Natural or Artificial: Is the Route of L2
Development Teachable
James. P. Lantolf, Penn State University
Zhang Xian, Rice University
Outline of Presentation
Background
Statement of Problem
Theoretical Framework
Design
Results
Discussion
Second Language Acquisition
 Cognitive SLA
 Cognitive-interactionist: understand the interaction of
learner-internal and leaner-external variables
 Purpose: find universal patterns of L2 learning so that L2 can
be explained as a general phenomenon (Ortega, 2009)
 Piagetian developmental psychology
Roots of Cognitive SLA: Progressivism I
 Progressivism a consequence of solution to Cartesian Dualism (mind
& world are different substance and world is subordinate to mind)
 Basic Tenet: to educate children effectively it is vital to attend to
children’s nature, and particularly to their modes of learning and
stages of development, and to accommodate educational
practice to what we can discover about these.
 Herbert Spencer--The daily activities of the classroom are subject to
the same laws that shaped the stars above and the earth below
 Change is from simple to complex
Roots of Cognitive SLA: Progressivism II
 Spencer’s Argument
 In everyday life children learn effortlessly: educators should
observe this process and find ways to replicate it in “sensible
teaching”
 Education must conform to natural process of mental
evolution
 Learning was a property of the mind, and the mind is a
biological organ on the model of the body: “the mind like the
body has a predetermined course of evolution” and as it grows
it needs food – aliment of the mind is knowledge
John Dewey Proponent of Progressivism
Dewey: replicate in school natural
learning observed in children’s play in
households, streets, and fields.
Paradigm form of human learning
evident in the way children effortlessly
learn language and other knowledge
of the world in informal settings
 Therefore—assume that learning in
school must conform to this early
effortless learning.
Jean Piaget: Proponent of Progressivism
 Piaget Basic learning comprised of “what the child learns by
himself, what no one can teach him and what he must
discover alone”
Researchers: Describe underlying psychological process of
cognitive development
 Stages determine what knowledge the developing
individual can understand
Educational prescriptions and programs that cohere
with such theories are called “developmentally
appropriate”
Teachers: effective only if they understand the nature
of developmental processes and recognize that
teaching must be “subordinate to spontaneous
psychological development”
Model of Brain/Culture Relationship in
General Psychology and SLA
Nature
(Brain/Mind)
Culture
Thought
Ratner (2012). Macro-Cultural Psychology: A Political Philosophy of
Mind. Oxford University Press
 Culture
Not new factor/variable to be correlated with psychology
Not psychology as conventionally construed and then add
culture as conventionally construed
Reconceptualize psychology as a cultural phenomenon, a
cultural specimen, a part of human civilization.
Vygotsky’s Cultural Psychology
Culture creates special forms of behavior
It modifies the activity of mental functions
It constructs new superstructures in the developing
system of human behavior
Social Origin of Cognition
Every higher mental function was external because it
was social before it became an internal, strictly
mental function, it was formerly a social relation of
two people. The means of acting on oneself is initially
a means of acting on others or a means of action of
others on the individual.
Vygotsky
Vygotsky: natural and cultural component to
psychological development
Separate natural and cultural was a mistake
Fundamental nature of human development
shaped by culture in conjunction with
biological endowment.
Modeling Vygotsky’s Theory of Cultural Development
Nature
Body-Brain
Transforming Force (signification)
Thinking-Acting
Human Psyche
(higher functions)
Society
(Culture)
Developmental Education
Education: grounded in explicit mediation is
‘artificial development’ of the individual
Influences processes of development
restructures all functions of behavior in a most essential
manner (Vygotsky 1997)
 Obuchenie (teaching-learning) leads [not follows]
development
Key: Scientific (systematically organized) concepts
Gal’perin’s STI
Systemic Theoretical Instruction (STI)
Concept-based Instruction (CBI)
systematically explaining the concept
 materializing the concept
verbalizing the concept
communicative activities
 internalization
Instruction: Gal’perin’s STI
 Systemic Theoretical Instruction (STI)
  materialize the concept
 Schema for Complete Orienting Basis of Action (SCOBA )
 Material Activity
  verbalizing the concept
 Communicative Thinking
I-You
Communicative
Activities
 Dialogic Thinking
I-Me
Internalization
Processability Theory
Processability Theory (PT, Pienemann, 1998)
is a theory of second language
development.
