Chapter 7
Using the Multiplicity framework to reposition and reframe the Hypothesis
Space
In this chapter we explore how the Multiplicity framework of the communicative
repertoire offers ways to expand understandings of Hypothesis Space and widens insights into
the process of second language acquisition currently offered by PT. We focus on the
potential of the Multiplicity framework for capturing and explaining variation in learners’
communicative acts that occur in response to varied pressures in moments of communication.
We suggest that these insights offer a different means of connecting the Hypothesis Space
with learners’ acquisition trajectories. seek to embrace both the concept of shared developmental stages that has
been the centrepiece of PT to date and relate features of development to variation within
moments of interaction.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: Processability Theory, Multiplicity and variation
- 2.Sociolinguistic issues and PT: A historical account
- 3.The Multiplicity framework of the communicative repertoire
- 3.1Introducing Multiplicity
- 3.1.1Modes
- 3.1.2Mediations
- 3.1.3Varieties
- 3.1.4Purposes
- 3.2Multiplicity and acquisition
- 4.Existential constructions
- 5.The Multiplicity Framework applied to the acquisition of ‘there’
existentials
- 6.The potential of an expanded view of Hypothesis Space
-
Notes
-
References
References (42)
References
Bailey, K. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at
and through the diary studies. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 67–103). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bauer, L. (1994). Watching English change. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bell, A. & Starks, D. (2002). Final report to the Marsden Fund: Pasifika languages of the Manukau project 2000-2002. [URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bettoni, C., & Di Biase, B. (2015). Processability Theory: Theoretical bases and universal
schedules. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of
Processability Theory (pp. 19–79). Paris: The European Second Language Acquisition Association.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Britain, D., & Sudbury, A. (2002). There’s sheep and there’s penguins: Convergence,‘drift’ and ‘slant’ in New
Zealand and Falkland Island English. In M. Jones & E. Esch (Eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra- linguistic
factors (pp. 211–240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![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. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Crawford, W. J. (2005). Verb agreement and disagreement: A corpus investigation of concord variation
in existential there + be constructions. Journal of English Linguistics 33, 35–61. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eisikovits, E. (1991). Variation in subject-verb agreement in inner Sydney English. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world (pp. 235–255). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Feagin, C. (1979). Variation and change in Alabama English: A sociolinguistic study of a white
community. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gass, S. (2010). Interactionist perspectives on second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied lingustics (2nd ed., pp. 217–231). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2007). Processability Theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81–94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hay, J., & Schreier, D. (2004). Subject-verb agreement in New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 16, 209–235. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Horvath, B. (1991). Finding a place in Sydney: Migrants and language change. In S. Romaine (Ed.), Language in Australia (pp. 304–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hundt, M. (2009). Concord with collective nouns in Australian and New Zealand
English. In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand grammar and beyond (pp. 207–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Liu, B. (2015). A processability approach to the L2 acquisition of Chinese syntax (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Canberra: The Australian National University![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martinez Insua, A. (2004). Existential there-constructions in Contemporary British English: A Corpus-driven
analysis of their use in speech and writing. Munich: Lincom.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meechan, M., & Foley, M. (1994). On resolving disagreement: Linguistic theory and variation – there’s
bridges. Language Variation and Change 6, 63–86. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meisel, J. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural second
language acquisition. In C. Pfaff (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 206–224). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meisel, J, Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3(2), 109–135. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nicholas, H. (1984). ‘To be’ or not ‘to be’, is that really the question? Developmental sequences
and the role of the copula in the acquisition of German as a second
language. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 299–317). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nicholas, H, Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning 51(4), 719–758. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nicholas, H., & Starks, D. (2014). Language education and applied linguistics: Bridging the two fields. London: Routledge. ![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 M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199–251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of second language
proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shin, N. (2016). Acquiring constraints on morphosyntactic variation: Children’s Spanish
subject pronoun expression. Journal of Child Language 43(4), 914–947. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Starks, D., & Thompson, L. (2009). Agreement patterns in existential constructions in the New Zealand Niuean
community. World Englishes 28, 319–335. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tagliamonte, S. (1998). Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of
York. Language Variation and Change 10, 153–191. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tagliamonte, S. (2005). Sometimes there’s universals; sometimes there aren’t: A comparative
sociolinguistic perspective on ‘default singulars’. Paper presented at World Englishes:
Vernacular Universals vs. Contact Induced Change, University of Joensuu, Finland.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Nicholas, Howard, Manfred Pienemann & Anke Lenzing
2022.
Teacher decision-making, dynamical systems and processability theory.
Instructed Second Language Acquisition 6:2
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.