A periodic newsletter for TESOL members.

October 2007 Volume 11 Number 3

Adult Learners and the Issue of Native Speaker Proficiency

Leopoldo G. Balayon III, leopoldo.balayon@biola.edu

Introduction
In the relatively young field of second language acquisition (SLA), age-related studies have made the topic of adult second language (L2) learning a major discussion as well as a source of disagreement between researchers. Debates centered on the critical period hypothesis (CPH) have always called on an examination of whether a high linguistic proficiency level is ever attainable for adult learners. Many argue, owing to a supposed critical period specific to language learning, that adult L2 learners will never be able to gain mastery of an L2. In this article I aim to expose an overlooked premise of the frequent CPH-based argument of whether or not an adult L2 learner can reach native-speaker proficiency. I also discuss some factors that affect adult SLA. As the focus here is on adult learners, I do not place emphasis on the usual comparison between adult and child learners.

Can an Adult L2 Learner Ever Reach Native-Speaker Status?
Although there is a lack of definite clarity as to what a native speaker of a language is, Richards and Schmidt (2002) provided a plausible description, saying a native speaker is one who knows the grammar rules of his or her first language (L1) intuitively (p. 351). Because this definition pertains to L1 acquisition through intuitive means, it disqualifies adult L2 learners from ever being considered as native speakers of their L2. This situation is partly because L1 and L2 acquisition usually occur in different contexts. L1 learners acquire the language "naturally," as part of their growth and development, whereas L2 learners usually learn through a more conscious process, often under "structured" circumstances. Intuitive learning therefore is more innate to L1 acquisition while L2 learners handle language input differently from L1 learners because an L1 already exists in their system and their cognitive capacity has been developed (Hawkins, 2001). Furthermore, Lightbown and Spada (2006) stated that adult L2 learners are cognitively mature and have metalinguistic awareness unlike that of children who are in the process of acquiring their L1. The implication is that older L2 learners make use of a more analytic means of learning a language. Paradis (2004) also stated that adults "rely on explicit learning which results in the use of a cognitive system different from that which supports the native language" (p. 59). Because these technicalities prevent adult L2 learners from qualifying as native speakers of their L2, I redirect the question toward language proficiency. 

Can an Adult L2 Learner Attain Native-Speaker Proficiency?
Proponents of the critical period hypothesis (e.g., Lenneberg, 1967) argue that adult SLA is qualitatively different from native-speaker proficiency. Despite the fact that research such as that by Bongaerts, van Summeren, Planken, and Schils (1997) and Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, and Moselle (1994) records instances of native-like adult SLA, many researchers are still skeptical that adult L2 learners can acquire native-speaker proficiency. Hyltenstam and Abrahamson (2000), for example, hold a critical view of the idea of adult learner success in SLA. They state that late starters or older learners who have been identified by studies as being indistinguishable from native speakers can be detected through detailed and systematic linguistic analyses to still have nonnative features in their command of the L2. Cook (2003) even goes further by boldly suggesting that all L1 acquisition is complete whereas all L2 acquisition is incomplete. These researchers imply that it is impossible for adult L2 learners to become as proficient in the L2 as native speakers, as if there were prescriptions pertaining to native-speaker proficiency levels. Yet I believe that the conclusions about L2 learners derived from these points of view are misguided and baseless as we have yet to establish any descriptive standards for native-speaker proficiency in every linguistic domain.

Davies (2005) acknowledged the lack of a definite criterion for the level of proficiency one must attain in order to be considered a native speaker of a language. Marinova-Todd, Marshal, and Snow (2000) even suggested that

successful adult L2 learners may go undetected due to problematic testing conditions. For example, many adults have been evaluated as having "poor" or nonnative accents. Rarely, however, have researchers clearly established either the exact margins of what is considered a standard accent in the target language or the degree of variability among native speakers. Most of the studies designed to examine the foreign accent of L2 learners have used judges who are adult native speakers of the language in question. Yet these studies have often ignored the fact that native speakers themselves may have accents that vary from the standard. (p. 19)

In the same light, Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978) stated that native speakers have individual differences in patterns of ability similar to those of L2 learners, which further renders the idea of a criterion for native-speaker proficiency as questionable and even nonexistent. In fact, studies such as that of Abu-Rabia and Kehat (2004) have revealed that native speakers can even be misidentified as nonnatives.

There is a question, therefore, as to what extent imperfections in any linguistic domain disqualify an L2 learner from being a native speaker, if indeed we are basing this judgment on imperfections. In the same vein, if we use imperfections as a basis, there would be a need to determine how many imperfections in L1 mastery an indigenous member of the L1 community can have before he or she is disqualified from being a native speaker. These are two questions that need to be addressed before any absolutist judgments can be made regarding the idea that achieving native-speaker proficiency is impossible for adult L2 learners. If the opinion is that a native speaker never loses that status regardless of imperfections, then it can be said that the distinction between native and nonnative speakers is mostly based on the accident of birth or birthplace, as the case may be.

The view that L2 speakers cannot achieve the same level of proficiency as L1 speakers is a generalization that needs to be studied carefully and defined more clearly. So far, the perceptions regarding native-speaker and nonnative-speaker differences are clearly not based on established guidelines for language proficiency, but rather on subjective opinion. There is a need to distinguish between being a native speaker and having native-speaker proficiency. On one hand, being a native speaker, as the etymology of the word native implies, is dependent on geography of birth and L1 acquisition, something that is simply not replicable for the nonnative. Native-speaker proficiency, on the other hand, can be outlined in terms of standards in accent, grammar, vocabulary, use of idioms, and tone, among other things. An added consideration should be the qualitative judgment that somehow impinges on the term native-speaker proficiency which, when applied to L2 learners, would identify whether or not they are as proficient as persons "born into" the language.

For now, one can safely refer to documented instances of adult L2 learner success as evidence of the possibility of successful adult learner SLA. Furthermore, perhaps one can look more closely at the term native-speaker proficiency and emphasize proficiency rather than nativeness, given the daily reality that many native speakers, if subjected to systematic analyses, may not be revealed to be proficient at all.

The CPH and Factors That Affect Adult SLA
When it comes to discussions about factors that influence adult SLA outcomes, the CPH has always proven to be a focal point. In fact, the CPH has practically become synonymous with the subject of adult L2 learners. This is despite the fact that, as Singleton (2003) concluded, diverse and competing versions of the hypothesis undermine its plausibility.

Lenneberg (1967) coined the phrase critical period hypothesis. According to the CPH, there is an existing neurobiological period ending around age 12 (puberty), beyond which a complete mastery of language is no longer possible because of changes in cerebral plasticity. This means that acquisition of a language must occur early in life for native-like mastery to be achieved. After the critical period has passed, native-like performance is no longer supposed to be achievable (Birdsong, 2005). One of the strongest implications of the CPH is that any language acquisition that takes place after the age of puberty will be qualitatively different from L1 acquisition.
 
Though discussions regarding a specific critical period for language learning have gathered much attention in recent decades, it is important to remember that this statement on age does not have adequate objective foundations because an absolute criterion for native-speaker linguistic proficiency has yet to be formulated. In fact, Singleton (2003) dismissed the foundations of the CPH as anecdotal in nature. However, age is a factor in all aspects of human life, including language learning, and therefore cannot be dismissed as a factor in adult SLA. It is one of the numerous factors that determine adult L2 learning. Marinova-Todd et al. (2000) stated that age does influence SLA but mostly because of its association with other factors. Singleton (1989) even suggested that observed attainment differences between child and adult L2 learners that are often attributed to age may in fact result from an interaction of multiple factors.

One such factor is culture. The cultural background of a person influences all facets of his or her life, including language learning. Hofstede (1986) suggested that learning styles are culturally influenced. Although this proposition may pose the danger of ignoring individuality as a major determinant of learning styles, more than one researcher espouses it. For instance, Oxford and Anderson (1995) suggested that culture plays a considerable role in the learning styles unconsciously adopted by several members of a culture. As learning styles are influenced by culture, more so will orientations toward language learning be reflective of that culture. For example, if the culture of the learner mandates that a teacher is the source of all wisdom in the classroom, in all probability there will be a tendency for that learner to be more accustomed to teacher-centered instruction. If such a student is suddenly thrust into a student-centered classroom, such as those common in Western settings, Jin and Cortazzi (1998) suggested that conflicting expectations about the roles of teachers and students will result from differences in cultural orientations. These conflicting expectations can then become barriers to SLA.
 
The way learners see their culture in relation to the cultures of others can also either aid or hinder SLA. For instance, Nikolov and Djigunovic (2006) observed that some adult L2 learners actually did not want to pass for native speakers of the L2 because they regarded their accent to be an integral part of their identities. Furthermore, they thought of their culture as having higher prestige than the culture of the L2. At other times, an adult L2 learner may perceive the culture of the L2 as one that is to be admired, which, in turn, can generate integrative orientations to motivation that will drive the learner to achieve greater proficiency in the L2.

Singleton (2003) suggested that differences in SLA outcomes are influenced by the level and type of motivation of the learner. Brown (2007) talked about two kinds of orientations to motivation, namely instrumental and integrative. The instrumental side of the dichotomy refers to acquiring a language as a means for attaining goals such as furthering a career or being able to read needed materials or follow technical manuals. The integrative orientation pertains to a learner's desire to be accepted as a member of the culture of the L2. It has been observed that adult learners who had very strong integrative motivation to be bona fide members of the host culture were successful in their SLA (Nikolov & Djigunovic, 2006, p. 239).

The integrative orientation undoubtedly leads to a desire to interact in the L2. Learners need to interact using the target language in order to actualize the goal of becoming members of that culture. Bongaerts et al. (1997) observed that adult learners who were frequently mistaken for native speakers worked on their language proficiency actively through finding opportunities for communicating with L2 speakers and reading and listening extensively. On the other hand, a lack of exposure to the L2 would mean a lack of opportunity to participate in L2 interaction, which in turn can lead to failure in SLA. Sometimes there can be a tendency for adult L2 learners to choose to be in frequent contact with fellow native speakers of their L1 as a means of avoiding isolation or a way of expressing a desire to maintain a particular linguistico-cultural identity (Singleton, 2003, p. 17). Although understandable, such a practice restricts their contact with the target language and thus may contribute to unsuccessful L2 outcomes.

Conclusion
Aside from the fact that native speakers vary in language proficiency, the absence of a clear prescriptive criterion for native-speaker proficiency can be explained by looking into the reality of human learning. The capacity of a person to learn is simply limited. There is no time in an individual's life in which an absolute attainment of knowledge can ever happen. Language learning in particular illustrates this fact in the clearest way through the nature of vocabulary learning. As mentioned by Diller (1971), the acquisition of vocabulary, an important component of language learning, goes on for as long a person is alive. This can be attributed to the fact that language learning, whether it is L1 or L2, is a lifelong process that never reaches completion. How then can a criterion for native-speaker proficiency be established? Although the reality of the age factor must be acknowledged, it cannot at this time support the CPH because the prerequisite of native-speaker measures, which are the basis of its arguments, is nonexistent.

Originally from Davao City in the Philippines, Leopoldo G. Balayon III is currently studying in the MA TESOL program at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He taught EFL for 3 years in Weihai, China, and in college played basketball and was part of a delegation that competed in Darwin, Australia.

References

Abu-Rabia, S., & Kehat, S. (2004). The critical period for second language pronunciation: Is there such a thing? Ten case study of late starters who attained a native-like Hebrew accent. Educational Psychology, 24(1), 77-98.

Birdsong, D. (2005). Interpreting age effects in second language acquisition. In J. Kroll & A. M. B. deGroot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 109-127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 447-465.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Davies, A. (2005). A glossary of applied linguistic. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Diller, K. (1971). Generative grammar, structural linguistics and language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hawkins, R. (2001). The theoretical significance of universal grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17, 345-367.

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal  of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.

Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamson, N. (2000). Who can become native-like in a second language? All, some, or none? On the maturational constraints controversy in second language acquisition. Studia Linguistica, 54, 150-166.

Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73-98.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). The culture a learner brings: A bridge or a barrier? In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective (pp. 98-118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Marinova-Todd, S. H., Marshal, B., & Snow, C. E. (2000). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 9-34.

Nikolov, M., & Djigunovic, J. M. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 234-260.

Oxford, R., & Anderson, N. (1995). A cross-cultural view of learning styles. Language Teaching, 28, 201-215.

Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd ed.). New York. Longman.

Singleton, D. (1989). Language acquisition. The age factor. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Singleton, D. (2003). Critical period or general age factor(s)? In M. del Pilar Garcia Mayo & M. L. Garcia Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp. 3-22). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114-1128.

SLW & CALL October 2007 Volume 11 Number 3: Table of Contents