On the primacy of theory in applied studies: a critique of Pienemann and Johnston (1987)

Abstract

Johnston (1987) J. Dean Mellow Northern Arizona University This article critiques Pienemann and Johnston (1987), an influential model of the acquisition of ESL morphology. While Pienemann and Johnston claimed that their model is confirmed and supported by the generative approach to morphology developed in Selkirk (1982), this article indicates that Selkirk's lexicalist theory actually opposes their proposals. In addition, this article demonstrates that their proposals are incompatible with syntactic analyses of word formation. The widespread influence of the Pienemann and Johnston model suggests that L2 researchers must ensure that models of SLA are solidly grounded in foundational theories.

Errors in Making Indirect Questions in the Interlanguage of Students at the Faculty of Food Technology

“…However, several deficiencies have also been detected for the mentioned theory. For example, Pienemann (1998) emphasizes the importance of emergence of a certain structure, but fails to explain what happens after the emergence, i.e., when is it possible to determine that a certain structure has actually been acquired (Mellow, 1996). This hypothesis is also partially supported by Hulstijn (2015), who believes that future interlanguage research should focus on more than just the first indicators for the acquisition of a certain structure (emergence), it should also focus on the entire developmental path of a certain structure, i.e., it should provide the overview of a certain structure, from its first emergence until it is fully acquired.…”