aptitude tests have concentrated on the first and that there is scope to develop more aptitude tests to assess the second. Regarding the two major contrasts, it is argued that analysing aptitude tests in these terms is useful as a means of indicating what underlying theories they have. In that respect it is interesting that the most recent major battery (HiLAB: domain-general, often implicit) contrasts with older batteries (e.g. MLAT: domain specific, explicit). It is argued that aptitude tests, viewed in this way, can make theoretical contributions to second language acquisition more generally in characterising what language learning abilities consist of.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Second, attempts have been made to map aptitude components onto information-processing stages that characterise the L2 learning process (Skehan, 2002”
From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Skehan, 2016
In the citing paper
“phonetic coding ability can be expected to play a role at the earliest stages of acquisition (Skehan, 2016)”
From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Skehan, 2016
In the citing paper
“memory is considered most important at more advanced stages when knowledge is proceduralised and automaticity of retrieval that manifests itself in fluent performance is achieved (Skehan, 2016)”
From The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction (2024) · cites this paper as Skehan, 2016
Citations
Cites
Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies
Carroll, J. B. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571312 · Cited by 4,121
Wang, Z. (2014) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.02wan · Cited by 164
Research works printed but not linked: 48
- Anderson, 2010, Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications
- 10.1075/lllt.35.08bol · DOI
- Carroll, 1965, The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training, 87
- Carroll, 1973, Implications of aptitude test research and psycholinguistic theory for foreign language teaching, International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2, 5
- Chan, 2011, Working memory, phonemic coding ability and foreign language aptitude: Potential for construction of specific language aptitude tests—the case of Cantonese, Ilha Do Desterro: A Journal of English language, literatures and cultural studies, 60, 45
- Clark, 1977, Psychology and Language
- 10.1017/S0272263197002064 · DOI
- De Keyser, 2000, The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499, 10.1017/S0272263100004022 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/CBO9780511667275.016 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00736.x · DOI
- 10.1075/lllt.11.03ell · DOI
- Ellis, 2009, Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language, 31
- Ellis, 2015, Understanding second language acquisition
- Ellis, 2014, Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research
- 10.1017/S0272263112000149 · DOI
- 10.1111/lang.12018 · DOI
- 10.1177/0267658312461497 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1075/lllt.35 · DOI
- 10.1111/0026-7902.00076 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00477.x · DOI
- 10.1093/applin/amu054 · DOI
- 10.1111/lang.12011 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.005 · DOI
- MacWhinney, 2005, A unified model of language acquisition, 49
- Meara, 2005, LLAMA Language Aptitude Tests: The Manual
- Mackey, 2007, Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis, 407
- Miyake, 1998, Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude, 339
- 10.1111/lang.12010 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0272263100014674 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/CBO9780511667275.015 · DOI · Paper page
- Sasaki, 1996, Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence. Quantitative and qualitative analyses
- Skehan, 1982, Memory and motivation in language aptitude testing
- Skehan, 1986, Where does language aptitude come from?, 95
- Skehan, 1989, Individual differences in second language learning
- 10.1093/applin/17.1.38 · DOI · Paper page
- Skehan, 1998, A cognitive approach to language learning
- 10.1075/lllt.2.06ske · DOI · Paper page
- Skehan, 2012, Language aptitude, 381
- Skehan, 2013, Nurturing noticing, 169
- Skehan, 2013, The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics
- 10.1075/tblt.5.08ske · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1075/tblt.5 · DOI
- 10.1093/applin/amu072 · DOI
- 10.1075/lllt.35.02spa · DOI
- Ullman, 2005, A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/ procedural model, 141
- 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00290.x · DOI
- Wesche, 1981, Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems, 119
- Wray, 2008, Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Examining Individual Differences in Language Learning: A Neurocognitive Model of Language Aptitude
Turker, S., Seither-Preisler, A., & Reiterer, S. M. (2021) · Neurobiology of Language · doi:10.1162/nol_a_00042 · Cited by 33
The role of individual learner differences in explicit language instruction
Roehr‐Brackin, K., Baranowska, K., Pavlekovic, R., & Scheffler, P. (2024) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12963 · Cited by 9
Aptitude for Explicit and Implicit Learning
Pavlekovic, R., & Roehr-Brackin, K. (2024) · Journal of the European Second Language Association · doi:10.22599/jesla.117 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Skehan, P.
- Affiliations
- St. Mary’s University, Twickenham
- Venue
- Bilingual Processing and Acquisition
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2016-12-02
- Pages
- 17-40
- ISSN
- 2352-0531
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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