AFFECTIVE VARIABLES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

H. Douglas Brown1
University of Michigan

Affective v a r i a b l e s have not been adequately investigated in

the study of second language acquisition. Imitation, e g o i s m , and
inhibition are t h r e e egocentric f a c t o r s which have been treated
only lightly in previous r e s e a r c h . T h r e e s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , empathy,
introversion/extroversion,and a g g r e s s i o n , may be keys to under-
standing the social nature of second language learning. And the
m e r g i n g of cognition and affect in “cognitive s t y l e s , ” which v a r y
within and among individuals, might account f o r varying d e g r e e s
of s u c c e s s in learning a second language. Widespread inter-
disciplinary r e s e a r c h in the affective domain of the psychology of
language acquisition could lead to the construction of a c o m p r e -
hensive theory of second language acquisition a s well a s m o r e ef-
fective a p p r o a c h e s to language teaching.

Any survey of the c u r r e n t s t a t e of the a r t in language teaching

leaves little doubt that the profession is undergoing a revolution.
The present revolution i s taking place according to a predictable
twenty-five-year timetable: around 1900 the “ d i r e c t ” method w a s
popular; s o m e twenty-five y e a r s l a t e r “ g r a m m a r translation”
methods w e r e taking hold; and in the 1950’s the now well-estab-
lished audiolingual method c a m e into vogue. The l a t e 1970’s should
u s h e r in a new paradigm.
While the nature of the next “ method” i s still unknown, t h e r e
i s clearly a strong tendency toward interdisciplinary solutions to
language teaching problems, with psychology occupying a key role,
as it did with the audiolingual method. However, new schools of
psychology have a r i s e n since the 1950’s, providing a different
thrust, especially in the psychology of learning. The cognitive ap-
proach to human learning has important implications for both a
theory of second language acquisition and m o r e effective approaches
to language teaching (Brown 1972a, 1972b). But a n equally im-
portant psychological domain to explore in trying to understand
the p r o c e s s of second language acquisition is the affective domain.
We must acknowledge that while a l l the optimal cognitive factors
may be operating in the attempted solution of a given task, the

[The author is grateful to Professor Ronald Wardhaugh of the University of Michigan for assis-
tance in the preparation of the manuscript.

23 1
23 2 LANGUAGE LEARNING, VOL. 23, NO. 2

l e a r n e r can fail because of an affective block Ten y e a r s ago

E r n e s t Hilgard (1963: 267) warned that (‘purely cognitive theories
of learning will be rejected unless a role is assigned to affectivity.”
Today t h e r e i s an increasing a w a r e n e s s of the necessity to examine
t h e human personality to find a n s w e r s to perplexing problems in
language learning. Research studies by Gardner and Lambert (1972),
Lukmani (1972), Guiora et al. (1970, 1972), and o t h e r s have, on a
theoretical level, provided insights into the r o l e of the affective
domain in language learning. Other m o r e practically oriented
studies have demonstrated the feasibility of c l a s s r o o m methodology
oriented to the affective side of human behavior (Savignon 1972,
LaForge 1971, Begin 1971). Stevick’s (1973) review of Curran
(1972) provides an interesting background s u m m a r y of the principles
used by LaForge and Begin.
The r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d out to date is only a beginning. Much
m o r e experimentation i s needed before we can adequately define
a theory of second language acquisition and devise language teaching
methods which are solidly grounded in both cognitive and affective
principles. One of the g r e a t e s t difficulties in striving f o r such a
goal i s subdividing and categorizing the f a c t o r s of the affective
domain. W e are often guilty of using r a t h e r sweeping t e r m s a s if
they w e r e carefully defined. For example, it is easy enough to say
that culture conflict” accounts for most language learning prob-
( (

l e m s , o r that “motivation” is the key to s u c c e s s in a foreign

language; but it is quite another m a t t e r to define such t e r m s with
precision. Psychologists also experience a difficulty in defining
t e r m s . Abstract concepts such as “ ego,” ‘( aggression,” (( iden-
tification,” and o t h e r comrrLon t e r m s are difficult to define opera-
tionally. Standardized psychological t e s t s often f o r m an empirical
definition of such concepts, but constant revisions are evidence of
a n ongoing struggle f o r validity. Nevertheless, the elusive nature
of affective and cognitive concepts need not d e t e r u s f r o m seeking
a n s w e r s to questions. Carefully controlled, systematic study of
delimited a r e a s of second language acquisition will ultimately lead
to a g r e a t e r understanding of the phenomenon and, consequently,
to m o r e effective language teaching methods.
The discussion that Eollows d e a l s with a few subcategories
f r o m the affective domain that demand immediate attention from
r e s e a r c h e r s . T h r e e general affective a r e a s will be discussed;
a) egocentric f a c t o r s , b) social f a c t o r s , and c ) cognitive style.

Egocentric f a c t o r s
Imitation i s one egocentric factor which needs exploration in
r e f e r e n c e to second language acquisition. Textbooks in personalitv I
 AFFECTIVE VARIABLES 233

development r e f e r to a significant body of r e s e a r c h on imitative

behavior, and studies in f i r s t language acquisition have considered
the r o l e of imitation in the acquisition of language. In second lan-
guage acquisition, however, v e r y little consideration h a s been given
to imitation. It h a s been questionably assumed that one can l e a r n
the p a t t e r n s of a foreign language chiefly o r exclusively by imita-
tion. This assumption h a s little relationship to the deeper i s s u e
of the d e g r e e and direction of affective imitative behavior in human
beings. Miller and Dollard’s (1941) c l a s s i c work on imitation inte-
grated the concept of imitation into a behavioristic framework and
presented the problem as a m a j o r i s s u e for learning theorists.
Since then Mowrer (1960) has provided valuable data on imitative
learning with s o m e major r e f e r e n c e s to language. Other concepts
related to imitation-identification, modeling, dependence, and even
inhibition- e m e r g e as important f a c t o r s in personality development.
Ausubel’s (1952) study of the school performance of “ satellizers”
(those who tend to a t t r a c t imitators) and “ nonsatellizers” (usually
i m i t a t o r s of and dependent upon superordinate figures) found im-
portant differences between the two types of individual.
We have not even begun to explore the full implications of
individual differences among p e r s o n s in reproducing actions, at-
titudes, o r linguistic behavior exhibited by models of various kinds.
For example, a novel understanding of “ culture” could e m e r g e
f r o m a comparative study of imitation and identification a c r o s s
cultures. Also, many language teaching methods depend upon both
affective imitation and linguistic repetition (a f o r m of psycho-motor
imitation); how could such methods be made optimally effective?
Children have been found to be r a t h e r poor linguistic i m i t a t o r s
(Mcru’eill 1966), attending to t r u t h value m o r e than to surface struc-
t u r e data; could it be that imitation in second language learning
plays a similarly deep- seated r o l e and that mechanical o r a l repe-
tition is of little consequence?
A second factor related to the thinking and feeling human o r -
ganism is the “ ego.” The self-knowledge, self-esteem, and self-
confidence of the language l e a r n e r could have everything to do with
s u c c e s s in learning a language. Guiora et al. (1972) proposed the
notion of “language ego” to r e f e r to the v e r y personal, egoistic
nature of second language acquisition. Any language acquisition
p r o c e s s that r e s u l t s in meaningful learning f o r communication in-
volves some d e g r e e of identity conflict r e g a r d l e s s of the age and
motivation of the learner. Even in c a s e s of “ instrumentally” mo-
tivated language learning, a person is forced to take on a new
identity if he is to become competent in a second language. The
very definition of communication implies a p r o c e s s of revealing
234 LANGUAGE LEARNING, VOL. 23, NO. 2

one’s self to another. Breakdowns in communication often result

from a person’s unwillingness to be “honest” in revealing this
self. A strong language ego is thus conceivably positively c o rre -
lated with s uc c ess in second language learning. ,
One specific area of potential researc h on egocentric factors
in second language acquisition is that of the role of “ motivation”
in language learning. According to Ausubel (1968), one of the key
fact or s contributing to motivation for any ta s k is a basic ego-
enhancement drive: a person diligently s t r i v e s f o r those things that
tend to build o r r e s t o r e self-esteem, Reports and studies on mo-
tivation (Nelson and Jakobovits 1970, Gardner and Lambert 1972)
have typic ally dealt with intelligence, aptitude, perseverance, at-
titude, cognitive style, and a number of other variables, but ego-
enhancement h a s been dealt with only briefly. An unpublished study
( L e d e r e r 1973) which used some of Lambert’s instruments revealed
that the “self-concept” of Detroit high school students was a n
overwhelming indicator of su ccess in a foreign language. More re-
sea r c h on ego-enhancement might further define how to appeal to
ego- enhancement and how to incorporate ego- enhancing variables
into m a t e r i a l s and methods of language teaching.
A third area of needed research on egocentricity is the prob-
lem of inhibition within the human organism. Guiora et al. (1970)
have produced one of the few studies on inhibition in relation to
second language learning. Claiming that the notion of ego boundaries
is c r uc i a l to the language learning task, Guiora designed a n ex-
periment using small quantities of alcohol to induce temporary
stat e s of less than normal inhibition in a n experimental group of
subjects. P e r f o rm an ce of the alcohol-induced subjects on a pro-
nunciation t e s t in Thai was significantly better than the performance
of a control group. Guiora concluded a dir e c t relationship existed
between inhibition (a component of language ego) and pronunciation
ability in a second language. Th ere w e r e s o m e s e rio u s problems
in h i s conclusion: alcohol may lower inhibitions but alcohol a ls o
tends to affect muscular tension, and the la tte r may have been a
mo r e important factor than the f o r m e r in the superior pronuncia-
tion performance of the alcohol-induced subjects; and pronunciation
may be a r a t h er poor indicator of overall language competence.
Nevertheless, Guiora h a s emphasized an important variable which
now needs f u r t h e r exploration. The work of Curran (1972) and h i s
colleagues Begin (1971) and LaForge (1971) are excellent attempts
to demonstrate the notion that inhibition may be one of the key
obstacles to any learning which necessitates communication o r
interaction with another person. Savignon’s (1972) experiment in
“ communicative competence” also dealt with the need to reduce
 AFFECTIVE VARIABLES 23 5

inhibitions in language classes. However, f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed

in o r d e r to discover m o r e precisely how to reduce inhibition in
the language classroom.

Social f a c t o r s
The human being is a social animal and the chief mechanism
f o r maintaining the bonds of society is language. Each language
reflects and i n t e r a c t s with the p a r t i c u l a r society with which the
language is associated. The p r o c e s s of second language acquisition
must, therefore, by definition, involve a n interaction with a new
society and a linguistic and extra-linguistic understanding of that
speech community. Highly sophisticated linguistic methods of lan-
guage teaching have often failed to accomplish the goal of com-
municativity in the l e a r n e r because of the highly social nature of
language. While most language t e a c h e r s recognize the importance
of the social aspect of language, they tend to place all socially
oriented language learning problems into the single category of
“ culture” differentiation. Such a generalization i s not justified if
one considers the extremely complex nature of culture. Attention
to s o m e r a t h e r obvious yet little-researched psychological variables
of social behavior might reveal some important social f a c t o r s in
language acquisition. T h r e e such v a r i a b l e s will be discussed:
empathy, introversion/extroversion, and aggression. All three a r e
strongly related to egocentric f a c t o r s by definition, but they all
involve one individual’s ?-elationship with o t h e r individuals.
Empathy is the p r o c e s s of “ putting yourself into someone’s
else’s shoes,” of reaching beyond the self and understanding and
feeling what another p e r s o n is understanding o r feeling; it i s prob-
ably the m a j o r factor in the harmonious co-existence of individuals
in society. Language is one of the p r i m a r y means of emphathizing.
Kinesic, kinesthetic, proxemic, and o t h e r paralinguistic modes of
communication facilitate the p r o c e s s of emphathizing, and must not
be overlooked. Guiora and his colleagues (1970, 1972) have produced
the only studies dealing specifically with the relationship of em-
pathy to second language learning. In a recent study, Guiora et aE.
(1972) found that a modified version of the Micro-Momentary Ex-
pression (MME) t e s t , a t e s t of degree of empathy, successfully
predicted authenticity of pronunciation of a foreign language. They
recommended adding the MME to t e s t s of intelligence and language
aptitude to produce a “powerful predictive battery” (p. 111). Fur-
t h e r exploration is needed in o r d e r to define m o r e carefully the
relationship implied by Guiora’s results.
If indeed a high d e g r e e of empathy is predictive of s u c c e s s in
language learning, it would be invaluable to discover how one could
23 6 LANGUAGE LEARNING, VOL. 23, NO. 2

capitalize on that fact in language teaching. It is one thing to claim,

as does Guiora, to be able to predict success, and quite another
matter to cause s u c c e s s by fostering empathy in the language class-
room. One would need f i r s t to determine if empathy is a basic
disposition acquired in early childhood and/or relatively unchange-
able, o r if it is something one can “ l e a r n ” in the adult years.
If the f o r m e r is true, then certain persons might indeed be m o r e
predisposed to language learning, and t e a c h e r s could take this fact
into account. If the latter is true, then it would not be unreasonable
to c a r r y out r e s e a r c h on the incorporation of empathy into language
teaching methods. How effective is role playing in a language
c l a s s ? What kinds of d r i l l s and e x e r c i s e s could be devised which
require a person to predict o r guess another person’s response?
How worthwhile would it be to attempt to organize foreign language
c l a s s e s which operate on a high-empathy basis, a s in LaForge’s
(1971) method, where principles of T-group therapy are used to
aid the language learning p r o c e s s ? Other questions arise, all of
which need to be carefully researched.
A second social variable that h a s not received much attention
in language acquisition r e s e a r c h is introversion and extroversion.
It is a common belief among teachers in general, particularly in
Western society, that introversion is an undesirable behavior. The
outgoing, amiable, talkative personality tends to be held up as
axiomatically desirable and ideal from the standpoint of mental
hygiene. This “ c u l t of extroversion” carries over into the lan-
guage classroom as well. Quiet, reserved personalities a r e treated
as “problems” and language t e a c h e r s seek ways of encouraging
extroversion. The syndrome is f u r t h e r complicated by the tendency
in modern language teaching to emphasize speaking in t h e class-
room with all too little emphasis on a u r a l comprehension.
Educational psychologists tend to a g r e e that a child’s intro-
version and extroversion may be “ a grossly misleading index of
social adjustment” (Ausubel 1968: 413). It is equally conceivable
that the role of introversion and extroversion may be misinterpre-
ted in language classes. Is it indeed t r u e that the L ‘ p r ~ f i ~ i e n ~ y 7 7
of a m o r e introverted person is qualitatively lower than h i s ex-
troverted counterpart? And do those students whom a teacher as-
s u m e s to be introverted actually classify as such, if the loaded
variable of culture is taken fully into account? Teachers a r e prone
to stereotype certain people as introverted o r extroverted on the
basis of their cultural background. However, a careful analysis of
the socio-linguistic and extra-linguistic expectations of that culture
could significantly change such judgments. Several areas of poten-
tial r e s e a r c h emerge. F i r s t , one could explore, much in t h e s a m e
 AFFECTIVE VARIABLES 237

style as Guiora et al.(1972), the relationship between extroversion,

as measured by psychological tests, and proficiency o r aptitude
in second language acquisition. A relationship may hold only for
speaking a foreign language, and not for a u r a l and reading com-
prehension and writing. Second, the u s e and encouragement of his-
trionics in the classroom could be studied carefully: what facilitating
o r interfering effect does a method have which incorporates d r a m a ,
pantomime, humor, and a high degree of overt personality exposure
on the part of each student? A third area of r e s e a r c h could in-
volve a n examination of kinesic factors in communication to deter-
mine both the degree to which such factors are essential to foreign
language learning, and the relationship among kinesics, communi-
c ativi ty, and introversion and extroversion.
Aggression is a t h i r d social variable in language learning
which h a s received only minor attention, yet one which could be
an important factor in a theory of language acquisition. Studies in
child development take the question of aggression quite seriously,
and a description of any adult personality would be inadequate if
the notion of aggression w e r e omitted f r o m consideration. Ag-
gression can be defined in a number of different ways, ranging
f r o m “ a sequence of behavior the goal of which. . .is injury of the
person toward whom it is directed” (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer,
and S e a r s 1939: 9), to m o r e general definitions that include reference
to responses that could injure o r damage if aimed at a vulnerable
object (Bandura and Walters 1963: 114). There is also some debate
about the relationship of frustration to aggression; Freud’s early
theory of aggression, f o r example, maintained that aggression is a
(‘ primordial reaction” to frustration (Freud 1920). Nevertheless,
aggressive behavior appears in every human organism, and de-
pending upon the individual and his society, different manifestations
of aggression will be observed. But aggression should not be defined
only in a negative context. Aggression, even in the ‘(injurious”
sense, is perhaps a behavior necessary f o r survival; for example,
consistent refusal to be aggressive in m e r e self-defense, physically
and emotionally, could result in physical o r mental illness and/or
death.
How does the notion of aggression relate to language learning?
Even the exhaustive questionnaires of Gardner and Lambert (1972)
have not dealt directly with aggression. Some reference to ag-
gression is made indirectly by LaForge (1971) in h i s discussion of
the manifestation of hostility in h i s experimental language classes;
he noted that the overt display, and thus eventual release, of hos-
tility seemed to facilitate communication and to lead toward less
inhibited and f r e e r , albeit semi-grammatical, conversation. The
23 8 LANGUAGE LEARNING, V O L 23, NO. 2

potential disadvantage of thwarted a g g r e s s i v e instincts is intuitively

understood by most teachers. However, a number of o t h e r ques-
tions related to aggression a r e not yet answered. To what extent
does the basic a g g r e s s i v e n e s s of the individual indicate his probable
s u c c e s s in learning a foreign language? Because of i t s negative
connotat ions, a g g r e s s i v e behavior may be conside red undesirable ;
yet t h e r e is ample evidence of the facilitating effects of aggression.
Aggression could be a c e n t r a l factor determining “ motivation,”
and foreign language teaching methods might indeed capitalize on
a g g r e s s i v e behavior. An experimental p r o g r a m in reading being
devised a t the English Language Institute of the University of Michi-
gan i s attempting to u s e the natural tendency to achieve a release
f r o m frustration as a motivation to comprehend reading p a s s a g e s
about f r u s t r a t i n g problems with which a student can easily identify.
Aggressive determination to complete the lesson successfully will
bring resolution. How can t e a c h e r s successfully encourage students
to “ l e t it all hang out” to a n optimal degree‘!

Cognitive style
A third m a j o r category of affective behavior that w a r r a n t s at-
tention i s the notion of “cognitive style.” It is difficult to a r g u e
that cognitive style i s a s t r i c t l y affective factor; it is m o r e a com-
bination of affect and cognition. A s used h e r e , it refers generally
to self-consistent and enduring individual differences in cognitive
organization and functioning. F o r example, a n algebra “ s t o r y ”
problem, typical of high school math c l a s s e s , may be solved by a
number of different but equally effective s t r a t e g i e s , depending upon
the individual’s cognitive style. The affective domain is relevant
because variations in cognitive style appear to covary with p e r -
sonality types.
Little if any s e r i o u s r e s e a r c h has been done on cognitive style
in second language acquisition. R e s e a r c h e r s on “ interlanguage”
(Richards 1972, Selinker 1972) have suggested that c e r t a i n indi-
vidualized s t r a t e g i e s may affect language acquisition, but such
s t r a t e g i e s have not yet been adequately defined o r researched.
Using a model proposed by H i l l (1972), Baecher (1973) studied
the cognitive s t y l e s of Spanish-American elementary school children
in Pontiac, Michigan, in an effort to determine the relationship of
cognitive style to linguistic competence in English. The r e s u l t s of
Baecher’s study w e r e not conclusive, but they did support the hypo-
t h e s i s that a child learning a second language can be taught in
v a r i o u s ways depending upon his own affective-cognitive “ map.”
Some specific r e s e a r c h is n e c e s s a r y before t e a c h e r s and
 AFFECTIVE VARIABLES 23 9

materials developers can adequately account for cognitive style.

Four specific variables within cognitive style appear to be possible
a r e a s of fruitful r e s e a r c h in second language acquisition: a) re-
flective-impulsive thinking, b) broad-narrow categorizing, c ) skele-
tonizing-embroidering, and d ) belief congruence-contradiction.
Again, only a few of many possible variables a r e considered here,
but in the almost total absence of r e s e a r c h on cognitive style,
these few variables might indeed provide significant points of de-
parture.
Any observant teacher recognizes basic personality tendencies
toward impulsivity on the one hand, and reflectivity on the other.
A number of psychological tests are available to determine the de-
gree to which a person tends to make either a quick, o r gambling
(impulsive) guess at an answer to a problem, o r a slower, more
calculated (reflective) decision. The implications for language ac-
quisition are numerous. It h a s been found that children who a r e
conceptually reflective tend to make fewer e r r o r s in reading than
do conceptually impulsive children (Kagan 1965). On the other hand,
impulsive persons may be f a s t e r readers. A study conducted a t
the University of Michigan (Doron 1973) sought to examine the
relationship between reflectivity- impulsivity (RI) and reading pro-
ficiency in students of English as a second language. Kagan’s
Matching Familiar Figures t e s t w a s used to measure RI in a Sam-
ple of ESL students; Doron then administered reading t e s t s of com-
prehension and speed to the s a m e subjects to determine the cor-
relation between RI and reading. She discovered that reflective
students w e r e slower and m o r e accurate than impulsive students,
and suggested that this fact be taken into account in the teaching
of reading in ESL. Further r e s e a r c h on RI could indicate kinds of
exercises and d r i l l s that are suited to both reflective and impul-
sive personalities. Inductive reasoning w a s found to be m o r e ef-
ficient in reflective children in one study (Kagan, Pearson, and
Welch 1966); perhaps the success of inductive teaching methods
therefore v a r i e s depending upon the RI index of individual students.
Future r e s e a r c h might indicate a tendency for those with impulsive
personalities to go through a number of rapid transitions of semi-
grammatical stages of interlanguage, with reflective persons tending
to remain longer a t a particular stage with “ l a r g e r ” leaps from
stage to stage.
A cognitive style closely related to RI is the tendency of
learners to manifest a consistent preference f o r either broad o r
narrow categorization. Narrow categorizers, like impulsive learners,
a r e often m o r e willing to take the r i s k of being wrong in problem-
solving situations, by reason of an overattention to subordinate
240 LANGUAGE LEARNING, VOL. 23, NO. 2

