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 L 2 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 L 2 development • Theory-Practice-Evaluation link in teaching and learning Japanese L 2 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 L 2 acquisition, i. e. , What to teach When. There is a fixed path in L 2 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 INV (Stage 4) ----- Teach Giovanni, Mimmo SEP (Stage 3) Giovanni, Mimmo ---- ADV (Stage 2) Teresa, Monica SVO (Stage 1) Carmine Stage 4 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 SVO (Stage 1) 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 mid. Seventies to mid Eighties. • Johnston studied, cross-sectionally 12 Polish and 12 Vietnamese immigrants at a range of times after their arrival in Australia. the SAMPLE report = Syntactic and Morphological Progressions in Learners’ English (1984) 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 L 2 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 L 2 (so it is assumed to work universally). • Processability relates to how the L 2 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. lemma access 2. the category procedure 3. the phrasal procedure 4. the sentence procedure, 5. 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 L 2). 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) 3 rd person –s: unification in S plural concord: unification in NP Stage 5 NPobj det Stage 3 N these dogs 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
23
Table 1: Hypothetical hierarchy of processing procedures (Pienemann, 1998) t 1 S'-procedure (Embedded. S) t 2 t 3 t 4 t 5 - - + simplified inter-phrasal information exchange - simplified Sentenceprocedure Phrasal procedure (head) - - phrasal information exchange category procedure (lex. categ. ) - lexical morphemes word/ lemma + + + 24
３．Developmental Stages (PT) in Japanese L 2 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 L 2 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 q This stage is language-specific: grammatical features are different from language to language. q 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 q 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) q 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 L 2 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) 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” 32
Higher L 2 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) NONDEFAULT MAPPING AND ADDITONAL ARGUM. DEFAULT MAPPING STRUCTURE T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 T 6 T 7 T 8 T 9 T 10 T 11 T 12 causative STAGE 4 passive 1 -1 3 Benefactive Intrincially noncanonical (vi) 1/-1 1 1 1 2/-3 6 2/-1 -1 1 ditransitive 1 1 -1 1 4 4 1 4 3 intransitive -1 +4/? 1 +4, ? 1 6 1/-1 -1 0 10 4/-1 9 5 Ditransitive without DAT argument transitive 6 5 4 6 1 1 4 9/-1 10 18 16 intransitive 1 3 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 T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 T 6 T 7 T 8 T 9 T 10 T 11 T 12 SUBJTOP-WA OBJFOC-WA V 1 1 OBJTOP-WA (S)V 1 ADJTOP-WA S(O)V/(S)OV 2* 3 1 2 5 2 ADJ S(O)V 5* 3 3 2 1 1 4 6 6 7 SUBJTOP-WA (O)V 3 5 7 3 7 9 7 2 9 7 5 8 9 5 10 22 11 26 12 S(O)V / (S)OV 1* 4* * SUBJ is not expressed Empirical Evidence of the Prominence Hypothesis: Lou’s syntactic development based on the Prominence Hypothesis: Declaratives (Kawaguchi, in press) *All SUBJ omission (t 1, t 2) 44
Other empirical evidence • JFL adult classroom setting: Longitudinal and cross sectional studies (Kawaguchi 2002, 2005 a&b, 2007, 2008, 2010; Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2002, 2012) • Child language acquisition of Japanese L 2 in a naturalistic environment (Iwasaki 2004, 2008) • Adult language acquisition of Japanese L 2 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 L 2: 16 English L 1 and 8 Chinese L 1 background learners. 48
Implicational table for acquisition of Japanese L 2 syntax in the cross-sectional study Kawaguchi 2009; 284 49
Stage 2 learners (SOV) Informant 12 (Liz: E L 1) 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 L 1) 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-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. . . 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 L 2 acquisition • In SLA, “procedural, not declarative knowledge is the ultimate goal” for the second language learner (e. g. , De. Keyser 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 Picture taken from • take a long time in producing it Lightbown & Spada 1993; 39 • be inaccurate • may perform variably (i. e. , the structure is unstable) What happens after the “emergence” of a structure in L 2? 56
What is automaticity in L 2? 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 3 rd year students of Japanese L 2 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) Phrasal 3 Category 2 Canonical Active Word/Lemma 1 60
Results Experiment 1 A self-paced story telling task Results: 11 out of 17 Japanese L 2 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) 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) 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. De. Keyser 2007). 65
Group 3 sentence production time (expert users) 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 NB Expert L 2 ers take slightly longer than NS. 67
Passive sentence production time* for Kon (Expert) and Jess (Intermediate) N. B. Jess produced Passive 6 times with Agent cue and 4 times with Patient cue (total 10 times). *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 High proficiency learners Ma, 2014 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 L 2 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 L 2 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 (30 min. English/ 30 min. Japanese per session) distributed over two months. Bower & Kawaguchi, 2011 75
Evaluation Colin Iwan Daniel Leo Lee Chris Lexicon (Japanese L 2) Kawaguchi, in press 76
Morphological Development 1 st session 3 rd session 77
Syntactic Development 1 st session 3 rd session 78
Result summary • (a) development of L 2 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 L 2 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 e. Tandem. 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. De. Keyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. Van. Patten & 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. (Ph. D 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. (Ph. D 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. (2005 a). Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language: A Processability Perspective. (Ph. D), University of Western Sydney, Sydney. Kawaguchi, S. (2005 b). 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 7 th 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 L 2 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 L 2 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 L 1 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 ? s. kawaguchi@uws. edu. au 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
Скачать презентацию 10 July 2014 シドニー日本語教育国際研究大会 International Conference on Japanese
b748421a49e55eed787cf9759bc2a128.ppt