Understanding Second Language Processing

A focus on Processability Theory

| University of Sydney
| Lund University/Østfold University College
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027243751 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027265876 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
This book aims to help researchers and teachers interested in language processing and Processability Theory (PT) to understand this theory and its applications. PT is an influential account of second language processing which hypothesizes that, due to the architecture of language processing, learners acquire second languages in developmental stages. This book lays out PT’s predictions and research on the development of diverse target languages – particularly English and Scandinavian languages – by learners of various categories. It discusses the typological issues facing PT and its contribution to an understanding of variation and cognitive constraints on pedagogy. However, the book also raises a critical eye to the literature which, after almost twenty years of evolution, requires explanation, clarification and, in some cases, extension. Why do some phenomena belong to different stages in different languages? Why are important types of variation under-represented? Is teaching as constrained as proposed in PT?
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 4]  2017.  xi, 211 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
xi
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–20
Chapter 2. L2 development of English
22–54
Chapter 3. L2 development of Scandinavian languages
56–78
Chapter 4. The typological challenge in PT
80–104
Chapter 5. Learner categories and PT
106–120
Chapter 6. Variation in second language processing
122–152
Chapter 7. Language teaching, assessment and processing
154–180
Chapter 8. Discussion and conclusion
182–190
References
191–206
Appendix
207–208
Index
209–211
References

References

Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K.
(2009) Age of L2 acquisition and degree of nativelikeness – listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 58, 249–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Agostini, T. G. & Best, C. T.
(2015) Exploring Processability Theory-based hypotheses in the second language acquisition of a child with autism spectrum disorder. In Bettoni & Di Biase (Eds.)Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory, .Google Scholar
Ågren, M.
(2008) À la recherche de la morphologie silencieuse (Ètudes romande de Lund 84). PhD dissertation, Lund University.
Aikhenwald, A. Y.
(2012) Possession and ownership: A cross linguistic perspective. In A. Y. Aikenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Possession and ownership. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alhawary, M. T.
(1999) Testing processability and effectiveness of computer-assisted language instruction: A longitudinal study of Arabic as a second/foreign language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Al Shatter, G.
(2011) Processability approach to Arabic L2 teaching and syllabus design. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 127–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R.
(1983) Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. W.
(1980) Creolisation as the acquisition of a second language as a first language. In A. Valdman & K. Highfield (Eds.), Theoretical orientations in creole studies. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Andersson, A.-B.
(1992) Second language learners’ acquisition of grammatical gender in Swedish [Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 10]. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Artoni, D.
(2012) The acquisition of case morphology in Russian as a second language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Verona University.
Armon-Lotem, S.
(2012) Introduction: Bilingual children with SLI—the nature of the problem. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 15(1), 1–4. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Armon-Lotem, S., de Jong, J., & Meir, N.
(2015) Assessing multilingual children: Disentangling multilingualism from language impairment. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M.
(2015) Acquiring case marking in Russian as a second language: An exploratory study on subject and object. In Bettoni & Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory, (pp. 177–193).Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. & Toivonen, I.
(2009) Lexical-functional grammar. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 425–458). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Axelsson, M.
(1994) Noun phrase development in Swedish as a second language: A study of adult learners acquiring definiteness and the semantics and morphology of adjectives. Stockholm: Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S.
(1974) Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. (2011) Processability Theory and German case acquisition. Language Learning, 61(2), 455–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners (Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K., Buyl, A., Lochtman, K., & Van Herreweghe, M.
(Eds.) (2016) The theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. & Håkansson, G.
(2015) The development of subordinate clause in German and Swedish as L2s. A Theoretical and Methodological Comparison. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 37, 517–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K., & Verbeke, S.
(2016) The acquisition of the ergative case in Hindi as a foreign language. In Baten et al. (Eds.), The theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory, (pp. 71–104).Google Scholar
Batstone, R.
(2010) Issues and options in sociocognition. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 3–23). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bayram, F.
(2013) Acquisition of Turkish by heritage speakers: A processability approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Newcastle.
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M.
(2013) Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges. Reply to peer commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4): 259–294.Google Scholar
Bettoni, C., & Di Biase, B.
(Eds.) (2015) Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (Eurosla Monographs Series 3). Reggio Emilia: European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.
(1977) Pidginization and creolization: Language acquisition and language iniversals. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Pidgin and creole linguistics (pp. 49–69). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(1984) The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 173–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R.
