Chapter 7 – Foreign language aptitudes

Case study

Linh and Minh are both learning English in the same class, with the same teacher and textbook. Minh learns new words quickly, remembers sentence patterns, and can follow long listening passages without losing track. Linh is hardworking and motivated, but she often forgets new vocabulary, struggles to keep ideas in mind while reading, and needs more repetition to understand grammar rules. After several months, Minh progresses faster, although both students spend similar time studying. Their teacher wonders whether the difference is caused mainly by memory capacity, age, learning strategies, or another part of language aptitude. The class must discuss what may explain their different learning progress.

Discussion

1. What factors may explain the difference between Linh and Minh’s learning progress?
2. How might memory capacity influence vocabulary, grammar, listening, and reading development?
3. What can the teacher do to support a learner like Linh effectively?

Introduction

Foreign language aptitude refers to a learner’s relative capacity to learn an additional language successfully, especially under particular instructional conditions (Carroll & Sapon, 1959/2002; Wen et al., 2017). In the classic aptitude tradition associated with the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), aptitude was treated as a constellation of abilities that help explain why some learners progress more quickly or efficiently than others. These abilities were commonly described as including phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language-learning ability, and memory-related capacities (Carroll & Sapon, 1959/2002; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). The MLAT was designed to predict success in language learning rather than to measure achieved proficiency itself (Carroll & Sapon, 1959/2002).

More recent work has moved beyond a narrow view of aptitude as a single fixed talent. Contemporary scholarship treats aptitude as a multidimensional construct that interacts with other individual-difference variables, such as working memory, motivation, and learning conditions (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Wen et al., 2017). Wen et al. (2017) show that aptitude theory has evolved substantially since the early Carroll tradition and now draws on second language acquisition, cognitive psychology, and cognitive neuroscience. In the same vein, Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) locate aptitude within a broader individual-differences framework rather than treating it in isolation.

A key issue in current theory is whether aptitude should be seen as largely stable or partly malleable. The literature does not support the simplistic view that aptitude alone determines outcomes, but it does show that aptitude remains a robust predictor of differential success in many learning settings (Robinson, 2005; Wen et al., 2017). Robinson (2005) argues that aptitude is especially relevant to instructed SLA because different learning conditions may favor different constellations of learner abilities. In this sense, aptitude is better understood as a set of learner strengths whose importance varies across tasks, contexts, and target domains of learning (Robinson, 2005; Wen et al., 2017).

Research on advanced attainment also supports the continued importance of aptitude. Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) found that highly successful late L2 learners tended to show unusually strong aptitude profiles, and they concluded that aptitude helps explain why a small minority of adult learners achieve near-native performance. Their study also complicates earlier claims that aptitude matters only at the initial stages of learning: for some aspects of ultimate attainment, aptitude remains consequential well beyond the beginner level (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008). Related work has similarly shown that aptitude can matter in long-term second-language attainment, although its effects may vary depending on age of onset, linguistic target, and testing conditions (Granena, 2014).

For teaching and curriculum design, the implication is not that learners should be labeled as “good” or “bad” language learners. Rather, aptitude research suggests that learners differ in the cognitive resources they bring to language study, and these differences may make some types of instruction more effective than others. This is why aptitude-treatment interaction remains an important practical issue in SLA research: successful pedagogy may depend partly on how well instructional demands align with learners’ profiles (Robinson, 2005; Wen et al., 2017).

The correlational approach to cognition, conation, and affect

A correlational approach examines how learner variables relate to one another without experimentally manipulating them. In SLA, this approach has been especially useful for studying how cognition (for example, aptitude and processing abilities), conation (for example, motivation, self-regulation, and intended effort), and affect (for example, anxiety and enjoyment) are associated with one another and with language-learning outcomes (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Robinson, 2005). Because these domains are closely intertwined in real classrooms, correlational and structural-equation approaches have become central to individual-differences research in SLA.

From the cognitive side, aptitude research is one of the clearest examples of correlational work in SLA. Reviews by Robinson (2005) and Wen et al. (2017) show that aptitude measures have repeatedly been linked to differential rates and levels of L2 learning, although the strength of those relationships depends on the skill measured, the instructional setting, and the stage of development. In other words, correlational research has not shown that aptitude acts alone; rather, it shows that cognitive capacities systematically covary with important aspects of L2 achievement (Robinson, 2005; Wen et al., 2017).

From the conative side, self-regulation and future self-guides have been studied in relation to language learning behavior and achievement. Tseng et al. (2006) demonstrated that self-regulatory capacity in vocabulary learning can be measured in a psychometrically principled way, helping move SLA research beyond broad strategy lists toward a more focused understanding of learner regulation. Papi (2010) further showed, through structural equation modeling, that components of the L2 motivational self system are tied to intended effort and anxiety. These studies illustrate how motivational dispositions can be examined as part of a broader network of learner variables rather than as isolated traits (Papi, 2010; Tseng et al., 2006).

From the affective side, correlational research has shown that emotions are not peripheral to language learning. Dewaele (2013) found systematic links between foreign language classroom anxiety and personality variables among adult bi- and multilinguals. Bown and White (2010) showed that affect and self-regulation are closely intertwined in language learning experiences, especially in relation to how learners manage engagement and emotional responses. Teimouri (2017) also demonstrated that different kinds of L2 self-discrepancies are associated with different emotional reactions and motivational patterns. Together, these studies suggest that affect is not simply an outcome of language learning; it also helps shape how learners engage with learning opportunities (Bown & White, 2010; Dewaele, 2013; Teimouri, 2017).

An important lesson from this body of work is that cognition, conation, and affect should not be studied as separate boxes. Learners with strong aptitude may still underperform if anxiety is high or self-regulation is weak, while highly motivated learners may partly compensate for some cognitive limitations through persistence and strategic effort. Correlational research cannot by itself establish causation, but it is highly valuable for identifying patterned relationships that later experimental, longitudinal, and mixed-methods studies can investigate more deeply (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Wen et al., 2017).

Aptitude as a prediction of formal L2 learning rate

Language aptitude has long been used to explain why some learners progress faster than others in classroom-based second or foreign language learning. In the classic tradition, aptitude refers to a learner’s relative readiness to learn a new language efficiently under given conditions, especially in formal instruction (Carroll & Sapon, 1959/2002; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). Early aptitude research became especially influential with the development of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), which was designed to predict likely success in language courses rather than to measure already achieved proficiency (Carroll & Sapon, 1959/2002). The MLAT tradition also helped establish the view that aptitude is not a single ability but a cluster of abilities related to language learning, including phonetic coding, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning, and memory-related capacities (Carroll & Sapon, 1959/2002; Wen et al., 2017).

A central finding of the literature is that aptitude is a strong predictor of the rate of learning in instructed settings. In formal courses, learners with stronger aptitude profiles typically make faster progress because they can encode unfamiliar sounds more efficiently, detect patterns more readily, and retain relevant material more effectively (Robinson, 2005; Sparks & Ganschow, 2001). This does not mean that aptitude fully determines success, but it does mean that aptitude helps explain why learners exposed to similar instruction often differ substantially in learning speed and short-term achievement (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Robinson, 2005).

Later work has refined this traditional view in two important ways. First, aptitude is now treated as multidimensional rather than unitary. Second, its effects are understood as context-sensitive: different instructional conditions and target tasks may favor different combinations of learner abilities (Robinson, 2005; Wen et al., 2017). Wen et al. (2017), for example, argue that modern aptitude theory should be linked more closely to working memory, cognitive processing, and task demands, rather than being confined to older test batteries alone. This broader perspective helps explain why aptitude predicts some aspects of learning more strongly than others and why its effects can vary across stages of acquisition.

Research on long-term attainment also shows that aptitude is not relevant only at beginner levels. Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) found that highly successful late L2 learners who approached near-native performance tended to have exceptionally strong aptitude profiles. Granena (2014) similarly showed that aptitude could still be related to long-term morphosyntactic attainment, even among early learners, although the relationship depended on the linguistic target and the type of measure used. Together, these findings suggest that aptitude is best understood as a continuing source of individual variation in both learning rate and later attainment, not merely as a screening tool for beginners (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008; Granena, 2014).

