Volume 7, Issue 2 (Journal of Studies in Applied Language (JSAL) 2024)
JSAL 2024, 7(2): 57-92 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mansouri Jozani T, Sahraee R M. (2024). The Acquisition and Instruction of Causative Structures in Persian through the Lens of Processability Theory [In Persian]. JSAL. 7(2), 57-92.
URL: http://jsal.ierf.ir/article-1-120-en.html
URL: http://jsal.ierf.ir/article-1-120-en.html
1- Doctoral student of Persian language teaching to non-Persian speakers, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran , ttmansouri@gmail.com
2- Full Professor of the Department of General Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran
2- Full Professor of the Department of General Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (212 Views)
The structure of language and researchers' perspectives on it have underpinned the evolution of second language pedagogy. Consequently, the progression of second language education can be categorized into three distinct stages. Initially, language education was synonymous with grammar instruction; subsequently, grammar was excluded from the curriculum; and finally, grammar instruction was reintegrated and complemented with communicative approaches. Thus, it is evident that grammar poses a significant challenge in second language education, a challenge that extends to teaching Persian grammar to non-native speakers. Moreover, a critical aspect of second language learning and instruction is the acquisition process—specifically, the stages second language learners navigate and the reasons behind them. Numerous scholars have explored this topic, including Manfred Pienemann, who in 1998 proposed the “Processability Theory.” This theory delves into the intricate process of second language grammar acquisition, positing that learners advance through a structured sequence known as the “Processability Hierarchy.” Processability Theory posits that second language learners sequentially master content words, function words, phrases, sentences, and subordinate clauses. Considering the discourse on the significance of grammar and the difficulties in learning and teaching specific grammatical structures in Persian, the researchers sought to explore the acquisition of causative constructions by non-native Persian speakers, employing Processability Theory. They then intended to develop a teaching model for these constructions, tailored for non-Iranian Persian learners, using the research outcomes. To accomplish this, they needed to ascertain the Processability Hierarchy stage at which each Persian causative construction is acquired. Following their investigations, they discovered that simple causative constructions are learned during the sentence processing stage, whereas complex causatives are mastered at the subordinate clause processing stage. Building on this, data was gathered using an interview technique, as recommended by the theory. The study involved 120 non-Iranian Persian learners across five proficiency levels: beginner, pre-intermediate, intermediate, upper-intermediate, and advanced. The data were scrutinized using analytical methods consistent with Processability Theory. The analysis confirmed the theory's prediction that Persian learners initially grasp simple causatives before moving on to complex ones. Moreover, it was established that learners progress through the periphrastic, unequal root, equal root, compound unequal, and mono-lexical causatives in sequence when learning simple causatives. For complex causatives, the order of acquisition was found to be agentive-obligative unrestricted, without implicit meaning, with negative implicit meaning, agentive-obligative permissive, and patientive-obligative compulsive. Ultimately, the research findings informed the creation of a model for teaching causative constructions in Persian to non-native speakers.
Keywords: Teaching Persian, Non-native Speakers, Causative Constructions in Persian, Processability Theory
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Language Teaching
Received: 2024/04/3 | Accepted: 2024/05/30 | Published: 2024/06/15
Received: 2024/04/3 | Accepted: 2024/05/30 | Published: 2024/06/15
References
1. Dabir mogadam, M., (2012), Persian Linguistic Researches (Collection of Articles), 3th Edition, Tehran: Academic Publishing Center. [In Persian]
2. Sajjadi Kochesafhani, S., (2017). Identifying the middle language of non-Iranian Farsi learners. Allameh Tabatabai University. [In Persian]
3. Sahrai, R., Marsus, F., (2015). Reference standard for Persian language education in the world, 1th edition, Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University. [In Persian]
4. Alhawary, M. T. (2003). "Processability theory: Counter-evidence from Arabic second language acquisition data". Al-'Arabiya, 36, pp.107-166.
5. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). "The use of adverbials and natural order in the development of temporal expression". IRAL, 30, pp. 299-320. DOI: 10.1515/iral.1992.30.4.299. [DOI:10.1515/iral.1992.30.4.299]
6. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2015). 4 One Functional Approach to SLA. Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. [In English]
7. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018). "Formulaic language in second language pragmatics research". Understanding Formulaic Language, pp. 97-114. DOI: 10.4324/9781315206615-6 [DOI:10.4324/9781315206615-6]
8. Baten, K. (2011). "Processability Theory and German case acquisition". Language Learning, 61(2), pp. 455-505. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00615.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00615.x]
9. Benati, A. G., & VanPatten, B. (2015). Key terms in second language acquisition. Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 1-256.
