The Role of Processability Theory in Second Language Development - Term Paper Example

The Role of Processabiltity Theory in Second Language Development The Processability theory outlines a universal hierarchy of processing procedures underlying stages of language development that focuses mainly on obligatory morpho-syntactic structures which are acquired through an implicational pattern of feature unification: lemma access > lexical > phrasal > inter-phrasal (Pienemann, 1998). Further extension to the Processability theory has been made in which the developmental dimension of speaker-induced discourse-pragmatic choices (e.g. passive, topicalisation) and their marking in syntactic and morphological structure have been considered. Pienemann (1998) hypothesises that morphology is acquired in the following order based on different type of information processing (or information exchange): lexical > phrasal > inter-phrasal. The following are examples of types of morphology in English and its processing mechanism: lexical morphology: lexical plural, past –ed. Lexical morphology only requires category procedure wherein no information exchange is required. Features such as ‘number’ and ‘tense’ are listed in the lexical entries of words. Phrasal morphology indicates NP (noun phrase) agreement which includes head and its modifier (i.e. there is intra-phrasal agreement). An example of a phrasal morpheme is the plural marker –s, as in many boys. Processability theory predicts that the plural –s, which requires agreement between the head noun and its modifier, is acquired after lexical morphology. Inter-phrasal morphology is the term for SV (subject-verb) agreement (i.e., 3rd person singular –s). The morpheme –s on the verb reveals information about the subject, “NUMBER = singular” and “PERSON = 3rd”, in the sentence. Placement of –s on verb requires inter-phrasal information processing because the two elements; Sub P (subject phrase) and VP (verb phrase), are different phrases and agreement that occurs across phrase boundary. Processability Theory predicts that this type of morphology appears after phrasal morphology. Syntactically, the Processability Theory (PT) proposes a universal developmental sequence in learning L2. The formula suggested by Levelt (1989), words > category procedure > phrasal procedure > Sentence procedure > subordinate clause procedure, is determined through the order of activation of grammatical encoding. Based on this universal nature of acquisition of processing skills, the Processability theory, therefore, views L2 learning as the accumulative acquisition of these skills. Processability Theory is applicable not only in English or German, but is also applicable in other languages such as Swedish and Chinese (Baker, 1998). Therefore, the previous literature related to the role of processability theory in the second language development is of particular interest of many scholars. Normally, first language speakers (L1) are said to have the ability to acquire second languages, but how well they adapt to the second language will vary based on the individual. Learners are expected to construct and automatize the procedure of the second language in a manner that is different from that of the first language (L1) (di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). For example, Italian is considered as a head marking language and the typical SVO is applicable. Where S- subject is rated as optional, this basically means that it can be null or pro drop and its position is variable. “This null-subject phenomenon is often seen as a phrase structure operation where a phonologically null syntactic phrase representing the subject pronominal argument is licensed by a rich and ‘uniform’ morphology” (di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The pro drop language (language that allows the omission of pronouns if they are not necessary) is looked at as a functional specification that is highly applicable in a pronominal argument by a head. The main factor to be recognized is that there is no structural expression in the application of a pronoun either as a syntactic NP or DP (Baker, 1988). When English is contrasted with Italian language the results appear to be quite different. This can be evident in matching c- structure into the a- structure in English; PRED- see, SUBJECT (them) - experiencer, OBJECT (I) – theme (Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). This provides a contrasting nature when reflected with the other forms (i.e., ved-i, ved-e, ved-iamo, ved-ete, ved-ono), they are applicable in the identification of the other person and number of agreement features, respectively, the second and third person singular followed by the plural forms (Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The fact that the morphology of Italian is considered to be fusional and stem based sets it aside from the English language by providing it with a typological characteristic (Nordlinger, 1998). The German and English languages posses a fairly different characteristic because it is mainly word based. The Italian stems have verbs that mainly do not consist of the full words since it is compulsory for them to have an inflectional ending (Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The nouns pretty much share the same characteristic with the verbs as they have the same stem. The nouns are mainly classified according to the gender in reference. A study was conducted among 6 English Learners L1 of Italian with 2 each from beginner, intermediate and advanced courses. The main aim was to discover the learning process of a different language and the challenges that some of the participants felt (di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The structuring of the sentences is also applicable in the process. The research employed interview as a method of gathering data. Each of the participants was interviewed using free conversations in two sessions, consisting of 35- 60 minutes each (di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The first session was based on free conversation, the picture task and a story telling task. The second session was quite different and shorter as it was based on a communicative task that placed the object first (Baker, 1988). The same tasks were conducted on the native speaker as well. The results produced indicated that a total 16799 words, 47.4% were produced by the nonnative respondents (di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The Processability Theory (PT) test conducted on Japanese L2 was based on the fact that Japanese offered positive grounds for the typological test. Japanese is known to have significant morphological and syntactic characteristics that are quite different for the European languages that have been studied by various professionals (di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The agglutinating nature of the Japanese language is an attracting feature and this is attributed to the fact that it is a combination of Japanese and partly Korean. The basic word order observed in the language is SOV. However, they exercise little freedom in the ordering of the nominal constituents (di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). An empirical study on Japanese was conducted by focusing on 9 subjects, which was mainly done to test the typological plausibility of the Possibility Theory (PT). All the 9 participants were English students learning Japanese (Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The study was based on one three year longitudinal case study and one cross- sectional case study. The methodology applied was based on interviews, because it was thought that direct communication is the main way of monitoring the learning process (Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The longitudinal study adopted a different trend where the interviews were conducted with intervals of one or two months. The period was used to reveal the academic progress of the learners studying in the department (di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002). The interview was 20- 30 minutes in length and involved free conversation and the use of pictures so as to monitor the language elicitation. The time period was supposed to indicate whether the participants would have perfected their learning abilities. The changes were noted in order to indicate the stages present in the processability theory. The empirical results that were collected from the two case studies were not similar as the typological setting contrasted each other. However, the results collected both support the concepts “that the notion of ‘exchange of grammatical information’ is a productive concept for typologically diverse languages and that predictions can be derived from the general architecture of the theory for these two languages and that these predictions would be borne out by empirical observation” (Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002, 275). Longitudinal case studies were conducted in order to determine evidence of relevant morphological properties at the same time as, or before, syntactic properties. The process was conducted on two respondents who were from China and fluent speakers of Mandarin, a 12 year old girl and a 13 year old boy who were taking English lessons (Dyson, 2009). Six interview sessions were conducted. Each interview lasted about 45 to 60 minutes and they were conducted on intervals (Dyson, 2009). The time period in between the interviews was meant to look at the improvement made in the English learning process throughout the year. The study was supposed to determine whether the acquisition structures collected were determined by the processability theory. The results collected indicated that the girl was able to establish stage 2 syntax morphology. She was able to make statements by acquiring syntax of SVO. Sentences such as “I see water” and “She like apple”, were achieved by the girl (Dyson, 2009). The results obtained by the boy reflected the same pattern evident in the girl despite certain differences in the syntax stages and the morphological structures were found (Pienneman, 1998). These showed that the two participants were able to provide results that were in line with PT. The results also indicated evidence that appeared to be problematic for the establishment of PT (Dyson, 2009). The evidence that is most applicable in the situation is when the girl established the syntax that had been predicted in the stages 3 and 4; however, she failed to acquire the predicted morphology (Hawkins, 2001). However, despite the fact that the results indicated that there was no acquisition for NP and tense agreement, one cannot base their beliefs on the fact that there is no acquisition (Dyson, 2009). Another empirical study was conducted to determine the learner’s interlanguage (IL) development and to determine the constraints of time and costs (Shatter. n.d.). Interviews were used a data collection method. The data collected in the study was done within a period of two semesters using a cross sectional longitudinal quasi approach (Parodi, 2001). The participants were significantly selected from three groups, beginners, and intermediate and advanced making them three respondents (Dyson, 2009). All the participants were studying Arabic as their second language. This indicated that all the participants had received different levels of education based on the stage of study that they were in. The use of pictures was salient in the study and the interviews were recorded so that they can be used later (Shatter. n.d.). The results collected at the end of the study indicated that they supported the facts presented by the PT. The Arabic test structures were able to develop according to the PT hierarchy (Shatter. n.d.). In general, the facts that are presented by the processability theory were proven by the empirical studies conducted on different individuals studying different languages. Critical review The application of processability theory (PT) is very important especially when teaching foreign languages. This is attributed to the fact that the teachers can be able to understand how the students are viewing the complexity of the learning progress for the students. Language development is a process and this understanding can be used to the person teaching the second language (Preston, 2009). Having the knowledge of the process and what it entails for the learner is the main aspect and processability makes this understanding better for the teacher. Learning foreign language is conducted in different contexts but the oral communication requires a learner to have a fluent understanding than the writing understanding. PT therefore is applicable in taking the productions of the L2 learners in their oral communication as a measure of their stages in development in SLA (Shatter, n.d.). The speed productions of the learners will mainly depend on the interaction in terms of communication with people of the same language faculty. Their interaction in the communication process can be explained the speech production model. PT can be used as a prediction tool where it can be used to tell the forms of grammar that the learner is conversant with and in which stage they are currently. The learning process is made easier as the teacher can be able to divide the students according to the learning progress they have made making it easier for all the participants. Reference List Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 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(3), 274- 302. Dyson, B. (2009). Processability Theory and the role of morphology in English as a second language development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research 25(3), 355- 376. Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: a generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Nordlinger, R. (1998). Constructive case: evidence from Australian languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Parodi, T. (2000). Finiteness and verb placement in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 16, 255–381. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins Preston, J. (2009). Examining the reliability of processability theory- based procedure for use in Japanese SLA. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/nichigen/0-kyouiku/research/kotoba/22/0903.pdf Shatter, G. (n.d.). The development of verbal structures in L2 Arabic. 267- 299. Read More