Element contents
Processability Theory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 March 2025
Summary
Processability Theory (PT) is a psycholinguistic theory of second language acquisition. The theory builds on the fundamental assumption that learners can acquire only those linguistic forms and functions which they can process. Therefore, PT is based on the architecture of the human language processor. PT is implemented in a theory of grammar that is compatible with the basic design of the language processor. This Element gives a concise introduction to the psycholinguistic core of PT - showing that PT offers an explanation of language development and variation based on processing constraints that are specified for typologically different languages and that apply to first and second language acquisition, albeit in different ways. Processing constraints also delineate transfer from the first language and the effect of formal intervention. This Element also covers the main branches of research in the PT framework and provides an introduction to the methodology used in PT-based research.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009375931Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 30 April 2025
References
Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34, 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00353.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M. (2013). LFG contribution in second language acquisition research: The development of case in Russian L2. In Butt, М & King, T. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M. (2015). Acquiring case marking in Russian as a second language: An exploratory study on subject and object. In Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. Paris: Eurosla, pp. 177–193.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harling, K. (2020). One functional approach to L2 acquisition: The concept-oriented approach. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 40–62. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. (2011). Processability Theory and German case acquisition. Language Learning, 61(2), 455–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00615.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. (2013). The Acquisition of the German Case System by Foreign Language Learners. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. (2019). Teaching the German case system: A comparison of two approaches. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 301–326. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.13bat.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K., & Keßler, J.-U. (2019). Research timeline. The role of instruction: Teachability and processability. In Arntzen, R., Håkansson, G., Hjelde, A., & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Teachability and Learnability across Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.6.01bat.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baten, K. & Ponnet, A. (2023). Extending PT to split ergative marking and differential object marking: Some hypotheses for L2 Hindi. In Kawaguchi, S., Yamaguchi, Y., & Biase, B. Di (eds.), Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.9.04bat.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (1999). Do iconic hand gestures really contribute anything to the semantic information conveyed by speech? An experimental investigation. Semiotica, 123, 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1999.123.1-2.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettoni, C., & Di Biase, B. (2015). Processability Theory: Theoretical bases and universal schedules. In Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. Paris: Eurosla, pp. 19–79.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (eds.) (2020). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000277.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., & Masterson, D. (1989). Reaction time as a supplement to grammaticality judgements in the investigation of second language learners’ competence. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8, 207–245.Google Scholar
Bonilla, C. (2015). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 15, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (ed.) (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/414493.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119105664.Google Scholar
Buyl, A. (2019). Is morphosyntactic decoding governed by Processability Theory? In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.04buy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buyl, A., & Housen, A. (2015). Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account. Second Language Research, 31(4), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765831558590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects of plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 538–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018027.Google ScholarPubMed
Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Younger and older adults’ ‘good enough’ interpretations of garden path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H. (1990). The comparative study of first and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Hong, U. (1995). Agreement and null subjects in German L2 development: New evidence from reaction-time experiments. Second Language Research, 11, 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839501100103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. E. (2014). Processing anomalous anaphors. Memory and Cognition, 42(7), 1171–1185. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0415-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalrymple, M., Dyvik, H., & King, T. H. (2004). Copular complements: Closed or open? In Butt, M. & King, T. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 188–198.Google Scholar
Dargue, N., Sweller, N., & Jones, M. P. (2019). When our hands help us understand: A meta-analysis into the effects of gesture on comprehension. Psychological Bulletin, 145(8), 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Bot, K., Lowie, W. M., & Verspoor, M. H. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Houwer, A. (2005). Early bilingual acquisition: Focus on morphosyntax and the separate development hypothesis. In Kroll, J. F. & Groot, A. M. B. De (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. New York: Oxford Academic, pp. 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195151770.003.0003.Google Scholar
Di Biase, B. (2002). Focusing strategies in second language development: A classroom-based study of Italian L2 in primary school. In Di Biase, B. (ed.), Developing a Second Language: Acquisition, Processing and Pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish. Melbourne: Language Australia, pp. 95–120.Google Scholar
Di Biase, B. (2008). Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In Keßler, J.-U. (ed.), Processability Approaches to Second Language Development and Second Language Learning. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 197–219.Google Scholar
Di Biase, B., Bettoni, C., & Medojević, L. (2015). The development of case: A study of Serbian in contact with Australian English. In Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. Paris: Eurosla, pp. 195–212.Google Scholar
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), 272–300. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr204oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (eds.) (2015). Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092574.Google Scholar
Dyson, B. P., & Håkansson, G. (2017). Understanding Second Language Processing: A Focus on Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(3), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009a). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, D. P. (2019). Chaos and Dynamical Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc5pczn.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In Cooper, W. E. & Walker, E. (eds.), Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 27–85.Google Scholar
Freedman, S., & Forster, K. (1985). The psychological status of overgenerated sentences. Cognition, 19, 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90015-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galilei, Galileo (1638). Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche Intorno a Due Nuove Scienze: Leida, Appresso gli Elsevirii (Mathematical Discourses and Demonstrations, Relating to Two New Sciences), English translation by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio 1914). https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_E9BhikF658wC/page/n9/mode/2up.Google Scholar
