Language Learning

ISSN 0023-8333

Natural or Artificial: Is the Route

of L2 Development Teachable?
Xian Zhanga,b and James P. Lantolfc
a

Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, b Rice University, and c The Pennsylvania State

University

The current study was designed to assess the central claim of the Teachability Hypothesis
(TH), a corollary of general Processability Theory (PT), which predicts instruction cannot alter posited universal, hierarchically organized psycholinguistic constraints behind
PTs developmental sequences. We employed an interventional design, which adhered
to instructional procedures of Systemic Theoretical Instruction, and we taught four
university learners at Stage 2 (subject-verb-object) Chinese topicalization for Stage 4
(object-first, e.g., Pizza ta ye ch le, Pizza   , Pizza he also ate). We believe the findings show that, under the instructional conditions utilized in the study, the
predictions of TH do not hold. We conclude it is possible to artificially construct a developmental route different from the one predicted by natural developmental sequences,
in agreement with the claims of Vygotskys developmental education.
Keywords teachability hypothesis; processability theory; sociocultural theory; natural
sequence; concept-based instruction

Introduction
Processability Theory (PT) was formulated by Pienemann (1998) and his associates (e.g., Pienemann, Di Biase, & Kawaguchi, 2005; Pienemann & Johnston,
1987) in order to explain the apparent fact that second language (L2) learners
develop the cognitive ability to process certain features of L2s in accordance
with universal hierarchically organized psycholinguistic constraints. Its basic

Support for this project was provided to XZ by a Gil Watz dissertation fellow award from the
Center for Language Acquisition at Penn State University, the National Social Science Fund of
China (#12&ZD224) and the National Key Research Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics
of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: James Lantolf, The Pennsylvania
State University, Department of Applied Linguistics, 304 Sparks Building, University Park, PA
16802. E-mail: jpl7@psu.edu

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180


C 2015 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan

DOI: 10.1111/lang.12094

152

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

logic is that L2 learners can produce and comprehend only those second language (L2) linguistic forms that the current state of the language processor can
handle (Pienemann, 2007, p. 137). Accordingly, the constraints limit learner
capacity to process linguistic information that is too far beyond their current
ability. That is, learners at stage X in the processing hierarchy must proceed
through stage X+1 before reaching stage X+2; that is, they cannot move from
X to X+2. Given that the constraints are assumed to be natural, they are
predicted to operate in all learning environments, including classrooms, and
therefore the Teachability Hypothesis (TH) corollary to the general theory
predicts that instruction cannot alter the stages postulated for the processing
hierarchy. In this article we present the results of a study designed to assess the
central claim of TH and which we believe shows that, under the instructional
conditions utilized in the study, the predictions of TH do not hold. Contrary to
the TH premised on Piaget (1950), and in agreement with the predictions of
Vygotskys (e.g., 1978) developmental education, it is possible to artificially
construct a developmental route different from the one predicted by natural
developmental sequences.
The article is organized as follows. We first briefly summarize general PT
and examine TH as its corollary, followed by a review of four classroom studies
that have challenged it in the past. Next, we review research carried out on
topicalization in L2 Chinese, the instructional target of the research project to be
considered here. Finally, we present the details and findings of the current study.
The TH as a Corollary of PT
The aspects of PT most relevant for the current study are associated with
lexical mapping and the Topic Hypothesis (TOPH; discussed in a later section).
Lexical mapping encompasses three independent levels of representation as
proposed by Bresnan (2001) for Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG). Argument
structure describes who does what to whom and comprises argument roles such
as agent, experiencer, locative, and patient. Constituent structure consists of
universal components of sentences, such as verb phrase and noun phrase. The
order within and between these components is language specific. For example,
some languages favor prenominal while others prefer postnominal adjective
position (Pienemann, 2007). Functional structure includes the universal units,
such as SUBJECT and OBJECT, that are related to the constituent structure
in a language-specific way (Pienemann, 2007). Functional structure connects
argument structure and constituent structure.

153

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

argument structure

Agent

theme

locative

functional structure

SUBJ

OBJ

OBL

constituent structure

NPsubj

NPobj

John [threw] the ball

PP
into water

Figure 1 Three levels of structure in LFG (Pienemann, 2007, p. 144, reprinted by

permission).

The architecture of lexical mapping in LFG specifies the relationship between argument structure and functional structure, which allows argument roles
(argument structure) to be expressed by different grammatical forms (functional
structure). For example, in Figure 1, each argument is mapped onto a grammatical function: John as agent is mapped onto subject; Ball as theme is
mapped onto object; Into Water as locative is mapped onto oblique. Based on
lexical mapping theory, early PT research provided empirical support for the
predicted processing sequences that L2 learners of languages such as English
and German should follow (details can be found in Pienemann, 1998).
According to Pienemann (1987), PT and its corollary, TH, were inspired
by Piagets (1950) developmental theory:
[T]he approach we have taken in the Predictive Framework of SLA and in
the Teachability Hypothesis was inspired by our admiration for Jean
Piagets work on cognitive development. We adopted one concept in
particular from Piagets work, namely the implicational nature of
processing prerequisites for the operations possible at the different stages
of acquisition. (p. 92)
For Piaget, and for Pienemann, instruction is subordinate to psychological
development because stages of development determine what kind of knowledge
an individual can understand and process at any give time. Pienemann (1989)
argued that the acquisition process cannot be steered or modeled just according
to the requirements or precepts of formal instruction (p. 57). Consequently, if
instruction is to promote L2 development it must take account of the processing
hierarchy. If instruction aims at too high a stage (e.g., X+2 rather than X+1)
a learner will not be able to cope with the complexities entailed in the higher
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

