satomi kawaguchi university of western sydney

Acquiring Japanese as a second language: Processability Theory and its applications

to pedagogy第二言語としての日本語習得：処理可能性理論とその教育分野への応用

Satomi KawaguchiUniversity of Western Sydney

MARCS Institute and School of Humanities & Communication Arts

1

10 July, 2014シドニー日本語教育国際研究大会

International Conference on Japanese Language Education

Outline1. Introduction & some background2. Processability Theory (PT)3. Developmental stages (PT) in Japanese L2 Morphology

Syntax: the Prominence Hypothesis the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis

4. Promoting higher structures (beyond intermediate level)5. Emergence of a structure and its automatization 6. Digital technologies & evaluation of language development using PT7. Concluding remarks

2

Introduction

• Processability Theory (Pienemann 1998): A theory of SLA focusing on L2 development

• Theory-Practice-Evaluation link in teaching and learning Japanese L2

3

Short history of Processability Theory (PT)PT originates in the ZISA (Zweitsprachenwerb Italianisher

und Spanisher Arbeiter) project

• It produced ‘one of the most important bodies of SLA research to date’ Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991, p. 270) in terms of: data, methodology and SLA theory development

When: late Seventies ~ early Eighties

Who directed by Jurgen Meisel, with Harald Clahsen and Manfred Pienemann (1983); see also Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981) Informants: ZISA studied Italian and Spanish adult guest workers acquiring German as a second language.

Where: mainly at the University of Hamburg (Germany) under the direction of Jurgen Meisel, supported by the Volkswagen Foundation.

4

ZISA: findings

• After an initial period of production, characterised by single words and formulaic expressions, learners did not abandon one rule for the next but accumulated rules, adding new ones while retaining the old ones.

• All learners followed the same five-stage developmental sequence (despite individual differences and different language background)

• All learners acquired these five rules in the same sequence. These rules formed an implicational scale: which means that the acquisition of a rule implies the acquisition of the earlier rule(s). They were called (shorthand name):

5

SVO > ADV > SEP > INV > V-ENDSVO > ADV > SEP > INV > V-END

6

Was this sequence replicated in other studies?

• And indeed, YES, this basic sequence of acquisition of GSL word order, was also confirmed for immigrant children and in studies of acquisition of German (GFL) in formal contexts (Eubank 1986, 1987; Jansen 1991; Pienemann 1980, 1981, 1984).

• GSL=German as a Second Language• GFL = German as a Foreign Language

Teachability Hypothesis(Pienemann, 1984; 1988; 1998)

This hypothesis addresses the influence of formal instruction on L2 acquisition, i.e., What to teach When.

There is a fixed path in L2 acquisition. This sequence should be implicational: Stage 1 < Stage 2 < Stage 3, etc.,

7

Pienemann’s study (1984)

8

Stage of acquisition

Informants’ stage BEFORE instruction

Informants’ stage AFTER instruction

INV (Stage 4) ----- Giovanni, Mimmo

SEP (Stage 3) Giovanni, Mimmo --------

ADV (Stage 2) Teresa, Monica Teresa, Monica

SVO (Stage 1) Carmine Carmine

INV=Inversion, SEP = Verb separation, ADV = Adverb fronting

Teach Stage 4

INV

9

Stage of acquisition

Informants’ stage BEFORE instruction

Informants’ stage AFTER instruction

INV (Stage 4) ----- Giovanni, Mimmo

SEP (Stage 3) Giovanni, Mimmo --------

ADV (Stage 2) Teresa, Monica Teresa, Monica

SVO (Stage 1) Carmine Carmine

INV=Inversion, SEP = Verb separation, ADV = Adverb fronting

Findings from the teachability experiment

• Stages cannot be skipped, despite focused instruction, because the cognitive processing of one stage is the prerequisite for the subsequent one.