(2009) The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(1), 175–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S.
(1982) Learning to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolander, M.
(1988) Is there any order? On word order in Swedish learner language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 97–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonanno, H., & Jones, J.
(2007) Measuring the Academic Skills of University Students: The MASUS procedure, a diagnostic assessment. Retrieved December 13, 2015, from http://​sydney​.edu​.au​/stuserv​/documents​/learning​_centre​/MASUS​.pdf
Bonilla, C.L.
(2012) Testing Processability Theory in L2 Spanish: Can readiness or markedness predict development? PhD dissertation University of Pittsburgh.
Bonilla, C.
(2014) From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 31(1), 53–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Instructing stages of Processability Theory in L2 Spanish: Next or Next + 1? In Baten et al. (Eds.), The theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory, (pp. 205–238). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(1995) Inherent vs. Contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds). Yearbook of morphology 1994 (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boss, B. (1996) German grammar for beginners – the Teachability Hypothesis and its relevance to the classroom. In C. Arbonés Solá, J. Rolin-Ianziti, & R. Sussex (Eds.), Who’s afraid of teaching grammar (Working papers in Language and Linguistics 1) (pp. 93–103). Brisbane: Department of Romance Languages and Centre for Language Teaching and Research, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J.
(Ed.) (1982) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I., & Wechsler, S.
(2015) Lexical-functional syntax (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.
(1973) A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buyl, A., & Housen, A.
(2015) Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account. Second Language Research, 31, 523–550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. H.
(1978) The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 207–230). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Candlin, C., & Mercer, N.
(Eds.) (2001) English language teaching in its social context: A reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A.
(1999) Validity in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 254–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Charters, H., Dao, L., & Jansen, L.
(2011) Reassessing the applicability of Processability Theory. Second Language Research, 27, 509–533. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Charters, H., & Muagututia, G.
(2015) Processing alignments: Semantic, thematic and structural prominence in Samoan SLA. In Baten et al. (Eds.), The theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory, (pp. 21–44). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H.
(1984) The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In P. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1990) The comparative study of first and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 135–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Child language and developmental dysphasia. Linguistic studies of the acquisition of German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M.
(1983) Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P.
(1986) The availability of universal grammar to adults and child learners – the study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P.
(1989) The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–19 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Bartke, S. & Goellner, S.
(1997) Formal features in impaired grammars: A comparison of English and German SLI children. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10 (2–3), 151– 171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M.
(1968) Zum Pidgin-Deutsch der Gastarbeiter. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, 35, 130–139.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (1991) Community languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colliander, G.
(1993) Profiling second language development of Swedish: A method for assessing L2 proficiency. In B. Hammarberg (Ed.), Problem, process, product in language learning. Papers from the Stockholm-Åbo Conference 1992 (pp. 32–47). Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Corder, P.
(1967) The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL, 5, 161–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1974) Error analysis. In J. Allen & P. Corder (Eds.), The Edinburgh course in applied linguistics, (Vol. 3 (pp. 122–154). London: OUP.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P.
(1977) Language continua and the interlanguage hypothesis. In S. P. Corder & E. Roulet (Eds.), The notions of simplification, interlanguage and pidgins and their relation to second language pedagogy (pp. 11–17). Neuchatel: University of Neuchatel.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M.
(1984) The grammatical analysis of language disability. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Dao, L.
(2007) Foreign Language Acquisition: Processes and Constraints. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2005) Second Language Acquisition. An Advanced Resource Book. London. Routledge.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A.
(1990) The acquisition of two languages from birth: A case study. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009a) Bilingual first language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R.
(2015) Skill Acquisition Theory. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J-M. & Veronique, D.
(2001) Gender assignment and gender agreement in advanced French interlanguage: A cross-sectional study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 275–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B.
(2002) 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
(2007) A Processability Approach to the Acquisition of Italian as a Second Language: Theory and Applications. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
(2008) Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In Keßler (Ed.) (2008a; pp. Processability Approaches to second language development and second language learning, 197–219).Google Scholar
Di Biase, B., Bettoni, C., & Medojevic, L.
(2015) The development of case in a bilingual context: Serbian in Australia. In Bettoni & Di Biase (Eds.), (pp. 195–212).Google Scholar
Di Biase, B., & Dyson, B.
(1988), Language rights and the school. Sydney: Inner City Education Centre.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, 272–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Processability Theory (PT). In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 512–517). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Yamaguchi, Y.
(2015) The development of English as a Second Language. In Bettoni & Di Biase (Eds.), (pp. 85–115).Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. (1980) Ordering adult learners according to language abilities. In S. W. Felix (Ed.), Second language development. Trends and issues. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
(2010) Basic linguistic theory. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Doman, E.
(2012) Implications of the developmental stages of language acquisition for classroom teaching. In Baten et al. (Eds.), (pp. 239–262).Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(2006) Individual differences in second language acquisition. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dörnyei (Eds.), Themes in SLA research. AILA Review, 19, 42–68.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M.
(1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, B.
(1996) The debate on form focused instruction: A teacher’s perspective. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 59–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Focus on learnable form in communicative contexts: A framework for second language acquisition in the classroom. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 53–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Developmental style in second language processing: A study of inter-learner variation in the acquisition of English as a Second Language. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Western Sydney.
(2008) What we can learn from questions: Question development and its implications for language development. Prospect, 23, 16–27.Google Scholar
(2009a) Processability Theory and the role of morphology in ESL development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research, 25, 355–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Understanding trajectories of academic literacy: How could this improve diagnostic assessment? Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 3, A52–A69.Google Scholar
(2010a) Learner language analytic methods and pedagogical implications. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 30.1–30.21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Editorial: On sociocognitive approaches to second language acquisition [Special Issue]. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 25.1–25.11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Variation, individual differences and second language processing: A Processability Theory study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6, 341–395. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
. (to appear, 2017). Developmental sequences. TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching.
. (to appear 2017) Are speech and writing teachable? Re-examining developmental constraints on pedagogy. In R. Arntzen, G. Håkansson, A. Hjelde, J-U. Keßler (Eds.) Teachability and Learnability Across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Eklund Heinonen, M.
(2009), Processbarhet på prov. Bedömning av muntlig språkfärdighet hos vuxna andraspråksinlärare [Processability in test. Assessment of oral language proficiency in adult second language learners]. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Uppsala University.
Ellis, R.
(1989) Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of the German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 303–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(2008) Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 4–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015) Researching acquisition sequences: Idealization and de-idealization in SLA. Language Learning, 65, 181–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elllis, R. & Barkhuizen, G.
(2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W.
(2015) What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning of English questions. Language Learning, 65, 33–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y.N.
(2001) Lexical-functional Grammar: An introduction to parallel Constraint-based syntax. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Falk, Y.
(2008) Functional relations in the English auxiliary system. Linguistics, 46(5), 861–889. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Multiple-Gap Cconstructions. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, (pp. 194–214). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Farley, A.P., & McCollum, K.
(2004) Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: Processability Theory on trial. Estudios de Linguística Aplicada, 40, 47–69.Google Scholar
Flyman Mattsson, A., & Håkansson, G.
(2010) Bedömning av svenska som andraspråk. En analysmodell baserad på grammatiska utvecklingsstadier [Assessment of Swedish as a second language. Based on grammatical developmental stages]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Garðarsdóttir, M. A., & Þorvaldsdóttir, S.
(2007) V2 in Icelandic as a second language. In C. Carlsen & E. Moe (Eds.), A Human Touch to Language Testing (pp. 208–220). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Glahn E., Håkansson G., Hammarberg B., Holmen A., & Hvenekilde, A.
(2001) Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 389–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J., & Ågren, M.
(2013) Stages of processabilty and levels of proficiency in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The case of L2 French. In A. Flyman-Mattsson & C. Norrby (Eds.), Language acquisition and use in multilingual contexts. Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund, 52, 28–38.Google Scholar
Hagen, J.E.
(1992) Felinvertering, overinventering og underinvertering [Misinversion, overinversion and underinversion]. NOA 15 . Oslo: Oslo University.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G.
(1987) Teacher talk: How teachers modify their speech when addressing learners of Swedish as a second language. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(1992) The role of the teacher in the second language classroom. Lund: Department of Linguistics, Lund University.Google Scholar
(1995) Syntax and morphology in language attrition. A study of five bilingual, expatriate Swedes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 153–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Modern times in L2 Swedish. Syntax and morphology in formal and informal acquisition of Swedish. In L. Diaz & C. Perez (Eds.) Views on the acquisition and use of a second language. EuroSLA 7 Proceedings (pp. 39–50). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
(2001) Tense morphology and verb-second in Swedish L1 children, L2 children and children with SLI. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 85–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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 (pp. 7–15). Melbourne: Language Australia,Google Scholar
(2004) Utveckling och variation i svenska som andraspråk, enligt processbarhetsteorin [Development and variation in Swedish as a second language, according to Processability Theory]. In K. Hyltenstam & I. Lindberg (Eds.), Svenska som andraspråk – i forskning, undervisning och samhälle. [Swedish as a second language – research, teaching and society] (pp. 153–169). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. (2007) Teacher talk and the PT hierarchy: Is there a connection and in that case – why? Paper presented at EuroSLA, Newcastle, Sept 10th 2007.Google Scholar
(2014) Språkinlärning hos barn. [Language acquisition in children]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
(2016a) Processability Theory and language development in children with Specific Language Impairment. In J-U. Kessler, A. Lenzing, & M. Liebner, (Eds.), Developing, modelling and assessing second languages (pp. 65–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Typological and developmental considerations on specific language impairment in monolingual and bilingual children: A Processability Theory account. Language Acquisition. Published online 24 May 2016.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Dooley Collberg, S.
(1994) The preference for Modal + Neg. An L2 perspective applied to L1 acquisition. Second Language Research, 10(2), 95–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Nettelbladt, U.
(1993) Developmental sequences in L1 (normal and impaired) and L2 acquisition of Swedish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 131–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Similarities between SLI and L2 children. Evidence from the acquisition of Swedish word order. In C. E. Johnson & J. H. V. Gilbert, (Eds.), Children’s Language (Vol 9; pp. 135–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C.
(2007) Processability theory applied to written and oral L2 Swedish. In Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory construction and testing, (pp. 81–94).Google Scholar
(2010) Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 60, 628–650. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Pienemann, M.
(1999) A unified approach towards the development of Swedish as L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 383–420.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S.
(2002) Transfer and typological proximity in the context of L2 processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., Salameh, E.-K., & Nettelbladt, U.
(2003) Measuring language development in bilingual children: Swedish-Arabic children with and without language impairment Linguistics, 41, 255–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K.
(1983) Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1, 5–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, C., Rizzi, L., & Frauenfelder, U.
(1996) On the acquisition of subject and object clitics in French. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp. 309–334). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, C., Ohayon, S., Dub., S., Frauenfelder, U.H., Rizzi, L., Starke, M. & Zesiger, P.
(2003) Aspects of grammatical development in young French children with SLI. Developmental Science, 6 (2), 151–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, B.
(1996) Examining the processability theory: The case of adjective agreement in L2 Swedish. In E. Kellerman, B. Weltens, & T. Bongaerts (Eds.), Eurosla 6. A selection of papers. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 55(2), 75–88. Amsterdam: Anéla.Google Scholar
Hammarberg, B., & Viberg, Å.
(1977) The place-holder constraint, language typology and the teaching of Swedish to immigrants. Studia Linguistica, 31, 106–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, K., Nettelbladt, U., & Leonard, L. B. (2000) Specific language impairment in Swedish: The status of verb morphology and word order. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 848–864. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E.
(1956) Bilingualism in the Americas: A bibliography and research guide. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R.
(2001) Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A., & Platzack, C.
(1995) The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hudson, T.
(1993) Nothing does not equal zero: Problems with applying developmental sequence findings to assessment and pedagogy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 461–494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2015) Discussion: How different can perspectives on L2 development be? Language Learning, 65, 210–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Ellis, R., & Eskildsen, S.
(2015) Orders and sequences in the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax, 40 years on: An introduction to the special issue. Language Learning, 65, 1–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huter, K.
(1998) The acquisition of Japanese as a second language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
Hyltenstam, K.
(1977) Implicational patterns in interlanguage syntax variation. Language Learning, 27, 383–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1978) Variation in interlanguage syntax. In Lund University Department of Linguistics Working Papers 18. Lund, Sweden: Department of Linguistics, Lund University.Google Scholar
(1984) The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: the case of pronominal copies in relative clauses. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Second Languages: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 39–58). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Itani-Adams, Y.
(2007) One child, two languages: Bilingual first language acquisition in Japanese and English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Western Sydney.
(2009) Development of discourse functions in Japanese and English bilingual first language acquisition. In Keßler & Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages, (pp. 41–68).Google Scholar
(2011) Bilingual First Language Acquisition. In Pienemann & Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory, (pp. 121–132). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, J.
(2004) The acquisition of Japanese as a second language and Processability Theory: A longitudinal study of a naturalistic child learner. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Edith Cowan University.
Jansen, L.
(2000) Second language acquisition: From theory to data. Second Language Research, 16(1), 27–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross-sectional study in a wider theoretical context. Language Learning, 58(1), 185–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, M.
(1985) Syntactic and morphological progressions in learner English. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.Google Scholar
(1995) Stages of acquisition in Spanish as a second language. ASLA (Australian Studies in Language Acquisition), August 1995.Google Scholar
(1997) Development and variation in learner language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
Jörgensen, N.
(1976) Meningsbyggnaden i talad svenska. [Sentence structure in spoken Swedish]Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Josefsson G. (2003) Non-target structures and non-target uses in Child and Adult Swedish. In G. Josefsson, C. Platzack & G. Håkansson (Eds.), The Acquisition of Swedish Grammar (pp. 155–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Källström, R.
(2012) Svenska i kontrast. Tvärspråkliga perspektiv på svensk grammatik. [Swedish in contrast. Crosslinguistic perspectives on Swedish grammar]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S.
(2005) Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a Second Language. In Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory, (pp. 253–298). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Language typology and Processability Theory. In Keßler (Ed.), , (pp. 89–112).Google Scholar
(2010) Learning Japanese as a second language. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
(2013) The relationship between lexical and syntactic development in English as a second language. In A. Flyman Mattsson & C. Norrby (Eds.), Language acquisition and use in multilingual contexts: Theory and practice (Travaux de L’institut de Linguistique de Lund 52) (pp. 92–106). Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
(2015) The development of Japanese as a second language. In Bettoni & Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory, (pp. 149–172).Google Scholar
Keatinge, D., & Kessler, J.-U.
(2009) The acquisition of the passive voice in English as a foreign language: production and perception. In Keßler & Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages, (pp. 69–94).Google Scholar
Kempen, G.
(1998) Comparing and explaining the trajectories of first and second language acquisition: in search of the right mix of psychological and linguistic factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 29–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E.
(1987) An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J.-U.
(2006) Englischerwerb im Anfangsunterricht diagnostizieren. Linguistische Profilanalysen am Übergang von der Primarstufe in die Sekundarstufe I. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Keßler, J-U.
(2007) Assessing EFL-development online: A feasibility study of Rapid Profile. In Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory construction and testing, (pp. 119–144).Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2008a) Processability Approaches to second language development and second language learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2008b) Communicative tasks and second language profiling: Linguistic and pedagogical implications. In J. Eckerth & S. Siepmann (Eds.), Research on task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 291–310). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Keatinge, D.
(2008) Profiling oral second language development. In J.-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 165–195). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(Eds) (2009) Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Keßler, J-U., & Liebner, M.
(2011) Diagnosing L2 development: Rapid Profile. In Pienemann & Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory, (pp. 133–148). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J-U., Liebner, M., & Mansouri, F.
(2011) Teaching. In Pienemann & Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory, (pp. 149–156). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C.
(1997) The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13, 301–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M.
(2002) Adnominal possession in the European languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF), 55(2), 31-s.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1977) The Monitor model for adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 152–161). New York: Regents.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lahtinen, S.
(1993) Om nominalfrasens struktur och feltyperna en (gul) bilen och det gula bilen i finska gymnasisters inla ̈raresvenska [On noun phrase structure and the error types en (gul) bilen and det gula bilen in Finnish students’ learner Swedish]. In V. Muittari & M. Rahkonen (Eds.), Svenskan i Finland 2 (Meddelanden fra ̊n institutionen fo ̈r nordiska spra ̊k 9; pp. 85–98). Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H.
(1991) An Introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A.
(2008) Teachability and learnability: An analysis of primary school textbooks. In J.-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 222–241). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2013) The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition: The multiple constraints hypothesis (Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research and Teaching 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Exploring regularities and dynamic systems in L2 development. Language Learning, 65, 89–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B.
(1998) Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liebner, M. & Pienemann, M.
