ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr.

2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

Developmental Patterns in the Interlanguage Research

Antonija Saric
Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek,
Faculty of Food Technology Osijek, Kuhaceva 18, 31000 Osijek, Croatia

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 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

1. 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.

242
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

2. 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) 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 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.

2.1. 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):

243
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

- 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.
- 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).

2.2. 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 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,

244
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

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 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).

2.2.1. 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.

1Selinker (2014) advocates the notion of searching for universal and idiosyncratic interlanguage logical propositions, explained within a
deep interlanguage semantics.

245
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

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 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 procedure Main and subordinate Cancel inversion

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

1 Word/lemma Noun procedure Invariant forms Single 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 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.

246
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

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 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.

247
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

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:

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
Hypothesis2 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.

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.
2 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.

248
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

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 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 & Hakansson Swedish Morphosyntax Confirmation of PT
(1999)
Bartning (2000) French Morphology and syntax Morphology is more systematic and
develops in a predictable way, unlike
syntax
Mansouri (2000, in Arabic Morphology and syntax Confirmation of PT
Pienemann, 2005b)
Devaele & Veronique (2001) French French adjectives in PT is not suitable for this kind of
gender assignment research
Glahn et al (2001) Scandinavian Morphology Confirmation of PT
languages Syntax
Hakansson, Salameh & Swedish and French Morphology Confirmation of PT
Nettelblatt (2003) acquisition in bilingual
children
Di Biase & Kawaguchi Japanese Morphosyntax Confirmation of PT
(2002) Italian
Iwasaki (2003, in Japanese Morphosyntax Confirmation of PT
Pienemann, 2005b)

249
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

Gao (2004, in Pienemann, Mandarin Key grammatical Confirmation of PT; Firm empirical
2005b) morphemes evidence against transfer in initial
stages of acquisition
Harada (2004, in English Acquisition of modality In the early stages of learning, only
Pienemann, 2005b) lexical modality appears, whereas the
appearance of modal verbs is in
accordance with the appearance of a
verb phrase
Ozdemir (2004, in Turkish, German and / Confirmation of PT
Pienemann, 2005b) English acquisition in
trilingual children
Taylor (2004, in Pienemann, Spanish Sentence structure Confirmation of PT
2005b)

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.

Table 3. The latest interlanguage researches based on Processability Theory

Researcher/Year Language Structure Results

Kawaguchi (2005) Japanese Syntax Confirmation of PT

Mansouri (2005) Arabic Morphology and Confirmation of PT
syntax
Zhang (2005) Chinese 5 grammatical Morphemes are acquired in a predicted order proposed by
morphemes PT
Mansouri & Duffy English Syntax Confirmation of PT
(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 lexical As opposed to PT, inflexions emerge in phrasal contexts
Charters, Dao & and phrasal contexts prior to inflexions in lexical contexts
Jansen)
Hakansson & Swedish Written and oral Confirmation of PT
Norrby (2007, in production
Hakansson, 2013)
Philipsson (2007) Swedish Questions and verb Grammaticality judgement tests show that the structures
morphology testing declarative knowledge, unlike procedural, are not
acquired according to the predictions of PT

Ellis (2008) English Grammatical Grammaticality judgement tests show that the structures
structures testing declarative knowledge, unlike procedural, are not
acquired according to the predictions of PT

Jansen (2008) German Cross-sectional study Confirmation of PT

of the German word
order
Rahkonen & Swedish Lexical morphology, The structures emerge according to the predicted order;
Hakansson (2008, Phrasal morphology, lexical and phrasal morphology emerge first, followed by

250
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

in Hakansson, Inter-phrasal the word order in subordinate clause

2013) morphology,
Inversion in main
clauses,
Cancel inversion in
subordinate clauses,
Pre-verbal negation in
subordinate clauses
Sakai (2008) English Questions, word order, Confirmation of PT
negation
Alhawary (2009, as Arabic Morphosyntax L2 learners of Arabic with L1 English and French learning
cited in Bonilla, Arabic as a foreign language in their home countries did
2012) not show simultaneous emergence of stage 4 (gender and
verb agreement)
Heinonen (2009) Swedish Morphosyntax Confirmation of PT
Researcher/Year Language Structure Results
Dyson (2009) English Morphology and The study found the acquisition of structures both
syntax predicted and not predicted by PT (acquisition of
morphology, and syntax varies with learner orientation)
Medojević (2009) Serbian Morphology and Confirmation of PT
syntax
Dyson (2011) English Morphology and Confirmation of PT
syntax
Hakansson & Swedish Grammar, pragmatics, Confirmation of PT
Norrby (2010) lexicon
Schönström (2010, Swedish Written production of Confirmation of PT
in Hakansson, deaf learners;
2013) Lexical, phrasal and
inter-phrasal structures
Zhang & Widyastuti English Morphology Confirmation of PT
(2010)
Baten (2011) German German case system Confirmation of PT
Charters, Dao & English Plural marking The study shows certain flaws of PT, as it is based
Jansen (2011) on implicit assumptions which 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 (2011, Japanese; Morphology and Both languages developed in a predicted order proposed
in Pienemann and English syntax by PT, but not simultaneously; both languages had their
Keßler, 2011) own, individual path
Spinner (2011) English Morphosyntax in Implicational scaling based on the Rapid Profile software
productive tasks showed that structures are acquired according to
predictions presented in PT
Doman (2012) English Syntax (relative Confirmation of Pienemann’s Teachability
clauses) Hypothesis
Bonilla (2012) Spanish Morphology and Confirmation of PT;
syntax The results question the main claim of the Teachability
Hypothesis that instruction only focused on the next stage
can accelerate the natural acquisition process – the

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.

251
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

results showed that learners were able to acquire not only

the next stage, but the following stage too
Bonilla (2014) Spanish Morphology and Confirmation of PT
syntax
Tang & Zhang English Written and oral Confirmation of PT; learners are more successful in
(2015) production written than in oral testing

Researcher/Year Language Structure Results

Zhang & Lantolf Chinese Topicalization in the It is possible to artificially construct a developmental route
(2015) Chinese language different from the 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 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

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.

252
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

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.
[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.

253
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

[20] Han, Z.-H. & Tarone, E. (Eds.) (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
[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.
[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.

254
ISSN 2411-9563 (Print) European Journal of Social Sciences Jan – Apr. 2016
ISSN 2312-8429 (Online) Education and Research Vol.6, Nr. 2

[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.

255