Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Individual Differences in L2 Learning

and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships
Richard L. Sparks
College of Mt. St. Joseph

In this article, I describe studies conducted over 25 years with secondary and post-
secondary L2 learners in the United States. The evidence from these studies shows that
there are important connections between students’ early L1 skills and their L2 aptitude
and L2 proficiency and that individual differences in students’ L1 skills in elementary
school are related to differences in their L2 achievement several years later.

Introduction
In 1991 Leonore Ganschow and I published a paper in which we proposed
that there were links between native language (L1) and foreign language (L2)
learning and that L1 learning differences would be related to differences in L2
learning (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991). In contrast, we speculated that differ-
ences in affective variables (anxiety, motivation) and use of language learning
strategies (and learning styles) are unlikely to be causal factors in L2 learning
differences. Two years earlier, a pilot study in which L2 learners were found
to exhibit deficits in L1 skills and L2 aptitude led us to propose the Linguistic
Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH), in which we hypothesized the fol-
lowing: (a) Students’ L1 skills serve as the foundation for their L2 learning
aptitude and achievement, (b) Both L1 and L2 learning depend on basic lan-
guage learning components that are common to both languages, and (c) L2
aptitude is componential, and problems with one component of language, for
example, phonological processing, syntax, will have a negative effect on the
learning of both L1 and L2 (Sparks, Ganschow, & Pohlman, 1989). Four years
later, we posited that L2 learning runs along a continuum of learners who have
strong to average to weak language learning skills (Sparks & Ganschow, 1993).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard L. Sparks, College of Mt.
St. Joseph, Cincinnati, Ohio 45233-1670. Internet: Richard_sparks@mail.msj.edu

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 5

C 2012 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan
⃝
Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Figure 1 Student with high IQ but below average reading (reading disability) or below
average math (mathematics disability).

In retrospect, the aforementioned positions about L2 learning continue to

make sense to us. Neither Ganschow nor I are L2 educators; instead, we are
special educators whose backgrounds are in learning disabilities, particularly
reading disabilities, and diagnostic psychoeducational assessment where indi-
vidual differences are normal. Given our backgrounds, we may bring different
perspectives to the study of learning a second (foreign) language. In our view,
there are important relationships between L1 and L2 learning. Other perspec-
tives are that students will learn a language at different rates and achieve
different levels of proficiency, and that an individual can exhibit varying levels
of ability in different components of language. Over the years, we have taught
and evaluated students with diverse levels of ability and motivation in a variety
of academic skills. They include, for example, students with high intelligence
(IQ) and above average math achievement but below average reading ability
(i.e., dyslexia), and students with average IQs and high reading ability but
below average math achievement (i.e., dyscalculia; see Figure 1).1 I have also
encountered students with IQs in the range of intellectual disability who have
superior word decoding and spelling skills, that is, students with hyperlexia
(see Figure 2), and published a paper showing that these students can be “hy-
perlexic” in two languages (Sparks & Artzer, 2000). Likewise, the position

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 6

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Figure 2 Student with hyperiexia who has IQ in mental retardation range, superior L1
and L2 word decoding and spelling skills, but below average achievement in all other
skills.

that affective variables such as motivation and anxiety are unlikely to be causal
factors in L2 learning continues to make sense to us. In L1, researchers do not
consider affective variables to be unimportant, but they have not been found to
play a causal role in learning to read, write, and spell. Instead, motivation (or
anxiety) is thought to result from success in or problems with learning the L1.
In 1993 Ganschow and I expanded the LCDH by using the Assumption of
Specificity (AOS; see Stanovich, 1988), a concept borrowed from the L1 reading
literature. The AOS proposes that students with reading problems who are of
average to above average intelligence have a cognitive deficit that is reasonably
specific to the reading task and is thus language-related (because reading is
a language-based task) (Sparks, 1995). According to the AOS, the cognitive
deficit does not extend very far into other domains of cognitive functioning
because any additional cognitive deficits would depress the constellation of
abilities called intelligence, reduce the gap between IQ and reading, and lower
the expectation for reading performance; thus, a student’s reading problems
would be predictable based on his/her deficits in a number of other cognitive
domains and s/he would simply have low intelligence. Figure 3 displays an
example in which a single deficit in phonological processing causes reading,

7 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Figure 3 Example of student with multiple cognitive deficits and single cognitive
deficits (phonological processing) that causes reading and spelling disability.

spelling, and writing deficits but does not cause problems in math, oral language,
and nonverbal ability. When we apply the AOS to L2 learning, the logic is
straightforward: A student with at least average intelligence who has L2 learning
problems has a deficit (or difference) that is specific to the L2 learning task. The
deficit does not extend very far into other domains of cognitive functioning but
is present in one or more subcomponents of language. An example would be
a student with average or better intelligence who has L1 reading and spelling
problems because of phonological processing problems, that is, word decoding
deficits, and exhibits similar reading and spelling problems in L2. However,
this same student has average or better L1 vocabulary (for word meanings), L1
listening comprehension, mathematics skills, verbal memory, and nonverbal
(visual-spatial) ability.
Over the last 25 years we have conducted numerous studies with high
school and college students in the United States. In the United States, almost
all students are foreign language learners who are studying Spanish, French,
or German, for the most part. Also, U. S. students generally do not begin
L2 study until high school when they are 13–14 years old. On the one hand,
this situation is problematic because U.S. students have limited opportunity to
become proficient in a L2. On the other hand, the established practice by which

