Cover not available
Part of
Teachability and Learnability across Languages
Edited by Ragnar Arntzen, Gisela Håkansson, Arnstein Hjelde and Jörg-U. Keßler
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 6] 2019
► pp. 27–49

Chapter 2
How much English do children know before they are exposed to instruction?

Applying Processability Theory to receptive grammar

 | Østfold University College
This study investigates how much English Swedish-speaking children are able to extract from media prior to the instruction of English that takes place in school. The participants are 41 Swedish-speaking, 7 to 8-year-old children in grades 1 and 2. Their receptive knowledge of English grammar and vocabulary is tested using two picture-pointing tasks. For grammar, the ELIAS Grammar test is used (Kersten et al. 2010). Three morphological structures (plural -s, possessive -s and 3rd person singular -s) are targeted and analysed through the lens of Processability Theory (PT; Pienemann 1998, 2015). For vocabulary, the BVPS is used (Dunn et al. 1997). The results on grammar confirm the processability hierarchy predicted in PT, with a few exceptions. The remarks from the children reveal that they are able to discuss the linguistic forms and also give declarative rules. No signs of transfer from the L1 are found in the comprehension of morphology. However, the results on vocabulary indicate that the children use transfer. They rely on cognates and also on L1 phonology when trying to guess the meaning of the L2 words.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammatical development: PT
    • 2.1PT and transfer
  • 3.Vocabulary acquisition
  • 4.The present study
    • 4.1Aim and research questions
    • 4.2Method and materials
      • 4.2.1The ELIAS grammar test
      • 4.2.2The BPVS vocabulary test
    • 4.3Data collection procedure and analyses
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Mean scores
      • 5.1.1Scores on the grammar test – compared with the preschool children’s ELIAS scores
      • 5.1.2Scores on the BPVS II vocabulary test
    • 5.2Grammar – did the children follow the PT stages?
  • 6.How do Swedish children react when asked to perform a test on English? Are they “fearless”?
    • 6.1Metalinguistic comments
    • 6.2Chunk use
    • 6.3“Listening in Swedish”
  • 7.Discussion
  • Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 6 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.6.02hak
References (66)
References
Anderson, S. R. 2008. The English “group-genitive” is a special clitic. English Linguistics 25(1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anisfeld, M. & Tucker, G. R. 1967. English pluralization rules of six-year-old children. Child Development 38: 1201–2017Google Scholar
Benson, P. 2011. Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An introduction to the field. In Beyond the Language Classroom, P. Benson & H. Reinders (eds), 7–16. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional Syntax. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds). 2015. Grammatical Development in Second Language: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory [Eurosla Monograph Series 3]. Paris: Eurosla.Google Scholar
Buyl, A., & Housen, A. 2015. Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account. Second Language Research 31(4): 523–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. E. 2001. Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 25]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe, 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Language, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language, 2nd edn, Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. 2001. Listening to a second language through the ears of a first. Interpreting 5: 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Native Listening. Language Experience and the Recognition of Spoken Words. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Danish Ministry of Education. 2004. Fælles Mål for Engelsk 2 (Curriculum for English).Google Scholar
Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S. & Yamaguchi, Y. 2015. The development of English as a second language. In Bettoni & Di Biase (eds), 85–116.Google Scholar
Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. F. 1995. Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory and Cognition 23: 166–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L., Whetton, C. & Burley, J. 1997. The British Picture Vocabulary Scale II. Windsor: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Dyson, B. 2009. Processability Theory and the role of morphology in ESL development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research 25: 355–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyson, B. & Håkansson, G. 2017. Understanding Second Language Processing. With a Focus on Processability Theory [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Beaton, A. 1993. Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning 43: 559–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucart, A., Ruiz-Tada, E. & Costa, A. 2015. How do you know I was about to say “book”? Anticipation processes affect speech processing and lexical recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30: 768–780. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. 2012. Digital games and libraries. Knowledge Quest 41: 60–64.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Schoonjans, E., Janssens, S., Welcomme, A., Schoonheere, E. & Pierrard, M. 2011. Conceptualizing and measuring the impact of contextual factors in instructed SLA – The role of language prominence. IRAL 49: 83–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. 2013. A cognitive analysis of John’s hat. In Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 199], K. Börjars, D. Denison & A. Scott (eds), 149–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaatinen, R. & Saarivirta, T. 2014. The evolution of English language teaching during societal transition in Finland – A mutual relationship or a distinctive process? Australian Journal of Teacher Education 39(11): 29–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kersten, K., Piske, T., Rohde, A., Steinlen, A. K., Weitz, M., Kurth, S. 2010. ELIAS Grammar Test. Universität Magdeburg: ELIAS. <[URL]>
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2003. Possessive noun phrases in the languages of Europe. In Noun phrase Structures in the Languages of Europe, F. Plank (ed.), 621–722. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kuppens, A. H. 2010. Incidental foreign language acquisition from media exposure. Learning, Media and Technology 35(1): 65–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuure, L. 2011. Places for learning: Technology-mediated language learning practices beyond the classroom. In Beyond the Language Classroom, P. Benson & H. Reinders (eds), 35–46. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. & Yanez, M. C. 2003. Talking yourself into Spanish: Private speech and second language learning. Hispania 86: 97–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B. & Nation, P. 1999. A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing 16(1): 33–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lefever, S. 2010. English skills of young learners in Iceland. “I started talking English when I was 4 years old. It just bang… just fall into me”. Rá∂stefnurit Netlu – Menntakvika Háskóla Islands, 1–17.Google Scholar
