Satomi Kawaguchi University of Western Sydney

1. 10 July, 2014 シドニー日本語教育国際研究大会 International Conference on Japanese Language Education Acquiring Japanese as a second language: Processability Theory and its applications to pedagogy第二言語としての日本語習得：処理可能性理論とその教育分野への応用 Satomi Kawaguchi University of Western Sydney MARCS Institute and School of Humanities & Communication Arts

2. Outline 1. Introduction & some background 2. Processability Theory (PT) 3. Developmental stages (PT) in Japanese L2 Morphology Syntax: the Prominence Hypothesis the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis 4. Promoting higher structures (beyond intermediate level) 5. Emergence of a structure and its automatization 6. Digital technologies & evaluation of language development using PT 7. Concluding remarks

3. Introduction • Processability Theory (Pienemann 1998): A theory of SLA focusing on L2 development • Theory-Practice-Evaluation link in teaching and learning Japanese L2

4. Short history of Processability Theory (PT)PT originates in the ZISA (ZweitsprachenwerbItalianisher und SpanisherArbeiter) project • It produced ‘one of the most important bodies of SLA research to date’ Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991, p. 270) in terms of: data, methodology and SLA theory development When: late Seventies ~ early Eighties Who directed by Jurgen Meisel, with Harald Clahsen and Manfred Pienemann (1983); see also Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981) Informants: ZISA studied Italian and Spanish adult guest workers acquiring German as a second language. Where: mainly at the University of Hamburg (Germany) under the direction of Jurgen Meisel, supported by the Volkswagen Foundation.

5. ZISA: findings • After an initial period of production, characterised by single words and formulaic expressions, learners did not abandon one rule for the next but accumulatedrules, adding new ones while retaining the old ones. • All learners followed the same five-stage developmental sequence(despite individual differences and different language background) • All learners acquired these five rules in the same sequence. These rules formed an implicational scale: which means that the acquisition of a rule implies the acquisition of the earlier rule(s). They were called (shorthand name): SVO > ADV > SEP > INV > V-END

6. Was this sequence replicated in other studies? • And indeed, YES, this basic sequence of acquisition of GSL word order, was also confirmed for immigrant children and in studies of acquisition of German (GFL) in formal contexts (Eubank 1986, 1987; Jansen 1991; Pienemann 1980, 1981, 1984). • GSL=German as a Second Language • GFL = German as a Foreign Language

7. Teachability Hypothesis(Pienemann, 1984; 1988; 1998) This hypothesis addresses the influence of formal instruction on L2 acquisition, i.e., What to teach When. There is a fixed path in L2 acquisition. This sequence should be implicational: Stage 1 < Stage 2 < Stage 3, etc.,

8. Pienemann’s study (1984) Teach Stage 4 INV INV=Inversion, SEP = Verb separation, ADV = Adverb fronting

9. INV=Inversion, SEP = Verb separation, ADV = Adverb fronting

10. Findings from the teachability experiment • Stages cannot be skipped, despite focused instruction, because the cognitive processing of one stage is the prerequisite for the subsequent one. • Instruction will be beneficial if it focuses on structures for which the learner is “developmentally ready” (cf. Corder 1967)

11. ZISA downunder. The empirical basis for English developmental stages: the SAMPLE project (Johnston 1985) • The empirical basis was provided by an extensive Australian project carried out by Malcolm Johnston, at the NSW Institute of Technology, supported by the AMES (Dept of Immigration) in the mid-Seventies to mid Eighties. • Johnston studied, cross-sectionally 12 Polish and 12 Vietnamese immigrants at a range of times after their arrival in Australia. the SAMPLE report = Syntactic and Morphological Progressions in Learners’ English (1984)

12. Pieneman working with Johnston, adapted the ZISA Strategies framework to the interpretation of the ESL data collected through SAMPLE and expanded the framework to include English morphological sequences as well as Syntax. Pienemann and Johnston brought about what Michael Long called The Predictive Framework (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991) that is a framework for SLA which was capable of making predictions to be tested empirically.

13. Table 1: POLISH ADULT LEARNERS OF ESL (Johnston 1997, 2000) Table 3: VIETNAMESE ADULT LEARNERS OF ESL (Johnston 1997, 2000)

14. Limitations Problems of ZISA The “strategies” as an explanatory principle are not plausible for the human mind. So, Processability Theory adopts processing prerequisites that is, the learner builds up additional processing resources in order to process the L2 and gradually deploys these in an automatic way.

15. 2. Processability Theory (Pienemann 1998)処理可能性理論 • Processability Theory (PT) is a theory of second language processing that formally predicts syntactic &morphological ‘developmental trajectories’ for any given L2 (so it is assumed to work universally). • Processability relates to how the L2 is acquired under real-timeconstraints of speech production, given the limited capacity of the human language processor.

16. PT key principle • The key to predicting which grammatical structures are processable - and in which sequence - is which pieces of grammatical information can be exchanged between which constituents given the availability of the different procedures and their storage capacity

17. According to Kempen and Hoenkamp’s (1987) processing procedures and routines in speech generation are activated in the following sequence: • lemma access • the category procedure • the phrasal procedure 4. the sentence procedure, 5. the subordinate clause procedure - if applicable.

18. Sentence phrase category Lemma This hierarchy is related to the requirements of the specific procedural skills needed for the target language (any L2). In this way, predictions can be made for language development that can be tested empirically.

19. The task for the learner, then, is to build the language-specific procedures needed to handle the Target Language. These procedures will be different for different languages, but always ordered in the same sequence.

20. Two modules of Processability Theory • Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) -A psychologically and typologically plausible formal grammar (Bresnan, 2001, and others). • Levelt’s (1989, and further developments) model of the Speaker- A broadly shared psycholinguistic model of language generation. This is different from previous processing models

21. LFG: We can represent processing procedures required for sentence generation through two LFG principles 1. Feature unification/agreement (e.g., tense, word category combination) 2. Mapping (e.g. association between Argument role and Grammatical function such as Agent-Subject) • Obligatory component • Structural choice at the pragmatic-discourse interface

22. First principle: Feature unification (in English)(cf. LFG (Kaplan & Bresnan 1982; Bresnan 2001) 3rd person –s: unification in S plural concord: unification in NP Stage 5 Stage 3 NPobj det N these dogs NUM = PL NUM = PL Past –ed: no unification needed These are all obligatory structures in English grammar Stage 2 Lemma: OWNED conceptual specs.: “OWN“ (SUBJ, OBJ) syntactic category: V diacritic features: tense = past

24. Table 1:Hypothetical hierarchy of processing procedures (Pienemann, 1998)

25. ３．Developmental Stages (PT) in Japanese L2 Morphological acquisition

26. Stages of development for Japanese L2 VERBALMORPHOLOGY Stage 1 PRINCIPLE: NO EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IS REQUIRED This stage is non language-specific: everyone can normally learn a word or formula in any language, e.g. tsunami! Native speakers OFTEN use formulas in their speech: … ありがとう (arigatoo) … すみません　(sumimasen)

27. Stage 2 PRINCIPLE: NO EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IS REQUIRED • This stage is language-specific: grammatical features are different from language to language. • The learner begins to annotate the grammatical category and the feature/value pairs for words in their mental lexicon e.g. Lexical entry category feature value tabe-masita verb TENSE PAST

28. Stage 3 PRINCIPLE: EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IN THE VERB PHRASE • grammatical features are exchanged (unified) within the noun phrase Di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002

29. Stage 4 PRINCIPLE: EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION (AT THE S- NODE) BETWEEN PHRASES OF A DIFFERENT KIND (NP and VP) • grammatical features are exchanged (unified) at Sentence level. In this case the feature/value exchanged between the NPsubj and the Verb are: Sakana-ga neko-ni tabe-rare-ta “魚が　ねこに　たべられた”

30. Empirical evidence: Morphology

31. Acquisition of Japanese L2 Syntax(Pienemann, Di Biase and Kawaguchi, 2005; Kawaguchi, 2010; Kawaguchi, in press) • PT extension adds the developmental dimension of speaker-induced discourse-pragmatic choices (e.g. passive, topicalisation) in syntactic structure. • Other attention directing devices – the speaker’s pragmatic choice– may involve the selection of particular word orders for focusing or de-focusing, e.g. null realization of subject, active/passive alternation and so on.

32. Canonical order & Canonical mapping kick <agent, patient> Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”

33. Higher L2 syntactic stages Higher stages based on Lexical Mapping Higher stages based on the Promience Hypothesis

34. The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis kick <agent, patient> Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”

35. The Prominence Hypothesis kick <agent, patient> Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”

36. Higher stages based on The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis kicked <patient> “Kenji was kicked”健二がけられた Non-canonical mapping: Kenji-ga ke-rare-ta “Tom was kicked”

37. Sentence procedure requiring non-default mapping:Case marking according to the feature of the verb • Otooto-ga inu-ni kamaremashita (Passive) 弟が犬にかまれました • Itsumo buchoo-wa watashi-ni kopii-o sasemasu いつも部長は私にコピーをさせます (Causative) • Watashi-wa sensei-ni suisenjyoo-o kaite moraimashita わたしは先生に推薦状をかいてもらいました (Benefactive) Eg. Passive, Causative, Benefactive “Exceptional” verbs (e.g. unaccusative verbs)

38. (30) Mapping of a-structure onto f-structure for the transitive causative sentence:Masako-ga Takashi-ni kuruma-o araw-ase-masita 雅子が隆志に車を洗わせた。(‘Masako made Takashi wash the car’)

39. Benefactive constructions

40. The Lexical Mapping Hypothesis

41. Lou’s syntactic development based on the Lexical Mapping Hypothesis (Kawaguchi 2009, 2010)

42. The Prominence Hypothesis kick <agent, patient> Figure 1. Canonical mapping: uma-ga kenji-o ket-ta “The horse kicked Kenji”

43. The Prominence Hypothesis

44. Empirical Evidence of the Prominence Hypothesis: Lou’s syntactic development based on the Prominence Hypothesis: Declaratives (Kawaguchi, in press) *All SUBJ omission (t1, t2)

45. Other empirical evidence • JFL adult classroom setting: Longitudinal and cross sectional studies (Kawaguchi 2002, 2005a&b, 2007, 2008, 2010; Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2002, 2012) • Child language acquisition of Japanese L2 in a naturalistic environment (Iwasaki 2004, 2008) • Adult language acquisition of Japanese L2 in an intensive course (Iwasaki 2013) • Bilingual first language acquisition in Japanese-English (Itani-Adams 2005, 2007; 2009, 2011, 2013)

46. 4. Promoting higher structures beyond intermediate level: causative constructions • Causatives are considered to be ‘marked’, because main and sub-events are merged into a single clause, and thus may be more difficult to learn. • Yet, ability to use such constructions enhances expressivity and pragmatic-cultural appropriateness, and facilitates comprehension.

47. Causality may be expressed by simpler sentence structures such as juxtaposition of basic Subject-Object-Verb sequences. ‘zangyoo ste kudasai’ to bucho-ga watashi-ni iimashita 「残業してください」と部長がわたしに言いました　 Department chief said to me “please do overtime” • However, this is less efficient; the listener must work harder to interpret the pragmatic force of the utterance.

48. A cross-sectional study • 24 intermediate-advanced university learners of Japanese L2: 16 English L1 and 8 Chinese L1 background learners.

49. Implicational table for acquisition of Japanese L2 syntax in the cross-sectional study Kawaguchi 2009; 284

50. Stage 2 learners (SOV) Informant 12 (Liz: E L1) わたしは　コピーをしたり　コーヒーをつくったり　ボスはだいきらいです。 er. Watasi-wa er kopii-o sitari. Koohii-o tukaitari.. Bosu-wa daikiraidesu “er I do something like photocopying and making coffee.. I hate my boss.” Informant 8 (Yang: C L1) ええと　わたしのボス　ボスが　ボスに　コーヒーをつくったり　ええと　忙しいです …etto watasi-no bosu bosu-ga bosu-ni koohii-o tukuttari eeto isogasisoodesu “…well my boss, for my boss I make coffee, well I am busy”