Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny by
Niclas Abrahamsson and Kenneth Hyltenstam Stockholm University Reviewed by Krishnaveni & Nur Aida
1
Keywords
Age of Onset = AO Critical Perios Hypothesis = CPH Nativelikeness L1 = Spanish L2 = Swedish Grammaticality Judgment Test = GJT Voice Onset Time = VOT
2
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Methods tested - GJT
AGAINST Bley-Vroman, 1989: UG paradigm; Epstein, Flynn, & Martohardjono, 1996; Eubank & Gregg, 1999; Schachter, 1989
- Stimulus sentences
- Pronunciation
- Phonetic study - Native control speakers Conclusion: Results vary enormously
PRESENT STUDY 3 Methodological features - Concept of nativelikeness - Screening of participants - In-depth scrutiny of nativelikeness
3
Research Questions
Research aim To identify individuals who would potentially constitute the evidence necessary to reject the Critical Period Hypothesis. Research questions a) Do late L2 learners (adolescent & adult) exist who are perceived as native speakers?(Part I) b) Are most early L2 learners (child) ultimately perceived as native speakers? (Part I) c) Do late L2 learners exist who are nativelike when scrutinised in details? (Part II) d) Are most early L2 learners ultimately nativelike when scrutinised in detail? (Part II)
4
result
Part 2 Tests
Instrument 1 2 Task/test Production task VOT Categorical Perception task Underpinning Theories Lisker, Abramson (1964)
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Babble noise
White noise GJT Auditory GJT Writing GJT reaction time Cloze Idioms proverbs
result
Result
No ceiling effect, even native speakers did not score high in some tests, therefore making the methods reliable. Only 2 possibly 3 participants performed within the range of native speakers on all 10 measures (learners AOs were 3, 7 & 8 years) Of the late 10 learners, 1 performed within the range of native speakers on 7 measures. Researchers concluded that theres no evidence of actual nativelikeness among late learners, only a few childhood learners exhibited nativelikeness results in all tests (p. 35).
10
Result
Close to zero probability late L2 learner mastering all linguistic aspects of L2 language Only a myth L2 learning that begins in childhood will easily, automatically and inevitable result in nativelikeness. Early AO of acquisition is necessary although not sufficient requirement for nativelike ultimate attainment in an L2
11
Insight
Study is very comprehensive , sophisticated& stringent, covers all aspects of nativelikeness, all limitations of previous studies are addressed. Interesting to see if same result with other L1-L2s. In terms of New Englishes, this has been cited in English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN by Andy Kirkpatrick (2010) in support for varieties in English pronunciation in respect to speakers in The Outer Circle (Malaysia is one) and Expanding Circle (Kachru, 1992). Implications: In terms of teaching, starting early does not guarantee nativelike speech; no real disadvantage in starting to learn L2 late either Its implication to the Msian context English being L2, our pursuit of proficiency/fluency or nativelikeness?
12
Insight
Not monolithic: one can be nativelike in pronunciation, but not syntax (or vice versa). Have to consider the appropriate population: those who have had years of interaction with language. L2 learning ability decline throughout life due to -Biology Age-related changes in cognitive processing. For example, decreasing ability to: Encode new information. Recall details as opposed to gist.
13
Insight
Not all departures from native likeness are indicative of defective language learning mechanism. It is generally accepted that some L2 performance that differ from those of monolinguals is artifacts of bilingualism, not failures to learn. There are more chances to attain nativelikeness for early learners as they will be able to use the target language widely without inferior complex.(more time to use the language as they learn it earlier) Non-nativelike performance is not necessarily indicative of compromised language learning abilities, as assumed under the CPH/L2 acquisition.
14