Recent reviews also caution against treating older aptitude tests as flawless or exhaustive. Newer instruments such as the LLAMA battery were developed to provide shorter and more accessible measures of aptitude, but research on their reliability and predictive validity shows that they should be used carefully and interpreted in relation to specific purposes and contexts (Rogers et al., 2017). In other words, aptitude testing remains useful, but no single instrument captures the full complexity of language-learning potential (Wen et al., 2017; Rogers et al., 2017).

Pedagogically, the most important implication is not to label learners as permanently advantaged or disadvantaged. Rather, aptitude research suggests that instructional design can be improved when teachers recognize that learners vary in the cognitive resources they bring to language study. This is the logic behind aptitude–treatment interaction: some learners may benefit more from explicit explanation, others from repeated input, structured practice, or enhanced phonological support, depending on their aptitude profiles and current learning needs (Robinson, 2005; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003).

Lack of L2 aptitudes or general language-related difficulties?

Not all persistent difficulty in second language learning should be interpreted as evidence of low L2 aptitude. A key issue in the literature is whether weak performance in a foreign language reflects a specifically low aptitude for L2 learning or, instead, more general weaknesses in language-related processing that are already visible in the first language. Sparks and Ganschow’s work is especially important here because it challenged the idea that foreign language difficulty is mainly affective or motivational; instead, they argued that many struggling learners show underlying weaknesses in native-language phonological, orthographic, or syntactic processing that later affect foreign language learning as well (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, 2001).

This distinction matters because low scores on aptitude-like tasks do not necessarily indicate a unique, isolated “lack of aptitude.” Some learners may have broader difficulties with phonological coding, literacy, or verbal memory that affect both first-language and second-language performance. Supporting this view, longitudinal work by Sparks and colleagues found that early native-language literacy measures predicted later foreign language proficiency and aptitude scores. Their findings suggest that what appears to be low language aptitude may sometimes reflect more general language-learning foundations established in the first language rather than a separate L2-specific deficit (Sparks et al., 2007). Likewise, earlier research comparing successful and unsuccessful college foreign language learners found that unsuccessful learners often differed not in general intelligence but in native-language oral and written language skills and in language-related aptitude measures (Ganschow et al., 1991).

For this reason, it is misleading to treat all low-performing L2 learners as lacking a special “gift for languages.” Some may indeed have relatively weaker aptitude profiles in the traditional sense, but others may be facing broader language-related learning difficulties. Sparks and Ganschow (2001) therefore argue that assessment should be careful and multidimensional. Teachers and institutions should avoid assuming that slow progress automatically reflects poor effort, poor motivation, or a single aptitude deficit. Instead, they should consider native-language literacy history, phonological difficulties, processing limitations, and the quality of prior instruction alongside aptitude measures.

At the same time, low aptitude or language-related difficulty does not mean that successful L2 learning is impossible. The research literature does not support a deterministic interpretation of aptitude. Even if learners differ in the speed or ease with which they acquire a language, appropriate instruction, time, and support can still lead to substantial achievement (Robinson, 2005; Singleton, 2017). Singleton (2017) is especially useful here because he questions an overly rigid trait view of aptitude and argues that some dimensions of aptitude may be shaped, at least partly, by experience and learning history. This does not eliminate individual differences, but it does caution against treating aptitude as a fixed ceiling on what learners can achieve.

A practical implication is that struggling learners need diagnosis before judgment. If the problem is primarily phonological, learners may need more perception and pronunciation support. If the issue is broader literacy or verbal processing, they may need adapted pacing, multimodal input, explicit scaffolding, or specialized support. If the difficulty lies more in learning conditions than in core language-related processing, changes in instruction may make a major difference. In all cases, the aim should be to distinguish between a relatively weaker aptitude profile and broader language-related difficulties so that support is targeted appropriately rather than based on assumptions (Sparks & Ganschow, 2001; Sparks et al., 2007).

