Abstract
The main objective of this paper is to draw attention to the problem of the inconsistent and potentially confusing use of the terms near-native, nativelike and native with reference to study participants and their level of L2 ultimate attainment in age-related research, as well as to highlight certain conceptual discrepancies pertaining to this issue. A basic analysis of some of the best-known publications in the relevant literature has demonstrated that the terms near-native and nativelike are not always defined in the same way, and furthermore, distinct criteria are applied to select highly advanced subjects for studies which set out to determine whether reaching a nativelike (native) level of L2 proficiency is feasible, thereby supporting or challenging the Critical Period Hypothesis. Such a state of affairs might have serious implications both for the methodology of L2 ultimate attainment research and the interpretation of the corresponding results. It is also argued that adopting a more bilingual-oriented approach to nativelikeness and reconsidering the role of the native speaker as the yardstick for L2 performance may significantly benefit the SLA theory by facilitating the interpretation of the findings and increasing the validity of studies investigating the age factor in L2 acquisition.
Highlights
The issue of the role of the age factor in second language acquisition has been the subject of intense debate for a long time
Abrahamsson/Hyltenstam (2008, 2009) postulate examining the actual L2 proficiency of subjects with the application of well-controlled testing procedures and instruments sufficiently sensitive to detect even very subtle deviations from the native point of reference. This approach is based on the claim described above, according to which late bilinguals who pass as native speakers only appear to be nativelike on the surface, but are NEAR-NATIVE SPEAKER (NNS) – a fact that can be verified by a comprehensive and detailed linguistic analysis
Such a way of reasoning leads to one more question, namely whether the term nativelike means native and is applied only to show that we are dealing with a potential native level of L2 proficiency in the case of speakers born with a different L1, or whether it is used based on the underlying assumption that NNSs are doomed to “failure”, unable to reach a command of their L2 equal to that of native speakers; this would mean that labeling their upper limits of attainment as native would be inadequate or pointless
Summary
The issue of the role of the age factor in second language acquisition has been the subject of intense debate for a long time. It is widely agreed that early beginners generally perform much better than late learners in terms of L2 mastery, and the vast majority of L2 speakers with age of onset after puberty are incapable of achieving a level of proficiency approximating that of native speakers, in particular in the domain of L2 phonetics This clearly explains why NNSs, some of whom are perceived as L1 speakers of their target language, and pass for native speakers, are a rare phenomenon that has not surprisingly captivated the interest of SLA researchers. The present article examines terminology applied in literature on L2 ultimate attainment, with a focus on such terms as native, nativelike and near-native, as well as the theoretical assumptions underlying their use (see section 2) This is achieved by an overview of major publications in the age-related research. Some suggestions are made as to how to integrate several key concepts from the study of bilingualism with investigations into the age factor in L2 acquisition
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
