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. 49–72

Productive and receptive processes in PT

| Michigan State University
| Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
In this study, we investigate whether Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998, 2005) accounts for reception data, and whether productive and receptive processing routines emerge simultaneously. Sixty-one learners of English as a second language (ESL learners) participate in an oral interview and self-paced reading (SPR) task targeting five stages of PT. Two analyses are performed: Implicational scaling and a comparison of individuals’ performance on the oral interview versus the SPR. The implicational table demonstrates that the SPR data do not clearly reflect the PT order, and the comparison data demonstrate that individuals’ performance on the oral production task does not match their performance on the SPR task. The results suggest that PT as currently formulated may not account for receptive data, and that productive and receptive processes may not always emerge simultaneously.
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.03spi
References

References

Bonilla, C.
(2015) From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research 31(1), 53–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B.
(2009) Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41(4), 977–990. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buyl, A., & Housen, A.
(2015) Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account. Second Language Research 31(4), 523–550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Hong, U.
(1995) Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction-time experiments. Second Language Research 11, 57–87. 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
Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Yamaguchi, Y.
(2015) The development of English as a second language. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 85–116). Paris: European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H.
(1982) Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2015) Discussion: How different can perspectives on L2 development be? Language Learning 65(1), 210–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D.
(1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of experimental psychology: General 111(2), 228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keatinge, D., & Keßler, J-U.
(2009) The acquisition of the passive voice in English as a foreign language: Production and perception. In D. Keatinge & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 41–68). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Keating, G., & Jegerski, J.
(2015) Experimental designs in sentence processing research: A methodological review and user’s guide. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37(1), 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M.
(1981) On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3(2), 109–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) An introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross–linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 1–60). 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. 199–251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(2009) A brief introduction to Processability Theory. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 9–29). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U., & Itani-Adams, Y.
(2011) Comparing levels of processability across languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 15(2), 128–146. CrossrefGoogle 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). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sakai, H.
(2008) An analysis of Japanese university students’ oral performance in English using Processability Theory. System 36, 534–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, P.
(2011) Second language assessment and morphosyntactic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(4), 529–561. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Language production and reception: A Processability Theory study. Language Learning 63(4), 704–739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, P., & Jung, S.
2018). Production and comprehension in Processability Theory: A self-paced reading study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 40 (2), 295-318. Crossref
VanPatten, B., & Smith, M.
(2015) Aptitude as grammatical sensitivity and the initial stages of learning Japanese as an L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37(1), 135–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar