Age-related differences in foreign language learning. Revisiting the empirical evidence

Age-related differences in foreign language learning.Revisiting the empirical evidence∗

CARMEN MUÑOZ

IRAL 46 (2008), 197–220 0019042X/2008/046-0197DOI 10.1515/IRAL.2008.009 c©Walter de Gruyter

Abstract

This paper focuses on the effects of age on second language learning, specifi-cally in foreign language settings. It begins by pointing out that the effects oflearners’ initial age of learning in foreign language learning settings are par-tially different from those in naturalistic language learning settings and, fur-thermore, that studies in the former context have produced conflicting results.In an attempt to clarify these divergent findings, the present paper examinesmethodological issues as a way of re-analysing the existing evidence from re-search conducted in foreign language settings. The discussion contends thatthis kind of methodological clarification may permit robust findings to emergewhich are specific to age effects in foreign or instructed language learning set-tings and go some way towards clarifying the existing picture.

1. Introduction

A large number of studies in the field of second language (L2) acquisitionhave addressed the influence of the age at which learning begins, particularlysince the formulation of the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) by Lenneberg(1967). Such influence has been analysed mainly in reference to the outcomesof the learning process or ultimate attainment. Indeed, as Long (2007) argues,the explanation of age-related outcome differences is an issue of fundamentalimportance for L2 theory construction. In contrast, the influence of the learner’sage on the rate of learning has not enjoyed the same type of attention, althoughit has been widely attested (i.e., Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle 1978). As a matterof fact, the issue of rate may be even more crucial when the time for learningis limited, as is the case in a foreign language learning setting.

∗. The writing of this paper was supported by grants HUM 2004-05167 and 2005 SGR00778.

Brought to you by | University of SydneyAuthenticated | 194.81.199.54

Download Date | 3/4/13 10:45 AM

198 Carmen Muñoz

A higher ultimate attainment by younger (or early) starters and a faster rateof learning by older (or late) starters may be seen as two distinct age-related ad-vantages. The distinction was underlined by the conclusions of Krashen, Longand Scarcella (1979) on the basis of the early findings on the influence of ageon L2 learning: (i) older children, adolescents, and adults generally make morerapid progress in the first stages of the L2 acquisition process than youngerchildren, and (ii) the younger a L2 learner is when the L2 acquisition processbegins, the more successful that process will be, that is, the more likely s/hewill be to attain nativelike proficiency. The latter generalization has related theyounger starters’ higher ultimate attainment to the native speaker standard inthe framework of the CPH as it applies to L2 acquisition. Along those lines,an early start in naturalistic L2 acquisition has been considered successful be-cause of its association to nativelikeness. Implicit in this consideration is thatthe aim of L2 acquisition is to achieve a level of performance as similar aspossible to that of a native speaker, idealized by formal linguistic theories as amonolingual native speaker.

However, the monolingual yardstick has been subject to severe criticismfrom different fronts. As Cook (1992) argued, the monolingual standard isinappropriate to account for the “multicompetence” of the bilingual, whoseknowledge of two languages is simply not the same as that of a monolingualin either language. In the same vein, Birdsong (2005) cogently argued that nei-ther of the languages of a bilingual can be expected to resemble that of a nativemonolingual because of the inevitable interactions and influences of the firstlanguage (L1) on the L2 and of the L2 on the L1. In the case of foreign languagelearning, it can be argued that learners’ success can be more appropriately andrealistically measured in terms of their bilingual attainment as expert or fluentbilinguals than in terms of the monolingual attainment of native speakers of theL2.

The discussion of the CPH in its application to foreign or instructed lan-guage learning settings raises additional problems. In particular, given the im-portance and theoretical relevance of the discussion of maturational constraintsin naturalistic L2 acquisition (Long 1990, 2005), a monolithic interpretation ofage-related differences has prevailed, based on the findings characteristic ofnatural settings. As a result, the long-term advantage of early learners in a nat-uralistic language learning context with unlimited input has also been creditedto early learners in an instructed context, in this case with limited access to L2input. Therefore, the conclusion has been that an early age is the only necessarycondition to guarantee success.1 This interpretation, sweepingly generalized to

1. The claim that it may also be a sufficient condition has recently been disputed, however,given the evidence that not even a very early age guarantees nativelike command of an L2(Hylstenstam and Abrahamsson 2003).



Age-related differences in foreign language learning 199

formal instruction situations in which the target language is a foreign language,has raised high expectations that an early start at school will also guaranteesuccess.

However, the studies conducted in instructed settings ever since the 1970’shave failed to provide confirmation for early starters’ long-term benefits, andhave often reported a faster rate of learning on the part of late starters. There-fore, there are grounds to suspect that the influence of age on L2 learningmay be moderated by the learning context. In order to confirm this assump-tion, a clear account of age effects on foreign language learning is needed. Sofar, however, studies in instructed language settings have produced conflictingfindings and have failed to reveal the precise ways in which the starting ageinfluences the outcome of foreign language learning.

In an attempt to clarify these divergent findings, the present paper looks intomethodological issues as a way of re-analysing the existing evidence, with theultimate goal of identifying the distinctive ways in which age influences L2learning in instructed settings. A secondary and complementary goal of thepaper is to reflect on the methodological dimension of the research conductedin the area of age effects on foreign language learning. To that end, the nextsection examines empirical findings from studies in this area and, in so doing,groups them into types on the basis of the role played by the main variablesunder consideration in the comparison of early and late starters. The last sectionbrings together those findings that have proved to be consistent and offers anexplanation for them; it concludes with a research agenda for future studies inthis area.

2. Findings according to methodological design

Most studies of the effects of initial age of learning on the outcome of for-mal language learning can be categorized in two main types on the basis oftheir methodological design. The common characteristic of all the studies isthat learners who began learning a foreign language at a comparatively earlypoint are compared to learners who began at a later point; younger or earlystarters and older or late starters are thus defined on the basis of the com-parison of their respective ages of initial learning or ages of onset. The stud-ies differ, however, in terms of two other variables: (i) the age at testing, thatis, the chronological age of learners when language data are elicited; and (ii)the amount of exposure to the L2, operationalized as the number of hours oryears of instruction. A third possibility exists, in which both these two vari-ables (age at testing and amount of exposure) are kept constant, and early andlate starters differ in the intensity of exposure or instruction they have received.This third type of research design, less frequent than the two previous ones,



200 Carmen Muñoz

allows for comparisons at similar chronological ages after similar amounts ofexposure.

2.1. Same age at time of testing, different amount of exposure

In this study design, early and late starters are compared when they havereached the same age (for example, at the end of secondary education). Conse-quently late starters have had fewer hours or courses of instruction in the targetlanguage. Examples of this type of study are displayed in Table 1 on page 210,in chronological order.2 Most of them present just one inter-group comparisonbut those with a longitudinal-like design report two or more comparisons. Afew studies have also compared more than two groups of learners with differ-ent ages of onset.

