Extended Processability Theory and its Application to L2- Swedish Leo Conroy The University of Melbourne In this article, I discuss canonicity, iconicity and unification (of grammatical information) from the perspective of Extended P[rocessability] T[heory] (Pienemann 2005) and will illustrate my operationalisation of those notions in the analysis of the longitudinal data representing the developing L2-Swedish interlanguage of one informant. My analysis suggests that canonical and/or iconic form-function mappings play a role in L2-acquisition. The lexically driven progression from canonical to non-canonical mapping may materialise or fail to materialise in different ways. Some canonical/iconic mappings appear to facilitate the unification of grammatical features in a systematic, interlanguage-based and/or target-like manner, without impeding the development of the interlanguage. Other purely interlanguage-idiosyncratic mappings may be transitional, giving way to target-like forms, while others may become entrenched and block the process of convergence toward the target language. Keywords: L2-acquisition, processability, lexicalist orientation, canonicity, iconicity, syntagmatic juxtaposition, unification, target language, interlanguage, bad choice hypothesis, continuity assumption, generative entrenchment 1 Introduction The objective of this article is not so much to investigate (Extended) PT’s claims concerning the sequence of acquisition of specific linguistic structures. Instead, I intend to examine L2 phenomena captured by such concepts as canonicity which have been accorded a more prominent and theoretically more strongly motivated position within the framework of Extended PT. I will nevertheless broadly characterise my informant’s production of L2-Swedish in terms of the sequential stages of (Extended) PT’s hierarchy of processability. The notions of canonicity and unification are both central in Extended PT’s conceptualisation of language acquisition and production/comprehension, while the notion of iconicity, although not explicitly invoked by proponents of Extended PT, nevertheless overlaps conceptually with that of canonicity to a considerable degree and, in my own view, can be profitably exploited to further enrich the explanatory scope of canonicity. A further construct, that of syntagmatic juxtaposition (of morphophonologically harmonious forms), represents my own attempt to conceptualise my intuition that the notion of unification, if applied uncritically to structural phenomena exhibiting an apparent 65 LEO CONROY exchange of grammatical information, may conceal other, perhaps phonologically rather than morphosyntactically based processes involved in second language production. 2 The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Extended PT 2.1 Canonicity – Its Universal and Language-particular Dimensions Extended PT predicts that L2-learners will initially map conceptual structure onto surface structure canonically according to the principles of the “Unmarked Alignment Hypothesis”1 which defines canonicity as a mapping process of conceptual structure onto surface structure characterised by a “linear relationship between a-structure, f-structure and c-structure” (Pienemann et al. 225-226; 229). These structures represent “prominence hierarchies” (Choi 24) relating to thematic/syntactic roles (a- structure), abstract grammatical functions (f-structure) and the ordering of surface lexico- grammatical forms (c-structure).2 Hence, canonical or linear mapping, which corresponds to Levelt’s notion of “congruent grammatical encoding” (266), entails the assignment of the most prominent thematic role (AGENT) to the most prominent grammatical function (SUBJ) and its surface realisation in the most prominent c-structural position (first position in its clause). Particularly in the earliest stages of language acquisition, learners are hypothesised to be guided by “th[is] architecture of syntax with its three levels of structure” (Pienemann et al. 231). However, it is important to note that, with regard to the acquisition of c-structural configurations, the L2-learner is viewed as reconstructing the canonical patterns of the target language on the basis of L2-input. Pienemann et al. refer to “the default [c-structural patterns] the learner creates earlier” which may conflict with later, non-default “mapping processes” (202). In order for the L2-learner to establish the default, c-structural configurations of the L2, s/he must experience and “[identify] c-structure regularities” (236), as s/he “does not know in advance what the relevant canonical mapping of the TL will be” (209). This claim is consonant with Pienemann’s long- held assumption that L2-acquisition is very much a bottom-up process of reconstruction (Pienemann 1998: 80-83) which, within a lexicalist framework such as (Extended) PT, is logically conceptualised 1 This hypothesis is derived from Lexical-Functional Grammar’s “Lexical Mapping Theory” (Bresnan 302-20) and Optimality Theory’s notions of “Harmonic Alignment” (Lee qtd. in Pienemann et al. 224) and of the “emergence of the unmarked” (McCarthy 212-3). Pienemann et al. point out that “the notion of direct [canonical] mapping goes back a long way” and they refer in particular to the work of Slobin (1985) and Pinker in formulating this notion (227-8). 