Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Processability Theory
  • Online Resources for this publication available here.
  • Cited by 1
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
March 2025
Print publication year:
2025
Online ISBN:
9781009375931
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009375931
Series:
Elements in Second Language Acquisition
Subjects:
Applied Linguistics, Language and Linguistics
Information

Book description

Processability Theory (PT) is a psycholinguistic theory of second language acquisition. The theory builds on the fundamental assumption that learners can acquire only those linguistic forms and functions which they can process. Therefore, PT is based on the architecture of the human language processor. PT is implemented in a theory of grammar that is compatible with the basic design of the language processor. This Element gives a concise introduction to the psycholinguistic core of PT - showing that PT offers an explanation of language development and variation based on processing constraints that are specified for typologically different languages and that apply to first and second language acquisition, albeit in different ways. Processing constraints also delineate transfer from the first language and the effect of formal intervention. This Element also covers the main branches of research in the PT framework and provides an introduction to the methodology used in PT-based research.

References

References

Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34, 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00353.x.
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M. (2013). LFG contribution in second language acquisition research: The development of case in Russian L2. In Butt, М & King, T. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 69–89.
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M. (2015). Acquiring case marking in Russian as a second language: An exploratory study on subject and object. In Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. Paris: Eurosla, pp. 177–193.
Bardovi-Harling, K. (2020). One functional approach to L2 acquisition: The concept-oriented approach. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 40–62. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986-3.
Baten, K. (2011). Processability Theory and German case acquisition. Language Learning, 61(2), 455–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00615.x.
Baten, K. (2013). The Acquisition of the German Case System by Foreign Language Learners. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.2.
Baten, K. (2019). Teaching the German case system: A comparison of two approaches. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 301–326. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.13bat.
Baten, K., & Keßler, J.-U. (2019). Research timeline. The role of instruction: Teachability and processability. In Arntzen, R., Håkansson, G., Hjelde, A., & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Teachability and Learnability across Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.6.01bat.
Baten, K. & Ponnet, A. (2023). Extending PT to split ergative marking and differential object marking: Some hypotheses for L2 Hindi. In Kawaguchi, S., Yamaguchi, Y., & Biase, B. Di (eds.), Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.9.04bat.
Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (1999). Do iconic hand gestures really contribute anything to the semantic information conveyed by speech? An experimental investigation. Semiotica, 123, 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1999.123.1-2.1.
Bettoni, C., & Di Biase, B. (2015). Processability Theory: Theoretical bases and universal schedules. In Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. Paris: Eurosla, pp. 19–79.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (eds.) (2020). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000277.
Bley-Vroman, R., & Masterson, D. (1989). Reaction time as a supplement to grammaticality judgements in the investigation of second language learners’ competence. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8, 207–245.
Bonilla, C. (2015). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 15, 53–74.
Bresnan, J. (ed.) (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/414493.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119105664.
Buyl, A. (2019). Is morphosyntactic decoding governed by Processability Theory? In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.04buy.
Buyl, A., & Housen, A. (2015). Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account. Second Language Research, 31(4), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765831558590.
Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 538–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018027.
Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ ‘good enough’ interpretations of garden path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6.
Clahsen, H. (1990). The comparative study of first and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009050.
Clahsen, H., & Hong, U. (1995). Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction-time experiments. Second Language Research, 11, 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839501100103.
Cook, A. E. (2014). Processing anomalous anaphors. Memory and Cognition, 42(7), 1171–1185. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0415-0.
Dalrymple, M., Dyvik, H., & King, T. H. (2004). Copular complements: Closed or open? In Butt, M. & King, T. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 188–198.
Dargue, N., Sweller, N., & Jones, M. P. (2019). When our hands help us understand: A meta-analysis into the effects of gesture on comprehension. Psychological Bulletin, 145(8), 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000202.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W. M., & Verspoor, M. H. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732.
De Houwer, A. (2005). Early bilingual acquisition: Focus on morphosyntax and the separate development hypothesis. In Kroll, J. F. & Groot, A. M. B. De (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. New York: Oxford Academic, pp. 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195151770.003.0003.
Di Biase, B. (2002). Focusing strategies in second language development: A classroom-based study of Italian L2 in primary school. In Di Biase, B. (ed.), Developing a Second Language: Acquisition, Processing and Pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish. Melbourne: Language Australia, pp. 95–120.
Di Biase, B. (2008). Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In Keßler, J.-U. (ed.), Processability Approaches to Second Language Development and Second Language Learning. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 197–219.
Di Biase, B., Bettoni, C., & Medojević, L. (2015). The development of case: A study of Serbian in contact with Australian English. In Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. Paris: Eurosla, pp. 195–212.
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), 272–300. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr204oa.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (eds.) (2015). Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092574.
Dyson, B. P., & Håkansson, G. (2017). Understanding Second Language Processing: A Focus on Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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(3), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008159.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009a). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x.
Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054.
Feldman, D. P. (2019). Chaos and Dynamical Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc5pczn.
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7.
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158.
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x.
Forster, K. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In Cooper, W. E. & Walker, E. (eds.), Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 27–85.
Freedman, S., & Forster, K. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19, 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90015-0.
Galilei, Galileo (1638). Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche Intorno a Due Nuove Scienze: Leida, Appresso gli Elsevirii (Mathematical Discourses and Demonstrations, Relating to Two New Sciences), English translation by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio 1914). https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_E9BhikF658wC/page/n9/mode/2up.
Gambi, C., & Pickering, M. (2017). Models linking production and comprehension. In Fernández, E. M. & Cairns, H. Smith (eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 240–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch7.
Gass, S. (2001). Sentence matching: A re-examination. Second Language Research, 17(4), 421–441.
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2007). Processability Theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In Mansouri, F. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-Construction and Testing. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 81–94.
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250–273. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr206oa.
Haldane, J. B. S. (1926). On being the right size. Harper’s Magazine, 425–427. https://web.archive.org/web/20110822151104/http:/irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html.
Heilbron, J. L. (2010). Galileo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hendriks, P. (2014). Asymmetries between Language Production and Comprehension. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6901-4.
Itani-Adams, Y. (2011). Bilingual first language acquisition. In Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.10bil.
Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (eds.), (2014). Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123430.
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting Reaction Time Research in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203146255.
Kaplan, R., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 173–281.
Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 1013–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.105395.
Kautzsch, A. (2017). The Attainment of an English Accent. Frankfurt: Lang.
Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 253–298. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.10kaw.
Kawaguchi, S. (2010). Learning Japanese as a Second Language: A Processability Perspective. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.
Kawaguchi, S. (2015). The development of Japanese as a second language. In Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. Paris: Eurosla, pp. 149–172.
Kawaguchi, S. (2023). Studies of Japanese as a second language and their contribution to Processability Theory. In Kawaguchi, S., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, Y. (eds.), Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 27–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.9.02kaw.
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An Incremental Procedural Grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80006-X.
Kempen, G., Olsthoorn, N., & Sprenger, S. (2012). Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: Evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 345–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.544583.
Kersten, K., Rohde, A., Schelletter, C., & Steinlen, A. K. (eds.) (2010). Bilingual Preschools Volume 1: Learning and Development. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Keßler, J.-U., & Liebner, M. (2016). Diagnosing L2-English in the communicative EFL classroom: A task-based approach to individual and developmentally moderated focus on form in a meaning-focused setting. In Keßler, J., Lenzing, A., & Liebner, M. (eds.), Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5.09lie.
Krashen, S., & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28(2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00135.x.
Lange, M. (2018). Because without cause: Scientific explanations by constraint. In Reutlinger, A. & Saatsi, J. (eds.), Explanation beyond Causation: Philosophical Perspectives on Non-causal Explanations. Oxford: Oxford Academic, pp. 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198777946.003.0002.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In Ortega, L. & Han, Z. H. (eds.), Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 11–50. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.48.02lar.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Complex dynamic systems theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 248–270.
Lenzing, A. (2013). The Development of the Grammatical System in Early Second Language Acquisition: The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.3.
Lenzing, A. (2015). Exploring regularities and dynamic systems in L2 development. Language Learning, 65(1), 89–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12092.
