Article published in:
Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory
Edited by Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman and Mieke Van Herreweghe
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 4] 2015
► pp. 139–168

Chapter 7. Studying Receptive Grammar Acquisition within a PT Framework

A Methodological Exploration

| Vrije Universiteit Brussel
This paper deals with the applicability of Processability Theory to receptive grammar acquisition. To date, PT has been defined and investigated as a theory of oral language production – based on the psycholinguistic mechanisms that form the basis of the theory. The receptive side of grammar acquisition has received scant attention – in spite of the relevance of such an undertaking for our understanding of (developmental stages in) L2 grammar acquisition. The present paper presents an exploratory study on the applicability of PT to receptive grammar acquisition. Given the relative novelty of this undertaking, considerable attention will be given to the theoretical and methodological issues that arise in exploring this direction in Processability research – in particular those that follow from the concepts of feature unification and emergence, which are central to PT. Subsequently, an exploratory study on the receptive acquisition of English morphology among adult learners of English as a second language (ESL) is conducted. For this study, a self-paced reading task was used to look at learners’ online receptive processing skills of (stage 2, category procedure) genitive -s and past tense -ed, (stage 3, phrasal agreement) plural -s agreement, (stage 4, VP agreement) have + past participle agreement and be + -ing form agreement, and (stage 5, S-procedure) subject-verb agreement 3SGs-s. The self-paced reading task compared learners’ reaction times when processing grammatical sentence segments to their reaction time when processing ungrammatical sentence segments. A significant delay in reaction time when processing ungrammatical items was considered evidence that learners were able to process the targeted morphological phenomenon. Group results and implicational scaling results of the self-paced reading task did not chime with PT. This would suggest that receptive and productive grammar acquisition are independent processes that are (partially) governed by different mechanisms and hence result in different developmental patterns. This conclusion, however, is only a tentative one at this stage. Some methodological issues that may have affected the data are discussed.
Published online: 11 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.4.07buy
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Buyl, Aafke
2019.  In Widening Contexts for Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 7], ► pp. 73 ff. Crossref logo
Lenzing, Anke
2019.  In Widening Contexts for Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 7], ► pp. 13 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 june 2021. 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.

References

References

Ågren, M.
(2009) Morphological development in Swedish L2 learners of French: Discussing the processability perspective. In J.-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 121-151). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Al Shatter, G.
(2008) The development of verbal structures in L2 Arabic. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), A brief introduction to processability theory (pp. 267-302). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google 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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buyl, A., & Housen, A.
(2013) Testing the applicability of PT to receptive grammar knowledge in early immersion education. Theoretical considerations, methodological challenges and some empirical results. In A. Flyman Mattsson & C. Norrby (Eds.), Language acquisition and use in multilingual contexts. Theory and practice (pp. 13-27). Lund: Travaux de l’Institut de linguistique de Lund.Google Scholar
(2015) Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account. Second Language Research, 31(4), 523-550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., & Marinis, T.
(2012) Production and processing asymmetries in the acquisition of tense morphology by sequential bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(Special Issue 01), 5-21.Google Scholar
De Jong, N.
(2005) Can second language grammar be learned through listening? An experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 205-234. CrossrefGoogle 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), 274-302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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), 355-379. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Learner language analytic methods and pedagogical implications. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 30.1-30.21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2009) Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, Testing and teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Fernández, E.M., & Cairns, H.S.
(2011) Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C.
(1986) The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B.., et al.
(2001) Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 389-416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J.M., & DeKeyser, R.M.
(2001) Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A.
(2012) Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28(2), 191-215. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C.
(2007) Processability Theory applied to written and oral L2 Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81-94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Han, Y.
(2000) Grammaticality judgment tests: How reliable and valid are they? Applied Language Learning, 11(1), 177-204.Google Scholar
Hatch, E.M., & Farhady, H.
(1982) Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E.M., & Lazaraton, A.
(1991) The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Howell, D.C.
(2010) Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, J.
(2008) Acquiring Japanese as a second language (JSL) in a naturalistic context. A longitudinal study of a young child from a Processability Theory (PT) perspective. In J. Philp, R. Oliver & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play? (pp. 231-253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C.N.
(2008) Processing strategies and the comprehension of sentence-level input by L2 learners of German. System, 36, 388-406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K.., et al.
(2011) Morphological congruency and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61(3), 940-967. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, V.E., de Villiers, J.G., & Seymour, H.N.
(2005) Agreement without understanding? The case of third person singular /s/. First Language, 25(3), 317-330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keatinge, D., & Keßler, J.-U.
(2009) The acquisition 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. 41-68). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E.
(1987) An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11(2), 201-258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Liebner, M.
(2011) Diagnosing L2 development: Rapid Profile. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An introductory textbook (pp. 133-148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2002) Making sense of frequency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 275-285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luck, S.J.
(2005) An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marinis, T.
(2003) Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19(2), 144-161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2009) Sequences and processes in language learning. In M.H. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language learning (pp. 81-108). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361-382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pearlmutter, N.J., Garnsey, S.M., & Bock, K.
(1999) Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 427-456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A.T.
(2005) Number problems in children. In C. Gurski (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference.
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005a) An introduction to processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 1-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005b) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Processability theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 137-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2011 a) Explaining developmental schedules. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying processability theory: An introductory textbook (pp. 50-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011 b) The psycholinguistic basis of PT. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An introductory textbook (pp. 27- 49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S.
(2005) Extending processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199-252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rahkonen, M., & Håkansson, G.
(2008) Production of written L2-Swedish - processability or input frequencies? In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 135-164). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Rickford, J.R.
(2002) Implicational scales. In K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 142-167). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roberts, L.
(2012) Review article: Psycholinguistic techniques and resources in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 28(1), 113 -127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J.
(2011) Proficiency and animacy effects on L2 gender agreement processes during comprehension. Language Learning, 61(1), 80-116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, C., & Miller, K.
(2010) Using comprehension methods in language acquisition research. In E. Blom & S. Unsworth (Eds.), Experimental methods in language acquisition research (pp. 35-56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, P.
(2013) Language production and reception: A Processability Theory study. Language Learning, 63(4), 704-739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steinlen, A.K., Håkansson, G., Housen, A.., et al.
(2010) Receptive L2 grammar knowledge development in bilingual preschools. In K. Kersten, A. Rohde, C. Schelletter, et al. (Eds.), Bilingual preschools, Volume 1: Language and development (pp. 69-100). Trier: Wissenschaftliger Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & Warren, T.
(2010) Beginning adult L2 learners’ sensitivity to morphosyntactic violations: A self-paced reading study. European Journal of Cognitive Psychcology, 22(7), 1092-1107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Garnsey, S.M.
(1994) Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S.
(2005) Child L2, adult L2, child L1: Differences and similarities. A study on the acquisition of direct object scrambling in Dutch. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Van Gompel, R., & Pickering, M.J.
(2007) Syntactic parsing. In G. Gatskil (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 289-307). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar