37.624, Reviews: Second Language Anxiety: Richard L. Sparks (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-624. Sat Feb 14 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.624, Reviews: Second Language Anxiety: Richard L. Sparks (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 13-Feb-2026
From: Abdullah Alghamdi [aaa553 at pitt.edu]
Subject: Applied Linguistics, Language Acquisition: Richard L. Sparks (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/36-2402

Title: Second Language Anxiety
Subtitle: Affective or Linguistic Variable?
Series Title: Psychology of Language Learning and Teaching
Publication Year: 2025

Publisher: Multilingual Matters
           http://www.multilingual-matters.com/
Book URL:
https://www.multilingual-matters.com/page/detail/?K=9781800418776

Author(s): Richard L. Sparks

Reviewer: Abdullah Alghamdi

SUMMARY
This book thoroughly examines the interrelationship between people’s
skills in their native language and their second language (L2)
aptitude and proficiency, as well as the anxiety they experience while
learning it. Drawing assertions from reputable scholarly sources
published over the last 30 years, the author challenges the central
premise that anxiety significantly affects people’s assimilation and
proficiency in second languages. Instead, the book deduces that the
primary determinants of second language proficiency are the actual
linguistic skills and the natural ability to learn. Hence, in line
with the book’s argument, anxiety is simply a side-effect of language
proficiency propagated by the aforementioned two primary factors.
The book starts with a comprehensive introduction in which the
scholars highlight the background and pressing issues that warranted
the research. In line with the principles derived from reading,
special education, and learning assessment, the scholars note that the
assimilation and use of L2 fundamentally align with the core
principles of studying any language, including native ones. Therefore,
a person’s skill or knowledge in his or her native language is
instrumental in learning L2. Still, in the introduction, the scholarly
piece, which compared proficient and unsuccessful L2 learners, stated
that there are consistent gaps between the subjects’ native-language
capacity and their natural ability to learn alien languages, leading
to a phenomenon referred to as the Linguistic Coding Differences
Hypothesis (LCDH). This theory postulates that the gap in L2 learning
fundamentally stems from a person’s ability to process language, not
from an inherent disability. Therefore, in line with LCGH, the
argument for a “fixed language disability” is void, validating the
premise that supports the flexibility of language learning.
Part One of the book challenges the premise that emotional variables,
such as anxiety and stress, as well as underlying linguistic skills,
are the fundamental hindrances to learning new languages. In order to
test the prevailing hypothesis that anxiety significantly determines
the proficiency of L2 assimilation and application, the authors of the
main articles in the book used a rigorous testing method that asked
respondents whether the variable actually explains why people acquire
knowledge at different rates and whether it affects their language
ability. Most findings, which used diverse groups of participants,
consistently deduced that students with high anxiety had weaker skills
in their native language and a lower capacity for learning L2. Hence,
the author concluded that emotional factors, such as stress, anxiety,
and motivation, are mainly the outcome of struggling with language
learning rather than the primary cause of the problem.
Part Two presents the outcomes of a 10-year longitudinal study
targeting learners from elementary to high school. This section’s
primary focus was to establish whether tests that measure language
anxiety, such as the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS),
focus solely on the emotional aspect or can also gauge an individual’s
underlying linguistic skills. It also summarized and analyzed the
results of the anxiety tests. The research concluded that the anxious
students, as confirmed by the FLCAS outcomes, had already exhibited
weaker skills in their native languages in prior years, long before
they commenced learning the L2. The study also established a strong
negative correlation between the student’s FLCAS score and the level
of improvement in their native language skills in the future. In
short, anxious students are most likely to struggle to strengthen
their native language skills. Therefore, these outcomes make experts
question whether these anxiety instruments solely measure a person’s
emotional stability or whether they go beyond the function to gauge an
individual’s language ability.
Using the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS) as the
central instrument of analysis, Part Three of the book examines
reading anxiety and how it affects language comprehension and
application. Studies consistently highlight that students with lower
anxiety perform better in language acquisition than their more anxious
counterparts. Specifically, they exhibit stronger native language
literacy measures as well as L2 aptitude, reading, writing, and
listening outcomes. Because of the closer interconnection between
individuals’ anxiety and natural language ability, the scholars
concluded that the FLRAS test does not solely gauge the absolute
feeling of anxiety. Therefore, based on this inference, it would be
prudent to deduce that the FLRAS score primarily reflects the
students’ language ability and their confidence.
Part Four employs complex statistical models and instruments to gauge
how the critical variables, including native language proficiency, L2
aptitude and achievement, as well as L2 anxiety, are linked. The
analysis showed no correlation between weaker native language skills
and anxiety. Instead, it emphasizes that insufficient competency in
the native language inhibits a person’s natural ability to be
multilingual. In short, it derails the natural ability to learn and
apply L2 in different contexts. Ultimately, these language struggles
cause anxiety, which hampers further learning. Therefore, the main
deduction from the statistical analysis is that a person’s language
ability is paramount for future learning, and anxiety is a consequence
of insufficiency.
Part Five extends the analysis to examine notable gaps in anxiety
research. It criticizes the use of anxiety alone to explain
differential language acquisition and application. It also notes that
the renounced anxiety tests, such as FLRAS and FLCAS, may inaccurately
measure the phenomenon as they focus on an individual’s underlying
skills. It also questions studies that fail to indicate the
cause-and-effect relationship between anxiety and language learning or
proficiency. Overall, given the limitations outlined in the research,
the book argues that the common assertion that anxiety is the primary
determinant of language learning is inadequate.
EVALUATION
The book, which is thoroughly researched, makes a significant
contribution to understanding differential L2 learning. Its strength
primarily stems from extensive, consistent evidence that challenges
the misconstrued claim that language anxiety is the fundamental
determinant of L2 learning difficulties. In addition, unlike past
research that focuses on a single moment in time, this longitudinal
study tracks students over years, showing the progression of their
learning skills and considering the interconnectedness among native
language learning, L2 comprehension, and anxiety. Indeed, as
highlighted by Hopwood et al. (2022), longitudinal studies allow
researchers to understand the degree and direction of change over
time, thereby providing a more detailed understanding of the
relationships among study variables. Therefore, the adoption of this
research design enables the authors to draw much stronger conclusions
about the relationships among native language learning, L2
comprehension, and anxiety.
The adoption of thorough and careful research methods is a major
strength of this book. Notably, through a comprehensive longitudinal
research study, it highlights the weaknesses of common anxiety tests
like FLRAS and FLCAS: they project the language skills that learners
already have (Horwitz et al., 1986). Consequently, this gap raises
questions about whether the tests accurately measure the subjects’
anxiety levels. In addition, in line with Platt’s (1964) premise, the
study strengthens its central hypothesis by testing and refuting
misconceptions, including the claim that anxiety is the primary reason
for language-learning difficulties. Besides, in conformity with
Royall’s. (2017) argument, the authors of the book apply advanced
statistical methods, such as structural equation modelling, to
establish the causal relationships among native language
comprehension, L2 learning, and anxiety. This thorough analysis
produces a well-backed finding.
This book is critical for researchers who are interested in
understanding how emotional variables, such as anxiety and motivation,
dictate language learning. It is particularly important as it
challenges the common misconception that anxiety plays an integral
role in hindering L2 learning. Based on this study’s empirical
evidence, it would be prudent to create a stable learning environment
that reassures students and motivates them to suppress anxiety (Kobra,
2024). Consequently, they would have the emotional stability to
acquire adequate knowledge. Besides, in line with Carroll’s (1962)
assertion, the book reiterates the importance of native language
comprehension and attitude in improving L2 learning. Therefore, this
study encourages a collaborative approach that would make learning
enjoyable and suppress anxiety.
Despite its large volume, which draws on multiple studies, the book is
well-organized and coherent. The book has recurrent themes and data
sets throughout, which support the main hypothesis: anxiety is not the
main determinant of language learning. In the first four sections, the
authors introduce the theoretical underpinnings that oppose the
assertion that anxiety hinders language learning. They indeed
highlight underlying factors linking L2 learning struggles to
native-language comprehension difficulties. Consequently, the
statistical analysis validates the claim, showing no correlation
between native language comprehension and anxiety. Based on this
evidence, it is clear that each new chapter builds on the preceding
one, ensuring that the book is coherent and the flow of ideas is
smooth. The unified approach makes the scholarly arguments easy to
understand and powerful, strengthening the book’s validity.
Despite the aforementioned strength, the volume’s firm stance may
trigger antagonistic debates. According to Jannah and Juniardi (2025),
emotions, including anxiety, largely affect the students’ learning
comprehension. Therefore, stakeholders may question whether it is
possible to differentiate anxiety from pedagogical approaches,
students’ mindsets, and classroom ambience. In addition, it would be
tough to determine whether nervousness in the classroom could be the
fundamental cause of anxiety, which in turn hinders language learning.
Hence, it would be prudent for future studies to examine how emotional
variables, such as motivation and anxiety, interact with pedagogical
methods to affect students’ comprehension of different languages.
This book primarily targets researchers, testing experts, and graduate
students interested in understanding differences in language
assimilation. Nonetheless, given that it mainly focuses on theory, it
may be less instrumental for practitioners who are seeking prompt
pedagogical guidance. Despite this shortcoming, the study cautions
educators against blaming learning struggles on anxiety alone without
taking into account the classroom environment, native language skills,
natural language learning ability, and reading or writing background.
To summarize, this book succeeds in achieving its central goal: it
presents coherent, strong, statistically supported, and evidence-based
deductions that question the prevailing hypothesis that anxiety is the
fundamental determinant of success or failure in language learning.
Whether or not stakeholders concur with the main arguments, the text
prompts critical thinking and encourages researchers to conduct
further empirical studies to understand the role that emotions play in
language comprehension, especially in L2.
REFERENCES
Hopwood, C. J., Bleidorn, W., & Wright, A. G. (2022). Connecting
theory to methods in longitudinal research. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 17(3), 884-894.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621100840
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language
classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70 (2), 125–132. (no
DOI, PDF Available)
Jannah, A., & Juniardi, Y. (2025). Anxiety vs. understanding: How
reading stress affects language learners’ comprehension?. JETLEE:
Journal of English Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Literature,
5(1), 106-120. https://doi.org/10.47766/jetlee.v5i1.5069
Kobra, K. (2024). Unravelling the complex web of student anxiety:
Strategies to foster confidence, motivation, and well-being in
learning. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews,
5(6), 1888-1892.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Khadijatul-Kobra-6/publication/381460871_Unraveling_the_Complex_Web_of_Student_Anxiety_Strategies_to_Foster_Confidence_Motivation_and_Well-Being_in_Learning/links/666e8d23de777205a32ff461/Unraveling-the-Complex-Web-of-Student-Anxiety-Strategies-to-Foster-Confidence-Motivation-and-Well-Being-in-Learning.pdf
Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference: Certain systematic methods of
scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others.
Science, 146(3642), 347-353.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3642.34
Royall, R. (2017). Statistical evidence: A likelihood paradigm.
Routledge.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
The reviewer is a PhD student in Linguistics at the University of
Pittsburgh. His research interests include second language
acquisition, language influence and language transfer, individual
differences, and research methodology. His work focuses on how
first-language development, cognitive factors, and affective variables
interact in instructed second language learning.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-624
----------------------------------------------------------