Processabi

li
tytheoryisatheoryandamodelofsecondlanguageacqui
sit
iondevelopedby
Manf r
edPienemannt hatt
ouchesthel
i
ngui
sti
cstruct
uresthatsur
facei
nthel ear
ningofa
secondlanguage.[1]Thetheor
yhasbeenusedasaf r
amewor kbysever
alscienti
stsfrom
EuropeandAust rali
a.[
2]

Processabi l
i
tytheor yispartoft hecogni tiveapproacht osecondl anguageacqui siti
ont hat
attempt stoincreaseunder st andingoft heway sL2l earnersrest r
ucturet heiri
nterlanguage
knowl edgesy st
emst obei ngr eaterconf ormit
yt oL2st [Link] li
tytheor ystates
thatlearnersrestructuretheirL2knowl edgesy stemsi nanor derofwhi cht heyarecapabl eat
theirstageofdev elopment .[3]Fori nstance, i
nor dertoacqui r
et hecor rectmor phol ogicaland
syntacticformsf orEngl i
shquest ions,learnersmustt ransform decl arati
v eEngli
shsent ences.
Theydosobyaser iesofst ages, consi [Link] ahsenpr oposedt hatcer tain
processingpr i
nciplesdet er
mi nethisor derofrest r
ucturi
ng.[4]Speci fi
call
y ,hestatedt hat
l
ear nersfi
rst,maintaindeclar at i
vewor dor derwhi l
echangi ngot heraspect softheut terances,
second, mov ewor dst othebegi nningandendofsent ences, andt hir
d, mov eelement swithin
mai nclausesbef oresubor dinat eclauses.

Processabil
it
yTheor yisnowamat uretheoryofgr
ammat i
cal dev
elopmentoflear
ners'
i
[Link]
scogni t
ivelyfounded(henceappli
cabletoanylanguage),f
ormalandexpl i
cit
(henceempi ri
call
ytestable),andextended,havi
ngnotonlyformulatedandtest
edhy potheses
aboutmor phology,syntaxanddi scourse-
pragmati
cs,buthavingalsopavedthewayf orfurt
her
developmentsatt heinter
f acebetweengr ammarandt hel
exiconandot heri
mport
antmodul es
i
nSLA.

Amongt hemosti mpor tantSLAt heoriesr ecent l

ydi scussedi nVanPat ten( 2007) ,
noot hercan
accommodat esuchav arietyofphenomenaorseemsabl etoofferthebasi sf orsomanynew
dir
[Link] ear
shav egonebysi ncePi enemann’ sf i
rstbook-lengthpubl icationonPTi n
1998; andbef orethat,ittookal mostt wodecadest omoul dintoPTt heiniti
al i
ntuiti
onbyt he
ZISAteam t hatthest ageddev elopmentofGer manwor dor dercoul dbeex plainedby
psychol i
ngui sti
cconst raintsuni versall
yappl i
cablet oalllanguages( Pienemann1981; Clahsen,
Meisel &Pi enemann1983) .Int heset hr eedecades, t
hewhol efieldofSLAhasgr own
exponent i
ally .PThaspar alleledt hisgr owt h,andwi denedi t
sscopei nsev eral directi
[Link] rst
,
ZISA’sintuitionshav ebeenappl iedtoEngl ish(Pienemann&Johnst on1984; Pienemann,
Johnst on&Br i
ndley1988, Pienemann1989) ,thenPThasexpandedi t
st y
pol ogi cal v
alidation
fr
om Ger manandEngl isht odi fferentlanguages, suchasSwedi shandot herScandi nav i
an
l
anguages( Håkansson1997, Gl ahnetal .2001) ,Arabic(e.g.,Mansour i1995; 2005) ,Itali
an( e.
g.
DiBiase&Kawaguchi 2002; Di Biase2007; Bettoni,DiBiase&Nuzzo2009) , French( Ågren
2009), Chinese( e.g.Zhang2004, 2005) ,andJapanese( [Link]&Kawaguchi 2002, 2005).
Secondl y,
PT’ sframewor khasbeensubst ant
iall
ywi denedbyi ncludingBr esnan’s(2001)Lexi cal
Mappi ngTheor y, andthusaddingadi scoursepr agmaticall
ymot i
vatedsy ntacti
ccomponent
(Pienemann, Di Biase&Kawaguchi 2005)t oi
tsf i
rstsyntacti
callymot ivatedmor phologi
cal
modul [Link],devel
opment al
ly-moder atedtransferfrom L1( e.g.,Pienemann, DiBiase,
Kawaguchi &Håkansson2005a; Pienemann, Di Biase,Kawaguchi &Håkansson2005b) .Four t
hly
,
PT’splausibili
tyhasbeent estedinl anguagesi tuati
onsot herthanL2ones, suchasmonol ingual
andbi l
ingual l
anguageacqui sit
ion( e.
g.,Håkansson2001, 2005; ItaniAdams2006) ,among
childr
enwi thSpeci fi
cLanguageI mpai rment( e.
g. ,
Håkansson2001; 2005) ,andintheor i
ginsof
creolelanguages( Pl
ag2008a, 2008b) .

Finally,
therangeoft heor iginal appli
cationsofPTt ol anguaget estingandl anguaget eachi ng
hasal soexpandedov erthey ears,involvi
ngseveralnewway soft estingandt eachingsituat i
ons
(e.g.,I
wasaki 2004, 2008, askBr uno;Pienemann&Keßl er2007), andnewl anguages( [Link]
Biase2008; Yamaguchi 2009) .Ensuingpubl i
cati
onsi nal lthesePTst randsdur ingsuchal ong
per i
odofgr owt hhav ehadt heirownagendasandpur [Link] thermor e,notonlyPTi tselfbut
alsoi t
sfeederdi scipl
ineshav edev el
opedi nnewdi rections, cr
uciallyamongt hem
psy choli
nguisticsforlanguagepr oductionandt heoreticallingui
st i
csf orl anguageknowl edge.
Asaconsequence, i
tisnotsur pri
singthatreadersunf ami l
iarwit hPT' shi storymayatt imesbe
conf usedbydi ffer
encesi nt hepr esentati
onofthet heor y,i
t suseoft ermi nology,andrelianceon
i
tst heoreti
cal bases.

Pr
ocessabi
l
ityTheor
y

Pienemann‘snextdevelopment(1998)i
stoexpandt
heMulti
demensi
onal
model i
ntoa
Processabi
li
tyTheor
y,whichpredict
swhichgr
ammatical
str
uctur
esanL2lear
nercanpr
ocess
atagivenlevel
ofdevelopment.

Thi
scapaci
tytopredi
ctwhichformalhypothesesar
eprocessabl
eatwhichpointi
n
devel
opmentprov
idesthebasisforaunif
orm expl
anat
oryframeworkwhichcanaccountf
ora
di
verser
angeofphenomenar elat
edtolanguagedevel
opment(Pienemann,1998:
xv).

Thei mport
antthi
ngaboutthi
stheoryi
sthatwhil
ePienemanndescri
best
hesamer outeas
otherschol
arshavedoneforint
erl
anguagedevel
opment,i
naddit
ionnowheisoff
eringan
explanat
ionforwhyi
nter
languagegrammarsdevelopint
[Link]
heoryproposes
that
forl
ingui
sti
chy
pot
hesestotransf
ormintoexecut
ableprocedur
alknowl
edgethepr
ocessor
needstohavet
hecapaci
tyofprocessi
ngthosehypotheses(Pi
enemann,
1998:4)
.

Pienemann,inot
herwor ds,ar
guest hattherewi l
lbecertai
nlingui
sti
chypothesesthat
,ata
parti
cularst
ageofdevelopment,theL2l earnercannotaccessbecauseheorshedoesn’ thave
thenecessarypr
ocessingresourcesav ai
[Link] el
opment,thelear
nercan
produceandcompr ehendonlythoseL2l inguisti
cfor
mswhi chthecurr
entstateofthel
anguage
processorcanhandle.

Theprocessingresour
cest
hathavet
obeacqui
redbyt
heL2lear
nerwi
l
l,accor
dingt
o
Processabi
l
ityTheory,
beacqui
redi
nthef
oll
owi
ngsequence:

l
emmaaccess,

t
hecat
egor
ypr
ocedur
e,

t
hephr
asal
procedur
e

t
heS-
procedur
e,

t
hesubor
dinat
ecl
ausepr
ocedur
e–i
fappl
i
cabl
e.(
Pienemann,
1998:
7)

Thet
heor
yst
atest
hateachpr
ocedur
eisanecessar
ypr
erequi
sit
efort
hef
oll
owi
ngpr
ocedur
e,
andt
hat

thehierar
chywil
lbecutoffi
nthelearnergrammaratt hepoi
ntofthemissingpr
ocessing
proceduresandtherestoft
hehi
erarchywillber
eplacedbyadirectmappingofconceptual
struct
uresontosurf
aceform(Pi
enemann, 1998:7)
.

TheSLApr ocesscant
her
efor
ebeseenasoneinwhicht
heL2learnerent
ert
ainshy potheses
abouttheL2grammarandthatt
his“
hypot
hesi
sspace”i
sdet
erminedbythepr ocessabil
it
y
hi
erarchy.

Di
scussi
on
I
nthisaccountoftheSLApr ocess,
themechani sm atworkisani nf
ormationprocessi
ngdevice,
whi
chisconst r
ainedbyli
mitati
onsinit
sabil
[Link] ul
es
whi
leretai
ningtheoldones,andasthelimit
ing“speech-pr
ocessingstrat
egies”whichconst
rain
pr
ocessingareremov ed,
thi
sallowstheprocessingofprogressiv
elymorecompl exstr
uctur
es.

Whati smosti mpr essi

v eaboutthetheor y(
itprovidesanexpl anat i
onf ort
heinter
language
dev el
opmentr oute)isal somostproblemat i
c,sincet hetheorytakesassel f-
evi
dentt hatour
cogni ti
onwor ksint hewayt hemodel [Link] etoldthatpeopl eseethi
ngsi na
canoni calorderof“ actor–action–act edupon. ”,thatpeoplepr eferconti
nuousto
discont i
nuousent iti
es,thatthebeginningsandendsofsent encesar emor esal
ientthanthe
mi ddlesofsent encesandsoon, withoutbeingof feredmuchj usti
ficat
ionforsuchav i
ew,
bey ondt hegeneral assumpt i
onofwhati seasyanddi f
fi
culttopr [Link] landHawkins
sayoft heMul t
idi
mensi onalModel:

Theyrequir
eustot akeonfai
thassumpt i
onsaboutt
henatureofper
cepti
[Link]
cept
ual
const
ructsareessenti
all
ymyster
ious,andwhatismore,anynumberofnewonesmaybe
i
nventedinanunconstrai
nedway( TowellandHawki
ns,1994:50)
.

Thiscriti
cism i
sn’tactuallyasdamningasi tmi ghtappear–t hereareobvi
ouslygoodreasonsto
supposet hatsimplet hingswill
bemor eeasi l
ypr ocessedthancompl exones,t
herei
sa
mount ainofev i
dencef rom L1acquisi
tionstudiest osupportsomeoft heclai
ms,and,ofcourse,
whatev ernewassumpt ions“maybei nvented”canbedeal twi t
hifandwhent [Link]
Pienemannmakescl ear,theassumptionshemakesar ecommont omostcogniti
vemodel s,
and,impor tant
ly,
theyr esulti
nmakingpr edict
ionst hatar
ehighlyfal
sifi
abl
e.

Apartf
rom somev aguenessaboutpreci
selyhowtheprocessi
ngmechanism works,
andexact
ly
whatconsti
tutestheacquisit
ionofeachlevel
,thet
heoryhaslit
tl
etosayaboutt
ransfer
,and
deal
swithal i
miteddomai n,r
estr
ict
ingit
selftoanaccountofprocessi
ngt
hataccountsfor
speechproducti
on, andavoi
dinganydiscussi
onofli
nguist
ictheory.

Inbri
ef,
thetwomai nstrengthsofthi
stheoryar
ethatitprovidesnotjustadescri
ption,butan
expl
anati
onofinter
languagedev el
opment,andthatiti
[Link]
ionistakenfrom
exper
imentalpsy
cholinguist
ics,
notfr
om thedata,andisthusabl etomakewi de,st
rong
predi
ct i
ons,andt oapplyt
oal lfutur
edat [Link]
onsthetheorymakesar ewi dely
-
appli
cableand, tosomeext ent,testabl
e:ifwecanfindanL2l earnerwhohasski ppedast agein
thedev el
opment alsequence,thenwewi llhav
efoundempi r
icalevidencethatchal
lengest he
[Link] hattheconst
raintsonprocessabili
tyarenotaffectedby
context,evenclassroom i
nstructionshouldnotbeabl etochangeorr educethesestages.

WhetherPienemann’ stheorygivesagoodexpl anat i

onofSLAi sopentoquestion,tobesettl
ed
byanappeal toempi ri
calresearchandmor ecr i
tical
inter
rogati
onoftheconstr
uct [Link]
here’
s
noquesti
ont hatPieneamann’ sresear chaddssi gnif
icant
lytotheevi
denceforthecl ai
mthat
SLAisapr ocesswhoser outeisunaf fect
edbyt [Link]
orespectourstudents
i
nterl
anguagedev elopment ,wemustt eachi nsuchawayt hatt
heyaregiv
enthemaxi mum
opport
unit
iestowor kt
hingsoutf orthemselv es,andav oi
dt hemist
akeoftryi
ngt oteachthem
thi
ngsthey’r
enotr eady,ormot i
v ated,tolearn.

Foragooddiscussi
onofPi
enemann’
stheor
y,seet
hepeercomment ar
iesi
nthef
ir
stissueof
Bil
i
gual
ism:LanguageandCogni
ti
on:
Vol.1,
Number1,1998:ent
ir
elydevot
edtoProcessi
bil
i
ty
Theor
y.