three misconceptions about age and l2 learning · l2s to a very high level and that introducing...

9TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 34 No 1 Spring 2000

Three Misconceptions AboutAge and L2 LearningSTEFKA H MARINOVA-TODDD BRADFORD MARSHALL and CATHERINE E SNOWHarvard UniversityCambridge Massachusetts United States

Age has often been considered a major if not the primary factordetermining success in learning a second or foreign language Childrenare generally considered capable of acquiring a new language rapidlyand with little effort whereas adults are believed to be doomed tofailure Although older learners are indeed less likely than youngchildren to master an L2 a close examination of studies relating age tolanguage acquisition reveals that age differences reflect differences inthe situation of learning rather than in capacity to learn They do notdemonstrate any constraint on the possibility that adults can becomehighly proficient even nativelike speakers of L2s Researchers in otherwords have often committed the same blunders as members of thegeneral public misinterpretation of the facts relating to speed ofacquisition misattribution of age differences in language abilities toneurobiological factors and most notably a misemphasis on pooradult learners and an underemphasis on adults who master L2s tonativelike levels By clarifying these misconceptions we hope this articlewill lead to a better understanding of L2 learning and in turn betterapproaches to L2 teaching

The term critical period for language acquisition refers to a period oftime when learning a language is relatively easy and typically meets

with a high degree of success Once this period is over at or before theonset of puberty the average learner is less likely to achieve nativelikeability in the target language It is generally accepted among psycho-linguists that a critical period for L1 acquisition exists but controversyarises when the critical period claim is extended to L2 learning Theexistence of a critical period for second language acquisition (SLA)would have serious implications for foreign language teachers workingwith older students not the least of which would be a need for acomplete overhaul of expectations and methods of evaluation If olderstudents are biologically incapable of mastering another language to a

10 TESOL QUARTERLY

very high level then they should not be graded in comparison to nativespeakers As expectations are lowered so too should teaching method-ologies be modified to promote limited proficiency allow for a greaternumber of errors and avoid even broaching the unreachable goal ofnative fluency Furthermore if a critical period for L2 learning doesexist then schools should obviously introduce foreign languages earlierand all states should introduce policies to accelerate the exposure toEnglish of immigrant children as California has done Clearly knowingthe facts about the critical period for SLA is relevant to policy and topractice in education

The purpose of this article is to analyze some common misconcep-tions about L2 learning by examining the relevant literature it does notpresent a comprehensive review of critical period research1 We con-clude from this analysis that older learners have the potential to learnL2s to a very high level and that introducing foreign languages to veryyoung learners cannot be justified on grounds of biological readiness tolearn languages Rather than focusing on the low probability that adultswill acquire fluency in L2s we argue it is more productive to examinethe factors that typically lead to nativelike proficiency in L2s for anylearner Such an approach can also inform sensible decisions about theallocation of resources for foreign language or L2 teaching

The idea of a critical period was first introduced by Penfield andRoberts (1959) who argued that language acquisition is most efficientbefore age 9 when ldquothe human brain becomes stiff and rigidrdquo (p236) Later Lenneberg (1967) claimed that during this period ofheightened plasticity the human brain becomes lateralized He arguedthat puberty represents a biological change associated with the firmlocalization of language-processing abilities in the left hemisphere Healso claimed that postpubertal language acquisition was far more diffi-cult and far less successful than acquisition occurring during theprepubertal period of rapid neurological development Krashen (1973)among others challenged Lennebergrsquos characterization by showing thatbrain lateralization may be completed by the age of 5 Lamendella(1977) argued that Lennebergrsquos conclusion regarding the critical periodwas overstated and introduced the term sensitive period to emphasize thatlanguage acquisition might be more efficient during early childhood butwas not impossible at later ages Today many researchers in the field usethe two terms interchangeably as we do throughout this article2

1 Attempts at a more or less comprehensive overview of the literature include for exampleMcLaughlin (1984 1985) Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) Harley and Wang (1997) andBirdsong (1999)

2 When citing other peoplersquos work however we preserve the term chosen by the originalauthors

THREE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT AGE AND L2 LEARNING 11

Case studies of several individuals who began to acquire an L1 late inlife and who were generally not very successful are available Mostconcern wolf children children reared in isolation without any linguisticinput (eg Genie in Curtiss 1977) or congenitally deaf children whosehearing was improved with the help of hearing aids only after puberty(eg Chelsea in Curtiss 1989) Such cases though rare demonstratethe effortfulness and poor outcomes associated with language learningin later childhood or adolescence as compared with its normal course inearly childhood Furthermore most people can think of dozens ofacquaintances who have attempted to learn an L2 after childhood foundit a challenging and frustrating task and achieved only rather lowproficiency These two phenomena seem on first view to be quite similarand to converge to support the credibility of a critical period forlanguage learning It is thus not surprising that the notion of a criticalperiod for L2 learning is widely taken for granted We argue thoughthat the cases of children deprived of an L1 and those of L2 learners whoencounter obstacles to high-level achievement are entirely different andthat the critical period that limits the learning of the first group isirrelevant to explaining the shortcomings of the second

Neither researchers nor others can ignore the overwhelming evidencethat adult L2 learners on average achieve lower levels of proficiencythan younger L2 learners do However this evidence is not sufficient toconclude that a critical period for SLA exists a careful reexamination ofthe arguments offered in support of the critical period hypothesissuggests that each of them is subject to one of three fallacies misinter-pretation misattribution and misemphasis The person in the street willoffer as support for the existence of the critical period the observationthat children ldquopick languages up so quicklyrdquo This claim not accepted byresearchers who have actually carried out age comparisons represents astraightforward misinterpretation of the facts Other researchers espe-cially those in the field of neurobiology report differences in the brainorganization of early and late L2 learners and then misattribute pre-sumed language proficiency differences to these brain organizationsoften without any direct measures of proficiency Finally another set ofstudies documents that some adults have poor L2 outcomes and thenimply that no adults are capable of achieving nativelike proficiencyignoring the existence of proficient adult learners We argue that thisbody of work suffers from the fallacy of misemphasis In this article wereview studies on the critical period in SLA to analyze these misconcep-tions and to present an alternative view

12 TESOL QUARTERLY

MISINTERPRETATION

Many people have misinterpreted the ultimate attainment of childrenin an L2 as proof that they learn quickly and easily It is not uncommonfor a teacher to hear adults lament how easy a new language would be ldquoifonly I had studied it when I was youngrdquo A recent article in the newsmagazine The Economist typifies this misconception the author claims inpassing that bilingual children in English-only classes ldquocan absorb thelanguage within monthsrdquo (ldquoRon Unzrdquo 1998 p 32) Research showshowever the exact opposite (see Table 1 for a brief review of relevantstudies) Significant work in the 1970s (eg Snow amp Hoefnagel-Houmlhle1977 1978 and summarized in McLaughlin 1984 1985) focusing onlearners in an L2 environment showed that older learners are generallyfaster and more efficient in the initial stages of L2 learning These resultsare continually confirmed3 Rivera (1998) found that at early stages ofphonological acquisition adolescents performed better than childrenEvaluations of French immersion programs in Canada show that Englishspeakers receiving late immersion (L2 introduced in Grade 7 or 8) haveperformed as well as or better than children in early immersionprograms (L2 introduced in kindergarten or Grade 1) (Genesee 1987)Genesee argued that older students are more efficient L2 learners thanyounger students and he speculated that more intensive L2 programsintroduced at the secondary level may ldquooffset any possible advantagesassociated with amount of exposurerdquo (p 61) to the L2 Finally foreignlanguage educators also widely recognize that the progress of youngforeign language learners is considerably slower than that of languagelearners at the secondary level Even researchers who argue that youngerlearners tend eventually to achieve greater proficiency have admittedthat older learners initially acquire a new language more rapidly (KrashenLong amp Scarcella 1979) These findings call into question the allegedadvantages of younger learners in foreign language programs anddemonstrate that older students can learn more than younger ones inthe same period of time

Another type of misinterpretation is epitomized by a widely cited studyby Johnson and Newport (1989) that has been accepted as the bestevidence in support of the critical period in L2 learning (Long 1990)The study is based on the speculation that once children master generalproblem solving their ability to acquire new languages diminishes

3 It is interesting to note that in studies comparing the L1 acquisition rates of children withspecific language impairment (SLI) and of their language-matched normally developingcounterparts (who are younger in chronological age) the older children with SLI showedhigher rates of language acquisition despite their impairment (Nelson Camarata WelshButkovsky amp Camarata 1996)


TA

BL

E 1

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isin

terp

reta

tion

rdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Stud

y us

ed d

iffe

ren

t sc

ales

to

pres

ent

resu

lts

and

did

not

emph

asiz

e ad

ults

wh

o pe

rfor

med

as w

ell

as t

he

youn

gest

sub

ject

sea

rly

arri

vals

wer

e to

o ol

d

Subj

ects

wer

e le

arn

ing

L2

info

rmal

in

stru

ctio

n

Shor

t-ter

m s

tudy

sh

owed

th

atol

der

lear

ner

s w

ere

fast

er a

t L

2le

arn

ing

than

ch

ildre

n

Stud

y cl

aim

s th

at a

dult

s ar

e be

tter

than

ch

ildre

n o

n v

ocab

ular

ym

orph

olog

y a

nd

syn

tax

but

no

data

are

giv

en

Age

dif

fere

nce

s w

ere

addr

esse

don

ly c

ross

-sec

tion

ally

Yes

No

No

No

No

Age

on

arr

ival

cor

rela

ted

stro

ngl

y an

dn

egat

ivel

y w

ith

per

form

ance

on

L2

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t te

st

Ado

lesc

ents

did

bet

ter

than

ch

ildre

n i

nea

rly

stag

es o

f L

2 ph

onol

ogic

alac

quis

itio

n

Old

est

subj

ects

per

form

ed t

he

best

an

dyo

unge

st p

erfo

rmed

th

e w

orst

on

apr

onun

ciat

ion

tas

k

Youn

g ch

ildre

n h

ad n

o im

med

iate

adva

nta

ges

in l

earn

ing

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

Ado

lesc

ents

wer

e th

e fa

stes

t an

dac

hie

ved

the

hig

hes

t pr

ofici

ency

in

pron

unci

atio

n m

orph

olog

y a

nd

syn

tax

follo

wed

by

adul

ts y

oun

gest

ch

ildre

npe

rfor

med

wor

st

Ear

ly a

rriv

al (

befo

reag

e 15

) l

ate

arri

val

(aft

er a

ge 1

7)

10 1

2 1

7ndash18

5ndash31

3ndash60

8ndash10

12ndash

15 a

dult

s

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Riv

era

(199

8)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

77)

(lab

orat

ory)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

77)

(nat

ural

isti

c)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

78)

14 TESOL QUARTERLY

Johnson and Newport studied native speakers of Chinese and Koreanwho had first been exposed to English either before puberty (which theysomewhat oddly place at 15 years) or after puberty (17 years or older)The subjects who completed a grammaticality judgment test that as-sessed knowledge of various English grammatical rules showed a declinewith age in correctness of the judgments

However upon reexamination of Johnson and Newportrsquos (1989) dataBialystok and Hakuta (1994) found age-related effects for only some ofthe structures examined Furthermore when there were such effectsthey concerned structures that are very different in English and inChineseKorean (eg determiners plurals and subcategorization ofverbs) Bialystok and Hakuta recalculated the correlation between ageon arrival and scores on the grammaticality judgment test and showeddeterioration in subjectsrsquo proficiency only after age 20 much later thanbiological changes associated with puberty Other studies have alsoshown that age effects in L2 learning continue well after a critical periodis terminated by physiological changes in the brain or by puberty(Birdsong 1992 Oyama 1976)

MISATTRIBUTION

The field of SLA lacks a uniformly accepted theory of how L2s areacquired As a result some researchers have turned their attentiontoward neuroscience in the hope of finding new and more conclusiveevidence based on which they could create more coherent theories ofSLA (Danesi 1994) Given the glamour of brain science and theseemingly concrete nature of neurophysiological studies the conclu-sions have often been readily accepted by the public However neurosci-entists have often committed an error of misattribution assuming thatdifferences in the location of two languages within the brain or in speedof processing account for differences in proficiency levels and explainthe poorer performance of older learners (see Table 2)

For example a recent widely reported study (Kim Relkin Lee ampHirsh 1997) looked at the localization of languages learned at differentages though it did not report data on the L2 proficiency of the bilingualsubjects The authors used functional magnetic resonance imaging aprocedure for scanning brain activity during specific tasks with early andlate bilingual subjects the early bilinguals had first been exposed to theL2 during infancy whereas the late bilinguals had had their firstexposure during adulthood Both age groups were given a sentence-generation task which they performed silently while their brain activitywas recorded The results indicated that the late bilinguals had twodistinct but adjacent centers of activation in Brocarsquos area (the language


TA

BL

E 2

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isat

trib

utio

nrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Eff

ects

of

lan

guag

e w

ere

mor

eim

port

ant

than

th

ose

of a

ge

Ear

ly l

earn

ers

wer

e to

o yo

ung

this

im

plie

d th

at y

oun

ger

lear

ner

sh

ave

bett

er L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

due

to b

rain

dif

fere

nce

s

Bra

in p

roce

ssin

g w

as a

ssum

ed t

obe

res

pon

sibl

e fo

r di

ffer

ent

lan

guag

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Con

nec

tion

bet

wee

n d

iffe

ren

tbr

ain

res

pon

ses

and

L2

lear

nin

gou

tcom

e is

un

clea

r

Stud

y di

d n

ot r

evea

l re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n L

2 pr

ofici

ency

an

d br

ain

late

raliz

atio

n

No

Yes

(un

clea

r)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ear

ly a

nd

late

bili

ngu

als

show

ed s

imila

rla

tera

lized

in

terf

eren

ce p

atte

rns

that

wer

e la

ngu

age

spec

ific

reg

ardl

ess

of L

2

Tw

o se

para

te a

reas

wer

e fo

und

in b

rain

for

prod

ucti

on o

f L

1 an

d L

2

Nat

ive

spea

kers

an

d ea

rly

L2

lear

ner

ssh

owed

dif

fere

nt

brai

n p

atte

rns

for

proc

essi

ng

fun

ctio

n a

nd

con

ten

t w

ords

w

hic

h w

ere

abse

nt

in o

lder

lea

rner

s

Wh

en s

ubje

cts

dete

cted

sem

anti

can

omal

ies

in L

2 b

rain

res

pon

ses

alte

red

only

for

sub

ject

s w

ho

wer

e fi

rst

expo

sed

to L

2 af

ter

age

11

Lef

t-hem

isph

ere

adva

nta

ge w

as f

oun

dfo

r pr

oces

sin

g w

ords

in

lan

guag

esle

arn

ed b

efor

e ag

e 9

rig

ht-h

emis

pher

ead

van

tage

s w

ere

foun

d fo

r la

ngu

ages

lear

ned

aft

er p

uber

ty p

rofi

cien

cyde

clin

ed w

ith

age

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

bilin

gual

bef

ore

age

6 (e

arly

bili

ngu

als)

ot

her

bili

ngu

alad

ults

(la

tebi

lingu

als)

Adu

lts

wit

h fi

rst

expo

sure

to

L2

inin

fan

cy a

dult

s w

ith

firs

t ex

posu

re i

nad

ulth

ood

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

expo

sed

toL

2 at

age

1ndash3

4ndash6

7ndash

10 1

1ndash13

or

gt 16

18ndash3

6

Furt

ado

ampW

ebst

er (

1991

)

Kim

et

al (

1997

)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

2)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

6)

Wui

llem

in amp

Ric

har

dson

(199

4)

16 TESOL QUARTERLY

area of the brain responsible for speech production) corresponding totheir L1 and L2 whereas in the brains of the early bilinguals there was noseparation of the areas of activation associated with the two languages4

The authors related their findings to work (eg Kuhl 1994 Werker ampTees 1984) showing that infants limit the phoneme distinctions theyhear to those that are present in their environmental languages by about1 year of age In other words they claimed phonemes from twolanguages become permanently represented in the organization ofBrocarsquos area in the early bilinguals They further argued that

it is possible that representations of languages in Brocarsquos area that aredeveloped by exposure early in life are not subsequently modified This couldnecessitate the utilization of adjacent cortical areas for the L2 learned as anadult (Kim et al 1997 p 173)

Although Kim et alrsquos (1997) results are intriguing they are in factirrelevant to the possibility that adults can achieve nativelike proficiencyin an L2 Nor do they incontrovertibly demonstrate age effects on brainorganization Perhaps adults who have in fact learned to make phonemicdistinctions in the target language (which is entirely possible with goodtraining and sufficient exposure) show brain activation patterns equiva-lent to those of the early bilinguals and the findings Kim et al reportedsimply reflect the fact that the late bilinguals studied were less proficientin the target language than the early bilinguals (which on average isvery likely) Snow (in press) argues in commenting on Kim et alrsquosfindings that ldquothe real question about age differences in brain localiza-tion is whether it implies anything about behavior or about criticalperiodsrdquo At a bare minimum Kim et al should have looked atdifferences in late bilingualsrsquo L2 proficiency as related to the differentia-tion of L1 and L2 brain activation patterns

Other neurobiological studies have purported to provide evidence insupport of the critical period hypothesis by showing that older learnersprocess L2 information differently from younger learners Weber-Foxand Neville (1992 1996 1999) have performed a series of experimentsutilizing various brain-imaging techniques and different stimuli andtheir results have consistently shown differences between younger andolder learners in activation patterns and location of language processingWeber-Fox and Neville demonstrated that when learners responded tosemantic anomalies their brain responses also varied as a function of age

4 On the other hand in the late and early bilingual subjects similar or identical corticalregions served both L1 and L2 within Wernickersquos area (where speech perception occurs) Thatis there was no separation of activity based on the age of language acquisition This implies thateven if there are differences they concern only certain tasks (such as speech production) andnot every aspect of using an L2


at L2 learning and the effect was most prominent in the older agegroup When subjects were presented with sentences containing gram-matical anomalies the brain response typical of younger L2 learners wasconsiderably altered in subjects who had first been exposed to L2 afterthe age of 11 Furthermore the type of grammatical anomaly was relatedto the parameters of the age change with the response to somegrammatical anomalies suggesting that age 4 constituted the end of asensitive period and the response to others suggesting age 11

Like the results reported by Kim et al (1997) those reported byWeber-Fox and Neville (1992 1996 1999) fail to relate differences inbrain activation patterns to differences in target language proficiencyand thus are essentially irrelevant to any claim concerning a criticalperiod All of these studies are subject to two possible misattributionsFirst there is no strong evidence that the localization of the processingof any of the experimental tasks in a particular part of the brain wasassociated with better processing it is entirely possible that adult andchild learners localize their learning differently without showing differ-ent levels of learning or alternately show similar localization butdifferent learning outcomes The different patterns of language process-ing in adult brains reported by Weber-Fox and Neville (1996) mightsimply mean that adults are better able to attend to grammaticalanomalies than are children who may not even be aware that thesentences are ungrammatical Confirming this view Wuillemin andRichardson (1994) have shown that the different localization of L1 andL2 cannot account for poorer knowledge of one of the languagesWuillemin and Richardson examined the relation between degree oflateralization of the two languages in bilingualsrsquo brains and their L2proficiency Their subjects learned English at various ages from earlychildhood through the end of adolescence The results showed that theyounger learners displayed a significant left hemisphere advantage forprocessing words in the L1 and L2 whereas in older learners there wasan increase of right hemisphere involvement in the processing of secondor subsequent languages However there was no relationship betweenproficiency in the L2 and right hemisphere involvement Another study(Furtado amp Webster 1991) compared subjects who were first exposed totheir L2 before age 6 with those exposed to it after that age When askedto read and translate a list of words from their L1 into their L2 while theywere tapping with their fingers both groups showed similarly lateralizedlanguage-specific interference patterns Once again it seems that anydifference in proficiency in an L1 or L2 cannot be attributed to thedifferent localization of the two languages in a bilingual brain

Alternately it is entirely possible that the presumption that any type ofprocessing has an optimal localization in the brain is correct but that theadult learners assessed in these studies were poorly selected and do not

18 TESOL QUARTERLY

represent highly proficient adult bilinguals It seems obvious that low-proficiency speakers of an L2 will process it differently and likely withdifferent brain localization parameters than high-proficiency speakerswill The critical study yet to be undertaken would compare the brainactivation patterns of child and adult learners who have achievedequivalent levels of proficiency in the target language

Although localization has been the most frequently researched braincorrelate of age of acquisition another line of research in the field ofneurobiology has focused on the process of myelination as a factor inlimiting plasticity and thus perhaps determining the critical periodMyelination refers to the covering of neural axons with myelin a processthat occurs after birth and that allows for more efficient transport ofneural impulses (Jacobs 1988) As myelination slows it ldquoresults inreduced neural plasticity and consequently in difficulty in learningrdquo(Pulvermuller amp Schumann 1994 p 719) Researchers in neurosciencehave admitted that the exact connection between learning and the stateof the neural network is unknown Still the loss of plasticity in the brainis cited as an important factor in explaining the existence of the criticalperiod for language acquisition (Jacobs 1988) Indeed it is commonlybelieved that children outperform adults due to greater brain ldquoflexibilityrdquo

Pulvermuller and Schumann (1994) agree that even if plasticity wererelated to learning it could only account for the better performance ofyounger learners when they are viewed as a group and would not explainthe great variation in ultimate achievement in the L2 among olderlearners However as the authors are unable to determine exactly howplasticity might influence learning they conclude by suggesting thatmotivation plays a determining role in the success of SLA noting that allyounger learners but only some adults will be highly motivated to learnan L2 As we shall see motivation is not an insignificant factor inlanguage learning though its relation to brain plasticity is tenuous to saythe least

MISEMPHASIS

Perhaps the most common error that has led to the widespread beliefin a critical period in L2 learning is that of placing an enormousemphasis on unsuccessful adult L2 learners and ignoring the olderlearners who achieve nativelike L2 proficiency Numerous studies andabundant anecdotal evidence have shown that many adults do havesignificant problems in learning another language Yet researchers andnonspecialists alike have mistakenly assumed that this somehow impliesthat all adults are incapable of mastering an L2 First adults are not ahomogeneous group of linguistically incompetent creatures In fact


many studies both for and against the idea of a critical period haveshown that whereas younger learners tend to perform fairly similarly toone another older learners show great variation in their proficiency(Asher amp Garcia 1969 Birdsong 1992 Bongaerts van SummerenPlanken amp Schils 1997 Coppieters 1987 Johnson amp Newport 1989Oyama 1976 1978 Riney amp Flege 1998 Seliger Krashen amp Ladefoged1982 Shim 1993 Singleton 1995 White amp Genesee 1996) Unfortu-nately only very few of the studies (Birdsong 1992 Coppieters 1987Seliger et al 1982 Shim 1993) have reported details on the individualperformances of their older subjects Most researchers have providedonly average scores for each age group and have paid little or noattention to the adults who performed at the native or near-native levelA recent study by Johnson Shenkman Newport and Medin (1996) forexample reported age differences but made no mention of the degreeof variation among the older learners tested Another by Shim (1993)also concluded that older learners are less proficient than youngerlearners yet the study actually contained a few examples of adolescentand adult learners who outperformed some of the early learners both inspeed of language processing and in the number of correct responses inthe L2 (see Table 3)

In a more in-depth study Birdsong (1992) made a significant contri-bution when he showed that although the average performance of agroup of near-native speakers of French was below that of nativespeakers the near-native-speaker group did include adults who per-formed well above some of the native subjects Birdsong also questionedanother long-standing belief that adultsrsquo L2 skills eventually fossilizeplateauing at some point prior to reaching native proficiency (seeSelinker 1972) Clearly some adults albeit not the majority are capableof mastering an L2 In his discussion Birdsong pointed out that it isimportant to study these most advanced L2 learners in order to under-stand the factors that contribute to an adultrsquos success in an L2

Problems in Testing

Successful adult L2 learners may go undetected due to problematictesting conditions For example many adults have been evaluated ashaving ldquopoorrdquo or nonnative accents Rarely however have researchersclearly established either the exact margins of what is considered astandard accent in the target language or the degree of variability amongnative speakers Most of the studies designed to examine the foreignaccent of L2 learners have used judges who are adult native speakers ofthe language in question Yet these studies have often ignored the factthat native speakers have accents that themselves vary from the standard

20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY

As a result different judges have been shown to rate the same L2 speakerquite differently (Bongaerts et al 1997) Thus a nonnative speakercould be perceived as native in some parts of the host country and asforeign in others In addition native speakersrsquo perception of a foreignerrsquosaccent may be influenced by the amount of background informationthey are given about the L2 learner judgments are themselves influ-enced by the generally held belief that adults cannot and children canachieve nativelike pronunciation

Studies of pronunciation that elicited spontaneous speech from theirsubjects have tended to report better performance by older learnersthan studies that used only reading-aloud and imitation tasks (Asher ampGarcia 1969 Bongaerts et al 1997 Seliger et al 1982) These resultscould be explained by the fact that the learnersrsquo pronunciation ofspontaneous speech in the L2 may have been flawless due to theirfamiliarity with the words and phrases they chose to use However giventhat adults usually have literacy skills that are greatly advanced over theirknowledge of the target language from direct exposure they are oftenunfamiliar with the pronunciation of words they are asked to read Thiscan be a particular problem for languages such as English (and French)in which the relationship between spelling and pronunciation can berather complex

Still another example of the problems in testing is found in Johnsonrsquos(1992) follow-up to Johnson and Newportrsquos (1989) study previouslymentioned Johnson presented the same test to her subjects but inwritten form whereas in the original study subjects had judged thegrammaticality of sentences heard orally Results on the written taskshowed fewer and less severe age-related effects on proficiency in the L2Similarly in a follow-up study Bialystok and Miller (in press) found asignificant effect of the modality of test presentation replicating theolder learnersrsquo better performance on the written test They even foundthat native-speaking control subjects responded faster to written stimulialthough the instances of errors in the oral and written conditions wereequal thus confirming Bialystok and Hakutarsquos (1994) suggestion thatsuch differences often reflect a general decline with age in auditoryprocessing and attention not in linguistic capabilities (Bialystok ampHakuta 1999)

The Role of Environment

Even with proper testing many older learners reveal considerabledifficulties in SLA However one must avoid extrapolating to theconclusion that adults have problems because they are adults The truthis that myriad factors are involved in successful L2 learning many of


which may be correlated with age but have nothing to do with changes inthe brain Notable among these is the environment in which thelanguage is learned A study by Champagne-Muzar Schneiderman ampBourdages (1993) showed that the amount of phonological trainingbefore testing had a significant positive effect on the pronunciation of agroup of university students who were at the beginning level of French asan L2 This finding in fact confirms the results of a series of earlierstudies by Neufeld (1979) He demonstrated that adult L2 learners couldattain nativelike pronunciation in the target language after experiencinga silent period during which they were asked to listen to L2 speech withoutspeaking it (conditions replicating the learning situation of youngchildren)

A recent study by Riney and Flege (1998) shows that living in anenvironment where the target language is the standard has a positiveeffect on older L2 learnersrsquo global pronunciation The authors observeda group of Japanese university students who were initially tested at thebeginning of their first year in college and then were retested 42 monthslater The pronunciation of the group of students who spent most of thetime between the two tests in English-speaking countries improvedsignificantly more than that of the students who remained in JapanSimilarly learners who live in a foreign country but interact primarilywith speakers of their native language tend to have stronger accents thanthose who use their L1 less often (Flege Frieda amp Nozawa 1997)

Lately researchers have extended their attention to age effects onboth the L1 and the L2 of bilinguals The critical period hypothesiswould predict that learning any language prior to the termination of thatperiod would result in proficiency undistinguishable from that ofmonolinguals Yeni-Komshian Flege and Liu (1999) studied the level ofperceived pronunciation proficiency in the L1 and L2 of Korean-Englishbilinguals Although their results showed a general decrease in L2pronunciation with age none of their age groups including the young-est learners who had arrived in the United States before age 5 had L2pronunciation ratings indistinguishable from those of monolingualEnglish speakers Moreover their results indicated that even the young-est learners (those who arrived before age 11) were rated as havingpronunciation proficiency significantly different from that of mono-linguals in both Korean and English Yeni-Komshian et al concludedthat learners who live in an L2 environment do not automatically achievenativelike pronunciation in the L1 only those who depart from their L1environment after age 8 consistently retain a nativelike pronunciation intheir L1 This suggests that prepubescent children may attain high levelsof proficiency in their L2 only at the expense of their L1 and that olderlearners tend to retain nativelike proficiency in the L1 at the expense oftheir L2

26 TESOL QUARTERLY

Older immigrants are more likely to structure heavily L1 environ-ments for themselves thus retarding their own L2 exposure and acquisi-tion Jia and Aaronson (1998) studying Chinese immigrants to theUnited States showed that the richness of the English language environ-ment correlated negatively with the richness of the Chinese languageenvironment available to the learners Obviously the older arrivals hadaccess to relatively richer Chinese environments (because they couldchoose their own friends and seek out films TV and literacy experiencesin Chinese more effectively) and the younger arrivals all reportedpreferring to talk and read in English by the end of 1 year in the UnitedStates Jia and Aaronson also reported a stronger correlation betweenage on arrival and maintenance of exposure to Chinese than betweenage on arrival and proficiency in English suggesting that even someolder learners with relatively impoverished English learning environ-ments acquired reasonable proficiency in English Jia and Aaronsonrsquosstudy raises an issue often ignored in studies of age differences in SLAmdashthat older learners are more likely to maintain their L1 at a high levelwhereas younger learners are more likely to switch to dominance or evenmonolingualism in the L2

Flege (1999) has recently explained that the general decline in L2pronunciation with age does not result from a loss of ability to pro-nounce but is ldquoa function of how well one pronounces the L1 and howoften one speaks the L1rdquo (p 125) In another study Flege Yeni-Komshian and Liu (in press) also found a significant effect for age onarrival on their subjectsrsquo performance on phonological and morpho-syntactic tests However the authors claim that changes in how the L1and L2 phonological systems interact as the L1 system develops betterexplain the older learnersrsquo poorer performance on the phonologicaltest They explain the age effects on the morphosyntactic measures as aresult of variation in the education and language use of their subjectsfactors they found to be highly correlated with age on arrival

The Role of Motivation

Ioup Boustagui Tigi and Moselle (1994) examined the acquisitionprocess of two native speakers of English who had achieved nativelikeproficiency in Arabic Both women had first been exposed to Arabic intheir early 20s both were married to native speakers of Arabic and livedin Egypt and both had a strong desire to master the new languageThese women were judged to have achieved native or near-nativeproficiency in their L2 based on the quality of their speech productiontheir ability to recognize accents in the L2 and their knowledge ofsyntactic rules for which they had not received explicit feedback Their


success in L2 learning was attributed to their high degree of motivationto learn the language their exposure to a naturalistic environment andtheir conscious attention to grammatical form

A good deal of research in motivation and learning strategies shedslight on adult SLA but this research has rarely been connected to workon the critical period Ehrman and Oxford (1995) identified a numberof factors including age that may affect the success of adults inachieving proficiency in speaking and reading an L2 They foundhowever that variables such as cognitive aptitude and beliefs aboutoneself were more strongly correlated with success of L2 learning thanwas age Another study by MacIntyre and Charos (1996) revealed theimportance of factors such as self-efficacy and willingness to communi-cate Gardner who has done extensive research on motivation pub-lished findings with Tremblay and Masgoret in 1997 highlighting theimportance of over 30 motivational variables a number of which(notably language anxiety motivation and self-confidence) are stronglycorrelated with L2 proficiency5

CONCLUSION

The misconception that adults cannot master foreign languages is aswidespread as it is erroneous We argue in this article that this misunder-standing rests on three fallacies associated with the uncritical acceptanceof a notion of a critical period for SLA The first fallacy is misinterpreta-tion of observations of child and adult learners which might suggest thatchildren are fast and efficient at picking up L2s Hard data make it clearthat children learn new languages slowly and effortfullymdashin fact withless speed and more effort than adolescents or adults The second fallacyis misattribution of conclusions about language proficiency to factsabout the brain connections between brain functioning and languagebehavior will no doubt in time be confirmed but their exact naturecannot even be guessed from the data currently available on brainfunctions in early versus late bilinguals Finally the common fallacy ofreasoning from frequent failure to the impossibility of success hasdogged L2 research Most adult learners of an L2 do in fact end up withlower-than-nativelike levels of proficiency But most adult learners fail toengage in the task with sufficient motivation commitment of time orenergy and support from the environments in which they find them-selves to expect high levels of success Thus researchers and laypersonsalike have been misled by a misemphasis on the average attainment of

5 For a summary of motivational research see Oxford (1996)

28 TESOL QUARTERLY

the adult learner This misemphasis has distracted researchers fromfocusing on the truly informative cases successful adults who investsufficient time and attention in SLA and who benefit from highmotivation and from supportive informative L2 environments We hopethis review of thinking about the critical period for L2 learning willdispel the persistent myths that children learn more quickly than adultsand that adults are incapable of achieving nativelike L2 proficiency

IMPLICATIONS

Age does influence language learning but primarily because it isassociated with social psychological educational and other factors thatcan affect L2 proficiency not because of any critical period that limitsthe possibility of language learning by adults We see the work reviewedin this article as relevant to three crucial areas of language policy andteaching practice

Foreign Language Teaching in the Early Grades

This work should be of some interest to schools and school districtscontemplating the introduction of foreign language teaching in theearly grades to satisfy desires to benefit from the hypothesized criticalperiod We certainly would not argue against the value of excellentforeign language instruction for learners of any age but administratorsand parents should not proceed on the assumption that only earlyforeign language teaching will be effective and they need furthermoreto be realistic about what can be expected from younger learners(McLaughlin 1992) Typically the early elementary foreign languagecourse will be able to cover only half as much material in a year as themiddle school course which in turn will progress much more slowly thanthe secondary or university course Research has shown that in formalsettings early L2 instruction does not prove advantageous unless fol-lowed by well-designed foreign language instruction building on previ-ous learning (Singleton 1997) Children who study a foreign languagefor only a year or two in elementary school show no long-term effectsthey need several years of continued instruction to achieve even modestproficiency

Investment in elementary foreign language instruction may well beworth it but only if the teachers are themselves native or nativelikespeakers and well trained in the needs of younger learners if the earlylearning opportunities are built upon with consistent well-planned


ongoing instruction in the higher grades and if the learners are givensome opportunities for authentic communicative experiences in thetarget language Decisions to introduce foreign language instruction inthe elementary grades should be weighed against the costs to othercomponents of the school curriculum as far as we know there are nogood studies showing that foreign language instruction is worth morethan additional time invested in math science music art or even basicL1 literacy instruction In fact Collier (1992) interpreted studies ofbilingual children in the early grades as indicating that L1 instruction ismore important than L2 instruction for ultimate literacy and academicachievement in the L2 Furthermore it has become obvious that manyimmersion programs violate the principles we would like to see instanti-ated in an optimal L2 learning environmentmdashaccess to rich input frommany native speakers for example Older immersion learners have hadas much success as younger learners in shorter time periods (Swain ampLapkin 1989) and late-immersion students have achieved results similarto those of early-immersion students on literacy-based tests (TurnbullLapkin Hart amp Swain 1998) However neither early- nor late-immer-sion students have typically emerged with nativelike skills in the L2 anobservation that further supports our and Singletonrsquos (1997) regard forthe importance of continued L2 education

Bilingual Education

The argument presented here would also suggest that the widelydeclaimed ldquofailurerdquo of bilingual education has nothing to do with thepostponement of English instruction for children attending bilingualclasses First much evidence would suggest that access to and acquisitionof English for immigrants to the United States begins quite early with orwithout bilingual instruction Second the robust evidence that childrenin late-exit bilingual programs do better than those in early-exit pro-grams (Ramiacuterez Yuen Ramey amp Pasta 1991) as well as the evidencethat children who arrive as immigrants in US schools in later gradesshow better academic performance than those who start in kindergarten(Collier 1987) directly contradicts the predictions of the critical periodhypothesis Third children who start learning English after the earlyelementary years even as late as during high school can becomenativelike speakers if their instructional environments are well struc-tured and motivating (Singleton 1995)

30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching

Finally the work we have reviewed spells good news for ESL and otherforeign language teachers of older students for even though teacherscan do little to ldquoimproverdquo a studentrsquos age they can do much to influencea studentrsquos learning strategies motivation and learning environmentThus such teachers are justified in holding high expectations for theirstudents and can give their motivated students research-based informa-tion about how to improve their own chances for learning to a high level

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

During the preparation of this article the first two authors were supported by aSpencer Mentor Grant to Catherine E Snow

THE AUTHORS

Stefka H Marinova-Todd is a doctoral student at the Harvard Graduate School ofEducation whose research has focused on the existence of the critical period forlanguage learning She is currently interested in examining the factors that contrib-ute to the successful attainment of foreign language proficiency by some adultlearners

D Bradford Marshall has been teaching French and English as foreign languages formore than 13 years to university students and adults in the United States and FranceHe is completing a doctorate on media discourse and the use of newspapers in theforeign language classroom

Catherine E Snow is a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education Shehas conducted research on the language and literacy acquisition of L1 and L2learners in Europe and North America

REFERENCES

Asher J amp Garcia R (1969) The optimal age to learn a foreign language ModernLanguage Journal 53 344ndash351

Bialystok E amp Hakuta K (1994) In other words The science and psychology of second-language acquisition New York Basic Books

Bialystok E amp Hakuta K (1999) Confounded age Linguistic and cognitive factorsin age differences for second language acquisition In D Birdsong (Ed) Secondlanguage acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp 162ndash181) Mahwah NJErlbaum

Bialystok E amp Miller B (in press) The problem of age in second-languageacquisition Influences from language structure and task In Bilingualism Lan-guage and cognition Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Birdsong D (1992) Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition Language68 706ndash755


Birdsong D (1999) Introduction Whys and why nots of the critical periodhypothesis for second language acquisition In D Birdsong (Ed) Second languageacquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp 1ndash22) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Bongaerts T van Summeren C Planken B amp Schils E (1997) Age and ultimateattainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 19 447ndash465

Champagne-Muzar C Schneiderman E I amp Bourdages J S (1993) Secondlanguage accent The role of the pedagogical environment International Review ofApplied Linguistics 31 143ndash160

Collier V P (1987) Age and rate of acquisition of a second language for academicpurposes TESOL Quarterly 21 227ndash249

Collier V P (1992) A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minoritystudent data on academic achievement Bilingual Research Journal 16 187ndash209

Coppieters R (1987) Competence differences between native and near nativespeakers Language 63 544ndash573

Curtiss S (1977) Genie A psycholinguistic study of a modern day ldquowild-childrdquo New YorkAcademic Press

Curtiss S (1989) The independence and task-specificity of language In M HBornstein amp J Bruner (Eds) Interaction in human development (pp 105ndash137)Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

Danesi M (1994) The neuroscientific perspective in second language acquisitionresearch A critical synopsis Lenguas Modernas 21 145ndash168

Ehrman M amp Oxford R (1995) Cognition plus Correlates of language learningsuccess Modern Language Journal 79 67ndash89

Flege J E (1999) Age of learning and second language speech In D Birdsong(Ed) Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis (pp 101ndash131)Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Flege J Frieda E amp Nozawa T (1997) Amount of native language (L1) use affectsthe pronunciation of an L2 Journal of Phonetics 25 169ndash186

Flege J Yeni-Komshian G amp Liu S (in press) Age constraints on second-languageacquisition Journal of Memory and Language

Furtado J amp Webster W (1991) Concurrent language and motor performance inbilinguals A test of the age of acquisition hypothesis Canadian Journal ofPsychology 45 448ndash461

Gardner R C Tremblay P F amp Masgoret A-M (1997) Towards a full model ofsecond language learning An empirical investigation The Modern LanguageJournal 81 344ndash362

Genesee F (1987) Learning through two languages Studies of immersion and bilingualeducation Cambridge MA Newbury House

Harley B amp Wang W (1997) The critical period hypothesis Where are we now InA M B de Groot amp J F Kroll (Eds) Tutorials in bilingualism Psycholinguisticperspectives (pp 19ndash51) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Ioup G Boustagui E Tigi M amp Moselle M (1994) Reexamining the criticalperiod hypothesis A case of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environmentStudies in Second Language Acquisition 16 73ndash98

Jacobs B (1988) Neurobiological differentiation of primary and secondary lan-guage acquisition Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10 303ndash338

Jia G amp Aaronson D (1998 November) Age differences in second language acquisitionThe dominant language switch and maintenance hypothesis Paper presented at theBoston University Conference on Language Development Boston MA

Johnson J (1992) Critical period effects in second language acquisition The effect

32 TESOL QUARTERLY

of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical compe-tence Language Learning 42 217ndash248

Johnson J amp Newport E (1989) Critical period effects in second languagelearning The influence of the maturational state on the acquisition of English asa second language Cognitive Psychology 21 60ndash99

Johnson J Shenkman K Newport E amp Medin D (1996) Indeterminacy in thegrammar of adult language learners Journal of Memory and Language 35 335ndash352

Kim K Relkin N Lee K amp Hirsh K (1997) Distinct cortical areas associated withnative and second languages Nature 388 171ndash174

Krashen S (1973) Lateralization language learning and the critical period Somenew evidence Language Learning 23 63ndash74

Krashen S Long M amp Scarcella R (1979) Age rate and eventual attainment insecond language acquisition TESOL Quarterly 13 573ndash582

Kuhl P K (1994) Learning and representation in speech and language CurrentOpinions in Neurobiology 4 812ndash818

Lamendella J (1977) General principles of neurofunctional organization and theirmanifestations in primary and non-primary language acquisition Language Learn-ing 27 155ndash196

Larsen-Freeman D amp Long M (1991) An introduction to second language acquisitionresearch London Longman

Lenneberg E (1967) Biological foundations of language New York WileyLong M (1990) Maturational constraints on language development Studies in

Second Language Acquisition 12 251ndash285MacIntyre P D amp Charos C (1996) Personality attitudes and affect as predictors

of second language communication Journal of Language and Social Psychology 153ndash26

McLaughlin B (1984) Second-language acquisition in childhood Vol 1 Preschoolchildren Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

McLaughlin B (1985) Second-language acquisition in childhood Vol 2 School-agechildren Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum

McLaughlin B (1992 December) Myths and misconceptions about second languagelearning What every teacher needs to unlearn (ERIC Digest EDO-FL-91-10) CollegePark MD ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation

Nelson K E Camarata S M Welsh J Butkovsky L amp Camarata M (1996)Effects of imitative and conversational recasting treatment on the acquisition ofgrammar in children with specific language impairment and younger language-normal children Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 39 850ndash859

Neufeld G (1979) Towards a theory of language learning ability Language Learning29 227ndash241

Oxford R L (1996) Language learning motivation Pathways to the new century(Technical Report 11) Honolulu University of Hawaii Press

Oyama S (1976) A sensitive period in the acquisition of a non-native phonologicalsystem Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5 261ndash285

Oyama S (1978) The sensitive period and comprehension of speech Working Paperson Bilingualism 16 1ndash17

Penfield W amp Roberts L (1959) Speech and brain-mechanisms Princeton NJPrinceton University Press

Pulvermuller F amp Schumann J (1994) Neurobiological mechanisms of languageacquisition Language Learning 44 681ndash734

Ramiacuterez P J Yuen S D Ramey D R amp Pasta D J (1991) Final report Nationallongitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy early-exit and late-exit


transitional bilingual educational programs for language minority children (Vols 1 4)San Mateo CA Aguirre International

Riney T amp Flege J (1998) Changes over time in global foreign accent and liquididentifiability and accuracy Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20 213ndash243

Rivera N F (1998 September) Effecto de la edad de inicio de aprendizaje de la lenguaextranjera (ingleacutes) y cantidad de exposicioacuten a la LE en la percepcioacuten de las fonemas delingleacutes por hablantes de espantildeol y catalaacuten [Effect of age at starting to learn English asa foreign language and amount of exposure on perception of English phonemesfor speakers of Spanish and Catalan] Paper presented at Il Encuentro Internacionalsobre Adquisicioacuten de las Lenguas del Estado Barcelona Spain

Ron Unz swimming instructor (1998 May) The Economist p 32Seliger H Krashen S amp Ladefoged P (1982) Maturational constraints in the

acquisition of second languages In S Krashen R Scarcella amp M Long (Eds)Child-adult differences in second language acquisition (pp 13ndash19) Rowley MANewbury House

Selinker L (1972) Interlanguage International Review of Applied Linguistics 10 209ndash231

Shim R J (1993) Sensitive periods for second language acquisition A reaction-timestudy of Korean-English bilinguals Ideal 6 43ndash64

Singleton D (1995) Introduction A critical look at the critical hypothesis in secondlanguage acquisition research In D Singleton amp Z Lengyel (Eds) The age factorin second language acquisition (pp 1ndash29) Bristol PA Multilingual Matters

Singleton D (1997) Second language in primary school The age dimension TheIrish Yearbook of Applied Linguistics 15 155ndash166

Snow C E (in press) Second language learnersrsquo contributions to our understand-ing of languages of the brain In A Galaburda amp S Kosslyn (Eds) Languages of thebrain Cambridge MA Harvard University Press

Snow C E amp Hoefnagel-Houmlhle M (1977) Age differences in pronunciation offoreign sounds Language and Speech 20 357ndash365

Snow C E amp Hoefnagel-Houmlhle M (1978) The critical period for languageacquisition Evidence from second language learning Child Development 49 1114ndash1128

Swain M amp Lapkin S (1989) Canadian immersion and adult second languageteaching Whatrsquos the connection Modern Language Journal 73 150ndash159

Turnbull M Lapkin S Hart D amp Swain M (1998) Time on task and immersiongraduatesrsquo French proficiency In S Lapkin (Ed) French second language educationin Canada Empirical studies (pp 31ndash55) Toronto Canada University of TorontoPress

Weber-Fox C amp Neville H (1992) Maturational constraints on cerebral specializa-tions for language processing ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakersSociety for Neuroscience Abstracts 18 335

Weber-Fox C amp Neville H (1996) Maturational constraints on functional special-izations for language processing ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingualspeakers Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 8 231ndash256

Weber-Fox C amp Neville H (1999) Functional neural subsystems are differentiallyaffected by delays in second language immersion ERP and behavioral evidence inbilinguals In D Birdsong (Ed) Second language acquisition and the critical periodhypothesis (pp 23ndash38) Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Werker J F amp Tees R C (1984) Cross-language speech perception Evidence forperceptual organization during the first year of life Infant Behavior and Develop-ment 7 49ndash63

34 TESOL QUARTERLY

White L amp Genesee F (1996) How native is near-native The issue of ultimateattainment in adult second language acquisition Second Language Research 12233ndash265

Wuillemin D amp Richardson B (1994) Right hemisphere involvement in process-ing later-learned languages in multilinguals Brain and Language 46 620ndash636

Yeni-Komshian G H Flege J E amp Liu S (1999) Pronunciation proficiency in the firstand second languages of Korean-English bilinguals Manuscript submitted forpublication

10 TESOL QUARTERLY

very high level then they should not be graded in comparison to nativespeakers As expectations are lowered so too should teaching method-ologies be modified to promote limited proficiency allow for a greaternumber of errors and avoid even broaching the unreachable goal ofnative fluency Furthermore if a critical period for L2 learning doesexist then schools should obviously introduce foreign languages earlierand all states should introduce policies to accelerate the exposure toEnglish of immigrant children as California has done Clearly knowingthe facts about the critical period for SLA is relevant to policy and topractice in education

The purpose of this article is to analyze some common misconcep-tions about L2 learning by examining the relevant literature it does notpresent a comprehensive review of critical period research1 We con-clude from this analysis that older learners have the potential to learnL2s to a very high level and that introducing foreign languages to veryyoung learners cannot be justified on grounds of biological readiness tolearn languages Rather than focusing on the low probability that adultswill acquire fluency in L2s we argue it is more productive to examinethe factors that typically lead to nativelike proficiency in L2s for anylearner Such an approach can also inform sensible decisions about theallocation of resources for foreign language or L2 teaching

The idea of a critical period was first introduced by Penfield andRoberts (1959) who argued that language acquisition is most efficientbefore age 9 when ldquothe human brain becomes stiff and rigidrdquo (p236) Later Lenneberg (1967) claimed that during this period ofheightened plasticity the human brain becomes lateralized He arguedthat puberty represents a biological change associated with the firmlocalization of language-processing abilities in the left hemisphere Healso claimed that postpubertal language acquisition was far more diffi-cult and far less successful than acquisition occurring during theprepubertal period of rapid neurological development Krashen (1973)among others challenged Lennebergrsquos characterization by showing thatbrain lateralization may be completed by the age of 5 Lamendella(1977) argued that Lennebergrsquos conclusion regarding the critical periodwas overstated and introduced the term sensitive period to emphasize thatlanguage acquisition might be more efficient during early childhood butwas not impossible at later ages Today many researchers in the field usethe two terms interchangeably as we do throughout this article2

1 Attempts at a more or less comprehensive overview of the literature include for exampleMcLaughlin (1984 1985) Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) Harley and Wang (1997) andBirdsong (1999)

2 When citing other peoplersquos work however we preserve the term chosen by the originalauthors




12 TESOL QUARTERLY

MISINTERPRETATION





TA

BL

E 1

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isin

terp

reta

tion

rdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Stud

y us

ed d

iffe

ren

t sc

ales

to

pres

ent

resu

lts

and

did

not

emph

asiz

e ad

ults

wh

o pe

rfor

med

as w

ell

as t

he

youn

gest

sub

ject

sea

rly

arri

vals

wer

e to

o ol

d

Subj

ects

wer

e le

arn

ing

L2

info

rmal

in

stru

ctio

n

Shor

t-ter

m s

tudy

sh

owed

th

atol

der

lear

ner

s w

ere

fast

er a

t L

2le

arn

ing

than

ch

ildre

n

Stud

y cl

aim

s th

at a

dult

s ar

e be

tter

than

ch

ildre

n o

n v

ocab

ular

ym

orph

olog

y a

nd

syn

tax

but

no

data

are

giv

en

Age

dif

fere

nce

s w

ere

addr

esse

don

ly c

ross

-sec

tion

ally

Yes

No

No

No

No

Age

on

arr

ival

cor

rela

ted

stro

ngl

y an

dn

egat

ivel

y w

ith

per

form

ance

on

L2

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t te

st

Ado

lesc

ents

did

bet

ter

than

ch

ildre

n i

nea

rly

stag

es o

f L

2 ph

onol

ogic

alac

quis

itio

n

Old

est

subj

ects

per

form

ed t

he

best

an

dyo

unge

st p

erfo

rmed

th

e w

orst

on

apr

onun

ciat

ion

tas

k

Youn

g ch

ildre

n h

ad n

o im

med

iate

adva

nta

ges

in l

earn

ing

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

Ado

lesc

ents

wer

e th

e fa

stes

t an

dac

hie

ved

the

hig

hes

t pr

ofici

ency

in

pron

unci

atio

n m

orph

olog

y a

nd

syn

tax

follo

wed

by

adul

ts y

oun

gest

ch

ildre

npe

rfor

med

wor

st

Ear

ly a

rriv

al (

befo

reag

e 15

) l

ate

arri

val

(aft

er a

ge 1

7)

10 1

2 1

7ndash18

5ndash31

3ndash60

8ndash10

12ndash

15 a

dult

s

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Riv

era

(199

8)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

77)

(lab

orat

ory)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

77)

(nat

ural

isti

c)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

78)

14 TESOL QUARTERLY



MISATTRIBUTION




TA

BL

E 2

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isat

trib

utio

nrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Eff

ects

of

lan

guag

e w

ere

mor

eim

port

ant

than

th

ose

of a

ge

Ear

ly l

earn

ers

wer

e to

o yo

ung

this

im

plie

d th

at y

oun

ger

lear

ner

sh

ave

bett

er L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

due

to b

rain

dif

fere

nce

s

Bra

in p

roce

ssin

g w

as a

ssum

ed t

obe

res

pon

sibl

e fo

r di

ffer

ent

lan

guag

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Con

nec

tion

bet

wee

n d

iffe

ren

tbr

ain

res

pon

ses

and

L2

lear

nin

gou

tcom

e is

un

clea

r

Stud

y di

d n

ot r

evea

l re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n L

2 pr

ofici

ency

an

d br

ain

late

raliz

atio

n

No

Yes

(un

clea

r)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ear

ly a

nd

late

bili

ngu

als

show

ed s

imila

rla

tera

lized

in

terf

eren

ce p

atte

rns

that

wer

e la

ngu

age

spec

ific

reg

ardl

ess

of L

2

Tw

o se

para

te a

reas

wer

e fo

und

in b

rain

for

prod

ucti

on o

f L

1 an

d L

2

Nat

ive

spea

kers

an

d ea

rly

L2

lear

ner

ssh

owed

dif

fere

nt

brai

n p

atte

rns

for

proc

essi

ng

fun

ctio

n a

nd

con

ten

t w

ords

w

hic

h w

ere

abse

nt

in o

lder

lea

rner

s

Wh

en s

ubje

cts

dete

cted

sem

anti

can

omal

ies

in L

2 b

rain

res

pon

ses

alte

red

only

for

sub

ject

s w

ho

wer

e fi

rst

expo

sed

to L

2 af

ter

age

11

Lef

t-hem

isph

ere

adva

nta

ge w

as f

oun

dfo

r pr

oces

sin

g w

ords

in

lan

guag

esle

arn

ed b

efor

e ag

e 9

rig

ht-h

emis

pher

ead

van

tage

s w

ere

foun

d fo

r la

ngu

ages

lear

ned

aft

er p

uber

ty p

rofi

cien

cyde

clin

ed w

ith

age

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

bilin

gual

bef

ore

age

6 (e

arly

bili

ngu

als)

ot

her

bili

ngu

alad

ults

(la

tebi

lingu

als)

Adu

lts

wit

h fi

rst

expo

sure

to

L2

inin

fan

cy a

dult

s w

ith

firs

t ex

posu

re i

nad

ulth

ood

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

expo

sed

toL

2 at

age

1ndash3

4ndash6

7ndash

10 1

1ndash13

or

gt 16

18ndash3

6

Furt

ado

ampW

ebst

er (

1991

)

Kim

et

al (

1997

)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

2)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

6)

Wui

llem

in amp

Ric

har

dson

(199

4)

16 TESOL QUARTERLY











18 TESOL QUARTERLY




MISEMPHASIS





Problems in Testing


20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY







12 TESOL QUARTERLY

MISINTERPRETATION





TA

BL

E 1

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isin

terp

reta

tion

rdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Stud

y us

ed d

iffe

ren

t sc

ales

to

pres

ent

resu

lts

and

did

not

emph

asiz

e ad

ults

wh

o pe

rfor

med

as w

ell

as t

he

youn

gest

sub

ject

sea

rly

arri

vals

wer

e to

o ol

d

Subj

ects

wer

e le

arn

ing

L2

info

rmal

in

stru

ctio

n

Shor

t-ter

m s

tudy

sh

owed

th

atol

der

lear

ner

s w

ere

fast

er a

t L

2le

arn

ing

than

ch

ildre

n

Stud

y cl

aim

s th

at a

dult

s ar

e be

tter

than

ch

ildre

n o

n v

ocab

ular

ym

orph

olog

y a

nd

syn

tax

but

no

data

are

giv

en

Age

dif

fere

nce

s w

ere

addr

esse

don

ly c

ross

-sec

tion

ally

Yes

No

No

No

No

Age

on

arr

ival

cor

rela

ted

stro

ngl

y an

dn

egat

ivel

y w

ith

per

form

ance

on

L2

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t te

st

Ado

lesc

ents

did

bet

ter

than

ch

ildre

n i

nea

rly

stag

es o

f L

2 ph

onol

ogic

alac

quis

itio

n

Old

est

subj

ects

per

form

ed t

he

best

an

dyo

unge

st p

erfo

rmed

th

e w

orst

on

apr

onun

ciat

ion

tas

k

Youn

g ch

ildre

n h

ad n

o im

med

iate

adva

nta

ges

in l

earn

ing

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

Ado

lesc

ents

wer

e th

e fa

stes

t an

dac

hie

ved

the

hig

hes

t pr

ofici

ency

in

pron

unci

atio

n m

orph

olog

y a

nd

syn

tax

follo

wed

by

adul

ts y

oun

gest

ch

ildre

npe

rfor

med

wor

st

Ear

ly a

rriv

al (

befo

reag

e 15

) l

ate

arri

val

(aft

er a

ge 1

7)

10 1

2 1

7ndash18

5ndash31

3ndash60

8ndash10

12ndash

15 a

dult

s

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Riv

era

(199

8)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

77)

(lab

orat

ory)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

77)

(nat

ural

isti

c)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

78)

14 TESOL QUARTERLY



MISATTRIBUTION




TA

BL

E 2

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isat

trib

utio

nrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Eff

ects

of

lan

guag

e w

ere

mor

eim

port

ant

than

th

ose

of a

ge

Ear

ly l

earn

ers

wer

e to

o yo

ung

this

im

plie

d th

at y

oun

ger

lear

ner

sh

ave

bett

er L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

due

to b

rain

dif

fere

nce

s

Bra

in p

roce

ssin

g w

as a

ssum

ed t

obe

res

pon

sibl

e fo

r di

ffer

ent

lan

guag

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Con

nec

tion

bet

wee

n d

iffe

ren

tbr

ain

res

pon

ses

and

L2

lear

nin

gou

tcom

e is

un

clea

r

Stud

y di

d n

ot r

evea

l re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n L

2 pr

ofici

ency

an

d br

ain

late

raliz

atio

n

No

Yes

(un

clea

r)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ear

ly a

nd

late

bili

ngu

als

show

ed s

imila

rla

tera

lized

in

terf

eren

ce p

atte

rns

that

wer

e la

ngu

age

spec

ific

reg

ardl

ess

of L

2

Tw

o se

para

te a

reas

wer

e fo

und

in b

rain

for

prod

ucti

on o

f L

1 an

d L

2

Nat

ive

spea

kers

an

d ea

rly

L2

lear

ner

ssh

owed

dif

fere

nt

brai

n p

atte

rns

for

proc

essi

ng

fun

ctio

n a

nd

con

ten

t w

ords

w

hic

h w

ere

abse

nt

in o

lder

lea

rner

s

Wh

en s

ubje

cts

dete

cted

sem

anti

can

omal

ies

in L

2 b

rain

res

pon

ses

alte

red

only

for

sub

ject

s w

ho

wer

e fi

rst

expo

sed

to L

2 af

ter

age

11

Lef

t-hem

isph

ere

adva

nta

ge w

as f

oun

dfo

r pr

oces

sin

g w

ords

in

lan

guag

esle

arn

ed b

efor

e ag

e 9

rig

ht-h

emis

pher

ead

van

tage

s w

ere

foun

d fo

r la

ngu

ages

lear

ned

aft

er p

uber

ty p

rofi

cien

cyde

clin

ed w

ith

age

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

bilin

gual

bef

ore

age

6 (e

arly

bili

ngu

als)

ot

her

bili

ngu

alad

ults

(la

tebi

lingu

als)

Adu

lts

wit

h fi

rst

expo

sure

to

L2

inin

fan

cy a

dult

s w

ith

firs

t ex

posu

re i

nad

ulth

ood

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

expo

sed

toL

2 at

age

1ndash3

4ndash6

7ndash

10 1

1ndash13

or

gt 16

18ndash3

6

Furt

ado

ampW

ebst

er (

1991

)

Kim

et

al (

1997

)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

2)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

6)

Wui

llem

in amp

Ric

har

dson

(199

4)

16 TESOL QUARTERLY











18 TESOL QUARTERLY




MISEMPHASIS





Problems in Testing


20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY





TA

BL

E 1

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isin

terp

reta

tion

rdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Stud

y us

ed d

iffe

ren

t sc

ales

to

pres

ent

resu

lts

and

did

not

emph

asiz

e ad

ults

wh

o pe

rfor

med

as w

ell

as t

he

youn

gest

sub

ject

sea

rly

arri

vals

wer

e to

o ol

d

Subj

ects

wer

e le

arn

ing

L2

info

rmal

in

stru

ctio

n

Shor

t-ter

m s

tudy

sh

owed

th

atol

der

lear

ner

s w

ere

fast

er a

t L

2le

arn

ing

than

ch

ildre

n

Stud

y cl

aim

s th

at a

dult

s ar

e be

tter

than

ch

ildre

n o

n v

ocab

ular

ym

orph

olog

y a

nd

syn

tax

but

no

data

are

giv

en

Age

dif

fere

nce

s w

ere

addr

esse

don

ly c

ross

-sec

tion

ally

Yes

No

No

No

No

Age

on

arr

ival

cor

rela

ted

stro

ngl

y an

dn

egat

ivel

y w

ith

per

form

ance

on

L2

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t te

st

Ado

lesc

ents

did

bet

ter

than

ch

ildre

n i

nea

rly

stag

es o

f L

2 ph

onol

ogic

alac

quis

itio

n

Old

est

subj

ects

per

form

ed t

he

best

an

dyo

unge

st p

erfo

rmed

th

e w

orst

on

apr

onun

ciat

ion

tas

k

Youn

g ch

ildre

n h

ad n

o im

med

iate

adva

nta

ges

in l

earn

ing

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

Ado

lesc

ents

wer

e th

e fa

stes

t an

dac

hie

ved

the

hig

hes

t pr

ofici

ency

in

pron

unci

atio

n m

orph

olog

y a

nd

syn

tax

follo

wed

by

adul

ts y

oun

gest

ch

ildre

npe

rfor

med

wor

st

Ear

ly a

rriv

al (

befo

reag

e 15

) l

ate

arri

val

(aft

er a

ge 1

7)

10 1

2 1

7ndash18

5ndash31

3ndash60

8ndash10

12ndash

15 a

dult

s

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Riv

era

(199

8)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

77)

(lab

orat

ory)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

77)

(nat

ural

isti

c)

Snow

ampH

oefn

agel

-H

oumlhle

(19

78)

14 TESOL QUARTERLY



MISATTRIBUTION




TA

BL

E 2

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isat

trib

utio

nrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Eff

ects

of

lan

guag

e w

ere

mor

eim

port

ant

than

th

ose

of a

ge

Ear

ly l

earn

ers

wer

e to

o yo

ung

this

im

plie

d th

at y

oun

ger

lear

ner

sh

ave

bett

er L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

due

to b

rain

dif

fere

nce

s

Bra

in p

roce

ssin

g w

as a

ssum

ed t

obe

res

pon

sibl

e fo

r di

ffer

ent

lan

guag

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Con

nec

tion

bet

wee

n d

iffe

ren

tbr

ain

res

pon

ses

and

L2

lear

nin

gou

tcom

e is

un

clea

r

Stud

y di

d n

ot r

evea

l re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n L

2 pr

ofici

ency

an

d br

ain

late

raliz

atio

n

No

Yes

(un

clea

r)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ear

ly a

nd

late

bili

ngu

als

show

ed s

imila

rla

tera

lized

in

terf

eren

ce p

atte

rns

that

wer

e la

ngu

age

spec

ific

reg

ardl

ess

of L

2

Tw

o se

para

te a

reas

wer

e fo

und

in b

rain

for

prod

ucti

on o

f L

1 an

d L

2

Nat

ive

spea

kers

an

d ea

rly

L2

lear

ner

ssh

owed

dif

fere

nt

brai

n p

atte

rns

for

proc

essi

ng

fun

ctio

n a

nd

con

ten

t w

ords

w

hic

h w

ere

abse

nt

in o

lder

lea

rner

s

Wh

en s

ubje

cts

dete

cted

sem

anti

can

omal

ies

in L

2 b

rain

res

pon

ses

alte

red

only

for

sub

ject

s w

ho

wer

e fi

rst

expo

sed

to L

2 af

ter

age

11

Lef

t-hem

isph

ere

adva

nta

ge w

as f

oun

dfo

r pr

oces

sin

g w

ords

in

lan

guag

esle

arn

ed b

efor

e ag

e 9

rig

ht-h

emis

pher

ead

van

tage

s w

ere

foun

d fo

r la

ngu

ages

lear

ned

aft

er p

uber

ty p

rofi

cien

cyde

clin

ed w

ith

age

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

bilin

gual

bef

ore

age

6 (e

arly

bili

ngu

als)

ot

her

bili

ngu

alad

ults

(la

tebi

lingu

als)

Adu

lts

wit

h fi

rst

expo

sure

to

L2

inin

fan

cy a

dult

s w

ith

firs

t ex

posu

re i

nad

ulth

ood

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

expo

sed

toL

2 at

age

1ndash3

4ndash6

7ndash

10 1

1ndash13

or

gt 16

18ndash3

6

Furt

ado

ampW

ebst

er (

1991

)

Kim

et

al (

1997

)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

2)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

6)

Wui

llem

in amp

Ric

har

dson

(199

4)

16 TESOL QUARTERLY











18 TESOL QUARTERLY




MISEMPHASIS





Problems in Testing


20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY




14 TESOL QUARTERLY



MISATTRIBUTION




TA

BL

E 2

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isat

trib

utio

nrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Eff

ects

of

lan

guag

e w

ere

mor

eim

port

ant

than

th

ose

of a

ge

Ear

ly l

earn

ers

wer

e to

o yo

ung

this

im

plie

d th

at y

oun

ger

lear

ner

sh

ave

bett

er L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

due

to b

rain

dif

fere

nce

s

Bra

in p

roce

ssin

g w

as a

ssum

ed t

obe

res

pon

sibl

e fo

r di

ffer

ent

lan

guag

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Con

nec

tion

bet

wee

n d

iffe

ren

tbr

ain

res

pon

ses

and

L2

lear

nin

gou

tcom

e is

un

clea

r

Stud

y di

d n

ot r

evea

l re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n L

2 pr

ofici

ency

an

d br

ain

late

raliz

atio

n

No

Yes

(un

clea

r)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ear

ly a

nd

late

bili

ngu

als

show

ed s

imila

rla

tera

lized

in

terf

eren

ce p

atte

rns

that

wer

e la

ngu

age

spec

ific

reg

ardl

ess

of L

2

Tw

o se

para

te a

reas

wer

e fo

und

in b

rain

for

prod

ucti

on o

f L

1 an

d L

2

Nat

ive

spea

kers

an

d ea

rly

L2

lear

ner

ssh

owed

dif

fere

nt

brai

n p

atte

rns

for

proc

essi

ng

fun

ctio

n a

nd

con

ten

t w

ords

w

hic

h w

ere

abse

nt

in o

lder

lea

rner

s

Wh

en s

ubje

cts

dete

cted

sem

anti

can

omal

ies

in L

2 b

rain

res

pon

ses

alte

red

only

for

sub

ject

s w

ho

wer

e fi

rst

expo

sed

to L

2 af

ter

age

11

Lef

t-hem

isph

ere

adva

nta

ge w

as f

oun

dfo

r pr

oces

sin

g w

ords

in

lan

guag

esle

arn

ed b

efor

e ag

e 9

rig

ht-h

emis

pher

ead

van

tage

s w

ere

foun

d fo

r la

ngu

ages

lear

ned

aft

er p

uber

ty p

rofi

cien

cyde

clin

ed w

ith

age

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

bilin

gual

bef

ore

age

6 (e

arly

bili

ngu

als)

ot

her

bili

ngu

alad

ults

(la

tebi

lingu

als)

Adu

lts

wit

h fi

rst

expo

sure

to

L2

inin

fan

cy a

dult

s w

ith

firs

t ex

posu

re i

nad

ulth

ood

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

expo

sed

toL

2 at

age

1ndash3

4ndash6

7ndash

10 1

1ndash13

or

gt 16

18ndash3

6

Furt

ado

ampW

ebst

er (

1991

)

Kim

et

al (

1997

)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

2)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

6)

Wui

llem

in amp

Ric

har

dson

(199

4)

16 TESOL QUARTERLY











18 TESOL QUARTERLY




MISEMPHASIS





Problems in Testing


20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY





TA

BL

E 2

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isat

trib

utio

nrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Eff

ects

of

lan

guag

e w

ere

mor

eim

port

ant

than

th

ose

of a

ge

Ear

ly l

earn

ers

wer

e to

o yo

ung

this

im

plie

d th

at y

oun

ger

lear

ner

sh

ave

bett

er L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

due

to b

rain

dif

fere

nce

s

Bra

in p

roce

ssin

g w

as a

ssum

ed t

obe

res

pon

sibl

e fo

r di

ffer

ent

lan

guag

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Con

nec

tion

bet

wee

n d

iffe

ren

tbr

ain

res

pon

ses

and

L2

lear

nin

gou

tcom

e is

un

clea

r

Stud

y di

d n

ot r

evea

l re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n L

2 pr

ofici

ency

an

d br

ain

late

raliz

atio

n

No

Yes

(un

clea

r)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ear

ly a

nd

late

bili

ngu

als

show

ed s

imila

rla

tera

lized

in

terf

eren

ce p

atte

rns

that

wer

e la

ngu

age

spec

ific

reg

ardl

ess

of L

2

Tw

o se

para

te a

reas

wer

e fo

und

in b

rain

for

prod

ucti

on o

f L

1 an

d L

2

Nat

ive

spea

kers

an

d ea

rly

L2

lear

ner

ssh

owed

dif

fere

nt

brai

n p

atte

rns

for

proc

essi

ng

fun

ctio

n a

nd

con

ten

t w

ords

w

hic

h w

ere

abse

nt

in o

lder

lea

rner

s

Wh

en s

ubje

cts

dete

cted

sem

anti

can

omal

ies

in L

2 b

rain

res

pon

ses

alte

red

only

for

sub

ject

s w

ho

wer

e fi

rst

expo

sed

to L

2 af

ter

age

11

Lef

t-hem

isph

ere

adva

nta

ge w

as f

oun

dfo

r pr

oces

sin

g w

ords

in

lan

guag

esle

arn

ed b

efor

e ag

e 9

rig

ht-h

emis

pher

ead

van

tage

s w

ere

foun

d fo

r la

ngu

ages

lear

ned

aft

er p

uber

ty p

rofi

cien

cyde

clin

ed w

ith

age

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

bilin

gual

bef

ore

age

6 (e

arly

bili

ngu

als)

ot

her

bili

ngu

alad

ults

(la

tebi

lingu

als)

Adu

lts

wit

h fi

rst

expo

sure

to

L2

inin

fan

cy a

dult

s w

ith

firs

t ex

posu

re i

nad

ulth

ood

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

expo

sed

toL

2 at

age

1ndash3

4ndash6

7ndash

10 1

1ndash13

or

gt 16

18ndash3

6

Furt

ado

ampW

ebst

er (

1991

)

Kim

et

al (

1997

)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

2)

Web

er-F

ox amp

Nev

ille

(199

6)

Wui

llem

in amp

Ric

har

dson

(199

4)

16 TESOL QUARTERLY











18 TESOL QUARTERLY




MISEMPHASIS





Problems in Testing


20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY




16 TESOL QUARTERLY











18 TESOL QUARTERLY




MISEMPHASIS





Problems in Testing


20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY








18 TESOL QUARTERLY




MISEMPHASIS





Problems in Testing


20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY







Problems in Testing


20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY




20 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Ash

er amp

Gar

cia

(196

9)

Bia

lyst

ok amp

Mill

er (

in p

ress

)

Bir

dson

g (1

992)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Bon

gaer

ts e

t al

(1

997)

Ch

ampa

gne-

Muz

ar e

t al

(1

993)

7ndash19

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

eith

er e

arly

(lt1

5 on

arri

val)

or

late

(gt1

5on

arr

ival

) L

2le

arn

ers

35ndash4

0 (a

vera

ge)

Adu

lts

19ndash5

2

Adu

lts

Youn

g su

bjec

ts a

nd

thos

e w

ho

resi

ded

lon

ger

in L

2 co

untr

y h

ad t

he

best

pron

unci

atio

n

No

diff

eren

ce w

as f

oun

d be

twee

n e

arly

and

late

L2

lear

ner

s (C

hin

ese)

you

nge

rle

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed b

ette

r th

an o

lder

(Spa

nis

h)

Som

e L

2 le

arn

ers

perf

orm

ed a

s w

ell

asn

ativ

es a

ge o

n a

rriv

al i

n L

2 co

untr

yaf

fect

ed s

ome

gram

mar

tas

ks

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

bett

er t

han

nat

ives

nee

d to

est

ablis

h ldquo

stan

dard

acce

ntrdquo

Som

e le

arn

ers

pron

oun

ced

as w

ell

asn

ativ

es

Spec

ial

phon

etic

tra

inin

g im

prov

edpr

onun

ciat

ion

Stud

y in

volv

ed s

mal

l am

oun

t of

oral

dat

a n

o sp

onta

neo

ussp

eech

Age

in

flue

nce

d pr

ofici

ency

lev

elac

hie

ved

thro

ugh

all

ages

rat

her

than

defi

nin

g a

crit

ical

per

iod

Stud

y te

sted

few

tas

ks b

uth

igh

ligh

ted

poss

ible

adu

lt L

2pr

ofici

ency

Aut

hor

s sp

ecifi

cally

stu

died

goo

dL

2 le

arn

ers

Few

det

ails

on

goo

d L

2 le

arn

ers

are

give

n p

erh

aps

mot

ivat

ion

or

type

of

L2

expo

sure

pla

yed

aro

le

Firs

t 6

hou

rs o

f tr

ain

ing

invo

lved

only

lis

ten

ing


No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY





No

No

No

Som

e

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cop

piet

ers

(198

7)

Eh

rman

ampO

xfor

d (1

995)

Fleg

e et

al

(199

7)

Fleg

e et

al

(in

pres

s)

Gar

dner

T

rem

blay

ampM

asgo

ret

(199

7)

Ioup

et

al

(199

4)

Jia

amp A

aron

son

(199

8)

Joh

nso

n (

1992

)

Joh

nso

n e

t al

(1

996)

Adu

lts

39 (

aver

age)

26ndash

96

on a

rriv

al

Adu

lts

1ndash23

on

arri

val

Un

iver

sity

age

21ndash2

3

1ndash38

on

arr

ival

le

ngt

h o

f re

side

nce

at l

east

5 y

ears

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Nat

ives

an

d n

ear-

nat

ives

sh

owed

diff

eren

ces

in g

ram

mar

per

form

ance

Man

y fa

ctor

s w

ere

show

n t

o in

flue

nce

L2

profi

cien

cy m

ore

than

age

did

All

bilin

gual

s h

ad a

t le

ast

slig

ht

acce

nt

in L

2 ju

dges

of

L2

acce

nt

did

not

alw

ays

agre

e

Wit

h i

ncr

ease

d ag

e on

arr

ival

for

eign

acce

nts

gre

w s

tron

ger

and

gram

mat

ical

ity

judg

men

t de

crea

sed

L2

ach

ieve

men

t co

rrel

ated

mos

t st

ron

gly

wit

h f

acto

rs s

uch

as

anxi

ety

abou

tla

ngu

age

lear

nin

g an

d se

lf-c

onfi

den

ce

Adu

lts

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e pr

ofici

ency

in

gram

mar

an

d pr

onun

ciat

ion

Youn

ger

arri

vals

sw

itch

ed t

o L

2 l

ate

arri

vals

mai

nta

ined

L1

Wri

tten

ver

sion

of

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(198

9) f

oun

d w

eake

r co

rrel

atio

n f

oun

dbe

twee

n a

ge a

nd

profi

cien

cy

Old

er l

earn

ers

impr

oved

on

ret

est

con

firm

ing

Joh

nso

n amp

New

port

(19

89)

Perf

orm

ance

of

nea

r-n

ativ

esva

ried

gre

atly

Impo

rtan

t va

riab

les

wer

eco

gnit

ive

apti

tude

bel

iefs

abo

utse

lf r

eadi

ng

skill

s a

nd

educ

atio

n

Stud

y im

plie

s ef

fect

of

L1

use

onL

2 bu

t di

d n

ot s

tudy

L1

use

orpr

ofici

ency

Eff

ect

of a

ge o

n a

rriv

aldi

sapp

eare

d w

hen

var

iabl

esco

nfo

undi

ng

wit

h a

ge w

ere

con

trol

led

for

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Stud

y w

as s

mal

l (n

= 2

)

L1

profi

cien

cy p

lays

a r

ole

in L

2le

arn

ing

Stud

y di

d n

ot f

ocus

on

adu

ltsrsquo

grea

ter

impr

ovem

ent

betw

een

test

s

L2

oral

pro

fici

ency

was

wor

seth

an n

ativ

e bu

t im

prov

edbe

twee

n t

ests

sam

ple

was

sm

all

(n =

10)

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY




22 TESOL QUARTERLY

TA

BL

E 3

C

onti

nued

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dies

Dis

cuss

ed U

nder

ldquoM

isem

phas

isrdquo

Aut

hor

srsquo i

nte

rpre

tati

on o

fre

sult

s as

sup

port

for

Stud

yA

ge o

f su

bjec

tsM

ajor

fin

din

gscr

itic

al p

erio

d h

ypot

hes

isC

omm

ents

Mac

Inty

re amp

Ch

aros

(19

96)

Neu

feld

(19

79)

Oya

ma

(197

6)

Oya

ma

(197

8)

Rin

ey amp

Fle

ge(1

998)

Selig

er e

t al

(1

982)

Shim

(19

93)

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

Adu

lts

14ndash3

7

Adu

lts

lt9 t

o gt1

6

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

earl

y (3

ndash8)

adol

esce

nt

(9ndash1

7)

or l

ate

(20ndash

30)

L2

lear

ner

s

Fact

ors

such

as

will

ingn

ess

toco

mm

unic

ate

and

atti

tude

s to

war

dta

rget

cul

ture

for

L2

ach

ieve

men

t ar

eim

port

ant

Nat

ive

L2

pron

unci

atio

n w

as a

chie

ved

afte

r sp

ecia

l tr

ain

ing

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

rpr

onun

ciat

ion

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

h o

fex

posu

re

Youn

ger

lear

ner

s h

ad b

ette

r L

2co

mpr

ehen

sion

L2

expo

sure

aff

ects

L2

pron

unci

atio

n

som

e ad

ults

do

as w

ell

as n

ativ

es

Old

er s

ubje

cts

belie

ve t

hey

hav

est

ron

ger

L2

acce

nts

reg

ardl

ess

of l

engt

hof

exp

osur

e

Prop

osed

a c

riti

cal

peri

od b

efor

e ag

e 3

lan

guag

e-pr

oces

sin

g sp

eed

and

erro

rra

te d

ecre

ased

wit

h i

ncr

ease

of

age

ofon

set

of L

2

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Aut

hor

s di

d n

ot s

tudy

age

Tra

inin

g in

volv

ed 1

2-h

our

sile

nt

peri

od (

liste

nin

g n

o sp

eaki

ng)

Aut

hor

s st

udie

d on

ly p

hon

olog

y

No

rese

arch

was

don

e in

toen

viro

nm

ent

of y

oun

g le

arn

ers

Stud

y h

igh

ligh

ts l

earn

ing

envi

ron

men

t

In s

elf-r

epor

ted

stud

y t

hos

e w

ith

stro

ng

L2

acce

nts

wer

e sa

id t

oh

ave

mor

e L

1-sp

eaki

ng

frie

nds

Stud

y re

port

ed o

nly

mea

n s

core

sfo

r di

ffer

ent

ages

an

d di

d n

otem

phas

ize

obse

rved

in

divi

dual

diff

eren

ces


Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY





Sin

glet

on (

1995

)

Wh

ite

ampG

enes

ee (

1996

)

Yen

i-Kom

shia

net

al

(199

9)

Adu

lts

16ndash6

6 a

vera

ge 2

9

Adu

lts

wh

o w

ere

1ndash23

on

arr

ival

Perf

orm

ance

on

voc

abul

ary

acqu

isit

ion

task

s sh

owed

no

maj

or d

iffe

ren

cere

lati

ng

to a

ge

Acc

ess

to u

niv

ersa

l gr

amm

ar d

id n

otde

clin

e w

ith

age

Mos

t su

bjec

ts w

ere

mor

e pr

ofici

ent

inei

ther

th

eir

L1

or t

hei

r L

2 y

oun

gle

arn

ers

(1ndash5

) ac

hie

ved

nea

r-n

ativ

e L

2pr

onun

ciat

ion

old

er l

earn

ers

(12ndash

23)

ach

ieve

d n

ativ

e L

2 pr

onun

ciat

ion

No

No

Som

e

Old

er l

earn

ers

show

ed g

reat

erva

riat

ion

in

pro

fici

ency

Mos

t yo

ung

lear

ner

s be

com

epr

ofici

ent

in L

2 a

s do

alm

ost

one

thir

d of

old

er l

earn

ers

aut

hor

sdi

d n

ot s

tudy

eff

ect

of L

1

Lan

guag

e us

e af

fect

s bo

th L

1 an

dL

2 d

evia

tion

fro

m n

ativ

epr

onun

ciat

ion

res

ulte

d fr

omin

tera

ctio

ns

betw

een

L1

and

L2

24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY




24 TESOL QUARTERLY










26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY








26 TESOL QUARTERLY








CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY







CONCLUSION



28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY




28 TESOL QUARTERLY


IMPLICATIONS







Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY






Bilingual Education


30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY




30 TESOL QUARTERLY

L2 Teaching


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


THE AUTHORS




REFERENCES




























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY


























32 TESOL QUARTERLY











































34 TESOL QUARTERLY























34 TESOL QUARTERLY




three misconceptions about age and l2 learning · l2s to a very high level and that introducing...

Documents