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. 71–93

Chapter 4
Are speech and writing teachable?

Re-examining developmental constraints on pedagogy

| The University of Sydney
Does the teachability hypothesis (Pienemann 1984, 1989) apply to spoken and written L2 English questions? Given varied findings on this issue, the present chapter reports on a study of 20 postgraduate students, divided into experimental and comparison groups. The experimental group, which comprised ‘unready’ (stage X), ‘ready’ (stage X+1) and stage X+2 students, was taught X+2 question formation. This group’s post-test results demonstrated overall differences from the comparison group and that, in both skills, the ready learners moved up a stage and one unready learner did not. However, two of the experimental group’s unready students advanced two stages in both skills. The spoken and written results imply that instruction cannot make learners skip stages but may help unready learners progress.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1PT
    • 2.2PT’s ESL question stages
    • 2.3The TH
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Tasks and elicitation
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.5Analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Pre-test results
    • 4.2Post-test results
    • 4.3Other analyses
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.6.04dys
References (33)
References
Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds). 2015. Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory [EUROSLA Monographs Series 3]. Paris: Eurosla.Google Scholar
Bonilla, C. 2015. Instructing stages of processability theory in L2 Spanish: Next or next + 1? In Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 4], K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman & M. Van Herreweghe (eds), 205–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boss, B. 1996. German grammar for beginners – the Teachability Hypothesis and its relevance to the classroom. In Who’s Afraid of Teaching Grammar – Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, C. Arbonés Solá, J. Rolin-Ianziti & R. Sussex (eds), 1: 93–103.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. & Wechsler, S. 2015. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1984. The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In Second Languages, R. Andersen (ed.), 143–186. Rowley MA: Newbury House.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: 274–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyson, B. 1996. A teacher’s perspective on form-focused instruction. Australian Studies in Language Acquisition 3: 1–15.Google Scholar
2008. What we can learn from questions: Question development and its implications for language development. Prospect 23: 16–27.Google Scholar
2009. Processability Theory and the role of morphology in ESL development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research 25: 355–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Are pathway students prepared for effective university preparation? A case student of an international student cohort. Journal of Academic Language and Learning 8: 28–42.Google Scholar
2016. Variation, individual differences and second language processing: A Processability Theory study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6: 341–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyson, B. & Håkansson, G. 2017. Understanding Second Language Processing: A Focus on Processability Theory [Bilingual Processing & Acquisition 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. 2009. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Farley, A. & McCollum, K. 2004. Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: Processability Theory on trial. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 40: 47–69.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. & Norrby, C. 2007. Processability Theory applied to written and oral L2 Swedish. In Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-construction and Testing, F. Mansouri (ed.), 81–94. Newcaste upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
2010. Environmental influence on language acquisition: comparing Second and Foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning 60: 628–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., Liebner, M. & Mansouri, F. 2011. Teaching. In Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 1], M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (eds), 149–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. 1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings. The Modern Language Journal 82: 338–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mansouri, F. & Duffy, L. 2005. The pedagogical effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 28: 81–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mansouri, F. & Håkansson, G. 2007. Conceptualising intra-stage sequencing in the learner language. In Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-construction and Testing, F. Mansouri (ed.), 119–145. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints on the teachability of language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6: 186–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics 10: 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory [Studies in Bilingualism 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Language processing capacity. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, C. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds), 679–714. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2005. Cross-linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory [Studies in Bilingualism 30]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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., Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. 2005. Extending Processability Theory. In Pienemann (ed.), 199–252.Google Scholar
Sakai, H. 2008. An analysis of Japanese university students’ oral performance in English using Processability Theory. System 36: 534–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. 1999. Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 83: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X. & Lantoff, J. P. 2015. Natural or artificial? Is the route of L2 development teachable? Language Learning 65: 152–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. 1985. Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning 33: 293–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Dyson, Bronwen, Gisela Håkansson & Kirrie J. Ballard
2022. A Developmental Approach to Assessing and Treating Agrammatic Aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 31:3 ► pp. 1188 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
[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 27 july 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.