In:Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues
Edited by Anke Lenzing, Howard Nicholas and Jana Roos
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 7] 2019
► pp. 301–326
Chapter 13Teaching the German case system
A comparison of two approaches to the study of learner readiness
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.13bat
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.13bat
This chapter compares two different approaches to the construct ‘readiness’:
namely, processing constraints as defined by Processability Theory and the Teachability
Hypothesis (Pienemann, 1998) and partial mastery
as defined in the research on Focus on Form (Williams
& Evans, 1998). The former operationalises readiness through the emergence
criterion, the latter employs an accuracy criterion. The chapter applies both definitions
and operationalisations in the context of a study investigating the effectiveness of
instruction on the acquisition of the German case system by Dutch-speaking foreign language
learners. The study included 18 freshman university students of German and adopted a
quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design. The instructional treatment involved a
meaning-focussed activity which eventually led to explicit rule presentation. Oral language
production data was collected by means of a picture description task and an elicited
imitation task. The results show that the (non-)emergence of the developmental stages of the
German case marking system stayed within the predictive boundaries of the Teachability
Hypothesis, whereas the development of the accuracy scores did not reveal any observable
sequence. However, the results reveal that the two (emergence and accuracy) are related to
the extent that increases in accuracy scores are only possible if a stage is reached or
reachable. The findings suggest that the systematic, implicational emergence of stages and
the subsequent, variable increases in accuracy scores represent two different, but
complementing, aspects of L2 development.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Individual learner readiness in SLA
- 3.The acquisition of the German case system
- 4.The study
- 4.1Design and participants
- 4.2Instruction
- 4.3Data elicitation
- 4.4Readiness
- 4.5Analysis and scoring
- 5.Results
- 5.1Accuracy analysis
- 5.2Emergence analysis
- 6.Discussion and conclusion
Notes References Appendix
References (45)
Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and
explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research 16(1), 9–37.
Artoni, D., & Magnani, M. (2013). The development of case in L2 Russian. In M. Butt, & T. Holloway King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference (pp. 69–89). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Artoni, D. (2015).
The acquisition of case morphology in Russian as a second language
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Verona.
Baten, K. (2013). The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baten, K., & Lochtman, K. (2014). Das deutsche Kasussystem im Fremdsprachenerwerb: Ein
Forschungsüberblick. Muttersprache 124(1), 1–25.
Bonilla, C. (2015). Instructing stages of Processability Theory in L2 Spanish: Next or next +
1? In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.). Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 209–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boss, B. (1996). German grammars for beginners: the Teachability Hypothesis and its relevance
to the classroom. The University of Queenland Papers in Language and Linguistics 1, 93–100.
De Graaff, R., & Housen, A. (2009). Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2
instruction. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 726–755). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes second-language grammar difficult? A review of
issues. Language Learning 55(1), 1-25.
Di Biase, B., Bettoni, C., & Medojevic, L. (2015). The development of case in a bilingual context: Serbian in
Australia. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of
Processability Theory (pp. 195–212). Paris: Eurosla.
Doman, E. (2015). Implications of the developmental stages of language acquisition for
classroom teaching. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 243–264). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Doughty, C. (1991). Instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(4), 431–469.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyson, B. (1996). The debate on form-focused instruction: A teacher's
perspective. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 19(2), 59–78.
Eisenbeiß, S., Bartke, S., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Structural and lexical case in child German: Evidence from language-impaired
and typically developing children. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 13(1), 3–32.
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), 305–328.
Håkansson, G. (2013). Processability Theory. Explaining developmental sequences. In M. del Pilar García Mayo, M. Junkal Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 111–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jakobson, R. (1971 [1936]). Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. In R. Jakobson (Ed.), Selected Writings II (pp. 23–71). The Hague: Mouton.
Keßler, J.-U. (2007). Assessing EFL-development online: A feasibility study of Rapid
Profile. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research. Theory-construction and testing (pp. 119–143). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Lantolf, J., & Zhang, X. (2015). Response to Pienemann's critique of Zhang and Lantolf. Language Learning 65(3), 752–760.
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts,
responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal 82(3), 338–356.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, Interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of
question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(4), 557–587.
Magnani, M. (2016).
A Processability Theory approach to the development of marked word orders in
Russian and Italian as second languages (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Verona.
Marx, N. (2014). Kasuszuweisung und Kasuslehre bei Schülern mit Migrationshintergrund: Eine
differenzierte Betrachtung. In B. Ahrenholz & P. Grommes (Eds.), Zweitspracherwerb im Jugendalter (pp. 99–124). Berlin: De Gruyter.
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2009). Using priming methods in second language research. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Motsch, H.-J., & Riehemann, S. (2008). Grammatische Störungen mehrsprachiger Schüler. Interventionsstudie zum
Therapieziel Kasus. Die Sprachheilarbeit 53(1), 15–25.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: integrating form-focused
instruction in communicative contexts. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pallotti, G. (2007). An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics 28(3), 361–382.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(2), 186–214.
Pienemann, M. (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech
processing. AILA Review 5, 40–72.
(1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. & Keßler, J.-U. (2012). Processability Theory. In S. Gass &A. Mackey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.228–246). New York: Routledge.
Pienemann, M. (2015). An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches
to SLA. Language Learning 65(1), 123–151.
Roos, J. (2015). Response Paper: language teaching and learning from a PT
perspective. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 265–272). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second
language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 83(1), 1–22.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A
meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2), 263–308.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Williams, J., & Evans J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, X., & Lantolf, J. (2015). Natural or artificial: Is the route to L2 development
teachable? Language Learning 65(1), 152–180.
Zhang, Y. (2015). The emergence of sentence Topic in a Topicprominent language: A descriptive
study of L2 Chinese. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 45–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Baten, Kristof & Aaricia Ponnet
2023. Extending PT to split ergative marking and differential object marking. In Processability and Language Acquisition in the Asia-Pacific Region [Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching, 9], ► pp. 91 ff.
Baten, Kristof
2016. A study on explicit instruction and its relation to knowing/using linguistic forms and individual learner readiness. EUROSLA Yearbook 16 ► pp. 116 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