(2011) Explaining learner variation. In Pienemann, M., & Keßler. J-U. (Eds.). Studying processability theory (pp. 64–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M.
(1985) Can language acquisition be altered by instruction? In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 101–112). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1998) The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Long, M. H.
(1983) Native speaker/non- native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (Studies in Bilingualism 2) (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2015) Variability and variation in acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65, 63–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lund, K.
(1996) Communicative function and language specific structure in second language acquisition: A discussion of natural sequences of acquisition. In E. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Falster Jakobsen, M. Fortescue, P. Harder, & L. Heltoft (Eds.), Content, expression, and structure: Studies in Danish functional grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series 29) (pp. 385–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J.
(1999) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mac Whinney, B. (1993) The CHILDES project: Tools for analysing talk. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mansouri, F.
(2000) Grammatical markedness and information processing in the acquisition of Arabic as a second language. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
(2002) Exploring the interface between syntax and morphology in second lan- guage development. In Di Biase (Ed.), (pp. 59–72).Google Scholar
(2005) Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language: Typological features and their processing implications. In Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory, (pp. 117–153). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2007) Second language acquisition research: Theory construction and testing. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L.
(2005) The pedagogical effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 28, 81–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mansouri, F., & Håkansson, G.
(2007) Conceptualising intra-stage sequencing in learner language. In Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory construction and testing, (pp. 95–118).Google Scholar
McDonough, K.
(2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question formation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Medojević, L.
(2014) The effect of first year of schooling on bilingual language acquisition: A study of second and third generation Serbian-Australian 5-year-old bilingual children from processability perceptive. PhD dissertation, University of Western Sydney.
Meisel, J. M.
(1975) The language of foreign workers in Germany. Wuppertal.Google Scholar
(1977) The language of foreign workers in Germany. In C. H. Molony, H. Zobl, & W. Stolting (Eds.), Deutsch im Kontakt mit anderen Sprachen (pp. 184–212). Kronborg: Scriptor.Google Scholar
(1980) Linguistic simplification: A study of immigrant workers’ speech and foreigner talk. In S. W. Felix (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 13–40). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(1983) Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquistion (pp. 120–157). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J.
(2009) Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 28, 5–34.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M.
(2011a) Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(2), 121–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) First and second language acquisition. Parallels and differences. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M.
(1981) On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mellow, J.D.
(1996) On the primacy of theory in applied studies: A critique of Pienemann and Johnston (1987). Second Language Research, 12(3), 304–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2012) Is the heritage language like a second language? Eurosla Yearbook, 29: 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nemser, W. 1971Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9. 115–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H.
(1985) Learner variation and the teachability hypothesis. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, (pp. 177–195. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nichols, J.
(1986) Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62(1), 56–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nistov, I.
(2001) Referential Choice in L2 Narratives. A Study on Turkish Adolescent Immigrants Learning Norwegian. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo.
Norrby, C., & Håkansson, G.
(2007) The interaction of complexity and PT-level: The case of Swedish as a foreign language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 45–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noyau, C.
(1992) La temporalite´ dans le discours narratif: Construction du re´cit, construction de la langue [Temporality in narrative discourse: Construction of narrative, construction of language]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Paris VIII.
Nunan, D.
(1994) Linguistic theory and pedagogic practice. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 253–270). Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2005) For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformational lens in instructed SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 89(5), 427–445. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G., & Zedda, A.G.
(2006) Pedagogical implications of Processability Theory. Revista de Italianistica, 12, 47–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., Crago, M., & Genesee. F.
(2003) Object clitics as a clinical marker of SLI in French: Evidence from French-English bilingual children. In B. Beachley, A. Brown, & F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2; pp. 638–649). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. Crago, M. & Genesee, F.
(2007) Domain-general versus domain-specific accounts of Specific Language Impairment. Evidence from bilingual children’s acquisition of object pronouns. Language Acquisition, 13(1), 33–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perdue, C.
