Research Report

Two by Two: A Twin Study of SecondLanguage Acquisition

Philip S. Dale1, Nicole Harlaar2, Claire M.A. Haworth3, and Robert Plomin3
1

Psychological Science 640 21(5) 635 The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797610368060 http://pss.sagepub.com

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; 2Ohio State University; and 3Kings College London

Abstract In this report, we provide initial results of the first application of the classic twin design to second-language acquisition. The analysis was conducted on assessments teachers made using United Kingdom National Curriculum standards and included 604 pairs of 14-year-old twins. The results demonstrate substantial heritability (.67) and low influence of shared environment (.13) on this measure of second-language acquisition.The heritability of second-language acquisition at 14 years is comparable to the heritability of the two first-language acquisition measures obtained at 12 and 14 years, respectively, and is higher than heritability estimates previously published for first-language acquisition in early childhood. Multivariate behavior genetic analyses suggest very high, but not complete, overlap of genetic influences on first- and second-language acquisition, and less overlap between shared environmental influences on the two domains. Keywords second-language acquisition, genetics, twin study
Received 4/14/09; Revision accepted 10/5/09

The ability to learn and effectively use a second or later language (L2) is increasingly important as economies, education, and societies become more interconnected. Yet the outcomes of L2 acquisition are enormously variable, regardless of the context of learning (e.g., formal classroom instruction, L2 immersion as an educational program or as a consequence of migration). A wide range of explanations has been proposed for this variability (Ellis & Laporte, 1997; Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004; Skehan, 1989; Young, 1999). Some focus on social factors, such as family background and relative societal support for L2 and the first language (L1). Others focus on educational factors, such as the teaching method and the structure of the curriculum. Still others hinge on intrapersonal variables, such as the nature and strength of motivation (instrumental or integrative) and reluctance to make errors. But at the core of almost all accounts of variability in L2 learning is the concept of aptitude, that is, language learning ability (Dornyei, 2005, p. 32). Notably, aptitude is generally characterized as affecting the rate of development rather than success or failure (i.e., the asymptotic level of performance). Although characterizations of L2 aptitude vary, there is consensus that it derives from multiple cognitive factors. Carroll (1981) identified four key abilities: phonetic-coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, rote-learning ability, and inductivelearning ability. Skehan (1989) proposed a somewhat shorter

list: phonetic-coding ability, language- analytic ability, and memory. Hummel (2009) provided evidence for a substantial role for phonological memory as indexed by nonword repetition tasks. There has been little consideration of the origins of these specific aptitude abilities, though the wording of many discussions suggests an implicit assumption that stable, internal, individual factors play an important role. Furthermore, many of the proposed abilities are similar to abilities that have been shown to have significant genetic components. Thus, it is surprising that the classical twin method has not been applied to L2 acquisition. To our knowledge, there are no published studies of this type. Behavior genetic analyses using twin data (Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2008; Rijsdijk & Sham, 2002) provide a valuable tool for exploring the sources of individual differences. Comparisons of correlations between monozygotic (MZ; identical) twins, who share 100% of their genetics, and dizygotic (DZ; fraternal) twins, who share on average 50% of their genetics, make it possible to analyze the total variance on a measure into three components:
Corresponding Author: Philip S. Dale, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of New Mexico, 1700 Lomas Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87131 E-mail: dalep@unm.edu

636 Variance due to genetic variation among individuals (symbolized as a2 or h2) Variance due to shared environmental factors, such as neighborhood and socioeconomic status, that are common to family members and that tend to make siblings similar to each other (symbolized as c2) Variance due to nonshared environmental factors, that is, those that affect individual children, such as illness, and thus tend to make siblings less similar to each other (symbolized e2) Multivariate extensions of this analytic approach (Plomin et al., 2008) permit the investigation of the etiology of the relationships among two or more measures. Multivariate analysis provides an estimate of the genetic correlation (rA) of two measures, that is the overlap of genetic influences on the two measures. Roughly speaking, the genetic correlation is the probability that a gene that influences one measure will also influence the other measure. The shared-environment correlation (rC) and the nonshared-environment correlation (rE) provide analogous estimates of the overlap of shared environmental influences and the overlap of nonshared environmental influences on the two measures. In this report, we present initial results from a study of twins learning an L2 at school in adolescence. The sample is representative of the population (adolescents at school in the United Kingdom, who are required to study a foreign language). Because these twins are part of a larger longitudinal study, measures of L1 acquisition were also available. This made possible a comparison of the etiology of L2-acquisition variance with the etiology of L1-acquisition variance at two points in development, as well as a multivariate analysis of the two learning processes.

Dale et al. languages studied. The final sample included 604 twin pairs (231 MZ and 373 DZ). Because of the relatively small sample size, and the general absence of sex differences in etiology for cognitive phenotypes, DZ same-sex and opposite-sex pairs were combined for behavior genetic analyses, although we provide descriptive information by gender. Zygosity was determined by a combination of parent questionnaires (administered when the children were ages 18 months, 3 years, and 4 years) and DNA tests for a subsample of pairs whose zygosity was doubtful or whose parents requested it. (See Kovas et al., 2007, for details on this determination.) The sample used in this study remains representative of the general population and the original TEDS sample in terms of key demographic indices. United Kingdom census data for families with children indicate that 93% of children are White, 32% of mothers have at least one A-level (i.e., they completed at least one of the exams that are taken by students finishing secondary school who plan to go to university), and 49% of mothers and 89% of fathers are employed (Office for National Statistics, 2002). For the entire TEDS sample of more than 10,000 twin pairs who completed an initial booklet (i.e., who enrolled), the comparable percentages are 92%, 35%, 43%, and 92%, respectively. For the TEDS sample of 7,500 pairs who participated at 12 years, the percentages are 93%, 41%, 47%, and 93%, respectively.

Measures
L2 acquisition at 14 years. The twins performance in their foreign-language course was assessed by teachers using the United Kingdom National Curriculum (NC) criteria (Department for Education and Skills, 2004; National Curriculum Assessments, 2007). For this study, the NC Teacher Assessments at Key Stage 3 were used. These are familiar evaluation rubrics for teachers. For Modern Foreign Languages, teachers evaluate students on four standard, 9-point rating scales that have rubrics for each of nine levels. Example items from the rating scales at Levels 3 and 6 (i.e., a score of 3 or 6, respectively) are provided in Table 1. The teachers are asked to consider these four ratings and provide a single, overall measure (also on a 9-point scale, with a 1 being the lowest rating, and a 9 being the best) that best reflects the students level of L2 (the L2 NC measure). L1 acquisition: teacher ratings at 14 years. A similar assessment rubric is specified for English in the NC. Again, there are four specific scales, which are combined in a single overall measure of L1 (the L1 NC measure, which is on the same 9-point scale as the L2 NC measure). L1 acquisition: direct testing at 12 years. Via Internet testing, participants completed four measures of language skill when they were 12 years old. The measures included Vocabulary (an

Method Participants
The twins in this sample were participants in the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS), a longitudinal study of twins ascertained from population records of live twin births in England and Wales (Kovas, Haworth, Dale, & Plomin, 2007; Oliver & Plomin, 2007). The data in this report are restricted to the first cohort from TEDS (children born between January 1 and August 31, 1994), for whom teachers assessments of foreign-language achievement (described in the Measures section) were available. The measure of L2 acquisition, other teacher assessments, and test results were provided to the TEDS project by the parents. Twin pairs were excluded for the standard genetic, medical, and data-quality reasons used by TEDS (see Kovas et al., 2007, for details). In addition, twin pairs were included only if English was the primary language of their home and the L2 being studied was French, German, Italian, or Spanish. These were the most frequent modern

