Applied Linguistics Advance Access published July 1, 2014 Applied Linguistics 2014: 1 6 ß Oxford University Press 2014 doi:10.1093/applin/amu033 Complexities and Interactions of Age Effects in L2 Learning: Broadening the Research Agenda CARMEN MUÑOZ Department of English and German Philology, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain E-mail: Munoz@ub.edu This special issue gathers together a collection of studies that broadens the research agenda and debates in the area of age studies in second language (L2) learning (see Muñoz and Singleton 2011). The contributions point to the current breadth and wealth of approaches to age effects, from those that predominantly rely on a maturational constraint explanation to those that propose a multi-factor explanation focusing their attention on the interaction of age with a multiplicity of factors. In different ways, the contributions challenge Lenneberg s (1967) traditional view of a critical period ending around puberty. Some move the cut-off points of the proposal, while others investigate whether predetermined limits can be removed; some underline the moderating role of the learning context and the learner s orientation and engagement with the language. The seven articles in this issue delve into a variety of age dimensions age of acquisition (AoA) as the start of significant exposure to an L2, or as the start of instruction of a foreign language (FL), chronological age and aging effects. They discuss a wide range of data behavioural and brain-based data collected from immersion and instructed contexts. The issue includes two types of contributions. The first three articles give the reader reviews of studies in specific areas: age and dominance (by Birdsong), age and proficiency in event-related potential (ERP) research (by Steinhauer), and exceptional attainment in L2 phonology (by Moyer). The remaining four articles provide new empirical data: on late learners in a naturalistic context (by Kinsella and Singleton), on age and input in the long-term attainment of instructed FL learners (by Muñoz), on age and aptitude in child learners (by Granena), and on non-nativeness in child learners (by Nishikawa). The target languages in these studies are also diverse including French, English, Spanish, and Japanese. The following paragraphs provide an overview of the issue that has been thematically organized with the aim of highlighting questions raised by the authors in their contributions and concerns relevant to our current understanding of age effects.
2 C. MUÑOZ AGE AND L1 L2 DOMINANCE The complexity of the relation between age and dominance is observed in Birdsong s contribution, in which dominance is treated as a continuous construct. Birdsong considers how AoA is associated with, yet dissociable from, dominance, as in cases in which the earlier-learned language is not necessarily the dominant language. A concern of theoretical significance is the relationship between AoA, dominance shifts and first language (L1) attrition, which remains an unresolved issue. A fundamental question concerning aging and language dominance is which language, the dominant or the non-dominant, is more susceptible to age effects. A second question is whether performance among balanced bilinguals and language-dominant bilinguals changes over age, or is similar in younger and older bilingual populations. These questions Birdsong explores through research findings in relation to naming speed and accuracy. Dominance shifts are also addressed by studies of exceptional learners reviewed by Moyer and in the study of successful late learners by Kinsella and Singleton. Shifts in dominance from the L1 to the L2 are observed by Moyer to carry emotional and social significance. A common characteristic in these studies is that the L2 becomes the language of the home and of affect. Kinsella and Singleton see in their participants long-term investment in the L2 and the espousal of their L2 identity the key to their success. AGE AND L2 PROFICIENCY AoA and L2 proficiency have sometimes been confounded in research. This has been the case of brain-based research, where group differences that were attributed by early ERP studies to AoA differences (i.e. late learners) may be instead attributable to proficiency (i.e. lower proficiency of late learners). Steinhauer reports on a series of ERP studies that have tried to avoid this confound (and other methodological shortcomings of previous research) and whose findings seem to support the convergence hypothesis. The convergence hypothesis proposes an alternative scenario to the critical period hypothesis (CPH) for the relationship between L1 and L2 processing, according to which L2 learners converge toward native-like processing as a function of L2 proficiency. Steinhauer also reports on a number of studies that have been concerned with L1 effects and typological similarity between L1 and L2. These studies suggest that L1 background plays a strong role during the first stages of L2 acquisition but that it does not strongly interfere with the appropriate processing of L2 at advanced stages of proficiency. AGE AND (NON-)NATIVENESS The relation between AoA and native-like attainment is at the core of the debate in the maturational constraints tradition. Nashakawi s contribution
COMPLEXITIES AND INTERACTIONS OF AGE EFFECTS IN L2 LEARNING 3 delves into the claim that when L2 proficiency is scrutinized with linguistically challenging tasks native-like proficiency is not guaranteed for child L2 starters, even in input-rich environments (see e.g. Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam 2009). In her study, non-nativeness (i.e. scores outside the native speaker range) was revealed in a controlled production task designed to test morphosyntax, specifically the relative clause structure. Nashakawi argues that research needs to look into language phenomena that are acquired implicitly by child L2 starters in order to attribute non-native-like attainment to maturational factors. Granena also reports that her child starters score significantly lower than the control group in structures involving grammatical agreement. Granena suggests that the acquisition of morphosyntax for certain L1 L2 pairings (Chinese L1 Spanish L2 in her study) may be affected even when the L2 is acquired as early as age 3 years (see Meisel 2008). AGE AND APTITUDE The relation between AoA and aptitude is an issue in need of investigation since the very few existing research findings are mixed. Two studies by DeKeyser (2000) and DeKeyser et al. (2010) indicate an interaction between age and language aptitude such that aptitude may be related to variation in late learners morphosyntactic attainment but not in early learners attainment. These findings would support the hypothesis of a qualitative difference between the learning mechanisms of child and adult L2 learners. However, in the study by Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam (2008), aptitude is observed to have a certain role in child starters morphosyntactic attainment. In Granena s present contribution the findings demonstrate that aptitude is significantly correlated with L2 attainment in child L2 learners, suggesting that the role of aptitude in child learners may be more important than previously assumed, and hence that the L2 learning processes of child and adult L2 learners may not be fundamentally different. Aptitude or talent is also addressed by Moyer s contribution. However, Moyer notes that much more research has been conducted in the area of morphosyntactic learning, as in the studies above, than in the area of L2 phonological learning. Furthermore, the studies that do exist, concerning, for example, working memory, have produced mixed results. More evidence is clearly needed in this area. AGE AND LANGUAGE EXPOSURE The effects of AoA and exposure to the target language have mostly been investigated in naturalistic learning contexts. When effects of age and input, in the form of length of residence (LoR), have been contrasted, results have typically shown that AoA has a stronger association with ultimate attainment than LoR, thus supporting the CPH. Muñoz s present contribution brings this
4 C. MUÑOZ contrast to the area of instructed learners on the assumption that learning context moderates age effects (Muñoz 2008). It is argued in the paper that input limitations preclude native-likeness in instructed FL learning and that input quantity and quality may have a stronger influence than AoA on longterm attainment in such learning contexts. Results from her study indicate that AoA is not significantly associated to learners oral performance, suggesting that an early start did not result in long-term benefits associated to higher implicit learning. In contrast, a number of input measures are significantly associated with different performance dimensions. Kinsella and Singleton observe that the most successful late learners in their study had been in the country for longer than average. However, Moyer notes that in the studies of exceptional learners LoR is an inconsistent factor, and that such measures provide too little detail on how the learner uses L2. Besides, a longer LoR is usually associated to a dominance shift. Crucially, Moyer highlights learners orientation and engagement with the language, because this is what determines what they do with the input. Steinhauer underscores the importance of intensive exposure to the target language in his discussion. He raises the issue of whether native-like ERP profiles can be found only after extended periods of immersion-like exposure to the L2 or also after long years of classroom instruction. This is an empirical question that may be answered in further research. AGE AND LEARNER ENGAGEMENT WITH THE LANGUAGE Among all the factors that are explored in the studies in this volume, learner engagement with the language stands out. As seen above, this is the case of Kinsella and Singleton s study that is based on the assumption that a multifactor explanation for L2 proficiency is more satisfactory than an explanation solely based on a CPH account. Kinsella and Singleton examine biological/ experiential, social/psychological, instructional/cognitive, and experiential/ interactive factors. Starting age, identified as the beginning of significant exposure to the target language, is not significantly associated with age in their study. The profiles of the three participants who score within the nativespeaker range reveal some common experiential and affective features; among them that French is the language spoken at home and the majority of their social interactions are carried out through French. In her article, Moyer argues that AoA by itself is not a sufficient explanation for attainment and that exceptional attainment in L2 phonology is a function of multiple factors. The studies reviewed by Moyer reveal the importance of cognitive, psychological, social, and experiential factors; very especially learners orientation and engagement with the language. As seen above, for Moyer, exceptional learners are not those that have more input but those who make the most of the available input. Also in Muñoz s contribution it is seen that amount of time spent in immersion contexts (i.e. stays abroad) and frequency of informal interaction in the
COMPLEXITIES AND INTERACTIONS OF AGE EFFECTS IN L2 LEARNING 5 target language have an observable influence on oral performance. This is interpreted as evidence that the factor of learner engagement with the language is central in these learners. THE RESEARCH CONTINUES The studies collected in this special issue provide an updated overview of some of the topics that are attracting the interest of researchers in the area of age effects. Though the overview cannot be exhaustive, it touches on important theoretical and methodological issues. It also points out areas where more research is necessary, principally of a longitudinal nature, and where research instruments and tasks need to be refined. Hopefully, the work presented here will motivate research that brings new light to the complexities and subtleties of age effects in L2 learning. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is immensely grateful to the authors and to the many reviewers who have been so helpful in the process of compiling this special issue. Thanks are also due to the Editor, the Assistant Editor and the Production Team and the Assistant Editor of Applied Linguistics. Funding from research grants FFI2010-21478, 2014SGR1089 and ICREA Academia is also gratefully acknowledged. Conflict of interest statement. None declared. REFERENCES Abrahamsson, N. and K. Hyltenstam. 2008. The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30: 481 509. Abrahamsson, N. and K. Hyltenstam. 2009. Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny, Language Learning 59: 249 306. DeKeyser, R. M. 2000. The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 499 533. DeKeyser, R. M., I. Alfi-Shabtay, and D. Ravid. 2010. Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of age effects in second language acquisition, Applied Psycholinguistics 31: 413 38. Lenneberg, E. H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. Wiley. Meisel, J. 2008. Child second language acquisition or successive first language acquisition? in B. Haznedar and E. Gavruseva (eds): Current Trends in Child Second Language Acquisition. A Generative Perspective. John Benjamins, pp. 55 80. Muñoz, C. 2008. Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning, Applied Linguistics 29: 578 96. Muñoz, C. and D. Singleton. 2011. A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment, Language Teaching 44: 1 35.
6 C. MUÑOZ NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR Carmen Muñoz is a full-time Professor of Applied English Linguistics at the University of Barcelona, Spain. Her research interests include the effects of age and context on second-language acquisition, young learners in instructed settings, individual differences, and bilingual/multilingual education. Recent publications include the volume Intensive Exposure Experiences in Second Language Learning (Multilingual Matters, 2012) and Age Effects in a Study Abroad Context: Children and Adults Studying Abroad and at Home (Language Learning, 2013; co-authored). Address for correspondence: Carmen Muñoz, Department of English and German Philology, Universitat de Barcelona, Gran Via deles Corts Catalanes, 585, 08007 Barcelona, Spain. <munoz@ub.edu>