Memory capacity as a privileged component of L2 aptitude

Memory capacity, especially working memory, has increasingly been treated as a central component of L2 aptitude because many language-learning tasks require learners to hold information temporarily while simultaneously processing it. In the classic aptitude tradition, aptitude was measured through components such as phonetic coding, grammatical sensitivity, inductive learning, and memory, but more recent scholarship argues that these traditional components are closely tied to broader memory-based processing resources rather than existing as isolated faculties (Carroll & Sapon, 1959/2002; Wen et al., 2017). Working memory is therefore often regarded as a “privileged” component of aptitude because it supports the real-time storage, manipulation, and integration of linguistic material during comprehension and learning.

This view is consistent with Baddeley and Hitch’s working-memory model, in which temporary storage and processing are coordinated through a multicomponent system rather than a passive short-term store. Later refinements, including the episodic buffer, further emphasized the integration of information from different sources and from long-term memory, which is highly relevant to language learning and use (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Baddeley, 2000). In L2 research, this framework has been especially useful because learners must often retain phonological sequences, analyze form–meaning relationships, and integrate incoming input with previously learned material under time pressure.

Empirical work supports the importance of working memory, though not always uniformly across tasks. Harrington and Sawyer (1992) found that L2 working-memory capacity was strongly related to advanced L2 reading skill, whereas passive short-term memory measures were much less informative. Juffs and Harrington’s later review likewise concluded that working memory is relevant to many areas of L2 learning, but also stressed that findings vary depending on how working memory is operationalized and which language skills are examined. This means that memory capacity is important, but its contribution is task-sensitive rather than identical across all aspects of L2 acquisition.

For that reason, it is more accurate to say that working memory is a major component of L2 aptitude rather than the sole basis of aptitude. Wen’s integrated account argues that working memory helps explain why some aptitude components, such as phonological coding and language analysis, are consistently predictive, but he also emphasizes that memory must be considered alongside learning conditions, task demands, and other cognitive factors.

The contribution of memory to aptitudes

Memory contributes to aptitude through more than one subsystem. Phonological short-term memory is especially relevant in the early stages of vocabulary learning because learners must temporarily retain unfamiliar sound sequences long enough for them to be encoded and linked to meaning. Working memory contributes when learners must store and process information simultaneously, as in sentence comprehension, grammatical inference, and complex production. Long-term memory, including declarative and procedural systems, contributes to the accumulation and later automatization of linguistic knowledge. Contemporary aptitude theory increasingly treats these memory systems as interacting resources rather than fully separate predictors.

The link between memory and aptitude is also methodological. Many influential aptitude measures have historically contained substantial memory demands, and newer aptitude work continues to show overlap between aptitude performance and memory-related constructs. Li’s meta-analysis of the construct validity of language aptitude concluded that aptitude is best understood as a multifaceted construct with meaningful overlap among components rather than as a single sharply bounded trait. This supports the idea that memory is deeply embedded in aptitude, even if aptitude cannot be equated with memory alone.

At the same time, research also cautions against assuming that higher memory capacity guarantees success in all domains of L2 learning. Some studies find strong relationships between working memory and reading or grammar learning, while others report weaker or inconsistent effects in online sentence processing. The mixed findings suggest that memory’s contribution depends on linguistic domain, proficiency, task type, and whether the measure taps learning, processing, or attained knowledge. Thus, memory is best seen as a powerful but non-exclusive contributor to aptitude.

Aptitude and age

The relationship between aptitude and age is more complex than the simple claim that children are always better language learners. A useful distinction is between rate of learning and ultimate attainment. In instructed settings, older learners often progress faster initially because they can make better use of explicit analysis, metalinguistic awareness, and classroom-based learning strategies. By contrast, earlier starters often have an advantage in long-term attainment in some domains, especially under conditions of extensive exposure. Large-scale and longitudinal research has repeatedly shown that age effects differ depending on the outcome measured and the amount and quality of input available.

Aptitude interacts with age rather than simply replacing it. Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008) found that exceptionally successful late L2 learners tended to have unusually strong aptitude profiles, suggesting that high aptitude can help compensate, at least partly, for maturational disadvantages. However, their study also showed that aptitude is not a magic solution: not all high-aptitude adults reach near-native levels, and aptitude effects vary by domain.

