Acquisition of German Word Order in Tutored Learners: A Cross‐Sectional Study in a Wider Theoretical Context

Abstract

This article presents the results from a cross-sectional study that tests predictions of processability theory (PT) regarding the acquisition of German word order. Spontaneous production data were elicited from 21 tutored second language learners of German who are native speakers of English. Each learner engaged in a 45-min informal conversation with a native speaker of German. The conversations were transcribed, analyzed, and implicationally scaled with respect to stages in the acquisition of German word order as predicted by PT. Applying the emergence criterion for acquisition set by PT, the implicational scale strongly confirmed the predictions with a 100% fit. The study focused on four subhypotheses drawn from PT. Two (the order and cumulative nature of predicted stages) were strongly supported. Support for the third hypothesis on the sequential nature of the stages was less clear. The final hypothesis on universality was assessed through a comparison with previous studies on different learner groups and appeared to be supported with one exception. Because PT focuses on procedural knowledge, the study's empirical findings were also viewed in the light of the theory of modulated structure building (MSB), which seeks to explain the acquisition of representational knowledge. . I gratefully acknowledge the contribution and open-hearted spirit which participating students and the native speakers brought to the project. For the students it was quite a task to engage in a sustained spontaneous conversation with an unfamiliar native speaker. Without their generous participation the study would not have been possible. I am indebted to Bronwen Dyson, Evelyn Hatch, Malcolm Paull, Yanyin Zhang, as well as four anonymous reviewers and two editors of Language Learning for their encouragement and insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper, and for their help with English style. I also wish to thank Helen Charters for her generous help with the intricacies of labeling rule descriptions. Any remaining errors and problems are entirely mine.

The Development of Subordinate Clauses in German and Swedish as L2s

“…In the research field, the minimal number of contexts considered necessary to claim that a structure has emerged varies among researchers, ranging from one (Glahn et al, 2001) to three (Dulay & Burt, 1974;Zhang, 2005), four (Jansen, 2008;Meisel et al, 1981;Pienemann, 1998;Zhang, 2004), and even five (Andersen, 1978;Pienemann, 1998). …”

“…Relying on Levelt's (1989) model of language production, PT describes the cumulative nature of unification points in a universal hierarchy of processability (see Pienemann, 1998Pienemann, , 2005 In PT, research on syntactic development has mainly focused on the development of word order regularities of various languages, including L2 German and L2 Swedish (for German : Boss, 1996;Clahsen, 1984;Clahsen, Meisel, & Pienemann, 1983;Ellis, 1989;Jansen, 2008;MeerholzHärle & Tschirner, 2001;Meisel et al, 1981;Pienemann, 1984Pienemann, , 1989for Swedish: Glahn et al, 2001;Håkansson, 2001;Håkansson & Norrby, 2007Philipsson, 2007;Pienemann & Håkansson, 1999;Rahkonen & Håkansson, 2008;Schönström, 2010). Different empirical studies have reported developmental sequences that are generally consistent with the processability hierarchy (see Table 1).…”

Acquisition of L2 english morphology

“…Learning settings affect the rate of learning and the overall accuracy of L2 production, with instructed learners in both foreign and second language settings progressing faster and being more accurate than naturalistic learners (e.g. Sato, 1990;Ellis, 1989;Jansen, 2008;Jia and Fuse, 2007).…”

Natural or Artificial: Is the Route of L2 Development Teachable?

“…Pienemann and his colleagues have conducted numerous observational studies designed to assess the validity of TH. The studies that provide support for TH include the following: Felix (), Pienemann (, , , ), Boss (), Mansouri and Duffy (), Jansen (), Ellis (, ), Y. Zhang (), Gao (), and Wang (). They have shown that learners must progress from one processing stage to the next; that learners cannot skip stages; that instruction is only effective if it aims at stage X+1 and not X+2 or higher; that the progress of learners can be plotted on an implicational scale in a stepwise progression from least to most complex processing stage; and that if a learner can produce features at say Stage 4, he or she, implicationally, can also produce features at the three preceding stages.…”