-
Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333
Natural or Artificial: Is the Routeof L2 Development
Teachable?
Xian Zhanga,b and James P. LantolfcaGuangdong University of
Foreign Studies, bRice University, and cThe Pennsylvania State
University
The current studywas designed to assess the central claim of the
TeachabilityHypothesis(TH), a corollary of general Processability
Theory (PT), which predicts instruction can-not alter posited
universal, hierarchically organized psycholinguistic constraints
behindPTs developmental sequences. We employed an interventional
design, which adheredto instructional procedures of Systemic
Theoretical Instruction, and we taught fouruniversity learners at
Stage 2 (subject-verb-object) Chinese topicalization for Stage
4(object-first, e.g., Pizza ta ye ch le, Pizza , Pizza he also
ate). We be-lieve the findings show that, under the instructional
conditions utilized in the study, thepredictions of TH do not hold.
We conclude it is possible to artificially construct a
de-velopmental route different from the one predicted by natural
developmental sequences,in agreement with the claims of Vygotskys
developmental education.
Keywords teachability hypothesis; processability theory;
sociocultural theory; naturalsequence; concept-based
instruction
Introduction
Processability Theory (PT) was formulated by Pienemann (1998)
and his asso-ciates (e.g., Pienemann, Di Biase, &Kawaguchi,
2005; Pienemann & Johnston,1987) in order to explain the
apparent fact that second language (L2) learnersdevelop the
cognitive ability to process certain features of L2s in
accordancewith universal hierarchically organized psycholinguistic
constraints. Its basic
Support for this project was provided to XZ by a Gil Watz
dissertation fellow award from the
Center for Language Acquisition at Penn State University, the
National Social Science Fund of
China (#12&ZD224) and theNational KeyResearch Center for
Linguistics andApplied Linguistics
of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
James Lantolf, The Pennsylvania
State University, Department of Applied Linguistics, 304 Sparks
Building, University Park, PA
16802. E-mail: [email protected]
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 152C 2015
Language Learning Research Club, University of MichiganDOI:
10.1111/lang.12094
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
logic is that L2 learners can produce and comprehend only those
second lan-guage (L2) linguistic forms that the current state of
the language processor canhandle (Pienemann, 2007, p. 137).
Accordingly, the constraints limit learnercapacity to process
linguistic information that is too far beyond their currentability.
That is, learners at stage X in the processing hierarchy must
proceedthrough stage X+1 before reaching stage X+2; that is, they
cannot move fromX to X+2. Given that the constraints are assumed to
be natural, they arepredicted to operate in all learning
environments, including classrooms, andtherefore the Teachability
Hypothesis (TH) corollary to the general theorypredicts that
instruction cannot alter the stages postulated for the
processinghierarchy. In this article we present the results of a
study designed to assess thecentral claim of TH and which we
believe shows that, under the instructionalconditions utilized in
the study, the predictions of TH do not hold. Contrary tothe TH
premised on Piaget (1950), and in agreement with the predictions
ofVygotskys (e.g., 1978) developmental education, it is possible to
artificiallyconstruct a developmental route different from the one
predicted by naturaldevelopmental sequences.
The article is organized as follows. We first briefly summarize
general PTand examine TH as its corollary, followed by a review of
four classroom studiesthat have challenged it in the past. Next, we
review research carried out ontopicalization in L2Chinese, the
instructional target of the research project to beconsidered here.
Finally, we present the details and findings of the current
study.
The TH as a Corollary of PT
The aspects of PT most relevant for the current study are
associated withlexical mapping and the Topic Hypothesis (TOPH;
discussed in a later section).Lexical mapping encompasses three
independent levels of representation asproposed byBresnan (2001)
for Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG). Argumentstructure describes
who does what to whom and comprises argument roles suchas agent,
experiencer, locative, and patient. Constituent structure consists
ofuniversal components of sentences, such as verb phrase and noun
phrase. Theorder within and between these components is language
specific. For example,some languages favor prenominal while others
prefer postnominal adjectiveposition (Pienemann, 2007). Functional
structure includes the universal units,such as SUBJECT and OBJECT,
that are related to the constituent structurein a language-specific
way (Pienemann, 2007). Functional structure connectsargument
structure and constituent structure.
153 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
argument structure Agent theme locative
functional structure SUBJ OBJ OBL
NPsubj NPobj PP constituent structure
John [threw] the ball into water
Figure 1 Three levels of structure in LFG (Pienemann, 2007, p.
144, reprinted bypermission).
The architecture of lexical mapping in LFG specifies the
relationship be-tween argument structure and functional structure,
which allows argument roles(argument structure) to be expressed by
different grammatical forms (functionalstructure). For example, in
Figure 1, each argument is mapped onto a gram-matical function:
John as agent is mapped onto subject; Ball as theme ismapped onto
object; Into Water as locative is mapped onto oblique. Based
onlexical mapping theory, early PT research provided empirical
support for thepredicted processing sequences that L2 learners of
languages such as Englishand German should follow (details can be
found in Pienemann, 1998).
According to Pienemann (1987), PT and its corollary, TH, were
inspiredby Piagets (1950) developmental theory:
[T]he approach we have taken in the Predictive Framework of SLA
and inthe Teachability Hypothesis was inspired by our admiration
for JeanPiagets work on cognitive development. We adopted one
concept inparticular from Piagets work, namely the implicational
nature ofprocessing prerequisites for the operations possible at
the different stagesof acquisition. (p. 92)
For Piaget, and for Pienemann, instruction is subordinate to
psychologicaldevelopment because stages of development determine
what kind of knowledgean individual can understand and process at
any give time. Pienemann (1989)argued that the acquisition process
cannot be steered ormodeled just accordingto the requirements or
precepts of formal instruction (p. 57). Consequently, ifinstruction
is to promote L2 development it must take account of the
processinghierarchy. If instruction aims at too high a stage (e.g.,
X+2 rather than X+1)a learner will not be able to cope with the
complexities entailed in the higher
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 154
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
stage. This is because the processing procedures that operate at
each stage area prerequisite for the procedures that operate at the
subsequent stage.
As a corollary, TH makes two specific claims: (1) processing
stages cannotbe skipped regardless of quality or quantity of
instruction; (2) for instructionto be effective it must be aimed at
the next immediate processing stage, X+1.However, it is important
to understand that the theory does not claim that alearner must
develop to the next stage even if instruction aims at this stage.
AsPienemann (1987) makes clear, TH defines the possible range of
influence ofexternal factors on the SL learning process; it does
not imply that learning isguaranteed by the mechanisms internal to
the learner (p. 92). What are calledvariable features (e.g.,
lexicon, prepositions, phrasal verbs in English) are notsubject to
the same internal constraints assumed to operate in PT;
therefore,instruction for these features need not be concerned with
the learning barrier(Pienemann, 1989, p. 61) presented by
processing constraints.
