Thesis statement
Learning various languages expands the boundaries for people and provides the different opportunities to cross-cultural dialogue, business development and employment. About 60% of the World population speak more than one language. Acquiring correct and intellible pronunciation, according to general observation, is one of the hardest tasks for all language learners.
Most of the additional language learners develop an accent, that allows other people to distinguish non-native speaker and to make suggestions about her origin and native language. Presence of an accent commonly does not change intelligibility of the speech (perceived phonological constancy, Mulak et al., 2013), that is proved by the studies of adult and minor listeners (Schmale et al, 2012.) At the same time, accent is a very impostant linguistic cue applied in attitude and social conections formation. As various researches show, most of people (both monolingual and multilingual) prefer communicating withing the group with native or native-like speakers of their dominant language (Souza, Byers-Heinlein and Poulin-Dubois, 2013.)
Some people in the process of additional language learning develop pronunciation patterns almost indistinguishable from native speakers. Most of the previous studies and theoretic concepts suggest a link between the age of exposure to a second language and development of native-like pronunciation. According to the dominant opinion, the early learners develop much better pronunciation than late learners and sound much more alike the native speakers.
Some researches argue that point of view, giving the examples of native-like pronunciation of second language learners exposed to their additional language (L2) in adulthood. These studies emphasize the role of other factors influencing assimilation in speech production, for example, duration of language learning, duration of exposure to the language environment, etc. These studies conclude that “acquiring a language from birth is not sufficient for ensuring nativelikeness” (Hopp & Shmid, 2011.)
But in general, most of researches show, that late exposure to a second language constrain the learners from developing nativelike pronunciation, comparing with the learners who have been exposed to a second language in their childhood.
Literature review
The psycholinguistic model introduced by Stackhouse and Wells breaks the language acquisition into three stages: perception or input, storage or processing and output or production (as cited in Hambly et al., 2013.) Every stage requires specific skills (for example, sound recognition, phonological and semantical processing of the words, motor planning and execution, etc.) necessary for developing of a speech sound system.
There are debates in the literature whether on not each language requires a specific phonological system. This separate system responsible for the language learner’s observable version of the additional language is referred as interlanguage (this term was introduced by Selinker, as cited in Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009.) Most of the studies gave evidence for separate phonological systems, and only a few (Vogel; Flege, Frieda, & Nowaza and Schnitzer & Krasinski) argued for a unitary system which develops, in the case of bilingual environment, into two separate systems around two years of age (as cited in Hambly et al., 2013.)
The main task for second language learners in order to elaborate nativelike pronunciation is to adapt or develop a new conceptual pattern appropriate for the language they learn. As commonly the pronunciation is undervalued and omitted in language classes, the learners simply try to transfer the sounds (and also speech patterns) from their native or first language to the new one inspite of cognitive interpretation and application of the proper sounds (Gilakjani, 2011.)
A large number of researches evidence that ability to develop nativelike pronunciation in L2 decreases with age of fisrt exposure to the target language, and probability of developing native-like accent is much higher in early learners. In 1960s, Lenneberg proposed the critical period hypothesis: after this period (ending about the age of 12) it’s difficult for a learner to attain the nativelike pronunciation and, in general, mastery in additional language (as cited in Gilakjani, 2011.)
Some studies claim limited share of late (adult) learners who can score nativelike in pronunciation, for example, Selinker – 5%, Birdsong – 10-15% (as cited in Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009.) The other researches are even more categorical in their statements saying that completely nativelike late additional language learners can not be found at all. For example, Bley-Vroman developed a point of view that an adult second language acquisition is elaborated through “general, cognitive learning strategies, as opposed to the linguistically domain-specific principles that govern children’s acquisition of a native language” (as cited in Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009.)
The negative correlation between age of acquisition and mastery in L2 pronunciation is described in various studies, but the specific “cut-off age” varies in different sources, starting from the first years after birth (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, Long) to puberty period (Lenneberg, DeKeyser, Scovel, as cited in Hopp & Schmid, 2013.)
The reasons of existing such “critical or “sensitive” period and resulting speech deviations (accent development) in late learners are explained by the studies in the connection with the constraints in fine motor and neurological abilities and skills, resulting from “maturational reductions in cerebral plasticity” (DeKeyser & Larson-Hall, as cited in Hopp & Schmid, 2013). This brain plasticity reduction, as described by researchers, sufficiently limits the abilities to reorganize speech production system from habitual native language patterns to those attributable to L2.
The other cholars (like Fledge in the speech learning model) explain age-related propensity to develop an accent by degree of first language entrenchment in the person’s phonetic categorization (Hopp & Schmid, 2013.)
Some researchers, like Andrews, Major, Mennen and others, explored the existing accent as a result of native language (L1) influence on L2. The interaction between spoken languages is bidirectional and is also known as “prosodic transfer.” The early hypothesis state that an early age of exposure to a second language can minimize or even eliminate the influence of the native language on L2 (Walley & Flege, as cited in Chakraborty, 2012.)
But the later studies, for example, by Chakraborty (2012) state that the age of exposure to a new language and the cross-linguistic transfer are not the only factors influencing accent development and linguistic behaviors in learners, specifically, in bilingual ones. Wide range of socio-psychological determinants (for example, socio-linguistic scenarios of the country or region) should be also taken into consideration.
The other researchers believe that these socio-psychological determinants (including duration of learning of L2, motivation, drilling and repetition during learning) can eliminate the constraining effect of exposure age, so, adult learners can demonstrate utstanding results in obtaining native-like pronunciation.
In a study, performed in 2010 by Holger Hopp and Monica Shmid (2013), most of the studied bilinguals, target (German) language learners scored within the native range in terms of pronunciation and perceived accent, including late learners. Correlation analysis resulted in very interesting outcomes: although, in general, late bilingualism results in stronger non-native accents in lately acquired language (L2), early acquiring a language is not enough to guarantee native-like pronunciation, and, on the other hand, late (post-puberty) L2 acquisition does not prevent it. These’s another trend, confirming bi-directinal language influence – in a case of lately-acquired bilingualism, long-term exposure to the foreign language environment can make some native speakers to lose their native accent in their first language.
Quite many adult language learners can score within a range of native-speakers in grammar (for example, in replication of Johnson and Newport study by Wuijtswinkel, Birdsong and Molis, DeKeyser), the typical outcomes of all existing researches are that none or only a few study participants (late L2 learners) are native-like in pronunciation, particlularly, when native listeners were involved in an experiments (as cited in Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam, 2009.)
Conclusion
As majority of the studies show, many post-puberty learners can attain the advanced language knowledge and also native-like linguistic behaviors in some areas, they’re anyway differ from native speakers in all respects of language acquired.
In this respect, existence of age-related constraints in development of native-like pronunciation can be taken as a basis for further studies.
According to some studies, early age exposure to L2 can build up a well-balanced bilingualism (Chakraborty, 2012, Grech and Dodd 2008), while other studies (for example, Holm and Dodd) state, that bilingual children, exposed to the second languages early in their lives, are less accurate in various linguistic aspects including pronunciation that their monolingual peers (as cited in Hambly et al, 2013.)
The studies of age impact on developing L2 pronunciation have very important practical implications, not only providing explanation for the key cognitive factors influencing language learning but also emphasizing various approaches and techniques in teaching languages in various populations.
References:
- Abrahamsson, N., Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of Onset and Nativelikeness in a Second Language: Listener Perception Versus Linguistic Scrutiny. Language Learning 59:2, June 2009, pp. 249–306
- Chakraborty, R. (2012). Influence of Early and Late Academic Exposure to L2 on Perception of L1 and L2 Accent. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing. Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 51–71.
- Gilakjani, A.P. (2011). Why is Pronunciation So Difficult to Learn? English Language Teaching, Vol. 4, No. 3; September 2011. DOI:10.5539/elt.v4n3p74
- Hambly, H., Wren, Y., McLeod, Sh. & Roulstone, S. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on speech production: A systematic review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, January-February 2013, vol. 48, No. 1, pp.1–24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00178.x
- Hopp, H., Shmid, M.S. (2013). Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition: The impact of age of acquisition and bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics 34 (2013), 361–394. DOI:10.1017/S0142716411000737
- Mulak, K.E., Best, C.T., Tyler, M.D., Kitamura, C. & Irwin J.R. (2013). Development of Phonological Constancy: 19-Month-Olds, but Not 15-Month-Olds, Identify Words in a Non-Native Regional Accent. Child Development, November/December 2013, Volume 84, Number 6, Pages 2064–2078. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12087
- Schmale, R., Cristia, A. & Seidl, A. (2012). Toddlers recognize words in an unfamiliar accent after brief exposure Developmental Science 15:6 (2012), pp 732–738. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01175.x
- Souza, A.L, Byers-Heinlein, K. & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2013). Bilingual and monolingual children prefer native-accented speakers. Frontiers in Psychology. 23 December 2013. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00953.
