Testing Processability Theory in L2 Spanish: Can Readiness Or
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by D-Scholarship@Pitt TESTING PROCESSABILITY THEORY IN L2 SPANISH: CAN READINESS OR MARKEDNESS PREDICT DEVELOPMENT? by Carrie L. Bonilla B.S., Education, Indiana University, 2004 M.A., Spanish Language and Translation, New York University, 2006 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2012 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Carrie L. Bonilla It was defended on March 28th, 2012 and approved by Dr. Mariana Achugar, Associate Professor of Hispanic Studies and Second Language Acquisition, Carnegie Mellon University Dr. Alan Juffs, Associate Professor of Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh Dr. Marta Ortega-Llebaria, Assistant Professor of Hispanic Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Yasuhiro Shirai, Professor of Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh ii Copyright © by Carrie L. Bonilla 2012 iii TESTING PROCESSABILITY THEORY IN L2 SPANISH: CAN READINESS OR MARKEDNESS PREDICT DEVELOPMENT? Carrie L. Bonilla, Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 2012 The goal of this dissertation is to test the five stages of Processability Theory (PT) for second language (L2) learners of Spanish and investigate how instruction can facilitate the development through the stages. PT details five fixed stages in the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax based on principles of speech processing (Levelt, 1989) and modeled on Lexical- Functional Grammar (LFG) (Kaplan & Bresnan, 1982; Bresnan, 2001). In addition, two models that predict how instruction can affect staged language development are tested: the Teachability Hypothesis (Pienemann, 1984, 1989), which says that instruction will only be effective if aimed at the next developmental stage and Projection Model (Zobl, 1983, 1985), which claims that instruction on more marked items can project to less marked, related items. In Study 1, the specific stages for L2 Spanish morphology and syntax were proposed and tested on a cross-sectional corpus of conversational data by learners (n=21) with L1 English. Implicational scaling confirmed the five stages for the syntax and morphology with 100% scalability. Syntax was also found to emerge before morphology at all five stages. Studies 2 and 3 tested the effect of instruction aimed at Stages 3, 4 and 5 for beginning (first and second semester) learners of Spanish (N=57). Learners’ oral production and stage gains were measured between a pre-test, a post-test two days after instruction, and a delayed post-test three weeks later. Learners’ production of the target structures increased after instruction on the next, next + 1 or next + 2 stages, while the control groups made no significant iv changes. These results present counter-evidence to the prediction of the Teachability Hypothesis that instruction only on the next stage can aid learners to advance to subsequent developmental stages. Overall, the results offer further cross-linguistic support for the PT hierarchy, while refuting one of its corollaries, the Teachability Hypothesis. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. XVI 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 5 2.1 PROCESSABILITY THEORY ................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Overview of PT ................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Levelt’s Speech Processing Model .................................................................. 6 2.1.3 Lexical-functional Grammar .......................................................................... 8 2.1.4 Stages of Acquisition Predicted by PT ......................................................... 11 2.1.5 Support for PT ................................................................................................ 15 2.1.6 Criticisms of PT .............................................................................................. 21 2.1.7 The interface between syntax and morphology ........................................... 24 2.2 L2 ACQUISITION OF SPANISH MORPHOSYNTAX ....................................... 28 2.2.1 Typological description of Spanish ............................................................... 28 2.2.2 Stages of PT predicted for L2 Spanish ......................................................... 33 2.2.2.1 Stage 1 (lemma access) ....................................................................... 34 2.2.2.2 Stage 2 (category procedure) ............................................................. 34 2.2.2.3 Stage 3 (phrasal procedure) ............................................................... 35 2.2.2.4 Stage 4 (S-procedure) ......................................................................... 38 vi 2.2.2.5 Stage 5 (Subordinate clause procedure) ........................................... 40 2.2.3 Alternative perspectives on the acquisition of L2 Spanish morphosyntax 43 2.2.3.1 Syntax ................................................................................................... 43 2.2.3.2 Morphology ......................................................................................... 47 2.3 ROLE OF INSTRUCTION ON STAGE CHANGE .............................................. 49 2.3.1 Teachability Hypothesis ................................................................................. 50 2.3.2 Projection Model ............................................................................................ 59 2.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................................... 65 2.4.1 Study 1 ............................................................................................................. 65 2.4.2 Studies 2 and 3 ................................................................................................ 67 2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 69 3.0 STUDY 1 ............................................................................................................................. 71 3.1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 71 3.1.1 Description of corpus ..................................................................................... 71 3.1.2 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 73 3.1.2.1 Emergence Criteria ............................................................................ 74 3.1.2.2 Implicational Scaling .......................................................................... 80 3.2 RESULTS ................................ ................................................................................... 82 3.2.1 Syntax .............................................................................................................. 82 3.2.2 Morphology ..................................................................................................... 86 3.2.3 Syntax and Morphology ................................................................................ 90 3.3 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 93 3.3.1 Syntax .............................................................................................................. 93 vii 3.3.2 Morphology ..................................................................................................... 95 3.3.3 Syntax and Morphology ................................................................................ 97 3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 98 4.0 STUDY 2 ........................................................................................................................... 100 4.1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 101 4.1.1 Participants ................................................................................................... 101 4.1.2 Procedure ...................................................................................................... 104 4.1.3 Testing materials .......................................................................................... 109 4.1.4 Instructional period ..................................................................................... 111 4.1.5 Data Transcription ....................................................................................... 113 4.1.6 Data Coding .................................................................................................. 114 4.1.6.1 Coding for emergence ....................................................................... 115 4.1.7 Statistical procedures ................................................................................... 117 4.2 RESULTS ................................................................................................................