SLA and Ultimate Attainment

1. SLA AND ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT
SLA RESEARCH FOR LANGUAGE TEACHING (ELT-816)
STEFAN RATHERT
Çukurova University Adana, ELT Department, 25 February,
2015

2. 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

3. 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?

4. 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

5. RATIONALE FOR RESEARCHING ULTIMATE
ATTAINMENT
Study of ultimate attainment affords perspectives
on SLA:
 In how far is L2 grammar different from the target
grammar?
 Is there an age effect in SLA?
 Do L2 learners have access to Universal Grammar?
 To what extent do L2 learners use procedural and
declarative memory for language representation and
processing?
 Are different brain areas involved in L1 and L2
processing?

6. NON-NATIVE-LIKE OUTCOMES IN SLA
In how far is L2 grammar different from L1 grammar?
Non-native-like grammatical representation
incompleteness
• learner’s L2
grammar lacks
some property of
target grammar
divergence
• property is
instantiated
inconsistantly
with the target
grammar
indeterminacy
(probabilistic
grammar)
• variability in
intuitions for
grammaticality
from Time 1 to
Time 2
• Time 1: John sought
Fred. Time 2: *John
seeked Fred.

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND THE CRITICAL
PERIOD HYPOTHESIS
predictors for level of ultimate attainment
age of arrival/onset
amount of L2 input
and interaction
age of initial
exposure

11. 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 “full
neurocognitive maturation is reached” (Birdsong, 2005: 112)
 after discontinuity sensitivity remains at low level

12. ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND THE CRITICAL
PERIOD HYPOTHESIS
Other 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 to
birth, language sensitivity decreases as age of onset increases;
general age effects on SLA, no critical period

13. TESTING CPH: THE INCIDENCE OF NATIVE-LIKE ATTAINMENT
 native-like attainment among late learners (i.e.
learners whose age of arrival is after
neurolinguistic 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 create
syntactic structure while reading or listening)
(van Patten & Benati, 2010: 16)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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).

17. INITIAL STATE, END STATE AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
Do L2 learners have access to Universal
Grammar?
What is the initial state (starting point) for L2
learners?
In the initial state, is there access to Universal
Grammar?
In the initial state, is there L1 transfer?
By answering these questions, the SLA end-state can be predicted.

18. 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

19. DISSOCIATIONS AND ASYMMETRIES
To what extent do L2 learners use procedural and declarative memory for language
representation and processing?
Dissociation between rule-based and lexical knowledge
forms subserved by different areas of the brain
different amounts of cortical activation
acquisition of regular
morphology (e.g. walk-walked; book-
books)
• rule-based, symbolic
processing of stem + ending
• stored in the procedural
memory
acquisition of irrregular
morphology (e.g. go-went; child-children)
• accessed as individual units
from associative memory
• sensitive to frequency in input
• stored in the declarative
memory

20. 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
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

21. 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

22. 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?

23. 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)

24. 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)

25. ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT AND CORTICAL FUNCTION
Some results(as cited in Birdsong, 2004):
 while recounting events silently, common neural
representation for L1 and L2 with early bilinguals,
but distinct representation with late bilinguals (Kim et
al., 1997)
“(…) highly proficient L2 learners with extensive
communicative exposure to the L2 demonstrate
increasing overlap of the areas of the brain that also
serve L1 processing. (…) age may play a factor in
terms of the extent to which both the L1 and L2 involve
the same parts of the brain” (van Patten & Benati, 2010: 118).

26. CONCLUSIONS
Study on ultimate attainment helped recognize
and 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)

27. REFERENCES
Abrahamsson, 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 applied
linguistics (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 Graduate
School 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. Unpublished
doctoral 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 linguistic
domains. 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). Convergent
cortical 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 the
acquisition 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. Nature
388: 171-174.
Klein, D., Zatorre, R.J., Milner, B., Moyer, E. & Evans, A.C. (1995). The neural substrates of bilinguıal language processing: evidence
from 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 bilingual
brain: 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. Unpublished
thesis, Katholieke Universiteit, Nijmegen.