Examination of the Critical

Period Hypothesis and

Ultimate Attainment Among
Spanish-English Bilinguals and
English-Speaking Monolinguals

Alejandro E. Brice
University of South Florida-St. Petersburg
St. Petersburg, Florida
Roanne Brice
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida

4/0IIIMMINIONINIONV

The purpose of this investigation was to study speech recognition among

Spanish-English bilingual and monolingual English-speaking individuals in
two, separate yet related, studies. The first study examined phonotactic
aspects and age of arrival on speech perception among three groups of
bilingual individuals, thereby, investigating the effects of age limitations
on second language learning. The second study addressed whether fluent
and proficient bilingual speakers showed equal perceptual abilities when
compared to monolingual English speakers on only English gated words,
thus, measuring their ultimate attainment in English.
Forty-five Spanish/English fluent bilinguals with no reported speech,
language, or hearing deficits participated in experiment one; whereas,
30 Spanish-English fluent bilinguals and 30 monolingual English speakers
with no reported speech, language, or hearing deficits participated in the

A sia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language, and hearing

Volume 11, Number 3, pp. 143-160 143
Copyright CO 2008 Plural Publishing, Inc.
144 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE. AND HEARING, VOL. 11, NO. 3

second study. The Spanish-English bilingual listeners were able to differ-

entiate words when the initial consonant cluster was voiced. In addition,
CV-tense words were identified quicker (than CV-lax words) in Spanish
than in English. It also appeared that exposure to two languages over a
period of six or more years yielded enhanced phonotactic abilities in the
second language, that is, positive language transference. Results from this
study indicated that ultimate attainment of speech perception in a second
language seems to occur from 9 to 15 years of age, that is. in direct con-
trast to when abilities should decrease according to the critical period or
age limitation hypothesis. Results from the second study indicated that
the Spanish-English speakers performed overall on par with their mono-
lingual counterparts achieving ultimate attainment in speech perception.
Therefore, the two studies reported here have not supported the notion
of the critical period hypothesis (Lenneberg. 1967).
Key Words: second language acquisition. speech perception, critical period hy-
pothesis. ultimate attainment. Spanish-English speakers

Introduction critical stage where learning is severely lim-

Learning a second language (L2) differs
from first language acquisition (L1) in that
L2 learning development poses obstacles
for most non-native learners. In addition, the
concept of attaining nativelike proficiency in
L2 is still a topic of debate. Birdsong (1999)
stated that, "Whereas the attainment of full
linguistic competence is the birthright of all
normal children, adults vary widely in their
ultimate level of attainment. and linguistic
competence comparable to that of natives
is seldom attested" (p. 1). One explanation
for this has been the postulation of the crit-
ical period hypothesis (CPH). This theory
was first proposed by Penfield and Roberts
(1959). They stated that, "for the purposes
of learning languages, the human brain be-
comes progressively stiff and rigid after the
age of nine" (p. 236) and that "when lan-
guages are taken up for the first time in the
second decade of life, it is difficult . . . to
achieve a good result . . . because it is un-
physiological - (p. 255).
Lenneberg (1967) thereby interpreted
this to mean that first and second language
learners encounter a developmental and
ited. He stated that language acquisition is
"quickly outgrown at the age of puberty" (p.
142). The critical period hypothesis (CPH)
postulates that in learning language earlier is
always better. Acquisition applied to second
language learning is optimal when language
is acquired prior to puberty. According to
the CPH, an age effect takes place after this
time when: (a) language learning dramatical-
ly decreases; and (b) that this decrease is ex-
emplified by a severe cutoff slope. Accord-
ing to the CPH, second language learning
dramaticall y should decline after a critical
time frame, thus showing a very apparent
discontinuity between late age of arrival
(AOA) to the second language and language
proficiency.
Critical Period Hypothesis
and Age of Arrival
Key components to the study of second
language acquisition and the CPH include
such concepts as early versus late age of ar-
rival (AOA), brief or lengthy length of resi-
dence (LOR), and ultimate attainment in the
 EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS AND ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT 145
second language. Each concept is briefly dis-
cussed. A comprehensive review of this lit-
erature is not presented here due to space
limitations. However. the reader is referred
to Birdsong (1999) who provides findings
from numerous researchers across different
language areas.
Age of arrival (AOA) is defined here as
the age at which participants came to the
new country and were exposed to the sec-
ond language. that is. English. One of the ear-
lier studies which investigated age of arrival
was conducted by Patkowski (1980). He in-
vestigated syntactic language abilities of 67
immigrants via oral interviews and subse-
quent ratings. Participants were placed into
two groups, namely, age of arrival before 15
years and AOA after 15 years, thereby test-
ing the age limitation constraint on learning
a second language. The ratings were con-
ducted by two English as a second language
(ESL) teachers trained over a period of two
weeks. The number of years that the partici-
pants had resided in the United States ranged
from six to 61 years. Patkowski found age of
arrival to he a major predictor of language
proficiency concluding that age is a limiting
factor in ultimate L2 attainment, supporting
the notion that language learning decreases
as a function of age or absolute age limita-
tion (i.e., in support of the critical period hy-
pothesis). However. several flaws appeared
to he present in Patkowski's (1980) study.
Some limitations of the study are noted in
that the author does not provide sufficient
information reporting the participants in the
study . for example, their educational back-
ground, or when they learned English. In ad-
dition, Patkowski's investigation was not a
study of ultimate attainment as high profi-
ciency levels of his participants were never
ascertained. However. the most serious lim-
itation of this study involves inappropriate
analysis of the data. Patkowski violated the
principles of normality of distribution and
homogeneity of variance. He used ANOVA
parametric statistics but instead should have
used nonparametric statistics. Consequent-
ly. the results and conclusions from the Pat-
kowski (1980) study are questionable.
Johnson and Newport (1989) assessed
AOA (i.e.. when optimal learning occurred
before or after the critical period) by means
of a grammaticality judgment task. They
wished to test whether young children were
able to acquire a second language earlier
than adults and. consequently. achieve high-
er levels of final proficiency in their second
language. Participants included 46 Korean
and Chinese speakers learning English. All
participants had lived in the United States
for a period of at least five years. Participants
were grouped according three AOA distinc-
tions (i.e., 5-7: 8-13: and 14-16 years).
Participants were then asked to provide
grammaticality judgments on 276 English
sentences (half of which were grammatical
or ungrammatical). Results of their stud y in-
dicated an advantage for earlier arrivals over
the later arrivals (Johnson & Newport, 1989)
supporting the notion of earlier learning be-
ing better or supporting the CPH. However,
it should be noted that Johnson and New-
port (1989) did not assess the actual English
proficiency of their participants. It is gener-
ally agreed that learning a second language
earlier is better. however. there is disagree-
ment as to the strength of the earl y language
learning. Because of the methodological dif-
ficulties in the Johnson and Newport study
(1989), the strength of their argument needs
to he tempered.
Length of residence (LOR) is the length
of time the individual has lived in the new
country and is an indirect measure of second
language proficiency. Moyer (1999) investi-
gated the significance of age of immersion.
age of instruction. years of teaching, years
of immersion (similar in concept to LOR),
types of phonological feedback, profession-
al motivation, and the importance of native
pronunciation on ultimate attainment in L2
phonology among adults. Age of immersion,
age of instruction. professional motivation.
and type of phonological feedback all corre-
lated with L2 pronunciation ratings. Age of
immersion and age of instruction yielded the
highest correlations. Therefore, it appeared
that age did play a major role in L2 phonolog-
ical attainment: however. motivation (19% of
146 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE, AND HEARING, VOL. 11, NO. 3
the total variance was accounted for by this
variable) and amount of instruction (22% of
the total variance was accounted for by this
variable) did not yield highly significant out-
comes to language learning. Moyer's data
suggest a trend toward a linear relationship
between age of immersion, age of instruc-
tion, and L2 phonology. However, no dis-
continuity between age of immersion, age
of instruction, and L2 phonological attain-
ment was observed; thus, the CPH was not
supported with regard to these aspects.
Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995) inves-
tigated the critical period hypothesis relat-
ed to second language pronunciation. Ac-
cording to Flege et al. (1995), difficulties
in L2 pronunciation have more to do with
the Speech Learning Model (SLM) than the
critical period hypothesis. According to the
Speech Learning Model, difficulties in pro-
nunciation result from the inability to prop-
erly establish new second language phonet-
ic representations of sounds because the L2
phoneme is similar to one in the first lan-
guage, yet significantly different enough to
cause pronunciation difficulties. Research
has shown that contrasting allophonic varia-
tions (sounds that are similar yet which do
not carry different meaning, for example,
English /b/ in "bat" versus the Italian /b/ in
"babbo") are more difficult to fully acquire
than completely new phonemes in the sec-
ond language (Flege, 1987; Meador, Flege,
& MacKay, 2000). For example, learning to
pronounce the English 1d3/ (not found in
Italian) is easier than learning to pronounce
the contrasting English /b/ versus the Italian
/b/ in the initial word position. The above
mentioned difficulties in acquiring the Eng-
lish /b/ versus the Italian /b/ may have to do
with the VOT aspects of these two Romance
language sounds (Brice, Castellon-Perez, &
Ryalls, 2004; Zampani, 1998).
Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995) stud-
ied English pronunciation of English sen-
tences by 240 Italian speakers who had
moved to Ottawa, Canada between two and
23 years of age. The participants had lived in
Canada for at least 15 years. The Italian par-
ticipants and a control group of native Eng-
lish speakers produced five sentences which
were presented to a panel of native English
speakers. The panel rated the sentences for
degree of foreign accent. The native English
speakers received the highest ratings than
most Italian speakers whose pronunciation
ratings decreased with increased age of ar-
rival. Flege et al.'s (1995) study demonstrat-
ed a near-linear relationship between AOA
and foreign accent ratings. In sum, there
was no discontinuity or cutoffs between the
ratings and AOA as would be predicted by
the critical period hypothesis. Therefore,
the CPH was not supported by the findings
from Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995).
Ultimate Attainment
Ultimate attainment is the ability to reach
high levels of proficiency in the second lan-
guage which may resemble nativelike com-
petence (White & Genesee, 1996). White
and Genesee stated that, "What is in ques-
tion is whether native-like competence is at-
tainable in individuals who acquire their L2
after a certain age" (p. 234), that is, do sec-
ond language learners achieve the same lev-
el of proficiency as first language speakers
after the "critical period." Nativelike compe-
tency is the ability to communicate at high
levels of ability and proficiency near that of
a native first language speaker.
Bongaerts, van Summeren, Planken,
and Schils (1997) investigated ultimate at-
tainment with regard to English pronuncia-
tion. Their participants consisted of 10 na-
tive speakers of British English, 11 native
speakers of Dutch who were highly success-
ful English speakers, and 20 native speak-
ers of Dutch with varying degrees of Eng-
lish proficiency. English speech samples
were elicited from all the participants and
judged by native speakers of British Eng-
lish. The judges rated the samples on a Lik-
ert five-point scale from very strong foreign
accent to no foreign accent at all. The native
English speakers received very high scores
with the very successful Dutch speakers al-
so receiving high scores, albeit, not as high
 EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS AND tILTINIATE ATTAINMENT 147
as the native English speakers. The third
group of non-English speakers with varying
degrees of proficiency did not score highly.
It should be noted that some English learn-
ers in the successful Dutch speakers group
did attain nativelike attainment. Bongaerts
et al. (1997) concluded that some learners
are not bound by critical period constraints,
which he considered to be a "fairly excep-
tional phenomena" (p. 462).
The majority of studies in ultimate at-
tainment have focused on morphosyntac-
tic attainment (Johnson & Newport, 1989);
universal grammar in late language learning
(White & Genesee, 1996); phonological at-
tainment (Bongaerts et al., 1997); or speech
production (Flege & Schmidt. 1995). The
question of which factors contribute most
significantly to second language learning
have been actively debated over numerous
years. In research regarding localization of
two language within the brain, Birdsong
(2006) stated that
The basic research issue addressed in this
area of cognitive neuroscience is whether
processing in the L2 is accomplished in the
same way as processing in the Li. The de-
gree of observed similarity hinges on three
principal factors: the age at which L2 ac-
quisition is begun. the level of L2 proficien-
cy, and the type of task demanded of the
subjects (p. 24).
Bilingual Speech Perception
Ultimate attainment in language learn-
ing is influenced by numerous internal and
external factors. Bilingual speech percep-
tion has not been extensively investigat-
ed. Grosjean (2001) emphasized this point
when he stated that, "There has been far
less (if any) systematic research on language
mode bilingual language model in the
domain of perception" (p. 10). In addition,
few studies have investigated speech percep-
tion, age of arrival, and ultimate attainment
in the second language (Flege & Schmidt,
1997). Some studies have used code-mixed
utterances (Grosjean, 1998, 2001; Grosjean
& Soares, 1986; Li, 1996) in determining
which language was activated during bilin-
gual perception tasks. In bilingual speech
perception tasks it is important to recognize
the acoustic differences inherent between
the two languages.
When comparing Spanish and English,
there are acoustic differences based on the
perception of certain phonemes and tim-
ing features of those phonemes. For exam-
ple, speech perception at the phonetic level
may vary as a result of when the phoneme
is voiced. Is the phoneme voiced prior to
articulatory release (i.e., prevoicing), at ar-
ticulatory release (i.e., zero onset), or after
articulatory release (i.e., lag)? These timing
aspects have been quantified with voice on-
set time (VOT) measures.
Voice onset time is defined as the time
between the air pressure release of an artic-
ulatory constriction and the onset of voic-
ing. In Spanish, the stop consonants /p,t,k/
are classified as unaspirated stops with
shorter-lag voice onset time (VOT) values
(+20 milliseconds [msec]) (Thornburgh &
Ryalls, 1998; Zampini, 1998). In English,
these aspirated stops are produced with
longer-lag VOT values (+60 msec) (Lisker &
Abramson, 1964). The Spanish stop conso-
nants of /b,d,g/ are produced with a nega-
tive or zero VOT (e.g., -20 msec or 0 msec)
or with a shorter lag (+20 msec) than the
typically longer lags (+30 msec) in English
(Zampini, 1998). Because of the longer lags
for voiceless and voiced consonants that are
produced in English (i.e., + 30 or +60 msec,
respectively), English speakers may need
longer VOT values to perceive the voiceless
or voiced stops than do Spanish speakers
(Flege & Eefting, 1986).
A number of studies have used a gating
methodology in studying monolingual and
bilingual word recognition tasks (Cotton &
Grosjean 1984; Grosjean 1988; Tyler & Wes-
sels, 1985). Grosjean (1996) stated that in
the gating task " . . . a spoken language stim-
ulus is presented in segments of increasing
duration and subjects are asked to propose
the word being presented and to give a con-
fidence rating after each segment" (p. 597).
148 ASIA PACIFIC10IJRNAI, OF SPEECH, IAN(;UAGE, ANI) HEARING, VOL. 11, NO.
Therefore, gating appears to he useful in de-
termining the amount of phonetic-acoustic
information that a bilingual listener needs
for the correct identification of the word
(Li, 1996). Therefore, the purpose of this pa-
per is to investigate two separate, yet relat-
ed studies studying speech perception, age
of arrival, and a comparison of bilingual and
monolingual speakers on English speech
perception measuring the critical period of
learning and ultimate attainment in the sec-
ond language.
The Research Paradigm:
Summary of Relevant Research
The research design and paradigm for
this study was based on the combination
and extension of two previous studies with
Spanish-English bilingual speakers (Brice,
Castellon-Perez, & Ryalls, 2004; Brice & Ry-
alls, 2004) and the results from a preliminary
study with monolingual and bilingual Span-
ish-English speakers (Gladwell, 2002). All
studies involved a gating speech identifica-
tion paradigm. A brief summary of this pre-
vious research is presented here.
Brice and Ryalls (2004) investigated
speech perception in a group of Spanish-
English fluent and equally proficient bilin-
guals divided into three groups of proficien-
cy based on their age of arrival (AOA) or age
at which they came to the host country (i.e.,
the United States in this study). The partici-
pants were exposed to English and grouped
on these ages (i.e., early AOA, 3-8 years; mid-
dle AOA, 9-15 years, and late AOA, 16-22
years) = 30); therefore, assessing the is-
sue of early versus late learning and the in-
fluence of the CPH on second language
learning.
The results of this study indicated that
the participants, as a group, were able to
discriminate between their two languages.
Descriptively the participants were able to
differentiate the different code-mixed lan-
guage conditions under which the stimuli
were presented (i.e., Spanish with English,
English with English, English with Spanish,
3
and Spanish with Spanish). Thus, the partici-
pants were judged to be balanced bilingual
speakers perceiving all language conditions,
that is, Spanish, English, and code-mixing.
In addition, Brice and Ryalls found that nei-
ther group (early, middle, or late bilinguals)
significantly showed an overall faster pro-
cessing ability. Age of arrival did not seem
to impact overall on a balanced bilingual's
perception of one language over the other
indicating that no absolute age restriction
on learning was noted (i.e., rejecting no-
tions of an overall effect related to the CPH).
Descriptive differences were noted among
the groups with the middle AOA group per-
forming better on all four language presenta-
tion conditions further negating the critical
period hypothesis (Lenneberg, 1967).
Brice, Castellon-Perez, and Rvalls (2004)
studied the recognition of code-mixed
words among Spanish-English bilingual in-
dividuals, specifically investigating the pho-
notactic aspects of speech and the effects
on the dual activation of the two languages
in speech perception. Do bilingual speakers
demonstrate a marked bias for one language
when presented with bilingual input? By in-
vestigating dual language activation in bilin-
guals, the notion of equal perceptual abili-
ties related to achieving ultimate attainment
was investigated. Thirty Spanish-English flu-
ent and proficient participants with no re-
ported speech, language, or hearing deficits
heard sentences with the last word divided
into gated portions of approximately 70 mil-
liseconds. Target words consisted of voiced
and voiceless initial stop consonants (CC-
voiced, CC-voiceless, CV-tense vowels, and
CV- lax vowels). The participants were in-
structed that the target word could be ei-
ther in language, that is, Spanish or English.
They were required to verbally name the
word they perceived with 100% confidence
and also to identify the word as being either
Spanish or English.
The results indicated that bilingual lis-
teners were not able to identify items with
regard to the specific language being heard
when the initial consonant-consonant (CC)
was voiceless. The listeners were able to dif-
 EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PERI( )I) HYPOTHESIS AND ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT 149
ferentiate items with regard to the specific
language being heard when the initial CC
was voiced. In addition, the bilingual partici-
pants were able to differentiate items with
regard to the specific language being heard
when the target vowel was tense. Results of
these comparisons indicated that consonant
voicing and vowel tenseness were signifi-
cant factors in speech perception and word
identification. Lax vowels are not present in
Spanish, therefore, the bilingual participants
may have been able to disengage their Span-
ish word list when presented with tense
English words and focus solely on their Eng-
lish word list in word identification and re-
trieval. For some conditions. it appeared
that fluent bilinguals could apply their im-
plicit phonotactic knowledge to make pho-
notactic decisions.
Balanced bilingual listeners did not seem
to show an overall marked bias for one lan-
guage over the other in making these lan-
guage decisions; thus, it appeared that they
recognized each language equally adding
support to the notion of equal activation in
both languages indicating the possibility of
ultimate attainment in English.
Gladwell (2002) studied speech percep-
tion among bilingual (fluent and proficient
Spanish-English speakers) and monolingual
(English speakers) on a gating speech per-
ception task (n = 60); thereby, directly as-
sessing ultimate attainment abilities in bi-
lingual versus monolingual speakers. The
stimuli were identical to that used in the
Brice and Ryalls (2004) study. However, on-
ly the final target words that ended in Eng-
lish were analyzed.
The results indicated that the Spanish-
English speakers were able to identify voiced
initial consonants quicker than their coun-
terpart English monolingual speakers. Eng-
lish speakers were able to identify lax vowels
quicker than the bilingual speakers. Spanish
does not contain lax vowels; thus, this pho-
netic feature is unable to transfer from Span-
ish to English. Overall, both the bilingual and
monolingual speakers perceived the stimuli
with equal capacity. Therefore, for speech
perception, there seemed to exist ultimate
attainment by the bilingual speakers equiva-
lent to that of native English speakers.
Purpose of This Study
The purpose of this study was to inves-
tigate the recognition of Spanish-English
and English words in speech among Span-
ish-English bilingual and monolingual Eng-
lish speaking individuals in two separate yet
related studies. The first study investigated
phonotactic aspects and age of arrival on
speech perception among three groups of
bilingual individuals (n = 45). In essence,
this study was a measure of L2 proficiency
for speech perception for the three groups
of fluent and proficient bilingual Spanish-
English speakers based on both phonotactic
features and AOA thus assessing the critical
period hypothesis (CPH).
The second investigation, compared 30
Spanish-English bilinguals with 30 monolin-
gual English participants. This study asked
whether fluent and proficient bilingual
speakers showed equal perceptual abilities
when compared to monolingual English
speakers on English only gated words, thus
measuring their ultimate attainment abilities
in English.
Methods
Participants: Study One
Forty-five Spanish/English fluent bilin-
guals with no reported speech, language, or
hearing deficits participated in this experi-
ment. Each participant (i.e., an university stu-
dent in a large metropolitan city in Florida,
U.S.) was required to he between the ages of
18 to 40 years and to have lived in the United
States for at least six years. The participants
were selected and divided into three groups
of 15 participants according to their age of
arrival (AOA) to the United States (i.e., ear-
ly AOA, 3-8 years; middle AOA, 9-15 years;
and late AOA, 16-22 years). The closer the
150 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF SPEECH. LANGUAGE, AND HEARING. VOL. 11, NO.
