See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325995823

The Critical Period for Second Language Pronunciation: Is there

such a thing? Ten case studies of late starters who attained a
native-like Hebrew accent SalimAbu-RabiaFa....

Article  in  Educational Psychology · February 2004

CITATIONS READS
13 2,393

2 authors, including:

Salim Abu-Rabia
University of Haifa
119 PUBLICATIONS   2,881 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

normal and dyslexic Arabic readers View project

models of morphology in Arabic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Salim Abu-Rabia on 26 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Educational Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 1, February 2004

The Critical Period for Second

Language Pronunciation: Is there such
a thing? Ten case studies of late
starters who attained a native-like
Hebrew accent
SalimAbu-RabiaFaculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaMt. CarmelHaifa31905IsraelSalimar@construct.haifa.ac.il

Salim Abu-Rabia* & Simona Kehat

University of Haifa, Israel

This paper investigates the critical period hypothesis (CPH) for the acquisition of a second
language sound system (phonology) in a naturalistic setting. Ten cases of successful
late-starters with a native-like Hebrew pronunciation are presented in an effort to determine
possible variables that may account for their exceptional accomplishment. The issue of
CPH in relation to second language acquisition continues to be disputed among second
language researchers.

Introduction
A very common belief concerning second language acquisition (SLA) is that
children are better and faster learners than adults. This belief is especially
strong in relation to phonology. Although some adult learners of a second
language may attain a relatively high or even a complete mastery of the
language, they do not seem to be able to get rid of their native accent. Their
accent gives away their non-native origin. According to the critical period
hypothesis (CPH), the age of onset plays a significant role in determining a
learner’s ultimate attainment of a second/foreign language. The issue of CPH
in relatino to SLA continues to be disputed among second language (SL)
researchers. There have been various attempts to re-examine the validity of the
CPH in view of existing conflicting evidence regarding the different SL do-
mains, including phonology.
This paper attempts to re-examine the CPH for the acquisition of a second
language sound system (phonology) in a naturalistic setting. Ten cases of

*Corresponding author: University of Haifa, Faculty of Education, Mt. Carmel,

Haifa 31905, Israel. Email: Salimar@construct.haifa.ac.il
ISSN 0144-3410 (print)/ISSN 1469-046X (online)/04/010077-21
 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10/1080.0144341032000146467
78 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

successful late-starters with a native-like Hebrew pronunciation are presented

in an effort to determine possible variables that may account for their excep-
tional accomplishment.

Literature Review
The Critical/Sensitive Period Hypothesis
Lenneberg (1967) coined the term “critical period hypothesis” (CPH) in
relation to language acquisition. According to the CPH there is a biological/
neurological period ending around age 12, beyond which a complete mastery
of language is no longer possible due to changes in cerebral plasticity. The
CPH originally related to the acquisition of a first language, proposing that the
critical period extends from about two years of age to the end of puberty
(around age 14), after which no linguistic proficiency is possible. The notion of
a sensitive period, on the other hand, refers to second language acquisition,
where limitation on acquisition is not as absolute as in the case of first language
(L1). Thus, it is possible to acquire a SL after the end of the sensitive period,
but not to the extent of attaining a native-like competence (Krashen, Long, &
Scarcella, 1979; Long, 1990; Patkowski, 1980; Scovel, 1969).
The CPH is centred upon the age factor, which is one of the most contro-
versial issues among researchers in relation to language acquisition. Scovel
(1969) supports the CPH for SLA but only in relation to phonology since in
his view the ability to master the sound patterns of a language depends upon
neurological-muscular development, whereas other aspects of language have no
relation to this system. Long (1990) discusses age-related differences in terms
of maturational constraints. He suggests that there are several sensitive periods
governing the various aspects of both first and second language development.
Long specifies that in the case of phonology, deterioration may begin as early
as age six and in any event it is quite impossible to attain a native-like accent
after 12 years of age, whereas native-like morphology and syntax is impossible
after age 15. That is, the capacity to attain a native-like accent diminishes first;
other linguistic abilities deteriorate during various sensitive periods; and the
loss in linguistic ability is not a catastrophic one-time event. A decline in
pronunciation ability is signified by a “sharp drop in imitation abilities” (p.
266).

Short-Term vs. Long-Term (Ultimate) Attainment

Various studies attempted to test the CPH soon after it was proposed. Asher
and Price (1967), for example, suggested a learning-related explanation for the
differences between children and adults in SL acquisition. They claimed that
children are better SL acquirers than their parents and other adults, despite
similar amounts of exposure or length of residence, due to differences in
learning conditions. They claimed that the reason for the child-adult differ-
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 79

ences lies in the fact that children acquire the language via play activity,
whereas adults do not normally have the same privilege. Asher and Price
provided the same learning conditions for both children and adults and
examined their listening comprehension skills. Results were in favour of the
adult subjects. However, their study investigated short-term success only.
Similar results were obtained by Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1977, 1978),
who tested English speakers of different ages on their naturalistic acquisition of
Dutch during their first year in Holland. They concluded that the critical
period extending from ages two to 12 did not apply to their findings and that
motivational factors might better explain adult-child differences in ultimate
attainment of foreign pronunciation.
However, it has been rightly aruged that these studies did not test ultimate
(long-term) attainment but rather short-term success, a distinction made by
Krashen et al. (1979). They conclude that adults tend to outperform children
in the short-term, in the early stages of acquisition (when time and amount of
exposure are held constant), but in the long run children reach a higher level
of proficiency in every linguistic domain. Thus, according to proponents of the
CPH, the discrepancy between short-term and long-term findings Justifies
support for age-related differences in SLA.

Evidence in Support of the CPH for Long-Term Attainment in SL Pronunciation:

The Age of Arrival Factor
Thompson (1991) investigated factors associated with the acquisition of L2
pronunciation. He tested 36 native Russian speakers fluent in English, who had
to read specially constructed English sentences and a prose passage and talk
about their daily routine. Age of arrival (primary exposure to L2) was found to
be the main predictor for pronunciation accuracy. Additional variables such as
gender, ability to mimic, and global speaking proficiency were also foudn to
play a role, yet attitude and motivation did not seem to play a significant role
in their subjects’ acquisition of the L2 sound system. Women in this study were
judged to have better accents than men, although no single explanation could
account for this disparity. The women reported greater concern for accurate
pronunciation, yet they did not report making a greater effort to improve their
English accent than the men in the study. The ability to mimic (based on
self-report) was found to facilitate acquisition of accurate pronunciation. Not
surprisingly, sentences seeded with difficult sounds were judged to be more
accented than spontaneous speech. Moreover, the speech samples were rated
for “accentedness” by two kinds of judge: linguistically inexperienced native
speakers of English representing “the person in the street,” and language
experts. As Thompson hypothesised, there were differences in accent esti-
mation: the experienced judges were more sympathetic yet more reliable than
the person on the street.
Some of the subjects in Thompson’s (1991) study who arrived in the U.S.
before the age of 10 were perceived as having a slight foreign accent. This, in
80 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

Thompson’s view, presents a problem for the CPH. Thus, the critical period
should either be pushed back further into childhood or be confronted with
different explanations altogether. However, Long (1990) has already proposed
that the critical/sensitive period for phonology must be much earlier than
puberty—as early as age six.