Second-Language Acquisition
Table 1. Example Items From the National Curriculum Rating System for Modern Foreign Languages Attainment target Listening and responding Level 3 Pupils show that they understand short passages made up of familiar language that is spoken at near normal speed without interference. These passages include instructions, messages and dialogues. Pupils identify and note main points and personal responses, but may need short sections to be repeated. Pupils take part in brief prepared tasks of at least two or three exchanges, using visual or other cues to help them initiate and respond. They use short phrases to express personal responses. Although they use mainly memorised language, they occasionally substitute items of vocabulary to vary questions or statements. Pupils show that they understand short texts and dialogues, made up of familiar language, printed in books or word processed. They identify and note main points and personal responses. They are beginning to read independently, selecting simple texts and using a bilingual dictionary or glossary to look up new words. Level 6

637

Speaking

Reading and responding

Writing

Pupils write two or three short sentences on familiar topics, using aids. They express personal responses. They write short phrases from memory, and their spelling is readily understandable.

Pupils show that they understand short narratives and extracts of Spoken language, which cover various past, present and future events, and include familiar language in unfamiliar contexts. They cope with language spoken at normal speed and with some interference and hesitancy. They identify and note main points and specific details, including points of view, and need little repetition. Pupils take part in conversations that include past, present and future actions and events. They apply their knowledge of grammar in new contexts. They use the target language to meet most of their routine needs for information and explanations. Although they may be hesitant at times, pupils make themselves understood with little or no difficulty. Pupils show that they understand a variety of texts that cover past, present and future events and include familiar language in unfamiliar contexts. They identify and note main points and specific details, including points of view. They scan written material, for stories or articles of interest, and choose books or texts to read on their own, at their own level. They are more confident in using context and their knowledge of grammar to work out the meaning of language that they do not know. Pupils write in paragraphs, using simple descriptive language, and refer to past, present and future actions and events. They apply grammar in new contexts. Although there may be a few mistakes, the meaning is usually clear.

Note: These examples are from the Department for Education and Skills (2004).

adaptation of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children third edition United Kingdom Vocabulary subtest; Wechsler, 1992), the Listening Grammar subtest of the Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (Hammill, Brown, Larsen, & Wiederholt, 1994), and the Figurative Language and Making Inferences subtests of the Test of Language Competence (Wiig, Secord, & Sabers, 1989). (See Haworth et al., 2007, for more information about the measures.) These scores were standardized in the full TEDS sample, and then each childs four z scores were averaged to form a composite 12-year L1 measure.

nonshared environment, as well as measurement error. We extended these correlation analyses with standard univariate models (Neale & Maes, 1999) in order to estimate the extent to which genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental factors contribute to individual differences in each measure. Finally, we conducted bivariate analyses to estimate genetic and environmental correlations for each pair of language-acquisition measures. All analyses were undertaken in the Mx statistical program (Neale, Boker, Xie, & Maes, 2003), which allows the estimation of 95% confidence intervals and also includes a formal test of the significance of parameter estimates.

Analysis
We calculated intraclass twin correlations separately for each measure. If correlations for MZ twins are greater than correlations for DZ twins, this would suggest a genetic effect; if correlations for DZ twins are greater than half the magnitude of the correlations for MZ twins, this would suggest shared environmental influences; and if correlations for MZ twins are less than 1.0, this would suggest some influence of

Results
All of the behavior genetic analyses reported here were based on standardized measures. However, for comparative purposes, we note that the mean for the raw L2 NC measure was 5.40 (SD = 1.10), and the mean for the raw L1 NC measure was 5.69 (SD = 1.09). Table 2 provides descriptive information on performance. Because of the small size of the sample,

638
Table 2. Mean Performance on the L2 and L1 Measures Group Whole sample Divided by sex Boys Girls Cohens d Divided by zygosity Monozygotic Dizygotic Cohens d L2 NC assessment 0.00 (1.00; 1,208) 0.20 (1.07; 523) 0.15 (0.92; 685) 0.35 0.02 (0.96; 462) 0.02 (1.02; 746) 0.04 L1 NC assessment 0.00 (1.00; 1,201) 0.19 (1.11; 516) 0.14 (0.88; 685) 0.33 0.02 (1.01; 459) 0.01 (0.99; 742) 0.03 L1 12-year composite 0.01 (0.99; 707) 0.03 (0.99; 279) 0.01 (0.99; 428) 0.04 0.03 (0.96; 285) 0.01 (1.01; 422) 0.04

Dale et al.
Table 3. Phenotypic Correlations Among the L2 and L1 Measures Measure L1 NC assessment L1 12-year composite L2 NC assessment .57 (.53, .60) .44 (.38, .49) L1 NC assessment .49 (.43, .54)

Note: The 95% confidence intervals are given in parentheses. L1 = first language; L2 = second or subsequent language; NC = National Curriculum. All correlations were significant, p < .01.

Note: Standard deviations are given in parentheses, followed by the number of individuals. L1 = first language; L2 = second or subsequent language; NC = National Curriculum.

the results are divided by sex and by zygosity, but not by both simultaneously. There were significant sex differences in means and variances on both the L2 NC measure, t(1029.56) = 5.96, p < .001, and the L1 NC measure, t(957.20) = 5.53, p < .001. On both measures, females scored significantly higher than males, and males showed significantly greater variance than females. There were no sex differences for means or variances in the 12-year L1 measure, t(705) = 0.463, p > .05. Given the observed sex differences, the means and variances of all three measures were modeled separately for males and females in subsequent structural equation analyses. These differences do not themselves affect the variance components estimated from the models because those components are based on the variance and covariance of MZ and DZ twins. Sex-limitation models (details may be requested from the authors) confirmed that there were no significant differences in any of the parameter estimates as a function of gender. The phenotypic correlations among the measures are presented in Table 3. L2 acquisition scores were only modestly

predicted by L1 measures (r = .57 and r = .44), which account for about a quarter of the variance in the L2 NC measure. Intraclass correlations and model-fitting parameters are presented in Table 4. The correlations for MZ twins were higher than those for DZ twins for all measures, reflecting a genetic influence on language learning. For L2 learning in particular, the MZ twin correlation was not twice the size of the DZ twin correlation and was much less than unity; this pattern implicates some shared environmental influence and moderate to substantial nonshared environmental influences as well (the latter including measurement error). These preliminary estimates were confirmed by the results of the model fitting. The heritability (a2) of L2 acquisition was nonsignificantly higher than the heritability for either L1 measure. The shared environmental influence (c2) was much lower than heritability for all measures, and the three measures confidence intervals for shared environmental influence overlapped. Results of the three bivariate analyses are included in Table 5, and the main results are illustrated in Figure 1. The genetic correlations among the measures were all high (rs = .64.99), and the genetic correlation between the L1 and L2 NC measures was statistically indistinguishable from 1.00. (Note that this was not due to a halo effect in rating, as the phenotypic correlation of these measures was only .57.) The sharedenvironment correlations between the L1 measures and L2 NC were low (r = .07 and .09), whereas the shared-environment correlation for the two L1 measures (r = .61) was much higher. However, the confidence intervals of the three values for rC overlapped because of the limited statistical power of this sample for multivariate analysis, and so no conclusion about the relative contribution of shared environment to the L1 and L2 measures can be drawn. All nonshared-environment correlations were very low.

Table 4. Intraclass Correlations and Model-Fitting Parameters for the L2 and L1 Measures Measure L2 NC assessment L1 NC assessment L1 12-year composite MZ correlations .78 (.72, .82; 231) .78 (.73, .83; 228) .68 (.58, .76; 135) DZ correlations .48 (.40, .55; 373) .55 (.47, .61; 370) .40 (.26, .51; 198) a2 .67 (.52, .80) .46 (.33, .56) .63 (.37, .75) c2 .13 (.01, .27) .32 (.23, .44) .07 (.00, .28) e2 .20 (.17, .24) .22 (.19, .26) .30 (.24, .39)

Note: The 95% confidence intervals are given in parentheses, followed by the number of pairs. MZ = monozygotic twins; DZ = dizygotic twins; a2 = heritability; c2 = shared environmental influence; e2 = nonshared environmental influence; L1 = first language; L2 = second or subsequent language; NC = National Curriculum.

Second-Language Acquisition

639
L2 NC Assessment

Discussion
The most important contribution of this study is the demonstration of substantial heritability (.67) for a measure of L2 acquisition. A larger sample size with increased power will be necessary to determine if L2 heritability is in fact higher than that for either L1 measure. However, it is clearly higher than heritability estimates based on early-childhood L1 development (Dale et al., 1998; Spinath, Price, Dale, & Plomin, 2004), a finding that is consistent with a general pattern of increasing heritability across development for language and cognitive measures (Plomin et al., 2008). Although high heritability necessarily limits shared-environmental influence, the results for this component are still notably low. This result could have been due to a substantial proportion of twins studying a different language than their sibling, and therefore being assessed by a different teacher. However, this situation applied to less than 10% of the twin pairs, and therefore it is likely that other aspects of the nonshared environment had a major effect. This is a difficult issue to address, however, as nonshared environment includes both measurement error and genuine individual differences in experience. Although L1 acquisition and L2 acquisition were only moderately correlated phenotypically, the genetic correlations demonstrated considerable overlap. This is particularly true for the L2 and L1 NC ratings. Given that both measures were based on classroom performance, they shared a considerable emphasis on linguistic awareness and decontextualized language skills necessary for the learning of language as an object in itself. These skills may well have a strong heritable base, as would be suggested by generalizing the research findings on phonological awareness to other levels of linguistic awareness. Phonological awareness has been demonstrated repeatedly to have substantial heritability (e.g., Kovas et al., 2005). The pattern of shared-environment correlations is also highly suggestive of a distinction between L1 and L2 learning. Family, neighborhood, and school influences are likely to affect all measures of L1 development, whereas L2 learning at least in this contextis more specifically tied to aspects of the L2 classroom. However, we acknowledge the overlapping
rC = .07 rA = .99 L1 NC Assessment

rC = .09 rA = .64

rA = .74 rC = .61

L1 12-Year Composite

Fig. 1. Genetic correlations (rA) and shared-environment correlations (rC) among the first-language (L1) and foreign-language (L2) acquisition measures. NC = National Curriculum.

confidence intervals for the rC estimates, which limit the evidence for such a distinction. This report is only a first examination of our behavior genetic analysis of L2 acquisition, and it suggests numerous future directions for research. These include examining L2 acquisition in other contexts (migration, other teaching approaches, L2 languages more distant from L1, L1 and L2 having different social status) and at other stages of acquisition. Even more illuminating would be the examination of specific skills that are part of the aptitude package, such as phonological memory and grammatical sensitivity. In this study, we were limited to teachers assessments of achievement, though there is considerable evidence for the validity of this type of information (e.g., Dale, Harlaar, & Plomin, 2005). Direct testing would add to confidence in our conclusions. Our sample size was small by twin-study standards, particularly for multivariate analysis. It required that we aggregate across languages studied, and across the amount of time the language had been studied. However, these factors are likely to have reduced the estimates of effect sizes, and thus make the tests more conservative. The results provide evidence for substantial genetic influence on L2 aptitude and for substantial but less than complete overlap of genetic

Table 5. Genetic and Environmental Correlations for the L2 and L1 Measures Genetic or environmental correlation Comparison L2 NC assessmentL1 NC assessment L2 NC assessmentL1 12-year composite L1 NC assessmentL1 12-year composite rA .99 (.86, 1.00) .64 (.43, .86) .74 (.51, .93) rC .07 (.00, .41) .09 (.00, 1.00) .61 (.00, 1.00) rE .04 (.00, .15) .05 (.00, .21) .00 (.00, .18)

Note: The 95% confidence intervals are given in parentheses. rA = genetic correlation; rC = shared environmental correlation; rE = nonshared environmental correlation.

640 influences on L1 and L2 learning. They also illustrate the value of a genetically sensitive research design in this domain. Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the ongoing contribution of the Twins Early Development Study twins and their families. The research in this report was stimulated by discussions in the Further Language Acquisition Twin Study Working Group, convened by members of the Language and Cognition Research Centre of the University of New England, Australia, with financial support provided by the Language Learning Roundtable Conference Program.

Dale et al.
Haworth, C.M.A., Harlaar, N., Kovas, Y., Davis, O.S.P., Oliver, B.R., Hayiou-Thomas, M.E., et al. (2007). Internet cognitive testing of large samples needed in genetic research. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10, 554563. Hummel, K.M. (2009). Aptitude, phonology memory, and second language proficiency in nonnovice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 225249. Kovas, Y., Haworth, C.M.A., Dale, P.S., & Plomin, R. (2007). The genetic and environmental origins of learning abilities and disabilities in the early school years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72(3, Serial No. 288). Kovas, Y., Hayiou-Thomas, M.E., Oliver, B., Dale, P.S., Bishop, D.V.M., & Plomin, R. (2005). Genetic influences in different aspects of language development: The etiology of language skills in 4.5-year-old twins. Child Development, 76, 632651. National Curriculum Assessments. (2007). Key Stage 3 assessment and reporting arrangements 2008. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Neale, M.C., Boker, S.M., Xie, G., & Maes, H.M. (2003). Mx: Statistical modeling (6th ed.). Retrieved March 3, 2010, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics Web site: http://www.vipbg.vcu.edu/~vipbg/ software/mxmanual.pdf Neale, M.C., & Maes, H.H.M. (1999). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Office for National Statistics. (2002). Living in Britain: Results from the 2000/01 General Household Survey. London: Stationery Office. Oliver, B.R., & Plomin, R. (2007). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems from childhood through adolescence. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10, 96105. Plomin, R., DeFries, J.C., McClearn, G.E., & McGuffin, P. (2008). Behavioral genetics (5th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman. Rijsdijk, F.V., & Sham, P.C. (2002). Analytic approaches to twin data using structural equation models. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 3, 119133. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Spinath, F.M., Price, T.S., Dale, P.S., & Plomin, R. (2004). The genetic and environmental origins of language disability and ability: A study of language at 2, 3, and 4 years of age in a large community sample of twins. Child Development, 75, 445454. Wechsler, D. (1992). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children third edition UK (WISC-III UK) manual. London: Psychological Corp. Wiig, E.H., Secord, W., & Sabers, D. (1989). Test of Language Competenceexpanded edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. Young, R. (1999). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 105132.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Funding
The Twins Early Development Study is supported by a program grant (G0500079) from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council.

References
Carroll, J.B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Dale, P.S., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2005). Telephone testing and teacher assessment of reading skills in 7-year-olds: I. Substantial correspondence for a sample of 5544 children and for extremes. Reading and Writing, 18, 385400. Dale, P.S., Simonoff, E., Bishop, D.V.M., Eley, T.C., Oliver, B., Price, T.S., et al. (1998). Genetic influence on language delay in 2-yearold children. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 324328. Department for Education and Skills. (2004). The National Curriculum: Handbook for secondary teachers in England, Key Stages 3 and 4 (revised). London: Author. Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ellis, N.C., & Laporte, N. (1997). Contexts of acquisition: Effects of formal instruction and naturalistic exposure on second language acquisition. In A.M.B. de Groot & J.F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 5383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M.B. (2004). Dual language development and disorders. Baltimore: Brookes. Hammill, D.D., Brown, V.L., Larsen, S.C., & Wiederholt, J.L. (1994). Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (TOAL-3). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.