Predictions of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Native and Non-Native Languages: An Update of BLC Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI very much enjoyed reading this piece. It is thought-provoking, novel, and well-informed. I especially valued that the author outlined specific directions for future research. The discussion of IDs in light of the local theory appears intuitive. I don't have any suggestions for revision. I believe the manuscript is ready for publication in its current form.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for her/his positive stance!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for her/his positive evaluation of my paper and her/his “clarification questions”, which surely make good sense.
1 In relation to two quotations on page 3, the reviewer raises a question about the notion of native speaker.
Action
I have added the following footnote (number 4 in the revised ms) at the end of section 3.1 on page 3: “In response to a clarification question of one reviewer, I would like to clarify that native speaker and BLC are orthogonal constructs. Typical adult native speakers attain BLC but heritage native speakers may not do so. Learners of nonnative languages may or may not attain BLC, depending on a number of factors.”
2 The reviewer then addresses language attrition, saying: “After a prolonged period of time adult immigrants are known to achieve an excellent knowledge of L2 and attrite their L1. What are they, according to BLC Theory? Are they native speakers of an attrited language and foreign learners of their best language?”
Response
Yes indeed. If this matter will turn up in the peer commentaries, I will address it more explicitly, in addition to what I say in the last sentence of paragraph P1, section 4.
No action
3 The reviewer then remarks: “If I understood correctly, the notion of native speaker is solely a social/chronological concept independent of language proficiency. If so, it sounds rather strange.”
Response
This may sound strange but the article repeatedly points out that BLC Theory is targeted at the receptive and productive speech processing skills and knowledge, shared by typical, adult native speakers. I hope that the action under point 1 above will suffice.
No action.
4 Concerning a phrase on p.4, the reviewer then asks: “does this mean that L2 learners cannot achieve BLC if they do not have massive exposure?”
Response
Indeed, I don’t see how one can really understand what is said in any language, first or 2nd, 3rd etc, (i.e., in real time: word-by-word processing of what is said in everyday communication, and comprehending the message), if one hasn’t been exposed to massive oral input.
If this matter will turn up in the peer commentaries, I will address it. For the moment, however, I rather prefer not bringing this matter up.
No action.
5 The reviewer then wonders why I don’t “distinguish between L2 as language learnt in school and L2 learnt by e.g., immigrants in an input rich environment.”
Response
I have considered distinguishing between L2 learning in school (foreign-language learning) and L2 learning in an input-rich environment (second language acquisition). But BLC’s constructs and predictions apply to both. So I reasoned that making the distinction might only distract from the theory. This is always a dilemma: including or excluding non-essential phenomena or conditions. Each has its potential advantages and disadvantages. If this matter will turn up in the peer commentaries, I will definitely address it. For the moment, however, I rather prefer not bringing this matter up.
No action.
- Concerning a passage in page 8, the reviewer says: “These look like question[s] about acquisition of several L1s from birth. How does the theory handle the acquisition of several L2s?”
Response
Note that section 5 of the paper presents “questions of an exploratory nature”.
Underneath the passage quoted by the reviewer rests my wish to see that studies of so-called polyglots, assessed to what extent these allegedly ‘talented’ individuals attained BLC levels in their languages, i.e., receptively and productively processing BLC speech. Thus, my answer is that the exploratory question pertains to all languages a person is exposed to, be they first languages or languages learnt later in life.
Action
I have changed the final sentence of section 5.2 (“To how many languages can a person be exposed in real time to reach BLC in each language, at a given age?”) into: “Of how many languages, learnt earlier and later in life, can a person reach BLC?”
- Concerning a quote from section 6 (page 8), the reviewer says: “It is not clear to me why separating oral and written language test tasks will necessarily reveal individual differences in L2 rather than, e.g., differences in the conditions of acquisition like input, or teaching quality. Besides, couldn’t differences in the acquisition of oral L2 reveal individual differences as well?”
Response
My point is that, by testing language proficiency for BLC and ELC separately, researchers (clinicians, teachers, etc.) may discover features of people’s language control (and IDs between individuals) which might go unnoticed if one designed tests with a mixed BLC/ELC or sole ELC content. This is my major proposal, as expressed in the first two sentences of the Abstract and the first paragraph of the Introduction.
No action.
---