154

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

stage. This is because the processing procedures that operate at each stage are
a prerequisite for the procedures that operate at the subsequent stage.
As a corollary, TH makes two specific claims: (1) processing stages cannot
be skipped regardless of quality or quantity of instruction; (2) for instruction
to be effective it must be aimed at the next immediate processing stage, X+1.
However, it is important to understand that the theory does not claim that a
learner must develop to the next stage even if instruction aims at this stage. As
Pienemann (1987) makes clear, TH defines the possible range of influence of
external factors on the SL learning process; it does not imply that learning is
guaranteed by the mechanisms internal to the learner (p. 92). What are called
variable features (e.g., lexicon, prepositions, phrasal verbs in English) are not
subject to the same internal constraints assumed to operate in PT; therefore,
instruction for these features need not be concerned with the learning barrier
(Pienemann, 1989, p. 61) presented by processing constraints.
Pienemann and his colleagues have conducted numerous observational
studies designed to assess the validity of TH. The studies that provide support
for TH include the following: Felix (1981), Pienemann (1984, 1989, 1998,
2005), Boss (1996), Mansouri and Duffy (2005), Jansen (2008), Ellis (1989,
2006), Y. Zhang (2001), Gao (2005), and Wang (2011). They have shown that
learners must progress from one processing stage to the next; that learners cannot skip stages; that instruction is only effective if it aims at stage X+1 and not
X+2 or higher; that the progress of learners can be plotted on an implicational
scale in a stepwise progression from least to most complex processing stage;
and that if a learner can produce features at say Stage 4, he or she, implicationally, can also produce features at the three preceding stages. The latter three
studies listed above are directly relevant for the current project and will be
discussed further below.
At variance with Piaget (1950), Vygotsky (1986, p. 188) argued that the
only good instruction is that which leads rather than follows development. For
Vygotsky, properly organized instruction does not wait for development to occur. On the contrary, formal education is an intentionally organized activity that
sets in motion a variety of developmental processes not normally available
in the everyday world (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). Education not only influences
certain processes of development, but restructures all functions of behavior in
a most essential manner (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 88).
The TH allows us to compare the claims of Piaget (1950) and Vygotsky
(1987) regarding the relationship between instruction and development, with
specific focus on the development of L2 processing ability.

155

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Challenges to the TH
Four classroom studies have provided some evidence that challenges the central
claims of TH. Two (Bonilla, 2012; Farley & McCollum, 2004) addressed the
prediction that instruction can only be effective if it aims at the next immediate
stage in the processing hierarchy (i.e., X+1). Two studies (Mackey, 1999; Spada
& Lightbown, 1999) uncovered some evidence that stages can be skipped.
The studies by Farley and McCollum (2004) and Bonilla (2012) used explicit approaches to instruction on L2 Spanish. Farley and McCollam framed
their research within Van Pattens (1996) Input Processing model, whereby
learners are provided with brief explicit information on a language feature
followed by structured input activities designed to encourage learners to process for meaning texts containing exemplars of the relevant feature(s). The
explanations and activities are sensitive to relevant processing strategies used
by learners, such as assign subject function to the first noun in a sentence or
give preference to lexical rather than grammatical items when processing for
semantic information.
Farley and McCollum (2004) focused on a Stage 4 feature of Spanish,
object-marker a, used to indicate animate direct object noun phrases (El gato
muerde al perro, the cat bites the dog/Al gato muerde el perro, the cat, the
dog bites), and a Stage 5 feature, subjunctive mood in subordinate clauses (El
professor duda que los estudiantes salgan bien en el examen, the professor
doubts that the students will do well on the exam). While some students in
their study were deemed ready for instruction (i.e., at X+1) with regard to
object-marker a, no student was judged ready for instruction with respect to
subjunctive. Statistical analysis of posttest scores showed no significant effect
for learner readiness; that is, following instruction some students unready for
subjunctive met the emergence criterion, and some students ready for objectmarker a met the criterion but others failed to do so. It must be kept in mind,
however, as we pointed out earlier, that TH does not require that anyone deemed
ready to progress must do so. The important finding of the study is that, while
none of the students skipped stages, some of those that advanced to the next
processing level (i.e., X+1) did so on the basis of instruction that was beyond
the next level (X+2).
Bonillas (2012) study focused on a number of different features of Spanish
morphology and syntax, including a Stage 3 feature, XP-adjunction (e.g., En
dos semanas llega mi abuela, In two weeks arrives my grandmother, My
grandmother is coming in two weeks); a Stage 4 feature, SV Inversion and
clitic placement (e.g., El libro lo compro Roberto, the book it bought Robert,
The book, Robert bought it); and a Stage 5 feature, use of subjunctive in
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

156

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

subordinate clauses. Learners were given explicit explanations followed by

group-work practice for each feature. Learner performance on post-instruction
production tests confirmed PTs predictions that processing stages must emerge
in the predicted sequence. As with Farley and McCollumss (2004) study,
however, Bonilla reported that instruction did not have to be targeted at the
next stage in the processing sequence in order to move development forward:
aimed at next or at next + x stages was effective at increasing learners
production of the next stages as well as their current stage (p. 244).
Spada and Lightbown (1999) used input flooding to teach English question
formation to grade six francophone children in Quebec. The input in the form of
question and answer (Q&A) activities implemented by the regular classroom
teachers was aimed at Stages 4 (wh- + copula BE; yes/no questions with
inversion) and 5 (wh- + aux second) in the processing hierarchy and was
carried out for 1 hour each day over a 2-week period. On the oral posttests,
of the 79 students pretested at Stage 2 (subject-verb-object [SVO] order with
question intonation), 23 progressed to Stage 3 (wh- fronting without inversion),
54 remained at Stage 2, and 2 students skipped to Stage 4. Of the 39 students
beginning at Stage 3, 7 improved to Stage 4 and the remainder made no further
progress. The rest of the students, who began at higher stages, also showed no
additional progress. As with the previously discussed Spanish studies, several
learners progressed to the next processing stage even though input was two or
three stages higher than their initial stage of processing. Most relevant, however,
is the fact that two students began at Stage 2 and skipped to Stage 4. Despite
this counterevidence, the researchers nevertheless concluded that the oral
production findings are consistent with previous research documenting that
learners progress through an acquisition sequence without skipping stages
(p. 14). They also concluded that explicit teaching might be more effective than
implicit instruction at ensuring learner progress (p. 14).
Although Mackeys (1999) study on the effect of negotiated input on learning English questions did not directly address TH, some of her data suggest
that stages might be skipped. In the study, learners who negotiated with native
speakers of English in carrying out a series of tasks were compared to learners who either only observed but did not participate in negotiated interactions
or who received prescripted input, which minimized the likelihood of negotiation. The learners who generated input through direct negotiation with the
native-speaking participants reached Stage 4 or 5 in the question-processing hierarchy, including several who were deemed developmentally unready prior to
instruction. This outcome lends further support to the findings of the previously
reviewed studies that instruction need not be restricted to stage X+1. Mackey
157

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

also considers the performance of an individual learner who was at Stage 3

(wh- fronting) prior to treatment and at Stage 5 (do/aux-second) following
treatment. The learner was exposed to several exemplars of Stage 5 questions
during interaction. Mackey made no mention of the learner having produced
Stage 4 questions in any of the posttests or during treatment. It is conceivable
therefore that this learner provided additional evidence of stage skipping.
To summarize the research considered in this section, the four studies
reviewed do not support the TH prediction that for instruction to be effective it
must be targeted at X+1. With regard to stage skipping, only one study, Spada
and Lightbown (1999), provides evidence that challenges this prediction, while
Mackey (1999) presents data that is suggestive but not conclusive with regard
to the prediction.

The TOPH
The TOPH, proposed by Pienemann et al. (2005), makes predictions derived
from the relationship between functional structures and constituent structures.
The TOPH predicts that beginning learners of an L2 will not be able to differentiate between SUBJECT and other grammatical functions (such as TOPIC)
in sentence-initial position (Pienemann, 2007; Pienemann et al., 2005). The
topic (initial) position assumes the most prominent position in the grammatical
function hierarchy (Bresnan, 2001), which in canonical structures is usually
occupied by the grammatical SUBJECT (the agent in the argument structure).
However, whenever speakers wish to profile different aspects of an event or
scene other than the SUBJECT, this position may be filled by another element such as OBJECT. The process through which this happens is called
topicalization. When topicalization occurs, it triggers the differentiation of the
grammatical functions TOPIC and SUBJECT (Pienemann et al., 2005), which
results in linguistic nonlinearity and is regarded as more costly in terms of processing effort, when compared to the canonical structure in which TOPIC and
SUBJECT coincide. Thus, the production of a specific structure is constrained
by learners processing capacity (Pienemann et al., 2005). Based on this logic,
PT makes the following prediction:
In second language acquisition learners will initially not differentiate
between SUB and TOP. The addition of an XP to a canonical string will
trigger a differentiation of TOP and SUBJ which first extends to
non-arguments and successively to arguments thus causing further
structural consequences. (Pienemann, 2005, p. 239)
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

158

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Stage 2: TOP = SUBJ: TOPsubj V(O)

e.g.,

Mary
|
TOP=SUBJ

(SVO)

ate
|
V

an apple.
|
OBJ

Stage 3: TOP = ADJ(unct): TOPadj SV(O)

e.g.,

Yesterday
|
TOP=ADJ

Mary
|
SUBJ

Stage 4: TOP = OBJ: TOPobj SV

e.g.,

Bob, I think,
|
TOP=OBJ

(ADJ.+SVO)
ate
|
V

an apple.
|
OBJ

(OSV)
she will not forget.
|
|
SUBJ
V

Figure 2 Stages of topicalization in Chinese.

TOPH predicts three stages in the mapping of functional structures onto

constituent structures. Accordingly, L2 learners must pass through the hierarchical stages indicated in Figure 2 as they develop the ability to use and
comprehend topicalization in Chinese. We do not include Stage 1, lexical processing, because it is not relevant for our purposes.
TOPH in L2 Chinese Research
Three previous projects included a discussion of TOPH in L2 Chinese: Y.
Zhang (2001, 2007), Gao (2005), and Wang (2011). Y. Zhang (2007) conducted a longitudinal study with three first language (L1) English speakers in a
beginning-level Chinese course at an Australian university. Zhang engaged the
learners in a variety of tasks on a regular basis throughout the semester. The
tasks included elicited imitation, problem solving, role playing, picture-based
oral compositions, and storytelling. The main finding of the study was that the
participants progressed from linear alignment of TOPIC and SUBJECT toward
nonlinear alignment in accordance with TOPH. At the outset, the participants
could only produce Stage 2 SVO structures (see Figure 2). At a later point,
Stage 3 ADJ+SVO structures emerged, and eventually the learners exhibited
the ability to process Stage 4 OSV structures, thus confirming the sequence
predicted by PT for Chinese topicalization.
159

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Table 1 Instructional sequence in the textbook New Practical Chinese Reader used by
Y. Zhangs (2007) participants
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14
3. OSV
2. Advfronting
1. SVO

Note. L = lesson.

Y. Zhang (2007) did not provide specific information on her instructional

procedures. She did, however, mention the textbook used in the course, New
Practical Chinese Reader 1 (Book 1) (Xun, 2005). Table 1 summarizes the
content of the book with regard to each of the relevant grammatical structures
covered in each lesson.
Notice that the sequence of structures covered in the text coincides with two
of the three stages in the topicalization hierarchy: SVO and ADJ+SVO. It did
not include Stage 4, OSV; however, Y. Zhang provided instruction at this stage
following the two previous stages. Given that instruction appeared to follow
the sequence indicated by the processing hierarchy, it is difficult to determine
whether or not Y. Zhangs study provided support for TH.
Gao (2005) conducted a study to evaluate whether TOPH would also apply
to learners of Chinese from different L1 backgrounds. In addition to L1 English
speakers, Gao included speakers of L1 Japanese (19) and L1 German (9) in
her study. As with Y. Zhang (2007), Gao did not describe the instructional
procedures implemented in her study. Nevertheless, she reported that all three
groups followed the predicted processing pattern: SVO ADJ+SVO
OSV and that therefore the processing hierarchy for Chinese is unaffected by
learners L1.
A third study conducted by Wang (2011) also evaluated TOPH in L2
Chinese. She recruited eight learners of Chinese enrolled in a British university. The students reported heterogeneous experiences learning Chinese.
Six had been to China prior to the study. Two had studied the language for
1.5 months, while the remaining eight had studied the language for nearly a
year. Seven of the participants were L1 English speakers and one was an L1
German speaker. Wangs general conclusion was that, despite the differences
in background, experience with the language, and the types of textbooks (no
instruction on stage X+1 structures), they all adhered to the sequence predicted
by PT.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

160

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

The Present Study

The current study was designed to answer the following two research question
regarding TH:
1. Would instruction organized according to Vygotskian principles of developmental education operationalized in Galperins (1970, 1992) Systemic
Theoretical Instruction model induce learners to skip stages in the processing hierarchy postulated for Chinese L2 topicalization?
2. If learners assessed to be at Stage 2 (SVO) received instruction targeting
Stage 4 (OSV), would they attain this stage of processing ability without
first processing Stage 3 structures (ADJ+SVO), or would they move only
to this stage (X+1) as predicted by PT?
Method
Participants
The final participants were Leo, Alisa, John, and Amy (not their real names),
all volunteers from a pool of L1 speakers of English enrolled in a university
beginning-level Chinese course at a university in the United States.
To identify qualified participants, X. Zhang (2014) (the first author) first examined the textbooks and syllabi for the courses in which potential participants
were enrolled in order to confirm that Stage 3 and Stage 4 structures had not
been taught. In addition, he conducted interviews with the Chinese instructors
in order to obtain information on the range of grammatical structures covered
at each level in the Chinese language program. It was determined that learners at the beginning level would be suitable to take part in the study because
the students as this level: (a) had studied some Chinese vocabulary, (b) had
encountered only the SVO structure in their classes, and (c) would not receive
instruction on ADJ+SVO or OSV during the course of the study.
Six students from the Chinese program volunteered for the study. On the
pretest, one participant produced three ADJ+SVO sentences and an OSV
sentence. She mentioned that she had encountered ADJ+SVO sentences in
the past and knew that time phrases can appear in initial position. Another
participant produced an OSV sentence and she also mentioned that her Chinese
teacher had briefly introduced the ADJ+SVO structure. These two participants
received instruction but are not included in the data considered here. Of the
remaining four learners, all speakers of L1 English, none of them was able
to process structures at Stages 3 or 4 on the pretest. The students signed a
consent form prior to the start of the study and each received 60 dollars for
their participation.
161

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Oral Production Instruments

Three types of tasks were used in the study, all of which have been used in
previous research carried out on PT and TH. The tasks included an elicited
imitation task (EI), a question-and-answer session (Q&A), and an oral cartoon
description task (CD).

Elicited Imitation
Some may question EI as a valid instrument for assessing spontaneous performance. However, it has a long history in bilingual (e.g., Lambert & Tucker,
1972; Radloff, 1991) and second language acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 2006; Erlam,
2006; Flynn, 1987) research. It was also used in Y. Zhangs (2001, 2007) study.
We believe it to be a legitimate instrument for tapping into a speakers linguistic
competence.
To minimize the possibility that participants might reproduce the targeted
sentences from rote memory, the following procedures were followed when
constructing the EI task. The sentences to be imitated were presented in sets of
three. The total number of words in each set averaged 21, with a range of 16
to 26 words per sentence. The targeted sentence was positioned in the middle
of each three-sentence sequence, as recommended by Gallimore and Tharp
(1981). Finally, before repeating the sentences, the participants were asked a
question about content. An example of the procedure is given in (1):
1. Sample EI procedure
A. Researcher read the sentences in sequence
ta zao sh`ang he le ka fei.
 
 .
He morning drank coffee.
Pizza ta ye ch le. [target structure]
Pizza   .
Pizza he also ate.
ta jn tian b ji`ao gao x`ng
  
.
He today pretty happy.
B. Researcher posed the question, Why do you think he is happy?
C. Participant answers the question and then repeats the three sentences
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

162

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Three versions of the EI task were developed. The first was used in the
pretest and the delayed posttest; the second was used in posttest 1, and the third
in posttest 2. There were 72 sentences in the first version; 48 were SVO, 12
were ADJ+SVO, and 12 were OSV. Both the second and the third versions
contained 60 sentences; 40 were SVO, 10 were ADJ+SVO, and 10 were OSV.
As beginners, the participants had a limited vocabulary; therefore, the EI
tasks used a restricted set of lexical items. A set of words was selected from the
first 11 chapters of the textbook used in the participants Chinese course. This
list, together with their Pinyin and their English translation, was given to the
participants to identify words that they recognized. Only words recognized by
most of the participants (no less than 70%) were used to construct the EI tests.
The three versions of EI were administered to five native Chinese speakers to
ensure that the sentences were processable. None of the speakers had difficulties
with any of the sentences included in the EIs.
Question&Answer Session
Participants answered 5 to 10 questions in Chinese of the following type: Can
you tell me something about your country?, When and where did you eat
lunch today?, What movie do you like most?, Can you describe it? All
questions were read in English in order to avoid comprehension problems.
Oral Cartoon D Task
Five 1-minute silent episodes from a Tom and Jerry cartoon were selected for
this task. Participants escription watched each episode twice before describing
it in Chinese. If anyone failed to produce a sufficient number of utterances,
the researcher asked questions or prompted the participant to say more about a
particular scene.
Systemic Theoretical Instruction on Chinese Topicalization
Teaching the target structures followed the procedures developed by Galperin
(1970, 1992) known as Systemic Theoretical Instruction (STI). STI is a pedagogical approach that integrates principles of developmental education as
outlined by Vygotsky (1987) in which instruction requires explicit presentation
of systematic knowledge of concepts relevant to a particular academic subject. In the present study, the key concept was Chinese topicalization. While
in STI the concept is initially explained verbally (or in written form), learners
are also provided with a visual and/or material representation of the concept
as a way to avoid the tendency for learners to memorize verbal definitions
163

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

without comprehension (Negueruela [2003] documents this tendency among

classroom learners). Readers will find the visual materials employed in the
present study to depict Chinese topicalization in the Supporting Information
online. The visualization/materialization of a concept functions as a cognitive
tool that mediates understanding, performance, and eventual internalization of
the concept. In addition, learners are prompted to verbalize their understanding
of the concept as well as their use of the specific features related to the concept
in concrete communicative activities. STI generally adheres to the following
sequence: systematic explanation of the concept visualizing/materializing
the concept in concrete communicative activities verbalizing the concept
internalization (for details, see Lantolf & Poehner, 2014).
The visualization/materialization phase of instruction is referred to as a
SCOBA (Schema for the Orienting Basis of Action). The present study used
two different types of SCOBA. The first (shown in Figure S1 of the Supporting
Information online) depicts OBJECT topicalization and the second (shown in
Figure S2) illustrates ADJUNCT topicalization. Both SCOBAs were animated
so that students were able to visualize the movement of the OBJECT rice in
Figure S1a to sentence initial position in Figure S1b when that entity was
profiled by a speaker. Similarly, the temporal adverb at 2 was moved from
Figure S2a to S2b (see Supporting Information online) to profile the temporal
aspect of the event. A similar illustration was created for the locative adverb
at home.
After introducing the concept of topicalization and its manifestation in
Chinese, learners were asked to explain its function in English. All of the initial explanations given by the learners appropriately described the pragmatic
function of topicalization. The learners were then engaged in various practice
activities, including sentence construction, gap filling, Q&A, translation, CD,
and free talk. During this instructional phase learners were also provided with
an activity designed to materialize the concept through manipulation of Cuisenaire rods (shown in Figure S3 in the Supporting Information online). The rods,
originally developed for math instruction but introduced into language teaching by the Silent Way methodology (Gattegno, 1976), enabled the students to
materially practice constructing topicalized sentences. The rods, which come
in different colors and corresponding lengths, were used to represent different constituents of a Chinese sentence. The students rearranged the rods to
indicate those constituents that are available for topicalization. In Figure S3,
for example, the green rod represents the SUBJECT, the blue rod represents
the verb, and the yellow rod represents the OBJECT. Moving the yellow rod
(representing OBJECT) to sentence-initial position showed that it had taken on
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

164

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

topic status. While engaged in the various practice activities, the students were
able to manipulate the rods to mediate their language production. They were
not required to use the rods if they felt sufficiently confident in their ability to
produce correct sentences without material mediation.
Procedure
At Time 1 (T1), participants received the pretest, which consisted of an EI task,
a Q&A task, and a CD task. (All subsequent posttests also comprised three
subcomponents but with different items in each case in order to avoid practice
effects.) One to two days later, they received the first instruction session (lasting
approximately 1 hour) that exclusively taught Stage 4 OSV. One week later, at
Time 2 (T2), the participants were given posttest 1 followed immediately by
instruction that focused on Stage 3 ADJ+SVO. The following week, at Time 3
(T3), they were given posttest 2 immediately followed by the third instruction
session aimed at helping them practice the new grammatical structures. A little
more than 1 month after posttest 2, at Time 4 (T4), the participants received
the delayed posttest. A final interview was then conducted to evaluate whether
the participants understood the concept of topicalization and to discover their
attitude toward STI.
Results
The participants performance on each of the tests is presented in Table 2.
We followed the criterion established by PT to determine processing stage
attained by a learner. Accordingly, what matters is not accuracy of use in a
high percentage of contexts, but first systematic use in obligatory contexts
(Kessler & Pienemann, 2011, p. 94, italics in the original). The criterion for
emergence requires use in at least four different contexts in order to avoid the
situation where learners use the relevant feature frequently but in the same
context or where they might produce formulaic tokens without generalization.
As observed in Table 2, the pretest (T1) showed that all four learners were at
Stage 2 prior to the start of instruction. On the first posttest (T2) administered
1 week after instruction on Stage 4 OSV the learners met the criterion for
processing ability at this stage. Only one participant, Amy, produced an instance
of Stage 3 ADJ+SVO, and this was on the EI task, as explained below. Following
instruction on ADJ+SVO, performance on the second posttest (T3) evidenced
the learners ability to use Stage 3 and Stage 4 structures. However, as we will
explain in the more detailed discussion of test performance below, there was
some variation in their ability to use both structures during the Q&A and CD
165

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Table 2 Summary of performance on pre- and posttests for all elicitation tasks
Topic Stage
Leo

Alisa

John

Amy

4 top = Obj.
3 top = ADJ
2 top = Subj.
4 top = Obj.
3 top = ADJ
2 top = Subj.
4 top = Obj.
3 top = ADJ
2 top = Subj.
4 top = Obj.
3 top = ADJ
2 top = Subj.

OSV
ADJ+SVO
SVO
OSV
ADJ+SVO
SVO
OSV
ADJ+SVO
SVO
OSV
ADJ+SVO
SVO

T1

T2

T3

T4

72/72

72/72

25/92

67/92
17/69

52/69
19/91

72/91
25/86
1/86
59/86

18/113
17/113
78/113
14/91
20/91
57/91
12/95
14/95
69/95
17/113
19/113
77/113

20/99
12/99
67/99
23/110
19/110
68/110
23/108
24/108
61/108
26/121
16/121
79/121

77/77

48/48

Note. Denominator = possible contexts; Numerator = frequency of suppliance

T1 = pretest; T2 = posttest 1; T3 = posttest 2; T4 = delayed posttest;
= The relevant structure was missing despite the presence of appropriate contexts.

tasks. This is also the case for the learners performance on the delayed posttest
administered 1 month after the final instruction session.
In what follows, we consider learner performance on each of the tests and
provide examples of this performance.
Pretest
On the pretest (T1), administered 1 to 2 days prior to the first instruction session,
all participants produced Stage 2 SVO sentences only. As illustrated in Excerpt
1 below, John was unable to reproduce the target sentence (the EI procedure is
described above) in which the temporal adverb yesterday appeared in topic
position. In fact, not only did he omit the adverb, he also changed the subject
pronoun as well.
Excerpt 1. EI on Pretest (Stage 3 ADJ+SVO)
Target sentence
zao sh`ang wo men da qiu.


.
Morning we
play ball.
In the morning we play ball.

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

166

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Johns imitation:
nmen sh` . . . da qiu.
  . . . .
You
are . . . play ball.
You play ball.
The learners were also unsuccessful in their attempts to reproduce Stage
4 OSV sentences. They frequently interpreted the preposed OBJECT as SUBJECT, as Excerpt 2, also from Johns pretest, illustrates. Not only did he misinterpret the argument status of Mr. Li, he inserted an OBJECT argument book
from one of the other sentences in the set.
Excerpt 2. EI Pretest (Stage 4 OSV)
Target sentence
l lao sh wo x huan.
  .
Mr. Li
I
like.
I like Mr. Li.
Johns imitation
l lao sh xhuan y ben shu.
 
 .
Mr. Li
like
a book.
Mr. Li likes a book.
We forgo examples of learner performance on the Q&A and CD tasks
because they only produced SVO despite the presence of appropriate contexts
for Stages 3 and 4 structures. As predicted on the basis of the instructional
syllabus and the teacher interviews, the pretest showed that the learners were
at Stage 2 in the processing hierarchy.
Posttest 1: Following OSV Instruction
On posttest 1, administered at T2, 1 week after the first instruction session,
learners were capable of producing OSV sentences but were unable to produce
Stage 3 ADJ+SVO structures (see Table 2). On the EI task, Leo reproduced
4, Alisa 7, John 5, and Amy reproduced all 10 sentences. Amy managed to
correctly reproduce 1 out of 10 ADJ+SVO sentences; however, this fails to
meet the PT criterion of emergence. In the interest of space we do not provide
examples of the learners EI performance on the posttests.
167

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

On the Q&A task, a total of 9 contexts for OSV use were established by the
researchers questions. In response, the learners performance was as follows:
Leo 6/9, Alisa 5/9, John 4/9, and Amy 6/9. Excerpt 3 provides an example of
an OSV utterance on the Q&A task produced by John.
Excerpt 3. Posttest 1, Q&A (Stage 4 OSV)
Q:

Do you like Chinese food or American food?

John:

zhongguof`an he meiguof`an
wo dou xhuan.


 
  .
Chinese food and American food, I both like.
I like Chinese food and American food.

With regard to the CD, it was difficult to determine what counted as an

appropriate context, given that topicalization is an optional feature of language
use. In the EI, of course, context was determined by the model sentences, and
on the Q&A, the researcher, based on the questions asked, had some ability to
generate contexts where topicalization was favored. In the CD, however, the
learners were free to topicalize or not, as determined by their communicative
intent. Consequently, it was difficult to determine the precise number of contexts
where topicalization was expected to occur. In reporting learner performance
on the CD, therefore, we provide the frequency of topicalized structures only.
In each case, the utterances were not formulaic, nor did they repeat previous
utterances. In the CD task, Leo produced 15 OSV sentences, Alisa 5, John 10,
and Amy 9. Excerpt 4, taken from Amys and Leos respective performances,
illustrates their ability to use OSV.
Excerpt 4. Posttest 1, CD (Stage 4 OSV)
Amy:

lao shu mao da le yc`.



.
Mouse cat hit once.
The cat hit the mouse once.

Leo:

niu nai Tom he le (hen)duo.

 Tom  ().
Milk Tom drank a lot.
Tom drank a lot of milk.

None of the participants produced the ADJ+SVO structure on either the

Q&A or CD task on posttest 1.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

168

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Posttest 2: Following ADJ+SVO Instruction

On posttest 2, administered at T3, 1 week after the second instruction session,
which focused on Stage 3 ADJ+SVO, all of the participants were able to
produce both OSV and ADJ+SVO sentences (see Table 2). Of the 10 OSV and
10 ADJ+SVO sentences on the EI task, Leo reproduced 6 of the former and
9 of the latter; Alisa reproduced 7 OSV and all 10 ADJ+SVO sentences; John
reproduced 6 of the 10 OSV and 9 of the 10 ADJ+SVO sentences; and Amy
successfully repeated 5 of the OSV and 9 of the ADJ+SVO sentences.
On the Q&A task, 13 possible contexts were available for each target structure. Leo produced seven OSV and four ADJ+SVO utterances. Alisa produced
three OSV and six ADJ+SVO utterances. Alisa also produced four OSV sentences on the CD task (see below), which means she met PT criterion for
both stages. John produced four OSV utterances and one ADJ+SVO utterance;
however, on the CD he produced four additional ADJ+SVO utterances, which
again indicates that he met PT criterion for Stages 3 and 4. Amy produced seven
possible OSV utterances and four ADJ+SVO utterances. Excerpt 5 illustrates
learner performance on the Q&A task from posttest 2.
Excerpt 5. Posttest 2 (Q&A)
ADJ+SVO
Researcher: Where do you study?
Amy:

z`ai xue xi`ao wo mei tian xue x?


 
?
At school
I every day study.
I study at school every day.

OSV
Researcher: What do you buy when you go shopping?
Amy:

dong x wo z`ai shu di`an

mai.

  

Stuff
I
in the bookstore bought.
I bought some stuff in the bookstore.

Researcher: Where do you study Chinese?

Alisa:

169

zhongwen.
z`aixuexi`ao wo f`ux le

 

.
At school
I went over Chinese.
I went over Chinese at school.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

z`ai tushuguan wo ye xuex le zhongwen.

 
  
.
In the library
I also studied Chinese
I study Chinese in the library as well.
Researcher: What else did you study in the library?
Alisa:

faguowen wo z`ai tushuguan ye f`ux le .


  
 .
French
I in the library also reviewed.
I also reviewed French in the Library.

On the CD task, Leo produced five OSV sentences and four ADJ+SVO
sentences. Alisa produced four OSV and two ADJ+SVO sentences. John produced two OSV and four ADJ+SVO sentences. Finally Amy produced five
OSV and six ADJ+SVO sentences. These results suggest that 1 week after
the second instruction session the learners were capable of processing Stage 4
OSV and Stage 3 ADJ+SVO structures. Examples from the CD task are given
in Excerpt 6.
Excerpt 6. Posttest 2 (CD)
Amy:

z`ai jia
lao shu k`an ji`an le niu nai.



.
At home mouse saw
milk.
The mouse saw some milk at home.
niu nai mao jn tian z`ai zh`e he le.
  

.
Milk cat today
here
drank.
The cat drank some milk here.

The Delayed Posttest

On the delayed posttest, administered at T4, approximately 1 month after
posttest 2 (the exact time depended on participant availability), the learners
continued to show the ability to produce ADJ+SVO and OSV structures. The
EI task included 12 OSV and 12 ADJ+SVO sentences. Leo accurately reproduced 11 of the former and 7 of the latter; Alisa reproduced 10 of 12
for each structure; John reproduced 10 of the former and 9 of the latter; and
Amy reproduced 8 of 12 in each case. On the Q&A task, Leo reproduced 5,
Alisa 7, John 10, and Amy 9 of 10 possible OSV utterances in their respective
responses. Of the possible 10 ADJ+SVO responses on the same task, Leo
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

170

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

produced 2, Alisa 6, John 10, and Amy 8 of the target structures. Finally, on the
CD task, Leo produced four OSV sentences and three ADJ+SVO sentences;
Alisa produced six OSV and three ADJ+SVO sentences; John produced two
OSV and two ADJ+SVO sentences. Amy produced nine OSV but did not
produce any ADJ+SVO sentences. Participant performance on the delayed
posttest is illustrated in Excerpts 7 and 8.
Excerpt 7. Delayed posttest (Q&A)

OSV
Researcher: Do you go to a bar?
Alisa:

jiu ba wo bu q`u.
  .
Bar
I
not go.
I dont go to bar.

ADJ+SVO
Researcher: When do you usually have dinner?
John:

ba dian he wu dian he jiu dian, wo chf`an.


 
 ,
 .
8 oclock and 5 oclock and 9 oclock I have dinner.
I have dinner at eight oclock, five oclock and nine oclock.

Excerpt 8. Delayed posttest (CD task)

ADJ+SVO
Leo:
z`ai cao sh`ang ta men shu`ji`ao.

 .
On the grass they sleep.
They slept on the grass.
OSV
Leo:

171

xi`a wu
yao le.
gou de shou mao z`ai gou jia




.
Dogs hand cat
in dogs house afternoon bit.
The cat bit the dogs hand in the doghouse in the afternoon.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Table 3 Chinese topicalization in current study

TOPIC Hypothesis

T1

T2

T3

T4

4 top = obj
3 top = adj.
2 top = subj.

+
+
+

+
+
+

Note. T1 = pretest; T2 = posttest 1; T3 = posttest 2; T4 = delayed posttest.

Discussion
According to PT, L2 Chinese learners should not be able to process Stage 4
OSV structures unless they are also able to process Stage 3 ADJ+SVO structures. Because the sequence of stages is determined by cognitive processing
constraints, noncognitive factors such as teaching are assumed not to be able
to interfere with natural, internally determined processing stages. The current
study employed an interventional design which adhered to principles of developmental education proposed by Vygotsky (e.g., 1978) and instructional
procedures of STI formulated by Galperin (1970, 1992). It artificially constructed a developmental route different from the one predicted by TOPH. The
concept of topicalization and how it is specifically manifested in Chinese discourse was taught using cognitive tools (i.e., SCOBAs), which visualized the
concept and provided learners with an effective and accessible understanding
of the concept (see Supporting Information online). The learners ability to
produce Stage 4 and Stage 3 structures in that order was supported by materialized mediation in the form of Cuisenaire rods (see Figure S3). Consequently,
the cognitive processes involved in learner development not only occurred
inside of the head, but it was at the same time an embodied activity. Through
practice with the rods, which we argue, had cognitive status (see Lantolf &
Thorne, 2006), the learners not only came to understand how topicalization
operates in Chinese, but they also appropriated, or internalized, the concept.
Evidence for this comes from the delayed posttest. We believe that use of the
rods resulted in a strong trace in the learners long-term memory system. In
the final interview, for example, one learner commented that, even though she
no longer needed overt support from the rods, she visualized them to help
her produce appropriate topicalized utterances. The rods also helped learners
compensate for deficits in working memory (see X. Zhang, 2014), a key factor
in successful learning (Williams, 2012).
Tables 3 and 4 compare the general developmental pattern for Chinese topicalization uncovered in the current study and in Y. Zhang (2007).
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

172

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

While the latter presents evidence that adheres to the predicted processing
sequence, the former does not.
Table 3 shows the general developmental pattern for Chinese topicalization
uncovered in the current study. It contradicts the findings reported by Y. Zhang
(2007, p. 164). Her study turned up evidence that adheres to the predicted
stepwise processing sequence. Clearly, ours does not.

The Issue of Classifiers

Although the students had not received prior instruction on Stages 3 or 4
in the topicalization hierarchy, they had been instructed on the use of some
classifiers, required in Chinese when nouns are counted or specified in some
way (e.g., liang ge ren two <classifier> persons.) According to Y. Zhang
(2007), classifiers are Stage 3 structures. Lenzing (personal communication,
March 24, 2014) has suggested that if our participants were able to produce
classifiers they could be at Stage 3 rather than Stage 2 prior to instruction. As it
turned out, the participants were able to correctly use some classifiers during the
pretest. For instance, one participant produced the following utterance during
the pretest interview: wo you yi ge didi, I have a brother, with ge as the
classifier modifying didi (brother).
Lenzings proposal is interesting and aligns with the argument made by
Pienemann et al. (2005) that for any given stage morphology is likely to emerge
before syntax and it may bootstrap syntax. However, two studies present evidence that calls into question the morphology-first argument. In a study of two
learners of English as an L2, Dyson (2009) uncovered some evidence to support
the PT position; she also found a robust amount of counterevidence where in
fact syntactic features of a given stage emerged before morphological features
at the same stage. She also reported examples where syntax and morphology
emerged simultaneously. Bonilla (2012) reported a similar circumstance for
Spanish syntax and morphology. Assuming that classifiers are indeed Stage 3
features, on the pretest in the present study the learners were unable to produce
ADJ+SVO sentences even though they were able to correctly use some classifiers. Moreover, on posttest 1, they showed clear emergence of Stage 4 OSV,
continued to produce classifiers, but still showed no evidence of ADJ+SVO
emergence. In our view, the fact that the learners were able to process classifiers
on the pretest does not make a strong case in support of morphology bootstrapping syntax within the boundaries of the present study, because it would mean
that for some unexplainable reason the classifiers would have led the way for
Stage 4 but not Stage 3 syntax.
173

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

The Issue of Memory Store

One of the guest editors of this Special Issue (Ellis, personal communication,
May 8, 2014) pointed out in his comments to an earlier version of this article that
if our instruction indeed fostered explicit knowledge of Chinese grammar
knowledge stored in long-term declarative memory (see Paradis, 2009; Ullman,
2005)the findings of the present study do not provide counterevidence to TH.
This is because the hypothesis, as a corollary to PT, is assumed to hold only for
implicit knowledgeknowledge stored in long-term procedural memory. Our
response is twofold. First, given that we used the same spontaneous elicitation
procedures and emergence criteria utilized by Pienemann and his colleagues in
their research on PT and TH, and if indeed, as we believe, the knowledge the
learners internalized and used on the posttests was stored in declarative memory
as a result of explicit instruction, the elicitation procedures developed by Pienemann and his colleagues are not sufficiently sensitive to distinguish between access to automatic proceduralized memory and accelerated declarative memory.
Paradis (2009) argued that explicit declarative knowledge can, through appropriate practice, be accessed with sufficient speed to support fluent spontaneous
production. Ullman and his colleagues (Morgan-Short, Finger, Grey, & Ullman,
2012) made a similar claim based on a comparative study of learners receiving
explicit and implicit instruction: similar proficiency levels, even at high levels
of proficiency, can be attained using quite different brain mechanisms and types
of processing (p. 14). If this is indeed correct, it would mean that behavioral
criteria assumed to hold between timed/unplanned and untimed/planned tasks
may not be sufficiently sensitive to distinguish between accelerated access to
declarative memory or automatic access to procedural memory. It might be
that the only way to confidently distinguish performances based on either of
the memory stores must be neurological (e.g., derived from brain imaging
techniques such as event-related potentials [ERPs]).
This leads us to our second response. Paradis (2009) and Ullman (2005)
both argue that declarative knowledge cannot directly convert to procedural
knowledge regardless of amount of practice. This is because of the lack of
neural pathways connecting the neural substrates responsible for declarative
memory (e.g., the lateral temporal lobe and the hippocampus) and the neural
networks that support the procedural memory system (e.g., the frontal lobe and
the basal ganglia). Both researchers also argue, however, that through sufficient
practice, which for Paradis (2009) requires extensive and intensive immersion
experiences, use of declarative knowledge can indirectly provide input for
the procedural memory store. We do not believe that the kind of experience
envisioned by Paradis was available to the learners who participated in the
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

174

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

present study. Had this been the case, the findings would not only challenge
TH, they would also challenge general PT.
In their ERP study of adult L2 classroom learners, Morgan-Short et al.
(2012) report that learners receiving either explicit or implicit instruction in an
invented language, Brocanto2, reached a high level of proficiency, which was
maintained following a 5-month time period without additional exposure to the
language. Several interesting and relevant findings with respect to ERP emerged
from the study. Immediately after instruction, the implicit group produced brain
patterns typical of native speakers of a language for procedural memory, while
the explicit group emitted patterns normally supported by declarative memory.
Following the 5-month time lag, however, the explicit group showed an increase
in nativelike brain procedural memory patterns, although not to the same extent
as the implicit group. At the same time, this group generated patterns consistent
with forgetting the underlying knowledge in declarative memory (p. 12). If it is
the case that declarative memory cannot directly convert to procedural memory,
how might this shift in ERP be explained? One possibility suggested by MorganShort et al. (2012) is that, even during instruction, the explicit group might have
acquired some procedural grammatical knowledge that was obscured by
reliance on declarative memory immediately after instruction (p. 12). In the
time lag between instruction and the second posttest, knowledge in the declarative memory system of the explicit group could have been forgotten while at
the same time knowledge in the procedural store could have consolidated, thus
accounting for the increase in nativelike ERP patterns in this group (p. 12).
Is it possible that something similar occurred in participants in the current
study? This is a difficult question to answer at this point. For one thing, the
time lag between the posttest and delayed posttest was 1 month and not 5,
which may not have been sufficient time for knowledge to consolidate in procedural memory. For another thing, we did not measure ERP patterns and, as
Morgan-Short et al. (2012, p. 13) pointed out, behavioral patterns do not necessarily reflect one or the other underlying neurological system. If indeed the
learners had been able to consolidate any knowledge entering their procedural
memory store during the 1-month span between instruction and the delayed
posttest, their performance on the delayed posttest would present a challenge
not only to TH but to PT as well.
Conclusion
The data considered in this article provide evidence that stages in the processing
hierarchy for topicalization in Chinese can be directly taught without regard
175

