Processability Theory: Stage-like Development of ‘Copula inversion’ and ‘Negation’ in Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Performance
الموضوعات :Mahin Sadat Tabatabaee 1 , Keivan Mahmoodi 2 , Abbas Bayati 3
1 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: processability theory, stage-like development, Copula inversion, Negation,
ملخص المقالة :
Processability Theory (PT) is regarded as one of the prominent theory of second language acquisition (SLA) developed to illuminate the developmental sequences in SLA as well as some other linguistic phenomena (Pienemann, 1998a; 2011).Since 1990s, Processability has been at the center of attention in second language acquisition research. Within the framework of Processability theory and through analyzing the written performance of Iranian EFL learners, the present research focused on the acquisition of “Copula inversion” and “Negation” across five proficiency levels, from elementary to advanced and compared it with the stage-like development model of morpho-syntactic structures proposed by Pienemann (1998a, 2011). The study followed a descriptive method of research and the data was collected from 350 participants in five different proficiency levels from elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate, upper-intermediate and advanced. The participants were asked to provide samples of their written performance on different tasks such as introduction task, habitual action task, story retelling task, audio-video-retelling task, picture description task, composition, communication task. The data in this research was analyzed both qualitatively, in order to identify and classify the type and order of the morpho-syntactic structures; and quantitatively, by calculating means. The results of Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that “Negation” emerged at the elementary level of the language learners’ performance and “copula inversion” emerged at the intermediate level. Just the same, the competence of the learner grows stronger in concern with these variables through the higher proficiency levels. These findings imply that PT is valid for Iranian EFL learners, as well.
Ågren, M. (2009). Morphological development in Swedish learners of French: Discussing the processability perspective. In J.-U. Keßler, & D. Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 121-152). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Baily, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 21(2), 235-243.
Bettoni, Camilla/ Di Biase, Bruno/ Nuzzo, Elena (2009): “Postverbal subject in Italian L2 – a Processability Theory approach”, in: Jörg-U. Keßler/Dagmar Keatinge (eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition: Empirical Evidence across Languages (pp. 153-173). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The first Stages. London: George Allen &Unwin Ltd.
Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: language development in Italian L2 and Japanese L2. Second Language Research, 18(3), 274-302.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23(2), 245-58.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequence in child language acquisition.TESOL quarterly, 8(2), 129-36.
Glahn, E., & Hakansson, G., & Hammarberg, B., & Holmen, A., & Hvenekilde, A., & Lund, K. (2001). Processability in Scandinavian Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 389-416.
Hakansson, G. (2001). Tense Morphology and Verb-Second in Swedish L1Children, L2 Children, and Children with SLI. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(1), 85-99.
Hakansson, G. (2013). Processability Theory. Explaining developmental sequences. In M. Garcia Mayo, M. Junkal Gutierrez Mangado & M. Martinez Adrian (Eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 111-129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Husseinali, G. T.A. (2006). Processability and Development of Syntax and Agreement in the Interlanguage of Learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin).
Mansouri, F. (2005). Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language. In M. Pienemann (Eds.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 117-155). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mansouri, F. (2000). Grammatical markedness and information processing in the acquisition of Arabic as a second language. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.
Mohammadkhani, A., Eslamdoost, S., & Gholamreza’i, S. (2011). An investigation of the role of instruction in second language production: A case of third person singular –s. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 910 – 916.
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 L2 speech processing. In G., Casper (ed.) AILA Review 5: Classroom Research (pp. 40-72).
Pienemann, M. (1998a). Language processing and second language development Processability theory. Studies in Bilingualism, 15(1), xviii, 366, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (1998b). Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 1(1), 1-20.
Pienemann, M. (1998c). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pienamann, M. (2003). Language processing capacity. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds). The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 679-714). Oxford: Blackwell.
Pienemann, M. (2011). Learner variation. In: Pienemann, M. and Keßler J-U (eds), Studying processability theory: An introductory textbook (pp. 50-63). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1985). Towards an explanatory model of language acquisition. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum. University of California at Los Angeles.
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987a). A predictive framework of SLA. Manuscript: University of Sydney.
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987b). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45-141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Research Centre, Adult Migrant Education Program. Safir Adult English Language Courses (2019). Content headlines. https://gosafir.com/fa/educational-system/educational-courses/adults/
Taki, S. & hamzehian, M. (2016). Crosslinguistic validation of PT: the case of EFL Iranian students’ speaking skill, international journal of foreign language teaching and research, 4(15), 51-62.
Zhang, Y. Y. (2004). Processing constraints, categorial analysis, and the second language acquisition of the Chinese adjective suffix –de (ADJ). Language Learning. 54(3), 437-468.
Zhang, Y. Y. (2005). Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes. In M., Pienemann (ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 155-177). John Benjamins: Amsterdam/ New York.