2 In Extended PT, a-structure and f-structure are construed as universal hierarchies of semantico-syntactic and grammar-functional representation respectively. The realisation of c-structure, on the other hand, is largely language-particular, although, even at this surface level of lexico-grammatical representation, there are dominant tendencies cross-linguistically, such as the relative ordering of “subject” and “object”, viz. subject > object. 66 EXTENDED PROCESSABILITY THEORY as proceeding, to a greater or lesser extent, on a lexeme-by-lexeme basis (Pienemann 1998: 63; 72; 83; 86; 92; 106; 109). Pienemann et al. appear to employ the term “canonical” somewhat ambiguously. They use it to refer to phenomena involving the abstract, universal levels of thematic/syntactic representation (a-structure and f-structure). However, they also use it to refer both to “universal [i.e. canonical] aspects of c-structure” (230) and to the canonical or unmarked surface- structure configurations specific to each language (209). Their assertion that L2-learners do not know a priori the canonical patterns of the target language would seem to imply that L2-learners are programmed to induce and assimilate canonical patterns. The example below illustrates canonical correspondence relationships of clausal constituents at the three levels of representation which entail “the computationally least costly manner of organising L2 syntax” (Pienemann et al. 230). 1) Hon läser svenska… agent pred. theme → a-structure SUBJ PRED OBJ → f-structure NPsubj Vfin NPobj → c-structure (“She is studying Swedish…”) Pienemann, citing Andersen, also assumes that, at a basic surface-structural level, early interlanguage may well be characterised by (idiosyncratic) “canonical (i.e. one-to-one)” (Pienemann et al. 202) form-function mappings (Pienemann 1998: 159). Givón’s principle of iconicity implies, likewise, a “one-to-one correlation between form and meaning” (189). Indeed, as Pienemann et al. assert, “one-to-one correspondence as the natural default follows from a processing perspective as well as from an epistemological perspective” (224). From the discussion so far it will be apparent that the term “canonical” is employed by Pienemann (et al.) to refer to a range of phenomena which can be characterised as entailing basic (and, in some cases, universal), linear one-to-one abstract function-function and more concrete form-function correspondences. 2.2 The Processability Hierarchy – Processing Procedures and Non-linearity The successive stages in the acquisition of an L2 involve the sequential development or activation of implicationally and hierarchically ordered, highly task-specific processing procedures – both lexical and syntactic (the latter functioning as grammatical memory stores) – which enable the learner’s stage-wise transition from the non-language-particular encoding of conceptual structure as surface structure according to the canonical principle of one-to-one correspondence – between a-structure, f- structure and c-structure – to a language-particular, surface encoding of conceptual structure 67 LEO CONROY involving increasingly greater degrees of “non-linearity”. Non-linear processing arises as a consequence of the “discontinuity [imposed on] the relationship between conceptualising and articulation” by language-particular “syntactic constraints” (Pienemann 1998: 56-7). Such discontinuity requires the L2-learner to temporarily store in grammatical memory (i.e. syntactic processing procedures) grammatical features which need to be exchanged or unified between constituents where one constituent (or conjunction of constituents) constitutes the source of an agreement phenomenon and the other constituent(s) the destination (Pienemann 1998: 73). The following represents the simplified processability hierarchy for L2-Swedish: stage 1 – unanalysed words and holophrases; stage 2 – lexical/categorial procedure (the assignment of words to lexical categories and the suppliance of those words with morphological features expressing such diacritic parameters as tense on verbs and number and definiteness on nouns; canonical word order - SVO); stage 3 – phrasal procedure (exchange of grammatical information