person is to being a balanced bilingual (i.e.,
after 4-6 years of English exposure), the bet-
ter he or she will be able to perceive words
in both languages (Magiste, 1979).
Fluency in both Spanish and English was
a prerequisite and determined by self-report
and results of an oral language proficiency
rating (i.e., a score of four or higher on a Lik-
ert scale using the International Second Lan-
guage Proficiency Rating ISLPR) (Wylie &
Ingram, 1999). The ISLPR provides a Likert
type rating from zero (no proficiency) to five
(absolute proficiency) with plus ratings (i.e.,
0, 1, 1+. 2, 2+, 3, 3+, 4, 4+, 5). The ISLPR is
a proficiency scale involving the macro lan-
guage skills of listening, speaking, reading,
and writing. Only speaking skills were eval-
uated for this study. There are two models
of the ISLPR, that is, the general proficien-
cy model and the specified purpose model
(e.g., English for court of law purposes). As,
the participants were rated for overall profi-
ciency the general model was chosen. Only
the overall score was obtained for this study.
This rating scale was scored by two balanced
Spanish-English bilingual speakers.
The oral interviews and ratings took
place during a dialogue with two balanced
Spanish bilinguals (i.e., a Ph.D. with 20 years
of clinical experience and a graduate stu-
dent). The dialogue contained conversations
in English and Spanish. Topics were of gen-
eral interest. Twenty percent of the ISLPR
ratings were analyzed by a second balanced
Spanish-English bilingual rater for interrater
reliability. One hundred percent agreement
on the reliability checks was established.
The results indicated that all participants
were judged to be fluent speakers in both
Spanish and English (means of 4.2 and 4.1
for Spanish and English, respectively) and
also through self-report. Intrarater reliability
was also achieved by rating each participant
over several occasions during the interview
(e.g., at the beginning of the session, dur-
ing the conversation, and at the end of the
session). Ninety per cent agreement (i.e., in-
terrater) was achieved by the raters on the
ISLPR system.
3
Participants: Study Two
Thirty Spanish-English fluent bilinguals
and 30 monolingual English speakers with
no reported speech, language, or hearing
deficits participated in this experiment. Each
participant was required to he between the
ages of 18 to 40 years. Each participant was
an university student in a large metropoli-
tan university in Florida in the United States.
The bilingual participants were required to
have lived in the United States for at least
six years. The participants were selected ac-
cording to their fluent bilingual versus Eng-
lish abilities.
Fluency in both Spanish and English was
a prerequisite for the bilingual participants,
whereas being fluent in English was, natu-
rally, a prerequisite for the monolingual par-
ticipants. The rating for the bilingual partici-
pants took place during a dialogue with two
balanced Spanish-English speaking bilinguals
(i.e., a Ph.D. with 20 years of clinical experi-
ence and a graduate student). The dialogue
contained conversations in Spanish and Eng-
lish (means of 4.2 and 4.1 for Spanish and
English, respectively). English was spoken
to the monolingual participants to establish
their English speaking abilities. The mono-
lingual rater consisted of a native English
speaker (i.e., a graduate student). Topics for
both groups were of general interest. The
results indicated that the bilingual speakers
were judged to be fluent speakers in Span-
ish and English as indicated by the ISLPR
scores. The English speakers were native
speakers of English. Inter-rater reliability for
the bilingual and monolingual participants
was obtained by achieving 90% agreement
between at least two raters on the ISLPR
scoring system. Intrarater reliability for the
bilingual participants was also achieved by
rating each participant over several occa-
sions during the interview (e.g., at the be-
ginning of the session, during the conversa-
tion, and at the end of the session). Ninety
percent agreement (i.e., inter-rater and in-
trarater) was achieved by the raters on the
ISLPR system for all participants. Reliabih-
 EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS AND ULTIMATE A'T'TAINMENT' 151
ty of the bilingual Spanish-English speakers
and the monolingual English speakers was
also obtained by means of self report and
verified through dialogue with the bilingual
researcher.
Stimuli
Forty words were employed as the se-
lected target code-mixed words divided into
20 Spanish code-mixed and 20 English code-
mixed words. In addition, 10 words from
each language (10 Spanish, 10 English) were
used as filler items (test words that were in
the same language as the test sentence) and
were randomly intermixed with the code-
mixed words to prevent listeners from as-
suming that all test sentences/words were
code-mixed.
Sentences contained the code-mixed
words in the final position of the utterance
in both languages (e.g., "I see a bruja,"I have
a lista," "Give me the plata" and "Is that my
cafe"). These different sentence types were
chosen so as not to fatigue the subjects with
just one sentence type, for example, "The
last word of the sentence is lista." The sub-
jects listened to a total of 60 sentences.
The phonotactic structure of the stimu-
lus items contained: (a) six English and 12
Spanish words containing initial voiced CC
clusters; (b) nine English and eight Spanish
voiceless CC clusters; (c) five English and
10 Spanish words with initial tense CV pho-
nemes; and (d) 10 English words with initial
lax CV phonemes. These structures were
used to determine if there was a quicker re-
action time in recognition of English and
Spanish code-mixed words. Initial CC clus-
ters contained consonants (e.g., /br/, /fr/,
/11/, /gr/) that are seen in both the English
and Spanish language. The CV words were
composed of both tense (e.g., /kE/) and lax
(e.g., /kI/) vowels. Only tense vowels are
present in Spanish (Delattre, 1965).
The study consequently yielded 60 test
sentences. These conditions included: (a)
six English voiced initial stop consonants
[#C(+voice)CV]; (b) 12 Spanish voiced ini-
tial stop consonants [#C(-1-voice)CV]; (c)
nine English voiceless initial stop conso-
nants [#C(-voice)CV]; (d) eight Spanish
voiceless initial stop consonants [#C(-voice)
CV]; (e) five English tense vowels [#CV(+
tense)]; (0 10 Spanish tense vowels [#CV(+
tense)]; and, (g) 10 English lax vowels [#CV(-
tense)] . Twenty filler sentences (10 English,
10 Spanish) were randomly intermixed with
the code-mixed sentences to prevent listen-
ers from assuming that all test sentences
were code-mixed.
All words used in the study were of
high frequency. Castellon-Perez (2001) de-
termined this by using the report of univer-
sity bilingual Spanish-English students who
frequently code switch. A list of the words
was given to 20 undergraduate and gradu-
ate native Spanish-speaking students. They
were asked if the words on the list were fre-
quent code-switched words and if the sen-
tences on the list were code-switched in a
natural manner by means of a yes or no re-
sponse format. Based on the results of the
survey, a final list of nouns and verbs was
prepared. The participants involved in the
survey matched in age, gender, and back-
ground to the participants of this study.
Equipment
A Dell PC computer and a Kay Elem-
etrics Speech Model 430013 computerized
speech lab (CSL) hardware and software
were used. An AKG Micromic II 0420 head-
set microphone was positioned close to the
corner of the mouth as per the manufactur-
er's instructions. The CSL Kay Elemetrics
version 5.05 software program was used to
time and record the test sentences with the
gated target word. The test sentences were
then transferred to an Apple iBook comput-
er. The participants heard the test sentences
through Sony Dynamic Stereo Professional
MDR-7506 linear headphones connected to
the Apple iBook/notebook computer (500
MHz PowerPC G3 processor). The Apple
computer soundcard is built into the mother-
152 ASIA EA( .IFIC _JOURNAL OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE, AND HEARING, VOL. 11, NO. 3
board sampling sound at 44.1-kHz and 16-bit
quantization. Response forms were used to
collect the participants' responses as to the
language and the word and whether or not
the participants were 100% confident.
Randomization of Sentences
Target sentences were randomized to
control for order presence with regard to
the following variables: (a) English versus
Spanish language; and (b) initial consonant
cluster (CC) versus initial consonant vowel
(CV) phonotactic structure. Sentences were
also counterbalanced for the following pho-
notactic features: CC versus CV and tense
versus lax vowels. Sentences were num-
bered and a master list was produced.
One fluent Spanish/English bilingual
(female) read the test sentences at a con-
versational rate into a Kay Elemetrics com-
puter that digitally recorded the stimulus
test sentences. The sentences were read as
"true" code-mixes (i.e., each word was pro-
nounced with the corresponding English
or Spanish phonetics). The onset of a gated
code-mixed word was located and the gates
were divided as follows. The first gate con-
sisted of the carrier phrase and the first 60 to
70 msec of the target word. A range of val-
ues for the gates (i.e., from 60 to 70 msec)
was used so that the segments were cut at
zero crossings. The second gate consisted of
the first 60 to 70 msec and the next 60 to 70
msec of the code-mixed word and so on un-
til the entire word was presented. The num-
ber of gates ranged from 4 to 13 gates.
Instructions
An experimenter explained the task to
the participants in both English and Spanish
to the bilingual participants and in English to
the monolingual participants. The task was
that the participants would hear sentences
with the last word divided into small seg-
ments that would increase in length. They
were instructed to verbally name the word
they heard (i.e., if they could) at the end of
each gate. The setting consisted of a speech
laboratory in a quiet room.
Results from Study One
Gender Analysis
Castellon-Perez (2001) and Otero (2002)
found no significant differences between
male and female participants in their in-
vestigations of phonetic constructions and
age of arrival. Hence, it was expected that
there would be no differences between
males and females in this investigation. A
one-way ANOVA was conducted to deter-
mine this aspect. The ANOVA results indi-
cated no significant differences in terms of
speed of reaction time between 7 males and
38 females for all Phonotactic Constructions
(CC-voiced; CC-voiceless; CV-tense; CV-lax)
[F(1) = 0.497,p = 0.4851. Therefore, all anal-
yses were conducted without reference to
gender. All attempts were made to account
for economic background, and education
levels as confounding factors. All attempts
were made to carefully match participants
on these known intervening variables.
Independent and Dependent
Variables: Study One
The independent variables for this study
were Phonotactic Construction (CC-voiced;
CC-voiceless; CV-tense; CV-lax) and Age of
Arrival Groups (i.e., early AOA, 3-8 years;
middle AOA, 9-15 years, and late AOA,
16-22 years). The dependent variable (DV)
represented a calculated percentage of the
total number of gates participants needed to
be 100% confident to correctly identify the
word.
Multivariate Analysis: Study One
French, Poulsen, and Yu (2002) stat-
ed that "when cells in a factorial MANO-
 EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS AND ULTIMATE KITAINMENT 153

VA have different sample sizes, the sum of
squares for effect plus error do not equal
the total sum of squares. This causes tests
of main effects and interactions to be corre-
lated. SPSS offers an adjustment for unequal
sample sizes in MANOVA" (p. 2). This study
used a repeated measures multivariate analy-
ses. Hence, the statistical package that was
used for this study (Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences—SPSS) offered a correc-
tion for the unequal Phonotactic Construc-
tion data cells.
sumption was maintained. With sphericity
assumed, results indicated significant differ-
ences for Phonotactic Construction [F(3,56)
= 114.418, p = .000]. Using partial eta
squared as the measure of effect size, 73%
of the total variability was accounted for by
Phonotactic Construction. Using Cohen's
(1988) criteria (i.e., small = .10-.29; medi-
um = .30-.49; large >.50), the effect size for
the Phonotactic Construction variable was
large. The interaction of Phonotactic Con-
struction by Group was not significant =
.738). Refer to Table 1.

Assessment of Phonotactic
Features: Study One
In order to answer the primary questions
of the effects of word recognition pertaining
to Phonetic constructions (CC-voiced; CC-
voiceless; CV-tense; CV-lax) and age of arriv-
al (early, middle, late bilinguals), a general
linear model multivariate repeated measures
or a randomized blocks (grouping the ex-
perimental participants into blocks) analy-
sis of variance (RBANOVA) using the Wilks'
Lambda F test was conducted.
Mauchly's Test of Sphericity was not sig-
nificant (p = .212), thus, the sphericity as-
Assessment of Age of Arrival
Features: Study One
Prior expectation that significant results
would occur between Groups (early, mid-
dle, late AOA) justified the use of a one-tailed
test (alpha set at p <.05). Results of the test
of between subjects effects indicated signif-
icant differences between Groups [F(2,42)
= 2.520, p = .046]. These results are pre-
sented in Table 2. The middle AOA Group
demonstrated the lowest mean scores (i.e.,
lower scores indicated faster perception
and quicker word recognition) on all Pho-