10. Bonilla, C. L. (2015). "From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish". Second Language Research, 31(1), pp. 53-74. DOI: 10.1177/0267658314537291 [DOI:10.1177/0267658314537291]
11. Buyl, A., & Housen, A. (2015). "Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account". Second Language Research, 31(4), pp. 523-550. DOI: 10.1177/0267658315585905 [DOI:10.1177/0267658315585905]
12. Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 2th edition, Boston: Heinle & Heinle. [In English]
13. Charters, H., Dao, L., & Jansen, L. (2011). "Reassessing the applicability of Processability Theory: The case of nominal plural". Second Language Research, 27(4), pp. 509-533. DOI: 10.1177/0267658311405923 [DOI:10.1177/0267658311405923]
14. Cook, V., & Singleton, D. (2014). Key topics in second language acquisition (Vol. 10). Multilingual matters. [In English] [DOI:10.21832/9781783091812]
15. Côté, S. (2020). "Examining Processability Theory's predictions for grammatical gender agreement in intermediate L2 French". International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), pp. 353-366. DOI: 10.1111/ijal.12287 [DOI:10.1111/ijal.12287]
16. DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 83-104). Routledge. [In English] [DOI:10.4324/9780429503986-5]
17. DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press. [In English] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511667275]
18. Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). "Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language". Second language research, 18(3), pp. 274-302. DOI: 10.1191/0267658302sr204oa [DOI:10.1191/0267658302sr204oa]
19. Dyson, B. (2009). "Processability theory and the role of morphology in English as a second language development: A longitudinal study". Second language research, 25(3), pp. 355-376. DOI: 10.1177/0267658309104578 [DOI:10.1177/0267658309104578]
20. Eguchi, A., & Sugiura, M. (2015). "Applicability of Processability theory to Japanese adolescent EFL learners: A case study of early L2 syntactic and morphological development". System, 52, pp. 115-12, DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.005 [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2015.05.005]
21. Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2014). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 87-105). Routledge. [In English]
22. Fetter, R. (1996). A Test of Pienemann and Johnston's Tentative Developmental Stages in ESL Development. [In English]
23. Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., & Lund, K. (2001). "Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition". Studies in second language acquisition, 23(3), pp. 389-416. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263101003047 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263101003047]
24. Håkanson, G. (2005). "Similarities and differences in L1 and L2 development". Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability theory, pp. 179-197. [DOI:10.1075/sibil.30.08hak]
25. Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2010). "Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish". Language learning, 60(3), pp. 628-650. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00569.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00569.x]
26. Iwasaki, J., & Oliver, R. (2018). "Describing the acquisition of the passive voice by a child learner of Japanese as a second language from a Processability Theory perspective". International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(5), pp. 247-259. DOI: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.5p.247 [DOI:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.5p.247]
27. Jansen, L. (2008). "Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross‐sectional study in a wider theoretical context". Language Learning, 58(1), pp. 185-231. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00438.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00438.x]
28. Kawaguchi, S. (2005). "Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language". Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory, pp. 253-298. DOI: 10.1075/sibil.30.10kaw [DOI:10.1075/sibil.30.10kaw]
29. Kawaguchi, S. (2016). "Question constructions, argument mapping, and vocabulary development in English L2 by Japanese speakers". Developing, modelling and assessing Second Languages, pp. 35-63. DOI: 10.1075/palart.5.02kaw [DOI:10.1075/palart.5.02kaw]
30. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. [In English] [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1982.tb00476.x]
31. Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). "Sociocultural theory and second language development". In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 221-240). Routledge.
32. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). "Complexity theory". In The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 73-87). Routledge.
33. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019). "On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective". The modern language journal, 103, pp. 61-79. DOI: 10.1111/modl.12536 [DOI:10.1111/modl.12536]
34. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2014). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Routledge. [In English] [DOI:10.4324/9781315835891]
35. Lenzing, A. (2013). The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition. [In English] [DOI:10.1075/palart.3]
36. Lenzing, A. (2021). The Production-Comprehension Interface in Second Language Acquisition. [In English] [DOI:10.5040/9781350148765]
37. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2021). How Languages Are Learned 5th Edition. Oxford university press. [In English]
38. Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of language teaching (p. 373). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. [In English] [DOI:10.1002/9781444315783]
39. Mackey, A. (1994). "Targeting Morpho-Syntax in Children's ESL: An Empirical Study of the Use of Interactive Goal-Based Tasks". Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 10(1), pp. 67-89.
