Cover not available
Part of
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. 301–326

Chapter 13
Teaching the German case system

A comparison of two approaches to the study of learner readiness

This chapter compares two different approaches to the construct ‘readiness’: namely, processing constraints as defined by Processability Theory and the Teachability Hypothesis (Pienemann, 1998) and partial mastery as defined in the research on Focus on Form (Williams & Evans, 1998). The former operationalises readiness through the emergence criterion, the latter employs an accuracy criterion. The chapter applies both definitions and operationalisations in the context of a study investigating the effectiveness of instruction on the acquisition of the German case system by Dutch-speaking foreign language learners. The study included 18 freshman university students of German and adopted a quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design. The instructional treatment involved a meaning-focussed activity which eventually led to explicit rule presentation. Oral language production data was collected by means of a picture description task and an elicited imitation task. The results show that the (non-)emergence of the developmental stages of the German case marking system stayed within the predictive boundaries of the Teachability Hypothesis, whereas the development of the accuracy scores did not reveal any observable sequence. However, the results reveal that the two (emergence and accuracy) are related to the extent that increases in accuracy scores are only possible if a stage is reached or reachable. The findings suggest that the systematic, implicational emergence of stages and the subsequent, variable increases in accuracy scores represent two different, but complementing, aspects of L2 development.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Individual learner readiness in SLA
  • 3.The acquisition of the German case system
  • 4.The study
    • 4.1Design and participants
    • 4.2Instruction
    • 4.3Data elicitation
    • 4.4Readiness
    • 4.5Analysis and scoring
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Accuracy analysis
    • 5.2Emergence analysis
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.13bat
References (45)
References
Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research 16(1), 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M. (2013). The development of case in L2 Russian. In M. Butt, & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference (pp. 69–89). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Artoni, D. (2015). The acquisition of case morphology in Russian as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Verona.Google Scholar
Baten, K. (2013). The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baten, K., & Lochtman, K. (2014). Das deutsche Kasussystem im Fremdsprachenerwerb: Ein Forschungsüberblick. Muttersprache 124(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Bonilla, C. (2015). Instructing stages of Processability Theory in L2 Spanish: Next or next + 1? In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.). Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 209–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boss, B. (1996). German grammars for beginners: the Teachability Hypothesis and its relevance to the classroom. The University of Queenland Papers in Language and Linguistics 1, 93–100.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Graaff, R., & Housen, A. (2009). Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2 instruction. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 726–755). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning 55(1), 1-25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B., Bettoni, C., & Medojevic, L. (2015). The development of case in a bilingual context: Serbian in Australia. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 195–212). Paris: Eurosla.Google Scholar
Doman, E. (2015). Implications of the developmental stages of language acquisition for classroom teaching. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 243–264). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(4), 431–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dyson, B. (1996). The debate on form-focused instruction: A teacher's perspective. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 19(2), 59–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenbeiß, S., Bartke, S., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Structural and lexical case in child German: Evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 13(1), 3–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11(3), 305–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. (2013). Processability Theory. Explaining developmental sequences. In M. del Pilar García Mayo, M. Junkal Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 111–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1935/37). Catégorie des cas: Acta Jutlandica VII, IX. Aarhus.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971 [1936]). Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. In R. Jakobson (Ed.), Selected Writings II (pp. 23–71). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U. (2007). Assessing EFL-development online: A feasibility study of Rapid Profile. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research. Theory-construction and testing (pp. 119–143). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Zhang, X. (2015). Response to Pienemann's critique of Zhang and Lantolf. Language Learning 65(3), 752–760. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal 82(3), 338–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, Interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(4), 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magnani, M. (2016). A Processability Theory approach to the development of marked word orders in Russian and Italian as second languages (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Verona.Google Scholar
Marx, N. (2014). Kasuszuweisung und Kasuslehre bei Schülern mit Migrationshintergrund: Eine differenzierte Betrachtung. In B. Ahrenholz & P. Grommes (Eds.), Zweitspracherwerb im Jugendalter (pp. 99–124). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2009). Using priming methods in second language research. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Motsch, H.-J., & Riehemann, S. (2008). Grammatische Störungen mehrsprachiger Schüler. Interventionsstudie zum Therapieziel Kasus. Die Sprachheilarbeit 53(1), 15–25.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: integrating form-focused instruction in communicative contexts. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2007). An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics 28(3), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(2), 186–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. AILA Review 5, 40–72.Google Scholar
(1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (2012). Processability Theory. In S. Gass &A. Mackey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.228–246). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2015). An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning 65(1), 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roos, J. (2015). Response Paper: language teaching and learning from a PT perspective. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 265–272). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., & Lantolf, J. (2015). Natural or artificial: Is the route to L2 development teachable? Language Learning 65(1), 152–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2015). The emergence of sentence Topic in a Topicprominent language: A descriptive study of L2 Chinese. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 45–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Baten, Kristof & Aaricia Ponnet
2023. Chapter 4. Extending PT to split ergative marking and differential object marking. In Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 9], ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Baten, Kristof
2016. A study on explicit instruction and its relation to knowing/using linguistic forms and individual learner readiness. EUROSLA Yearbook 16 ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.