Table 1. Word Identification by Phonotactic Constructions for Study One

Partial Eta
Type III Squared
Sum of Mean (Effect
Source Squares DF Square F Significance Size)

Phonotactic
Construction
(Greenhouse- 3,
Geisse r) 5611.101 56 1870.367 114.418 .000* .731
Phonotactic
Construction
by Group
Interaction
(Greenhouse- 6,
Geisser) 57.884 56 9.647 .590 .738 .027

* Significant at p <.05.
154 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF SPEECH. LANGUAGE, AND HEARING. VOL. 11. NO. 3
Table 2. Word Identification by Group (One-Tailed Test) for Study One
Type Ea Sum
iource of Squares DF Mean Square
Group 973.007 2, 42 486.504
* Significant at p <.05.
notactic Constructions. Using partial eta
squared as the measure of effect size, 10%
of the total variability was accounted for by
Age of Arrival Groups. Thus, the effect size
for Groups was small. There was no signifi-
cant difference according to interaction of
Phonotactic Construction by Age of Arrival
Group (p = .73).
Post Hoc Analyses: Study One
The Test of Between-Subjects Effects Pa-
rameter Estimates indicated that the follow-
ing contrasts were significant for Group: (a)
CC-Voiced versus Group Two (middle AOA)
ft(2) = -2.277, p = 0.28) with 11% of the
total variance accounted (i.e., small effect
size) by this contrast: and (b) CV-tense vs.
Group Two (middle AOA) [t(2) = -2.042,
p = 0.47] with 9% of the total variance ac-
counted (i.e., small effect size) by this con-
trast. Refer to Table 3. Prior expectation that
significant results would occur justified the
use of a one-tailed test (alpha set at p <.05)
for post hoc comparisons. A Scheffe test in-
dicated that the significant differences oc-
curred between the middle and late AOA
groups (p = .043).
Post Hoc Analyses: Word
Construction Comparisons
Between Spanish and English
Analysis of the means indicated that the
English CC-voiced items were identified
quicker than the Spanish CC-voiced items.
The CV-tense items were identified faster in
Partial Eta
Squared
F Significance (Effect Size;
2.520 .046" .107
Spanish than the CV-tense items in English.
Refer to Table 4.
Discussion of Study One
Phonotactic Comparisons
The results from Study One indicated that
significant differences were found according
to the different Phonotactic Constructions.
The Spanish-English bilingual listeners were
able to differentiate words when the English
consonant was voiced: therefore. they were
primarily surrounded by English in their en-
vironment. Their Spanish speech percep-
tions skills may have been affected by lesser
Spanish input. Further study where partici-
pants are surrounded by more Spanish input
should be investigated. It appeared that the
participants were better able to distinguish
strong contrasts with regard to voice onset
time (VOT) (i.e.. prevoicing vs. short lags)
versus weaker VOT contrasts (i.e., short vs.
long lags). Voiced consonants are produced
with prevoicing in Spanish and a short lag in
English, whereas voiceless consonants are
produced with a short lag in Spanish and a
longer lag in English (Brice, Castellon-Perez.
& Rvalls. 2004: Flege & Efting, 1988: Lisker &
Abramson. 1964; Zampini. 1998). In addition.
certain sounds in English may have triggered
a word being identified in English. For exam-
ple. the English liquid /t./ is different from the
Spanish tap /r/ or the Spanish trill /R/.
CV-tense words were identified quicker
in Spanish than in English. Spanish vowels
are more distinct than English due to a more
 EXAMINATION OF TIIE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTIIESIS AND ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT 155

Table 3. Post Hoc Analyses: Test of Between-Subjects Effects Parameter Estimates

(One-Tailed Test)

Partial Eta Squared

Dependent Variable Parameter t Significance (Effect Size)

CC-voiced Middle AOA -2.277 .028* .110

CC-voiceless Middle AOA -1.723 .092 .066
CV-tense Middle AOA -2.042 .047* .060
CV-lax Middle AOA -1.962 .056 .084

* Significant at p <.05.

Table 4. Post Hoc Analyses: Word Construction Comparisons

Between Spanish and English

Phonotactic Construction Mean Standard Deviation

English CC-voiced 68.914 11.011 45

Spanish CC-voiced 81.423 9.038 45
English CV-tense 84.431 7.569 45
Spanish CV-tense 76.590 8.297 45

restricted set of vowels than English (Brice,
Goldstein, Anderson, & So, 1996; Goldstein,
2001). Spanish vowels are more consistent
in length and are typically shorter in dura-
tion. In addition, Spanish vowels are always
tense. Therefore, these contrasts between
Spanish and English vowels may have aided
quicker identification in Spanish.
The results indicated significant differenc-
es between the AOA groups, that is, between
subject contrasts indicated differences for
CC-voiced by the middle AOA group. In ad-
dition, differences were found between the
middle and late AOA groups. The AOA group
means indicated that for all Phonotactic Con-
trasts the middle AOA group (9-15) had the
quickest identification times followed by the
early (3-8), and late (16-22) AOA groups.
These results did not support a critical
period occurring around puberty as better
identification scores occurred with the mid-
dle AOA, and presence of an absolute cut-
off age was not noted. Therefore, this study
does not support the assertion made by Pat-
kowski • (1980) of an absolute age limit for
second language learners, at least, in the
realm of speech perception.
Instead, it appears that the balanced bi-
lingual middle AOA group benefited from
having at least six years of exposure in both
languages. This finding seems to suggest
positive transference between the two lan-
guages at the speech perceptual level. How-
ever, it should be noted that the late AOA
group performed the slowest in word iden-
tification. Therefore, a sensitive period or
window of optimal learning may be present
with the late bilinguals.
Results from Study Two
Independent and Dependent
Variables: Study Two
The independent variables for this study
were Phonotactic Construction (CC-voiced;
15(6 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE, AND HEARING, VOL. 1 1, NO. 3
CC-voiceless; CV-tense; CV-lax) and the bi-
lingual versus monolingual Groups . The
dependent variable (DV) represented a cal-
culated percentage of the total number of
gates participants needed to be 100% confi-
dent to correctly identify the word.
Multivariate Analyses:
Spanish-English and
English-English Sentences
A general linear model multivariate re-
peated measures or a randomized blocks
analysis of variance using the Wilks' Lamb-
da F test was conducted. Mauchly's Test of
Sphericity was significant = .01), thus, the
sphericity assumption was not maintained.
The more conservative Greenhouse-Geiss-
er adjustment was used. Results indicated
significant differences for Phonotactic Con-
struction [F(3,56) = 181.58,p = .000]. There
were no significant differences according to
Group (p = .41). A significant interaction of
Phonotactic Construction by Group [F(3,56)
= 17.208, p = .000] was found. Using eta
squared as the measure of effect size, 76%
of the total variability was accounted for by
Phonotactic Construction and 23% was ac-
counted by interaction of Phonotactic Con-
Table 5. Word Identification by Phonotactic Constructions for Stud y Two
Type III
Sum of
Source Squares DF
Phonetic
construction
(Greenhouse-
Geisser) 13815.683 3, 56
Phonetic
construction
by Group
(Greenhouse-
Geisser) 1309.221 3, 56
Significant at p <.05.
struction by Group interaction. Using Co-
hen's (1988) criteria (i.e., small = .10-.29;
medium = .30-.49; large >.50), the effect
size for the Phonotactic Construction vari-
able was large, whereas, the effect size for
interaction of Phonotactic Construction by
Group was small. Refer to Table 5.
Assessment of Phonotactic Features:
Study Two
A one-way ANOVAs was conducted to
determine whether there were differences
in scores between Groups for the Phonotac-
tic constructions of CC-voiced; CC-voiceless,
CV-tense, and CV-lax. Results of the ANOVA
analyses indicated significant differences
between Groups for the Phonotactic Con-
structions of CC-voiced [1(1,58) = 16.207,
p = .000]; and CV-lax [F(1,58) = 5.114, p =
.0281. Using r as the measure of effect size,
46% of the variability was accounted for by
the Phonotactic Constructions of CC-voiced,
whereas, 56% was accounted for by CV-lax.
Thus, the effect sizes for the Phonetic con-
structions of CC-voiced and CV-lax were me-
dium to large. The ANOVA results are pre-
sented in Table 6.
Eta
Squared
Mean (Effect
Square F Significance Size)
83.77 181.58 .000* .76
25.71 17.208 .000* .23
 EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS AND ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT 157
Table 6. Word Identification Between Groups by Phonotactic Conditions for Stud y Two
Type HI
Sum of Mean
Source Squares DF Square
CC-voiced 1173.363 1, 58 1173.363
CC-voiceless 13.485 1, 58 13.485
CV-tense 5.653 1, 58 5.653
CV-lax 222.980 1,58 222.980
Significant atp
Post Hoc Analyses:
Spanish-English Sentence
Contrasts and English-English
Sentences
A one-way ANOVA was conducted for
comparison of bilingual vs. monolingual
speakers on the Spanish-English sentence
types containing the Phonotactic Construc-
tions (CC-voiced; CC-voiceless; CV-tense;
CV-lax). Prior expectations justified the use
of a one-tailed test (alpha set at p <.05).The
results indicated significant differences for
Phonotactic Constructions of CC-voiced
[F(1,59) = 13.391; p = .000) and CV-lax
[F(1,59) = 3.249; p = .038)]. Using r as the
measure of effect size indicated that 42% of
the variance was accounted for by the Pho-
notactic Construction of CC-voiced, where-
as, 22% was accounted for by CV-lax. Thus,
the effect sizes were medium and small,
respectively.
An one way ANOVA was also conducted
for comparison of bilingual versus monolin-
gual speakers on the English-English sentence
types containing the following Phonotactic
Constructions: (a) CC-voiced; (b) CC-voice-
less; (c) CV-tense; (d) CV-lax. Prior expec-
tations justified the use of a one-tailed test
(alpha set at p <.05).The results indicated
significant differences for Phonotactic Con-
structions of CC-voiced 1F(1,59) = 16.207;
p = .000) and CV-lax [F(1,59) = 5.114; p =
.014)]. Using r as the measure of effect size
indicated that 46% of the variance was ac-
F Significance r effect size
16.207 .000* - A61
.165 .687 -.052
.161 .690 .051
5 114 .028* .564
counted for by the CC-voiced Phonotactic
Construction, whereas, 28% was accounted
for by CV-lax. The effect sizes were medium
and small, respectively. Refer to Table 7.
Discussion of Study Two
Phonotactic Comparisons
The results for this study comparing bi-
lingual, Spanish-English speakers versus mo-
nolingual English speakers revealed con-
sistent and significant findings. The results
indicated that the phonetic construction of
words was affected by an individual's abil-
ity to identify the word. The second study
also implies that Spanish-English speakers
have a greater range for voiced stop conso-
nants. The results from this study also sug-
gested that the bilingual speakers exhibited a
greater perception range for initial stop con-
sonants. It appears that speech perception
skills can transfer from Spanish to English. If
the bilingual speakers showed an overall abil-
ity to process English as well as native Eng-
lish speakers, then it appears that they have
`caught-up" to their monolingual peers; thus,
ultimate attainment with regard to speech
perception seems to have occurred. This as-
pect has great potential for bilingual students
in classrooms. It appears that a good first lan-
guage foundation applies to learning a sec-
ond language, namely, English. Language
skills will transfer. Speech perception skills
158 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE, AND HEARING, VOL. 11, NO. 3

Table 7. Post Hoc Analyses: One Way ANOVA for Spanish-English and English-English
Sentences Between Groups (One-Tailed Test)

Type III
Sum of Mean effect
Source Squares DF Square F Significance size

CC-voiced
Spanish-English 1510.017 1, 59 1510.017 13.391 .000* .427
CC-voiceless
Spanish-English 28.935 1, 59 28.935 .230 .316 .062
CV-tense
Spanish-English 119.709 1, 59 119.709 1.997 .081 .179
CV-lax Spanish-
English 446.901 1, 59 446.901 3.249 .038* .227
CC-voiced
English-English 1173.363 1, 59 1173.363 16.207 .000* .460
CC-voiceless
English-English 13.485 1, 59 13.485 .165 .343 .052
CV-tense
English-English 5.653 1, 59 5.653 .161 .345 .052
CV-lax English-
English 222.980 1, 59 222.980 5.114 .014* .280

• Significant at p <.05.

and perhaps phonemic awareness skills may
also transfer between the two languages
(e.g., identification and phonemic manipula-
tion of voiced stop consonants).
The Spanish-English speakers performed
better under the tense vowel conditions (i.e.,
for the Spanish-English sentences and the
English-English sentences). English speak-
ers have greater exposure and experience
producing and perceiving lax vowels; there-
fore, this may account for their better perfor-
mance under the Spanish-English sentences
and the English-English sentences. This fea-
ture did not transfer as easily between Span-
ish and English and has to be learned. As a
consequence, the Spanish speakers were
less able to identify the CV-lax sentences. Bi-
lingual students acquiring English may have
difficulty with lax vowels in speaking or
classroom tasks involving speech perception
(such as phonemic awareness tasks). Over-
all, these results seem indicate that the bilin-
gual, Spanish-English speakers have reached
a level of ultimate attainment in English with
regard to speech word identification.
Overall Implications
It appears that exposure to two lan-
guages over a period of six or more years
can yield enhanced abilities in the second
language, that is, positive language transfer-
ence. However, higher levels of attainment
of speech perception in a second language
seem to occur from 9 to 15 years of age. This
is in direct contrast to when abilities should
decrease according to the CPH and reveal an
absolute age restriction in terms of language
growth. Therefore, the results reported here
have not supported the notion of the critical
 EXAMINATION OF THE CR MCA!. PERIOD HYPOTHESIS AND ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT 159
period hypothesis as posited by various ear-
lier researchers (Johnson & Newport, 1989;
Lenneberg, 1967; Patkowski, 1980). The
ability to identify certain consonants and
vowels indicate that the phonotactics of the
word also influences its identification pa-
rameters. In addition, it appears that the re-
sults of the second study support the notion
of bilingual speakers, overall, being able to
achieve ultimate attainment in a second lan-
guage with regard to speech perception.
Bongaerts et al. (1997) found that speech
production was achieved to near native abili-
ties with some Dutch speakers. Their study
found that the bilingual group was able to at-
tain overall nativelike abilities and identifica-
tion of voiced consonants. Lax vowels, not
found in Spanish, were not identified as well
in the present study. Therefore, two conclu-
sions can be reached: (a) nativelike abilities or
ultimate attainment in a second language may
depend on the specific type of speech or lan-
guage task involved, that is, not all speech or
language abilities may be learned at the same
rate of development; and (b) certain features
of the word (i.e., phonotactic aspects) may
influence its identification. In sum, speech-
language pathologists need to be aware of
the features of two languages when dealing
with bilingual students or clients in order to
maximize the transferable language features
and instruct and mediate those features that
may be prone to interference. Knowledge of
other languages is essential in today's multi-
lingual world. This knowledge will benefit
the students and clients that we serve today.
Address Correspondence to:
Alejandro E. Brice, Ph.D., CCC-
SLP,University of South Florida-St.
Petersburg, College of Education, 140 7th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
E-mail: aebrice@gmail.com
References
Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., &
Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment
in the pronunciation of a foreign language.
Studies in Second Language A cquisition, 19,
447-465.
Birdsong, D. (1999). Introduction: Whys and
why nots of the critical period hypothesis for
second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong
(Ed.), Second language acquisition and the
critical period hypothesis (pp. 1-22). Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language
acquisition and processing: A selective over-
view. Language Learning, 56(1), 9-49.
Brice, A., Castellon-Perez, Y., & Ryalls, J. (2004).
Speech recognition of code switched words
by proficient Spanish-English bilinguals. jour-
nal of Distinguished Language Studies, 2,
13-22.
Brice, A., Goldstein, B., Anderson, R., & So, L.
(1996, November). Phonological patterns
in Spanish-and Chinese-speaking children.
Paper presented for the American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association Annual Con-
vention, Seattle, WA.
Brice, A., & Ryalls, J. (2004). Recognition of code-
mixed words by Spanish/English bilinguals: A
tocus on proficiency levels. Conference Pro-
ceedings of the 26th W orld Congress of the
International A ssociation of Logopedics and
Phoniatrics, 6, 53-56.
Castellon-Perez, Y. (2001). Recognition of code-
switched words by Spanish/English bilin-
guals. Unpublished master's thesis, Univer-
sity of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for
the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Earibaum.
Cotton, S., & Grosjean, F. (1984). The gating par-
adigm: A comparison of successive and indi-
vidual presentation formats. Perception and
Psychophysics, 35, 41-48.
Delattre, P. (1965). Comparing the Phonetic
Features of English, French, German, and
Spanish. Heidelberg, Germany: Julius Groos.
Flege, J., & Eefting, W. (1986). Linguistic and
developmental effects on the production and
perception of stop consonants. Phonetica,
43, 155-171.
Flege, J., Munro, M., & MacKay, R. (1995). Factors
affecting strength of perceived foreign accent
in a second language. Journal of the A cousti-
cal Society of A merica, 97, 3125-3134.
Flege, J., & Schmidt, A. (1995). Native speakers
show rate-dependent processing of English
stop consonants. Phonetica, 52, 90- I 11.
160 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE, AND HEARING, VOL. 11, NO. 3
Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of -new" ver-
sus "similar" phones in a foreign language:
Evidence for the effect of equivalence classifi-
cation. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 47-65.
French, A., Poulsen, J., & Yu, A. Multivariate anal-
ysis of variance. (2002). Retrieved October 19,
2004, from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/-efc/
classes/bio1710/manova/manovanew.htm
Gladwell, A. M. (2002). Recognition of code-
mixed-words by bilinguals and monolin-
guals: A n extended investigation of profi-
ciency levels. Unpublished Masters Thesis,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
Goldstein, B. (2001). Transcription of Spanish
and Spanish-influenced English. Communica-
tion Disorders Quarterly, 23(1), 54-60.
Grosjean, F. (1988). Exploring the recognition of
guest words in bilingual speech.
Grosjean, F. (1996). Gating. Language and Cog-
nitive Processes, 11(6), 597-604.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language
modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two lan-
guages: Bilingual language processing (pp.
1-22). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Grosjcan, F., & Soares, C. (1986). Processing
mixed language: Some preliminary findings.
In J. Vaid (Ed.), Language processing in bi-
linguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsycho-
logical perspectives (pp. 145-179). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical pe-
riod effects in second language learning: The
influence of maturational state on the acquisi-
tion of English as a second language. Cogni-
tive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations
of language. New York: Wiley.
Li, P. (1996). Spoken word recognition of code-
switched words by Chinese-English bilin-
guals. Journal of Memory and Language,
35,757-774.
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. (1964). A cross-lan-
guage study of voicing in initial stops: Acous-
tical measurements. W ord, 20, 384-422.
Magiste, E. (1979). The competing language sys-
tems of the multilingual: A developmental
study of decoding and encoding processes.
Journal of V erbal Learning and V erbal Be-
havior, 18, 78-89.
Meador, D., Flege, J., & MacKay, I. (2000). Fac-
tors affecting the recognition of words in a
second language. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 3(1), 55-67.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pho-
nology. Studies in Second Language A cquisi-
tion, 21, 81-108.
Otero, M. (2002). Recognition of code-mixed
words by Spanish/English bilinguals: A fo-
cus on proficiency levels. Unpublished Mas-
ter's Thesis. University of Central Florida,
Orlando.
Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. 1959. Speech and
brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Thornburgh, I). F., & Ryalls, J. H. (1998). Voice
onset time in Spanish-English bilinguals: Ear-
ly versus late learners of English. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 31, 215-229.
Tyler, L., & Wessels, J. (1985). Is gating an on-
line task? Evidence from naming latency data.
Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 217-222.
White, L. & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is
near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment
in adult second language acquisition. Second
Language Research 12, 233-265.
Wylie, E., & Ingram, D. E. (1999). International
second language proficiency ratings. Bris-
bane, Australia: Griffith University.
Zampini, M. L. (1998). The relationship between
the production on perception of L2 Spanish
stops. Texas Papers in Foreign Language
Education, 33,85-99.