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

for the processing sequence predicted by general PT. Thus, the predictions
of the TH corollary may not hold when instruction is organized according to
Vygotskys (e.g., 1978) principles of developmental education. These principles include overt explanation of the relevant concept with focus on its meaning,
visualization of the concept in the form of a nonverbal SCOBA, materialization
of the concept (Cuisenaire rods) that enabled participants to manually manipulate sentences illustrating the concept, and practice activities accompanied by
participant verbalization of their understanding of the concept.
While the evidence presented in this article presents a challenge to TH and
to general PT, we caution that it is one study of one feature assumed to entail
processing stages. Additional research must be carried out on other features
associated with the general theory, including, for example, English question
formation and negation and German word order.
An important issue raised in the study is the nature of learner knowledge that
resulted from developmental instruction. The tasks used to assess processing
ability, especially the Q&A session and the CD, have generally been assumed
to entail spontaneous performance typical of implicit knowledge subserved by
procedural memory. We suggested, however, that it is conceivable that participant performance on the tasks might very well reflect explicit knowledge
subserved by declarative memory and accessed, as Paradis (2009) proposed,
with sufficient speed to allow spontaneous performance to occur. The implications of all of this for PT and for elicitation tasks used in general SLA research
remain to be worked out.
Final revised version accepted 18 September 2014
Postscript
Space does not permit us to respond here in detail to Pienemanns (2015) reaction to our study. We will provide a more detailed response in a future issue
of the journal. Nevertheless, we would like to note at this point that we do not
agree with Pienemanns claim that elicited imitation tasks do not provide access
to underlying linguistic knowledge and that they only generate formulaic language. They have a long history in second language acquisition and assessment
research as a valid means of tapping into participant knowledge of a language,
provided they are structured in an appropriate way that avoids rote memorization. We would also like to point out that in addition to the aggregated data
presented in Table 2, we indeed provide data on the performance of each learner
for the Q&A and CD tasks from the pre- and posttests included in the study.
Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

176

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

References
Bonilla, C. (2012). Testing processability theory in L2 Spanish: Can readiness or
markedness predict development? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Pittsburgh.
Boss, B. (1996). German grammar for beginners: The teachability hypothesis and its
relevance to the classroom. In C. Arbones Sol`a, J. Rolin-Ianziti, & R. Sussex (Eds.),
Whos afraid of teaching grammar (pp. 93103). Queensland, Australia: University
of Queensland Press.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dyson, B. (2009). Processability theory and the role of morphology in English as a
second language development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research,
25, 355376.
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, 308328.
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The
differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics,
27, 431463.
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An
empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464491.
Farley, A., & McCollam, K. (2004). Learner readiness and L2 production in Spanish:
Processability theory on trial. Estudios de Lingustica Aplicada, 40, 4769.
Felix, S. W. (1981). The effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 31, 87112.
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition: Experimental studies in
anaphora. Dortrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1981). The interpretation of elicited imitation in a
standardized context. Language Learning, 31, 369392.
Galperin, P. I. (1970). An experimental study in the formation of mental actions. In E.
Stones (Ed.), Reading in educational psychology: Learning and teaching (pp.
142154). New York: Barnes and Noble.
Galperin, P. I. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological
investigation. Journal of Russian and Eastern European Psychology, 30, 6080.
Gao, X. D. (2005). Noun phrase morphemes and topic development in L2 Mandarin
Chinese: A processability perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Wellington, Victoria, New Zealand.
Gattegno, C. (1976). The common sense of teaching foreign languages. New York:
Educational Solutions.
Jansen, L. (2008). Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A
cross-sectional study in a wider theoretical context. Language Learning, 58,
185231.

177

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Kessler, J-U., & Pienemann, M. (2011). Research methodology. How do we know

about developmental schedules? In M. Pienemann & J-U. Kessler (Eds.), Studying
processability (pp. 8496). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, R. G. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St.
Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical
imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the theory/research divide. New
York: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical
study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,
557587.
Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L. (2005). The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental
readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
28, 8199.
Morgan-Short, K., Finger, I., Grey, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). Second language
processing shows increased native-like neural responses after months of no
exposure. PLoS One, 7, e32974.
Negueruela, E. A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to the teaching-learning of second
languages: Systemic-theoretical instruction and L2 development. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186214.
Pienemann, M. (1987). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech
processing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 83113.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and
hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 5279.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development:
Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (2007). Processability theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 137154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending processability
theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory
(pp. 199252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

178

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of

language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition
research (pp. 45141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Radloff, C. F. (1991). Sentence repetition testing for studies of community bilingualism.
Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and
developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language
Journal, 83, 122.
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language
acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context
in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 141178).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Van Patten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language
acquisition. Northwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume 1. New York:
Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 3: Problems of
the theory and history of psychology. New York: Plenum.
Wang, X. (2011). Grammatical development among Chinese L2 learners: From a
processability account. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University.
New Castle Upon Tyne, UK.
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427441). New York:
Routledge.
Xun, L. (2005). New practical Chinese reader (Book 1). Beijing, China: Beijing
Language and Culture University Press.
Zhang, X. (2014). The teachability hypothesis and concept-based instruction:
Topicalization in Chinese as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.
Zhang, Y. (2001). Second language acquisition of Chinese grammatical morphemes: A
processability perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Australian
National University, Canberra, Australia.
Zhang, Y. (2007). Testing the topic hypothesis: The L2 acquisition of Chinese syntax.
In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction
and testing (pp. 145171). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

179

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

Zhang and Lantolf

Natural or Artificial

Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this
article at the publishers website:
Figure S1. SCOBA for object topicalization.
Figure S2. SCOBA for adjunct topicalization.
Figure S3. Cuisenaire rods and Chinese topicalization.

Language Learning 65:1, March 2015, pp. 152180

180