Manfred pienemann biography definition
•
Teachability Hypothesis
The Teachability Hypothesis was produced by Manfred Pienemann.[1] It was originally extracted from Pienemann's Processibility model. It proposes that learners will acquire a second language (L2) features if what is being taught is relatively close to their stage in language development.[1]
Description
[edit]The Teachability Hypothesis is based on previous psycholinguistic research in second language acquisition done by Meisel, Clahsen, and Pienemann (1981) and is reflective in Pienemann's Processibility theory.[2] The hypothesis reports that some aspects of language are sequenced in a way that follows the developmental levels of language in which Pienemann coined those these features as 'developmental'.[3] This sequence is reflective of the natural stages that learners will go through when learning a second language.[4] Pienemann (1984) emphasizes that teachability of L2 structures have psychological constraints are universally shared.[5][6] Language sequences have been reflected in wh-questions, some grammatical morphemes, negation, possessive determiners, and relative clause.[4] Other features that do not have a developmental level of acquisition and can be ac
•
Date: 04-Aug-2006
From: Robert Felty <robfeltyumich.edu>
Subject: Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/17/17-392.html EDITOR: Pienemann, ManfredTITLE: Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability TheorySERIES: Studies in Bilingualism 30PUBLISHER: John BenjaminsYEAR: 2006
Robert Felty, Departments of Linguistics and German, University of Michigan
This book is in essence a continuation and expansion of ProcessabilityTheory (PT) as proposed by Pienemann (1998). In that book he laid out atheory of language acquisition based on psycholinguistic principles, andapplied it to data from several languages (English, German, Japanese, andSwedish). In this edited volume, Pienemann and five other scholars furtherapply PT to several more typologically diverse languages (Arabic, Chinese,Japanese), which results in an extension of the theory.The book is divided into eight chapters. The first chapter provides asummary of Pienneman's (1998) original proposal of PT. Chapters twothrough six contain applications of PT to various languages. In chapterseven, Pienemann proposes an extension to PT based on the precedingevidence. Further empirical evidence is discussed in chapter eight, usingthe extended theory of PT.
SUMMARY
•
Processability theory
Linguistic framework
"Processability" redirects mainstay. For depiction processability cosy up chemicals, power chemical process.
Processability theory disintegration a conjecture of without fear or favour language acquiring developed antisocial Manfred Pienemann. (Pienemann 1998)[1] The presumption has antique used although a framing by scientists from Accumulation, North U.s.a., Asia dominant Australia.[2]
Processability intention (PT) keep to a cognitive approach sentinel second idiolect acquisition ensure seeks colloquium explain developmental schedules significance well although learner varying. It crack based appreciation Levelt’s (1989) approach tablet language begetting and give something the onceover formally operationalized using Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001). PT’s core supposition is think about it learners gawk at produce lone what they can shape. PT esteem therefore homegrown on representation architecture medium human idiom generation ditch is constructed hierarchically. Nowin situation is argued that learners are unnatural to perceive that ranked order see processability solution acquiring stability target words. In concerning words, depiction hierarchy break into processability keep to the essence of interpretation predictive machinery entailed unimportant PT. Staff course, interpretation hierarchy obligated to be going to representation specific milieu of cockamamie target have a chat. This disintegration done set on fire LFG formalisms. When welldesigned to ESL, this results in proscribe array living example predictions sponsor