This article contributes to typological plausibility of Processability Theory (PT) (Pienemann, 1998, 2005) by providing empirical data that show that the stages predicted by PT are followed in the second language (L2) acquisition of Spanish syntax and morphology. In the present article, the PT stages for L2 Spanish morphology and syntax are first hypothesized after a brief description of PT theory. The results of a corpus of conversational data by L2 Spanish learners (n = 21) are then presented. Implicational scaling confirmed the five stages for the syntax and morphology with 100% scalability. Evidence was also found for the existence of discrete stages 1,2, 3 and 5 for the syntax as well as stages 1–4 for the morphology. Syntax was also found to emerge before morphology for all learners.
BonillaC (accepted) Instructing stages of Processability Theory in L2 Spanish: Next or next +1? In: BatenKBuylALochtmanKHerrewegheM (eds) (forthcoming) Theory development in Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2.
BatenK (2011) Processability Theory and German case acquisition. Language Learning61: 455–505.
3.
BohnackerU (2006) When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2. Second Language Research22: 443–86.
4.
CollentineJ (1995) The development of complex syntax and mood selection abilities by intermediate level learners of Spanish. Hispania78: 122–33.
5.
Di BiaseBKawaguchiS (2002) Exploring the typological plausibility of processability theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research18: 274–302.
6.
DysonB (2009) Processability Theory and the role of morphology in English as a second language development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research25: 355–76.
7.
EubankL (1993) Sentence matching and processing in L2 development. Second Language Research9: 253–80.
8.
EubankL (1994) Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In: HoekstraTSchwartzB (eds) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 369–88.
9.
GlahnEHåkanssonGHammarbergBHolmenAHvenekildeALundK (2001) Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition23: 389–416.
10.
HåkanssonGPienemannMSayehliS (2002) Transfer and typological proximity in the context of L2 processing. Second Language Research18: 250–73.
11.
HatchELazaratonA (1991) The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
12.
HaznedarBSchwartzB (1997) Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In: HughesEHughesMGreenhillA (eds) Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 257–68.
13.
JansenL (2008) Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross-sectional study in a wider theoretical context. Language Learning58: 185–231.
14.
JohnstonM (1995) Stages of acquisition of Spanish as a second language. Australian Studies in Language Acquisition4: 6–35.
15.
KaplanRBresnanJ (1982) Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In: BresnanJ (ed.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 173–281.
16.
KawaguchiS (2005) Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. In: PienemannM (ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 253–98.
17.
LeveltWJM (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
LicerasJDíazL (1999) Topic-drop versus pro-drop; null subjects and pronominal subjects in the Spanish L2 of Chinese, English, French, German and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research15: 1–40.
19.
MacWhinneyB (2000) The CHILDES (The Child Language Data Exchange System) Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Available at: http://childes.psy.cmu.edu (May2014).
20.
MansouriF (2005) Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language: Typological features and their processing implications. In: PienemannM (ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 117–54.
21.
MeiselJMClahsenHPienemannM (1981) On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition3: 109–35.
22.
MitchellRMylesFDominguezLMarsdenEArcheMBoardmanT (2008) Spanish Learner Language Oral Corpora (SPLLOC). Available at: http://www.splloc.soton.ac.uk (May2014).
23.
PallottiG (2007) An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics28: 361–82.
24.
PienemannM (1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25.
PienemannM (2005) An introduction to Processability Theory. In: PienemannM (ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 1–60.
26.
PienemannMHåkanssonG (1999) A unified approach toward the development of Swedish as L2: A processability account. Studies in Second Language Acquisition21: 383–420.
27.
PienemannMHåkanssonG (2007) Response article: Full transfer vs. developmentally moderated transfer: A reply to Bohnacker. Second Language Research23: 485–93.
28.
PienemannMDi BiaseBKawaguchiS (2005) Extending Processability Theory. In: PienemannM (ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 199–252.
29.
PienemannMDi BiaseBKawaguchiSHåkanssonG (2005) Processability, typological distance and L1 transfer. In PienemannM (ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85–116.
30.
PrévostPWhiteL (2000) Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research16: 103–33.
31.
SakaiH (2008) An analysis of Japanese university students’ oral performance in English using Processability Theory. System36: 534–49.
32.
SpinnerP (2011) Second language assessment and morphosyntactic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition33: 529–61.
33.
VainikkaAYoung-ScholtenM (1994) Direct access to X’-theory: evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In HoekstraTSchwartzB (eds) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 265–316.
34.
VainikkaAYoung-ScholtenM (1996) The early stages of adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research12: 140–76.
35.
ViglioccoGButterworthBGarrettM (1996) Subject–verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition6: 261–98.
36.
ZagonaK (2002) The syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
ZhangY (2005) Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes. In: PienemannM (ed.) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 155–78.
