Part 2.During the past few decades, a group of second-language (L2) acquisition researchers haveattempted to account for L2 ultimate attainment in terms of input processing problems. Among thesescholars, Sorace (2004) posited that advanced L2 learners’ real-time processing of L2 input (such asspoken words) is often less rapid and less automatic than first-language (L1) speakers; consequently,L2 learners’ ability to access and coordinate multiple sources of knowledge from different domainsmay be computationally costly. In this regard, when the meaning of a word or grammatical formrequires computing information from different linguistic (sub)domains (e.g., syntax, morphology orsemantics), near-native speakers may not efficiently access all the required information for real-timeinterpretation. According to Liu (2009), this reduced efficiency in real-time processing may notsignificantly disrupt advanced L2 learners’ comprehension; but it may exert a negative impact on theretention of the comprehended information. In a similar vein, Juffs and Harrington (1995) andHernandez et al (1994) both observed that highly advanced L2 learners performed as well as nativespeakers in rejecting ungrammatical L2 sentences, but with much longer response time. Thesescholars thus concluded that although near-native speakers are able to develop a fully amalgamatedprocessing system to reduce cross-linguistic disparities, they were still unable to consistentlyunderstand L2 sentences using L2-specific processing strategies. Liu (2009) and Juffs and Harrington(1995) therefore both maintained that processing efficiency, rather than grammatical competence, isthe source of difficulty that distinguishes a native speaker from a near-native speaker.To further explore if L2 learners, who are situated in an input-rich environment, are able toacquire a native-like processing system in the L2, McDonald (1987) recruited English-Dutch andDutch-English bilinguals who learned the L2 at different ages, and had various amounts of exposureto the L2. McDonald found that both beginning and intermediate L2 learners, who had not yet hadsufficient exposure to the L2, still utilized L1-based processing strategies while comprehending L2sentences. As a result, these L2 learners still suffered from L1 interference. However, McDonaldobserved that both early and late L2 learners in the long exposure group resembled native speakersin terms of the linguistic cues they drew on when comprehending L2 sentences. McDonald concludedthat L2 learners, irrespective of their onset age of learning the L2, are able to completely master L2processing strategies given sufficient L2 exposure.McDonald’s view is not without challenge. Bassetti (2004) posited that when learning an L2with a mature (L1) processing system already in place, adult L2 learners would need to merge theknowledge systems of their two languages. The more comprehensively the L1 and L2 systems areintegrated, the more likely the resulting hybrid knowledge system can be consistently drawn upon toreduce the disparities in the decision space in L2 processing. However, Bassetti argued that the abovescenario is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for L2 learners; even if it is possible, a full mergerof L1 and L2 knowledge systems is not equivalent to two monolinguals housed in a single brain.Consequently, bilinguals would always exhibit subtle, non-native intuition and judgment in both theirL1 and L2. Following the above view, complete native-likeness is not possible in L2 acquisition.Hitherto, researchers still differ in their views on the ultimate (grammatical) attainment in L2acquisition. The inconclusive finding is attributed to the nature of the participants examined inexisting studies. Birdsong (2009) contended that to make a strong case for L2 ultimate attainment,one needs to draw on empirical evidence from the most advanced L2 learners whose languagedevelopment (in the L2) has reached the highest attainable state. Otherwise, one can always arguethat L2 learners’ competence or performance may be subject to change given more exposure, time,and practice. Notwithstanding Birdsong’s suggestion, researchers continue to use various lenient ormethodologically convenient criteria recruiting the so-called “advanced L2 learners,” with someusing achievement tests (such as scores from final exams) and others using placement tests. Theresults of these tests can only shed light on L2 learners’ achievement in some limited languagesubdomains, rather than their overall proficiency profile. Without using stringent standardized“proficiency” tests (such as TOEFL, IELTS, or TOEIC), existing studies might have collected datafrom L2 learners whose L2 development is still in progress, rather than genuinely advanced L2learners whose L2 has reached a plateau. Longitudinal data collected from the latter L2 learnerpopulation are warranted in order to shed more light on the developmental trajectory that L2 learnerstake and the upper limit that they can reach. Hitherto, much remains unknown about the attainabilityof a native-like processing system in L2 acquisition.[!--empirenews.page--]
41. What is this passage mainly about?
(A) Major cognitive factors underlying language disorder
(B) The developmental trajectory for L1 users
(C) The interaction between environment and learning outcome
(D) An overview of the debate on the best attainable state in L2 acquisition
(E) A critique of the research ethics in existing studies