Once the myth is dispelled, then what?

: A comment on Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist Cesar Elizi

In Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist, Mercer states that an individuals mindset about the perceived malleability of ability or intelligence is known to strongly influence a persons other beliefs, behaviours and motivation(2012: 22). I could not possibly agree more and this comment aims to offer two reflections summarised in the following questions: 1) Is it still valid to ask whether Aptitude is stable? 2) Given the nature of Aptitude, what other methodological designs could contribute to our understanding of it? Mercer starts by tracing the long history of the concept of Intelligence, focusing on Aptitude and narrowing it down to L2 learning, commenting on recent developments, such as the breaking down of Aptitude into its many underlying elements. She also stresses the usefulness of the concept mindset for researching and understanding Aptitude, already mentioned in (Mercer & Ryan 2010). In that article, not only do we find enough justification for the construct, but also a lesson on how to draw insightful conclusions from semi-structured interviews with as few as nine participants. While many studies support the position on the malleability of Aptitude, such as the ones cited by Mercer, others point in the direction of a stable nature (Skehan 1998:206) or at least an ambiguity of research evidence in this respect ( Safar & Kormos 2008: 116). A fuller picture of this conundrum might be obtained if we consider a hierarchical arrangement of Aptitude complexes (Robinson 2002) together with Skehans (2002) position that different components of Aptitude relate to specific stages in the L2 acquisition process. What emerges is an intricate set of components and subcomponents of Aptitude, affecting different phases of L2 development and also interacting in complex ways with other factors such as motivation and opportunity (Ranta 2008: 151). Thus, given its multidimensional and interactive nature, one might ask how realistic it is to expect a monolithic answer to Is Aptitude stable? and at the same time a fragmented answer would implode the very question. Perhaps it is time to seek another question to guide our next steps. In her article, Mercer uses the word unique(ness) four times to discuss learners and their ways of learning and that should not surprise us. Since Aptitude for L2 learning is inextricably connected to agency, a relevant concept here is locus of control (2012: 22), ones tendency to attribute ones success to either their own efforts or external factors. Cochran, McCallum and Bell (2010) cite a number of studies that report a link between an internal locus of control , and therefore Aptitude, and achievement (Graham 2004, Hsieh 2005). These results seem to tell us that more importantly than the teachers understandings of Aptitude, it is ultimately the learners view about their talent that influences them the most. This is in sharp contrast with the long history of favouring the researchers view of Aptitude. It would seem that the individuality/uniqueness of each person accounts for more of the learning project than researchers external, intrusive constructs.

I share Mercers hopes that her article will encourage teachers and learners not to place undue emphasis on natural talent (2012:23), but would like to add that not enough attention is given to the learners subjective perceptions of their talent and future research could do just that. This is precisely the kind of issue that Q Methodology (Brown 1993) could illuminate. With its unique mix of quali and quantitative elements, combined with a considerably less intrusive approach, the respondents viewpoint presents itself for inspection in ways unavailable to other approaches.

References
Brown, S.R. 1993. A primer on Q Methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16(3/4):91-138 Cochran, J.L., McCallum, R.S.and Bell, S.M. 2010. Three As: How do Attributions, Attitudes, and aptitude contribute to Foreign Language Learning? Foreign Language Annals vol. 43 (4) 566-582 Graham, S.J. 2004. Giving up on Modern Foreign Languages? Students perceptions on learning French. Modern Language Journal, 88, 171-191 Hsieh, P. 2005. How college students explain their grades in a foreign language course: The interrelationship of attributions, self-efficacy, language learning beliefs, and achievement (Doctoral dissertation, university of Texas at Austin, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 3691. Mercer, S. 2012. Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist. ELT Journal 66/1:22-29. Mercer, S. and Ryan, S. 2010. A mindset for EFL: learners beliefs about the role of natural talent. ELT Journal 64/4: 436-444. Ranta, L. 2008. Aptitude and good language learners. In Griffiths, C. (Ed.). Lessons from good language learners, , Cambridge University Press Robinson, P. 2002. Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: a framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113-133). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Safar, A. and Kormos, J. 2008. Revisiting problems with foreign language aptitude. IRAL (46):113-136. Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. 2002. Theorising and updating aptitude (pp. 69-93). In P. Robinson (Ed.) Wen, Z. 2011. Foreign Language aptitude. ELT Journal Advanced Access. Available at http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/11/01/elt.ccr068.full.pdf+html (accessed 23 january 2012)

The author Cesar Elizi is a PhD student at UNICAMP, who is currently carrying out a Q study on Learners beliefs about Aptitude and its relationship with performance levels.