Chapter published in:
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development
Edited by Gary G. Fogal and Marjolijn H. Verspoor
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 54] 2020
► pp. 27–48

Chapter 2
Coordination of linguistic subsystems as a sign of automatization?

| University of Groningen | Xi’an University
| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen | University of Pannonia
This study explored retrodictively differences in developmental patterns between a learner who makes some progress and one that does not. Their twelve successive writings were analyzed on holistically scored measures of complexity, accuracy, fluency, idiomaticity, and coherence (CAFIC) and on two analytical measures to operationalize syntactic and lexical complexity. Their developmental trajectories were explored with visual graphs (LOESS curves), Monte Carlo analyses, and correlational analyses. The stronger learner showed rather synchronous development in most measures and a significant jump in lexical complexity (operationalized as average word length), suggesting a level of coordination of subsystems and therefore automaticity of the system as a whole. The weaker learner, on the other hand, showed more competitive or random patterns in the measures.
Keywords: foreign language development, complex dynamic system theory (CDST), writing, variability, coordination
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • CDST and development
  • The study
    • Subjects
    • Texts
    • Holistic scoring
    • Operationalizing constructs
    • Statistical analyses
  • Results
    • Statistical analyses
    • Correlation analyses
    • Variability and variation over time
    • Interactions of variables over time
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 04 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.02hou
References
Baba, K., & Nitta, R.
(2014) Phrase transitions in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64(1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A.
(1976) The psychology of memory. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bassano, D., & van Geert, P.
(2007) Modeling continuity and discontinuity in utterance length: A quantitative approach to changes, transitions and intra-individual variability in early grammatical development. Developmental Science, 10(5), 588–612. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B.
(2013) The development of complexity in second language acquisition: A dynamic systems approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Chan, S.
(2001, October 31–November 6). Complex adaptive systems. Paper presented at ESD.83 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems . Retrieved from http://​web​.mit​.edu​/esd​.83​/www​/notebook​/Complex%20Adaptive%20Systems​.pdf (7 January, 2020).
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fogal, G. G.
(2019) Investigating variability in L2 development: Extending a complexity theory perspective on L2 writing studies and authorial voice. Applied Linguisitcs, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fogel, A., & Thelen, E.
(1987) Development of early expressive and communicative action: Reinterpreting the evidence from a dynamic systems perspective. Developmental Psychology, 23, 747–761. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hood, G. M.
(2004) Poptools version 2.6.2. Available at www​.poptools​.org> (7 January 2020).
Hou, J.
(2017) The dynamics of English writing development in advanced Chinese learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hou, J., Verspoor, M., & Loerts, H.
(2016a) An exploratory study into the dynamics of Chinese L2 writing development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 65–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hou, J., Loerts, H., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2016b) Chunk use and development in advanced Chinese L2 learners of English. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 148–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Exploring attitude and test-driven motivation towards English at Chinese universities. International Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 37–60.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D.
(1973) Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kelso, J. S.
(1995) Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(1978) An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2015) Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: a dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65(1), 63–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Individual differences and the ergodicity problem. Language Learning, 69, 184–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Penris, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2017) Academic writing development: A complex, dynamic process. In S. E. Pfenninger & J. Navracsics (Eds.), Future research directions for applied linguistics (pp. 215–242). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K., & Marchman, V.
(1991) U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi- layered perception: Implications for child language acquisition. Cognition, 38(1), 43–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M.
(2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Systat Software Incorporated
(2015) Table curve 2D (v5.01 ed.). Richmond, CA: Systat Software Incorporated.Google Scholar
Thelen, E.
(1989) Self-organization in developmental processes: Can systems approaches work? In M. Gunnar & E. Thelen (Eds.), Systems and development. The Minnesota Symposia in Child Psychology (pp. 77–117). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B.
(1994) A Dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W.
(2011) Variability and DST. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P.
(1991) A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological review, 98(1), 3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P., & van Dijk, M.
(2002) Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development, 25(4), 340–374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P., & Verspoor, M.
(2015) Dynamic systems and language development. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 537–556). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Behrens, H.
(2011) Dynamic systems theory and a usage based approach to second language development. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. (pp. 25–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., Chan, H. P., & Vahtrick, L.
(2017) Linguistic complexity in second language development: Variability and variation at advanced stages. Recherches en Didactique des Langues et des Cultures. Les Cahiers de l’Acedle, 14, 14–1.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M.
(2008) Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vyatkina, N.
(2012) The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 576–598. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watson Todd, R. W., Thienpermpool, P., & Keyuravong, S.
(2004) Measuring the coherence of writing using topic-based analysis. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 85–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.
(1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar