Transcript Document

10 July, 2014
シドニー日本語教育国際研究大会
International Conference on Japanese Language
Education
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
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
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):
SVO > ADV > SEP > INV > V-END
5
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
6
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)
Stage of
acquisition
Informants’ stage
BEFORE
instruction
Informants’ stage
AFTER instruction
Teach
Mimmo
Stage 4
INV
INV (Stage 4)
-----
Giovanni,
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
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
9
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
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 midSeventies 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)
11
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.
12
Table 1: POLISH ADULT LEARNERS OF ESL (Johnston 1997, 2000)
Table 3: VIETNAMESE ADULT
LEARNERS OF ESL (Johnston 1997,
2000)
13
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.
14
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.
15
PT key principle
• 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
16
According to Kempen and Hoenkamp’s (1987) processing procedures and routines in
speech generation are activated in the following sequence:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
lemma access
the category procedure
the phrasal procedure
the sentence procedure,
the subordinate clause procedure - if
applicable.
17
Sentence
phrase
category
Lemma
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.
18
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.
19
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)
Obligatory component
Structural choice at the
pragmatic-discourse interface
21
First principle: Feature unification (in English)
(cf. LFG (Kaplan & Bresnan 1982; Bresnan 2001)
3rd person –s: unification in S
plural concord: unification in NP
Stage 5
S
NPsubj
NPobj
Stage 3
VP
N
V
NPobj
det
Pete r
owns
PERSON = 3
NUM
= SG
det
N
N
a
dog
these dogs
PERSON = 3
NUM
= SG
NUM = PL
NUM = PL
Past –ed: no unification needed
Lemma:
Stage 2
OWNED
conceptual specs.:
“OWN“ (SUBJ, OBJ)
syntactic category:
V
diacritic features:
tense = past
These are all
obligatory structures
in English grammar
22
CONCEPTUALISER
discourse model
situation knowledge
encyclopedia etc
message
generator
monitoring
preverbal message
parsed speech
FORMULATOR
grammatical
encoding
surface structure
phonological
encoding
LEXICON
lemmas
SPEECHCOMPREHENSION
SYSTEM
forms
phonetic plan
(internal speech)
phonetic string
AUDITION
ARTICULATOR
overt speech
A blueprint for the speaker.
Boxes represent processing components; circle and ellipse represent
knowledge stores.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989:9) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press
23
Table 1:Hypothetical hierarchy of processing procedures (Pienemann, 1998)
S'-procedure
(EmbeddedS)
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
-
-
-
-
+
simplified
inter-phrasal
information
exchange
inter-phrasal
information
exchange
-
simplified
Sentenceprocedure
Phrasal
procedure
(head)
-
-
phrasal
information
exchange
phrasal
information
exchange
phrasal
information
exchange
category
procedure
(lex. categ.)
-
lexical
morphemes
lexical
morphemes
lexical
morphemes
lexical
morphemes
word/ lemma
+
+
+
+
+
24
３．Developmental Stages (PT) in Japanese L2
Morphological acquisition
Stage
Universal processing procedure
5
Subordinate clause procedure
4
The Sentence procedure and the target language
word order rules
Phrasal procedure (e.g. Noun Phrase, Verb
Phrase)
The lexical procedure (category of the word, e.g.
