Learning Japanese as a Second Language: A Processability Perspect ...

and Long (1991) called the predictive framework (Pienemann & Johnston, 1985).

The architecture of PT itself is outlined in section 2.2. This includes a brief summary of two major modules of PT: a current and widely accepted model of language generation (Levelt, 1989) and lexical functional grammar (LFG henceforth, Bresnan, 2001; Kaplan & Bresnan, 1982). Key psychological factors in language processing, the hierarchy of processing prerequisites, and the application of LFG to speech models are then briefly summarised, as based on the work of Pienemann (1998a, 1998b). Section 2.3 discusses the issue of cross-linguistic influence on learning a second language (L2), addressing major competing approaches to first language (L1) transfer. Section 2.4 shifts the focus to Japanese L2. The section reviews influential Japanese L2 studies of acquisition of syntax and morphology as well as earlier studies within the framework of PT and its precursor, predictive framework. Recent advances in PT are also briefly discussed. The reviews in this chapter provide a theoretical basis for developing the PT-based hypothesis for Japanese L2, which is presented in chapter 3.

2.1. Historical Sketch of SLA Research

The review of earlier models of SLA in this section highlights the contributions and limitations of each. It aims to explain how a particular approach/model investigated language learning and how each new approach/model attempted to rectify the shortcomings of those that preceded it.

2.1.1. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis:
A Behaviourist View of Language Acquisition

Contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) was one of the first attempts to explain some of the observable phenomena of learner language. It was more a product of efforts to improve language teaching than an analysis of the L2 learning mechanism; that is, it had an educational purpose and its objective was effective pedagogy.