• Instruction will be beneficial if it focuses on structures for which the learner is “developmentally ready” (cf. Corder 1967)

10

11

ZISA downunder. The empirical basis for English developmental stages: the SAMPLE project (Johnston 1985)

• The empirical basis was provided by an extensive Australian project carried out by Malcolm Johnston, at the NSW Institute of Technology, supported by the AMES (Dept of Immigration) in the mid-Seventies to mid Eighties.

• Johnston studied, cross-sectionally 12 Polish and 12 Vietnamese immigrants at a range of times after their arrival in Australia.

the SAMPLE report = Syntactic and Morphological Progressions in Learners’ English (1984)

12

Pieneman working with Johnston, adapted the ZISA Strategies framework to the interpretation of the ESL data collected through SAMPLE and expanded the framework to include English morphological sequences as well as Syntax.

Pienemann and Johnston brought about what Michael Long called The Predictive Framework (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991) that is a framework for SLA which was capable of making predictions to be tested empirically.

13

Table 1: POLISH ADULT LEARNERS OF ESL (Johnston 1997, 2000)

Table 3: VIETNAMESE ADULT LEARNERS OF ESL (Johnston 1997, 2000)

14

Limitations Problems of ZISA The “strategies” as an explanatory principle are

not plausible for the human mind.

So, Processability Theory adopts processing prerequisites that is, the learner builds up additional processing resources in order to process the L2 and gradually deploys these in an automatic way.

15

2. Processability Theory (Pienemann 1998)処理可能性理論

• Processability Theory (PT) is a theory of second language processing that formally predicts syntactic & morphological ‘developmental trajectories’ for any given L2 (so it is assumed to work universally).

• Processability relates to how the L2 is acquired under real-time constraints of speech production, given the limited capacity of the human language processor.

16

• The key to predicting which grammatical structures are processable - and in which sequence - is which pieces of grammatical information can be exchanged between which constituents given the availability of the different procedures and their storage capacity

PT key principle

17

According to Kempen and Hoenkamp’s (1987) processing procedures and routines in speech generation are activated in the following sequence:

1. lemma access 2. the category procedure 3. the phrasal procedure4. the sentence procedure,5. the subordinate clause procedure - if

applicable.

18

This hierarchy is related to the requirements of the specific procedural skills needed for the target language (any L2). In this way, predictions can be made for language development that can be tested empirically.

Lemma

category

phrase

Sentence

19

The task for the learner, then, is to build the language-specific procedures needed to handle the Target Language. These procedures will be different for different languages, but always ordered in the same sequence.

Two modules of Processability Theory

1. Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) - A psychologically and typologically plausible formal grammar (Bresnan, 2001, and others).

2. Levelt’s (1989, and further developments) model of the Speaker - A broadly shared psycholinguistic model of language generation.

This is different from previous processing models

20

LFG: We can represent processing procedures required for sentence generation through two LFG principles

1. Feature unification/agreement(e.g., tense, word category combination)

2. Mapping (e.g. association between Argument role and Grammatical function such as Agent-Subject)

21

Obligatory component

Structural choice at the pragmatic-discourse interface

22

First principle: Feature unification (in English)(cf. LFG (Kaplan & Bresnan 1982; Bresnan 2001)

3rd person –s: unification in S plural concord: unification in NP

NPobj

det N

these dogsNUM = PL NUM = PL

Past –ed: no unification needed

Lemma: OWNED

conceptual specs.: “OWN“ (SUBJ, OBJ)

syntactic category: V

diacritic features: tense = past

Stage 2

Stage 3Stage 5

These are all obligatory structuresin English grammar

24

t1 t2 t3 t4 t5

S'-procedure(EmbeddedS)

- - - - +

Sentence-procedure

- simplified simplified inter-phrasal informationexchange

inter-phrasal informationexchange

Phrasal procedure(head)

- - phrasal informationexchange

phrasal informationexchange

phrasal informationexchange

category procedure (lex. categ.)

- lexical morphemes

lexical morphemes

lexical morphemes

lexical morphemes

word/ lemma

+ + + + +

Table 1:Hypothetical hierarchy of processing procedures (Pienemann, 1998)

３． Developmental Stages (PT) in Japanese L2 Morphological acquisition

25

Stage Universal processing procedure

5 Subordinate clause procedure

4 The Sentence procedure and the target language word order rules

3 Phrasal procedure (e.g. Noun Phrase, Verb Phrase)

2 The lexical procedure (category of the word, e.g. verb, noun)

1 Words (invariant form)

26

Stages of development for Japanese L2 VERBAL 　 MORPHOLOGY

Stage 1<Word/Lemma>Invariant formsSingle words, Formulae

おいしい (oisii)まんが　 (manga)こんにちは！(konnichiwa)

This stage is non language-specific: everyone can normally learn a word or formula in any language, e.g.

tsunami!Native speakers OFTEN use formulas in their speech:… ありがとう (arigatoo)… すみません　 (sumimasen)

PRINCIPLE: NO EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IS REQUIRED

27

Stage 2 <Category Procedure>Lexical morphologyFORM variation

past –masitanegative –masennoun marker –wa, -ga

食べます　 tabe-masu / 食べました　 tabe-masita / 食べません　 tabe-masen

This stage is language-specific: grammatical features are different from language to language.

The learner begins to annotate the grammatical category and the feature/value pairs for words in their mental lexicon e.g.

Lexical entry category feature value tabe-masita verb TENSE PAST

PRINCIPLE: NO EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IS REQUIRED

28

Stage 3 Phrasal Procedure

Verb Combinatione.g., 食べてーいます　 tabe-te imasuしてーみます　 si-te mimasu

grammatical features are exchanged (unified) within the noun phrase

PRINCIPLE: EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IN THE VERB PHRASE

Di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002

29

Stage 4<S- Procedure>Interphrasal morphologyNon-default case marking

e.g., passive, causative

grammatical features are exchanged (unified) at Sentence level. In this case the feature/value exchanged between the NPsubj and the Verb are:

PRINCIPLE:EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION (AT THE S- NODE) BETWEEN PHRASES OF A DIFFERENT KIND (NP and VP)

Sakana-ga neko-ni tabe-rare-ta“ 魚が　ねこに　たべられた”

30

Empirical evidence: Morphology

Acquisition of Japanese L2 Syntax(Pienemann, Di Biase and Kawaguchi, 2005; Kawaguchi, 2010; Kawaguchi, in press)

• PT extension adds the developmental dimension of speaker-induced discourse-pragmatic choices (e.g. passive, topicalisation) in syntactic structure.

• Other attention directing devices – the speaker’s pragmatic choice – may involve the selection of particular word orders for focusing or de-focusing, e.g. null realization of subject, active/passive alternation and so on.

31

kick <agent, patient>

Thematic　roles(event　participants)

agent patient

Grammatical　functions subject object

Word　order uma-ga馬が

S

Kenji-o健二を

O

ket-ta蹴った

V

32

Canonical order & Canonical mapping

Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”

Higher stages based on Lexical Mapping

Higher L2 syntactic stages

33

Higher stages based on the Promience Hypothesis

Processing Procedures & English structural outcomes

Examples

1 <Lemma access>Single words, Formula

こんにちは！　 Konnichiwa!ありがとう　 Arigatoo　(gozaimasu)

2 <CANONICAL ORDER>SOV

（わたしは）日本語を話します(watasi-wa)　nihongo-o　hanasimasu　“(I) speak Japanese”



agent patient



S

Kenji-o健二を

O

ket-ta蹴った

V

34Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”

The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis



agent patient



S

Kenji-o健二を

O

ket-ta蹴った

V

35

The Prominence Hypothesis

Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”

kicked <patient> “Kenji was kicked” 健二がけられた

Thematic　roles agent patient

Grammatical　functions Ø SUBJ

Word　order Kenji-ga健二が

Ke-rare-ta蹴られた

36

Non-canonical mapping: Kenji-ga ke-rare-ta “Tom was kicked”

Higher stages based on


Sentence procedure requiring non-default mapping:Case marking according to the feature of the verb

• Otooto-ga inu-ni kamaremashita (Passive)弟が犬にかまれました

• Itsumo buchoo-wa watashi-ni kopii-o sasemasuいつも部長は私にコピーをさせます (Causative)

• Watashi-wa sensei-ni suisenjyoo-o kaite moraimashitaわたしは先生に推薦状をかいてもらいました (Benefactive)

37

Eg. Passive, Causative, Benefactive “Exceptional” verbs (e.g. unaccusative verbs)

(30) Mapping of a-structure onto f-structure for the transitive causative sentence: Masako-ga Takashi-ni kuruma-o araw-ase-masita 雅子が隆志に車を洗わせた。(‘Masako made Takashi wash the car’)

38

39

Benefactive constructions


40

41

Lou’s syntactic development based on the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis (Kawaguchi 2009, 2010)



agent patient

Grammatical　functions Object Subject

Word　order Kenji-o健二を

S

Uma-ga馬がO

ket-ta蹴った

V

42


Figure 1. Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”


43

44

STAGE STRUCTURE T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12

NONCANONICITY INMARKING NOMINALS

SUBJTOP-WA OBJFOC-WA V

OBJTOP-WA (S)V

1

1

1

XPTOP CANONICALWORD ORDER

ADJTOP-WA S(O)V/(S)OV 2* 3 1 2 5 2

ADJ S(O)V 5* 3 3 2 1 1 4 6 6 7

CANONICAL WORD ORDER

SUBJTOP-WA (O)V 3 5 7 3 7 9 7 2 9

S(O)V / (S)OV 1* 4* 7 5 8 9 5 10 22 11 26 12

* SUBJ is not expressed

Empirical Evidence of the Prominence Hypothesis:Lou’s syntactic development based on the Prominence Hypothesis: Declaratives (Kawaguchi, in press)*All SUBJ omission (t1, t2)

Other empirical evidence• JFL adult classroom setting:

Longitudinal and cross sectional studies (Kawaguchi 2002, 2005a&b, 2007, 2008, 2010; Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2002, 2012)

• Child language acquisition of Japanese L2 in a naturalistic environment (Iwasaki 2004, 2008)

• Adult language acquisition of Japanese L2 in an intensive course (Iwasaki 2013)

• Bilingual first language acquisition in Japanese-English (Itani-Adams 2005, 2007; 2009, 2011, 2013)

45

4. Promoting higher structures beyond intermediate level: causative constructions

• Causatives are considered to be ‘marked’, because main and sub-events are merged into a single clause, and thus may be more difficult to learn.

• Yet, ability to use such constructions enhances expressivity and pragmatic-cultural appropriateness, and facilitates comprehension.

46

• Causality may be expressed by simpler sentence structures such as juxtaposition of basic Subject-Object-Verb sequences.

‘zangyoo ste kudasai’ to bucho-ga watashi-ni iimashita 「残業してください」と部長がわたしに言いました　Department chief said to me “please do overtime”

• However, this is less efficient; the listener must work harder to interpret the pragmatic force of the utterance.

47

A cross-sectional study

• 24 intermediate-advanced university learners of Japanese L2: 16 English L1 and 8 Chinese L1 background learners.

48

49

Implicational table for acquisition of Japanese L2 syntax in the cross-sectional study

Kawaguchi 2009; 284

Stage 2 learners (SOV)

Informant 12 (Liz: E L1)わたしは　コピーをしたり　コーヒーをつくったり　ボスはだいきらいです。er. Watasi-wa er kopii-o sitari. Koohii-o tukaitari.. Bosu-wa daikiraidesu “er I do something like photocopying and making coffee.. I hate my boss.” Informant 8 (Yang: C L1)ええと　わたしのボス　ボスが　ボスに　コーヒーをつくったり　ええと　忙しいです…etto watasi-no bosu bosu-ga bosu-ni koohii-o tukuttari eeto isogasisoodesu “…well my boss, for my boss I make coffee, well I am busy”

