the end state in l2a: factors, facts & fallacies

1

The End State in L2A: Factors, Facts & Fallacies

Cognitive Science SeminarUniversity of Texas

9 October 2009

David BirdsongDept. of French & Italian

[email protected]

[paper handout to accompany slides][slides to be posted on blackboard]

2

L2A research Sample of journals

CognitionJMLJCNNature NeuroscienceBBSBrain & Language Language Applied PsycholinguisticsTICSBilingualism: Language and CognitionStudies in Second Language Acquisition Second Language Research

3

L2A research Programs/Labs

McGillGeorgetownIllinoisMPI-NijmegenEssexCNRS ParisAmsterdam GroningenHeidelberg

4

L2A research Recent Ph.D’s at UT - F&I

Robert Reichle (December 2008)“Syntactic focus structure processing: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from L1 and L2 French”

Elenor Shoemaker (May 2009)“Acoustic cues to speech segmentation in spoken French: native and non-native strategies”

5

Context: the ‘Deficit Model’ tradition

Bley-Vroman (1989: 44): Insignificant

incidence of nativelikeness in late L2AL2A: “ineluctable failure”

fossilized non-nativeness=> Fundamental Difference Hypothesis

6


Johnson & Newport (1989: 255): for AoA > 15 “later AOA determines that one will

not become native[like] or near-native[like] in a [2nd] language” <= maturationally-based CPH/L2A

7


Long (1989: 280): “The ability to attain nativelike phonological abilities [in an L2] is beyond anyone beginning later than age 12, no matter how motivated they might be or how much opportunity they might have. Native-like morphology and syntax only seem to be possible for those beginning before age 15.”<= Maturational

constraints

8


Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson (2003: 575): If we look at “overall L2 proficiency” we will find that “perfect proficiency” and “absolute nativelike command of an L2 may in fact never be possible for any [late L2] learner” <= Deficient language- learning mechanisms

NB: B-V, J&N, Long, H&A criterion = monolingual nativeNB: All approach deficit from end state (= ultimate attainment) perspective

9

Context: the ‘Deficit Model’ traditionW/r/t L2 processing => representation by late learners

Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou (2007: 217): Uninterpretable features (e.g. +/- case) “difficult to identify and analyse in the input” <= “persistent, maturationally-based L1 effects on adult L2 grammars” => role of detection in unlearnability of uF; cf. Lardiere (2009) NB: criterion = monolingual native; S’s not always at end state

10

Context: the ‘Differences Model’

W/r/t L2 processing by late learners

Clahsen & Felser (2006: 564): L2 processingnativelike in some areas of grammar; however even in high-proficient L2ers “differences persist in the domain of complex syntax” i.e, in “real-time computation of complex hierarchical representations” => consider explanations: deficient L2 grammar (representational deficit vis à vis native); L1 transfer; cognitive resource limitations; maturational constraints

NB: C&F criterion = monolingual native; not all S’s at end state

11

Context: the ‘Differences Model’

W/r/t L2 processing by late learners

Cutler (2003, inter alia): In segmental, subsegmental and suprasegmental perception, L2ers listen through L1 ears; see also Peperkamp, Sebastian-Galles, Dupoux, etc.

12

Context: Meisel (2009)

Meisel (2009: 8) “Changes in the L[anguage] M[aking] C[apacity] in the course of childhood development make it impossible for the L2 learner to acquire a complete native grammatical competence of the target language”

Meisel (2009: 13) FDH “does not entail that L2 acquisition becomes totally or partially impossible. Rather, the claim is that L2 knowledge is of a different kind” <= source of knowledge is different

13

Current aL2A work under ‘DM’

Methodologically:(Usually) studied: - L2 high-proficients

Understudied: - L2 dominants

(Often) not considered: - facilitating / inhibiting external factors - individual info processing differences - reciprocal L2 <-> L1 influence - AoA as comparison condition or control variable

- assurance of L2A asymptote - incidence (#’s) of nativelike processers => Incomplete empirical picture of nature +

extent of native / L2 differences

14

Current aL2A work under ‘DM’

