Individual Differences in Language Learning: A Complex Systems Theory Perspective [1st ed.] 9783030528997, 9783030529000

Citation preview

Carol Griffiths · Adem Soruç

Individual Differences in Language Learning A Complex Systems Theory Perspective

Individual Differences in Language Learning

Carol Griffiths • Adem Soruç

Individual Differences in Language Learning A Complex Systems Theory Perspective

Carol Griffiths Girne American University Girne/Kyrenia, North Cyprus

Adem Soruç Department of Education University of Bath Bath, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-52899-7    ISBN 978-3-030-52900-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52900-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Moobin / shutterstock.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

“Dr Grifiths dedicates this book for her family, friends and colleagues, for their support.” “Dr Soruç dedicates this book to his wife, Fatma Nur, and their son, Eymen Erdem, as well as his dad and mum, Dursun and Habibe, and his sister Rukiye.”

Preface

Aims of the Book The book aims to be.

Theoretically Sound This is important since the book is aimed primarily at postgraduate students (for whom it will be a valuable reference) and their teachers (for whom it will be a valuable source of information and material). In addition, it may be useful for undergraduate students studying as pre-service teachers (for whom it will be an important course book), their teachers (for whom it will provide invaluable teaching material) and also teacher educators (who will find the book a useful resource). Since theoretical rigour is important for these groups, especially if they are planning research, the book aims to carefully attend to the theory underlying each topic.

Evidence-based Each individual difference has at least one original study to provide evidence for the statements made in the chapter. In this way, in order to avoid merely summarizing old ideas, or presenting ideas with little or no empirical evidence to back the ideas up, this book plans to provide fresh new evidence to support the ideas presented in each chapter.

Replicatable Studies are described in detail and instruments appended where appropriate so that others can follow up should they wish to do so, perhaps with adaptation to suit the needs of different participant sets or environments. This is important for researchers, and, since a major market for the book is intended to be students looking for project/thesis topics, it is anticipated that this will be a useful feature of the book. vii

viii

Preface

Reader-friendly Many books on this kind of topic are extremely “dense” and difficult to read and understand. This book is intended to be accessible and this is especially important for non-native speakers, of whom there is an ever-growing number and who are expected to be a large readership for this book.

A Valuable Resource The book aims to provide a valuable source of information and inspiration for students, researchers, teachers and teacher trainers. In addition to the information in each chapter, there is a glossary to provide definitions of the key terms used and an extensive reference list which will be invaluable for students looking for reference material for their own studies.

Organization of the Book The book begins with a holistic overview, outlining the major theoretical foundation of the book (complex/dynamic systems) plus the role of ecological and sociocultural context and briefly summarizing the major topics of the chapters which follow. Of the chapters which make up the main body of the book, 11 are based on major individual differences identified in the literature, which are followed by a final chapter which considers how each of the individual differences described fits into the complex, dynamic, situated whole. Chapters are sequenced on the premise that some individual differences are more open to teacher influence than others. Clearly, a student is as old as s/he is and this is the factor most beyond a teacher’s control: all a teacher can do is develop strategies to manage the age factor in the classroom. Other factors such as sex/gender, aptitude, race /ethnicity/nationality/culture and personality are often thought to be relatively stable, but contemporary views tend to be less set-in-concrete than might once have been the case (see the relevant chapters for discussion of this issue). Personality is often believed to be a contributing determinant of learning style, which, in turn, contributes to a learner’s preferred strategies, which help to develop autonomy. All of these factors plus a learner’s beliefs and affective reactions contribute to motivation. And all of these variables interact with each other and contribute to a highly complex and dynamic whole, further influenced by ecological and sociocultural context. Each chapter (except for the initial overview chapter) follows a basic structure: To get you thinking before you read. The purpose of this is to get students to activate existing schemata, to provide a stimulus for discussion, and to help students identify what they already know and what they need to find out. These questions

Preface

ix

can be used in class with the whole class or in groups (depending on class size) or assigned for out-of-class work on a blended/flipped learning basis, depending on the prevailing learning environment, teacher/student preference and the time available. Background. This section aims to provide basic definitions and to discuss essential concepts. Previous Research. Previous studies are described in this section. New Research. This section provides fresh, evidence-based insights into the topic, and each chapter includes at least one new piece of research. Discussion. Here the findings of the new studies are discussed and compared with those from earlier studies. Implications for Language Teaching and Learning. Implications for teaching and learning are suggested. Questions for Further Research. Suggestions are made for possible follow-up studies which readers may be interested to pursue. Conclusion. The chapter concludes by summarizing and reflecting on what has been presented on the topic, especially in relation to complex/dynamic/situated theories. Questions to Consider. These questions are designed to complement those at the beginning of the chapter, and to get students to think about what they have read in the chapter. They can be used for discussion or as the basis for assignment work. Teachers who find the suggested questions impractical for the time available or not suited to their particular students or ideas on the subject can, of course, be selective. Follow-up Tasks. These can be used for assignments or as the basis for projects or theses. Suggestions for Further Reading. These may include publications not included in the text (and, therefore, not in the reference list), but which may be useful for those wanting to pursue the subject in greater depth, perhaps for their own research. Appendices. Instruments used in the studies described in the chapter will be reproduced here to assist those who might care to replicate/extend the studies. In the case of well-known pre-published instruments (e.g. the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)), reference will be provided so that readers can find them if they wish. At the end of the book, there is a glossary which provides definitions of the key terms used in the book, and an extensive reference list, which is especially invaluable for those wanting to pursue their own research agendas.

x

Preface

Audience Students • The chapters of the book are intended to provide basic information about the given topic which postgraduate students can use as a starting point for their own investigations. • Undergraduate students doing courses on this topic may also find the book useful. • The glossary is especially useful to provide quick and handy basic definitions of the terms used in the book. • The text is written in a reader-friendly style. • The very thorough reference list can be extremely useful for assignment, project or thesis/dissertation work.

Practising Teachers • The book provides multiple thought-provoking insights which teachers might be able to apply to their own professional practices. • The material in the book might be used by teachers in their own classrooms. • Themes of the book may provide inspiration for action research. • By means of these insights and/or action research, teachers may develop autonomy.

Teacher Educators • The initial questions to get students thinking provide an opportunity for discussion and activating existing schemata. • The text itself is written in a reader-friendly style which makes it more accessible (and therefore, hopefully, less anxiety-provoking and more fun) for students, many of whom may be non-native speakers. • The questions to consider at the end of the main text can be used for class discussion, divided and assigned as group work with follow-up feedback (providing presentation practice) or set as homework (perhaps contributing to assessment), depending on the needs, other workloads and the time available. • The follow-up task can be used for assignments (contributing to the requirements for assessment). • The suggestions for further reading include publications not included in the main text, but which can provide useful extra information, perhaps for homework. Where possible, relatively easily available texts (e.g. special issues of journals) are chosen for recommendation here. • The appendices include any instruments used in the studies described in the chapter which can be used by students for replication or extension purposes.

Preface

xi

Researchers • The questions posed can provide inspiration for interesting research topics and point to gaps in the existing literature. • The studies included in the book are designed to be replicatable. Instruments used are included and can be used in follow-up studies if they are suitable, or they can be adapted to suit the purpose of the target context. • A very extensive reference list is included, which can be used as a starting point for other studies. • The glossary provides clear and concise definitions of key terms. Girne/Kyrenia, North Cyprus Bath, UK 

Carol Griffiths Adem Soruç

Acknowledgements

The authors of this volume would like to thank participants and authors of the research studies.

xiii

Contents

1 Individual Differences: An Overview ������������������������������������������������������   1 2 Age��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11 3 Sex/Gender��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  29 4 Race/Ethnicity/Nationality/Culture����������������������������������������������������������  47 5 Aptitude������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  63 6 Personality��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  81 7 Learning Style��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  97 8 Language Learning Strategies������������������������������������������������������������������ 113 9 Autonomy���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 131 10 Beliefs���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 149 11 Affect ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 165 12 Motivation�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 181 13 A Holistic View ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 197 Glossary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 213 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 217 Index�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 219

xv

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Median levels of proficiency according to sex and across all students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3.2 Statistics regarding students’ sex and success rates in the proficiency exam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Table 3.3 Significant personality differences according to gender . . . . . . . .  Table 3.4 Number of strategies used frequently according to sex/gender and across all students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Table 3.5 Autonomy statements showing a male/female difference with median ratings according to gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Table 3.6 Autonomy statements showing significant differences in ratings with median ratings according to gender . . . . . . . . . . .  Table 3.7 Significant differences (Mann-Whitney U) in FLCAS items according to gender with Effect sizes (E) expressed as % of the variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3.8 Attribution items showing a significant gender difference with probability value (p) and effect size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Table 3.9 Mann-Whitney Test results of the components of the Foreign Language Motivation Questionnaire for motivation according to gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4.1 Median ratings for students’ culture shock questionnaire with minimum and maximum ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4.2 Ratings ascribed to the questionnaire items by Hakim (H) and Ana (A) with Ana’s comments alongside, and final comments from both in the box below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Table 6.1 The median (Med.) levels of agreement with range for all the items in the personality questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 7.1 Median ratings of learning style items for the Inventory of Language Learning Styles (ILLS) for Chinese (N = 31) and Turkish (N = 106) students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 7.2 Style items significantly correlated (Spearman’s rho—rs) with test results plus effect sizes (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 31 33 34 35 35 38 39 39 53 54 86 101 102

xvii

xviii

List of Tables

Table 9.1 Autonomy statements with median ratings (MED) plus correlation coefficients (R), probability values (P) and effect sizes (E) for the relationship (Spearman’s) between ratings and the results of the final practice test for statistically significant items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Table 9.2 Median ratings and range of responses to statements about learner autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 10.1 Median ratings for beliefs about language learning by students from Chinese and Iranian contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Table 10.2 Ratings of beliefs about individual difference factors according to the Iranian students noted above (Tajeddin) . . . . . . Table 11.1 Students’ (N = 406) median ratings (M) for Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety items, with probability (p) values, Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rs), and effect size (E) . . . . . Table 12.1 Students’ (N = 406) median levels of agreement (out of 10) for each type of motivation, plus the relationships with achievement (Spearman’s rho), the probability values (p), and the percentage of variance or effect size (E = rs2) . . . . . . . . Table 13.1 Median levels of agreement for levels of importance of individual differences in successful language learning for all participants (ALL, N = 41), for practising teachers (PT, N = 12) and for pre-service teachers (PST, N = 29) . . . . . .  Table 13.2 Median levels of agreement for levels of importance of individual differences in successful language learning for pre-service teachers (PST) in two different contexts . . . . . . .

135 137 154 157 170

185

199 204

1

Individual Differences: An Overview

To Get You Thinking Before You Read 1 . How many individual differences can you think of? 2. Are they important for successful language learning? How? Why? 3. Do you agree that individual differences interact with each other in complex ways? Can you think of any examples? 4. Are individual differences dynamic (i.e. are they subject to change)? Which ones? 5. How does ecological or sociocultural context relate to individual differences? 6. Do you think a holistic view is important? Why/not?

Background Historically, much of the research into language learning has been concerned with establishing commonalities and considering how these universal factors might be applied to teaching and learning (e.g. Eckman, Bell, & Nelson, 1984). As Skehan (1989) points out, much of the previous research into language acquisition had focused on “how learners are similar, and what processes of learning are universal” (p. 1, author’s italics). However, if language learning is to be successful, we need also to consider some of the factors which are generated from within individuals, which make them different from each other, and which will inevitably impact on their success. Interest in individual variables began to expand exponentially towards the end of the twentieth century, leading Ellis (1994) to comment on the “veritable plethora of individual learner variables which researchers have identified as influencing learning outcomes” (p.  472). An understanding of these multiple variables is critical, © The Author(s) 2020 C. Griffiths, A. Soruç, Individual Differences in Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52900-0_1

1

2

1  Individual Differences: An Overview

since, as Horwitz (1999) reminds us “language learners are individuals approaching language learning in their own unique way” (p.  558), and these variable learner characteristics may have a “significant bearing on how learning proceeds” (Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002, p. 170). As a result of increased awareness of the role played by individual learner variables in successful language development, interest in the field has continued unabated (e.g. Afflerbach, 2015; Arabski & Wojtaszek, 2011; D’browska & Andringa, 2019; Dörnyei, 2005; Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014; Pawlak, 2012; Roberts & Meyer, 2012).

Why Are Individual Differences (IDs) Important? An early advocate of the key role played by individual differences was Selinker (1972), who was emphatic when he stated: “a theory of … language learning that does not provide a central place for individual differences among learners cannot be considered acceptable” (p. 213, author’s italics). A decade later, but still relatively avant-garde, Wong Fillmore (1982) commented: “Anyone who works with … language learners, whether in teaching or in research, discovers quickly how much individual variation there is” (p. 157). Individual differences are important for language teachers for several reasons. If they become aware of learner differences in their classrooms, they can develop materials, change their teaching style, adopt new instructional strategies, and give feedback considering all the learner differences in the classroom. Although it may be challenging to unravel what is universal and what is individual (Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003), the teacher needs to provide options for an optimal learning environment for every student.

What Should Be Included as an Individual Difference? A review of the literature reveals that what should be included as an individual difference is far from universally agreed, even among those who are considered experts and who have published on the subject. Skehan (1989), one of the first to deal at length with the subject, included aptitude, motivation, language learning strategies, extroversion/introversion, risk-taking, intelligence, field in/dependence and anxiety among the topics he discussed. More than a decade and a half later, Dörnyei (2005) listed personality, aptitude, motivation, strategies and beliefs, while Arabski and Wojtaszek (2011) included strategies, autonomy, personality, gender and self-­ efficacy, and Pawlak (2012) dealt with aptitude, age, intelligence, affect and motivation among the individual factors in his book. As we can see, then, consensus is far from complete on the question of what should be included as an individual difference. For the purpose of the present book, the concept of individual difference will be taken fairly broadly to include: characteristics which make learners different from each other and which affect the way that they behave in the classroom and beyond.

Theoretical Perspectives

3

For the purpose of this book, these will include age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity/n ationality/culture, aptitude, personality, style, strategies, autonomy, beliefs, affect/ emotion and motivation. Each of these will receive a chapter-length treatment, and some may include other related factors mentioned in the literature, such as • intelligence and working memory (which will be included under aptitude) • intro/extroversion, in/tolerance of ambiguity, ego boundaries and willingness to communicate (which will be included under personality) • risk-taking, style-stretching and field in/dependence (which will be included under style) • metacognition and self-regulation (which will be included under autonomy) • anxiety, attitude, attribution, empathy, inhibition and self-concept (which will be included as affective/emotional variables) • volition, investment, goal-orientation and motivational self-system (which will be included under motivation) Rationales for each of these will be included in the relevant chapters. It should be noted that some of these individual differences might be considered to be of a fundamentally different nature from others. Age, sex and race, for instance, are essentially biological, while others are sociocultural and/or ecological (especially nationality and culture), while yet others (perhaps the majority) are psychological. Nevertheless, as any teacher will know, all of these factors can play a noticeable role in classroom dynamics, and for this reason, they will be included in the present volume which focuses on the role of individual variables in language development.

Theoretical Perspectives Complex/Dynamic Systems It is generally Diane Larsen-Freeman who is credited with applying Complexity Theory developed in other disciplines (such as the physical sciences) to language learning. As Larsen-Freeman (1997) explains, language can be described as a complex system in that it consists of many different but interdependent subsystems (grammar, vocabulary, phonology, semantics, etc.). This means that: A change in any one of them can result in a change in the others…..In other words, the behaviour of the whole emerges out of the interaction of the subsystems. Thus, describing each subsystem tells us about the subsystems, it does not do justice to the whole of language. (p. 149)

As a result of this complexity, “we cannot get a true measure of the influence of a factor if we isolate it from the others and examine it one at a time” (Larsen-­ Freeman, 2015, p. 14). Mercer (2014) further explains: “the collective functioning

4

1  Individual Differences: An Overview

of the system as one organic whole cannot be deduced from an understanding of the individual components. Thus, the properties of the system as a whole are more than merely the sum of its separate parts” (p. 163). Not only this, but because a complex system is in a constant state of interaction, it is also dynamic, that is, it is prone to change. Applied to the complex interplay of individual characteristics within any particular learner, this implies that a change in any specific individual factor (e.g. affect) is likely to result in changes elsewhere in the system (e.g. motivation).

Socio-ecological Context It is also essential to remember that this complex/dynamic individual with multiple interacting characteristics does not exist in a vacuum: s/he is situated in a particular social or ecological context which is as much a part of the complex/dynamic system as any of the other factors. It is usually Vygotsky (1978, 1987) who is credited with first bringing the importance of the social context in which all individuals are situated to wide attention. According to Vygotsky, language is a social phenomenon which is developed through more competent mediators, a process which has been translated as the Zone of Proximal Development or ZPD. This idea has been developed further over the years by writers such as Lantolf (2000), Ushioda (2007) and Toohey and Norton (2010). This context can include friends, family, classmates, neighbours, teachers, or any of the multiple others with whom an individual interacts in the course of his/ her life. Scholars such as Holliday and Cooke (1982) and Van Lier (1997) were among the first to use the term “ecological” to argue that for effective language teaching and learning to take place, the whole context where teaching and learning occurs should be taken into account. Tudor (2003) defines an ecological approach as “exploring language teaching and learning within the totality of the lives of the various participants involved, and not as one sub-part of their lives which can be examined in isolation” (p. 4). Van Lier (2010) likewise identifies the ecological approach as a way “to look at the learning process, the actions and activities of teachers and learners, the multi-layered nature of interaction and language use, in all their complexity and as a network of interdependencies among all the elements in the setting, not only at the social level, but also at the physical and symbolic level” (p.  3). Pfenninger (2017) is another who takes an ecological approach to language learning; her conclusions underline the influential nature of the learning environment. However, an ecological perspective does not necessarily imply that the context dominates, or that the learner is powerless in the face of situational realities. In fact, learners can, and often do, manipulate the environment to their own advantage, as well as being influenced by it.

Individual Variable Overview

5

Holism Although Complex/dynamic Systems Theory makes intuitive sense, it can create a dilemma from a research point of view. Although it is not difficult to agree that factors must be considered in relation to each other and in context if they are to be meaningful, it is simply practically impossible to research all possible factors at the same time (e.g. Ushioda, 2015). For this reason, it is necessary to make pragmatic decisions to limit the number of variables being considered at any one time in order to avoid what might otherwise become a chaotic scenario, ultimately meaning little or nothing. For this reason, in the interests of practicality, this book will focus on key individual differences one at a time. But it will also be at pains to relate the individual differences to the complex/dynamic/situated whole, the importance of which is emphasized by Amerstorfer (2020). Therefore, the final chapter of the book will attempt to take a holistic perspective over all of the individual variables considered.

Individual Variable Overview Age: Perhaps the most stable learner characteristic of all is age: a student is as old as he or she is, and there is nothing anyone (including themselves) can do to change that. There has been a great deal of debate over the years about the effect of age on language learning, and explanations for age-related differences in language learning include a hypothesized critical/sensitive period, socio-affective influences, cognitive factors and differences in a learning context. Although younger has generally been considered to be better when it comes to language learning, evidence has been mounting that older learners can learn language very effectively. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on age.) Sex/gender: Although females are often believed to be better language learners than males, research evidence to consistently support this belief has proven elusive. Although some studies have found female language learners to be more proficient than male students, other studies have reported no significant differences according to gender, while yet others have discovered a higher pass rate among male students than among females. In studies where a gender difference has been discovered, it has in general been relatively small, with a far greater variation between individuals than between the sexes, and possibly attributable to other confounding variables such as socialization, context or goal-orientation. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on sex/gender.) Race/nationality/ethnicity/culture: Individuals, of course, do not exist in isolation: they are born into a particular racial/national/ethnic/cultural environment. These concepts are often not easy to disentangle from each other, and they may often overlap, or even be the same; but throughout their lives, this background will exert an influence on the individual in one way or another, and moving from one racial/national/ethnic/cultural environment to another often results in what has been called “culture shock”. Race, nationality, ethnicity and culture are likely to have a

6

1  Individual Differences: An Overview

profound influence on the way people think and behave and, therefore, on the way they learn. Indeed, the very definition of “successful learning” itself may need to be reconsidered in the light of these factors. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on race/nationality/ethnicity/culture.) Aptitude: Language aptitude has been described as a stable characteristic of the individual which accounts for speed in language learning, and the degree to which language aptitude is considered an important factor in language learning has varied over the years. At one time, aptitude tests were commonly used to select students for language courses and to exclude those who did not score well, but in more recent years, these elitist practices have been discredited as anti-egalitarian. Furthermore, questions have been raised regarding what it is, precisely, that aptitude tests measure, and the extent to which the measured factor may overlap with intelligence/s or memory. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on aptitude.) Personality: Another learner characteristic which is usually considered relatively stable is personality. Although there has been relatively little interest in personality from a language learning perspective, it may be a salient individual characteristic when we consider such factors as willingness to communicate (an important factor in communicative classrooms), tolerance of ambiguity, ego permeability and the dynamics of extroverts versus introverts. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on personality.) Style: Learning style is sometimes believed to be an aspect of personality, and some of the factors overlap. It is usually defined in terms of a learner’s preferred way of learning, and over the years there have been numerous instruments developed in attempts to measure it. Although learners can be quite distinct from each other in their learning style, and although good learners seem to be more capable of style-stretching to suit a given learning situation, there does not seem to be any one style which is typical of good language learners. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on style.) Strategies: In turn, learning style is sometimes believed to be related to a learner’s strategies, succinctly defined as actions chosen by learners for the purpose of learning language. The language learning strategy concept has been controversial since it was introduced to the language learning literature in the 1970s, indeed, at one point it was threatened with extinction by those who questioned its very existence, and who promoted the use of the alternative term self-regulation. However, others pointed out that in order to self-regulate, learners need strategies, and strategies continue to attract vigorous research activity. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on strategies.) Autonomy: Strategies, in turn, have long been considered an essential tool for developing learners’ autonomy, or the ability to manage or control their own learning. Autonomous learners are able to make decisions about their own learning, which take account of the learning situation and the learning goal. It contributes to learner agency (i.e. the ability to take action) and helps to develop metacognition (i.e. the ability to manage the learning process) and self-regulation. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on autonomy.)

Individual Variable Overview

7

Beliefs: Beliefs might be defined as something which an individual holds to be true, and they have the potential to profoundly influence the effectiveness of language learning. Although beliefs are often assumed to be a relatively stable individual characteristic, there is some evidence that good language learners are capable of adapting their beliefs to maximize the affordances of particular learning situations and opportunities. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on beliefs.) Affect/emotion: Some learners insist that they do not allow their feelings or emotions to interfere with their learning, preferring to concentrate on their work and not to worry too much about feelings. However, although learners may believe this to be true, it has been shown that affect actually has a strong influence on the way students learn. Affect includes a number of different areas, such as anxiety, attitude, attribution, empathy, inhibition and self-concept (including self-confidence, self-­ efficacy, self-esteem and self-image). (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on affect/emotion.) Motivation has been shown to be a major factor in successful language learning. Traditionally, motivation has been divided according to dichotomies: intrinsic versus extrinsic and instrumental versus integrative. Although over the years, claims have been made that one or other of these types of motivation is the most important for successful language learning, motivation is not a simple phenomenon, and it is possible that all of these motivational types may have a part to play in the outcome of language learning endeavours. Not only that, but motivation is dynamic, that is, it changes, so it must be remembered that just because a learner is or is not motivated at one point in time, this motivational level can fluctuate according to interaction with other individual factors, variations in the background of the learner’s life (e.g. job, family, health, etc.), ecological changes, changes in goal-orientation, or interaction with other individuals. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on motivation.) Holistic: This final chapter brings together the factors discussed in the previous chapters in an attempt to consider their relative importance for successful language learning. (For further discussion and details, including references, see chapter on holistic perspective.) Questions to Consider

1. The saying “younger is better” has often been quoted. Do you agree? 2. It is commonly believed that females are better at learning language than males. Do you agree? 3. Do you agree that everyone can learn language irrespective of race/nationality/ culture/ethnicity? 4. Do you agree that aptitude is a fixed characteristic, or can an apparent lack of aptitude be compensated for by other factors? Do you have any examples? 5. Some people argue that extroverted personalities are better language learners than introverts. What do you think?

8

1  Individual Differences: An Overview

6. Do you agree that teachers should change their style to suit their learners’ styles? If so, how can they do this? 7. Which strategies do you think are most important for successful language learning? 8. Do you think it is important for learners to develop autonomy? Are some cultures more autonomous than others, or is this a misconception? 9. Do you think a person’s beliefs can affect language learning? If so, which ones? 10. Do you think that emotions play a role in language learning? If so, which ones, and what is the role? 11. Do you agree that motivation is the most important individual difference and that we can do anything if we want to enough? Do you have any examples of this in your experience? 12. Which of the individual differences noted above do you think are the most important for language learning? Suggestions for Further Reading  In addition to the references cited in the text and the reference list, readers might like to consider: Learning and Individual Differences: This is a journal dedicated to the question of individual differences in learning (but not always language learning). System (2003/3): This was a special issue of this journal specializing in individual differences.

References Afflerbach, P. (Ed.). (2015). Handbook of individual differences in reading. New York: Routledge. Amerstorfer, C. (2020). The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 21–44. Arabski, J., & Wojtaszek, A. (2011). Individual learner differences in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, A., & Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles and strategies. In N.  Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp.  170–190). London: Edward Arnold. D’browska, E., & Andringa, S. (2019). Individual differences in First and Second Language: Ultimate attainment and their causes. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mulwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eckman, F. R., Bell, L. H., & Nelson, D. (Eds.). (1984). Universals of second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ehrman, M., Leaver, B., & Oxford, R. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31(3), 313–330. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners’ individuality. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

References

9

Holliday, A., & Cooke, T. (1982). An ecological approach to ESP. In A. Waters (Ed.), Issues in ESP.  Lancaster Practical Papers in English Language Education 5 (pp.  123–143). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Horwitz, E. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557–576. Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing Sociocultural Theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory in second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. In Z.  Dörnyei, P.  MacIntyre, & A.  Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Mercer, S. (2014). The self from a complexity perspective. In S. Mercer & M. Williams (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA (pp. 160–174). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pawlak, M. (Ed.). (2012). New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. Berlin: Springer. Pfenninger, S. (2017). Not so individual after all: An ecological approach to age as an individual difference variable in a classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 19–46. Roberts, L., & Meyer, A. (2012). Individual differences in second language learning. Chichester, UK: Blackwell. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–230. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Toohey, K., & Norton, B. (2010). Language learner identities and sociocultural worlds. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 178–188). New York: Oxford University Press. Tudor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: Towards an ecological perspective on language teaching. System, 31(1), 1–12. Ushioda, E. (2007). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In P. Benson (Ed.), Learner Autonomy 8: Teacher and Learner Perspectives (pp. 5–24). Dublin: Authentik. Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A.  Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp.  47–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Van Lier, L. (1997). Observation from an ecological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 783–787. Van Lier, L. (2010). The ecology of language learning: Practice to theory, theory to practice. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 2–6. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1987). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wong Fillmore, L. (1982). The language learner as an individual: Implications of research in individual differences for the ESL teacher. In M.  Clarke & J.  Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL (pp. 157–171). Washington, DC: TESOL.

2

Age

To Get You Thinking Before You Read 1. Language learning is often considered according to learners’ ages: young learner, adolescent, adult. How do you think these groups should be defined? 2. In your opinion, how important is the age factor in language learning? Can you think of any examples? 3. When it comes to learning language, do you think is age related to other learner variables? If so, which ones? 4. How should age differences be managed in a classroom? Do you have any experience of this from a learner’s or a teacher’s point of view? If so, please describe your experience and what you did about it.

Background Of all the many learner variables which have the potential to affect language learning, none is less malleable than age. Motivation, autonomy, style, strategies, beliefs, affective states are all potentially amenable to some degree of adaptation, and even relatively stable attributes such as aptitude, personality or gender may not be absolutely set in concrete. Context can be changed, learning goals can be re-directed. A student is, however, as old as he or she is, and nothing we (or they) can do will change that. Nevertheless, there is little agreement on the effect of age on the ability to learn language, a question which has given rise to heated controversy and a great deal of discussion and research over the years (for instance, Ausubel, 1964; Bialystok and Hakuta, 1999; Birdsong, 1999; Griffiths, 2008; Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson 2003; Singleton and Lesniewska, 2012; Pfenninger and Singleton 2017a, b; Griffiths and © The Author(s) 2020 C. Griffiths, A. Soruç, Individual Differences in Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52900-0_2

11

12

2 Age

Soruç, 2018). This chapter will, first of all, consider how learners are typically grouped according to their ages (young, adolescent, adult) and present some of the research on the different age groups before outlining some of the explanations suggested for the differences. A small-scale case study of a successful mature learner will then be presented along with implications for language teaching and questions which might stimulate further research.

Young Learners Of course, the question of “How young is ‘young’?” is by no means an entirely easy one to answer in absolute terms. This is especially so since the age at which language is being taught is getting younger and younger in many places in the world, sometimes starting in nursery school, or even from birth. At the other end of the age group, we might ask “When does ‘young’ stop?” Any answer to these questions may have consequences for the teaching of “young” learners since it would seem to be no more than stating the obvious that a child in nursery school needs to be treated differently from a child approaching adolescence. For the purpose of this book, however, let us propose that “young” goes from birth to around 12 years of age, since by the age of 13, the pre-pubescent period has typically ended, and the child becomes a teenager. A number of early studies which investigated young learners and compared them with older learners concluded that younger is better. These classic studies include: • Oyama (1976) investigated 60 Italian-born immigrants to the USA and concluded that the younger people were when they started learning English, the more native-like was their pronunciation. • In the Netherlands, Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle (1978) discovered that, although their adult immigrant students were well ahead of the children initially, the children had caught up with or even passed the adults within a year. • In Canada, although older students made faster progress in a French bi-lingual programme initially, Harley (1986) concluded that students who started younger were ultimately more successful. Other studies, however, have tended to cast doubt on the “younger is better” idea: • In a very extensive study over 10 years and involving 17,000 students of French in Britain, Burstall, Jamieson, Cohen, and Hargreaves (1974) produced results which seemed to indicate that the benefits of early instruction for language development are short-lived. • A study of Canadian immersion programs by Swain (1981) concluded that an earlier start had much less effect than might have been expected.

Background

13

More recent studies have tended to be more nuanced in their findings than the older studies, and they have tended to conclude that age interacts in a complex fashion with numerous other factors when learning language: • Llanes (2010) administered a questionnaire to measure the participants’ progress during a 2–3-month stay abroad, which compared 39 children (ages 10–11) and 46 young adults. Although the results showed that children improved better than the adults, Llanes (ibid.) concluded it was because children spent much more time with native speakers and built up much wider social networks than adults, thus suggesting that factors other than age may be influential in terms of giving younger learners the advantage. • In another study, Granena and Long (2013a, b) involved 65 Chinese learners of Spanish with different age of onset (3–6, 7–15, and 16–29 years). They found multiple sensitive periods for different language domains rather than abrupt boundaries, leading to the conclusion that “language aptitude can play a mitigating role, modifying the negative effects of age of acquisition and age in general” (p. 336). • In Japan, Nishikawa (2014) involved 47 participants, who were 10 years old and whose parents were non-native speakers of Japanese. The study also included a control group (N=17) of native speakers of Japanese to find out whether early child starters of Japanese could attain nativelike proficiency after constant exposure. The researcher concluded that “early onset did not seem to be the only condition for nativelike attainment” (p. 512). • When Pfenninger and Singleton (2019) conducted a 5-year study in Switzerland involving 636 secondary-school students, of whom half had studied English from age 8 while the other half had started 5 years later, they concluded that the effect of age was overshadowed by other factors such as individual differences and context. However, although the evidence that younger is not necessarily better seems to be mounting, there does seem to be a global trend for introducing non-primary languages (especially English) at younger and younger ages.

Adolescent Learners By the time a child is around 13 years of age, s/he enters into a different phase of life, commonly known as adolescence, which may have its own sets of challenges, both for learners and for those who are trying to teach them. As with “young” learners, there is no absolute agreement about when adolescence begins and ends, but it is commonly agreed that it starts with the onset of puberty and continues until around the end of the teenage years. By this stage, adolescents are usually working through Piaget’s (1950) Formal Operations stage when they become increasingly capable of logical and abstract thought.

14

2 Age

As Costley (2018, p. 19) puts it, adolescence is a period “in which significant physiological, cognitive and social change takes place”. In terms of learning language, an adolescent is past the “Critical Period” (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959). However, does this mean s/he is incapable of learning a language? Given that evidence is mounting that language can be learnt “until quite late in life” (Kinsella & Singleton, 2014, p. 458), it would seem that we must assume that teenagers are certainly well capable of learning language if they are motivated to do so. A number of authors have looked into issues related to adolescent learning and have made important recommendations regarding the specific characteristics of adolescents which indicate a need to deal with them differently from either younger or older learners. • Ryan and Patrick (2001, p. 439) point to the adolescents’ “increased desire for autonomy”. This may sometimes manifest itself in terms of resistance to established authority, but teenagers need to be allowed a certain level of autonomy since overly restrictive practices can be counterproductive (see the chapter on autonomy for further discussion of this issue). • Tragant and Victoria (2006) note the adolescents’ development of metacognition. This means that they are more willing and able to regulate their own learning. Again, teenagers need to be allowed a certain level of freedom to manage their own learning in ways which best suit their developing style in order to avoid demotivation (see the chapter on style for further discussion of this issue). • Harklau (2007) considers the effect of the adolescents’ developing sense of identity. This is intimately tied up with their vision of their future selves, and how they want to be viewed by others. This, in turn, will affect motivation and willingness to invest time and effort in learning language, which may or may not accord with their future vision of themselves (see the chapter on motivation for further discussion of this issue). • Merga (2014) looks at the influence of peer pressure on motivation. This will affect their willingness to invest time and effort in a learning endeavour which may not be in harmony with peer expectations and judgements, which can be harsh, and difficult for developing egos to deal with (more on this also in the chapter on motivation). Although adolescents can be challenging from the point of view of teachers who may at times have difficulty maintaining a required level of discipline among individuals who are struggling to exercise their autonomy, manage peer relationships, and develop their own identity, Costley (2018, p. 20) argues that “Instead of being a hindrance, adolescence, and the co-occurring cognitive, emotional and psychological changes that take place at this time, have a positive impact on learning and are in fact beneficial, if classroom practices and learning opportunities are effectively designed and delivered”. Similarly, therefore, to young learners, we might conclude that successful language learning in adolescence depends not only on isolated variables such as aptitude, but on a complex mixture of factors such as motivation, autonomy, style, cognitive development, affect and social influences. And, of course,

Background

15

we cannot overlook the major physiological changes which take place dynamically over this period, and which inevitably impact learners’ psychological reactions, including their response to contextual characteristics, such as the physical classroom environment, their classmates and their teacher.

Adult Learners Much of the research on adult learners has been negative in terms of older learner success. Examples include: • A well-known case study describes a 10-month study of Alberto, a 33-year-old Costa Rican living in the USA. Although test results indicated that Alberto did not lack in cognitive ability, he appeared to lack motivation to learn English and made very little progress during the 10 months of the study (Schumann, 1975). • Wes, a Japanese artist living in Hawaii, was also 33 years old. According to Schmidt (1983), Wes had a strong drive to communicate, and his oral competence developed considerably. However, he showed little or no interest in formal study, and, as a result, he remained unable to read or write in English and grammatical control remained low. • Another example of an unsuccessful adult, Burling (1981) recounts his own experience of trying to learn Swedish while spending a year as a guest professor at a Swedish university. Burling was in his mid-50s, and he considered himself to have high motivation and positive attitudes. Nevertheless, he judged his own progress as “distinctly unsatisfactory” (p. 280). • Griffiths (2003) reports the case of Yuki, a 44-year-old Japanese woman who came to New Zealand with her children. Wanting to stay with her children, rather than having to return to Japan leaving them behind, she applied for a student visa and was placed in the lowest class, where she made minimal progress. Yuki thought English was difficult to learn because “my mind is blank”, which she ascribed to her age. Nevertheless, in spite of these well-known studies which present a negative view of adult language learners, there has been “growing evidence that some learners who start learning as adults can achieve a native-like competence” (Ellis, 2008, p. 31). Examples of positive studies include: • Neufeld’s (1978) study of adult native speakers of English in Canada seemed to indicate that adults could acquire native-like pronunciation when learning other languages. • Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, and Moselle (1994) document a case of a successful adult language learner who achieved native-like performance in a new language (Arabic) within about 2 years when her new husband was conscripted into the army, and she was left in a situation of total immersion with her husband’s relatives in Egypt.

16

2 Age

• A number of adult Dutch learners of English in a study by Bongaerts, van Summeren, Planken, and Schils (1997) could not be distinguished from native speakers, suggesting that “it is not impossible to achieve an authentic, native-like pronunciation of a second language after a specified biological period of time” (Bongaerts et al., 1997, p. 447). • Although they found that overall, target language attainment was negatively correlated with age, Birdsong and Molis (2001, p. 235) nevertheless found “modest evidence of nativelike attainment among late learners”. • A case study reported by Griffiths (2003) describes Kang, a 41-year-old Korean placed in the lowest elementary class when he arrived at the language school in New Zealand. He had left his wife and young children in Korea and obviously missed them. Nevertheless, Kang settled single-mindedly to his work, and by the end of his 7-month course, he was working in the advanced class. Asked why he thought he had made such good progress, Kang replied, “My heart is 100% want to learn”. His motivation was to learn English in order to improve his job prospects and provide better opportunities for his family, and he was more successful than many of the much younger students with whom he studied. • Profiles of successful adult learners are presented by Muńoz and Singleton (2007) who asked L2 adult learners of English to re-tell the narrative of a movie. Judged by native speakers of English, two of the students scored within the native speaker range. • Reichle (2010) discovered high levels of native-like proficiency among some of the adult participants in his study. He concluded that “these results are incompatible with the traditional notion of a critical period for second language acquisition” (p. 53). • When Kinsella and Singleton (2014) investigated 20 adult Anglophone near-­ native users of French, three of the participants (all married to a French spouse, with either bilingual or French-speaking children, and strong links to the French community) scored within the native speaker range. The authors noted that “a number of affective variables seemed to play a markedly more important role than maturational factors in the high attainment” (p. 441), and they concluded that “native-likeness remains attainable until quite late in life” (p. 458). • Study abroad students (N=102) were recruited by Baker-Smemoe, Dewey, Bown, and Martinsen (2014). Results showed that cultural sensitivity and social networks rather than age significantly contributed to learners’ target language development. • Although it is common to find studies claiming that younger is better, especially for phonology, Moyer’s (2014) study found some “exceptional outcomes” (p. 418) in phonology for late target language (TL) starters, and argued that “age of onset (AO) by itself is not a sufficient explanation for attainment” (p. 421). Studies such as these led Muńoz and Singleton (2011, p. 26) to argue for a “loosening of the association” between age and language attainment. And, as with both young learners and adolescents, a complex amalgamation of variables other than age per se seem to contribute to successful language learning for adults. These

Explaining Age-related Differences in Language Learning

17

include motivation, affect, cultural and social factors, as well as exposure to the target language context.

Explaining Age-related Differences in Language Learning Possible explanations for age-related differences in language development are varied, including neurological, psycho-affective, and contextual.

Neurological Maturation From a neurological point of view, it has been suggested that there is a critical period for language development (often known as the Critical Period Hypothesis or CPH), during which language can be acquired or learnt more quickly and easily than at other stages of life (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield and Roberts, 1959). Past this point, the process of myelination progressively wraps the nerves of the brain in myelin sheaths (Long, 1990) which, like concrete pathways in a garden, define learning pathways, making it easier to get from one point to another, and removing the need to re-learn information or procedures every time they are encountered, but reducing flexibility. However, although much of the evidence seems to point to the fact that younger students are more successful than older students, especially in the long term (e.g. Harley, 1986; Oyama, 1976; Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1978), the exceptions such as Julie (Ioup et al., 1994), as well as those mentioned by Bongaerts et al. (1997), Muńoz and Singleton (2007) and Griffiths (2003) render any dogmatic assertions on the subject unsustainable. As Bialystok and Hakuta (1999, p. 177) put it: “biological restrictions such as brain maturation should not be so easily overturned”. In recent years, technological advances have made the exploration of brain activity increasingly viable. According to Paradis (1994), a first language is acquired implicitly, whereas a language learned after the end of the critical period is learned explicitly, and the two systems are developed in different areas of the brain. Ullman’s (2001) Declarative/Procedural Model also argues for first and subsequent languages being processed in different areas of the brain. However, according to Green’s (2003) Convergence Hypothesis, both first and subsequent languages are mediated by a common neurolinguistic network. Abutalebi (2008) also concludes that the same neural structures are engaged for both first and subsequent languages. Although research in this area is still relatively new, and results are often inconclusive, contradictory and difficult to interpret (see Muńoz and Singleton, 2011 for more details and discussion on this issue), evidence seems to be mounting that the functioning of the neurolinguistic systems of the brain are not age-dependent, or at least not entirely so. The fact probably remains, however, that most who do manage to learn a new language to a high level usually started relatively young. If biological age cannot explain this, we need to consider other possible factors.

18

2 Age

Psycho-affective Factors Psycho-affective factors have been suggested as a major reason why younger learners are often more successful than older learners at learning a new language (e.g. Krashen and Terrell, 1983). These variables might include cognitive differences (such as aptitude), affective factors (such as culture or language shock, motivation and investment) or various other individual differences. Cognitive differences between older and younger learners have been hypothesized as an explanation of the results of several studies which have found that adults often make faster initial progress with language learning, but younger learners are more successful in the long run (e.g. Harley, 1986; Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1978). More recently, Muñoz (2006) came to a similar conclusion: the older learners performed better than the younger ones initially (after 200 hours of instruction), but after 726 hours, the gap had decreased considerably. Krashen (1985) explains older learners’ faster initial progress in terms of their ability to negotiate meaning, while according to Ellis (1985), older students can consciously think about the rules which gives them an initial advantage. It has been suggested that affective variables such as culture shock (which leaves the learner feeling confused and excluded) and language shock (which leaves the learner feeling nervous and humiliated) may be the most important factors associated with adult language learning (e.g. Schumann, 1975, 1976). Language and culture shock are likely to affect motivation, since, as one matures, and already has a well-established linguistic resource at one’s disposal, the motivation to invest in learning a new language may be challenging to find. Indeed, it has been suggested that motivation is the most significant single factor which determines how successful an individual will be at learning a language, irrespective of age (e.g. Dörnyei, MacIntyre, and Henry 2015; Ushioda, 2008). It is motivation which will determine the level of investment (in terms of how hard they work, for how long, and how much they are prepared to sacrifice in terms of other resources) learners are prepared to make (e.g. Norton Peirce, 1995; Darvin & Norton, 2015; Norton, 2012). In addition, there is a potentially almost infinite number of individual variables which might impact on language learning. Commonly listed among these factors are gender, aptitude, personality, learning style, strategies, attitude, beliefs, autonomy and prior learning experience as well as personal factors such as family, job and health. When these factors are all combined, they produce an incredibly complex and dynamic picture, which, in its totality, constitutes a learner’s sense of identity. Identity is increasingly being recognized as a powerful determiner of successful language learning (e.g. Gao and Lamb, 2011; Norton, 2013). As we mature, our sense of who we are (and are not) becomes more established, and we may tend to become less willing to accept change of any kind. Our language is one factor which contributes to our sense of who we are, as noted by the adult university students in a study by Soruç and Griffiths (2015). Although there was some initial uptake of native-speaker features of spoken English in this study, by the time of the delayed post-test, most of these features were no longer being used, which several of the

Explaining Age-related Differences in Language Learning

19

students attributed to conflict with their own identity. In other words, as Piller (2002) comments, identity is actually more important than age when it comes to learning a language.

Social and Ecological Context The concept of social distance was introduced by Schumann (1976) to describe how similar or dissimilar cultures are from each other and to explain why people tend to find some cultures (and their languages) easier to adapt to than others. Young people generally seem to have less problem with social distance than adults, since they commonly want to identify with a peer group, which will often mean that they are willing to adopt the peer group’s way of speaking; in other words, they are less “culture-bound” (Valdes, 1986). Adults, however, often deliberately retain a distinctive accent in order to maintain their identity. Socio-affective variables are considered by some to be the most powerful influences on the differences in language learning ability according to age. For instance, describing his own “distinctly unsatisfactory” (p. 280) attempts to learn Swedish when he spent a year as guest professor in Sweden, Burling (1981) is in no doubt that “generalized social changes” (p.  290) are the main cause of age-related differences in language development, which mean “an adult is likely to give up and conclude that he has lost the capacity to learn a language” (p. 284). A key feature which distinguishes one sociocultural group from another is the ecological context in which they operate (e.g. Kramsch, 1993). Children who move from one context to another often have little difficulty, but adults may struggle to adapt to different customs or, perhaps, a different language, which may conflict with their own established ways of doing things and require a renegotiation of identity (Pavlenko and Blackledge, 2003). According to their age, it is possible that learning context or the ecological environment may affect students differently, as argued by Pfenninger (2017). Learning situation can vary considerably from a formal classroom to naturalistic environments (where students learn by being immersed in the target language), to distance learning. Classrooms can also vary greatly, and classes may be conducted during the day or at night. All of these ecological factors may affect students differently according to their individual characteristics, including their age. Perhaps most important of all contextual factors in terms of target language development is the opportunity for exposure to the target language. Marinova-Todd (2003), for instance, found that out of 30 participants from 25 countries, the 6 most proficient students all lived with native speakers of the target language. Moyer (2009) also discovered that interactive experience in the target language was more critical for target language development than instruction. Likewise, in a study involving 11 Spanish students, Muńoz and Singleton (2007) found that the most proficient learners were living with native speakers of English. In other words, although, perhaps, merely living in an input-rich environment does not necessarily guarantee that a learner will be motivated to use the opportunity to learn, there is

20

2 Age

evidence to suggest that such an environment maximizes the opportunity for effective language development for those who are motivated to utilize its affordances. A Small-scale Case Study of a Successful Adult Language Learner

Methodology In order to explore some of the points made above, a small-scale case study was carried out using a narrative methodology to gather data since this provides authentic data related to the lives of individuals as told through their own stories (e.g. Barkhuizen, 2011). The participant was asked to write her own language learning autobiography, recounting her experiences of learning a new language. Participant Olga is Russian, aged 34 at the time of the study. When she married her Turkish husband, they moved to Istanbul, where she had been for about 3 years. Although she knew none of the language before her marriage, in her new home, she obtained jobs with an import-export company, and then as an English teacher in a primary school, where her Head of Department and colleagues described her Turkish (which was the language used for staff-room communication) as “not quite native, but very good and fluent”. Olga was asked to write about how she learnt her new language, her motivation, and how she thought she had been able to reach such a high standard of communicative ability in such a relatively short time. Her narrative is reproduced as she wrote it, including any “infelicities” for the sake of authenticity.

Olga (aged 34 at the time of the study) My first foreign language was English. I started to learn it when I was a child, but it wasn’t really deep learning—just 3 hours in a week at state school. But I really loved English and I learnt it because I wanted to do it. I started to learn Turkish after I met my husband and got married. I was 31. First year in Turkey I stayed at home as a housewife and of course I learnt almost nothing—maybe just some language which was enough just to do some shopping in the market, but not buy something really important (for example things which need to be discussed in a detailed way before paying for them). After one year I started to work in Import-Export company. I was just an only foreigner among 7 workers in our department. First days were so awful— I didn’t know anything—I didn’t know how to use computers which were completely in Turkish, I couldn’t get any information I needed from the workers who couldn’t speak any English and I was totally depend on my colleagues and I had to ask them to help me every time and it made me so upset. I hate to be dependent on someone and I hate to disturb someone. It was my main motivation. I was trying to learn the language and I was asking (continued)

Discussion

21

(continued) everyone about everything I didn’t know. Even jokes were translated for me and I was laughing after everyone stopped laughing. It was so funny for my colleagues and for me. Day by day I was picking up some language from people and from every situation I was in—in the public transport, at work, at home, from TV. I didn’t attend any language course, I didn’t take any private lesson. I just read grammar rules of the language aspects which I wanted to understand at that moment. For example, one day I want to say something using which equal “if …… will” (1st condition) in English—I read about it in a grammar book and next day I tried to use it. And, of course I heard this grammar construction everywhere in that day. And one day I realized that I understand almost everything they say. It took about 2 and half years to learn. And, of course age is not a problem to learn any language. So, why did I learn a new language after 30? I can say 50% my abilities and 50% my family and friends and of course my life situations here—job, social life etc. I think that everyone can learn any foreign language if a person has some abilities and own motivation. I didn’t get any really serious problems while learning. And the older I get the easier I understand language systems and easier learn new words. ◄

Discussion Judging from Olga’s narrative, and also from feedback from her colleagues, it would seem that Olga was a remarkably successful learner of her new language, having become “fluent” (her Head of Department’s term) in less than 3 years, a success rate roughly equivalent to Julie in Ioup et al.’s (1994) study. What reasons might there be for this? Her narrative suggests several possible contributing factors: • Olga herself seems to believe she has “abilities” (aptitude). Although we have no way of knowing how accurate this self-assessment might be, the fact that she believes this to be the case suggests a level of self-efficacy which has been shown to be a factor in successful learning (see the chapter on affect). • Olga’s description of how she “was picking up some language” suggests a level of autonomy. She did not just wait for someone else to provide her with the language she needed—she assumed agency and found what she needed for herself (see the chapter on autonomy). • She was motivated. Even when she was learning English, she describes intrinsic motivation. Her motivation to learn Turkish may well have been essentially integrative so that she could fit in with her new family, friends and colleagues (see the chapter on motivation).

22

2 Age

• Her socio-ecological situation. Interestingly, she describes herself as learning “almost nothing” during her first year when she “stayed at home”. It was not until she got out into a context where she interacted with other people when she needed to use the language and interact socially, that she really learnt. This is in accord with the findings of others (e.g. Kinsella & Singleton, 2014) regarding the importance of social interaction and exposure to the language. • Experience. Olga’s suggestion that learning language gets easier as she gets older is interesting. Of course, it runs contrary to much previous thinking on the subject (especially the Critical Period Hypothesis) and deserves further research. We might, therefore, infer from Olga’s narrative, that reasons for her success are complex, dynamic and dependent on a range of personal characteristics interacting with socio-ecological factors. The results of Olga’s narrative would therefore seem to support evidence from other studies (e.g. Marinova-Todd, 2003; Moyer, 2009; Muńoz & Singleton, 2007) that learning a language as an adult is far from impossible. On the contrary, it would seem that it is possible to learn the language until quite mature, given sufficient motivation and exposure.

Implications for Language Learning and Teaching If we accept that adults can learn language, we must nevertheless consider that they may not necessarily learn in the same way that children do. They may, for instance, need to be allowed more cognitive engagement with the language (e.g. by learning grammar rules) in order to utilize their more highly developed cognitive abilities. Given that cognition has tended to be downplayed in recent years in favour of communicative approaches, this may require some re-thinking of contemporary teaching methodologies. An example of this might be Hiro in Griffiths (2003), an older Japanese man who came to New Zealand to study English because “I have worked hard all my life: now I am going to have some fun”. However, he did not find contemporary communicative methodology with students a fraction of his age entirely easy, requiring some methodological adjustment on the part of his teacher (for more details on this case, see the chapter on style). Adults may also require more allowances to be made for established identities than is necessary with children. And contextual issues such as the fact that many adults may be studying in the evening after work when they come to class already tired may also need to be considered. Furthermore, if we accept that adults can learn language, we may need to reconsider the degree to which it is reasonable to assess learning according to native-­ speaker criteria, an issue which applies to learners of all ages and debated at some length by Muńoz and Singleton (2011) and Birdsong (2014). It is quite possible that non-native speakers may get to be extremely effective communicators in a new language, but they may still retain an accent or other features transferred from their L1: indeed, this may be something they choose to do in order to preserve identity. And when we add to this the difficulty (if not the impossibility) of defining what actually is the “standard” accent or usage, even within speakers of the same language, the use of native norms as a criterion gets to be even more questionable.

Conclusion

23

Questions for Ongoing Research The issue of age has caused much controversy over the years, and research studies have often produced apparently contradictory results. Because of this, many age-­ related questions await conclusive answers. These include: 1 . Is there an optimal age at which to start language learning? If so, what is it? 2. What are the special needs of adolescent language learners? How can these be accommodated? 3. What are the best conditions for adult language learning? 4. Is it reasonable/necessary to assess learners who already have an L1 of their own by the standards of native speakers of the new language? If not, how should they be assessed? 5. How do other learner characteristics interact with age when learning language? 6. How do social or ecological conditions interact with age when learning language? 7. What is the effect of experience on language learning?

Conclusion Although the Critical Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959) tended to dominate the thinking on the age issue in language learning for quite a long time, more recent research has tended to cast considerable doubt on the assumptions made on the basis of this hypothesis. Indeed, numerous studies have shown that mature learners can and do learn language very successfully (see above). It is probably undeniable that the majority of successful language learners learn when they are younger (e.g. Birdsong and Molis, 2001; Harley, 1986; Oyama, 1976; Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1978), but to go from this observation to conclude that adults cannot learn language is not logical. There may be any number of other reasons why adults, generally, do not learn language as successfully as children, including motivation, identity, socio-ecological issues, personal circumstances, family/ employment demands, time and social constraints and individual characteristics. The complex and dynamic interactions of these factors are likely to be powerful determinants of the time and energy an adult has to devote to the task of learning a new language and all of these factors need to be viewed holistically. The fact that, in spite of these constraints, there are numerous examples of adults who do in fact manage to achieve high levels of proficiency in a new language (see above) places the existence of a critical period for language learning in serious doubt. Questions to Consider

1. 2. 3. 4.

What age range do you think should be included in “young learner”? What age range should be included in “adolescent learner”? When does one become an “adult”? Why do you think the global trend is towards starting language learning younger and younger?

24

2 Age

5. Do you agree that adolescent learners can be challenging? Do you have any ideas (perhaps from your own experience) about how to deal with these challenges? 6. Which of the explanations of age-related differences (neurological, psychoaffective, socio-ecological) do you find most convincing? 7. Which do you find more convincing, the positive or the negative results about adult language learning? 8. What do you think are some of the reasons Olga managed to achieve communicative competence in her new language so quickly? 9. Do you agree that there are problems with assessing learners’ pronunciation by native-speaker standards? What are they, and what should we do about them? 10. Do you agree that there is serious doubt about the Critical Period? ► Follow-up Task  Conduct a case study of an individual whose successful or unsuccessful efforts to learn a new language are of interest. ► Suggestions for Further Reading  In addition to the references cited in text and in the reference list, readers might like to consider: Singleton, D. (1989). Language acquisition: The age factor. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters. This is now a “classic” on the subject of age in language learning, but it remains important for those who want to understand how the concept has developed. García Mayo, M., & García Lecumberri, M. (Eds.) (2003). Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. This book contains many different perspectives on the issue of age in language learning, written by experts in the field. Pfenninger, S., & Singleton, D. (2017). Beyond age effects in instructional L2 learning: Revisiting the age factor. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods, this book examines the role of age of onset and offers a longitudinal view of foreign language learning, taking account of contextual, individual socio-affective, and instructional factors.

References Abutalebi, J. (2008). Neural aspects of second language representation and language control. Acta Psychologica, 128, 466–468. Ausubel, D. (1964). Adults vs. children in second language learning: Psychological considerations. Modern Language Journal, 48, 420–424. Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R. (2014). Variables affecting L2 gains during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 464–486. Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 391–444.

References

25

Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. New York: Routledge. Birdsong, D. (2014). The critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition: Tailoring the coat of many colors. In M. Pawlak & L. Aronin (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism (pp. 43–50). Switzerland: Springer. Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational effects in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249. Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(4), 447–465. Burling, R. (1981). Social constraints on adult language learning. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp.  279–290). New  York: New  York Academy of Sciences. Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S., & Hargreaves, M. (1974). Primary French in the balance. Windsor: NFER Publishing. Costley, T. (2018). Learning as an adolescent. In A.  Burns & J.  Richards (Eds.), Cambridge guide to learning English as a second language (pp.  19–26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gao, X., & Lamb, T. (2011). Exploring links between identity, motivation and autonomy. In G. Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp. 1–8). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Granena, G., & Long, M. (2013a). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343. Granena, G., & Long, M. (Eds.). (2013b). Sensitive periods, language aptitude and ultimate attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Green, D. (2003). The neural basis of the lexicon and the grammar in L2 acquisition. In R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (Eds.), The interface between syntax and the lexicon in second language acquisition (pp. 197–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Griffiths, C. (2003). Language learning strategy use and proficiency. Retrieved from http://80www.lib.umi.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/dissertations/gateway. Griffiths, C. (2008). Age and good language learners. In C.  Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 35–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, C., & Soruç, A. (2018). Learning language as adults. In J. Richards & A. Burns (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language learning (pp. 27–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Harklau, L. (2007). The adolescent English language learner: Identities lost and found. In J.  Cummins & C.  Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching, springer international handbooks of education (Vol. 11, pp. 639–655). New York: Springer. Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539–588). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

26

2 Age

Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: A case study of a successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73–98. Kinsella, C., & Singleton, D. (2014). Much more than age. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 441–462. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman. Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. Hayward, California: Hayward Press. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley. Llanes, A. (2010). Children and adults learning English in a study abroad context. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Barcelona. Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285. Marinova-Todd, S. (2003). Know your grammar: What the knowledge of syntax and morphology in an L2 reveals about the critical period for second/foreign language acquisition. In M. Garcia-­ Mayo & M. Garcia-Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp. 59–73). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Merga, M. (2014). Peer group and friend influences on the social acceptability of adolescent book reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 472–482. Moyer, A. (2009). Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2 phonological attainment. In T. Piske & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 159–174). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Moyer, A. (2014). Exceptional outcomes in L2 phonology: The critical factors of learner engagement and self-regulation. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 418–440. Muñoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Muńoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2007). Foreign accent in advanced learners: Two successful profiles. The EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 171–190. Muńoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment. Language Teaching, 44, 1–35. Neufeld, G. (1978). On the acquisition of prosodic and articulatory features in adult language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32(2), 163–174. Nishikawa, T. (2014). Non-nativeness in near-native child L2 starters of Japanese: Age and the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 504–529. Norton, B. (2012). Investment. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 343–344). New York: Routledge. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31. Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period in the acquisition of a non-native phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261–285. Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of second languages (pp. 393–419). London: Academic Press. Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2003). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pfenninger, S. (2017). Not so individual after all: An ecological approach to age as an individual difference variable in a classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 19–46.

References

27

Pfenninger, S., & Singleton, D. (2017a). Recent advances in quantitative methods in age-related research. In S. Pfenninger & J. Navracsics (Eds.), Future research directions for applied linguistics (pp. 101–119). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pfenninger, S., & Singleton, D. (2017b). Beyond age effects in instructional L2 learning: Revisiting the age factor. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pfenninger, S., & Singleton, D. (2019). Starting age overshadowed: The primacy of differential environmental and family support effects on second language attainment in an instructional context. Language Learning, 69(S1), 207–234. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Piller, I. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: Identity and success in second language learning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 179–206. Reichle, R. (2010). Judgments of information structure in L2 French: Nativelike performance and the critical period hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(1), 53–85. Ryan, A., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460. Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 137–174). New York: Newbury House. Schumann, J. (1975). Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25(2), 209–235. Schumann, J. (1976). Second language acquisition: The Pidginisation hypothesis. Language Learning, 26(2), 391–408. Singleton, D., & Lesniewska, J. (2012). Age and SLA: Research highways and bye-ways. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 97–117). Berlin: Springer. Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from language learning. Child Development, 49, 1119–1128. Soruç, A., & Griffiths, C. (2015). Identity and the spoken grammar dilemma. System, 50, 32–42. Swain, M. (1981). Time and timing in bilingual education. Language Learning, 31, 1–6. Tragant, E., & Victoria, M. (2006). Reported strategy use and age. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 208–237). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ullman, M. (2001). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 717–726. Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 19–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Valdes, J. (1986). Culture bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3

Sex/Gender

To Get You Thinking Before You Read 1 . What do you see as the difference between sex and gender? 2. Do you agree that females are better language learners than males or vice versa? 3. How does sex/gender interact with other variables, such as beliefs, style, race/ethnicity/nationality/culture, aptitude/proficiency, personality, strategies, autonomy, affect/emotion, motivation or socio-ecological context?

Background The two terms which form the title of this chapter are often used more-or-less synonymously. Strictly applied, however, sex is a biological attribute (whether the individual is male or female). Gender, on the other hand, is more a culturally constructed concept, which may include commonly accepted behavioural norms, language, dress codes, etc., and which is often described in terms of masculine and feminine. When we first learn about a new baby, sex is often the first individual difference to attract a question: “Is it a boy or a girl”? everyone wants to know. And a child’s sex will begin to shape its identity from the time it is born (or even before). From this time forward, an individual’s sex “will be a powerful factor contributing to opportunities which will be open or closed” (Griffiths, 2018, p.  56). In fact, as Sunderland (1994, p.211) explains, “the effects of gender roles, relations and identities are everywhere. Ironically, because of this, in much writing and thinking on English language teaching, gender appears nowhere”. Why is there such reluctance to deal with this topic, we might wonder? Is it because it seems so obvious it is hardly worth further investigation? Is it because of nervousness since it is a topic where it is treacherously easy for the unwary to © The Author(s) 2020 C. Griffiths, A. Soruç, Individual Differences in Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52900-0_3

29

30

3 Sex/Gender

inadvertently stray into politically incorrect territory? As Nyikos (2008, p.74) clearly states, however “the potential for gender to affect language learning can…not be ignored”. So, what is the effect of sex/gender on language development? There are a number of studies which investigate this relationship (for instance, Bacon, 1992; Boyle, 1987; Burstall, 1975; Eisenstein, 1982; Farhady, 1982; Nyikos, 1990, 2008; Sunderland, 1998, 2000). On a biological level, some research appears to indicate that women have more nerve cells in the left half of the brain where language is centred, and, in addition, women often appear to use both sides of the brain (Legato, 2005). It is commonly believed that females are better language learners than males, (e.g. Ellis, 1994; Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, although, as these authors point out, consistent research evidence to support this belief has proven elusive). It is also possible that girls’ linguistic development may be as much a social phenomenon as it is a biological one, since, as Nyikos (2008, p.75) notes: “much of the perceived female superiority in language capability may be due to the added effort which adults tend to lavish on baby girls compared with baby boys”. And if we are to consider the relationship of sex/ gender to the development of linguistic proficiency, we also need to consider the relationships to other variables, such as culture, aptitude, personality, style, strategies, autonomy, beliefs, affect and motivation. Let us look at these one at a time.

Culture If we refer to the study of culture shock reported in Chap. 4 of this volume and analyse the data according to sex/gender, we find no significant differences according to any of the items, in either cultural context (Australia and Turkey). Neither males nor females report being significantly more homesick or lonely. Neither report having more difficulty with being understood, understanding others or making friends. There are no significant differences for problems such as religion, culture, or getting on with people. Neither are males or females more or less concerned about food, prejudice, feelings of not belonging or people’s perceived coldness. Almost the only suggestion of a sex/gender difference is Ana’s comment that she feels some prejudice because she wears a scarf. In spite of this, she prefers life in Australia, which, presumably, suggests that her concern over this matter is not too strong. In a study of international students’ views, Çetin, Bahar and Griffiths (2017) also found that there were relatively few significant differences between men’s (N = 185) and women’s (N = 124) views of Turkish culture, and most were only at the p