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. 349–370
Chapter 15Can print literacy impact upon learning to speak Standard Australian English?
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.15ste
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.15ste
Second language learning research mostly investigates literate learners. Based
on studies by Tarone, Bigelow and colleagues (2004, 2005, 2006, 2006) this small scale study focuses on low level literacy learners
who are acquiring Standard Australian English as their second dialect. It explores whether
literacy levels impact upon the processing of language when engaging in oral interaction
tasks. Utilising Pienemann’s (1998, 2005) stages of question formation, feedback given to
the learners targeted questions within the learners’ developmental stage. Participants were
asked to identify whether the language used differed from their own, and if so, to attempt
to reproduce it. The findings show that feedback was often noticed, but no significant
relationship was found between literacy level and noticing. However, there was a significant
relationship between literacy level and the reproduction of targeted forms. This study, like
the others contained within this section, is concerned with the developmental readiness of
second language learners to acquire target forms and the approach is closely aligned with
that of Li and Iwashita (this volume). However, it does differ in that its participants are
learners of a second dialect with low literacy levels, representing an under-studied
population.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Background
- 1.2Literacy and oral SLA/SDA
- 2.Method
- 2.1Research site
- 2.2Participants
- 2.3Research design
- 2.3.1Participant literacy levels
- 2.3.2Participants’ ability to notice dialectal differences and reproduce oral recasts
- 2.3.3Validity and reliability
- 3.Results
- 4.Discussion and implications
- 5.Conclusion
References Appendix
References (53)
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy
panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. < [URL] >
Berry, R., & Hudson, J. (1997). Making the jump: A resource book for teachers of Aboriginal students. Kimberley Region: Catholic Education Office.
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages
and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading 9(1), 43–61.
Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The role of literacy level in second language acquisition: Doesn’t who we
study determine what we know? TESOL Quarterly 38(4), 689–700.
Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K., & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly 40(4), 665–689.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bokamba, E. (1988). Code-mixing, language variation, and linguistic theory: Evidence from Bantu
languages. Lingua 76(1), 21–62.
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitive and
qualitative research (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Department of Education, W.A., & Development, D.o.T.a.W. (2012). Tracks to two-way learning. Western Australia: Department of Education, Western Australia and Department of Training and Workforce Development.
Eagleson, R. D., Kaldor, S., & Malcolm, I. G. (1982). English and the Aboriginal child. Canberra, Australia: Curriculum Development Centre.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA
research. The Modern Language Journal 81(3), 285–300.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition:
Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal 82(3), 299–307. < [URL] >
James, M. (2010). HONEY ANT. < [URL] >
Kasper, G. (1997). “A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal 81(3), 307–312.
Littlewood, W. (2006). Second Language Learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 501–524). Oxford: Blackwell.
Long, M. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to
explain. TESOL Quarterly 24(4), 649–666. < [URL] >
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of second language acquisition, 2(2), 413-488.
(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in
Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal 82(3), 357–371. < [URL] >
Mackey, A. (1994). Using communicative tasks to target grammatical structures. A handbook of tasks and instructions for their use. Sydney: Language Acquisition Research Centre, University of Sydney.
(1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of
question formation in ESL. SSLA 21(4), 557–587.
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children's L2 development. System 30(4), 459–477. DOI:
(2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal 87(4), 519–533
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts,
responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal 82(3), 338–356. < [URL] >
Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal 82(3), 372–386. < [URL] >
Oliver, R., Rochecouste, J., Vanderford, S., & Grote, E. (2011). Teacher awareness and understandings about Aboriginal English in Western
Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 34(1), 60–74.
Partington, G., & Galloway, A. (2007). Issues and policies in school education. In G. Leitner & I. G. Malcolm (Eds.), The habitat of Australia's Aboriginal languages: Past, present and future (pp. 239–265). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Petersson, K. M., Reis, A., Askelöf, S., Castro-Caldas, A., & Ingvar, M. (2000). Language processing modulated by literacy: A network analysis of verbal repetition in literate and illiterate subjects. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 12(3), 364-382.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts
in NS-NNS interaction. SSLA 25(1), 99–126. DOI:
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(Ed.) (2005). Crosslinguistics aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J.-U. (2012). Processability Theory. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 228–246). Abingdon: Routledge.
Pienemann, M. (2015). An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches
to SLA. Language Learning 65(1), 123–151.
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language 29(2), 417–447. DOI:
Reis, A., & Castro-Caldas, A. (1997). Illiteracy: A cause for biased cognitive development. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 3(5), 444–450.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2), 129–158. < [URL] >
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232..
Silburn, S. R., Nutton, G. D., McKenzie, J. W., & Landrigan, M. (2011). Early years English language acquisition and instructional approaches for
Aboriginal students with home languages other than English: A systematic review of the
Australian and international literature. Darwin, Australia: The Centre for Child Development and Education, Menzies School of Health Research.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
(1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Eds.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tarone, E. (2010). Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: An under-studied
population. Language Teaching 43(1), 75–83. DOI:
Tarone, E., & Bigelow, M. (2005). Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second
language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 77–97.
Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2006). The impact of alphabetic print literacy level on oral second language
acquisition. The Literacy Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University, 99–122. < [URL] >
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Oliver, Rhonda
2025. Tasks for diverse learners in diverse contexts. In Broadening the Horizon of TBLT [Task-Based Language Teaching, 17], ► pp. 236 ff.
Oliver, Rhonda
2025. A walk through time. In Child-centered Approaches to Applied Linguistic Research [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 13], ► pp. 131 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.