Programmatically:Data: - varied behavioral & brain-based studies - varied methods & tasks

Domains: - range of processing and knowledge domains Focus: - non-nativelike processing at group level

Orientation: - deterministic differences

Goal: - theory of qualitative L1-L2 differences in knowledge / processing => Empirical gaps w/r/t upper limits of (late) L2A

15

‘Upper Limits Model’

Complementing the DM perspective:Programmatically & methodologically Distinguish:

- what adult L2ers do- what adult L2ers don’t do- what adult L2ers can do- what adult L2ers can’t do

Populations: - L2 dominants (two types)- L1 attriters- (L2 high-proficients)- incentivized L2ers: functional need for L2 nativelikeness- L2ers desiring socio-cultural integration, L2 identity

16

‘ULM’Programmatically:Integrate:

- individual differences w/r/t internal factors e.g. WM componentsRationale: - claims that only freakish aptitude => nativelikeness [more later]- WM correlates with level of ultimate attainment in some tasks

Integrate: - facilitating / inhibiting external conditions

Rationale: - in comparing L1A and L2A end state, level the playing field in terms of facilitating conditions [more later] - ‘normal’ adult L2A conditions = abnormal for LA generally

Integrate: - AoA / AoT as control, predictor variablesRationale: - we know the effects of age and +/- their sources [more later]- to see what can L2ers do in spite of age influences

17

‘ULM’Programmatically:Goals:

- Establish end state processing profiles:- L2 dominants - defined by L2 vs L1 relative use- defined psycholinguistically (independent processing measures)- late vs. early dominants- unstable dominants

- Establish upper bounds of L2ers’ processing & knowledge:- vis à vis natives - vis à vis early bilinguals / early L2ers- in their own right (v. comparative fallacy)- keeping in mind L2<->L1 influence (L1 of a monolingual ≠ L1 of a bilingual)

- Integrate above into theory of L2 knowledge & processing at the limits

18

‘ULM’

Perspectives:

Analogy: Track team with ankle weights: What would happen if we took off the weights?

Analogy: Ghetto vs. suburbs HS exit exam scores: We know that the achievements will differ, but the story shouldn’t stop there.

19

‘ULM’Perspectives:X freakish talent (WM capacity, LTM, musical ability)

X freakish accomplishments (Hale, “Christopher”)

√ normals working within their limits

√ give acquisition the same chance it has in younger populations…- one can’t take away age effects- one can minimize L1 effects- one can provide benign external conditions…and see what happens

=> relevance to claims, assumptions; CPH/L2A, FDH, ‘access’

20

UT Cog Sci Presentation

L2 end state attainment:Approach ultimate attainment neutrally: deficits &

differences alongside upper limits

FACTS about end-state attainment, as mediated by age of acquisition and age of testing

FACTORS that constrain vs. enable L2 acquisition, and their nature

FALLACIES w/r/t end state, e.g. CPH/L2A

Q: Under DM: Evidence for maturation-based differences?Q: Under ULM: What can (late) L2-dominants do?

21

Distinctions: AoA ≠ AoT ≠ maturational state

AoA = Age of Acquisition (Immersion, Onset)= macro-variable, encompassing inter alia: - degree of L1 entrenchment- L1 proficiencystate of system plasticitystate of cognitive developmentdegree of (neuro-)cognitive decline (adults)- suite of neurobiological variables

AoA = proxy for initial state of L2A

NB: AoA-related effectsNB: “The age factor” = convenient but underspecific

label

22


AoT = Age at Testing = macro-variable, encompassing inter alia: degree of L1 entrenchmentL1 proficiency L2 proficiencystate of system plasticitystate of cognitive developmentdegree of (neuro-)cognitive decline [see Supplements]suite of neurobiological variablesalso: socio-psychological identification w/ L2 & L1also: frequency of L2/L1 use

AoT = proxy for current state of L2 knowledge and processing

NB: AoT-related effects

23

AoTAdvanced AoT:

- More profound impact in L2 processing than in L1 processing. L2 processing more vulnerable because:

- greater reliance on fluid intelligence than in L1 use

- less-routinized procedures than in L1 use

Open question: - AoT (& AoA)-related effects = less severe among L2 dominants?

24


Maturational state: > (vs. // vs. X)// degree of L1 entrenchment // L1 proficiency// L2 proficiency> state of system plasticity > state of cognitive development > degree of (neuro-)cognitive decline> suite of neurobiological variablesX socio-psychological identification w/ L2 & L1X frequency of L2/L1 use

// experientially correlates with aging AoA & AoT> biologically aging-related, pre-/post- ‘maturation’ AoA & AoT

X intrinsically unrelated to aging AoT only

25

DistinctionsUltimate Attainment in L2

= end state (asymptotic) knowledge and processing

≠ only nativelikeness

= any level at end state, up to & including nativelike

26

DistinctionsNature, causes & domains of non-

nativelike ultimate attainment (Hopp, 2007)

Nature: REPRESENTATIONAL * COMPUTATIONAL / \ / | \

Cause: impairment * L1 impairment * inefficiency * L1 [FT/FA] / \ | | |

Domain: module * interface parsing * info * inter- routes integration ference [FFF] [uF] [DP] [lim cap] [CM] [SS] [MSI]

27

DistinctionsAge, end state, upper limits:

Computational (in)efficiency• => default to lexis/plausibility in complex computationsL1 influence• developmental & at AoA / AoT• as alternative to / complement to impairmentPerceptual components of processing <-> grammar• detection of uF• as precondition for interpretation (e.g. in French liaison)

Nature: REPRESENTATIONAL * COMPUTATIONAL / \ / | \

Cause: impairment * L1 impairment * inefficiency * L1 [FT/FA]/ \ | | |

Domain: module * interface parsing * info * inter- routes integration ference [FFF] [uF] [DP] [lim cap] [CM] [SS][MSI]

28

DistinctionsHeuristics:

Universal Learnability versus Selective Processability

- Universal Learnability: anything can be learned by someone

- Selective Processability: some things can’t be processed by anyone

29

DistinctionsThe AoA function, shapes:

straight line stretched ‘7’inverted ‘V’stretched ‘Z’

The AoA function, timing of deflection:coinciding with known maturational epochscoinciding with ages unrelated to maturation

The AoA function, steepness => # of nativelike-ers

30

Slope predicts incidence of nativelikeness:

shallow slope => high rate of nativelikeness

AoA20 Years

Range ofScores of NativeControls

31


steep slope => low rate of nativelikeness


AoA20 Years

32

FACTS of Biological Aging & their relationship to L2 processing

by late L2ers

33

Age and ProcessingSupplement I

Park et al. (2001)

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

34

Age and ProcessingSupplement I break-out

Park (2000)

35

Cognitive Aging Effects

Effects in language processing: • processing speed• working memory capacity• lexical retrieval• linear over AoT/AoA, starting at 20 years of age• prior to AoT/AoA: increase then decline (inverted “V”)plateau then decline (stretched “7”)• linkage of processing behaviors to biological aging (Bäckman & Farde, 2005)

=> L2 processingconstraints on input processing at AoA/AoToutput performance decrements at AoTdepressed levels of processing at L2 end state

36

Constraining FACTORS 1-Neuro-biology/anatomy/chemistry/cognition:

post-puberty, with increasing age (AoA & AoT):• ‘use it then lose it’ (Pinker, 1994)

• pathological increases in cortisol levels

• declines in neurotransmitter levels: ACH dopamine, etc.Supplement II

• declining regional brain volumes (Raz, 2005)Supplement III

37

Biological Aging Effects

Declines in neurotransmitter levels: ACH, dopamine, etc.Supplement II

Neurotransmitter declines in L2 processing: • variety of cognitive functions underlying L2 processing - working memory capacity & executive function- attention & inhibitory processes (L1 suppression)- coordination/proceduralization in syntax• linear over AoT/AoA, starting at 20 years of age• prior to AoT/AoA: increase, then decline (inverted “V”)plateau, then decline (stretched “7”)

38

Biological Aging Effects Declines in regional brain volume

Supplement III

Effects in L2 processing: • variety of cognitive functions underlying L2 processing - executive function- LTM- coordination/proceduralization in syntax• linear over AoT/AoA, starting at 20 years of age• prior to AoT/AoA:increase then decline (inverted “V”)possible plateau (stretched “7”)• not reliable linkage of behavior to biological sources -effects more associated w/neurochemistry than w/structure-uncertain timing of decrease thresholds => associated cognitive decrements

39

Constraining FACTORS

2-Cognitive development:

• Adult working memory bandwidth lets in too much linguistic information to process at once => incomplete processing of, e.g., sequences of morphemes: “less is more” (Newport, various)

40


2-Cognitive development: post-concrete operations• Analytic/metalinguistic/explicit input & learning • Literacy => L2 vis à vis L1 learning & processing: ? effortful? inefficient √ different [cognitive, neural] resources

41


3-L1 entrenchment: L1 representations are increasingly defined with use =>• developing representations/categories assimilate to old (Flege, various)• competition between old and developing

representations (MacWhinney, various) • [Hebbian] learning inhibits related new learning (Elman, various)

42

Facilitating FACTORS

Enabling via 1- Subtraction of constraint

• minimize L1 influence via L1 attrition or L2 dominance [More to come]

43


Enabling via

2- Offsetting the effects of limiting factors

• training on L2 perception • training on L2 pronunciation

44


Enabling via:3-Individual variation • aptitude components (phonological) working memory• health / genetic / lifestyle hypertension: inverted “U” function ACH, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, cortisol [early & late]• attitude & affect motivation; L2 ‘identity’; ‘passing for’ • L2 use / practice / rehearsal / education

45


NB:

Some factors trump others e.g., neurobiology = irrelevant

if low desire for attainment; v.

• passing for a native

• ID with L2 culture & speakers

46


NB:

Distinguish necessary from sufficient conditions: A given factor may be necessary but not sufficient for nativelike attainment

47

FACTS of Upper Limits: can do

Uncontroversially a given late (AoA > 12) L2 learner can: perform like monolinguals across multiple complex behavioral measures of grammatical knowledge & lexical knowledge &global pronunciation

can: perform like monolinguals on a range of brain-based measures of L2 processing e.g., ERP components, regional brain activity [more to come]

48

FACTS of Upper Limits: cannot do

Uncontroversially late learner GROUPS cannot: perform like monolinguals on ‘challenging’ online and offline tasks/structures/items; various processing tasks involving parsing, suprasegmental perception, etc.

49

FACTS of Upper Limits: cannot do?

Controversially a given late L2 learner cannot: perform like monolingualson certain on-line processing tasks involving sentence parsing, suprasegmental perception, etc. (quantitative & qualitative differences)

50

Aside: AoA gradient and rate of nativelikeness

51


shallow slope => high rate

AoA20 Years


52


steep slope => low rateRange ofScores of NativeControls

AoA20 Years

53

FACTORS underlying FACTSFACTORS that modulate observed slopes (FACTS):

• Frequency of L2 use• Degree of L1 entrenchment• Degree of L1 vs. L2 dominance• Neuro- biological/cognitive/anatomical / chemical state• Identification with TL’ers• Motivation to learn / ‘pass for’ native TL’er• FL/L2 learning aptitude, e.g., pitch perception, auditory discrimination• Sub-domain of language e.g., pronunciation. vs. agreement• General cognitive abilities/aptitudes, e.g., phonological working memory• Felicitous feature-wise L1-L2 pairing• ‘Easy’ vs. ‘hard’ tasks (e.g., off-line vs. on-line)

54

FACTORS underlying FACTS

Posited FACTORS /mechanisms underlying FACTS of age effects in L2 processing = consistent with common sense and empirical research

Each is plausibly at work in some fashion in L2A

Contribution of each may vary over time course of L2 learning and use

Contribution of each may differ from individual to individual

In the aggregate, some account for more variance than others

55

FACTORS, FACTS, FALLACIESPosited FACTORS/mechanisms underlying FACTS of age effects in L2 processing = consistent with common sense and empirical research

Each is plausibly at work in some fashion in L2A FALLACY: there is a single source of age effects

Contribution of each may vary over time course of L2 learning/useFALLACY: contributions are static over time

Contribution of each may differ from individual to individual FALLACY: one size fits all (genetic, deterministic account)FALLACY: nothing one can do about slope of declines FALLACY: we should study groups (and “general failure”)

In the aggregate, some account for more variance than others FALLACY: assume no interaction between/among factors

56

THE AOA FUNCTION IN END-STATE L2 ATTAINMENT

(Processing & Knowledge)

57

Successful AgingCotman (2000)

58

Age functions in L2A…Context: Two types of evidence pro/contra CPH in L2A:

1) late-learner nativelikeness at end state (v. supra & infra). Long (1990): a single late learner at nativelike levels would falsify CPH/L2A learning circuitry no longer plastic because neurobiological maturation is completed

59


2a) characteristics of age function Pulvermüller & Schumann (1994): unbounded AoA effects past puberty would falsify CPH/L2Aongoing age effects are inconsistent with presumed completion of neurobiological maturation

60


2b) characteristics of age function Johnson & Newport (1989): function levels off at AoA 17; supports CPH/L2A ongoing age effects are inconsistent with presumed completion of neurobiological maturationRecall: biology said to be deterministically linked to non-nativelikeness among late L2 learners (v. supra).

61

Age functions in L2ACan CPH(s) for L2A be reconciled with the FACTS, i.e. with observed geometry & timing of AoA - attainment functions? Observed geometry of declining attainment - function may be straight line, curvilinear or discontinuous; in all cases declines persist over AoA

Observed timing of start of decline - infancy- childhood- around puberty- post puberty

Observed timing of end of decline (?)

62

Observed AoA-L2 attainment distribution

(Flege et al., 1995)

63



64



QuickTime™ and a decompressor


65

Observed AoA-L2 attainment function


QuickTime™ and a decompressor


66


(Birdsong & Flege, 2000)

• Accuracy over AoA

QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor


67

Birdsong & Flege (2000)

Age at Testing AoA in U.S. Length of Residence(Years) (Years) (Years)

10 KNS 16-26 6-10 10-1610 SNS

10 KNS 21-31 11-15 10-1610 SNS

10 KNS 26-36 16-20 10-1610 SNS

68

Birdsong & Flege (2000)Low Frequency Regular Noun Plural

There are five a. knuckli on each hand. b. knuckle c. knuckles d. knackle

e. knuckleses

High Frequency Irregular Verb Past

Yesterd ay t he little girl a. swim for t he fir st t ime.b. swamc. swimmedd. swimse. swammed

Phrasal Verbs

The mot her must look in on t he babyThe st udent s must come up wit h t he right answer

69


Negative correlation of AoA and attainment measures

Over full AoA span: Significant linear correlations. Range: -.45 to -.77; median -.64.

70


Over full AoA span vs. disaggregated analyses

1.J&N ‘89 = significant overall; sig. early, random late

2.B&M ‘01 = significant overall; ceiling early, sig. late

71


Overall vs. disaggregated analyses3: DeKeyser (2000) = significant overall; ns

early, ns late

72


Summary of FACTS • Over all AoA:

-significant declines-persist indefinitely (not bounded, no

‘period’)• Late AoA:

-declines: typically significant• Early AoA:

-Inconsistent findings: somefunctions flat, some random, some declining ab initio

Small sample size => caution in interpretation; restricts applicable models

73

Theoretical CPs

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor


74

Theoretical CP



75

Theoretical CPs

76

Age function in L2A = critical period function?

Definitional logic: if critical period, then: • Finite, bounded effects, confined to a period

- (minimal criterion: discontinuity in the age function)

If attainment is conditioned by maturation, then: •The age function should look different pre- vs. post-maturation

- discontinuity is synchronized with end of some developmental epoch,

pre-maturation- classical L2 literature: discontinuity

synchronized with end of maturation

77


(highly simplified schematics)

Stretched “7” Stretched “L” ceiling, then decline decline, then floor

78

Maturationally-Based L2 Critical Period

Geometric and Temporal Features à la (J&N 1989; Pinker, 1994)

1 = peak sensitivity 2 = beginning of offset 3 = end of offset 4 = baseline

sensitivity NB: 3 coincides with end of maturation

NB: 4 age effects do not persist

12

3

4

STRETCHED “Z”(Johnson & Newport, 1989)(Pinker, 1994)

79

STRETCHED “Z” (Newport, 1991)

80

Johnson & Newport (1989)[Stevens (2004) rendering]



81

Johnson & Newport (1989) Early arrivals Late arrivals

Flat segment at right end of stretched “L” (like stretched “Z” in earlier slide) = FALLACY

82


Stretched “L”: little evidence for floor effect Stretched “7”: evidence for ceiling effect; but can persist up to AoA = 27.5 years (B&M 2001)

83


Minimal necessary feature of gradient: Discontinuity at some point [not beyond end of maturation] in the overall age function. (Stevens, Bialystok & colleagues, inter alia)

84

Single linear model vs. “elbow” model Re-analysis of results of Flege et al. (1995) (thanks to Jan-Pieter de Ruiter)



85

FALLACY: any deflection = CP evidence

1- non-linearity / discontinuity must be observed in models other than disaggregation

2- must consider magnitude of deflection3- deflection point must // hypothesized source of

effect



86

Age function in L2A = critical period function? - Linear model applied over all AoA & supported - Other models:

-variable timing of declines-mild declines, mild deflections off straight line(elbow possibly more pronounced in “7” than in “L”)

- All models:

-variable slopes-persistent age effects post maturation

87


Conceptual:

- Maturation constrains the offset of age effects? (“L” or “Z” geometry)

- Maturation determines the onset of age effects? (“7” geometry)

- “ Maturational effects” functions = consistent with other plausible mechanisms/factors in declining attainment

- If maturation is the (only) source of age effects, there should be no L1 effects (cf. J&N 1989 vs B&M 2001)

88


√ Evidence of “7” geometry i.e. “window of opportunity”, “optimal age” = ceiling [‘age non-effect’]

√ Evidence of “7” geometry with window ending prior to late adolescence [end of window due to ?]

89


X “7” geometry of ceiling (‘window of opportunity’) observed in one instance to extend past end of maturation (AoA = 27.5)

X Little evidence of floor in “L” or “Z” geometry at any AoA

90

Age functions in L2A…Vary in geometry: shape - linear - curved, discontinuous - threshold-with-cascade, etc.- BUT invariably declines persist over AoA

Vary in geometry: slope- slope of decline modulated by external factors(e.g., L1-L2 pairing, contact with / use of L2)- slope of decline modulated by internal factors (e.g., motivation, identification, aptitude)

91

Age functions in L2A…Vary in timing of decline- infancy- childhood- around puberty- post puberty

Geometry and timing vary by language (sub) domain & task- morphosyntactic knowledge (surface/abstract)- pronunciation - perception- on-line parsing

+ features therein + task

92

Age functions in L2AWhat mechanisms are compatible with observed geometry & timing of AoA - attainment functions?

Shape, slope, and timing may be ‘consistent with’:- cognitive developmental state accounts- neurological development accounts- neurocognitive decline accounts- entrenchment / dominance accounts- (?) social-psychological / identification / motivation accounts

NB: separable language domains => distinct AoA functions, e.g., declines in pronunciation start early; declines in various aspects of syntax & morphology start at different times“Multiple critical periods”

93

Age functions in L2A…

Implications

Straw men defeated:

- no leveling off ≠> ‘end of maturation’ accounts

- no leveling off ≠> (late) dismantling of dedicated language-learning mechanism accounts

- varying onsets of decline by language sub-domain ≠> monolithic notions of ‘language’ learning

94

Looking ahead:Under DM

Add to / Evaluate evidence for qualitative neurofunctional changes with maturation and the locus of their effects in the grammar and at interfaces cf. Meisel 2009 NB: What counts as ‘qualitative’?NB: Proficiency vs AoA w/r/t convergenceAbutalebi (in press); Indefrey et al. 2005; Paradis 2009; Saur et al. 2009; Ullman (various) ->SEE SUPPLEMENT IV

95

Looking ahead:Under ULM

What can L2-dominants do?

96

L2 dominance & nativelikeness

Upper limits of late attainment as observed in L2-dominants vs. balanced bilinguals

Flege, MacKay & Piske (2002). Italian L1/English L2 bilinguals: (1) L1-dominants, (2) balanced bilinguals, (3) L2-dominants. Detectable accents among (1) & (2). BUT: (3) = like native controls

97


Upper limits + ASYMMETRY in late attainment

Golato (2002): All S’s were English L1, late L2 French English dominants parse French words like French natives and English words like English natives French dominants (late L2 dominants) parse both English and French words like French monolinguals (open-syllable segmentation routine)

98


L2-dominants do not become nativelike Hyltenstam et al. (2009): Early AoA Spanish L1 adoptees, Swedish L2.

10 behavioral measures including VOT, speech perception in noise, GJT, cloze, formulaic language. 1/4 subjects nativelike across the board; lowest AoA.

99

L2 ultimate attainment versus BS ultimate attainment

ULM versus DM

Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson(2003: 540)“What is of interest is…the developmentof…the exact species-specific behavior. … an individual bird…must sing exactlyin the way that other birds of that specific species sing.”

100

THANK YOU

Power point presentation to be posted on blackboard

101

New h&a

• Dismiss L1 effects (how can you without comparison of results at leavel of measure, direction, etc) with other L1?

• What biological / maturational mechanism is plausibly at work at age 3 ; ie what underlies the deficit (line up mat with EACH)

• Specify maturation NATURE: cellular? LAD?• Cognitive, pruning but pasticity (W&T)• Ignore L2 effects in L1 (no NS spanish controls) • Small N• Convergence of facts, factors and fallacies

102

Aside: L1-likeness in late L2A

Neurofunctional similarities L1-L2

Abutalebi et al. (2005); Green (2005); Stowe & Sabourin (2006): In terms of ‘where’ (fMRI) and ‘when’ (ERP), L1-L2 processing similarities (patterns of brain activation) among L2 high-proficients, even late learners.[more to come]

103

Bill and The Keynotes

104

Bill and The KeynotesAGE NOTWITHSTANDING

Our song grammar AND our learning mechanism - not deficient

105



We are different from other conspecific birds- at the group level- at the individual level

106



We are different from other conspecific birds- at the group level- at the individual level

We converge on the same song - we harmonize well

- we CAN sing in unison

107



We are different from other birds- at the group level- at the individual level

We converge on the same song - we harmonize well

- we CAN sing in unison

We are not yet at end state

108


YOU AIN’T HEARD NOTHIN’ YET!

109

Bill and The Keynotes

110

Bill … AND THE ‘OTHER’ KEYNOTES

111

H A R A L D

112

ALAN

114

ALAN

115

ALAN

116

H A R A L D

117

M I K E

118

David

119

Otis Redding

“HARD TO HANDLE” (1968)Proverb: “Actions speak louder than words”

120

Causal mechanisms & mediating factors:

Posited factors/mechanisms underlying age effects in L2 processing = consistent with common sense and empirical research

Each is plausibly at work in some fashion in L2A

Contribution of each may vary over time course of L2 learning and use

Contribution of each may differ from individual to individual

In the aggregate, some account for more variance than others

the end state in l2a: factors, facts & fallacies

Documents

l2 acquisition

l2 processingnativelike

late l2 learner context

language context

overall l2 proficiency

l2 frenchelenor shoemaker

language acquisition

deficit model traditionlong