In some studies, early starters, with much longer instruction or exposure,outperform late starters. Examples are those presenting the results of FLES(Foreign Language in the Elementary School) programmes in the US (see Sin-gleton and Ryan 2004: 62). Frequently, however, late starters catch up withearly starters. An example is the study by Dunkell and Pillet (1962) in which,after five years of FLES, early starters were not doing as well as pupils of thesame age with only one year of L2 instruction. The study by Kalberer (2007)is also illustrative of the current trend in Europe towards an early introduc-tion of the foreign language in primary school. Comparing late starters withsix groups of early starters (ranging from 6.6 to 1.6 years of instruction) whenall subjects were 13.6 years old, five of the early starting groups outperformedthe late starters, but the group of late starters (with 0.6 years of instruction)outperformed the group of early starters with 1.6 years of instruction. This re-current finding was also noted by Krashen, Long and Scarcella (1979: 579),who concluded their review of work in this area observing that in studies offormal foreign language learning older children have a faster initial rate of ac-quisition, and that learners who start the foreign language later catch up withthose beginning earlier.

2. Other studies that use this design are large surveys commonly conducted by governmentalagencies which measure the foreign language proficiency of large samples of students usuallyfrom the same grade. As an example, a national survey in Spain (INECSE 2004) comparedthe proficiency in English of students who began to learn the target language at different ages,finding that early starters outperformed late starters. An examination of the data reveals anumber of confounds: early starters had more years of curricular and extracurricular instruc-tion; early and late starters were not homogeneously distributed in semi-private and state-funded schools, with the former providing earlier tuition in English and, most importantly,with a greater percentage of parents with higher educational levels.




Especially suggestive are the results of some studies in which early startersoutperform late starters in tests of communicative skills but not in tests ofliteracy skills. For example, Burstall et al. (1974) report that early starters,with a greater amount of exposure, outperformed late starters only in speak-ing and listening comprehension at age 13, and in listening comprehension atage 16. Similarly, Dominguez and Pessoa (2005) report short-term differencesin speaking and writing skills but not in reading skills, and Kuo (2003) reportslong-term significant differences only in listening comprehension, not in writ-ing ability or reading comprehension. These differences have been interpretedby means of Cummins’s Interdependence Hypothesis, which holds that learn-ers bring to the L2 learning task the literacy skills already acquired in the L1(Cummins, 1979). Alternatively, literacy-related tests may be seen as measuresof what Cummins (1980) calls CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Profi-ciency), and oral productive and receptive tests as measures of BICS (BasicInterpersonal Communicative Skills) (see Singleton and Ryan 2004: 88 ff).

This distinction may still be too broad, since at a more micro level, that ofwriting skills, differences have been found between more and less cognitively-demanding dimensions. Specifically, Celaya, Torras and Pérez-Vidal (2001)found significant differences for measures of lexical richness and fluency butnot for measures of grammatical complexity or accuracy in their comparisonof learners who had begun instruction in English at the age of 8 with learnerswho had begun at the age of 11, when both groups were aged 12;9 after 416and 200 hours of instruction, respectively.

These studies suggest that the advantage that would be expected from theearly starters’ longer exposure, if not from the fact that early starters areyounger, holds only partially. The greater learning efficiency of late startersis clearly observed in those studies that have followed learners longitudinallyand are able to show the respective evolution of early and late starters. Both inthe situations reported by Burstall et al. (1974) and by Oller and Nagato (1974)the advantage shown by the younger starters in the first comparison appearsto be reduced when learners are compared some time later, after having had agreater amount of exposure. Seemingly, because the late starters have a fasterrate of development, this further exposure allows them to catch up with theearly starters, especially regarding literacy-related skills.3

3. A number of studies of French immersion in Canada comparing early and late immersionlearners when they reached the same age show similar results, with late immersion studentsperforming as well as early immersion students in spite of the shorter length of immersion(e.g., Cummins 1983; Genesee 1979, 1987; Harley 1986; see Turnbull, Lapkin, Hart andSwain 1998 for an extended review), particularly on literacy-related tests. The same patternof results is observed when neither age of testing nor amount of exposure are kept constant(e.g., Lapkin, Swain, Kamin and Hanna 1980).



202 Carmen Muñoz

In sum, in this type of research in which chronological age is held constantbut the groups being compared differ in the amount of exposure to the targetlanguage, early starters may outperform late starters in the short term; how-ever, the advantage is often reduced at later comparisons. Late starters showgreater learning efficiency than younger learners: that is, they achieve similarproficiency levels in shorter periods of time, particularly regarding the moreacademic tests. On the other hand, an early start seems to yield lasting advan-tages in tests of communicative skills, specifically listening comprehension (aswell as greater self-confidence).

From a methodological point of view, a drawback of studies of this typeis that the difference in the amount of exposure of the two groups makes itdifficult to assign causality to results showing an advantage on the part of earlystarters. That is, the confound between the age at which L2 exposure beganand the amount of exposure or instruction does not allow us to conclude thatany advantages observed are due to an early start. A further drawback is thatdue to constraints of an organizational type in schools, early and late startersare sometimes mixed up in the same classrooms (see Stern 1982). This is thecase of the situations studied by Burstall et al. (1974), and Oller and Nagato(1974), in which learners were effectively mixed up at some point, which mayobviously have had a levelling down effect on the part of the early starters.4

In other cases in which a small group of late starters is incorporated in theearly starters’ class, where the early starters far outnumber the late starters,no levelling down effect is noticeable (Dominguez and Pessoa 2005). Thus,it is reasonable to speculate that the ratio of late starters to early starters ineach situation may be an important determinant in the final balance, and thatthe levelling down effect may be less strong the smaller the concentration oflate starters in the same classroom is. In contrast, an advantage of this groupof studies is that learners are compared when they have reached the same ageand, consequently, they have similar levels of cognitive maturity when they aretested.

2.2. Different age at time of testing, same amount of exposure

In studies following this design, early and late starters are compared after theyhave had similar numbers of hours or years of instruction in the target languageand, therefore, the groups that are compared differ in age at the time of testing.Examples of this type of study are displayed in chronological order in Table 2

4. It must be noted, however, that in the Oller and Nagato (1974)’s study students from bothgroups were assigned to five different proficiency levels, which must have reduced the level-ling down effect.




on page 213. Most of them present just one comparison, but those studies witha longitudinal-like design include two or more comparisons. Similarly, moststudies compare two groups of learners (early and late starters), but some com-pare three or more groups with different ages of initial learning.

A robust finding of this line of research in which amount of exposure iskept constant is that older learners generally show a higher rate of learning,and hence a higher learning efficiency. Some of the studies in Table 2 (onpage 213) report very short-term experiments – for instance, Asher and Price(1967), in which subjects listened to taped commands in Russian and watchedan adult model respond to them in three short training units. Half of the sub-jects imitated the model’s actions while half simply observed. In the retentiontest that followed each session subjects had to obey commands in Russian, in-cluding commands heard during the session and novel commands produced byrecombining elements from the former. In those tests the adults outperformedthe children and adolescents; likewise the 14-year-olds did significantly bet-ter than the 8-year-olds, and the 10-year-olds also outperformed the group of8-year-olds. Some other non-experimental studies have assessed language per-formance after short periods of instruction. For example, Ekstrand (1978) com-pared the pronunciation and listening comprehension skills of Swedish pupilsranging in age from 8 to 11 years after 18 weeks of English instruction viaaudio-visual methodology. The results improved almost linearly with age (fora review see Singleton and Ryan 2004: 72ff).5

The more recent studies in this group have been conducted in Europeancountries and regions following the current trend towards earlier teaching offoreign languages across Europe. In contrast to earlier situations (e.g., Burstallet al. 1974), in these studies younger starters and older starters follow differentcurricula and therefore they are never mixed in the same class. For example,in the study commented above, Kalberer (2007) compared groups of learnerswith similar amounts of instruction and found that those who began Englishinstruction at the age of 13 outperformed those who had begun at the age of 10on all the skills. For these German-L1 learners in Switzerland, English is oneof the two additional languages (alongside French) that are introduced eitherin primary or in secondary school. A somewhat similar situation is reflectedin the research reported in Table 2, which contains recent studies conductedin two bilingual regions (the Basque Country and Catalonia; see García Mayoand García Lecumberri 2003 for a collection of studies from both settings and

5. Studies of immersion programmes have also provided comparisons of students with similaramount of exposure and different age at time of testing. For example, Harley (1986) reportedthat the late immersion students had acquired a greater oral control of the French verb systemthan the early total immersion students in some areas of the verb system and displayed agreater range of verb vocabulary in French.



204 Carmen Muñoz

Muñoz 2006c for a collection of studies from Catalonia) and whose findingsare coincidental. In both research projects English was added to the learners’linguistic repertoire as a third language.

As an illustration, in one of these research projects, the Barcelona Age Factor(BAF) project (1995–2004), data were collected from four groups of learnerswith different ages of initial learning (8, 11, 14, 18+) on three occasions, eachone representing 200, 416, and 726 hours of instruction respectively (see Ál-varez 2006; Fullana 2006; Miralpeix 2006, in press; Mora 2006; Muñoz 2003,2006a, 2006b; Navés 2006; Torras et al. 2006). A large battery of tests mea-suring both productive and receptive skills in written and oral modalities wasadministered to intact classes. Given that the amount of exposure was con-trolled for, potential higher levels of attainment could be safely attributed to afaster rate of learning.

After 200 hours of exposure to the L2, the period identified as short-termin the study, late starters were significantly superior to early starters in almostall measures of proficiency, comparing both longitudinal and cross-sectionaldata (see Muñoz 2006a, 2006b). That is, each age group had better results thanthe younger group, the results of the group with starting age 18+ were higherthan those of the group with starting age 14, and the latter had higher resultsthan the group with starting age 11, the results of which group were higherthan the results of the group with starting age 8 , with the sole exception ofthe listening comprehension test and the phonetic imitation test, where differ-ences were not always significant. After 416 hours of instruction, at the mid-term of the study, results were much the same, both for the longitudinal andthe cross-sectional samples from the four age groups. After 726 hours, onlythe two younger groups provided a large enough sample of valid subjects forassessment.This long-term comparison revealed that differences generally di-minished and were no longer significant on the phonetic discrimination test andon some measures of fluency in the written composition (Fullana 2006; Torraset al. 2006). In addition, the development of auditory skills and morphosyn-tactic abilities followed different patterns (Muñoz 2006b). In consonance withfindings in other studies, late starters did not have a clear advantage in listen-ing comprehension measures (e.g., Burstall et al. 1974; Cenoz 2002), but theyretained a certain advantage in morphosyntactic skills.

These results also provide some evidence of the phenomenon of progres-sive reduction of the older L2 learners’ lead over younger learners commonlyobserved in natural settings (e.g. Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle 1978). Interest-ingly, this reduction is noticeable when the age difference between the twoyounger groups of learners being compared has also been reduced thanks toa difference in the intensity of tuition of the two groups, decreasing from atwenty-four-month gap to a thirteen-month gap. More importantly, this hap-pens at a time at which the cognitive difference between the two groups of




learners has also been reduced because they are already in mid and late adoles-cence (16-17 vs. 17-18), and it is most visible in areas in which the influence ofthe learners’ cognitive maturity may be said to play a lesser role (i.e. phoneticdiscrimination, fluency). All of this underscores the importance of learners’cognitive development as a predictor variable. It follows that if differences incognitive development between older and younger learners disappear or dimin-ish the younger starters may catch up with older starters. However, there is noreason to expect that the former will surpass the latter. Indeed, no evidencehas emerged from any of the studies conducted so far in regular programmesthat may lead to the expectation that early starters outperform late starters in aforeign language learning setting (see Muñoz 2006b for a discussion).

In sum, studies in which amount of exposure is kept constant while learn-ers vary in chronological age consistently report a higher rate of learning onthe part of late starters. In fact, not even after nine years of exposure do earlystarters outperform late starters: at best, a decrease in the older learners’ ad-vantage in the lesser cognitively-demanding skills is observed.

It may be argued that these findings, which are claimed to show long-term ef-fects in a school learning setting, were obtained after a time span that is shorterin terms of hours than the periods considered in long-term naturalistic studies(see Singleton and Ryan 2004: 99). However, a longer period of time, one thatcould be considered effectively comparable in amount of exposure – for ex-ample, 18 years according to Singleton’s (1989: 236) estimation – poses othermethodological problems. One is the exceptional motivation of these formallearners since, in real life, very few learners engage in such a long, continuousperiod of study in a school programme without problems of articulation be-tween different cycles or periods. Another drawback is that such studies mightdepend excessively on learners’ self-reports, and hence the information aboutthe individual learning trajectories may not be entirely reliable. Learners instudies of this kind might also show extremely high inter-subject variability inexposure time in and out of the classroom. A related consideration has to dowith the ecological validity of the research. Arguably, from an educationallyoriented perspective, and in order to inform language planning decisions, themost relevant results are those that correspond to the period up to the end ofsecondary schooling, because this is the end of the language learning processfor the majority of school learners: in other words, their end state, or ultimateattainment.

Another consideration of methodological relevance is concerned with dif-ferences in age at the time of testing, which could be seen as a drawback ofresearch that controls for the amount of exposure. Older learners’ greater cog-nitive development can indeed make them better at test-taking. Consequently,cognitive differences have to be taken into account when selecting or designingtests for use in studies of this kind, in order to minimize their cognitive load (for



206 Carmen Muñoz

example, using communicative tests rather than metalinguistic grammaticalityjudgment tests).

2.3. Same age at time of testing, same amount of exposure and different in-tensity

Early and late starters may be compared after similar amounts of instructionin the target language and when they are of the same age at time of testing ifthey differ in intensity of exposure. Because the intensity of foreign languagetuition is usually constrained by the official curriculum and school schedule,it is difficult to find groups that fulfil the research conditions for this kind ofresearch.

An exception is the Swedish project EPAL (Engelska PÅ Lågstadiet, or “En-glish in the preparatory school”) (Holmstrand 1982), in which an experimentalgroup started in grade 1 and the comparison group in grade 3. The two groupswere compared at the end of grade 6, by which time the overall total number oflessons in English was the same for both groups. No differences between thetwo groups were found in relation to proficiency in English and attitudes to-wards English.6 The methodological difficulties of conducting studies in whichboth age of testing and amount of exposure are kept constant while varyinginitial age of learning and intensity are considerable. In fact, the ideal researchsetting seems difficult to find in a non-experimental situation because educa-tional systems are not usually flexible enough to allow for different time dis-tribution in comparable groups, at least not in primary and secondary schools.At the same time, as recent research shows (Serrano 2007; Serrano and Muñoz2007) introducing a variation in time distribution may also have an influenceon learning outcomes in the direction of favouring learners who are taught inmore intensive programmes even when they have the same amount of exposureas learners in extensive programmes.

3. Conclusions and research agenda

This review of research on the effects of age on foreign language learning hasattempted to shed some light on an area which has not attracted specific at-tention. In so far as findings from naturalistic language learning contexts andfrom foreign language learning contexts are not always coincidental, it can be

6. A few Canadian studies have also been able to compare immersion learners with differentstarting age, similar amount of instruction and different intensity. For example, in the studyreported by Turnbull, Lapkin, Hart and Swain (1998) late immersion students were observedto reach similar proficiency in a shorter more intensive period of time.




argued that the traditional view drawn from studies in the former setting maybe inadequate to account for the latter (see Muñoz in press). The analysis ofresearch results in relation to methodological choices and problems has con-firmed the existence of certain stable and consistent traits that characterize theinfluence of age on instructed L2 learning.

The picture that emerges from this analysis is a clearer one, confirming firstof all that older learners in an instructed setting show a faster rate of learning.This faster rate of learning is consistently found in studies in which the amountof exposure is kept constant (for example, those analysed in Sections 2.2 and2.3). A faster rate is also observed in cases in which older starters have caughtup with younger starters in some skills despite differences in amount of expo-sure (as in the studies in Table 1). The late starters’ rate advantage seems to be apervasive feature across language learning settings and it has been traditionallyinterpreted as a consequence of older learners’ superior cognitive skills.

A second consistent finding is that the younger starters’ advantage is onlygenerally observed in situations in which they have had a greater amount ofexposure, that is to say, when age covaries with exposure and the two variablesare confounded. Even in those situations, the advantage is not as impressive asmight be expected, given the extra amount of time and the supposed benefits ofan early start. In this respect, Harley (1998: 27) notes that no explanation hasyet been provided for why in school settings “the additional time associatedwith an early headstart has not been found to provide more substantial long-term proficiency benefits”.

Another consistent finding from the studies in which younger learners havea greater amount of exposure than older learners (and similar ages at testing)is that, even in cases in which the latter catch up with the former in some tests,the younger starters retain some gains in communicative skills, particularly inlistening comprehension. Similarly, when learners have a similar amount of ex-posure (and different age at testing) and older starters generally perform betterthan younger starters, the differences are less pronounced in listening compre-hension skills. Similar results for other oral communicative skills have not beenso persistently observed, probably because oral tests are less frequently usedin this area. An explanation in terms of the older learners’ superior cognitivematurity seems appropriate here as well.

In foreign language learning situations in which there is no additional timebecause early and late starters are compared when they have had similaramounts of exposure, the younger starters have not yet shown the same type oflong-term benefits which are found in a naturalistic learning setting and whichhave shaped the traditional consensus view (Krashen, Long and Scarcella 1979;Singleton 1989). An explanation for this consistent finding could be found inthe interaction between the amount and type of input that learners receive, andthe different types of learning that are favoured by the learning context in each



208 Carmen Muñoz

case. More specifically, in Muñoz (2006b) it is argued that typical foreign lan-guage learning settings tend to favour older learners, who are better at explicitlearning, and put younger learners at a disadvantage. In addition, the conditionsof minimal input that characterize school settings make it difficult for youngerlearners to use implicit learning mechanisms at which they may be superior(DeKeyser and Larson-Hall 2005). That is to say, in school settings youngerlearners cannot benefit from the supposed advantage they may have in condi-tions of unlimited input (or immersion in the target language community), inwhich implicit learning, as Ellis (2002) argues, can most easily take place (seealso DeKeyser 2003). An interesting finding of the BAF project is that the olderlearners’ initial advantage is progressively reduced, especially in measures ofless cognitively demanding skills. Arguably, this may be seen as evidence thatyounger starters could eventually catch up with older starters (if given enoughtime) when differences in cognitive maturity are also reduced, but it does notlead to the conclusion that the former may surpass the latter (see Muñoz 2006bfor a discussion).

In sum, two factors appear to interact with age in instructed language learn-ing settings, namely, learners’ cognitive skills (and associated types of learn-ing) and amount of exposure. While learners’ cognitive skills play a role innaturalistic language learning settings as well, resulting in an initially fasterrate of learning on the part of older learners which confers on them only ashort-lived advantage, it is in instructed settings with limited input that learn-ers’ cognitive skills provide a lasting advantage and produce distinctive effectson different language skills. As for amount of exposure, a radical differenceis observed. In a naturalistic language learning situation, length or amount ofexposure seems to play little or no role after the first 5–10 years (Krashen et al.1979; Long 2007), when it ceases to correlate with proficiency scores. How-ever, in a foreign language setting an estimate of the number of years that wouldbe necessary to reach a comparable amount of exposure (such as that providedby 10 years of social immersion) extends well beyond a life-span. As a con-sequence, it may be convincingly argued that the amount of exposure neverceases to be a determinant factor in a foreign language setting (see Muñoz inpress).

There remain a number of factors to be examined in relation to age effects inforeign language learning. For example, the role that intensity of exposure orinstruction can play in language learning in regular programmes has not beensufficiently explored to date. Because it has been suggested that young learnersmay benefit particularly from greater amounts of input given their advantagein implicit language learning, it is of great interest to study the interplay ofage and intensity of exposure in order to examine whether there is an interac-tion that favours younger starters and, if this is found to be the case, to makerecommendations for age-oriented time distribution in schools. Increases in in-




tensity may also come from the implementation of instruction that integratescontent and language (e.g., CLIL), although this situation may also entail qual-itative differences in input that have not yet been fully examined. The inclu-sion of those lines of investigation into the research agenda of the study of ageeffects on foreign language learning may provide insights of immediate andimportant implications for educational policy decisions regarding early startlanguage programmes.

To finish, it is undeniable that the study of age effects on formal languagelearning is to be necessarily concerned with the “time and timing” of instruc-tion, as in the memorable title of Swain’s (1981) article. Central factors suchas initial age of learning, amount and intensity of exposure for different-agedpupils, age at time of testing, and long-term benefits concern fundamentallytemporal issues that justify the necessity of longitudinal research in the field ofL2 acquisition (Ortega and Iberri-Shea 2005: 27), and particularly in the areaof age effects on foreign language learning.

University of Barcelona<[email protected]>



210 Carmen MuñozTa

ble

1.Sa

me

age

atte

stin

gan

ddi

ffere

ntam

ount

ofex

posu

re

Num

ber

ofSu

b-je

cts

Targ

etL

angu

age

/Fi

rst

Lan

guag

e

Age

ofO

nset

(AO

)an

dA

geat

Test

ing

(AT

)

Am

ount

ofE

xpos

ure

Skill

s/Te

sts/

Mea

sure

sR

esul

ts

Dun

kela

ndPi

llet(

1962

)N

:20

ES:

20L

S:no

rm

Fr/E

AO

:pri

mar

yvs

seco

ndar

ysc

hool

AT:

seco

ndar

ysc

hool

5yr

svs

1yr

GE

S<

LS

Olle

rand

Nag

ato

(197

4)N

:233

6 grou

ps

E/J

AO

:gr.

1vs

.gr.

7A

T:gr

.7,9

and

11C

1at

gr.7

:AE

:6yr

svs

few

mon

ths

C2

atgr

.9:

AE

:8yr

svs

.2yr

sC

3at

gr.1

1:A

E:1

1yrs

vs.5

yrs

Clo

zete

stC

1:E

S>

LS

C2:

diff

eren

cere

duce

dC

3:E

S=

LS

Bur

stal

leta

l.(1

974)

N:

1700

0Fr

/EA

O:8

vs.1

1C

1-A

T:13

C2-

AT:

16

C1:

5yr

svs

2yr

sC

2:8

yrs

vs5

yrs

S,L

,R,W

C1:

ES

>L

Sin

San

dL

,not

Ran

dW

C2:

ES

>L

Sin

L;E

S=L

Sin

S:E

S<

LS

inR

and

WG

riffi

n(1

993)

N:2

6Fr

/EA

O:g

rade

sK

-4vs

.5-

8A

T:en

dof

high

scho

ol

ES

thre

etim

esas

man

yye

ars

ofst

udy

Wri

tten

essa

y,or

alst

ory

telli

ng,R

No

rela

tions

hip

forE

S.In

vers

ere

latio

nshi

pfo

rL

S



Age-related differences in foreign language learning 211N

umbe

rof

Sub-

ject

s

Targ

etL

angu

age

/Fi

rst

Lan

guag

e

Age

ofO

nset

(AO

)an

dA

geat

Test

ing

(AT

)

Am

ount

ofE

xpos

ure

Skill

s/Te

sts/

Mea

sure

sR

esul

ts

Cel

aya,

Torr

asan

dPé

rez-

Vid

al(2

001)

N:2

55E

S:13

2L

S:12

3

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

11A

T:12

–13

4yr

svs

2yrs

Wri

tten

com

posi

tion:

lexi

cal

dive

rsity

,gr

amm

atic

alco

mpl

exity

,flu

ency

,ac

cura

cy

ES

>L

Son

lyin

mea

sure

sof

lexi

cal

dive

rsity

and

fluen

cy

Gar

agor

ri(2

002)

N:3

49E

S:19

5L

S:15

4

E/B

-Sp

AO

:4vs

.8A

T:13

–14

10yr

svs

6yr

sW

,R,L

,S,G

ES

>L

S

Kuo

(200

3)N

:803

E/T

AO

:var

ious

AT:

fres

hmen

diff

eren

tage

s(e

lem

enta

ryan

dju

nior

high

scho

ols)

Gen

eral

profi

cien

cy,R

,W

,L,P

ES

>L

Sin

Lon

ly

Doi

zan

dL

asag

abas

ter

(200

4)

N:3

8E

S:18

LS:

20

E/S

p-B

AO

:8vs

11A

T:15

–16

8yrs

vs5y

rs(7

92hr

s.vs

660

hrs)

Wri

tten

com

posi

tion

ES

>L

Sho

listic

ES

=L

Sin

som

ean

alyt

icm

easu

res

(acc

urac

y,co

mpl

exity

)+er

rors

Dom

ingu

ezan

dPe

ssoa

(200

5)

N:3

2E

S:27

LS:

5

Sp/E

AO

:Kvs

.Gra

de6

AT:

end

ofgr

.67

yrs

vs1

yrL

,S,R

,WE

S>

LS

inL

,S,W

,co

nfide

nce,

LS

=E

Sin

R



212 Carmen MuñozN

umbe

rof

Sub-

ject

s

Targ

etL

angu

age

/Fi

rst

Lan

guag

e

Age

ofO

nset

(AO

)an

dA

geat

Test

ing

(AT

)

Am

ount

ofE

xpos

ure

Skill

s/Te

sts/

Mea

sure

sR

esul

ts

Goi

koet

xea

(200

6)N

:24

ES:

12L

S:12

E/S

p-B

AO

:5-6

vs.8

-9A

T:13

–14

8yr

svs

5yr

sC

omun

icat

ive

com

pete

nce

ES

<L

S

Egi

gure

n(2

006)

N:8

6E

S:4

1L

S:4

5

E/S

p-B

AO

:4vs

.8A

T:9

5yr

svs

1yr

V,R

,L,S

ES

=L

S

Kal

bere

r(2

007)

N:1

54E

S:84

LS:

70

E/G

AO

:7,8

,9,1

0,11

,12

vs.1

3A

T:13

.66.

6,5.

6,4.

6,3.

6,2.

6,1.

6vs

.0.6

L,G

,R,

Gen

eral

profi

cien

cy(C

loze

)

5.6

>3.

6>

6.6

>2.

6>

4.6

>>

LS

>1.

6L

S>

2.6

inL

LS

<6.

6in

R,c

loze

Mir

alpe

ix(i

npr

ess)

N:5

7E

S:1

6L

S:4

1

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

.11

AT:

1772

6h

vs80

0h

Ora

land

wri

tten

prod

uctiv

eV

(Vpr

ofile

s,la

mbd

as,

cogn

ates

)

ES

=L

S

ES

=ea

rlyst

arte

rs;L

S=

late

star

ters

L=

Lis

teni

ngco

mpr

ehen

sion

;P=

Pron

unci

atio

n;R

=R

eadi

ngco

mpr

ehen

sion

;S=

Spea

king

;V=

Voca

bula

ry;W

=W

ritin

gB

=B

asqu

e;C

=C

atal

an;E

=E

nglis

h;Fr

=Fr

ench

;G=

Ger

man

;J=

Japa

nese

;Sp

=Sp

anis

h;T

=Ta

iwan

ese

C1

=co

mpa

rison

1;C

2=

com

paris

on2;

C3

=co

mpa

rison

3>

=hi

gher

scor

esth

an;<

=lo

wer

scor

esth

an



Age-related differences in foreign language learning 213Ta

ble

2.D

iffer

enta

geat

test

ing

and

sam

eam

ount

ofex

posu

re

Num

ber

of Subj

ects

Targ

etL

angu

age

/Fi

rst

Lan

guag

e

Age

ofO

nset

(AO

)an

dA

geat

Test

ing

(AT

)

Am

ount

ofE

xpos

ure

Skill

s/Te

sts/

Mea

sure

sR

esul

ts

Ash

eran

dPr

ice

(196

7)N

:133

A+B

+C:

96D

:37

R/E

AO

=A

T:8

vs10

vs14

vsad

ults

3sh

ortt

rain

ing

units

L(c

omm

ands

)A

<B

<C

<D

Ols

onan

dSa

mue

ls(1

973)

N:6

0A

:20

B:2

0C

:20

G/E

AO

:9.5

–10.

5vs

14–1

5vs

18–2

610

15–2

5m

inut

esP

A<

B/C

Bur

stal

leta

l.(1

974)

N:

1700

0Fr

/EA

O:8

vs.1

1A

T:13

vs.1

54–

5yr

sS,

L,R

,WE

S>

LS

only

inL

Eks

trand

(197

8)N

:100

0R

ando

msa

mpl

e:35

5

E/S

wA

O=

AT:

8to

1118

wee

ksP,

LE

S<

LS

Yam

ada

etal

.(1

980)

N:3

0A

:10

B:1

0C

:10

J/E

AO

=A

T:7

vs9

vs11

1da

y40

wor

dsA

>B

>C

Stan

kow

ski

Gra

tton

(198

0)N

:22

ES:

11L

S:11

G/I

AO

:6vs

8A

T:7

vs9

1yr

Gen

eral

profi

cien

cy(h

alf

ofit,

lexi

s),

mot

ivat

ion,

aptit

ude

ES

<L

SSi

mila

rm

otiv

atio

n,hi

gher

aptit

ude

byL

S

Vilk

e(1

988)

N:1

20E

S:60

LS:

60

E/C

rA

O:9

vs17

–19

1yr

P,G

,V,l

angu

age

awar

enes

sE

S>

LS

inP

ES

<L

Sin

G,V

,lan

guag

eaw

aren

ess

Cen

oz(2

002)

N:6

0E

/Sp-

BA

O:7

vs10

AT:

13.1

vs16

.26

yrs

Ora

land

wri

tten

test

sE

S<

LS

(exc

.P)



214 Carmen MuñozN

umbe

rof Su

bjec

ts

Targ

etL

angu

age

/Fi

rst

Lan

guag

e

Age

ofO

nset

(AO

)an

dA

geat

Test

ing

(AT

)

Am

ount

ofE

xpos

ure

Skill

s/Te

sts/

Mea

sure

sR

esul

ts

Cen

oz(2

003)

N:1

35E

/Sp-

BA

O:4

vs8

vs11

AT:

10.1

vs12

.9vs

16.3

600

hrs

Ora

land

wri

tten

prod

uctio

n,cl

oze

test

,L,R

,G

A<

B<

C

Las

agab

aste

ran

dD

oiz

(200

3)N

:62

A:

31B

:18

C:1

3

E/S

p-B

AO

:4–5

vs8–

9vs

.11

–12

AT:

11–1

2vs

15–1

6vs

17–1

8

704

hrs

vs79

2hr

svs

693

hrs

Writ

ten

com

posi

tion

A<

B<

C

Gar

cía

Lec

umbe

rria

ndG

alla

rdo

(200

3)

N:6

0A

:4

B:8

C:1

1

E/S

p-B

AO

:4vs

8vs

11A

T:9–

11vs

13–1

5vs

16–1

8

6yr

sM

inim

alpa

irdi

scrim

inat

ion,

inte

lligi

bilit

y,FA

ratin

gs

A<

B<

CA

,B<

CA

,B<

C

Gar

cía

May

o(2

003)

N:6

0E

S:30

LS:

30

E/S

p-B

AO

:8–9

vs11

–12

C1:

AT:

11–1

2vs

14–1

5C

2:A

T:13

–14

vs.1

6–17

C1:

396

hrs

C2:

594

hrs

Gra

mm

atic

ality

judg

men

ttes

tsE

S<

LS

Muñ

oz(2

003)

N:3

01E

S:46

1–16

32L

S:29

1–10

42

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

.11

C1-

AT:

10;9

vs12

;9C

2-A

T:12

;9vs

14;9

C1:

200

hrs

C2:

416

hrs

San

dL

ES

<L

S

Pera

les,

Gar

cía

May

oan

dL

icer

as(2

004)

N:6

0A

:4

B:8

C:1

1

E/S

p-B

C1:

AT:

11–1

2vs

14–1

5C

2:A

T:13

–14

vs.1

6–17

C1:

396

hrs

C2:

594

hrs

Pict

ure-

elic

ited

oral

narr

ativ

eA

<B

<C

inne

gativ

eco

nstru

ctio

ns




umbe

rof Su

bjec

ts

Targ

etL

angu

age

/Fi

rst

Lan

guag

e

Age

ofO

nset

(AO

)an

dA

geat

Test

ing

(AT

)

Am

ount

ofE

xpos

ure

Skill

s/Te

sts/

Mea

sure

sR

esul

ts

Álv

arez

(200

6)N

:225

A1:

30;

A2:

30;

A3:

30B

1:30

;B

2:30

;B

3:30

C1:

30;

C2:

15

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

11vs

18+

C1-

AT:

10;9

vs12

;9vs

28;9

C2-

AT:

12;9

vs14

;9vs

30;4

C3-

AT:

16;9

vs17

;9

C1:

200

hrs

C2:

416

hrs

C3:

726

hrs

Pict

ure-

elic

ited

oral

narr

ativ

eA

<B

<C

inm

orph

osyn

tact

ican

ddi

scou

rse

feat

ures

Fulla

na(2

006)

N:2

81A

1:29

;A

2:36

;A

3:27

B1:

28;

B2:

29;

B3:

40C

1:22

;C

2:7

D1:

49;

D2:

10;

D3:

4

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

11vs

14vs

18+

C1-

AT:

10;9

vs13

vs16

vs28

.7C

2-A

T:12

;9vs

15vs

18;7

vs27

;.5C

3-A

T:16

;5vs

17;9

vs37

;6

C1:

200

hrs

C2:

416

hrs

C3:

726

hrs

Wor

dim

itatio

n,m

inim

alpa

irdi

scrim

inat

ion

Inpe

rcep

tion

ES

<L

Sat

C1

but:

ES

>LS

atC

3In

prod

uctio

nno

cons

iste

ntfin

ding

s

Mir

alpe

ix(2

006)

N:9

8E

S:57

LS:

41

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

11A

T:16

;3vs

17;9

726

hrs

Ora

land

wri

tten

prod

uctiv

eV

from

ase

ries

ofta

sks

ES

<L

SE

S=

LS

inth

ero

le-p

lay



216 Carmen MuñozN

umbe

rof Su

bjec

ts

Targ

etL

angu

age

/Fi

rst

Lan

guag

e

Age

ofO

nset

(AO

)an

dA

geat

Test

ing

(AT

)

Am

ount

ofE

xpos

ure

Skill

s/Te

sts/

Mea

sure

sR

esul

ts

Mor

a(2

006)

N:6

0E

S:30

LS:

30

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

11vs

18+

AT:

16;9

vs17

;972

6hr

sFl

uenc

ym

easu

res

from

api

ctur

e-el

icite

dor

alna

rrat

ive

ES

<L

S

Muñ

oz(2

006b

)N

long

:83

*A

:55

B:2

8N

cros

s:53

0*A

:22

3B

:19

1C

:11

6

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

11vs

14vs

18+

C1l

ong-

AT:

10;9

vs12

;9C

2lon

g-A

T:12

;9vs

14;9

C1c

ross

-AT:

10;9

vs12

;9vs

15;9

vs28

;9C

2cro

ss-A

T:12

;9vs

14;9

vs19

;1vs

31;4

C3c

ross

-AT:

16;.9

vs17

;9

C1:

200

hrs

C2:

416

hrs

C3:

726

hrs

Clo

ze,d

icta

tion,

L,r

ecep

tion

and

prod

uctio

nm

easu

res

inor

alin

terv

iew

,tex

tual

cohe

sion

ina

narr

ativ

e

A<

B<

C<

D

Nav

és(2

006)

N:3

98E

Sa50

;E

Sb:6

7L

Sa50

;L

Sb:2

31(a

and

bsa

me

grad

e)

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

11vs

AT:

16;9

vs17

;9E

Sa-L

Sb:7

26hr

sE

Sb-L

Sb:8

50hr

sFl

uenc

y,ac

cura

cy,l

exic

aldi

vers

ity,

gram

mat

ical

com

plex

ityon

writ

ten

com

posi

tion

ES

<L

Sin

mos

tmea

sure

sE

xpos

ure

isno

tsig

nific

ant




umbe

rof Su

bjec

ts

Targ

etL

angu

age

/Fi

rst

Lan

guag

e

Age

ofO

nset

(AO

)an

dA

geat

Test

ing

(AT

)

Am

ount

ofE

xpos

ure

Skill

s/Te

sts/

Mea

sure

sR

esul

ts

Torr

as,N

avés

,C

elay

aan

dPé

rez-

Vid

al(2

006)

N:4

95E

S:27

0L

S:22

5

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

11C

1-A

T:10

;9vs

12;9

C2-

AT:

12;9

vs14

;9C

3-A

T:16

;9vs

17;9

C1:

200

hrs

C2:

416

hrs

C3:

726

hrs

Flue

ncy,

accu

racy

,lex

ical

dive

rsity

,gr

amm

atic

alco

mpl

exity

onw

ritte

nco

mpo

sitio

n

ES

<L

Sex

cept

atso

me

mea

sure

sat

C3

whe

reE

S=

LS

Kal

bere

r(2

007)

N:7

6E

S:29

LS:

47

E/G

AO

:13

vs10

AT:

15.6

vs13

.623

4–2

58hr

sL

,G,R

,gen

eral

profi

cien

cy(c

loze

)

ES

<L

S

Mira

lpei

x(i

npr

ess)

N:7

7E

S:36

LS:

41

E/S

p-C

AO

:8vs

11A

T:16

;3vs

17;9

726

hrs

Ora

land

wri

tten

prod

uctiv

eV

(Vpr

ofile

s,la

mbd

asan

dco

gnat

es)

ES

=L

S

B=

Bas

que;

C=

Cat

alan

;C

r=

Cro

atia

n;D

=D

anis

h;E

=E

nglis

h;Fr

=Fr

ench

;G=

Ger

man

;I=

Ital

ian;

J=

Japa

nese

;P=

Portu

gues

e;R

=R

ussi

an;S

p=

Span

ish;

Sw=

Swed

ish

A:e

arlie

stst

art;

B:s

tart

late

rth

anA

bute

arlie

rth

anC

;C:s

tart

late

rtha

nB

bute

arlie

rth

anD

,etc

.G

=G

ram

mar

;L=

Lis

teni

ngco

mpr

ehen

sion

;P=

Pron

unci

atio

n;R

=R

eadi

ngco

mpr

ehen

sion

;S=

Spea

king

;V=

Voca

bula

ry;W

=W

ritin

gC

1=

com

paris

on1;

C2

=co

mpa

rison

2;C

3=

com

paris

on3

>=

high

ersc

ores

than

;<=

low

ersc

ores

than

*not

alls

ubje

cts

perf

orm

edal

lthe

test

s



218 Carmen Muñoz

References

Álvarez, Esther (2006). Rate and route of acquisition in EFL narrative development at differentages. In Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning, Carmen Muñoz (ed.), 127–155.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Asher, James J. and Ben S. Price (1967) The learning strategy of the Total Physical Response:Some age differences. Child Development 38: 1219–27. Reprinted in Child-Adult Differencesin Second Language Acquisition, Stephen Krashen, Robin Scarcella and Michael Long (eds.)(1982), 76–83. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Birdsong, David (2005). Nativelikeness and non-nativelikeness in L2. A research. InternationalReview of Applied Linguistics 43 (4): 319–328.

Burstall, Clare, Monika Jamieson, Susan Cohen and Margaret Hardgreaves (1974). Primary Frenchin the Balance. Windsor: NFER Publishing Company.

Celaya, M. Luz, M. Rosa Torras and Carmen Pérez-Vidal (2001) Short and mid-term effects of anearly start: An analysis of EFL written production. Eurosla Yearbook 1: 195–209.

Cenoz, Jasone (2002). Age differences in foreign language learning. I.T.L. Review of Applied Lin-guistics 135–136: 125–142.

Cenoz, Jasone (2003). The influence of age on the acquisition of English. In Age and the Acqui-sition of English as a Foreign Language, M. Pilar García Mayo, M. Luisa García Lecumberri(eds.), 77–93. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cook, Vivian (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42: 557–591.Cummins, Jim (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the

optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19: 198–203.Cummins, Jim (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for

bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly 14 (2): 175–187.Cummins, Jim (1983). Language proficiency, biliteracy and French immersion. Canadian Journal

of Education 8 (2): 117–138.DeKeyser, Robert (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Handbook of Second Language Acqui-

sition, Catherine J. Doughty and Michael H. Long (eds.), 313–348. London: Blackwell.DeKeyser, Robert and Jennifer Larson-Hall (2005). What does the critical period really mean? In

Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches, Judith F. Kroll and Annette M. B.de Groot (eds.), 88–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Doiz, Aintzane and David Lasagabaster (2004). The effects of the early teaching of English onwriting proficiency. International Journal of Bilingualism 8 (4): 525–540.

Domínguez, Rocío and Silvia Pessoa (2005). Early versus late start in foreign language education:Documenting achievements. Foreign Language Annals 38 (4): 473–483.

Dunkell, Harold B. and Roger A. Pillet (1962). French in the Elementary School: Five years’Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Egiguren, Izaro (2006). Atzerriko hizkuntza goiztiarraren eragina gaitasun eleaniztunean. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation. University of the Basque Country.

Ellis, Nick C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications fortheories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 143–188.

