This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Di Biase, B. Articles by Kawaguchi, S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language

School of Languages and Linguistics and MARCS Auditory Laboratories, University of Western Sydney, B.DiBiase{at}uws.edu.au

Satomi Kawaguchi

School of Languages and Linguistics and MARCS Auditory Laboratories, University of Western Sydney

This article aims to test the typological plausibility of Processability Theory (PT) (Pienemann, 1998). This is ‘a theory of processability of grammatical structures... [which] formally predicts which structures can be processed by the learner at a given level of development’ (p. xv). Up till now the theory has been tested mainly for Germanic languages, while here we propose to test it for two typologically different languages, namely Italian and Japanese. Language specific predictions for these two languages will be derived from PT, and the structures instantiating them will be described within a Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) framework. The occurrence and distribution of relevant structures will then be analysed in empirical, naturalistic data produced by adult learners. To test whether PT is typologically plausible we will demonstrate the following points for Japanese and Italian:

• The notion of ‘exchange of grammatical information’ is a productive concept for typologically different languages.

• Predictions that can be derived from the general architecture of the theory for specific languages will be borne out by empirical observation. (Pienemann 1998: 166).

Second Language Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, 274-302 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0267658302sr204oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Dyson Processability Theory and the role of morphology in English as a second language development: a longitudinal study Second Language Research, July 1, 2009; 25(3): 355 - 376. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Pienemann and G. HAkansson Response article Full transfer vs. developmentally moderated transfer: a reply to Bohnacker Second Language Research, October 1, 2007; 23(4): 485 - 493. [Abstract] [PDF]