(1993) Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Vol I and II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1980) The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In S.W. Felix (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 41–56). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(1981) Der Zweitspracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiterkinder. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
(1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1985) Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–76). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1986) L’effetto dell’insegnamento sugli orientamenti degli apprendenti nell’acquisizione di L2. In A. Giacalone Ramat (Ed.), L’apprendimento spontaneo di una seconda lingua (pp. 307–325). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1987) Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 83–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. In G. Casper (Ed.), Classroom Research. AILA Review 5, 40–72.Google Scholar
(1989) Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 1, 52–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Assessing second language acquisition through rapid profile (LARC Occassional Papers 3).Google Scholar
(1995) Second language acquisition: A first introduction. Campbelltown, NSW: NLLIA/LARC, University of Western Sydney, Macarthur.Google Scholar
(1998a) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory (Studies in Bilingualism 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998b) Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (Studies in Bilingualism 30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) A cognitive view of Language Acquisition: Processability Theory and beyond. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp. 69–88). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Developmental schedules. In Pienemann & Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory, (pp. 3–11). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S.
(2005) Extending Processability Theory. In Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory, (pp. 199–252). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G.
(1999) A unified approach towards the development of Swedish as L2: A processability account. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 383–420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M.
(1986) An acquisition-based proceedure for second language assessment (ESL). Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 92–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying Second Language Acquisition Research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Research Centre, Adult Migrant Education Program.Google Scholar
(1996) A brief history of processing approaches to SLA: Reply to Mellow. Second Language Research, 12, 319–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G.
(1988) Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Meisel, J.
(1993) The multidimensional model, linguistic profiling, and related issues: A reply to Hudson. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 495–503. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Keßler. J-U.
(Eds.) (2011) Studying Processability Theory (Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U., & Itani Adams, Y.
(2011) Comparing levels of processability across languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 128–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. Keßler, J-U., & Roos, E.
(2006) (Eds.). Englischerwerb in der Grundschule. Ein Studien- und Arbeitsbuch. Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
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, (Vol. 2; pp. 115–259). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Mackey, A., & Thornton, I.
(1991) Rapid profile: A second language screening procedure. Language and Language Education, 1, 61–82.Google Scholar
Plag, I.
(2011) Pidgins and creoles. In Pienemann & Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory, (pp. 106–120). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C.
(2012) The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rahkonen, M.
(1993) Huvudsatsfundamentet hos finska inla ̈rare av svenska och svenska inlärare av finska[The main clause foundation among Finnish learners of Swedish and Swedish learners of Finnish]. In V. Muittari & M. Rahkonen (Eds.), Svenskan i Finland 2 (Meddelanden från institutionen fo ̈r nordiska språk 9, 199–225). Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University.Google Scholar
Rahkonen, M., & Håkansson, G.
(2008), Production of written L2-Swedish – Processability or input frequencies? In Kessler (Ed.), (pp. 135–161).Google Scholar
Restrepo, M.A., & Kruth, K.
(2000) Grammatical characteristics of a Spanish-English bilingual child with Specific Language Impairment. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21, 66–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, J.
(1985) Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Harlow: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J.
(2009) Understanding the nature of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 155–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27(1), 107–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., & Treffers-Daller, J.
(2014) A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too! Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 93–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, H.
(2008) An analysis of Japanese university students’ oral performance in English using Processability Theory. System, 36, 534–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salameh, E.–K.
(2003) Language impairment in Swedish bilingual children – epidemiological and linguistic studies. Diss. Dept of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, Lund University. Lund: StudentlitteraturGoogle Scholar
Salameh, E.-K., Håkansson, G., & Nettelbladt, U.
(1996) The acquisition of Swedish as a second language in a group of Arabic-speaking pre-school children: Word order patterns and phrasal morphology. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 21, 163–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salameh, E.-K., Håkansson, G. & Nettelbladt, U.
(2004) Developmental perspectives on bilingual Swedish-Arabic children with and without language impairment: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 1, 65–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sayehli, S.
(2013) Developmental perspectives on transfer in L3 acquisition (Travaux de L’institut de Linguistique de Lund 51). Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Schönström, K.
(2014) Visual acquisition of Swedish in deaf children. An L2 Processability approach. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(1), 61–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J.
(1975) Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25, 209–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1978) The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Senecal, A.
(2011) Processing the L2 comprehension process: Processability Theory’s prediction in an ERP study of adult learners of L2 Swedish. Unpublished MA thesis. Lund University.
Sayehli, S.
(2013) Developmental perspectives on transfer in L3 acquisition (Travaux de L’institut de Linguistique de Lund 51). Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M.
(1994) Second language acquisition: Theoretical foundations. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Siegel, J.
(2008) The emergence of pidgin & creole languages. Oxford. OUP.Google Scholar
Spinner, P.
