Topic 5 other variables in late L2 learning

Other variables affecting
late L2 acquisition
LAP seminar Topic5, 25 November 2014
Presented by Takashi Oba

Today’s
• L2 phonological acquisition of adult learners (Saito, 2013)
- Does age effects influence on L2 ultimate performance (phonology) of adult L2 learners
(after puberty) or late bilinguals?
- To what extent can adult L2 learners attain native-like pronunciation (phonological acquisition)?
• Exposure to L2 rich environments in late L2
acquisition (Derwing & Munro, 2013;Ranta & Meckelborg, 2013)
- Can merely exposed to L2 speaking environments increase adult learners’ L2 use and develop
fluency, like children do so?
- Are there any other interactive variables influencing on late L2 acquisition?

Today’s focus 1
L2 phonological acquisition for adult
learners

Saito (2013)
Purpose: Attempt to examine
whether and to what degree of
age of acquisition can be
predictive of L2 production
attainment and nativelikeness of
of word-initial /ɹ/ by late English-
Japanese bilinguals
Dr. Kazuya Saito
(Waseda University, Japan)

Age effects on post-pubertal ultimate attainment
and nativelikeness
• Early learners: age = + factors on ultimate L2
performance in…
- L2 phonology (Flege, Munro, &MacKay, 1995; Fledge et al, 1999)
- L2 morphology (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008; Johnson&Newport, 1989;DeKeyser, 2000)
• Adult L2 learners (after mid-teens) - - - > inconclusive!
- Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) vs. Cognitive Aging Hypothesis (CAH)
- CPH: AOA effects are absent in late bilingualism due to a loss of plasticity,
resulting from neutral maturation after puberty (fundamentally different)
- CAH: AOA continues to be observed even after puberty as predictors for
the success in L2 acquisition

Birth
4
6-7
12 L1 late learners: higher rate and greater variety errors (>12)
16-17
Age of arrival and maturational
constraints on L1&L2
Native-like fluency (<4: L1; <7:L2)
Start to decline of L1 (Newport: 6~7)
& L2 performance (8~10:J&N)
After puberty: end of maturational constraints ?(J&N/DK)
Age of
arrival
Losing implicit learning mechanism (6-
7~16~17)
- No age effect: indivi. differences
- High aptitude adults+ explicit
learning=++L2 ability ?

English /ɹ /
• 4 acoustic domains: F1: tongue hight; F2: tongue retraction;
F3: labial, palatal, and pharyngeal constructions; transition
duration for phonemic length
• Natives: F3 >> F2 (steady drop in F3) sensitive to F3!
⇔ Japanese L2 (less experienced): F2>F3 (shorter transition)
• Approximate category in Japanese= /j/ and /w/
• Word-initial /ɹ / (i.e. read, rain) in controlled & spontaneous
condition → aware of F3 as well as F2 & transition

Topic 5 other variables in late L2 learning

Method
• Participants: 88 high-proficiency Japanese learners
of English compared to 10 natives and 10 low-proficiency
Japanese learners of English
• Assessment: Listener judgement & acoustic analysis
through controllers tasks (word reading, and
sentence reading), and a spontaneous task (timed
picture description task)

Result 1: Acoustic analysis
AOA & F3:
Significant
correlation!
AOA: No
significant
correlation
with F2

F3: linear
decline across
the groups
F2: 80-90%
Japanese reached
native like!

Result 2: Listener judgement
Controlled (WR):
No significant AOA
effects!
Spontaneous (TPD):
Significant AOA
effects!

ceiling
effect
controlled task spontaneous task
linea trend
=AOA
effects

Main findings
• AOA significantly predicted the ultimate performance of /ɹ/
at a spontaneous (PDT), but not controlled (WR&SP)
speech level in processing the new articulate parameter
(F3), which requires us much L2 experience to acquire and
entails various levels of processing abilities
• Most Japanese L2 learners attained nativelike
performance in resetting existing articulatory patterns
(F2) under controlled /ɹ/ production
• Ultimate attainment and native likeness of late bilingualism
are multidimensional phenomena characteristic as a
result of interaction of AOA, processing abilities and L1
influence

Question: L1 interference for adult learners
• Flege (2003) & Iverson et al (2003) posit that L1 interference effect will
progressively stronger as L1 develops
• Flege (2003) claims, “the best way for adult learners of an L2 to circumvent L1
interference effects may be…to receive exaggerated acoustic cues, multiple
instances by many talkers, and massed listening experience” (p.325-326)
Q. Experienced late bilinguals may develop the
high phonetic sensitivity (F2), but can we apply the
finding to late L2 learners living in Japan? They
receive strong L1 interference effects and limited
exposure to natural input of L2. Can they attain
native-like phonetic acquisition in F2 level? How
can teachers assist them to develop the phonetic
skill and what is the ultimate goal of pronunciation
teaching? Attaining “native-like” pronunciation?

CPH vs. CAH
• CPH=“the concept of endpoint, a point beyond
which learning becomes difficult or impossible”
(Dekeyser&Larsen-Hall, 2005, 97)
• The results in Saito (2013) support CAH (language
learning capacity used in successful L1 acquisition
remains active even after puberty)
• Does our brain actually loose plasticity after the
cutoff point (mid teens)?

Cognitive neuroscience of aging studies
• age-related change in brain activity
(fMRI)
• found considerable degree of plasticity
in the brain over the lifespan
• older people activate “frontal lobes” in
memory tasks compared to young
people, resulting in better memory
• imply the possibility of reorganization
of brain activity with aging & training
which will maintain memory abilities in
older adults
Dr. Cheryl Grady
(Toronto University)

Medial temporal region
(language recognition; memory)
Left prefrontal cortex
(executive function)

Richard Snow:
aptitude&treatment
(a) human aptitude is made up of a
complex of abilities, interrelated in
hierarchical fashion rather than a
simple or direct fashion
(b) differential cognitive processing
abilities are intertwined with the
contexts and affordances of the
environment
(c) differential aptitude cannot be fully
explained unless motivational and
affective influences are taken into
account as well Dr. Richard. E Snow
(Stanford University)

• Regardless of plasticity in the brain and continuity of
age effects before/after puberty, other variables must
be taken into consideration in adult L2 learning!
• ‘instead of focusing on the limited success of older
learners, it is more productive to examine the factors
that lead to very high levels of proficiency in the
L2 for learners of any age’ (Marinova-Todd, 2003, p.
67)

Today’s focus 2
Exposure to natural L2 environment and
longitudinal L2 development

Derwing & Munro (2013)
Dr. Tracey Derwing
(Alberta University)
Dr. Murray Munro
(Simon Fraser University)
Purpose: examining age effects on adult L2 leaners’
longitudinal oral development process of their
language acquisition for different adult groups

Motivation for the study
• Policy maker’s assumption: adult immigrants will pick
up L2 skills they need once they have the basic
underpinnings of their L2
• Need longitudinal study to trace their oral language
progress over time
→What kind of factors affect their eventual L2 development?

Significance of the study
• Age of L2 learning studies: L2 ultimate performance
(i.e. phonology) between children vs adult (Flege, Murano,
& Mackay, 1995)
• Few studies examining effects age of L2 on late L2
learners
- age-related decline trend in L2 ultimate attainment over
time (Hakuta et al, 2003; S&L test=>Derwing et al, 2010;
phonetic skills=>Baker, 2010)
- plateau between age 18-40 in grammar (Dekeyser, 2010)

Background of the study
• Extending the previous studies examining for 2 years to
7 years
• English vowel development (Munro & Derwing, 2008);
accent & fluency (Derwing et al, 2006); fluency between
L1 & L2 (Derwin et al, 2009)
• At the end of 2nd year…
- Mandarin speakers: very little change in fluency &
comprehensibility
- Slavic speakers: improvement in fluency and
comprehensibility

Why different?
Factors within willingness to communicate (WTC),
such as intergroup climate, social situation,
communicative competence, L2 self-confidence,
and motivation contributed to the difference between
Mandarin and Slavic speakers (Derwing et al, 2008)

Willingness to communicate (WTC)

Method
• Participants: 11 Mandarin (age 35-47) and 11 Slavic (age
27-56) speakers + 3 female Eng. speakers
• Listeners: 34 Canadian natives (age 18-37) & 10 high
proficiency NNSs
• Length: 7 years
• Stimuli: 8-frame cartoon story
• Assessment: comprehensibility, fluency, and accent

Result1: Effect of time and L1 on judgement

Interactional effects (L1&time)
L2 Development in 5 years:
Slavic >> Mandarin
in comprehensibility &
fluency

Result2: Correlation analysis (3 variables)
comprehensibility accent fluency
Years of prior
English study
NS NS NS
Age of arrival
◎
（ M: NS, S:◎)
◎
（ M: NS, S:◎)
NS
( M: ◎, S:◎)
Amount of
English use
Self report: little shift in the frequency of conversation
(only 5 people /22↑）
◎: significant correlation; NS: Non significant
But! participants (22) are large size enough? Is r
value valid?

Significant correlation: age & accent
Age effect on
accent!
Older→stronger
accent

Main findings
• Slavic speakers significantly improved in comprehensibility
and fluency (accent was improved in the first 2 years), but
Mandarin speakers showed little change over time in all
measured skills
• Years of prior L2 study & amount of L2 use are not predictive
factors on eventual L2 performance
• Age of arrival (age19-49) significantly correlation with
comprehensibility & accent for the combined groups after 7
years (individual sig. r = Slavic group)
• Older arrivals showed a marked tendency to have stronger
accents than young arrivals (pronunciation learning is subject to
age effects even during adulthood)

Implications
• In addition to age of arrival, overall experience with
L2, as determined by WTC factors (i.e. self-confidence,
social situation) and relation to L1,
affected L2 oral development
• Correlational analysis (age - oral performance) using
small participants should be carefully interpreted;
need larger size participant & diverse L1
• One-size-fits-all programs will not serve the needs of
all learners

Ranta & Meckelborg (2013)
Purpose:
Examine longitudinally the
amount and type of
exposure experienced by
Chinese graduate students
in Canada
Is exposure to L2 speaking environment sufficient
to effectively acquire L2?
Dr. Leila Ranta
(Alberta University)

Method
• Participant: 17 Chinese graduate students at a
Canadian university, < 6 months residence
• Measurement: The Language Activity Log (LAL)
• Length: completion in the computerized log once a
month over a six-month period (Jan-June)

Results Overall L1&L2 use over time

Qualitative data
Learners themselves CREATE
the kind of exposure!
Each individual encounter
different affordances for
using L2!

Main findings
• General trend: receptive >> interactive use of L2
• Considerable variation among individuals in terms of
amount (timing of data collection) and type of L2 use
(academic reading/writing, conversation with friends,
watching movies or reading for pleasure)
• Small amount of oral interaction may be associated with
individual proficiency level, affective factors (nervous,
embarrassment, difficulty of expressing themselves), and
other social factors
• The amount and type of exposure depends on (1) learners’
own choice (2) affordances of daily use of L2 for studying
or working

Implications
• Low levers of interaction implies that exposure to L2
speaking environment does not necessarily ensure
large amount of L2 use opportunities, improvement of
L2 fluency and acquisition of more idiomatic words
Do you still believe
“studying abroad” or
“merely exposure to
L2-rich envorment" is a
perfect way to learn
• Individual differences (motivation; self-confidence;
preference of learning style; strong will), cultural-background
(mismatching learning strategies), & other
L2??
social factors may have played in their degree of L2
development

Useful implications from qual. data,
but…
• To what extent the data from
self-reported assessment in the
long period is valid? (always
asked to log in…)
• Participant number is small, and
need to examine other L1
backgrounds and other socio-status
(i.e. working) ?

Summing up all findings!
• AOA predicts late L2 learners’ ultimate ability in phonological
processing in controlled condition (F2): Saito (2013);
comprehensibility and fluency in L2 speech: Derwing & Munro,
(2013)
• In consistent with CAH, these findings indicate that even after cutoff
point (puberty) adult L2 learners may attain high/native-like
proficiency in certain domains of L2 over their life span
• However, taking into account cognitive aging (Hakuta et al, 2003) or
DeKeyser’s (2000) viewpoint, individual differences (i.e. WM,
aptitude, motivation), cultural & social factors interactively serve a
crucial role in determining success of L2 acquisition
• Merely exposed to naturalistic L2 environments does not ensure the
frequency of L2 use and its development, attributing to learners’ own
choice and circumstances L2 learners encounter (Ranta &
Meckelborg, 2013)

Advanced questions: What do you think?
• Even if age and aptitude (analytical ability) may have
strong impact on late L2 acquisition, as Richard Snow
said,motivational and affective factors must be taken into
account. Do you think we can incorporate such affective
factors into our research in different ways? If so, how?
• L2 learners mainly access the target language in
classrooms in EFL setting. Teachers must assist variety
of aged learners to attain high level of L2 proficiency.
How can we mediate (1) limited amount/type of input, (2)
cognitive factors (i.e. motivation, aptitude) and (3)
social/cultural factors in L2 classroom teaching setting?

Dörnyei and Kormos (2000): the role of individual and
social variables in oral task performance
• Investigate the effects of a number of
affective and social variables on L2
learners’ engagement in oral
argumentative tasks
• Assumption: students’ verbal behaviour
in oral task is partially determined by
non-linguistic and non-cognitive factors
• Found the interrelationship of the
multiple factors determining the learners’
task engagement and some variables
only come into force under certain
conditions
Dr. Judit Kormos
(Lancaster University, UK)

Additional references
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language teaching research,
4(3), 275-300.
Csizér, K., Kormos, J., & Sarkadi, A. (2010). The dynamics of language learning attitudes and motivation: Lessons from an
interview study of dyslexic language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 94(3), 470-487.
Flege, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. Phonetics and phonology in
language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities, 319-355.
Grady, C. (2012). The cognitive neuroscience of ageing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(7), 491-505.
Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y. I., Kettermann, A., & Siebert, C. (2003). A perceptual
interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition, 87(1), B47-B57.
Marinova-Todd, S.H. (2003). Know your Grammar: What the Knowledge of Syntax and Morphology in an L2 Reveals about the
Critical Period for Second/Foreign Language Acquisition. In M.P. Garcia-Mayo & M.L. Garcia-Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the
Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language: Theoretical Issues and Field Work (p. 59-73). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Topic 5 other variables in late L2 learning

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Topic 5 other variables in late L2 learning (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Topic 5 other variables in late L2 learning

Editor's Notes