Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory

By S. Devitt. 2000

389 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7012064e19af89ac9ca739baae509575c6cc81b0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

The Combined Effects of Immersion and Instruction on Second Language Pronunciation (2010, background): “One possible account may be found in psycholinguistic approaches to language learning and processing (i.e., Pienneman, 1999, 2007), and specifically in Bialystok’s (2001) Analysis and Control Model.”
The Evidence is IN: Drills are OUT (2003, methodology): “What is clear from the work of Pienemann (1998), however, is that the acquisition of output procedures (those procedures used to access lexical items and grammatical forms as well as string them together to make novel sentences) is a process independent of the acquisition of a linguistic sys- tem.”
Form‐Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? (2008, background): “Once a language feature has emerged in learners' interlanguage (see Pienemann, 1998), more fluent and accurate use of that feature may best be encouraged through integrated FFI.”
Linguistic Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: How Does Bilingualism Contribute to Subject Development? (2007, background): “…of communication competence are generally described as closer to meaning and to cognition (Bouchard & de Nuchèze, 1987) and, furthermore, research shows that morphosyntactic structures are acquired in a later stage in a content-based perspective (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Pienemann, 1998).”
The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, background): “Another challenge is the amount of time required to cover all of these complex issues, considering especially the limited instruction time L2 teachers generally have and the large amount of input/output required for learning the various types of constructions, especially schematic constructions.”
Selective Attention and Transfer Phenomena in L2 Acquisition: Contingency, Cue Competition, Salience, Interference, Overshadowing, Blocking, and Perceptual Learning (2006, background): “…grammar accounts, whether they serve as cues to parameter resetting in UG-based accounts, whether acquisition of routines for their processing is what serves as the major determinant of acquisition as in Processability Theory (Pienemann 1998), or whatever your favorite flavor, or blend.”
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN L1 FLUENCY AND L2 FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT (2009, background): “…constructs as automatization (Segalowitz, Segalowitz, & Wood, 1998 ), differences in working memory and ability to store knowledge (Just & Carpenter, 1992 ; Pienemann, 1998 ), neurobiological factors (Dewaele, 2002 ), and the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge (Ullman, 2001 ).”
Gender assignment and gender agreement in advanced French interlanguage: a cross-sectional study (2001, positive): “According to Pienemann (1998a), accuracy levels do not ``increase steadily in the acquisition process'' (1998a, 304), and accuracy interacts with learner variation and development in a non-linear manner (1998a, 143).”
The Dynamics of Second Language Emergence: Cycles of Language Use, Language Change, and Language Acquisition (2008, background): “Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory.”
The role of the second language in third language acquisition: the case of Germanic syntax (2007, background): “The original version of PT (Pienemann 1984; 1998) also adheres to the idea that there is no transfer in the learner’s developing grammar, but instead inevitable universal processability stages, independent of the L1 (for further discussion, see Section 2).”
PROCESSABILITY IN SCANDINAVIAN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (2001, methodology): “We initially relied on Pienemann (1993) as the theoretical framework for the study, but we also draw on Pienemann’s more recent work on PT (Pienemann, 1998; Pienemann & Håkansson, 1999).”
Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics - Introduction to the special issue (2006, background): “Moral 8: Learning is a process; consciousness is the interface Learning is dynamic; it takes place during processing, as Hebb (1949), Craik and Lockhart (1972), Pienemann (1998), and O'Grady (2003) have all reminded us from their neural, cognitive, and linguistic perspectives.”
Cognitive Perspectives on SLA: The Associative-Cognitive CREED (2006, background): “Learning too is a dynamic process; it takes place during processing, as Hebb (1949), Craik and Lockhart (1972), Pienemann (1998), and O’Grady (2003) have all reminded us from their neural, cognitive, and linguistic perspectives.”
Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development (2004, methodology): “These included the origin of linguistic knowledge (e.g. Bates and MacWhinney, 1981; Andersen, 1984), L2 developmental trajectories (e.g. Pienemann, 1998a, b) and inferential mechanisms (e.g. Carroll, 1999, 2001).”
OUTPUT, INPUT ENHANCEMENT, AND THE NOTICING HYPOTHESIS (2002, background): “…on L2 learning, it is useful to examine a priori the learner’s level of proficiency, or more specifically the developmental level vis-à-vis the target form, because it is quite possible that the treatment effect is constrained by the learner’s developmental readiness (Pienemann, 1984, 1998).”
Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions (2010, background): “The two main theoretical issues that informed the objections raised by CF opponents will be discussed here, namely the role of explicit L2 knowledge in the language learning process and Pienemann’s (1989; 1998) Learnability Hypothesis.”
English word recognition and word integration skills of native Arabic- and Japanese-speaking learners of English as a second language (2003, methodology): “…the initial research in this area indicates that relatively proficient L2/ESL speakers develop word integration skills very similar to native speakers (Bernhardt, 1986; Frenck–Mestre, & Pynte, 1997; Hoover & Dwivedi, 1998; Juffs, 1998a, 1998b; Juffs & Harrington, 1995, 1996; Pienemann, 1998).”
REFLECTIONS ON FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING (2002, background): “His processability theory (Pienemann, 1998) makes formal predictions regarding the structures that can be processed at a given level of L2 learning based on psychological mechanisms that underlie interlanguage and proposes a hierarchy of SLA processing procedures in the framework of…”