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. 49–78

Chapter 3
The dynamic co-development of linguistic and discourse-semantic complexity in advanced L2 writing

| Soochow University
| Suzhou Industrial Park Xinghui School

This study reports on an exploratory investigation of the developmental and interaction patterns of linguistic and discourse-semantic complexity in two advanced Chinese EFL learners’ argumentative writings. Adopting a complex dynamic systems theory approach, this work captures linguistic complexity by using subordination and phrasal elaboration metrics, and semantic complexity by examining grammatical metaphor. The findings are: (a) the two sub-systems of linguistic complexity develop through different paths, featuring nonlinearity with progress and regression; (b) semantic complexity generally undergoes dynamic development – however, there seems to be inter-participant variation in terms of transitional phases; (c) the interaction of linguistic and semantic complexity is diversified between the subsystems and at the individual level. The level of L2 skillfulness and integrated feedback are likely to contribute jointly to the results. These findings have implications for both L2 writing research and instruction.

Keywords: CDST, linguistic complexity, discourse-semantic complexity, L2 writing
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Rationale
    • Complexity in L2 research
    • Connecting nominalization to semantic complexity
    • Measuring L2 linguistic complexity
    • Nominalization as an indicator of discourse-semantic complexity in advanced L2 writing
  • The present study
    • The setting
    • The participants
    • Measures
    • Data coding and analysis
  • Results
    • Intra-variability in the development of linguistic and semantic complexity
      • Lucy
      • Mary
    • Interaction between linguistic complexity and semantic complexity
      • Lucy
      • Mary
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 04 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.03wan
References
Baba, K., & Nitta, R.
(2014) Phase transition in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language learning, 64(1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B.
(2010) Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
(2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency – Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H.
(2009) Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20, 50–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., & Norris, J. M.
(2010) Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (Suppl. s1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colombi, M. C.
(2006) Grammatical metaphor: Academic language development in Latino students of Spanish. In H. Byrnes (Ed.). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 147–163). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S.
(2014) Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A.
(1995) Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evaluation. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 375–397). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Flahive, D. E., & Snow, B.
(1980) Measures of syntactic complexity in evaluating ESL compositions. In J. W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 171–176). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Fogal, G. G.
(2019) Tracking microgenetic changes in authorial voice development from a complexity theory perspective. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 432–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A., & Gilmore, A.
(2018) Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event: Second language writers at different proficiency levels. Language Learning, 68(2), 469–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C.
(1999) Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D.
(2017) Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–28. DOI logoGoogle 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-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
(2008) Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P.
(1995) Assessing short-term change in advanced oral proficiency: Problems of reliability and validity in four case studies. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 109, 75–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2015) Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65(1), 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., Verspoor, M., & van Dijk, M.
(2018) The acquisition of L2 speaking: A dynamic perspective. In R. Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Speaking in a second language (pp. 105–125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, X. F.
(2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2015) Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polat, B., & Kim, Y.
(2014) Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics 35(2), 184–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rifkin, B.
(2005) A ceiling effect in traditional classroom foreign language instruction: Data from Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, M.
(2010) Toward mastering the discourses of reasoning: Use of grammatical metaphor at advanced levels of foreign language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 181–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, M., & Byrnes, H.
(2013) Writing as learning to know: Tracing knowledge construction in L2 German compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, M.
(2015) A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: The case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 51–63. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B.
(2016) Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33, 149–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(2009) The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 103–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tin, T. B.
(2011) Language creativity and co-emergence of form and meaning in creative writing tasks. Applied linguistics, 32(2), 215–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vercellotti, M. L.
(2017) The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 90–111. DOI logoGoogle 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, 14(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmidt, M., & Xu, J.
(2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wette, R.
(2010) Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 158–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, E.
(1994) Teaching and assessing writing (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Yoon, H.-J., & Polio, C.
(2017) The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 275–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zheng, Y. Y.
(2012) Exploring long-term productive vocabulary development in an EFL context: The role of motivation. System, 40, 104–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zheng, Y. Y., & Feng, Y. L.
(2017) A dynamic systems study on Chinese EFL learners’ syntactic and lexical complexity development. Modern Foreign Languages, 40(1), 57–63.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Tsehaye, Wintai, Tatiana Pashkova, Rosemarie Tracy & Shanley E. M. Allen
2021. Deconstructing the Native Speaker: Further Evidence From Heritage Speakers for Why This Horse Should Be Dead!. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 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.