Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 34:2 (2011) ► pp.127–147

Processability approach to Arabic L2 teaching and syllabus design

| Arabic Language Institute, King Saud University
This study aims to identify the relationship between the developmental hierarchy in the acquisition of Arabic as a second language (Arabic L2) and formal classroom instruction. It provides a general presentation of the current debate on the influence of formal instruction in the acquisition of L2. Special attention is given to the subset of Processability Theory (PT) known as Teachability Theory, and its implications for teaching methods of L2 in general and Arabic L2 in particular. This study also provides descriptive information on teaching objectives and materials used by the participants to study Arabic L2. This information is presented in order to establish an explanation for the connection between the formal teaching of Arabic L2 and the processability hierarchy. Participants were nine students studying Arabic as a second language at the Australian National University (three Beginners, three Intermediates, and three Advanced). Interviews were conducted over a period of two teaching semesters during the year 2005. Both implicational and distributional analyses were conducted. The results of these analyses show that teachers and curriculum developers should consider the PT’s predicted developmental stages for Arabic L2 structures when developing teaching materials and syllabus.
Keywords: Applied Linguistics, Language Development, Teaching Methods, Curriculum Design, Arabic L2
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 1 January 2011
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.34.2.01als
References (39)
Al Shatter, G. (2007). Implementation and evaluation of new learning approach in Arabic: Implications for translator training. Translation Watch Quarterly, 3 (1), 94–119.Google Scholar
(2008). The development of verbal structures in L2 Arabic. In J.-U. Kessler, (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language sevelopment and second language learning (pp. 267–299). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Pub.Google Scholar
(2010). Acquisition and development of nominal and verbal structures in Arabic: Agreement morphology in second language acquisition. Saarbrücken: VDM, Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Cook, M. (2006). The multidimentional model, processability pheory and the peachability/learnability hypothesis: Suggestions for the Japanese context. Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, Siebold University of Negasaki, 71, 1–7.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B. (Ed.). (2002a). Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish. Melbourne: Language Australia.Google Scholar
(2002b). Focusing strategies in second language development: A classroom-based study of Italian L2 in primary school. In B. Di Biase, (Ed.), Developing a second Language: acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish (pp. 95–120). Melbourne: Language Australia.Google Scholar
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 (3), 272–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdal, New Jersey Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. (2002). Learning and teaching of Swedish: a Processability perspective. In B. Di Biase (Ed.), Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish (Vol. 101) (pp. 7–16). Melbourne: Language Australia.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Grammatical development in learning of Japanese as a second language. In B. Di Biase (Ed.), Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish (Vol. 101) (pp. 17–29). Melbourne: Language Australia.Google Scholar
(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; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London; New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A. (2008). Teachability and learnability: An analysis of primary school textbooks. In J. KeBler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 221–241). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. M. Beebe, (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2004). Input versus transfer? - the role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of L2 preposition. In M. Achardand & S. Niemeier, (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 77–93). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaro, E. (2003). Teaching and learning a second language: A review of recent research. London; New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mansouri, F. (1997). From emergence to acquisition: Developmental issues in agreement marking among Australian learners of Arabic. The Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999a). Interlanguage syntax in Arabic as a second language: A processability theory perspective. Languages and Linguistics, 41, 45–71.Google Scholar
(1999b). The acquisition of Arabic as a second language: From theory to practice. Sydney: University of Western Sydney, Macarthur.Google Scholar
(2005). Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language: Typological features and their processing implications. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 117–154). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2007). Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Press.Google Scholar
Mansouri, F. & Håkansson, G. (2007). Intra-stage developmental order: Empirical evidence from Arabic and Swedish as second languages. In F. Mansouri, (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 95–118). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2003). Relative clauses in early bilingual development: Transfer and universals. In A. Giacalone Ramat, (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 39–81). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London; New York: Arnold, Edward.Google Scholar
(1990). “Conscious” versus “unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (4), 617–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, H. L. (1997). On acquisition order of agreement procedures in Arabic learner language. Al-Arabiyya, 301, 49–95.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 52–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005a). An introduction to processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. ix–60). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2005b). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivers, W. M. (1991). Psychological validation of methodological approaches and foreign language classroom practices. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 283–294). Lexington; Massachusetts; Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2005). Processing and formal Instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 155–177). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Oliver, Rhonda, Honglin Chen & Stephen Moore
2016. Review of selected research in applied linguistics published in Australia (2008–2014). Language Teaching 49:4 ► pp. 513 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Understanding Second Language Processing [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 4], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.