The “Conrad Phenomenon”: The Talented SL Learner

The “Conrad phenomenon” is a term coined in honour of the famous Polish-
born author of English novels, Josef Conrad, a fluent and creative writer of the
English language, yet with a strong Polish accent (Bongaerts, Planken, &
Schils, 1995; Guiora, 1990; Patkowski, 1980). Similar cases to that of Josef
Conrad are used to disprove vigorous claims in support of adults’ inability to
reach high native-like levels of proficiency in L2. However, proponents of the
CPH present the Conrad phenomenon as evidence for its validity, at least as far
as phonology is concerned. In other words, these late SL learners, who have an
impressive, near-perfect or even perfect command of the SL vocabulary,
morphology and syntax, do not disprove the CPH as long as they cannot pass
as native speakers due to their distinct foreign accent. Patkowski (1980) also
referred to the Conrad phenomenon, claiming that according to his findings
“there can be great disparity among various aspects of linguistic proficiency in
individual cases” (p. 464) although a relatively high positive correlation be-
tween accent and syntactic rating was found in his subjects’ performance.
Schneiderman and Desmarais (1988) discuss the phenomenon of excep-
tional late SL learners in terms of talent. They do not reject the CPH, and yet
they assert that although most adults cannot achieve native-like competence in
a second language there are some exceptionally successful, talented SL
learners. They claim that talented learners can be distinguished from untal-
ented learners on the basis of certain neuropsychological criteria. They investi-
gated two exceptional English native-speaker adults who began learning
French after age 11. Both subjects (male and female) passed as Francophones
before the native judges. The authors’ intention was to find factors associated
with talent in exceptional language learning.
The subjects had to perform different tasks, which tested their memory
ability, verbal ability and other related abilities. Both subjects achieved high
scores on memory without needing to rely on a conventional strategy of
categorisation. The two subjects’ verbal performance was found to be better
than their non-verbal ability. Unlike “normal” people, the two subjects were
found to be right-lateralised and fluent in some additional languages. The
researchers also focused on factors from the Geschwind cluster. It was found
that the Geschwind cluster, which includes cerebral lateralisation (for example,
non-right handedness), endocrinology (for example, twinning), immunology
(for example, allergies and asthma) as well as migraines, schizophrenia and
extremely fair complexion, is related to language learning talent. The subjects
exhibited a number of characteristics from the Geschwind cluster. On the other
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 81

hand, it was also found that a superior level of cognitive functioning is not a
necessary precondition for talent in SL learning. That is, the two subjects fell
within the average range of intelligence.
Schneiderman and Desmarais (1988) conclude that if a continuum of talent
related to neurocognitive flexibility could be shown to exist for both adults and
children, then it would be necessary to re-evaluate the importance of age as a
criterion for successful second language acquisition. Thus, if age does not play
a significant role, then it might be feasible to support SL theories which hold
that adults acquire SL in the same manner as children.

Evidence for Late SL Starters With Native-Like Pronunciation

In an attempt to challenge the CPH for SL pronunciation Ioup, Boustagui, El
Tigi, and Moselle (1994) examined a case of a late starter who, in a naturalistic
setting, attained native-like proficiency in every linguistic domain, including
phonology. The subject of their study, Julie, an English native speaker, married
an Egyptian at the age of 21 and since her husband was called on duty just a
few days after they settled in Egypt, Julie was left with no choice but to
communicate in Arabic. To her best recollection, Julie became a highly fluent
speaker of Egyptian Arabic about two and a half years after her initial encoun-
ter with the new language. At the time of the study, Julie had been in Cairo for
26 years, yet she had never learnt to read and write.
Julie was tested on several linguistic abilities and compared to native speak-
ers as well as to another non-native subject, Laura, who was considered a
highly proficient learner in a tutored environment. The tests examined lan-
guage aptitude in auditory ability (the capacity to process the new sound
system), linguistic ability (the ability to induce linguistic generalisation from
language data) and memory ability (the ability to retain new vocabulary and
analyse rule structures). Both Julie and Laura were assessed by the majority of
the judges (13 teachers of Arabic as a foreign language), who listened to
samples of their free speech production (talking about their favorite recipe), as
being native or near-native speakers of Arabic. They were also tested on their
ability to discriminate among various regional Arabic dialects (Libyan, Syrian
Palestinian, Kuwaiti, Sudanese and Egyptian). Both Julie and her counterpart
tutored subject achieved 100% accuracy, compared to the 85% achieved by the
native speaker subjects, which indicates their excellent perceptive abilities.
Moreover, they were asked to tell the difference between Cairene and other
Egyptian accents, a test subtler than the previous one, which not many native
speakers pass successfully. Julie performed better than Laura did on this test;
yet on the whole, the differences between the two women were insignificant
and it appears that both Julie and Laura are talented learners.
Julie reported that during the first few months, she kept a notebook to write
down vocabulary and notes concerning morphological elements and expres-
sions frequently used. When communication was hampered, the family used to
give Julie explicit feedback, which she took care to note down. Julie com-
82 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

mented that phonology was no problem for her because she was good at
hearing and mimicking accents. She easily perceived and reproduced the
difficult Arabic pharyngeals and uvulars. This faculty is usually referred to as
a “good ear for languages”.
Trying to account for Julie’s highly successful language acquisition, the
researchers delved more deeply into some of her physiological/hereditary and
cognitive characteristics and found several points of interest. The fact that Julie
was consciously manipulating her learning process, paying attention to the
language grammatical structures and morphological variations, regularly re-
viewing her entries in her copy book and mentally accepting error feedback,
may be one explanation for her success. Yet Ioup et al. (1994) point out that
conscious awareness does not always guarantee native-like proficiency. Addi-
tional variables which might account for Julie’s success relate to left handed-
ness, twinning and allergies, characteristics found to be associated with
language learning talent. Julie reports all these traits running in her family.
She herself is left handed and suffers from skin allergies. In addition, Julie’s
talent in SL learning highly correlates with the speed with which she acquired
her L1. This, according to the authors, supports previous findings indicating
that learners who displayed a superior aptitude for L2 acquisition were those
who made the most rapid progress in their L1 acquisition. Yet Julie reports that
although talented in language learning, both first and second, her performance
in maths is dismal. This, again, supports the previous suggestion that talent in
one area usually coincides with frailty in another cognitive domain.
Ioup et al.’s (1994) conclusion is that Julie had to have some special talent
for learning languages. They support the notion that language learning talent
is associated with unusual brain organisation, with a greater proportion of the
cortex devoted to language, allowing the learner to be more cognitively flexible
in processing L2 input and ultimately organising it into an L2 system. Yet the
authors acknowledge that the exact way in which the brain works remains a
mystery. Therefore, it is impossible to determine how a talented brain differs
from a normal brain and whether talented exceptional learners learn the L2
system independently of the L1 system or continue to use the L1 acquisition
system. That is, it may be that talented learners do not reset specific parame-
ters in their SLA but rather acquire the new language as an L2. The CPH may
then be true for normal learners but not for talented acquirers. It is possible
that talented learners use a different neuropsychological structure to acquire an
SL as adults, and it is also possible that, as in Julie’s case, talented adult
acquirers differ from children in their conscious attention to grammatical form.
I would like to add that this consciousness factor might also account for Julie’s
talent in mimicking accents.
Bongaerts et al. (1995) tested 27 Dutch native speakers who began learning
English as a foreign language after the close of the critical period, at about 12
years of age. None of the subjects had ever visited an English-speaking country
before the age of 15. That is, the subjects did not learn the language in a
natural environment. There were two experimental groups of non-native
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 83

English speakers and one control group of English native speakers. The
subjects in the first experimental group were selected according to their high
achievement as English learners with good accents; the subjects in the second
experimental group were either university students or lecturers who varied with
respect to their perceived foreign accent when speaking English. At the time of
the experiment, the two experimental groups had had 7–12 years of English
instruction. Four different speech samples were collected from all three groups.
The subjects were first asked to talk in English about a recent vacation. The
other three tasks were to read a short passage, then 10 sentences of 5–10 words
each and a list of 25 words, which were carefully chosen as representative of the
range of phonemic patterns in English. The assumption underlying the de-
cision to collect four different speech samples was that these four distinct tasks
required various degrees of activation of the “monitor system” a term used by
Krashen and Terrell (1983). That is, there were different degrees of difficulty
in producing the correct pronunciation of the different speech samples (task
one allowing the lowest degree of monitoring and task four the highest). In
order to prevent any judgement of grammatical and vocabulary mistakes,
excerpts of 16–20 seconds containing only natural, idiomatic and error-free
English were edited from the three-minute samples of spontaneous speech
(eight seconds are believed to be sufficient for reliable judgement of pronunci-
ation). Four native speaker judges (from York, with no regional accent) rated
the speech samples for degree of foreign accent on a five-point scale. Strikingly,
the non-native experimental group of excellent learners outperformed not only
the non-native students and lecturers, but also the control group. This, in the
authors’ view, is probably because the control group spoke with different
regional accents, whereas the non-native subjects were taught standard/neutral
pronunciation. Another surprising finding concerns the type of task: although
as expected task four received the highest scores in all groups, contrary to the
authors’ expectations, in both the native group and one non-native group the
third task received lower scores than the second task although it is supposed to
be easier.
To be sure about the above results Bongaerts, Van Summeren, Planken, and
Schils (1997) conducted an additional similar study with different speech
samples. This time foreign accent ratings were obtained for six English sen-
tences spoken twice by native Dutch and native English controls. The decision
to use only six sentences was based on the fact that the sentence production
task yielded the lowest overall results in the previous study. The main result of
this study was similar to the previous one: some individuals in the group of
highly successful learners received ratings comparable to those assigned to the
native speaker controls.
Bongaerts et al.’s (1995, 1997) findings disprove Scovel’s (1969) notion of
a CPH for pronunciation. They conclude that there may be some interaction
between certain learner variables (such as high motivation) and learning
context (such as environment and continued access to target language input)
that may explain these adults’ exceptional success. The subjects in these
84 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

studies were highly motivated to speak English without a Dutch accent. They
had intensive contact with English native speakers, and received a considerable
amount of university instruction and laboratory training in pronunciation.

Theories Competing With the CPH for SL Phonological Attainment: Possible Factors
Affecting SL Accent
Various alternative theories to the CPH have been proposed in an endeavour
to explain child-adult differences in ultimate attainment of a SL phonological
system. In relation to SLA in general, Neufeld (1978) suggested that numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (social, psychological, L1, cognitive style, and so
on) may have a profound influence upon one’s real potential to acquire a
second language. Similar factors have also been suggested in relation to SL
pronunciation.
In a study conducted by Purcell and Suter (1980), four out of the 20
variables in Suter’s previous study were found to predict learners’ pronuncia-
tion accuracy: first language, aptitude for oral mimicry, residency, and strength
of concern for pronuciation accuracy. Various types of motivation (integrative,
economic, social prestige), according to Purcell and Suter, contributed negligi-
bly to the explanation of the variance of their subjects’ pronunciation accuracy
scores. Moyer (1999), on the other hand, found that professional motivation
was clearly the most significant factor in the subjects’ pronunciation accuracy.
The relationship between talent in mimicry and SL pronunciation was also
addressed by Stapp (1999), whose 28 monolingual Japanese subjects aged
4–17 had to repeat a list of simple English words containing /r/ and /l/ sounds.
The results of the study suggested that mimicry is a talent available to
particular individuals throughout life and it is not related to age. Although
some may criticise this study for not testing actual SL learners in ultimate
attainment, it may still be taken as support for the existence of exceptional
learners.
Fledge (1987) also suggested a variety of potential factors, which (instead of
or in addition to the CPH) may be responsible for adult-child differences in the
naturalistic acquisition of L2 pronunciation: developmental anatomic factors,
amount and quality of L2 input, motivation, and affective and social factors.
That is, incompleteness of learning may be indirectly influenced by motiva-
tional, affective and social factors. In addition to the potential effect of these
factors on accent accuracy, Fledge claims that children tend to process speech
in an auditory mode (using natural psychoacoustic capabilities), rather than a
phonetic mode (using perceptual processing abilities shaped by previous
linguistic experience). This enables them to develop more accurate perceptual
targets for L2 sounds. A related hypothesis refers to child-adult differences in
central representations of sound categories. It is likely that children are more
capable of developing new phonetic categories when required to do so; this
continues to evolve in childhood and has yet to be established. Adults, on the
other hand, rely more strongly on their previous cognitive experience, thus
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 85