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 8

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

U.S. students do not begin L2 study until many years after they have mastered
their L1 in both oral and written form provides a unique opportunity to study
long-term relationships between L1 skills and L2 learning. In this paper, I
review evidence that indicates that there are important connections between
students’ early L1 skills and their L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency, and provides
evidence for the position that individual differences in students’ early L1 skills
can be related to differences in their L2 learning skills several years later. First,
I briefly review our early studies that examine L1–L2 connections. Next, I
review retrospective studies covering several years that examine students’ L1
skills and their L2 learning aptitude and proficiency. Then, I present the results
of several studies from a prospective longitudinal investigation in which we
followed students from the beginning of first grade over 10 years to the time at
which they had completed 2 years of L2 study in high school. At the conclusion
of each of the three reviews, I describe inferences drawn from the results and
indicate how the findings provide evidence for our hypotheses about language
learning.

Early Studies on Individual Differences and L1–L2 Relationships

Starting in the later 1980s, we conducted studies to test our hypotheses that L1
skills serve as the foundation for L2 learning and students with L1 learning
difficulties would have similar problems in L2. Our speculations were similar to
Cummins (1979), who developed the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis in
which he hypothesized that L1 and L2 are interdependent and have a common
underlying proficiency, and the Threshold Hypothesis in which he speculated
that the level of L2 proficiency is moderated by one’s level of attainment in the
L1. We designed our studies so that high-achieving L2 learners were compared
to low-achieving L2 learners on measures of intelligence (IQ), L2 aptitude
(MLAT), and several L1 skills, including L1 literacy. (For a more detailed
review of the studies cited in this section, see Ganschow & Sparks, 2001;
Sparks, Humbach, & Javorsky, 2008; Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, & Humbach,
2009a, 2009b. A profile of scores on standardized testing measures for the
high-achieving and low-achieving groups is presented in Figure 4.)
After publishing case studies of low-achieving L2 learners in high school
and college, we conducted a series of comparison studies. Our first study was
with high- (A, B grades) and low-achieving (D, F grades) L2 learners in college.
In that study, there were no differences in IQ between the groups, but there
were significant differences in both L2 aptitude on the MLAT and on measures
of L1 skills including word decoding, spelling, phonological awareness, and

9 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Figure 4 Continuum of scores of Intelligence, L2 Aptitude, and L1 Measures for the

High and Low Groups in Sparks et al.’s studies.a

grammar. On some measures, group differences were extensive. For example,

on the MLAT, there was a difference of 1.5 SD between the scores of the two
groups; likewise, in L1 spelling there was a difference of 1.49 SD in the groups’
scores. Most of the L1 skill differences were in the phonological (sound and
sound-symbol) and grammatical components of language.
Subsequently, we conducted several comparison studies with high school
L2 learners. In these studies, we compared high- and low-achieving L2 learners
as well as high-, average-, and low-achieving groups. In each of these stud-
ies, we found significant group differences in the participants’ L2 aptitude
on the MLAT and in their L1 skills, even after controlling for overall (verbal
and nonverbal) IQ differences when necessary. We found group differences
ranging from 1.12 SD to 1.69 SD on the MLAT and from .67 SD to 1.3 SD
in L1 word decoding, spelling, grammar, and receptive vocabulary skills. In
another comparison study, we measured the oral and written L2 proficiency
of high school L2 students who had completed 2 years of Spanish, French,
or German and divided them into high, average, and low proficiency groups
based on their L2 proficiency scores. The findings showed that the high profi-
ciency group achieved significantly higher scores than the low (and sometimes,

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 10

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Figure 5 Continuum of Scores of Intelligence, L2 Aptitude, and L1 Measures for the

High, Average, and Low Proficiency Groups.a

average) group on the MLAT and on several of the L1 measures including word
decoding, reading comprehension, spelling, and vocabulary (see Figure 5). In
other comparison studies in high school, findings revealed significant differ-
ences between good and poor L2 learners in both L1 skills and L2 aptitude.
In addition, we conducted two prediction studies over 2 years which showed
that both L1 skills and L2 aptitude (MLAT) were the best predictors of L2
classroom achievement and L2 oral and written proficiency.
In the 1990s, we also conducted studies which tested our speculation that
differences in L2 performance are related to differences in L2 learners’ levels
of L1 skill and L2 aptitude rather than affective differences, such as anxiety.
For these studies, we administered the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety
Scale (FLCAS; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) and divided the participants
into low, average, and high anxious groups based on their FLCAS scores. In
a study with college students, there were no group differences in IQ, college
GPA, and SAT/ACT scores. However, we found significant differences among
the three groups in L2 aptitude on the MLAT and in L1 oral language (listening,
speaking) as well as L1 word and pseudoword decoding with low anxious stu-
dents outscoring the average and high-anxious students on the aforementioned

11 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

measures. In a study with high school L2 learners who had been administered
the FLCAS, we found significant differences among the three anxiety groups
on the MLAT (e.g., 1.0 SD difference between low- and high-anxious students)
and in most L1 skills including word decoding, spelling, reading comprehen-
sion, and short-term verbal memory (i.e., differences of .55-.67 SD between
low- and high-anxious students). In another study with these students, the three
anxiety groups exhibited significant differences on measures of L2 oral and
written proficiency. As in the study with college students, low anxious L2
learners scored significantly higher on the aforementioned testing measures
than the high anxious learners, and in some cases, the average anxious learners.
The findings of these early studies enabled us to draw inferences that
students’ levels of L1 skill are related to their levels of L2 aptitude and L2
proficiency and that the affective characteristics of L2 learners are likely to be
related to the level of attainment in L1 skills and L2 aptitude. As a result of
these early studies, we modified the title of our hypothesis from the Linguistic
Coding Deficit Hypothesis to the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis
in subsequent papers because our studies showed that although there were
language differences between high- and low-achieving L2 learners, the low-
achieving L2 learners did not exhibit deficits in their L1 skills; that is, their
L1 skills were largely in the low average range. In retrospect, we should have
expected these results because U.S. students with below average L1 skills
generally do not enroll in L2 courses in high school or college.

Retrospective, Longitudinal Studies on Individual Differences

and L1–L2 Relationships
Our early studies measured students’ L1 skills either shortly before or at the
time they began L2 courses and then followed them over 1–2 years. This
approach had limitations because we did not know whether the students who
exhibited L1 differences in 9th grade when beginning L2 study may have
exhibited L1 differences several years earlier in elementary school. In addition,
we did not know whether early differences in L1 skills may be related to later
L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency. Furthermore, although we found a continuum
of L2 learners in our early studies, i.e., students with strong to average to weak
language learning skills, we did not have evidence to show that the continuum
of L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency in those studies was related to a continuum
of differences in early L1 skills. To investigate these questions, we conducted
retrospective studies that examined individual differences in early L1 skills and

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 12

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

examined whether those differences were related to later L2 aptitude and L2

proficiency.
In one study, low-risk (A, B) and high-risk (C, D, F) high school L2 learners
were divided into two groups based on their first-year grade in Spanish and then
followed over 2 years of L2 study (Sparks et al., 2008). The students’ scores on
measures of 4th and 8th grade L1 literacy (reading, writing) and language and
6th grade cognitive ability (IQ) were collected from school records. Each stu-
dent was administered the MLAT and measures of L2 literacy (word decoding,
spelling), and we also collected the students’ scores on end-of-year measures
of oral and written L2 proficiency administered by the high school’s L2 depart-
ment each year. After controlling for differences in overall cognitive (verbal
and nonverbal) ability, the results revealed significant differences between the
high- and low-achieving groups on all L1 literacy and language measures with
the high-achieving group outscoring the low-achieving group by over one stan-
dard deviation in reading and language as early as fourth grade. In addition,
the high-achieving group outscored the low-achieving group by almost one
standard deviation on the MLAT and achieved significantly higher scores on
all L2 literacy and L2 proficiency measures. In a related study with these stu-
dents, a discriminant analysis procedure showed that the best discriminators
of the groups’ performance in L2 courses were measures of 4th grade reading,
8th grade writing, L2 (Spanish) word decoding, and the MLAT subtests that
measured phonetic coding, vocabulary, grammar, and rote memory (Sparks,
Ganschow, & Patton, 2008).
In another retrospective study, we were interested in determining whether
the continuum of L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency in our earlier studies was
related to a continuum of differences in early L1 skills (Sparks, Patton, &
Ganschow, 2012). In this investigation, we examined the L1 achievement, in-
telligence, L2 aptitude, and L2 proficiency of 208 students who had participated
in four of our previous studies. All of the participants had completed 2 years of
high school L2 courses and were chosen for this study because they had been
administered similar measures of L1 skills, a measure of overall (verbal and
nonverbal) IQ, the same L2 aptitude test, and the same L2 proficiency measures.
Likewise, each of the participants had similar L2 backgrounds, for example,
no previous L2 experience. We performed a cluster analysis on the data to
determine whether distinct cognitive and achievement profiles of more and less
successful L2 learners would emerge. The results revealed three distinct cog-
nitive and achievement profiles: Students in the high-achieving cluster scored
above average generally on all L1 and L2 measures, the average-achieving clus-
ter scored in the average range generally on all measures, and the low-achieving

13 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Figure 6 Continuum of Scores of Intelligence, L2 Aptitude, L2 Proficiency and L1

Skills Measures,for the High, Average, and Low Clusters.a

cluster scored in the low average to below average range generally on all mea-
sures except IQ. For example, students in the high-achieving cluster scored
from 1.67–2.33 SD higher than students in the low-achieving cluster, and from
.73–1.13 SD higher than average-achieving students on the five MLAT subtests.
Likewise, high-achieving students scored from 1.13–1.87 SD higher than the
low-achieving students and from .67–.80 SD higher than the average-achieving
students on the L1 skill measures. From these findings, we inferred that the
students’ level of achievement in their L1 skills developed prior to L2 exposure
is consistent with their L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency several years later. The
scores of the three clusters are depicted in Figure 6.
The findings from these retrospective, longitudinal studies provide evidence
consistent with our inferences about the relationships between L1 and L2 learn-
ing and the continuum of L2 learners. That is, students’ level of achievement
in their L1 skills developed prior to L2 exposure is related to and consistent
with their L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency several years later, students’ level
of achievement in L2 is likely to be moderated by their level of attainment in
L1, and L2 proficiency is likely to run along a continuum of learners who have
strong to average to weak L1 skills and L2 aptitude.

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 14

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Prospective, Longitudinal Studies on Individual Differences

and L1–L2 Relationships
Early on, we realized that our hypotheses about the relationships between early
L1 skills and later L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency as well as those involving
the relationships between language skills and affective variables should be
examined by conducting longitudinal investigations that would follow students
from their earliest years of schooling until they had completed L2 study in
high school. In 1988 Skehan and Ducroquet conducted a study in which they
followed children from the Bristol Language Project whose L1 skills had been
tested at 15–60 months. They administered measures of L2 aptitude and L2
achievement when the children were 13–14 years old and found that early
L1 development, particularly early vocabulary and comprehension skills, was
significantly related to L2 aptitude and L2 achievement, and that L2 aptitude
was significantly related to L2 achievement. They also reported that early L1
literacy-based factors continued to influence L2 skills several years later.
In the early 1990s, we began a longitudinal study that followed students
from the beginning of first grade through L2 study in high school. We began
the study with 156 students entering the first grade in one school district. By
the time the last cohort of students had finished their second year of L2 study
(Spanish, French, German) in tenth grade, 54 students completing 2 years of L2
courses remained in the district. In grades 1–5, the students were administered
standardized measures of L1 word decoding, pseudoword decoding, reading
comprehension, spelling, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, listening compre-
hension, and an intelligence (verbal and nonverbal ability) test. At the beginning
of ninth grade, we administered the MLAT and a L2 motivation survey; then, at
the end of ninth grade, we administered the FLCAS, a measure of L2 anxiety.
At the end of tenth grade, the participants were administered measures of L2
proficiency that included L2 word decoding, spelling, reading comprehension,
writing, speaking, and listening comprehension tests. We also administered
measures of L1 print exposure at the end of tenth grade and collected end-of-
year grades at the end of each L2 course. The investigation generated data for
several studies that examined different aspects about longitudinal relationships
between L1–L2 learning including prediction, factor analysis, comparison, and
print exposure studies, each of which asked different research questions.

Prediction Studies
In the first study, the purpose was to determine the best L1 predictors of L2
aptitude (on the MLAT) and L2 oral and written proficiency in high school
(Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, Humbach, & Javorsky, 2006). We used the L1 skill

15 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

measures that had been administered in first through fifth grades as predictor
variables to determine which L1 measures would emerge as the best predictors
of L2 aptitude (MLAT) and L2 proficiency. The findings showed that L1 literacy
measures (reading, spelling), L1 vocabulary, and cognitive ability in elementary
school accounted for 73% of the variance in L2 aptitude in ninth grade, and that
the bulk of the variance was explained by L1 spelling and L1 word decoding
skills. Findings also showed that L1 reading skill in elementary school alone
explained 40% of the variance in oral and written L2 proficiency at the end of
tenth grade. These findings provided support for long-term connections between
early L1 skills and later L2 aptitude and proficiency, and also for speculation that
L1 literacy skills may be important for oral and written language development
in L2.
In a second study the purpose was to determine whether L1 reading and
spelling skills in primary school would predict L2 reading and spelling skills in
high school (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, Humbach, & Javorsky, 2008). In this
study, the measures of L1 word decoding, spelling, reading comprehension,
phonemic awareness, vocabulary, and listening comprehension administered
in first through fifth grades were used as predictors of L2 word decoding, L2
reading comprehension, and L2 spelling at the end of tenth grade. The results
showed that the best predictor of L2 word decoding skill in high school was L1
word decoding in elementary school, explaining 52% of the variance in first-
year L2 word decoding. The best predictors of later L2 spelling were L1 spelling
and L1 phonemic awareness in elementary school that together explained 54%
of the variance in L2 spelling. The best predictor of L2 reading comprehension
was L1 reading comprehension in elementary school. However, when L2 word
decoding skill replaced L1 word decoding as a predictor variable for L2 reading
comprehension in the analysis, the findings showed that L2 word decoding was
an important predictor of L2 reading comprehension, accounting for over 40%
of the variance alone. From these findings we inferred that even several years
after students learn to read and spell their L1, word decoding, spelling, and
reading comprehension skills may transfer from L1 to L2.
In a third study, the purpose was to examine the roles played by early L1
skills, L2 aptitude, and affective variables in predicting L2 proficiency (Sparks
et al., 2009a). In this study, the predictor variables of L2 proficiency included
not only the L1 skills measured in elementary school but also intelligence,
the MLAT, and L2 affective variables (motivation, anxiety) because we sought
to determine which types of variables, language and/or affective, would best
predict students’ oral and written L2 proficiency. The findings revealed strong
correlations (from .49 to .68) between early L1 skills in elementary school

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 16

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

and later L2 proficiency. But, the MLAT was the best predictor of overall
L2 proficiency, that is, MLAT alone predicted 56% of variance, and most of
the L2 proficiency subtests, that is, reading comprehension, writing, listening
comprehension, oral expression, spelling (with the exception of L2 word de-
coding). Given that our earlier study with these participants showed that L1
skills accounted for the bulk of the variance in L2 aptitude, we proposed that the
MLAT alone accounted for the variance in L2 proficiency that may have been
explained by L1 skills in the absence of the MLAT. In this study, L2 motivation
and/or L2 anxiety added a small amount of variance to the prediction of L2
proficiency. However, post-hoc findings suggested that the L2 motivation and
L2 anxiety surveys were more likely to be measuring students’ self-perceptions
of their language learning skills rather than a specific motivation for or anxiety
about L2 learning. For example, when the participants were divided into high,
average, and low motivation and anxiety groups according to their scores on the
motivation and anxiety surveys, the groups exhibited significant differences on
the L1 skill measures administered several years earlier in elementary school.
From these findings we inferred that language-related variables, in this case L2
aptitude, are the most robust predictors of L2 proficiency and suggested the
possibility of long-term cross-linguistic transfer of early L1 skills to later L2
aptitude and L2 proficiency.

Factor Analysis Study

In this study, we conducted a factor analysis that included all of the testing mea-
sures used in the longitudinal study, that is, L1 skills, intelligence, L2 aptitude
(the five MLAT subtests), L2 motivation, L2 anxiety (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow,
& Humbach, 2011). The study’s purpose was to determine whether the L1 and
L2 tests that measured similar skills would load on similar factors. The analysis
yielded four factors that we labeled: (1) Language Analysis, composed of L1 and
L2 language comprehension, grammar, and vocabulary measures, and induc-
tive language learning subtests from the MLAT; (2) Phonology/Orthography,
composed of L1 and L2 phonemic coding and phonological processing mea-
sures; (3) IQ/Memory, composed of an overall (verbal and nonverbal) measure
of intelligence and the paired-associate learning subtest from the MLAT; and
(4) Self-Perceptions of Language Skills, composed of the L2 motivation and
L2 anxiety surveys. The four factors explained 76% of the variance in oral
and written L2 proficiency with the first three factors accounting for the bulk
of the variance. The results showed that L1 phonological processing skills
(word decoding, spelling, phonological awareness) loaded on the same factor
as L2 phonological skills (MLAT Phonetic Script, MLAT Spelling Clues) and

17 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

also that L1 language comprehension, vocabulary, and reading comprehension

skills loaded on the same factor as L2 grammar and language comprehension
skills (MLAT Word in Sentences, MLAT Number Learning). The findings sup-
ported the claim that language aptitude is componential and can be divided into
subcomponents, each of which makes a contribution to language learning.

Comparison Studies
In the next study, we divided the 54 students into high-, average-, and low-
proficiency L2 groups based on their performance on the L2 proficiency mea-
sure that had been administered in tenth grade and then compared the three
groups on the L1 achievement measures that had been administered several
years earlier in elementary school, the L2 aptitude test (MLAT), and L2 course
grades (Sparks et al., 2009b). The primary purpose of the study was to deter-
mine whether students with different levels of L2 proficiency would exhibit
differences in early L1 literacy and language skills and, if so, how early in
school the L1 differences would emerge. The findings showed significant over-
all differences among the three proficiency groups on all of the L1 achievement
measures as early as second grade favoring the high-proficiency L1 learners On
the L1 skill measures, effect sizes ranged from .96 to 1.63 for the high- vs. low-
proficiency groups, and from .53 to 1.20 for the high- vs. average-proficiency
groups. There were also group differences on the MLAT with substantial ef-
fect sizes for the high- vs. low-proficiency groups (2.08) and the high- vs.
average-proficiency groups (1.13) (see Figure 7). The results revealed that L1
skill differences emerged early in elementary school and were related to L2
aptitude, L2 proficiency, and L2 achievement several years later in high school.
In another study, we tested our assumption that differences in affective
variables, in this case L2 anxiety, are related to L2 learners’ levels of L1
skill, L2 aptitude, and L2 proficiency (Sparks & Ganschow, 2007). In our
previous studies involving anxiety, participants’ L1 skills had been measured
when they began L2 courses. In this study, however, the students’ L1 skills
had been measured from four to 9 years (1st–5th grades) prior to encountering
a L2 for the first time. The primary purpose of this study was to determine
whether students with different levels of L2 anxiety in high school would
exhibit differences in early L1 literacy and language skills and, if so, how early
in school the L1 differences would emerge. The students were divided into
low-, average-, and high-anxiety groups according to their responses on the
FLCAS. The results showed that students who reported higher levels of anxiety
for L2 learning in high school exhibited significantly lower levels of L1 skill
as early as the second grade several years before they began L2 study and

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 18

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Figure 7 Continuum of Scores of Intelligence, L2 Aptitude, and L1 Skills Measures

for the High, Average, and Low L2 Proficiency Groups.a

significantly lower levels of L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency (see Figure 8). For
example, students in the low-anxiety group scored from .74 to .94 SD higher
than the high-anxiety group on all L1 skill measures by the end of first grade
and that the differences in the two groups’ L1 skills were larger by the end of
fifth grade, that is, from .91 to 1.15 SD; likewise, the low-anxiety group scored
1.41 SD higher than the high-anxiety group on the MLAT. In this investigation,
the students’ scores on all measures of L1 achievement in elementary school
were negatively correlated with the FLCAS, which had been administered in
high school. Based on our findings, we proposed that if the self-report measures
used by L2 researchers in their studies involving L2 anxiety were tapping into
a type of anxiety specific to L2 learning, there would be no a priori reason to
expect differences in L1 skills several years before exposure to the L2 or to find
that affect for L2 learning would be negatively correlated with L1 skills several
years before students encounter a L2 in the school environment. From these
findings, we inferred that affective measures in L2 studies may be measuring,
often correctly, students’ perceptions of their language learning skills (see also
Sparks, 1995; Sparks & Ganschow, 1995).

19 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Figure 8 Continuum of Scores of Intelligence, L2 Aptitude, L2 Proficiency and L1

Measures for the High, Average, and Low Anxiety Groups.a

Print Exposure Studies

Given our findings about the strong relationships between L1 and L2 skills,
we were especially interested in the relationship between L2 learning and L1
reading-related skills. In L1, research has found that early success in learning
to read generally leads to later success in reading; that reading volume, not
oral language, is the primary factor in individual differences in children’s
vocabularies and general knowledge; and that print exposure makes unique
contributions to individual differences in spelling, reading comprehension, and
verbal fluency. Likewise, poor reading early in school leads generally to life-
long problems in learning new information because children who fall behind
in reading early in school read less than their peers. In L1 research, Stanovich
(2000) developed measures of print exposure that were used as proxies for out-
of-school reading activity and validated the measures in a series of studies. In
our longitudinal study, we administered three measures of print exposure–the
Author Recognition Test, Magazine Recognition Test, and Cultural Literacy
Test—at the end of tenth grade and used the measures in two studies related to
L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency.

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 20

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

In the first study, the purpose was to determine whether L1 print exposure
would account for unique variance in L2 proficiency after adjusting for the
effects of early L1 skills in primary school, intelligence, L2 aptitude, and 10th
grade reading achievement (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, & Humbach, 2012). The
findings showed that L1 print exposure made significant and unique contribu-
tions to L2 reading comprehension (4.5%), L2 word decoding (3%), L2 verbal
expression and listening comprehension (6.2%), and overall L2 proficiency (up
to 6%) even after adjusting for the variance in the aforementioned skills. The re-
sults suggested that an environmental variable, L1 reading volume, contributes
to L2 proficiency and also that opportunity for and engagement in L1 literacy
experiences may be related to individual differences in L2 proficiency.
In the second study, the 54 participants were divided into three groups—
high, average, and low print exposure—and compared on the measures of
early L1 skill, L2 aptitude, and L2 proficiency (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, &
Humbach, in press). The purposes of this study were to determine whether
students with different levels of L1 print exposure would exhibit differences in
early L1 literacy skills (several years prior to beginning L2 study), L2 aptitude,
and L2 proficiency in high school; how early in primary school the differ-
ences in L1 literacy and language skills might emerge; and which measures
of L1 skill in primary school would best discriminate groups of students who
exhibit different levels of L1 print exposure. The results revealed significant
differences between the high and low print groups on all L1 skill, L2 apti-
tude, and L2 proficiency measures after controlling for group differences in IQ
(see Figure 9). On the L1 skill measures, effect sizes ranged from .92–3.07
for the high vs. low print groups, and from .64–1.12 for the high vs. average
print groups. On the MLAT, effect sizes were substantial for the high vs. low
print groups (2.16) and the high vs. average print groups (1.14); likewise, large
effect sizes on the L2 proficiency measure were found for the high vs. low print
groups (2.34), high vs. average print groups (.99), and average vs. low print
groups (1.63). Differences in L1 skills among the three print exposure groups
emerged as early as 1st grade. L1 phonemic awareness, L1 word decoding, and
L1 spelling measures were the best discriminators of L1 print exposure among
the three groups. The results supported our speculation that experiential factors
related to reading may play a role in L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency several
years after students acquire L1 literacy. Given the findings, we speculated that
strong L1 literacy and frequent print exposure could be related to L2 aptitude
and L2 proficiency by increasing students’ language knowledge as well as their
metalinguistic awareness, and that metacognitive knowledge may contribute to
both L1 and L2 reading development (see van Gelderen et al., 2004).

21 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Figure 9 Continuum of Scores of Intelligence, L2 Aptitude, L2 Proficiency, and L1

Skills Measures for the High, Average, and Low Print Exposure Groups.a

Conclusions and Future Directions

We began this research program by drawing on our backgrounds as L1 and
special educators in reading and learning disabilities and by speculating about
the relationships between L1 and L2 learning. Then, we began testing several
hypotheses related to L1 and L2 learning: (1) Students’ L1 skills serve as the
foundation for L2 learning, (2) there are long-term relationships between L1
learning and L2 development, (3) both L1 and L2 learning depend on basic
language components that are similar in L1 and L2, (4) problems with one
component of language will have a negative effect on learning in both L1 and
L2, and (5) affective characteristics are likely to be related to students’ level of
L1 skills and L2 aptitude. Over the years, our research findings with different
populations have resulted in our drawing inferences about these hypotheses
and developing a variety of new research questions. Likewise, our findings
support the work of others who came before us, for example, Cummins’ and
his Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, that is, L1 and L2 have a common
underlying proficiency, and his Threshold Hypothesis, that is, the level of L2
proficiency is moderated by one’s level of attainment in L1.

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 22

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

In this paper I focused on reviewing our research. But, in the course of

our work, we have found that other researchers have conducted studies on L2
learning that have resulted in their drawing similar inferences to ours. To cite
a few examples, other longitudinal studies, albeit of shorter duration, that have
examined L1–L2 reading have found that individual differences in early L1
skills such as phonological awareness and vocabulary are related to differences
in L2 learning (e.g., see review by Lesaux, Koda, Siegel, & Shanahan, 2006;
see also Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix, 1999; Lervag & Aukrust,
2010). Likewise, a meta-analysis of correlational evidence found moderate to
large correlations between L1 and L2 phonological awareness and word decod-
ing (Melby-Lervag & Lervag, 2011). In a study with Finnish elementary age
students, Dufva and Voeten (1999) found that over half of the variance in L2
vocabulary, writing, and listening comprehension were explained by students’
L1 word decoding, listening and reading comprehension, and phonological
memory skills. In a study with American college students, Meschyan and Her-
nandez (2002) found that English nonword decoding skill predicted L2 vocab-
ulary, grammar, decoding, and reading comprehension skills. In L2 research,
van Gelderen et al. (2004) have found that L1 reading comprehension in Dutch
contributes to L2 reading comprehension and that metacognitive knowledge
has a strong effect on L2 comprehension. In a series of prospective investi-
gations in Israel, Kahn-Horwitz followed students whose L1 is Hebrew from
third grade through ninth grade as they learned English. (See Kahn-Horwitz,
Sparks, & Goldstein, 2012, for a review of these studies.) Her findings showed
that Hebrew skills in third grade were strong predictors of English reading in
fourth grade, and that Hebrew phonological awareness predicted English word
decoding and reading comprehension at the end of ninth grade. Likewise, word
decoding and spelling in Hebrew measured in fourth grade predicted English
spelling in ninth grade.
To close, we maintain our interest in investigating long-term L1–L2 re-
lationships. We are also continuing our work on L2 learning with students
classified as learning disabled and other at-risk language learners, a topic on
which we have done extensive research that was not addressed in this paper.
Finally, I want to raise the question of whether individual differences in reading
L2 alphabetic languages can be explained in a manner similar to individual
differences in L1 reading in alphabetic languages. Recently, I completed a
study on this question using the Simple View of Reading model that has been
found after years of research to explain individual differences in L1 reading
(Sparks & Patton, 2012). The Simple View model proposes that reading com-
prehension is the product of word decoding and oral language comprehension

