Processability theory

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 228-246

  Pienemann, Manfred ^a   Keßler, JÖrg U ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADERBORN   (Germany)

^b Ludwigsburg University of Education   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85064361226     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203808184     Document Type: Chapter

References (84)

1. Andersen, R. (1984). The one-to-one principle. Language Learning, 34, 77—95.
2. Berti, P. and Di Biase., B. (2002). Form-focused instruction and the acquisition of nominal morphology in primary school learners of Italian L2. Italiano e Scuola NSW Italian Teachers Bulletin, 7(1), 10—14.
3. Bettoni, C. and DiBiase, B. (2005). Sviluppo obbligato e progresso morfosintattico — un caso di Processabilità in Italiano L2. Italiano Lingua Seconda, 3(7), 27—48.
4. Bettoni B. and Di Biase B. (Eds.) (under review). Processability theory: Current issues in theory and application. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
5. Boss, B. (1996). German grammar for beginners — the teachability hypothesis and its relevance to the classroom. In C. Arbones Sola, J. Rolin-Ianziti, and R. Sussx Eds, Proceedings of the conference on “Who’s afraid of teaching grammar?” Working papers in applied linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 93—103). Brisbane: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, University of Queensland, Australia.
6. Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
7. Brindley, G. (1998). Describing language development? Rating Scales and SLA. In L. F. Bachman and A. D. Cohen Eds, Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 112—140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In R. Anderson Ed, Second Languages (pp. 219—242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
9. Clahsen, H. (1992). Learnability theory and the problem of development in language acquisition. In J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck, and T. Roeper Eds, Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change (pp. 53—76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Di Biase, B. (2002). Focusing strategies in second language development: A classroom-based study of Italian L2 in primary school. In B. Di Biase Ed, Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy issues in Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish (pp. 95—120). Melbourne: Language Australia.
11. Di Biase, B. (2008). Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In J. U. Keßler Ed, Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 197—219). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
12. 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(3), 274-302.
13. Dyson, B. (1996). The debate on form-focused instruction: A teacher’s perspective. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 59-78.
14. Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 303-328.
15. Ferrari, S. and Nuzzo, E. (2009, July). Exploring interfaces between PT and other SLA related measures. Paper presented at the 9th International Symposium on Processability Theory, Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
16. Gao, X. (2004). Noun phrase morphemes and topic development in L2 Mandarin Chinese: A processability perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
17. Glahn, E., Hakansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., and Lund, K. (2001). Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 389-416.
18. Hakansson, G. (2001). Tense morphology and verb-second in Swedish L1 children, L2 children and children with SLI. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 85-99.
19. Hakansson, G., Salameh, E. -K., and Nettelbladt, U. (2003). Measuring language development in bilingual children: Swedish-Arabic children with and without language impairment. Linguistics, 41, 255-288.
20. Hammarberg, B. (1996). Examining the processability theory: The case of adjective agreement in L2 Swedish. In E. Kellerman, B. Welters, and T. Bongaerts Eds, Toegepaste taalwetenschap in artikelen 55: EUROSLA 6. A Selection of Papers, Nijmegen1996 (pp. 75—88).
21. Itani-Adams, Y. (2003, September). From word to phrase in Japanese-English bilingual first language acquisition. Paper presented at the MARCS seminar, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
22. Iwasaki, J. (2003, July). The acquisition of verbal morphosyntax in JSL by a child learner. Paper presented at 13th Biennial Conference ofthe JSAA, Brisbane, Australia.
23. Johnston, M. (1997). Development and variation in learner language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
24. Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. In M. Pienemann Ed, Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 253—298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25. Kawaguchi, S. and Di Biase, B. (in press). Emergence and automatization in second language development. In C. Bettoni and B. Di Biase Eds, Processability theory: Current issues in theory and application. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
26. Kempen, G. and Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201—258.
27. Keßler, J. -U. (2006). Englischerwerb im Anfangsunterricht diagnostizieren. Linguistische Profilanalysen und der Übergang von der Primar- in die Sekundarstufe I. Giessener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
28. Keßler, J. -U. (2007). Assessing EFL-development online: A feasibility study of rapid profile. In F. Mansouri Ed, Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 119—143). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
29. Keßler, J. -U. (2008a). Communicative tasks and second language profiling: Linguistic and pedagogical implications. In J. Eckerth and S. Siepmann Eds, Research on task-based language learning and teaching: Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 291—310). New York: Peter Lang.
30. Keßler, J. -U. Ed (2008b). Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
31. Keßler, J. -U. and Keatinge, D. (2008). Profiling oral second language development. In J. -U. Keßler Ed, Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 167—197). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
32. Keßler, J. -U. and Keatinge, D. Eds (2009). Research in second language acquisition. Evidence across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
33. Keßler, J. -U., Liebner, M., and Mansouri, F. (2011). “Teaching”. In M. Pienemann and J. -U. Keßler Eds, Studying processability theory. An introductory textbook (pp. 149—156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
35. Lenzing, A. and Plesser, A. (2010). “Challenging the Scope-Presission Dilemma in language testing. Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium on Processability Theory, Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, Sydney.
36. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Liebner, M. (2006). Variationsverhalten in verschiedenen Lernergruppen. In M. Pienemann, J. -U. Keßler, and E. Roos Eds, Englischerwerb in der Grundschule. Ein Studien- und Arbeitsbuch. Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh/UTB.
38. Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams Eds, Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 177—196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann Eds, Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77—99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
40. Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe Ed, Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115—141). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
41. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch Eds, Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39—52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42. Mackey, A. (1992). Targeting morpho-syntax in children’s ESL: An empirical study of the use of interactive goal-based tasks. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 10(1), 67—91.
43. Mackey, A., Pienemann, M., and Thornton, I. (1991). Rapid PROFILE: A second language screeningprocedure. Language and Language Education: Working Papers of the National Languages Institute of Australia, 1, 61—82.
44. Mansouri, F. (2000). Grammatical markedness and information processing in the acquisition of Arabic as a second language (pp. 1—260). Munich, Germany: LINCOM EUROPA Academic Publishers.
45. Mansouri, F. (2007). Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
46. Mansouri, F. and Duffy, L. (2005). The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammer instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 81—99.
47. McDonough, K. and Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 31—47.
48. Meisel, J. M. (1983). Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In R. W. Andersen Ed, Pidginisation and creolisation as language acquisition (pp. 120—157). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
49. Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., and Pienemann, M. (1981). Determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109—135.
50. Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., and McLean, J. F. (2002). Constituent structure is formulated in one stage. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 586—605.
51. Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186—214.
52. Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann Eds, Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23—75). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
53. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52—79.
54. Pienemann, M. (1990). LARC Research Projects 1990. Sydney: NLIA/Language Acquisition Research Center.
55. Pienemann, M. (1992). Assessing second language acquisition through rapid profile. ms. Sydney.
56. Pienemann, M. (1998a). Language processing and second language development - processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
57. Pienemann, M. (1998b). Developmental dynamics in L1 an L2 acquisition: Processability theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 1—20.
58. Pienemann, M. (2003). Language processing capacity. In C. Doughty and M. Long Eds, Handbook of second language acquisition theory and research (pp. 679—714). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
59. Pienemann, M. Ed (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
60. Pienemann, M. (2006). “Applying SLA research to the measurement of bilingual proficiency”. Paper read at the Conference on “Lexical organisation in bilinguals”. University of the West of England, Bristol, 6 January, 2006.
61. Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., and Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending processability theory. In M. Pienemann Ed, Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 199—251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
62. Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., and Hakansson, G. (2005). Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In J. F. Kroll and A. M. B. DeGroot Eds, Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches(pp. 128-153). New York: Oxford University Press.
63. Pienemann, M. and Hakansson, G. (1999). A unified approach towards the development of Swedish as L2: A processability account. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 383-420.
64. Pienemann, M. and Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D.Nunan Ed, Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45-141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
65. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., and Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 217-243.
66. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., and Meisel, J. (1993). The multidimensional model, linguistic profiling, and related issues. A reply to Hudson. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(4), 495-503.
67. Pienemann, M. and Keßler, J.-U. (2007). Measuring bilingualism. In P. Auer and L. Wei Eds, Handbook of applied linguistics: Vol. 5. Multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 247-275). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
68. Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U. (eds.) (2011). Studying processability theory. An introductory textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
69. Pienemann, M., Keßler, J. -U., and Itami-Adams, Y. (2011). Comparing levels of processability across languages [Special issue]. International Journal of Bilingualism, 128-146.
70. Pienemann, M., Keßler, J. -U., and Lenzing, A. (forthcoming). Transfer at the initial state. InJ.-U. Keßler and M. Liebner Eds, Developing and Assessing Second Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
71. Pienemann, M., Keßler, J. -U., and Liebner, M. (2006). Englischerwerb in der Grundschule: Untersuchungsergebnisse im Überblick. In M. Pienemann, J.-U. Keßler, and E. Roos Eds, Englischerwerb in der Grundschule. Ein Studien- und Arbeitsbuch (pp. 67—88). Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh/UTB.
72. Pienemann, M. and Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children’s ESL development and Rapid Profile. In P. McKay Ed, ESL development: Language and literacy in Schools. Vol. 2 (pp. 115—259). Canberra: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.
73. Schwarze, C. (2002). Representation and variation: On the development of Romance auxiliary syntax. In M. Butt and T. Holloway King Eds, Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives in morphosyntax (pp. 105—141). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
74. Seedhouse, P. (2005). “Task” as research construct. Language Learning, 58(3), 533—570.
75. Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. Doughty and M. Long Eds, Handbook of second language acquisition theory and research (pp. 382—408). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
76. Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. A. Ferguson and D. I. Slobin Eds, Studies of child language development (pp. 175—208). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
77. Spada, N. and Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1—22.
78. Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., and Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61, 261—298.
79. Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., and Semenza, C. (1995). Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: The role of semantic and morphological factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 186—215.
80. Wexler, K. (1982). A principle theory for language acquisition. In E. Wanner and L. R. Gleitman Eds, Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 288—315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81. Wexler, K. and Culicover, P. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. White, L. (1991). Second language competence versus second language performance: UG or processing strategies? In L. Eubank Ed, Point counterpoint. Universal grammar in the second language (pp. 167—189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
83. Zhang, Y. (2001). Second language acquisition of Chinese grammatical morphemes: A processability perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
84. 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. 155—177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.