Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2010), 413–438doi10.1017S014.docx

Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2010), 413–438
doi:10.1017/S0142716410000056
Cross-linguistic evidence for the
nature of age effects in second
language acquisition
ROBERT DEKEYSER
University of Maryland at College Park
IRIS ALFI-SHABTAY and DORIT RAVID
Tel-Aviv University
Received: February 18, 2008 Accepted for publication: May 18,
2009
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE
Robert DeKeyser, Department of Linguistics, University of
Maryland, 3215 Jimenez Hall, College
Park, MD 20742. E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Few researchers would doubt that ultimate attainment in second
language grammar is negatively
correlated with age of acquisition, but considerable controversy
remains about the nature of this
relationship: the exact shape of the age-attainment function and
its interpretation. This article presents
two parallel studies with native speakers of Russian: one on the
acquisition of English as a second
language in North America (n = 76), and one on the acquisition
of Hebrew as a second language in
Israel (n = 64). Despite the very different nature of the

languages being learned, the two studies show
very similar results. When age at testing is partialed out, the
data reveal a steep decline in the learning
of grammar before age 18 in both groups, followed by an
essentially horizontal slope until age 40. This
is interpreted as evidence in favor of the critical period. Both
groups show a significant correlation
between ultimate attainment and verbal aptitude for the adult
learners, but not for the early learners.
This is interpreted as further evidence that the learning
processes in childhood and adulthood not only
yield different levels of proficiency but are also different in
nature.
Age effects in (second) language learning are widely
acknowledged, but their
exact nature remains controversial, in particular, the concept of
a critical period
for second language acquisition (SLA). In about the last 15
years, numerous
arguments against the critical period hypothesis (CPH) have
been formulated: a
few studies have failed to find a clear correlation between age
of acquisition and
ultimate attainment; many more researchers accept the negative
correlation as a
fact, but they argue that it is attributable to a confound between
age of acquisition
and one or more other variables, such as length of residence,
age at testing, the
nature of the input received as a function of age, the extent to
which education
was provided in the second language (L2) or the first language
(L1), the (lack of)
motivation to integrate fully with the L2 society, or simply the
amount of practice

© Cambridge University Press 2010 0142-7164/10 $15.00
Applied Psycholinguistics 31:3 414
DeKeyser et al.: Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age
effects in SLA
in the L2 as opposed to the L1. Some have also taken the rather
different results
found for learners of different L1s learning the same L2 as
evidence that age of
acquisition is not an important predictor by itself. (For recent
critical overviews of
the literature for and against the CPH, see Birdsong, 2005;
DeKeyser & Larson-
Hall, 2005; Herschensohn, 2007; Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson,
2003; Ioup, 2005;
Long 2007, chap. 3.) The argumentation for and against the
CPH that has received
the most attention in the literature of the last 5 to 10 years,
however, has been about
the very nature of the age of acquisition–ultimate attainment
function, which is
centered on the question of whether the discontinuity in
development implied by
the CPH is found in the various data sets that were analyzed.
THE SHAPE OF THE AGE OF ACQUISITION–ULTIMATE
ATTAINMENT FUNCTION
For about the last 10 years a number of researchers have
analyzed data sets that
appear to show a negative correlation between age of
acquisition and ultimate

attainment throughout the life span (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999;
Bialystok &
Miller, 1999; Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003) or even a
stronger negative
correlation in adulthood than in childhood or adolescence
(Birdsong & Molis,
2001). Therefore, these researchers argue, the decline as a
function of age, which
has been documented in dozens of studies, should not be
interpreted as a critical
period effect (a sharp decline within a relatively short period of
time, attributable
to inevitable biological and psychological changes, leveling off
quickly once that
period of time is over, and affecting only very particular kinds
of learning, in this
case the learning of aspects of a second language). It instead
reflects a broader
phenomenon of maturationally determined cognitive decline that
is largely the
same throughout the life span, but perhaps accentuated at
certain stages of life
by changes in people’s socialization patterns (see also Birdsong,
2004, 2005,
2006). For various methodological criticisms of these studies
purporting to show a
decline throughout adulthood, see DeKeyser (2006), Long
(2005, 2007, chap. 3),
and Stevens (2004).
Other researchers have countered that the well-documented
decline as a function
of age is a maturational phenomenon affecting (second)
language learning more
than other cognitive functions, and takes places in a period of
roughly 10 to 15

years, starting possibly at birth, becoming clearly visible from
around age 6 for
certain aspects of language and with certain test formats, and
leveling off in late
adolescence. As evidence for this viewpoint, they point to
qualitative differences
in learning processes before and after this critical period, such
as a differential role
of aptitude (DeKeyser, 2000; Harley & Hart, 1997, 2002), or
simply the shape of
the age of acquisition–ultimate attainment function, which, at
least in a number of
studies, appears to show a steep decline during a limited number
of years, but not
thereafter (e.g., Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999; Johnson,
1992; Johnson &
Newport, 1989, 1991; Lee & Schachter, 1997; cf. DeKeyser &
Larson-Hall, 2005;
Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003).
The issue remains far from resolved for a number of
methodological reasons.
The quantitative evidence (i.e., about how much of the L2 is
learned as a function
of age of acquisition) used on either side of the debate is often
less than ideal,
effects in SLA
because of very narrow operationalizations of ultimate
attainment (most often
grammaticality judgments) and insufficient documentation or

analysis of potential
confounding variables (especially length of residence, age at
testing, the nature of
the immigrants’ social networks in L1 and L2, the amount of
use of L1 and L2
at various stages of development, and various affective and
social–psychological
variables).
The qualitative evidence (about how L2 learning takes place at
different ages),
in contrast, is rather limited so far (few researchers have
focused on qualitative
distinctions) and has been subject to a number of criticisms as
well. DeKeyser
and Larson-Hall (2005) mention differential reliance on aptitude
at different ages
and differential age effects on the learning of structures
characterized by differ-
ent levels of salience as potential examples of (somewhat
indirect) evidence for
qualitative age differences, that is, differences not just in
learning outcomes, but
also in learning mechanisms involved at different ages.
Systematic research on the
relationship between age and salience has not been carried out
so far, however,
and the finding of different predictive validity of aptitude at
different ages (e.g.,
DeKeyser, 2000; Harley & Hart, 1997, 2002) has been
questioned because of
the instruments used. Bialystok, for instance, argued that the
Modern Language
Aptitude Test (MLAT; Carroll & Sapon, 1959; used by
DeKeyser, 2000) “aside
from being almost 50 years old . . . investigates a narrow and

almost parochial
definition of language aptitude” (2002, p. 484); presumably her
criticisms would
apply to the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB;
Pimsleur, 1966; used
by Harley & Hart, 1997) as well, as this test was published only
a few years after
the MLAT and has largely the same ingredients and the same
predictive validity
(see, e.g., Carroll, 1981). Bialystok does not suggest any
alternatives, however,
nor is any test available at this point that is generally agreed to
be a more valid
measure of language learning aptitude than the MLAT or
PLAB.1
In addition to issues of sampling and instrumentation, several
further method-
ological problems cannot be ignored. One is that different
aspects of language
(e.g., phonology vs. morphosyntax, or even at a much more
fine-grained level,
regular inflection vs. irregular inflection) may show different
age of acquisition–
ultimate attainment functions. There may be “multiple
windows” (multiple critical
periods) for different aspects of language, some closing before
others or showing
a steeper decline than others (for early mentions of this idea,
see, e.g., Schachter,
1996; Seliger, 1978); some aspects of language may also be
more sensitive to
variables such as length of residence or level of education than
to age of acquisi-
tion (see especially Flege et al., 1999). Simply generalizing to
all of “language”

would be unfruitful (Eubank & Gregg, 1999, p. 66). In contrast,
“it would be
premature to exclude factors other than ‘linguistic competence’
from the agenda
of maturational constraints” (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003,
p. 559); one may
have to distinguish aspects such as the capacity “to construct
narratives, to produce
and understand metaphor, to accommodate to another’s speech,
to persuade . . . ”
(Schumann, 1995, p. 60). All of this also implies the necessity
of cross-linguistic
research, given that different native languages and target
languages differ con-
siderably in the frequency (or absence) of a wide variety of
phenomena, such as
phonemic use of tone, irregular inflectional morphology,
agreement patterns within
the noun phrase or between the noun phrase and the verb phrase,
morphological
effects in SLA
marking of marked semantic distinctions, and wh-movement, to
name just a few.
Therefore, it is important to look at both the acquisition of the
same L2 by speak-
ers of very different L1s and the acquisition of very different
L2s by speakers of
the same L1. Thus far, only the former comparison has been
made in the CPH
literature on the acquisition of grammar (Bialystok & Miller,

1999; Hyltenstam,
1992; McDonald, 2000; Sorace, 1993).
Another problem is the inherent relationship between three
important predictors
of ultimate attainment–age of acquisition, length of residence,
and age at testing.
In most studies, there is a moderate to strong correlation
between these three
variables (age at testing = age of acquisition + length of
residence, so if length
of residence varies little, age of acquisition and age at testing
will be strongly
correlated; if age at testing varies little, age of acquisition and
length of residence
will be strongly correlated). Stevens (2006) argues that the
linear dependence
between age of acquisition, length of residence, and age at
testing is very hard to
disentangle, and can only be resolved through longitudinal data,
or by measures
of quantity of exposure not expressed in units of time, or by
positing nonlinear
relationships. Simply ignoring one of the three variables does
not work, unless
“two of the three variables can be regarded as indexing the same
causal phenomena
or if one of the variables is unrelated to the dependent variable”
(p. 680). Length
of residence is taken into account in most studies, and turns out
to be unre-
lated to most dependent measures, provided that length of
residence is more than
5 years, and that the dependent measures index basic
grammatical proficiency
(not purisms, collocations, etc.); it is therefore not much of a

problem in most
studies. The most problematic variable is age at testing, which
is often not taken
into account despite its sometimes high correlation with age of
acquisition.
Finally, the evidence is only as good as the sample. Sample
sizes in CPH
studies, at least the ones focusing on the acquisition of
grammar, have typically
varied around 50, which is very small if the sample needs to be
divided up into
different age of acquisition ranges, and if a correlation, and
especially a partial
correlation or regression equation, needs to be computed for
each subsample, as
is typically the case. Of more importance, the qualitative nature
of the sample,
especially with respect to socioeconomic and educational
diversity, monolingual or
bi-/multilingual background, and relative size of different age
of acquisition groups
in the sample, often leaves much to be desired in terms of
representativeness. In
this area of research, almost every sample has been one of
convenience, which
typically means a much higher percentage of highly educated
participants than
in the population at large, and sometimes knowledge of one or
more L2s before
immigration. Moreover, a number of studies with an otherwise
respectable number
of participants have had few in the critical age range of 12–18;
a few teenage
participants more or less within the subsample of “early
acquirers” (often defined

as those who immigrated before age 16 or 18) may lead to large
differences in the
age of acquisition–ultimate attainment correlation for that
sample, as the decline
as a function of age is expected to be most noticeable between
the ages of about 12
and 18, depending on the nature of the outcome variable and the
L1–L2 difference.
This alone may explain the rather large difference in the value
for this correlation
in studies with otherwise very similar results, such as Johnson
and Newport (1989)
and DeKeyser (2000).
effects in SLA
From this short literature review, it is clear that, in order to
make solid progress
in investigating the CPH, we need to
1. distinguish morphosyntax from phonology or the lexicon,
perhaps even different
elements of morphosyntax;
2. conduct separate analyses (whether they be correlations,
partial correlations, or
regression analyses) per age group;
3. carry out studies with more subjects than has usually been the
case, to ensure
enough statistical power for these separate analyses;

4. conduct more research on qualitative age differences, for
example, on whether
aptitude plays a different role at different ages; and
5. design more cross-linguistic research for purposes of
generalization. Only when
learners with different L1 backgrounds learn the same L2, or
when learners of the
same L1 background learn different L2s and their data are
collected and analyzed
in the same way, preferably in the same study, is it possible to
assess to what
extent the nature of target language structures or the nature of
L1–L2 differences
interacts with age effects.
In this article, we report on a research project on the acquisition
of L2 grammar
that was designed to meet most of these goals. Data were
collected from native
speakers of Russian who acquired either English as an L2 in
North America or
Hebrew as an L2 in Israel (∼150 participants). Results were
analyzed separately
for different ranges of age of acquisition, and the role of
aptitude was investigated
in each group to test for qualitative differences. As stated
above, different aspects
of language should all be investigated; this does not necessarily
have to happen in
one and the same study. It does seem important, however, to
have a good sampling
of one area, in this case morphosyntax, so that some
generalization to at least that
aspect of language is possible, but not to the lexicon,
pragmatics, or pronunciation,

of course.
Another limitation of this study is that no detailed information
was collected
about participants’ use of L1 and L2 from immigration to the
time of testing.
Although L1 and L2 are obviously in complementary
distribution, their relative
frequency tends to correlate with age of acquisition (see
especially Bylund, 2008,
2009; Jia & Aaronson, 2003; Montrul, 2008), and the degree of
L2 acquisition
tends to correlate with the degree of L1 attrition (see especially
Köpke & Schmid,
2004; Schmid, 2006), it is virtually impossible to get good
measures of quantity
and quality of input from immigration to the time of testing
without a longitudinal
study (and a longitudinal study, in turn, is almost impossible to
carry out with the
number of subjects required for statistical reasons).
The following hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1: For both the L2 English and the L2 Hebrew
group, the slope of the age
of arrival–ultimate attainment function will not be linear
throughout the life span,
but will instead show a marked flattening between adolescence
and adulthood.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between aptitude and ultimate
attainment will differ
markedly for the younger and older arrivals, with significance
for the latter only.

effects in SLA
These hypotheses require that a cutoff point be established
between early and
late acquirers. It also seems prudent to make a further
distinction between rel-
atively young adults and middle-aged acquirers (who, of course,
by the time of
testing, may already be senior citizens). Ideally, with an
extremely large number
of subjects, one could let any observed discontinuities in the
age of acquisition–
ultimate attainment function serve as cutoff points. In practice,
however, the only
alternative (cf. DeKeyser & Larson-Hall, 2005) is to choose
empirically motivated
cutoff points, even if these remain somewhat arbitrary.
Although age 12 was often
mentioned as a turning point in early literature (e.g., Lenneberg,
1967) and it
has been used in some recent studies (e.g., Abrahamsson &
Hyltenstam, 2008;
McDonald, 2006), a number of studies by researchers with
otherwise very different
views on age issues, for example, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994),
Johnson and New-
port (1989, 1991), and DeKeyser (2000), show that the steep
decline in ultimate
attainment continues through adolescence. An arbitrary cutoff at
age 12 would
therefore seriously underestimate the age of arrival–ultimate
attainment correla-

tion among early learners and overestimate it among later
learners. Furthermore,
as middle-aged and senior citizens are likely to perform less
well on a variety of
tests for independent reasons, it is important that the results for
participants over
50 years old at the time of data collection, that is, roughly over
40 years old at the
time of immigration, are analyzed separately. In this study, we
decided to analyze
three separate data slices: <18, 18–40, and >40.
RATIONALE FOR THE CROSS-LINGUISTIC RESEARCH
PROJECT
English and Hebrew are typologically very different languages,
particularly in the
area of morphology, and therefore ideally suited for this type of
cross-linguistic
research.
Hebrew is a Semitic language that is considered to be
morphologically rich
because it expresses many notions morphologically, and it
offers a wide array of
structural options to express these notions. Nouns and
adjectives are obligatorily
inflected for gender and number, for example,
ha-maxbar-ot ha-adum-ot
“the-notebook-s, Fm Pl the-red, Fm Pl”
“the red notebooks”
Verbs are obligatorily inflected for gender, number, person, and
tense in past
and future tenses, for example,

ha-maxbér-et ne’elm-a
“the-notebook-Fm 3rdSg. disappear-ed, Fm 3rdSg.”
“the notebook disappeared”
In present tense, verbs are inflected like adjectives and nouns.
Prepositions,
a closed-class category, incorporate pronominal information in
their obligatory
inflection for gender, number, and person, for example, lax “to-
you, Fm.” In
addition, numerals agree with nouns in gender, although the
agreement system is
effects in SLA
opaque and hard to learn (Ravid, 1995b). Finally, Hebrew marks
gender, number,
and person optionally on genitive nouns and accusative verbs
side by side with
syntactic constructions expressing the same notions.
Hebrew has two basic word orders: subject–verb–object (SVO),
with ei-
ther a lexical or pronominal subject and a lexical verb (or a
copula), for
example,
dan hevin et ha-inyan
“Dan understood Acc the-matter”;
and a predicate-first word order, expressing existence,

possession, and modal
meanings, typically containing a less “verbal” predicate and
often subjectless, for
example,
kday le-xa la-vo
“better to-you to-come”
“you’d better come over” (Berman, 1980; Ravid, 1995a).
Word order is not rigid, given the rich agreement systems in
Hebrew, which marks
thematic and syntactic roles clearly and transparently.
In contrast, English is an SVO language with strongly
grammaticized rather than
pragmatically determined constraints on word order (Thompson,
1978). This is
partially attributable to its impoverished system of grammatical
inflection. Case is
morphologically distinguished only in pronouns and in genitive
phrases; subjects
and direct objects occur as bare noun phrases with no overt case
marking, whereas
datives and oblique objects and adjuncts are marked by
prepositions rather than
by inflections.
Another facet of its lack of grammatical inflection is that
English has almost
no marking of agreement for gender, number, or person; the
only exceptions are
subject–verb concord with the verb be and third person present-
tense marking by
final -s. As a result, ordering of constituents is the major
indicator of grammatical
relations. Even postverbal elements are fairly strictly ordered,

because nothing
can be interspersed between the verb and its direct object, and
locatives typically
precede temporal adverbials (Berman, 1999). One clear
exception to this morpho-
logical sparseness is that English marks comparative and
superlative values on
adjectives through morphology (e.g., slower, biggest), although
this inflection is
restricted to short adjectives, usually of Germanic origin.
Russian, the L1 in both studies, is a Slavic language with very
rich inflectional
morphology, but does not use articles. Nouns, adjectives, and
pronouns have six-
case inflectional paradigms for singular and plural. Noun
declension, in addition
to case, marks gender (masculine and neuter, and two feminine
declensions) and
number, with adjectives agreeing for gender, number, and case
with the nouns, for
example,
bel-aja sten-a
“white Fm Sg wall Fm Sg”
“white wall”
effects in SLA
o bel-oj sten-e
“about white Fm Sg Prep wall Fm Sg Prep”
“about white wall”

Russian verbs are organized into numerous verb classes varying
in degree of
regularity, two main conjugational patterns differing by the
thematic vowel in
the inflections, and two conjugational paradigms (nonpast and
past). The nonpast
paradigm includes six forms: first, second, and third person
singular and plural.
Past tense has three forms for masculine, feminine, and neuter,
and one for the
plural. The system of tenses is very simple: present, past, and
future.
Russian has SVO word order as a neutral default setting;
however, word order is
flexible and primarily reflects topic–comment structure, with
the theme introduced
at the beginning of the sentence and the rheme at the end.
Questions do not require
any verb fronting.
Data collection and analyses were carried out completely in
parallel for the two
target languages. The same aptitude test in Russian was given to
the two groups,
and the same kind of grammaticality judgment test was used for
both, except that
it was necessary, of course, to develop different test items to
measure the specific
learning outcome in the two languages. Results for the two
groups are therefore
presented separately.
STUDY 1: RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS ACQUIRING ENGLISH
IN NORTH AMERICA

Method
Participants. The participants in this study were 76 Russian-
speaking immigrants
above the age of 18, who had acquired English as a second
language (ESL).2 They
were living in Chicago, New York, or Toronto. The minimum
length of residence
in North America was set at 8 years to make sure that ultimate
attainment levels had
been reached. This is a conservative cutoff point, given that no
age effect studies on
the acquisition of morphosyntax have reported length of
residence effects beyond
even the first 5 years; it is also higher than in most age effect
studies, equaled
only by Flege et al. (1999) and surpassed only by Abrahamsson
and Hyltenstam
(2008), Ball (1996), Birdsong and Molis (2001), and DeKeyser
(2000). The age
of acquisition varied from 5 to 71 (see Table 1).
These immigrants varied widely in educational background, but
the vast ma-
jority had college degrees and white-collar jobs; a few even had
graduate de-
grees. Some had attained varying levels of proficiency in one or
more languages
(Ukrainian, Polish, Georgian, Tajik, Uzbek, Armenian,
Romanian, Italian, French,
German, Yiddish, or Hebrew) before emigrating; a few had
started learning one
or two languages (Polish, German, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese,
Latin, or He-
brew) after immigrating into North America and learning

English. One had lived
in Israel and spoken Hebrew for 15 years before moving on to
Canada. None,
however, had had substantial English teaching or substantial
experience using
any Germanic or Romance language before emigrating from the
(former) Soviet
Union.
effects in SLA
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the participants in
North America (n = 76)
Minimum Maximum Mean SD
AOA 5 71 32.54 18.01
LOR 8 28 11.71 4.03
AAT 19 79 43.93 17.74
GJT score 104 198 150.76 27.32
APT score 5 36 22.58 7.39
Note: AOA, age of acquisition; LOR, length of residence; AAT,
age
at testing; GJT, Grammaticality Judgment Test; APT, aptitude
test.
Instruments
Grammaticality Judgment Test (GJT). A 204-item test was
administered to all
participants to assess their proficiency in ESL. This instrument

was an adapted
and shortened version of Johnson and Newport’s (1989) test,
largely similar to
the DeKeyser’s (2000) adaptation, but with a few extra items to
ensure a better
representation of the definite article, a category absent in
Russian (Chesterman,
1991; Lyons, 1999, Wexler, 1996). The first four items were
training items not
counted in the analysis.
Aptitude test. Participants’ aptitude was assessed by means of
verbal sections of
the Russian version of the Inter-University Psychometric
Entrance Test (National
Institute for Testing and Evaluation, 2001). This version of the
test was designed
for Russian-speaking college applicants in Israel, and is
comparable to the verbal
Scholastic Aptitude Test in the United States. This instrument
was chosen because
it fulfilled the four major requirements of being (a) a test of
aptitude, (b) in the
participants’ native language, (c) at the right level of difficulty,
and (d) usable
for both parts of our study in Israel and in North America (no
cultural bias was
detected in the content of any of the items). The two parts of the
test used in this
study were sections 3 and 5 (KR-20 reliability = 0.76 for
section 3 and 0.71 for
section 5, 0.85 for the total of the two), each consisting of 19
multiple-choice items
(testing definitions, analogies, and verbal reasoning). For the
purpose of this study,
aptitude means verbal aptitude in the way it is usually

understood in educational
psychology, a broader construct than the “modern language
learning aptitude” that
most SLA research on aptitude focuses on and that is measured
by tests such as the
MLAT or PLAB (granted, of course, that there are strong
correlations between L1
proficiency, verbal aptitude/intelligence, foreign language
aptitude, and SLA, in
ways that are still poorly understood, but in all likelihood
because certain aspects
of L1 proficiency and foreign language aptitude are a function
of verbal aptitude
in the broader sense; see, e.g., Hulstijn and Bossers, 1992;
Humes-Bartlo, 1989;
Skehan, 1986, 1990; Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, Humbach, &
Javorsky, 2006).
As is the case in all verbal aptitude tests, knowledge of the
language tested is a
factor in the test used here, but there is evidence that this factor
played no more
role in this Russian version of the test than in the original test:
confirmatory factor
effects in SLA
analysis and multidimensional scaling have shown the
dimensional structures
of tests to be equivalent across the Russian and the original
Hebrew versions
(Allalouf, Bastari, Sireci, & Hambleton, 1997), and where there

is differential
item functioning for the two versions, it is clearly because of
problems of trans-
lation/adaptation for specific items and not for lack of construct
validity for the
test as a whole (Allalouf, Hambleton, & Sireci, 1999). In other
words, the test
measures verbal aptitude rather than knowledge of language in
general or vocabu-
lary specifically, not surprisingly, given that it was designed to
test verbal aptitude
in the broad sense (as part of a college entrance examination),
and moreover for
specifically the kind of population we are working with in this
study: immigrants
who arrived at different ages, and who are bilinguals with
somewhat varying levels
of L1 Russian.
Biographical questionnaire. All participants filled out a three-
page questionnaire
about their language background, educational background, age,
age of arrival, age
of acquisition (usually the same as age of arrival, but later in
the few cases where
participants were not required to use English for communication
immediately
upon arrival), and current proficiency in English and Russian.
Procedures
Participants were recruited via flyers posted in public places,
ads in publications
aimed at Russian immigrants, and word of mouth. They were
paid US $20 or
Canadian $30 for participation in the study. They were tested

individually or in
small groups, in a quiet room, usually at home. After signing
the consent form,
they filled out the background questionnaire first, then took the
grammar test, and
finally the aptitude test.
The items on the grammar test were presented auditorily by
playing a digitized
recording of all sentences, each read twice in a row, with a 3-s
interval between
the two readings and a 6-s interval between sentence pairs. The
sentences were
recorded by a female native speaker of English, an ESL teacher,
and amateur
singer with a very clear voice, in a fixed random order. The
entire test took about
an hour; there was a 5-min break halfway.
The aptitude test was written; participants could work at their
own pace, except
that there was a time limit of 25 min for each section.
Results
The scores on the GJT ranged from 104 to 198 out of 200, with
a mean of 150.76.
The reliability coefficient (KR-20) was 0.97.
The relationship between age of age of acquisition and ultimate
attainment is
represented in Figure 1. The corresponding correlation
coefficient is −.80 (p <
.001). This is in line with the correlation coefficients found in
other studies (e.g.,
−.77 in Birdsong & Molis, 2001; −.63 in DeKeyser, 2000; −.77

in Johnson &
Newport, 1989), but it does not mean anything in itself; it could
hide crucial
differences in correlation for various age ranges, as argued in
the previous section,
effects in SLA
200
180
160
140
120
G
ra
m
m
a
ti
c
a
il
it

y
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
te
s
t
Age of acquisition
100
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 1. A scatterplot for all ages in North America.
and as several of these previous studies have shown. Therefore,
we carried out
separate analyses for the age ranges <18, 18–40, and >40.
Furthermore, as Table 2 shows, besides age of acquisition, age
at testing is also
a strong predictor of ultimate attainment, but length of
residence is not. Therefore,
in the analyses that follow, age at testing was used as a control
variable, but length
of residence was ignored.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the age of acquisition–ultimate
attainment relationship
for three different age ranges: <18 (n = 20), 18–40 (n = 26), >40
(n = 30).
The scale for the Y axis has been kept constant for all three
figures, for ease of
comparison. As can be seen in the figures, the regression is
much steeper in Figure
2 (age of acquisition <18) than in Figure 3 (age of acquisition =
18–40), or Figure
4 (age of acquisition > 40). The corresponding correlation
coefficients are −.69
( p < .01) for age of acquisition < 18; −.44 ( p < .05) for age of
acquisition =
18–40; and −.27 (ns) for age of acquisition > 40. More
important, however, are
the correlations when the effect of age at testing is partialed out
(given that, even
though the correlation between age of acquisition and age at
testing is smaller
in the subsamples than in the total sample, but still not
negligible, .41 for the
<18 group, .88 for the 18–40 group, and .83 for the <40 group).
When age at
testing is partialed out, the difference between the three groups
becomes dramatic,
because the correlation for the youngest group increases
slightly, whereas the
effects in SLA

Table 2. Correlations between the main variables for the
participants in North America (n = 76)
AOA GJT AAT LOR APT
AOA 1 −.80 .97 −.05 .02
(.00) (.00) (.67) (.84)
GJT score 1 −.78 .07 .21
(.00) (.56) (.08)
AAT 1 .16 −.06
(.17) (.58)
LOR 1 −.25
(.03)
APT score 1
Note: AOA, age of acquisition; GJT, Grammaticality Judgment
Test;
AAT, age at testing; LOR, length of residence; APT, aptitude
test. The
values in parentheses are p values.
200
180
160
140
120
G

ra
m
m
a
ti
c
a
il
it
y
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
te
s
t
Age of acquisition
100
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Figure 2. A scatterplot for age of acquisition at an age of <18 in
North America.
correlations for the other two groups are no longer significantly
different from
zero: r = −.71 ( p < .01) for age of acquisition <18; −.17 (ns) for
age of
acquisition 18–40; and −.12 (ns) for age of acquisition >40.
(The reverse partial
correlation, between age of acquisition and age at testing with
ultimate attainment
effects in SLA
200
180
160
140
120
G
ra
m
m
a

ti
c
a
il
it
y
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
te
s
t
Age of acquisition
100
15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 3. A scatterplot for age of acquisition at an age of 18–40
in North America.
partialed out, is never significant: . 24 for the <18 group, .07
for the 18–40 group,
and −.04 for the >40 group.)

The role played by aptitude also differs by age group. For all
participants
combined, the correlation between ultimate attainment and
aptitude is .21 (ns);
for an age of acquisition of <18 it is .11 (ns), for an age of
acquisition of 18–40
it is .44 (p < .05), and for an age of acquisition of >40 it is .33
(ns).
As it is often assumed that the steepest decline in learning takes
places around
age 12, we did a further analysis splitting the <18 group into a
≤12 group and
a >12 group. Within each of these groups, the correlation
between the age of
acquisition and ultimate attainment is quite small: for age ≤12,
it is −.26 (ns,
n = 11), and for age >12 it is .01 (ns, n = 12). The correlation
coefficients may
not be very reliable with such small sample sizes, but the
difference between the
two groups for the score on the GJT looms large: for the ≤12
group the mean is
187.27; for the >12 group it is 166.42; t (21) = 3.30, p < .01.
Thus, it appears
that the biggest decline does take place at around age 12.
Discussion
Hypothesis 1. The hypothesis that the slope of the age of
acquisition–ultimate
attainment function would not be linear throughout the life
span, but instead show
a marked flattening between adolescence and adulthood, was
confirmed. Even

effects in SLA
200
180
160
140
120
G
ra
m
m
a
ti
c
a
il
it
y
j
u
d

g
m
e
n
t
te
s
t
Age of acquisition
100
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Figure 4. A scatterplot for age of acquisition at an age of >40 in
North America.
the raw correlations for the age of acquisition ranges 18–40 and
40+ were flatter
than for the 0–17 range; and when the effect of age at testing
was partialed out,
the effect became quite dramatic because the age of acquisition–
ultimate attain-
ment correlation for the age of acquisition <18 group increased
slightly to −.71
( p < .01), whereas the correlations for later age ranges of
comparable size became
very small and nonsignificant. This finding is what one would
expect under the
CPH: after this period is over, one no longer expects to see the
same decline (even
though some decline for other reasons is expected, of course,

especially for the
oldest participants). A further analysis shows the decline to be
especially steep
around age 12 (with the caveat that the sample sizes for age ≤
12 and age = 13–18
are quite small).
Hypothesis 2. The hypothesis that the relationship between
aptitude and ultimate
attainment would differ markedly for the younger and the older
arrivals was also
confirmed. The correlation for the age of acquisition <18 group
was very small
(r = .11) and nonsignificant; for the age of acquisition 18–40
range it was sub-
stantial and significant (r = .44; p < .05). For the oldest arrivals,
whose age of
acquisition was over 40 and whose age at testing varied from 50
to 79, with a mean
of 63, the correlation flattens somewhat again (r = .33, ns),
presumably because
other factors were playing an increasing role in determining test
performance for
this age range.
effects in SLA
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the participants in Israel (n =
62)
Minimum Maximum Mean SD

AOA 4.12 65.2 30.57 16.94
LOR 8.46 28.86 12.27 3.59
AAT 16.25 75.17 42.84 16.55
GJT score 101 196 149.58 26.33
APT score 1 36 19.84 8.59
Note: AOA, age of acquisition; LOR, length of residence; AAT,
age
at testing; GJT, Grammaticality Judgment Test; APT, aptitude
test.
STUDY 2: RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS ACQUIRING HEBREW
IN ISRAEL
Method
Participants. The participants in this study were 62 Russian-
speaking immigrants
above the age of 18, who had acquired Hebrew as an L2.3 All
lived in communities
close to Tel-Aviv. The minimum length of residence in Israel
was set at 8 years to
make sure that ultimate attainment levels had been reached. The
age of acquisition
varied from 4 to 65 (see Table 3).4
The immigrants varied in educational background. Most people
in the sample
had 13–18 years of schooling. Academic degrees were mostly in
science, one-
quarter had degrees in humanities and sociology, and the rest
had degrees in
the life sciences. Two-thirds had graduated from a Russian-
speaking university,
compared to one-third who had received their academic degree
in Israel. Most

participants were working or had worked in Israel by the time of
the study. A
scale of high (e.g., engineer, physician), middle (e.g., teacher),
and low positions
(e.g. cashier, cleaner) was constructed to evaluate immigrants’
work positions. It
showed that most participants had high or intermediate
positions.
Most participants knew other languages, in addition to Russian
and Hebrew,
before emigrating from the (former) Soviet Union: Ukrainian,
Polish,
Georgian, Romanian, French, German, Yiddish, or English.
Most participants
did not know any Hebrew before emigrating; those who did had
mostly “poor”
knowledge of the language. Most of them had studied Hebrew in
Ulpan (i.e.,
intensive immersion Hebrew language classes for new
immigrants, provided
by the state, which finances immigrants’ living expenses during
their first
months in Israel, so they can devote more time to language
learning) and had
also taken a course or studied at a Hebrew-speaking institute
(school, college,
university).
Instruments
GJT. All participants took a GJT in Hebrew consisting of 204
items representing
six basic categories of Hebrew morphology, such as noun–
adjective agreement,
use of the definite article, and morphology of past, present, and

future tense. The
test was designed by the second and third authors, specifically
for the purpose of
this study (see Appendix A for a list of structures and
examples).
effects in SLA
Aptitude test. The same aptitude test was used as in the North
American study.
Biographical questionnaire. All participants filled out an
extensive biographical
questionnaire of 66 multiple-choice and open-ended questions
about their age
of acquisition, age at testing, length of residence, gender,
academic background,
profession, children born in Israel, economic situation, self-
assessment of Hebrew
knowledge at the time of testing, self-assessment of Hebrew
knowledge prior to
immigration, sources of Hebrew knowledge, contexts of Hebrew
usage, language
preferences, identity, and motivation.
Procedures
Participants were recruited via flyers posted in public places,
ads in publications
aimed at Russian immigrants, and word of mouth. They were
paid US $20 for
participation in the study. They were tested individually, in a

quiet room, usually at
home. After signing the consent form, they filled out the
background questionnaire,
then took the grammar test, and finally the aptitude test.
The items on the grammar test were presented auditorily by
playing a digitized
recording of all sentences, each read twice in a row, with a 3-s
interval between
the two readings and a 6-s interval between sentence pairs. The
sentences were
recorded by the second author, a linguist and proficient speaker
of Hebrew, in
a fixed random order. The entire test took about 1 hr; there was
a 5-min break
halfway through.
The aptitude test was written; participants could work at their
own pace, except
that there was a time limit of 25 min for each section.
Results
The scores on the GJT ranged from 101 to 196 out of 204, with
a mean of 150.
The reliability coefficient (KR-20) was 0.98.
The relationship between age of acquisition and ultimate
attainment is repre-
sented in Figure 5. The corresponding correlation coefficient is
−.79 ( p < .001).
As Table 4 shows, however, ultimate attainment is also strongly
correlated with
age at testing, but not significantly correlated with length of
residence. Therefore,
length of residence was not included in subsequent analyses, but

age at testing
was used as a control variable.
Figures 6, 7, and 8 present scatterplots of the age of
acquisition–ultimate attain-
ment relationship for three different age ranges: <18 (n = 17),
18–40 (n = 32),
>40 (n = 13). The scale for the Y-axis has been kept constant
for all three figures,
in order to facilitate comparisons. The corresponding
correlation coefficients are
−.48 ( p = .05) for age of acquisition <18; −.37 ( p < .05) for
age of acquisition =
18–40; and −.53 (ns) for age of acquisition > 40.
In accordance with the North American data, it is important to
look at the corre-
lations when the effect of age at testing is partialed out (given
that the correlation
between age of acquisition and age at testing is smaller in the
subsamples than
in the total sample, but still not negligible at .79 for the <18
group, .88 for the
18–40 group, and .98 for the <40 group). When the effect of age
at testing is
effects in SLA
200
180

160
140
120
G
ra
m
m
a
ti
c
a
il
it
y
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
te
s
t

Age of acquisition
100
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 5. A scatterplot for all ages in Israel.
partialed out, the difference between the youngest group and the
two older groups
becomes quite large, because the correlation for the youngest
group remains
moderate and significant (−.51, p < .05), whereas the
correlations for the other
two groups are small and not significantly different from zero:
−.12 (ns) for age
of acquisition = 18–40; and −.33 (ns) for age of acquisition >
40. (The reverse
partial correlation, between age of acquisition and age at testing
with ultimate
attainment partialed out, is never significant: .29 for the <18
group, −.08 for the
18–40 group, and .23 for the >40 group.)
The role played by aptitude also differs by age group. For all
participants
together the correlation between ultimate attainment and
aptitude is −.003 (ns);
for age of acquisition < 18 it is −.37 (ns); for age of acquisition
18–40, r = .45
(p < .01); for age of acquisition > 40, r = .14 (ns).5
As was done for the North American group, we conducted a
further analysis
splitting the <18 group into a ≤12 group and a >12 group.

Within each of these
groups the correlation between age of acquisition and ultimate
attainment is quite
small: for age ≤12 it is −.38 (ns, n = 13); for age >12 it is .008
(ns, n = 7). Again,
the correlation coefficients may not be very reliable with such
small sample sizes,
but the difference between the two groups for the score on the
GJT looms large
here as well: for the ≤12 group the mean is 181.7; for the >12
group it is 158.7;
effects in SLA
Table 4. Correlations between the main variables for the
participants in Israel (n = 62)
AOA GJT AAT LOR APT
AOA 1 −.79 .98 −.21 .17
(.00) (.00) (.10) (.19)
GJT score 1 −.77 .19 .00
(.00) (.08) (.98)
AAT 1 −.001 .14
(.99) (.27)
LOR 1 −.14
(.28)
APT score 1

Note: AOA, age of acquisition; GJT, Grammaticality Judgment
Test;
AAT, age at testing; LOR, length of residence; ATP, aptitude
test. The
values in parentheses are p values.
t (16) = 2.37; p < .05. Thus, it appears that the biggest decline
does take place at
around age 12 for the group in Israel.
Discussion
Hypothesis 1. The hypothesis that the slope of the age of
acquisition–ultimate
attainment function would not be linear throughout the life
span, but instead show
a marked flattening between adolescence and adulthood, was
confirmed. Even the
raw correlation for the age of acquisition range 18–40 was much
flatter than for
the 0–17 range, and when the effect of age at testing was
partialed out, the effect
became quite dramatic, in the sense that the age of acquisition–
ultimate attainment
correlation for the <18 group was moderate (r = −.48) and
significant, whereas
the correlations for later age ranges of comparable size became
very small and
nonsignificant. This finding is what one would expect under the
CPH: after this
period is over, one no longer expects to see the same decline.
Some decline for
other reasons is expected, of course, especially for the oldest
participants; it is
found here quite clearly for the oldest participants (age of

acquisition > 40; age
at testing = 50.2–75.0 with a mean of 67.8), but it disappears
completely when
age at testing is partialed out. A further analysis shows the
decline to be especially
steep around age 12 (with the caveat that the sample sizes for
ages of ≤12 and
13–18 are quite small).
Hypothesis 2. The hypothesis that the relationship between
aptitude and ultimate
attainment would differ markedly for the younger and the older
arrivals was
also confirmed. The correlation for the age of acquisition <18
group was small
(r = −.37) and nonsignificant; for the age of acquisition 18–40
range it was
substantial and significant (r = .45; p < .01). For the oldest
arrivals, whose age
of acquisition is over 40 and whose age at testing varies from
50.2 to 75.2 with a
effects in SLA
200
180
160
140

120
G
ra
m
m
a
ti
c
a
il
it
y
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
te
s
t
Age of acquisition
100

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Figure 6. A scatterplot for age of acquisition at an age of <18 in
Israel.
mean of 67.8, the correlation flattens again (r = .17, ns),
presumably because other
factors are increasingly playing a role in determining test
performance for this age
range.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results for the samples from North America and Israel show
remarkably
similar patterns, despite the radical differences in L2 structures
to be acquired
(morphology-rich Hebrew vs. morphology-poor English) and the
different societal
context. All the learners had in common in both cases was their
native language
(besides, for many of them, ethnic and religious affiliation, and
perhaps attitudes
toward language and schooling).
For younger learners (below the age of 18), ultimate attainment
in grammar was
strongly predicted by age of arrival, but not by aptitude. For
young adults (ages
18 to 40), it was the other way around: aptitude, but not age of
arrival predicted
the level of ultimate attainment. For the oldest learners, who
were over age 40
on arrival and typically between 50 and 75 at testing, neither
aptitude nor age of

arrival were good predictors, only age at testing.
The findings about the effect of age of arrival are perfectly
compatible with
the predictions of the CPH: a rather precipitous decline in the
ability to acquire a
effects in SLA
200
180
160
140
120
G
ra
m
m
a
ti
c
a
il
it

y
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
te
s
t
Age of acquisition
100
15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 7. A scatterplot for age of acquisition at an age of 18–40
in Israel.
language during a time period ending somewhere in
adolescence, followed by a
period of no further decline as a function of age of arrival (even
though there may
be some decline because of other factors, such as age at testing,
especially for the
oldest participants). These findings concur with those of studies
that have shown a
pattern of rapid decline followed by relative stability (e.g.,

DeKeyser, 2000; Flege
et al., 1999; Johnson & Newport, 1989). They are different from
those found in
studies such as Hakuta et al. (2003), who found a decline
throughout the life span,
and they are the opposite of those in Birdsong and Molis
(2001), the only study
in the literature that found no decline for the younger group, but
a significant
decline for the adults. Elsewhere (DeKeyser, 2006) we provided
explanations for
why the latter studies may have found such lack of stabilization
in adulthood:
for example, measurement of ultimate attainment with nothing
but a very coarse-
grained self-assessment in the case of Hakuta et al. (2003) and
the presence of
some outliers in Birdsong and Molis (2001). The present study
suggests that not
taking into account age at testing, usually substantially
confounded with age of
acquisition, may have been another important reason for their
findings and their
discrepancy with ours. In contrast, the lack of decline in the
early learner group
in Birdsong and Molis may have been because of the L1–L2
combination: when
the two languages are relatively closely related such as English
and Spanish, one
would expect the decline in the early group (because of the
critical period) to be

effects in SLA
200
180
160
140
120
G
ra
m
m
a
ti
c
a
il
it
y
j
u
d
g
m
e

n
t
te
s
t
Age of acquisition
100
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Figure 8. A scatterplot for age of acquisition at an age of >40 in
Israel.
less marked, and therefore, it would look more similar to the
decline in the late
group (due largely to confounding with age at testing). In our
two studies here,
both L1–L2 combinations (Russian–English and Russian–
Hebrew) were more
challenging.
The findings on the effect of aptitude are also compatible with
previous findings,
in this case on the role of aptitude at various ages (DeKeyser,
2000; Harley & Hart,
1997), despite the very different operationalization of aptitude
in those studies
(tests of aptitude for foreign language learning) compared to the
present one (a
broader verbal aptitude test).
Together these findings provide both evidence for a quantitative
decline of

learning ability and a qualitative shift in grammar learning
mechanisms as a
function of age before adulthood; they contradict the claims that
there is no
quantitative evidence of a critical period because there is no
discontinuity in
the decline (e.g., Birdsong, 2004, 2005, 2006; Hakuta et al.,
2003) or because
there is no evidence of qualitative differences as a function of
age (Hakuta, 2001).
Putting both age at testing and aptitude into the picture has
provided a dramatically
different picture for younger compared to older learners of how
much learning
takes place and how: younger learners learn more while relying
less on aptitude;
older learners learn less, and to the extent they do learn, must
rely more heavily
on their verbal aptitude. These findings should not be
immediately generalized to
effects in SLA
all aspects of L2, of course; only morphosyntax was studied
here, not the lexicon,
pragmatics, or pronunciation.
We are now conducting a fine-grained study of the linguistic
aspects of the
various morphosyntactic structures in our tests to shed further
light on the nature
of the qualitative differences in learning mechanisms for

children and adults.
However, we do not want to suggest, of course, that age of
arrival and aptitude
are the only variables that matter in determining ultimate
attainment. A wide
variety of studies have documented a very large spread in
proficiency among adult
learners, due not only to age and aptitude, but also to
personality, motivation, and
level of education, among other variables (see, e.g., Dörnyei,
2005; Dörnyei &
Skehan, 2003; Ellis, 2004). These variables do not take away
from the importance
of the age factor, however; on the contrary, studies that have
investigated level
of education and age of arrival in the same data set have found
that, although
level of education is a predictor of ultimate achievement, the
shape of the age
of arrival–ultimate attainment function is the same for learners
with different
levels of education (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999; Hakuta et al.,
2003). At this point
it would be very premature to discount the importance of age of
arrival as an
independent predictor of ultimate achievement in L2 grammar.
Future studies will
need to take age at testing into account when analyzing the
relationship between
age of acquisition and ultimate attainment. Another important
improvement over
existing research, our own work included, would come from
still larger numbers
of participants, but without sacrificing the quality of the data.
Conversely, what
is perhaps most needed in this area of research at this point is

the use of a wider
variety of fine-grained dependent measures, not just
grammaticality judgments or
global accuracy ratings. It is also desirable, everything else
being the same, to have
a population of immigrants who are strictly monolingual at the
time of migration
and a precise documentation of the amount and quality of L1
and L2 use by these
immigrants after the onset of acquisition.
APPENDIX A
Structures of the Hebrew GJT (100 item pairs)
1. Noun plurals (N = 10), for example, ∗ Dani kana harbe
maxshir be-hom senter lifney
shavua/Dani kana harbe maxshir-im be-hom senter lifney shavua
“∗ Danny bought a lot of
tool at Home Center last week/Danny bought a lot of tool, Pl at
Home Center last week.”
2. Adjective inflection (N = 32), for example, ∗ Ron kibel shaon
shxora le-yom ha-huledet
shelo/Ron kibel shaon shaxor le-yom ha-huledet shelo “∗ Ron
has received a black, Fem
watch for him birthday/Ron has received a black watch for him
birthday.”
3. Verb inflection (N = 8), for example, lama at medaberet im
ha-tipus ha-ze bixlal?/lama at
medaber im ha-tipus ha-ze bixlal? ∗ Why are you talking to this
creature anyway?/Why
are you talking, Fm to this creature anyway?
4. Morphosyntactic constructions, for example, compounding,

subordination, conditionals
(N = 16) ∗ im Dan yecaxceax shinayim hayu lo shinayim
nekiyot/im Dan yecaxceax shi-
nayim yihyu lo shinayim nekiyot “∗ If Dan brushes his teeth he
had clean teeth/If Dan
brushes his teeth he will have clean teeth.”
5. The definite article (N = 26), for example, ∗ tavi li bevakasha
magevet me-aron/tavi li
bevakasha magevet me-ha-aron “∗ Please bring me a towel from
closet/Please bring me a
towel from the-closet.”
effects in SLA
Numeral agreement (N = 8), for example, ∗ pagashnu shalosh
banim ba-xufsha shelanu
be-eilat/pagashnu shlosha banim ba-xufsha shelanu be-eilat
“∗ We have met three, Fem
boys at our holiday in Eilat/We have met three boys at our
holiday in Eilat.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by NIH (NICHD) Grant 1 R03
HD41479–01. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the help of Becky Bird and Neta
Abugov with data collection and
Elaine Rubinstein and Gabi Lieberman with data analysis. Parts
of this study were previ-
ously presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Applied Linguistics
in Portland, Oregon, and at the International Symposium on

Bilingualism in Barcelona,
Spain.
NOTES
1. A variety of research projects at the Center for the Advanced
Study of Language
(College Park, MD) are aimed at designing a battery of aptitude
tests with better
validity, especially for advanced stages of language learning.
2. Eight more people were tested, but the data for seven of them
were not entered into
the analysis because the questionnaire showed that they did not
meet the criteria for
the study (they fell slightly short of 8 years of residence or had
a slight hearing
problem), and one person’s data were eliminated from the
analysis because he had a
score below chance on the GJT, presumably because of ignoring
or misunderstanding
the instructions.
3. Eleven more people were tested, but their data were
eliminated from the analysis
because they had a GJT score below chance, presumably
because of ignoring or
misunderstanding the instructions, or scored zero on the
aptitude test.
4. Two participants whose age of acquisition was <3 were
eliminated from the analysis
after the comment from an external reviewer that one cannot
speak of SLA at such a
young age. The minimum is now set at age 4.

5. Two people scored zero on the aptitude test, presumably
because they misunderstood or
ignored the instructions; they were eliminated from the analyses
involving the aptitude
test.
REFERENCES
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of
aptitude effects in near-native second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
30, 481–509.
Allalouf, A., Bastari, B., Sieci, S. G., & Hambleton, R. K.
(1997). Comparing the dimensionality
of a test administered in two languages. Paper presented at the
Meeting of the Northeastern
Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.
Allalouf, A., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (1999).
Identifying the causes of DIF in translated
verbal items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 185–198.
Ball, J. (1996). Age and natural order in second language
acquisition. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Rochester.
Berman, R. A. (1980). The case of an (S)VO language:
Subjectless constructions in modern Hebrew.
Language, 56, 759–776.
Berman, R. A. (1999). Relevant features of spoken and written
English. In R. Aisenman (Ed.), Working
papers in “developing literacy across genres, modalities, and
languages” (pp. 4–19). Tel Aviv:
Tel Aviv University.

effects in SLA
Bialystok, E. (2002). On the reliability of robustness: A reply to
DeKeyser. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 481–488.
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words. The science
and psychology of second-language
acquisition. New York: Basic Books.
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic
and cognitive factors in age differences
for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second
language acquisition and the
critical period hypothesis (pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bialystok, E., & Miller, B. (1999). The problem of age in
second-language acquisition: Influ-
ences from language, structure, and task. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 2, 127–
145.
Birdsong, D. (2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate
attainment. In A. Davies & C. Elder
(Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 82–105).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Birdsong, D. (2005). Interpreting age effects in second language
acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & A. M.
B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
approaches (pp. 109–127).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and
processing: A selective overview.
Language Learning, 56(Suppl. 1), 1–49.
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for
maturational constraints in second-language
acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249.
Bylund, E. (2008). Age differences in first language attrition. A
maturational constraints perspective.
Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Bylund, E. (2009). Maturational constraints and first language
attrition. Language Learning, 59,
687–715.
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign
language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (Ed.),
Individual differences and universals in language learning
aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude
Test. Form A. New York: Psychological
Corporation.
Chesterman, A. (1991). On definition. A study with special
reference to English and Finnish. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period
effects in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2006). A critique of recent arguments against
the critical period hypothesis. In
C. Abello-Contesse, R. Chacón-Beltrán, M. D. López-Jiménez,
& M. M. Torreblanca-López
(Eds.), Age in L2 acquisition and teaching (pp. 49–58). Bern:
Peter Lang.
DeKeyser, R. M., & Larson-Hall, J. (2005). What does the
critical period really mean? In J. F. Kroll
& A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.
89–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner.
Individual differences in second language
acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in
second language learning. In C. J. Doughty
& M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 589–630). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language
learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.),
The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–551). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Eubank, L., & Gregg, K. R. (1999). Critical periods and
(second) language acquisition: Divide
et impera. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition
and the critical period hypothesis
(pp. 65–99). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age
constraints on second-language acquisition.

Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.
Hakuta, K. (2001). A critical period for second language
acquisition? In D. Bailey, J. Bruer, F. Symons,
& J. Lichtman (Eds.), Critical thinking about critical periods
(pp. 193–205). Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.
Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical
evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis
for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14, 31–
38.
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.
effects in SLA
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (2002). Age, aptitude, and second
language learning on a bilingual exchange.
In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed
language learning (pp. 301–330).
Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Herschensohn, J. (2007). Language development and age. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1992). Individual differences in L2
proficiency as a function of L1
proficiency. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 341–

353.
Humes-Bartlo, M. (1989). Variation in children’s ability to
learn second languages. In K. Hyltenstam
& L. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan (pp. 41–54).
Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Hyltenstam, K. (1992). Non-native features of near-native
speakers: On the ultimate attainment of
childhood L2 learners. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive
processing in bilinguals (pp. 351–368).
New York: Elsevier.
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational
constraints in second language acquisition.
In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 539–588).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Ioup, G. (2005). Age in second language development. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (pp. 419–435). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Jia, G., & Aaronson, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of Chinese
children and adolescents learning
English in the United States. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24,
131–161.
Johnson, J. S. (1992). Critical period effects in second language
acquisition: The effect of written
versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical
competence. Language Learning,
42, 217–248.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects
in second language learning: The
influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as
a second language. Cognitive
Psychology, 21, 60–99.
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1991). Critical period effects
on universal properties of lan-
guage: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second
language. Cognition, 39, 215–
258.
Köpke, B., & Schmid, M. S. (2004). Language attrition: The
next phase. In M. S. Schmid, B. Köpke,
M. Keijzer, & L. Weilemar (Eds), First language attrition.
Interdisciplinary perspectives on
methodological issues (pp. 1–43). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lee, D., & Schachter, J. (1997). Sensitive period effects in
binding theory. Language Acquisition, 6,
333–362.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language.
New York: Wiley.
Long, M. (2005). Problems with supposed counter-evidence to
the ritical period hypothesis. IRAL, 43,
287–316.
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McDonald, J. L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second
language: Influences of age of acqui-
sition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 395–
423.

McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-
based explanations for poor gram-
maticality judgment performance by late second language
learners. Journal of Memory and
Language, 55, 381–401.
Montrul, S. A. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism:
Re-examining the age factor. Amster-
dam: Benjamins.
National Institute for Testing and Evaluation. (2001). Inter-
University Psychometric Entrance Test [in
Russian]. Jerusalem: Author.
Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery
(PLAB). New York: Psychological Corpora-
tion.
Ravid, D. (1995a). Language change in child and adult Hebrew:
A psycholinguistic perspective. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Ravid, D. (1995b). Neutralization of gender distinctions in
Modern Hebrew numerals. Language
Variation and Change, 7, 79–100.
Schachter, J. (1996). Maturation and universal grammar. In W.
C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 159–193). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schmid, M. S. (2006). Second language attrition. In K. Brown
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and
linguistics (Vol. 11, pp. 74–81). Oxford: Elsevier.

effects in SLA
Schumann, J. H. (1995). Ad minorem theoriae gloriam. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 17,
59–65.
Seliger, H. W. (1978). Implications of a multiple critical
periods hypothesis for second language
learning. In W. C. Ritchie (Ed.), Second language acquisition
research. Issues and implications
(pp. 11–19). New York: Academic Press.
Skehan, P. (1986). The role of foreign language aptitude in a
model of school learning. Language
Testing, 3, 188–221.
Skehan, P. (1990). The relationship between native and foreign
language learning ability: Educational
and linguisitic factors. In H. Dechert (Ed.), Current trends in
European second language
acquisition research (pp. 83–106). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Sorace, A. (1993). Incomplete vs. divergent representations of
unaccusativity in non-native grammars
of Italian. Second Language Research, 9, 22–47.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky,
J. (2006). Native language predictors of
foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude.
Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 129–160.

Stevens, G. (2004). Using census data to test the critical-period
hypothesis for second-language
acquisition. Psychological Science, 15, 215–216.
Stevens, G. (2006). The age-length-onset problem in research
on second language acquisition among
immigrants. Language Learning, 56, 671–692.
Thompson, S. A. (1978). Modern English from a typological
point of view: Some implications of the
function of word order. Linguistische Berichte, 54, 19–36.
Wexler, P. (1976). On the non-lexical expression of
determinedness (with special reference to Russian
and Finnish). Studia Linguistica, 30, 34–67.
Applied Linguistics 2014: 35/4: 418–440 � Oxford University
Press 2014
doi:10.1093/applin/amu012 Advance Access published on 4
June 2014
Exceptional Outcomes in L2 Phonology:
The Critical Factors of Learner Engagement
and Self-Regulation
1
ALENE MOYER
1
School of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, College of Arts
and Humanities,
University of Maryland

E-mail: [email protected]
A number of studies attest to the late language learner’s ability
to attain native-
like outcomes in morphology and syntax, with accent often the
only linguistic
hint of their non-native status. Nevertheless, some do end up
sounding native-
like despite a late start. This article explores possible
explanations for ’excep-
tional’ outcomes in L2 phonology, specifically, whether such
learners’ abilities
are due to innate talent, a metacognitive learning approach, a
certain social-
psychological orientation, or specific kinds of experience.
Various learners
profiles are compared, an argument is made for learner
engagement and
self-regulation, and areas for future research are outlined.
INTRODUCTION
It is no exaggeration to say that those beyond early childhood
who aim to
master a new language begin at a vastly different starting point
than those who

begin at birth. The second language acquisition (SLA) literature
is replete with
theories and hypotheses about why this is so, ranging from
neuro-cognitive to
social to psychological explanations including first language
(L1) interference,
affective ‘filters’ of one sort or another, the decreasing
accessibility of an innate
language acquisition device, social and cultural barriers to
assimilation, etc.
(see Bley-Vroman 1989). What is certain is that at least one
language is already
in place as a knowledge base, which can imply greater
metalinguistic aware-
ness, yet may also be detrimental insofar as L1 cues and
patterns are already
salient (see Hansen 2004 for second language, or L2; Kuhl et al.
2008 and
Strange and Shafer 2008 for L1). The first language(s) may
limit what the
learner notices in L2, and what she or he is therefore able to
emulate at the
level of performance.
According to Selinker (1972), just 5–10 percent of adult

language learners
can expect to reach a native-like level, but even this low
threshold may be
somewhat ambitious for phonological fluency. Nevertheless,
some late lear-
ners do attain a level that can be described as native, or native-
like, for some
series of perception-based and/or production-based tasks (e.g.
Ioup et al. 1994;
Bongaerts et al. 1995; Moyer 1999). This fact begs two
questions that have long
fascinated SLA scholars: (i) What makes a successful language
learner?
1
(ii) Why
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-
abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018
-
&percnt;
to
,
1
2

does phonology uniquely challenge so-called ‘late’ language
learners in comparison
with other aspects of language? This article merges both
questions by examining
several reasons why some late learners are particularly
successful in the realm
of accent.
Scovel (1988) famously asserted that age effects in L2
phonological acquisi-
tion are directly related to neuro-muscular or perceptual skill
development,
rather than affective factors. His argument was based on two
important prem-
ises: (i) phonology uniquely relies on neuro-muscular faculties
for both per-
ception and production; (ii) affective factors could not
reasonably restrict
phonology, yet have no effect on other aspects of language
ability. Indeed,
shifts in neuro-muscular flexibility and or cognitive
mechanisms have long
been assumed responsible for the relative difficulty of learning
a new sound
system given that phonology relies on both speech-motor

control and audi-
tory-perceptual neural networks. On the other hand, phonology
also holds a
unique connection to one’s sense of self, or identity, and
therefore speaks to
more than just neuro-cognitive and neuro-muscular constraints.
Moreover, it
is undeniable that target language experience shapes one’s
approach to acqui-
sition over the long term, and thus the likelihood of native-like
attainment.
Evidence confirms correlations between accent ratings and a
host of individual
factors, among them: length of residence (LOR) in the target
language country,
age of onset/first exposure, and both quantity and quality of
experience in the
target language, not to mention motivation and attitudes (e.g.
Purcell and
Suter 1980; Thompson 1991; Bongaerts et al. 1995; Elliott
1995; Flege and
Liu 2001; Diaz-Campos 2004; see also Moyer 2013).
In sum, numerous cognitive, social, and psychological factors,
both intrinsic

and extrinsic in nature, point towards a possible understanding
of exceptional
outcomes. In a sense then, the phenomenon of exceptionality
signifies a nexus
for the two dominant paradigms of SLA: a decidedly cognitive
or psycholin-
guistic approach on the one hand, and on the other hand, a
largely sociolin-
guistic perspective focused on the ‘whole person’. This article
argues that
the mysteries of exceptional learning, so rare in L2 phonology,
cannot be
explained by either one or the other, but resides at the
intersection of both
realms. What can explain the fact that some L2 learners, despite
a
late start, end up sounding native-like? Are we to understand
them as ‘phono-
logical geniuses’ with extraordinary, innate talents?
Alternatively,
do they have special ways of utilizing input, or can they
somehow access
linguistic resources in unusual ways? What accounts for their
extraordinary

success?
With these questions in mind, I first describe what is generally
implied by
‘exceptionality’ in L2 phonology, then present case studies
which suggest a
number of common characteristics of their approach to language
learning. In
so doing, the relevance of both self-regulation and engagement
with the target
language become clear. I conclude by suggesting that the
fascination with
some as-yet-determined special talent obscures the need for an
integrated
examination of the cognitive, social, and experiential factors
that co-vary
A. MOYER 419
abstract/35/4/418/2887856
on 04 January 2018
paper
a
b
the
,

Elliott 1995;
Flege and Liu 2001;
Purcell and Suter 1980;
Thompson 1991;
paper
with age. The research on exceptionality calls for a dynamic
view of learner
engagement with the target language over time in order to
understand the
ways that exceptional learners make the most of the available
input, and take a
flexible approach, responding to the circumstances at hand.
EXCEPTIONALITY IN L2 PHONOLOGY
To clarify, ‘exceptional’ refers to those who defy the Critical
Period Hypothesis
(Lenneberg 1967); they sound native-like even though their
exposure to the
target language comes after age 9–10 years (the critical period
for phonology is
arguably even earlier, but 9–10 years is a relatively common
yardstick in the
research, in keeping with Lenneberg’s original hypothesis). So,
which specific
skills or skill sets are implied when we talk about

exceptionality, or native-like-
ness, in phonology? By and large, we mean the ability to
perceive and/or
produce new sounds like a native speaker would, verified
through relevant
tasks which are often isolated or decontextualized (see Levis
and Moyer 2014).
Kuhl’s 2007 study on American and Japanese adults confirmed
that this is
challenging owing to L1 category salience. Her American
listeners could ac-
curately pinpoint the acoustic differences between /r/ and /l/
while her
Japanese listeners could not owing to this contrast’s absence in
Japanese.
Further distinctions based on subtle features like vowel quality,
aspiration,
and voice onset time (e.g. the difference between /I/ and /E/ or
/d/ and /t/)
can also be difficult to detect if they are irrelevant in L1. This
is likely more
difficult when L1 and L2 features overlap, but are not quite the
same, as Flege
and Hillenbrand (1987) have shown for the English vs. French
versions of the

phoneme /u/. Instruction and experience can bridge this gap for
both produc-
tion and perception (e.g. Flege and Hillenbrand 1987; Rojczyk
2011), even
long-term (e.g. Sereno and Wang 2007), but mastery eludes
most L2 learners,
it seems, and even the untrained ear can detect the difference
between native
and non-native speech. As shown in Major (2007), listeners
completely un-
familiar with the language in question can accurately separate
native controls
from non-native speakers, which suggests that there is
something unique, and
highly salient, about a non-native accent.
Accent is not just a matter of phonetic or segmental precision.
To sound
‘native-like’ the learner must control a number of different
features that op-
erate in conjunction with one another, including tempo, rhythm,
pause, junc-
ture, pitch patterns, and intonation. Pickering and Baker (2014)
confirm that

judgments of accentedness rely on sentence stress (prominence),
pause place-
ment patterns, speech rate, and tone choice. (They also point
out, however,
that such judgments are prone to listener background variables
such as native/
non-native status and attitudes towards the speakers’ presumed
backgrounds.)
While tests of such ability are limited to isolated words or
phrases, as noted,
some do include a complex range of tasks including
spontaneous speech,
which allows for greater confidence in deeming a given learner
as ‘exceptional’
(see Moyer 2013). Few such cases have been examined in depth,
however.
420 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY
abstract/35/4/418/2887856
on 04 January 2018
-
-
yrs
.
due

due
,
-
--
-
--
,
,
In my own research I have come across enough such learners to
draw a few
parallels between them. Interview data from Moyer 2004 study
of immigrants
to Berlin shed light on the unique profiles of two Turkish men
whose families
had immigrated to Germany by the time both were 4 years old.
Both should
have ended up sounding native according to the Critical Period
Hypothesis, but
only one consistently did across all tasks. Their stories revealed
very different
attitudes towards the language and culture—one very positive
and the other
quite conflicted. The first one, Ahmet, says he learned German
‘on the street’ as
a young child and ‘absolutely’ wanted to sound German. He has
‘countless’

German friends and acquaintances. The other, Korech, describes
his accent as
‘noticeable’ and his contact with Germans as minimal. He
reports a completely
different orientation: he consciously aligned his social activities
with his core
Turkish self-concept throughout his life, choosing to avoid
using German at
home, and failing to make permanent friends with any German
schoolmates.
His discomfort with German culture was a strong motif
throughout his
interview.
In a 2007 study on attitudes and accent, I similarly describe the
backgrounds
of two English as a Second Language (ESL) learners of
differing L1 backgrounds
who were judged to sound native for the majority of
pronunciation-centered
tasks, including extemporaneous speaking. They had a number
of things in
common which reflect not just attitudes, but experience, and
future intentions

vis-à-vis the target language and culture: both had immigrated
to the USA by
age 5 years and had at least 13 years residence; both intended to
stay at least five
more years, had a strong and consistent desire to sound native, a
strong level of
comfort with American culture, and used English consistently
among native
speaker friends in multiple, socially oriented contexts. There
were others who
also enjoyed an early start with English (by age 5 years), but
without all of these
experiential and psychological benefits, and their accent ratings
were not on par
with these two.
These data, coupled with evidence from other studies, suggest
that age of
onset (AO) by itself is not a sufficient explanation for
attainment. The question
is whether truly exceptional attainment is a function of multiple
factors, and
whether these factors derive from a unitary source, such as the
neuro-cognitive
realm. The discussion above suggests otherwise, namely, that

experience and
orientation are central to this outcome. In order to better
understand this phe-
nomenon, we now look more closely at several case studies.
EXCEPTIONAL LEARNER PROFILES
Looking at the L2 phonology literature, several learners have
been deemed
exceptional for their production in pronunciation tasks, so let us
consider
the factors associated with their success, namely, self-professed
neuro-
cognitive ‘talents’ or aptitudes, social and psychological
orientation, and L2
experience.
A. MOYER 421
abstract/35/4/418/2887856
on 04 January 2018
four
--
five
-
five

Ioup et al. (1994) describe two American speakers of L2 Arabic
who com-
pleted a series of tasks, including free speaking. The one they
single out as
exceptional is Julie, who had lived in Egypt for 26 years at the
time of data
collection. Julie could not speak Arabic when she moved to
Cairo after marry-
ing an Egyptian. She acquired Arabic completely without
instruction, and it
had long since become her primary language at home. From the
beginning of
her immersion, Julie wrote down observations about the
language, and appre-
ciated explicit feedback on her errors (p. 77). Julie reported that
she set out to
mimic, rather than analyze, the accent of native speakers (with a
self-described
talent for mimicry, she reported ‘no problems’, even with
Arabic pharyngeals
and uvulars). By Ioup et al.’s account Julie had no noticeable
foreign accent,
which they attribute to her cognitive/metacognitive approach.
Another lear-

ner profiled (to a lesser extent) in this study is Laura, also an
American living in
Cairo and married to an Egyptian. Laura had studied standard
Arabic for years
and had taught it to other learners in the USA. She moved to
Cairo to make
greater strides in her oral fluency as she pursued doctoral work
in Arabic. At
the time of data collection, Laura had lived in Cairo for 10
years. Eight out of
13 Egyptian listeners rated both Julie and Laura as native
speakers, despite
their different paths to advanced attainment (Julie’s ratings
were higher on
average). Only a few points of vowel quality and intonation
were noticeable to
several judges, but otherwise, both passed as native speakers
‘more often than
not’ according to the authors (p. 80). Julie and Laura were also
able to dis-
criminate regional accents in Arabic with 100 percent accuracy,
outperforming
the native speaker judges at 85 percent accuracy. This suggests
that both Laura

and Julie had ‘a good ear’, and possibly some innate talent
indicative of unu-
sual cognitive flexibility (p. 91). In the case of Julie
specifically, they also note
that she was outgoing, and thus had access to ‘abundant
comprehensible input
and error feedback’ (ibid.).
A number of Nikolov’s (2000) learners of English (N = 13), and
learners of
Hungarian (N = 13) in Hungary were rated as native-sounding
on both read-
aloud tasks and extemporaneous speech. All started learning the
language in
question at the age of 15 years or later. Some were married to
native speakers,
and most were professionals working in Hungary (including as
teachers), thus
the author assumed a high level of motivation. Nikolov also
ascribes to them a
genuine pride in their achievement, noting:
Language is either a part of their profession or they have very
strong
integrative motivation to become bone fide residents of the
target

language country. . . . All of the successful participants try to
find
chances for improving their second language proficiency, they
are
outgoing characters and like to socialize. All are avid readers in
the
target language, listen to the media and try to feel at home in
the
culture as well as in the language. (p. 116)
One of the most successful learners acquired Hungarian without
any instruc-
tion, and another who sounded native in English had spent only
one semester
abstract/35/4/418/2887856
on 04 January 2018
&percnt;
&percnt;
abroad in an English-speaking country, but spent time
mimicking radio
announcers. (Judges, who ranged widely in age, confirmed that
their ratings
were based on pronunciation, intonation, and overall fluency,
that is, lack of

hesitation and false starts, for their ratings.) The common thread
among these
learners is a proactive approach: all said they wanted to sound
native, and all
sought ways to improve their fluency through communicating
with native
speakers, as well as engaging in more receptive activities such
as watching
TV, viewing films, and reading in the target language.
From among their NNS participants living in Ireland (mean age
of onset of
22.5 years) who completed a film-retelling task in English,
Muñoz and
Singleton (2007) pay special attention to two learners, the first
named Elena.
Originally from Spain, she is married to an Irishman, and claims
many (in fact,
only) English-speaking Irish friends. Elena had consciously
avoided Spanish
speakers since her arrival, and only speaks her native tongue
when visiting
with family members. She discusses her conscious efforts to
improve her
English, but also believes she has inherited a special aptitude

for languages.
Marga, another participant, similarly cites a persistent desire to
master all lin-
guistic aspects of English, but describes her drive as predicated
on a love of the
language as opposed to an overt desire for cultural affiliation.
Both Marga and
Elena continuously monitor their own progress and fluency,
even after having
reached a high level of fluency, and they still endeavor to
improve their
English, in particular through social interaction. The authors
describe both
learners as having a ‘thirst’ for becoming native-like.
Another case of an exceptional learner who was consistently
rated as native
for all production tasks is singled out in Moyer 1999. This late
learner’s scores
were actually better on average (across all tasks combined) than
any of the
actual NS controls. He had studied German just five years
(beginning at age 17
years)—far less than most of his peers in the study—and
describes himself as

‘self-taught’ for the most part. Before embarking on a 2-year
study abroad
experience, he spent hours listening to exchange student friends
from
Germany in an effort to ‘absorb the sounds’ of the language. He
had no prob-
lems assimilating linguistically and culturally while living in
Germany those 2
years. His narrative echoes a common theme among exceptional
learners in
that he cites a ‘fascination’ with the target language and its
culture.
Molnár (2010) also discovered several Polish learners of
German who
arrived in Germany after age 11 years, and had received no
special training,
yet rated on par with native speaker controls on read-aloud and
free speaking
tasks. Through a (very limited) background survey, Molnár
ascertained that
these learners primarily used German in their daily lives, had no
anxiety vis-à-
vis foreign language learning, described themselves as
‘extroverts’, and placed

the highest possible importance on sounding native. The learner
with the best
ratings had studied linguistics, English, and German language
pedagogy, had
resided in-country for 18 years, and had also learned several
other languages
while in German high school. In contrast to the others, she
seldom used her
native language.
A. MOYER 423
abstract/35/4/418/2887856
on 04 January 2018
i.e.
,
-
``
''
-
-
two
``
''
two
In a 1993 study, Major focuses on a group of American women

living in
Brazil. All had immigrated between the ages of 22 and 35 years,
were married
to Brazilians, raised their children speaking Portuguese, and
were employed as
ESL teachers. All completed read-aloud and extemporaneous
speaking tasks.
While most were forthcoming about their failure to acquire
fluent
Portuguese despite a very long residence (20–35 years), one
woman had
resided in-country 12 years and was convinced that she could
pass for
native. Major’s analysis of her Voice Onset Time (VOT) values
confirmed
this. She was untutored, but made a point of mentioning that she
‘carefully
paid attention to linguistic forms and pronunciation and took
mental notes of
things, which later became part of her competence’ (p. 472).
She also reported
‘feeling Brazilian’, unlike her counterparts. The others had
obvious American
accents, and reported feeling ‘strongly’ American. In fact, she

had absorbed
Portuguese so fully that her English had traces of Portuguese
VOT patterns,
and when visiting the USA, she was continually asked whether
she was
American (p. 472). Importantly, Major’s study leads him to
conclude that
both L1 and L2 are ‘dynamic, fluid entities and can vary over
time’ (p. 475);
this woman’s English pronunciation later reverted to a
decidedly
American version after she moved back to the USA and
disavowed her
Brazilian identity.
Finally, I mention Dora, a learner of German profiled in Moyer
2004. Dora
was a Polish-born immigrant living in Berlin with a self-
described intense
motivation to sound like a native speaker. She fell within the
native range
for several pronunciation tasks, including extemporaneous
speaking. In her 6
years in residence, Dora’s approach to accent was to mimic
others and to focus

on the phonetic features that are still problematic for her,
indicating a meta-
linguistic awareness. She described her social network in Berlin
as limited, but
made an effort to positively reconstruct her negative encounters
as a foreigner
in Germany to maintain her deep personal attachment to the
language.
Despite limited opportunities to interact in German, Dora kept
an upbeat atti-
tude and a firm commitment to the language. (Another late
learner with near-
native ratings overall similarly expressed ease with new
experiences in general
and cultural adjustments in Germany, and both she and Dora
said they
avoided personal contacts with other speakers of their native
language.)
Dora felt herself fully ‘at home’ in Germany, even if she did not
see herself
as German.
Considering all of these learners’ profiles, a constellation of
factors emerges;

some cognitive, some affective or psychological in nature, and
some experi-
ential. For example, nearly all expressed a deep sense of
personal connection to
the language and a metacognitive approach, regardless of the
amount of inter-
personal contact and/or formal instruction available to them.
They make the
most of the resources at hand, with some going so far as to
distance themselves
from those who share their native language in an effort to reach
their goal of
becoming native-like. Table 1 summarizes the factors explicitly
mentioned by
the learners and/or researchers.
abstract/35/4/418/2887856
on 04 January 2018
-
--
-
``
''
``

''
six
T
a
b
le
1
:
C
o
m
p
a
ri
n
g
ex
ce
p
ti
o
n
a
l
le

a
rn
er
p
ro
fi
le
s
Io
u
p
et
a
l.
1
9
9
4
N
ik
o
lo
v
2
0
0

0
M
u
ñ
o
z
a
n
d
S
in
g
le
to
n
2
0
0
7
M
o
y
e
r
1
9
9

9
M
o
ln
á
r
2
0
1
0
a
M
a
jo
r
1
9
9
3
M
o
y
e
r
2
0
0
4

S
e
lf
-d
e
sc
ri
b
e
d
‘t
a
le
n
t’
o
r
a
p
ti
tu
d
e
ˇ
*
M

e
ta
c
o
g
n
it
iv
e
a
p
p
ro
a
c
h
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
P
ri
d
e

in
L
2
a
tt
a
in
m
e
n
t
(i
n
tr
in
si
c
m
o
ti
v
a
ti
o
n

)
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
S
tr
o
n
g
ly
id
e
n
ti
fi
e
s
w
it
h
L
2
(i
n

te
g
ra
ti
v
e
)
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
D
e
si
re
to
so
u
n
d
n
a
ti
v

e
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
S
o
c
ia
ll
y
o
u
tg
o
in
g
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ

L
2
u
se
a
c
ro
ss
m
u
lt
ip
le
d
o
m
a
in
s
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ

ˇ
L
O
R
8
+
y
e
a
rs
ˇ
*
ˇ
X
ˇ
ˇ
X
S
ig
n
if
ic
a
n
t

fo
rm
a
l
st
u
d
y
(5
+
y
e
a
rs
)
*
X
*
X
ˇ
X
ˇ
E
a
rl

y
a
g
e
o
f
o
n
se
t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ˇ
=
c
o
n
fi
rm
e

d
b
y
re
se
a
rc
h
e
r
a
n
d
/o
r
m
e
n
ti
o
n
e
d
b
y

p
a
rt
ic
ip
a
n
t.
X
=
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
a
p
p
ly
to
e
x
c
e
p

ti
o
n
a
l
le
a
rn
e
r(
s)
in
th
is
st
u
d
y
.
*
=
in
c
o
n

si
st
e
n
t
(e
.g
.
if
m
o
re
th
a
n
1
e
x
c
e
p
ti
o
n
a
l

le
a
rn
e
r
c
it
e
d
,
so
m
e
d
id
m
e
n
ti
o
n
w
h
il
e
o

th
e
rs
d
id
n
o
t,
o
r
d
is
a
g
re
e
d
).
a
T
h
e
b
la
n
k

s
fo
r
M
o
ln
á
r’
s
c
o
lu
m
n
a
n
d
e
ls
e
w
h
e
re
in
th

e
ta
b
le
d
o
n
o
t
e
q
u
a
l
a
n
e
g
a
ti
v
e
re
sp
o

n
se
,
ra
th
e
r
th
e
y
in
d
ic
a
te
th
a
t
th
e
d
a
ta
w
e
re

n
o
t
p
ro
v
id
e
d
.
A. MOYER 425
abstract/35/4/418/2887856
on 04 January 2018
Cognitive factors
� Self-described talent/aptitude: Several participants said it was
not hard for
them to learn languages (or the language in question, even if
other ones
had been difficult). For the most part, however, this was not
explicitly
asked by the researchers, thus there is little to conclude about
the rele-
vance of this factor.

� (Meta)cognitive approach: Nearly every exceptional learner
mentioned self-
monitoring, imitation of native speakers, attention to difficult
phonologi-
cal features, and explicit concern for pronunciation accuracy. In
general
terms, a cognitive approach is indicative of practice, reasoning,
note-
taking, analyzing, etc., and the metacognitive level involves
planning,
goal-setting, reflection, and evaluation (Oxford 1990).
Psychological factors
� Pride in L2 attainment: Several expressed enjoyment of, and
appreciation
for, their own progress in the target language although in some
cases (e.g.
Muñoz and Singleton 2007) these very advanced learners
continued to
view their attainment critically, which likely reflects their drive
to
improve.
� Strong identification with L2: This construct represents an
integrative orien-
tation towards the language and/or culture, with these learners
typically
immersed in social activities via close social networks. Many
also cited an
intention to stay in-country for the foreseeable future, or
permanently.
� Desire to sound native: Most expressed this overtly and
described their
efforts to achieve this goal, even having already reached an

Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2010), 413–438doi10.1017S014.docx

Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2010), 413–438doi10.1017S014.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2010), 413–438doi10.1017S014.docx

Similar to Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2010), 413–438doi10.1017S014.docx (20)

More from festockton

More from festockton (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Applied Psycholinguistics 31 (2010), 413–438doi10.1017S014.docx