Chapter 4
Are speech and writing teachable?
Re-examining developmental constraints on pedagogy
Does the teachability hypothesis (Pienemann 1984, 1989) apply to spoken and written L2 English questions? Given varied findings on this issue, the present chapter reports on a study of 20 postgraduate students, divided into experimental and comparison groups. The experimental group, which comprised ‘unready’ (stage X), ‘ready’ (stage X+1) and stage X+2 students, was taught X+2 question formation. This group’s post-test results demonstrated overall differences from the comparison group and that, in both skills, the ready learners moved up a stage and one unready learner did not. However, two of the experimental group’s unready students advanced two stages in both skills. The spoken and written results imply that instruction cannot make learners skip stages but may help unready learners progress.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1PT
- 2.2PT’s ESL question stages
- 2.3The TH
- 3.The study
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Tasks and elicitation
- 3.3Procedure
- 3.5Analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1Pre-test results
- 4.2Post-test results
- 4.3Other analyses
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (33)
References
Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds). 2015. Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory [EUROSLA Monographs Series 3]. Paris: Eurosla.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boss, B. 1996. German grammar for beginners – the Teachability Hypothesis and its relevance to the classroom. In Who’s Afraid of Teaching Grammar – Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, C. Arbonés Solá, J. Rolin-Ianziti & R. Sussex (eds), 1: 93–103.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. & Wechsler, S. 2015. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clahsen, H. 1984. The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In Second Languages, R. Andersen (ed.), 143–186. Rowley MA: Newbury House.![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: 274–302. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dyson, B. 1996. A teacher’s perspective on form-focused instruction. Australian Studies in Language Acquisition 3: 1–15.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dyson, B. 2008. What we can learn from questions: Question development and its implications for language development. Prospect 23: 16–27.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dyson, B. 2009. Processability Theory and the role of morphology in ESL development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research 25: 355–376. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dyson, B. 2014. Are pathway students prepared for effective university preparation? A case student of an international student cohort. Journal of Academic Language and Learning 8: 28–42.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ellis, R. 1989. Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of the German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 303–328. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. 2009. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Farley, A. & McCollum, K. 2004. Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish: Processability Theory on trial. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 40: 47–69.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Håkansson, G. & Norrby, C. 2007. Processability Theory applied to written and oral L2 Swedish. In Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-construction and Testing, F. Mansouri (ed.), 81–94. Newcaste upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Håkansson, G. & Norrby, C. 2010. Environmental influence on language acquisition: comparing Second and Foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning 60: 628–650. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keßler, J.-U., Liebner, M. & Mansouri, F. 2011. Teaching. In Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 1], M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (eds), 149–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. 1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings. The Modern Language Journal 82: 338–356. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mansouri, F. & Håkansson, G. 2007. Conceptualising intra-stage sequencing in the learner language. In Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-construction and Testing, F. Mansouri (ed.), 119–145. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H. & Pienemann, M. 1981. On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3: 109–135. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints on the teachability of language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6: 186–214. ![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: 53–79. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pienemann, M. 2003. Language processing capacity. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, C. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds), 679–714. Malden MA: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pienemann, M. 2015. An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning 65: 123–151. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B. & Kawaguchi, S. 2005. Extending Processability Theory. In Pienemann (ed.), 199–252.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sakai, H. 2008. An analysis of Japanese university students’ oral performance in English using Processability Theory. System 36: 534–549. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. 1999. Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 83: 1–21. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhang, X. & Lantoff, J. P. 2015. Natural or artificial? Is the route of L2 development teachable? Language Learning 65: 152–180. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zobl, H. 1985. Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning 33: 293–313. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Dyson, Bronwen, Gisela Håkansson & Kirrie J. Ballard
2022.
A Developmental Approach to Assessing and Treating Agrammatic Aphasia.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 31:3
► pp. 1188 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Keßler, Jörg‐U. & Anke Lenzing
2022.
Grammar in Foreign and Second Language Classes. In
The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching,
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.