Importantly, aptitude is not irrelevant for younger learners. Granena (2014) showed that aptitude could still be related to long-term morphosyntactic attainment even in early childhood L2 learners, although its effects depended on structure type and testing conditions. This finding complicates older assumptions that aptitude matters only after puberty. Instead, current evidence suggests that age and aptitude jointly shape outcomes, with their relative importance changing across linguistic domains and stages of development.

A balanced conclusion, then, is that age influences which cognitive resources are most useful, while aptitude helps explain why learners of the same age and with similar exposure can still differ markedly in progress and attainment. Age is therefore not an all-or-nothing determinant, and aptitude is not age-free; the two interact in patterned ways.

Multidimensional aptitudes

Current aptitude theory no longer treats language aptitude as a single global gift. Instead, it is increasingly understood as multidimensional, involving partially distinct but related cognitive abilities such as phonological processing, memory, grammatical analysis, inferencing, and learning under different task conditions. Wen et al. (2017) summarize this shift clearly, arguing that modern aptitude theory must integrate insights from SLA, cognitive psychology, and cognitive neuroscience rather than relying only on older, monolithic aptitude models.

Meta-analytic and factor-analytic work supports this multidimensional view. Li’s meta-analysis argues for the construct validity of aptitude while also showing that aptitude is not reducible to a single factor. Granena (2019), using measures from the LLAMA and Hi-LAB batteries, likewise found that contemporary aptitude tests reflect multiple underlying constructs and that different aptitude dimensions relate differently to aspects of L2 speaking proficiency such as complexity, accuracy, and fluency. These findings are important because they show that aptitude profiles are likely to be uneven across learners rather than uniform.

This multidimensional view also has direct pedagogical value. If aptitude consists of several components, then learners may have different strengths and weaknesses across those components. That means instruction need not assume one identical pathway for all learners. Instead, it supports more differentiated views of aptitude–treatment interaction, where some learners may benefit more from explicit explanation, others from repeated input, and others from phonological or memory-based support.

The future of L2 aptitude

The future of L2 aptitude research lies in moving from a static, test-centered view toward a more dynamic and integrative framework. Wen et al. (2017) argue that future theory should connect aptitude more closely to working memory, executive control, statistical learning, and other process-oriented constructs. Robinson (2005) similarly proposes that aptitude should be understood developmentally and in relation to instructional conditions, not merely as a fixed score obtained before learning begins.

Another important direction concerns measurement. Newer aptitude tests such as LLAMA have made aptitude research more accessible, but reliability and interpretation remain important concerns. Rogers et al. (2017) show that these instruments are useful, but they also require cautious use and context-sensitive interpretation. This supports a broader methodological lesson: aptitude testing should move toward batteries that are theoretically coherent, psychometrically sound, and linked to specific learning contexts and outcomes.

A further development is the move away from viewing aptitude as wholly fixed. Singleton (2017) argues that at least some dimensions of language aptitude may be shaped by language experience and awareness, which opens the door to a less deterministic understanding of learner potential. This does not mean that aptitude differences disappear, but it does suggest that aptitude should be studied as partly developmental, interactive, and potentially trainable in some respects.

Overall, the most promising future for aptitude research is one in which aptitude is treated as multidimensional, context-sensitive, and pedagogically relevant. Rather than asking only who has aptitude, researchers are increasingly asking which components matter, for which learners, under which conditions, and for which outcomes. That shift is likely to make aptitude research both more theoretically precise and more useful for teaching.

Problem-Solving Task: Why Is Huy Falling Behind?

Huy is 14 years old and has studied English for two years. He is interested in learning and usually pays attention in class. However, he learns new vocabulary slowly, forgets sentence patterns quickly, and often gets confused when listening to long English passages. When the teacher explains grammar, Huy understands at first, but he cannot always remember or use the rules correctly in speaking and writing. His classmate Lan, who studies in the same class and uses the same textbook, improves much faster.

The teacher is worried that Huy may have difficulty with memory capacity or another aspect of language aptitude.

