Cover not available
Part of
Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region
Edited by Satomi Kawaguchi, Bruno Di Biase and Yumiko Yamaguchi
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 9] 2023
► pp. 280–300

Chapter 11
Testing the validity of Processability Theory through a corpus-based analysis

The acquisition of plural marking in English speaking and writing by Japanese native speakers

 | Tokai University
 | Tokai University
This chapter presents part of the results of a learner corpus study to test the validity of Processability Theory (PT; Pienemann, 1998, 2005). It also addresses the issues of whether second language (L2) learners are at the same PT stages for speaking and writing. The results of the analysis of spoken and written narratives by 281 Japanese learners, focusing on the acquisition of the English plural marker ‑s on nouns, have demonstrated support for the hypothesised developmental sequence for English morphology in PT. In addition, a positive relationship has been found between the learners’ spoken and written production, suggesting that PT can legitimately be used to examine L2 writing as well as speaking.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Plural marking in English and Japanese
  • 3.Developmental stages: Processability Theory (PT)
  • 4.Literature review
    • 4.1English plural marking
    • 4.2Speaking versus writing
    • 4.3Learner corpus research
  • 5.The study
    • 5.1Research design
      • 5.1.1Participants
      • 5.1.2Materials
      • 5.1.3Data collection procedure
      • 5.1.4Learner corpus construction
      • 5.1.5Data size
      • 5.1.6Data analysis
  • 6.Results and discussion
    • 6.1Output frequency of the plural -s on nouns
    • 6.2Acquisition of plural marking
    • 6.3Comparison of PT stages between speaking and writing
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.9.11yam
References (68)
References
Abrahamsson, N. (2013). Developmental sequences. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 173–177). Routledge.Google Scholar
Alderson, C. (1996). Do corpora have a role in language assessment? In J. Thomas & M. Short (Eds.), Using corpora for language research (pp. 248–259). Longman.Google Scholar
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. D. (1974). Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24(2), 235–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, F. (2010). How can corpora be used in language testing? In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 633–645). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bettoni, C., & Di Biase, B. (2015). Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. European Second Language Association. [URL]Google Scholar
Bonilla, C. (2015). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 31(1), 53–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 18(1), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boulton, A. (2009). Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training. ReCALL, 21(1), 37–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cazden, C., Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1975). Second language acquisition in children, adolescents and adults. Final Report. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (2009). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Charters, H., Dao, L., & Jansen, L. (2011). Reassessing the applicability of Processability Theory: The case of nominal plural. Second Language Research, 27(4), 509–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language, 54(2), 185–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbette, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 (Eurosla Monograph Series 3) (pp. 85–115). Eurosla.Google Scholar
Downing, P. A. (1996). Numeral classifier systems: The case of Japanese. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23(2), 245–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37–53. DOI logoGoogle 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), 355–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eguchi, A., & Sugiura, M. (2015). Applicability of Processability Theory to Japanese adolescent EFL learners: A case study of early L2 syntactic and morphological development. System, 52, 115–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, J. (2007). The writing superiority effect in the verbal recall of knowledge: Sources and determinants. In M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 163–179). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J. (2008). Speaking and writing in L2 French: Exploring effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 87–98). KVAB Universa Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (Ed.) (1998). Learner English on computer. Longman.Google Scholar
(2002). A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 3–33). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2007). Processability Theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81–94). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. (2010). What a corpus tells us about grammar teaching materials. In A. O’Keefe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 401–412). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itani-Adams, Y. (2011). Bilingual first language acquisition. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory (pp. 121–130). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns, T. (1991). “Should you be persuaded”: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. In T. Johns, & P. King (Eds.), Classroom concordancing (ELR Journal, 4) (pp. 1–10). University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U. (Ed.) (2008). Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning. Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S. (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 and Assessing Second Language Grammars across Languages (pp. 35–63). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawaguchi, S., & Di Biase, B. (2012). Acquiring procedural skills in L2: Processability theory and skill acquisition. Studies in Language Sciences, 11, 70–99.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 Writing (pp. 193–216). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
(1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 143–170). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (2019). Widening contexts for Processability Theory. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2021). Introducing morphology. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2013). Learners corpora and second language acquisition: The design and collection of CEDEL2. In A. Diaz-Negrillo, N. Ballier, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 65–100). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luk, Z. P. S., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural ‑s, articles, and possessive ’s. Language Learning, 59(4), 721–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makino, S., & Tsutsui, M. (1986). A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. The Japan Times.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New American Library.Google Scholar
Maynard, S. K. (1990). An introduction to Japanese grammar and communication strategies. The Japan Times.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. Routledge.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norrby, C., & Håkansson, G. (2007). The interaction of complexity and grammatical processability: The case of Swedish as a foreign language. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(1), 45–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 109–148. 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
(Ed.) (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strömqvist, S., Nordqvist, Å., & Wengelin, Å. (2004). Writing the frog-story: Developmental and cross-modal perspectives. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 359–394). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, H., & Zhang, Y. (2015). An investigation of Chinese students’ acquisition of oral and written English through the measurement of Processability Theory. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(2), 207–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usami, H. (2015). The application of corpus linguistics to language testing – improving multiple choice questions. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Y. (2009). The development of plural marking and plural agreement in child English L2 acquisition. In J.-U. Keßler, & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 9–39). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2013). Child second language learning: A study of English as a second language acquisition. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Y. & Kawaguchi, S. (2014). Acquisition of English morphology by a Japanese school-aged child: A longitudinal study. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 16(1), 89–119.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Y., & Usami, H. (2017a). Japanese learners’ use of English grammar in speaking and writing: A processability approach. In Proceedings of Pacific Second Language Research Forum 2016 (pp. 237–242).Google Scholar
(2017b). Plural marking in spoken and written narratives: A corpus-based study of Japanese learners of English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(5), 224–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Widyastuti, I. (2010). Acquisition of L2 English morphology: A family case study. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 29.1–29.17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sakoda, Kumiko & Satomi Kawaguchi
2023. Chapter 6. Japanese L2 corpora and SLA research. In Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 9], ► pp. 144 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.