Processability theory is a theory of second language acquisition developed by Manfred Pienemann. (Pienemann 1998)[1] The theory has been used as a framework by scientists from Europe, North America, Asia and Australia.[2]
Processability theory (PT) is a cognitive approach to second language acquisition that seeks to explain developmental schedules as well as learner variation. It is based on Levelt’s (1989) approach to language generation and is formally operationalized using Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001). PT’s core assumption is that learners can produce only what they can process. PT is therefore based on the architecture of human language generation that is constructed hierarchically. It is argued that learners are constrained to follow that hierarchical order of processability in acquiring any target language. In other words, the hierarchy of processability is the core of the predictive machinery entailed in PT. Of course, the hierarchy must be applied to the specific conditions of any target language. This is done using LFG formalisms. When applied to ESL, this results in an array of predictions for developmental schedules in syntax and morphology. For instance, word order is predicted to be initially constrained to canonical word order even in questions, as Do-support and auxiliary inversion would require processing resources that are not initially available.
PT also includes theoretical modules dealing with L1 transfer, inter-learner variation and the role of linguistic typology. It comes with detailed methodological tools. PT has been applied to second language classrooms and to linguistic profiling.
Commentary
Processability Theory is now a mature theory of grammatical development of learners' interlanguage. It is cognitively founded (hence applicable to any language), formal and explicit (hence empirically testable), and extended, having not only formulated and tested hypotheses about morphology, syntax and discourse-pragmatics, but having also paved the way for further developments at the interface between grammar and the lexicon and other important modules in SLA.
Among the most important SLA theories recently discussed in Van Patten (2007), no other can accommodate such a variety of phenomena or seems able to offer the basis for so many new directions. Ten years have gone by since Pienemann’s first book-length publication on PT in 1998; and before that, it took almost two decades to mould into PT the initial intuition by the ZISA team that the staged development of German word order could be explained by psycholinguistic constraints universally applicable to all languages (Pienemann 1981; Clahsen, Meisel & Pienemann 1983). In these three decades, the whole field of SLA has grown exponentially. PT has paralleled this growth, and widened its scope in several directions. First, ZISA’s intuitions have been applied to English (Pienemann & Johnston 1984; Pienemann, Johnston & Brindley 1988, Pienemann 1989), then PT has expanded its typological validation from German and English to different languages, such as Swedish and other Scandinavian languages (Håkansson 1997, Glahn et al. 2001), Arabic (e.g., Mansouri 1995; 2005), Italian (e.g. Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2002; Di Biase 2007; Bettoni, Di Biase & Nuzzo 2009), French (Ågren 2009), Chinese (e.g. Zhang 2004, 2005), and Japanese (e.g. Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2002, 2005).
Secondly, PT’s framework has been substantially widened by including Bresnan’s (2001) Lexical Mapping Theory, and thus adding a discourse pragmatically motivated syntactic component (Pienemann, Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2005) to its first syntactically motivated morphological module. Thirdly, developmentally-moderated transfer from L1 (e.g., Pienemann, Di Biase, Kawaguchi & Håkansson 2005a; Pienemann, Di Biase, Kawaguchi & Håkansson 2005b). Fourthly, PT’s plausibility has been tested in language situations other than L2 ones, such as monolingual and bilingual language acquisition (e.g., Håkansson 2001, 2005; ItaniAdams 2006), among children with Specific Language Impairment (e.g., Håkansson 2001; 2005), and in the origins of creole languages (Plag 2008a, 2008b).
Finally, the range of the original applications of PT to language testing and language teaching has also expanded over the years, involving several new ways of testing and teaching situations (e.g., Iwasaki 2004, 2008, ask Bruno; Pienemann & Keßler 2007), and new languages (e.g. Di Biase 2008; Yamaguchi 2009). Ensuing publications in all these PT strands during such a long period of growth have had their own agendas and purposes. Furthermore, not only PT itself but also its feeder disciplines have developed in new directions, crucially among them psycholinguistics for language production and theoretical linguistics for language knowledge. As a consequence, it is not surprising that readers unfamiliar with PT's history may at times be confused by differences in the presentation of the theory, its use of terminology, and reliance on its theoretical bases.
Related Research Articles
Second-language acquisition (SLA), sometimes called second-language learning — otherwise referred to as L2acquisition, is the process by which people learn a second language. Second-language acquisition is also the scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. The field of second-language acquisition is regarded by some but not everybody as a sub-discipline of applied linguistics but also receives research attention from a variety of other disciplines, such as psychology and education.
An interlanguage is an idiolect which has been developed by a learner of a second language (L2) which preserves some features of their first language (L1) and can overgeneralize some L2 writing and speaking rules. These two characteristics give an interlanguage its unique linguistic organization. It is idiosyncratically based on the learner's experiences with L2. An interlanguage can fossilize, or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. It is claimed that several factors shape interlanguage rules, including L1 transfer, previous learning strategies, strategies of L2 acquisition, L2 communication strategies, and the overgeneralization of L2 language patterns.
Language attrition is the process of losing a native or first language. This process is generally caused by both isolation from speakers of the first language ("L1") and the acquisition and use of a second language ("L2"), which interferes with the correct production and comprehension of the first. Such interference from a second language is probably experienced to some extent by all bilinguals, but is most evident among speakers for whom a language other than their first has started to play an important, if not dominant, role in everyday life; these speakers are more likely to experience language attrition. It is common among immigrants that travel to countries where languages foreign to them are used.
Lydia White is a Canadian linguist and educator in the area of second language acquisition (SLA). She is James McGill Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at McGill University.
The generative approach to second language (L2) acquisition (SLA) is a cognitive based theory of SLA that applies theoretical insights developed from within generative linguistics to investigate how second languages and dialects are acquired and lost by individuals learning naturalistically or with formal instruction in foreign, second language and lingua franca settings. Central to generative linguistics is the concept of Universal Grammar (UG), a part of an innate, biologically endowed language faculty which refers to knowledge alleged to be common to all human languages. UG includes both invariant principles as well as parameters that allow for variation which place limitations on the form and operations of grammar. Subsequently, research within the Generative Second-Language Acquisition (GenSLA) tradition describes and explains SLA by probing the interplay between Universal Grammar, knowledge of one's native language and input from the target language. Research is conducted in syntax, phonology, morphology, phonetics, semantics, and has some relevant applications to pragmatics.
The critical period hypothesis or sensitive period hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window of brain development to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful. It is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in their 1959 book Speech and Brain Mechanisms, and was popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological Foundations of Language.
The Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics is a research institute situated on the campus of Radboud University Nijmegen located in Nijmegen, Gelderland, the Netherlands. The institute was founded in 1980 by Pim Levelt, and is particular for being entirely dedicated to psycholinguistics, and is also one of the few institutes of the Max Planck Society to be located outside Germany. The Nijmegen-based institute currently occupies 5th position in the Ranking Web of World Research Centers among all Max Planck institutes. It currently employs about 235 people.
Michael Sharwood Smith, Emeritus Professor of Languages at Heriot-Watt University & Honorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, is a researcher into multilingualism and the acquisition of non-native languages, a branch of developmental linguistics and cognitive science. He is a founding editor of Second Language Research, successor to the Interlanguage Studies Bulletin.
In linguistics, grammaticality is determined by the conformity to language usage as derived by the grammar of a particular speech variety. The notion of grammaticality rose alongside the theory of generative grammar, the goal of which is to formulate rules that define well-formed, grammatical, sentences. These rules of grammaticality also provide explanations of ill-formed, ungrammatical sentences.
Bill VanPatten is a former Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition at Michigan State University. He specializes in second language acquisition, which he investigates on both theoretical and practical levels, using techniques from psycholinguistics, applied linguistics, and cognitive psychology.
Martha Young-Scholten is a linguist specialising in the phonology and syntax of second language acquisition (SLA).
Anne Vainikka was a Finnish-American linguist specialising in the syntax of Finnish and in the syntax of second language acquisition (SLA).
The order of acquisition is a concept in language acquisition describing the specific order in which all language learners acquire the grammatical features of their first language. This concept is based on the observation that all children acquire their first language in a fixed, universal order, regardless of the specific grammatical structure of the language they learn. Linguistic research has largely confirmed that this phenomenon is true for first-language learners; order of acquisition for second-language learners is much less consistent. It is not clear why the order differs for second-language learners, though current research suggests this variability may stem from first-language interference or general cognitive interference from nonlinguistic mental faculties.
The main purpose of theories of second-language acquisition (SLA) is to shed light on how people who already know one language learn a second language. The field of second-language acquisition involves various contributions, such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and education. These multiple fields in second-language acquisition can be grouped as four major research strands: (a) linguistic dimensions of SLA, (b) cognitive dimensions of SLA, (c) socio-cultural dimensions of SLA, and (d) instructional dimensions of SLA. While the orientation of each research strand is distinct, they are in common in that they can guide us to find helpful condition to facilitate successful language learning. Acknowledging the contributions of each perspective and the interdisciplinarity between each field, more and more second language researchers are now trying to have a bigger lens on examining the complexities of second language acquisition.
Diane Larsen-Freeman is an American linguist. She is currently a Professor Emerita in Education and in Linguistics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. An applied linguist, known for her work in second language acquisition, English as a second or foreign language, language teaching methods, teacher education, and English grammar, she is renowned for her work on the complex/dynamic systems approach to second language development.
Cornelis Kees de Bot is a Dutch linguist. He is currently the chair of applied linguistics at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, and at the University of Pannonia. He is known for his work on second language development and the use of dynamical systems theory to study second language development.
Alison Mackey is a linguist who specializes in applied linguistics, second language acquisition and research methodology. She is currently a professor in the Department of Linguistics at Georgetown University. Her research focuses on applied linguistics and research methods.
Roumyana Slabakova is a linguist specializing in the theory of second language acquisition (SLA), particularly acquisition of semantics, and its practical implications for teaching and studying languages.
The Teachability Hypothesis was produced by Manfred Pienemann. It was originally extracted from Pienemann's Processibility model. It proposes that learners will acquire a second language (L2) features if what is being taught is relatively close to their stage in language development.
Suzanne Flynn is an American linguist and Professor of Linguistics at MIT who has contributed to the fields of second and third language acquisition. She has also investigated language disorders.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of processability theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 18, 274–302.
Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp.253–298). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.
Keßler, J.-U. (2007). Assessing EFL-development online: A feasibility study of Rapid Profile. In F. Mansouri (Ed..), Second language acquisition research. Theory-construction and testing (pp.119–143). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Lenzing, A. (2013). The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition: The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Lenzing, A. (in press). Towards an integrated model of grammatical encoding and decoding in SLA. In A. Lenzing, H. Nicholas, & J. Roos (Eds.), Working with processability approaches: Theories and issues (pp. xxx – yyy). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Lenzing, A. (2017). The production-comprehension interface in second language acquisition: An integrated encoding-decoding model. Unpublished thesis for a Higher Doctorate degree, Paderborn University, Germany.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., & Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children's ESL development and Rapid Profile. In P. McKay (Ed.), ESL Development. Language and Literacy in Schools. 115–259. Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.
Pienemann, M., & Lanze, F. (2017). Constructing an automatic procedure for ESL profile analysis. Plenary presented at the 16th Symposium on Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition (PALA), Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp.199–252). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005). Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. DeGroot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.128–153). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
