Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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 Kawaguchi University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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 Kawaguchi University."— Presentation transcript:

1 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 Kawaguchi University 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

2 Outline 1. Introduction & some background 2. 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 PT 7. Concluding remarks 2

3 Introduction Processability Theory (Pienemann 1998): A theory of SLA focusing on L2 development Theory-Practice-Evaluation link in teaching and learning Japanese L2 3

4 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

5 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-END

6 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

7 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

8 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 SVO (Stage 1)Carmine INV=Inversion, SEP = Verb separation, ADV = Adverb fronting Teach Stage 4 INV

9 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 SVO (Stage 1)Carmine INV=Inversion, SEP = Verb separation, ADV = Adverb fronting

10 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 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 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 13 Table 1: POLISH ADULT LEARNERS OF ESL (Johnston 1997, 2000) Table 3: VIETNAMESE ADULT LEARNERS OF ESL (Johnston 1997, 2000)

14 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 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 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 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 procedure 4. the sentence procedure, 5. the subordinate clause procedure - if applicable.

18 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 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.

20 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

21 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 22 First principle: Feature unification (in English) (cf. LFG (Kaplan & Bresnan 1982; Bresnan 2001) 3rd person –s: unification in Splural concord: unification in NP NPobj det N these dogs 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 structures in English grammar

23 23

24 24 t1t2t3t4t5 S'-procedure (EmbeddedS) Sentence- procedure -simplified inter-phrasal information exchange inter-phrasal information exchange Phrasal procedure (head) --phrasal information exchange phrasal information exchange phrasal information exchange category procedure (lex. categ.) -lexical morphemes word/ lemma+++++ Table 1:Hypothetical hierarchy of processing procedures (Pienemann, 1998)

25 3. Developmental Stages (PT) in Japanese L2 Morphological acquisition 25 StageUniversal processing procedure 5Subordinate clause procedure 4The Sentence procedure and the target language word order rules 3Phrasal procedure (e.g. Noun Phrase, Verb Phrase) 2The lexical procedure (category of the word, e.g. verb, noun) 1Words (invariant form)

26 26 Stages of development for Japanese L2 VERBAL MORPHOLOGY Stage 1 Invariant forms Single 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 27 Stage 2 Lexical morphology FORM variation past –masita negative –masen noun 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 entrycategoryfeature value tabe-masita verb TENSEPAST PRINCIPLE: NO EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IS REQUIRED

28 28 Stage 3 Phrasal Procedure Verb Combination e.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 29 Stage 4 Interphrasal morphology Non-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 30 Empirical evidence: Morphology

31 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

32 kick Thematic roles (event participants) agentpatient Grammatica l functions subjectobject 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”

33 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 Single words, Formula こんにちは! Konnichiwa! ありがとう Arigatoo (gozaimasu) 2 SOV (わたしは)日本語を話します (watasi-wa) nihongo-o hanasimasu “(I) speak Japanese”

34 kick Thematic roles (event participants) agentpatient Grammatical functions subjectobject Word order uma-ga 馬が S Kenji-o 健二を O ket-ta 蹴った V 34 Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji” The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis

35 kick Thematic roles (event participants) agentpatient Grammatical functions subjectobject Word order uma-ga 馬が 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”

36 kicked “Kenji was kicked” 健二がけられた Thematic roles agentpatient 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 The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis

37 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)

38 (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 39 Benefactive constructions

40 The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis 40

41 41 STAGESTRUCTURET1T1 T2T2 T3T3 T4T4 T5T5 T6T6 T7T7 T8T8 T9T9 T 10 T 11 T 12 NONDEFAULT MAPPING causative 4 passive 13 Benefactive Intrincially non- canonical (vi) 1/ / /-3 1 DEFAULT MAPPING AND ADDITONAL ARGUM. ditransitive transitive intransitive +4/?1+4, ?161/-10104/-195 DEFAULT MAPPING Ditransitive without DAT argument transitive /-1 10/ intransitive /-1441 Lou ’ s syntactic development based on the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis (Kawaguchi 2009, 2010)

42 kick Thematic roles (event participants) agentpatient Grammatical functions ObjectSubject Word order Kenji-o 健二を S Uma-ga 馬が O ket-ta 蹴った V 42 The Prominence Hypothesis Figure 1. Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”

43 The Prominence Hypothesis 43

44 44 STAGESTRUCTURET1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10T11T12 NONCANONICITY IN MARKING NOMINALS SUBJ TOP-WA OBJ FOC-WA V OBJ TOP-WA (S)V XP TOP CANONICAL WORD ORDER ADJ TOP-WA S(O)V/(S)OV 2* ADJ S(O)V 5* CANONICAL WORD ORDER SUBJ TOP-WA (O)V S(O)V / (S)OV1*4* * 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)

45 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

46 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

47 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

48 A cross-sectional study 24 intermediate-advanced university learners of Japanese L2: 16 English L1 and 8 Chinese L1 background learners. 48

49 49 Implicational table for acquisition of Japanese L2 syntax in the cross-sectional study Kawaguchi 2009; 284

50 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

51 Stage 3 Learners Susan (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

52 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

53 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.

54 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

55 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

56 Learning grammatical knowledge and language skills Emergence 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

57 What is automaticity in L2? According to Segalowitz (2003, 2010) automaticity is efficient accurate and stable 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

58 Informants and experiments: (A) 23 English speaking 3 rd 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

59 Active-passive alternation Tasks Fishfilm ( Time-constrained event description task) (active expected) (passive expected) 59

60 Active and Passive in Processability Theory 60 ProcedureJapanese (stages) S-procedure (functional assignment) 4 Passive (non-canonical mapping between thematic roles and grammatical functions) Phrasal3 Category2 Canonical Active Word/Lemma1

61 Results Experiment 1 A self-paced story telling task Results: 11 out of 17 Japanese L2 learners could produce causatives and/or benefactive and passive structures. 61

62 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 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.

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

65 Group 2 Sentence production time (learning effect) 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).

66 Group 3 sentence production time (expert users) 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!)

67 Sentence production time for all groups 67 NB Expert L2ers take slightly longer than NS.

68 68 Summary of Passive sentences production time (measured with Audacity freeware) Passive sentence production time* for Kon (Expert) and Jess (Intermediate) InformantMeanStd. DevMinimumMaximum Kon (Expert) (N=15) Jess (intermediate) (N=10) *as measured with ‘Audacity’ N.B. Jess produced Passive 6 times with Agent cue and 4 times with Patient cue (total 10 times).

69 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!

70 One further step! (Ma 2014) 70 Time constrained picture description task

71 71 Ma, 2014 Lower proficiency learners Mid proficiency learners High proficiency learners

72 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 km 25 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 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 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 76 Lexicon (Japanese L2) ColinIwanDanielLeoChris ColinIwanDanielLeeChris Evaluation Kawaguchi, in press

77 Morphological Development 77 1 st session 3 rd session

78 78 1 st session 3 rd session Syntactic Development

79 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

80 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

81 References Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 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), DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp ). 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), Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2012). Processability Theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition (pp ). 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 1987 Eubank, 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 ). 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 ). 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 ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 81

82 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, 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 ). 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 ). 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 ). 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 ). 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),

83 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, Tokyo Kawaguchi, 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), Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11(2), Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman Levelt, 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), j Paradis, 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), Pienemann, M. (1980). The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In S. Felix (Ed.), Second Language Development (pp ). 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), Pienemann, M. (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. AILA review, 5,

84 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 ). 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 ). Malden: Blackwell. Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. New York: Routledge. 84

85 85 Any Questions & comments ?

86 86 Stage/Possible Controlling GSL order permutationStrategies SVO[W X Y Z] +COS +SCS Canonical order ADV [W X Y Z] +IFS+COS +SCS Initializ./(add one constraint) Finalization Verb SEP[W X Y Z] -COS +IFS+SCS Disruption of CO (shed one constraint) & movement to salient position INVERSION [W X Y Z] -IFS-COS+SCS Disruption of CO (shed one more constraint) Internal movement V-END [W X Y Z] -IFS-COS- SCS Sub-categorization(shed one more constraint) (recognition of internal Categ. & substrings) [A B C] Cognitive Strategies (Clahsen 1984) see L-F&L (1991) p. 273


Download ppt "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 Kawaguchi University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google