Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition

34 Pages·2013·0.41 MB·English

AppliedPsycholinguistics34(2013),361–394
doi:10.1017/S0142716411000737
Perceived foreign accent in first
language attrition and second
language acquisition: The impact of
age of acquisition and bilingualism
HOLGERHOPP
Universita¨tMannheim
MONIKAS.SCHMID
RijksuniversiteitGroningen
Received:May31,2010 Acceptedforpublication:April2,2011
ADDRESSFORCORRESPONDENCE
HolgerHopp,Universita¨tMannheim,AnglistischeLinguistik,SchlossEW266,Mannheim68131,
Germany.E-mail:[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Thisstudyinvestigatesconstraintsonultimateattainmentinsecondlanguage(L2)pronunciationin
a direct comparison of perceived foreign accent of 40 late L2 learners and 40 late first language
(L1)attritersofGerman.Bothgroupswerecomparedwith20predominantlymonolingualcontrols.
Contrastingparticipantswhoacquiredthetargetlanguagefrombirth(monolinguals,L1attriters)with
lateL2learners,ontheonehand,andbilinguals(L1attriters,L2ers)withmonolinguals,ontheother
hand,allowedustodisentangletheimpactsofageofonsetandbilingualisminspeechproduction.
Atthegrouplevel,theattritersperformedindistinguishablyfromcontrols,andbothdifferedfromthe
L2group.However,80%ofallL2ersscoredwithinthenative(attriter)range.Correlationalanalyses
withbackgroundfactorsfurtherfoundsomeeffectsofuseandlanguageaptitude.Theseresultsshow
thatacquiringalanguagefrombirthisnotsufficienttoguaranteenativelikepronunciation,andlate
acquisitiondoesnotnecessarilypreventit.Theresultsarediscussedinthelightofmodelsontherole
ofageandcross-linguisticinfluenceinL2acquisition.
Studiesonageeffectsinsecondlanguage(L2)acquisitionshowthatpronunciation
accuracyinthetargetlanguageisoneofthemostdifficultskillstoacquireforlate
learners. Such investigations consistently demonstrate that postpuberty learners
acrossdifferentacquisitioncontextsaredetectablydifferentinspeechproduction
frommonolingualnativespeakersandfromearlyL2learners(L2ers).Themost
robust finding is that foreign accent ratings show a negative correlation with
age of acquisition (AOA); that is, the later an L2er is exposed to the L2, the
stronger the foreign accent tends to be at the endstate of the acquisition process
©CambridgeUniversityPress20110142-7164/11$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AppliedPsycholinguistics34:2 362
Hopp&Schmid:PerceivedforeignaccentinL1attritionandL2acquisition
(e.g.,Abrahamsson &Hyltenstam, 2009; Flege etal.,2006). As aconsequence,
AOA has been taken to be the primary predictor for pronunciation accuracy at
L2 ultimate attainment. However, previous research also suggests that the link
maynotbeentirelystraightforward.Inparticular,researchersdifferinhowthey
conceptualize age effects in L2 speech production, the crucial question being
whether AOA is the cause of persisting transfer from the first language (L1) or
whetheritismerelyassociatedwithit(Bialystok,1997,2001).
Some researchers interpret age effects as a direct reflection of a “critical” or
“sensitive”periodintheL2acquisitionofarticulatoryphonologyandphonetics,
whichpreemptsnativelikepronunciationinlatelearners.Inthisview,behavioral
devianceinL2productioncomparedtonativespeechhasbeenlinkedtoconstraints
in neurological and fine motor skills (e.g., Moyer, 1999). These constraints are
arguedtofollowfrommaturationalreductionsincerebralplasticity,whichcate-
goricallypreventthereorganizationofthespeechproduction(andcomprehension)
systemfromtheL1totheL2afteracertainage(e.g.,DeKeyser&Larson-Hall,
2005; Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003). The location of this cutoff age for
attaining nativelikeness is controversial, ranging from shortly after birth (Abra-
hamsson&Hyltenstam,2009;Hyltenstam&Abrahamsson,2003)throughage6
(Long,1990)topuberty(DeKeyser,2000;Scovel,1988).
Othershaveinterpretedage-relatedincrementsinforeignaccenttobeaconse-
quence ofthedegree ofL1entrenchment inphonetic categorization, rather than
maturationalconstraintsonspeechproduction.Forinstance,thespeechlearning
model(Flege,2002)hypothesizesthatL2learnersareincreasinglylikelytopro-
cess L2 phonetic categories as instances of L1 categories the longer the L1 had
beenspokenbeforetheonsetofL2acquisition(Flege,1999).Onthisview,even
though differences between L1 and L2 vowel and consonant categories may be
detectableincomprehension,theclassificationofL2phonesasfunctionalequiv-
alents of L1 categories leads to the merging of L1 and L2 categories in speech
production.
TheentrenchmentmodelimpliesthatfactorsotherthanjustAOAmayimpacton
(non)nativeL2pronunciation.Previousresearchhasconsideredawidevarietyof
predictorssuchaslengthofresidenceinanL2environment(LOR),chronological
age at testing, typological distance of the languages, language use, language
aptitude, and sociopsychological factors (foran overview, see Jesney, 2004). As
has often been noted, however, many of these factors are confounded or covary
withAOA.LOR,forexample,isofnecessitylongerforearlierlearnersiftheyare
age-matched to late learners at time of testing (e.g., Flege, 2009; Moyer, 2007;
Piske, MacKay, & Flege, 2001). In a similar vein, language use is linked with
AOA because early L2ers who arrive in the target-language environment before
age10tendtoadopttheL2asthemainlanguageofcommunication,whereaslate
L2ers retain higher degrees of use of the L1 in the target-language environment
aswellasincontactstotheirhomecommunity(e.g.,Jia,Aaronson&Wu,2002;
Piskeetal.,2001).
Inaddition,suchinvestigationsfacethemethodologicalproblemthatuseofthe
L1/21canonlybemeasuredonthebasisofself-reports,whichmaynotalwaysbe
reliable.Theseproblemsmayaccounttosomeextentformultifactorialanalyses
ofL2speechproductionoftenyieldingmixedresults,withfactorsotherthanAOA
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AppliedPsycholinguistics34:2 363
Hopp&Schmid:PerceivedforeignaccentinL1attritionandL2acquisition
accountingonlyforasmallamountofvariance.Forinstance,inameta-analysis
of data from 240 L1 Korean and 240 L1 Italian L2ers of English across several
tasksandstudies,Flege(2009)reportsthatamountofL1/2useaccountsforless
than 10% of the variance in foreign accent rating data. It hence remains to be
investigatedhowfactorssuchasusecanbereliablyassessedandhowtheyaffect
L2pronunciationindependentlyofAOA.
The controversy on the role of the age effect in SLA is further complicated
by findings suggesting that even L2 speakers with AOAs well below the onset
of puberty do not invariably score within the native range (e.g.,MacKay, Flege,
& Imai, 2006; Piske et al., 2001). For instance, Korean children who arrived in
the United States between the ages of 8 and 9 and who were tested after 3 and
5 years of residence were reliably rated as having a foreign accent compared to
age-matchednativeEnglishchildren(Flegeetal.,2006;seealsoFlege,Munro,&
MacKay,1995;Flege,Yeni-Komshian,&Liu,1999).Similareffectsarereported
forItalianlearnersofEnglishbyMacKayetal.(2006).Incontrast,Pallieretal.
(2003), Ventureyra (2005), and Ventureyra, Pallier, and Yoo (2004) suggest that
speakers who experience sequential monolingualism, that is, a complete break
inL1inputfollowedbyarapidbreakdownofthissystemandfullimmersionin
anotherlanguageinallcontextsoflife(asexperiencedbyinternationaladoptees)
maybecomefullynativelikeinL2speechperceptionevenifthislanguagereversal
tookplaceaslateasage10(butseeHyltenstam,Bylund,Abrahamsson,&Park,
2009).
Giventheapparentlyrelativelyminorcontributionofpredictorsotherthanage
(such as L1/2 use) as well as the fact that even early learners may be percepti-
bly different from monolingual natives unless a complete language reversal has
taken place, one may hypothesize that being a bilingual speaker in and of itself
contributes to perceived nonnativeness. It has long been acknowledged that the
endstateinbilingualdevelopmentcannotbeequatedwithdualmonolingualism
(Grosjean, 1998). Rather, it has been argued that multicompetence in more than
one language should be taken to be the ultimate goal of L2 acquisition (Cook,
2003).Inotherwords,aproficientbilingualinherentlydiffersfromamonolingual
by virtue of accessing an integrated language processing system that is partly
shared across languages. This in turn implies interactions and cross-linguistic
influenceacrossboth(orall)languagesatmultiplecognitiveandlinguisticlevels
thatmonolingualsdonotexperience.
Cross-linguisticinteractiveeffectsinbilingualshavebeenwelldocumentedin
cognitiveprocessing(e.g.,Bialystok,2009)andlinguisticprocessingatdifferent
levels(e.g.,vanHell&Dijkstra,2002,forthebilingualmentallexicon;Hernandez,
Bates, & Avila, 1994, for sentence processing; Cutler, Mehler, Norris, & Segui,
1989, for the structuring of phonetic space). Bilingualism affects strategies and
mechanismsofL1andL2processing(e.g.,Dussias,2004),aswellasthespeedof
processing in either language (e.g., Hopp, 2010; McDonald, 2000), even if both
languages are acquired from early childhood (Foursha, Austin, & van de Walle,
2005;Proverbio,Cok,&Zani,2002;Werker&Byers-Heinlein,2008).
Forpronunciation,severalstudiesreportbidirectionalcross-linguisticinfluence
inthespeechproductionofbilinguals.Flege(1987;seealsoFlege&Hillenbrand,
1984) studied late English–French and French–English bilinguals of different
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AppliedPsycholinguistics34:2 364
Hopp&Schmid:PerceivedforeignaccentinL1attritionandL2acquisition
proficiency levels after some period of residence in an L2 environment. A com-
parison with monolingual controls of either language revealed that voice onset
time(VOT)producedbythebilingualsinboththeirlanguagesdivergedfromthe
monolingual norm (i.e., all bilingual speakers had shorter VOTs in English and
longer VOTs in French than the controls). The degree of bidirectional influence
wasmodulatedbyproficiencylevelsandlengthofresidenceintheL2environment.
In a similar vein, Fowler, Sramko, Ostry, Rowland, and Halle´ (2008) report that
simultaneous (2L1) French–English speakers produce VOTs in either language
that are different from those produced by monolingual native speakers (Fowler
etal.,2008).2 Althoughthebilinguals’VOTsclearlydifferbetweenEnglishand
French,indicatingthatphonesdonotmergeacrosslanguages,therealizationof
thosephonesinonelanguageaffectstheirrealizationintheother.
These effects point to assimilatory processes in speech production (see also
Sancier & Fowler, 1997) and perception (e.g., Sundaraa, Polkaa, & Genesee,
2006). Such cross-linguistic interaction seems to result from the active use of
twolanguages, sincethemonolingual controlsintheFowler etal.studydidnot
differ in their VOTs depending on whether they were occasionally exposed to
the other language or not (but see Au, Knightly, Jun, & Oh, 2002; Caramazza,
Yeni-Komshian,Zurif,&Carbone,1973).
Despitethesewidelyrecognizedcross-linguisticinteractionsthataffectspeech
productionandcomprehensioninbilingualsacrossAOAs,thereferencegroupsin
speechproductionstudiestypicallyconsistofmonolingualnativespeakersofthe
targetlanguage(e.g.,Flegeetal.,2006)ornativespeakerswhooverwhelmingly
usethetargetlanguagebutmighthavesomeknowledgeofotherlanguages(e.g.,
Abrahamsson&Hyltenstam,2009).Itmaybearguedthatthechoiceofamono-
lingual control group thus moves the yardstick of nativelikeness to a point that
may,bydefinition,beoutofreachformostbilinguals(seealsoBirdsong,2005).It
maythereforebemoreappropriatetoinvestigatewhetherL2erscanapproximate
theperformanceofspeakerswhohaveacquiredthetargetlanguagefrombirthbut
arealsoadvancedlatelearnersofanL2.
Inthisrespect,2L1speakers,thatis,bilingualsfrombirth,areunsuitableasa
referencepointinadirectcomparisonwithlateL2learnersbecausetheydifferin
theirchronologicalonsetofbilingualism.In2L1speakers,assimilatorytendencies
in phonetic categories across languages can be observed from the beginning of
languageacquisitionduetoconcurrentL1andL2input(Fowleretal.,2008).In
otherwords,2L1speakersarguablyneverdevelopmonolingualnativecategories,
which can then be affected by the later onset of bilingualism. In this way, they
fundamentallydifferfromlateL2learnerswhosenative(monolingual)phonetic
categoriesaffectspeechproductionofalate-acquiredlanguage,andviceversa.
Similarly,early(child)L2ers,whoaretypicallycomparedwithlatelearnersin
studiesonageeffectsinL2acquisition,differintheirdegreeofentrenchmentof
L1 phonetic categories. Given the comparatively shorter length of exclusive L1
use for child L2ers, the impact of the L1 on a successively acquired L2 may be
quantitativelydistinctfromtheextentofcross-linguisticinfluenceexperiencedby
latelearners(Flegeetal.,2006).
Thepresentstudythereforeintroducesabilingualreferencegroupwhoshares
the chronological asymmetry in the onset of L1 and L2 input characteristic of
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AppliedPsycholinguistics34:2 365
Hopp&Schmid:PerceivedforeignaccentinL1attritionandL2acquisition
lateL2acquisition:L1attriters,thatis,adultlong-termemigrantstoanontarget
language environment whose use of their early-acquired L1 is greatly reduced
followingemigration.Boththesebilingualpopulationsarethencomparedagainst
a(largely)monolingualreferencegroup.
L1ATTRITION
It is widely recognized that the development of L2 knowledge, processing, and
useispartlyinfluencedbythepreinstantiatedknowledgeoftheL1.Atthesame
time the presence of a developing L2 has ramifications for the L1, potentially
leading to changes in L1 processing and use (Schmid & Ko¨pke, 2007). This
process,knownasL1attrition,ismostmarkedamongspeakerswhoexperiencea
drasticandpersistentchangeinlinguistichabitsandlanguageenvironment(i.e.,
long-term migrants in a non-L1 setting), but it is by no means confined to such
cases. Multicompetence approaches to bi- and multilingualism assume that the
development of a second or foreign language system, even in low-proficiency
instructedlearners,willtosomedegreeimpactontheL1(e.g.,Cook,2003).That
notwithstanding,investigationsofL2effectsonL1havesofarusuallyfocusedon
speakers who have experienced long-term immersion in an L2 environment and
concomitantreductionsinL1use(foranoverview,seeKo¨pke&Schmid,2004;
Schmid,forthcoming).
AlthoughtherehasbeenanincreasinginterestinL1attritionoverthepasttwo
decades or so (see Schmid, 2010), virtually all investigations focus on lexical
or grammatical features of the attriting language. For these linguistic levels it
has been demonstrated that, whereas the reduction or cessation of L1 input and
useinchildhoodcanleadtoconsiderabledeteriorationofgrammaticalcategories
(e.g., Schmitt, 2004) and in extreme cases to an apparently complete loss of
L1 proficiency (Pallier et al., 2003), even severe reductions in L1 contact after
pubertyentailonlyrelativelyminoreffectsonL1maintenance.Forpostpubescent
attrition,ithasbeenshownthatwhileattritionmayimpairlexicalaccess(Schmid
&Ko¨pke,2008),underlyingknowledgeofgrammarisquiteresistanttoprocesses
of deterioration, and L2 interference seems to manifest itself predominantly in
optionality at the interface level (Schmid, 2009; Tsimpli, Sorace, Heycock, &
Filiaci, 2004). It therefore appears that, in both lexicon and grammar, attrition
effectscanbeascribedtotheincreasedcognitiveloadofintegratingtwolinguistic
systemsandretrievingelementsfrommemorythathadnotbeencalleduponfor
an extensive period of time, while underlying grammatical knowledge seems to
remainquitestable.
Studies on the late attrition of pronunciation skills or phonetic/phonological
perception, on the other hand, are few and far between.3 Global observations of
attriters’ pronunciation suggest that L2 effects may be relatively limited at this
level,too.Forexample,Giesbers(1997)examinesclosetoanhouroffreespeech
produced by a Dutch native speaker who had been immersed in an Indonesian
contextformorethan30yearswithfewopportunitiestousehisL1.Intheentire
speechsample,Giesbersfindsonly48instancesofclearlynontargetpronunciation,
30ofwhichconcernstressandintonationpatternsincompoundsandsentences.In
theabsenceofcontroldatafrommonolingualspeakersitis,ofcourse,difficultto
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AppliedPsycholinguistics34:2 366
Hopp&Schmid:PerceivedforeignaccentinL1attritionandL2acquisition
estimatewhetherthislimitednumberof“deviances”differsatallfromthenative
norm.Inanycase,itcanhardlybeconsideredanextensive“loss.”
However,assessingphonologicalandphoneticchangesonthebasisofdiscrete
categories such as “correct” and “deviant” is not a straightforward matter, as
L2 effects on L1 speech production can take more subtle forms that might not
be classifiable as “errors” but contribute to an overall less-nativelike “acoustic
flavor”inattriters’speech.Flege’s(1987)seminalstudyofbidirectionaleffectsin
the speech of French–English and English–French bilinguals discussed above is
probablythefirstformalinvestigationofsuchaphenomenonamonglatelearners.
Flege’s (1987) finding that there is bidirectional interference on VOTs among
experienced bilinguals is confirmed by Major (1992) in the context of English–
Brasilian Portuguese bilingualism. Similar bidirectional effects are reported by
Mayr, Price, and Mennen (2011) on VOTs and on vowel shift in a late Dutch–
Englishbilingualspeaker,bydeLeeuw(2008)onthelateralphoneme/l/forlate
German–English bilinguals and by Mennen (2004) on the suprasegmental level
forlateDutch–Greekbilinguals.
BothMajor(1992)andMennen(2004)investigatefivelatelearnersoftheL2,
fourofwhomshowbidirectionalcross-linguisticinterference.Yet,inbothstudies,
oneofthefiveparticipantsappearstobeexemptfromcross-linguisticinterference
in either of her languages in formal (reading) style.4 Different suggestions have
been made to account for such interindividual variation in L2 influence on L1.
Major(1992)appealstoL2proficiencyinordertoexplainthevariablelevelsof
bidirectionalinterferenceamonghisparticipants,whereasMennenpointsoutthat
herexceptionalspeakerhasalowerAOAthantheothers(15vs.20–25).Inacase
study of a Brazilian Portuguese–English bilingual, Sancier and Fowler (1997)
furthermoreobservethattheextentofL2influenceonL1VOTsisconsiderably
strongerattheendoftwoperiodsofseveralmonthsspentinanL2environment
thanafterrecentexposuretoanduseoftheL1.
It is interesting that neither Flege (1987) nor Mennen (2004) use terms such
asattritionorloss,insteadarguingfora“‘merging’ofthephoneticpropertiesof
similarL1andL2phones”(Flege,1987,p.62).Major(1992),ontheotherhand,
interpretstheapproximationofL1VOTstotheL2norminanimmersionsetting
as straightforward loss, arguing that “a close correlation exists between VOTs
and other aspects of phonological proficiency, including global foreign accent”
(p.191).Inotherwords,thelargerthedeviationinVOTfromthenativebaseline,
themorelikelyitisthataspeakerwillnotbeperceivedtobeanative,whichentails
that a change in VOT can contribute to the loss of the native-speaker status. In
herstudyonthelateralphoneme/l/inlateGerman–Englishbilinguals,deLeeuw
(2008)alsooptsforthetermloss,butshequalifiesitsimplications.Althoughher
findingsclearlyindicatethat“atthelevelofperformance,thebilingualmigrants
nolongerconformedtotheGermanmonolingualnorm”(inthattheyhadahigher
F1frequencyandanearlieralignmentoftheprenuclearrise),shegoesontoassert
“that despite these deviations, the German migrants to Canada are still native
Germanspeakers”(p.203).5
Regardless of the extent to which L2 effects on L1 speech production can be
phoneticallymeasured,thequestionarisesastowhethertheseeffectsareactually
perceptible in bilinguals’ L1 speech. The only investigation of perceived global
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AppliedPsycholinguistics34:2 367
Hopp&Schmid:PerceivedforeignaccentinL1attritionandL2acquisition
foreignaccentinagroupofL1attritersweareawareoftodateisdeLeeuw(2008;
see also de Leeuw, Schmid, & Mennen, 2010).6 In this study, short excerpts of
spontaneous speech elicited in a narrative task performed by German migrants
(toTheNetherlandsandtoAnglophoneCanada)wereratedfornativelikenessby
predominantlymonolingualspeakersofGermaninGermany.Theseratingswere
compared to the ratings received in the same experiment by a control group of
predominantly monolingual speakers of German residing in Germany. Overall,
group comparisons showed that attriters were more likely to be perceived as
nonnativethancontrols(forfurtherdetailsofthisstudy,seebelow).
There were also, however, considerable differences among the attriters them-
selves, with 35% of the speakers being consistently perceived as nativelike and
lessthan25%receivingaclearnonnativerating.deLeeuwetal.(2010)attempt
to account for the difference in perceived nativeness on the basis of individual
background and language use variables. By means of regression analyses they
establishthatneitherAOA(>17forall)norLOR(>15yearsforall)aresignif-
icant predictors of perceived foreign accent in their sample. The frequency with
which speakers use their L1 in informal settings with other bilinguals (family,
friends) does not contribute toward perceived nativelikeness either, nor does the
frequencyofvisitsbacktothehomecountry.ItisonlyL1useinsettingswhere
littlecodeswitchingistobeexpected(informal,work-relatedcontextsorindis-
tancecommunicationwithspeakersinGermany),whichhassome(albeitlimited)
predictivepower.
It therefore seems likely that changes in L1 pronunciation such as the ones
revealed bythephoneticmicroanalyses reviewedabove caneventually leadtoa
perceptibleforeignaccentinthenativelanguageforsomeexperiencedbilinguals.
Otherspeakersappeartobesparedfromthesedevelopmentsandremainpercep-
tiblynativelikeevenafterseveraldecadesofresidenceinanL2environmentwith
littleopportunitytousetheirL1.
Onthefaceofit,theproportionoflatebilingualswhodonotdevelopaforeign
accentintheirL1appearshigherthanthenumberofhighlysuccessfulL2learners
whoultimatelydoattainnativelikeness:indeLeeuwetal.’s(2010)investigation,
morethanathirdofthebilingualparticipantswereunambiguouslyratedasnative
speakers.7AlthoughtheproportionofL2ersidentifiedasachievingnativelikeness
variesacrossstudies,mostinvestigationslocateitaroundorbelowthe5%norm
originallyproposedbySelinker(1972).However,wearenotawareofanystudy
ofL2acquisitionandL1attritionthatdirectlycomparesthetwopopulationson
foreignaccent.
SuchadirectcomparisonofL1attritersandlateL2acquirershasthepotential
ofopeninganewperspectiveontheimpactofageeffectsinlanguageacquisition,
as it allows for matching L2 speakers and native speakers on variables such as
(theonsetof)bilingualismanditseffects,thusisolatingageofonset.L1attriters
are native speakers of the target language because they have acquired it from
birth. At the same time, for L1 attriters (as for L2 speakers) the target language
isnotthelanguagetheypredominantlyuse.Hence,L1attriters,likeL2speakers,
experienceasymmetricbilingualismeffects,thatis,cross-linguisticinfluencefrom
the dominant language onto the weaker one. Figure 1 illustrates the rationale of
thegroupcomparisons.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AppliedPsycholinguistics34:2 368
Hopp&Schmid:PerceivedforeignaccentinL1attritionandL2acquisition
Predominantly L1 attriters L2 learners
monolingual
natives
Native speakers (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:3)
(AOA = 0)
Late bilingualism (cid:3) (cid:2) (cid:2)
Figure1. Therationaleofgroupcomparisons.
HYPOTHESES
Inthispaper,wewillpresentfindingsfromaglobalforeignaccentrating(FAR)
experiment,comparingadvancedlateL2learnersofGerman,long-termL1attriters
of German and (predominantly) monolingual German control speakers. We aim
toassesstherelativeimpactofAOAandbilingualisminlateL1attritionandL2
acquisition.Basedontheaboverationale,weadvancethefollowinghypotheses:
Hypothesis1:IfL2speechproductionismaturationallyconstrained(i.e.,ifAOA
is the cause of the lower ultimate attainment witnessed among later learners),
AOAshouldmakeanindependentcontributionto(non)nativelikenessinperceived
accent. That is, late L2 learners should differ from native controls and late L1
attritersinforeignaccentratingsatthegrouplevel.Moreover,theforeignaccent
ratingsofindividuallateL2learnersshouldfalloutsidetherangedelimitedby
theL1speakersofthetargetlanguagewithAOAsof0.
Hypothesis2:IfL2speechproductionisaffectedbycross-linguisticinterference
inbilingualism(i.e.,ifAOAisassociatedwithdifferencesinultimateattainment
betweenearlyandlatelearners),thereshouldbeasubstantialoverlapinforeign
accentratingsforlateL2learnersandlateL1attriters,andbothgroupsshould
differfrompredominantlymonolingualnativespeakers.Inaddition,factorsother
thanAOA,forexample,LOR,use,attitudes,andsoforth,shouldmakeacontri-
butiontowardtheproportionofexplainedvarianceinforeignaccentratings.
Hypothesis3:Ifcross-linguisticinterferenceaffectsbilingualspeechproduction,
there should be differences between bilingual groups depending on language
combination.
THESTUDY
Globalforeignaccentratings
Weconducted aglobalforeignaccentratingexperimentonfreespeechsamples
collected from two groups of late bilinguals: L1 attriters and L2 learners (see
sectionsParticipantsandMaterialsbelow).Globalassessmentsofperceivedfor-
eignaccentinbilingualshavebeenwidelyusedtomakeinferencesaboutultimate
attainmentinL2phonology (foranexcellentoverview,seeJesney,2004).Typi-
cally,inthesestudies,phoneticallyuntrainednativejudgeslistentosamplesofL2
andnativespeechandareaskedtoratethesefordegreeofnativelikeness.Native
speaker performance is thus used as the implicit or explicit8 reference point in
judgingforeignaccentand,concomitantly,therangeofthenativescoresisused
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AppliedPsycholinguistics34:2 369
Hopp&Schmid:PerceivedforeignaccentinL1attritionandL2acquisition
asthecutoffcriterionforestablishingnativelikenessintheanalysisoftherating
resultsfortheL2speakers.
Despite the widespread use of foreign accent ratings, no established or stan-
dardized methodology exists for such studies (Jesney, 2004). There is therefore
considerablevariancebetweenstudiesregardingthefollowingissues:
(cid:129) Measurement scales. Most studies rate speakers for nativelikeness on discrete,
Likert-typescaleswithbetween3and10levels,althoughtherearealsoinvestiga-
tionsusingslidingscalesormagnitudeestimations(foranoverview,seeJesney,
2004,p.2ff.).
(cid:129) Number of native control speech samples. It has been pointed out (Flege &
Fletcher, 1992) that native speaker judgments of foreign accent are subject to
rangeeffects.Inotherwords,thelargertheproportionofnativeornear-native
samplesincludedintheexperiment,thestrongertheperceivedforeignaccentof
theL2ers.Theproportionofcontrolsamplesincludedinpreviousstudiesvaries
fromnone(Brennan&Brennan,1981;Schmid,2002)to50%(Munro&Derwing,
1995),withthemajorityofstudiesusingsomewherebetween10%and20%(see
theoverviewinJesney,2004).
(cid:129) Typeofspeech.IthasbeendemonstratedthattheproportionofL2learnerswho
are perceived to be nativelike is higher in studies which use material that was
formally elicited, such as word or list reading, than in casual style/free speech
(e.g.,Major,1992;Moyer,1999;Oyama,1976).AbrahamssonandHyltenstam
(2009)thereforearguethatformallyelicitedsamplesmayreflect“language-like
behaviour”ratherthanactualL2proficiency(p.254).Afurtherproblemofusing
formallyelicitedstimuliisthatFlegeandFletcher(1992)establishedthatraters
weremorelikelytojudgesamplesasnativelikeaftertheybecamefamiliarwith
them.Thismaythenimpactonexperimentsthatrecurrentlyusethesamematerial
producedbydifferentspeakers,favoringthoseparticipantswhosespeechsamples
occurlater.
(cid:129) Lengthofsamples.Thelengthofthestimuliusedalsovariesconsiderably,from
single words in reading list style through full sentences to entire paragraphs.
Infreespeech,theclipsusedaretypically10to20sinlength(Jesney,2004).
However,ithasbeenestablishedthatnativespeakerjudgmentsareusuallymade
veryfast;indeed,Flege(1984)showsthat30msmaybeenoughfornativesto
accuratelyjudgenativeness.
The highly divergent results across such studies, some of which suggest that
a sizeable proportion of late L2ers can attain nativelikeness (e.g., Bongaerts,
vanSummeren,Planken,&Schils,1997),whereasothersfindthatsuchultimate
success is extremely rare (Moyer, 1999), may to some extent be ascribed to
thesemethodologicaldifferences.Fortheexperimentreportedhere,wetherefore
adoptedthemethodsandcriteriathathavebeenappliedmostofteninsuchinves-
tigations: a Likert-scale measurement in the intermediate range (6 points), 20%
of native control samples, and free speech samples of 10–20 s in length (for a
detailedaccountofthematerialsandprocedure,seebelow).
Methodologicalvariancenotwithstanding,previousresearchhasdemonstrated
theimpactofanumberofindependentvariablesotherthanAOAonpronunciation
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AppliedPsycholinguistics34:2 370
Hopp&Schmid:PerceivedforeignaccentinL1attritionandL2acquisition
accuracy.Perceivedforeignaccenthasbeenfoundtocorrelatewithlengthofresi-
dence(e.g.,Asher&Garc´ıa,1969;Flege&Fletcher,1992;butseeOyama,19769),
amountofL1/2use(Yeni-Komshian,Flege,&Liu,2000),attitudeandmotivation
(Elliott, 1995; Moyer, 1999), and aptitude (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008).
Agendereffecthasalsooccasionallybeenfound,whichappearstofavorfemale
prepubertylearnersbutdisappears(orevenreverses)amongolderlearners(Asher
&Garc´ıa,1969;Flegeetal.,1995;Thompson,1991).Thesefactorswilltherefore
alsobeconsideredinthepresentstudy.
Precursorstudies
Thepopulationswhoseperceivedforeignaccentwastestedinthepresentinves-
tigationweresubsamplesdrawnfromtwoearlierstudies:aninvestigationofL1
attritersreportedbydeLeeuwetal.(2010)andaninvestigationoflateL2learners
reportedbyHopp(2007).
PrecursorstudyI.L1attritionofGermaninanL2EnglishandL2Dutchsetting.
DeLeeuwetal.(2010)presentastudyofFARsof57L1attriters.Allspeakerswere
long-term migrants who had been predominantly monolingual speakers of Ger-
manpriortomigration.Twenty-threeofthesespeakersresidedinTheNetherlands
andhadDutchasasecondlanguage,whereas34residedinanEnglish-speaking
environment(theGreaterVancouverarea,Canada).Thesespeakershadbeenre-
cruitedforalarge-scaleinvestigationoftheL1attritionofGerman(e.g.,Schmid,
2007,2009).MigrantsfromGermanywithanLORof>15yearsandanAOAof
>17yearswereinvitedtoparticipateinanexperimentthatpurportedtoinvesti-
gatelanguagechangeinGermanysinceGermanreunification.Nootherselection
criteria(levelsofL1use,proficiency,etc.)wereapplied,andtherecruitmenttext
(which was circulated through newspapers and other media, German clubs and
organizations, and personal contacts) explicitly stated that it was of no concern
whetherGermanwasuseddailyorvirtuallynever.
Speech samples ranging in length from 12.6 to 17.7 s were extracted from
longernarrativeselicitedbyafilmretellingtaskfromallspeakers(seeMaterials
Section)andinterspersedwithsimilarsamplesfromfivenativeGermancontrols.
Thestudyemployed19Germanlisteners(studentsofphoneticsattheUniversityof
Trier,Germany)whowerepresentedwiththesamplesinasoundproofroom.Two
judgments were invited for each sample: the raters were asked, first, to classify
the speaker as native or nonnative and, second, to indicate their confidence in
this rating on a 3-point scale (certain, semicertain, uncertain), resulting in an
effective6-pointLikertscale(where1=certainofnativespeakerstatusand6=
certainofnonnativestatus).TheexperimentisreplicatedinSchmid(2009)with
15additionalspeakersfromthesamepopulation(2GermanmigrantsinCanada,
1GermanmigrantinTheNetherlands,and12referencegroupspeakers)and21
nativeraters,sothatpreviousFARsareavailablefor36attriterswithEnglishas
L2,24attriterswithDutchasL2,and17nativecontrols.
Forinclusioninthepresentstudy,the10speakerswhohadreceivedthelowest
(i.e.,mostnativelike)andhighest(mostaccented)ratings,respectively,fromeach
ofthetwolanguagegroupswereselectedfromthisprecursorstudy,resultingina
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737 Published online by Cambridge University Press