Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and speech production: a pilot study of second

language learners
Jean-Marc Dewaele a,*, Adrian Furnham b
a
Department of French, Birkbeck College, University of London, 43 Gordon Square, London, WC1H 0PD, UK
b
Department of Psychology, University College London, University of London, London, UK
Received 10 July 1998; received in revised form 5 March 1999; accepted 26 March 1999

Abstract

Personality traits, and extraversion in particular, has long been unjustly neglected in applied
linguistics. Some cognitive and physiological characteristics associated with extraversion, such as
superior short-term memory and better resistance to stress, can explain interindividual variation in
speech production. Working within the theoretical framework of Levelt [Levelt, W. J. M. (1989).
Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA±London: ACL-MIT Press.] and de Bot [de
Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model. Levelt's `speaking' model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13
(1), 1±24.], we analysed the French oral interlanguage of 25 Flemish university students and related this
to their EPI scores. Correlational analyses between extraversion scores and 6 linguistic variables
re¯ecting ¯uency and accuracy revealed that extravert bilinguals are more ¯uent than introvert
bilinguals, especially in interpersonal stressful situations. Di€erent hypotheses are presented to explain
this phenomenon. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Relatively few studies have examined the e€ect of personality on spontaneous speech
production (Carell, Prince & Astika, 1996). Furnham (1990) describes the existing literature on
the relationship between personality/cognitive style and language measures as unsatisfactory
and frustrating because of an absence of ``parsimonious, consistent, fruitful theories described
speci®cally for, or derived from, the personality markers of speech (. . . ) the `theories' that do
exist are frequently at an inappropriate levelÐtoo molecular in that they deal speci®cally with

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-171-631-6170; fax: +44-171-383-3729.

E-mail address: j.dewaele@bbk.ac.uk (J.M. Dewaele)

0191-8869/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 9 1 - 8 8 6 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 0 6 - 3
356 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365

the relationship between a restricted number of selected variables or too molar in the sense
that by being over-inclusive they are either unveri®able or unfruitful in the extent to which
they generate testable hypotheses'' (1990, p. 92).
In this article we will focus on one particular psychological dimension, extraversion±
introversion, that brie¯y appeared in the applied linguistics literature in the 1970s (Naiman,
Frohlich, Stern & Todesco, 1978), as a potential correlate of language learning, before being
judged irrelevant as a correlate of speech production (Wilson, 1977). We will attempt to
demonstrate that extraversion is inextricably linked with ¯uency in second language (L2)
production. For this we will draw upon ®ndings in di€erent disciplines: the research on short-
term memory which shows that capacity correlates with ¯uency; psycholinguistic and applied
linguistic studies which show that second language production is less ¯uent than ®rst language
(L1) production because it needs more conscious interventions by the speaker, which risks to
overload his/her working memory; and ®nally, studies by personality psychologists which show
that extraverts have a better short-term memory; are more stress-resistant and are less anxious
in second language production.
Studies on language and extraversion are relatively few in number (Furnham, 1990). They
have been performed, moreover, by researchers working in di€erent disciplines (educational
psychology, personality psychology, applied linguistics) with di€erent methodologies and
expectations and hence dicult to compare (Muniz-Fernandez & Granizo, 1981). Furnham
(1990) argued that personality theorists do not consider speech production interesting enough
to warrant an in-depth investigation. There is also the problem of ®nding the appropriate level
for analysis. Theoreticians in the ®eld of personality research want to explain linguistic
behaviour at a global level and do not wish to analyse linguistic subsystems in detail.
Psycholinguists and sociolinguists, on the other hand, get confused by the multiplicity of
theories in the ®eld of personality research and seem uncertain of which traits to measure and
at which level (super or primary-traits).
Dewaele and Furnham (1999) point out that a majority of studies on extraversion and
language performed by linguists focused on the e€ect of extraversion on language learning. One
seriously ¯awed study by Naiman et al. (1978) on personality variables and language learning,
where extraversion scores were found not to correlate with language test results, was quoted
for two decades but never challenged in applied linguistic studies. This negative publicity for
trait extraversion was so strong that researchers seemed to believe that no signi®cant link could
be expected between extraversion and any linguistic measure. Dewaele and Furnham (1999)
suggest that if Naiman et al. (1978) had used a wider variety of more sophisticated linguistic
variables, covering not only written language but also natural communicative oral language,
they might have found that the construct validity of the EPI was not to blame for the lack of
expected correlations.
Some researchers, however, subsequently found links between extraversion scores and
linguistic variables depending on the type of linguistic material they used. Whenever
extraversion scores were correlated with results from written tests, no signi®cant link appeared.
Other studies where extraversion scores were correlated against speech or language variables
revealed inconsistent or non-signi®cant relationships (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999). Many of
these studies are of poor quality with either poor measures of extraversion (i.e. teacher
nomination); a small N and a limited range of linguistic variables. Moreover, rarely, if ever, do
 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365 357