Your task

Work in groups and solve this problem:

How can the teacher help Huy improve his English learning more effectively?

Discuss and decide

Your group should identify:

1. Huy’s main learning problem
2. Possible causes
   for example: working memory, phonological memory, learning strategies, age, attention, or amount of practice
3. Three practical solutions
   to help Huy learn vocabulary, grammar, listening, and reading more successfully
4. One classroom plan
   that the teacher can use for one week to support Huy

Guiding questions

1. Does Huy’s difficulty show low motivation, low aptitude, memory limitations, or something else?
2. Which part of language learning seems hardest for Huy: vocabulary, grammar, listening, or retention?
3. How can the teacher reduce memory load and make learning easier for him?
4. What strategies can Huy use to remember and process language more effectively?
5. How can the teacher check whether Huy is improving?

Chapter summary

Foreign language aptitude is best understood not as a single fixed talent that learners either possess or lack, but as a multidimensional constellation of cognitive abilities that interact with learning conditions, motivation, and instructional context to shape second language development. In the classic tradition associated with the Modern Language Aptitude Test, aptitude was described as comprising phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language-learning ability, and memory-related capacities. Contemporary scholarship has substantially expanded this view, treating aptitude as a dynamic construct closely linked to working memory, executive control, and statistical learning rather than as a static score obtained before instruction begins. Working memory, in particular, occupies a privileged position within aptitude theory because it supports the real-time storage, processing, and integration of linguistic material that virtually all language-learning tasks demand. The relationship between aptitude and age is equally nuanced: while aptitude helps explain why learners of similar age and exposure still diverge markedly in progress, age itself influences which cognitive resources prove most useful at different stages of acquisition. Importantly, slow progress should never be automatically attributed to weak aptitude, since many struggling learners face broader first-language phonological or literacy difficulties that require targeted, differentiated support rather than deficit labelling. The most productive direction for both research and pedagogy is one that treats aptitude as multidimensional, context-sensitive, and at least partly responsive to experience — asking not simply who has aptitude, but which components matter, for which learners, under which conditions, and toward which learning outcomes.

References

Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310808073X

Bown, J., & White, C. (2010). Affect in a self-regulatory framework for language learning. System, 38(3), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.03.016

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1

Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959/2002). Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT). The Psychological Corporation / Second Language Testing Foundation. https://search.worldcat.org/title/681556546

Dewaele, J.-M. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety and psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism among adult bi- and multilinguals. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 670–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12036.x

Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch18

Granena, G. (2014). Language aptitude and long-term achievement in early childhood L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 483–503. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu013

Granena, G. (2019). Cognitive aptitudes and L2 speaking proficiency: Links between LLAMA and Hi-LAB. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000256

Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Pohlman, J., & Bishop-Marbury, A. (1991). Identifying native language difficulties among foreign language learners in college: A “foreign” language learning disability? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(9), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949102400905

Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010263

Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007

Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44(2), 137–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809990132

Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 801–842. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500042X

Muñoz, C. (2011). Input and long-term effects of starting age in foreign language learning. IRAL, 49(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.006

Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 38(3), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.011

Rogers, V., Meara, P., Barnett-Legh, T., Curry, C., & Davie, E. (2017). Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 1(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.24

Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000036

Singleton, D. (2017). Language aptitude: Desirable trait or acquirable attribute? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.1.5

Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning differences: Affective or native language aptitude differences? The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb01076.x

Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719050100006X

Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2007). Native language predictors of foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude. Annals of Dyslexia, 57(2), 214–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-006-0006-2

Teimouri, Y. (2017). L2 selves, emotions, and motivated behaviors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(4), 681–709. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000243

Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046

Wen, Z. (2016). Working memory and second language learning: Towards an integrated approach. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095735

Wen, Z., Biedroń, A., & Skehan, P. (2017). Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Language Teaching, 50(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000276

Case study Linh and Minh are both learning English in the same class, with the same teacher and textbook. Minh learns new words quickly, remembers sentence patterns, and can follow long listening passages without losing track. Linh is hardworking and motivated, but she often forgets new vocabulary, struggles to keep ideas in mind while reading,…