Lenzing, A. (2019). Towards an integrated model of grammatical encoding and decoding in SLA. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 13–48. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.02len.
Lenzing, A. (2021). The Production–Comprehension Interface in Second Language Acquisition: An Integrated Encoding–Decoding Model. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Lenzing, A. (2022). How a processability perspective frames the potential of tasks in instructed SLA. Keynote, 9th International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. University of Innsbruck, 30 August.
Lenzing, A. (forthc./2025). How a processability perspective frames the potential of tasks in instructed SLA. In East, M. (ed.), Broadening the Horizons of TBLT: Plenary Addresses from the Second Decade of the International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lenzing, A., & Håkansson, G. (2022). Language transfer with regard to grammatical phenomena in L1 German learners of English. In Schick, K. & Rohde, A. (eds.), Von integrativem zu inklusivem Englischunterricht. Frankfurt: Lang, pp. 291–310.
Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (2019). Contextualising issues in processability theory. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1.8. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.01len.
Lenzing, A., & Pienemann, M. (2015). Response paper: Exploring the interface between morphosyntax and discourse/pragmatics/semantics. In Baten, K., Buyl, A., Lochtmann, K., & Van Herreweghe, M. (eds.), Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.4.05len.
Lenzing, A., Pienemann, M., & Nicholas, H. (2023). Lost in translation? On some key features of dynamical systems theorizing invoked in SLA research. In Kersten, K. & Winsler, A. (eds.), Understanding Variability in Second Language Acquisition, Bilingualism and Cognition. London: Routledge, pp. 39–79. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003155683-3.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1981). The speaker’s linearization problem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 295(1077, Series B), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1981.0142.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (ed.), Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 115–141.
Long, M. H. (1990a). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649–666. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587113.
Long, M. H. (1990b). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009165.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2.07lon.
Long, M. H. (2003). Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition Research. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 487–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch16.
Long, M. (1998). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Working Papers in ESL University of Hawai’i, 16(2), 35–49.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Magnani, M. (2019). Developing morpho-syntax in non-configurational languages: A comparison between Russian L2 and Italian L2. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.06mag.
Mansouri, F. (2005). Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language. Typological features and their processing implications. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 117–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.06man.
Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L. (2005). The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.28.1.06man.
Meisel, J. (1989). Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Hyltenstam, K. & Obler, L. (eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity and Loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611780.003.
Meisel, J. (1991). Principles of universal grammar and strategies of language use: On some differences between first and second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (ed.), Point–Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in a Second Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 231–276. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.3.12mei.
Meisel, J. (2001). The simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: Early differentiation and subsequent development of grammars. In Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.), Trends in Bilingual Acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 11–41. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.1.03mei.
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental sequences in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004137.
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3326990.
Moser, C., & Smaldino, P. E. (2022). Organizational development as generative entrenchment. Entropy, 24(7), 879. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24070879.
Myles, F., & Cordier, C. (2017). Formulaic sequence(fs) cannot be an umbrella term in SLA: Focusing on psycholinguistic FSs and their identification. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600036X.
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00045.
Neuser, H. (2017), Source Language of Lexical Transfer in Multilingual Learners. PhD thesis, Stockholm University.
Nicholas, H., Lenzing, A., & Roos, J. (2019). How does PT’s view of acquisition relate to the challenge of widening perspectives on SLA? In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.17nic.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00172.
Nicholas, H., Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2022a). Predicting stabilisation: The wrong track pathway hypothesis – longitudinal evidence from an adult learner. Paper presented to the PALA Conference, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 21–23 September.
Nicholas, H., Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2022b). Teacher decision-making, dynamical systems and Processability Theory. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 6, 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.21617.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203777282.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00945.x.
Pienemann, M. (1980). The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In Felix, S. W. (ed.), Second Language Development: Trends and Issues. Tubingen: Narr, pp. 41–56.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005015.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.52.
Pienemann, M. (1998a). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15.
Pienemann, M. (1998b). Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000017.
Pienemann, M. (2005a). Discussing PT. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.04pie.
Pienemann, M. (ed). (2005b). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.
Pienemann, M. (2007). Variation and dynamic systems in SLA. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 43–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002793.
Pienemann, M. (2011a). L1 transfer. In Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.06lit.
Pienemann, M. (2011b). The psycholinguistic basis of PT. In Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.03the.
Pienemann, M. (2015). An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12095.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability Theory. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 199–251. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005). Processability, typological distance and L1 transfer. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 85–116. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.05pie.
Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (2011) (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.
Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U., & Roos, E. (eds.), (2006). Englischerwerb in der Grundschule: Ein Studien- und Arbeitsbuch. Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.
Pienemann, M., Lanze, F., Nicholas, H., & Lenzing, A. (2022). Stabilization: A dynamic account. In Benati, A. & Schwieter, J. (eds.), Second Language Acquisition as Shaped by the Scholarly Legacy of Michael Long. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 29–76. https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.14.03pie.
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2020). Processability Theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 162–191.
Pienemann, M., Lenzing, A., & Keßler, J.-U. (2016). Testing the developmentally moderated transfer hypothesis: The initial state and the role of the L2 in L3 acquisition. In Keßler, J.-U., Lenzing, A., & Liebner, M. (eds.), Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5.04pie
Pienemann, M., Lenzing, A., & Nicholas, H. (online first/2024). Can dynamical systems theory be applied to second language acquisition? The issues of reductionism and intentionality. Second Language Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583241229280.
Pienemann, M., & Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children’s ESL development and Rapid Profile. In McKay, P. (ed.), ESL Development: Language and Literacy in Schools. Volume 2. Melbourne: Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia, pp. 115–259.
Plag, I. (2011). Pidgins and Creoles. In Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.09pid.
Platzack, C. (1996). The initial hypothesis of syntax: A minimalist perspective on language acquisition and attrition. In Clahsen, H. (ed.), Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 369–414. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.14.15pla.
Poesio, M., Sturt, P., Artstein, R., & Filik, R. (2006). Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes, 42, 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_4.
Ponnet, A. (2023). Climbing the Language Tree: Multiple Case Studies on the Acquisition of Hindi as a Foreign Language. PhD thesis, Ghent University.
Roos, J. (2007). Spracherwerb und Sprachproduktion: Lernziele und Lernergebnisse im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Tubingen: Narr.
Roos, J. (2019). Exploiting the potential of tasks for targeted language learning in the EFL classroom. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.12roo.
Schmiderer, K. (2023). Produktiver und rezeptiver Grammatikerwerb im schulischen Italienischunterricht. Tubingen: Narr.
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. (eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 317–368. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.8.14sch.
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200103.
Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension: An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 1662–1670. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr249.
Siegel, J. (2010). Pidgins and Creoles. In Kaplan, R. B. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford Academics. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195384253.013.0026.
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00002.
Spinner, P., & Jung, S. (2018). Production and comprehension in Processability Theory: A self-paced reading study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000110.
Turnbull, M. G. (2018). Underdetermination in science: What it is and why we should care. Philosophy Compass, 13(2), https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12475.
VanPatten, B. (2020). Input processing in adult L2 acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 105–127.
VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.) (2020a). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986.
VanPatten, B., Williams, J., Keating, G. D, & Wulff, S. (2020b). Introduction. The nature of theories. In VanPatten, B.., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–18.
Verhagen, J. (2011). Verb placement in second language acquisition: Experimental evidence for the different behaviour of auxiliary and lexical verbs. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 821–858. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000087.
Wheeldon, L. R., & Konopka, A. (2023). Grammatical Encoding for Speech Production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (2020). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 19–39.
Wimsatt, W. C. (1986). Developmental constraints, generative entrenchment, and the innate-acquired distinction. In Bechtel, W. (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines: Science and Philosophy. Volume 2. Springer: Dordrecht, pp. 85–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9435-1_11.
Wolpert, L. (1992). The shape of things to come. New Scientist, 134(18), 38–42. https://archive.org/details/sim_new-scientist_1992_134_index/page/n1/mode/2up.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zhang, X., & Lantolf, J. (2015). Natural or artificial: Is the route to L2 development teachable? Language Learning, 65, 152–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12094.
Zhang, Y. (2005). Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.07zha.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.