Cover not available
Part of
Second Language Acquisition Theory: The legacy of Professor Michael H. Long
Edited by Alessandro G. Benati and John W. Schwieter
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 14] 2022
► pp. 29–76

Chapter 3
Stabilization

A dynamic account

| Paderborn University | Linguistic Engineering Co.
| Linguistic Engineering Co.
| La Trobe University
| Innsbruck University

We accord with Mike Long’s rejection of fossilization as a concept able to describe or explain second language acquisition. And we share his bewilderment (Long, 2003, p. 512f.) that since most studies of fossilization make reference to explanatory factors external to language and cognition, “[s]urprisingly, no one seems to have considered the possibility that if fossilization is, as Selinker (1972) claimed, a cognitive mechanism producing the non-target end-state also called ‘fossilization’, there is no need for other explanations …”. In this paper we take up Mike’s proposition that stabilization might be a more viable alternative to fossilization and propose exactly what Mike asked for, a cognitive mechanism. We demonstrate that in SLA, linguistic simplification, one aspect of stabilization, is a dynamic process that follows its own regularities. We show that it can be modeled in an AI simulation of SLA using the mathematical formalisms of dynamical systems theory that are implied in agent-based modeling. In doing this we show that the formal, mathematical architecture of dynamical systems theory is particularly well suited for a simulation of the cognitive stabilisation mechanism that Mike Long asked for, because agent-based modeling can operate entirely on the basis of the internal dynamics of identifiable stabilization mechanisms, and they can lead to tipping points at which the system may abruptly change direction. Differing from the postmodern DST metaphors that are currently popular among some applied linguists (e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 2006), we have followed Long’s (2003) call for an operationalized concept that is testable. In this chapter, our agent-based model is fully operationalized and tested against longitudinal empirical data. Our chapter spans a period of four decades during which the first author and Mike interacted. Many of these interactions left traces in the research described here. Contextualising this research in its ‘historical’ background may be helpful in tracing the development of ideas that lead up to the AI simulation of SLA reported in this chapter. As the reader will see, many of these ideas were intentionally or unintentionally inspired or provoked by Mike’s critique, comments, suggestions and the presence of his critical mind.

Article outline
  • 1.Mike Long’s impact on PT and the way it conceptualizes variability
  • 2.Variability, steadiness and stabilization as conceptualized in PT: The ‘wrong track pathway’
  • 3.Dynamics in SLA
  • 4.Simulating linguistic simplification in a dynamical system using an Agent-Based Model
  • 5.Empirical validation
    • Hakuta (1974)
    • Haznedar (1997)
    • Nicholas (1987)
    • Pienemann (1980, 1981)
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.14.03pie
References
Bailey, C.-J.
(1973) Variation and linguistic theory. Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.
(1971) Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language, 7 , 457–492.Google Scholar
Borshchev, B., & Filippov, A.
(2004) From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: Reasons, techniques, tools. The 22nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, 25–29 July 25, Oxford, England.
Bresnan, J.
(2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J. M., & Pienemann, M.
(1983) Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Der Zweitspracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter [German as a second language. The second language acquisition of immigrant workers]. Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Clyne, M.
(Ed.) (1981) Foreigner talk. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28 .Google Scholar
De Bot, K.
(2016) Multi-competence and dynamic systems. In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 125–141). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., Lowie, W. M., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (1), 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeCamp, D.
(1973) What do implicational scales imply? In C.-J. N. Bailey & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp. 141–148). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H.
(1885)  Über das Gedächtnis: Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Duncker & Humblot. English translation: Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Columbia University 1913.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. P.
(2012) Chaos and fractals. An elementary introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Chaos and dynamical systems. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K.
(1974) Learning to speak a second language: What exactly does the child learn? In D. Dato (ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1975 (pp. 193–207). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Han, Z. H.
(2004) Fossilisation in adult second language acquisition. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A.
(1991) The research manual. Design and statistics for applied linguists. Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B.
(1997) Child second language acquisition of English: A longitudinal case study of a Turkish-speaking child (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Durham University.
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N.
(2003) Maturaltional constraints in SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition research (pp. 539–587). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E.
(1987) An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11 , 201–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27 (4), 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freemann, D., & Long, M. H.
(1991) An introduction to second language acquisition research. Longman.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Roos, J.
(Eds.) (2019) Widening contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenzing, A., Pienemann, M., & Nicholas, H.
(2022) Lost in translation? On some key features of dynamical systems theorizing invoked in SLA research. In K. Kersten & A. Winsler (Eds) Understanding variability in second language acquisition, bilingualism and cognition. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, T-Y., & Yorke, J.
(1975) Period three implies chaos. The American Mathematical Monthly, 82 (10), 985–992. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(2003) Stabilization and fossilization. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition research (pp. 487–536). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
May, R. M.
(1976) Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics. Nature, 261 (5560), 459–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M.
(1981) On determining developmental stages in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3 (2), 109–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M.
(2011) First and second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M.
(2009) Complexity. A guided tour. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V.
(1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I – A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10 (3), 282–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H.
(1987) A comparative study of the acquisition of German as a first and as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Monash University. Retrieved on 2 February 2022 from [URL]
Nicholas, H., Lenzing, A., & Roos, J.
(2019) How does PT’s view of acquisition relate to the challenge of widening perspectives on SLA? In A. Lenzing, H. Nicholas, & J. Roos (Eds.), Widening contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues (pp. 391–398). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1980) The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In S. W. Felix (Ed.), Second language development. Trends and issues (pp. 41–56). Narr.Google Scholar
(1981) Der Zweitspracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiterkinder [The second language acquisition of immigrant children]. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
(2005) (ed.) Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) The psycholinguistic basis of PT. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory (pp. 27–49). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) An outline of processability theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65 (1), 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G.
(1988) Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10 , 217–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A.
(2020) Processability Theory. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 162–191). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Lenzing, A., & Nicholas, H.
forthcoming). Can dynamic systems theory explain SLA? Unpublished manuscript, University of Paderborn, Germany.
Poincaré, J. H.
(1913) The foundations of science: Vol 1, Science and hypothesis; Vol II, The value of science; Vol III, Science and method (G. Halsted, Trans.). The Science Press. (Original works published in 1902 (Vol I), 1905 (Vol II), 1908 (Vol III)).Google Scholar
Rasmussen, N.
(1987) A new model of developmental constraints as applied to the Drosophila system. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 127 (3), 271–299. PMID:3431126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheffer, M.
(2010) Foreseeing tipping points. Nature, 467, 411–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L.
(1972) Interlanguage. IRAL, 10 , 209–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A.
(1962) The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106 , 467–482.Google Scholar
Strogatz, S. H.
(2015) Nonlinear dynamics and chaos. With applications to physics, biology, chemistry and engineering (2nd ed.). Westview.Google Scholar
Verhulst, P.-F.
(1838) Notice sur la loi que la population poursuit dans son accroissement. Correspondance Mathématique et Physique, 10 , 113–121. (cited after Nicolas Bacaër 2011).Google Scholar
Watkins, C., Massey, D., Brooks, J., Ross, K., & Zellner, M. L.
(2013) Understanding the mechanisms of collective decision making in ecological restoration: An agent-based model of actors and organizations. Ecology and Society, 18 (2), 32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, U.
(1999) NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Retrieved on 2 February 2022 from [URL]
Wimsatt, W.
(1986) Developmental constraints, generative entrenchment and the innate-acquired distinction. In W. Bechtel. (ed.), Integrating scientific disciplines (pp. 185–208). Martinus Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Di Biase, Bruno
2022. Processability approaches to second language instruction. Instructed Second Language Acquisition DOI logo
Dyson, Bronwen
2022. SLA as complex, dynamical and predictable: A Processability Theory perspective. Second Language Research ► pp. 026765832211327 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.