Chapter 3

Psychological factors and second language acquisition

Roya beiglou

Introduction

Psychological factors are traditionally divided into three principal types: cognitive, conative, and
affective. Cognitive factors are those that influence the processing, storing, and retrieval of information.
The cognitive factor that has attracted the most attention in SLA is language aptitude. Conative factors
influence the learner’s ability to establish a goal and maintain effort to achieve it. In SLA, the key
conative factor is motivation. Affective factors determine whether people respond positively or
negatively to specific situations. There is both an advantage and a danger of isolating specific factors for
study. The advantage lies in the possibility of the in-depth investigation of a single factor and how it
affects language learning. The main danger is that investigating individual factors will result in losing
sight of the ‘whole’ learner.

Key psychological factors

three key factors generally considered to be representative of the three dimensions—language aptitude,
motivation, and language anxiety.
Cognitive factors:
Intelligence: Intelligence is ‘a general sort of aptitude that is not limited to a specific performance area
but is transferable to many sorts of performance’ (Dörnyei 2005: 32)
Language aptitude : is the special ability for learning a second language. It is considered to be at least
partly separate from general intelligence
Learner beliefs : Beliefs can be classified in terms of whether they reflect an experiential or analytic
approach to learning. Learners also hold beliefs about their own self-efficacy as language learners.

Conative factors:
Motivation : Early theories distinguished ‘instrumental’ and ‘integrative’ motivation and ‘extrinsic’ and
‘intrinsic’ motivation.
Willingness to communicate : is defined as ‘the intention to initiate communication, given a choice’

Affective factors
Language anxiety : Language anxiety is seen as a specific type of situation-specific anxiety. It can be
facilitating

Mixed factors
Personality : . An array of different personality characteristics such as self-esteem, openness to
experience, and risk-taking have been claimed to be significant in language learning.
Learning style : refers to the preferred way in which a person sets about learning in general. It reflects
‘the totality of psychological functioning

Language aptitude
It defined as a conglomerate of abilities that interact dynamically with the situation in which learning
takes place . Language aptitude is best seen as a complex construct involving a number of distinct
abilities.

Carroll’s model of language aptitude

Carroll saw language aptitude as determining ‘the amount of time a student needs to learn a given task,
unit of instruction, or curriculum to an acceptable criterion of mastery under optimal conditions of
instruction and student motivation’ . the MLAT has proven to be a robust and useful instrument and
survives as the most popular measure of language aptitude today. These tests measured the four
abilities.

Phonemic coding ability : The ability to code unfamiliar sounds in a way that they can be remembered
later.

Grammatical sensitivity : The ability to recognize the grammatical functions of words in sentences.

Inductive language-learning ability: The ability to identify patterns of correspondence and relationships
between form and meaning.

Rote-learning ability : The ability to form and remember associations between L1 and L2 vocabulary
items.

It was used to characterize learners as having ‘high’ or ‘low’ language aptitude, but researchers have
increasingly recognized the need to differentiate learners according to the specific cognitive abilities
they possessed. Carroll’s claim that language aptitude was largely stable and not amenable to training
was also challenged. It was questioned whether language aptitude played any role in how children
learned a second language. Finally—and most importantly perhaps—researchers began to question
whether the four abilities that the MLAT measured constituted a valid conceptualization of language
aptitude. I will turn now to a consideration of these various issues.

Differentiating types of learners

Wesche (1981) used language-aptitude test scores to distinguish those learners who were strong in
language analytical abilities and those strong in memory. She conducted an experimental study to
investigate whether learners benefitted most if they were matched to a type of instruction that she
hypothesized would suit their aptitude type. The results provided support for this hypothesis. Skehan
(1986) conducted a study of learners studying Arabic in the Army School of Languages in Britain. His
analysis of the results of aptitude tests indicated that some of the learners demonstrated strength in
grammatical sensitivity whereas others were strong in memory and ‘chunk-learning’ (i.e. learning
formulaic sequences). He proposed that learners could be distinguished in terms of whether they were
analytic or memory- oriented and showed that both types were successful.

Language aptitude and age

the role of language aptitude varies according to the age of the learner.
DeKeyser (2000) investigated the hypothesis that language analytical ability contributes to the success
of learners who start learning as adults, but not for those who start as children. He found that language
analytical ability was not a significant predictor of the childhood arrivals’ performance on a
grammaticality judgement test, but that it was for the adult arrivals. Only those adult arrivals with high
analytical ability scored in the same range as the young arrivals. In other words, analytical ability made a
difference, but only for those learners who started to learn as adults. Harley and Hart’s (1997)
reported a positive correlation between memory ability and L2 proficiency in the early starters, but
between language analytical ability and proficiency in the learners who began in grade seven .
the instruction for the early-starters emphasized memory-related activities whereas the instruction
received by the late-starters was more demanding of analytical skills.

Aptitude and type of learning

Now we will consider two studies that investigated the role of language aptitude in implicit and explicit
learning. De Graaff (1997) investigated the relationship between two measures of language aptitude
(grammatical sensitivity and memory) and the learning of simple and complex grammatical structures by
adult learners, some of whom received explicit instruction— where the rules were explained—and
others implicit instruction—where there was no rule explanation. Language aptitude correlated with the
test scores of both groups of learners for both grammatical structures and there was no difference
between the two groups.
Robinson (1996) also reported a study that showed language analytical ability correlated with measures
of learning resulting from (1) an explicit condition where learners were given an explanation of the
grammatical rules; (2) a rule-search condition where they were asked to search for the rules in sets of
sentences that exemplified them; and (3) an implicit condition where they were asked to simply read
and memorize sets of sentences. Language aptitude was implicated in the learning resulting from all
three conditions. However, there was no relationship between analytical ability and learning in (4) an
incidental learning condition where learners completed a meaning-focused task that simply involved
exposure to the target structures. Overall, no clear conclusion can be reached about the role of language
aptitude in different types of learning

Reconceptualizing language aptitude

The developments that we will now consider were of two main kinds. The first involved an attempt to
relate language aptitude to concepts as noticing, noticing-the-gap, and pushed output . The second
approach entailed attempts to develop new ways of measuring aptitude, in particular, by incorporating
working memory into the model.
four macro stages in the process of language acquisition by Skehan:
1 Noticing
2 Patterning
3 Controlling
4 Lexicalizing

Processes involved
1 Learner directs attention at some specific feature in the input.
2 Learner constructs a hypothesis (implicitly or explicitly) about the feature, subsequently extends the
domain of the hypothesis before recognizing its limitations and restructuring it and integrating the new
representation into the interlanguage system.
3 Learner is able to use the integrated feature with increasing ease and accuracy.
4 Learner is now able to produce the feature as a ‘lexicalized element’ (i.e. it is accessed as a whole
rather than by applying a rule).
Aptitude components

1 auditory segmentation; attention management; working memory; phonemic coding

2 working memory; grammatical sensitivity; inductive language learning ability; restructuring capacity
3 automatization; proceduralization; retrieval processes
4 integrative memory; chunking; retrieval processes

Robinson (2002) further developed this approach by attempting to show how what he termed ‘basic
cognitive abilities’ (for example, ‘pattern recognition’ and ‘rote memory’) contributed to what he called
‘aptitude complexes’—such as ‘noticing-the-gap’—which are associated with specific ‘task aptitudes’—
such as whether a communicative task calls for one-way or two-way communication. In this way,
Robinson sought to identify the different abilities required to benefit from Task-based Language
Teaching .
Working memory is generally conceived as a multi-component memory system. Baddeley (2003)
distinguished four sub-components: (1) the central executive that controls attention; (2) the visuospatial
sketchpad that stores and rehearses visual information; (3) the phonological loop that stores and
rehearses oral information; and (4) the episodic buffer that combines information from different
sources.

Motivation

motivation is a complex construct. It involves:

1. The reasons a learner has for needing or wanting to learn an L2 (i.e. motivational orientation).
2. The effort a learner makes to learn the L2, the learner’s persistence with the learning
task, and the impact immediate context has on these (i.e. behavioral motivation).
3. The effect that the learner’s evaluation of his/her progress has on subsequent learning Behavior

The social-psychological period (1959–1990)

The starting point was the recognition that learners’ motivation depended on their attitudes towards
the other community and to the target language, and that these were socially determined. Gardner and
Lambert (1972) distinguished two broad orientations: an integrative orientation entails a desire to
identify with the target-language culture and its speakers; an instrumental orientation arises when
learners wish to learn a second language for functional purposes. Gardner (2001) came to recognize that
‘there can be other supports for motivation not directly associated with integrative motivation’
Motivation’, then, is a composite construct involving orientation, attitudes, and effort. Gardner’s (1985)
Socio-educational Model also emphasized the importance of the social and cultural milieu in which
learning took place. This determined the cultural beliefs learners held.
Attitude Motivation Test Battery (AMTB):
1. Integrative motivation is positively correlated with various measures of L2 achievement.
2. Learners’ integrative motivation was also found to be related to the teacher’s and students’
classroom behaviors (for example, students’ voluntary responses to teacher questions).
3. Learners with an integrative motivation were less likely to abandon learning a second language
(Ramage 1990).
4. In some contexts, however, integrative motivation was found to be negatively associated with
achievement and that other motivations could be important
5. Overall, instrumental motivation is a much weaker predictor of L2 achievement than integrative
motivation
6.However,instrumentalmotivationcanplayabiggerroleinforeignlanguagecontexts where learners have
little interest in the target language culture.
7. The benefits of an instrumental motivation are likely to wear off once the instrumental objective has
been achieved as learners cease making any effort to learn. This is especially likely to occur in some
foreign language contexts.

