Read the attached article and write a 4 page analyzing response paper. 

Follow the directions written CLEARLY in the attache document named DIRECTIONS

Ensure the essay is free of grammatical and spelling errors and that it flows in a cohesive manner.

Applied Linguistics 2014: 35/4: 418–440 � Oxford University Press 2014
doi:10.1093/applin/amu012 Advance Access published on 4 June 2014

Exceptional Outcomes in L2 Phonology:
The Critical Factors of Learner Engagement
and Self-Regulation

1
ALENE MOYER

1
School of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, College of Arts and Humanities,

University of Maryland

E-mail: moyera@umd.edu

A number of studies attest to the late language learner’s ability to attain native-

like outcomes in morphology and syntax, with accent often the only linguistic

hint of their non-native status. Nevertheless, some do end up sounding native-

like despite a late start. This article explores possible explanations for ’excep-

tional’ outcomes in L2 phonology, specifically, whether such learners’ abilitie

s

are due to innate talent, a metacognitive learning approach, a certain social-

psychological orientation, or specific kinds of experience. Various learners

profiles are compared, an argument is made for learner engagement and

self-regulation, and areas for future research are outlined.

INTRODUCTION

It is no exaggeration to say that those beyond early childhood who aim to

master a new language begin at a vastly different starting point than those who

begin at birth. The second language acquisition (SLA) literature is replete with

theories and hypotheses about why this is so, ranging from neuro-cognitive to

social to psychological explanations including first language (L1) interference,

affective ‘filters’ of one sort or another, the decreasing accessibility of an innate

language acquisition device, social and cultural barriers to assimilation, etc.

(see Bley-Vroman 1989). What is certain is that at least one language is already

in place as a knowledge base, which can imply greater metalinguistic aware-

ness, yet may also be detrimental insofar as L1 cues and patterns are already

salient (see Hansen 2004 for second language, or L2; Kuhl et al. 2008 and

Strange and Shafer 2008 for L1). The first language(s) may limit what the

learner notices in L2, and what she or he is therefore able to emulate at the

level of performance.

According to Selinker (1972), just 5–10 percent of adult language learners

can expect to reach a native-like level, but even this low threshold may be

somewhat ambitious for phonological fluency. Nevertheless, some late lear-

ners do attain a level that can be described as native, or native-like, for some

series of perception-based and/or production-based tasks (e.g. Ioup et al. 1994;

Bongaerts et al. 1995; Moyer 1999). This fact begs two questions that have long

fascinated SLA scholars: (i) What makes a successful language learner?
1

(ii) Why

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

–

%

to

,

1

2

does phonology uniquely challenge so-called ‘late’ language learners in comparison

with other aspects of language? This article merges both questions by examining

several reasons why some late learners are particularly successful in the realm

of accen

t.

Scovel (1988) famously asserted that age effects in L2 phonological acquisi-

tion are directly related to neuro-muscular or perceptual skill development,

rather than affective factors. His argument was based on two important prem-

ises: (i) phonology uniquely relies on neuro-muscular faculties for both per-

ception and production; (ii) affective factors could not reasonably restrict

phonology, yet have no effect on other aspects of language ability. Indeed,

shifts in neuro-muscular flexibility and or cognitive mechanisms have long

been assumed responsible for the relative difficulty of learning a new sound

system given that phonology relies on both speech-motor control and audi-

tory-perceptual neural networks. On the other hand, phonology also holds a

unique connection to one’s sense of self, or identity, and therefore speaks to

more than just neuro-cognitive and neuro-muscular constraints. Moreover, it

is undeniable that target language experience shapes one’s approach to acqui-

sition over the long term, and thus the likelihood of native-like attainment.

Evidence confirms correlations between accent ratings and a host of individual

factors, among them: length of residence (LOR) in the target language country,

age of onset/first exposure, and both quantity and quality of experience in the

target language, not to mention motivation and attitudes (e.g. Purcell and

Suter 1980; Thompson 1991; Bongaerts et al. 1995; Elliott 1995; Flege and

Liu 2001; Diaz-Campos 2004; see also Moyer 2013).

In sum, numerous cognitive, social, and psychological factors, both intrinsic

and extrinsic in nature, point towards a possible understanding of exceptional

outcomes. In a sense then, the phenomenon of exceptionality signifies a nexus

for the two dominant paradigms of SLA: a decidedly cognitive or psycholin-

guistic approach on the one hand, and on the other hand, a largely sociolin-

guistic perspective focused on the ‘whole person’. This article argues that

the mysteries of exceptional learning, so rare in L2 phonology, cannot be

explained by either one or the other, but resides at the intersection of both

realms. What can explain the fact that some L2 learners, despite a

late start, end up sounding native-like? Are we to understand them as ‘phono-

logical geniuses’ with extraordinary, innate talents? Alternatively,

do they have special ways of utilizing input, or can they somehow access

linguistic resources in unusual ways? What accounts for their extraordinary

success?

With these questions in mind, I first describe what is generally implied by

‘exceptionality’ in L2 phonology, then present case studies which suggest a

number of common characteristics of their approach to language learning. In

so doing, the relevance of both self-regulation and engagement with the target

language become clear. I conclude by suggesting that the fascination with

some as-yet-determined special talent obscures the need for an integrated

examination of the cognitive, social, and experiential factors that co-vary

A. MOYER 419

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

paper

a

b

the

,

Elliott 1995;

Flege and Liu 2001;

Purcell and Suter 1980;

Thompson 1991;

paper

with age. The research on exceptionality calls for a dynamic view of learner

engagement with the target language over time in order to understand the

ways that exceptional learners make the most of the available input, and take a

flexible approach, responding to the circumstances at hand.

EXCEPTIONALITY IN L2 PHONOLOGY

To clarify, ‘exceptional’ refers to those who defy the Critical Period Hypothesis

(Lenneberg 1967); they sound native-like even though their exposure to the

target language comes after age 9–10 years (the critical period for phonology is

arguably even earlier, but 9–10 years is a relatively common yardstick in the

research, in keeping with Lenneberg’s original hypothesis). So, which specific

skills or skill sets are implied when we talk about exceptionality, or native-like-

ness, in phonology? By and large, we mean the ability to perceive and/or

produce new sounds like a native speaker would, verified through relevant

tasks which are often isolated or decontextualized (see Levis and Moyer 2014).

Kuhl’s 2007 study on American and Japanese adults confirmed that this is

challenging owing to L1 category salience. Her American listeners could ac-

curately pinpoint the acoustic differences between /r/ and /l/ while her

Japanese listeners could not owing to this contrast’s absence in Japanese.

Further distinctions based on subtle features like vowel quality, aspiration,

and voice onset time (e.g. the difference between /I/ and /E/ or /d/ and /t/)
can also be difficult to detect if they are irrelevant in L1. This is likely more

difficult when L1 and L2 features overlap, but are not quite the same, as Flege

and Hillenbrand (1987) have shown for the English vs. French versions of the

phoneme /u/. Instruction and experience can bridge this gap for both produc-

tion and perception (e.g. Flege and Hillenbrand 1987; Rojczyk 2011), even

long-term (e.g. Sereno and Wang 2007), but mastery eludes most L2 learners,

it seems, and even the untrained ear can detect the difference between native

and non-native speech. As shown in Major (2007), listeners completely un-

familiar with the language in question can accurately separate native controls

from non-native speakers, which suggests that there is something unique, and

highly salient, about a non-native accent.

Accent is not just a matter of phonetic or segmental precision. To sound

‘native-like’ the learner must control a number of different features that op-

erate in conjunction with one another, including tempo, rhythm, pause, junc-

ture, pitch patterns, and intonation. Pickering and Baker (2014) confirm that

judgments of accentedness rely on sentence stress (prominence), pause place-

ment patterns, speech rate, and tone choice. (They also point out, however,

that such judgments are prone to listener background variables such as native/

non-native status and attitudes towards the speakers’ presumed backgrounds.)

While tests of such ability are limited to isolated words or phrases, as noted,

some do include a complex range of tasks including spontaneous speech,

which allows for greater confidence in deeming a given learner as ‘exceptional’

(see Moyer 2013). Few such cases have been examined in depth, however.

420 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

–

–

yrs

.

due

due

,

–

—

–

—

,

,

In my own research I have come across enough such learners to draw a few

parallels between them. Interview data from Moyer 2004 study of immigrants

to Berlin shed light on the unique profiles of two Turkish men whose families

had immigrated to Germany by the time both were 4 years old. Both should

have ended up sounding native according to the Critical Period Hypothesis, but

only one consistently did across all tasks. Their stories revealed very different

attitudes towards the language and culture—one very positive and the other

quite conflicted. The first one, Ahmet, says he learned German ‘on the street’ as

a young child and ‘absolutely’ wanted to sound German. He has ‘countless’

German friends and acquaintances. The other, Korech, describes his accent as

‘noticeable’ and his contact with Germans as minimal. He reports a completely

different orientation: he consciously aligned his social activities with his core

Turkish self-concept throughout his life, choosing to avoid using German at

home, and failing to make permanent friends with any German schoolmates.

His discomfort with German culture was a strong motif throughout his

interview.

In a 2007 study on attitudes and accent, I similarly describe the backgrounds

of two English as a Second Language (ESL) learners of differing L1 backgrounds

who were judged to sound native for the majority of pronunciation-centered

tasks, including extemporaneous speaking. They had a number of things in

common which reflect not just attitudes, but experience, and future intentions

vis-à-vis the target language and culture: both had immigrated to the USA by

age 5 years and had at least 13 years residence; both intended to stay at least five

more years, had a strong and consistent desire to sound native, a strong level of

comfort with American culture, and used English consistently among native

speaker friends in multiple, socially oriented contexts. There were others who

also enjoyed an early start with English (by age 5 years), but without all of these

experiential and psychological benefits, and their accent ratings were not on par

with these two.

These data, coupled with evidence from other studies, suggest that age of

onset (AO) by itself is not a sufficient explanation for attainment. The question

is whether truly exceptional attainment is a function of multiple factors, and

whether these factors derive from a unitary source, such as the neuro-cognitive

realm. The discussion above suggests otherwise, namely, that experience and

orientation are central to this outcome. In order to better understand this phe-

nomenon, we now look more closely at several case studies.

EXCEPTIONAL LEARNER PROFILES

Looking at the L2 phonology literature, several learners have been deemed

exceptional for their production in pronunciation tasks, so let us consider

the factors associated with their success, namely, self-professed neuro-

cognitive ‘talents’ or aptitudes, social and psychological orientation, and L2

experience.

A. MOYER 421

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

four

—

five

–

five

Ioup et al. (1994) describe two American speakers of L2 Arabic who com-

pleted a series of tasks, including free speaking. The one they single out as

exceptional is Julie, who had lived in Egypt for 26 years at the time of data

collection. Julie could not speak Arabic when she moved to Cairo after marry-

ing an Egyptian. She acquired Arabic completely without instruction, and it

had long since become her primary language at home. From the beginning of

her immersion, Julie wrote down observations about the language, and appre-

ciated explicit feedback on her errors (p. 77). Julie reported that she set out to

mimic, rather than analyze, the accent of native speakers (with a self-described

talent for mimicry, she reported ‘no problems’, even with Arabic pharyngeals

and uvulars). By Ioup et al.’s account Julie had no noticeable foreign accent,

which they attribute to her cognitive/metacognitive approach. Another lear-

ner profiled (to a lesser extent) in this study is Laura, also an American living in

Cairo and married to an Egyptian. Laura had studied standard Arabic for years

and had taught it to other learners in the USA. She moved to Cairo to make

greater strides in her oral fluency as she pursued doctoral work in Arabic. At

the time of data collection, Laura had lived in Cairo for 10 years. Eight out of

13 Egyptian listeners rated both Julie and Laura as native speakers, despite

their different paths to advanced attainment (Julie’s ratings were higher on

average). Only a few points of vowel quality and intonation were noticeable to

several judges, but otherwise, both passed as native speakers ‘more often than

not’ according to the authors (p. 80). Julie and Laura were also able to dis-

criminate regional accents in Arabic with 100 percent accuracy, outperforming

the native speaker judges at 85 percent accuracy. This suggests that both Laura

and Julie had ‘a good ear’, and possibly some innate talent indicative of unu-

sual cognitive flexibility (p. 91). In the case of Julie specifically, they also note

that she was outgoing, and thus had access to ‘abundant comprehensible input

and error feedback’ (ibid.).

A number of Nikolov’s (2000) learners of English (N = 13), and learners of

Hungarian (N = 13) in Hungary were rated as native-sounding on both read-

aloud tasks and extemporaneous speech. All started learning the language in

question at the age of 15 years or later. Some were married to native speakers,

and most were professionals working in Hungary (including as teachers), thus

the author assumed a high level of motivation. Nikolov also ascribes to them a

genuine pride in their achievement, noting:

Language is either a part of their profession or they have very strong
integrative motivation to become bone fide residents of the target
language country. . . . All of the successful participants try to find
chances for improving their second language proficiency, they are
outgoing characters and like to socialize. All are avid readers in the
target language, listen to the media and try to feel at home in the
culture as well as in the language. (p. 116)

One of the most successful learners acquired Hungarian without any instruc-

tion, and another who sounded native in English had spent only one semester

422 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

%

%

abroad in an English-speaking country, but spent time mimicking radio

announcers. (Judges, who ranged widely in age, confirmed that their ratings

were based on pronunciation, intonation, and overall fluency, that is, lack of

hesitation and false starts, for their ratings.) The common thread among these

learners is a proactive approach: all said they wanted to sound native, and all

sought ways to improve their fluency through communicating with native

speakers, as well as engaging in more receptive activities such as watching

TV, viewing films, and reading in the target language.

From among their NNS participants living in Ireland (mean age of onset of

22.5 years) who completed a film-retelling task in English, Muñoz and

Singleton (2007) pay special attention to two learners, the first named Elena.

Originally from Spain, she is married to an Irishman, and claims many (in fact,

only) English-speaking Irish friends. Elena had consciously avoided Spanish

speakers since her arrival, and only speaks her native tongue when visiting

with family members. She discusses her conscious efforts to improve her

English, but also believes she has inherited a special aptitude for languages.

Marga, another participant, similarly cites a persistent desire to master all lin-

guistic aspects of English, but describes her drive as predicated on a love of the

language as opposed to an overt desire for cultural affiliation. Both Marga and

Elena continuously monitor their own progress and fluency, even after having

reached a high level of fluency, and they still endeavor to improve their

English, in particular through social interaction. The authors describe both

learners as having a ‘thirst’ for becoming native-like.

Another case of an exceptional learner who was consistently rated as native

for all production tasks is singled out in Moyer 1999. This late learner’s scores

were actually better on average (across all tasks combined) than any of the

actual NS controls. He had studied German just five years (beginning at age 17

years)—far less than most of his peers in the study—and describes himself as

‘self-taught’ for the most part. Before embarking on a 2-year study abroad

experience, he spent hours listening to exchange student friends from

Germany in an effort to ‘absorb the sounds’ of the language. He had no prob-

lems assimilating linguistically and culturally while living in Germany those 2

years. His narrative echoes a common theme among exceptional learners in

that he cites a ‘fascination’ with the target language and its culture.

Molnár (2010) also discovered several Polish learners of German who

arrived in Germany after age 11 years, and had received no special training,

yet rated on par with native speaker controls on read-aloud and free speaking

tasks. Through a (very limited) background survey, Molnár ascertained that

these learners primarily used German in their daily lives, had no anxiety vis-à-

vis foreign language learning, described themselves as ‘extroverts’, and placed

the highest possible importance on sounding native. The learner with the best

ratings had studied linguistics, English, and German language pedagogy, had

resided in-country for 18 years, and had also learned several other languages

while in German high school. In contrast to the others, she seldom used her

native language.

A. MOYER 423

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

i.e.

,

–

“

”

–

–

two

“

”

two

In a 1993 study, Major focuses on a group of American women living in

Brazil. All had immigrated between the ages of 22 and 35 years, were married

to Brazilians, raised their children speaking Portuguese, and were employed as

ESL teachers. All completed read-aloud and extemporaneous speaking tasks.

While most were forthcoming about their failure to acquire fluent

Portuguese despite a very long residence (20–35 years), one woman had

resided in-country 12 years and was convinced that she could pass for

native. Major’s analysis of her Voice Onset Time (VOT) values confirmed

this. She was untutored, but made a point of mentioning that she ‘carefully

paid attention to linguistic forms and pronunciation and took mental notes of

things, which later became part of her competence’ (p. 472). She also reported

‘feeling Brazilian’, unlike her counterparts. The others had obvious American

accents, and reported feeling ‘strongly’ American. In fact, she had absorbed

Portuguese so fully that her English had traces of Portuguese VOT patterns,

and when visiting the USA, she was continually asked whether she was

American (p. 472). Importantly, Major’s study leads him to conclude that

both L1 and L2 are ‘dynamic, fluid entities and can vary over time’ (p. 475);

this woman’s English pronunciation later reverted to a decidedly

American version after she moved back to the USA and disavowed her

Brazilian identity.

Finally, I mention Dora, a learner of German profiled in Moyer 2004. Dora

was a Polish-born immigrant living in Berlin with a self-described intense

motivation to sound like a native speaker. She fell within the native range

for several pronunciation tasks, including extemporaneous speaking. In her 6

years in residence, Dora’s approach to accent was to mimic others and to focus

on the phonetic features that are still problematic for her, indicating a meta-

linguistic awareness. She described her social network in Berlin as limited, but

made an effort to positively reconstruct her negative encounters as a foreigner

in Germany to maintain her deep personal attachment to the language.

Despite limited opportunities to interact in German, Dora kept an upbeat atti-

tude and a firm commitment to the language. (Another late learner with near-

native ratings overall similarly expressed ease with new experiences in general

and cultural adjustments in Germany, and both she and Dora said they

avoided personal contacts with other speakers of their native language.)

Dora felt herself fully ‘at home’ in Germany, even if she did not see herself

as German.

Considering all of these learners’ profiles, a constellation of factors emerges;

some cognitive, some affective or psychological in nature, and some experi-

ential. For example, nearly all expressed a deep sense of personal connection to

the language and a metacognitive approach, regardless of the amount of inter-

personal contact and/or formal instruction available to them. They make the

most of the resources at hand, with some going so far as to distance themselves

from those who share their native language in an effort to reach their goal of

becoming native-like. Table 1 summarizes the factors explicitly mentioned by

the learners and/or researchers.

424 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

–

—

–

“

”

“

”

six

T
a

b
le

1
:

C
o
m

p
a
ri

n
g

ex
ce

p
ti

o
n

a
l

le
a
rn

er

p
ro

fi
le

s

I

o
u

p
et

a
l.

1
9
9
4

N
ik

o
lo

v
2
0
0
0

M
u

ñ
o
z

a
n

d
S
in

g
le

to
n

2
0
0
7

M
o
y

e
r

1
9
9
9

M
o
ln

á
r

2
0
1
0

a
M

a
jo

r
1
9
9
3

M
o
y
e
r

2
0
0
4

S
e
lf

–

d
e

sc

ri
b

e
d

‘t
a
le

n
t’

o
r

a
p
ti

tu
d
e

ˇ
*

M

e
ta

c
o
g
n

it
iv

e
a
p
p
ro

a
c
h

ˇ
ˇ

ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ

P
ri

d
e

in
L
2

a
tt

a
in

m

e
n

t
(i

n
tr

in
si

c
m

o
ti

v
a
ti

o
n

)
ˇ

ˇ
ˇ

ˇ
S
tr

o
n

g
ly

id
e
n

ti
fi

e
s

w
it

h
L
2

(i
n

te
g
ra

ti

v
e

)

ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ

D
e
si

re
to

so
u

n
d

n
a
ti

v
e
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ

S
o
c
ia

ll
y

o
u

tg
o
in

g
ˇ

ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ

ˇ
L
2

u
se

a
c
ro

ss
m

u
lt

ip
le

d
o

m

a
in

s
ˇ

ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ
ˇ

L
O

R
8
+

y
e
a
rs

ˇ
*

ˇ

X

ˇ
ˇ
X

S
ig

n
if

ic
a
n

t
fo

rm
a
l

st
u

d
y

(5
+

y
e
a
rs

)
*

X
*

X
ˇ

X
ˇ

E
a
rl

y
a
g
e

o
f

o
n

se
t

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

ˇ
=

c
o
n

fi
rm

e
d

b
y

re
se

a
rc

h
e
r

a
n

d
/o

r
m

e
n

ti
o
n

e
d
b
y

p
a
rt

ic
ip

a
n
t.

X
=

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
p
p
ly

to
e
x
c
e
p
ti

o
n
a
l
le
a
rn

e
r(

s)
in

th
is

st
u

d
y
.

*
=

in
c
o
n

si
st

e
n

t
(e

.g
.

if
m

o
re

th
a
n

1
e
x
c
e
p
ti

o
n
a
l
le
a
rn
e
r

c
it

e
d
,

so
m

e

d
id

m
e
n

ti
o
n

w
h

il
e

o
th

e
rs

d
id

n
o
t,

o
r

d
is

a
g
re

e
d
).

a
T
h

e
b
la

n
k
s

fo
r

M
o
ln

á
r’

s
c
o
lu

m
n

a
n

d
e
ls

e
w

h
e
re

in
th

e
ta
b
le
d
o
n
o
t

e
q
u

a
l
a
n

e
g
a
ti

v
e

re
sp

o
n

se
,

ra
th

e
r

th
e

y

in
d
ic

a
te

th
a
t

th
e

d
a
ta

w
e
re

n
o
t
p
ro

v
id

e
d
.

A. MOYER 425

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

Cognitive factors

� Self-described talent/aptitude: Several participants said it was not hard for
them to learn languages (or the language in question, even if other ones
had been difficult). For the most part, however, this was not explicitly
asked by the researchers, thus there is little to conclude about the rele-
vance of this factor.

� (Meta)cognitive approach: Nearly every exceptional learner mentioned self-
monitoring, imitation of native speakers, attention to difficult phonologi-
cal features, and explicit concern for pronunciation accuracy. In general
terms, a cognitive approach is indicative of practice, reasoning, note-
taking, analyzing, etc., and the metacognitive level involves planning,
goal-setting, reflection, and evaluation (Oxford 1990).

Psychological factors

� Pride in L2 attainment: Several expressed enjoyment of, and appreciation
for, their own progress in the target language although in some cases (e.g.
Muñoz and Singleton 2007) these very advanced learners continued to
view their attainment critically, which likely reflects their drive to
improve.

� Strong identification with L2: This construct represents an integrative orien-
tation towards the language and/or culture, with these learners typically
immersed in social activities via close social networks. Many also cited an
intention to stay in-country for the foreseeable future, or permanently.

� Desire to sound native: Most expressed this overtly and described their
efforts to achieve this goal, even having already reached an unusual
level of attainment.

� Socially outgoing: These exceptional learners had a proactive approach to
language acquisition, endeavoring to make contacts, and describing them-
selves as uninhibited, outgoing, extraverted, and willing to take risks.

Experiential factors

� L2 use across multiple domains: All of the learners mentioned L2 use in the
home environment with family and friends. They also enjoy reading,
listening to the radio, and watching TV and films, in addition to socializ-
ing. In other words, the target language has permeated all levels of their
lives; it does not just serve perfunctory or limited purposes.

� Length of residence of 8+ years: Of those who had long-term residence, most
had resided 8 years or more, but Length of residence (LOR) was incon-
sistent across learners, with the lowest cited at 2 years (LOR figures were
not provided in all of the studies cited).

� Significant formal study of the language: Some had many years (i.e. 5+ years)
formal instruction in the language but others had none at all.

� Early age of onset: This factor does not apply to any since they are con-
sidered ‘exceptional’—all were exposed to the language after the age of
10–11 years.

426 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

,

,

yrs.

—

—

–

Several patterns are noteworthy here. First, every ‘exceptional learner’

attests to at least one item in each of the three categories: cognitive, psychological,

experiential, but the psychological realm stands out with greater description

(possibly because it was easier to ascertain by self-report). Secondly, long-

term residence and/or instruction are both inconsistent factors. At least in

the case of length of residence, this seems to contradict a good deal of evidence

found in ultimate attainment studies. It is possible that neither is essential for

exceptional outcomes. Thirdly, these learners have much in common in terms

of their approach to language learning and their use of the target language. The

strongest commonalities based on the data provided were as follows:

� Metacognitive approach
� Strong identification with the language
� Strong desire to sound native
� Socially outgoing orientation
� The use of L2 across multiple domains

It should also be noted that in several cases minimal L1 use was mentioned,

which is another factor that deserves far more investigation in the research, as

does the possibility that experience with multiple languages holds some advan-

tage for pronunciation abilities. We now consider these factors in somewhat

broader terms commonly referenced in the L2 phonology research, and in SLA

more generally.

EXPLANATIONS FOR EXCEPTIONALITY

There are several possible explanations for these learners’ extraordinary suc-

cess, represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Explanations for exceptionality

A. MOYER 427

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

3

:

Aptitude and talent

Although talent and/or aptitude was only explicitly mentioned in two cases

(Ioup et al. 1994 and Muñoz and Singleton 2007), and no researcher assessed

this through anything other than self-report or impressionistic data, we con-

sider it nonetheless because it generates such interest in the literature. Aptitude

is understood to refer to individual differences which, by all accounts, lie

within the cognitive realm, such as the ability to remember acoustic informa-

tion and phonological patterns. The focus of aptitude research, however, per-

tains overwhelmingly to lexical and morphosyntactic retrieval and learning,

with little discussion of phonological learning per se.

The Modern Language Aptitude Test (Carroll and Sapon 1959) established

several key components said to predict language learning success with reason-

able accuracy, including the capacity to code and retain unfamiliar sounds

(phonemic coding), and the ability to form links in memory (discussed in

Skehan 2002; Dörnyei 2010). Robinson (2002) proposes a broader ‘aptitude

complex’, consisting of phonological working memory (WM); processing

speed; the ability to encode, infer, apply, and store specific patterns; and the

ability to ‘notice the gap’ between one’s own production and a given (i.e.

native speaker) model. Discussions of aptitude relative to phonological skills

prioritize working memory, defined as the ‘ability to keep important information

in mind while comprehending, thinking, and doing’ (Conway et al. 2007). WM

is supported by the phonological loop function which allows the listener to

hold and rehearse sound sequences in short-term memory during speech pro-

cessing, and to direct attention and promote subvocal articulation that feeds

into long-term memory. Individuals may vary as to how much they rehearse

and/or visualize certain verbal patterns, the speed with which they can process

information, and the degree to which their memory and processing effectively

interact during a specific task (Towse and Hitch 2007).

Other ideas relevant to phonological talent include the possibility that:

(i) those with musical inclinations have a special ability to mimic accent;

and (ii) those who process language bilaterally have an advantage when it

comes to perception—and by extension, production—of tone, rhythm, pitch,

etc., since these are processed primarily in the right hemisphere. Studies of

musical talent have produced mixed results (Tokuhama-Espinosa 2003;

Gottfried 2008; Baran-Łucarz 2012), and hemispheric processing studies

have shown primarily that novices of new (e.g. tonal) languages tend to be

bilateral processors, whereas those with greater experience processing tones

are left-hemisphere (LH) dominant (as are musicians familiar with the tones in

question) (Sereno and Wang 2007). This would seem to indicate that once a

level of experience is gained, processing shifts to LH dominance. Neither

hypothesis is yet supported by conclusive evidence. At the same time, a

study of 66 learners of English did find that rhythm and pitch perception sig-

nificantly correlated to production abilities in accent (Nardo and Reiterer 2009).

Sereno and Wang (2007) similarly found evidence for the transference of

428 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

,

,

“

”

Working memory (

)

–

a

b

–

–

perceptual abilities to production, based on overt training. More evidence of

this type is needed.

Very few researchers have studied WM as it relates to L1 phonological acqui-

sition, even fewer have done so for L2, and studies that do exist tend to produce

mixed results. For example, Hu et al. (2012) investigated a number of neuro-

cognitive factors—phonological WM, phonetic coding ability, music aptitude,

verbal Intelligence Quotient—and a range of behavioral factors such as empa-

thy, extraversion, openness to new experiences, and conscientiousness. They

found that phonological WM did not predict pronunciation aptitude (assessed

by a reading task) in 109 advanced learners with an average age of onset of 10

years, but coding ability, music aptitude, empathy, and openness to experience

did. Their regression analysis further identified coding ability and empathy as

the most significant predictors of pronunciation aptitude, explaining 34

percent of the variance. Rota and Reiterer’s (2009) results for WM are similar.

They examined 20 ‘highly talented’ individuals out of 60 overall language

learners using a digit span task and an intelligence test based on Raven’s

Progressive matrices for reasoning and abstract thinking, but found no signifi-

cance for either. Nor did their analysis yield significance for ‘mental flexibility’,

defined as selective attention and reaction time during task-switching.

Interestingly, they also found significance for empathy, defined as both

social and emotional intelligence according to a questionnaire developed by

Leibetseder et al. (cited in Rota and Reiterer 2009) to measure ‘sensitivity’ and

‘concern’ in fictitious vs. real-life situations. In fact, empathy correlated to

phonemic coding ability, suprasegmental perception, imitation ability for an

unknown language (Hindi words), and self-proclaimed enjoyment of imitating

accents. Both studies underscore the connections between the cognitive and

affective realms.

Learner style and strategies
2

Some have suggested that aptitude is more generally related to overall cogni-

tive abilities and style (Skehan 1998), and that having a predominantly audi-

tory style correlates to pronunciation accuracy (Baran-Łucarz 2012).
3

These

exceptional learner profiles all speak to the importance of ongoing self-mon-

itoring of progress, regardless of instruction. By this I mean explicit attention to

difficult (phonological) features, frequent imitation of native speakers, and

conscious concern for pronunciation accuracy. Is this metalinguistic orienta-

tion the key to their success? Others have confirmed that field independence—

representing an analytical style that is detail-oriented—plays a significant role

in pronunciation success (Elliott 1995; Baran- Łucarz 2012).

Although my 2004 analysis (Moyer 2004) did not find significance for any

specific strategy, the more strategies undertaken the better for phonological

fluency, particularly when the imitation of native speakers was one of those

strategies. This suggests an effect for rehearsal and reflection, that is, a possible

connection between the phonological loop function and actual phonological

A. MOYER 429

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

working memory

–

working memory

—

working memory

%

working memory

—

–

i.e.

,

learning. Furthermore, those who focused on their pronunciation shortfalls

were more likely to seek out informal practice and feedback with NS, indicat-

ing a link between cognitive and social strategies. The list of common learning

strategies among these learners includes the following:

� Self-monitoring
� Explicit attention to accent
� Frequent imitation of native speakers
� Conscious concern for accent and/or desire to sound native
� Authentic practice and input in informal domains

The array of these factors recalls Sasaki’s (1996) assertion that ‘expert’ lan-

guage learners exhibit more flexibility in the range of strategies they apply to

language leaning, whereas monolingual (‘novice’) learners apply undirected,

general strategies (based on a study by Nayah et al. 1990, cited in Sasaki 1996).

Sasaki’s own analysis of many cognitive factors among Japanese learners of

English confirmed this pattern; the lower proficiency learners tended to use

just one or two strategies per task, whereas those at a higher level of profi-

ciency demonstrated multiple strategies per task. (Far more evidence is needed

on language learning strategies directed at phonology specifically, since it is

unclear whether learners make accurate links between their own pronuncia-

tion shortfalls and either specific learning strategies or interactional, ‘real-time’

repairs. This aligns well with Dörnyei’s (2010) idea that ‘‘L2 learners are

engaged in an ongoing appraisal and response process, involving their contin-

uous monitoring and evaluating . . . and then making possible amendments if

something seems to be going amiss’’ (p. 255). This is the essence of self-regula-

tion. Self-regulating learners know ‘‘what they believe . . . have a grasp of their

motivation, are aware of their affect, and plan how to manage the interplay

between these as they engage with a task’’ (Winne 1995, cited in Dörnyei

2005: 162). Simply put, self-regulating learners control their own actions in

order to enhance learning (Dörnyei 2010: 256).

One important question is whether late learners are less inclined to undertake

such social risks as younger ones. According to Victori and Tragant (2003), older

learners are less likely to engage in the same kinds of active social strategies as

their younger counterparts. In their assessment of 766 ESL classroom learners in

Spain, the younger learners made the effort to study and socialize with their

native speaking classmates, and also enjoyed practicing sounds out loud in

their presence. Older learners tended towards passive activities like watching

TV and listening to the radio. Of course one’s overall self-concept and approach

to new endeavors is relevant as well, and these are highly individual constructs.

Psychological orientation

All indications are that exceptional learners take charge of their learning and

create opportunities for practice outside the classroom. This points to an

ongoing drive, or motivation, which has been verified as significant for a

430 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

•

•

•

•

, Hansen, Krueger and McLaughlin

“

”

“

”

closer-to-native accent. In the Bongaerts et al. study, and in Moyer’s 1999

piece, nearly all of the L2 learners cited a keen interest in sounding native-

like, and all reported a ‘professional orientation’; they wanted to teach the

target language, or otherwise use it as an integral part of their career—a see-

mingly instrumental orientation that is focused on achieving a specific, exter-

nally directed goal.

Related to the motivation construct is the question of how learners perceive

themselves and their abilities, as well as their belief that they have the power

to make desired improvements through sustained effort (also known as

self-efficacy). The exceptional learners profiled here had a tendency to under-

estimate their skill level, as mentioned above. Of interest is the study by Baran-

Łucarz (2012) in which L2 learners of English whose pronunciation was

‘excellent’ tended to downgrade their attainment while a majority of those

considered ‘poor’ overestimated their abilities, yet said they could realistically

assess their skills, and that L2 pronunciation was ‘easy to learn’ although not in

their control—a notable indication of false self-concept and low self-efficacy

(p. 298). Excellent learners, in other words, believe that they can control their

progress, even if they are not yet satisfied with it.

The issue of motivation type has a long history in the SLA research and has

led to an emphasis on ‘integrativeness’, or the desire to affiliate closely with a

given language community and culture (see Clément and Kruidenier 1983;

Masgoret and Gardner 2003; Dörnyei 2005). Clement and Kruidenier suggest

that assessing motivation type must be done on an individual basis because we

cannot presume to know whether a learner’s desire to affiliate with the target

culture is more intrinsic or extrinsic in nature, and whether one or the other

has a greater effect on ultimate attainment (see also Purcell and Suter 1980;

Bongaerts et al. 1995; Moyer 1999, 2004). Munoz and Singleton’s 2007 study

suggests that motivation type does not make the difference after all, and my

2004 and 2007 statistical comparisons (Moyer 2004, 2007) verify that the

intensity of one’s drive to acquire the L2—and even more, the consistency of

that drive over time—is what matters for ultimate attainment in accent.

Understanding stability and consistency in psychological orientation

requires more differentiated instrument designs. Longitudinal data are essen-

tial to understand whether motivation and attitudes relevant to language

learning constitute traits, or core, aspects of the learner’s self-concept as

opposed to situational or domain-specific ‘states’ which constitute its more

dynamic and responsive aspects. One relevant study is Mercer’s (2012) long-

itudinal analysis of an advanced learner of English living in Germany, con-

ducted over 22 months. Mercer’s objective was to examine the flexibility vs.

stability of self-concept—the cognitive and affective beliefs a learner has about

herself relevant to a specific area, for example, learning English (p. 202). Her

interview data reveal a stable, core self-concept vis-à-vis English predicated on

a strongly positive orientation towards the language. As with many of the

learners described above, ‘Joana’ expresses a love of English, and says ‘‘that

will never change’’ (p. 204). Indeed, over the course of the study, it remained

A. MOYER 431

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

—

–

—

; Dörnyei 2005

,

; Purcell and Suter 1980

second language

–

—

—

e.g.

so, even when certain aspects of her ability were critiqued (here: writing).

Mercer concludes that Joana’s self-concept is inherently connected to her

overall approach to language learning. In her case, this meant directing her

energies in active and social ways, focusing on interaction rather than more

receptive modes of L2 experience such as studying and reading.

It is reasonable to assume that factors like risk-tolerance, extraversion, and

empathy have some role to play in exceptional L2 outcomes, and several

learners profiled here were described as ‘outgoing’ and very social. Indeed,

Obler (1989) long ago speculated that exceptional learning comes down to a

combination of neurological talent and tolerance for risk-taking.

In a 1999 review of the literature, Dewaele and Furnham speculate on the

connections between extraversion and neuro-cognitive approach, with impli-

cations for learning strategies and outwardly directed behaviors. The original

hypothesis of Eysenck, who first described the construct in 1947, was that

extraverts were ‘underaroused’ in the autonomous nervous system and in

the cortex, leading to a search for greater external stimulation (ibid.). The

authors’ review of the research confirms associations between extraversion

and a ‘positive affect’; relatively low levels of anxiety; greater willingness to

communicate (WTC); self-reported frequency of communication in L2; and

superior short-term memory—all of which surely affect how extraverts seek

and utilize input (and output), especially beyond the classroom, for the benefit

of oral fluency. They further speculate that extraverts’ lower anxiety corre-

sponds to greater capacity in WM, and that WTC effectively increases output,

which speeds up the ‘‘proceduralization of different kinds of knowledge’’

(p. 536). [The longitudinal data from Van Daele et al.’s (2006) study of 25

Dutch students learning English and French yielded intriguing, though

mixed results; however, extraversion seemed to present a ‘trade-off’ between

accuracy and fluency on a narrative retelling task.]

Very few studies speak to the relevance of personality type for accent spe-

cifically (but see Hu and Reiterer 2009), although few would dispute the

notion that native-like abilities in L2 phonology hinge upon an openness to

developing new experiences, and ultimately a new sense of self, in the target

language. Relevant here is Lybeck’s (2002) study of nine American women

living in Norway and Hansen’s (1995) examination of 20 German-born adult

immigrants in the USA, both of which emphasize the learner’s willingness to

develop a new L2 identity as significant for pronunciation. I have also shown

significant correlations between accent and one’s perceived ease of establishing

contact with native speakers; comfort assimilating culturally; and intention to

reside long-term (5+ years) in the target language country (Moyer 1999, 2004,

2007). Dewaele (2005) has called for a deeper exploration of how learners learn

on a social and emotional level, and this seems especially relevant for L2

phonology.

Specific attitudes and motivational type are arguably less important than the

underlying investment in the language that they represent (Moyer 2004, 2013).

These exceptional learners have all developed a strong sense of self in the L2,

432 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

–

:

—

working memory

“

”

.

.

second language

surely contingent on an ‘‘openness to identify with another language commu-

nity’’ (as Masgoret and Gardner put it—2003: 6), and the motivation to main-

tain an ‘ideal’ self-concept, in Dörnyei’s terms (2005), which is an orientation

towards achievement and success more generally. According to Dörnyei’s

(2010) schema, the ‘ideal L2 self’ can only be an effective motivator if the

learner actually has a ‘desired future self-image’ which is both ‘elaborate

and vivid’, and if that ideal self is ‘‘accompanied by relevant and effective

procedural strategies that act as a roadmap towards the goal’’ (p. 257).

Another way to think of this is that exceptional learners have an unusual

connection to their ‘possible selves’, which act as forward-pointing ‘self-

guides’ (Dörnyei 2010: 265). Some of the learners profiled here referred expli-

citly to such a conceptualized self as a guide for their efforts.

The critical emphasis in Dörnyei’s self-concept schema is the dynamic over-

lap between cognitive and social strategies, and psychological orientation.

With a new emphasis on ‘dynamic systems’, SLA researchers should now

develop thoughtful ways to investigate how successful learners use motiva-

tion, develop emotional connections, maintain positive attitudes, develop goal-

setting, undertake socially directed behaviors, and engage in reflection and

self-evaluation.

Experience

Length of residence, as one of the most basic measures of L2 experience, has

produced mixed results across studies (Piske et al. 2001). Recently, Saito and

Brajot (2013) have found statistical significance for LOR at the early stages

(within approximately 1 year) for certain formant frequencies (F1 and F2) and

formant transition duration, and significance for longer LOR for another for-

mant (F3) among 65 adult Japanese learners of English. While they only tested

production of /r/, it is possible that residence on either end of the scale, for

example, within 1–3 years or after 10 years, correlates more significantly to

accent ratings (Moyer 2011). This merits more investigation, as does the pos-

sibility that LOR is particularly relevant for the development of suprasegmen-

tals like pitch melody, as shown by Baker and Trofimovich (2005).

Traditional measures like length of residence and time on task (e.g. hours of

use per week) provide too little detail on how the learner uses L2, with whom,

and under what circumstances. Where LOR findings are robust, they likely

represent a significant shift in L2 use (Moyer 2009) given that those who cite

plenty of interactive L2 use, across different contexts, are judged to have more

authentic accents (Thompson 1991; Flege and Liu 2001; Diaz-Campos 2004;

Jia et al. 2006; MacKay et al. 2006; Derwing et al. 2007; Moyer 2011). A longer

LOR has been shown to correlate to greater interaction among NS friends,

greater use of L2 overall, and less use of L1 (Moyer 2011).

Indeed, these learners all cite primary use of L2 in the home domain. It

seems that, collectively, they have undergone an important shift in language

dominance, giving credence to Thompson’s (1991) claim that those who lose

A. MOYER 433

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

“,0,0,2

“,0,0,2

—

“

”

“

”

“

”

–

e.g.

,

–

,

,

,

; Thompson 1991

their mother tongue stand a significantly higher chance of sounding native in

L2 than those who maintain it. This idea is supported by Flege et al.’s 1999

study of 240 Korean immigrants in the USA whose L2 dominance correlated

positively with accent, even after controlling for AO. Their early arrivers

received significantly more education in the USA, used more English in

daily life, and reported less use of Korean overall, while those arriving at age

12 years or older maintained a more balanced use of English and Korean.

Ultimately, we are interested in the learner’s orientation because this is what

determines what they do with the input: how they structure it and how they

utilize it, in other words, how they engage with the language. This can give us a

better indication of the quality of L2 experience over the long-term (Jia and

Aaronson 2003; Moyer 2004, 2009; Flege et al. 2006). We know that exposure

alone is never enough to reach a native-like or near-native level. Just think of

those who live for years in a host country without progressing beyond rudi-

mentary linguistic skills, or those who overhear another language as children

without developing any real competence in it. For this reason, measures of L2

experience must signify active, meaningful, and consistent language use, and it

must be appreciated for what it says about the role of that language in the

learner’s life. Where L2 becomes dominant, or effectively replaces L1, it clearly

takes on not just instrumental, but emotional and social significance. Using L2

in the home within their own families and/or among their roommates has

likely intensified these exceptional learners’ desire and efforts to sound native.

The discussion above shows that these learners are highly engaged; they

have ‘conscious and unconscious structuring of opportunities, as well as atti-

tudes and perceptions, towards a set of goals—the underlying mechanisms for

engagement being cognitive, social and psychological in nature’ (2004: 145).

While the engagement construct is complex and somewhat idiosyncratic, it is

still, I would argue, critical to L2 phonology outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Baran-Łucarz concludes that exceptionally good pronunciation learners ‘‘owe

success to an ideal combination of cognitive traits . . . strong intrinsic motiva-
tion, extensive exposure to authentic spoken language, good phonetic knowl-

edge, and a strong belief that one is in control of progress in learning’’ (2012:

299). So while ‘having a good ear’ or some particular cognitive ability to notice

phonetic detail may be essential for accurate pronunciation, this cannot suffice

to get to an exceptional level in real speech. The evidence reviewed here, while

based on only a handful of studies with varying methodologies, suggests that

those who do have greater cognitive flexibility and a more conscious, selective

approach to specific strategies tend towards more native-like abilities in L2

phonology. Their conscious approach is, above all, flexible; it evolves in a

dynamic way throughout the acquisition process. These learners also have a

meta-analytic orientation, as they all reflect on the efficacy of specific strategies

(Schneiderman and Desmarais 1988; McLaughlin 1990). They also enjoy a

434 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

.

.

.

.

“

—

”

“

”

consistently high level of motivation, access to authentic input and interaction,

and a propensity towards learning strategies that are both socially oriented and

metacognitive in nature. For future work, more data are needed for differing

L1–L2 pairs, with instruments taking deliberate account of various social, cog-

nitive, and psychological data in order to solidify a predictive model for learner

engagement in L2 phonological attainment.

Exceptional learning is by no means a one-dimensional phenomenon, nor I

would argue, is it based solely on an as-yet-to-be-determined talent or some

single resource. Rather, it is the manifestation of a constellation of factors—

cognitive, psychological, social, and experiential. We must therefore follow

learner engagement over time, tracking the ways that exceptional learners

make the most of the available input. The learners presented here do not

even claim those aspects of experience traditionally identified as necessary—

a considerable length of residence, formal instruction, or even early onset. Yet

they consistently use the target language in ways that have great personal

significance.

I have argued here for a constellation of influences on accent, attested by

these exceptional learners, to underscore several important principles: (i)

these influences do not operate in isolation from one another—the affective

and the cognitive go hand-in-hand as one seeks, and consciously utilizes, the

input available; (ii) an exceptional learner’s drive to sound native is neither

static nor a priori—it is ongoing, conscious, and flexible, yet may be predicated

on a stable core self-concept relevant to language learning; and (iii) no single

factor guarantees a native-like accent—nor does one single factor, like age,

preclude it.

Many questions for future work remain, pertaining to the following areas:

(a) Processing and memory: It remains to be seen whether certain types of
processing and/or memory are particularly relevant for the ability to
perceive, as opposed to produce, new sounds, or vice versa. More evi-
dence is needed to substantiate the relative interdependence of these
two processing levels, and whether and how gains in one area affect
the other. In addition, because pronunciation relies on a variety of
neural resources, it is likely that the balance of these resources is recon-
stituted at various stages of the learning process (see Hu et al. 2012).
Longitudinal analyses are essential for understanding this inherently
dynamic system.

(b) Learning strategies and learning context: Specific learning styles and
strategies surely have varying degrees of effectiveness as a function of
the learning environment. For example, instructed environments

4
may

favor left-hemisphere processors, whereas immersion favors bilateral or
right-hemisphere processors. Explicit study of exceptional learners’ pro-
cessing patterns would be invaluable, especially of a longitudinal nature.
It would be important to understand which aspects of language are
processed bilaterally, for example, and how this may shift with
experience.

A. MOYER 435

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

–

–

–

—

—

a

—

b

,

—

c

—

(a)

(b)

(c) Adaptability of processing and adaptability of aptitude: There is a need to
understand the extent to which hemispheric processing shifts
with experience, and similarly, whether aptitude is responsive and adap-
table, as opposed to innate and/or static. In general, aptitude has been
thought of as less relevant for communicative, interactive learning than
for instructional, focus-on-form situations (Skehan 2002), but it is still
unclear how specific abilities interact with specific learning conditions.
Perhaps most intriguing is the question of whether aptitude shifts with
experience, that is, whether it is somehow learnable.

The focus on individual differences in SLA runs the gamut from affective to

cognitive, to social and experiential factors, and for no skill is this focus more

relevant than for phonology. Pronunciation skill development is perhaps the

greatest test of one’s desire to successfully acquire a new language given the

complexity of the task and its inherent relevance for self-concept. As I have

argued elsewhere, this struggle is negotiated in proportion to the target lan-

guage’s value and significance in the learner’s life, the attitudes held about its

speakers, and the value of language learning in general (Moyer 2013). It is

therefore worth emphasizing these exceptional learners’ deep investment in

the target language is predicated on a drive to continually refine and improve

fluency, and a constant reflection on how well they are accomplishing their

goals. The specific means by which they do this includes attention to fine

detail, consistent rehearsal, self-reflection, and self-critique—none quite

thinks he has ‘arrived’ yet, which gives the impetus to further refine his

abilities.

Exceptional learning in SLA is legend—a story told with fascination, but too-

often dismissed as a false challenge to the Critical Period Hypothesis. As Scovel

has said, applied linguists are ‘‘fascinated with dichotomies’’, such as those who

acquire a language before age X will succeed, those who do not simply cannot

succeed (1988). But such dichotomies are increasingly shown to be mythical—

widely held but often erroneous ideas. For Scovel, the age question is ultimately

compelling because it asks us to examine how nature and nurture work together

‘‘through time’’ (1988: 5). As seen in this analysis, some learners can indeed

attain to a native level, but this is a process, and the factors that predict their

success converge at the unique interaction between learner and context.

NOTES

1 This question has a long history of its

own which is beyond the scope of this

article, and here I do not wish to imply

that success is an absolute, but rather

that it is ‘relative to the goal’, as Cook

puts it (2010: 154). We consider here

learners whose goal it is to sound like

native speakers.

2 Style generally refers to learning pref-

erences without regard for the specific

task, whereas strategy refers to a goal-

directed technique aimed to optimize

learning (Oxford 1990).

3 Baran-Łucarz measured this via the

Barsch Learning-Style Inventory for 50

Polish high school students learning

436 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

(c)

i.e.

,

:

—

—

—

–

“

”

paper

“

”

“

”

English who completed free speech,

dialogue reading, minimal pair reading,

and perception tasks.

4 Some of the learners here had little or

no instruction, so they may have

brought to bear so-called implicit learn-

ing mechanisms (whether these are ac-

cessible after a certain age is another

debate), or simply used explicit strate-

gies very effectively.

REFERENCES

Baker, W. and P. Trofimovich. 2005.

‘Interaction of native- and second-language

vowel system(s) in early and late bilinguals,’

Language and Speech 48: 1–27.

Baran-Łucarz, M. 2012. ‘Individual learner dif-

ferences and accuracy in foreign language pro-

nunciation’ in M. Pawlak (ed.): New Perspectives

on Individual Differences in Language Learning

and Teaching. Springer, pp. 289–303.

Bley-Vroman, R. 1989. ‘What is the logical

problem of foreign language learning?’

in S. Gass and J. Schachter (eds): Linguistic

Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–68.

Bongaerts, T., B. Planken, and E. Schils. 1995.

‘Can late starters attain a native accent in a

foreign language? A test of the critical period

hypothesis’ in D. Singleton and Z. Lengyel

(eds): The Age Factor in Second Language

Acquisition. Multilingual Matters, pp. 30–50.

Carroll, J. and S. Sapon. 1959. Modern Language

Aptitude Test. The Psychological Corporation.

Clément, R. and B. Kruidenier. 1983.

‘Orientations in second language acquisition:

The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target lan-

guage on their emergence,’ Language Learning

33: 273–91.

Conway A., C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake,

and J. Towse (eds). 2007. Variation in Working

Memory. Oxford University

Press.

Cook, V. 2010. ‘The relationship between first

and second language acquisition revisited’

in E. Macaro (ed.): Continuum Companion to

Second Language Acquisition. Continuum

International, pp. 137–57.

Derwing, T., M. Munro, and R. Thomson.

2007. ‘A longitudinal study of ESL learners’

fluency and comprehensibility development,’

Applied Linguistics 29: 359–80.

Dewaele, J. 2005. ‘Investigating the

psychological and emotional dimensions in

instructed language learning: Obstacles and

possibilities,’ Modern Language Journal 89:

367–80.

Dewaele, J. and A. Furnham. 1999.

‘Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied

linguistic research,’ Language Learning 49:

509–44.

Diaz-Campos, M. 2004. ‘Context of learning in

the acquisition of Spanish second language

phonology,’ Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 26: 249–73.

Dörnyei, Z. 2005. Psychology and the Language

Learner. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. 2010. ‘The relationship between

language aptitude and language learning motiv-

ation: Individual differences from a dynamic sys-

tems perspective’ in E. Macaro (ed.): Continuum

Companion to Second Language Acquisition.

Continuum International, pp. 247–67.

Elliott, A. 1995. ‘Field independence/depend-

ence, hemispheric specialization, and attitude

in relation to pronunciation accuracy in

Spanish as a foreign language,’ Modern

Language Journal 79: 356–71.

Flege, J. and J. Hillenbr. 1987. ‘Limits on phon-

etic accuracy in foreign language speech pro-

duction’ in G. Ioup and S. Weinberger (eds):

Interlanguage Phonology. Newbury House,

pp. 176–203.

Flege, J. and S. Liu. 2001. ‘The effect of experi-

ence on adults’ acquisition of a second lan-

guage,’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition

23: 527–52.

Flege, J., D. Birdsong, E. Bialystok, M. Mack,

H. Sung, and K. Tsukada. 2006. ‘Degree of

foreign accent in English sentences produced

by Korean children and adults,’ Journal of

Phonetics 34: 153–75.

Flege, J., I. MacKay, and T. Piske. 2002.

‘Assessing bilingual dominance,’ Applied

Psycholinguistics 23: 567–98.

Flege, J., G. Yeni-Komshian, and S. Liu. 1999.

‘Age constraints on second-language

A. MOYER 437

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

acquisition,’ Journal of Memory and Language

41: 78–104.

Gottfried, T. 2008. ‘Music and language learn-

ing. Effects of musical training on learning L2

speech contrasts’ in O. Bohn and M. Munro

(eds): Language Experience in Second Language

Speech Learning. John Benjamins, pp. 221–37.

Hansen, D. 1995. ‘A study of the effect of the

acculturation model on second language acqui-

sition’ in F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee,

J. Mileham, and R. Rutkowski-Weber (eds):

Second Language Acquisition Theory and

Pedagogy. Routledge, pp. 305–16.

Hansen, J. 2004. ‘Developmental sequences in

the acquisition of English L2 syllable codas,’

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26:

85–124.

Hu, X. and S. Reiterer. 2009. ‘Personality and

pronunciation talent in second language acqui-

sition’ in G. Dogil and S. Reiterer (eds):

Language Talent and Brain Activity. Mouton de

Gruyter, pp. 97–129.

Hu, X., H. Ackermann, J. Martin, M. Erb,

S. Winkler, and S. Reiterer. 2012.

‘Language aptitude for pronunciation in

advanced second language (L2) learners:

Behavioral predictors and neural substrates,’

Brain and Language 127: 366–76.

Ioup, G., E. Boustagi, M. El Tigi, and

M. Moselle. 1994. ‘Re-examining the critical

period hypothesis: A case study of successful

adult SLA in a naturalistic environment,’

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 73–98.

Jia, G. and D. Aaronson. 2003. ‘A longitudinal

study of Chinese children and adolescents

learning English in the United States,’ Applied

Psycholinguistics 24: 131–61.

Jia, G., W. Strange, Y. Wu, J. Collado, and

Q. Guan. 2006. ‘Perception and production

of English vowels by Mandarin speakers:

Age-related differences vary with amount of

L2 exposure,’ Journal of the Acoustical Society of

America 119: 1118–30.

Kuhl, P. 2007. ‘Cracking the speech code: How

infants learn language,’ Acoustical Science and

Technology 28: 71–83.

Kuhl, P., B. Conboy, S. Coffey-Corina,

D. Padden, M. Rivera-Gaxiola, and

T. Nelson. 2008. ‘Phonetic learning as a path-

way to language: New data and Native

Language Magent Theory Expanded

(NLM-e),’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society of London. Series B, Biological

Sciences 363: 979–1000.

Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological Foundations of

Language. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Levis, J. and A. Moyer. 2014. ‘Future directions

in the research and teaching of L2 pronunci-

ation’

in J. Levis and A. Moyer (eds): Social

Dynamics in Second Language Accent. DeGruyter

Mouton, pp. 275–91.

Lybeck, K. 2002. ‘Cultural identifications and

second language pronunciation of Americans

in Norway,’ Modern Language Journal 86:

174–91.

MacKay, I., J. Flege, and S. Imai. 2006.

‘Evaluating the effects of chronological

age and sentence duration on degree of per-

ceived accent,’ Applied Psycholinguistics 27:

157–83.

Major, R. 1993. ‘Sociolinguistic factors in loss

and acquisition of phonology’

in K. Hyltenstam and A. Viberg (eds):

Progression and Regression in Language:

Sociocultural, Neuropsychological and Linguistic

Perspectives. Cambridge University Press,

pp. 463–78.

Major, R. 2007. ‘Identifying a foreign accent in

an unfamiliar language,’ Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 29: 539–56.

Masgoret, A. and R. Gardner. 2003. ‘Attitudes,

motivation and second language learning: A

meta-analysis of studies conducted by

Gardner and associates,’ Language Learning 53:

123–63.

McLaughlin, B. 1990. ‘The relationship between

first and second languages: Language profi-

ciency and language aptitude’ in B. Harley

et al. (eds): The Development of Second Language

Proficiency. Cambridge University Press,

pp. 158–74.

Mercer, S. 2012. ‘The dynamic nature of a ter-

tiary learner’s foreign language self-concept’

in M. Pawlak (ed.): New Perspectives on

Individual Differences in Language Learning and

Teaching. Springer Verlag, pp. 201–15.

Molnár, H. 2010. ‘Der Einfluss des Faktors Alter

auf die Aussprachekompetenz in der L2.

Ergebnise einer Pilotstudie mit DaZ-Lernern,’

Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunter-

richt 15: 42–60.

Moyer, A. 1999. ‘Ultimate attainment in L2

phonology: The critical factors of age, motiv-

ation, and instruction,’ Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 21: 81–108.

438 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

Moyer, A. 2004. Age, Accent and Experience in

Second Language Acquisition. An Integrated

Approach to Critical Period Inquiry. Multilingual

Matters.

Moyer, A. 2007. ‘Do language attitudes deter-

mine accent? A study of bilinguals in the

USA,’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development 28: 1–17.

Moyer, A. 2009. ‘Input as a critical means to an

end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2

phonological attainment’ in M. Young-

Scholten and T. Piske (eds): Input Matters in

SLA. Multilingual Matters, pp. 159–174.

Moyer, A. 2011. ‘An investigation of experience

in L2 phonology. Does quality matter more

than quantity?,’ Canadian Modern Language

Review 67: 191–216

Moyer, A. 2013. Foreign Accent: The Phenomenon

of Non-native Speech. Cambridge University

Press.

Muñoz, C. and D. Singleton. 2007. ‘Foreign

accent in advanced learners: Two successful

profiles,’ EUROSLA Yearbook 7: 171–90.

Nardo, D. and S. Reiterer. 2009. ‘Musicality

and phonetic language aptitude’ in G. Dogil

and S. Reiterer (eds): Language Talent and

Brain Activity. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 213–55.

Nikolov, M. 2000. ‘The Critical Period

Hypothesis reconsidered: Successful adult lear-

ners of Hungarian and English,’ International

Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching 38: 109–24.

Obler, L. 1989. ‘Exceptional second language

learners’ in S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston,

and L. Selinker (eds): Variation in Second

Language Acquisition, vol. 2: Psycholinguistic

Issues. Multilingual Matters, pp. 141–59.

Oxford, R. 1990. ‘Language Learning Strategies’.

Heinle and Heinle.

Pickering, L. and A. Baker. 2014.

‘Suprasegmental measures of accentedness’

in J. Levis and A. Moyer (eds): Social

Influences in L2 Pronunciation. DeGruyter

Mouton, pp. 75–96.

Piske, T., I. MacKay, and J. Flege. 2001.

‘Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in

an L2: A review,’ Journal of Phonetics 29:

191–215.

Purcell, E. and R. Suter. 1980. ‘Predictors of

pronunciation accuracy: A re-examination,’

Language Learning 30: 271–87.

Robinson, P. 2002. ‘Learning conditions, apti-

tude complexes and SLA’ in P. Robinson

(ed.): Individual Differences and Instructed

Language Learning. John Benjamins,

pp. 113–33.

Rojczyk, A. 2011. ‘Perception of English voice

onset time continuum by Polish learners’

in J. Arabski and A. Wojtaszek (eds): The

Acquisition of L2 Phonology. Multilingual

Matters, pp. 37–58.

Rota, G. and S. Reiterer. 2009. ‘Cognitive

aspects of pronunciation talent’ in G. Dogil

and S. Reiterer (eds): Language Talent

and Brain Activity. Mouton de Gruyter,

pp. 67–96.

Saito, K. and F. Brajot. 2013. ‘Scrutinizing the

role of length of residence and age of acquisi-

tion in the interlanguage pronunciation

developmet of English//by late Japanese bilin-

guals,’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16:

847–63.

Sasaki, M. 1996. Second Language Proficiency,

Foreign Language Aptitude, and Intelligence.

Peter Lang.

Schneiderman, E. and C. Desmarais. 1988. ‘A

neuropsychological substrate for talent in

second-language acquisition’ in L. Obler and

D. Fein (eds): The Exceptional Brain: The

Neuropsychology of Talent and Special Abilities.

Guilford Press, pp. 103–26.

Scovel, T. 1988. A Time to Speak: A Psycholinguistic

Inquiry into the Critical Period for Human Speech.

Newbury House.

Selinker, L. 1972. ‘Interlanguage,’ International

Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching 10: 209–31.

Sereno, J. and Y. Wang. 2007. ‘Behavioral and

cortical effects of learning a second language’

in O. Bohn and M. Munro (eds): Language

Experience in Second Language Speech Learning.

John Benjamins, pp. 239–58.

Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to

Language Learning. Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. 2002. ‘Theorising and updating apti-

tude’ in P. Robinson (ed.): Individual Differences

and Instructed Language Learning. John

Benjamins, pp. 69–93.

Strange, W. and V. Shafer. 2008. ‘Speech per-

ception in second language learners. The

re-education of selective perception’

in J. Hansen-Edwards and M. Zampini (eds):

Phonology and Second Language Acquisition.

John Benjamins, pp. 153–91.

Thompson, I. 1991. ‘Foreign accents

revisited: The English pronunciation of

A. MOYER 439

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

Russian immigrants,’ Language Learning 41:

177–204.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. 2003. ‘The relationship

between musical ability and foreign languages’

in T. Tokuhama-Espinosa (ed.): The Multilingual

Mind. Praeger Publishers, pp. 65–80.

Towse, J. and G. Hitch. 2007. ‘Variation in

working memory due to normal development’

in A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake,

and J. Towse (eds): Variation in Working

Memory. Oxford University Press, pp. 109–33.

Van Daele, S., A. Housen, M. Pierrard, and

L. Debruyn. 2006. ‘The effect of extraversion

on oral L2 proficiency,’ EUROSLA Yearbook 6:

213–36.

Victori, M. and E. Tragant. 2003. ‘Learner stra-

tegies: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study

of primary and high school EFL learners’

in M. Garcia Mayo and M. Garcia Lecumberri

(eds): Age and the Acquisition of English as a

Foreign Language. Multilingual Matters,

pp. 182–209.

440 EXCEPTIONAL OUTCOMES IN L2 PHONOLOGY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article-abstract/35/4/418/2887856
by University of California, Santa Cruz user
on 04 January 2018

Directions

Length: ~3-4 typed, double-spaced pages (approx. 750-1000 words)

Content: The reviews will follow a summary/response organization.  The following questions should help guide your review:

Summary:  

· General comments: The goal of this part of your review is to demonstrate your comprehension of the study.  As such, assume your target audience is non-experts in SLA research.  Avoid highly technical details and jargon, opting instead for more accessible language and descriptions, i.e., “your own words.”  There should be no need for any quotes in this summary.

· Content: Your summary should address the following questions:

· What were the goals of the study? What were the researchers hoping to find out as a result of the study?  What were the gaps/limitations in our understanding that they were hoping to address? (Note: You do not need to summarize their entire literature review, but should provide some basic background to contextualize the study.)

· How did they attempt to address the research questions? Summarize the methodology employed.  Who were the participants?  What data-collection methods/instruments were used?  What was analyzed, compared…?

· What were the key findings? (Note: No need to discuss detailed statistical findings. Simply summarize the important findings).  How did the researcher(s) interpret these findings in relation to their research questions and previous research discussed in their literature review?

Response:

· General Comments: The goal of this part of your review is to demonstrate your intellectual interaction with the research you have read.

· Content: Your response should address the following questions:

· What new terms or concepts have you learned from this article? (Don’t just list terms/concepts, but briefly explain them.)

· How do the findings relate to your own experience with and/or ideas about language acquisition? Any surprises? Confirmations? Anything about which you remain skeptical? (If relevant, how do findings relate to other course readings or discussions?)  

· What questions has this study—the methodology, the findings, etc.—raised for you? What do you suspect might be the answer to your questions?