Chapter published in:
Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues
Edited by Anke Lenzing, Howard Nicholas and Jana Roos
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 7] 2019
► pp. 13–48

Towards an integrated model of grammatical encoding and decoding in SLA

| Paderborn University
In this chapter, I consider the interface between production and comprehension in second language acquisition (SLA). I argue that the two processes rely on (partially) shared resources and propose an integrated encoding-decoding model of SLA. The core of the model is a single syntactic processor underlying both second language (L2) grammatical encoding and decoding. The model also includes a means of accounting for the interaction of shared grammatical resources and key semantic aspects such as lexical semantics and event probability on the comprehension process. My claims are tested in an empirical study focussing on the L2 acquisition of English passive constructions by 24 learners with an L1 German background at different stages of L2 acquisition. The results of the data analysis provide support for the notion of a single syntactic processor in L2 acquisition.
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.02len
References

References

Akers, G.
(1981) Phonological variation in the Jamaican continuum. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W.
(1978) An implicational model for second language research. Language Learning 28(2), 221–282.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J. N.
(1973a) Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
(1973b) The patterning of linguistic variation. In R. Bailey & J. Robinson (Eds.). Varieties of present-day English (pp. 156–187). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C., Devescovi, A., Natale, F., & V. Venza
(1984) A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development 55(2), 341–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R.
(1999) The primacy of aspect hypothesis revisited: Evidence from language shift. Southwest Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2), 1–22.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G.
(1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.
(1971) Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language 7(4), 457–492.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.
(1973) The nature of a creole continuum. Language 49(3), 640–669.Google Scholar
Bloom, L.
(1974) Talking, understanding, and thinking. In R. L. Schiefelbusch & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives: Acquisition, retardation and intervention (pp. 285–311). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J.
(2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buyl, A.
(2015) Studying receptive grammar acquisition within a PT framework. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.). Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 139–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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 Mattson & C. Norrby (Eds.), Language acquisition and use in multilingual contexts (pp. 13–27). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(2015) Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account. Second Language Research 31(4), 523–550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R. S., & Kohn, L. L.
(1978) Comprehension strategies in two- and three-year-olds: Animate agents or probable events? Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 21(4), 746–761. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R. S., & Miller, J. F.
(1975) Word order in early two and three word utterances: Does production precede comprehension? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 18, 355–371.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C.
(2006) Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1), 3–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V.
(1980) Here's the top: Nonlinguistic strategies in the acquisition of orientational terms. Child Development 51(2), 329–338.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Malt, B. C.
(1984) Psychological constraints on language: A commentary on Bresnan and Kaplan and on Givón. In W. Kintsch, J. R. Miller, & P. G. Polson (Eds.), Methods and tactics in cognitive science (pp. 191–214). Hilldsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
DeCamp, D.
(1971) Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. In D. Hymes (Ed.). Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 349–370). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Di Biase, B.
(2008) Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.). Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 197–219). Newcastle UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N.
(1980) Ordering adult learners according to language abilities. In S. Felix (Ed.). Second language development (pp. 205–231). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Edwards, A.
(1948) On Guttman's scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 8(3–1), 313–318.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2008) Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1), 4–22.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V.
(2002) Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11(1), 11–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, M.
(2000) Remarks on the architecture of language processing systems. In Y. Grodzinsky & L. Shapiro (Eds.), Language and the brain: Representation and processing (pp. 31–69). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, W. H.
(1944) A technique for scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 4(3), 179–190.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. A.
(1944) A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review 9(2), 139–150.Google Scholar
(1950) The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer, L. A. Guttman, E. A. Suchman, P. F. Lazarsfeld, S. A. Star, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.). Studies in social psychology in World War II: Vol. 4. Measurement and prediction (pp. 60–90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K.
(1982) Interaction between particles and word order in the comprehension of simple sentences in Japanese children. Developmental Psychology 18(1), 62–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, F.
(1998) Acquisition of the passive. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 23(2), 63–70.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A.
(1991) The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ingram, D.
(1974) The relationship between comprehension and production. In R. Schiefelbusch & L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives: Acquisition, retardation, and intervention (pp. 313–334). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Itani-Adams, Y.
(2007) Lexical and grammatical development in Japanese-English bilingual first language acquisition. In F. Mansouri (Ed.). Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 173–198). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Izumi, S., & U. Lakshmanan
(1998) Learnability, negative evidence and the L2 acquisition of the English passive. Second Language Research 14(1), 62–101.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S.
(2008) Language typology and Processability Theory. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 89–112). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2016) Question constructions, argument mapping, and vocabulary development in English L2 by Japanese speakers: A cross-sectional study. In J.-U. Keßler, A. Lenzing, & M. Liebner (Eds.). Developing, modelling and assessing second languages (pp. 35–64). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keatinge, D., & Keßler, J.-U.
(2009) The acquisition of the passive voice in L2-English: Perception and production. In J.-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 69–94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Pienemann, M.
(2011) Research methodology - how we know about developmental schedules. In M. Pienemann, & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.). Studying Processability Theory. An introductory textbook (pp. 83–96). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kempen, G.
(2000) Could grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding be subserved by the same processing module? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23(1), 38–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempen, G., Olsthoorn, N., & Sprenger, S.
(2012) Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: Evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(3), 345–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kersten, K., Rohde, A., Schelletter, C., & Steinlen, A. K.
(Eds.). (2010) Bilingual preschools, Volume 1: Learning and development. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
(1973) The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C.-J. Bailey, & R. W. Schuy (Eds.). New ways of analysing variation in English (pp. 340–373). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lameli, A.
(2004) Hierarchies of dialect features in a diachronic view - implicational scaling of real time data. In B.-L. Gunnarsson, L. Bergström, G. Eklund, S. Fridell, & L. H. Hansen (Eds.). Language variation in Europe. Papers from the second international conference on language variation in Europe (ICLaVE 2), Uppsala-University, Sweden, June 12–14, 2003 (pp. 253–266). Uppsala: University Press.Google Scholar
Lempert, H.
(1978) Extrasyntactic factors affecting passive sentence comprehension by young children. Child Development 49(3), 694–699. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A.
(2013) The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition. The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2015) Exploring regularities and dynamic systems in L2 development. Language Learning 65(1), 89–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forthc.). The production-comprehension interface in second language acquisition. An integrated encoding-decoding model. London: Bloomsbury.
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P.
(1974) Children who get worse at understanding the passive: A replication of Bever. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 3(1), 65–74.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M., Fox, D., Becker, J., & Chalkley, M.
(1985) Semantic restrictions on children’s passives. Cognition 19(2), 167–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T.
(2007) Proceedings of the 2nd conference on generative approaches to language acquisition North America (GALANA): On-line processing of passives in L1 and L2 children. In A. Belikova, L. Meroni, & U. Umeda (Eds.), 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (pp. 265–276). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Marinis, T., & Saddy, D.
(2013) Parsing the passive: Comparing children with Specific Language Impairment to sequential bilingual children. Language Acquisition 20(2), 155–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McIver, J. P., & Carmines, E. G.
(1981) Unidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Meints, K.
(1999) Typizitätseffekte im Erwerb des englischen Passivs. Eine empirische Untersuchung. Wiesbaden: DUV. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M.
(1981) On determining developmental sequences in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3(2), 109–135.Google Scholar
Menenti, L., Gierhan, S. M., Segaert, K., & Hagoort, P.
(2011) Shared language: Overlap and segregation of the neuronal infrastructure for speaking and listening revealed by functional MRI. Psychological Science 22(9), 1173–1182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, H.
(1953) A new coefficient for scalogram analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 17(2), 268–280.Google Scholar
Nagy, N., Moisset, C., & Sankoff, G.
(1996) On the acquisition of variable phonology in L2. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 3(1), 111–126.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J.
(1993) Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S.
(2007) Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Science 11(3), 105–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4), 329–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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). Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S.
(2005) Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199–251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A.
(2015) Processability Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 159–179). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R.
(1979) Variation in a creole continuum: Quantitative and implicational approaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
(1991) Variation theory: Implicational scaling and critical age limits in models of linguistic variation, acquisition and change. In T. Huebner & C. A. Fergueson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories (pp. 225–246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rickford, J.
(2002) Implicational scales. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.). The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 142–167). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roos, J.
(2007) Spracherwerb und Sprachproduktion: Lernziele und Lernergebnisse im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ruder, K. F., & Finch, A.
(1987) Toward a cognitive-based model of language production. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.). Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 109–138). Westport CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Sanford, A., & Sturt, P.
(2002) Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the difference. Trends in Cognitive Science 6(9), 382–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, G.
(1973) Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In C.-J. Bailey, & R. W. Schuy (Eds.). New ways of analysing variation in English (pp. 44–61). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sayehli, S.
(2013) Developmental perspectives on transfer in third language acquisition. Lund: Travaux de l'Institute de Linguistique de Lund.Google Scholar
Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K. & Hagoort, P.
(2012) Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension – an fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex 22(7), 1662–1670. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.
(1966) Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in child and adulthood. Journal of Verbal Language and Verbal Behavior 5(3), 19–227.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y.
(2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2), 263–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, P.
(2011) Second language assessment and morpho-syntactic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33 (4), 529–561.Google Scholar
(2013) Language production and reception: A Processability Theory study. Language Learning 63(4), 704–739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, P., & Jung, S.
(2017) Production and comprehension in Processability Theory: A self-paced reading study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(2), 1–24. doi:Crossref.Google Scholar
Steinlen, A. K., Håkansson, G., Housen, A., & Schelletter, C.
(2010) Receptive L2 grammar knowledge development in bilingual preschools. In K. Kersten, A. Rohde, C. Schelletter, & A. K. Steinlen (Eds.), Bilingual preschools, Volume 1: Language and development (pp. 69–100). Trier: Wissenschaftliger Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S.
(1997) Mapping conceptual representations into linguistic representations: The role of attention in grammar. In J. Nuyts, & E. Pederson (Eds.). Language and conceptualization (pp. 162–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1995) Focal attention, voice, and word order: An experimental, cross-linguistic study. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse (pp. 517–554). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N.
(2007) A dynamic look at L2 phonological learning: Seeking processing explanations for implicational phenomena. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29(3), 407–448.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P.
(1986) Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B.
(1984) Morphemes and processing strategies. In F. Eckman, L. Bell, & D. Nelson (Eds.), Universals of second language acquisition (pp. 88–98). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1996) Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2015) Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 113–134). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wang, K.
(2011) The fish was eaten: The acquisition of the English passive construction by Chinese learners of ESL. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Watermeyer, M.
(2010) Ausagieren von Sätzen versus Satz-Bild-Zuordnung. Vergleich zweier Methoden zur Untersuchung des Sprachverständnisses anhand von semantisch reversiblen Sätzen mit Objektvoranstellung bei drei- und fünfjährigen Kindern. Unpublished diploma thesis. Potsdam University.