verb, noun)
Words (invariant form)
3
2
1
25
Stages of development for Japanese L2
VERBAL MORPHOLOGY
Stage 1
<Word/Lemma>
Invariant forms
おいしい (oisii)
Single words, Formulae
まんが (manga)
こんにちは！(konnichiwa)
PRINCIPLE: NO EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IS REQUIRED
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)
26
Stage 2
<Category Procedure>
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
PRINCIPLE: NO EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IS REQUIRED
 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
tabe-masita
verb
feature
TENSE
value
PAST
27
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
PRINCIPLE: EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IN THE VERB PHRASE
 grammatical features
are exchanged (unified)
within the noun phrase
Di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002
28
Stage 4
<S- Procedure>
Interphrasal morphology
Non-default case marking
e.g., passive, causative
PRINCIPLE:
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION (AT THE S- NODE) BETWEEN
PHRASES OF A DIFFERENT KIND (NP and VP)
 grammatical features are
exchanged (unified) at Sentence
level. In this case the feature/value
exchanged between the NPsubj
and the Verb are:
Sakana-ga neko-ni tabe-rare-ta
“魚が ねこに たべられた”
29
Empirical evidence: Morphology
30
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
Canonical order & Canonical mapping
kick <agent, patient>
Thematic roles
(event
participants)
Grammatica
l functions
Word order
agent
patient
subject
object
uma-ga
馬が
S
Kenji-o
健二を
O
ket-ta
蹴った
V
Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”
32
Higher L2 syntactic stages
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”
Higher stages based on
Lexical Mapping
Higher stages based on
the Promience Hypothesis
33
The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis
kick <agent, patient>
Thematic roles
(event
participants)
Grammatical
functions
Word order
agent
patient
subject
object
uma-ga
馬が
S
Kenji-o
健二を
O
ket-ta
蹴った
V
Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”
34
The Prominence Hypothesis
kick <agent, patient>
Thematic roles
(event
participants)
Grammatical
functions
Word order
agent
patient
subject
object
uma-ga
馬が
S
Kenji-o
健二を
O
ket-ta
蹴った
V
Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”
35
Higher stages based on
The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis
kicked <patient> “Kenji was kicked”
健二がけられた
Thematic roles
Grammatical
functions
Word order
agent
patient
Ø
SUBJ
Kenji-ga
健二が
Ke-rare-ta
蹴られた
Non-canonical mapping: Kenji-ga ke-rare-ta “Tom was kicked”
36
Sentence procedure requiring non-default mapping:
Case marking according to the feature of the verb
Eg.
Passive, Causative, Benefactive
“Exceptional” verbs (e.g. unaccusative verbs)
• 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
(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
Benefactive constructions
39
The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis
40
Lou’s syntactic development based on the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis (Kawaguchi
2009, 2010)
STAGE
STRUCTURE
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
causative
MAPPING
1/-1
MAPPING
1
transitive
1
-1
1
1
2/-3
-1
1
-1
Ditransitive without
DAT argument
transitive
+4/?1
+4, ?1
2/-1
1
3
1
-1
intransitive
intransitive
1
6
ditransitive
DEFAULT
T12
Benefactive
Intrincially noncanonical (vi)
DEFAULT
MAPPING AND
ADDITONAL
ARGUM.
T11
4
passive
NONDEFAULT
T10
6
1
4
4
1
4
3
1/-1
-1
0
10
4/-1
9
5
6
1
5
4
6
1
1
4
9/-1
10/-1
10
18
16
3
2
5
2
5
0
1
7/-1
4
4
1
41
The Prominence Hypothesis
kick <agent, patient>
Thematic roles
(event
participants)
Grammatical
functions
Word order
agent
patient
Object
Subject
Kenji-o
健二を
S
Uma-ga
馬が
O
ket-ta
蹴った
V
Figure 1. Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”
42
The Prominence Hypothesis
43
STAGE
NONCANONICITY IN
MARKING NOMINALS
XPTOP CANONICAL
WORD ORDER
STRUCTURE
T9
SUBJTOP-WA OBJFOC-WA V
1
1
ADJTOP-WA S(O)V/(S)OV
2*
5*
SUBJTOP-WA (O)V
S(O)V / (S)OV
T10 T11 T12
1
OBJTOP-WA (S)V
ADJ S(O)V
CANONICAL WORD
ORDER
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
1* 4*
3
1
3
3
2
3
5
7
3
7
5
8
9
1
5
2
5
2
1
4
6
6
7
7
9
7
2
9
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)
44
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
Implicational table for acquisition of Japanese L2 syntax in the cross-sectional study
Kawaguchi 2009; 284
49
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 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 argumentfunction 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
√ more structural choices
√ more faithful to discourse needs and
communicative intentions.
53
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 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)
Picture taken from
Lightbown & Spada
1993; 39
What happens after the “emergence” of a structure in L2?
56
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
Experimental Study on production of
Passive structure (non-canonical mapping)
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)
Kawaguchi & Di Biase, 2012
58
Active-passive alternation Tasks
• Fishfilm (Time-constrained event description task)
(active expected)
(passive expected)
59
Active and Passive in Processability Theory
Procedure
Japanese (stages)
S-procedure
(functional
assignment)
4
Passive (non-canonical mapping
between thematic roles and
grammatical functions)
3
Phrasal
Category
2
Canonical Active
Word/Lemma
1
60
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
Experiment 2: Performance with time-constrained (Fish Film) task
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
62
b. The 11 Learners who produced passive with the self-paced story telling
task displayed MIXED results with the time-constrained (fish film) task.
63
Are the differences among the 11 learners measurable?
Sentence production time for Group 1 (novices in the structure)
Eddy (Group 1)
Time (Sec.)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
No. of trials
Active
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.
64
Group 2 Sentence production time (learning effect)
Eddy (Group 1)
Jess (Group 2)
10
12
8
10
8
Second
Time (Sec.)
12
6
4
2
0
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
No. of trials
Active
Active
6
4
2
0
Passive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
No. of trials
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).
65
Group 3 sentence production time (expert users)
Jess (Group 2)
12
12
10
10
8
Second
Time (Sec.)
Eddy (Group 1)
8
6
4
2
0
Active
6
4
2
0
Passive
1
1
3
5
7
2
3
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
No. of trials
Time (Sec.)
10
8
Active
6
Passive
4
2
0
3
4
5
6
7
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
No. of trials
12
2
5
Active
Kon (Group 3)
1
4
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of trials
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!)
66
Sentence production time for all groups
Jess (Group 2)
12
12
10
10
8
Second
Time (Sec.)
Eddy (Group 1)
8
6
4
2
0
1
3
5
7
Active
6
4
2
0
Passive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
No. of trials
No. of trials
Active
Saki (NS control)
12
12
10
10
8
Active
6
Passive
4
2
time (sec.)
Time (Sec.)
Kon (Group 3)
8
Active
6
Passive
4
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of trials
NB Expert L2ers take slightly longer than NS.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
No. of trials
67
Passive sentence production time* for Kon (Expert) and Jess (Intermediate)
Passive sentence production time
Time (Second)
12
10
8
Kon
6
Jess
Saki (NS)
4
2
N.B. Jess
produced
Passive 6 times
with Agent cue
and 4 times with
Patient cue (total
10 times).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
No. of trial
*as measured with ‘Audacity’
Summary of Passive sentences production time (measured with Audacity freeware)
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
68
Efficient, accurate and stable performance in language
production requires training!
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
One further step! (Ma 2014)
• Fish film task (-planning time, + few elements)
• DMDX picture description task (-planning time; -few elements)
Time constrained picture description task
70
Lower proficiency
learners
Mid proficiency
learners
Ma, 2014
High proficiency
learners
71
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
6. Digital technologies & evaluation of language
development using PT
Kanda University of
International Study
23 first year
English major
Students
University of Western Sydney
4860
km
25 second year
students of Japanese
L2
73
Advantages of chat over face-to-face communication in
SLA
• 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
Payne & Whitney, 2002
74
Project structure
• 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 .
Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011
75
Evaluation
Nunber of token per session
600
Session 1
400
Session
200
Session 3
0
Colin
Clarke
Iwan
Ian
Daniel
Dani
Leo
Leigh
Lexicon
(Japanese L2)
Chris
Charles
Japanese L2 lear ner s' accumulat ive no. of wor d t ypes
400
300
Session 1
200
Session 1&2
Session 1,2&3
100
0
Colin
Clar ke
Iwan
Ian
Daniel
Dani
Lee
Leigh
Chris
Char les
Kawaguchi, in press
76
Morphological Development
1st session
3rd session
77
Syntactic Development
1st session
3rd session
78
Result summary
• (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.
79
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
References
Bower, 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(14), 161-170.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 97135). 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 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. 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, 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), 287-302.
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11(2), 201258.
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), 109-135.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), 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
Any Questions & comments ?
[email protected]
85
Cognitive Strategies (Clahsen 1984) see L-F&L (1991) p. 273
Stage/
GSL order
Possible
permutation
Controlling
Strategies
SVO
[W X Y Z]
+COS +SCS
ADV
[W X Y Z]
+IFS+COS +SCS
Verb SEP
[W X Y Z]
-COS +IFS+SCS
Canonical order
Initializ./
Finalization
Disruption of CO
& movement to
salient position
INVERSION
[W X Y
Z]
Sub-categorization
(recognition of internal
Categ. & substrings)
(shed one constraint)
-IFS
-COS
+SCS
(shed one more constraint)
Disruption of CO
Internal movement
V-END
(add one constraint)
[W X Y Z]
[A
B
C]
-IFS
-COS
- SCS
(shed one more constraint)
86