Processability approach to Arabic L2 teaching and syllabus design
This study aims to identify the relationship between the developmental hierarchy in the acquisition of Arabic as a second language (Arabic L2) and formal classroom instruction. It provides a general presentation of the current debate on the influence of formal instruction in the acquisition of L2. Special attention is given to the subset of Processability Theory (PT) known as Teachability Theory, and its implications for teaching methods of L2 in general and Arabic L2 in particular. This study also provides descriptive information on teaching objectives and materials used by the participants to study Arabic L2. This information is presented in order to establish an explanation for the connection between the formal teaching of Arabic L2 and the processability hierarchy. Participants were nine students studying Arabic as a second language at the Australian National University (three Beginners, three Intermediates, and three Advanced). Interviews were conducted over a period of two teaching semesters during the year 2005. Both implicational and distributional analyses were conducted. The results of these analyses show that teachers and curriculum developers should consider the PT’s predicted developmental stages for Arabic L2 structures when developing teaching materials and syllabus.
References (39)
Al Shatter, G. (2007). Implementation and evaluation of new learning approach in Arabic: Implications for translator training. Translation Watch Quarterly, 3 (1), 94–119.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Al Shatter, G. (2008). The development of verbal structures in L2 Arabic. In J.-U. Kessler, (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language sevelopment and second language learning (pp. 267–299). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Pub.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Al Shatter, G. (2010). Acquisition and development of nominal and verbal structures in Arabic: Agreement morphology in second language acquisition. Saarbrücken: VDM, Verlag Dr. Müller.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cook, M. (2006). The multidimentional model, processability pheory and the peachability/learnability hypothesis: Suggestions for the Japanese context. Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication, Siebold University of Negasaki, 71, 1–7.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dekeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Di Biase, B. (Ed.). (2002a). Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish. Melbourne: Language Australia.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Di Biase, B. (2002b). Focusing strategies in second language development: A classroom-based study of Italian L2 in primary school. In B. Di Biase, (Ed.), Developing a second Language: acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish (pp. 95–120). Melbourne: Language Australia.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of processability theory: language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 18 (3), 272–300. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. Malden, MA: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdal, New Jersey Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Håkansson, G. (2002). Learning and teaching of Swedish: a Processability perspective. In B. Di Biase (Ed.), Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish (Vol. 101) (pp. 7–16). Melbourne: Language Australia.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Grammatical development in learning of Japanese as a second language. In B. Di Biase (Ed.), Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish (Vol. 101) (pp. 17–29). Melbourne: Language Australia.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London; New York: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lenzing, A. (2008). Teachability and learnability: An analysis of primary school textbooks. In J. KeBler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 221–241). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. M. Beebe, (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). New York: Newbury House.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2004). Input versus transfer? - the role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of L2 preposition. In M. Achardand & S. Niemeier, (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 77–93). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Macaro, E. (2003). Teaching and learning a second language: A review of recent research. London; New York: Continuum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mansouri, F. (1999a). Interlanguage syntax in Arabic as a second language: A processability theory perspective. Languages and Linguistics, 41, 45–71.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mansouri, F. (1999b). The acquisition of Arabic as a second language: From theory to practice. Sydney: University of Western Sydney, Macarthur.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mansouri, F. (Ed.). (2007). Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mansouri, F. & Håkansson, G. (2007). Intra-stage developmental order: Empirical evidence from Arabic and Swedish as second languages. In F. Mansouri, (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 95–118). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matthews, S. & Yip, V. (2003). Relative clauses in early bilingual development: Transfer and universals. In A. Giacalone Ramat, (Ed.), Typology and second language acquisition (pp. 39–81). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London; New York: Arnold, Edward.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (4), 617–634. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nielsen, H. L. (1997). On acquisition order of agreement procedures in Arabic learner language. Al-Arabiyya, 301, 49–95.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. Malden: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 52–79. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rivers, W. M. (1991). Psychological validation of methodological approaches and foreign language classroom practices. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 283–294). Lexington; Massachusetts; Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Oliver, Rhonda, Honglin Chen & Stephen Moore
2016.
Review of selected research in applied linguistics published in Australia (2008–2014).
Language Teaching 49:4
► pp. 513 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.