Volume 6, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Research on second language acquisition has located individual variation, without clarifying whether language processing prompts learners to differ systematically in the production of syntax and morphology. To address this issue, the study examined the hypothesis on variation in Processability Theory. This theory predicts that, within second language development, individual learners vary systematically in how they respond to developmental conflicts. Specifically, learners have distinct types, which are evident in their use of options and 'trailers' (structures which emerge late). Longitudinal spoken data were collected over one academic year from six adolescent ESL learners. The results revealed different learner types in terms of syntactic options and trailers. However, the learners had less clear types for the morphological options, used unpredicted options, and lacked consistency in their use of syntactic and morphological trailers. The paper suggests that learners vary in processing due to diverse orientations towards the acquisition of either syntax or morphology.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ando, J. , Fukunaga, N. , Kurahashi, J. , Suto, T. , Nakano, T. , & Kage, M.
    (1992) A comparative study of the two EFL teaching methods: The communicative and grammatical approach. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 247–256. doi: 10.5926/jjep1953.40.3_247
    https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep1953.40.3_247 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2006) Interlanguage development: Main Routes and individual paths. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dörnyei (eds.), Themes in SLA research: AILA Review, 19, 42–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bayley, R. & Preston, D.R.
    (2008) Variation and second language grammars. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 1, 285–397. doi: 10.1515/shll‑2008‑1025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2008-1025 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bresnan, J.
    (2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clahsen, H. J. Meisel & M. Pienemann
    (1983) Deutsch als Zweitsprache, Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins Cobuild English Grammar
    Collins Cobuild English Grammar (1990) London and Glasgow: Collins.
  7. Crystal, D.
    (1998) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics4th Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253. doi: 10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab [Google Scholar]
  9. Dörnyei, Z.
    (2006) Individual differences in second language acquisition. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dörnyei (eds.), Themes in SLA research. AILA Review, 19, 42–68. doi: 10.1075/aila.19.05dor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.05dor [Google Scholar]
  10. Di Biase, B. and Kawaguchi, S.
    (2002) Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 18, 272–300. doi: 10.1191/0267658302sr204oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr204oa [Google Scholar]
  11. Dyson, B.
    (2004) Developmental style in second language processing: A study of inter-learner variation in the acquisition of English as a Second Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2008) What we can learn from questions: Question development and its implications for language development. Prospect, 23, 16–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2009) Processability Theory and the role of morphology in ESL development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research, 25, 355–376. doi: 10.1177/0267658309104578
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658309104578 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2010) Learner language analytic methods and pedagogical implications. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33.3, 30.1–30.21.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Håkansson, G. Pienemann, Pienemann & Sayehli , S.
    (2002) Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18, 250–273. doi: 10.1191/0267658302sr206oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr206oa [Google Scholar]
  16. Håkansson, G. & Norrby C.
    (2010) Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing Second and Foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 60, 628–650. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00569.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00569.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Hansen Edwards, J. G.
    (2011) Deletion of /t, d/ and the acquisition of linguistic variation by Second Language Learners of English. Language Learning, 61, 1256–1301. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00672.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00672.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnston, M.
    (1997) Development and variation in learner language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Australian National University, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Keatinge, D. & Keßler, J-U.
    (2009) The acquisitiion of the passive voice in English as a Foreign Language: production and perception. In J-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp.69-94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kersten, K.
    (2009) Profiling child ESL acquisition: Practical and methodological issues. In J-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (ed.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Labov, W.
    (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H.
    (1991) An introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lenzing, A.
    (2013) The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition: the multiple constraints hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/palart.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mansouri, F.
    (2005) Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language: Typological features and their processing implications. In M. Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 117–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sibil.30.06man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.06man [Google Scholar]
  26. McDonough, K.
    (2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103. doi: 10.1017/S0272263105050047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050047 [Google Scholar]
  27. Meisel, J.M.
    (1980) Linguistic simplification: A study of immigrant workers' speech and foreigner talk. In S.W. Felix (ed.), Second Language Development: Trends and Issues (pp. 13–40). Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Meisel, J.M. , Clahsen , H. , & Pienemann , M.
    (1981) On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100004137
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004137 [Google Scholar]
  29. Phillips, C.
    (2012) Individual variation and constraints on language learning. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 281–286. doi: 10.1075/lab.2.3.08phi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.08phi [Google Scholar]
  30. Pienemann, M.
    (1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sibil.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15 [Google Scholar]
  31. (ed.) (2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sibil.30
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2010) A cognitive view of Language Acquisition: Processability Theory and beyond. In Seedhouse P Walsh S and Jenks C (eds.) Conceptualising 'learning' in applied linguistics (pp. 69&88). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2011) Learner variation. In M. Pienemann & J-U Keßler (eds.) Studying Processability Theory (pp. 12&26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/palart.1.02lea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.02lea [Google Scholar]
  34. (2015) An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151. doi: 10.1111/lang.12095
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12095 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pienemann, M. , Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi , S.
    (2005) Extending Processability Theory. In Pienemann M (ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199&252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sibil.30.09pie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.09pie [Google Scholar]
  36. Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M.
    (1987) Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (ed.), Applying Second Language Acquisition Research (p. 45&141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Research Centre, Adult Migrant Education Program.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pienemann, M. & Keßler. J-U.
    (ed.) (2011) Studying Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/palart.1
  38. Roberts, L.
    (2012) Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 62: Suppl. 2, 172–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00711.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00711.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Ryding, K. C.
    (2005) A reference grammar for Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486975
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486975 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sakai, H.
    (2008) An analysis of Japanese university students´ oral performance in English using Processability Theory. System, 36, 534–549. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sekerina, I.
    (2012) We need an integrated, multiple-predictor model of native language proficiency. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 304–307. doi: 10.1075/lab.2.3.12sek
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.12sek [Google Scholar]
  42. Skehan, P.
    (1998) Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tarone, E. & Parrish, B.
    (1988) Task-related variation in interlanguage. Language Learning, 38, 21–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1988.tb00400.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00400.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Vainikka, A. & Young Scholten, M.
    (2011) The acquisition of German: Introducing organic grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110263848
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110263848 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2012) The straight and narrow path. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 319–323. doi: 10.1075/lab.2.3.15vai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.15vai [Google Scholar]
  46. van Dijk, M. Verspoor, M. & Lowie, W.
    (2011) Variability and DST. In M. Verspoor , K. de Bot & W. Lowie (ed.), A dynamic approach to second language development (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.29.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.04van [Google Scholar]
  47. Weinrich, U. Labov, W. & Herzog, M.
    (1968) Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp. 95–188). Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Yamaguchi, Y.
    (2008) The early syntactic development in child L2 acquisition: What happens after “canonical order”?. In J-U. Keßler (ed.), Processability approaches to Second Language development and Second Language learning (pp. 247–268). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2009) The development of plural marking and plural agreement in child English L2 Acquisition. In J-U. Keßler & D. Keatinge (ed.), Research in Second Language Acquisition: empirical evidence across languages (pp. 9–39). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang Y.
    (2005) Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes. In M. Pienemann (ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sibil.30.07zha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.07zha [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error