23 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

(R = D x C) (Hoover & Gough, 1990). Word decoding is best predicted by pseu-

doword reading and phonemic awareness, and reading comprehension is best
predicted by language (listening) comprehension and vocabulary. The model
asserts that the reader employs the same mechanisms, that is, knowledge of
vocabulary, syntax, semantics, that are used in the comprehension of spoken
language in order to comprehend decoded print. The model predicts that good
readers will have strong decoding and strong language comprehension skills;
however, poor readers can have poor decoding but good language comprehen-
sion, good decoding but poor language comprehension, or poor decoding and
poor language comprehension. I investigated whether the model would predict
L2 reading in the same manner as it predicts L1 reading, and also whether it
would explain individual differences in L2 reading skills. In this study com-
pleted with U. S. high school students learning Spanish, I found that Spanish
pseudoword decoding alone predicted 78% of the variance in Spanish word de-
coding, and Spanish listening (language) comprehension predicted 67% of the
variance in Spanish reading comprehension, while Spanish vocabulary knowl-
edge added an additional 3% variance. As predicted by the Simple View model,
students who were good Spanish decoders exhibited stronger Spanish reading
comprehension skills; likewise, students who were poor decoders exhibited
weaker reading comprehension. Also, as the model predicts, there was not a
unique relationship between Spanish word decoding and Spanish reading com-
prehension. Instead, L2 word decoding and L2 reading comprehension made
independent contributions to L2 reading ability. These findings suggest that
the question raised by Alderson (1984), Is L2 reading a reading problem or
a language problem, could be revised to ask the following: Is L2 reading a
decoding problem, a language comprehension problem, both a decoding and
comprehension problem, or neither a decoding nor comprehension problem?
This type of study and others will allow the L2 field to raise additional questions
about individual differences in language learning, cross-linguistic transfer of
L1–L2 skills, and long-term L1–L2 relationships.

Note
1 In Figure 1 and subsequent figures, I use the normal distribution curve to plot
students’ academic achievement and L2 aptitude scores. Figures 1–3 illustrate
various types of learners with disabilities, and Figures 4–9 illustrate academic
achievement differences between high- and low-achieving L2 learners, and
sometimes, average-achieving L2 learners.

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 24

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

References
Alderson, J. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language
problem? In J. Alderson & A. Urguhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language
(pp. 1–24). London: Longman.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.
Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, E., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study
of phonological processing skills in children learning to read a second language.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 29–43.
Dufva, M., & Voeten, M. (1999). Native language literacy and phonological memory
as prerequisites for learning English as a foreign language. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 20, 329–348.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (2001). Learning difficulties and foreign language
learning: A review of research and instruction. Language Teaching, 34, 79–98.
Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Kahn-Horwitz, J., Sparks, R., & Goldstein, Z. (2011). English as a foreign language
spelling development: A longitudinal study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33,
343–363.
Lervag, A., & Aukrust, V. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of
the difference in reading comprehension between first and second language
learners. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 612–620.
Lesaux, N., Koda, K., Siegel, L., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Development of literacy. In
D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners
(pp. 75–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Melby-Lervag, M., & Lervag, A. (2011). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language,
decoding, phonological awareness, and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of
the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 114–135.
Meschyan, G., & Hernandez, A. (2002). Is native-language decoding skill related to
second-language learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 14–22.
Skehan, P., & Ducroquet, L. (1988). A comparison of first and foreign language ability.
ESOL Department, Institute of Education, London University: Working Documents
No. 8.
Sparks, R. (1995). Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis to explain
individual differences in foreign language learning. Annals of Dyslexia, 45,
187–214.
Sparks, R., & Artzer, M. (2000). Foreign language learning, hyperlexia, and early
word recognition. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 189–211.

25 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning difficulties: Affective
or native language aptitude differences? Modern Language Journal, 75, 3–16.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign
language learning problems: Linking first and second language learning. Modern
Language Journal, 77, 289–302.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal factors in
foreign language learning: A response to MacIntyre. Modern Language Journal, 79,
235–244.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2007). Is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety
Scale measuring anxiety or language skills? Foreign Language Annals, 40,
260–287.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Patton, J. (2008). L1 and L2 literacy, aptitude, and
affective variables as discriminators among high- and low-achieving L2 learners
with special needs. In J. Kormos & E. Kontra (Eds.), Language learners with
special needs (pp. 11–35). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., & Pohlman, J. (1989). Linguistic coding deficits in foreign
language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 179–195.
Sparks, R., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Comparing high and low achieving,
LD, and ADHD foreign language learners: Individual and longitudinal differences.
Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 29–43.
Sparks, R., & Patton, J. (2012). L2 reading is hard because L2 listening is hard, too:
The simple view. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., & Ganschow, L. (2012). Profiles of more and less successful L2
learners: A cluster analysis study. Learning and Individual Differences, 22,
463–472.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009a). Long-term relationships
among early language skills, L2 aptitude, L2 affect, and later L2 proficiency.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 725–755.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009b). Long-term cross
linguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203–243.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2012). Do L1 reading
achievement and L1 print exposure contribute to the prediction of L2 proficiency?
Language Learning, 62, 473–505.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (in press). Relationships among
L1 print exposure and early L1 literacy skills, L2 aptitude, and L2 proficiency.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2011). Subcomponents of L2
aptitude and L2 proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 95, 1–21.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2006). Native
language predictors of foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude.
Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 129–160.

Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27 26

Sparks L2 Learning and Long-Term L1–L2 Relationships

Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Early
first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and
spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 162–174.
Stanovich, K. (1988). The right and wrong places to look for the cognitive locus of
reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 154–177.
Stanovich, L. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and
new frontiers. New York: Guilford.
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al.
(2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in
first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 19–30.

27 Language Learning 62:Suppl. 2, September 2012, pp. 5–27

Copyright of Language Learning is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.