Adamopoulos 1
Robin Adamopoulos
ENGL 539: Second Language Acquisition
Dr. Vila
Spring, 2004
Personality and Second Language Acquisition
Introduction
Language teachers have always had an intuitive sense that some language learners
will achieve acquisition of the second language faster and easier than others. What
accounts for these individual differences in language learning? Research has shown that
several factors contribute to achievement in second language learning, including:
language aptitude or the ability to learn languages; cognitive style and memory; and
affective factors, such as attitude and motivation. This paper will examine some of the
affective factors believed to contribute to learners’ success or failure in acquiring a
second language, specifically, the effects of personality.
Teachers can not do much to control the learner’s language aptitude; however,
research by Gardner and Lambert (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996) begun in the 1950’s, has
shown that the teacher can have a great deal of influence over the affective factors,
attitude and motivation. The student’s attitude towards the teacher and attitude towards
the language directly impact success in acquiring the target language, according to
Gardner and Lambert (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). Gardner and Lambert studied
Canadian students in French immersion programs and found that the more successful,
higher achieving students had a positive attitude towards the learning situation.
Gardner and Lambert’s studies went on to examine the impact of motivation, or
the drive to learn a second language, on the acquisition of the target language. These
Adamopoulos 2
researchers are responsible for identifying two types of motivation in second language
learning: integrative and instrumental. Integrative motivation is defined as the drive or
desire to be a part of the ethnic group or culture of the target language. Instrumental
motivation comes from external factors such as economics – to learn the language to
succeed in a job, or academics– to gain college admission upon successful completion of
a foreign language course, for example.
At first, Gardner and Lambert (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996) posited that
integrative motivation was a more powerful factor in second language achievement than
instrumental motivation. However, recent research has found that the two exist on a
continuum; the extent of the impact of each type of motivation on the learner’s
acquisition of the target language depends upon context – where the learner is situated.
Instrumental motivation can be just as influential for students considering emigration to
the country where the language is spoken in order to seek better employment and
economic conditions.
Motivational factors as well as attitudes towards the learning situation have a
direct correlation to success in second language acquisition which has been established
through various research studies since Gardner and Lambert. But, there are many factors
which contribute to an individual learner’s motivation or desire to learn and his or her
attitude towards the learning situation. Personality must have an underlying part to play
in one’s motivation and attitude in learning a second language.
Several personality traits have been studied in relation to the impact of these traits
on learning success in a second language classroom. Anxiety is one personality factor
which has a strong correlation to achievement in L2 learning (MacIntyre & Charos,
Adamopoulos 3
1996): “…high levels of motivation are likely to abate anxiety, and high levels of
anxiety are likely to inhibit motivation” (p. 6). Highly anxious learners are less likely to
communicate, according to a study done by Horwitz in 1986 (Gardner & MacIntyre,
1993). This “communicative apprehension” leads to fewer opportunities for interaction
with native speakers and less language input. Learners will not acquire the language as
easily, if they experience too much anxiety.
The connection between anxiety and second language acquisition has been firmly
established by further studies. Other studies of anxiety have confirmed that those
individuals who are more inclined to take risks and who have high levels of selfconfidence are more likely to be successful in L2 acquisition (Gardner & Clément, 1990).
However, the question remains as to how different personality types react to anxiety and
the impact of global personality traits on second language learning. Two assumptions
follow, based on the available research on attitude, motivation and anxiety:

Outgoing, extroverted, risk-taking, impulsive individuals who possess an ability
to identify with the needs of others and a tolerance for ambiguity will acquire a
second language more easily in a natural communicative setting than those who
do not possess these inherent personality traits.

Reticent, thoughtful, serious and analytic individuals with a tendency towards
self-involvement will succeed at L2 acquisition at higher rates in a formal
classroom environment than those who do not possess these personality traits.
Discussion
A survey of the literature found three personality factors which have been
identified for the study of the relationship between these variables and successful second
Adamopoulos 4
language acquisition: extroversion-introversion; field independence-field dependence;
and empathy. All three of these personality traits will be examined in light of the
research. The first to be discussed is extroversion versus introversion and the impact of
these traits on second language acquisition.
Extroversion versus Introversion
Extroverts are individuals who seek out social situations. Extroverted personality
types get energy from other people and are usually the ones who never want to leave the
party. Introverts, on the other hand, need time alone and prefer individual activities or
gatherings with a few intimate friends. Introverted personality types are known to be
more cautious, conservative and serious than extroverts, who are more impulsive and
prefer to take more risks.
From the research on attitude, motivation and anxiety, it would seem that
extroverts, who are more sociable and outgoing, would be more successful at second
language learning. However, studies have shown that introversion or extroversion do not
have a significant impact on second language learning in the classroom. Naiman,
Frohlich and Stern (Gardner & Clément, 1990) determined that both types of learners had
equal opportunities for achievement, and that language teachers should address the needs
of both personality types.
However, Wakamoto (2000) studied 254 Japanese students learning English as a
Foreign Language and found that extroversion did have a connection to the learning
strategies employed by language learners. Wakamoto surveyed junior college students in
an English language course for their learning preferences and matched these results with
personality types. The study found that extroverts used more “functional strategies” and
Adamopoulos 5
“social-affective strategies” in language learning than introverts (p. 73). Extroverts
tended to focus on meaning rather than form – a strategy which has been confirmed as
contributing to success in L2 acquisition (Brown, 2001). Extroverts asked more
questions than their introverted counterparts. Wakamoto (2000) concluded that
extroverts will ask for clarification more readily than introverts, thus improving their
chances for input essential for developing an interlanguage.
Furnham (1990) quotes a study by Thorne in 1987 which examined the interaction
between introverts and extroverts. The study mixed and matched partners of extroverts
and introverts in conversational situations (p. 77). When introverts were paired with
introverts, the conversation they engaged in focused on “problem talk,” according to
Thorne (p. 77). On the other hand, “extroverts with extroverts showed a wide range of
topics and more claims of common ground,” (p. 77). Furnham concludes from this study
and subsequent observations that extroverts talk more, are more impulsive and take more
risks with speech than introverts. Introverts are more careful with speech and more
focused on form: vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. (See Table: Possible Speech
Variations According to Personality Traits, Appendix A.)
Recent studies have proposed a different construct which is directly related to
extroversion versus introversion. MacIntyre (1996) proposes that there is a “Willingness
to Communicate” factor in L2 acquisition which is connected to communication
apprehension or anxiety in L2 contexts as suggested by Horwitz et. al. “The global trait
of introversion contributes to both communication apprehension and the perception of
communicative competence, and self-esteem was found to play a role in developing
communication apprehension” (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996, p. 7). In other words,
Adamopoulos 6
introverts are less likely to talk and have a lower self-confidence in their second
language. (See Appendix B: MacIntyre’s Willingness to Communicate Model)
Self-confidence has been linked to success in second language acquisition in
natural settings. According to a study by Clément and Kruidenier (Gardner & Clément,
1990), self-confidence is one cause of motivation in acquiring a second language.
Clément and his colleagues defined self-confidence as a “combination of low levels of
language-specific anxiety, confidence in one’s language skills, and self-perceptions of
high levels of proficiency,” (p. 503).
From these studies, it would seem that an extrovert with an outgoing personality
and more tolerance for risk would be a better language learner than the more introverted
personality who is more conservative and more self-conscious. According to Dulay, Burt
and Krashen (1982), “In nearly all the studies conducted to determine the personality
characteristics associated with successful L2 learning, researchers have concluded that
lower anxiety levels and a tendency to be outgoing were connected with successful L2
acquisition” (p. 75).
However, as stated earlier, some researchers have not found a significant
difference between extroverts and introverts in terms of achievement in second language
acquisition in classroom environments. In fact, a more introverted personality may be
better suited to classroom learning. MacIntyre and Charos (1996) write, “…for academic
achievement in general, introversion is usually the more desirable end of the trait
dimension. But for language learning, the desirable end may be either extroversion or
introversion, depending on the learning context and instructional methods” (p. 9).
Adamopoulos 7
Research has yet to be able to identify a direct relationship between introversion
or extroversion and success in second language acquisition. What researchers do know is
that introverts seem to prefer learning tasks which involve memorization of vocabulary
and study of grammatical rules and structures, while the communicative approach with an
emphasis on social interaction may be more beneficial for extroverts.
Field Independence-Field Dependence
The next personality factor, field independence versus field dependence has
generated as much controversy as extroversion versus introversion in studies of second
language achievement. Some would argue that field independence-field dependence
should be considered a factor of cognitive style or learning preference more than a
personality trait. However, for the purpose of this discussion, this factor has been studied
as a personality attribute with an effect on personal preferences and learning styles.
Field independent individuals have been identified as having more of an
analytical personality. These individuals will see the “part before the whole” in terms of
geo-spatial tasks, and this assumption has been applied to the individual’s approach to
problem solving. Field independent persons will be more focused on discrete parts of
language rather than chunks of conversation, for example.
On the other end of the spectrum, field dependent individuals see the “whole
before the parts.” These individuals will fix a picture frame to match the lines of the rest
of a room. Field dependent persons are thought to be more creative, more inclined to
participate in group activities and to take a global approach to problem solving.
Early research into the relationship of field independence/field dependence to L2
acquisition concluded that field independence was a more desirable trait for classroom
Adamopoulos 8
language learning. According to Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982), “More analytical,
field independent characteristics appear to be related to the acquisition of metalinguistic
skills through conscious learning, while the field dependent person seems to be more apt
to acquire communication skills through subconscious learning,” (p. 77).
Krashen (1981) seems to agree that the more analytical personality trait of field
independence contributes to the effective use of the Monitor. Field independent persons
are able to “tune” their senses to the discrete parts of language: vocabulary, grammatical
rules and phonetic awareness necessary for conscious language learning. Field dependent
individuals would not rely as much on the Monitor, but use subconscious processes
which are more desirable for language acquisition in communicative situations, according
to Krashen.
Lalonde and Gardner (1984) researched two personality constructs related to field
independence: analytic orientation and seriousness. They posited that the more serious
language learner would have “heightened levels of motivation and a better attitude
toward language learning” (p. 226). Analytical personalities would be more motivated
and more responsible according to their hypothesis. They refer to Krashen’s hypothesis
that an individual with an analytic orientation would be “open to new ideas, flexible,
[and] broad minded” (Lalonde & Gardner, 1984, p. 226).
However, Gayle (1981) found that an orientation towards field dependence was
strongly correlated with integrative motivation, thought to be more valuable to second
language acquisition. Gayle suggests that according to Witkin’s theory, the field
dependent person is more interested in fitting in with a certain group and possesses more
of a tolerance for ambiguity (p. 58). The field dependent person will seek out “external
Adamopoulos 9
sources” to “eliminate existing ambiguities” or would be more likely to interact with
native language speakers to get a “feel” for the language, according to Gayle (p. 58).
Gayle further hypothesized that the field dependent person would be more
capable of empathy or identification with others outside of his/her own group. “In
addition, the field dependent person has been described as warm, affectionate, tactful,
accommodating, non-evaluative, and more socially outgoing and accepting of others than
the extremely field independent person” (p. 58). This identification with others strongly
correlates with integrative motivation as described by Gardner: the drive or desire to
become a part of the target language speaker’s culture.
The data gathered from Gayle’s study of 414 university students of French in
Canada confirmed her hypothesis. The more field dependent students scored higher on a
survey of integrative orientation. Gayle concluded from her study that field dependent
individuals are more likely to seek out communicative situations than field independent
learners, contributing to success in natural acquisition of a second language (p. 66).
Field independence/field dependence, like extroversion and introversion are
seemingly connected to motivation in acquiring a second language. Field independent
persons are more likely to benefit from traditional, classroom instruction with a focus on
the discrete parts of language, while field dependent learners would benefit from a
communicative approach. As Naiman and others have hypothesized, both personality
types are capable of language learning and teachers must adjust instruction to meet the
needs of both.
Adamopoulos 10
Empathy
The last personality trait examined in this review of the literature is by far the
most elusive and most controversial in terms of its relationship to second language
acquisition. Researchers still have not confirmed a direct relationship between the
quality of empathy, or the ability “to put oneself in someone else’s shoes” (Raymond,
1982, p. 47) and achievement in learning a second language. Krashen (1981) suggests
that there is not an adequate measure of the quality of empathy to allow for proper
research of this factor’s influence on the acquisition of an L2.
Guiora (Raymond, 1982) led the studies of empathy’s relationship to L2
acquisition in terms of pronunciation in the early 1970’s. He hypothesized that more
empathetic individuals would be better listeners and better attuned to the native features
of speech; therefore, empathetic individuals would acquire a more native-like proficiency
in pronunciation. He set out to study this phenomenon in 1972 by using a
Micromomentary Expressions Test or MME to measure the quality of empathy. This test
showed a film of the head and shoulders of a woman conversing. Subjects were asked to
identify changes in the various facial expressions of the woman as she talked by pressing
a button which would register their responses. Later, Guiora used skin responses and
heart rate to determine levels of empathy.
Schumann (Raymond, 1982) also studied empathy through hypnosis of
individuals and concluded that empathy was more than a factor in pronunciation in an L2,
and had a positive relationship to overall success in L2 acquisition. Guiora continued his
studies of empathy and pronunciation including his now famous alcohol studies where
subjects were given alcoholic beverages believed to lower inhibitions and lessen ego
Adamopoulos 11
boundaries. Guiora was highly criticized for these studies and many of his results
supporting alcohol’s relationship to improved pronunciation in an L2 have been
discounted. Empathy remains an enigma in terms of how to measure this quality and
accurately define its relationship to second language acquisition.
Implications for Further Research
Although no direct relationship can be confirmed between achievement in second
language acquisition and extroversion-introversion; field independence-field dependence;
or empathy, researchers have recently found that there is an indirect connection tied to
motivation and attitude. Lalonde and Gardner (1984) have studied personality traits and
motivation in order to determine if there is a causal relationship between these variables.
As described in the discussion above, they isolated two personality traits, analytic
orientation and seriousness, and studied these in relation to motivation to learn French
among English-speaking students in Canada.
Results of this study suggest that personality variables be examined “along with
other variables relevant to the learning process,” such as attitudes and motivation (p.235).
Lalonde and Gardner (1984) conclude, “Hypothesizing personality traits to be directly
related to second language achievement may lead researchers to obtain less than
encouraging results, and as a consequence the role of such variables may be
underestimated” (p. 235). The study resulted in a Causal Model of personality and
second language acquisition. Analytic orientation and seriousness were found to have an
indirect relationship to success in second language acquisition by the impact of these
variables on attitude and motivation.
Adamopoulos 12
Later studies of personality and second language acquisition have investigated the
causal model and better defined personality traits. A study conducted by MacIntyre and
Charos (1996) combined Lalonde and Gardner’s (1984) Causal Model of Second
Language Acquisition and Goldberg’s Five Personality Factors: Introversionextroversion; pleasantness-agreeableness; conscientiousness-dependability; emotional
stability; and intellect or sophistication also labeled culture or openness to experience.
MacIntyre and Charos (1996) found in a study of this hybrid model of Lalonde and
Gardner and Goldberg’s “Big Five” that these traits indirectly affect L2 learning by “their
influence on language-related attitudes, language anxiety, perceived L2 competence,
motivation for language learning and willingness to communicate” (p. 20).
Conclusion
The research has found no direct relationship between personality traits such as
extroversion-introversion; field independence/field dependence and empathy with higher
achievement in second language acquisition. However, as Lalonde and Gardner (1984)
and MacIntyre and Charos (1996) have concluded, personality does have an indirect
effect on the success or failure of individual language learners based on the impact of
personality on attitude and motivation. Attitude and motivation have been confirmed as
factors in second language acquisition, and the relationship between personality and
attitude and motivation needs further study to confirm the extent of personality’s
influence on second language acquisition inside and outside of the classroom.
Recent studies focusing on “willingness to communicate” and the skills and
strategies needed for success outside of the classroom are yielding more implications for
the role of personality in L2 acquisition. It seems that more extroverted, outgoing,
Adamopoulos 13
sociable, field dependent and empathetic personality types are better communicators.
They are better at listening and have a higher tolerance for ambiguity, seeking out
interaction with others. They are more likely to take risks. All of these are the qualities
of good language learners. As the research of Rubin and Thompson (Brown, 2001) has
found, the “Good Language Learner” is creative, experimental and has a “feel for the
language,” a characteristic of empathetic individuals (p. 209). Good language learners
“learn to live with uncertainty” and “learn chunks of language as wholes…” similar to
field dependent traits (p.209). They “make their own opportunities for practice inside
and outside the classroom” as extroverts seek out situations for socialization and
interaction with others (p. 209).
As Naiman and others have concluded, teachers must account for personality
differences in the classroom, but they must not prejudge students who exhibit personality
traits that are not associated with communicative success in second language learning. In
classroom settings, every learner should have a chance to use strategies for language
learning according to his or her personality preferences. Personality traits are another
individual difference closely tied to attitude and motivation that teachers must account for
in planning lessons and activities which will tap into the learner’s innate language
abilities and intrinsic motivation or desire to persevere in second language learning.
Adamopoulos 14
References
Brown, Douglas H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy 2nd ed. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Dulay, Heidi, Marina Burt and Stephen Krashen. (1982). Language Two. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Furnham, Adrian. (1990) Language and Personality. In Howard Giles and W.
Peter Robinson Eds. Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. (pp. 73-95). New
York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Gardner, Robert C. and Richard Clément. (1990). Social Psychological
Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. In Howard Giles and W. Peter Robinson
Eds. Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. (pp.495-517). New York: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Gardner, R.C. and P.D. MacIntyre. (1993). A student’s contributions to secondlanguage learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11.
Gayle, Grace M.H. (1981) Personality, Motivation, and Second Language
Learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 6 (3), 55-67.
Krashen, Stephen D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second
Language Learning. California: Pergamon Press, Inc. Internet edition published
December, 2002. Avialable http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and
_Learning/024.html.
Lalonde, R.N. and R.C. Gardner. (1984). Investigating a Causal Model of Second
Language Acquisition: Where does personality fit? Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Science, 16 (3), 224-237.
Adamopoulos 15
MacIntyre, Peter and Catherine Charos. (March, 1996). Personality, Attitudes,
and Affect as Predictors of Second Language Communication. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 15 (1), 3-26.
Raymond, Patricia. (1982). Attitude, Motivation and Personality in Second
Language Acquisition: From Macro Approach to Micro Approach. TESL Talk, 13 (1),
44-54.
Wakamoto, Natsumi. (2000). Language Learning Strategy and Personality
Variables: Focusing on Extroversion and Introversion. IRAL: International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38 (1), 71-81.
Adamopoulos 16
Appendix A
Note. From “Language and Personality,” by Adrian Furnham, 1990, Handbook of
Language and Social Psychology, p. 76.
Adamopoulos 17
Appendix B
Note. From “Personality, Attitudes and Affect as Predictors of Second Language
Communication,” by Peter MacIntyre and Catherine Charos, 1996, Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 15 (1), p. 8.