Applied Linguistics 2014: 35/4: 369–373 ß Oxford University Press 2014

doi:10.1093/applin/amu033 Advance Access published on 1 July 2014

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

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 27, 2014

This special issue gathers together a collection of studies that broadens the re-
search agenda and debates in the area of age studies in second language (L2)
learning (see Muñoz and Singleton 2011). The contributions point to the cur-
rent breadth and wealth of approaches to age effects, from those that predom-
inantly 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 under-
standing of age effects.
370 COMPLEXITIES AND INTERACTIONS OF AGE EFFECTS IN L2 LEARNING

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 con-
struct. 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 relation-
ship 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 ef-
fects. A second question is whether performance among balanced bilinguals

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 27, 2014

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 re-
viewed 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 stu-
dies 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 profi-
ciency. Steinhauer also reports on a number of studies that have been con-
cerned 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 pro-
cessing 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
 C. MUÑOZ 371

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 morpho-
syntax, specifically the relative clause structure. Nashakawi argues that re-
search needs to look into language phenomena that are acquired implicitly
by child L2 starters in order to attribute non-native-like attainment to matur-
ational factors.
Granena also reports that her child starters score significantly lower than the
control group in structures involving grammatical agreement. Granena sug-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 27, 2014

gests 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 be-
tween 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 sig-
nificantly 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 lear-
ners 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
372 COMPLEXITIES AND INTERACTIONS OF AGE EFFECTS IN L2 LEARNING

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 long-
term 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

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 27, 2014

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 multi-
factor 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 ex-
posure to the target language, is not significantly associated with age in their
study. The profiles of the three participants who score within the native-
speaker 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 lear-
ners’ 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 immer-
sion contexts (i.e. stays abroad) and frequency of informal interaction in the
 C. MUÑOZ 373

target language have an observable influence on oral performance. This is

interpreted as evidence that the factor of learner engagement with the lan-
guage 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

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on November 27, 2014

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 crit-
ical period effects in second language acquisi-
tion,’ 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 acquisi-
tion 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.