Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: a - Jim Flege

25 Pages·2001·0.38 MB·English

JournalofPhonetics(2001)29,191}215
doi:10.006/jpho.2001.0134
Availableonlineathttp://www.idealibrary.comon
Factors a4ecting degree of foreign accent in an L2:
a review
Thorsten Piske
DepartmentofEnglish, University ofKiel, D-24098Kiel, Germany
Ian R. A. MacKay
DepartmentofLinguistics,University ofOttawa,Ottawa,Ontario,K1N6N5Canada
James E. Flege
DepartmentofRehabilitation Sciences,UniversityofAlabamaatBirmingham,
Birmingham,AL35205,U.S.A.
Received27thSeptember1999,andaccepted26thSeptember2000
Thisarticlehadtwoaims:toprovideathoroughreviewoftheexisting
literatureexaminingoveralldegreeofforeignaccentinasecondlanguage
(L2),andtopresentanewforeignaccentexperiment.Theliterature
reviewsuggestedthatawidevarietyofvariablesin#uencedegreeof
foreignaccent.Thesevariablesincludeageof L2learning,lengthof
residenceinanL2-speakingcountry,gender,formalinstruction,
motivation,languagelearningaptitudeandamountof nativelanguage
(L1)use.AgeofL2learningappearstobethemostimportantpredictor
ofdegreeofforeignaccent.However,therelativeimportanceoftheother
variablesisuncertain.Thisisbecausemanyvariablesrelatingtosubject
characteristicstendtobeconfounded,andbecauseoflackofadequate
experimentalcontrolinsomestudies.Theexperimentpresentedhere
examinedthein#uenceofItalian-Englishbilinguals’ageofL2learning,
lengthofresidenceinanL2-speakingenvironment(Canada),gender,
amountofcontinuedL1(Italian)useandself-estimatedL1abilityon
degreeofL2foreignaccent.Asexpectedfromtheliteraturereview,both
ageofL2learningandamountofcontinuedL1usewerefoundtoa!ect
degreeofforeignaccent.Gender,lengthofresidenceinanL2-speaking
countryandself-estimatedL1ability,ontheotherhand,werenotfound
tohaveasigni"cant,independente!ect onoverallL2pronunciation
accuracy. ( 2001AcademicPress
1. Introduction
For the last 30 years, beginning with the classic article by Asher & GarcmHa (1969), the
phenomenonof perceived foreign accent in the speech of L2 learners has been investi-
gatedinalargenumberofincreasinglydetailedexperimentalstudies.AsThompson(1991)
E-mail:[email protected]
0095}4470/01/020191#25$35.00/0 ( 2001AcademicPress
192 „. Piske et al.
pointsout,therearegoodreasonstostudythisphenomenon.Forexample,itmayhelp
resolvesometheoreticalissuesregardingwhetherthereareage-basedconstraintsonL2
learning.Inaddition,identifyingfactorsthatin#uencedegreeof L2 foreignaccentmay
be important for the teaching of second languages.The studies of overall degree of L2
foreign accent published so far di!er greatly in terms of the nature of the subjects and
languagesexamined, as well as in the procedures used to elicit and evaluate nonnative
speech. To some extent at least, these methodological di!erences appear to be respon-
siblefor the often divergent results the studieshave yielded. Major (1987), Long (1990)
and Thompson (1991) have provided thorough reviews of previous research. However,
manystudieshavebeenpublishedsince.Therefore,thispaperwill"rstprovideacompre-
hensivereviewoftheexistingliteratureondegreeofL2foreignaccent.Inaddition,itwill
reportanexperimentexaminingL1use,avariablethathasonlybeenintroducedintothe
literaturemorerecently.Itse!ectsondegreeofL2foreignaccentanditsrelationtoother
factors that are likely to in#uence the pronunciation of an L2 will be examined.
2. Review of the existing literature
In this part of the present paper, we will "rst review important di!erences as well as
similarities between the subject populations of earlier studies of L2 foreign accent and
betweenthetechniquesthathavepreviouslybeenusedtoelicitandevaluatenonnative
speechsamples.Thenwewilldiscussprevious"ndingsregardingthosefactorsthathave
been claimed to a!ect degree of L2 foreign accent.
2.1. Designs and methods used in previous research
2.1.1. Subject populations studied
OveralldegreeofL2foreignaccentislikelytovaryasafunctionofthecharacteristicsof
the subjects examined. As will be described below, the subjects examined in previous
studies have di!ered in a number of potentially important ways, including target L2,
native language, amount of experience with the target L2 and perhaps degree of
motivation to pronounce the L2 well.
Most previous studies have examined English as the target L2 being learned. Other
target languages examined include German (Olson & Samuels, 1973; Missaglia, 1999;
Moyer,1999),Hebrew(Seliger,Krashen&Ladefoged,1975),Dutch(Snow&Hoefnagel-
HoKhle,1977),French(Neufeld,1979,1980),Spanish(Elliott,1995;Guion,Flege&Loftin,
1999,2000)andThai(Wayland,1997).Thenativelanguagesspokenbytheparticipants
in previous foreign accent studies have been far more diverse. They include Spanish
(Asher&GarcmHa,1969;Flege&Fletcher,1992);English(Olson&Samuels,1973;Snow
& Hoefnagel-HoKhle, 1977; Neufeld, 1980; Elliott, 1995; Wayland, 1997; Moyer, 1999);
Arabic,Japanese,PersianandThai(Suter,1976;Purcell&Suter,1980);Italian(Oyama,
1976;Flege,Munro&MacKay,1995;Flege,Frieda&Nozawa,1997;Missaglia,1999);
Polish(Neufeld,1980); Dutch (Neufeld,1980; Bongaerts, Planken& Schils, 1995; Bon-
gaerts,vanSummeren,Planken&Schils,1997);MandarinandTaiwanese(Flege,1988);
Russian (Thompson, 1991); Swedish (Markham, 1997); and Korean (Flege, Yeni-Kom-
shian & Liu, 1999b).
In some cases, subjects from di!erent L1 backgrounds were examined in the same
study(e.g.,Suter,1976;Purcell&Suter,1980;Tahta,Wood&Loewenthal,1981;Piper
Degree of foreign accent in an ‚2 193
&Cansin,1988).Itseemsreasonabletoassumethattheaccuracywithwhichnonnative
speakerspronounce an L2 is, at least to some extent, dependent on their L1. Unfortu-
nately, none of the studies cited above except Suter (1976) and Purcell & Suter (1980)
haveexaminedthee!ectofL1backgroundondegreeofL2foreignaccent.Inthesetwo
studies,nativespeakersofArabicandPersianwerefoundtohaveabetterpronunciation
of English than native speakers of Japanese and Thai. Overall, L1 background was
identi"ed as the most important predictor of degree of L2 foreign accent of the 20
variablesconsideredbySuter(1976)andPurcell&Suter(1980).However,thesubjectsin
thosestudieswerenotmatchedforothervariablessuchasageofL2learning(hereafter
referredtoasAOL),lengthofresidence(LOR)inanL2-speakingcountryoramountof
L2 use. The relative importance of L1 background, as compared to other variables,
therefore remains uncertain.
Thenonnativesubjectsinpreviousforeignaccentstudiesdi!eredinmorethanjustL1
background.ThesubjectsinsomestudieswerehighlyexperiencedintheL2(see,e.g.,the
studiesbyFlege andcolleagues),whereas thosein otherstudieshad little experiencein
the L2 (e.g., Olson & Samuels, 1973; Snow & Hoefnagel-HoKhle, 1977). Degree of
motivation to speak an L2 well has also often been claimed to be an important
determinant of degree of L2 foreign accent (see, e.g., Seliger et al., 1975; Suter, 1976;
Purcell & Suter, 1980; Elliott, 1995; Bongaerts et al., 1995, 1997; Moyer, 1999).
Acontrolgroupofnativespeakerswasrecruitedinmostofthestudiescitedsofarin
addition to groups of nonnative subjects. Unfortunately, not all studies have included
acontrolgroup(e.g.,Olson&Samuels,1973;Fathman,1975;Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle,
1977;Tahtaetal.,1981;Elliott,1995),whichleadstotwoproblems.Itremainsuncertain
hownativespeakerswouldhaveperformedunderthespeci"ccircumstancesofaparticu-
lar experiment, and it also remains uncertain whether the raters recruited to evaluate
speech samples would have been able to distinguish native from nonnative speech.
Thefactthatthesubjectsexaminedinpreviousresearchdi!eredalongthedimensions
justdescribedoftenmakesdirectcomparisonsacrossstudiesproblematic.Assumingthat
suchfactorsdoindeedin#uencedegreeofL2foreignaccent,onewouldnaturallyexpect
toobservedi!erencesacrossstudies.Thus,theobservationthatL2foreignaccentstudies
sometimes yield divergent results should not lead one to conclude that degree of L2
foreign accent cannot be scaled reliably and validly.
2.1.2. Elicitation techniques used
StudiesofoveralldegreeofL2foreignaccenthavealsodi!eredintermsofthetechniques
usedtoelicitnonnativespeechsamples.Inmoststudies,subjectshavebeenaskedtoread
sentences (e.g., Asher & GarcmHa, 1969; Flege, 1988; Thompson, 1991; Flege & Fletcher,
1992;Bongaertsetal.,1995,1997;Moyer,1999),paragraphs(e.g.,Oyama,1976;Neufeld,
1979,1980;Tahtaetal.,1981;Piper&Cansin,1988;Thompson,1991;Bongaertsetal.,
1995;Moyer,1999)orindividualwords(e.g.,Bongaertsetal.,1995;Elliott,1995;Moyer,
1999). In a number of studies, subjects have also been asked to recount personal
experiences or to describe pictures and, thus, produce samples of free (i.e., extem-
poraneous)L2 speech(e.g., Fathman,1975;Oyama,1976;Suter,1976;Piper & Cansin,
1988; Thompson, 1991; Bongaerts et al., 1995; Elliott, 1995; Moyer, 1999). And "nally
there have been studies in which subjects were asked to repeat speech materials after
hearinganativespeakermodel.Adirectrepetitiontechniquewas,forexample,usedby
Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle(1977)orMarkham(1997).Flegeetal.(1995)andFlegeetal.
194 „. Piske et al.
(1999b), on the other hand, used a delayed repetition technique to elicit L2 speech
samples.
Some researchers have used more than one elicitation technique (e.g., Oyama, 1976;
Piper&Cansin,1988;Thompson,1991;Bongaertsetal.,1995;Markham,1997;Moyer,
1999).In mostinstances,analyseswerecarriedout to determineif degreeof L2 foreign
accent varied as a function of type of elicitation. Both Oyama (1976) and Thompson
(1991)reportedthat readspeech was judgedtobe morestronglyforeign-accentedthan
extemporaneousspeech samples. Thismaybe due todi!erencesinreading ability.For
example, the readings skills of immigrants who moved to an L2-speaking country
relativelylateinlifemaybelimitedbecausetheyhavereceivedlittleeducationintheL2.
Samplesof extemporaneousspeech may beproblematic,too. This is because they may
containmorphosyntacticand lexicalerrors in#uencingthe foreign accent ratings given
to nonnative speakers (Patkowski, 1990). In addition, subjects may be able to avoid
di$cult L2 sounds, sound sequences or even words if they are asked to talk about
something freely. For these reasons, more reliable measures of degree of L2 foreign
accentmaybeobtainedifratersevaluatea"xedsetofmaterials(e.g.,sentences)thatwere
elicitedbyusingadelayedrepetitiontechnique(fordetailsregardingthistechnique,see
Section 3.1.2).
2.1.3. Rating techniquesused
ThelistenerswhoevaluateL2speechinforeignaccentstudiesusuallyusearatingscale
toindicatethedegreeofforeignaccenttheyperceiveinaspeechsample.Oneendofthe
ratingscaleisreservedforoneextremecategoryusuallymarkedas&&native-likepronun-
ciation’’or&&noforeignaccent’’,whereastheotherendofthescaleisreservedfortheother
extremecategoryusuallymarkedas&&heavyforeignaccent’’or&&de"niteforeignaccent’’.
The space between the two endpoints of a scale symbolizes degrees of foreign accent
between the two extremes.
The equal-appearing interval (EAI) scales used in previous studies have di!ered in
resolution.A5-pointscalehasbeenusedmostcommonly(e.g.,Olson&Samuels,1973;
Fathman, 1975; Oyama, 1976; Snow & Hoefnagel-HoKhle, 1977; Piper & Cansin, 1988;
Patkowski,1980,1990;Thompson,1991;Bongaertsetal.,1995;Elliott,1995;Bongaerts
etal.,1997).Othertypesofscalesthathavebeenusedinclude3-pointscales(e.g.,Tahta
etal., 1981), 4-pointscales(e.g., Asher & GarcmHa, 1969),6-point scales(e.g., Suter, 1976;
Moyer, 1999) and 9-point scales (e.g., Flege et al., 1999b; Guion, Flege & Loftin, 1999,
2000).Flege(1988),Flege&Fletcher(1992)andFlegeetal.(1995)employedacontinu-
ousscaletoevaluateforeignaccent.Theratersrecruitedforthesestudieswereaskedto
movealeveronaresponseboxovera10cmrange.Dependingonwheretheleverwas
positionedavaluebetween0and255wasreturned.Theauthorsusedacontinuousscale
because, at the time, it was uncertain how many scale values were needed to capture
listeners’fullrangeofsensitivitytovariationsinL2foreignaccent.Studiesthatdidnot
actually use rating scales were those of Neufeld (1979, 1980) and Markham (1997). In
these studies, the raters were asked to classify subjects in terms of several native and
nonnative categories.
InviewofthefactthatnostandardscaleformeasuringdegreeofL2foreignaccenthas
been developed so far, the question arises whether all scales ensure equally valid and
reliablemeasuresofdegreeofL2foreignaccent.Southwood&Flege(1999)carriedout
research to determine whether foreign accent is a metathetic continuum (i.e., a con-
Degree of foreign accent in an ‚2 195
tinuumlikepitch thatcan be dividedinto equal intervalsranging fromhigh to low) or
a prothetic continuum (i.e., a continuum like loudness that is not amenable to linear
partitioning). They found that when judging native Italian speakers of English, native
English listeners were able to partition L2 foreign accent into equal intervals. This
indicated that foreign accentedness is a metathetic continuum, which means that it is
appropriatetouseanEAIscaleinforeignaccentstudies(seealsoFig.1).Withregardto
therangeofthescalevaluesthatareneededtoexploitlisteners’fullrangeofsensitivity,
Southwood&Flege(1999)foundthata9-point(or11-point)scaleshouldbeusedtorate
L2 speech samples for degree of foreign accent.
Thenumbers ofraters usedin variousL2 foreignaccent studieshavedi!ereddrasti-
cally,rangingfromjust1(Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle,1977)or2(e.g.,Olson&Samuels,
1973;Fathman,1975;Oyama,1976)to85(Neufeld,1979).Itisnotknownatpresenthow
manyratersareneededtoprovideareliableestimateofdegreeofL2foreignaccent.The
numberofratersneededmaydependontherangeofforeignaccentsrepresentedwithin
a sample. For example, a larger number of raters may be needed to detect di!erences
between groups of subjects representing only a small range of foreign accents.
Oneimportantmethodologicalquestionpertainstothecharacteristicsofthelisteners
calleduptoratespeechmaterialsfordegreeofL2foreignaccent.Insomestudies,namKve
raters were recruited to evaluate speech samples (e.g., Asher & GarcmHa, 1969; Flege
& Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al., 1995). In other studies, &&expert’’ raters such as linguists
(e.g., Fathman, 1975) or ESL teachers (e.g., Piper & Cansin, 1988) have participated.
Thompson(1991)reportedthatinexperiencedratersgenerallyperceivedahigherdegree
ofL2foreignaccentinnonnativespeechthanexperiencedraters.Bongaertsetal.(1997),
on the other hand, found no signi"cant di!erences between experienced and inexperi-
encedraters.Itappears,then,thatarepresentativesampleofratersshouldberecruited
and not one particular type of rater.
2.2. Factors claimed to a+ect degree of ‚2 foreign accent
Giventhelargedi!erencesbetweenstudiesindesignandmethodology,itisprobablynot
surprisingthat L2 foreignaccent studieshave at times producedresultsthat appear to
con#ict.Thishasledresearcherstodrawratherdi!erentconclusionsaboutthein#uence
thatcertainfactorshaveondegreeofL2foreignaccent.Inthefollowingparagraphswe
willdiscussthefactorsthathavereceivedthemostattentionintheliterature.Theseare
age of L2 learning, length of residence in an L2-speaking environment, gender, formal
instruction, motivation, language learning aptitude and amount of L1/L2 use.
2.2.1 Age of ‚2 learning
Itisoftenclaimedthatacriticalperiod(CP)existsforhumanspeechlearning.According
totheCPhypothesis,completemasteryofanL2isnolongerpossibleiflearningbegins
after the end of the putative CP (e.g., Lenneberg, 1967; Scovel, 1969, 1988; Patkowski,
1980,1990).AnumberofresearchershavesuggestedthattheremaybeseveralCPs,each
a!ectingdi!erentlinguisticabilities(e.g.,Fathman,1975;Seliger,1978;Walsh&Diller,
1981;Long,1990;Hurford,1991).The"rstabilitytobelostwouldbetheoneneededto
develop a native-like pronunciation of an L2. Individuals who began learning an L2
before the end of the CP for speech learning would have a much better pronunciation
than would individuals"rst exposed to the L2 after the end of the CP.
196 „. Piske et al.
InmanyL2foreignaccentstudies,subjects’ageof"rstexposuretotheL2,orwhatwe
refer to here as AOL, has been indexed as the age at which the subjects "rst arrived
*oftenasimmigrants*inapredominantlyL2-speakingcountry.Theresultsofthese
L2foreignaccentstudiesdo,infact,supporttheviewthattheearlierinlifeonelearnsan
L2,thebetteritwillbepronounced(Asher&GarcmHa,1969;Fathman,1975;Seligeretal.,
1975; Suter, 1976; Oyama, 1976; Tahta et al., 1981; Piper & Cansin, 1988; Flege, 1988;
Patkowski,1990;Thompson,1991;Flege&Fletcher,1992;Flegeetal.,1995;Flegeetal.,
1999b; Moyer, 1999). CP e!ects have usually been attributed to an age-related loss of
neural plasticity or to some sort of neurofunctional reorganization that occurs during
development (e.g., Lenneberg, 1967; Scovel, 1969; Lamendella, 1977; Neville, Mills
&Lawson,1992).Alternatively,ithasbeensuggestedthatage-relatedchangesindegree
of L2 foreign accent result from the nature and the extent of the interaction between
a bilingual’s L1 and L2 systems (e.g., Oyama, 1979; Flege, 1987, 1988, 1995, 1998a;
Bialystok, 1997). According to this latter approach, age is an index of the state of
development of the L1 system. The more fully developed the L1 system is when L2
learning commences, the more strongly the L1 will in#uence the L2.
Afewstudieshavepointedtowhatnowseemstobeaparadoxicale!ect,thatis,better
performance by late than early learners of an L2 (e.g., Olson & Samuels, 1973; Snow
&Hoefnagel-HoKhle,1977).Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle(1977),forexample,reportedthat
older native English children and adults were better able to imitate Dutch sounds in
individual words than were younger children when tested 6 weeks after arriving in the
Netherlands.However,by 10}11 months after arriving in the Netherlandsthe younger
childrenbegantooutperformtheolderlearnersinpronouncingatleastsomeL2sounds.
Fromresultslikethese,Long(1990)concludedthatadultandadolescentlearnersmight
haveaninitialrateadvantageoveryoungerchildreninL2pronunciationability,albeit
an advantage that is only temporary.
AccordingtotheCPhypothesis,thereshouldbeacleardi!erencebetweentheforeign
accentratingsobtainedforindividualswhobeganlearningtheL2beforevs.aftertheend
ofaCP(e.g.,Lenneberg,1967;Scovel,1969,1988;Patkowski,1980,1990).Anumberof
studies have shown, however, that the relationship between AOL and degree of L2
foreignaccent is linear withoutany sharp discontinuitiesnear the beginning of adoles-
cence (e.g., Oyama, 1976; Flege, 1995; Flege et al., 1999b). The "nding that there is
agradualincreaseindegreeofL2foreignaccentledbothOyama(1976)andLong(1990)
to suggest that there is a &&sensitive’’ rather than a &&critical’’ period for L2 learning.
Unfortunately, the two terms &&critical period’’ and &&sensitive period’’ are often used
interchangeablyintheL2literature.Thedi!erencesbetweenthetwoconceptsshouldbe
noted, however.
Di!erent suggestions have been made as to when the putative critical or sensitive
periodforL2speechlearningends.Scovel(1988)suggestedthataCPendsattheageof
12years.AccordingtoPatkowski(1990),aCPendsattheageof15years.Onthebasisof
a literaturereview,Long(1990) inferredthat an L2 is usually spokenaccent-freeif it is
learned by the age of 6 years. Foreign accents would, however, be present in most
individualswhobeginlearningtheL2aftertheageof12years.Long’sview(1990)that
learnerswithanAOLoflessthan6yearsaremuchmorelikelytospeakanL2without
a foreign accentthan are adolescent or adult L2 learners is supported by the results of
a number of studies (e.g., Tahta et al., 1981; Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege et al., 1995).
However, a few studies have also shown that an AOL of less than 6 years does not
automaticallylead to accent-free L2 speech. For example, Flege et al. (1997) examined
Degree of foreign accent in an ‚2 197
the foreign accent ratings given to two groups of early Italian-English bilinguals that
werematchedforaverageAOL(mean"6yr)butthatdi!eredsigni"cantlyinamountof
L1(Italian)use.BothgroupsofearlybilingualsspokeEnglishsentenceswithadetectable
foreignaccent.Whenaseparateanalysiswascarriedoutforthesubjectswiththelowest
AOL in the study (mean"3.2yr), even this group of subjects was found to have
adetectableforeignaccentinEnglish.Similarly,Thompson(1991)reportedthatsomeof
the raters recruited for her study detected a slight foreign accent in the L2 speech
producedbytwonativespeakersofRussianwhohadbegunlearningtheL2(English)at
the age of 4 years.
Just as evidence accumulates that some early bilinguals will speak their L2 with
a detectable foreign accent, a number of studies have provided evidence that some L2
learners with AOLs of over 12 years may avoid speaking their L2 with a detectable
foreign accent. For example, Moyer (1999) identi"ed a native English subject with an
AOLof22yearswhoobtainedameanratinginGermanthatwashigherthantherating
giventooneoffournativeGermancontrolsubjects.InastudybyBongaertsetal.(1997),
"ve adult learners of English were given ratings comparable to the ones obtained for
native English control subjects. According to the authors, the subjects’ "rst extensive
exposuretoBritishEnglishhadoccurredattheageof18yearsorlater.Flegeetal.(1995)
reportedthat6%of120nativespeakersofItalianwhohadbegunlearningEnglishafter
theageof12yearsperformedinanative-likerange.However,noneofthesehadbegun
learning English after the age of 16 years.
Insummary,previousforeignaccentresearchhasshownthatearlylearnersspeakL2
with a lower degree of foreign accent than late learners. However, no study has as yet
provided convincing evidence for the claim that L2 speech will automatically be ac-
cent-free if it is learned before the age of about 6 years and that it will de"nitely be
foreign-accented if learned after puberty. It thus appears that factors other than AOL
alsohavean in#uenceon degreeof L2 foreignaccent. Moreover,as has been noted by
Flege (e.g., 1987, 1998b), the age e!ects found in L2 studies are di$cult to interpret
because AOL is typically confounded with other variables that are likely to a!ect the
pronunciationofanL2.Theseconfoundedvariablesinclude,forexample,chronological
age,length of residencein an L2-speakingenvironmentandamount of L1 and L2 use.
2.2.2. ‚ength of residence
The variable examined most frequently in studies of L2 foreign accent has been AOL.
Thenext most frequently studied variablehas been amountof L2 experience.In many
L2studies,thisvariablehasbeenoperationalizedas&&lengthofresidence’’(LOR),which
speci"es the number of years spent in a community where the L2 is the predominant
language. Previous research has produced con#icting evidence concerning the import-
ance of LOR for L2 pronunciation accuracy. The discrepancies across studies may be
due,inpart,tothefactthatLORonlyprovidesaroughindexofoverallL2experience.
Studiesthathavereportedan in#uenceof LORondegree ofL2 foreignaccent include
Asher&GarcmHa(1969),Purcell&Suter(1980),Flege&Fletcher(1992),Flegeetal.(1995)
andFlegeetal.(1999b).However,therearealsoseveralstudiesthathavenotfoundan
e!ectofLOR.ThesestudiesincludeOyama(1976),Tahtaetal.(1981),Flege(1988),Piper
and Cansin (1988), Thompson (1991), Elliott (1995) and Moyer (1999).
Five studies by Flege and his colleagues (Flege, 1988; Flege & Fletcher, 1992; Flege
etal.,1995;Riney&Flege,1998;Meador,Flege&MacKay,2000)providedabasisfor
198 „. Piske et al.
understanding why some studies found an LOR e!ect, whereas others did not. Flege
(1988) examined two groups of adult native Taiwanese learners of English di!ering in
LOR (1.1 vs 5.1yr). The foreign accent ratings obtained for these two groups did not
di!ersigni"cantly.Flege(1988)interpretedthisas supportfor thehypothesisthatafter
arapidinitialphaseoflearning,LORdoesnota!ectthedegreeofL2foreignaccentof
individuals who began learning the L2 as adults (see, e.g., Oyama, 1976; Tahta et al.,
1981).Flege & Fletcher (1992) investigatedEnglish sentencesspoken by two groups of
lateSpanish}Englishbilingualsdi!eringin LORin theUS(0.7 vs. 14.3yr).The experi-
enced subjects received signi"cantly higher ratings than those with less experience.
However,LORwasnotidenti"edasasigni"cantpredictorofdegreeofL2foreignaccent
inamultipleregressionanalysis(whichidenti"edAOLasthemostimportantpredictor
of degree of L2 foreign accent). Flege & Fletcher (1992) concluded that LOR is a less
importantdeterminantofdegreeofL2foreignaccentthanAOLis.Theyalsosuggested
that some previous studies probably did not "nd a signi"cant LOR e!ect because the
range of LOR values examined was too narrow. They suggested that their Spanish
subjects, but not the native Taiwanese subjects examined by Flege (1988), showed an
e!ectofLORbecausetheSpanishsubjectshadlivedforashorterperiodoftimeinthe
US than the inexperienced Taiwanesesubjects (0.7yr, S.D."0.3 vs. 1.1yr, S.D."0.7).
ResultsobtainedbyFlegeetal.(1995),Riney&Flege(1998)andMeadoretal.(2000)
supportedtheconclusiondrawnearlierbyFlege(1988,seealsoOyama,1976;Tahtaet
al., 1981) that the size of LOR e!ects depends on whether subjects are still in an early
phase of L2 learning or not. In the study by Flege et al. (1995), 10 native speakers of
Canadian English used a continuous rating scale (see Section 2.1.3) to evaluate short
Englishsentencesthathadbeenproducedby240nativeItaliansubjects.62ofthese240
native Italian subjects were re-recorded by Meador et al. (2000) 4 years later. The 62
subjects had arrived in Canada at an average age of 11 years and had been living in
Canada for an average of 35 years. Foreign accent ratings were obtained for these
subjectsby "ve newlisteners,whouseda9-pointscale rangingfrom&&strongestforeign
accent’’ to &&native English-no accent’’.
The two sets of foreign accent ratings obtained for the 62 native Italian subjects are
shown in Fig. 1. The y-axis shows the mean ratings obtained using a 9-point scale by
Meadoret al. (2000),and the x-axis shows the mean continuous-scaleratings obtained
forthesamesubjectsbyFlegeetal.(1995).Thestrengthofthecorrelationofthetwosets
ofratings(r(60)"0.94,p(0.001)issurprising,fortwothingswerenecessary.First,the
two sets of listeners who evaluated recordings made at 2 times had to scale degree of
foreignaccentinacomparablewaydespitethefactthatdi!erentscalingproceduresand
speechmaterialswereused.Second,thesubjects’relativedegreeofforeignaccenthadto
remain constant across the 4 years that separated the recordings. The strength of the
correlation shown in Fig. 1 should reassure those who have expressed skepticism that
overall degree of perceivedforeign accent can be scaled reliably (e.g., Markham, 1997).
And it shows that, for subjects who are highly experienced in their L2, an additional
4 years of experience using the L2 are unlikely to alter degree of L2 foreign accent.
The"ndingjustreporteddoesnotmean,however,thatdegreeofforeignaccentnever
changes. Riney & Flege (1998) recorded 11 native Japanese speakers at International
ChristianUniversityinTokyoduringtheirfreshmanyear(T1)andsenioryear(T2).T1
andT2wereseparatedby42months.Englishsentencesproducedbythestudentswere
ratedbynativespeakersofEnglishlivinginBirmingham,Alabama.Sentencesspokenby
three students receivedsigni"cantly higher ratingsat T2 than at T1. Of these, two had
Degree of foreign accent in an ‚2 199
Figure1. Themeanforeignaccentratingsobtainedfor62nativeItalianlearners
ofEnglishin1992usingacontinuousratingscale(seeFlegeetal.,1995)andin
1996usinga9-pointratingscale(seeMeadoretal.,2000).
residedinCaliforniaforanacademicyear.The"ndingofRiney&Flege(1998)therefore
supportsthehypothesisthat,inearlyphasesofL2 learning,additionalexperiencewith
the L2 may lead to a signi"cant decrease in degree of L2 foreign accent.
In summary, not every study has shown a signi"cant e!ect of LOR on degree of L2
foreign accent. In those studies where an LOR e!ect was found, LOR was a less
importantpredictor of degree of L2 foreign accent than AOL. Apparently, an e!ect of
LORismuchmorelikelytobefoundifthegroupsofL2learnersexamineddi!ergreatly
intermsofmeanLORvalues.AsshownbyFlege&Fletcher(1992),adultlearnersmay
showane!ectofLORifagroupofsubjectswithLORsoflessthan1yeariscomparedto
a group with LORs of several years. Moreover, for highly experienced subjects, addi-
tionalyearsofexperienceintheL2appeartobeunlikelytoleadtoasigni"cantdecrease
in degree of L2 foreign accent. In the early phases of L2 learning, on the other hand,
additional experience in the L2 may well lead to less foreign-accented L2 speech.
However,atpresentitisnotpossibletode"nepreciselywhatismeantby&&earlyphase’’.
This is because no study in the existing literature has examined changes in degree of
foreign accent in a longitudinal design.
2.2.3. Gender
Previousresearchhasprovideddivergent"ndingsconcerningthein#uenceofgenderon
degree of L2 foreign accent. Asher & GarcmHa (1969) found that female children and
adolescents obtained higher ratings than age-matched males did. The e!ect of gender
becameweakerwhenAOL-de"nedsubgroupswereconsidered.Thedi!erencesbetween
200 „. Piske et al.
maleandfemalelearnersweregreatestforindividualswithanAOLof1}6years.Asher
&GarcmHa(1969)alsofoundthatgenderdi!erencesdiminishedasLORincreased.Tahta
etal.(1981)examinedsubjectswithAOLsofover6years.Theauthorsidenti"edgender
as a signi"cant predictor of degree of L2 foreign accent, with women receiving higher
ratingsthanmen.AnalysesofAOL-de"nedsubgroupsindicatedthatthee!ectofgender
wasduetosubjectswhohadbegunlearningtheL2aftertheageof13years.Inastudyby
Thompson (1991), females also received higher ratings than males, with gender ac-
counting for 11% of the variance in degree of L2 foreign accent.
Most studies have not identi"ed gender as a signi"cant predictor of degree of L2
foreignaccent(e.g.,Olson&Samuels,1973;Suter,1976;Snow&Hoefnagel-HoKhle,1977;
Purcell&Suter,1980;Flege&Fletcher,1992;Elliott,1995).Flegeetal.(1995)foundthat
gendere!ectsdi!ereddependingonAOL.FemalesubjectswithAOLslessthan12years
received higher ratings than males, whereas males with AOLs greater than 16 years
receivedhigherratingsthanfemales.Flegeetal.(1995)carriedoutANOVAsexamining
the responses given to questionnaire items by female and male subjects matched for
AOL, but were unable to provide a straightforward account of the gender}AOL
interaction.
In summary, the results obtained for gender do not lead to any strong conclusions.
Some studies reported a signi"cant in#uence of gender, whereas others did not. The
majority of the studies that identi"ed gender as a signi"cant predictor of degree of L2
foreignaccentfound that femalesusually receivedhigherratings than males. However,
twostudies(Asher&GarcmHa,1969;Flegeetal.,1995)suggestedthatthee!ectofgender
may vary as a function of AOL and amount of L2 experience.
2.2.4. Formal instruction
Many studies examining the in#uence of formal instruction on degree of L2 foreign
accenthavenotproducedencouragingresultsforlanguageteachers.Studiesthatdidnot
identify instructional variables as signi"cant predictors of degree of L2 foreign accent
includeThompson(1991),Elliott(1995),Flegeetal.(1995)andFlegeetal.(1999b).Flege
& Fletcher (1992) identi"ed &&number of years of English-language instruction’’ as
asigni"cantpredictorofdegreeofL2foreignaccentbutitaccountedforonly5%ofthe
variance in the foreign accent ratings obtained for native Spanish learners of English.
Twoinstructionalvariableswereidenti"edassigni"cantpredictorsofL2pronunciation
accuracybySuter(1976).Itisnoteworthy,however,thatoneofthesevariables,i.e.,total
amountofformalclassroomtraininginEnglish,wasfoundtobeinverselyrelatedtoL2
pronunciationaccuracy.
L2 pronunciation receives little attention in most foreign language classrooms. This
mightexplainwhyinstructionalvariablesseemtohavehadsolittlee!ectinthestudies
justcited.Theresultsofthreestudiesindicatethatinstructionalvariablesmaybefound
to have a larger e!ect on degree of L2 foreign accent if the subjects received special
training in L2 pronunciation. Bongaerts et al. (1997) identi"ed "ve late learners of
English who received ratings in English that were comparable to those obtained for
nativespeakersofEnglish.Accordingtotheauthors,thesehighlysuccessfulL2learners
had all received (unspeci"ed) intensive training in the perception and production of
Englishsounds.Moyer(1999) examinednativeEnglishspeakersof German.Shefound
that those subjects who had received both suprasegmental and segmental training
obtainedratingsthatwereclosertotherangeofratingsobtainedfornativespeakersof