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. 73–102

Chapter 4
Is morpho-syntactic decoding governed by Processability Theory?

This study focuses on the comprehension of English morphological features by adult learners of English based in Belgium. I explore the relationship between their receptive grammatical processing and identified stages of the emergence of productive capacities using the Processability Theory framework. I problematise the notion of emergence in receptive grammatical processing, including recognising the additional challenges of chance performance. I explore the effects of using different acquisition criteria for the same data comparing the learners’ performance across multiple morphological features in relation to PTs proposed developmental stages. I find no developmental systematicity on any of the measures. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Processability Theory: Basic mechanisms
  • 3.PT and grammar decoding: The psycholinguistic plausibility of mirrored processors
  • 4.PT, methodology and receptive grammar tasks
    • 4.1Methodological challenges
    • 4.2Receptive grammar instruments and PT
    • 4.3Previous research
  • 5.Design and methodology
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Instrument
      • 5.2.1Grammatical features
      • 5.2.2Instrument design
    • 5.3Administration procedure
    • 5.4Scoring and analysis
      • 5.4.1‘I do not know’ and ‘time out’
      • 5.4.2Grammatical and ungrammatical test items
      • 5.4.3Emergence criterion
    • 5.5Results
      • 5.5.1Grammatical items
      • 5.5.2Ungrammatical items
      • 5.5.3Grammatical and ungrammatical items
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.04buy
References
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. 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 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
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K.
(1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24, 37–53. 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.
(1991) Grammatically judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(2), 161–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2), 141–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning. Testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Fernández, E. M., & Cairns, H. S.
(2011) Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Field, A.
(2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE publications.Google Scholar
Garman, M.
(1990) Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., & Lund, K.
(2001) Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23, 389–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J.-H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R.
(2015) Timed and untimed grammaticality judgment measure distinct types of knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37(Special Issue 02), 269–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, X.
(2013) The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(3), 423–449. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P.
(2003) Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15(6), 883–899. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howell, D. C.
(2010) Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google 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.
(2000) Could grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding be subserved by the same processing module. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23(1), 38. 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.). (2010a) Bilingual preschools, Volume 1: Learning and development. Trier: Wissenschaftliger Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
(Eds.). (2010b) Bilingual preschools, Volume 2: Best practices. Trier: Wissenschaftliger Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A.
(2013) The interface between comprehension and production in SLA. Paper presented at the 13th International Symposium of Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition (PALA), Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
(2014) Shared syntax in L2 Acquisition. Exploring the interface between grammatical encoding and decoding in SLA. Paper Presented at the 14th International Symposium on Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition, Paderborn, Germany.Google Scholar
Loewen, S.
(2009) Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 94–112). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marinis, T.
(2003) Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research 19(2), 144–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olsthoorn, N
(2007) Relationships between grammatical encoding and decoding. An Experimental psycholinguistic study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) (Ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005a) An introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann M (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011a) Explaining developmental schedules. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An introductory textbook. (pp. 49–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Learner variation. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An introductory textbook. (pp. 12–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P.
(2012) Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension--an FMRI study. Cerebral Cortex 22(7), 1662–1670. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Severens, E., Jansma, B. M., & Hartsuiker, R. J.
(2008) Morphophonological influences on the comprehension of subject–verb agreement: An ERP study. Brain Research 1228, 135–144. 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., & 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.
(1995) Focal attention, voice and word order: An experimental, cross-linguistic study. In D. R. Dowty (Ed.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Gompel, R., & Pickering, M. J.
(2007) Syntactic parsing. In G. Gatskil (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 289–307). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M.
(1994) Direct access to X0-Theory. Evidence from Korean and Turkish adult learners of German. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vosse, T., & Kempen, G.
(2000) Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition 75(2), 105–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar