Processability Theory and the role of morphology in English as a second language development: a longitudinal study

Abstract

This article tests a prediction made by Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1998; 2005) that morphological acquisition is the driving force in English as a second language (ESL) development. It first outlines the model of psycholinguistic processing assumed by Processability Theory and shows how stages fall out from it. It then presents the hypothesis that morphological information propels development before sentence-level processing at stage 5 and describes what this should predict for ESL learners. A study is then presented that tested these predictions on oral data collected from two Mandarin speaking, adolescent, ESL learners over one academic year. The study found the acquisition of structures both predicted and not predicted by Processability Theory. While the results afford some evidence consistent with the claims about stages of development, they also provide counter-evidence to the hypothesis that the acquisition of morphology drives development up to stage 5: one learner acquired the predicted syntax for stages 3 and 4 without the morphology, and both learners acquired syntactic structures before associated morphology. Indeed, the findings suggest that the acquisition of morphology, and syntax, varies with learner orientation. To explain these findings, the article presents a proposal that draws on both Processability Theory and generative approaches to second language acquisition (SLA), and concludes by considering the implications of the study.

Applicability of processability theory to Japanese adolescent EFL learners: A case study of early L2 syntactic and morphological development

“…This study found that one participant acquired the predicted syntax at stages 3e4 without the predicted morphology while the other participant developed the syntax driven by morphology following PT. Dyson's (2009) findings suggested that ESL learners may not distinguish functional categories from lexical categories and that syntax and morphology may develop independently of each other. L1 transfer to L2 acquisition has also been discussed in recent empirical studies.…”

“…However, the latest PT publications have explicitly hypothesized that the development of syntax and morphology has two separate motivations (Di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2013;Pienemann & Kebler, 2012;Yamaguchi, 2013). In this context, recent cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on English L2 learners have demonstrated the effects of L1 influence and individual variation on morphological development (Charters, Dao, & Jansen, 2011;Dao, 2007;Dyson, 2009;Zhang & Widyastuti, 2010). Meanwhile, other longitudinal child L2 studies have confirmed PT prediction (Yamaguchi, 2013;Yamaguchi & Kawaguchi, 2014).…”

“…Additionally, Pienemann (1998Pienemann ( , 2005 and Pienemann and Kebler (2011) cited another identical 13 samples of school-aged Spanish, Polish, Hindi, Syrian, and Khmer ESL learners from Pienemann and Mackey (1993), which also performed a cross-sectional analysis of 14 grammatical structures. Other than the two empirical studies, Dyson (2009) and Yamaguchi (2013) presented empirical data concerning the association of morphology with syntax. Among these, Dyson (2009) found some counterevidence to PT prediction in one of the two adolescent Mandarin-speaking ESL learners (N ¼ 2).…”

“…Other than the two empirical studies, Dyson (2009) and Yamaguchi (2013) presented empirical data concerning the association of morphology with syntax. Among these, Dyson (2009) found some counterevidence to PT prediction in one of the two adolescent Mandarin-speaking ESL learners (N ¼ 2). This issue will be discussed in detail later in this section.…”

“…Dyson (2009) tested the PT prediction that morphological acquisition is the driving force in ESL development (Pienemann, 2005) through analysis of one-year longitudinal data via oral communicative tasks from two L1 Mandarin adolescent ESL learners (N ¼ 2). This study found that one participant acquired the predicted syntax at stages 3e4 without the predicted morphology while the other participant developed the syntax driven by morphology following PT.…”