The cognitive-situated period

In this period, responding to criticisms leveled at the social-psychological approach, researchers turned
to mainstream theories of motivation in cognitive psychology.
Self-determination Theory (Deci and Ryan 1985) was built around the common-sense notion that people
are motivated by both external factors such as rewards, grades, or the opinions of others and by internal
ones such as personal interests, curiosity, or experiencing an activity as fun. The theory was applied to
L2 motivation by Noels, Pelletier, Clement, and Vallerand (2000), who developed a model based on the
distinction between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. intrinsic motivation could be derived
from (1) knowledge (i.e. the motivation derived from exploring new ideas and knowledge), (2)
accomplishment (i.e. the pleasant sensations aroused by trying to achieve a task or goal), and (3)
stimulation

Attribution Theory

Attribution Theory (Weiner 1992) views motivation as deriving from the explanations that learners give
for their progress in learning a second language. There are three main types of attributions. First, they
can be internal (i.e. learners explain their performance in terms of their own ability or lack of it) or
external (i.e. learners place the blame for learning problems on external factors). Second, learners can
perceive the outcome of their learning efforts as stable or unstable. In the case of the former, learners
may be less inclined to make any further effort as they believe it will make no difference, but in the case
of the latter, they may try harder. The third set of attributions concerns whether the factors influencing
success or failure are seen as controllable or uncontrollable. Both self-determination theory and
attribution theory recognized the importance of situation-specific factors. These theories also recognize
the dynamic nature of motivation as motivation is not fixed, but rises and falls according to the
situational conditions and the attributions learners form.

The process-oriented period

During this period, researchers turned their attention to examining the dynamic character of motivation
and the temporal variation that can occur both over the lifetime of a learner and within a single lesson.
important developments in the modeling of motivation:
1. the identification of phases of motivation, involving the reasons for learning a second language,
deciding to do something, and sustaining the effort
2. The influence of group dynamics on learner’s motivation
3.the role of self regulation in helping students to maintain their motivation
4. The motivational force that arise a

The Process Model of L2 Motivation

1. Pre-actional phase. This involves goal-setting and the formation of an action plan. Motivational
influences in this stage include ‘attitudes towards the L2 and its speakers
 2. Actional stage. This is when learners begin to implement their action plan. It involves ‘executive
motivation’.
3. Post-actional phase. This is when the learner evaluates the outcome of the actions undertaken
and forms causal attributions about the reasons for the success or failure of the action plans

Group dynamics and motivation

while motivation is a construct that relates to the individual learner, it will be influenced by the other
members of the group that the learner is part of. Dörnyei’s (2002) found that the learners were strongly
influenced by their partner’s motivational disposition and this affected how they performed the task. He
concluded that task-motivation is co-constructed .

Self-regulation and motivation

the learners’ motivation was a prerequisite for effective use of regulatory strategies, which in turn
influence their level of autonomy.

Motivation as an act of communication

motivation can be seen as constructed in and through interaction. Ushioda (2009) argued that the
learner is part of the context, both influenced by it, but also able to influence and shape it. Ushioda
went on to suggest that questionnaires were not the best way to investigate learners’ motivation and
that instead researchers should focus on the discourse that learners participate in

Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System

three components to the L2 Motivational Self System:

1. Ideal L2 Self. ‘If the person we would like to become speaks an L2, the ‘ideal L2 self’
is a powerful motivator to learn the L2 because of the desire to reduce the discrepancy between our
actual and ideal selves’ .. This component incorporates both integrative and instrumental aspirations
relating to a desired end state, such as a better job. The ideal self also facilitates the self-regulation
needed to succeed.
2. Ought-to Self. This ‘concerns the attributes that one believes one ought to possess to meet
expectations and to avoid possible negative outcomes’ . Instrumentality is involved here but is
preventive—directed at preventing negative outcomes (for example, performing poorly in an
examination).
3. L2 Learning Experience. This refers to the ‘executive motives related to the immediate learning
environment and experience’ . Important factors here are the impact of the teacher, the curriculum, the
peer group, and the experience of success. This component, therefore, incorporates insights from self-
determination and attribution theories.
He noted that the Ideal L2 Self was closely related to integrativeness, but that it explained a higher
percentage of variance in measures of learners’ intended effort. One limitation of dornyei theory is the
Ideal L2 Self was found to contribute significantly to learning in the metropolitan context (but less so
than L2 Learning Experience), but did not contribute at all in the provincial and rural contexts.
Another limitation of Dörnyei’s theory is that it does not really account for the dynamic nature of
motivation, a point acknowledged by Dörnyei.
Language anxiety

Language anxiety is the anxiety that results from learners’ emotional responses to the learning
conditions they experience in a specific situation. It differs from, but is related to, trait anxiety (i.e. the
learner’s overall tendency to be anxious as a result of their personality). It happens when tended to
become anxious when they compared themselves with other learners in the class and found themselves
less proficient. Other sources of anxiety include being asked to communicate spontaneously in the
second language, fear of negative evaluation, and tests. it has been shown that anxiety negatively
affects performance in the second language. In some cases, anxiety provides some of the highest simple
correlations of attitudes with achievement. Sparks, Ganschow, and Javorsky’s (2000) Linguistic Coding
Difference Hypothesis claims that success in foreign language learning is primarily dependent on
language aptitude and that students’ anxiety about learning an L2 is a consequence of the learning
difficulties they experience because of deficits in their aptitude. Sheen (2008) showed that anxiety can
affect the learners’ ability to process input. She found that the low-anxiety learners were much more
likely to repair their errors following recasts and consequently learn from them

Typologies of learning strategies

1. Metacognitive strategies, for example ‘selective attention’ (deciding in advance to attend to specific
aspects of language input).
2. Cognitive strategies, for example ‘inferencing’ (using available information to guess meanings of new
items, predict outcomes, or fill in missing information).
3. Social/affective strategies, for example ‘question for clarification’ (asking a teacher or another native
speaker for repetition, paraphrasing, explanation).

Correlational studies

Much of the learning-strategy research has used questionnaires (for example, Oxford’s, 1990, Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning). These ask learners to self-report which specific strategies they use or
how frequently they use them. Quantitative scores derived from these questionnaires are then
correlated with measures of L2 achievement/proficiency

Effects of strategy instruction

, meta-analytic review of strategy instruction studies (Plonsky 2011) provides a clearer endorsement of
strategy training. Plonsky’s meta-analysis included 61 studies involving 6,791 learners in his meta-
analysis. He calculated the average ‘effect size’ of the strategy instruction in all the studies and also
investigated how moderating variables such as the age of the learners, the kind of the strategy
instruction, and the type of learning outcome impacted on the overall effect. The overall effect size was
‘small to medium’. He argued that this compared favourably with the effect sizes reported in meta-
analyses of strategy training studies in general education, but was modest compared to meta-analyses
of other types of L2 instruction (see Chapter 10). He found that instruction directed at cognitive
strategies was more effective. The effects of the strategy instruction were clearly evident in the case of
reading, writing, speaking, vocabulary, and pronunciation, but weak or not evident at all in listening,
grammar, or general proficiency. Dörnyei (2005) noted that whereas research on learning strategies was
popular in general educational research in the 1980s, it declined dramatically in the 1990s, and that
language learning strategies should be re-conceptualized and investigated in terms of self-regulation.
Tseng, Dörnyei, and Schmitt (2006) argued that an approach based on self-regulation provides a more
satisfactory way of empowering learners than traditional strategy training as the real goal should be that
of assisting learners to achieve self-regulation, not to use specific strategies. They developed an
instrument to measure self-regulatory capacity for vocabulary learning.
Another rather surprising limitation is the failure of research on learning strategies to relate strategies to
the processes that SLA researchers have proposed are important for learning.

Age and psychological factors

Whereas short-term phonological memory may be of special importance for young learners, language
analytical ability appears to be more important for older learners.
Granena and Long (2012) showed that language aptitude mitigates the negative effects that increasing
age has on the acquisition of lexical knowledge.
Age and motivation are also related. Kormos and Csizér (2008) investigated Hungarian school pupils,
university students, and adult language learners and found that there were differences in what
motivated these three groups. The school learners were primarily motivated by interest in English-
language cultural products whereas the two older groups were more influenced by their attitudes to
English in the globalized world. Relationships have also been found between age and language anxiety,
with older learners tending to be more anxious than younger learners .