50

Stage 3 LearnersSusan (C)a. ＊お母さんはいつも野菜　食べていました

* okaasan-wa itumo yasai tabe-te imasita(lit.)“my mother was always eating vegetables”(intended) “my mother always made me eat vegetables”

b. 　＊でもボスは彼女に残業　残業し　します　しました。*demo bosu-wa kanozyo-ni zangyoo.. zangyoo... si. simasu.... Simasita (lit)“but my boss do.. did over time for her”

(intended) “but my boss made her work overtime”

Some Stage 3 learners, who have not yet acquired non-canonical argument-function mapping, may end up producing sentences involving incorrect mapping conforming to canonical SOV order

51

Stage 4 learners

Kathy (E) ：　いつも彼は私にコーヒーを持ってこさせますitsumo kare-wa watasi-ni koohii-o motte ko-sase-masu“He always gets me bring coffee (for him)”.

Henry (E) ：　でも母に食べさせられますdemo haha-ni tabe-sase-rare-masu“but (I) am made to eat vegetables.”

Becky (C) ：　わたしの母は毎日野菜をつくってあげましたが、私は野菜がすきじゃありません

watasi-no haha-wa maiasa yasai-o tukutte age-masita ga watasi-wa yasai-ga sukija arimasen

“my mother cooked vegetables (for me) every morning but I don’t like vegetables”.

52

Learners lacking the Sentence-procedure• used canonical sentences consistently; or• attempted causatives but with incorrect mapping

The learners at Stage 4• used canonical sentences; and/or• other Stage 4 structures of non-canonical mapping

Causative/ Benefactive / Causative-passive

53

√ more structural choices √ more faithful to discourse needs and communicative intentions.

5. Emergence of a structure and its automatization: Promoting processing efficacy

Trace the acquisitional path from emergence to native-like use of a structure

1) Language knowledge,2) Language processing efficiency and speed

“there is a gradual shift from using metalinguistic knowledge to using implicit competence” (Paradis, 2004 p.49)

54

From emergence to automatization:Information processing in L2 acquisition

• In SLA, “procedural, not declarative knowledge is the ultimate goal” for the second language learner (e.g., DeKeyser 2007).

• This means ‘fluent speech’, achieved by automatization (or proceduralization) of skills.

55

Learning grammatical knowledge and language skillsEmergence Vs. Automatization in PT

“Emergence” of a particular skill or stage ≠ “automatization” of that skill

When a structure emerges learners may in fact• take a long time in producing it• be inaccurate• may perform variably (i.e., the structure is unstable)

What happens after the “emergence” of a structure in L2?

56

Picture taken from Lightbown & Spada

1993; 39

What is automaticity in L2?

According to Segalowitz (2003, 2010) automaticity isefficientaccurate andstable performance in language production

Acquiring a new rule/cognitive skill involves a transition from a stage characterized by purely declarative (explicit) knowledge (knowing “what”)to one characterized by procedural (implicit) knowledge (knowing “how”) (see also Paradis 2004).

57

Informants and experiments:(A) 23 English speaking 3rd year students of Japanese L2

at UWS received instruction on passive structures.

(B) 17 of these students successfully produced Japanese passive in class activity. These ( plus 1 native speaker control) proceeded to two experiments under different conditions:

• Experiment 1: A self-paced story-telling • Experiment 2: A time-constrained task (Tomlin’s Fish

Film)

58

Experimental Study on production of Passive structure (non-canonical mapping)

Kawaguchi & Di Biase, 2012

Active-passive alternation Tasks• Fishfilm (Time-constrained event description task) (active expected)

(passive expected)

59

Active and Passive in Processability Theory

60

Procedure Japanese (stages)

S-procedure

(functional assignment)

4

Passive (non-canonical mapping between thematic roles and

grammatical functions)

Phrasal 3

Category 2

Canonical Active

Word/Lemma 1

Results

Experiment 1A self-paced story

telling taskResults: 11 out of 17 Japanese L2 learners could produce causatives and/or benefactive and passive structures.

