New Conceptualizations of Linguistic Giftedness

Language Teaching
http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA
Additional services for Language
Teaching:
Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
New conceptualizations of linguistic giftedness

Adriana Biedro and Mirosaw Pawlak
Language Teaching / Volume 49 / Issue 02 / April 2016, pp 151 - 185
DOI: 10.1017/S0261444815000439, Published online: 18 March 2016
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444815000439

How to cite this article:
Adriana Biedro and Mirosaw Pawlak (2016). New conceptualizations of linguistic giftedness.
Language Teaching, 49, pp 151-185 doi:10.1017/S0261444815000439
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 148.206.159.132 on 04 Apr 2016
c Cambridge University Press 2016

Lang. Teach. (2016), 49.2, 151185
doi:10.1017/S0261444815000439
State-of-the-Art Article
New conceptualizations of linguistic giftedness
Adriana Biedron Pomeranian University, Supsk, Poland
adriana.biedron@apsl.edu.pl
Mirosaw Pawlak Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland and State University
of Applied Sciences, Konin, Poland
pawlakmi@amu.edu.pl
This state-of-the art paper focuses on the issue of linguistic giftedness, somewhat neglected in
the second language acquisition (SLA) literature, attempting to reconceptualize, expand and
update this concept in response to latest developments in the fields of psychology, linguistics
and neurology. It first discusses contemporary perspectives on foreign language aptitude,
concentrating in particular on the models proposed by Skehan (1998), Robinson (2002) and
Sternberg (2002). This is followed by a discussion of the definitions of talented individuals
and the criteria for their selection, as well as an overview of empirical research on gifted
language learners, divided into early studies with those focusing on the ultimate attainment
of post-pubescent learners, and those dealing with super-learners of foreign languages. The
subsequent sections touch upon such issues as the relationship between first language (L1)
ability and second language (L2) aptitude, and linguistic giftedness and intelligence, memory,
personality factors and language learning strategies, as well as neurolinguistic research on
brain functioning in gifted learners. The paper closes with the discussion of the limitations of
current research, its future directions and methodological considerations.
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to address the poorly explored issue of linguistic giftedness (LG) in
foreign or second language learners.1 In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), little
research addressing gifted and exceptionally talented language learners has been conducted,
and, consequently, little is known about this population. One possible reason for this is the
social turn in SLA (Block 2003), a trend emphasizing the social and cultural context of this
process over congenital cognitive factors (see Mercer 2012). The underlying assumption of this
position is that it is unfair and undemocratic to differentiate between people with respect to
1
The terms FOREIGN LANGUAGE (FL) and SECOND LANGUAGE (L2) are used interchangeably, as are the terms ACQUISITION
and LEARNING.
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016
IP address: 148.206.159.132
1 5 2 A D R I A N A B I E D R O N A N D M I R O S A W P A W L A K
their abilities because it lessens the value of individual effort. As a result, there is no one unitary
approach to researching LG or a modern definition of this construct. The phenomenon of
LG is worth exploration because thorough study of learners who are capable of achieving
very high levels of attainment can provide information about SLA in general. In view of the
growing interest in foreign language (FL) aptitude as well as attempts to reconceptualize and
update the concept in response to advances in psychology, linguistics and neurology, it seems
necessary to take a closer look at the fascinating and complex phenomenon of gifted foreign
language learners.
In accordance with this goal, the opening section is intended to present the concept
of FL aptitude from a wider perspective of research on human cognitive abilities. Three
contemporary models will be outlined: Skehans (1998, 2002, 2012) Processing Stage Model,
Robinsons (2002) Aptitude Complex Model and Sternbergs (2002) model of FL aptitude as a
dynamic concept. In the second section, definitions of talent and giftedness will be presented, as
well as methods of identifying gifted individuals and potential selection criteria. Emphasis will
be placed on two psychological models of giftedness, that is Gagnes (2000, 2005) Differentiated
Model of Giftedness and Talent, and Renzullis (1986) Three Ring Model. Subsequently, empirical
research on gifted FL learners will be presented. The studies on exceptional L2 learners will
be divided into three groups. The first group comprises early research on gifted individuals
(Novoa, Fein & Obler 1988; Schneiderman & Desmarais 1988a; Ioup et al. 1994). The second
group includes research on very advanced L2 postpubescent learners (Moyer 1999; Bongaerts,
Mennen & van der Silk 2000; Birdsong 2004; Bongaerts 2005; van Boxtel, Bongaerts &
Coppen 2005; Birdsong 2007; Moyer 2007; Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam 2008, 2009). The
third group includes studies of FL super-learners and polyglots, i.e. individuals who achieve
high levels of proficiency in several languages (Smith et al. 2011; Treffert 2011; Erard 2012;
Hyltenstam 2014a, 2014b; Hyltenstam 2016a, 2016b forthcoming). This will be followed by
discussion of the findings of selected research projects on different aspects of LG, namely the
relationship between native ability and L2 aptitude, LG and intelligence, memory, personality
factors and language learning strategies (LLS), and neurological advances referring to brain
functioning in gifted L2 learners. Finally, the limitations of research on LG will be addressed
and future directions of such research will be outlined, both in terms of its focus and
methodology.
2. Definitions and models of FL aptitude

FL aptitude is a factor which, next to age of onset (AO), accounts for the largest proportion
of variation in the outcomes of FL learning among all individual difference (ID) variables.
It concerns a wide variety of cognitively-based learner differences and remains a reliable
predictor of success after the closure of sensitive periods (Long 2013: 13). A whole gamut of
FL aptitudes enclosed in the domain of IDs has attracted the attention of SLA researchers
(Abrahamson & Hyltenstam 2008; Granena & Long 2013; Moyer 2013), with the effect that
the construct has been updated and reconceptualized, largely thanks to the developments in
the fields of SLA, psychology and neurolinguistics.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS
153
The first and the most influential model of FL aptitude was developed by Carroll (1959,
1981), who described the construct in terms of four, relatively independent, subcomponents,
namely: PHONETIC CODING ABILITY, GRAMMATICAL SENSITIVITY, INDUCTIVE LANGUAGE
LEARNING ABILITY, and ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY. The four-component view of aptitude and
the famous measurement tool, the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) (Carroll & Sapon
1959), have provided a crucial foundation for all subsequent FL aptitude research, giving rise
to the implementation of other instruments, such as those devised, among others, by Pimsleur
(1966), Grigorenko, Sternberg & Ehrman (2000), Meara (2005), and Doughty et al. (2010,
see also Doughty 2013).
At present, two models can be regarded as the most important: Skehans (1998, 2002)
and Robinsons (2002, 2007), both of which view FL aptitude as a set of cognitive abilities
and describe it from the perspectives of psycholinguistics and cognitive science. In contrast
to previous models, which considered FL aptitude to be a self-contained area, Skehan (1998)
proposed a conceptualization, where aptitude consists of components that could be related to
different stages of information processing in SLA. Thus, phonetic coding ability corresponds
to input processing, language analytic ability, which includes Carrolls (1959) grammatical
sensitivity and inductive language learning, is related to central processing, and memory-asretrieval is tied to output and fluency. Skehans (2002) updated model includes ATTENTIONAL
CONTROL and WORKING MEMORY, both extremely significant in contemporary research on FL
aptitude, and identifies four stages of SLA processing: NOTICING, PATTERNING, CONTROLLING
and LEXICALIZING. Such a conceptualization is compatible with a cognitive view on SLA
(Dornyei & Skehan 2003: 596; Linck et al. 2013a).
Robinson constructed a model in which FL aptitude is seen as consisting of a number of
APTITUDE COMPLEXES that are differentially related to FL learning under different conditions,
an assumption that is termed the Aptitude Complex Hypothesis (Robinson 2007: 274). In
line with this hypothesis, some FL learners might possess strengths in abilities facilitative
under specific learning conditions but less efficient in others. Robinson (2002) identifies four
complexes of aptitudes. Primary, or first-order, abilities are directly measured by psychological
tests and involve such constructs as WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY, PATTERN RECOGNITION,
GRAMMATICAL SENSITIVITY and SPEED OF PROCESSING, implemented by cognitive factors,
including ATTENTION, WORKING-, SHORT- and LONG-TERM MEMORY. Second-order abilities
are combinations of primary abilities, which comprise such cognitive constructs as NOTICING
THE GAP, MEMORY FOR CONTINGENT SPEECH, MEMORY FOR CONTINGENT TEXT, as well as
METALINGUISTIC RULE REHEARSAL. While the model is in many respects an extension of
traditional research on aptitude in assuming its hierarchical structure (see Carroll 1959,
1993), relating aptitude complexes to instructional options and settings (see Wesche 1981;
Snow 1994; Skehan 1998), and assigning learners to memory-oriented and analyticallyoriented categories (see Skehan 1989, 1998), its unique contribution lies in the complexity
and meticulousness of analysis of aptitude-treatment-interactions (ATI) (see Vatz et al.
2013).
In contemporary research on cognitive factors, FL aptitude is retheorised as a dynamic
construct, which interacts with the environment, depends on evolutionary development (see
Sternberg & Grigorenko 2000) and is potentially trainable (see Sternberg 2002; Dweck 2006;
Mercer 2012). The most important implication of Sternbergs (2002) theory is that abilities
IP address: 148.206.159.132
are not stable but can be developed. Consequently, individual differences with respect to FL
aptitude should correspond to appropriate instructional approaches (see Robinson 2002).
This conviction finds its reflection in a method of testing proposed by Sternberg (2002),
DYNAMIC TESTING, where learners are given feedback during the test in order to improve
their scores. This idea provided a basis for a new FL aptitude test, the Cognitive Ability for
Novelty in Acquisition of Language (CANAL-FT) (Grigorenko et al. 2000), which incorporates
Sternbergs main assumptions with reference to human abilities. Such a dynamic perspective
is in line with a position on the development of talent, which was proposed by Dweck (2006)
and later applied to the field of SLA by Mercer (2012). Drawing upon the interactionist
stance and complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008), Dweck questions the
traditional view of ability as fixed and stable, and introduces the concept of MINDSET, which
represents a mental attitude that determines how individuals interpret and respond to various
situations.
3. Cognitive giftedness: A contemporary psychological perspective

There are many definitions of giftedness in psychology; however, most researchers describe
it in rather broad terms, with reference to various cognitive and non-cognitive qualities. The
IQ (intelligence quotient) score is considered an indispensable, but inadequate, measure of
giftedness. This is because other factors, such as motivation, high self-concept and creativity,
are considered to be vital qualities in the development of giftedness into talent (Renzulli 1986;
Gagne 2000; Simonton 2008; Erard 2012). Two models of giftedness are often referred to in
psychological literature, those proposed by Gagne (2000) and Renzulli (1986), even though
terminological problems abound.
Gagnes (2000) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent elucidates how outstanding natural
abilities develop into specific expert skills or talents. Giftedness is an untrained innate ability,
evident in no less than one aptitude domain, to a degree that places a child at least among the
upper 15% of peers. Talent signifies superior mastery of methodically upgraded abilities, skills
or knowledge in at least one domain, which categorizes the individuals achievements within
at least the top 15% of peers. There exist five domains of aptitude, that is INTELLECTUAL,
CREATIVE, SOCIO-AFFECTIVE, SENSORIMOTOR and OTHER FACTORS. Natural abilities are
inborn and can be identified in intellectual undertakings, one of which is L2 learning.
These abilities can be observed in children, adolescents and adults through their capacity for
acquiring new skills and the pace at which this happens. Abilities progressively transform into
talents through systematic training, with the caveat that two key conditions have to be met:
one is the presence of well-above-average natural ability and the other is systematic effort
devoted to training and practising.
In Renzullis (1986) Three Ring Model, three indispensable clusters of human traits form a
gift, namely: ABOVE-AVERAGE ABILITY, HIGH LEVELS OF TASK COMMITMENT and HIGH LEVELS
OF CREATIVITY, where above-average ability can be specified as either general or domainspecific cognitive ability. To make the implementation of all three elements successful, an
ample variety of educational opportunities is required. Renzulli declares that it is not the
IP address: 148.206.159.132
155
Table 1 Classification of terminology (based on Renzulli 1986; Carroll 1993; Gagne 2000)
Term
Definition
ability
Actual potential what a person is able to do provided environmental conditions and

psychophysical states are optimal
Cognitive ability that is possibly predictive of certain kinds of future learning success
Untrained, outstanding innate ability
Superior mastery of an innate ability
aptitude
giftedness
talent
strength of particular clusters of traits, but rather the interaction occurring between them
that shapes the development of talent.
Evidently, the terms ABILITY, APTITUDE, GIFTEDNESS and TALENT are not clearly
differentiated in psychology and are often used interchangeably. Gagne (2000) equates
aptitude with giftedness, Renzulli (1986) does not seem to differentiate between giftedness
and talent, and there are those who opt for the term GENIUS (Simonton 2008: 683), which is
highly controversial and subjective. In SLA research, FL aptitude is identified as a complex
set of cognitive abilities, whereas giftedness/talent refers to an extremely high level of aptitude
(see Skehan 1998; Robinson 2007). An attempt at resolving this terminological confusion is
made in Table 1.
Irrespective of the specific terms used, in most theories, giftedness is not defined in a
dichotomous way, but, rather, as a continuum. Such terms as bright, able, more able,
highly able, gifted and talented, referring to degrees of exceptionality, are present in all
definitions of this concept. Procedures for identifying giftedness are varied because there
is no conceptual clarity as to what exactly it comprises, with qualitative and quantitative
criteria being proposed (see Kerr 2009; Erard 2012). Teacher-, parent-, peer-, or selfnomination based upon academic results typically represent the former, while data concerning
students school history and standardized test outcomes (e.g. intelligence or aptitude) are
reflective of the latter. The process of classification of gifted individuals is approached from
a number of perspectives, taking into account a variety of factors, such as specific and
general cognitive ability together with cultural, gender and language differences (Kerr 2009:
xxviii).
An important consideration in selecting talents is a decision as to how gifted individuals
differ from what is regarded the norm. The norms proposed in the literature vary, as evident
in recommendations that individuals placed within the top 15% (Renzulli 1986; Gagne
2000) or 5% (Selinker 1972) of the normal curve be considered talented. Despite these
controversies and relative subjectivity of the discussed terms, researchers generally agree that
the most important criterion for talent is remarkable achievement. Evidently, the definitions
of talent or giftedness proposed in the field of psychology, although relevant to the domain
of LG, are insufficient as a point of reference for SLA researchers who have to develop
their own criteria for identifying and measuring linguistic talent. A modified definition of
a gifted L2 learner that we propose might read as follows: A gifted FL learner is a person
who, owing to his/her exceptional inborn gift for learning languages, especially capacious
IP address: 148.206.159.132
verbal working memory, as well as expertise in L2 learning, is able to learn any foreign
language to a near-native level of competence, given proper motivation, time and conducive
environment. Consequently, we will use the terms LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS (LG) and GIFTED
FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNERS with respect to such individuals. However, other terms, such as
FOREIGN LANGUAGE HIGH ACHIEVERS, SUPERLEARNERS, HYPERPOLYGLOTS and EXCEPTIONAL
FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNERS will be used as well when describing specific studies to give
justice to the perspective that particular researchers adopt to refer to this group or the research
foci they wish to emphasize.
4. Review of research on gifted FL learners

Recently, there has been a growing interest in gifted FL learners with respect to second
or foreign languages. The most promising areas of research are studies examining ultimate
attainment of late learners (e.g. Ioup et al. 1994; Moyer 1999; Bongaerts, Mennen & van der
Silk. 2000; Nikolov 2000; van Boxtel, Bongaerts & Coppen 2003; Birdsong 2004; Bongaerts
2005; van Boxtel et al. 2005; Birdsong 2007; Moyer 2007; Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam
2008; DeKeyser, Alfi-Shabtay & Ravid 2010; Granena & Long 2013), those investigating the
role of social-psychological factors in gifted FL learners (e.g. Moyer 2007; Rota & Reiterer
2009; Moyer 2010; Forsberg Lundell & Sandgren 2013; Moyer 2013), and those focusing on
maximally advanced multilinguals, that is super-learners, polyglots, and savants (e.g. Smith
et al. 2011; Treffert 2011; Erard 2012; Hyltenstam 2014a, 2014b; Hyltenstam 2016a, 2016b
forthcoming). Particularly interesting is neurolinguistic research (e.g. Golestani, Price & Scott
2011; Reiterer et al. 2011a, 2011b; Daz et al. 2012; Sebastian-Galles et al. 2012; Hu et al.
2013), which represents a major advance on sole reliance on behavioral data. Researching
exceptional talents is difficult because such talents are quite rare and it is difficult to assemble
a group that would be large enough for statistical analysis. Besides, there exist idiosyncratic
paths of development of gifted individuals that fall outside any classifications, the criteria
adopted for the choice of such individuals are inconsistent, and the research methodology
varies (see Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam 2008; Long 2013).
Studies on gifted L2 learners can be roughly divided into three groups. The first comprises
early research on gifted individuals (e.g., Novoa et al. 1988; Schneiderman & Desmarais
1988a, Ioup et al. 1994). The second includes research on accomplished L2 post-pubescent
learners (e.g., Moyer 1999; Bongaerts et al. 2000; DeKeyser 2000; Nikolov 2000; Birdsong
2004; Bongaerts 2005; van Boxtel et al. 2005; Birdsong 2007; Moyer 2007; Abrahamsson
& Hyltenstam 2008; Safar & Kormos 2008; Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam 2009; DeKeyser
et al. 2010; Biedron 2011a, 2012a, 2012b; Granena 2013; Granena & Long 2013). The
third brings together empirical investigations of L2 super-learners, or hyperpolyglots (Erard
2012), two ongoing studies of savants, those of Christopher (Smith & Tsimpli 1991; Morgan
et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2011) and Daniel Tammet (Treffert 2011), and a study on polyglots
conducted by Hyltenstam (2014a, 2014b). The following sections present studies representing
these three lines of inquiry.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
157
4.1 Early research on gifted foreign language learners case studies

Early research on outstanding linguistic abilities focused on the neurological basis underlying
linguistic talent (e.g. Fein & Obler 1988; Novoa et al. 1988; Schneiderman & Desmarais 1988a,
1988b). In these studies, linguistic talent was defined as an extraordinary ability allowing
achievement of L2 native-like competence L2 after puberty (Schneiderman & Desmarais
1988a). In his overview of research on gifted language learners, Skehan (1998) upheld the
position that they are able to master a foreign language relatively quickly, after the closure of
the critical period, and to a native-like level. Fein & Obler (1988), in turn, added a comparative
criterion, defining an exceptionally talented L2 learner either as outstanding by comparison
to peers or as exceptional for the individual under consideration.
Schneiderman & Desmarais (1988a, 1988b) suggested a neuropsychological substrate for
talent tantamount to greater neurocognitive flexibility. From this perspective, talented L2
learners were defined as those basically indistinguishable from native speakers. Following
Selinker (1972),2 they claimed that only 5% in a population are able to achieve such a level
of proficiency in all L2 domains. They separated phonological talent, which they considered
a special capacity for mimicking dialects, from talents for grammar and lexis. It is interesting
to note that they associated phonological ability with a personality trait, namely willingness
to adopt the identity of or passing for a native speaker, which was believed to influence
the rate and efficiency of attaining a foreign accent. Other personality factors predictive
of perfect pronunciation were high motivation, non-conformism and readiness to take
risks.
Schneiderman & Desmarais (1988a) conducted a study of two gifted learners, selected on
the basis of their native-like proficiency in at least one L2 attained after puberty, who were 23
and 30 and whose AO was 11 years. Their proficiency in phonetics and grammar was assessed
by native speakers, with native-like levels being identified for French and fluency determined
for other languages. The researchers mainly focused on memory and IQ measures of ability,
applying the Wechsler Memory Index, the Wechsler Digit-Symbol Coding, and the MLAT (parts one,
two and five), as well as verbal and performance scales of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. In
addition, they compared the subjects against Geschwind & Galaburdas (1985) cluster in
order to determine the degree of lateralization. The study found extraordinary memory in
the subjects, which was attributed to the ability to employ infrequent strategies in performing
standardized verbal memory tasks (e.g. memorizing lists of words). The researchers claimed
that adaptable individuals do not need to depend on categorization of items into classes, but
bypass them. Therefore, gifted L2 learners are independent of traditional networks because
their superior memory underpins high ability to acquire new codes. Moreover, the subjects
performed better on verbal than non-verbal tasks, with a difference of 15 points on the
intelligence scales. Some of Geschwind & Galaburdas (1985) characteristics were observed,
which indicated that linguistic talent implies bilateral processing.
Novoa et al. (1988) report the findings of a study of CJ a 29-year-old talented male L2
learner. He was a native speaker of English who had learned six languages: German, French,
2
Selinkers claim was based on the definition of giftedness in psychology. Nowadays, many SLA researchers claim that
native-like attainment is impossible after the closure of the critical period (see Long 2013).
IP address: 148.206.159.132
Latin, Moroccan Arabic, Spanish and Italian. The selection criteria required that he had
learned a number of foreign languages post puberty, fast and to a native-like proficiency
level. CJs achievement was evaluated by native speakers who confirmed ease and speed of
learning, and declared that he did not have a foreign accent. The study divulged that CJ was
born one month prematurely and as a child was slow in reading but he was overall a good
student. His AO was 15 years and experience with foreign languages was uneven. CJ studied
French and German in high school, French literature in college, and spent one year in France
and only a few weeks in Germany. Exposure to other languages was rather brief and involved
a few weeks in Spain and Italy, where he picked up both languages in a matter of weeks in
an untutored environment. He presented many factors related to Geschwind & Galaburdas
(1985) cluster: left-handedness, being a twin, allergies and hives, schizophrenia in the family,
homosexuality and poor spatial orientation.
Similarly to Schneiderman & Desmarais (1988a), Novoa et al. (1988) focused on memory
and language abilities but also investigated abstract reasoning, visual-spatial functioning,
musical ability and personality. The instruments used included the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-Revised, the Raven Progressive Matrices, the MLAT and the Rorschach Test. With respect to
general intellectual functioning, CJ was average, since his WAIS-R IQ score was 107 and
there was no significant difference between the verbal and performance IQ scores. More
revealing were the scores obtained for tests contained in the WAIS-R (Vocabulary and DigitSymbol Coding) which are directly linked to FL aptitude. A high score on Vocabulary reflects
the ability to define words, whereas Digit-Symbol Coding is a traditional test of short-term
memory. Particularly notable was CJs performance on the latter, in which he managed to
recall nine digit-symbol pairs without error immediately after the presentation and after
a 20-minute delay. He also performed very well on the Raven Progressive Matrices, scoring
at the 95th percentile, while his visual-spatial reasoning was unimpressive. The conclusion
was that CJ is profoundly gifted in learning new vocabulary, the acquisition of a new code
and the ability to perceive and complete formal patterns.
The most remarkable finding was CJs scores on memory tests. In general, his performance
on verbal memory tasks was excellent in comparison to visual memory, which was average. He
was able to retain long sequences of words after 20 minutes, which demonstrated his superior
memory capacity. Moreover, his long-term memory, as measured by retention of prose
passages, was outstanding and was placed above the 99th percentile. CJs musical ability was
evaluated as average, but his ability to pick up a foreign accent was superior. He also possessed
personality features associated with perfect pronunciation, specifically high motivation, nonconformist self-concept and willingness to take risks (see Schneiderman & Desmarais 1988a).
It was concluded that CJs LG was caused by two factors: exceptional verbal memory and
enhanced perception of formal patterns. Following Schneiderman & Desmarais (1988a),
Novoa et al. (1988) attributed his outstanding talent to neurological factors: more bilateral
organization of the brain for language. From the contemporary perspective, it appears that
CJ was profoundly talented with respect to short-term phonological memory and noticing.
Ioup and her co-workers (Ioup et al. 1994) report a case study of an adult woman, aged
47, who achieved near-native-like competence in a natural environment without formal
instruction. Julie immigrated to Cairo at the age of 21 when she married an Egyptian. Living
in Egypt for 26 years, she was immersed in the language, as all her family spoke Arabic and
IP address: 148.206.159.132
159
she acquired it very quickly. After six months she was able to communicate well, and after
only two-and-a-half years she passed for a native speaker. Phonology was never a problem
for her, but she did not learn to read or write because of lack of formal instruction.
The measures employed to assess Julies target language (TL) competence comprised
speech production, grammaticality judgment, translation, anaphoric interpretation and
accent recognition tasks. Her scores were compared to those of native speakers and to those
of a proficient learner with extensive formal instruction. Native-speaker judges evaluated
Julies Arabic as native with respect to three factors: perceptual abilities, which allowed
her to produce accent-free speech, production skills, and underlying linguistic competence.
Although she failed to reach native-like norms in syntax and semantics, her grammatical
competence did not differ from that of a formally instructed learner. As in the previous
studies, Julies exceptional success was attributed to atypical brain organization and greater
neurocognitive flexibility, with the caveat that this interpretation is highly subjective. She
also possessed a few features from Geschwind & Galaburdas (1985) cluster, namely weak
mathematical abilities, left-handedness, allergies, and twins in the family. Another of Julies
interesting attributes that demonstrated her giftedness was that she started to speak in full
sentences in the L1 at the age of 18 months. She always had a talent for mimicking accents
and was good at grammar, both in the case of English and Latin, which she learned at
school. Finally, the researchers emphasized Julies outstanding noticing ability. Not only did
she make an effort to consciously manipulate language structure and attend to form, but also
paid attention to morphology and tried to self-correct. An important conclusion was that
talented adult FL learners pay conscious attention to form.
The characteristics shared by the subjects of the four case studies include an excellent
memory, high phonological abilities, high analytic abilities for dealing with simple codes, and
rich vocabulary. Their intelligence is within the average range; nonetheless, they perform
higher on verbal than on performance intelligence scales. The researchers unanimously
attribute these characteristics to bilateral brain organization. Nevertheless, it appears that
most of the criteria applied in evaluating learning speed and proficiency level, are, perhaps
with the exception of Julie, exceedingly subjective and imprecise. Moreover, speculations
about atypical brain organization lack any scientific evidence. Little information is also given
about cognitive and personality factors, or the use of learning strategies. Hence, all this
evidence is at least partly anecdotal and thus must be treated with circumspection.
4.2 Group studies

Group studies reported in the literature are, generally speaking, concerned with the problem
of ultimate attainment of late learners after the critical period. They frequently examine
attainment in L2 morphosyntax (e.g. Coppieters 1987; Birdsong 1992; DeKeyser 2000;
Birdsong 2004; van Boxtel et al. 2005; Birdsong 2007; DeKeyser et al. 2010; Donaldson
2011) and pronunciation (e.g. Bongaerts, Planken & Schils 1995; Bongaerts et al. 1997; Moyer
1999; Bongaerts et al. 2000; Birdsong 2007; Bongaerts 2005; Moyer 2007, 2010), whereas
studies which include tests of lexis and collocations are less common (e.g. Abrahamsson &
Hyltenstam 2009; Granena & Long 2013; Spadaro 2013). There are also studies investigating
IP address: 148.206.159.132
the relationship between FL aptitude and L2 achievement in children (e.g. Munoz 2014)
and in post-pubescent learners (e.g. Safar & Kormos 2008), between aptitude and gender
(e.g. Moyer 2010), and between aptitude and musical ability (e.g. Nardo & Reiterer 2009;
Christiner & Reiterer 2013). On the whole, the results of such studies allow two observations:
(1) evidence for reaching a native-like level in all aspects of the TL is non-existent, and (2) the
methodology seems to be inconsistent, which precludes definite conclusions.
In the research conducted by van Boxtel et al. (2003, 2005), which involved 43 participants,
three German, four French and one Turkish learner of Dutch fell within the native-speaker
range on two off-line tests: a grammaticality judgment test and an imitation task. It was found
that the French-speaking participants performed worse than the German-speakers, which
was attributed to an overload of working memory capacity, brought about by considerable
differences between French and Dutch. This is because the greater the differences between L1
and L2, the more serious the problems in decoding the surface structure of the TL. Problems
in decoding are also more pronounced in auditory than written input, as was corroborated by
neurological research. Sabourin (2003), for example, examined the processing of L2 grammar
by English, Romance and German learners of Dutch, and found that German participants
displayed much more native-like event-related-potential (ERP) patterns on a grammaticality
judgment test than the other groups. Van Boxtel et al. (2005) offered another plausible
explanation, suggesting that biologically-determined factors, connected with maturation of
working memory, constrain the acquisition of L2 syntax, with the effect that non-salient
elements are not attended to by late learners. It is possible, though, that linguistic experience,
education or high FL aptitude may enable late learners to pay special attention to these
non-salient aspects of syntax.
These findings led van Boxtel et al. (2003) to conclude that most of the participants whose
performance fell within the native-speaker range had a native language related to the TL.
Furthermore, all the native-like achievers had resided in the L2 country for a long time, with a
mean of 15 years, the age of arrival was between 19 and 30 years, and they all regularly spoke
with native speakers. It is also significant that the participants were highly educated and had
received linguistic training, holding degrees in linguistics. It can therefore be hypothesized
that education and metalinguistic awareness play a crucial role in native-like performance on
off-line tasks in learning FL grammar. The role of the latter factor could be that it facilitates
focusing on form, thereby enabling learners to attend to and notice grammatical forms in
the input.
Phonological abilities are believed to be the most susceptible to the negative effects of
the critical period (see Granena & Long 2013). One study that intended to challenge the
critical period hypothesis (CPH) (Lenneberg 1967) with respect to ultimate attainment in
L2 phonology was conducted by Moyer (1999, 2007). She evaluated the phonological
performance of 24 highly motivated, advanced FL learners of German, whose L1 was
English, looking into such factors as age, instruction, motivation, suprasegmental training
and self-perception of productive accuracy. The findings provided partial support for the
CPH as it was found that the subjects performance deviated from native speakers, and a
strong, negative correlation was observed between AO and ultimate achievement. However,
contrary to the results of previous research, AO and the onset of instruction failed to be
significant predictors of success. Regression analysis revealed that motivation and corrective
IP address: 148.206.159.132
161
feedback on suprasegmental errors accounted for most of the variance. What is more, one
learner of German was described as exceptional. The evaluation of his performance was
consistently native-like across all tasks despite the fact that he was first exposed to German
at the age of 22, had been immersed for only two years, and received just five years of
instruction. Unexpectedly, his performance was evaluated as more native-like than that of
native speakers. Moyer (1999, 2007) concluded that although we are not able to understand
why some late learners are better at acquiring a native-like accent than others, certain
personality characteristics and behaviours contribute to greater ultimate attainment. These
include actively seeking practice opportunities, asking for feedback, developing cognitive and
affective LLS, and setting learning goals. In addition, affective and cognitive factors, such as
motivation, positive attitudes, and satisfaction with attainment, influence learning outcomes
(Moyer 2007, 2010, 2013). However, methodological flaws, such as a very small number of
participants in regression analysis, should behoove researchers to exercise great caution in
uncritically accepting these assumptions.
In similar studies undertaken by Bongaerts et al. (1995, 1997, 2000), a group of highly
motivated and advanced FL learners was chosen specifically for their exceptional abilities,
as they were excellent speakers and writers in L2 English. The results provided evidence
for high proficiency since the participants matched native-speaker controls with respect to
pronunciation skills. These findings led Bongaerts (2005: 262) to assume that native-levels
can be attained in a variety of linguistic domains, by individuals who begin to learn an L2 at
ages beyond (sometimes well beyond) a purported critical period. An even more optimistic
view is offered by Birdsong (2007), who investigated the pronunciation of 22 Anglophone
late learners of L2 French and found that about 10% of long-resident, educated participants
matched native-speaker controls. He hypothesized a contribution to native-like attainment of
such factors as L2 practice, motivation and phonetic training, and suggested that native-like
pronunciation is not out of the grasp of late L2 learners (Birdsong 2007: 99). Summing up,
both Bongaerts (2005) and Birdsong (2007) maintain that native-like attainment is not only
possible, but quite frequent for post-pubescent learners and that much empirical evidence is
unsupportive of the CPH. However, the methodological limitations of these studies have been
pointed out in the literature. First, the results are exceedingly inconsistent and leave much
space for subjective interpretations and speculations. Second, the methodology of examining
the level of attainment also seems to be unreliable, as the tasks were clearly far too easy (see
Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam 2009; Long 2005, 2013).
Bongaerts and Birdsongs assumptions stand in sharp contrast with Abrahamsson &
Hyltenstams (2008, 2009) conclusions, based on their study of near-native post-pubescent
learners and their critical analysis of the relevant research. The researchers main aim was to
test DeKeysers (2000) hypothesis that only late learners with a high level of FL aptitude will
reach native-like levels of L2 proficiency. Besides, they sought to verify the assumption that
early and late learners who pass for native speakers in everyday conversation will consistently
attain native-like levels on ten criteria of thorough linguistic analysis. There were 42 subjects,
advanced L2 speakers of Swedish with Spanish as L1, 31 speakers with the AO of Swedish
between one and 11 years, and 11 late learners, with the AO ranging between 12 and 23 years.
A significant fact is that their mean length of residence (LOR) in Sweden amounted to 25
years. Twenty different measures were employed, including pronunciation, speech perception,
IP address: 148.206.159.132
grammatical intuition, grammatical and semantic inferencing, formulaic language and FL

aptitude tests. In order to evaluate grammatical intuition, a grammaticality judgment test
was used, which comprised quite long sentences, difficult even for native speakers, with the
intention of testing what the subjects CANNOT do, instead of what they CAN do.
The researchers confirmed that the learners who passed for native speakers in everyday
communication turned out to be less than native-like when their linguistic performance
was scrutinized in detail. None of the late learners performed within the native-speaker
range and, quite surprisingly, neither did early L2 learners. As Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam
explain, when faced with a rather demanding linguistic task, nearly half of those who
began to acquire the L2 between ages one and eleven exhibited less than native-like
grammatical intuition (2008: 496). Moreover, all the near-native subjects with late AO
(over12) displayed above-average aptitude. Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson (2003) introduced
the term NON-PERCEIVABLE NONNATIVENESS to describe apparent native-likeness, or a level of
proficiency which cannot be distinguished from native in everyday communication and can
only be identified through systematic examination. They concluded that native-like ultimate
attainment in adult learners is, in principle, nonexistent (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam 2008:
499).
The study has provoked a great deal of controversy concerning the selection criteria
and evaluation of near-native participants as well as the interpretation of the results. For
instance, Birdsong (2005: 322) criticized the methods of evaluation of native-likeness, arguing
that individuals who have demonstrated native-likeness in several areas of experimental
performance could be subjected to even further poking and prodding, until a betraying
shibboleth is found. As he argued, there are numerous examples of native-like attainment
among late learners reported in the literature (see Ioup et al. 1994; Bongaerts et al. 2000;
van Boxtel et al. 2005; Birdsong 2007). Some SLA researchers, however, share Abrahamsson
& Hyltenstams view regarding the impossibility of full native-like attainment after the end
of the sensitive period (e.g. DeKeyser et al. 2010; Granena & Long 2013; Long 2013).
Recently, the focus of attention has shifted from prediction of the rate of progress in
instructed settings to the relationship between aptitude and ultimate attainment in naturalistic
environments (e.g. Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam 2008; DeKeyser et al. 2010, Granena 2013;
Granena & Long 2013). Granenas (2013) study examining long-term attainment of high
levels of proficiency in a naturalistic environment represents this line of inquiry. She found
that FL aptitude correlated with ultimate attainment in morphosyntax, as measured by means
of a grammaticality judgment test, only in untimed conditions allowing the subjects to engage
in explicit analysis, but not in timed conditions inducing implicit analysis. In particular, it
was high-aptitude learners that seemed to benefit from the lack of time constraints, which
can be explained by the fact that more gifted learners fall back upon their superior analytical
and metalinguistic abilities in such conditions. By contrast, no differences between high- and
low-aptitude learners were observed on the timed test, which confirms that post-sensitive
period learners rely on explicit learning to a greater extent than early learners.
All of this indicates that although near-native levels of TL proficiency after the end of
sensitive periods are attainable in some linguistic areas for highly able and motivated learners,
genuine native-like performance in all linguistic domains is extremely rare, or even nonexistent (Long 2013). In particular, the acquisition of some non-salient phonological and
IP address: 148.206.159.132
163
morphosyntactic aspects of L2 appears to be impossible for most learners. The learners who
appear to have overcome such limitations are classified as exceptional. It is worth mentioning,
however, that their proficiency is often assessed only in selected linguistic areas and that, in
many cases, their L1 is similar to L2. Additionally, little is known about their personality,
which is unfortunate, as researchers suggest that some personality factors might, in tandem
with high aptitude, account for outstanding LG (see Bongaerts et al. 1995; Moyer 1999,
2007). The major problem with the interpretation of the results of group studies is that they
do not address LG directly, because their main concern is with providing arguments for or
against critical periods or addressing ultimate attainment in various linguistic aspects. Not all
late high-achievers have to be necessarily profoundly gifted, although this is what DeKeyser
et al. (2010), Granena & Long (2013) and Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam (2008, 2009) suggest.
4.3 Foreign language super-learners

An ongoing study by Smith & Tsimpli (1991), Morgan et al. (2007), and Smith et al. (2011) fits
in with research on LG, but the subject named Christopher differs substantially from other
talented FL learners described in the literature. Forty-nine years of age,3 he is a peculiar
example of a polyglot savant, able to speak, read, write and translate in more than 20
languages. What makes this case very exceptional is that Christopher is so severely mentally
retarded that he has to be institutionalized as he is unable to take care of himself.
Christopher was the youngest of five children and was diagnosed as brain-damaged at
the age of six weeks. In childhood, he was late in walking and talking. In adulthood, he
was diagnosed with hydrocephalic brain damage and severe neurological impairment in
his motor coordination, resulting in apraxia (Smith et al. 2011: 5). Moreover, he has a
number of distinctive characteristics of autism, thus representing an example of a highfunctioning autist. As the researchers remark, Christopher is a savant, someone with an
island of startling talent in a sea of inability (Smith et al. 2011: 1). The most salient attribute
of his psycholinguistic profile is the asymmetry between verbal and non-verbal abilities. His
verbal IQ level, as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, is 98, which is an average score,
while his performance IQ is 52, which is very low and places him in a moderate retardation
category. His English language ability is superior, in excess of 120, a level more than sufficient
to enter university (Smith et al. 2011: 1). This anomaly, accompanied by linguistic talent,
became the focus of research aimed at determining what constitutes his exceptionality.
Christophers mastery of various languages is not consistent. He is quite competent in
French, German, Greek and Spanish, and fairly good at Norwegian, Polish and Portuguese;
however, his other languages are impressive more because of their number, variety and
speaker than because of his fluency in them (Smith & Tsimpli 1991: 322323). In addition,
Christopher appears sometimes not to care if what he says makes sense (1991: 323). It was
observed that despite his relatively rich vocabulary he makes many mistakes, both lexical and
grammatical in nature, which result in changes in meaning. Christopher has learned all the
languages quite quickly and his ability to translate from different languages into English is
3
Christopher was 49 at the time of the recent study by Smith et al. (2011).
IP address: 148.206.159.132
impressive. On the other hand, he translates mostly word for word and his text lacks cohesion,
which stems from the fact that lexical development predominates over other language areas,
specifically pragmatics and syntax. His syntactic development is limited, as compared to his
vocabulary, which is normal or even above average. This is interpreted as showing that his
abilities are only partly linguistic, and that constraints caused by cognitive retardation come
into play (Smith et al. 2011: 24).
Christophers remarkable vocabulary in several languages results from excellent long-term
memory, as well as good phonological working memory. He also performs exceptionally
well on tests of auditory and visual recognition, in which the subject is first presented with
words and then asked to explain whether or not he has recently seen or heard these words.
Interestingly, his memory abilities are asymmetrical and the results of memory tests are
contradictory. Christopher performs poorly on standard tests of digit span and reading span.
These distortions are tentatively attributed to selective impairment of his memory system, in
particular, to the damage to his central executive, as a result of which his attentional resources
cannot be focused fast enough to encode information (Smith et al. 2011: 16).
Another remarkable case of a linguistic savant is Daniel Tammet. Daniel was born in
London in 1979 with congenital child epilepsy and also suffers from Aspergers syndrome.
His incredible abilities with respect to memory, arithmetic computation and languages
appeared after a series of seizures in early childhood. Consequently, he represents the socalled ACQUIRED SAVANTS, or individuals whose outstanding abilities emerged as a result of an
injury or disease (Treffert 2011). In contrast to Christopher, Daniel is completely self-reliant.
He earns his living by producing web-based language tutorials and has also published his
autobiography. Daniel is capable of explaining the ways in which he memorizes, learns and
computes, which distinguishes him from other savants and makes him an invaluable source
of information about savantism. He knows seven languages, including French, German,
Spanish, Lithuanian, Esperanto and Icelandic, which he managed to learn in a week (Smith
et al. 2011), and also a language invented by himself. Another distinctive characteristic of
Daniel is his synaesthetic ability, which enables him to see numbers as colours in his head,
as if they were images (Treffert 2011). He assigns a shape and colour to each number. When
he recalls the numbers, he can see them as images emerging before him and when he makes
calculations, the images merge to create the accurate result.
Daniel, described as A HIGH FUNCTIONING AUTISTIC SAVANT, was examined by psychiatrists
and neurologists. They found that, similarly to Christopher, he possesses an extraordinary
memory capacity which is very selective. In particular, his short-term memory, as measured
by digit-span, is excellent, with the effect that he is able to recall long strings of numbers or
symbols and manipulate them with incredible speed, but his memory for faces is impaired.
His brain organization is normal. Bor, Billington & Baron-Cohen (2007) conclude that his
abilities might be explained by hyperactivity in the left prefrontal cortex, which stems from
Aspergers syndrome and synaesthesia. Savants cognitive abilities are asymmetric, with very
low general IQ and intact language faculty.
Not all highly talented learners of foreign languages, however, are savants and, in fact, most
of them are not. Erard (2012) attempted to obtain information about language super-learners,
referred to as HYPERPOLYGLOTS, that is people who can speak or use in reading or writing
at least 11 languages, in order to determine what enables them to achieve very advanced
IP address: 148.206.159.132
165
fluency.4 Having investigated both late, such as Joseph Mezzofanti or Emil Crebs, and living
hyperpolyglots, such as Alexander Arguelles or Johan Vandewalle, he arrived at a number of
conclusions, emanating both from his own research and the contemporary state of knowledge
on the specificity of linguistic talent in linguistics, psychology, genetics and neurology.
Most likely, the first question asked when we talk about hyperpolyglots is: How many
languages do they know? In fact, the number of languages they have learnt is impossible
to pinpoint in view of the lack of clear-cut criteria as to what counts as knowledge of a
language. This number varies from 72, in the case of Mezzofanti,5 or even over a hundred, to
a more reasonable and testable 22, as is the case with Johan Vandewalle the winner of the
Polyglot of Flanders Prize 1987. Certainly, native-like proficiency in all languages is not the
main goal of polyglots, as Each hyperpolyglot has a variety of uses for his or her languages
(Erard 2012: 216). However large their lifetime repertoire of languages might be, not all of
them are mastered or maintained to the same level of proficiency. Some polyglots only read
or translate in some languages, in some others they strive for oral fluency, and others are
studied for pleasure and entertainment. Many of them treat learning languages as a mental
exercise, way of life or mission. Therefore, their proficiency varies considerably, from basic
to near-native, and for different skills or subsystems. Usually their languages are divided into
active and latent, which can be reactivated, if need be. The upper limit of fluently spoken,
currently accessible languages is from five to nine, which means that they can use them
with ease and switch between them. It is possible to perform in a higher number, but this
requires extra preparation. Summing up, the linguistic repertoire of polyglots is dynamic.
They mostly choose European languages, albeit non-European languages, such as Mandarin,
Japanese, Cantonese, Mongolian, Hindi, Hausa, Arabic, Farsi or Sanskrit also appear. As
native or near-native criteria do not adequately define the studied hyperpolyglots, Erard
(2012) proposes the term CONTEXTUAL AND PERSONALLY RELEVANT LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY
to refer to their linguistic targets.
Is multilingualism an asset contributing to LG? The answer is not unequivocal. Most of
the hyperpolyglots (two-thirds in Erards study) grew up in monolingual families and most
of them had L1 English. However, among 17 people who claimed to have known more
than 11 languages, 11 were raised in bilingual families, which may indicate that bilingualism
can make a contribution to the number of accumulated languages. On the other hand, it is
speculated that bilingualism and multilingualism are the norm in the world (Crystal 1997),
and in countries such as Belgium, Switzerland or India people grow up with three or more
languages, irrespective of their linguistic talents. Therefore, most likely, multilingualism as such
is not directly linked to LG, but if a person is born with a linguistic talent which is developed
through learning subsequent languages, this natural-born gift is enhanced. Consequently, a
multilingual can also be a highly linguistically gifted person (see Biedron 2011b, 2012a).
Naturally, hyperpolyglots display a range of FL aptitudes, such as imitation of unknown
sounds and extraordinary memory for words, but none of those described by Erard was
formally tested in this area. They are especially talented at fast recall of new information
4
The initial criterion was self-reported six or more languages, based on Hudsons (2012) discussion. The upward revision
of the hyperpolyglot figure was a product of a survey that the researcher conducted.
5 Russell, one of the biographers, claims the number of languages was 72, but Thomas Watts revised the number downward
to 60 or 61 (Erard 2012).
IP address: 148.206.159.132
after a time interval. Many of them are equipped with analytic abilities since they enjoy
discovering grammar rules and cracking the code. Particularly impressive is their ability to
switch between languages without interference, which is feasible thanks to powerful executive
functions and makes them linguistic multitaskers. An unusual ability to monitor their speech,
which makes them both fluent and accurate, testifies to the vital role of extraordinary working
memory capacity. Capacious phonological loop, an efficient executive system and high brain
plasticity, all of which seem to characterize hyperpolyglots, are hereditary, which may suggest
that hyperpolyglottism is largely genetically determined.
High motivation is indispensable if an individual wants to achieve proficiency in one foreign
language, let alone in 12 (see Hyltenstam 2014b; Hyltenstam 2016a, 2016b forthcoming).
Hyperpolyglots are used to working hard, sometimes many hours a day, in order to master
successive languages. They display a variety of motivations for learning, such as being able to
read books in the original, translate, go to the TL country and function like a native speaker,
decipher hieroglyphs when travelling in Egypt and, naturally, work professionally in these languages. They gain expertise not because they work hard but mainly because they find working
hard rewarding. Their motivations to learn languages are varied but almost always intrinsic.
Hyltenstams (2014a) research program High-level Proficiency in Second Language Use (AAA),
conducted at the University of Stockholm, aimed to study advanced, near-native, or even
native-like, levels of proficiency in a second language (L2). Its goal was to tap the cognitive,
psycholinguistic, linguistic-structural, and socio-psychological factors that affect ultimate
attainment. In particular, it focused on these very advanced learners who approach or
even cross the boundaries between L1 and L2 users. The subjects included immigrants, their
children, proficient users of L2 who do not live in the TL community, advanced FL learners at
universities, polyglots, and staff in international call centres. The investigated areas included
language structure in both production and perception (grammar, lexicon, pragmatics, and
discourse), receptive and interaction skills, and individual and contextual factors affecting
proficiency, with the results corroborating those of previous research (Abrahamsson &
Hyltenstam 2008). Although many of the participants passed for native speakers in everyday
communication, they were less perfect when closely examined. Native-like performance was
found among many subjects in the specific domains (e.g. grammar, vocabulary), but never
across the board. Typically, even the most proficient learners did not reach native-like levels
with regard to collocations, vocabulary richness, the use of discourse markers, and sociopragmatic aspects. As for factors affecting ultimate attainment, the strongest predictors for
the participants with an AO of 115 were the AO and FL aptitude, whereas for those
with an AO of 1630 FL aptitude was the strongest predictor and the AO was irrelevant.
Moreover, only one third of subjects with an AO of 115 displayed native-like competence
on grammaticality judgment and phonetic measures, and none with an AO beyond 13 was
evaluated as fully native-like. As Hyltenstam (2014a) concludes: This lends support to the
view that an entirely nativelike attainment is not possible for late learner.
A valuable contribution to the discussion of polyglots is also Hyltenstams (2014b; 2016a,
2016b forthcoming) thorough review of the most important studies, as well as his own
investigation of ten polyglots. His operationalization of this concept is as follows: A polyglot
is a person who, after puberty, acquired/learnt at least six new languages, who commands
at least 6 of these languages at an intermediate or advanced proficiency level (minimally B1
IP address: 148.206.159.132
167
in CEF) and who can presently use them relatively unimpededly in oral interaction (2014b).
The polyglots under investigation displayed the following characteristics: high aptitude scores,
focus on form, preference for explicit learning, average to high systemizing, high general
cognitive ability, high degree of autonomy, and extremely strong choice motivation and
executive motivation.
It should be emphasized that the studies undertaken by Erard (2012) and Hyltenstam
(2014b; 2016a, 2016b forthcoming) initiated research on polyglots who evidently constitute
the most poorly investigated but at the same time the most promising group of gifted L2
learners. Of the two, Erards review is partly based on subjective records evidence and
partly on scientific data, while Hyltenstams study represents a more scientific, systematic
approach.
Summing up, all linguistically gifted individuals seem to share common cognitive
characteristics, such as excellent memory, especially working memory, and very efficient
executive functions, which enable them to acquire verbal material faster and easier than
less gifted individuals. These characteristics seem to be advantageous in conversation when
interlocutors have to constantly monitor their speech and switch attention from task to task.
They are very good at recalling learned material even after a long time interval, which
indicates good long-term memory as well as application of effective memory strategies.
Their phonological short-term memory is extraordinary, which helps them overcome the
decline in phonetic abilities after the sensitive period and to acquire new sounds and words
successfully. They are also good at analysing patterns and discovering rules, which is helpful
in learning L2 morphosyntax. Some talented learners are good speech imitators and have
an ear for languages, which enables them to learn the sounds of even very typologically
distant languages. Last but not least, they are experts in learning languages; their experience,
devotion and persistence are key to their success.
5. Native language abilities and foreign language aptitude

Since 1973, when Carroll formulated a hypothesis that FL aptitude might be a residue of
L1 learning ability, evidence for this suggestion has accumulated. A relationship between
aptitudes for L1 and L2 was demonstrated in the Bristol Language Project (Wells 1981),
which revealed that variation in L1 development in 125 children participants correlated
with differences in FL aptitude, examined twelve years later (see Skehan 1986, 1998). The
assumption that native language abilities and FL aptitude are related also lies at the core of
Sparks & Ganschows (1991, 2001) Linguistic Coding Deficit Hypothesis, based on research findings
showing that at-risk FL learners have linguistic coding difficulties, which has a detrimental
effect on both L1 and L2 acquisition. As Sparks & Ganschow speculate, Inefficiency of the
language processing codes may produce interference resulting in individual differences in FL
acquisition. [ . . . ] We suggest, then, that native language factors are likely to be implicated as
the main variable in FL learning (1991: 10). Empirical evidence for this position comes from
a number of studies (e.g. Sparks et al. 1998; Sparks et al. 2006; Sparks 2012), which suggest
that native-language skills operate as a basis for L2 learning for phonology, orthography,
IP address: 148.206.159.132
grammar and semantics, and, consequently, any problems occurring in these areas will have
a negative impact on both L1 and L2 learning.
Unfortunately, very little is known about the native language abilities of gifted language
learners. We know that the case described by Ioup et al. (1994) Julia started to speak in
full sentences at the age of 18 months, which may suggest high verbal abilities. In another
study, conducted by Biedron (2012a), who aimed to create cognitive-affective profiles of gifted
language learners, 14 out of the total of 44 participants declared that they started to speak
around their first year of life, and 30 reported starting to read around the fourth or fifth year
of life. Such information confirms that FL aptitude and L1 abilities have a common source,
with the caveat that the data were obtained through self-reports. A more valuable source of
information on the relationship between L1 and L2 abilities is provided by neurolinguistic
studies conducted by Daz and her collaborators (Daz et al. 2008; Daz et al. 2012), the
results of which suggest that native phonetic abilities can predict successful learning of a new
phonetic system.
6. Intelligence in gifted FL learners

In research on individual differences, FL aptitude and intelligence have been regarded as
separate (Skehan 1998). However, the contribution to FL learning proficiency of a general
factor, which seems to underlie all other cognitive abilities, has been recognized by some
researchers. Carrolls (1993) Cognitive Abilities Model classifies language abilities as primary
cognitive abilities subsumed under a general cognitive ability factor, that is intelligence.
Additionally, as Dornyei (2005) underscores, both the MLAT (Carroll & Sapon 1959) and
the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB) (Pimsleur 1966) include a test of L1 vocabulary,
which is also a fundamental element in measuring intelligence. Skehan (1998) claims that
there is a relationship between specific language learning ability and general cognitive ability
(i.e. intelligence), which is especially strong for analytic abilities and far less evident for
memory and phonetic coding ability. The study by Sasaki (1996) cast some light on the
controversial relationship between FL aptitude and intelligence. She investigated to what
extent and in what respects FL aptitude depends on the general factor of intelligence and
in what respects it is independent of it, that is language-specific. Sasaki concluded that
intelligence and analytic ability are interrelated, while phonetic coding ability and memory
factors are separate components of FL aptitude, independent of intelligence (see Skehan
1998).
Very little is known about the IQ of linguistically gifted individuals. All such individuals
described in the literature manifested average IQ and they performed higher on verbal than
performance scales (see Skehan 1998). The self-reported IQ score for the 172 people who
reported having learnt over six languages in Erard (2012) oscillated between 120 and 140.
In Biedrons (2012a) study, the general IQ , as measured by Wechsler scale, of the gifted FL
learners was 125, with the score on the verbal scale being higher than those on the non-verbal
and memory scales (130 as opposed to 118 and 128, respectively). Also Hyltenstam (2014b)
lists high general cognitive ability among the characteristics of polyglots.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
169
Research on the relationship between FL aptitude and intelligence is clearly inadequate,

given the importance of this factor for human cognitive abilities in general and FL aptitude in
particular (see Carroll 1993; Grigorenko et al. 2000). There are two main theories which dominate the discussion. The first reduces the effect of intelligence exclusively to analytic abilities
(see Sasaki 1996; Skehan 1998), while the other, based on early research on gifted L2 learners
(see Novoa et al. 1988), entirely ignores its role in the development of LG. It has to be emphasized that most studies examining the relationship between LG and other cognitive abilities
have focused on performance and verbal IQ , neglecting the third IQ domain, memory, which
is surprising given its relevance to LG. Contemporary operationalizations of intelligence, such
as Wechslers (1997), offer a variety of scales and in interpreting the results much importance is
attached to disproportions between particular test scores on particular scales, which enables
researchers to conduct in-depth, clinical diagnosis of intellect. Apart from the traditional
two-factor solution, three-factor, four-factor and six-factor solutions have been developed.
The most up-to-date six-factor solution includes VERBAL COMPREHENSION, PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZATION, WORKING MEMORY, PROCESSING SPEED, AUDITORY MEMORY and VISUAL MEMORY
(Tulsky, Ivnik, Price & Wilkins 2003). Applying modern methods of testing may change the
long-lasting stereotypical understanding of the role of IQ in the development of LG.
7. Memory in gifted FL learners

Skehan (1998: 233) argued that very talented learners are not qualitatively different from
simply high-aptitude learners. The most significant characteristic of exceptionally successful
learners is unusual verbal memory. Indeed, outstanding memory for verbal material was
the most striking characteristic of all the described cases of talented individuals (see Novoa
et al. 1988; Schneiderman & Desmarais 1988a; Ioup et al. 1994; Erard 2012). Savants, like
Christopher, have selective memory, and what makes them really peculiar is that they are able
to recall things after a time interval even with greater accuracy than soon after memorizing
them. Working memory (WM) (Baddeley & Hitch 1974; Baddeley, Gathercole & Papagno
1998; Baddeley 2003) has recently moved to the top of the research agenda as a significant
factor determining learning outcomes and a component of FL aptitude (e.g. Papagno &
Vallar 1995; Miyake & Friedman 1998; Sawyer & Ranta 2001; Robinson 2003; Doughty
et al. 2010; DeKeyser & Koeth 2011; Wen & Skehan 2011; Biedron & Szczepaniak 2012a;
Skehan 2012; Linck et al. 2013a; Linck et al. 2013b).
Biedron & Szczepaniak (2012a), for instance, tested short-term and WM abilities in gifted
FL learners. Twenty-seven such individuals were compared to 36 mainstream philology
students with the help of: (1) three memory subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, that is DigitSpan, Digit-Symbol Coding and Arithmetic, which comprise the Memory and Resistance to Distraction
Index, (2) two short-term memory tests in the MLAT that is Number learning and Paired associates,
and (3) a WM test, the Polish Reading Span (PRSPAN), designed by the researchers (Biedron
& Szczepaniak 2012b). The analysis revealed that short-term memory and WM abilities for
gifted FL learners were higher than for mainstream philology students. Moreover, the former
obtained higher scores on memory tests based on linguistic material than those based on
IP address: 148.206.159.132
numbers. The researchers concluded that two components of WM, namely the phonological
loop and the central executive, are significant factors in determining FL learning outcomes.
The idea of WM as FL aptitude has been reflected in newly developed measurement
tools. The High-Level Language Aptitude Battery (Hi-LAB) (Doughty et al. 2010; Doughty 2013;
Linck et al. 2013a) is an innovative, computer-delivered test, designed to predict high-level
attainment in post-critical period FL learning. Doughty et al. (2010) maintain that the Hi-LAB
is the first instrument to incorporate advances in memory functioning, particularly, WM. The
test comprises constructs hypothesized to underlie high-level FL aptitude, such as memory,
including short-term, long-term and WM, perceptual acuity, speed, primability, induction,
pragmatic sensitivity and fluency. Linck et al. (2013a) conducted a study aimed at examining
whether the cognitive and perceptual abilities measured by the Hi-LAB can predict very high
levels of attainment in L2. The subjects comprised two groups of adults: one high-attainment
and the other mixed-attainment, with high-level attainment being operationalized as highly
proficient L2 performance measured by the Defense Language Proficiency Tests and/or as highlevel job performance in single or multiple languages. High-level aptitude was defined as a
composite of domain-general cognitive abilities and specific perceptual abilities that, together,
can support or constrain ones ability to attain high-level proficiency as an adult learner (Linck
et al. 2013a: 535). It was concluded that the test is an efficient tool for distinguishing very
successful L2 learners from other individuals, with high-level attainment being positively
correlated to WM, associative learning and implicit learning.
WM plays a crucial role in a number of complex cognitive abilities, such as language
learning, reasoning, comprehension and cognitive control, and the outcomes of WM measures
are indicators of general cognitive ability. Two subsystems of WM are especially significant in
SLA: the phonological loop and the central executive. The phonological loop, viewed as an
equivalent of a language acquisition device, plays a crucial role in learning phonological forms
of new words. The central executive directs attentional processes that create conditions for
goal-directed behaviour by maintaining relevant information in an active state or retrieving
it under conditions of interference, distraction or conflict. Friedman et al.s (2008) study on
twins indicates that executive functions are among the most heritable psychological traits. WM
capacity underlies noticing ability, which facilitates SLA in general. Although WM is generally
stable, Juffs & Harrington (2011: 157) suggest that it can be modified through experience, thus
constituting a combination of a trait and state variable. Summing up, the extraordinary memory abilities of gifted L2 learners reported in research confirm Skehans (1998) assumption that
the most significant characteristic of exceptionally successful learners is unusual verbal memory. However, it is not possible to decide on the basis of the available empirical data whether
superior memory abilities in gifted L2 learners are inborn or, rather, evolve as a result of
multiple experiences of FL learning. Probably the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
8. Personality factors in gifted foreign language learners

Two different trends can be distinguished in research on FL aptitude and ultimate attainment
in late bilinguals. One adopts a narrow scope, confined to three variables, that is AO, FL
IP address: 148.206.159.132
171
aptitude and LOR (see Abrahamson & Hyltenstam 2008; DeKeyser et al. 2010; Bylund,
Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson 2013; Granena & Long 2013; Long 2013). The other embraces
a wider perspective, which can be called SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL, as it extends the scope
of research to the role of instruction, motivation, attitudes and other variables believed to
explain high levels of L2 attainment (see Nikolov 2000; Moyer 2007; Rota & Reiterer 2009;
Moyer 2010, 2013, 2014; Forsberg Lundell & Sandgren 2013; Munoz 2014).
The first stance is clearly represented by Granena & Long (2013), who convincingly argue
that non-native-like attainment in L2 learning is typical of most non-native speakers despite
favorable conditions, such as very long residence in the TL country, being married to a native
speaker, using L2 on a daily basis, as well as absence of any attitudinal or emotional barriers,
accompanied by strong motivation. As they point out, the influence of psychological and
social factors or the LOR on acquisition of phonology and morphosyntax is minimal, the
AO being the sole factor that reliably predicts ultimate attainment. They comment: Age
effects are robust, even in situations where the quantity and quality of input available to
learners are not at issue, and regardless of learners social-psychological profile (2013: 312).
They concede, however, that for late learners, those who start learning an L2 after the closure
of sensitive periods, the decline is more gradual and other factors, such as FL aptitude,
motivation, L2 use and exposure, or pronunciation training may play a role.
An opposite view is held by Moyer (2007, 2010, 2013, 2014), who believes that the role
of factors traditionally accepted as critical in the acquisition of near-native pronunciation
is overstated. She argues that social-psychological variables, such as identity, motivation,
empathy, concern for native-likeness, LOR and contacts with native speakers are as important
as aptitude and AO. Although maturational constraints are a function of neurological changes,
the rule of linearity of age-related learning outcomes ceases after maturation, at about12,
and the deterioration in L2 learning afterwards hinges on the aforementioned factors. Moyer
also emphasizes the role of formal instruction and contacts with native speakers, which allow
the provision of feedback. Positive attitudes are also among the most significant variables in
acquiring L2 pronunciation. Nonetheless, evidence for such claims is less convincing than
that offered by her opponents (see Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam 2008; Long 2013).
There are several studies which have examined the role of personality factors in FL
aptitude. For example, an ongoing study on phonetically talented L2 learners, conducted
by Reiterer (2009) and co-workers, has provided remarkable insights into the correlation
between phonetic abilities and personality. No correlation was found between pronunciation
talent and extraversion, openness to experience or neuroticism, whilst a moderate positive
correlation was revealed for conscientiousness and agreeableness. The researchers ascribe this
finding to the separateness of phonetic aptitude, which does not require social competence,
from other aptitudes affecting oral L2 use (Hu & Reiterer 2009). Moyer (2007) examined 50
immigrant learners of English in the USA and found that acquiring authentic pronunciation
was a function of reasons for learning English, perceived ability to improve accent, selfconfidence in English, assimilation with the TL culture, and an intention to reside in the
USA for a long time. Moreover, attitudes towards the TL were more important than those
towards culture. Two factors, experience and positive orientation, are particularly important
for achieving greater authenticity in accent. Similarly, Rota & Reiterer (2009) found positive
correlations between talent for pronunciation and such ID variables as empathy, mental
IP address: 148.206.159.132
flexibility and phonological WM. Hu et al. (2013) discovered that empathy constitutes a
better predictor of pronunciation aptitude in advanced learners than phonological shortterm memory. Kaufman et al. (2010) suggested that openness and intuition are strongly
correlated with implicit learning. Biedron (2011a) compared two groups of individuals, 44
gifted L2 learners (highly proficient multilinguals) and 37 non-gifted L2 learners (English
philology students) with respect to personality factors, adopting the Five Factors model (Costa
& McCrae 1992). She found that openness to experience was significantly higher in the gifted
than in non-gifted learners, but no differences were detected for the remaining four factors,
namely neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion and conscientiousness. Forsberg Lundell &
Sandgren (2013) examined the relationship between production of collocations, FL aptitude
and personality in late L2 French learners. The personality dimensions of cultural empathy
and open-mindedness were significantly correlated with collocations and Llama D (phonetic
memory) (Meara 2005). As the researchers explain, both of these factors involve a cognitive
capacity to adopt other peoples perspective and to be tolerant.
Is anything known about the personalities of hyperpolyglots? Are, as some researchers
(see Dornyei 2009) suggest, super-learners more open to new experience? Erards research
suggests that they are indeed. They claim to be good observers and mimics, not only of accent
but also of body language and behaviour, which means that they are good at adaptation. As
one of the hyperpolyglots put it, The good language learner has the ability to accept the
role of a child [ . . . ]. of being nave, foolish, stumbling, and inarticulate but also curious,
open-minded, and full of energy (Erard 2012: 238). As far as learning styles are concerned,
hyperpolyglots seem to be intuitive sharpeners (see Ehrman 2008: 68) and systemizers (BaronCohen et al. 2003), which means that they tend to organize and systemize the learned material.
They like patterns, discovering rules, making predictions and looking for exceptions. Their
main characteristics are self-confidence, motivation (Hyltenstam 2014b), perseverance and
diligence. Supposedly, they have the ability to engage in flow (Csikszentmihalyi 1990) and
actively seek experience of this kind. Flow is a state experienced by people performing at the
peak or beyond their limits and it involves experiencing spontaneous joy when individuals
become utterly absorbed in a task. It is a state of self-forgetfulness, a prerequisite for mastery
in any profession or art, and also in language learning.
SLA researchers recognize the need to investigate personality factors in studies on
multilinguals (see Dewaele & Furnham 2000; Deweale 2002, 2009) and gifted FL learners
(see Hu & Reiterer 2009; Biedron 2012a; Moyer 2013). However, there is very little research
on the relationship between FL aptitude and personality traits, possibly due to disappointing
correlations between success in L2 and personality dimensions (see Dornyei 2005, 2009). Even
less is known about personalities of linguistically gifted individuals. Dornyei (2009, 2010)
addresses the problem of the relationship between cognitive, motivational and emotional
processes, and their cumulative impact on human cognitive functioning. He argues that
a modular view of individual differences which involves multiple, discrete ID factors has
limited value, and suggests that it is possibly more beneficial to focus on higher-order trait
complexes that act as integrated wholes (Dornyei 2010: 248). In keeping with this position,
Dornyei recommends DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY (see Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008) as
a paradigm which can best account for individual differences. In his view, tracing individual
paths of growth of gifted learners is likely to offer more useful insights into their personalities
IP address: 148.206.159.132
173
than traditional quantitative methods. This position, however, is not problem-free, not
least because, as Gregg (2010) claims, Larsen-Freeman & Camerons (2008) perspective on
complexity theory lacks any logical or scientific basis in excluding mathematics, refusing to
restrict the number of variables and proposing to focus on all possible details. He argues that
if complexity theory is to be applied to the domain of language, it must be tested empirically.
If such criticisms are accepted, it is difficult to see how dynamics systems theory can offer a
basis for investigating the contribution of personality factors to LG.
9. Neurology of linguistic giftedness

In recent years neurolinguistics has become the most revealing and revolutionary source of
information about SLA, supplementing earlier reliance on behavioral data (see Long 2013:
33). The good news is that the number of studies on neurological substrates of FL aptitude
is on the rise and the data obtained allow more in-depth analysis of this domain (e.g. Chee
et al. 2004; Golestani et al. 2011; Reiterer et al. 2011a; Reiterer et al. 2011b; Daz et al.
2012; Sebastian-Galles et al. 2012; Hu et al. 2013). According to Schumann (2004), FL
aptitude might be a result of evolutionary selection processes. Some individuals are better
neurologically prepared to respond to rapid changes in the environment, and, thus, to survive
and to spread their genes. Anatomical differences in brains, for example hypertrophies,6
underpinning specific abilities, are triggered by the environment. If a talented individual
with a particular hypertrophy begins learning in a conducive environment, the brain acts
in response to such conditions intensifying particular neural connections. This, in turn, aids
learning, making it effortless and faster. Accordingly, such an individual might achieve high
expertise in a specific field of study. All of this shows that high FL aptitude might result from
both inborn functional and structural characteristics, and an individual brain response to a
specific experience of learning a language.
Opinion is divided as to whether neural correlates of L1 and L2 are the same or different.
For example, Dehaene et al. (1997) discovered that, in contrast to L1, which always activates
the same areas in the left hemisphere, L2 activates a highly variable network of both right
and left hemispheres, with this tendency being observed in late L2 learners. Variability in
the cortical representation of an L2 can be attributed to AO as well as level of proficiency.
Generally, more intensive right hemisphere activation was observed in late, low-proficiency
L2 learners, whereas in early, more proficient learners, areas of L1 and L2 activation overlap
(Kim et al. 1997). Similar results were obtained by Golestani & Zatorre (2004), Reiterer et al.
(2011a, 2011b), Sebastian-Galles et al. (2012), and Wong, Perrachione & Parrish (2007), who
report more extended or bilateral activation in poorer L2 learners. Indefrey & Gullberg (2006)
postulate that L2 proficiency level, not AO, is the strongest predictor of the degree of similarity
between late learners and native speakers, which means that as L2 proficiency increases, the
processing profile in L2 becomes similar to that in L1. Recently, a moderate view, referred
to as PARTIAL OVERLAP (Reiterer 2009: 160), has been gaining popularity. In line with this
position, there is an essential core overlap for L1 and L2 processing, with additional brain
6
Hypertrophy is a structural (anatomical) change in the brain (van den Noort et al. 2005).
IP address: 148.206.159.132
areas being activated for L2, possibly as a function of fluency or proficiency. The explanation
is that increased control effort causes higher activation in lower-proficiency L2 speakers
(Reiterer 2009; Reiterer et al. 2011b) and subsequent automatization lowers it. It is possible
that speakers compensate for lower L2 efficiency by driving this region more strongly, or,
alternatively, a greater number of neurons might be employed to perform a particular task.
Consequently, the efficiency of the neural system might constitute a neurological basis for FL
aptitude. Since reduced effort results from higher TL proficiency, it is likely that FL aptitude
is an outcome of an interplay between inborn capacities, early experience and training.
Evidence has been provided that native phonetic abilities underlie L2 phonetic abilities.
Daz et al. (2008), using the ERP method, found individual differences between more and less
talented learners with respect to phonetic discrimination ability, with those differences being
observed in both native and additional languages. The researchers hypothesized that FL
phonetic abilities are based on native phonetic abilities; in addition, these abilities result from
language-specific rather than general acoustic abilities (see Daz et al. 2012; Sebastian-Galles
& Daz 2012; Sebastian-Galles et al. 2012). A number of anatomical differences have been
found in more proficient L2 learners in comparison to less proficient ones. Golestani and her
colleagues (Golestani, Paus & Zatorre 2002; Golestani et al. 2007; Golestani et al. 2011; see
also Lopez-Barroso et al. 2011) discovered that more phonologically talented learners possess
more grey matter and white matter in parietal regions, especially in the left hemisphere.
This finding is important, as left parietal cortex has a role to play in phonetic tasks and
is the location of phonological verbal WM. The anatomy underlying WM in left auditory
cortex predicts phonological aptitude. Greater asymmetry in the amount of white matter
in successful learners can be ascribed to greater myelineation,7 which results in faster and
more efficient neural processing essential in successful learning of phonological aspects of a
language. This asymmetry is probably not limited to the ability to learn speech sounds, but
to a more general ability to integrate rapidly changing acoustic information. The researchers
suggest that this anatomical feature is independent of training; therefore, morphological
differences in parietal white matter can predict the effortlessness of learning new sounds.
They suggest that the human brain is shaped by the complementary influences of inborn
predispositions and experience-dependent brain pliability.
Some neurolinguistic studies have addressed the problem of morphosyntactic attainment in
late learners (Lopez-Barroso et al. 2011; Wong et al. 2012; Wood Bowden et al. 2013). Wood
Bowden et al. (2013) claim that native-like brain processing (and maybe also ultimate mastery)
of syntax can be achieved by university learners. Using the ERP method, the researchers
examined 32 late learners of Spanish, who were divided into two groups: low-intermediate,
with little experience, and advanced, with more experience. The researchers found that L2
syntactic processing initially differs from L1 processing, but can become native-like as a result
of adequate proficiency and exposure. Wong et al. (2012) tapped the neurogenetic source of
variability in language learning, especially syntax, in particular the role of the dopaminergic
system, which is associated with WM, attention and learning in general. The researchers
Myelineation increase in myelin volume (white matter) which allows better isolation of the transport of electric signals
(Uylings 2006: 67).
IP address: 148.206.159.132
175
hypothesize that dopamine-related genes are capable of influencing variation in grammar

learning.
Summing up, much is known about the neurology of phonological aptitude, whereas scant
information is available about morphosyntax, lexis and pragmatics processing in the brains
of poor versus successful FL learners, and these areas need to be addressed in future research.
Moreover, most researchers suggest that hypertrophies are inborn rather than acquired,
but subject to development along with growing expertise in L2 learning (see Perani 2005).
This suggests the possibility of an increase in FL aptitude thanks to training and practice.
Generally, it seems that research on the neurology of FL aptitude, although promising, is still
in its infancy.
10. Strategies of gifted foreign language learners

Extremely scant information is available when it comes to the strategies employed by gifted
individuals. As we learn from Erards (2012) study and Hyltenstams review (forthcoming
2016a, 2016b), hyperpolyglots are often self-didactics who devise a number of their own
learning strategies, even though they appreciate classroom learning. At the same time,
teaching methods do not seem to be of great significance to them as very talented individuals
seem to succeed no matter what instructional options are employed. Moreover, some learners
have negative experiences with formal instruction and their diverse learning activities are
undertaken outside institutional education as this gives them the freedom to experiment. On
the whole, hyperpolyglots seem to be masters of learning strategies. One of the techniques
used by Alexander, a hyperpolyglot examined by Erard, was SHADOWING, or pronouncing FL
sounds simultaneously with hearing them from a recording, which was possible thanks to his
excellent memory. Another strategy is to collect and make use of all sorts of dictionaries, books
and materials helpful in learning. Hyperpolyglots read a lot. They rely on all the possible types
of techniques to enhance their learning, such as playing games, singing, visualizing, talking
to themselves, seeking error correction, finding rules and patterns, using recordings to learn
sounds and words, following structured reviews, or inventing mnemonic devices. The most
prominent among the numerous strategies used by hyperpolyglots are memory strategies.
These usually involve repeating patterns many times so that they become internalized,
automatic and accessible with little cognitive effort. They demonstrate expertise in learning
languages and they are ingenious when it comes to discovering patterns or systems, especially
in learning difficult aspects of a language, such as the tones of Mandarin. This expertise also
applies to metacognitive strategies, such as planning and monitoring. They spend many
hours a day practising the languages they learn, which might involve performing memory
exercises, translating, writing and reading practice, doing grammar exercises and all possible
sorts of revisions (Erard 2012). Gifted individuals also seem to express a preference for explicit
learning strategies (Hyltenstam 2014b).
Although this issue was not specifically investigated by researchers working in the field
of LLS, useful insight into the use of these strategies by talented individuals can be derived
from studies examining the relationship between the application of LLS and TL proficiency
IP address: 148.206.159.132
(see, e.g. Takeuchi, Griffiths & Coyle 2007; Pawlak 2011, for reviews). In their pioneering
study, Bialystok & Frohlich (1978) found that, in the case of high school learners of French,
combined use of the strategies of inferencing, practising and monitoring explained attainment
in listening, reading and grammar. Subsequent research provided more evidence of a positive
relationship between LLS use, either overall, with respect to specific categories, or particular
strategies, and attainment, both in general and in specific areas (e.g. Green & Oxford 1995;
Dreyer & Oxford 1996; Wharton 2000; Pawlak 2009; Ying-Chun 2009), with estimates that
such use may account for between 30% and 70% in achievement (see Oxford 2011). On the
other hand, some studies have failed to identify this relationship or indicated the impact of
mediating variables, such as learner-related factors, a specific aspect of proficiency, the task,
mode of instruction, or educational level (e.g. Politzer & McGroarty 1985; Oxford & Ehrman
1995; Griffiths 2003; Nisbet, Tindall & Arroyo 2005; Magogwe & Oliver 2007). Another
problem is that the relationship between strategy use and proficiency may in some cases be
curvilinear rather than linear, because expert learners may automate strategies to such an
extent that they are no longer aware of their employment (see Oxford 2011), or fall back on
fewer strategies, which, however, trigger deeper processing (e.g. Alexander 2004). The latter
point is reflective of the possibility that it is not the sheer quantity of LLS use but, rather,
its quality that is responsible for superior achievement in FL learning. More specifically, it
is vital that strategies should be matched to task demands, be compatible with learners
personalities and learning styles, and be adeptly combined into clusters or chains rather than
haphazardly applied in isolation (see Ehrman, Leaver & Oxford 2003). There is also the
question of causality, since correlation and regression analyses cannot tell us whether strategy
use impacts attainment or perhaps the other way around, which points to the need for studies
based on structural equation modelling. Equally important is research that would seek to
tap the use of strategies in the performance of specific tasks and involve reliance on multiple
instruments, yielding both quantitative and qualitative findings, as this could shed light on
what makes LLS useful in specific contexts for specific learners. Perhaps this approach would
be particularly valuable in examining gifted language learners, as it would enable us not only
to determine whether they use more strategies but also how exactly they use them, and with
respect to different foreign languages.
11. Research on gifted FL learners limitations, directions, methodological issues

Gifted FL learners comprise a distinctive group of talented individuals that has thus far been
poorly scrutinized and described. First of all, there is no transparent definition of what a
linguistic talent is, such that would take account of the specificity of SLA. The traditional
definition (see Schneiderman & Desmarais 1988a; Skehan 1998), describing linguistically
talented individuals as those who learn an L2 quickly post-puberty and to a native-like level,
is imprecise, vague and untenable. In light of the results of contemporary empirical studies
and the discussion concerning the nature of FL aptitude they inspired (see Abrahamsson &
Hyltenstam 2008, Long 2013; Hyltenstam 2014a, 2014b), it is evident that there is a pressing
need to reconceptualize the definition of a linguistically talented person. Even though, due to
IP address: 148.206.159.132
177
the remarkable paucity of relevant research, redefining exceptional LG poses a considerable

challenge, it seems that such an attempt is necessary at least to provoke further discussion
of this fascinating phenomenon. After our review of the literature, we are confident that a
modified definition of a gifted L2 learner which we proposed in Section 3 that is: a gifted
FL learner is a person who, owing to his/her exceptional inborn gift for learning languages,
especially capacious verbal working memory, as well as expertise in L2 learning, is able to
learn any foreign language to a near-native level of competence, given proper motivation,
time and conducive environment will contribute to future research on LG. Obviously, this
definition should be viewed as tentative, with the effect that further research is necessary to
verify and extend it.
Future research on LG should primarily focus on issues that remain highly controversial
or have been neglected, such as the development of linguistic talent, the contribution of WM
and other types of memory, the role of L1, personality and LLS, as well as the processing of
morphosyntax, lexis and pragmatics from a neurolinguistic perspective. There are also other
intriguing issues that warrant undertaking more studies of linguistically gifted individuals.
One of them is the relationship between LG and intelligence, the latter of which represents a
general cognitive ability factor. Traditionally, it is believed that analytic abilities are related to
intelligence, while memory and phonetic abilities are independent of it, which indicates that
they are language-specific. While the relationship between general, as well as performance
(non-verbal) and verbal IQ and FL aptitude has been, on the whole, well described (see Sasaki
1996; Skehan 1998; Dornyei 2005), there is a marked lack of research on the relationship
between different FL aptitude components and other cognitive abilities, both higher-order
and primary. This problem is especially perplexing in the studies of gifted L2 learners.
Aptitude for implicit learning (Granena 2013) is also worth further exploration. Another
limitation of research on aptitude is the absence of focus on the pragmatic aspect of language,
facets of communicative competence other than its systemic component, or patterns of use of
LLS. A broader, albeit no less intriguing, issue is the nature of LG, operationalized in terms
of FL aptitude, which, as measured by traditional instruments, is considered to be a relatively
stable factor. This brings with it the assumption, evident in the concept of mindsets (Mercer
2012), that all abilities can be developed, modified and improved. Therefore, the distinctive
characteristics of talented individuals are their passion, dedication, and, first and foremost,
the manner in which they identify and tackle their weak points, with the effect that giftedness
is neither fixed nor inborn, and cognitive ability is a quality that is modifiable and dynamic
(see Sternberg 2002). Consequently, Mercer (2012) argues that it is necessary to deconstruct
the myth of a natural-born genius and replace it with an explanation of success as a joint
product of the world an individual lives in and affordances resulting from the environment
(see Aronin & Singleton 2012). This, of course, calls for other types of research on LG than
those predominantly used, and, perhaps, also studies that would seek to integrate the two
opposing views, as this would allow us to examine more precisely the idiosyncratic paths of
development of linguistically gifted learners.
This last point brings us to methodological issues, as it indicates the need to reconcile
various theoretical perspectives in the study of individuals endowed with exceptional talent
for L2 learning. Such reconciliation or integration could reasonably take place within a single
study, where quantitative data could be collected by means of well-established instruments,
IP address: 148.206.159.132
and qualitative data could be obtained through recordings, interviews or stimulated-recall

sessions. It could also occur through conducting separate studies, longitudinal in nature, the
results of which could be synthesized with a view to generating a multi-faceted picture of LG.
As regards more detailed recommendations, it is clear that more uniform criteria for selection
of linguistic talents should be adopted. There needs to be more consistency in measurements
of ultimate attainment or, more generally, FL mastery, and even in studies which adhere to
the quantitative paradigm, data should routinely be gathered about L1 learning experiences,
personality types, learning styles or LLS. Particularly promising is the use of data collection
tools representing a neurolinguistic approach, although such research needs to be extended to
cover not only phonology, but also morphosyntax, lexis and pragmatics. Studies conducted in
such ways can help us better understand the nature of LG, the requirements for its occurrence,
and the steps that can be taken to stimulate its development.
References
Abrahamsson, N. & K. Hyltenstam (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30.1, 481509.
Abrahamsson, N. & K. Hyltenstam (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language:
Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning 59.2, 249306.
Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multidimensional,
multistage process. In D. Y. Day & R. J. Sternberg (eds.), Interactive models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 271298.
Aronin, L. & D. Singleton (2012). Affordances theory in multilingualism studies. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching 2.3, 311331.
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of Communication Disorders
36, 189208.
Baddeley, A. D., S. Gathercole & C. Papagno (1998). The phonological loop as a language acquisition
device. Psychological Review 105, 158173.
Baddeley, A. D. & G. J. Hitch (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (ed.), The psychology of learning and
motivation. New York, NY: Academic Press, 4790.
Baron-Cohen, S., J. Richler, D. Bisarya, N. Gurunathan & S. Wheelwright (2003). The systemizing
quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning autism, and normal
sex differences. In U. Frith & E. Hill (eds.), Autism: Mind and brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
161186.
Bialystok, E. & M. Frohlich (1978). Variables of classroom achievement in second language learning.
The Modern Language Journal 62.7, 327335.
Biedron, A. (2011a). Personality factors as predictors of foreign language aptitude. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching 1.4, 467489.
Biedron, A. (2011b). Near-nativeness as a function of cognitive and personality factors. Three case
studies of highly able foreign language learners. In M. Pawlak, E. Waniek-Klimczak & J. Majer (eds.),
Speaking in contexts of instructed foreign language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 99116.
Biedron, A. (2012a). Cognitive-affective profile of gifted adult foreign language learners. Supsk: Wydawnictwo
Akademii Pomorskiej w Supsku.
Biedron, A. (2012b). Memory in gifted foreign language learners. In M. Pawlak (ed.), New perspectives on
individual differences in language learning and teaching. HeidelbergBerlin: Springer, 7795.
Biedron, A. & A. Szczepaniak (2012a). Working-memory and short-term memory abilities in
accomplished multilinguals. The Modern Language Journal 96, 290306.
Biedron, A. & A. Szczepaniak (2012b). Polish reading span test an instrument for measuring verbal
working memory capacity. In J. Badio & J. Kosecki (eds.), Cognitive processes in language. Frankfurt am
Main, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2937.
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language 68, 706705.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
179
Birdsong, D. (2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In A. Davies & C. Elder
(eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics. London: Blackwell Publishing, 82105.
Birdsong, D. (2005). Nativelikeness and non-nativelikeness in L2A research. IRAL 43, 319328.
Birdsong, D. (2007). Nativelike pronunciation among late learners of French as a second language. In
O. S. Bohn & M. J. Munro (eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 99116.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bongaerts, T. (2005). Introduction: Ultimate attainment and the critical period hypothesis for second
language acquisition. IRAL 43, 259267.
Bongaerts, T., B. Planken & E. Schils (1995). Can late starters attain a native accent in a foreign
language? A test of the Critical Period Hypothesis. In D. Singleton & Z. Lengyel (eds.), The age factor
in second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 3050.
Bongaerts, T., S. Mennen & F. van der Silk (2000). Authenticity of pronunciation in naturalistic second
language acquisition. The case of very advanced late learners of Dutch as a second language. Studia
Linguistica 54, 298308.
Bongaerts, T., C. van Summeren, B. Planken & E. Schils (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the
pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 447465.
Bor, D., J. Billington & S. Baron-Cohen (2007). Savant memory for digits in a case of synaesthesia and
asperger syndrome is related to hyperactivity in the lateral prefrontal cortex. Neurocase 13.5, 311319.
Bylund, E., K. Hyltenstam & N. Abrahamsson (2013). Age of acquisition effects or effects of bilingualism
in second language ultimate attainment? In G. Granena & M. H. Long (eds.), Sensitive periods, language
aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69101.
Carroll, J. B. (1959). Use of the Modern Language Aptitude Test in secondary schools. Yearbook of the
National Council on Measurements Used in Education 16, 155159.
Carroll, J. B. (1973). Fitting a model of school learning to aptitude and achievement data over grade levels. Princeton,
NJ: Education Testing Service, 7351.
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (ed.),
Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 83118.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carroll, J. B. & S. M. Sapon (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Chee, M. W. L., C. S. Soon, H. L. Lee & C. Pallier (2004). Left insula activation: A marker for language
attainment in bilinguals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101.42,
1526515270.
Christiner, M. & S. M. Reiterer (2013). Song and speech: Examining the link between singing talent
and speech imitation ability. Frontiers in Psychology (Cognitive Science) 4.874, 111.
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language 63,
544573.
Costa, P. T. Jr. & R. R. McCrae (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI). Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.
Dehaene, S., E. Dupoux, J. Mehler, L. Cohen, E. Paulesu, D. Perani, P-H. van de Moortele, S. Lehericy
& D. Le Bihan (1997). Anatomical variability in the cortical representation of first and second
language. NeuroReport 8, 38093815.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 22, 499533.
DeKeyser, R. M. & J. Koeth (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In E. Hinkel
(ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. New York. NY: Routledge, 395407.
DeKeyser, R. M., I. Alfi-Shabtay & D. Ravid (2010). Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age
effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 31.3, 413438.
Dewaele, J-M. (2002). Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of communicative anxiety in L2
and L3 production. The International Journal of Bilingualism 6, 2339.
Dewaele, J-M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T.
K. Bhatia (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald,
323346.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
Dewaele, J-M. & A. Furnham (2000). Personality and speech production: A pilot study of second
language learners. Personality and Individual Differences 28, 355365.
Daz, B., C. Baus, C. Escera, A. Costa & N. Sebastian-Galles (2008). Brain potentials to native phoneme
discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105.42, 1608316088.
Daz, B., H. Mitterer, M. Broersma & N. Sebastian-Galles (2012) Individual differences in late
bilinguals L2 phonological processes: From acoustic-phonetic analysis to lexical access. Learning
and Individual Differences 22, 680689.
Donaldson, B. (2011). Left-dislocation in near-native French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33.3,
399432.
Doughty, C. J. (2013). Optimizing post-critical-period language learning. In G. Granena & M. H. Long
(eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153
175.
Doughty, C. J., S. G. Campbell, M. A. Mislevy, M. F. Bunting, A. R. Bowles & J. T. Koeth (2010).
Predicting near-native ability: The factor structure and reliability of Hi-LAB. In M. T. Prior, Y.
Watanabe & S-K. Lee (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum. Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 1031.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dornyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dornyei, Z. (2010). The relationship between language aptitude and language learning motivation:
Individual differences from a dynamic systems perspective. In E. Macaro (ed.), Continuum companion
to second language acquisition. London: Continuum, 247267.
Dornyei, Z. & P. Skehan (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty
& M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing,
589630.
Dreyer, C. & R. L. Oxford (1996). Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among
Afrikaans speakers in South Africa. In R. L. Oxford (ed.), Language learning strategies around the world:
Cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press, 6174.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.
Ehrman, M. E. (2008). Personality and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.), Lessons from good
language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8399.
Ehrman, M., B. Leaver & R. L. Oxford (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second
language learning. System 31, 313330.
Erard, M. (2012). Babel no more: In search for the worlds most extraordinary language learners. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Fein, D. & L. K. Obler (1988). Neuropsychological study of talent: A developing field. In L. K. Obler
& D. Fein (eds.), The exceptional brain. New York, London: The Guilford Press, 315.
Forsberg Lundell, F. & M. Sandgren (2013). High-level proficiency in late L2 acquisition: Relationships
between collocational production, language aptitude and personality. In G. Granena & M. H. Long
(eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 231
255.
Friedman, N. P., A. Miyake, S. E. Young, J. C. DeFries, R. P. Corley & J. K. Hewitt (2008). Individual
differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General 137.2, 201225.
Gagne, F. (2000). A differentiated model of giftedness and talent. DGMT. Retrieved from www.
curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/gats/assets/pdf/poldmgt2000rtcl.pdf.
Gagne, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DGMT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg & J.
E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 98120.
Geschwind, N. & A. M. Galaburda (1985). Cerebral lateralization. Biological mechanisms, associations,
and pathology: I, II, III. A hypothesis and a program for research. Archive of Neurology 42, 428459,
521552, 634654.
Golestani, N & R. J. Zatorre (2004). Learning new sounds of speech: Relocation of neural substrates.
Neuroimage 21, 494506.
Golestani, N., T. Paus & R. J. Zatorre (2002). Anatomical correlates of learning novel speech sounds.
Neuron 35, 9971010.
Golestani, N., C. J. Price & S. K. Scott (2011). Born with an ear for dialects? Structural plasticity in
the expert phonetician brain. Journal of Neuroscience 31.11, 42134220.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
181
Golestani, N., N. Molko, S. Dehaene, D. LeBihan & C. Pallier (2007). Brain structure predicts the
learning of foreign speech sounds. Cerebral Cortex 17.3, 575582.
Granena, G. (2013). Reexamining the robustness of aptitude in second language acquisition. In
G. Granena & M. H. Long (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, 179204.
Granena, G. & M. H. Long (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate
attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research 29.1, 311343.
Green, J. M. & R. L. Oxford (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency and gender.
TESOL Quarterly 29, 261297.
Gregg, K. R. (2010). Review article: Shallow draughts: Larsen-Freeman and Cameron on complexity.
Second Language Research 26.4, 549560.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System 31, 367383.
Grigorenko, E. L., R. J. Sternberg & M. E. Ehrman (2000). A theory based approach to the
measurement of foreign language learning ability: The CANAL-F theory and test. The Modern
Language Journal 84, 390405.
Hu, X., H. Ackermann, J. A. Martin, M. Erb, S. Winkler & S. M. Reiterer (2013). Language aptitude
for pronunciation in advanced second language (L2) Learners: Behavioural predictors and neural
substrates. Brain and Language 127.3, 366376.
Hu, X. & S. Reiterer (2009). Personality and pronunciation talent in second language acquisition. In
G. Dogil & S. Reiterer (eds.), Language talent and brain activity. Trends in applied linguistics 1. Berlin, New
York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 97130.
Hudson, R. (2012). How many languages can a person learn? In E. M. Rickerson & B. Hilton (eds.),
The five-minute linguist. Bite-sized essays on language and languages (2nd edn.). Sheffield: Equinox, 102
105.
Hyltenstam, K. (2014a). The polyglot, online project description. Centre for Research on Bilingualism,
Stockholm University. retrieved from www.biling.su.se/english/research/the-program-aaa.
Hyltenstam, K. (2014b). Language awareness in polyglots. Paper presented at the 12th International
Conference Association for Language Awareness. Achievements and Challenges, Hamar, Norway.
Hyltenstam, K. (2016a forthcoming). The polyglot an initial charcterization on the basis of multiple
anecdotal accounts. In K. Hyltenstam (ed.), Second languages: Advanced proficiency and exceptional ability.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hyltenstam, K. (2016b forthcoming). The exceptional ability of polyglots to achieve high-level
proficiency in numerous languages. In K. Hyltenstam (ed.), Second languages: Advanced proficiency and
exceptional ability. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hyltenstam, K. & N. Abrahamsson (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. J. Doughty &
M. H. Long (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 539
589.
Indefrey, P. & M. Gullberg (2006). Introduction. In M. Gullberg & P. Indefrey (eds.), The cognitive
neuroscience of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 18.
Ioup, G. (1989). Immigrant children who have failed to acquire native English. In S. Gass, C. Madden,
D. Preston & L. Selinker (eds.), Variation in second language acquisition, vol. II: Psycholinguistic issues.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 160175.
Ioup, G., E. Boustagui, M. El Tigi & M. Moselle (1994). Re-examining the CPH: A case study of
successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 7398.
Juffs, A. & M. Harrington (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching 44.2,
137166.
Kaufman, S. B., C. G. DeYoung, J. R. Gray, L. Jimenez, J. B. Brown & N. Mackintosh (2010). Implicit
learning as an ability. Cognition 116, 321340.
Kerr, B. (ed.). (2009). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity and talent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, K. H., N. R. Relkin, K. M. Lee & J. Hirsch (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native
and second languages. Nature 388.6638, 171174.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & L. Cameron (2008). Research methodology on language development from a
complex system perspective. The Modern Language Journal 92.2, 200213.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York, NY: Wiley.
Linck, J. A., M. M. Hughes, S. G. Campbell, N. H. Silbert, M. Tare, S. R. Jackson & C. J. Doughty
(2013a). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning
63.3, 530566.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
Linck, J. A., P. Osthus, J. T. Koeth & M. F. Bunting (2013b). Working memory and second language
comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, doi: 10.3758/s13423013-0565-2.
Long, M. H. (2005). Problems with supposed counter-evidence to the Critical Period Hypothesis.
International Review of Applied Linguistics 43, 287317.
Long, M. H. (2013). Maturational constraints on child and adult SLA. In G. Granena & M. H. Long
(eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 341.
Lopez-Barroso, D., R. de Diego-Balaguer, T. Cunillera, E. Camara, T. F. Munte & A. RodriguezFornells (2011). Language learning under working memory constraints correlates with
microstructural differences in the ventral language pathway. Cereral Cortex 21.12, 27422750.
Magogwe, J. M. & R. Oliver (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency,
age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System 35, 338352.
Meara, P. M. (2005). Llamalanguage aptitude test. Swansea: Lognostics. Retrieved from
www.lognostics.co.uk/tools/llama/llama_manual.pdf.
Mercer, S. (2012). Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist. ELT Journal 66.1, 2229.
Miyake, A. & N. P. Friedman (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working
memory as language aptitude. In A. Healy & L. Bourne (eds.), Foreign language learning. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 339364.
Morgan, G., N. Smith, I. Tsimpli & B. Woll (2007). Classifier learning and modality in a polyglot
savant. Lingua 117.7, 13391353.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 81
108.
Moyer, A. (2007). Empirical considerations on the age factor in L2 phonology. Issues in Applied Linguistics
15.2, 109127.
Moyer, A. (2010). Do gender differences in L2 accent really exist? Paper presented at the Meeting of
American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Atlanta, GA.
Moyer, A. (2013). Accent and the individual foreign accent the phenomenon of non-native speech. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
Moyer, A. (2014). Whats age got to do with it? Accounting for individual factors in second language
accent. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Special issue: Age and more 4.3, 443464.
Munoz, C. (2014). The association between aptitude components and language skills in young learners.
In M. Pawlak & L. Aronin (eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism, second language
learning and teaching. HeidelbergNew York: Springer, 5168.
Nardo, D. & S. Reiterer (2009). Musicality and phonetic language aptitude. In G. Dogil & S. Reiterer
(eds.), Language talent and brain activity. Trends in applied linguistics 1. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de
Gruyter, 213256.
Nikolov, M. (2000). The Critical Period Hypothesis reconsidered: Successful adult learners of
Hungarian and English. IRAL 38, 109124.
Nisbet, D. L., E. R. Tindall & A. A. Arroyo (2005). Language learning strategies and English proficiency
of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals 38, 100107.
Novoa, L., D. Fein & L. K. Obler (1988). Talent in foreign languages: A case study. In L. K. Obler &
D. Fein (eds.), The exceptional brain: Neuropsychology of talent and special abilities. New York, NY: Guilford
Press, 294302.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Oxford, R. L. & M. Ehrman (1995). Adults language learning strategies in an intensive foreign
language program in the United States. System 23, 359386.
Papagno, C. & G. Vallar (1995). Verbal short-term memory and vocabulary learning in polyglots.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 38A, 98107.
Pawlak, M. (2009). Grammar learning strategies and language attainment: Seeking a relationship.
Research in Language 7, 4360.
Pawlak, M. (2011). Research into language learning strategies: Taking stock and looking ahead. In
J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (eds.), Individual learner differences in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters,
1740.
Perani, D. (2005). The neural basis of language talent in bilinguals. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9, 211213.
Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Politzer, R. L. & M. McGroarty (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their
relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19, 103123.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
183
Reiterer, S. M. (2009). Brain and language talent: A synopsis. In G. Dogil & S. Reiterer (eds.), Language
talent and brain activity. Trends in applied linguistics 1. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 155
191.
Reiterer, S. M., E. Pereda & J. Bhattacharya (2011a). On a possible relationship between linguistic
expertise and EEG gamma band phase synchrony. Frontiers in Psychology 2.334, 111.
Reiterer, S. M., X. Hu, M. Erb, G. Rota, D. Nardo & W. Grodd (2011b). Individual differences in audiovocal speech imitation aptitude in late bilinguals: Functional neuro-imaging and brain morphology.
Frontiers in Psychology 2.271, 112.
Renzulli, J. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative
productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 5393.
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. Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins, 113133.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 631679.
Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in
second language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 256286.
Rota, G. & S. M. Reiterer (2009). Cognitive aspects of pronunciation talent. In G. Dogil & S. Reiterer
(eds.), Language talent and brain activity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 67112.
Sabourin, L. (2003). Grammatical gender and second language processing: An ERP study. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Safar, A. & J. Kormos (2008). Revisiting problems with foreign language aptitude. IRAL 46, 113136.
Sasaki, M. (1996). Second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, and intelligence. Quantitative and qualitative
analyses. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Sawyer, M. & L. Ranta (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson
(ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 319354.
Schneiderman, E. I. & C. Desmarais (1988a). The talented language learner: Some preliminary
findings. Second Language Research 4.2, 91109.
Schneiderman, E. I. & C. Desmarais (1988b). A neuropsychological substrate for talent in secondlanguage acquisition. In L. K. Obler & D. Fein (eds.), The exceptional brain: Neuropsychology of talent and
special abilities. New York, London: The Guilford Press, 103126.
Schumann, J. H. (2004). The neurobiology of aptitude. In J. H. Schumann (ed.), The neurobiology of
learning: Perspectives from second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 723.
Sebastian-Galles, N. & B. Daz (2012), First and second language speech perception: Graded learning.
In L. Roberts & A. Meyer (eds.), Individual differences in second language learning. Special issue of Language
Learning 62, 131147.
Sebastian-Galles, N., C. Soriano-Mas, C. Baus, B. Daz, V. Ressel, C. Pallier, A. Costa & J. Pujol (2012).
Neuroanatomical markers of individual differences in native and non-native vowel perception. Journal
of Neurolinguistics 25, 150162.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL 10, 209231.
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Creativity and genius. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd edn.). New York: Guilford Press, 679698.
Skehan, P. (1986). Where does language aptitude come from? In P. Meara (ed.), Spoken language. London:
Centre for Information on Language Teaching, 95113.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (ed.), Individual differences and
instructed language learning. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 6995.
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second
language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge, 381395.
Smith, N. & I. Tsimpli (1991). Linguistic modularity? A case study of savant linguist. Lingua 84,
315351.
Smith, N., I. Tsimpli, G. Morgan & B. Woll (2011). The signs of a savant. Language against the odds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, R. E. (1994). Abilities in academic tasks. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (eds.), Mind in context:
Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 337.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
Spadaro, K. (2013). Maturational constraints on lexical acquisition in a second language. In G. Granena

& M. H. Long (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 4368.
Sparks, R. L. (2012). Individual differences in L2 learning and long-term L1L2 relationships. Language
Learning 62, 527.
Sparks, R. L. & L. Ganschow (1991). Foreign language learning difficulties: Affective or native language
aptitude differences? The Modern Language Journal 7, 316.
Sparks, R. L. & L. Ganschow (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 21, 90111.
Sparks, R. L., J. Javorsky, J. Patton & L. Ganschow (1998). Factors in the prediction of achievement
and proficiency in a foreign language. Applied Language Learning 9.12, 72107.
Sparks, R. L., J. Patton, L. Ganschow, N. Humbach & J. Javorsky (2006). Native language predictors
of foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude. Annals of Dyslexia 56, 129
160.
Sternberg, R. J. (2002). The theory of Successful Intelligence and its implications for language aptitude
testing. In P. Robinson (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning. Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins, 1343.
Sternberg, R. J. & E. L. Grigorenko (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL:
Skylight Training and Publishing.
Takeuchi, O., C. Griffiths & D. Coyle (2007). Applying strategies to contexts: The role of individual,
situational, and group differences. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (eds.), Language learner strategies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 6992.
Treffert, D. A. (2011). Daniel Tammet Brainman: Numbers are my friends. Retrieved from:
www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/savant_profiles/daniel_tammet.
Tulsky, D. S., R. J. Ivnik, L. R. Price & C. Wilkins (2003). Assessment of cognitive functioning with
the WAIS-III and WMS-III: Development of a 6-factor model. In D. S. Tulsky, D. H. Saklofske, G.
J. Chelune, R. K. Heaton, R. J. Ivnik, R. Bornstein et al. (eds.), Clinical interpretation of the WAIS-III
and WMS-III. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 147179.
Uylings, H. B. M. (2006). Development of the human cortex and the concept of critical or sensitive
periods. In M. Gullberg & P. Indefrey (eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of second language acquisition. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 5990.
Van Boxtel, S., T. Bongaerts & P-A. Coppen (2003). Native-like attainment in L2 syntax. In
S. Foster-Cohen & S. Pekarek-Doehler (eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 3. Philedelphia: John Benjamins, 157
181.
Van Boxtel, S., T. Bongaerts & P-A. Coppen (2005). Native-like attainment of dummy subjects in
Dutch and the role of the L1. IRAL 43, 355380.
Van den Noort, M., H. Nordby, P. Bosch & K. Hugdahl (2005). Understanding second language
acquisition: Can structural MRI bring the breakthrough? Proceedings of the International Conference on
Cognitive Systems. New Delhi. Retrieved from www.niitcrcs.com/iccs/papers/2005_24.pdf.
Vatz, K., M. Tare, S. R. Jackson & C. J. Doughty (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in
second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In G. Granena & M. H. Long (eds.), Sensitive
periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 272
292.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale third edition (WAIS III). San Antonio,
TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wells, G. (1981). Learning through interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wen, E. & P. Skehan (2011). A new perspective on foreign language aptitude: Building and supporting
a case for working memory as language aptitude. Ilha Do Desterro: A Journal of English Language,
Literatures and Cultural Studies 60, 934.
Wesche, M. B. (1981). Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods,
and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. C. Diller (ed.), Individual differences and universals in language
learning aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 119154.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore.
Language Learning 50, 203243.
Wong, P., K. Morgan-Short, M. Ettlinger & J. Zheng (2012). Linking neurogenetics and
individual differences in language learning: The dopamine hypothesis. Cortex 48, 1091
1102.
IP address: 148.206.159.132
185
Wong, P., T. Perrachione & T. Parrish (2007). Neural characteristics of successful and less successful
speech and word learning in adults. Human Brain Mapping 28, 9951006.
Wood Bowden, H., K. Steinhauer, C. Sanz & M. T. Ullman (2013). Native-like brain processing of
syntax can be attained by university foreign language learners. Neuropsychologia 51, 24922511.
Ying-Chun, L. (2009). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of university freshmen
in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly 43, 255280.
ADRIANA BIEDRON received her doctoral and postdoctoral degrees in applied linguistics from Adam
Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland, in 2003 and 2013 respectively. She is a professor in the
English Philology Department at the Pomeranian University in Supsk, Poland. Her fields of interest
include applied psycholinguistics and SLA theory. Her research focuses on individual differences in
SLA, in particular, on foreign language aptitude and cognitive and personality factors in gifted L2
learners. Her most important publications are Working memory and short-term memory abilities
in accomplished multilinguals (with Szczepaniak, 2012, The Modern Language Journal), Cognitive-affective
profile of gifted adult foreign language learners (2012, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pomorskiej w Supsku)
and Neurology of foreign language aptitude (2015, Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching).
MIROSAW PAWLAK is Professor of English in the English Department, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine
Arts of Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland, and Department of Research on Language
Learning and Teaching, Faculty of Philology, State University of Applied Sciences, Konin, Poland. His
main areas of interest are SLA theory and research, form-focused instruction, pronunciation teaching,
classroom discourse, learner autonomy, communication and learning strategies, grammar learning
strategies, motivation and willingness to communicate. His recent publications include Error correction
in the foreign language classroom. Reconsidering the issues (2015, Springer) and several edited collections on
learner autonomy, language policies of the Council of Europe, form-focused instruction, speaking in
a foreign language, classroom-oriented research and individual learner differences. He is editor of the
journals Studies in Second language Learning and Teaching and Konin Language Studies, as well as the book series
Second Language Learning and Teaching, published by Springer.
IP address: 148.206.159.132

New Conceptualizations of Linguistic Giftedness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Conceptualizations of Linguistic Giftedness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Teaching

Email alerts: Click here

New conceptualizations of linguistic giftedness

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444815000439

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 148.206.159.132 on 04 Apr 2016

c Cambridge University Press 2016

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

2. Definitions and models of FL aptitude

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

3. Cognitive giftedness: A contemporary psychological perspective

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

Actual potential what a person is able to do provided environmental conditions and

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

4. Review of research on gifted FL learners

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

4.1 Early research on gifted foreign language learners case studies

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

4.2 Group studies

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

grammatical intuition, grammatical and semantic inferencing, formulaic language and FL

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

4.3 Foreign language super-learners

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

5. Native language abilities and foreign language aptitude

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

6. Intelligence in gifted FL learners

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

Research on the relationship between FL aptitude and intelligence is clearly inadequate,

7. Memory in gifted FL learners

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

8. Personality factors in gifted foreign language learners

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

9. Neurology of linguistic giftedness

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

hypothesize that dopamine-related genes are capable of influencing variation in grammar

10. Strategies of gifted foreign language learners

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

11. Research on gifted FL learners limitations, directions, methodological issues

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF LINGUISTIC GIFTEDNESS

the remarkable paucity of relevant research, redefining exceptional LG poses a considerable

Downloaded: 04 Apr 2016