Another fundamental difference between our population and the ones in the above-mentioned studies is reexposure and formal instruction. The subjects in the previous studies seem to have willingly enrolled themselves in classes in order to relearn their attrited childhood language. Of our Korean adoptees, only half had been reexposed to Korean, mostly during short touristic trips to Korea. And of these subjects, only two had received language training lasting a few months. It is interesting to note that the only subject who was taking a Korean language class during 3 months prior to testing performed better on all contrasts than the group of adoptees. This suggests that extensive reexposure may be an essential factor in the recovery of phonetic knowledge, which may be present but difficult to retrieve. It is possible that extensive training, such as that administered by Logan, Lively, and Pisoni (1991) to Japanese learners of English on the /r/ and /l/ contrast, may be able to reactivate the dormant L1 in our adoptees. We are currently administering such a training programme, using Korean phonemes, to some of our Korean adoptees.