concepts. Evidence of shifting f r o m narrow to broad categorizing

is found in f i r s t language acquisition in English when children f i r s t
produce past tense f o r m s of v e r b s as separate, narrowly cate-
gorized items, saying ‘(drank,” (‘caught,” and ((went” a t one early
stage, but then shift to a broad classification of all v e r b s in a
regularized category, saying drinked,”
(( catched,” and goed.’’
( ( ((

Eventually v e r b s a r e subclassified into regular and i r r e g u l a r

forms. Similar strategies may play a part in adult second-language
acquisition, but since adults tend to be more rigid, and less likely
to manifest the s a m e degree of style- shifting, the intra- individual
variation may not be quite as prevalent. In general, the relation-
ship of broad and narrow categorization to second language ac-
quisition h a s not even begun to be researched. Yet i f a teacher
w e r e aware of such tendencies in an individual, he might be better
able to analyze e r r o r s ” as the products of consistent cognitive
((

strategies. Materials and textbooks could be designed to compen-

sate for both tendencies by stressing hierarchies of structure. Thus
the attention of broad categorizers could be directed to the lower
subordinate categories, and narrow categoriz ers could be en-
couraged to g r a s p higher superordinate categories. G r a m m a r teach-
ing in particular could be made m o r e efficient by the u s e of broad
and narrow categories of data.
A third type of cognitive style is the tendency for s o m e in-
dividuals to skeletonize” and o t h e r s to embroider” in the re-
(( ((

call of cognitive material. The need to simplify the representation

and storage of information in cognitive s t r u c t u r e is probably uni-
versal. But some studies (Holzman and Gardner 1960, Uhlmann
and Saltz 1965) support the notion that simplification strategies
have both inter- individual and intra- individual variations. In the
recall of narrative material, f o r example, skeletonizing involves
((
pruning” out some particulars by retaining a substantive c o r e
of general facts which subsume the details (Brown 1972a); em-
broidering, on the other hand, involves ((importing,” o r adding
some material in o r d e r to retain original details which otherwise
might be forgotten. Embroidery is a natural offshoot of the human
intellectual tendency toward closure”; sometimes one will per-
((

ceive something that is not present in the data simply because he

extrapolates beyond the overt stimuli. Carmichael, Hogan and
Walter (1932) showed how embroidery can be verbally stimulated;
recall of a simple visual line design varied depending upon the
verbal stimulus attached to the visual stimulus. Evidence of skele-
tonization and embroidery is also found in production styles. W e
have all experienced ( ( y a r n spinners” who can conjure up count-
less exa,ggerated additions in telling o r retelling a story; it is
 AFFECTIVE VARIABLES 24 1

also common to find people who provide only the b a r e facts of an

event. Such preferences could play an important role in assessing
comprehension as well a s production in second language learning.
Writing s k i l l might be a particularly fruitful area in which to t r y
to discover how the tendency to embroider o r skeletonize relates
to style, efficiency, and teachability of writing. Some t e s t s of o r a l
production require a testee to retell a previously read story; the
interpretation of the r e s u l t s of such t e s t s could be biased toward
embroiderers by sheer quantity of output. While either style can
be quite efficient, one tends to judge embroidery as more desirable
in some situations and skeletonizing as more appropriate for others.
A m o r e careful study of this feature of cognitive style might help
to indicate how such preferences may influence actual language ac-
quisition o r o u r judgment of language proficiency.
A fourth category in cognitive style is belief congruence and
contradiction. Individual differences exist with respect to the basic
need each person feels f o r internal consistency within h i s belief
system. Some individuals a r e undoubtedly m o r e content than others
to entertain and even internalize contradictory propositions, usually
by a p r o c e s s of compartmentalization. Others tend to reject any
item which is contradictory o r slightly incongruent with their
existing system. The notions of ‘(open and closed” mindedness
and (‘dogmatism” are related to the concept of belief congruence.
Those who are m o r e dogmatic are inclined to accept only certain
highly consistent facts (the closed mind) and usually p o s s e s s an
intolerance f o r ambiguity as well as a tendency toward premature
closure. Hunt (1961) and Ausubel (1949), among others, studied
belief congruence extensively, and claimed that both tendencies-a
liberal tolerance of contradiction and a high degree of intolerance-
have advantages and disadvantages in t e r m s of cognitive efficiency.
Second language t e a c h e r s and r e s e a r c h e r s need to discover how
such differences may affect language learning. Gardner and Lam-
bert (1972) included the categories of dogmatism and authoritar-
ianism in their studies of motivation in second language learning.
Ausubel (1968) noted that open-minded persons tend to s c o r e higher
on tests of verbal ability than do closed-minded individuals; is
t h e r e a s i m i l a r correlation in second language l e a r n e r s ? More
specifically, can methods and materials in second language teaching
somehow not be too new and different f o r the closed-minded in-
dividual and still be challenging enough for the open-minded? In
o r d e r to reach those who are intolerant of ambiguity, either by
(( nature” o r by (‘nurture,” the teacher and materials-developer
have the responsibility of offering as c l e a r an explanation of lan-
guage as possible with a minimum of conflicting evidence. Continued
242 LANGUAGE LEARNING, VOL. 23, NO. 2

ambivalent responses from the teacher to such a student could

severely impair h i s p r o g r e s s in learning the second language.

Conclusions and implications

A number of categories have been presented here which sug-
gest areas of r e s e a r c h and inquiry f o r the y e a r s ahead. If we a r e
to gain a better understanding of language acquisition processes,
some, if not all, of the areas discussed here will need to be ex-
plored thoroughly. It will be an enormous task. F i r s t of all, we
a r e dealing with an extremely complex p r o c e s s within a complex
organism; countless variables are interacting and it will be dif-
ficult enough to identify even the most salient factors. Second, as
m o r e and m o r e variables are found to be influencing the p r o c e s s
of second language acquisition, it will become increasingly difficult
to type individuals and to classify groups of individuals together.
Each person a p p e a r s to be a unique complex of variables. Third,
individuals tend to be somewhat inconsistent within themselves
f r o m day to day, o r even moment to moment. In a given situation
a person may be impulsive, inhibited, and closed-minded, while a
change in time o r environment may produce a complete reversal.
Clearly t h e r e are enduring consistencies within individuals, but it
is difficult to discover these accurately without systematic obser-
vation of a person in a variety of circumstances. Fourth, a source
of difficulty in r e s e a r c h in second language teaching is found in
the teacher- student interaction. In studying natural” second lan-
((

guage acquisition one does not have the imposed, man-made var-
iables such as teachers, textbooks, and other factors that one finds
in the educational setting. One always h a s to consider, f o r example,
how the imposed personality and cognitive style of a teacher will
affect a student with h i s own s e t of cognitive and affective pref-
erences.
Despite the enormousness of the task, there is good reason to
p r e s s f o r solutions to the mysteries of second language acquisition.
We have spent many decades hopping f r o m one bandwagon to
another, placing almost blind faith in a single method o r discipline
at one point, then turning to another method, and yet another, al-
ways rejecting the previous theory when it broke down o r faltered.
NOW, f o r perhaps the first time since Gouin wrote h i s famous
L’avt d’enseigner et d’&tudierles langues (1880), we a r e attempting
to take a genuine interdisciplinary approach to second language
research. Neither linguistics n o r psychology nor any other dis-
cipline alone will produce final answers. The next decade should
provide u s with information about the human person which, when
creatively interrelated with o u r accumulated knowledge in theoretical
 AFFECTIVE VARIABLES 243

linguistic s , soc iolingu ist ic s , psycho linguist ic s, and the psychology

of learning, will possibly enable u s to construct a viable theory of
second language acquisition.

REFERENCES

Ausubel, David, P. 1949. Ego development and the learning p r o c e s s . Child

Development 20.173-190.
Ausubel, David P. 1952. E g o Development and the Personality D i s o r d e r s .
New York: Grune and Stratton.
Ausuble, David P , 1968. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New
York: Holt, R i n e h a r t & Winston.
Baecher, R i c h a r d E . 1973. A pilot study to d e t e r m i n e levels of educational
development, reading l e v e l s , and selected e l e m e n t s of the cognitive
s t y l e s of Chicago students in the fourth and fifth g r a d e s in Pontiac,
Michigan. Unpublished Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Michigan.
Bandura, A l b e r t and Richard H. W a l t e r s . 1963. Social Learning and Per-
sonality Development. New York: Holt, R i n e h a r t & Winston.
Begin, Yves. 1971. Evaluative and Emotional F a c t o r s in Learning a Foreign
Language. Montreal: Be l l a r m in.
Brown, H . Douglas. 1972a. Cognitive pruning and second language acqui-
sition. Modern Language J o u r n a l 56.218-222.
Brown, H. Douglas. 197213. The psychological r e a l i t y of “ g r a m m a r ” in the
ESL c l a s s r o o m . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y 6.263-269.
C a r m i c h a e l , L . , H . P. Hogan and A. A. Walter. 1932. An experimental
study of the effect of language o n visually perceived f o r m . J o u r n a l of
E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology 15.7 3-86.
C u r r a n , C h a r l e s A. 1972. Counseling-Learning: A Whole-Person Model f o r
Education. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Dollard, J . , L. W. Doob, N. E . M i l l e r , 0. H. Mowrer and R. R. S e a r s .
1939. F r u s t r a t i o n and Aggression. New Haven, Ct., Yale University
Press.
Doron, Sandra. 1973. Reflectivity-impulsivity and their influence on r e a d i n g
f o r inference f o r adult students of ESL. Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , Uni-
v e r s i t y of Michigan.
F r e u d , Sigmund. 192G. A G e n e r a l Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New
York: Liveright.
G a r d n e r , R o b e r t C. and Wallace E . L a m b e r t . 1972. Attitudes and Moti-
vation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House.
Gouin, F r a n c o i s . 1880. L’art d’enseigner e t d’e‘tudier l e s langues. P a r i s :
Fischbacher.
Guiora, Alexander, Benjamin Beit-Hallami, R o b e r t C. L. Brannon, Cecelia
Dull and Thomas Scovel. 1970. The effects of experimentally induced
changes in ego s t a t e s on pronunciation ability in a second language:
a n exploratory study. Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , University of Michigan.
Guiora, Alexander, R o b e r t C. L. Brannon and Cecelia Dull. 1972. Empathy
and second language learning. Language Learning 22.111-130.
Hilgard, E r n e s t . 1963. Motivation in learning theory. In S. Koch (ed.)
Psychology: A Study of Science (Vol. 5.253-283). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Hill, Joseph E . 1972. The Educational Sciences. Detroit: Oakland Com-
munity College.
244 LANGUAGE LEARNING, VOL. 23, NO. 2
Holzman, P. S. and R. W. Gardner. 1960. Leveling-sharpening and memory
reorganization. Journal of Abnormal Social P s y c h o l o a 61.176-180.
Hunt, J a m e s MeV. 1961. Intelligence and Experience. New York: Ronald
Press.
Kagan, J e r o m e . 1965. Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary
g r a d e children. Child Development 36.609-628.
Kagan, J e r o m e , L. P e a r s o n and Lois Welch. 1966. Conceptual impulsivity
and inductive reasoning. Child Development 37.583-594.
Krathwohl, David R . , Benjamin Bloom and B e r t r a m B. Masia. 1964. Tax-
onomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 11: Affective Domain. New
York: David McKay Co.
LaForge, Paul. 1971. Community language learning: a pilot study. Lan-
guage Learning 21.45-61.
L e d e r e r , Elaine. 1973. The effect of motivational f a c t o r s on the learning
ability for second language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Uni-
versity of Michigan.
Lukmani, Yasmeen. 1972. Motivation to l e a r n and language proficiency.
Language Learning 22.261-274.
McNeill, David. 1966. Developmental psycholinguistics. In F. Smith and
G. Miller (eds.) The Genesis of Language (15-84). Cambridge, Ma.:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
M i l l e r , N. E. and J . Dollard. 1941. Social Learning and Imitation. New
Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press.
Mowrer, 0. Hobart. 1960. Learning Theory and the Symbolic P r o c e s s e s .
New York: Wiley.
Nelson, Robert 3 . and Leon A. Jakobovits. 1970. Motivation in foreign
language learning. Northeast Conference on Teaching Foreign Lan-
guages 34-104.
R i c h a r d s , J a c k C. 1971. E r r o r analysis and second language strategies.
Language Sciences (October) 12-22.
Savignon, Sandra. 1972. Communicative Competence: An Experiment in
Foreign Language Teaching. Philadelphia: Center f o r Curriculum De-
velopment.
Selinker , L a r r y . 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Lin-
guistics 10.209- 23 1.
Stevick, E a r l . 1973. Review of C u r r a n , Counseling-Learning. A Whole-
P e r s o n Model f o r Education. Language Learning 23 (in p r e s s ) .
Uhlman, F. W. and E. Saltz. 1965. Retention of anxiety m a t e r i a l a s a
function of cognitive differentiation. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l and Social
Psychology 1.55-62.