Pienemann and his colleagues have conducted numerous
observationalstudies designed to assess the validity of TH. The
studies that provide supportfor TH include the following: Felix
(1981), Pienemann (1984, 1989, 1998,2005), Boss (1996), Mansouri
and Duffy (2005), Jansen (2008), Ellis (1989,2006), Y. Zhang
(2001), Gao (2005), and Wang (2011). They have shown thatlearners
must progress from one processing stage to the next; that learners
can-not skip stages; that instruction is only effective if it aims
at stage X+1 and notX+2 or higher; that the progress of learners
can be plotted on an implicationalscale in a stepwise progression
from least to most complex processing stage;and that if a learner
can produce features at say Stage 4, he or she, implication-ally,
can also produce features at the three preceding stages. The latter
threestudies listed above are directly relevant for the current
project and will bediscussed further below.
At variance with Piaget (1950), Vygotsky (1986, p. 188) argued
that theonly good instruction is that which leads rather than
follows development. ForVygotsky, properly organized instruction
does not wait for development to oc-cur. On the contrary, formal
education is an intentionally organized activity thatsets in motion
a variety of developmental processes not normally availablein the
everyday world (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). Education not only
influencescertain processes of development, but restructures all
functions of behavior ina most essential manner (Vygotsky, 1997, p.
88).
The TH allows us to compare the claims of Piaget (1950) and
Vygotsky(1987) regarding the relationship between instruction and
development, withspecific focus on the development of L2 processing
ability.
155 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Challenges to the TH
Four classroom studies have provided some evidence that
challenges the centralclaims of TH. Two (Bonilla, 2012; Farley
& McCollum, 2004) addressed theprediction that instruction can
only be effective if it aims at the next immediatestage in the
processing hierarchy (i.e., X+1). Two studies (Mackey, 1999;
Spada& Lightbown, 1999) uncovered some evidence that stages can
be skipped.
The studies by Farley and McCollum (2004) and Bonilla (2012)
used ex-plicit approaches to instruction on L2 Spanish. Farley and
McCollam framedtheir research within Van Pattens (1996) Input
Processing model, wherebylearners are provided with brief explicit
information on a language featurefollowed by structured input
activities designed to encourage learners to pro-cess for meaning
texts containing exemplars of the relevant feature(s).
Theexplanations and activities are sensitive to relevant processing
strategies usedby learners, such as assign subject function to the
first noun in a sentence orgive preference to lexical rather than
grammatical items when processing forsemantic information.
Farley and McCollum (2004) focused on a Stage 4 feature of
Spanish,object-marker a, used to indicate animate direct object
noun phrases (El gatomuerde al perro, the cat bites the dog/Al gato
muerde el perro, the cat, thedog bites), and a Stage 5 feature,
subjunctive mood in subordinate clauses (Elprofessor duda que los
estudiantes salgan bien en el examen, the professordoubts that the
students will do well on the exam). While some students intheir
study were deemed ready for instruction (i.e., at X+1) with regard
toobject-marker a, no student was judged ready for instruction with
respect tosubjunctive. Statistical analysis of posttest scores
showed no significant effectfor learner readiness; that is,
following instruction some students unready forsubjunctive met the
emergence criterion, and some students ready for object-marker a
met the criterion but others failed to do so. It must be kept in
mind,however, as we pointed out earlier, that TH does not require
that anyone deemedready to progress must do so. The important
finding of the study is that, whilenone of the students skipped
stages, some of those that advanced to the nextprocessing level
(i.e., X+1) did so on the basis of instruction that was beyondthe
next level (X+2).
Bonillas (2012) study focused on a number of different features
of Spanishmorphology and syntax, including a Stage 3 feature,
XP-adjunction (e.g., Endos semanas llega mi abuela, In two weeks
arrives my grandmother, Mygrandmother is coming in two weeks); a
Stage 4 feature, SV Inversion andclitic placement (e.g., El libro
lo compro Roberto, the book it bought Robert,The book, Robert
bought it); and a Stage 5 feature, use of subjunctive in
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 156
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
subordinate clauses. Learners were given explicit explanations
followed bygroup-work practice for each feature. Learner
performance on post-instructionproduction tests confirmed PTs
predictions that processing stages must emergein the predicted
sequence. As with Farley and McCollumss (2004) study,however,
Bonilla reported that instruction did not have to be targeted at
thenext stage in the processing sequence in order to move
development forward:aimed at next or at next + x stages was
effective at increasing learnersproduction of the next stages as
well as their current stage (p. 244).
Spada and Lightbown (1999) used input flooding to teach English
questionformation to grade six francophone children in Quebec. The
input in the form ofquestion and answer (Q&A) activities
implemented by the regular classroomteachers was aimed at Stages 4
(wh- + copula BE; yes/no questions withinversion) and 5 (wh- + aux
second) in the processing hierarchy and wascarried out for 1 hour
each day over a 2-week period. On the oral posttests,of the 79
students pretested at Stage 2 (subject-verb-object [SVO] order
withquestion intonation), 23 progressed to Stage 3 (wh- fronting
without inversion),54 remained at Stage 2, and 2 students skipped
to Stage 4. Of the 39 studentsbeginning at Stage 3, 7 improved to
Stage 4 and the remainder made no furtherprogress. The rest of the
students, who began at higher stages, also showed noadditional
progress. As with the previously discussed Spanish studies,
severallearners progressed to the next processing stage even though
input was two orthree stages higher than their initial stage of
processing.Most relevant, however,is the fact that two students
began at Stage 2 and skipped to Stage 4. Despitethis
counterevidence, the researchers nevertheless concluded that the
oralproduction findings are consistent with previous research
documenting thatlearners progress through an acquisition sequence
without skipping stages(p. 14). They also concluded that explicit
teaching might be more effective thanimplicit instruction at
ensuring learner progress (p. 14).
Although Mackeys (1999) study on the effect of negotiated input
on learn-ing English questions did not directly address TH, some of
her data suggestthat stages might be skipped. In the study,
learners who negotiated with nativespeakers of English in carrying
out a series of tasks were compared to learn-ers who either only
observed but did not participate in negotiated interactionsor who
received prescripted input, which minimized the likelihood of
nego-tiation. The learners who generated input through direct
negotiation with thenative-speaking participants reached Stage 4 or
5 in the question-processing hi-erarchy, including several who were
deemed developmentally unready prior toinstruction. This outcome
lends further support to the findings of the previouslyreviewed
studies that instruction need not be restricted to stage X+1.
Mackey
157 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
also considers the performance of an individual learner who was
at Stage 3(wh- fronting) prior to treatment and at Stage 5
(do/aux-second) followingtreatment. The learner was exposed to
several exemplars of Stage 5 questionsduring interaction. Mackey
made no mention of the learner having producedStage 4 questions in
any of the posttests or during treatment. It is
conceivabletherefore that this learner provided additional evidence
of stage skipping.
To summarize the research considered in this section, the four
studiesreviewed do not support the TH prediction that for
instruction to be effective itmust be targeted at X+1. With regard
to stage skipping, only one study, Spadaand Lightbown (1999),
provides evidence that challenges this prediction, whileMackey
(1999) presents data that is suggestive but not conclusive with
regardto the prediction.
The TOPH
The TOPH, proposed by Pienemann et al. (2005), makes predictions
derivedfrom the relationship between functional structures and
constituent structures.The TOPH predicts that beginning learners of
an L2 will not be able to differ-entiate between SUBJECT and other
grammatical functions (such as TOPIC)in sentence-initial position
(Pienemann, 2007; Pienemann et al., 2005). Thetopic (initial)
position assumes the most prominent position in the
grammaticalfunction hierarchy (Bresnan, 2001), which in canonical
structures is usuallyoccupied by the grammatical SUBJECT (the agent
in the argument structure).However, whenever speakers wish to
profile different aspects of an event orscene other than the
SUBJECT, this position may be filled by another el-ement such as
OBJECT. The process through which this happens is
calledtopicalization. When topicalization occurs, it triggers the
differentiation of thegrammatical functions TOPIC and SUBJECT
(Pienemann et al., 2005), whichresults in linguistic nonlinearity
and is regarded as more costly in terms of pro-cessing effort, when
compared to the canonical structure in which TOPIC andSUBJECT
coincide. Thus, the production of a specific structure is
constrainedby learners processing capacity (Pienemann et al.,
2005). Based on this logic,PT makes the following prediction:
In second language acquisition learners will initially not
differentiatebetween SUB and TOP. The addition of an XP to a
canonical string willtrigger a differentiation of TOP and SUBJ
which first extends tonon-arguments and successively to arguments
thus causing furtherstructural consequences. (Pienemann, 2005, p.
239)
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 158
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Stage 2: TOP = SUBJ: TOPsubj V(O) (SVO)
e.g., Mary ate an apple. | | |
TOP=SUBJ V OBJ
Stage 3: TOP = ADJ(unct): TOPadj SV(O) (ADJ.+SVO)
e.g., Yesterday Mary ate an apple. | | | |
TOP=ADJ SUBJ V OBJ
Stage 4: TOP = OBJ: TOPobj SV (OSV)
e.g., Bob, I think, she will not forget. | | |
TOP=OBJ SUBJ V
Figure 2 Stages of topicalization in Chinese.
TOPH predicts three stages in the mapping of functional
structures ontoconstituent structures. Accordingly, L2 learners
must pass through the hier-archical stages indicated in Figure 2 as
they develop the ability to use andcomprehend topicalization in
Chinese. We do not include Stage 1, lexical pro-cessing, because it
is not relevant for our purposes.
TOPH in L2 Chinese Research
Three previous projects included a discussion of TOPH in L2
Chinese: Y.Zhang (2001, 2007), Gao (2005), and Wang (2011). Y.
Zhang (2007) con-ducted a longitudinal study with three first
language (L1) English speakers in abeginning-level Chinese course
at an Australian university. Zhang engaged thelearners in a variety
of tasks on a regular basis throughout the semester. Thetasks
included elicited imitation, problem solving, role playing,
picture-basedoral compositions, and storytelling. The main finding
of the study was that theparticipants progressed from linear
alignment of TOPIC and SUBJECT towardnonlinear alignment in
accordance with TOPH. At the outset, the participantscould only
produce Stage 2 SVO structures (see Figure 2). At a later
point,Stage 3 ADJ+SVO structures emerged, and eventually the
learners exhibitedthe ability to process Stage 4 OSV structures,
thus confirming the sequencepredicted by PT for Chinese
topicalization.
159 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Table 1 Instructional sequence in the textbook New Practical
Chinese Reader used byY. Zhangs (2007) participants
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14
3. OSV2. Adv-fronting
+ + + + + + + +
1. SVO + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Note. L = lesson.
Y. Zhang (2007) did not provide specific information on her
instructionalprocedures. She did, however, mention the textbook
used in the course, NewPractical Chinese Reader 1 (Book 1) (Xun,
2005). Table 1 summarizes thecontent of the book with regard to
each of the relevant grammatical structurescovered in each
lesson.
Notice that the sequence of structures covered in the text
coincides with twoof the three stages in the topicalization
hierarchy: SVO and ADJ+SVO. It didnot include Stage 4, OSV;
however, Y. Zhang provided instruction at this stagefollowing the
two previous stages. Given that instruction appeared to followthe
sequence indicated by the processing hierarchy, it is difficult to
determinewhether or not Y. Zhangs study provided support for
TH.
Gao (2005) conducted a study to evaluate whether TOPH would also
applyto learners of Chinese from different L1 backgrounds. In
addition to L1 Englishspeakers, Gao included speakers of L1
Japanese (19) and L1 German (9) inher study. As with Y. Zhang
(2007), Gao did not describe the instructionalprocedures
implemented in her study. Nevertheless, she reported that all
threegroups followed the predicted processing pattern: SVO ADJ+SVO
OSV and that therefore the processing hierarchy for Chinese is
unaffected bylearners L1.
A third study conducted by Wang (2011) also evaluated TOPH in
L2Chinese. She recruited eight learners of Chinese enrolled in a
British uni-versity. The students reported heterogeneous
experiences learning Chinese.Six had been to China prior to the
study. Two had studied the language for1.5 months, while the
remaining eight had studied the language for nearly ayear. Seven of
the participants were L1 English speakers and one was an L1German
speaker. Wangs general conclusion was that, despite the
differencesin background, experience with the language, and the
types of textbooks (noinstruction on stage X+1 structures), they
all adhered to the sequence predictedby PT.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 160
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
The Present Study
The current study was designed to answer the following two
research questionregarding TH:
1. Would instruction organized according to Vygotskian
principles of devel-opmental education operationalized in Galperins
(1970, 1992) SystemicTheoretical Instruction model induce learners
to skip stages in the process-ing hierarchy postulated for Chinese
L2 topicalization?
2. If learners assessed to be at Stage 2 (SVO) received
instruction targetingStage 4 (OSV), would they attain this stage of
processing ability withoutfirst processing Stage 3 structures
(ADJ+SVO), or would they move onlyto this stage (X+1) as predicted
by PT?
Method
ParticipantsThe final participants were Leo, Alisa, John, and
Amy (not their real names),all volunteers from a pool of L1
speakers of English enrolled in a universitybeginning-level Chinese
course at a university in the United States.
To identify qualified participants, X. Zhang (2014) (the first
author) first ex-amined the textbooks and syllabi for the courses
in which potential participantswere enrolled in order to confirm
that Stage 3 and Stage 4 structures had notbeen taught. In
addition, he conducted interviews with the Chinese instructorsin
order to obtain information on the range of grammatical structures
coveredat each level in the Chinese language program. It was
determined that learn-ers at the beginning level would be suitable
to take part in the study becausethe students as this level: (a)
had studied some Chinese vocabulary, (b) hadencountered only the
SVO structure in their classes, and (c) would not
receiveinstruction on ADJ+SVO or OSV during the course of the
study.
Six students from the Chinese program volunteered for the study.
On thepretest, one participant produced three ADJ+SVO sentences and
an OSVsentence. She mentioned that she had encountered ADJ+SVO
sentences inthe past and knew that time phrases can appear in
initial position. Anotherparticipant produced an OSV sentence and
she also mentioned that her Chineseteacher had briefly introduced
the ADJ+SVO structure. These two participantsreceived instruction
but are not included in the data considered here. Of theremaining
four learners, all speakers of L1 English, none of them was ableto
process structures at Stages 3 or 4 on the pretest. The students
signed aconsent form prior to the start of the study and each
received 60 dollars fortheir participation.
161 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Oral Production InstrumentsThree types of tasks were used in the
study, all of which have been used inprevious research carried out
on PT and TH. The tasks included an elicitedimitation task (EI), a
question-and-answer session (Q&A), and an oral
cartoondescription task (CD).
Elicited ImitationSome may question EI as a valid instrument for
assessing spontaneous perfor-mance. However, it has a long history
in bilingual (e.g., Lambert & Tucker,1972; Radloff, 1991) and
second language acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 2006; Erlam,2006; Flynn,
1987) research. It was also used in Y. Zhangs (2001, 2007) study.We
believe it to be a legitimate instrument for tapping into a
speakers linguisticcompetence.
To minimize the possibility that participants might reproduce
the targetedsentences from rote memory, the following procedures
were followed whenconstructing the EI task. The sentences to be
imitated were presented in sets ofthree. The total number of words
in each set averaged 21, with a range of 16to 26 words per
sentence. The targeted sentence was positioned in the middleof each
three-sentence sequence, as recommended by Gallimore and
Tharp(1981). Finally, before repeating the sentences, the
participants were asked aquestion about content. An example of the
procedure is given in (1):
1. Sample EI procedure
A. Researcher read the sentences in sequence
ta zao sha`ng he le ka fei. .He morning drank coffee.
Pizza ta ye ch le. [target structure]Pizza .Pizza he also
ate.
ta jn tian b jia`o gao x`ng .He today pretty happy.
B. Researcher posed the question, Why do you think he is
happy?C. Participant answers the question and then repeats the
three sentences
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 162
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Three versions of the EI task were developed. The first was used
in thepretest and the delayed posttest; the second was used in
posttest 1, and the thirdin posttest 2. There were 72 sentences in
the first version; 48 were SVO, 12were ADJ+SVO, and 12 were OSV.
Both the second and the third versionscontained 60 sentences; 40
were SVO, 10 were ADJ+SVO, and 10 were OSV.
As beginners, the participants had a limited vocabulary;
therefore, the EItasks used a restricted set of lexical items. A
set of words was selected from thefirst 11 chapters of the textbook
used in the participants Chinese course. Thislist, together with
their Pinyin and their English translation, was given to
theparticipants to identify words that they recognized. Only words
recognized bymost of the participants (no less than 70%) were used
to construct the EI tests.
The three versions of EIwere administered to five nativeChinese
speakers toensure that the sentences were processable. None of the
speakers had difficultieswith any of the sentences included in the
EIs.
Question&Answer SessionParticipants answered 5 to 10
questions in Chinese of the following type: Canyou tell me
something about your country?, When and where did you eatlunch
today?, What movie do you like most?, Can you describe it?
Allquestions were read in English in order to avoid comprehension
problems.
Oral Cartoon D TaskFive 1-minute silent episodes from a Tom and
Jerry cartoon were selected forthis task. Participants escription
watched each episode twice before describingit in Chinese. If
anyone failed to produce a sufficient number of utterances,the
researcher asked questions or prompted the participant to say more
about aparticular scene.
Systemic Theoretical Instruction on Chinese Topicalization
Teaching the target structures followed the procedures developed
by Galperin(1970, 1992) known as Systemic Theoretical Instruction
(STI). STI is a ped-agogical approach that integrates principles of
developmental education asoutlined by Vygotsky (1987) in which
instruction requires explicit presentationof systematic knowledge
of concepts relevant to a particular academic sub-ject. In the
present study, the key concept was Chinese topicalization. Whilein
STI the concept is initially explained verbally (or in written
form), learnersare also provided with a visual and/or material
representation of the conceptas a way to avoid the tendency for
learners to memorize verbal definitions
163 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
without comprehension (Negueruela [2003] documents this tendency
amongclassroom learners). Readers will find the visual materials
employed in thepresent study to depict Chinese topicalization in
the Supporting Informationonline. The visualization/materialization
of a concept functions as a cognitivetool that mediates
understanding, performance, and eventual internalization ofthe
concept. In addition, learners are prompted to verbalize their
understandingof the concept as well as their use of the specific
features related to the conceptin concrete communicative
activities. STI generally adheres to the followingsequence:
systematic explanation of the concept visualizing/materializingthe
concept in concrete communicative activities verbalizing the
concept internalization (for details, see Lantolf & Poehner,
2014).
The visualization/materialization phase of instruction is
referred to as aSCOBA (Schema for the Orienting Basis of Action).
The present study usedtwo different types of SCOBA. The first
(shown in Figure S1 of the SupportingInformation online) depicts
OBJECT topicalization and the second (shown inFigure S2)
illustrates ADJUNCT topicalization. Both SCOBAs were animatedso
that students were able to visualize the movement of the OBJECT
rice inFigure S1a to sentence initial position in Figure S1b when
that entity wasprofiled by a speaker. Similarly, the temporal
adverb at 2 was moved fromFigure S2a to S2b (see Supporting
Information online) to profile the temporalaspect of the event. A
similar illustration was created for the locative adverbat
home.
After introducing the concept of topicalization and its
manifestation inChinese, learners were asked to explain its
function in English. All of the ini-tial explanations given by the
learners appropriately described the pragmaticfunction of
topicalization. The learners were then engaged in various
practiceactivities, including sentence construction, gap filling,
Q&A, translation, CD,and free talk. During this instructional
phase learners were also provided withan activity designed to
materialize the concept through manipulation of Cuise-naire rods
(shown in Figure S3 in the Supporting Information online). The
rods,originally developed for math instruction but introduced into
language teach-ing by the Silent Way methodology (Gattegno, 1976),
enabled the students tomaterially practice constructing topicalized
sentences. The rods, which comein different colors and
corresponding lengths, were used to represent differ-ent
constituents of a Chinese sentence. The students rearranged the
rods toindicate those constituents that are available for
topicalization. In Figure S3,for example, the green rod represents
the SUBJECT, the blue rod representsthe verb, and the yellow rod
represents the OBJECT. Moving the yellow rod(representing OBJECT)
to sentence-initial position showed that it had taken on
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 164
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
topic status. While engaged in the various practice activities,
the students wereable to manipulate the rods to mediate their
language production. They werenot required to use the rods if they
felt sufficiently confident in their ability toproduce correct
sentences without material mediation.
ProcedureAt Time 1 (T1), participants received the pretest,
which consisted of an EI task,a Q&A task, and a CD task. (All
subsequent posttests also comprised threesubcomponents but with
different items in each case in order to avoid practiceeffects.)
One to two days later, they received the first instruction session
(lastingapproximately 1 hour) that exclusively taught Stage 4 OSV.
One week later, atTime 2 (T2), the participants were given posttest
1 followed immediately byinstruction that focused on Stage 3
ADJ+SVO. The following week, at Time 3(T3), they were given
posttest 2 immediately followed by the third instructionsession
aimed at helping them practice the new grammatical structures. A
littlemore than 1 month after posttest 2, at Time 4 (T4), the
participants receivedthe delayed posttest. A final interview was
then conducted to evaluate whetherthe participants understood the
concept of topicalization and to discover theirattitude toward
STI.
Results
The participants performance on each of the tests is presented
in Table 2.We followed the criterion established by PT to determine
processing stageattained by a learner. Accordingly, what matters is
not accuracy of use in ahigh percentage of contexts, but first
systematic use in obligatory contexts(Kessler & Pienemann,
2011, p. 94, italics in the original). The criterion foremergence
requires use in at least four different contexts in order to avoid
thesituation where learners use the relevant feature frequently but
in the samecontext or where they might produce formulaic tokens
without generalization.
As observed in Table 2, the pretest (T1) showed that all four
learners were atStage 2 prior to the start of instruction. On the
first posttest (T2) administered1 week after instruction on Stage 4
OSV the learners met the criterion forprocessing ability at this
stage. Only one participant, Amy, produced an instanceof Stage
3ADJ+SVO, and thiswas on theEI task, as explained below.
Followinginstruction on ADJ+SVO, performance on the second posttest
(T3) evidencedthe learners ability to use Stage 3 and Stage 4
structures. However, as we willexplain in the more detailed
discussion of test performance below, there wassome variation in
their ability to use both structures during the Q&A and CD
165 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Table 2 Summary of performance on pre- and posttests for all
elicitation tasks
Topic Stage T1 T2 T3 T4
Leo 4 top = Obj. OSV 25/92 18/113 20/993 top = ADJ ADJ+SVO
17/113 12/992 top = Subj. SVO 72/72 67/92 78/113 67/99
Alisa 4 top = Obj. OSV 17/69 14/91 23/1103 top = ADJ ADJ+SVO
20/91 19/1102 top = Subj. SVO 72/72 52/69 57/91 68/110
John 4 top = Obj. OSV 19/91 12/95 23/1083 top = ADJ ADJ+SVO
14/95 24/1082 top = Subj. SVO 77/77 72/91 69/95 61/108
Amy 4 top = Obj. OSV 25/86 17/113 26/1213 top = ADJ ADJ+SVO 1/86
19/113 16/1212 top = Subj. SVO 48/48 59/86 77/113 79/121
Note. Denominator = possible contexts; Numerator = frequency of
supplianceT1 = pretest; T2 = posttest 1; T3 = posttest 2; T4 =
delayed posttest; = The relevant structure was missing despite the
presence of appropriate contexts.
tasks. This is also the case for the learners performance on the
delayed posttestadministered 1 month after the final instruction
session.
In what follows, we consider learner performance on each of the
tests andprovide examples of this performance.
PretestOn the pretest (T1), administered 1 to 2 days prior to
the first instruction session,all participants produced Stage 2 SVO
sentences only. As illustrated in Excerpt1 below, John was unable
to reproduce the target sentence (the EI procedure isdescribed
above) in which the temporal adverb yesterday appeared in
topicposition. In fact, not only did he omit the adverb, he also
changed the subjectpronoun as well.
Excerpt 1. EI on Pretest (Stage 3 ADJ+SVO)
Target sentencezao sha`ng wo men da qiu. .Morning we play
ball.In the morning we play ball.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 166
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Johns imitation:
nmen sh` . . . da qiu. . . . .You are . . . play ball.You play
ball.
The learners were also unsuccessful in their attempts to
reproduce Stage4 OSV sentences. They frequently interpreted the
preposed OBJECT as SUB-JECT, as Excerpt 2, also from Johns pretest,
illustrates. Not only did he misin-terpret the argument status of
Mr. Li, he inserted an OBJECT argument bookfrom one of the other
sentences in the set.
Excerpt 2. EI Pretest (Stage 4 OSV)
Target sentencel lao sh wo x huan. .Mr. Li I like.I like Mr.
Li.
Johns imitation
l lao sh xhuan y ben shu. .Mr. Li like a book.Mr. Li likes a
book.
We forgo examples of learner performance on the Q&A and CD
tasksbecause they only produced SVO despite the presence of
appropriate contextsfor Stages 3 and 4 structures. As predicted on
the basis of the instructionalsyllabus and the teacher interviews,
the pretest showed that the learners wereat Stage 2 in the
processing hierarchy.
Posttest 1: Following OSV InstructionOn posttest 1, administered
at T2, 1 week after the first instruction session,learners were
capable of producing OSV sentences but were unable to produceStage
3 ADJ+SVO structures (see Table 2). On the EI task, Leo
reproduced4, Alisa 7, John 5, and Amy reproduced all 10 sentences.
Amy managed tocorrectly reproduce 1 out of 10 ADJ+SVO sentences;
however, this fails tomeet the PT criterion of emergence. In the
interest of space we do not provideexamples of the learners EI
performance on the posttests.
167 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
On the Q&A task, a total of 9 contexts for OSV use were
established by theresearchers questions. In response, the learners
performance was as follows:Leo 6/9, Alisa 5/9, John 4/9, and Amy
6/9. Excerpt 3 provides an example ofan OSV utterance on the
Q&A task produced by John.
Excerpt 3. Posttest 1, Q&A (Stage 4 OSV)
Q: Do you like Chinese food or American food?
John: zhongguofa`n he meiguofa`n wo dou xhuan.
.Chinese food and American food, I both like.I like Chinese food
and American food.
With regard to the CD, it was difficult to determine what
counted as anappropriate context, given that topicalization is an
optional feature of languageuse. In the EI, of course, context was
determined by the model sentences, andon the Q&A, the
researcher, based on the questions asked, had some ability
togenerate contexts where topicalization was favored. In the CD,
however, thelearners were free to topicalize or not, as determined
by their communicativeintent. Consequently, it was difficult to
determine the precise number of contextswhere topicalization was
expected to occur. In reporting learner performanceon the CD,
therefore, we provide the frequency of topicalized structures
only.In each case, the utterances were not formulaic, nor did they
repeat previousutterances. In the CD task, Leo produced 15 OSV
sentences, Alisa 5, John 10,and Amy 9. Excerpt 4, taken from Amys
and Leos respective performances,illustrates their ability to use
OSV.
Excerpt 4. Posttest 1, CD (Stage 4 OSV)
Amy: lao shu mao da le yc`. .Mouse cat hit once.The cat hit the
mouse once.
Leo: niu nai Tom he le (hen)duo. Tom ().Milk Tom drank a lot.Tom
drank a lot of milk.
None of the participants produced the ADJ+SVO structure on
either theQ&A or CD task on posttest 1.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 168
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Posttest 2: Following ADJ+SVO InstructionOn posttest 2,
administered at T3, 1 week after the second instruction
session,which focused on Stage 3 ADJ+SVO, all of the participants
were able toproduce both OSV and ADJ+SVO sentences (see Table 2).
Of the 10 OSV and10 ADJ+SVO sentences on the EI task, Leo
reproduced 6 of the former and9 of the latter; Alisa reproduced 7
OSV and all 10 ADJ+SVO sentences; Johnreproduced 6 of the 10 OSV
and 9 of the 10 ADJ+SVO sentences; and Amysuccessfully repeated 5
of the OSV and 9 of the ADJ+SVO sentences.
On the Q&A task, 13 possible contexts were available for
each target struc-ture. Leo produced seven OSV and four ADJ+SVO
utterances. Alisa producedthree OSV and six ADJ+SVO utterances.
Alisa also produced four OSV sen-tences on the CD task (see below),
which means she met PT criterion forboth stages. John produced four
OSV utterances and one ADJ+SVO utterance;however, on the CD he
produced four additional ADJ+SVO utterances, whichagain indicates
that he met PT criterion for Stages 3 and 4. Amy produced
sevenpossible OSV utterances and four ADJ+SVO utterances. Excerpt 5
illustrateslearner performance on the Q&A task from posttest
2.
Excerpt 5. Posttest 2 (Q&A)
ADJ+SVOResearcher: Where do you study?
Amy: za`i xue xia`o wo mei tian xue x? ?At school I every day
study.I study at school every day.
OSVResearcher: What do you buy when you go shopping?
Amy: dong x wo za`i shu dia`n mai.
Stuff I in the bookstore bought.I bought some stuff in the
bookstore.
Researcher: Where do you study Chinese?
Alisa: za`ixuexia`o wo fu`x le zhongwen. .At school I went over
Chinese.I went over Chinese at school.
169 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
za`i tushuguan wo ye xuex le zhongwen. .In the library I also
studied ChineseI study Chinese in the library as well.
Researcher: What else did you study in the library?
Alisa: faguowen wo za`i tushuguan ye fu`x le . .French I in the
library also reviewed.I also reviewed French in the Library.
On the CD task, Leo produced five OSV sentences and four
ADJ+SVOsentences. Alisa produced four OSV and two ADJ+SVO
sentences. John pro-duced two OSV and four ADJ+SVO sentences.
Finally Amy produced fiveOSV and six ADJ+SVO sentences. These
results suggest that 1 week afterthe second instruction session the
learners were capable of processing Stage 4OSV and Stage 3 ADJ+SVO
structures. Examples from the CD task are givenin Excerpt 6.
Excerpt 6. Posttest 2 (CD)
Amy: za`i jia lao shu ka`n jia`n le niu nai. .At home mouse saw
milk.The mouse saw some milk at home.
niu nai mao jn tian za`i zhe` he le. .Milk cat today here
drank.The cat drank some milk here.
The Delayed PosttestOn the delayed posttest, administered at T4,
approximately 1 month afterposttest 2 (the exact time depended on
participant availability), the learnerscontinued to show the
ability to produce ADJ+SVO and OSV structures. TheEI task included
12 OSV and 12 ADJ+SVO sentences. Leo accurately re-produced 11 of
the former and 7 of the latter; Alisa reproduced 10 of 12for each
structure; John reproduced 10 of the former and 9 of the latter;
andAmy reproduced 8 of 12 in each case. On the Q&A task, Leo
reproduced 5,Alisa 7, John 10, and Amy 9 of 10 possible OSV
utterances in their respectiveresponses. Of the possible 10 ADJ+SVO
responses on the same task, Leo
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 170
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
produced 2, Alisa 6, John 10, and Amy 8 of the target
structures. Finally, on theCD task, Leo produced four OSV sentences
and three ADJ+SVO sentences;Alisa produced six OSV and three
ADJ+SVO sentences; John produced twoOSV and two ADJ+SVO sentences.
Amy produced nine OSV but did notproduce any ADJ+SVO sentences.
Participant performance on the delayedposttest is illustrated in
Excerpts 7 and 8.
Excerpt 7. Delayed posttest (Q&A)
OSVResearcher: Do you go to a bar?
Alisa: jiu ba wo bu qu`. .Bar I not go.I dont go to bar.
ADJ+SVOResearcher: When do you usually have dinner?
John: ba dian he wu dian he jiu dian, wo chfa`n. , .8 oclock and
5 oclock and 9 oclock I have dinner.I have dinner at eight oclock,
five oclock and nine oclock.
Excerpt 8. Delayed posttest (CD task)
ADJ+SVOLeo: za`i cao sha`ng ta men shu`jia`o.
.On the grass they sleep.They slept on the grass.
OSV
Leo: gou de shou mao za`i gou jia xia` wu yao le. .Dogs hand cat
in dogs house afternoon bit.The cat bit the dogs hand in the
doghouse in the afternoon.
171 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Table 3 Chinese topicalization in current study
TOPIC Hypothesis T1 T2 T3 T4
4 top = obj + + +3 top = adj. + +2 top = subj. + + + +Note. T1 =
pretest; T2 = posttest 1; T3 = posttest 2; T4 = delayed
posttest.
Discussion
According to PT, L2 Chinese learners should not be able to
process Stage 4OSV structures unless they are also able to process
Stage 3 ADJ+SVO struc-tures. Because the sequence of stages is
determined by cognitive processingconstraints, noncognitive factors
such as teaching are assumed not to be ableto interfere with
natural, internally determined processing stages. The currentstudy
employed an interventional design which adhered to principles of
de-velopmental education proposed by Vygotsky (e.g., 1978) and
instructionalprocedures of STI formulated by Galperin (1970, 1992).
It artificially con-structed a developmental route different from
the one predicted by TOPH. Theconcept of topicalization and how it
is specifically manifested in Chinese dis-course was taught using
cognitive tools (i.e., SCOBAs), which visualized theconcept and
provided learners with an effective and accessible understandingof
the concept (see Supporting Information online). The learners
ability toproduce Stage 4 and Stage 3 structures in that order was
supported by materi-alized mediation in the form of Cuisenaire rods
(see Figure S3). Consequently,the cognitive processes involved in
learner development not only occurredinside of the head, but it was
at the same time an embodied activity. Throughpractice with the
rods, which we argue, had cognitive status (see Lantolf
&Thorne, 2006), the learners not only came to understand how
topicalizationoperates in Chinese, but they also appropriated, or
internalized, the concept.Evidence for this comes from the delayed
posttest. We believe that use of therods resulted in a strong trace
in the learners long-term memory system. Inthe final interview, for
example, one learner commented that, even though sheno longer
needed overt support from the rods, she visualized them to helpher
produce appropriate topicalized utterances. The rods also helped
learnerscompensate for deficits in working memory (see X. Zhang,
2014), a key factorin successful learning (Williams, 2012).
Tables 3 and 4 compare the general developmental pattern for
Chi-nese topicalization uncovered in the current study and in Y.
Zhang (2007).
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 172
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
While the latter presents evidence that adheres to the predicted
processingsequence, the former does not.
Table 3 shows the general developmental pattern for Chinese
topicalizationuncovered in the current study. It contradicts the
findings reported by Y. Zhang(2007, p. 164). Her study turned up
evidence that adheres to the predictedstepwise processing sequence.
Clearly, ours does not.
The Issue of ClassifiersAlthough the students had not received
prior instruction on Stages 3 or 4in the topicalization hierarchy,
they had been instructed on the use of someclassifiers, required in
Chinese when nouns are counted or specified in someway (e.g., liang
ge ren two persons.) According to Y. Zhang(2007), classifiers are
Stage 3 structures. Lenzing (personal communication,March 24, 2014)
has suggested that if our participants were able to
produceclassifiers they could be at Stage 3 rather than Stage 2
prior to instruction. As itturned out, the participants were able
to correctly use some classifiers during thepretest. For instance,
one participant produced the following utterance duringthe pretest
interview: wo you yi ge didi, I have a brother, with ge as
theclassifier modifying didi (brother).
Lenzings proposal is interesting and aligns with the argument
made byPienemann et al. (2005) that for any given stage morphology
is likely to emergebefore syntax and it may bootstrap syntax.
However, two studies present evi-dence that calls into question the
morphology-first argument. In a study of twolearners of English as
an L2, Dyson (2009) uncovered some evidence to supportthe PT
position; she also found a robust amount of counterevidence where
infact syntactic features of a given stage emerged before
morphological featuresat the same stage. She also reported examples
where syntax and morphologyemerged simultaneously. Bonilla (2012)
reported a similar circumstance forSpanish syntax and morphology.
Assuming that classifiers are indeed Stage 3features, on the
pretest in the present study the learners were unable to
produceADJ+SVO sentences even though they were able to correctly
use some clas-sifiers. Moreover, on posttest 1, they showed clear
emergence of Stage 4 OSV,continued to produce classifiers, but
still showed no evidence of ADJ+SVOemergence. In our view, the fact
that the learners were able to process classifierson the pretest
does not make a strong case in support of morphology bootstrap-ping
syntax within the boundaries of the present study, because it would
meanthat for some unexplainable reason the classifiers would have
led the way forStage 4 but not Stage 3 syntax.
173 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
The Issue of Memory StoreOne of the guest editors of this
Special Issue (Ellis, personal communication,May 8, 2014) pointed
out in his comments to an earlier version of this article thatif
our instruction indeed fostered explicit knowledge of Chinese
grammarknowledge stored in long-term declarative memory (see
Paradis, 2009; Ullman,2005)the findings of the present study do not
provide counterevidence to TH.This is because the hypothesis, as a
corollary to PT, is assumed to hold only forimplicit
knowledgeknowledge stored in long-term procedural memory.
Ourresponse is twofold. First, given that we used the same
spontaneous elicitationprocedures and emergence criteria utilized
by Pienemann and his colleagues intheir research on PT and TH, and
if indeed, as we believe, the knowledge thelearners internalized
and used on the posttests was stored in declarativememoryas a
result of explicit instruction, the elicitation procedures
developed by Piene-mann and his colleagues are not sufficiently
sensitive to distinguish between ac-cess to automatic
proceduralized memory and accelerated declarative memory.Paradis
(2009) argued that explicit declarative knowledge can, through
appro-priate practice, be accessed with sufficient speed to support
fluent spontaneousproduction. Ullman and his colleagues
(Morgan-Short, Finger, Grey, &Ullman,2012) made a similar claim
based on a comparative study of learners receivingexplicit and
implicit instruction: similar proficiency levels, even at high
levelsof proficiency, can be attained using quite different brain
mechanisms and typesof processing (p. 14). If this is indeed
correct, it would mean that behavioralcriteria assumed to hold
between timed/unplanned and untimed/planned tasksmay not be
sufficiently sensitive to distinguish between accelerated access
todeclarative memory or automatic access to procedural memory. It
might bethat the only way to confidently distinguish performances
based on either ofthe memory stores must be neurological (e.g.,
derived from brain imagingtechniques such as event-related
potentials [ERPs]).
This leads us to our second response. Paradis (2009) and Ullman
(2005)both argue that declarative knowledge cannot directly convert
to proceduralknowledge regardless of amount of practice. This is
because of the lack ofneural pathways connecting the neural
substrates responsible for declarativememory (e.g., the lateral
temporal lobe and the hippocampus) and the neuralnetworks that
support the procedural memory system (e.g., the frontal lobe andthe
basal ganglia). Both researchers also argue, however, that through
sufficientpractice, which for Paradis (2009) requires extensive and
intensive immersionexperiences, use of declarative knowledge can
indirectly provide input forthe procedural memory store. We do not
believe that the kind of experienceenvisioned by Paradis was
available to the learners who participated in the
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 174
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
present study. Had this been the case, the findings would not
only challengeTH, they would also challenge general PT.
In their ERP study of adult L2 classroom learners, Morgan-Short
et al.(2012) report that learners receiving either explicit or
implicit instruction in aninvented language, Brocanto2, reached a
high level of proficiency, which wasmaintained following a 5-month
time period without additional exposure to thelanguage. Several
interesting and relevant findingswith respect to ERP emergedfrom
the study. Immediately after instruction, the implicit group
produced brainpatterns typical of native speakers of a language for
procedural memory, whilethe explicit group emitted patterns
normally supported by declarative memory.Following the 5-month time
lag, however, the explicit group showed an increasein nativelike
brain procedural memory patterns, although not to the same extentas
the implicit group.At the same time, this group generated patterns
consistentwith forgetting the underlying knowledge in declarative
memory (p. 12). If it isthe case that declarative memory cannot
directly convert to procedural memory,howmight this shift in ERPbe
explained?One possibility suggested byMorgan-Short et al. (2012) is
that, even during instruction, the explicit group might
haveacquired some procedural grammatical knowledge that was
obscured byreliance on declarative memory immediately after
instruction (p. 12). In thetime lag between instruction and the
second posttest, knowledge in the declar-ative memory system of the
explicit group could have been forgotten while atthe same time
knowledge in the procedural store could have consolidated,
thusaccounting for the increase in nativelike ERP patterns in this
group (p. 12).
Is it possible that something similar occurred in participants
in the currentstudy? This is a difficult question to answer at this
point. For one thing, thetime lag between the posttest and delayed
posttest was 1 month and not 5,which may not have been sufficient
time for knowledge to consolidate in pro-cedural memory. For
another thing, we did not measure ERP patterns and, asMorgan-Short
et al. (2012, p. 13) pointed out, behavioral patterns do not
nec-essarily reflect one or the other underlying neurological
system. If indeed thelearners had been able to consolidate any
knowledge entering their proceduralmemory store during the 1-month
span between instruction and the delayedposttest, their performance
on the delayed posttest would present a challengenot only to TH but
to PT as well.
Conclusion
The data considered in this article provide evidence that stages
in the processinghierarchy for topicalization in Chinese can be
directly taught without regard
175 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
for the processing sequence predicted by general PT. Thus, the
predictionsof the TH corollary may not hold when instruction is
organized according toVygotskys (e.g., 1978) principles of
developmental education. These princi-ples include overt
explanation of the relevant concept with focus on its
meaning,visualization of the concept in the form of a nonverbal
SCOBA, materializationof the concept (Cuisenaire rods) that enabled
participants to manually manip-ulate sentences illustrating the
concept, and practice activities accompanied byparticipant
verbalization of their understanding of the concept.
While the evidence presented in this article presents a
challenge to TH andto general PT, we caution that it is one study
of one feature assumed to entailprocessing stages. Additional
research must be carried out on other featuresassociated with the
general theory, including, for example, English questionformation
and negation and German word order.
An important issue raised in the study is the nature of learner
knowledge thatresulted from developmental instruction. The tasks
used to assess processingability, especially the Q&A session
and the CD, have generally been assumedto entail spontaneous
performance typical of implicit knowledge subserved byprocedural
memory. We suggested, however, that it is conceivable that
par-ticipant performance on the tasks might very well reflect
explicit knowledgesubserved by declarative memory and accessed, as
Paradis (2009) proposed,with sufficient speed to allow spontaneous
performance to occur. The implica-tions of all of this for PT and
for elicitation tasks used in general SLA researchremain to be
worked out.
Final revised version accepted 18 September 2014
Postscript
Space does not permit us to respond here in detail to Pienemanns
(2015) re-action to our study. We will provide a more detailed
response in a future issueof the journal. Nevertheless, we would
like to note at this point that we do notagree with Pienemanns
claim that elicited imitation tasks do not provide accessto
underlying linguistic knowledge and that they only generate
formulaic lan-guage. They have a long history in second language
acquisition and assessmentresearch as a valid means of tapping into
participant knowledge of a language,provided they are structured in
an appropriate way that avoids rote memoriza-tion. We would also
like to point out that in addition to the aggregated datapresented
in Table 2, we indeed provide data on the performance of each
learnerfor the Q&A and CD tasks from the pre- and posttests
included in the study.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 176
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
References
Bonilla, C. (2012). Testing processability theory in L2 Spanish:
Can readiness ormarkedness predict development? Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University ofPittsburgh.
Boss, B. (1996). German grammar for beginners: The teachability
hypothesis and itsrelevance to the classroom. In C. Arbones Sola`,
J. Rolin-Ianziti, & R. Sussex (Eds.),Whos afraid of teaching
grammar (pp. 93103). Queensland, Australia: Universityof Queensland
Press.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.Dyson, B. (2009). Processability theory and the role of
morphology in English as a
second language development: A longitudinal study. Second
Language Research,25, 355376.
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the
same? A study of theclassroom acquisition of German word order
rules. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 11, 308328.
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second
language proficiency: Thedifferential contributions of implicit and
explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics,27, 431463.
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit
knowledge: Anempirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27,
464491.
Farley, A., & McCollam, K. (2004). Learner readiness and L2
production in Spanish:Processability theory on trial. Estudios de
Lingustica Aplicada, 40, 4769.
Felix, S. W. (1981). The effect of formal instruction on second
language acquisition.Language Learning, 31, 87112.
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition:
Experimental studies inanaphora. Dortrecht, Netherlands:
Reidel.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1981). The interpretation of
elicited imitation in astandardized context. Language Learning, 31,
369392.
Galperin, P. I. (1970). An experimental study in the formation
of mental actions. In E.Stones (Ed.), Reading in educational
psychology: Learning and teaching (pp.142154). New York: Barnes and
Noble.
Galperin, P. I. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of
psychologicalinvestigation. Journal of Russian and Eastern European
Psychology, 30, 6080.
Gao, X. D. (2005). Noun phrase morphemes and topic development
in L2 MandarinChinese: A processability perspective. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation,University of Wellington, Victoria, New
Zealand.
Gattegno, C. (1976). The common sense of teaching foreign
languages. New York:Educational Solutions.
Jansen, L. (2008). Acquisition of German word order in tutored
learners: Across-sectional study in a wider theoretical context.
Language Learning, 58,185231.
177 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Kessler, J-U., & Pienemann, M. (2011). Research methodology.
How do we knowabout developmental schedules? In M. Pienemann &
J-U. Kessler (Eds.), Studyingprocessability (pp. 8496). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, R. G. (1972). Bilingual education
of children: The St.Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural
theory and the pedagogicalimperative in L2 education: Vygotskian
praxis and the theory/research divide. NewYork: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory
and the genesis of secondlanguage development. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language
development: An empiricalstudy of question formation in ESL.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,557587.
Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L. (2005). The pedagogic
effectiveness of developmentalreadiness in ESL grammar instruction.
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,28, 8199.
Morgan-Short, K., Finger, I., Grey, S., & Ullman, M. T.
(2012). Second languageprocessing shows increased native-like
neural responses after months of noexposure. PLoS One, 7,
e32974.
Negueruela, E. A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to the
teaching-learning of secondlanguages: Systemic-theoretical
instruction and L2 development. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of
second languages.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological
constraints on the teachability of languages.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186214.Pienemann, M.
(1987). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech
processing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,
83113.Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic
experiments and
hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 5279.Pienemann, M. (1998).
Language processing and second language development:
Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Pienemann, M.
(2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory.
Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.Pienemann, M. (2007). Processability theory. In
B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 137154). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S.
(2005). Extending processability
theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of
processability theory(pp. 199252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 178
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing
the development oflanguage proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying
second language acquisitionresearch (pp. 45141). Adelaide,
Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Radloff, C. F. (1991). Sentence repetition testing for studies
of community bilingualism.Arlington: Summer Institute of
Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first
language influence, anddevelopmental readiness in second language
acquisition. Modern LanguageJournal, 83, 122.
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on
second languageacquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In C.
Sanz (Ed.),Mind and contextin adult second language acquisition:
Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 141178).Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Van Patten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction
in second languageacquisition. Northwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of
higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S.
Vygotsky: Volume 1. New York:
Plenum.Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S.
Vygotsky. Volume 3: Problems of
the theory and history of psychology. New York: Plenum.Wang, X.
(2011). Grammatical development among Chinese L2 learners: From
a
processability account. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Newcastle University.New Castle Upon Tyne, UK.
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In S. M. Gass
& A. Mackey (Eds.),The Routledge handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 427441). New York:Routledge.
Xun, L. (2005). New practical Chinese reader (Book 1). Beijing,
China: BeijingLanguage and Culture University Press.
Zhang, X. (2014). The teachability hypothesis and concept-based
instruction:Topicalization in Chinese as a second language.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,The Pennsylvania State
University. University Park, PA.
Zhang, Y. (2001). Second language acquisition of Chinese
grammatical morphemes: Aprocessability perspective. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The AustralianNational University, Canberra,
Australia.
Zhang, Y. (2007). Testing the topic hypothesis: The L2
acquisition of Chinese syntax.In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language
acquisition research: Theory-constructionand testing (pp. 145171).
Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
179 Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180
-
Zhang and Lantolf Natural or Artificial
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online
version of thisarticle at the publishers website:
Figure S1. SCOBA for object topicalization.Figure S2. SCOBA for
adjunct topicalization.Figure S3. Cuisenaire rods and Chinese
topicalization.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180 180