Ekstrand, Lars H. (1978). English without a book revisited: The effect of age on second languageacquisition in a formal setting. Didakometry 60. Department of Educational and Psychologi-cal Research, School of Education, Malmö. Reprinted in Child–Adult Differences in SecondLanguage Acquisition, Stephen Krashen, Robin Scarcella and Michael Long (eds.) (1982),123–135. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Garagorri, Xabier (2002). Hirueletasun goiztiarra ikastoletan “Eleanitz–Ingelesa” proiektuarenebaluazioa. In ¿Trilingües a los 4 años?, Felix Etxeberria and Uri Ruiz Bikandi (eds.), 105–143. Donostia: Ibaeta Pedagogía.




García Lecumberri, M. Luisa and Francisco Gallardo (2003). English FL Sounds in School Learn-ers of Different Ages. In Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language, M. PilarGarcía Mayo and M. Luisa García Lecumberri (eds.), 115–135. Clevedon: Multilingual Mat-ters.

García Mayo, M. Pilar (2003). Age, length of exposure and grammaticality judgements in theacquisition of English as a foreign language. In Age and the Acquisition of English as a ForeignLanguage, M. Pilar García Mayo and M. Luisa García Lecumberri (eds.), 94–114. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

García Mayo, M. Pilar and M. Luisa García Lecumberri (eds.) (2003). Age and the Acquisition ofEnglish as a Foreign Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, Fred (1979). A Comparison of Early and Late Immersion Programs. McGill University,Montreal. Mimeo. Cited in Birgit Harley (1986) Age in Second Language Acquisition. Cleve-don: Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, Fred (1987). Learning through two Languages. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Goikoetxea, Miren Nekane (2006). Gaitasun komunikatiboa eta hizkuntzen arteko elkar eragina

eae-ko hezkuntza eleanitzean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of the BasqueCountry.

Griffin, Glenda Gillespie (1993). The Relationship between Starting Age and Second LanguageLearning. Master Thesis presented at the Faculty of Dominican College Department of Educa-tion of California US. ERIC EDRS Document, ED 375613, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/0000080/0000023/0000002f/0000016.pdf.

Harley, Birgit (1986). Age in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual MattersHarley, Birgit (1998). The outcomes of early and later language learning. In Critical Issues in Early

Second Language Learning, M. Med (ed.), 26–31. Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley.Holmstrand, Lars S. E. (1982). English in the Elementary School. Stockholm/Uppsala: Almqvist

& Wiksell International.Hyltenstam, Kenneth and Niclas Abrahamsson (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In The

Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Catherine Doughty and Michael H. Long (eds.),539–588. Malden, MA, and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

INECSE (2004). Evaluación de la Enseñana y el Aprendizaje de la Lengua Inglesa. EducaciónSecundaria Obligatoria 2001. Informe final. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y De-porte.

Kalberer, Urs (2007). Rate of L2 acquisition and the influence of instruction time on achievement.Unpublished Master of Education. University of Manchester.

Krashen, Stephen, D., Michael, H. Long, and Robin C. Scarcella (1979). Age, rate, and eventualattainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 13 (4): 573–582.

Kuo, Yihsiang (2003). The effects of age on Taiwanese EFL learners’ long-term English profi-ciency. Unpublished Thesis. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Humanities and SocialSciences 63(11): 3824-A-3825-A Available from http://www.hss.nthu.edu.tw/~fl/thesis/tesol/905257.pdf.

Lapkin, Sharon, Merril Swain, Jill Kamin and Gila Hanna (1980). Report on the 1979 evaluation ofthe Peel County late French immersion program, grades 8, 10, 11 and 12. Unpublished report,University of Toronto, OISE.

Lasagabaster, David and Aintzane Doiz (2003). Maturational Constraints on Foreign-LanguageWritten Production. In Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language, M. Pi-lar García Mayo and M. Luisa García Lecumberri (eds.), 136–160. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Lenneberg, Eric H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.Long, Michael H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 12: 251–285.Long, Michael H. (2005). Problems with supposed counter-evidence to the Critical Period Hypoth-

esis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 43 (4): 287–317.



220 Carmen Muñoz

Long, Michael H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Miralpeix, Immaculada (2006). Age and vocabulary acquisition in English as a foreign language.

In Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning, Carmen Muñoz (ed.), 89–106. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Miralpeix, Immaculada (in press). Lexical knowledge in instructed language learning: The effectsof age and exposure. International Journal of English Studies. (Special Issue on: Research onSecond Language Vocabulary Acquisition and Learning, Guest editors: R. M. Manchón andA. Sánchez). University of Murcia.

Mora, Joan Carles (2006). Age effects on oral fluency development. In Age and the Rate of ForeignLanguage Learning, Carmen Muñoz (ed.), 65–88. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Muñoz, Carmen (2003). Variation in oral skills development and age of onset. In Age and theAcquisition of English as a Foreign Language, M. Pilar García Mayo and M. Luisa GarcíaLecumberri (eds.), 161–181. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Muñoz, Carmen (2006a). The BAF project: Research on the effects of age on foreign language ac-quisition. In Age in L2 Acquisiton and Teaching, Abelló-Contesse, Christián, Rubén Chacón-Beltrán, M.Dolores López-Jiménez, and M.Mar Torreblanca-López (eds.), 81–92. Bern: PeterLang.

Muñoz, Carmen (2006b). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF project. InAge and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning, Carmen Muñoz (ed.), 1–40 Clevedon: Mul-tilingual Matters.

Muñoz, Carmen (ed.) (2006c). Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multi-lingual Matters.

Muñoz, Carmen (in press). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and in-structed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics.

Navés, Teresa (2006). The long-term effects of an early start on foreign language writing. Unpub-lished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Barcelona.

Oller, John W. and Naoko Nagato (1974). The long-term effect of FLES: An experiment. ModernLanguage Journal 58: 15–19.

Olson Linda L. and S. Jay Samuels (1973). The relationship between age and accuracy of foreignlanguage pronunciation. Journal of Educational Research 66: 263–267. Reprinted in Child-Adult Differences in Second Language Acquisition, Stephen Krashen, Robin Scarcella andMichael Long (eds.) (1982), 67–75. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Ortega, Lourdes and Gina Iberri-Shea (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisi-tion: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25: 26–45.

Perales, Susana, M. Pilar García Mayo and Juana M. Liceras (2004). The acquisition of Englishsentential negation by bilingual (Basque/Spanish) children: The age factor in an institutionalsetting. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Applied Lin-guistics, Portland, OR, May 1–4.

Serrano, Raquel (2007). Time distribution and the acquisition of English as a foreign language.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Barcelona.

Serrano, Raquel and Carmen Muñoz (2007). Same hours, different time distribution: Any differ-ence in EFL? System 35: 301–321.

Singleton, David (1989). Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Singleton, David and Lisa Ryan (2004). Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. 2nd edition.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Snow, Catherine and Marion Hoefnagel-Höhle (1978). The critical period for language acquisition:

Evidence from second language learning. Child Development 49: 1114–1128.



Date post:	02-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	carmen
View:	218 times
Download:	2 times

Age-related differences in foreign language learning. Revisiting the empirical evidence

Documents