At any stage of development, L2 learners
can produce and comprehend only those
second language linguistic forms that the
current state of the language
processor can handle (Pienemann, 2007,
p.137).
PT: Universal Sequencing
L2 learners follow a relatively rigid path
when acquiring certain grammatical
structures: some grammatical structures
are not “learnable” or “processable” until
the previous steps along the learning
path have been acquired. (Pienemann,
1998)
Pienemann’s (1987) Avowel of Piaget
The approach we have taken in the
Predictive Framework of SLA and in the
Teachability Hypothesis was inspired by our
admiration for Jean Piaget’s work on
cognitive development. We adopted one
concept in particular form Piaget’s word,
namely the implicational nature of
processing prerequisites for the operations
possible at the different stages of acquisition
(Piaget, 1950).
The testing ground
Piaget
Vygotsky
Describe psychological process Create psychological process
Development
Predetermined
Sequential
Progressive
Development
Not predetermined
Complex
Non-linear
Teaching is subordinate to
development
Teaching promotes [artificial]
development
Overview of Processability Theory
 Learners follow internal processing procedure
 Governed by processing constraints from Simple to Complex
E x a m p l e : M o v e c o n s t i t u e n t s f r o m e n d t o b e g i n n i n g o f
utterance simpler than moving constituents from internal
to external position or from external to internal position
A d v e r b s i n E n g l i s h :
I b o u g h t a b o o k y e s t e r d a y > Y e s t e r d a y a b o u g h t a b o o k
H e l e f t t h e r o o m q u i e t l y > H e q u i e t l y l e f t t h e r o o m
L a n g u a g e F e a t u r e s S u b j e c t t o P r o c e s s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s
Q u e s t i o n s i n E n g l i s h
N e g a t i o n i n G e r m a n
T o p i c a l i z a t i o n Wo r d O r d e r i n C h i n e s e
L a n g u a g e F e a t u r e s N O T S u b j e c t t o P r o c e s s i n g C o n s t r a i n t s
P l u r a l M a r k i n g i n E n g l i s h
C a s e M a r k i n g i n G e r m a n
Processable Criterion
Three to five sentences with the target structure
produced in spontaneous speech production task
(Pienemann, 1998)
Teachability Hypothesis: Corollary to PT
 1. Predetermined Stages Cannot be Skipped under
Instruction
 2. Effective Instruction at X + 1
X + 2 n o t e f f e c t i v e
B u t s e e s t u d i e s b y B o n i l l a ( 2 0 1 2 ) a n d F a r l e y &
McCollam (2004)
 3. Instruction even at X + 1 does not guarantee
progress through the processing hierarchy
Topicalization Hypothesis in Chinese
 Stage 2 (SVO): S(X)(X)VO: TOP = SUBJ: TOPsubj V(O)
e.g.
Jim
TOP=SUBJ
ate
an apple.
V
OBJ
 Stage 3 (Adv+ SVO): TOP = ADJ: TOPadj SV(O)
e.g.
Yesterday
TOP=ADV
Jim
SUBJ
ate an apple.
V
OBJ
 Stage 4 (OSV): TOP = OBJ: TOPobj SV
e.g.
An apple,
TOP=OBJ
Jim
SUBJ
ate.
V
(Gao, 2005; Wang, 2011; Zhang, 2001, 2007)
Y. Zhang (2007)
Structure
T1
4 Top=obj
OSV
---
3 top=adj.
adj. SVO
2 top=subj.
SVO
+
T2
---
T3
---
T4
---
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
--- +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Purpose of X. Zhang (2014) study
Evaluate the claim of the Teachability Hypothesis
Explore the relationship between development
and instruction
Evaluate two developmental theories: Piagetian
theory & Vygotskian theory
Research Question & Method
Can instruction alter the developmental
trajectory pre-defined by Processability
Theory?
Method: Teach Stage 4 sentence structure
to Stage 2 learners using principles of
Developmental Education as realized in STI
Participants
Six beginning L2 Chinese learners with
English as L1
Assessment Instruments
Grammaticality judgment task (Time Constrained)
Elicited imitation task
Q&A
Cartoon description
Spontaneous
Speech Production
(SSP)
Letter Number Sequencing  Working Memory
Flanker Task

Cognitive Control
Instructional Procedure
Pretest
Q: SVO only？ {Stage 1}
Day 1
Instruction 1 [OSV] {Stage 4}
Day 2
Post-test 1
Day 9
Q: OSV without ADJ+SVO?
Instruction 2 [Adj.+SVO, OSV] {Stages 3&4}
Day 9
Post-test 2
Day 16
Q: OSV and ADJ+SVO?
Instruction 3 [Adj.+SVO, OSV]
Day 16
Delayed post-test Q: OSV and ADJ+SVO?
Day 37
In Chinese, if we want to emphasize what has been eaten, you can also do this:
He
他
ate
rice
吃了
饭
In Chinese, we can put almost everything (except the verb) at the beginning of a sentence.
We can
top at top
Weput
cantime
putat
place
He
他
at 2
at home
ate
rice
2点
在家
吃了
饭
29. Materialization of Grammar in Support of WM
 Top
Subject
adv(time)
adv(place)
Manipulate Silent Way Rods
verb
object
Communicative activities
Making up sentences
Gap filling
Q&A
Translation
Cartoon Description
Free talk
Results
T1:
T2:
T3:
T4:
Pretest (Day 1)
Post test 1 (Day 9)
Post test 2 (Day 16)
Delayed post-test (Day 37 )
Grammar
Elicited
imitation
Q&A
Cartoon
Descrip.
SUM
Structure
Pre-test
(T1)
post-test 1
(T2)
4 Top=obj OSV
0
4
6
11
3 top=adj. ADJ +SVO
0
0
9
7
2 top=subj. SVO
40
37
50
42
4 Top=obj OSV
0
6
7
5
3 top=adj. ADJ +SVO
0
0
4
2
2 top=subj. SVO
21
17
11
19
4 Top=obj OSV
0
15
5
4
3 top=adj. ADJ +SVO
0
0
4
3
2 top=subj. SVO
11
13
17
6
4 Top=obj OSV
0
25
18
20
3 top=adj. ADJ +SVO
0
0
17
12
72
67
78
67
2 top=subj. SVO
post-test 2 delayed post-test
(T3)
(T4)
Topic
Hypoth
Structure
Pre-test
(T1)
post-test 1
(T2)
post-test 2
(T3)
delayed posttest (T4)
4 Top=obj
OSV
SVO
----+
+
--+
+
+
+
+
+
+
3 top=adj.
ADJ
SVO
2 top=subj.
Structure T1
T2
4 Top=obj
OSV
3 top=adj.
ADJ+
SO
2 top=subj. SVO
---
+
---
T3
---
T4
---
T5
T6
--- +
T7
T8
Our results
T9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Previous
studies
Results
Participants were able to process and
produce Stage 4 topicalization without
Stage 3 topicalization
The Teachability Hypothesis
Discussion
Is L2 development universal and predetermined?
No.
What is the role of teaching?
Properly organized Instruction shapes L2 development in
a fundamental way.
 While many studies support the prediction of PT/TH,
why does this study challenge the prediction of TH ?
Mediation
The appropriate type of mediation that
satisfies learners’ need (WM, cognitive
control).
High quality instruction can provide
appropriate mediational tools
Practice
Declarative/Procedural Memory
 Paradis (2009)
 Procedural Memory begins to decline at approximately age 7
 Declarative Memory strengthens as we age (up to about middle age)
 PM is responsible for L1 grammar acquisition
 DM is responsible for L1 lexical acquisition
Disagreement between Paradis and Ullman
Collocational Knowledge of Lexis
 No neural connection between PM and DM
 L2 classroom learning governed by DM
 Accelerated Access
 More research needed on this hypothesis
References
Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural
theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2
Education: Vygotskian Praxis and the
Research/Practice Divide. New York: Routledge.
Zhang, X. & J. P. Lantolf (forthcoming). Natural or
artificial: Is the route of second language
development teachable? Language Learning.
The End
Thank you
Comments are welcome