Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 6:4 (2016) ► pp.341–395
Article

Variation, individual differences and second language processing

A Processability Theory study

| University of Sydney
Research on second language acquisition has located individual variation, without clarifying whether language processing prompts learners to differ systematically in the production of syntax and morphology. To address this issue, the study examined the hypothesis on variation in Processability Theory. This theory predicts that, within second language development, individual learners vary systematically in how they respond to developmental conflicts. Specifically, learners have distinct types, which are evident in their use of options and 'trailers' (structures which emerge late). Longitudinal spoken data were collected over one academic year from six adolescent ESL learners. The results revealed different learner types in terms of syntactic options and trailers. However, the learners had less clear types for the morphological options, used unpredicted options, and lacked consistency in their use of syntactic and morphological trailers. The paper suggests that learners vary in processing due to diverse orientations towards the acquisition of either syntax or morphology.
Keywords: Processability Theory, variation, language processing, English as a Second Language, syntax, morphology
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Individual variation and differences in second language acquisition
  • 2.Processability Theory: The variational hypothesis
    • 3.1ESL development
    • 3.2The variational hypothesis
      • 3.2.1Theoretical background and aim
      • 3.2.2The variational options
      • 3.2.3Developmental conflicts and structure dependency
      • 3.2.4Empirical support
      • 3.2.5Trailers
      • 3.2.6Learner type
  • 4.The study
    • 4.1Research questions
    • 4.2Participants and design
    • 4.3Data analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Omission, violation and avoidance
      • 5.1.1Syntactic options: omission, violation and avoidance
      • 5.1.2Morphological options: violation and avoidance
      • 5.1.3Summary of the findings for syntactic and morphological options
    • 5.2Other options
    • 5.3Trailers
    • 5.4Overview of the results
  • 6.Discussion of results
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.14007.dys
References (50)
References
Ando, J., Fukunaga, N., Kurahashi, J., Suto, T., Nakano, T., & Kage, M. (1992). A comparative study of the two EFL teaching methods: The communicative and grammatical approach. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 401, 247–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2006). Interlanguage development: Main Routes and individual paths. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dörnyei (eds.), Themes in SLA research: AILA Review, 191, 42–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R. & Preston, D.R. (2008). Variation and second language grammars. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 11, 285–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. J. Meisel & M. Pienemann (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache, Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Collins Cobuild English Grammar (1990). London and Glasgow: Collins.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1998). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics 4th Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 21, 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dörnyei (eds.), Themes in SLA research. AILA Review, 191, 42–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B. and Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 181, 272–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyson, B. (2004). Developmental style in second language processing: A study of inter-learner variation in the acquisition of English as a Second Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
(2008). What we can learn from questions: Question development and its implications for language development. Prospect, 231, 16–27.Google Scholar
(2009). Processability Theory and the role of morphology in ESL development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research, 251, 355–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Learner language analytic methods and pedagogical implications. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33.31, 30.1–30.21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G. Pienemann, Pienemann & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 181, 250–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G. & Norrby C. (2010). Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing Second and Foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 601, 628–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen Edwards, J. G. (2011). Deletion of /t, d/ and the acquisition of linguistic variation by Second Language Learners of English. Language Learning, 611, 1256–1301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, M. (1997). Development and variation in learner language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Australian National University, Australia.Google Scholar
Keatinge, D. & Keßler, J-U.. (2009). The acquisitiion of the passive voice in English as a Foreign Language: production and perception. In J-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp.69-94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kersten, K. (2009). Profiling child ESL acquisition: Practical and methodological issues. In J-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (ed.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mansouri, F. (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. 117–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 271, 79–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J.M. (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
Meisel, J.M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 109–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. (2012). Individual variation and constraints on language learning. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 21, 281–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). A cognitive view of Language Acquisition: Processability Theory and beyond. In Seedhouse P Walsh S and Jenks C (eds.) Conceptualising 'learning' in applied linguistics (pp. 69&88). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Learner variation. In M. Pienemann & J-U Keßler (eds.) Studying Processability Theory (pp. 12&26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 651, 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability Theory. In Pienemann M (ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199&252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (ed.), Applying Second Language Acquisition Research (p. 45&141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Research Centre, Adult Migrant Education Program.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Keßler. J-U. (ed.) (2011). Studying Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 62: Suppl. 2, 172–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryding, K. C. (2005). A reference grammar for Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sakai, H. (2008). An analysis of Japanese university students´ oral performance in English using Processability Theory. System, 361, 534–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sekerina, I. (2012). We need an integrated, multiple-predictor model of native language proficiency. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 21, 304–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. & Parrish, B. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage. Language Learning, 381, 21–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A. & Young Scholten, M. (2011). The acquisition of German: Introducing organic grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The straight and narrow path. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 21, 319–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, M. Verspoor, M. & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot & W. Lowie (ed.), A dynamic approach to second language development (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinrich, U. Labov, W. & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp. 95–188). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Y. (2008). The early syntactic development in child L2 acquisition: What happens after “canonical order”?. In J-U. Keßler (ed.), Processability approaches to Second Language development and Second Language learning (pp. 247–268). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2009). The development of plural marking and plural agreement in child English L2 Acquisition. In J-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (ed.), Research in Second Language Acquisition: empirical evidence across languages (pp. 9–39). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.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. 199–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Dyson, Bronwen
2023. SLA as complex, dynamical and predictable: A Processability Theory perspective. Second Language Research 39:4 ► pp. 1279 ff. DOI logo
Dyson, Bronwen Patricia
2019. Chapter 4. Are speech and writing teachable?. In Teachability and Learnability across Languages [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 6], ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Understanding Second Language Processing [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 4], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Dynamic Variation in Second Language Acquisition [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 8], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.