Other variables affecting

late L2 acquisition

LAP seminar Topic5, 25 November 2014

Presented by Takashi Oba

• L2 phonological acquisition of adult learners (Saito, 2013)

- Does age effects influence on L2 ultimate performance (phonology) of adult L2 learners

(after puberty) or late bilinguals?

- To what extent can adult L2 learners attain native-like pronunciation (phonological acquisition)?

• Exposure to L2 rich environments in late L2

acquisition (Derwing & Munro, 2013;Ranta & Meckelborg, 2013)

- Can merely exposed to L2 speaking environments increase adult learners’ L2 use and develop

fluency, like children do so?

- Are there any other interactive variables influencing on late L2 acquisition?

Today’s

Today’s focus 1

L2 phonological acquisition for adult

learners

Saito (2013)

Purpose: Attempt to examine

whether and to what degree of

age of acquisition can be

predictive of L2 production

attainment and nativelikeness of

of word-initial /ɹ/ by late English-

Japanese bilinguals

Dr. Kazuya Saito

(Waseda University, Japan)

Age effects on post-pubertal ultimate attainment

and nativelikeness

• Early learners: age = + factors on ultimate L2

performance in…

- L2 phonology (Flege, Munro, &MacKay, 1995; Fledge et al, 1999)

- L2 morphology (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008; Johnson&Newport, 1989;DeKeyser, 2000)

• Adult L2 learners (after mid-teens) - - - > inconclusive!

- Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) vs. Cognitive Aging Hypothesis (CAH)

- CPH: AOA effects are absent in late bilingualism due to a loss of plasticity,

resulting from neutral maturation after puberty (fundamentally different)

- CAH: AOA continues to be observed even after puberty as predictors for

the success in L2 acquisition

4

6-7

Birth

16-17

Start to decline of L1 (Newport: 6~7)

& L2 performance (8~10:J&N)

After puberty: end of maturational constraints ?(J&N/DK)

Native-like fluency (<4: L1; <7:L2)

Age of

arrival

Losing implicit learning mechanism (6-

7~16~17)

- No age effect: indivi. differences

- High aptitude adults+ explicit

learning=++L2 ability ?

Age of arrival and maturational

constraints on L1&L2

12 L1 late learners: higher rate and greater variety errors (>12)

English /ɹ /

• 4 acoustic domains: F1: tongue hight; F2: tongue retraction;

F3: labial, palatal, and pharyngeal constructions; transition

duration for phonemic length

• Natives: F3 >> F2 (steady drop in F3) sensitive to F3!

⇔ Japanese L2 (less experienced): F2>F3 (shorter transition)

• Approximate category in Japanese= /j/ and /w/

• Word-initial /ɹ / (i.e. read, rain) in controlled & spontaneous

condition → aware of F3 as well as F2 & transition

• Participants: 88 high-proficiency Japanese learners

of English compared to 10 natives and 10 low-

proficiency Japanese learners of English

• Assessment: Listener judgement & acoustic analysis

through controllers tasks (word reading, and

sentence reading), and a spontaneous task (timed

picture description task)

Method

Result 1: Acoustic analysis

AOA & F3:

Significant

correlation!

AOA: No

significant

correlation

with F2

F3: linear

decline across

the groups

F2: 80-90%

Japanese reached

native like!

Result 2: Listener judgement

Controlled (WR):

No significant AOA

effects!

Spontaneous (TPD):

Significant AOA

effects!

ceiling

effect

controlled task spontaneous task

linea trend

=AOA

effects

Main findings

• AOA significantly predicted the ultimate performance of /ɹ/

at a spontaneous (PDT), but not controlled (WR&SP)

speech level in processing the new articulate parameter

(F3), which requires us much L2 experience to acquire and

entails various levels of processing abilities

• Most Japanese L2 learners attained nativelike

performance in resetting existing articulatory patterns

(F2) under controlled /ɹ/ production

• Ultimate attainment and native likeness of late bilingualism

are multidimensional phenomena characteristic as a

result of interaction of AOA, processing abilities and L1

influence

• Flege (2003) & Iverson et al (2003) posit that L1 interference effect will

progressively stronger as L1 develops

• Flege (2003) claims, “the best way for adult learners of an L2 to circumvent L1

interference effects may be…to receive exaggerated acoustic cues, multiple

instances by many talkers, and massed listening experience” (p.325-326)

Question: L1 interference for adult learners

Q. Experienced late bilinguals may develop the

high phonetic sensitivity (F2), but can we apply the

finding to late L2 learners living in Japan? They

receive strong L1 interference effects and limited

exposure to natural input of L2. Can they attain

native-like phonetic acquisition in F2 level? How

can teachers assist them to develop the phonetic

skill and what is the ultimate goal of pronunciation

teaching? Attaining “native-like” pronunciation?

• CPH=“the concept of endpoint, a point beyond

which learning becomes difficult or impossible”

(Dekeyser&Larsen-Hall, 2005, 97)

• The results in Saito (2013) support CAH (language

learning capacity used in successful L1 acquisition

remains active even after puberty)

• Does our brain actually loose plasticity after the

cutoff point (mid teens)?

CPH vs. CAH

Cognitive neuroscience of aging studies

• age-related change in brain activity

(fMRI)

• found considerable degree of plasticity

in the brain over the lifespan

• older people activate “frontal lobes” in

memory tasks compared to young

people, resulting in better memory

• imply the possibility of reorganization

of brain activity with aging & training

which will maintain memory abilities in

older adults

Dr. Cheryl Grady

(Toronto University)

Medial temporal region

(language recognition; memory)Left prefrontal cortex

(executive function)

Grady (2012) p.501

Richard Snow: aptitude&treatment

(a) human aptitude is made up of a

complex of abilities, interrelated in

hierarchical fashion rather than a

simple or direct fashion

(b) differential cognitive processing

abilities are intertwined with the

contexts and affordances of the

environment

(c) differential aptitude cannot be fully

explained unless motivational and

affective influences are taken into

account as well Dr. Richard. E Snow

(Stanford University)

• Regardless of plasticity in the brain and continuity of

age effects before/after puberty, other variables must

be taken into consideration in adult L2 learning!

• ‘instead of focusing on the limited success of older

learners, it is more productive to examine the factors

that lead to very high levels of proficiency in the

L2 for learners of any age’ (Marinova-Todd, 2003, p.

67)

Today’s focus 2

Exposure to natural L2 environment and

longitudinal L2 development

Derwing & Munro (2013)

Purpose: examining age effects on adult L2 leaners’

longitudinal oral development process of their

language acquisition for different adult groups

Dr. Tracey Derwing

(Alberta University)

Dr. Murray Munro

(Simon Fraser University)

Motivation for the study

• Policy maker’s assumption: adult immigrants will pick

up L2 skills they need once they have the basic

underpinnings of their L2

• Need longitudinal study to trace their oral language

progress over time

→What kind of factors affect their eventual L2 development?

Significance of the study

• Age of L2 learning studies: L2 ultimate performance

(i.e. phonology) between children vs adult (Flege, Murano,

& Mackay, 1995)

• Few studies examining effects age of L2 on late L2

learners

- age-related decline trend in L2 ultimate attainment over

time (Hakuta et al, 2003; S&L test=>Derwing et al, 2010;

phonetic skills=>Baker, 2010)

- plateau between age 18-40 in grammar (Dekeyser, 2010)

Background of the study

• Extending the previous studies examining for 2 years to

7 years

• English vowel development (Munro & Derwing, 2008);

accent & fluency (Derwing et al, 2006); fluency between

L1 & L2 (Derwin et al, 2009)

• At the end of 2nd year…

- Mandarin speakers: very little change in fluency &

comprehensibility

- Slavic speakers: improvement in fluency and

comprehensibility

Why different?

Factors within willingness to communicate (WTC),

such as intergroup climate, social situation,

communicative competence, L2 self-confidence,

and motivation contributed to the difference between

Mandarin and Slavic speakers (Derwing et al, 2008)

Willingness to communicate (WTC)

Method

• Participants: 11 Mandarin (age 35-47) and 11 Slavic (age

27-56) speakers + 3 female Eng. speakers

• Listeners: 34 Canadian natives (age 18-37) & 10 high

proficiency NNSs

• Length: 7 years

• Stimuli: 8-frame cartoon story

• Assessment: comprehensibility, fluency, and accent

Result1: Effect of time and L1 on judgement

Interactional effects (L1&time)

L2 Development in 5 years:

Slavic >> Mandarin

in comprehensibility &

fluency

comprehensibility accent fluency

Years of prior

English studyNS NS NS

Age of arrival◎

（ M: NS, S:◎)

◎（ M: NS, S:◎)

NS

( M: ◎, S:◎)

Amount of

English use

Self report: little shift in the frequency of conversation

(only 5 people /22↑）

◎: significant correlation; NS: Non significant

Result2: Correlation analysis (3 variables)

But! participants (22) are large size enough? Is r

value valid?

Significant correlation: age & accent

Age effect on

accent!

Older→stronger

accent

• Slavic speakers significantly improved in comprehensibility

and fluency (accent was improved in the first 2 years), but

Mandarin speakers showed little change over time in all

measured skills

• Years of prior L2 study & amount of L2 use are not predictive

factors on eventual L2 performance

• Age of arrival (age19-49) significantly correlation with

comprehensibility & accent for the combined groups after 7

years (individual sig. r = Slavic group)

• Older arrivals showed a marked tendency to have stronger

accents than young arrivals (pronunciation learning is subject to

age effects even during adulthood)

Main findings

Implications

• In addition to age of arrival, overall experience with

L2, as determined by WTC factors (i.e. self-

confidence, social situation) and relation to L1,

affected L2 oral development

• Correlational analysis (age - oral performance) using

small participants should be carefully interpreted;

need larger size participant & diverse L1

• One-size-fits-all programs will not serve the needs of

all learners

Ranta & Meckelborg (2013)

Purpose: Examine longitudinally the

amount and type of

exposure experienced by

Chinese graduate students

in Canada

Is exposure to L2 speaking environment sufficient

to effectively acquire L2?

Dr. Leila Ranta

(Alberta University)

• Participant: 17 Chinese graduate students at a

Canadian university, < 6 months residence

• Measurement: The Language Activity Log (LAL)

• Length: completion in the computerized log once a

month over a six-month period (Jan-June)

Method

Language activity log

Overall L1&L2 use over time Results

Specific types of L2 use

Variation among learners

Qualitative data

Each individual encounter

different affordances for

using L2!

Learners themselves CREATE

the kind of exposure!

Main findings

• General trend: receptive >> interactive use of L2

• Considerable variation among individuals in terms of

amount (timing of data collection) and type of L2 use

(academic reading/writing, conversation with friends,

watching movies or reading for pleasure)

• Small amount of oral interaction may be associated with

individual proficiency level, affective factors (nervous,

embarrassment, difficulty of expressing themselves), and

other social factors

• The amount and type of exposure depends on (1) learners’

own choice (2) affordances of daily use of L2 for studying

or working

Implications

• Low levers of interaction implies that exposure to L2

speaking environment does not necessarily ensure

large amount of L2 use opportunities, improvement of

L2 fluency and acquisition of more idiomatic words

• Individual differences (motivation; self-confidence;

preference of learning style; strong will), cultural-

background (mismatching learning strategies), & other

social factors may have played in their degree of L2

development

Do you still believe

“studying abroad” or

“merely exposure to

L2-rich envorment" is a

perfect way to learn

L2??

Useful implications from qual. data,

but…

• To what extent the data from

self-reported assessment in the

long period is valid? (always

asked to log in…)

• Participant number is small, and

need to examine other L1

backgrounds and other socio-

status (i.e. working) ?

Summing up all findings!

• AOA predicts late L2 learners’ ultimate ability in phonological

processing in controlled condition (F2): Saito (2013);

comprehensibility and fluency in L2 speech: Derwing & Munro,

(2013)

• In consistent with CAH, these findings indicate that even after cutoff

point (puberty) adult L2 learners may attain high/native-like

proficiency in certain domains of L2 over their life span

• However, taking into account cognitive aging (Hakuta et al, 2003) or

DeKeyser’s (2000) viewpoint, individual differences (i.e. WM,

aptitude, motivation), cultural & social factors interactively serve a

crucial role in determining success of L2 acquisition

• Merely exposed to naturalistic L2 environments does not ensure the

frequency of L2 use and its development, attributing to learners’ own

choice and circumstances L2 learners encounter (Ranta &

Meckelborg, 2013)

• Even if age and aptitude (analytical ability) may have

strong impact on late L2 acquisition, as Richard Snow

said,motivational and affective factors must be taken into

account. Do you think we can incorporate such affective

factors into our research in different ways? If so, how?

• L2 learners mainly access the target language in

classrooms in EFL setting. Teachers must assist variety

of aged learners to attain high level of L2 proficiency.

How can we mediate (1) limited amount/type of input, (2)

cognitive factors (i.e. motivation, aptitude) and (3)

social/cultural factors in L2 classroom teaching setting?

Advanced questions: What do you think?

Dörnyei and Kormos (2000): the role of individual and

social variables in oral task performance

• Investigate the effects of a number of

affective and social variables on L2

learners’ engagement in oral

argumentative tasks

• Assumption: students’ verbal behaviour

in oral task is partially determined by

non-linguistic and non-cognitive factors

• Found the interrelationship of the

multiple factors determining the learners’

task engagement and some variables

only come into force under certain

conditions

Dr. Judit Kormos

(Lancaster University, UK)

Additional references

Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language teaching research,

4(3), 275-300.

Csizér, K., Kormos, J., & Sarkadi, A. (2010). The dynamics of language learning attitudes and motivation: Lessons from an

interview study of dyslexic language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 470-487.

Flege, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. Phonetics and phonology in

language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities, 319-355.

Grady, C. (2012). The cognitive neuroscience of ageing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(7), 491-505.

Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y. I., Kettermann, A., & Siebert, C. (2003). A perceptual

interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87(1), B47-B57.

Marinova-Todd, S.H. (2003). Know your Grammar: What the Knowledge of Syntax and Morphology in an L2 Reveals about the

Critical Period for Second/Foreign Language Acquisition. In M.P. Garcia-Mayo & M.L. Garcia-Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the

Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language: Theoretical Issues and Field Work (p. 59-73). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.