tending to identify L2 phones with familiar L1 categories. These hypotheses

may explain the various degrees of success in learners’ L2 performance.
Kennedy (1988) proposed an information-processing approach to account
for child-adult differences in attaining a native-like proficiency in L2. Accord-
ing to this approach, the brain may not be specialised for language, per se, but
for different types of processing. Aspects of unitisation (productions made
automatic), faulty or incomplete declarative knowledge, and lack of working
memory space, can elucidate some of the problems adult learners have in
achieving full competence in another language. With regard to phonology,
Kennedy explains that the phonological system can be unitised. Thus, once the
L1 phonological system has been unitised before the acquisition of L2 begins,
the unitised system of the first language would resist any alteration or re-expan-
sion to include new sounds from the L2. Instead, the new sounds are forced to
conform to the closest sound in L1.
Guiora (1990) offered a psychological theory for age-related differences in
SL phonological ability. His theory is based on a series of studies conducted to
examine the effect of alcohol, hypnosis and drugs (valium) on the permeability
of the ego boundaries, which he claims is the main reason behind adults’
inability to attain a native-like accent in a second language. He explains that
pronunciation is the core of our ego language, or language identity, and as
mature people cannot bear to have two identities, they develop a psychological
barrier which he calls “ego boundaries”. These boundaries protect people from
having a split identity. Guiora found that once his subjects became more
relaxed under the influence of drugs, alcohol or hypnosis, they were able to
approximate a native-like pronunciation in the foreign language. That is, their
ego language became more permeable, allowing them to manifest a lesser
degree of foreign accent. Further support for his theory was found in his study
of natural Hebrew-English bilinguals in Israel who, while being equally com-
petent in the two languages, still had only one completely real native accent,
usually in the environmental dominant language, Hebrew, and a slight non-na-
tive accent in English. This, again, in Guiora’s view, is evidence for the
psychological explanation of the ego language for age-related limitation for
SLA in the phonological domain.
Bialystok (1997) asserts that there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim
that mastery of a second language is determined wholly, or even primarily, by
maturational factors. She suggests that correspondence between language
structures in the first and SL is the most important factor influencing acqui-
sition and that processing differences can account for the adult-child disparity
in SLA. She contends that, rather than the age at which language acquisition
begins, length of residence, indicating the amount of time spent speaking the
second language, was found to be the significant factor affecting acquisition.
With respect to the phonological aspect, Bialystok suggests that the source for
child-adult pronunciation differences is their different preferences. Whereas
children tend to create new sound categories for the second language because
they are still in the process of creating new categories in their first language,
86 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

adults tend to extend their existing sound categories. According to Bialystok,

child-adult differences are not a result of maturational constraints but a result
of stylistic differences in learning at different times of life. Moreover, she
supports Fledge’s (1987) conclusion that the perceptual and sensorimotor
processes that allow children to learn the sound system of their L1 without an
accent remain intact through one’s lifespan and do not diminish as a result of
neurological maturation. Bialystok does not accept Patkowski’s (1980) sugges-
tion that maturational constraints apply only to learning in natural settings, nor
does she approve of Scovel’s (1969) exclusive support for the CPH in the case
of phonology, claiming that we cannot select specific areas in which the
sensitive/critical period applies. It is then more plausible to conclude that
successful late learners of an SL are not simply anomalous exceptions to a
biological law or rare individuals with an unusual and prodigious talent, but
rather ordinary cases that emerge when conditions are favourable. In Bia-
lystok’s (1997) words: “the absence of more compelling evidence, it is prudent
to assume that successful SLA remains a possibility for all those who have
learnt a natural language in childhood and can organise their lives to recreate
some of the social, educational and experimental advantages that children
enjoy” (p. 134). As for attainment of SL accent, we can add here that adults
have the capacity to change the tendencies mentioned above through practice
or training and remain capable of acquiring a new phonological system
throughout life.
Fledge, Frieda, and Nozawa (1997) investigated the impact of L1 mainte-
nance on the SL learner’s pronunciation accuracy. They found that degree of
activation of the native language (amount of L1 use) affected the pronunciation
of the L2. Subjects who, according to self report, spoke their L1 (Italian)
relatively often had significantly stronger foreign accents than did those who
seldom spoke their native language although both groups were exposed to L2
at a very early age (all before age 10). Fledge et al., therefore, conclude that “an
individual’s state of neurological development is not the only—or necessarily
the most important—determinant of how accurately an L2 will ultimately be
pronounced” (p. 183).
Endowed with these conflicting theories and evidence regarding the acqui-
sition of the L2 phonological system, I now turn to several cases of late starters
who have achieved a very high level of pronunciation in their SL. Hence, the
present study is another attempt to test the CPH for pronunciation and to
investigate the possible variables that may account for subjects’ exceptional
proficiency in the SL.

Method
Selection of Subjects
The subjects of this study were selected on the basis of the second author
S.K.’s best judgement as a native speaker of Hebrew. In the case of Tamara,
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 87

who immigrated at the age of 14, S.K. suspected some non-native accent but
only after a period of about 10 minutes of fluent speech, whereas it was clear
that Miri, who immigrated at the age of 20, was not a Hebrew native speaker.
Ruth, a colleague, came to Israel at the age of 16. She is an English native
speaker who we found to be very fluent in Hebrew with occasionally a very
slight accent. It should be noted that in two cases (Ilana, Batia) we did not
know that the subjects were not Israeli-born, but they came to Israel at the ages
of 10 and 12 respectively. Haya, who we knew to be an English native
speaker, sounded like a very fluent accentless speaker; she also came to Israel
around the age of 11. We decided to include these last three subjects in order
to compare them with the other later learners. We also included another
subject, a sports teacher, who came to Israel at the age of seven from Russia,
but who still has a slight unidentified accent. Alina, who also came from Russia
but at the age of 16, and who has retained some of her foreign accent, is also
included in the study, again for the purposes of comparison. Rivka, who also
came at the age of 16, occasionally seemed to have a certain indefinable accent.
Sonia came to Israel at a very late age (after 40), and she is very fluent with a
slight foreign accent. In addition to all the above, we included three native
speakers, as a means of controlling for possible prejudiced judgements.

The Interviews
The subjects were interviewed with respect to their SLA. Most of the following
questions were addressed in some of the studies mentioned above. The
questions related to the following variables:

1. Place of birth (L1 background)

2. Age of arrival (immigration)
3. Number of years in the country
4. Type of exposure to the language (formal/informal)
5. Amount of L2 use (at home, with friends, relatives and at work)
6. Amount of L1 use (at home, with friends, relatives and at work)
7. Motivation to speak the L2 without a native-like accent for general/pro-
fessional reasons
8. Awareness and consciousness of form and accent
9. Special difficulties and learning process
10. Perceived talent for language and mimicry
11. Other talents/problems (the Geschwind cluster)

Subjects’ Profiles
Tamara. Tamara was born in Russia. She immigrated at the age of 14 and is
presently 22 years old. She reports that her first years in the country were quite
difficult for her as she did not integrate into. Israeli society, but rather kept her
social life within the Russian community. She felt disrespect from students at
88 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

school and was also under constant scrutiny from teachers, social workers, and
so on. She was ashamed to speak Hebrew lest she make mistakes. Only after
she met her future husband did she start to speak Hebrew more intensively.
She reports paying careful attention to the way she spoke and taking great care
to speak correctly. She felt that she had to prove to Israeli society that she was
no different from the native speakers. The fact that she married a Hebrew
native speaker, in addition to owning a boutique, contributed enormously to
her proficiency in Hebrew. She says her mother is a linguist who knows several
languages and, though arriving in Israel after the age of 40, she has succeeded
in acquiring a very high level of the Hebrew language without an accent. She
feels she inherited this talent for languages from her mother.

Miri. Miri was born in the US to an American mother and a Guatemalan

father. When she was five years old, her family moved to Guatemala. However,
in Guatemala she went to a German school until graduation for both educa-
tional and economic reasons. Thus, Miri actually acquired two additional SLs
simultaneously while at home she continued to speak her first native language,
American English. Miri lived in Germany for two years before she immigrated
at the age of 20. On her arrival, she commenced studying Hebrew in an Ulpan
in a kibbutz. She studied for nine months and then remained to work in the
kibbutz, speaking Hebrew constantly. She feels her best language is English
although she has never had any problems learning the other three languages.
She reads mainly in English and sometimes in Spanish.
She sometimes does some translating from Hebrew into English (and also
from German to English), though she admits that writing in Hebrew is her
weaker ability. Presently Miri is 44 years old. That is, she has been living in
Israel for 24 years. She is married to a native Hebrew speaker to whom she
speaks only in Hebrew. She speaks all four languages fluently. Sometimes she
mixes Hebrew and Spanish while conversing with her Spanish friends in Israel.
She also talks on the phone every once in a while with her friends in Germany.
She reports no difficulties in acquiring any of the languages. Whenever she
encountered a new form or category while learning Hebrew, she immediately
tried to find an equivalent in the other languages she knew. Similarly, she
reports having no difficulties pronouncing any of the Hebrew sounds, because
they exist in one language or another.
Miri claims to have a talent for languages. Her mother also knows several
languages. Most people do not notice her non-nativity. Miri is right handed
and suffers from no allergies. There are no twins in her family as far as she
knows.

Ruth. Ruth was born in Nigeria. Her mother is English and her father is
Turkish. Ruth’s mother tongue is English. Due to her father’s job the family
lived in various places: Tanzania, Kenya, and Iran. Ruth’s two younger
brothers and her sister usually went to an Israeli school while Ruth studied in
the international schools of the British embassy. When she was 12 her parents
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 89

sent her to an Israeli school but Ruth could not adjust. She had a private tutor
for a short time who taught her Hebrew grammar and said she had a quick
understanding of the system. Because her father had immigrated at the age of
five and was raised in Israel until the age of 21, he used to listen to Hebrew
records during the family’s stay abroad. Ruth remembers listening to these
records when she was about 12, while living in Iran, but she did not understand
anything. She also learned some Iranian and some French in school but
remembers only a few words in Iranian and understands some French. Ruth
was 16 years old when her family returned to Israel. She has been in the
country for 23 years. She graduated from Witzo school and went to the army
for one year. She is both an art teacher and an English teacher. She is a very
talented artist. She is also very good at swimming and has won some medals.
She married a Hebrew native speaker with whom she speaks only Hebrew.
She speaks English with her parents and children, although her children usually
answer in Hebrew. She speaks a lot of Hebrew with her colleagues at school,
friends and students. She reads Hebrew newspapers but English books. She
reports being good at imitating different accents. It has always been very
important for her to sound native-like, being aware of her accent. In fact, being
a teacher, she is very conscious of the way she speaks. Whenever she feels she
has made some grammatical mistake, she prefers to emphasise her foreign
accent so that people will not criticise her too severely. Like most English
speakers she has no rolling “r”.
Ruth says she can also judge people’s accents in Hebrew although she is not
native-born. She says she probably inherited her father’s talent for languages;
he knows about 12 languages. To her best judgement he has no accent in
English although it is not his mother tongue. Her mother used to teach biology
until the family returned to Israel. Since their return she teaches English. She
knows Hebrew quite well but has a very heavy accent.
Ruth used to have a lot of problems learning maths. She is right handed. She
constantly suffers from skin allergies. There is a history of twinning in her
family. She herself was pregnant with twins.

Alina. Alina was born in Russia. She immigrated at the age of 16. She has
been in the country for 11 years. She graduated from high school and studied
special education at the university. She is currently working in a school for
students with learning difficulties. She is married to a Russian immigrant and
they have one child. At home she speaks both Hebrew and Russian with her
husband, and Russian with her parents who live with them. She insists on
speaking only Russian with her child since she wants him to grow up bilingual.
She listens to the Hebrew news on television.
Alina feels that she has a heavy accent. She had no problem acquiring the
language. She is right handed. She is allergic to oranges. There is no history of
twinning in her family. She studied the piano for nine years and was considered
very talented.
90 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

Rivka. Rivka was born in Bulgaria. She immigrated at the age of 15 right after
the country was established in 1948. Since those were difficult times, she could
not continue her studies and had to work. At the time, she did not have to
speak or understand Hebrew much. She continued to speak mostly Bulgarian
at home with her family and also with her husband whom she married at the
age of 17. She also spoke Bulgarian with her two children. During this period
she worked in various factories and the input she received was mainly in the
form of instructions. She did not have to speak much. When she was about 27
she decided to go to an ulpan. She was a very good student and did her best
to speak the language with no mistakes. She then started to work as a
saleswoman and had to speak quite a lot of Hebrew with the customers and her
bosses. She also learned to type and worked as a secretary and a cashier. She
learned some Russian in Bulgaria and recently has started to use it with her
Russian customers. She now speaks Russian quite fluently. She also speaks
“Ladino” at home.
She used to sing in a chorus when she was younger and is considered very
talented. She is right handed. She had some difficulties in school, but she was
always good at writing. She used to read a lot of books. Today she reads the
Hebrew newspapers daily and listens to the Hebrew news. She likes to write in
rhymes in Hebrew whenever someone celebrates a birthday or an anniversary.
She reports that people do not always perceive her foreign accent. It is not
a typical Bulgarian accent.

Batia. Batia was born in Russia and immigrated at the age of 13. Today she is
a professor in the English department and teaches linguistics.
She used to play the piano. She is right handed. She has twins. She says
people cannot always recognise an accent in her speech and if they do, they
cannot put their finger on the type of accent she has.
People who know her vary in their perception of her accent. Some say she
has no accent at all.

Haya. Haya was born in the US and came to Israel at the age of 11. She went
back to the US at the age of 16 and returned to Israel at 18. She served in the
army and studied at the university. Her husband is also an American, so she
speaks mostly English at home except with her youngest child.
She is the coordinator of the English department at the university. She
speaks both Hebrew and English with the students and staff.
She is right handed, has no allergies and no twinning in the family.
She says people do not usually perceive a foreign accent in her speech. She
says she has a talent for languages. She speaks English, French, Italian, Yiddish
and Hebrew.

Ilana. Ilana was born in Romania and arrived in Israel at the age of 10. She
is 50 years old. She is married to a Hebrew native speaker. She is a teacher and
she teaches Hebrew, science and Arabic. She knows several languages.
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 91

Most of her colleagues say she has no trace of a foreign accent. Ilana says
people cannot recognise the type of accent she has. Some say she has an
oriental accent and some say she has an eastern European accent. She says that
even a linguist once mistook her for having an oriental accent due to her
pharyngeal “h” sound.

Ilana P. Ilana was born in Poland. She arrived at the age of seven and has been
living in Israel for 43 years. She learned Hebrew in a kibbutz. During all this
time she has spoken Polish with her mother.
She is presently a sports teacher. She uses a lot of Hebrew during the day
with her students and colleagues.
While some of the teachers who work with her say she has no accent at all,
others say she has a slight indefinable accent, like an oriental or a South
American accent.

Sonia. Sonia came to Israel after the age of 40 from South Africa. She has been
in the country for 10 years. She used to speak Afrikaans and English at home.
She works in a store and has to speak a lot of Hebrew with her customers. She
did not want to study in an ulpan and preferred the natural way. She had to
learn the language rather quickly because nobody around spoke English. She
speaks both Hebrew and English with her daughters.
She is right handed. She is good with her hands and used to create things.
She speaks Hebrew quite fluently with a slight accent. Her daughters say she
has a very slight accent though they themselves are not natives. Sonia says her
younger daughter, who came to Israel at 13, sounds more native-like than her
sister who came when she was 16. People cannot recognise her accent. She says
this is because some of the Hebrew sounds, like the pharyngeal “h”, exist in
Afrikaans.

Elicitation of Speech Samples

All subjects were asked to talk about a trip they had taken or to describe their
favourite recipe. In addition some of the subjects were asked to perform some
reading tasks:

1. Read a short passage from a book or a newspaper in Hebrew

2. Read aloud a few Hebrew sentences, the number of words in each sentence
varying from five to 10
3. Read aloud a list of 33 Hebrew words, selected so as to contain the different
Hebrew phonemes including problematic ones

The subjects were not told the purpose of the tasks until after their completion.
Because not all subjects were available for the reading tasks, or did not feel
competent/comfortable enough to read, only a group of five subjects performed
these additional reading tasks. The rationale for the reading tasks is adopted
92 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

from Bongaerts et al. (1995), who assumed that different tasks would create
different degrees of pronunciation monitoring on the part of subjects.

Presentation of Speech Samples

The speech samples were presented to the judges on a tape lasting approxi-
mately 15 minutes. It should be noted that the samples were not edited, as was
the case in the studies mentioned above, due to lack of the appropriate
equipment.
The different speech samples from the subjects who performed all four
different tasks were not presented to the judges in a sequeatial order, so as to
ensure the elimination of voice identification.

Judges and Rating Procedure

Five Hebrew native speakers (three female and two male) judged the speech
samples. One of the judges was also one of the NS (native speaker) subjects
and therefore her fifth score (of herself) in Table 1 of the results remains blank.
She was recruited to judge after making the tape. Judges were told to listen to
the tapes and judge each speech sample for foreign accent on a five-point scale.
1. Very strong foreign accent: definitely non-native
2. Strong foreign accent
3. Slight foreign accent
4. Very slight foreign accent
5. No foreign accent at all: definitely native

Results
A glance at Table 1 reveals that the majority of the judges judged some of the
non-native subjects as native speakers (for example Tamara, Ruth, Batia, Haya
and Ilana). This provides counterevidence to Long’s (1990) theory of matura-
tional constraints as accounting for the early diminishing ability in phonology
(age 6), as well as counterevidence to the CPH hypothesis suggested by
Lenneberg (1967) and others who claim that usually beyond the age of puberty
(age 12) SL learners cannot attain a native-like proficiency. In this study some
of the subjects were on the borderline of the critical period.
One of the native speaker subjects, Shoshi, who was also a judge in the study,
was judged to have a very slight foreign accent. She even scored lower than
Ruth. The judges explained that Shoshi pronounced certain words in a way
that made them suspect a foreign accent (for example, the term “et cetera” in
Hebrew).
Another interesting finding is that some of the subjects who arrived around
and after the closure of puberty outperformed Ilana P., who arrived earlier than
all other non-native subjects.
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 93

Table 1. Judges’ evaluation of subjects’ accents in free speech

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5

(Sara) (Avi) (Sofi) (Ron) (Shoshi) Mean

Tamara NNS-14 5 5 4 3 4 4.2

Miri NNS-20 4 4 3 3 3 3.4
Ruth NNS-16 5 5 5 4 5 4.8
Alina NNS–16.5 4 3 3 3 3 3.2
Rivka NNS–15.5 2 2 2 3 3 2.4
Batia NNS-13 5 5 4 4 3 4.2
Haya NNS-11 5 5 5 5 5 5
Ilana NNS–10.5 5 5 5 4 3 4.4
Ilana P. NNS-7 4.5 4 3 3 4 3.7
Sonia NNS-40 3 2 3 2 2 2.4
Shoshi NS* 4.5 5 4.5 4 * 4.5
Iris NS 5 5 5 5 5 5
Inbal NS 5 5 5 5 5 5

NNS ⫽ non-native speaker ⫹ age on arrival; NS ⫽ native speaker.

*Shoshi was both a subject and a judge.

Table 2. Judges’ evaluation of subjects’ accents in reading a paragraph

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5 Mean

Miri NNS-20 4 4 2 2 3 3
Ruth NNS-16 3 3 3 3 4 3.6
Alina NNS–16.5 3 3 3 3 2 2.8
Rivka NNS–15.5 2 2 3 2 2 2.2
Ilana NNS–10.5 5 5 5 5 3 4.6

NNS ⫽ non-native speaker ⫹ age on arrival; NS ⫽ native speaker.

Table 3. Judges’ evaluations of some of the subjects’ accents when reading sentences

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5 Mean

Miri NNS-20 4 4.5 3 3 3 4.2

Ruth NNS-16 4 4.5 4 3 4 4.6
Alina NNS–16.5 3 3 3 3 3 2.8
Rivka NNS–15.5 2 2 3 2 2 2.8
Ilana NNS–10.5 5 5 5 4 3 4.8

NNS ⫽ non-native speaker ⫹ age on arrival; NS ⫽ native speaker.

Examining Tables 2–5 suggests that some of the reading samples were
judged higher than the free speech, while in other cases the opposite occurred.
That is, there does not seem to be a consistent pattern or a linear correlation
between the type of task and the score level. Table 5 shows that in general,
except in the case of Ilana, the most difficult reading task (reading a passage)
94 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

Table 4. Judges’ evaluations of some of the subjects’ accents when reading a word list

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 5 Mean

Miri NNS-20 5 5 4 3 4 4.2

Ruth NNS-16 5 5 4 5 4 4.6
Alina NNS–16.5 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Rivka NNS–15.5 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Ilana NNS–10.5 5 5 5 5 4 4.8

NNS ⫽ non-native speaker ⫹ age on arrival, NS ⫽ native speaker.

Table 5. Mean scores of judges’ evaluations across the four tasks

Free Reading Reading Reading

speech passage sentences word list

Miri NNS-20 3.4 3 4.2 4.2

Ruth NNS-16 4.8 3.6 4.6 4.6
Alina NNS–16.5 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.8
Rivka NNS–15.5 2.4 2.2 2.8 2.8
Ilana NNS–10.5 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.8

NNS ⫽ non-native speaker ⫹ age on arrival; NS ⫽ native speaker.

enhanced the foreign accent. As for the other reading tasks, only Miri and Ilana
(again) produced better scores whereas all other subjects did worse than on the
spontaneous speech.

Discussion and Conclusions

The case studies presented above indicate that there are, indeed, some SL
learners who succeed in achieving a near-native or a native-like accent despite
having been exposed to the language after puberty. Interviewing the subjects
provided an opportunity to observe the various variables which might account
for the subjects’ competence.
It has been suggested that talent may explain the fact that some learners can
acquire a native-like accent in the SL. According to the CPH the existence of
native-like late learners is an exception to the rule. However, Birdsong (1992)
does not “regard these [exceptional] individuals as abnormal—as mere outliers
in the distribution … [but rather] as experts” (p. 742). Alternatively, Birdsong
suggests that if “the performance of exceptional learners is to be accounted for
in biological terms, then the hypothesised end of the critical period must be
pushed well past puberty, or the ‘window of opportunity’ for language learning
must be extended and made flexible” (p. 742).
The idea that SL learners who have reached a native-like accent are in fact
exceptionally talented has been expanded to include the proposition that there
may be some connection between talent in language learning and other abilities
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 95

such as mimicry, musicality, sports, dance, and so on (Neufeld, 1978; Stapp,

1999). It has also been suggested that the Geschwind cluster should be taken
into consideration when examining the backgrounds of these highly successful
adult learners (Ioup et al., 1994; Schneiderman & Desmarais, 1988). Indeed,
most of the subjects in this study had some musical background or were quite
talented in that domain. Some subjects also reported being skilled in art, sports
or both (see Ruth’s profile). Many of the subjects suffered from some kind of
allergy. Both Ruth and Batia have a history of twinning in the family. All the
subjects are right handed.
Another possible variable, which seems plausibly to account for the native-
like or near-native accent of many of the subjects in the present study, is the
amount of L2 use. At the same time, the amount of L1 use may also play a
significant role. In other words, sometimes continuing to speak the L1 at home
may influence the degree of perceived foreign accent, even when the subject
arrived at a relatively early age, say seven, as in the case of Ilana P., who scored
lower than some of the late-arrival subjects. A stronger proof for this point is
the case of Sonia, who immigrated after the age of 40 and without any formal
instruction succeeded in achieving a relatively high level of proficiency, though
in pronunciation she scored only 2.4, little below the middle of the scale. In
a recent study Piske, Mackay, and Fledge (2001) found that the amount of
L1 use has much the same effect on early and late bilinguals, though age
of L2 learning was again found to be the single most important predictor of
degree of L2 foreign accent. In any event, whenever the amount of L1
use was relatively high, a foreign accent could be detected even in early
bilinguals.
The question of SL instruction is pertinently addressed by Long (1983), yet
it remains open for further more divergent investigation. The subjects in
Shohami, Shmidt, Zveda, and Erlich’s (1998) study reported that the ulpan’s
instruction was not a sufficient learning facilitator. Formal instruction in the
SL does not seem to be the strongest factor accounting for the subjects’ success
in the present study either, although it might have helped in some cases (see
Rivka’s profile). Instruction may have helped in other linguistic domains, such
as grammar and syntax, and this may have indirectly facilitated and improved
pronunciation. In any event, the direct impact of conventional instruction, with
no deliberate pronunciation practice (as used in some of the studies mentioned
above), on the learner’s accent continues to be unclear.
It seems appropriate to consider the effect of the subject’s profession on their
phonological competence. It appears that the person’s occupation might de-
mand a certain level of competence and accuracy in L2 use. Most of the
participants in the present study needed to speak the language daily with
customers or colleagues. Shohami et al. (1998) investigated the issue of
linguistic competence in SL immigrants of different professions and found that
doctors and teachers were more proficient than other sectors, mainly in reading
and writing. Moreover, Moyer (1999) found that professional motivation was
the most significant factor in the subjects’ pronunciation rating.
96 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

Awareness and motivation might also have played a role in the case of some
of the present study’s subjects. Two of the postpuberty starters, Tamara and
Ruth, who achieved the highest scores, were reportedly extremely aware of
their linguistic competence as well as their accent. It was very important for
them to sound native-like. This supports Purcell and Suter’s (1980) conclusion
that professional motivation affects the level of native-like accent.
Miri reported that she used equivalent structures and sounds in the lan-
guages she already knew to help her to acquire the new language more easily.
This may explain what some of the researchers referred to as cognitive style.
That is, the use of language transfer and contrastive analysis is probably one of
the learning processes that most SL learners employ, although L2 interference
might hinder rather than facilitate the accurate acquisition of the language.
Still, sufficient input and negative feedback can assist in establishing the
appropriate structures and sounds of the new language.
It should be highlighted here that even a very late starter, such as Sonia (with
10 years of residence), can achieve a relatively high level of proficiency in the
SL. This may be due to a combination of affective variables (motivation),
talent and possibly other cognitive variables as well.
There are, however, some methodological limitations to the present study
that should be taken into consideration. The judges may have been biased by
the instruction to rate speech samples for foreign accent. This is seen in the
case of Shoshi, who is native speaker and also one of the judges. In this case,
some of the judges gave Shoshi less than the maximum on the five-point scale.
In addition, we have reason to believe that whenever the subjects were aware
that they were being recorded, their pronunciation became more perceptibly
accented. It should be borne in mind that the subjects were selected because,
in most of the cases, we could hardly detect a distinguished foreign accent in
their speech. Still, more sensitive measures should be employed in future
studies when testing pronunciation levels.
The fact that late L2 learners exhibit variance in pronunciation accuracy,
while their proficiency in all other domains is more or less equal, is in itself a
proof that an individual’s L2 pronunciation competence depends on his/her
personal variables. Although age appears to play a significant role in predicting
the level of pronunciation accuracy in general, as maintained by Long (1990),
Patkowski (1980), and others, we cannot ignore the fact that a variety of
additional variables may contribute greatly to one’s level of accented speech.
Thus, we can positively conclude that social/psychological/affective factors,
such as attitude, motivation, empathy, self-esteem (Krashen & Terrell, 1983),
ego permeability (Guiora, 1992), type of input, length of exposure, cognitive
explanations (learning style), and amount of L1 versus L2 use, may
also account for the differences in proficiency level between children and
adults.
Another issue that emerged during the judges’ scoring was that the speed at
which the subjects speak the language appears to influence the judges’ scores.
For example, most of the judges gave an immediate high score to Ruth who
 Is There a Critical Period for SLP? 97

speaks Hebrew exceptionally fast. It seems logical to assume some connection

between speed of speech and the impression made on the hearer.
It may be argued that a native-like accent is not as important as a native-like
proficiency in syntax, grammar and vocabulary, as it usually does not cause a
break in communication. Yet, sometimes, a heavy foreign accent may inhibit
the speaker’s flow of speech, causing the wrong impression and thus interrupt-
ing communication.
Among the pedagogical conclusions and implications of this and similar
studies would be that there is room for improvement in one’s level of pronun-
ciation proficiency. That is, in formal instruction, attempting to increase the
learner’s awareness and motivation on the one hand, and providing the
appropriate exposure and extensive practice on the other, may enhance a
native-like accent. Outside the classroom, in the informal setting, it is largely
the individual’s way of life (how important it is to his/her prestige or profession,
his/her awareness and motivation, the amount of practice he/she gets) that may
influence the level of L2 proficiency.

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank all the people who participated in this study for their
serious engagement and valuable contribution.

References
Asher, J.J., & Price, B. (1967). The learning strategy of the total physical response: Some
age differences. Child Development, 38, 1219–1227.
Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: In search of barriers to second language
acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, 116–137.
Birdsong, D. (1992) Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68,
706–755.
Bongaerts, T., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1995). Can late starters attain a native accent in
a foreign language? A test of the critical period hypothesis. In D. Singelton & Z.
Lengyel. (Eds.), The age factor in second language acquisition (pp. 30–50). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate
attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 447–465.
Fledge, J. (1987). A critical period for learning to pronounce foreign languages? Applied
Linguistics, 8, 162–177.
Fledge, J.E., Frieda, E.M., & Nozawa, T. (1997). Amount of native-language (L1) use
affects the pronunciation of an L2. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 169–186.
Guiora, A.Z. (1990). A psychological theory of second language pronunciation. Toegerpaste
Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 37, 15–23.
Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period
hypothesis. A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73–98.
Kennedy, B.L. (1988). Adult versus child L2 acquisition: An information-processing
approach. Language Learning, 38, 477–495.
 98 S. Abu-Rabia & S. Kehat

Krashen, S.D., Long, M.A., & Scarcella, R.C. (1979). Age, rate, and eventual attainment
in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 573–582.
Krashen, S.D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. London: Pergamon/Alemany.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Long, M.H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the
research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
Long, M.H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age,
motivation, and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 81–108.
Neufeld, G.G. (1978). Towards a theory of language learning ability. Language Learning,
29, 227–241.
Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second
language. Language Learning, 30, 449–472.
Piske, T., MacKay, I.R., & Flege, J.E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in
an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 191–215.
Purcell, E.T., & Suter, R.W. (1980). Predictors of pronunciation accuracy: A reexamina-
tion. Language Learning, 30, 271–287.
Schneiderman, E., & Desmarais, C. (1988). The talented language learner: Some prelimi-
nary findings. Second Language Research, 4, 91–109.
Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance. Lan-
guage Learning, 19, 245–253.
Shohami, I., Shmidt, S., Zveda, H., & Erlich, S. (1998). Measuring linguistic knowledge of
immigrants. Research report. The Center of Development: Tel Aviv University.
Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1977). Age differences in the pronunciation of foreign
sounds. Language and Speech, 20, 357–365.
Snow, C., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition:
Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114–1128.
Stapp, Y.F. (1999). Neural plasticity and the issue of mimicry tasks in L2 pronunciation
studies. Retrieved June 2002 from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej12/
al.html.
Thompson, I. (1991). Foreign accents revisited: The English pronunciation of Russian
immigrants. Language Learning, 41, 177–204.

View publication stats