Processability Theory and Teachability

MANFRED PIENEMANN

A Brief Sketch of PT

The basic idea underlying processability theory (PT) (Pienemann, 1998a; 2005) is the
following: at any stage of development the learner can produce and comprehend only
those second language (L2) linguistic forms which the current state of the language pro-
cessor can handle. It is therefore crucial to understand the architecture of the language
processor and the way in which it handles a second language. This enables one to predict
the course of development of L2 linguistic forms in language production and comprehension
across languages.
The core of PT is formed by a universal processability hierarchy that is based on Levelt’s
(1989) approach to language production. PT is formally modeled using lexical functional
grammar (LFG) (Bresnan, 2001). In other words, PT is a universal framework that has the
capacity to predict developmental trajectories for any second language. The notion “develop-
mental trajectory” implies a developmental dimension known as “staged development”
as well as a variational dimension accounting for individual differences between develop-
mental trajectories as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows two different developmental trajectories, T1 and T2, which are based on
the same set of developmental stages (indicated by the dotted horizontal lines). The two
developmental trajectories differ with respect to the varieties of learner language that are
developed at each stage (indicated by vertical lines).
In this paradigm, each stage represents a set of grammatical rules that share certain
processing routines, and each variety of learner language represents a specific variant
of the grammatical rules. For instance, in English as a second language (ESL) question
formation the developmental sequence shown in Figure 2 has been found (e.g., Pienemann,
1998a, 1998b).
Differences in developmental trajectories are based on the manner in which learners
utilize the leeway they have in solving developmental problems. For instance, learners
attempting to produce “auxiliary-subject inversion” before they are ready for this structure

D
E
V T1 T2
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T VARIATION

Figure 1 Different developmental trajectories

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0958
2 processability theory and teachability

Structure Example
4. Auxiliary-subject inversion Where has he been?
3. Copula Where is he?
2. WH+SVO Where he is?
1. SVO question He live here?

Figure 2 Developmental patterns in ESL question formation

(i.e., at level 3 shown in Figure 2) have been found to produce the following learner
language variants:

A Where he been?
B Where has been?
C Where he has been?
D He has been where?

Variants A to D have in common that they get around placing the auxiliary before the
subject in WH-questions. In other words, they constitute different solutions to the same
learning problem. In Figure 1 each of the different solutions is represented by a vertical line.
It is important to bear in mind that for each structural learning process there is a limited
set of solutions. In the course of L2 development, the learner accumulates grammatical
rules and their variants, allowing learners to develop an individual developmental trajectory
while adhering to the overall developmental schedule.

The Processability Hierarchy

The processability hierarchy represents a universal set of processing resources that is

modeled using LFG (Bresnan, 2001). A simplified account of the processability hierarchy
with a focus on one of the PT mechanisms (i.e., the transfer of grammatical information)
is given in Figure 3 where three example constituent structures are listed in the left-hand
column. The second column specifies the type of information transfer possible at each
stage. ESL morphological structures are given in the next column to exemplify the types

Information exchange
Locus of exchange Example Illustration
sentence within sentence he talk-s S
NPs VP

Pro V
[3rd pers sg] [pres, cont, 3rd pers sg]
phrase within phrase only two kids NP

Det N
[pl] [pl]

category no exchange talk-ed

Figure 3 A simplified account of the processability hierarchy

 processability theory and teachability 3

of structures possible at each stage, and the information transfer involved in the generation
of these structures is illustrated in the column on the right-hand side.
The structures that are processable at any given stage are constrained by the available
processing resources. As can be seen in Figure 3, at the stage “phrase” grammatical
information can be exchanged only within phrases, not beyond the phrasal boundary.
Subject–verb agreement (i.e., “third-person-s”) cannot be processed at the stage “phrase”
because this structure requires grammatical information to be exchanged beyond the phrasal
boundary—as illustrated in Figure 3. In other words, processing resources define and
constrain the range of possible production grammars for every level.
At the same time, these constraints leave sufficient leeway for learners to find different
solutions to structural learning problems. This was illustrated above with the inversion of
auxiliary and subject in English WH-questions. Inversion requires processing procedures
at the sentence level in the hierarchy. L2 learners can nevertheless produce WH-questions
before the procedures for inversion are in place. When they attempt to do this, learners
have four structural options that avoid auxiliary-subject inversion. The options available
are all processable using the resources available at the previous stage, and the number of
options is limited because of the limited resources that are available.

PT Mechanisms

PT is based on two psycholinguistic mechanisms which will be summarized below:

(a) transfer of grammatical information and (b) lexical mapping.
The initial version of PT (Pienemann, 1998a) focused on constituent structure and the
transfer of grammatical information within it, using feature unification. The modeling of
feature unification, as envisaged in this approach, is illustrated in Figure 3. In the sentence
“Peter sees a dog” subject–verb agreement relies on information contained in the subject–
noun phrase, namely the feature values PERS=3 and NUM=SG. These feature values are
unified (or “compared and found to match”) after the verb has been produced. In other
words, grammatical information on PERS and NUM that is created in the subject needs
to be placed in a temporary store during sentence generation in order to produce subject–
verb agreement. Figure 4 shows that subject–verb agreement utilizes the top of the con-
stituent structure (“S”) to match the information attached to the subject and the verb.
In the design of PT, the point of unification is related to a hierarchy of processability
that reflects the time course of real time processing as detailed in Levelt (1989). In this way
a range of morphological and syntactic processes can be aligned with a universal hierarchy
of processability yielding developmental trajectories for the given target languages. The
hierarchy that results from a comparison of the points of feature unification can be

NPsubj VP

N V NPobj

det N

Peter sees a dog

PERSON = 3 PERSON = 3
NUM = SG NUM = SG

Figure 4 Feature unification in the S-procedure

4 processability theory and teachability

illustrated on the basis of Figure 3 which shows that the example structures illustrated
in Figure 3 can be ordered as follows:

1. No exchange of grammatical information (= no feature unification),

2. Exchange within the phrase,
3. Exchange within the sentence.

Once one applies this hierarchy to morphology in English second language acquisition
(SLA), the following developmental trajectory can be predicted:

1. past -ed
2. plural -s
3. third person -s.

In order to appreciate the universal nature of PT it is crucial to consider that the hier-
archy illustrated in Figure 3 is not language-specific and that, in principle, it applies to the
transfer of grammatical information in any language. In contrast, the examples that were
given for ESL morphology utilize this hierarchy and apply it to one specific target language.
The application of the full processability hierarchy to the syntax and morphology of
specific languages will, of course, involve more detail of the LFG formalism.
The second mechanism which was added to PT by Pienemann, Di Biase, and Kawaguchi
(2005) is lexical mapping. This mechanism is based on a component of LFG that deals
with the way in which the semantic roles (e.g., “agent,” “patient”) of the intended message
are expressed in grammar. All languages have a wide range of alternatives in expressing
the intended semantic roles. For instance, the agent of an action can be expressed as a
grammatical subject (in active sentences—“Peter eats a banana”) or as an adjunct (e.g., in
passive sentences “The banana was eaten by Peter”). In other words, lexical mapping accounts
for the mapping of semantic roles onto grammatical functions.
In PT the default mapping principle is unmarked alignment which is based on the one-
to-one mapping of semantic roles onto grammatical functions. Naturally, mature languages
allow for a much wider range of relationships between semantic roles and grammatical
functions, and these develop stepwise in SLA. Principles of lexical mapping can account
for these developmental processes.
In other words, unmarked alignment is the initial state of L2 development. It is based on
the one-to-one mapping of semantic roles onto grammatical functions. At the initial state
learners lack the grammatical means to express information that is structured in a nonlinear
way. Therefore they have no choice other than to produce sentences using canonical word
order (SVO for ESL) and they are therefore initially unable to express passives or other
structures which are based on a nonlinear relationship between semantic roles and gram-
matical functions. These constraints are relaxed as the acquisition process proceeds.

Key Hypotheses

PT entails the following key claims:

I The processability hierarchy applies to typologically different languages. This point

was demonstrated in a number of studies on L2 development including Japanese,
Chinese, and Arabic (cf., Di Biase & Kawaguchi, 2002; Pienemann, 2005; Zhang, 2005;
Kawaguchi, 2005; Mansouri, 2005).
 processability theory and teachability 5

II First language (L1) transfer is constrained by processability. This implies that L1 forms
can be transferred to the L2 only when they can be processed in the developing L2
system. In other words, this implies an operationalized “partial transfer” position
(Pienemann, Di Biase, Kawaguchi, & Håkansson, 2007).
III Both first and second language acquisition is constrained by the PT. Nevertheless,
both types of acquisition may be associated with fundamentally different develop-
mental trajectories (Pienemann, 1998a, 1998b).
IV Bilingual language development can be compared across different languages on a
universal scale based on PT (Pienemann, Keßler, & Itani-Adams, 2011).
V The impact of formal teaching intervention on the course of SLA is constrained by
processability (Pienemann, 1984, 1989).

Pienemann and Keßler (2011) give a basic introduction to the above and most other aspects
of PT.

The Teachability Hypothesis

The last claim in the above list has become known as the teachability hypothesis (TH)
(Pienemann, 1984, 1989) which was created long before PT. The TH was originally based
on the observation that learners follow universal stages of development in natural and in
classroom contexts (Pienemann, 1998a, 252–64). In a number of experiments Pienemann
(1984, 1989) tested if the natural order of acquisition “can be beaten” by formal instruction.
This test was operationalized by selecting L2 learners on the basis of their current level of
L2 acquisition. Two groups were formed (a) with learners at level x and (b) with learners
at level x + 1. Both groups were exposed to the same classroom input which focused on
level x + 2. It was found that learners at level x + 1 progressed to level x + 2 and that
learners at level x did not progress at all. These findings were supported in several
replication studies (e.g., Ellis, 1989).
These results were interpreted in terms of psycholinguistic constraints on formal instruc-
tion. The psycholinguistic framework that was used was that of processing strategies which
were shown to form an implicational hierarchy, with each step being the prerequisite for
the next. Skipping a step in such an implicational hierarchy is impossible because the
higher-level processing strategy (x + 2) requires the strategy of the previous level (x + 1)
to have developed before the x + 2-strategy can be functional. The strategies framework
can now be translated into PT (Pienemann, 1998a) because the processability hierarchy is
also implicational. Embedding the TH in PT has a number of advantages. PT applies to a
wider range of L2 phenomena. It is typologically plausible, and it links up with a theory
of grammar thus opening up the study of epistemological issues.
At a practical level, the TH represents a set of constraints on teachability which describe
necessary conditions for formal instruction to promote acquisition. However, it does not
describe sufficient conditions for formal instruction to be successful. Therefore the success
of “timed instruction” depends on factors inherent in the process of formal intervention—
bearing in mind that formal intervention cannot “beat” acquisition. The practical imple-
mentation of the TH in classrooms is supported by a computer-based linguistic screening
procedure (rapid profile) (Pienemann, Johnston, & Brindley, 1988; Mackey, Pienemann, &
Thornton, 1991; Pienemann & Keßler, 2008; Keßler & Keatinge, 2008) that yields rapid
snapshots of each learner’s interlanguage system.

SEE ALSO: Assessment of Speaking; Cognitive Linguistics of Second Language Acquisition;

Cognitive Second Language Acquisition: Quantitative Methods; Explicit Learning in Second
6 processability theory and teachability

Language Acquisition; First Language Development of Grammar; Implicit Learning in

Second Language Acquisition; Incidental Learning in Second Language Acquisition;
Language Testing in Second Language Research; Learner Varieties; Online Psycholinguistic
Methods in Second Language Acquisition Research; Rating Oral Language; Sentence
Production in a Second Language; Typology and Second Language Acquisition

References

Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of processability
theory: Language development in Italian as a second language and Japanese as a second
language. Second Language Research, 18(3), 274–302.
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom
acquisition of German word rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 303–28.
Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second
language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 253–98).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Keßler, J.-U. & Keatinge, D. (2008). Profiling oral second language development. In J.-U. Keßler
(Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning
(pp. 167–97). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mackey, A., Pienemann, M., & Thornton, I. (1991). Rapid profile: A second language screening
procedure. Working Papers of the National Languages Institute of Australia, 1, 61–82.
Mansouri, F. (2005). Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language: Typological features
and their processing implications. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of process-
ability theory (pp. 117–53). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses.
Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.
Pienemann, M. (1998a). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (1998b). Developmental dynamics in L1 an L2 acquisition: Processability theory
and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 1–20.
Pienemann, M. (Ed.). (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending processability theory. In M. Pienemann
(Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 199–251). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2007). Processing constraints on
L1 transfer. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. DeGroot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
approaches. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure
for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–43.
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.-U. (2008). Measuring bilingualism. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.),
Handbook of applied linguistics. Vol. 5: Multilingualism. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.-U. (Eds.). (2011). Studying processability theory: An introductory textbook.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U., & Itani-Adams, Y. (2011). Comparing levels of processability across
languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 128–46 (Special issue).
Zhang, Y. (2005). Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese gram-
matical morphemes. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory
(pp. 155–77). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.