authors check the reliability of the linguistic measures which therefore may need to be
attenuated due to lack of inherent reliability.
Recent research highlighted the importance of short-term memory capacity in verbal
production. Rosen and Engle (1997) found that only high memory span participants could
perform complex verbal tasks ¯uently while monitoring their output. The low memory span
participants on the other hand committed more errors and ``did not have sucient working
memory capacity to allocate to all three of the retrieval components that required controlled
attention'' (p. 224). Cowan et al. (1998) conclude that rehearsal eciency and short-term
memory retrieval eciency determine an individual's memory span (p. 158). This generally
con®rms an earlier study by Roodenrys, Hulme, Alban and Ellis (1994) who found that
accessibility and articulation rates of words retrieved from short-term memory were determined
by their frequency (high frequency words being articulated faster) and by the age at which the
speaker had acquired the word (words acquired later in life being articulated more slowly).
We used Levelt's (1989) model of speech production in which short-term memory plays a
vital role. His idea that three autonomous processing components operate in the speech
production process (the conceptualizer, the formulator and the articulator) is now widely
accepted (Poulisse, 1997). The components work in parallel on di€erent fragments of the
message, which makes for a very ecient system. The intermediate representations are stored
in di€erent facilities when they become available. Message-parsed, internal speech and
preverbal messages are stored in the working memory which also monitors the speakers' own
internal or overt speech (Levelt, 1989, p. 21). Bits of the surface structure are stored in the
syntactic bu€er and stretches of the articulatory plan are stored in the articulatory bu€er for
further execution as motor programs (p. 28). These bu€ers are not considered to be part of
working memory in ¯uent L1 production (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993, p. 90). The situation
may be radically di€erent in L2 production however, because of the incompleteness of the
learners' knowledge base and mental lexicon. Less automatic processing (Paradis, 1994) which
forces them to attend to their processing problems at critical points (Temple, 1997, p. 86).
Temple (1997) states that L2 speech production needs more working memory, with attention
directed at virtually every stage of processing. She suggests that ``the bu€er system is
proceeding quite di€erently from L1 ( . . . ) and that working memory is being used to store and
coordinate fragments processed by the formulator, before the next stage of processing'' (p. 87).
As the working memory capacity is strictly limited (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993), parallel
processing breaks down and is replaced by serial processing with word-by-word or phrasal type
of production (Temple, 1997). It thus appears that capacity in short-term memory is crucial for
¯uent L2 production.
Several psychological studies have indicated that extraverts are superior to introverts in
short-term memory. M.W. Eysenck (1981) found that introverts take longer than extraverts to
retrieve information from long-term or permanent storage (p. 204). One possible reason for
this di€erence, according to M.W. Eysenck (1981), could be the overarousal of the introverts
which would a€ect their parallel processing. Introverts would therefore be ``at a disadvantage
in any task ( . . .) involving the processing of several di€erent items of information'' (p. 203).
Matthews (1992), using a free recall experiment, con®rmed earlier ®ndings on the extraverts'
superior short-term memory. The results provide ``fairly direct evidence for extraverts storing
more information in the verbal input register'' (Matthews & Dorn, 1995, p. 383). Matthews
358 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365

and Dorn (1995) further suggest that ``the low-level mechanism of passive, verbal storage
appears to be the main vehicle for extraverts' superiority in Short-Term Memory'' (1995, p.
384). Matthews and Deary (1998) point out that ``the superior verbal processing functions of
extraverts may help the extravert in conversation with others'' (p. 231). The combination of the
extraverts' speed of retrieval of information from memory and their higher degree of
physiological stress resistance would explain their better performance in high-stimulation
environments (Matthews & Deary, 1998).
Introverts also tend to be more socially anxious (Cheek & Buss, 1981) and a high anxiety introvert is more
leads to increased attentional selectivity and reduced attentional capacity (Fremont, Means & anxious when they

Means, 1976; Eysenck, 1979; M.W. Eysenck, 1981). M.W. Eysenck also argues that the higher
have to deal with
social interaction
anxiety of the introverts could further reduce the available processing capacity of working
memory, ``This would explain why introverts take longer to access information (. . . ) from
long-term memory or permanent storage'' (1981, p. 203). Eysenck (1979) reconceptualised
anxiety in terms of cognitive interference. He suggested that anxious people divide their
attention between task-related cognition and self-related cognition, making cognitive
performance less ecient. Eysenck suggested that the anxious person tries to compensate for
the reduced eciency by increased e€ort. MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) pointed out that
Eysenck's theory ``is able to explain the negative e€ects observed for language anxiety'' (p.
285). MacIntyre and Gardner (1994) found that language anxiety ``tends to correlate with
measures of performance in the second language but not in the native language'' (p. 301). The
authors concluded that the ``potential e€ects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the
second language may be pervasive and may be quite subtle'' (p. 301). Pursuing this line of
research, MacIntyre and Charos (1996) used path analysis to investigate the role of global
personality traits on self reported frequency of communication in a second language. They
found that introverts are less willing to communicate in their French L2 than extraverts (p. 18).
Matthews and Dorn (1995) suggest that the extraverts' better resistance to stress may result
from their ``low autonomic arousability ( . . . ) and the insensitivity to punishment signals (. . . )''
(p. 391). These ``processing characteristics of extraverts may assist them in dealing with high
information ¯ows (particularly of verbal stimuli) and time pressure'' (p. 391).
This short overview of psychological and psycholinguistic literature provides clear evidence
of the importance of short-term memory in speech production and of the linguistic
consequences this could have for extraverts who are equipped with a superior short-term
memory, coupled to a lower social anxiety and a lower language anxiety.
This study examined correlations between extraversion and a wider range of linguistic
variables than had been done in previous studies. Several linguistic variables that are indicators
of formality, ¯uency and complexity in advanced French interlanguage were considered. This
study examines French speech production though there is no reason to assume that results
would be di€erent in any other language. The study focuses on the relationship between
personality and L2 production though it is expected that personality is also a predictor of L1
usage. It is, however, probable that the relationship between extraversion and L2 usage is more
pronounced than when speaking one's L1 because of the heavier demands on the short-term
memory.
 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365 359

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Twenty-®ve Flemish university students, 8 female and 17 male, aged between 18 and 21
years, participated in the experiments. They had taken French at a high school level (3±5 hours
a week) for 6±8 years. The participants were administered a sociobiographical questionnaire
and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964) in order to determine their
degree of extraversion (Mean score: 11.48, SD 3.2; Normative score: 11).

2.2. Linguistic material

Conversations were recorded with the 25 participants in an interpersonal stressful and a

neutral situation. The interpersonal stressful situation consisted of an oral exam of about
10 min that aimed at evaluating the learners' pro®ciency in the target-language. Topics were
various everyday topics and the participants' performance for other exams. In all, 5 hours of
speech (17,613 words) were recorded. The neutral situation involved conversations between the
same researcher and participants in a relaxed atmosphere. There was no time-restriction.
Topics covered studies, hobbies and politics. In all, 15 hours of speech (35,021 words) were
recorded. The recordings were transcribed by the researcher into orthographical French. These
transcriptions were then coded at the word level according to their grammatical nature and
possible lexical or morphological errors.

3. Results and discussion

Having six outcome measures (albeit measures from about 30 min speech per subject) and
twenty-®ve participants means there are dangers of making both Type I and Type II errors.
Thus to reduce the possibility of the former only correlations signi®cant at P < 0.01 will be
considered, which is the value of the Bonferroni correction in this case (0.05/6=0.01) (Table 1).

Table 1
Correlation between extraversion and the di€erent linguistic variables in the informal and formal situations (
P < 0.05;  P < 0.01)

Variable Informal situation Formal situation

Implicit speech style 0.39 0.50

Speech rates 0.55 0.51
Proportion of `er' ÿ0.08 ÿ0.41
Lexical richness 0.00 ÿ0.57
Accuracy rates 0.25 0.16
Proportion of semantic errors 0.28 0.40
MLU3 ÿ0.42 0.05
360 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365

3.1. The choice of speech style

In Dewaele (1995a), it was explained that the perception that speakers have of the formality
of the situation leads to them making di€erent pragmatic choices. The choice of speech style
will depend on the need of the speaker to be unambiguously understood and is decided in the
conceptualiser. This decision is re¯ected in the proportion of `deictical' word classes in the
speech extracts and was measured as follows: for each of two situations (informal and formal),
a separate factor analysis was performed on the proportion at token-level of nouns,
determiners, prepositions, verbs, pronouns, adverbs and conjunctions in the French
interlanguage of 25 participants. Each time, two main orthogonal factors appeared. The ®rst
dimension, which explains over 50% of the variance, was called `implicitness/explicitness'. The
nouns, modi®ers and prepositions obtained strong negative loadings on this factor, as opposed
to the pronouns, adverbs, and verbs which obtained high positive loadings. The nouns,
modi®ers and prepositions are thus situated near the explicit end of this dimension, in contrast
to the pronouns, adverbs, and verbs on the implicit end on the continuum. This grouping of
word classes does not re¯ect the traditional dichotomy of `grammatical' vs `lexical' words
(Dewaele, 1994b, 1995a, 1996a). A speaker who wants to avoid ambiguity and
misinterpretation of his/her words, she/he relies as little as possible on the spatio-temporal
context they share with the interlocutor(s). This is achieved by explicit and precise description
of the elements of the context needed to disambiguate the expression, hence the decrease of
deictical words. As these deictical words are short and of high-frequency, they can be retrieved
and articulated more quickly. Any decrease of deictical words will hence inevitably hamper
¯uency. Introverts being more anxious, it was predicted that they would opt for more explicit
styles and be willing to expend a greater e€ort in order to avoid the risk of being
misunderstood (Dewaele, 1994b, 1996c). A Pearson correlation between individual factor scores
of our participants on the `implicitness/explicitness' dimension and extraversion scores con®rms
this hypothesis. The relation was signi®cant (but not at the P < 0.01 level) in the informal
situation (r(24)=0.39, P < 0.05) but clearly signi®cant in the formal situation (r(24)=0.52,
P < 0.01). The formality of a situation thus appears to be linked to the choice of more explicit
speech styles in introverts, especially in formal situations. These results suggest that introverts,
as opposed to extraverts, are willing to increase their processing e€ort, especially in a formal
situation, in order to guarantee the clarity of their message.

3.2. Speech rates

The speech rate gives us a global idea of the eciency of the speech production process
(Levelt, 1989). One might expect the stress of the formal situation to a€ect the procedural
knowledge of the learners, reducing the degree of automaticity of their speech production,
forcing them to switch to controlled processing that requires them to pay attention to the
processing while it is happening. As these controlled processes are tightly capacity-limited
(Levelt, 1989) the introverts might not be able to pay enough attention to other matters and
their speech rates will drop (Dewaele, 1998). A Pearson correlation revealed a strong positive
correlation between degree of extraversion and speech rate, in the informal style (r(24)=0.55,
P < 0.01) as well as in the formal style (r(24)=0.51, P < 0.01).
 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365 361

3.3. Hesitation phenomena

Hesitations, often followed by editing expressions such as `er', are generally interpreted as
evidence of cognitive activity. The `er' may serve to signal to the addressee that there is trouble
and that the source of the trouble is still actual (Levelt, 1989, p. 484). These editing expressions
are especially common in L2 production after errors or before lexical gaps (Dewaele, 1996b;
Temple, 1997). They can, however, also be a sign that the incremental processing is breaking
down (Levelt, 1989). If introverts are more anxious and less stress-resistant (cf. Matthews &
Deary, 1998), one might expect that they would produce more hesitation phenomena, followed
by the editing term `er'. The proportion of `er' did not correlate with the degree of extraversion
in the informal situation (r(24)=ÿ0.08, ns) but a marginally signi®cant negative correlation
emerged in the formal situation (r(24)=ÿ0.41, P < 0.05). This suggests that more introverted
speakers hesitate more when they are under pressure.

3.4. Lexical richness

Scherer (1979) and Roodenrys et al. (1994) found that processing longer words requires
more e€ort both in terms of the demands made on cognitive processing and on the precision of
articulation in speaking. This suggests there is a trade-o€ between ¯uency and lexical richness.
Dewaele (1993b) found signi®cant negative correlations between lexical richness scores and
measures of ¯uency in the formal situation. When more cognitive resources are diverted to
lexical searching, speech production slows down. If the introverts' lower speech rates and
tendency to use more ®lled pauses in the formal situation is seen as a consequence of more
lexical searching, one could expect higher lexical richness scores. This phenomenon could be
reinforced by the introverts' better long term memory where the mental lexicon is stored. A
Pearson correlation revealed no link between lexical richness (measured with `Uber') and
extraversion in the informal situation (r(24)=0.00, ns) but a signi®cant negative relationship
appeared in the formal situation (r(24)=ÿ0.57, P < 0.01). When talking under pressure
introverts thus use a much richer vocabulary (with longer low-frequency words) whereas
extraverts opt for shorter high-frequency words and spend less time and energy on this task in
the speech production process. It is not surprising therefore, that introverts ®nd themselves
short of short-term memory capacity for other tasks in the speech production process.

3.5. Morpholexical accuracy rates

In Dewaele's earlier studies (1993a, 1994a), morphological and lexical errors were calculated
and the variation in morpholexical accuracy rates for all word classes and the variation in
proportions of particular error types across word classes were analysed. Among the
morphological errors six classes were distinguished: violation of gender and number, and for
verbs, violation of tense and aspect, of mode and of person. At the lexical level, any non-
existing French words that were not code-switches or borrowings (lexical inventions), were
taken into account, words that were super®cially right but that did not ®t in the context
(semantic errors), the absence of a word in an obligatory context, and ®nally the suppliance of
a word where it was not required. Our data contain 3496 morpholexical errors. A non-
362 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365

signi®cant, positive correlation emerged between extraversion and accuracy rates in both the
informal situation (r(24)=0.25, ns) and the formal situation (r(24)=0.16, ns). A Pearson
correlation revealed a link between the degree of extraversion of the speaker and the
proportion of semantic errors in the formal situation (r(24)=0.40, P < 0.05) but not in the
informal situation (r(24)=0.28, ns).

3.6. Length of utterance

Mean length of utterance (or mean length of the three longest utterances produced by a
speaker: MLU3) can provide an interesting insight in the learners' capacity to build complex
structures in their interlanguage. Not all measures that re¯ect mean length of utterance are
methodologically sound (Dewaele, 1995b). The question that arises is whether a higher level of
arousal could in¯uence maximum length of utterance. The production of a very long utterance
probably requires more energy than the production of a shorter one. This is however
impossible to prove. There is no single unit in speech production and the process is incremental
(Levelt, 1989). This means that the units (`fragments') cross the di€erent stages of the speech
production process allowing parallel processing by the di€erent components. This process
works optimally when the fragments are small (i.e. they require little look-aheadÐp. 28). It
seems that longer utterances would involve more components requiring more look-ahead, thus
increasing the need for cognitive resources in order to sustain minimal ¯uency. A negative
Pearson correlation emerges between the MLU3 scores and the degree of extraversion in the
informal situation (r(24)=ÿ0.42, P < 0.04) but this correlation disappeared completely in the
formal situation (r(24)=0.05; ns). This suggests that more introverted speakers produce their
longest utterances in the informal situation. This could be interpreted as a sign that the
introverts' higher arousal allows them to build longer utterances that are costly in cognitive
resources, but which present no problem in the informal situation. When pressure increases
however their arousal levels exceed the optimal level and, having less cognitive resources at
their disposal, their utterances become shorter, their speech is less ¯uent and there are more
unintended pauses. In their analysis of pathological speech, Martin, Wetzel, Blossom-Stack &
Feher (1989) consider high MLU scores as indicators of ¯uency, while low MLU scores point
to syntactic breakdown. The important drop in MLU3 scores for the introverts in the formal
situation could indeed be described as a partial syntactic breakdown.

4. Conclusion

Our ®ndings suggest that the formality of the situation, or rather the interpersonal stress
that it provokes, has the strongest e€ect on the speech production process of the introverts.
Considering the variation of the linguistic variables, two explanations can be formulated for
the introverts' decrease of ¯uency in the formal situation. First, given the introverts' speci®c
con®guration outlined above, it may be that they are unable to maintain the same level of
automaticity of speech production when they are under some sort of arousal/stress (being
observed or tested). They slide back to controlled processing which overloads their working
memory. This means their speech slows down, they hesitate more often, they tend to make
 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365 363

more errors and they are unable to produce utterances of great length. By opting for very
explicit speech styles they have to do more lexical search of low-frequency words which need
more time to be accessed (Roodenrys et al., 1994). Extraverts on the other hand, being better
equipped to cope with interpersonal stress, are able to maintain most of their automatised
processing.
A second possible explanation for the di€erences between introverts and extraverts in the
formal situation is that di€erent pragmatic choices have wide ranging consequences. The choice
of a speech style is decided in the conceptualiser at the very beginning of the speech production
process. Speakers' choice of a more formal or explicit speech style seems to re¯ect their wish to
be unambiguously understood. This has consequences in cognitive terms as more explicit styles
are more rigid and less economical. The choice of a more explicit style in the conceptualiser
means a drain on cognitive resources in the speech production process, especially because it
implies much more lexical searching for lower frequency lemmas. Introverts' choice of an
explicit speech style did not a€ect the rest of the speech production process, except the speech
rate, in the informal situation but as the situation became formal they did shift towards highly
explicit speech styles, and, probably combined with increased language anxiety and
interpersonal stress, this did drain their cognitive resources and impair their ¯uency. Thus in
interpersonal stressful, formal, perhaps over-arousing conditions, introverts concentrate on one
particular subtask which seems to be lexical searching in the speech production process.
Extraverts, on the other hand, were found to use the more economical implicit speech styles in
both the informal and the formal situations and were therefore able to maintain ¯uency.
The analysis of French interlanguage from Flemish speakers shows that the situation in
which the speech production takes place plays a crucial role in the signi®cance of correlations
between extraversion scores and linguistic variables. Extraverts were found to be generally
more ¯uent than the introverts, preferring more implicit speech styles and producing shorter
utterances. This pattern became stronger in the formal situation. Our ®ndings are very similar
to those which emerged from psychological studies where task and situation were manipulated
(Matthews & Deary, 1998). Complex tasks performed under interpersonal stressful conditions
seem to di€erentiate extraverts and introverts more clearly. The stress of the formal situation
could cause an excessive degree of arousal in the brain of the introverts, which would overload
their short-term memory and a€ect ecient incremental processing, hence a breakdown of
¯uency.
Further research (with a bigger N ) in the area might well consider other personality traits
(i.e. openness-to-experience) and their relationship to oral language production in information
situations where their e€ects are most easily seen.

References

de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's `speaking' model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1±24.
Carell, P., Prince, M., & Astika, G. (1996). Personality types and language learning in an EFL context. Language
Learning, 46(1), 75±99.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2),
330±339.
364 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365

Cowan, N., Wood, N., Wood, P., Keller, T., Nugent, L., & Keller, C. (1998). Two separate verbal processing rates
contributing to short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2), 141±160.
Dewaele, J.-M. (1993a). Variation in the morphosyntactic and lexical systems of French-based interlanguages. In B.
Ketteman, & W. Wieden, Current issues in European second language acquisition research (pp. 130±140).
TuÈbingen: Narr.
Dewaele, J.-M. (1993b). Extraversion et richesse lexicale dans deux styles d'interlangue franc° aise. I.T.L. Review of
Applied Linguistics, 100, 87±105.
Dewaele, J.-M. (1994a). Variation synchronique des taux d'exactitude. Analyse de freÂquence des erreurs morpholexi-
cales dans trois styles d'interlangue franc° aise. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 275±300.
Dewaele, J.-M. (1994b). Extraversion et interlangue. In J. Pochard, Pro®ls d'apprenants, actes du IXe Colloque inter-
national `acquisition d'une langue eÂtrangeÁre: perspectives et recherches' (pp. 173±187). Saint Etienne: Publications
de l'Universite de Saint-Etienne.
Dewaele, J.-M. (1995a). Style-shifting in oral interlanguage: quanti®cation and de®nition. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker,
& Smith M. Sharwood, The current state of interlanguage (pp. 231±238). Amsterdam±Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Dewaele, J.-M. (1995b). Variation dans la longueur moyenne d'eÂnonceÂs dans l'interlangue franc° aise. In L. Beheydt,
Linguistique appliqueÂe dans les anneÂes 90 (Special issue). ABLA Papers 16. (pp. 43±58).
Dewaele, J.-M. (1996). How to measure formality of speech? A Model of synchronic variation. In: K. Sajavaara &
C. Fairweather, Approaches to second language acquisition (Special issue). JyvaÈskylaÈ Cross-Language Studies, 17
(pp. 119±133).
Dewaele, J.-M. (1996b). Les pheÂnomeÁnes d'heÂsitation dans l'interlangue franc° aise: analyse de la variation interstylis-
tique et interindividuelle. Rassegna Italiana da Linguistica Applicata, 28(1), 87±103.
Dewaele, J.-M. (1996c). Variation dans la composition lexicale de styles oraux. IRAL, International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 261±282.
Dewaele, J.-M. (1998). Speech rate variation in 2 oral styles of advanced French interlanguage. In V. Regan,
Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition in social context: Crosslinguistic perspectives (pp. 113±
123). Dublin: University College Academic Press.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: the unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language
Learning, 19(3), 509±544.
Eysenck, H. J. (1979). Anxiety, learning and memory: a reconceptualisation. Journal of Research in Personality, 13,
363±385.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck personality inventory. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Eysenck, M. W. (1981). Learning, memory and personality. In H. J. Eysenck, A model for personality (pp. 169±209).
Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Fremont, T., Means, G. H., & Means, R. S. (1976). Anxiety as a function of task performance feedback and extra-
version±introversion. Psychological Reports, 27, 455±458.
Furnham, A. (1990). Language and personality. In H. Giles, & W. P. Robinson, Handbook of language and social
psychology (pp. 73±95). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1993). Working memory and language. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA±London: ACL-MIT Press.
Macintyre, P., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and a€ect as predictors of second language communi-
cation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3±26.
Macintyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1994). The subtle e€ects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second
language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283±305.
Martin, R. C., Wetzel, W. F., Blossom-Stack, C., & Feher, E. (1989). Syntactic loss vs processing de®cit: an assess-
ment of two theories of agrammatism and syntactic comprehension de®cits. Cognition, 32, 157±191.
Matthews, G. (1992). Extraversion. In P. A. Smith, & D. M. Jones, Handbook of human performance: State and
trait, vol. 3 (pp. 95±126). London: Academic Press.
Matthews, G., & Deary, I. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, G., & Dorn, L. (1995). Cognitive and attentional processes in personality and intelligence. In D. H.
 J.-M. Dewaele, A. Furnham / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 355±365 365

Saklofske, & M. Zeidner, International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 367±396). New York: Plenum
Press.
Muniz-Fernandez, J., & Granizo, M. (1981). Estudio de las relaciones entre la ¯uidez verbal oral y algunos aspectos
de la personalidad (extraversion±introversion and neuroticism-control). Revista de Psicologia General y Aplicada,
36(4), 627±650.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: implications for bilingualism and SLA.
In N. Ellis, Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 393±419). London, San Diego: Academic Press.
Poulisse, N. (1997). Language production in bilinguals. In A. M. de Groot, & J. F. Kroll, Tutorials in bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 201±224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roodenrys, S., Hulme, C., Alban, J., & Ellis, A. (1994). E€ects of word frequency and age of acquisition on short-
term memory span. Memory and Cognition, 22(6), 695±701.
Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1997). The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 126(3), 211±227.
Scherer, K. R. (1979). Personality markers in speech. In K. R. Scherer, & H. Giles, Social markers in speech (pp.
147±209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Temple, L. (1997). Memory and processing modes in language learner speech production. Communication and
Cognition, 30(1/2), 75±90.
Wilson, G. (1977). Introversion/extraversion. In T. Blass, Personality variables in social behavior (pp. 179±218).
Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.