Reassessing the applicability of Processability Theory: The case of nominal plural

Abstract

This article identifies empirical evidence (Dao, 2007; in preparation) conflicting with Processability Theory's (PT) prediction that in acquisition of English as a second language (ESL), plural-marking emerges first in bare nouns and only later in numeric expressions. Specifically, it presents results from Dao's (2007) cross-sectional study of ESL in 36 Vietnamese learners, which was designed to test PT's predictions that inflections emerge in lexical contexts before agreement in phrasal contexts, but found that emergence occurred in the reverse order. The article explores whether Dao's findings invalidate PT's crosslinguistic principles or whether there is a problem in applying these to language-specific empirical contexts. The exploration reveals weaknesses in the description of PT's principles, as these are based on implicit assumptions, which may be invalid in specific first language / second language (L1/L2) typological contexts and thus lead to incorrect predictions. The findings are explained by reference to L1 transfer represented in the framework of one of PT's feeder theories: Levelt's (1989) Theory of Speaking as modelled in Weaver++ (Levelt et al., 1999). Our L1 transfer account is in line with PT's Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis. Keywordsacquisition of ESL nominal plural, English second language acquisition, acquisition of plurality, acquisition of number, cognitive linguistics

Language Production and Reception: A Processability Theory Study

“…Moreover, there were differences in performance between English‐ and French‐speaking learners on demonstrative‐predicate agreement, which cannot be accounted for by PT. Finally, Charters, Dao, and Jansen () found that number agreement generally emerged in phrasal before lexical contexts (the opposite of the order predicted by PT) in the data from 36 Vietnamese learners of English, although they claim that this pattern can be accounted for by the Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis (Pienemann, Di Biase, & Kawaguchi, ), which states that L1 transfer of PT processing routines is possible if the L1 processing system is able to process the L2 input directly.…”

Applicability of processability theory to Japanese adolescent EFL learners: A case study of early L2 syntactic and morphological development

“…However, the latest PT publications have explicitly hypothesized that the development of syntax and morphology has two separate motivations (Di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2013;Pienemann & Kebler, 2012;Yamaguchi, 2013). In this context, recent cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on English L2 learners have demonstrated the effects of L1 influence and individual variation on morphological development (Charters, Dao, & Jansen, 2011;Dao, 2007;Dyson, 2009;Zhang & Widyastuti, 2010). Meanwhile, other longitudinal child L2 studies have confirmed PT prediction (Yamaguchi, 2013;Yamaguchi & Kawaguchi, 2014).…”

“…Dao (2007) tested a PT prediction for 36 adolescent Vietnamese-speaking EFL learners (N ¼ 36) using cross-sectional speech data from communicative tasks and found that plural-marking was acquired in a phrasal context with numerically quantified nouns before the emergence of the bare lexical plural against PT prediction, according to Charters et al (2011). With reference to Dao's (2007) findings, Charters et al (2011) conducted a further discussion using a speech processing model called Weaverþþ (Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999) and clarified that this counterevidence to L1 transfer was still within range of PT's Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis that "one can only transfer what can be processed" (Pienemann & Kebler, 2011, p. 75). Zhang and Widyastuti (2010) also empirically revealed L1 transfer in L2 morphological use within the PT framework.…”

“…For example, ichi dai [one þ classifier] no [modifying particle] kuruma [car] for one car or ni hon [two þ classifier] no [modifying particle] empitsu [pencil]) for two pencils. Charters et al (2011) also conducted a detailed investigation of the nominal plural-marking development in crosssectional Vietnamese EFL data and found that quantified nouns emerged before the bare lexical plural -s. This suggested that early L2 English learners with a classifier language L1, such as Vietnamese and Japanese, acquire plurality in lexical phrasal forms more easily because classifiers are directly linked to lexical meanings. This implies that phrasal plural -s, as in quantified nouns, and lexical plural -s are involved in the same processing procedure at stage 2 for these early L2 learners.…”

“…This means the validity of stages earlier than 5 remains unknown. Moreover, compared to the large number of accuracy-based studies on English L2 morphology, empirical studies within PT perspectives among EFL learners are limited to Dao (2007), Charters et al (2011), and Lenzing (2013).…”