Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language

Abstract

This article aims to test the typological plausibility of Processability Theory (PT) (Pienemann, 1998). This is ‘a theory of processability of grammatical structures... [which] formally predicts which structures can be processed by the learner at a given level of development’ (p. xv). Up till now the theory has been tested mainly for Germanic languages, while here we propose to test it for two typologically different languages, namely Italian and Japanese. Language specific predictions for these two languages will be derived from PT, and the structures instantiating them will be described within a Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) framework. The occurrence and distribution of relevant structures will then be analysed in empirical, naturalistic data produced by adult learners. To test whether PT is typologically plausible we will demonstrate the following points for Japanese and Italian:

• The notion of ‘exchange of grammatical information’ is a productive concept for typologically different languages.

• Predictions that can be derived from the general architecture of the theory for specific languages will be borne out by empirical observation. (Pienemann 1998: 166).

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker, M. 1988: Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .

Bresnan, J. 2001: Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell .

Bresnan, J. and Mchombo, S. A. 1987: Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chichewa . Language 63, 741-782 .

Bresnan, J. and Mchombo, S. A. 1995: The lexical integrity principle: evidence from Bantu . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 181-254 .

Chomsky, N. 1981: Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris .

Comrie, B. 1989: Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell .

Giacalone Ramat, A. 1992: Grammaticalization processes in the area of temporal and modal relations . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 297-322 .

Gunji, T. 1987: Japanese phrase structure grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel .

Hankamer, J. 1989: Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In Marslen-Wilson, W. D. , editor, Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press , 392-408.

10.

Hatch, E. and Lazaraton, A. 1991: The Research manual: design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston: Heinle and Heinle .

11.

Ishikawa, A. 1985: Complex predicates and lexical operators in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

12.

Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. , editors, 1989: The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer .

13.

Johnston, M. 1995: Stages of acquisition of Spanish as a second language . Australian Studies in Language Acquisition 4-4 .

14.

Kaplan, R. and Bresnan, J. 1982: Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. , editor, The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press , 173-281.

15.

Kawaguchi, S. 2000: Acquisition of Japanese verbal morphology: applying processability theory to Japanese . Studia Linguistica 54, 238-248 .

16.

Kempen, G. and Hoenkamp, E. 1987: An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation . Cognitive Science 11, 201-258 .

17.

Kuno, S. 1973: The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

18.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. 1991: Introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman .

19.

Levelt, W. J. M. 1989: Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

20.

Niemi, J. , Laine, M. and Tuominen, J. 1994: Cognitive morphology in Finnish: foundation of a new model. In Sandra, D. and Taft, M. , editors, Morphological structure, lexical representation and lexical access. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum .

21.

Nordlinger, R. 1998: Constructive case: evidence from Australian languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI .

22.

Pienemann, M. 1998: Language processing and second language development: processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins .

23.

Pienemann, M. and Håkansson, G. 1999: A unified approach toward the development of Swedish as L2: a processability account . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 383-420 .

24.

Rizzi, L. 1982: Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris .

25.

Sells, P. 1995: Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective . Linguistic Inquiry 26, 277-325 .

26.

Sells, P. 1999: Japanese postposing involves no movement. Paper presented at AILA 1999. Available via www-csli.stanford.edu/%7Esells/ (accessed 4 July 2002).

27.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1994: Second language learning: theoretical foundations. London: Longman .

28.

Shibatani, M. 1990: The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

29.

Vigliocco, G. , Butterworth, B. and Garrett, M. F. 1996: Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: differences in the role of conceptual constraints . Cognition 61, 261-298 .

30.

Vigliocco, G. , Butterworth, B. and Semenza, C. 1995: Constructing subject-verb agreement in speech: the role of semantic and morphological factors . Journal of Memory and Language 34, 186-215 .

31.

Vincent, N. 1990: Italian. In Comrie, B. , editor, The major languages of Western Europe. London: Routledge , 269-292.