(2011) Second language assessment and morphosyntactic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 529–561. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Language production and reception: A Processability Theory study. Language Learning, 63, 704–739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P.
(1999) Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83. 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stauble, A. M.
(1984) A comparison of a Spanish-English and Japanese-English second language continuum: negation and verb morphology. In R. Anderson (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Stavrakaki, S., Chrysomallis, M-A., & Petraki, E.
(2011) Subject–verb agreement, object clitics and wh-questions in bilingual French–Greek SLI: The case study of a French– Greek-speaking child with SLI. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 25(5), 339–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tenfjord, K.
(1997) Å ha en fortid på vietnamesisk. En kasusstudie av fire vietnamesiske språkinnlärares utviklning av grammatisk fortidreferense og perfektum. Unpublished PhD disertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Thorvaldsdottir, S. & Gardarsdottor, M.
(2007) V2 in Icelandic as a second language. In C. Carlsen & E. Moe, (Eds.), A human touch to language testing. A collection of essays in honour of Reidun Oanæs Andersen on the occasion of her retirement June 2007 (pp. 209–220). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Ulmann, M.T.
(2015) The Declarative/Procedural Model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 34–158). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
van de Craats, I., Corver, N., & van Hoet, R.
(2000) Conservation of grammatical knowledge: On the acquisition of possessive noun phrases by Turkish and Moroccan learners of Dutch. Linguistics, 38(2), 221–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W.
(2011) Variability and DST. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development. Methods and techniques (Language Learning & Language Teaching 29) (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Patten, B. & Williams, J.
(Eds.) 2014Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 54–74). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å.
(1991) En longitudinell djupstudie av språkutvecklingen. Utvärdering av skolförberedelsegrupper i Rinkeby. [A longitudinal studie of language development. Evaluation of school preparation in Rinkeby] Report 4. Center for Research in Bilingualism Stockholm University.
Vygotsky, L.
(1962) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yager, J. (2010) Processbarhet = Producerbarhet? Processbarhet inom förståelse och produktion [Processability = producerability? Processability in comprehension and production]. BA thesis, Lund University.
Yamaguchi, Y.
(2008) The early syntactic development in child L2 acquisition: What happens after “canonical order”? In Keßler (Ed.). Processability Approaches to second language development and second language learning, (pp. 247–268).Google Scholar
(2009) The development of plural marking and plural agreement in child English L2 Acquisition. In Keßler & Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages, (pp. 9–39).Google Scholar
(2010) The acquisition of English as a second language by a Japanese primary school child: A longitudinal study from a Processability Theory perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Western Sydney.
Yip, V. & Matthews, S.
(2007) The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. F.
(2009) Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., & Lantoff, J. P.
(2015) Natural or artificial? Is the route of L2 development teachable? Language Learning, 65, 152–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y.
(2001) Second language acquisition of Chinese grammatical morphemes: A Processability Theory perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
(2002) A processability approach to L2 acquisition of Chinese grammatical morphemes. In Di Biase (ed.), Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish, (pp. 29–44).Google Scholar
(2004) Processing constraints, categorical analysis, and second language acquisition of the Chinese adjective suffix de (ADJ). Language Learning, 54, 437–468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. 199–252). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Testing the Topic Hypothesis: The L2 acquisition of Chinese syntax. In Mansouri (ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory construction and testing, (pp. 145–172).Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Widyastuti, I.
(2010) Acquisition of L2 English morphology: A family case study. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 29.1–29.17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Arntzen, Ragnar, Gisela Håkansson, Arnstein Hjelde & Jörg-U. Keßler
2019.  In Teachability and Learnability across Languages [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 6],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Dyson, Bronwen Patricia
2019.  In Teachability and Learnability across Languages [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 6],  pp. 71 ff. Crossref logo
Garðarsdóttir, María & Sigríður Þorvaldsdóttir
2020. A processability approach to the development of case in L2 Icelandic. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 11:1  pp. 68 ff. Crossref logo
Håkansson, Gisela
2019.  In Teachability and Learnability across Languages [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 6],  pp. 27 ff. Crossref logo
Schenck, Andrew
2020. Examining the influence of native and non-native English-speaking teachers on Korean EFL writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 5:1 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2020. 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.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFDC – Language acquisition
BISAC Subject: LAN020000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Study & Teaching
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2016057191 | Marc record