40. Mackey, A. (1999). "Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL". Studies in second language acquisition, 21(4), pp. 557-587. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263199004027 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263199004027]
41. Mansouri, F. (2005). "Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language". Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory, pp. 117-155. DOI: 10.1075/sibil.30.06man [DOI:10.1075/sibil.30.06man]
42. Menzel, H. (1953). "A new coefficient for scalogram analysis". Public Opinion Quarterly, 17(2), pp. 268-280. DOI: 10.1086/266460 [DOI:10.1086/266460]
43. Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories. Routledge. [In English] [DOI:10.4324/9781315617046]
44. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge university press. [In English]
45. Pallotti, G. (2007). "An operational definition of the emergence criterion". Applied linguistics, 28(3), pp. 361-382. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amm018 [DOI:10.1093/applin/amm018]
46. Pienemann, M. (1984). "Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages". Studies in second language acquisition, 6(2), pp. 186-214. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263100005015 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100005015]
47. Pienemann, M. (1998). "Language processing and second language development: Processability theory" (Vol. 15). John Benjamins Publishing. DOI: 10.1075/sibil.15 [DOI:10.1075/sibil.15]
48. Pienemann, M. (2005). "An introduction to Processability theory". Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability theory, 30, pp. 179-199. DOI: 10.1075/sibil.30 [DOI:10.1075/sibil.30]
49. Pienemann, M. (2010). "A cognitive view of language acquisition: Processability theory and beyond". In conceptualizing 'learning in applied linguistics (pp. 69-88). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. [DOI:10.1057/9780230289772_5]
50. Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G. (1999). "A unified approach toward the development of swedish as l2: A Processability account". Studies in second language acquisition, 21(3), 383-420. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263199003022 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263199003022]
51. Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2015). "Processability Theory 1". In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 162-191). Routledge. [In English] [DOI:10.4324/9780429503986-8]
52. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). "Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment". Studies in second language acquisition, 10(2), pp. 217-243. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263100007324 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100007324]
53. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press. [In English] [DOI:10.1017/9781009024532]
54. Sakai, H. (2008). "An analysis of Japanese university students' oral performance in English using processability theory". System, 36(4), pp. 534-549. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2008.03.002 [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2008.03.002]
55. Spinner, P. (2013). "Language production and reception: A Processability theory study". Language Learning, 63(4), 704-739. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12022 [DOI:10.1111/lang.12022]
56. Spinner, P., & Jung, S. (2018). "Production and comprehension in Processability theory: A self-paced reading study". Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), pp. 295-318. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263117000110 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263117000110]
57. Tabatabaee, M. S., Mahmoodi, K., & Bayati, A. (2021). "Processability Theory: Stage-like Development of 'Copula inversion and 'Negation in Iranian EFL Learners' Writing Performance". International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 9(38), pp. 25-36. doi: 10.52547/JFL.9.38.27 [DOI:10.52547/JFL.9.38.27]
58. Tajgardoun, R. (2020). APPLICATION OF PROCESSABILITY THEORY TO SFI STUDENTS'L2 WRITING COMPETENCIES. [In English]
59. Taki, S., & Hamzehian, M. (2016). "Cross-linguistic validation of Processability theory: The case of EFL Iranian students' speaking skill". International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4(15), pp. 51-62.
60. VanPatten, B. (1993). "Grammar teaching for the acquisition‐rich classroom". Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), pp. 435-450. DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb01179.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb01179.x]
61. VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. [In English] [DOI:10.4324/9780203628942]
62. Yamaguchi, Y., & Kawaguchi, S. (2014). "Acquisition of English morphology by a Japanese school-aged child: A longitudinal study". The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 16(1), pp. 89-119.
63. Yamaguchi, Y., & Kawaguchi, S. (2016). "Development of relative clause constructions in English L2". International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), pp. 83-93. DOI: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.83 [DOI:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.83]
64. Zhang, Y. (2004). "Processing Constraints, Categorical Analysis, and the Second Language Acquisition of the Chinese Adjective Suffix‐de (ADJ)". Language Learning, 54(3), pp. 437-468. DOI: 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00261.x [DOI:10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00261.x]
65. Zhang, Y. (2005). "Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes". Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory, pp. 155-177. DOI: 10.1075/sibil.30.07zha [DOI:10.1075/sibil.30.07zha]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |