ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017

ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

© 2017 Saric. This article follows the Open Access policy of

CC BY NC under Creative Commons attribution license v 4.0.
Submitted: 06/02/2017 - Accepted: 06/03/2017 - Published: 28/04/2017

Developmental Patterns in the Interlanguage Research

Antonija Saric
Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek,
Faculty of Food Technology Osijek, Kuhaceva 18, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
Email: [email protected]

DOI: 10.26417/ejser.v6i2.p242-255

Abstract
Interlanguage, defined as a dynamic language system created by the second
language learners, can be studied by observing how the language of the
learner develops over time. It is argued that interlanguage develops in a
regular, predictable way. The regularity of interlanguage development can be
confirmed by studying the order or the sequence of the acquisition of a certain
structure. The former is studied by choosing one of the grammatical
structures (i.e. plural-s), followed by collecting interlanguage samples to
determine how often a certain structure is used and finally ranking the
structure according to accuracy criteria. The latter deals with the detailed
investigation of a certain feature (i.e. interrogatives) to show the sequence of
stages through which a learner passes in his/her attempt to arrive at the
target language. By studying syntactic structures, such as negatives and
interrogatives, the regularities of the acquisition stages are most evident. The
regularities have been found across many languages, in particular, English and
German. To demonstrate that German language develops in a regular fashion,
Processability Theory was proposed stating that L2 learners can produce only
those L2 structures which they can process at any given point in time
emphasizing thus the fact that developmental stages cannot be skipped.
Furthermore, developmental patters can also be studied by applying
obligatory occasion, target-like or frequency analysis. Both obligatory
occasion and target-like analysis compare the learner's and the target
language, whereas frequency analysis lists various linguistic devices used by

76
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

the learner to express a certain grammatical structure and then shows the
frequency of using a certain linguistic device.
Keywords: developmental patterns, order of acquisition, sequence of acquisition,
Processability Theory, frequency analysis, obligatory occasion analysis, target-like
analysis

Introduction
Interlanguage is a theoretical construct, empirically confirmed, created as a result of
a cognitive approach to languages where primary importance is given to the internal
cognitive processes of a learner, and his/her active contribution to the process of
learning which results in different learning strategies. Latent language structures
(Lenneberg, 1967) and latent psychological structures (Selinker, 1972), activated
when one attempts to learn a second language, determine the interlanguage path. In
the past, interlanguage was studied by analysing errors a learner makes at a certain
point in time. Since error analysis failed to provide a complete interlanguage picture,
because the focus was only on counting and detecting errors, a need to show the
development of interlanguage over time was recognized. As interlanguages show
deviances in a structured way, they are determined by the rules which can be
predicted in advance. The systematic nature of interlanguage can be thus studied by
following developmental patterns applying obligatory occasion, target-like,
frequency or emergence analysis. Emergence analysis, proposed by Pienemann
(1998), reveals that structures emerge in a predicted way and that developmental
stages cannot be skipped. It is therefore important to introduce teachers to the notion
of interlanguage due to the fact that they are then able to understand better the
process of learning, and the fact that the stages of acquisition cannot be skipped
through formal education. Instruction is thus only helpful if it focuses on structures
from the next stage.
Interlanguage research
Error analysis, one of the methods of studying interlanguage, was popular in the
1970s when the focus was on counting and classifying errors and the attempts were
made to correct them as it was believed that learners would make progress if they are
aware of their errors. Corder (1967) emphasized the importance of errors because
they show insight into the way of learning and acquiring the language and display
strategies a learner uses on his/her way of discovering the language. Although error
analysis received criticism, as it showed very static insight into the way a language is
acquired, errors are still taken into account when describing the learner’s
interlanguage. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFL)
still describes requirements for grammatical accuracy with a constant emphasis on
the number and a type of errors neglecting thus the development of grammar
(Pallotti, 2010). In order to move away from counting errors, Pienemann (1998)
77
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

proposes factorization as a way of dissolving different factors bundled together in the

second language which can lead to errors. A learner may create an interlanguage
system where just one of such factors governs a set of form-function associations and
they should be described separately, regardless of the fact that they form structures
not allowed by the second language rules. For example, in German language
adjectives may be inflected based on a variety of factors, such as number, gender, case.
A learner who connects one inflectional morpheme with one of these factors will
produce a lot of non-target language forms, but will still follow a specific
interlanguage rule.
Furthermore, complete picture of learner's interlanguage can be obtained by studying
the way language is used in communication. Pragmatics focuses on what is being said
in a particular moment and how it is said. Most of the works so far have focused on
the analysis of specific illocutionary acts. The learners have to learn when it is
appropriate to use a certain structure and how to encode it, which may lead to various
problems. Sociopragmatic failure may be distinguished from pragmalinguistic failure.
The former happens when learners display socially inappropriate behavior and the
latter happens when learners do not express themselves in a linguistically
appropriate way (Thomas, 1983 in Ellis, 1994).
Learner’s interlanguage can also be described by observing how learners change their
language depending on the occasion. Variability of the learner’s interlanguage is
mostly systematic because learners change their linguistic forms based on a different
linguistic or situational context. It is likely that learners will use target-like forms in
formal environment, while their own forms, susceptible to changes, will be used in
informal environment. Tarone (1983) has attempted to explain systematic variability
by suggesting that second language learners have a series of overlapping mental
grammars, which correspond to different contexts in which the second language is
used. At one extreme learners have a grammar for informal or vernacular second
language use (e.g. in spontaneous casual conversation). At the other extreme learners
have a grammar for formal or careful use of the second language (e.g. in writing or
classroom use of the second language). Between these extremes, there are mental
grammars for different levels of formality of use. Tarone (1983) refers to this set of
overlapping styles as the interlanguage capability continuum. Learners acquire
grammars on the continuum through exposure to the second language in contexts of
different levels of formality. Non-systematic variability is thus created when new
forms are received, but are still not a part of the learner’s form-function system.
Systematic variability is created when new forms are accepted from the learner’s
existing form-function system. Ortega (2014) emphasizes two approaches to the
analysis of interlanguage variability: socio-linguistic approach to variability (Berdan,
1996 in Ortega, 2014) and dynamic approach (Verspoor et al, 2008 in Ortega, 2014).
The analysis of negation in English has shown that in any analysis that seeks to explain
temporality there is a risk of finding random variability which cannot be traced and,
therefore, evidence of learning is missing. On the other hand, the dynamic system
78
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

perspective has shown that individual ways of acquiring language are still not known
and their development might be missed if variability is ignored. The study of this kind
of variability is qualitative and can only be conducted over time on an individual basis.
Ortega (2014) states that variability studies that focused on the acquisition of
negation lack wider socio-linguistic level, proposed by Tarone and Liu (1995 in
Ortega, 2014), which includes variability originating from social interactions.
Developmental patterns in the interlanguage research
Since error analysis was abandoned due to the fact that interlanguage was observed
as a collection of errors, the need to study the whole process of creating interlanguage
at different stages of development was recognized. The conclusion that interlanguage
develops in a regular, predictable way was reached. The universal criteria that
researches have used in constituting evidence for developmental patterns are the
following (Ellis, 1994):
- The existence of developmental patterns can be determined by studying the
order of acquisition of different second language structures or by following
sequence of stages through which a learner passes on his/her way of
mastering the second language. When studying the order of acquisition, a
researcher determines grammatical structures that will be the object of the
research (i.e. auxiliary be, plural-s), then he/she collects samples of the
learner’s interlanguage to determine how often a specific structure is used by
different learners and finally structures are ranked according to accuracy
criteria. When observing sequence of stages, very often the so called U-
shaped behavior can be noticed. For instance, in the beginning, the learners
are unable to mark Past Simple of the verb to eat; then they start using correct
form of the verb to eat, i.e. ate. Afterwards, the learners overgeneralize the
rules for Past Simple Tense, i.e. the form eated is used and finally they go back
to the correct form of the Past Simple Tense of the aforementioned verb (Ellis,
1997).
- When describing transitional structures, a developmental stage is said to
consist of a period during which learners systematically use a particular form
or structure, even though it does not exclude the usage of other forms or
structures.
- The forms and structures used by learners at different time periods during
the process of second language acquisition can be ordered in a way that one
form or structure always precedes another.
- By acquiring some forms or structures of a target language earlier and some
later, learners progress step by step along an order or a sequence of
acquisition.

79
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

- Strong evidence for developmental patterns appear when it is possible to

show that an order or a sequence of acquisition is universal (can be applied to
different second languages and to all learners). Weak evidence can be found
when an order or a sequence of acquisition is only applied to specific
languages or specific groups of learners.
Pallotti (2010) emphasizes the fact that studies of acquisition orders should set
explicit acquisition criteria that clearly show which conditions should be met to
conclude that a specific structure is acquired.
Lowie & Verspoor (2015) advocate a dynamic explanation where each step of the
development can be ascribed to the dynamic interaction of all processes included in
the development, whereby the dynamic process cannot be predicted in advance and
it is not invariable. Furthermore, they state that developmental stage studies try to
reach conclusions which are applicable on a group, but are insignificant on an
individual level. If the obtained results are to be applied on a large population of
learners, group studies with representative samples using Gaussian statistics based
on the normal distribution should be conducted. However, if we want to follow the
development of an individual as a result of changing variables in a variable context,
longitudinal studies and nonlinear methods of analysis should be applied (Lowie &
Verspoor, 2015).
Methods of investigating developmental patterns
There are various methods which can be used when investigating developmental
patterns. One of the methods is to study errors made by the learners and to determine
if they change and how they change over time. Furthermore, developmental patterns
can also be studied by collecting samples of the learner’s language over a period of
time in order to determine which linguistic feature emerges and when in the learner’s
language. According to this approach, acquisition is defined as first occurrence
(Wells, 1985). This method is common for the first language acquisition research, but
is also proposed as a method of investigating second language acquisition
(Pienemann, 1984).
The usual method for the description of developmental patterns is obligatory
occasion analysis. The method was clearly described by Brown (1973), and the
procedure is as follows: first, samples of a learner language are collected in the natural
environment; second, obligatory occasions for the use of specific target language
forms are identified. While using the second language, learners create occasions in
which it is necessary to use a specific form of the target language, even though they
do not always use it correctly. For instance, a learner can say utterances such as I
watched a good film yesterday and He come late for the show yesterday*. In both
sentences, an occasion for the usage of Past Simple was created, although a learner
has made a mistake in the second sentence. Afterwards, the percentage of accurate
use of a specific form is calculated in order to determine if the needed form is used in

80
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

all required contexts. Finally, level of accuracy of a specific form is determined. The
level is usually set at 80-90% considering the fact that not even native speakers are
able to provide all correct forms. According to Brown (1973), if a certain structure is
acquired, it will be a constant part of the learner’s interlanguage system, even at
higher developmental stages. Vainikka & Young-Scholten (1994, in Pallotti, 2007)
consider a certain structure acquired if it is correctly used in 60% of the cases, Ellis
(1988, in Pallotti, 2007) requires 75% accuracy, Andersen (1978, in Pallotti, 2007)
80%, and Dulay & Burt (1974) set the accuracy level at 90%. The problem which
emerges when using this method is that it takes no account of when the same form is
used in a non-obligatory context. For example, a learner overgeneralizes Past Simple
in the sentence I watched a good film yesterday and now I remembered all details from
the film because he/she uses Past Simple in both cases. A procedure called target-like
use analysis was proposed as a way of dealing with the overgeneralization and
incorrect usage of a certain form. Pica (1983) reached a conclusion that relevant
differences in the assessment of a learner’s ability depend on whether an obligatory
occasion or a target-like use analysis is employed. Both methods compare the
learner’s interlanguage with the target language. Bley-Vroman (1983) warned that it
may lead to comparative fallacy which could appear if the fact that learners form their
own rule systems in the process of acquiring second language is neglected. Selinker
(2014) talks about deep interlanguage semantics as a way of dealing with
comparative fallacy.1 Target-like use analysis cannot be used for the description of a
system that is created by the learners in the process of learning, since it only provides
information up to which level the learner’s interlanguage has come closer to the target
language. Another problem is the question of the target language norm that should
be followed as a basis for the comparison of the learner’s language. Norms also differ
according to different dialogues spoken in the target language community, and it is
difficult to determine if all the target language learners want to follow the standard
dialect.
One of the ways of overcoming these problems is to list various linguistic devices used
by the learners in order to express a specific grammatical structure (such as
questions) and then to calculate the frequency of usage of a specific device at different
points in the learners' development (Cazden et al, 1975, as cited in Ellis, 1994). This
method is called frequency analysis and it is very useful in disclosing vertical
variations in the interlanguage development. By applying this method it is possible
to show the prominence of different elements at different developmental stages.
Many of the above mentioned studies are longitudinal, i.e. the data are collected over
the period of a few months or years. On the other hand, there are cross-sectional
studies which are used to collect the data at a single point in time. The method often
applied in cross-sectional studies is implicational scaling which focuses on the

1
Selinker (2014) advocates the notion of searching for universal and idiosyncratic interlanguage logical propositions, explained within a
deep interlanguage semantics.
81
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

changes in the learner’s interlanguage in order to find out which form different
learners have acquired and to arrange specific forms into a hierarchy (Decamp, 1971).
Processability Theory (PT)
For the analysis of the learner’s interlanguage, Pienemann (1998) uses emergence
analysis in order to describe the beginning in the process of the acquisition of a
specific structure in oral production. First, data are collected using oral interviews
with the interlocutor. In order to exclude formulae, Pienemann (1998) proposes
checking of lexical/grammatical variations (for example, usage of the same
morpheme with different words and the same word with different morphemes).
Interpretation of the collected data depends on acquisition criteria being used.
Pienemann (1998) states that accuracy criteria are arbitrary. Figure 1 shows
different developmental trajectories of specific grammatical structures, i.e. different
learners will use differently the same grammatical structure in an obligatory context.
Obviously, three different paths have different gradients. The order of acquisition can
thus be c>b>a using a 50% criterion or c>a>b using a 100% criterion. Pienenemann
(1998) therefore proposed the emergence criterion which is not arbitrary. The first
step of the emergence analysis is distributional analysis or qualitative representation
of different structures in a sample which keeps track of the frequency of tokens and
determines if a specific form is mapped onto specific structure. The second step is
separation of productive forms from formulae. Productivity is measured by the
number of tokens and the systematic use of lexical/morphological varieties of these
tokens. The third step of the emergence analysis is implicational scaling; each rule is
presented in the form of a developmental stage, that is, a rule formed later implies the
presence of the earlier acquired rules.

Figure 1. Accuracy and developmental trajectories. “Processability theory” by M.

Pienemann and J-U. Keßler, 2012. p. 237.
The core of the PT lies in the fact that learners can produce only those forms which
they can process at any given point in time, which means that they cannot be taught
structures from higher developmental stages that cannot be processed by their

82
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

language processor. Pienemann (1998) claims that English morphology and syntax
develop in six stages presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Developmental stages for English morphology and syntax (Pienemann,
2005b, p. 24)
Stage Processing Procedure L2 process Morphology Syntax

6 Subordinate clause Main and Cancel

procedure subordinate inversion
clause
5 Sentence procedure Inter-phrasal Subject-Verb Do2nd,
agreement agreement (3rd Aux2nd
person singular
-s)
4 Verb phrase procedure Inter-phrasal Tense Y/N inversion,
agreement agreement copula
inversion
3 Noun phrase procedure Phrasal Noun phrase Adverb
information agreement, fronting, Do-
Negation+Verb fronting
2 Category procedure Lexical Plural Canonical
morphology word order
Possessive
pronouns

1 Word/lemma Noun Invariant forms Single

procedure constituents

The elements presented in Table 1 form a hierarchy; the element of a lower stage is a
prerequisite for other elements of higher stages, making it impossible for the stages
to be skipped. Although the acquisition path can be predicted in advance, as it
includes developmental stages, there is a variable dimension which accounts for the
individual differences between two different developmental trajectories presented in
Figure 2. Two different developmental trajectories are based on developmental
stages (marked with the dotted horizontal lines), while the differences are observable
in different interlanguage varieties which are developed at each stage (marked with
vertical lines in Figure 2). It is important to note that for every process of learning
there is a limited number of variable solutions. During second language development,
the learner accumulates grammatical rules and their variations which help him/her

83
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

to develop his/her own developmental path while at the same time adhering to the
general developmental order. In that way, two-dimensional space for the formation
of a certain hypothesis is defined within the PT. Both dimensions of this space are
constrained by the processing hierarchy which can be applied to any other language.

According to the PT, all the variable solutions used by the learner are located within
language processing, which means that the PT contains two dimensions: development
of processing capacity and individual variations chosen by the learner as a solution
for each stage. Those dimensions are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Hypothesis Space. “Studying Processability theory: An introductory

textbook” by M. Pienemann and J-U Keßler, 2011, p. 38.
Figure 3 shows development stages vertically and variable solutions horizontally. S1
and S2 in the Figure represent the learner’s possible grammars. The variation shows
simplifications of solutions on the right and the standard oriented solutions on the
84
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

left. Considering that Hypothesis Space enables a unique, individual developmental

path determined by the chosen solutions that the learner finds in each stage within
the entire system, it is possible to show the dynamics of interlanguage grammars and
its development (Pienemann, 2005b). Variable solutions chosen by the learner at
each level of development have an effect on a later development, considering that the
learner’s choices accumulate along with the development of the learner’s
interlanguage. According to Pienemann (1998) learner’s interlanguage stabilizes if
the learner makes a large number of bad choices. Also, it is not simple for second
language learners to make the shift from simplification to using standard orientation
and vice versa.
Pienemann (1998) also states that despite the permanent hierarchy of processing, the
learners will develop their own interlanguage; he also explains that the variations
between learners and different final outcomes are due to differences in their
development dynamics. The generative entrenchment model1 influenced the
construction of development dynamics in the PT. Pienemann (1998) understands
development as a process in which the development of more complex structures
happens gradually, beginning with the lowest number of structural properties, to
which other properties are added through development (Figure 4). The key
explanation of this model resides in the fact that structural choices in the
development path need not repeat every time the structure changes. Initial structural
patterns spread in the development system and form the final structure. However,
when a certain development path is chosen, it is very difficult to change its direction.

Pienemann and Keßler (2012) point out the following important factors in their
explanation of the Processability Theory:

1
The stated model comes from biology and philosophy and it was formed by Wimsatt (1986, 1991 in Pienemann, 1998) with its application
to embryonic development of animals. Pienemann (1998) took it from biology and applied it to the development of language. The same
way that the early development of an embryo is very important, early decisions in acquiring language are equally important, considering
that they influence final development. It is very difficult, almost impossible, to change the development path after a decision has been
made.
85
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

a) Second language development progresses according to universal stages

which are limited by the language processing hierarchy.
b) Variability of interlanguage is limited and regular, and the limitations and
regularities happen according to the language processing hierarchy.
c) Transfer from the first language is limited by the ability to process a certain
structure, that is, the forms from the first language can be transferred to the
second language only when those forms can be processed within the system
of the second language that is being developed.
d) Differences in tasks are limited by the language processing hierarchy. This
assertion results in the Steadiness Hypothesis1 which claims that a certain
interlanguage structure will be placed on the same developmental stage
within different tasks as long as they relate to the same language processing
ability level within language production.
e) Acquisition of both the first and second language is limited by the language
processing hierarchy. However, both forms of acquisition may be related to
different development paths.
f) Bilingual language development can be universally compared for different
languages using the language processing hierarchy described in the PT.
These statements are based on the language processing hierarchy, which is based on
the universal system of processing tools that can be explained using lexical functional
grammar and Hypothesis Space, which is based on the assertion that the structures
which can be processed are limited on any level by the available processing tools.
The limitations of Hypothesis Space imposed by the PT concern the age differences in
the process of second language acquisition. The basic question is what causes those
differences, and if they are caused by two different acquisition processes, what is the
true nature of those processes. Pieneman (1998) considers that Clahsen’s (1985 in
Pienemann, 1998) proposal is the most useful, which assumes that children have
access to universal grammar and second language learners do not. According to
Clahsen, the latter group uses language processing strategies instead of universal
grammar.
Pienemann (1998) considers that grammar coding architecture must be constructed
equally by children as well as second language learners, although he points out that
there is a different development path for the acquisition of the first and the second
language. There is no reason to believe that different language processing procedures

1
To confirm the predictions stated in the Steadiness Hypothesis, Pienemann (1998) tested the interlanguage of six subjects by using the
emergence criterion in morphology and syntax. All interlanguage patterns displayed perfect consistency for syntax, while the consistency
of 99.1% was proven for morphology. Consistency is very important because of the testing for levels of processing and variability within
grammatical principles. If the grammatical settings were to change depending on the situation, it would be impossible to test the predictions
set out in PT.
86
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

are used by children and by second language learners. However, the claim that the
PT can explain the direction of language acquisition in children and adults leaves
many unanswered questions, primarily the following:
1) What is the basis for creating hypotheses in the first and the second language?
2) Which mechanisms affect the development of structures in the student’s
language?
These questions can be related to the point of view held by Clahsen and Meisel (1991,
in Pienemann, 1998), which says that first language learners create more effective
hypotheses than second language students and are more successful in controlling
them.
The following Tables (2 and 3) provide the complete overview of interlanguage
research based on Processability Theory.
Table 2. Overview of the interlanguage researches based on Processability Theory
from 1996 to 2004 (according to Pienemann, 2005b:61-65)
Researcher/Year Language Structure Results
Fetter (1996) English Morphosyntax Does not confirm PT as
there are a lot of patterns
missing in the implicational
scaling
Pienemann & Swedish Morphosyntax Confirmation of PT
Hakansson (1999)
Bartning (2000) French Morphology and Morphology is more
syntax systematic and develops in
a predictable way, unlike
syntax
Mansouri (2000, in Arabic Morphology and Confirmation of PT
Pienemann, 2005b) syntax
Devaele & French French adjectives PT is not suitable for this
Veronique (2001) in gender kind of research
assignment
Glahn et al (2001) Scandinavian Morphology Confirmation of PT
languages
Syntax
Hakansson, Salameh Swedish and Morphology Confirmation of PT
& Nettelblatt (2003) French
acquisition in
bilingual
children

87
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

Di Biase & Japanese Morphosyntax Confirmation of PT

Kawaguchi (2002)
Italian
Iwasaki (2003, in Japanese Morphosyntax Confirmation of PT
Pienemann, 2005b)
Gao (2004, in Mandarin Key grammatical Confirmation of PT; Firm
Pienemann, 2005b) morphemes empirical evidence against
transfer in initial stages of
acquisition
Harada (2004, in English Acquisition of In the early stages of
Pienemann, 2005b) modality learning, only lexical
modality appears, whereas
the appearance of modal
verbs is in accordance with
the appearance of a verb
phrase
Ozdemir (2004, in Turkish, / Confirmation of PT
Pienemann, 2005b) German and
English
acquisition in
trilingual
children
Taylor (2004, in Spanish Sentence Confirmation of PT
Pienemann, 2005b) structure
Table 2 shows that recent research confirmed the PT; in other words, certain
structures appear in the predicted order. The research of agreement in French
adjectives focusing on levels of accuracy in grammatical gender is the exception,
because according to lexical-functional grammar, the grammatical gender is a lexical
feature and must be acquired individually for each lexical item, therefore, the ability
to transfer grammatical information at the PT level can only be tested if the
grammatical gender is determined for each unit in the learner’s lexicon. Fetter’s
(1996) research also does not confirm the PT, because it concludes that implicational
scaling lacks certain patterns.

88
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

Table 3. The latest interlanguage researches based on Processability Theory

Researcher/Y Languag Structure Results
ear e

Kawaguchi Japanese Syntax Confirmation of PT

(2005)
Mansouri Arabic Morphology Confirmation of PT
(2005) and syntax
Zhang (2005) Chinese 5 grammatical Morphemes are acquired in a predicted
morphemes order proposed by PT
Mansouri & English Syntax Confirmation of PT
Duffy (2005)
- research of syntax in English as the
second language shows that learners
exposed to instruction in accordance with
the developmental order predicted in PT
produce the target language structures
with a higher grammatical accuracy than
those exposed to the reversed order
Dao (2007, in English Inflections in As opposed to PT, inflexions emerge in
Charters, Dao lexical and phrasal contexts prior to inflexions in
& Jansen) phrasal lexical contexts
contexts
Hakansson & Swedish Written and Confirmation of PT
Norrby oral production
(2007, in
Hakansson,
2013)
Philipsson Swedish Questions and Grammaticality judgement tests show that
(2007) verb the structures testing declarative
morphology knowledge, unlike procedural, are not
acquired according to the predictions of
PT
Ellis (2008) English Grammatical Grammaticality judgement tests show that
structures the structures testing declarative
knowledge, unlike procedural, are not
acquired according to the predictions of
PT
Jansen German Cross-sectional Confirmation of PT
(2008) study of the
German word
order

89
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

Rahkonen & Swedish Lexical The structures emerge according to the

Hakansson morphology, predicted order; lexical and phrasal
(2008, in morphology emerge first, followed by the
Phrasal
Hakansson, word order in subordinate clause
morphology,
2013)
Inter-phrasal
morphology,
Inversion in
main clauses,
Cancel
inversion in
subordinate
clauses,
Pre-verbal
negation in
subordinate
clauses
Sakai (2008) English Questions, Confirmation of PT
word order,
negation
Alhawary Arabic Morphosyntax L2 learners of Arabic with L1 English and
(2009, as French learning Arabic as a foreign
cited in language in their home countries did not
Bonilla, show simultaneous emergence of stage 4
2012) (gender and verb agreement)
Heinonen Swedish Morphosyntax Confirmation of PT
(2009)
Researcher/Y Languag Structure Results
ear e
Dyson (2009) English Morphology The study found the acquisition of
and syntax structures both predicted and not
predicted by PT (acquisition of
morphology, and syntax varies with
learner orientation)
Medojević Serbian Morphology Confirmation of PT
(2009) and syntax
Dyson (2011) English Morphology Confirmation of PT
and syntax

90
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

Hakansson & Swedish Grammar, Confirmation of PT

Norrby pragmatics,
(2010) lexicon
Schönström Swedish Written Confirmation of PT
(2010, in production of
Hakansson, deaf learners;
2013)
Lexical, phrasal
and inter-
phrasal
structures
Zhang & English Morphology Confirmation of PT
Widyastuti
(2010)
Baten (2011) German German case Confirmation of PT
system
Charters, Dao English Plural marking The study shows certain flaws of PT, as it
& Jansen is based on implicit assumptions which
(2011) cannot be applied to some other first or
second languages and, therefore, lead to
wrong predictions; transfer from the first
language is in accordance with the
developmentally moderated transfer1
explained in the PT
Itani-Adams Japanese Morphology Both languages developed in a predicted
(2011, in ; English and syntax order proposed by PT, but not
Pienemann simultaneously; both languages had their
and Keßler, own, individual path
2011)
Spinner English Morphosyntax Implicational scaling based on the Rapid
(2011) in productive Profile software showed that structures
tasks are acquired according to predictions
presented in PT
Doman English Syntax Confirmation of Pienemann’s Teachability
(2012) (relative Hypothesis
clauses)
Bonilla Spanish Morphology Confirmation of PT;
(2012) and syntax
The results question the main claim of the
Teachability Hypothesis that instruction
only focused on the next stage can

1
Pienemann (2005b) states that transfer from the first language is developmentally moderated, meaning that it will occur when the structure
to be transferred is processable withing the developing system of the second language.
91
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

accelerate the natural acquisition process

– the results showed that learners were
able to acquire not only the next stage, but
the following stage too
Bonilla Spanish Morphology Confirmation of PT
(2014) and syntax
Tang & Zhang English Written and Confirmation of PT; learners are more
(2015) oral production successful in written than in oral testing

Researcher/Y Languag Structure Results

ear e
Zhang & Chinese Topicalization It is possible to artificially construct a
Lantolf in the Chinese developmental route different from the
(2015) language one predicted by natural developmental
sequences

Table 3 shows that most of the structures are acquired according to the schedule
predicted by the PT, aside from the tests where the criteria are implicit1 (procedural)
and explicit2 (declarative) knowledge (Philipssson, 2007; Ellis, 2008). The tests that
measured implicit knowledge showed in both cases that the structures are acquired
according to implicational scaling elaborated in the PT, while the grammatical
assessment tests that measured explicit knowledge showed that acquisition does not
take place according to the predicted schedule. Research done by Dao (2007) also
does not confirm the PT because contrary to the PT, inflections emerge first in phrasal
and then in lexical contexts. Dyson’s (2009) research partly disproves the PT,
considering that stages 3 and 4 developed before morphology in syntax. Dyson uses
the fact that the properties of universal grammar encourage syntactic development in
stages, which is interacting with the morphological properties proposed in the PT, to
explain this. The application of the PT to the Arabic language did not answer the
question why students acquire different structures at a different pace if the structures
can be processed (Alhawary 2009, in Bonilla, 2012). Research by Charters, Dao, and
Jansen (2011) confirms the PT in the part concerning transfer from the first language,
which develops according to the developmentally moderated transfer hypothesis, but
it also shows certain deficiencies in the PT, considering that it is based on implicit

1
Ellis (2008) defines implicit knowledge as intuitive, procedural, systematic, receptive to changes, automatic, and therefore available for
fluid, unplanned use of language. It is not receptive to verbalization. It is considered that it can be learned only until the critical period
(puberty).
2
According to Ellis (2008) explicit knowledge is conscious, declarative, irregular, and inconsistent, and it can only be accessed through
controlled processing and planned use of language. It can be verbalised and in that case it includes technical metalanguage. It can be
learned at any age.
92
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

assumptions which may not be valid for some first or second languages and because
of that they result in incorrect predictions. It is interesting that Medojević (2009)
worked on the application of the PT on the Serbian language, which is actually the
first time it was applied on any Slavic language. She applied the stated theory by
testing three teenagers who live in Australia and speak Serbian at home. Her research
confirmed the PT. Therefore, the stated theory can also be applied to the Serbian
Language.
As is evident from tables 2 and 3 it is possible to predict the second language path by
applying PT not only to English, but to other languages too.
Conclusion
By investigating developmental patterns, one can get a closer insight into the
development of the learner’s interlanguage. Since developmental stages can be
predicted in advance, a conclusion that interlanguage develops in a regular,
predictable way can be drawn. However, it is important to describe and determine
developmental stages in advance in order to adjust teaching to the learner’s present
developmental stage. It is therefore important to introduce the teachers to the notion
of interlanguage and developmental stages in order to observe the factors that hinder
or facilitate their learner’s progress applying an individualized approach to each
learner while at the same time observing the changes in the learner’s interlanguage
on his/her way of mastering the second language. Observing the developmental path
of the student’s interlanguage removes thus the focus from describing and counting
errors and makes us understand that errors are to be expected in the development of
the learner’s second language and that they are, in fact, indicators of progress, so
interlanguage should be viewed as the linguistic potential that needs to be
additionally explored and utilised in the future.
References
[1] Baten, K. (2011). Processability Theory and German Case Acquisition.
Language Learning, 61 (2), 455-505.
[2] Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The Comparative Fallacy in Interlanguage Studies: The
Case of Systematicity. Language Learning, 33 (1), 1-17.
[3] Bonilla, C.L. (2012). Testing Processability Theory in L2 Spanish: Can Readiness
or Markedness Predict Development
[4] (Doctoral thesis, University of Pittsburgh, USA). Retrieved from
http://dscholarship.pitt.edu/11611/1/BonillaCL_2012.pdf.
[5] Bonilla, C.L. (2014). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for
Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 1-22.
[6] Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The first Stages. London: George Allen &
Unwin Ltd.
93
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

[7] Charters, H., Dao, L. & Jansen, L. (2011). Reassessing the applicability of
Processing Theory: The case of nominal plural. Second Language Research, 27
(4), 509-533.
[8] Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. IRAL, 10 (4), 159-170.
[9] Decamp, D. (1971). Implicational Scales and Sociolinguistic Linearity.
Linguistics, 17, 79-106.
[10] Doman, E. (2012). Further Evidence for the Developmental Stages of Language
Learning and Processability. US-China Education Review, 2 (9), 813-825.
[11] Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). Errors and Strategies in Child Second Language
Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8 (2), 128-136.
[12] Dyson, B. (2009). Processability theory and the role of morphology in English as
a second language development: a longitudinal study. Second Language
Research, 25 (3), 355-376.
[13] Dyson, B. (2010). Learner Language Analytic Methods and Pedagogical
Implications. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33 (3), 30.1-30.21.
[14] Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
[15] Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language
learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language
testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18 (1), 4-22.
[16] Garcia Mayo, M. Junkal Gutierrez Mangado, M., Martinez Adrian, M. (Eds.)
(2013). Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[17] Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.) (2012). The Routledge Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. New York and London: Routledge. Taylor&Francis
Group.
[18] Hakansson, G. & Norrby, C. (2010). Environmental influence on language
acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish.
Language Learning, 60 (3), 628-650.
[19] Hakansson, G. (2013). Processability Theory. Explaining developmental
sequences. In M. Garcia Mayo, M. Junkal Gutierrez Mangado & M. Martinez
Adrian (Eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp.
111-129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[20] Han, Z.-H. & Tarone, E. (Eds.) (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

94
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

[21] Heinonen, E.M. (2009). Processbarhet på prov Bedömning av muntlig

språkfärdighet hos vuxna andraspråksinlärare (Unpublished doctoral thesis,
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden). Retrieved from http://uu.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:173105/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
[22] Jansen, L. (2008). Acquisition of German Word Order. Language Learning, 58
(1), 185-231.
[23] Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in
Japanese as a second language. In M. Pienemann (Eds.), Cross-linguistic aspects
of processability theory (pp. 253-299). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
[24] Keßler, J-U. & Keatinge, D. (Eds.) (2009). Research in Second Language
Acquisition: Empirical Evidence across Languages. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
[25] Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and Variation in Second Language
Acquisition Orders: A Dynamic Reevaluation. Language Learning, 65 (1), 63-88.
[26] Mansouri, F. (2005). Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language. In
M. Pienemann (Eds.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 117-
155). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[27] Medojević, L. (2009). Applying Processability Theory and Its Extension to
Serbian as a Family and Community Language in Australia. In J-U. Keßler & D.
Keatinge (Eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition: Empirical Evidence
across Languages (pp. 267-293). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
[28] Ortega, L (2014). Trying out theories on interlanguage: Description and
explanation over 40 years of L2 negation research. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone
(Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 179-203).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[29] Pallotti, G. (2010). Doing interlanguage analysis in school context. In I. Bartning,
M. Martin & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic
development: intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp.
159-191). European second language association 2010.
[30] Pica, T. (1983). Adult Acquisition of English as a Second Language Under
Different Conditions of Exposure. Language Learning, 33 (4), 465-497.
[31] Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development:
Processability theory. Studies in Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.

95
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Science January - April 2017
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Volume 4, Issue 1

[32] Pienemann, M. (Eds.) (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[33] Pienemann, M. (2005b). An introduction to Processability Theory. In M.
Pienemann (Eds.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp.61-85).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[34] Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (2011). Studying Processability theory: An
introductory textbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing company.
[35] Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (2012). Processability theory. In S. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.
228-247). New York and London: Routledge. Taylor&Francis Group.
[36] Philipsson, A. (2007). Interrogative Clauses and Verb Morphology in L2
Swedish: Theoretical Interpretations of Grammatical Development and Effects
of Different Elicitation Tehniques (Doctoral thesis, Stockholm University,
Sweden). Retrieved from http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:197193/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
[37] Sakai, H. (2008). An analysis of Japanese university students' oral performance
in English using processability theory. Elsevier System, 36 (4), 534-549.
[38] Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10 (3), 209-231.
[39] Spinner, P. (2011). Second Language Assessment and Morphosyntactic
Development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 529-561.
[40] Tang, H. & Zhang, Y. (2015). An Investigation of Chinese Students' Acquisition of
Oral and Written English through the Measurement of Processability Theory.
International Journal of Apllied Linguistics & English Literature, 4 (2), 207-211.
[41] Tarone, E. (1983). On the Variability of Interlanguage Systems. Applied
Linguistics, 4 (2), 142-164.
[42] Zhang, X. & Latolf, J.P. (2015). Natural or Artificial: Is the Route of L2
Development Teachable? Language Learning, 65 (1), 152-180.

96