61

Experiment 2: Performance with time-constrained (Fish Film) task

62

a. The six learners who did not produce passive with the self-pacedtask did not produce passive with the time-constrained (fish film) task either

63

b. The 11 Learners who produced passive with the self-paced story telling task displayed MIXED results with the time-constrained (fish film) task.

Are the differences among the 11 learners measurable?Sentence production time for Group 1 (novices in the structure)

Eddy (Group 1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

No. of trials

Tim

e (S

ec.)

Active

64

The first group, as represented by Eddy, scored no passives at all in the time-constrained task: regardless of active or passive cues it only produced actives, in a way similar to the six learners who did not produce passives spontaneously in the self-paced task.

Group 2 Sentence production time (learning effect)

Jess (Group 2)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

No. of trials

Seco

nd Active

Passive

Eddy (Group 1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

No. of trials

Tim

e (S

ec.)

Active

65

This group of learners, represented by Jess, is the only one showing a ‘learning effect’ from the time-constrained task – which elicited a choice between active and passive. The more opportunities they got for production the better they did it. (cf. DeKeyser 2007).

Group 3 sentence production time (expert users)

Jess (Group 2)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

No. of trials

Seco

nd Active

Passive

Eddy (Group 1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

No. of trials

Tim

e (S

ec.)

Active

Kon (Group 3)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Number of trials

Tim

e (S

ec.)

Active

Passive

66

Group 3 (expert users) behaved like the NS control (next slide). It produced active on active cue and passive on passive cue. It shows no ‘learning effect’ (same as the novices!)

Sentence production time for all groups

67

Eddy (Group 1)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

No. of trials

Tim

e (S

ec.)

Active

Kon (Group 3)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Number of trials

Tim

e (S

ec.)

Active

Passive

Saki (NS control)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

No. of trials

tim

e (

se

c.)

Active

Passive

Jess (Group 2)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

No. of trials

Seco

nd Active

Passive

NB Expert L2ers take slightly longer than NS.

Passive sentence production time

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of trial

Tim

e (S

eco

nd

)

Kon

Jess

Saki (NS)

68

Summary of Passive sentences production time (measured with Audacity freeware)

Passive sentence production time* for Kon (Expert) and Jess (Intermediate)

Informant Mean Std. Dev Minimum Maximum

Kon (Expert)(N=15)

4.887273 1.06071 3.220119 7.262396

Jess (intermediate)(N=10)

7.231359 1.96669 4.602408 10.948151

*as measured with ‘Audacity’

N.B. Jess produced Passive 6 times with Agent cue and 4 times with Patient cue (total 10 times).

Summing up, for language acquisition to occur it may not be enough for a structure to emerge in order to actually use that structure outside classroom-defined contexts and tasks. Practice in context, in turn, will give learners the opportunity to automatize further components of their production (Paradis 2004) which will, in turn, free up working memory capacity to attend to more semantic and discourse-pragmatic components of the message.

69

Efficient, accurate and stable performance in language production requires training!

One further step! (Ma 2014)

70

Time constrained picture description task

71

Ma, 2014

Lower proficiency learners

Mid proficiency learners

High proficiency learners

To sum up…

• “if one can handle the phonology and syntax of a second language automatically, then more attention can be paid to processing semantic, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic levels of communication”. (Segalowitz, 2003)

• This would suggest that those learners who have not already automatized the articulatory, lexical and morpho-syntactic components required for processing passives may be unable to incorporate additional pragmatic cues in time-constrained speech.

72

73

4860

km25 second year students of Japanese L2

University of Western SydneyKanda University of International Study

23 first year English major Students

6. Digital technologies & evaluation of language development using PT

74

• Chat reduces the burden on Working Memory because of: (1) slower speed of information exchange (2 words/sec in normal speech, 3-4 second/content word in writing)(2) availability of previous messages (context) as visual representation.

• Therefore, the learner is able to utilise more attentional resources on L2 lexicon and forms while maintaining the same interaction

Advantages of chat over face-to-face communication in SLA

Payne & Whitney, 2002

75

• Tandem language learning via instant messaging between language classes in Japan and Australia.

• Tandem pairs were matched based on mutual interests.

• 3 chat sessions (30min.English/ 30min. Japanese per session) distributed over two months .

Project structure

Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011

76

Lexicon (Japanese L2)

Nunber of token per session

0

200

400

600

Clarke Ian Dani Leigh Charles

Session 1

Session

Session 3

Colin Iwan Daniel Leo Chris

J apanese　L2　learners'　accumulative　no.　of　word　types

0

100

200

300

400

Clarke Ian Dani Leigh Charles

Session 1

Session 1&2

Session 1,2&3

Colin Iwan Daniel Lee Chris

Evaluation

Kawaguchi, in press

Morphological Development

77

1st session

3rd session

78

1st session

3rd session

Syntactic Development

79

• (a) development of L2 text chat follows PT developmental stages.(b) there are vast individual differences in students’ learning outcomes.

• This justifies close monitoring to promote overall linguistic development e.g. by using a reliable developmental measure such as PT.

• There is a great potential for on-line PT Rapid Profile to play a role in monitoring L2 development with CALL (esp. text messaging) by learners themselves or teachers.

Result summary

7. Concluding remarks• A PT perspective is shown to be useful for promoting

successful second language learning and teaching, e.g., syllabus design.

• Promoting language skills are important to automatize higher structures in language use.

• PT stages are a useful tool to monitor learners’ language development in various communicative activities.

80

ReferencesBower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning &

Technology, 15(1), 41-71.Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1-4), 161-170.DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 97-135).

Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum.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.Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2012). Processability Theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition

(pp. 512-517). London; New York: Routledge.Eubank, L. (1986). Formal models of language learning and the acquisition of German word order and negation by primary and non-primary

language learners. (PhD Unpublished), University of Texas at Austin. Eubank 1987Eubank, L. (1987). The acquisition of German negation by formal language learners. In B. van Patten, T. Dvorack & J. Lee (Eds.), Foreign

language learning: a research perspective (pp. 31-51). New York: Newbury House/Harper and Row.Itani-Adams, Y. (2005). Exploring the interface between lexical and morphosyntactic development in Japanese-English bilingual first language

acquisition. CAESS Conference Scholarship & Community 2005 (pp. 1-15). University of Western Sydney.Itani-Adams, Y. (2007). One Child, Two Languages: Bilingual First Language Acquisition in Japanese and English. (Doctoral Dissertation),

University of Western Sydney.Itani-Adams, Y. (2009). Development of Discourse Function in Japanese and English Bilingual First Language Acquisition. In J.-U. Keßler & D.

Keatinge (Eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition: Empirical Evidence Accorss Languages (pp. 41-66). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Itani-Adams, Y. (2011). Bilingual first language acquisition. In M. Pienemann & J. U. Keβler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory (pp. 121-130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

81

Itani-Adams, Y. (2013). One child and two languages: Acquisition of Japanese and English as bilingual first languages. München: Lincom.

Iwasaki, J. (2004). The acquisition of Japanese as a second language and Processability Theory: A longitudinal study of a naturalistic child learner. doctoral dissertation. Edith Cowan University. Perth.

Iwasaki, J. (2008). Acquiring Japanese as a second language (JSL) in a naturalistic context: A longitudinal study of a young child from a Processability Theory (PT) perspective. In J. Philp, R. Oliver & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition and the Younger Learner: Child's play? Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Iwasaki, J. (2013). A Processability Theory (PT)-based Analysis of the Acquisition of Japanese Morphology and Syntax: a Case of an Intensive Adult Learner. Second Language, 12, 21-42.

Johnston, M. (1985). Syntactic and morphological progressions in learner English. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Johnston, M. (1997). Development and Variation in Learner Language. (PhD Unpublished), Australian National University, Canberra.Johnston, M. (2000). Stages of development for English as a second language. Melbourne: Language Australia.Kaplan, R. M., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.),

The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173-281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Grammatical development in learners of Japanese as a second language. In B. Di Biase (Ed.), Developing a

second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish (pp. 17-28). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Kawaguchi, S. (2005a). Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language: A Processability Perspective. (PhD), University of Western Sydney, Sydney.

Kawaguchi, S. (2005b). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processing Theory (pp. 253-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kawaguchi, S. (2007). Lexical Mapping Theory and Processability Theory: A Case Study in Japanese. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-Construction and Testing (pp. 39-90). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Kawaguchi, S. (2008). Language typology and Processability Theory. In J.-U. Kessler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kawaguchi, S. (2009). Acquiring Causative Constructions in Japanese as a Second Language. The Journal of Japanese Studies, 29(2), 273-291.

82

Kawaguchi, S. (2010). Learning Japanese as a Second Language: A Processability Perspective. New York: Cambria Press.Kawaguchi, S. (in press). Connecting CALL and second language development: e-tandem learning of Japanese. In C. Bettoni, and

B. Di Biase, (Eds.), Processability Theory: Current issues in theory and application. Euro SLA.Kawaguchi, S. (in press). Japanese. In C. Bettoni, and B. Di Biase, (Eds.), Processability Theory: Current issues in theory and

application. Euro SLA.Kawaguchi, S., & Di Biase, B. (2005). Secong language development at the syntax-pragmatics interface. Paper presented at the

7th Annual International Conference of the Japanese Society of language Sciences, Sophia University, TokyoKawaguchi, S., & Di Biase, B. (2009). Aligning second language learning and computer-assisted language learning: Networking the

language class, tandem learning and e-movies. The International Journal of Learning, 16(10), 287-302.Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11(2),

201-258.Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: LongmanLevelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ma, Y. (2014). Tasks and Grammatical Development in English as a Second Language. Paper presented at the Post Graduate

School Conference at School of Humanities & Communication Arts,, University of Western Sydney.Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 109-135.jParadis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Payne, J., & Whitney, P. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and

interlanguage development. Calico Journal, 20(1), 7-32.Pienemann, M. (1980). The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In S. Felix (Ed.), Second Language Development

(pp. 41-56). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Pienemann, M. (1981). Der Zweitspracherwerb auslandischer Arbeiterkinder. Bonn: Bouvier.Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2),

186-214.Pienemann, M. (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. AILA review, 5, 40-72.

83

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005). Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 128-153). New York: Oxford University Press.

Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and Second Languages. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 382-408). Malden: Blackwell.

Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. New York: Routledge.

84

85

Any Questions & comments [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

86

Stage/ Possible　 ControllingGSL　order　 permutation Strategies　

SVO [W　　X　　Y　　Z]　 +COS　　+SCSCanonical　order

ADV 　 [W　　X　　Y　　Z]　 +IFS+COS　　+SCSInitializ./ (add　one　constraint)Finalization

Verb　SEP [W　　X　　Y　　Z] -COS　+IFS+SCSDisruption　of　CO　 (shed　one　constraint)&　movement　tosalient　position

INVERSION 　 [W　　X　　Y　　　Z] -IFS -COS +SCSDisruption　of　CO　 (shed　one　more　constraint)Internal　movement

V-END　 [W　　X　　Y　　Z] -IFS -COS -　SCSSub-categorization (shed　one　more　constraint)(recognition　of　internalCateg.　&　substrings) 　　　　　　　　[A　　　B　　　C]

Cognitive Strategies (Clahsen 1984) see L-F&L (1991) p. 273

satomi kawaguchi university of western sydney

Documents