Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T13:28:59.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nothing Does Not Equal Zero

Problems with Applying Developmental Sequence Findings to Assessment and Pedagogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Thom Hudson
Thom Hudson
Affiliation:
University of Hawai'i at Mānoa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the past decade and a half, a great deal of research has posited a developmental sequence approach in second language acquisition. Much of this research has proposed that certain linguistic structures are acquired in a natural immutable order while other linguistic structures are acquired variably as a result of a learner's orientation (Clahsen, Meisel, & Pienemann, 1983; Meisel, Clahsen, & Pienemann, 1981; Pienemann, 1984, 1985, 1987; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). Proposals have been made for extending the model into language assessment and pedagogy (Clahsen, 1985; Pienemann, 1984, 1992; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). The present study reexamines the original social-psychological research upon which the multidimensional model is based and shows that it is incorrect due to faulty analyses. Further, it examines the limited applicability and generalizability of the developmental sequence approach for assessment and pedagogy.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 461 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bachman, L. (1989). Language testing—SLA research interfaces. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 1988, 9, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L., & Savignon, S. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Language Journal, 70, 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brindley, G. (1987). Verb tenses and TESOL. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 173–204). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1980). Psycholinguistic aspects of L2 acquisition: Word order phenomena in foreign workers' interlanguage. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 57–79). Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1985). Profiling second language development: A procedure for assessing proficiency. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 283–331). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1987). Connecting theories of language processing in (second) language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 103–116). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. V. (Ed.). (1984). Teaching for proficiency: The organizing principle. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1984). Australian second language proficiency ratings. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. (1985). Syntactic and morphological progressions in learner English. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal, 69, 337–345.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. (1963). Factor analysis as a statistical method. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1980). Linguistic simplification. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 13–40). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1983). Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 120–157). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 206–224). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1991). Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language learning: On some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 231–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–75). San Diego: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1987). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 103–116). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1992). Assessing second language acquisition through Rapid Profile. (LARC Occasional Papers, No. 3). University of Sydney, Language Acquisition Research Centre.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1986). An acquisition based procedure for second language assessment (ESL). Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 92–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–142). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1976). Social distance as a factor in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 26, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The pidginization process. A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with ‘context’ in interlanguage theory. Applied Linguistics, 6, 190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1982). Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning, 32, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1991). Second language competence versus second language performance: UG or processing strategies. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 167–189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1985). [Review of Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb Ausländischer Arbeiter]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar