Is Language Teachable?

Teachability Hypothesis

MANFRED PIENEMANN
 Introduction
Pienemann :
1. When the learner is ready to acquire.

2. Psychological constraints on teachability,

relating to the “Multidimensional model”.

3. Empirical evidence for these constraints.

 Background
Pienemann thinks
♣ The discontinuity in the history of language teaching
♦ Misapplication of findings from parent disciplines.
♦ The lack of an independent theoretical basis for
teaching itself.

♣ The nature of the language teaching process

♦ A conspicuous lack of research into language learning
♦ An excessive reliance on a posteriori explanations
derived from parent disciplines.
♣ Whether language is teachable
 Multidimensional model
• Developed in 1981 by ZISA group
(Zweitsprachemerwerb Italienischer und Spanischer Arbeiter)
– Clahsen, Meisel and Pienemann –

• Development Dimension

• Variation Dimension
 German Grammar

• In field, play students soccer.

• He has the homework finished.

• When I home go, …....

 First dimension – Development
Stages of acquisition of German word order
1. Stage 1 Formulas and one word sentences.
How are you?, boy, girl
2. Stage 2 Canonical Order (stage X). SVO
The children eat an apple
3. Stage 3 Adverb preposing (stage X+1).
There children play.
4. Stage 4 Verb Separation (stage X+2).
I have a house built.
5. Stage 5 Inversion (stage X+3).
Then has she again the bone brought.
6. Stage 6 Verb Final (stage X+4).
When I home go….
 Second dimension – Variation
“ Learner’s Orientation”

1. Copula

2. The interplay of ADV and INV

3. At Any Stage
On the basis of “Multidimensional Model”
1. In a mixed (formal and natural) acquisition setting,
formal language teaching can use a natural process of
language learning.

2. A number of predictions
• The next natural learning problem.
• The learner’s orientation
• Description of the learner’s rule system
 Teachability Hypothesis

„ Teaching itself is subject to some

of the constraints which
determine the course of natural
acquisition.
 Table 2 : Teresa

Hidden rec. Interview 1 Interview 2 Interview 3

(Teaching inversion)
(Teaching copula)
Adverb X X X X

Particle (SEP) (0.) 0. 0. 0.

Inversion 0. 0. 0. 0.83
 Table 3. Giovanni

Hidden rec. Interview 1 Interview 2 Interview 3 Hidden rec. Hidden rec.

(Teaching inversion)
(Teaching copula)
Adverb X X X X X X

Particle (SEP) 0.47 0.31 0.14 0.50 0.61 0.56

Inversion 0.17 0.11 0.20 (0.67) 1. 0.67

Verb and complement

0. 0. 0. (0.5) 0.29 0.36
separation
Table 4. The omission of the copula before
and after instruction

Hidden rec. Interview 1 Interview 2 Interview 3 Hidden rec. Hidden rec.

(Teaching inversion)
Carmine / 0.70 0.13 0.18 / /

(Teaching copula)
Monica / 0.50 0.10 0.14 / /

Mimmo / 0.18 0.08 0.08 (0.33) /

Teresa 0. 0. 0. 0. / /

Giovanni 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
 Do you agree or disagree?

♣ Teachability Hypothesis maintains that the

influence of teaching is restricted to the learning
of items which the learner is “ready” for.

♣ Items in a syllabus are needed to be taught

in the order in which they are learnable.
 Formal and natural L2 acquisition are
different ?
„ Pienemann said “No”
♦ Evidence
1. Felix (1981) and Hahn (1982)
2. Daniel’s (1983) cross-sectional study

3. Westmoreland (1983)
4. Further Evidence by Pienemann
A longitudinal study of formal SLA
 Table 6. Learning objectives in a study
of formal L2 acquisition
Weeks 1 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
COP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
AUX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
SVO

V X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
QUESTION X X X X X X X X X X - X X X X
PP (X) (X) (X) X X X X X X X X X
TOPI

OBJECT X X X X (X) (X) X X X X X X X

Q-PRO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
AUX+NV X X X
MOD+NV (X) X X X X X X X X X X X X
SEP

P+FV (X) X X X X X X
SEP WITH V-
COMPLEMENT
PP (X) (X) (X) X X X X X X X X X
TOP 2
TOPI 1 X X X X (X) (X) X X X X X X X
WH-Q X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
INV

YES/NO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
INV WITH V-
COMPLEMENT
Total
V-END WITH V-
V-END

COMPLEMENT

Total
 Table 7. Structure contained in the
input
Weeks 1 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
COP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
AUX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
SVO

V X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
QUESTION X X X X X X X X X X - X X X X
PP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
TOPI

OBJECT X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Q-PRO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
AUX+NV X X X X X X X X
MOD+NV (X) X X X X X X X X X X X X
SEP

P+FV (X) X X X X X X X X X X X X
SEP WITH V-
COMPLEMENT
PP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
TOP 2 X X X
TOPI 1 X X X X (X) (X) X X X X X X X
WH-Q X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
INV

YES/NO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
INV WITH V-
COMPLEMENT
Total
V-END WITH V-
V-END

COMPLEMENT

Total X X X X X
 Table 8. Steven
Weeks 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

COP X X X X X X X X X X X X X

AUX X X X X
SVO

V X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

QUESTION X X X X X X X X X X

PP X X X X X X X X X X X
TOPI

OBJECT X X

Q-PRO X X X X X X X X X X X X X

AUX+NV 0. 0.72 1. 0.62 0.86 0.86 0.71

MOD+NV (0.) (1.) (0.8) 0.2 (1.) 0.66 1. 1. 0.57 0.87 0.28
SEP

P+FV (0.) (0.6) (0.)

SEP WITH V-
/ (0.) (0.4) .16 (0.) (0.) .72 .90 .81 .79 .86 .46
COMPLEMENT

PP 0. 0. (0.5) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

TOP 2

TOPI 1 (0.) (1.)

WH-Q 0.5 1. 1. 1. 0.75 1. 1. 1. 1.

INV

YES/NO (1.) 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. (0.5) 1. 1. 1.

VERB

TOPICALIZATION

INV WITH V-
(0.) 0. (.33) (.16) 0. 0. 0.13 0. 0.1 / / 0.06 / 0.
COMPLEMENT
 Table 9. Guy
Weeks 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
COP X X X X X X X X X
AUX X X X X X X X X
SVO

V X X X X X X X X X X
QUESTION X X X X X X X
PP X X X X X X
TOPI

OBJECT X
Q-PRO X X X X X X X X X
AUX+NV 1. 0.37 1.
MOD+NV (0.) (1.) (0.4) 0.25 0. 0.66 0.75 0.26
SEP

P+FV 0. 0. 0.
SEP WITH V-
/ (0.) (0.5) 0. / .75 .46 .41
COMPLEMENT
PP 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOP 2
TOPI 1 0. 0.
WH-Q 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.
INV

YES/NO 1. 1. 0.8 0.88 1. 1. 1.

VERB
TOPICALIZATION (1.)
INV WITH V-
0. 0. (0.22) 0. 0. 0.1 0.36
COMPLEMENT
V-END WITH V-
V-END

COMPLEMENT (0.) (0.) (0.) (0.) (0.)

Total (0.5) (0.) (0.) (0.) (0.)

 Table 10. Vivian
W eeks 1 3 5 7 9
COP X X X X X
AUX
SVO

V X X X X X
Q U E S T IO N X X X X
PP X X
TOPI

O B JE C T X X
Q-PRO X X X X
AUX+NV
MOD+NV ( 0 .)
SEP

P+ FV
S E P W IT H V -
( 0 .)
COM PLEM EN T
PP 0. 0.
TOP 2
TOPI 1 ( 0 .)
W H-Q 1. 1. 1. ( 0 .)
INV

Y E S /N O 1. 1.
VERB
T O P IC A L IZ A T IO N 1.
IN V W IT H V -
( 0 .) 0. ( 0 .2 2 ) 0. 0.
COM PLEM EN T
V - E N D W IT H V -
V-END

COM PLEM EN T ( 0 .) ( 0 .) ( 0 .)

T o ta l ( 0 .) ( 0 .) ( 0 .)
 Two general finding
from the study

1. Developing language in order

regardless of scheduling of teaching

2. The same order as the natural

acquisition of German
Is premature learning
profitable?
Table 11. Experiment overview

Stages of
Informants
acquisition
INV - -

SEP Giovanni Mimmo

ADV Teresa Monica

SVO - Carmine

Features for learner’s

orientation +cop +cop
 Table 12. Relative frequency of
adverbs preposing

Hidden rec. Interview1 Interview2 Interview3 Hidden rec. Hidden rec.

(Teaching inversion)
(Teaching copula)
Carmine / 0. 0. 0. / /

Monica / 0.56 0.53 0.11 / /

Mimmo 0.08 0.07 0.17 0.15 0.28 /

Teresa 0.20 0.25 0.24 0.06 / /

Giovanni 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.11 / /

 Table 13. Adverb-initial vs.
final position

Hidden rec. Interview 1 Interview 2 Interview 3 Hidden rec. Hidden rec.

(Teaching inversion)
(Teaching copula)
Carmine / / / / / /

Monica / 0.56 0.47 0.20 / /

Mimmo 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.31 0.35 /

Teresa 0.38 0.44 0.37 0.18 / /

Giovanni 0.41 0.43 0.39 0.32 0.36 /

 Final Remarks
1. Psycholinguistic background information

2. Overall margin

♦ The Teachability Hypothesis can theoretically

be extended to all structures
- morphological and syntactical