Lindgren, E. & Munoz, C. 2013. The influence of exposure, parents, and linguistic distance on young European learners’ foreign language comprehension. International Journal of Multilingualism 10(1): 105–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds), 413–468. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lundberg, G. 2007. Developing teachers of young learners: In-service for educational change and improvement. In Teaching Modern Languages to Young Learners, Teachers, Curricula and Materials, M. Nikolov, J. M. Djigunovic, G. Lundberg, T. Flanagan & M. Mattheoudakis (eds), 21–34. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. 2003. Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6: 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J.-R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A. & Costa, A. 2013. Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers do. Journal of Memory and Language 69: 574–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, A. 2011. Awareness and affordances: Multilinguals versus bilinguals and their perception of cognates. In New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research, G. De Angelis & J. M. Dewaele (eds), 1–18. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Palmberg, R. 1985. How much English vocabulary do Swedish-speaking primary-school pupils know before starting to learn English at school? In Foreign Language Learning and Bilingualism, H. Ringbom (ed.), 2–10. Publications of the Research Institute of ÅBO Akademi Foundation NR 105.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. 1998. Language Processing and Language Development: Processability Theory [Studies in Bilingualism 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2005. Cross-linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory [Studies in Bilingualism 30]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. A cognitive view of language acquisition: Processability Theory and beyond. In Conceptualising ‘Learning’ in Applied Linguistics, P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh & C. Jenks (eds), 69–88. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning 65: 123–151. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. 1987. Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Applying Second Language Acquisition Research, D. Nunan (ed.), 45–141. Adelaide: National Curriculum Research Centre, Adult Migrant Education Program.Google Scholar
Piirainen-Marsch, A. & Tainio, L. 2009. Other-repetition as a resource for participation in the activity of playing a video game. The Modern Language Journal 93: 153–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piske, T. & Young-Scholten, M. 2008. Input Matters in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. 2014. The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal: 1–18.Google Scholar
Rohde, A. 2010. Receptive L2 lexical knowledge in bilingual preschool children. In Bilingual Preschools, Vol. I: Learning and Development, K. Kersten, A. Rohde, C. Schelletter & A. Steinlen (eds), 45–68. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Rubin, J. 1975. What the ‘‘good language learner’’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9: 41–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savijärvi, M. & Seppänen, E. L. 2010. Recycling the teacher’s words. In Proceedings from the Second International Interdisciplinary Conference on Perspectives and Limits of Dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin, K. Junefelt & P. Nordin (eds), 216–225. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research 12: 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Söderström, P., Horne, M., Frid, J. & Roll, M. 2016. Pre-Activation Negativity (PrAN) in brain potentials to unfolding words. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10/512.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, P. 2009. Extramural English Matters. Out-of-school English and its Impact on Swedish Ninth Graders’ Oral Proficiency and Vocabulary. PhD dissertation, Karlstad University.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, P. & Sylvén, L. K. 2014a. How Swedish children learn English through gaming. The conversation. <[URL]>
2014b. Language-related computer use: Focus on young L2 English learners in Sweden. ReCALL 26(1): 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinlen, A. K., Håkansson, G., Housen, A. & Schelletter, C. 2010. Receptive L2 grammar knowledge development in bilingual preschools. In Bilingual Preschools, Vol. I: Learning and Development, K. Kersten, A. Rohde, C. Schelletter & A. Steinlen (eds), 69–100. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Input in Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass & D. Madden (eds), 234–254. Boston MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swedish Media Council. 2015. Ungar och medier 2015 [Kids and Media 2015]. <[URL]>
Sylvén, L. K. 2004. Teaching in English or English teaching? On the effects of content and language intergrated learning on Swedish learners' incidental vocabulary acquisition. PhD dissertation Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
2013. CLIL in Sweden – why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16(3): 301–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sylvén, L. K. & Ohlander, S. 2014. The CLISS project: Receptive vocabulary in CLIL versus non-CLIL groups. Moderna språk 2014(2): 80–114.Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. K. & Sundqvist, P. 2012. Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL 24: 302–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turgut, Y. & Pelin Irgin, P. 2009. Young learners’ language learning via computer games. Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences 1: 760–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Arntzen, Ragnar & Gisela Håkansson
2024. Multilingualism among children, age 7–12, typological representation and language use pattern in a medium-sized town in Norway. International Journal of Multilingualism 21:2 ► pp. 628 ff. DOI logo
Mohamed Salleh, Rabiah Tul Adawiyah, Bruno Di Biase & Satomi Kawaguchi
2024. The onset of English lexical acquisition among Malaysian preschoolers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 45:6 ► pp. 2097 ff. DOI logo
Schmiderer, Katrin & Barbara Hinger
2023. L’INTERLINGUA PRODUTTIVA E RICETTIVA DI STUDENTI DI ITALIANO LS IN UN CONTESTO DI SCUOLA SECONDARIA AUSTRIACA. Italiano LinguaDue 15:2 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Keßler, Jörg‐U. & Anke Lenzing
2022. Grammar in Foreign and Second Language Classes. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 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.