Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:09:21.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

32 - Feedback, Aptitude, and Multilingualism

from Part VIII - Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Beatriz Lado  and
Cristina Sanz
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

Aptitude and language experience (i.e., multilingualism) are two individual differences that have attracted increasing interest in the field of second language acquisition. This chapter looks at the role that aptitude and multilingualism play on language learning under different pedagogical conditions, and specifically with different forms of feedback. Questions that we try to answer are: Do learners with high cognitive aptitudes and language experience benefit more from corrective feedback than those with low cognitive aptitudes and language experience? What cognitive aptitudes benefit learning when receiving implicit vs. explicit feedback? What type of feedback is effective regardless of learners’ cognitive aptitudes and language experience? Results from laboratory and classroom research with adult learners suggest that the effects of feedback on language development are constrained by a number of cognitive aptitudes such as linguistic analytic ability and rote memory. Multilingualism seems to provide young adults with an advantage under conditions that do not include metalinguistic information during provision of feedback. For learners over 65, however, learning appears to be negatively affected by what they perceive as an excess of information during practice, i.e., when feedback includes information about how the language works, but not when that information is presented prior to practice.

Keywords

Aptitudeworking memorymultilingualismfeedback typemetalinguistic awarenessagingmigrantlearning context
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 689 - 712
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. II, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. (2017). Modularity, working memory and language acquisition. Second Language Research, 33(3), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. VIII. pp. 47–90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3–11. DOI:10.1017/S1366728908003477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. & Senman, L. (2004). Executive processes in appearance–reality tasks: The role of inhibition of attention and symbolic representation. Child Development, 75, 562–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E. & Shapero, D. (2005). Ambiguous benefits: The effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science, 8, 595–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.Google Scholar
Bowden, H., Sanz, C. & Stafford, C. A. (2005). Individual differences: Age, sex, working memory, and prior knowledge. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 105–140). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Brohy, C. (2001). Generic and/or specific advantages of bilingualism in a dynamic plurilingual situation: The case of French as official L3 in the school of Samedan (Switzerland). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 38–49.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In Diller, K. C. (ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46, 71–86.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J. F. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195–207.Google Scholar
Clyne, M., Rossi Hunt, C. & Isaakidis, T. (2004). Learning a community language as a third language. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (1992), Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (2007). The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting multi-competence among second language users? In Cummins, J. & Davison, C. (eds.), International handbook on English language teaching, Springer International Handbooks of Education Vol. 15 (pp. 237–248). Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
Cox, J. (2017). Explicit instruction, bilingualism and the older adult learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 29–58.Google Scholar
Cox, J. & Sanz, C. (2015). Deconstructing PI for the ages: Explicit instruction vs. practice in young and older adult bilinguals. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Individual Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Houwer, A., & Ortega, L. (2019). The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., Campbell, S., Mislevy, M., Bunting, M., Bowles, A. & Koeth, J. (2010). Predicting near-native ability: The factor structure and reliability of Hi-LAB. In Prior, M., Watanabe, Y. & Lee, S. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 10–31). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67–89.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. (1990). Attitudes, motivation, and personality as predictors of success in foreign language learning. In Parry, T. S. & Stansfield, C. W. (eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 179–221). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
Gibson, M., Hufeisen, B. & Libben, G. (2001). Learners of German as an L3 and their production of German prepositional verbs. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition (pp. 138–148). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ardeo, J. M. (2000). Engineering students and ESP in the Basque Country: SLA versus TLA. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.), Looking beyond second language acquisition: Studies in tri- and multilingualism (pp. 75–95). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2016). Explicit and implicit cognitive aptitudes and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(3), 577–600.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2019). Cognitive aptitudes and L2 speaking proficiency: Links between LLAMA and HI-LAB. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 313–336. DOI:10.1017/S0272263118000256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J. & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A theory-based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The canal-F theory and test. Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 390–405.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B. & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilchey, M. D. & Klein, R. M. (2011). Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes. Psychon Bulletin & Review, 18(4), 625–658.Google Scholar
Hummel, K. (2009). Aptitude, phonological memory, and second language proficiency in nonnovice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(2), 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshavarz, H. M. & Astaneh, H. (2004). The impact of bilinguality on the learning of English vocabulary as a foreign language (L3). Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(4), 295–302.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisition and learning. In Diller, K. C. (ed.), Individual differences & universals in language learning (pp. 155–175). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lado, B. (2017). Aptitude and pedagogical conditions in the early development of a nonprimary language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(3), 679–701.Google Scholar
Lado, B., Bowden, H., Stafford, C. & Sanz, C. (2014). A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 320–344.Google Scholar
Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., Stafford, C. & Sanz, C. (2017). Two birds, one stone, or how learning a foreign language makes you a better language learner. Hispania, 100(3), 361–378.Google Scholar
Lado, B. & Sanz, C. (2016). Methods in multilingualism research. In K. King, Y. J. Lai, S. May, (eds.), Research methods in language and education: Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2000). Three languages and three linguistic models in the Basque educational system. In Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 179–197). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lenet, A. E., Sanz, C., Lado, B., Howard, J. H. J. & Howard, D. V. (2011). Aging, pedagogical conditions, and differential success in SLA: An empirical study. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. P. (eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 73–84). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The differential roles of two aptitude components in mediating the effects of two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. In Sanz, C. & Lado, B. (eds.), Individual differences, L2 development & language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 32–52). Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 385–408.Google Scholar
Li, Shaofeng. (2017). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 396–417). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Linck, J., Hughes, M., Campbell, S., Silbert, N., Tare, M., Jackson, S., Smith, B., Bunting, M. & Doughty, C. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63(3), 530–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Fujii, A., Egi, T. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Robinson, P. and Skehan, P. (eds.), Individual differences in L2 learning (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1995). Aptitude from an information-processing perspective. Language Testing, 12(3), 370–387.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. & Nayak, N. (1989). Processing a new language: Does knowing other languages make a difference? In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 5–16). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information‐processing perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135–158.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea: Lognostics.Google Scholar
Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2000). Bilingualism and trilingualism in school students in Catalonia. In Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 157–178). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nation, R. & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Novices and experts: An information processing approach to the “good language learner” problem. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N. & McLaughlin, B. (1990). Language-learning strategies in monolingual and multilingual adults. Language Learning, 40(2), 221–244.Google Scholar
Okita, Y. & Jun Hai, G. (2001). Learning of Japanese Kanji character by bilingual and monolingual Chinese speakers. In Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & Jessner, U. (eds.), Looking beyond second language acquisition: Studies in tri-and multilingualism (pp. 63–73). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi-multilingual turn in SLA. In May, S. (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ottó, I. (2002). Magyar Egységes Nyelvérzékmérö-Teszt [Hungarian Language Aptitude Test]. Kaposvar: Mottó-Logic Bt.Google Scholar
Paap, K. R. & Greenberg, Z. (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 232–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, D. C. (2000). The basic mechanisms accounting for age-related decline in cognitive function. In Park, D. C. & Schwarz, N. (eds.), Cognitive aging: A primer (pp. 3–21). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Parry, T. S. & Stansfield, C. W. (1990). Language aptitude reconsidered. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
Pimsleur, P. (1966). The Pimsleur language aptitude battery. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47(1), 45–99.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfield and Hernstadt (1991). In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45–73.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 235–268.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. & Abbuhl, R. (2013a). Optimizing the noticing of recasts vis computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 196–216.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. & Abbuhl, R. (2013b). Computer-delivered feedback and L2 development: The role of explicitness and working memory. In Sanz, C. & Lado, B. (eds.), Individual differences, L2 development & language program administration: From theory to application (pp. 53–70). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Sagasta, M. (2003). Acquiring writing skills in a third language: Positive effects of bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 27–42.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(1), 23–44.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sanz, C.(2005). Adult SLA: The interaction between internal and external factors. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 3–20). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (2007). The role of bilingual literacy in the acquisition of a third language. In Pérez Vidal, C., Bel, A. & Juan Garau, M. (eds.), A portrait of the young in the new multilingual Spain (pp. 220–240), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., Lin., H., Lado, B., Bowden, H. B. & Stafford, C. A. (2009). Concurrent verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: two CALL studies. Language Learning, 59(1), 33–71.Google Scholar
(2016). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory capacity in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 669–692.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., Park, H. I. & Lado, B. (2014). A functional approach to cross-linguistic influence in ab initio L3 acquisition. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 18(2), 236–251.Google Scholar
Sawyer, M. & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp. 69–93). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, R. L., Javorsky, J. & Ganschow, L. (2005). Should the modern language aptitude test be used to determine course substitutions for and waivers of the foreign language requirement? Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 201–210. DOI:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02485.x.Google Scholar
Stafford, C., Sanz, C. & Bowden, W. H. (2010). An experimental study of early L3 development: age, bilingualism and classroom exposure. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2), 162–183.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67(4), 747–790.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N. & Hart, D. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 3(1), 65–81.Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Borges Mota, M. & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Working memory, learning context, and the acquisition of L2 Syntax. In Zhisheng, W., Borges Mota, M. & McNeill, A. (eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 224–247). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Tagarelli, K. M., Ruiz, S., Moreno, J. L. & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Special Issue): Cognitive Perspectives on Difficulty and Complexity in SLA, 38(2), 293–316.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9(3), 235–246.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A. & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 171–195). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A. & Stevenson, M. (2003). Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and processing speed in L3, L2, and L1 reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. & Doughty, C. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction studies in second language acquistition: Findings and methodology. In Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273–292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wagner, D., Spratt, J. & Ezzaki, A. (1989). Does learning to read in a second language always put the child at a disadvantage? Some counterevidence from Morocco. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10(1), 31–48.Google Scholar
Wen, Z., Biedroń, A. & Skehan, P. (2017). Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Language Teaching, 50(1), 1–31. DOI:10.1017/S0261444816000276.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Winke, P. (2013), An investigation into second language aptitude for advanced Chinese language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 109–130.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344–368.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. & Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(1), 147–161.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×