Processability theory

Processability theory is a theory of second language acquisition developed by Manfred Pienemann. (Pienemann 1998) The theory has been used as a framework by scientists from Europe, North America, Asia and Australia. Processability theory (PT) is a cognitive approach to second language acquisition that seeks to explain developmental schedules as well as learner variation. It is based on Levelt’s (1989) approach to language generation and is formally operationalized using Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001). PT’s core assumption is that learners can produce only what they can process. PT is therefore based on the architecture of human language generation that is constructed hierarchically. It is argued that learners are constrained to follow that hierarchical order of processability in acquiring any target language. In other words, the hierarchy of processability is the core of the predictive machinery entailed in PT. Of course, the hierarchy must be applied to the specific conditions of any target language. This is done using LFG formalisms. When applied to ESL, this results in an array of predictions for developmental schedules in syntax and morphology. For instance, word order is predicted to be initially constrained to canonical word order even in questions, as Do-support and auxiliary inversion would require processing resources that are not initially available.…

Processability theory is a theory of second language acquisition developed by Manfred Pienemann. (Pienemann 1998) The theory has been used as a framework by scientists from Europe, North America, Asia and Australia. Processability theory (PT) is a cognitive approach to second language acquisition that seeks to explain developmental schedules as well as learner variation. It is based on Levelt’s (1989) approach to language generation and is formally operationalized using Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001). PT’s core assumption is that learners can produce only what they can process. PT is therefore based on the architecture of human language generation that is constructed hierarchically. It is argued that learners are constrained to follow that hierarchical order of processability in acquiring any target language. In other words, the hierarchy of processability is the core of the predictive machinery entailed in PT. Of course, the hierarchy must be applied to the specific conditions of any target language. This is done using LFG formalisms. When applied to ESL, this results in an array of predictions for developmental schedules in syntax and morphology. For instance, word order is predicted to be initially constrained to canonical word order even in questions, as Do-support and auxiliary inversion would require processing resources that are not initially available. PT also includes theoretical modules dealing with L1 transfer, inter-learner variation and the role of linguistic typology. It comes with detailed methodological tools. PT has been applied to second language classrooms and to linguistic profiling. ==References== Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 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, 274–302. Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 253–298). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258. 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 Press. Lenzing, A. (2013). The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition: The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Lenzing, A. (in press). Towards an integrated model of grammatical encoding and decoding in SLA. In A. Lenzing, H. Nicholas, & J. Roos (Eds.), Working with processability approaches: Theories and issues (pp. xxx – yyy). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Lenzing, A. (2017). The production-comprehension interface in second language acquisition: An integrated encoding-decoding model. Unpublished thesis for a Higher Doctorate degree, Paderborn University, Germany. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 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. 115–259. Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia. Pienemann, M., & Lanze, F. (2017). Constructing an automatic procedure for ESL profile analysis. Plenary presented at the 16th Symposium on Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition (PALA), Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany. Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199–252). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005). Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. DeGroot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 128–153). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Text derived from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1159297950 under CC BY-SA 4.0; modifications have been made.