SLA AND ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT

SLA RESEARCH FOR LANGUAGE TEACHING (ELT-816)

STEFAN RATHERT

Çukurova University Adana, ELT Department, 25 February,

2015

OVERVIEW

Introduction Definition and scope of ultimate attainment

Rationale for research on ultimate attainment

Aspects related to ultimate attainment Non-native-like outcomes in SLA

Fossilization

Researching ultimate attainment Ultimate attainment and the Critical Period Hypothesis

Testing CPH: the incidence of native-like attainment

Initial state, end state and Universal Grammar

Dissociations and asymmetries

Ultimate attainment and cortical function

DEFINITION AND SCOPE

Ultimate attainment = outcome or end point

of acquisition irrespective of degree of

approximation to the target grammar

linguistic system (grammar) of an individual

speaker has reached stasis

L1 speaker’s grammar => “a native system” (van

Patten & Benati, 2010: 162)

L2 speaker’s grammar=> native-like or different

from native speaker’s system?

DEFINITION AND SCOPE

Ultimate attainment also referred to as final

state, end state or asymptote

research on ultimate attainment informed by

insights from linguistic theory, cognitive

neuroscience and experimental theory

RATIONALE FOR RESEARCHING ULTIMATE

ATTAINMENT

Study of ultimate attainment affords perspectiveson SLA:

In how far is L2 grammar different from the targetgrammar?

Is there an age effect in SLA?

Do L2 learners have access to Universal Grammar?

To what extent do L2 learners use procedural anddeclarative memory for language representation andprocessing?

Are different brain areas involved in L1 and L2 processing?

NON-NATIVE-LIKE OUTCOMES IN SLAIn how far is L2 grammar different from L1 grammar?

Non-native-like grammatical representation

incompleteness

• learner’s L2 grammar lackssome property of target grammar

divergence

• property is instantiatedinconsistantlywith the targetgrammar

indeterminacy(probabilistic

grammar)

• variability in intuitions forgrammaticalityfrom Time 1 toTime 2

• Time 1: John soughtFred. Time 2: *John seeked Fred.

FOSSILIZATION

concept introduced by Selinker (1972); refers

to end state of SLA

umbrella term: understood as a process,

cognitive mechanism and result of learning

including backsliding, low proficiency, errors

impervious to negative evidence

FOSSILIZATION

problematic term:

does fossilization explain ultimate attainment or

does fossilization need to be explained?

what causes fossilization (learner traits [e.g.

aptitude, motivation], L1-L2 differences, age)?

after how many years does fossilization occur?

is there ever a complete cessation in

development?

stabilization: a plateau in learning, but not necessarily

a complete cessation in learning (cf. van Patten &

Benati, 2010)

ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND THE CRITICAL

PERIOD HYPOTHESIS

Is there an age effect in SLA?

claims of CPH:

native-like L2 attainment impossible when start

of SLA is delayed after certain critical age

general rule: the later the arrival in the target

country, the lower the level of ultimate attainment

will be

ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND THE CRITICAL

PERIOD HYPOTHESIS

predictors for level of ultimate attainment

age of arrival/onset

amount of L2 inputand interaction

age of initial

exposure

ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND THE CRITICAL

PERIOD HYPOTHESIS

Figure 1: The stretched Z (Granena & Long, 2013: 313)

peak: period of maximal sensitivity to linguistic input

offset of critical period beginning at 3/6 years of age and ending when “fullneurocognitive maturation is reached” (Birdsong, 2005: 112)

after discontinuity sensitivity remains at low level

ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND THE CRITICAL

PERIOD HYPOTHESISOther models to explain age effects on ultimate attainment (Birdsong, 2005: 113):

Figure 2: Age function with postmaturational Figure 3: Age function with prematurational Figure 4: Linear decline

offset offset

Figure 2: offset begins where neurocognitive maturation is reached, no end point for offset

Figure 3: offset begins before neurocognitive maturation is reached, no end point for offset

Figure 4: highest level of language learning sensitivity close tobirth, language sensitivity decreases as age of onset increases; general age effects on SLA, no critical period

TESTING CPH: THE INCIDENCE OF NATIVE-LIKE ATTAINMENT

native-like attainment among late learners (i.e. learners whose age of arrival is afterneurolinguistic maturation) => falsification of CPH

test of highly advanced L2 speakers’ grammatical development and phonology in comparison to native control group: grammaticality judgment tests (e.g. on tense, aspect,

syntactic structures)

L2 speakers’ speech recorded and jugded by panel of judges (all natives)

processing and parsing (how L2 speakers createsyntactic structure while reading or listening)

(van Patten & Benati, 2010: 16)

TESTING CPH: THE INCIDENCE OF NATIVE-LIKE ATTAINMENT

some studies on native-like attainment in late learners (as cited in Birdsong, 2004)

study participants test battery results

Coppieters (1987) 21 near-native

speakers of French;

varying L1

backgrounds; 20

natives as control group

grammaticality

judgment test

native-likeness not

observed

Johnson & Newport

(1991)

23 learners of English,

L1 Chinese; native

control group

grammaticality

judgment test (syntactic

properties)

native-likeness not

observed

Birdsong (1992) 20 speakers of French,

L1: English, AOA mean:

14.9; time of residence

mean: 14.9)

grammaticality

judgment test

more than half of the

participants in range of

performance of native

control group

Cranshaw (1997) 40 learners of English;

L1: Chinese (20),

French (20)

production and

grammaticality

judgment test

3 Francophones and 1

Sinophone native-like

van Wuijtswinkel (1994) 2 groups (26 and 8

participants) of English

speakers; L1: Dutch

grammaticality

judgment test

8 out of 26 and 7 out of

8 native-like

TESTING CPH: THE INCIDENCE OF NATIVE-LIKE ATTAINMENT

disparate results in studies on native-like

attainment in late learners possibly due to

subject sampling (participants in some studies pre-

screened for demonstrating high attainment)

variation resulting from different L1-L2 pairings

TESTING CPH: THE INCIDENCE OF NATIVE-LIKE ATTAINMENT

disparate results in studies on native-like

attainment in late learners possibly due to

variation in procedural controls/research methods

In fact, so far no study relying on a multivariate test design

(including challenging tests and tasks, not just tests of very

basic linguistic structures and trivial features) has been able to

describe an adult L2 learner who, in every relevant respect,

exhibits an L2 proficiency that is fully comparable to that of

native speakers (Abrahamsson, 2012: 192).

INITIAL STATE, END STATE AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR

Do L2 learners have access to UniversalGrammar?

What is the initial state (starting point) for L2 learners?

In the initial state, is there access to UniversalGrammar?

In the initial state, is there L1 transfer?

By answering these questions, the SLA end-state can be predicted.

INITIAL STATE, END STATE AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR

Do L2 learners have access to Universal

Grammar?

condition prediction

full UG access, no L1 transfer => native-like competence

no UG access, full L1 transfer => no native-like competence

full UG access, full L1 transfer => native-like competence not

excluded

DISSOCIATIONS AND ASYMMETRIES

To what extent do L2 learners use procedural and declarative memory for languagerepresentation and processing?

Dissociation between rule-based and lexical knowledge

forms subserved by different areas of the brain

different amounts of cortical activation

acquisition of regularmorphology (e.g. walk-walked; book-

books)

• rule-based, symbolicprocessing of stem + ending

• stored in the proceduralmemory

acquisition of irrregularmorphology (e.g. go-went; child-children)

• accessed as individual unitsfrom associative memory

• sensitive to frequency in input

• stored in the declarativememory

DISSOCIATIONS AND ASYMMETRIES

two studies with L2 learners reaching ultimate attainment (as cited in

Birdsong, 2004)

L2 learners initially store most target language forms as idiosyncratic information in

declarative memory

by L2 end state, learners store regular target language forms in procedural memory

L2 is processed more in L1-like manner at L2 end state

study participants test battery results

Birdsong &

Flege (2001)

30 Spanish

and 30

Korean

natives at L2

end state

judgment tests

(regularity vs.

irregularity)

•effect of item frequency significantly higher for

irregular items than for regular items

•Korean participants’ performance regarding

noun plurals depressed (no plural inflection in

Korean)

•accuracy decline and increased response time

with increasing age of arrival more pronounced

for irregular forms

Brovetto &

Ullman

(2001)

32 Spanish

and 32

Chinese

natives;

minimum of

three years’

US residence

oral production

of regular and

irregular

English pasts

•both irregulars and regulars sensitive to

frequency

DISSOCIATIONS AND ASYMMETRIES

the L2 learner’s dominant language (as cited in Birdsong, 2004)

asymmetry in language processing of L2 speakers at end state requires further

research

study participants language

domain

results

Cutler et al.

(1989)

early French-

English

bilinguals (with

French and

English as

dominant

language,

respectively)

segmentation

routines (syllable

based vs. non-

syllable based)

bilinguals with French as dominant language able to

switch between both segmentation strategies, bilinguals

with English as dominant language use indiscriminately

one strategy

Golato (1998) late French-

English

bilinguals (with

French and

English as

dominant

language,

respectively)

segmentation

routines (syllable

based vs. non-

syllable based)

bilinguals with English as dominant language able to

switch between both segmentation strategies, bilinguals

with French as dominant language use indiscriminately

one strategy

ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND CORTICAL FUNCTION

Are different brain areas involved in L1 and L2 processing?

To what degree do L1 processing and L2

processing involve similar neural substrates?

For cortical functioning, is age or proficiency

crucial?

ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND CORTICAL FUNCTION

Research tools (cf. van Patten & Benati, 2010: 117):

brain imaging (snapshots of brain activity) through:

Functional Resonance Imagıng (fMRI)

Positron Emission Tomography (PET)

Event Related Potentials (ERPs)

ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND CORTICAL FUNCTION

Some results (as cited in Birdsong, 2004):

involvement of neural subsystems differs as function

of age of arrival with learners having low L2

proficiency (Weber-Fox & Neville, 1999):

increasing proficiency and not age of acquisition

lead to common cortical representation of L1 and L2

in semantic processing (Illes et al., 1999, Klein et al., 1995)

and listening passively to a story (Perani et al., 1998)

ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND CORTICAL FUNCTION

Some results (as cited in Birdsong, 2004):

while recounting events silently, common neuralrepresentation for L1 and L2 with early bilinguals, but distinct representation with late bilinguals (Kim et al., 1997)

“(…) highly proficient L2 learners with extensivecommunicative exposure to the L2 demonstrateincreasing overlap of the areas of the brain that alsoserve L1 processing. (…) age may play a factor in terms of the extent to which both the L1 and L2 involvethe same parts of the brain” (van Patten & Benati, 2010: 118).

CONCLUSIONS

Study on ultimate attainment helped recognizeand understand range of variables:

age of arrival/onset

L1-L2 pairing

quantity and quality of input

Areas of further research:

asymmetries near the end state

affective profiles of L2 learners

effect of social-psychological variables (attitude, integrative orientation, etc.) (Granena & Long, 2012)

REFERENCESAbrahamsson, N. (2013). Age of onset and nativelike L2 ultimate attainment of morphosyntactic and phonetic intuition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34: 187-214.

Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language 68: 706-755.

Birdsong, D. (2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In: Davies, A. & C. Elders (Eds.) The handbook of appliedlinguistics (pp. 82-105). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Birdsong, D. (2005). Interpreting age effects in second language acquisition. In: Knoll, J.F. & de Groot, A.M.B. (Eds.) Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 109-127). New York, Oxford University Press.

Birdsong, D & Fledge, J.E. (2001). Regular-irregular dissociatations in the acquisition of English as a second language. In: BUCLD 25: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on language development (pp. 123-132). Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Brovetto, C. & Ullman, M.T. (2001). Firts vs. second language: a differential reliance on grammatical computations and lexical memory. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual CUNY Conference on human sentence processing (Vol. 14). Philadelphia, PA: CUNY GraduateSchool and University Center.

Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language 63: 544-573.

Cranshaw, A. (1997). A study of anglophone native and metalinguistic performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Montréal.

Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1989). Limits on bilingualism. Nature 340: 159-160.

Golato, P. (1998). Syllabification processes among French-English bilinguals: a further study of the li,mits of bilingualism. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Granena, G. & Long, M.H. (2012). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguisticdomains. Second Language Research 29(3): 311-343.

Illes, J., Francis, W.S., Desmond, J.E., Gabrieli, J.D.E., Glover, G.H., Poldrack, R., Lee, C.J., & Wagner, A.D. (1999). Convergentcortical prepresentations of semantic processing in bilinguals. Brain and Language 70: 347-363.

Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: the status of subjacency in theacquisition of a second language. Cognition 39: 215-258.

Kim, K.H.S., Relkin, NM.R., Lee, K.-M., & Hirsch, J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature388: 171-174.

Klein, D., Zatorre, R.J., Milner, B., Moyer, E. & Evans, A.C. (1995). The neural substrates of bilinguıal language processing: evidencefrom positron emission tomography. In: Paradis, M. (Ed.). Aspects of bilingual aphasia (pp. 23-36). Oxford: Pergamon.

Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Galles, N.S., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Bettinardi, V., Cappa, S.F., Fazio, F., & Mehler, J. (1998). The bilingualbrain: proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain 121: 1841-1852.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-231.

van Patten, B. & Benati, A. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. New York, London: continuum.

van Wuijtswinkel, K. (1994). Critical period effects on the acquisition of grammatical competence in a second language. Unpublishedthesis, Katholieke Universiteit, Nijmegen.