The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Carol A. Chapelle

Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

      9 Duranti, A. (2001). Linguistic anthropology: History, ideas and issues. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 1–38). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

      10 Enfield, N., Kockelman, P., & Sidnell, J. (Eds.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      11 Enfield, N., & Levinson, S. (2006). Introduction: Human sociality as a new interdisciplinary field. In N. Enfield & S. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 1–35). Oxford, England: Berg.

      12 Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

      13 Gergen, K. (1990). Social understanding and the inscription of self. In J. Stigler, R. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 569–606). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      14 Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      15 Haas, M. (1977). Anthropological linguistics: History. In F. Wallace (Ed.), Perspectives in anthropology 1976 (pp. 33–47). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.

      16 Huang, Y. (2013). Pragmatics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

      17 Irvine, J. (1974). Strategies of status manipulation in the Wolof greeting. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 167–91). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      18 Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–77). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

      19 Kockelman, P. (2013). Agent, person, subject, self. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

      20 Kulick, D. (1992). Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self and syncretism in a Papua New Guinea village. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      21 Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

      22 Levinson, S. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      23 Löbner, S. (2013). Understanding semantics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

      24 Reimer, N. (2010). Introducing semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      25 Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

      26 Sapir, E. (1949). Selected writings. Berkeley: University of California Press.

      27 Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of conversational analysis. Oxford, England: Wiley‐Blackwell.

      28 Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1, 179–95.

Suggested Readings

      1 Ahearn, L. (2012). Living language: An introduction to linguistic anthropology. Oxford, England: Wiley‐Blackwell.

      2 Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      3 Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      4 Foley, W. (1997). Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

      5 Hanks, W. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

      6 Kronenfeld, G. (2018). Culture as a system: How we know the meaning and significance of what we say and do. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Aptitude in Second Language Acquisition

      PETER ROBINSON

Like, intelligence quotient (IQ), or working‐memory capacity, aptitude is measurable, and differs in degree between learners in any population. Unlike height, aptitude cannot be directly observed, but must be inferred from performance on psychological tests designed to measure it. Higher aptitude for second or foreign‐language learning predicts more successful adaptation to instructed or naturalistic exposure to the second language (L2), as measured by demonstrably faster progress in learning, and in higher levels of ultimate attainment in proficiency at the end of a course of instruction, or following a period of naturalistic exposure to the L2. Aptitude is therefore a theoretical construct, operationalized in the form of a test, which aims to predict phenomena that characterize second language acquisition (SLA) (such as incidental learning, metalinguistic awareness, fossilization, and others), and the extent to which successful SLA occurs as a result. Although little was known about these SLA phenomena during the period when aptitude tests were first developed (the 1930s to the 1950s), recent attempts to conceptualize and measure aptitude are addressing the extent to which tests of aptitude predict them—including, for example, the extent of successful incidental L2 learning (Robinson, 2005a), metalinguistic awareness of the L2 (Roehr, 2018), and the influence of each on levels of ultimate L2 attainment (Granena & Long, 2013). Some of these issues are described below, following a discussion of early developed conceptualizations and measurement of aptitude for language learning.

      The first tests of language‐learning aptitude were developed in the early part of the 20th century at about the same time as tests of general intelligence were developed. These tests were developed largely in response to institutional and educational concerns which continue to influence proposals for operationalizing and using aptitude tests today. One of these concerns was to select those people best able to learn languages. For example, in many countries military and diplomatic personnel have to learn other languages. So to select those best able to do this, institutions such as the Defense Language Institute in the USA developed their own aptitude tests (Petersen & Al‐Haik, 1976). Another reason for developing aptitude tests is to diagnose relative strengths and weaknesses in the abilities thought to contribute to language learning, so as to differentiate instruction and exposure to the L2 for individual learners in ways that optimally match their strengths in abilities, and compensate for areas of weakness (Robinson, 2007).

      Perhaps the best known test of language learning aptitude, the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), was developed in the 1950s by John Carroll and Sidney Sapon (Carroll & Sapon, 1959). It is still used widely in SLA research into aptitude today, in its original and in translated versions. Using this test, in the 1960s Carroll (1962) showed that students who were successful at learning Spanish and other L2s in schools in the USA were also, largely, those who scored high on the MLAT. The positive correlation between scores on this measure of aptitude, and scores on achievement tests in these programs, was reported as between 0.4 and 0.65. John Carroll argued that the MLAT predicted the rate or speed of foreign‐language learning. He did not claim that those who scored low on aptitude tests could never reach high levels of ultimate attainment in the L2, but only that they would take longer to do this than those who scored high on his test.

      Since the MLAT measure of aptitude is very similar to other, currently available tests that have been developed (e.g., Pimsleur, 1966; Petersen & Al‐Haik, 1976), and has been the measure most widely used, to date, in SLA research, it will be described here in some detail, as well as problems associated with it. The MLAT is a paper and pencil test, composed of five parts, and three of these are described below.

      1 “Paired Associates” requires learners to memorize 24 foreign‐language words, which are presented with their English translations. This measures what Carroll called “rote memory.”

      2 “Words in Sentences.” There are 45 items of the following type. Given a sentence such as Mary is cutting the APPLE, which of the following underlined words performs the same grammatical function: My brother John is hitting his dog with a big stick. And the answer is “dog,” the direct object. This measures what Carroll called “grammatical sensitivity.”

      3 “Phonetic