Gambi, C., & Pickering, M. (2017). Models linking production and comprehension. In Fernández, E. M. & Cairns, H. Smith (eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 240–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch7.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (2001). Sentence matching: A re-examination. Second Language Research, 17(4), 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2007). Processability Theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In Mansouri, F. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research: Theory-Construction and Testing. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 81–94.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250–273. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr206oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1926). On being the right size. Harper’s Magazine, 425–427. https://web.archive.org/web/20110822151104/http:/irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html.Google Scholar
Hendriks, P. (2014). Asymmetries between Language Production and Comprehension. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6901-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itani-Adams, Y. (2011). Bilingual first language acquisition. In Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.10bil.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (eds.), (2014). Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123430.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting Reaction Time Research in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203146255.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 173–281.Google Scholar
Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 1013–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.105395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second language. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 253–298. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.10kaw.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawaguchi, S. (2010). Learning Japanese as a Second Language: A Processability Perspective. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S. (2015). The development of Japanese as a second language. In Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory. Paris: Eurosla, pp. 149–172.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S. (2023). Studies of Japanese as a second language and their contribution to Processability Theory. In Kawaguchi, S., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, Y. (eds.), Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 27–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.9.02kaw.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An Incremental Procedural Grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80006-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempen, G., Olsthoorn, N., & Sprenger, S. (2012). Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: Evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 345–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.544583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersten, K., Rohde, A., Schelletter, C., & Steinlen, A. K. (eds.) (2010). Bilingual Preschools Volume 1: Learning and Development. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Liebner, M. (2016). Diagnosing L2-English in the communicative EFL classroom: A task-based approach to individual and developmentally moderated focus on form in a meaning-focused setting. In Keßler, J., Lenzing, A., & Liebner, M. (eds.), Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5.09lie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S., & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28(2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00135.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. (2018). Because without cause: Scientific explanations by constraint. In Reutlinger, A. & Saatsi, J. (eds.), Explanation beyond Causation: Philosophical Perspectives on Non-causal Explanations. Oxford: Oxford Academic, pp. 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198777946.003.0002.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In Ortega, L. & Han, Z. H. (eds.), Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 11–50. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.48.02lar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Complex dynamic systems theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 248–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A. (2013). The Development of the Grammatical System in Early Second Language Acquisition: The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A. (2015). Exploring regularities and dynamic systems in L2 development. Language Learning, 65(1), 89–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A. (2019). Towards an integrated model of grammatical encoding and decoding in SLA. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 13–48. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.02len.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A. (2021). The Production–Comprehension Interface in Second Language Acquisition: An Integrated Encoding–Decoding Model. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A. (2022). How a processability perspective frames the potential of tasks in instructed SLA. Keynote, 9th International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. University of Innsbruck, 30 August.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A. (forthc./2025). How a processability perspective frames the potential of tasks in instructed SLA. In East, M. (ed.), Broadening the Horizons of TBLT: Plenary Addresses from the Second Decade of the International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A., & Håkansson, G. (2022). Language transfer with regard to grammatical phenomena in L1 German learners of English. In Schick, K. & Rohde, A. (eds.), Von integrativem zu inklusivem Englischunterricht. Frankfurt: Lang, pp. 291–310.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (2019). Contextualising issues in processability theory. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1.8. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.01len.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A., & Pienemann, M. (2015). Response paper: Exploring the interface between morphosyntax and discourse/pragmatics/semantics. In Baten, K., Buyl, A., Lochtmann, K., & Van Herreweghe, M. (eds.), Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.4.05len.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A., Pienemann, M., & Nicholas, H. (2023). Lost in translation? On some key features of dynamical systems theorizing invoked in SLA research. In Kersten, K. & Winsler, A. (eds.), Understanding Variability in Second Language Acquisition, Bilingualism and Cognition. London: Routledge, pp. 39–79. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003155683-3.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1981). The speaker’s linearization problem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 295(1077, Series B), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1981.0142.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (ed.), Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 115–141.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990a). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649–666. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990b). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2.07lon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2003). Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage development. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition Research. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 487–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1998). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. Working Papers in ESL University of Hawai’i, 16(2), 35–49.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Magnani, M. (2019). Developing morpho-syntax in non-configurational languages: A comparison between Russian L2 and Italian L2. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.06mag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansouri, F. (2005). Agreement morphology in Arabic as a second language. Typological features and their processing implications. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 117–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.06man.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L. (2005). The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.28.1.06man.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. (1989). Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Hyltenstam, K. & Obler, L. (eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity and Loss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611780.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. (1991). Principles of universal grammar and strategies of language use: On some differences between first and second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (ed.), Point–Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in a Second Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 231–276. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.3.12mei.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. (2001). The simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: Early differentiation and subsequent development of grammars. In Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds.), Trends in Bilingual Acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 11–41. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.1.03mei.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental sequences in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3326990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, C., & Smaldino, P. E. (2022). Organizational development as generative entrenchment. Entropy, 24(7), 879. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24070879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myles, F., & Cordier, C. (2017). Formulaic sequence(fs) cannot be an umbrella term in SLA: Focusing on psycholinguistic FSs and their identification. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600036X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuser, H. (2017), Source Language of Lexical Transfer in Multilingual Learners. PhD thesis, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lenzing, A., & Roos, J. (2019). How does PT’s view of acquisition relate to the challenge of widening perspectives on SLA? In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.17nic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2022a). Predicting stabilisation: The wrong track pathway hypothesis – longitudinal evidence from an adult learner. Paper presented to the PALA Conference, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 21–23 September.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2022b). Teacher decision-making, dynamical systems and Processability Theory. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 6, 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.21617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203777282.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00945.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1980). The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In Felix, S. W. (ed.), Second Language Development: Trends and Issues. Tubingen: Narr, pp. 41–56.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998a). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998b). Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability Theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2005a). Discussing PT. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.04pie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (ed). (2005b). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2007). Variation and dynamic systems in SLA. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 43–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2011a). L1 transfer. In Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.06lit.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2011b). The psycholinguistic basis of PT. In Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.03the.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2015). An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability Theory. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 199–251. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005). Processability, typological distance and L1 transfer. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 85–116. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.05pie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (2011) (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U., & Roos, E. (eds.), (2006). Englischerwerb in der Grundschule: Ein Studien- und Arbeitsbuch. Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Lanze, F., Nicholas, H., & Lenzing, A. (2022). Stabilization: A dynamic account. In Benati, A. & Schwieter, J. (eds.), Second Language Acquisition as Shaped by the Scholarly Legacy of Michael Long. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 29–76. https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.14.03pie.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2020). Processability Theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 162–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Lenzing, A., & Keßler, J.-U. (2016). Testing the developmentally moderated transfer hypothesis: The initial state and the role of the L2 in L3 acquisition. In Keßler, J.-U., Lenzing, A., & Liebner, M. (eds.), Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.5.04pieCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Lenzing, A., & Nicholas, H. (online first/2024). Can dynamical systems theory be applied to second language acquisition? The issues of reductionism and intentionality. Second Language Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583241229280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children’s ESL development and Rapid Profile. In McKay, P. (ed.), ESL Development: Language and Literacy in Schools. Volume 2. Melbourne: Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia, pp. 115–259.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2011). Pidgins and Creoles. In Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (eds.), Studying Processability Theory: An Introductory Textbook. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1.09pid.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. (1996). The initial hypothesis of syntax: A minimalist perspective on language acquisition and attrition. In Clahsen, H. (ed.), Generative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 369–414. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.14.15pla.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poesio, M., Sturt, P., Artstein, R., & Filik, R. (2006). Underspecification and anaphora: Theoretical issues and preliminary evidence. Discourse Processes, 42, 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponnet, A. (2023). Climbing the Language Tree: Multiple Case Studies on the Acquisition of Hindi as a Foreign Language. PhD thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Roos, J. (2007). Spracherwerb und Sprachproduktion: Lernziele und Lernergebnisse im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Roos, J. (2019). Exploiting the potential of tasks for targeted language learning in the EFL classroom. In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J. (eds.), Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.12roo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmiderer, K. (2023). Produktiver und rezeptiver Grammatikerwerb im schulischen Italienischunterricht. Tubingen: Narr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. (eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 317–368. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.8.14sch.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839601200103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension: An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 1662–1670. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, J. (2010). Pidgins and Creoles. In Kaplan, R. B. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford Academics. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195384253.013.0026.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, P., & Jung, S. (2018). Production and comprehension in Processability Theory: A self-paced reading study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, M. G. (2018). Underdetermination in science: What it is and why we should care. Philosophy Compass, 13(2), https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2020). Input processing in adult L2 acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.) (2020a). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Williams, J., Keating, G. D, & Wulff, S. (2020b). Introduction. The nature of theories. In VanPatten, B.., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, J. (2011). Verb placement in second language acquisition: Experimental evidence for the different behaviour of auxiliary and lexical verbs. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 821–858. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeldon, L. R., & Konopka, A. (2023). Grammatical Encoding for Speech Production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2020). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1986). Developmental constraints, generative entrenchment, and the innate-acquired distinction. In Bechtel, W. (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines: Science and Philosophy. Volume 2. Springer: Dordrecht, pp. 85–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9435-1_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolpert, L. (1992). The shape of things to come. New Scientist, 134(18), 38–42. https://archive.org/details/sim_new-scientist_1992_134_index/page/n1/mode/2up.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., & Lantolf, J. (2015). Natural or artificial: Is the route to L2 development teachable? Language Learning, 65, 152–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Y. (2005). Processing and formal instruction in the L2 acquisition of five Chinese grammatical morphemes. In Pienemann, M. (ed.), Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30.07zha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Online Resources for this publication available here.