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. 241–270

Envisioning L2 writing development in CDST under a curricular optic

A proposal

| Georgetown University
The chapter presents an integrated proposal for viewing CDST-inspired inquiry into L2 writing development under a curricular optic. After establishing the need for an object theory of language that aligns with the principles of complexity theory, it considers how the educational setting itself, composing abilities and their development, and the agentive L2 writer might be imagined within a complexity theory approach. On that basis it posits that the educational construct of curriculum, interpreted as a subsystem of the complex system of formal education, can provide an environment for studying L2 writing development in an educationally motivated, holistic, and dynamic way that interprets the L2 composer’s evolving agency toward textual meaning-making in light of the structures, processes, and affordances that hold in a particular educational setting. The chapter concludes by considering broader theoretical, research, and education-oriented implications of such a proposal.
Keywords: curriculum, writing development, CDST, educational context, meaning-making
Published online: 04 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.10byr
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Byrnes, Heidi
2020.  In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 73 ff. Crossref logo
Fogal, Gary G.
2021. System mapping simplex spaces: facilitating change in L2 educational contexts from a complexity theory perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 may 2021. 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.

References

References

Ahearn, L. M.
(2001) Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
(2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biesta, G.
(2010) Five theses on complexity reduction and its politics. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.), Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 5–13). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M.
(2007) Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39, 132–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D.
(2011) What is an effect? Coming at causality backwards. In M. Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of innovation in research methods (pp. 80–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G.
(2014) Complexity theory and the social sciences. The state of the art. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H.
(2002) The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate FL curriculum. Language Testing, 19, 419–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Conceptualizing FL writing development in collegiate settings: A genre-based systemic functional linguistic approach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 190–218). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Linking task and writing for language development: Evidence from a genre-based curricular approach. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 237–263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2015) Linking ‘task’ and curricular thinking: An affirmation of the TBLT educational agenda. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 193–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Toward a framework for U.S. collegiate foreign language instruction: Curricular considerations. In S. Coffey & U. Wingate (Eds.), New directions for research in foreign language education (pp. 200–222). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2018) Advanced-level grammatical development in instructed SLA. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 133–156). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Affirming the context of instructed SLA: The potential of curricular thinking. Language Teaching Research, 23, 514–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020a) Developing an SFL-inspired 4-year collegiate foreign language program: Contexts, constructs, curriculum. In J. R. Martin, J. S. Knox, & D. Caldwell (Eds.), Developing theory: A handbook in appliable linguistics and semiotics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2020b) Toward an agenda for researching L2 writing and language learning: The educational context of development. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Duff, P. A.
(2019) SLA across disciplinary borders: New perspectives, critical questions, and research possibilities Modern Language Journal , 103 (Supplement 2019), 3–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M.
(2014a) Task, task performance, and writing development: Advancing the constructs and the research agenda. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 267–299). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2014b) Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing: An introduction. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based L2 language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Maxim, H., & Norris, J. M.
(2010) Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education. Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal, 94, iv–vi, 1–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Ludlow, L., Grudnoff, L., & Aitken, G.
(2014) The challenge and promise of complexity theory for teacher education research. Teachers College Record, 116(050302), 1–38.Google Scholar
Davis, B., & Sumara, D.
(2006) Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
de Bot, K.
(2017) Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory: Same or different. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 51–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. & Verspoor, M.
(2013) Dynamic systems theory as a theory of second language development. In M. Garcia Mayo, M. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Adrian (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(2014) Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47, 80–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A., & Muir, C.
(2016) Motivational currents in language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Douglas Fir Group
(2016) A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement 2016), 19–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2019) Essentials of a theory of language cognition. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 39–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emig, J.
(1977) Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A.
(1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1991) Towards probabilistic interpretations. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp. 39–61). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) On grammar and grammatics. In R. Hasan, C. Cloran, & D. G. Butt (Eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice (pp. 1–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) The notion of “context” in language education. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Spoken and written modes of meaning. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar (pp. 323–351). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2007a) A language development approach to education (1994). In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education (pp. 368–382). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2007b) The notion of “context” in language education (1991). In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education (pp. 269–290). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2007c) On the concept of “educational linguistics” (1990). In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education (pp. 354–367). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R.
(1993) Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & revised by Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
(2014) Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2001) Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success in second language acquisition. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 12–24). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
(2007) On the complementarity of chaos/complexity theory and dynamic systems theory in understanding the second language process. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 35–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48–72). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015) Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2017) Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. Modern Language Journal, 103(Supplement 2019), 61–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Tedick, D. J.
(2016) Teaching world languages: Thinking differently. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1335–1387). Washington, DC: AERA. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T.
(2008) A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L., & Sabelli, N. H.
(2008) Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. In M. Mason (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp. 112–123). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2015) Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65, 63–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K.
(Eds.) (2016) Handbook of second and foreign language writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R.
(1991) Intrinsic functionality: Implications for contextual theory. Social Semiotics, 1, 99–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mason, M.
(Ed.) (2008) Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
(2015) Register in the round: Registerial cartography. Functional Linguistics, 2(9), 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mick, C.
(2015) Sociological approaches to second language learning and agency. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 91–109). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M.
(2015) Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 27–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Language program evaluation. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement 2016), 169–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Manchón, R. M.
(2012) Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 219–245). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2005) For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89, 427–443. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osberg, D., & Biesta, G.
(2010) Complexity theory and the politics of education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Overton, W. F.
(2007) A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicism-contextualism. Human Development, 50(2–3), 154–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational-developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 94–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S.
(1957) Essays in the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Liberal Arts Press.Google 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
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
(1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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, 532–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stenhouse, L.
(1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M.
(2011) The history and future of genre in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 1–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G.
(2001) Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G., Bowcher, W. L., Fontaine, L. & Schönthal, D.
(Eds.) (2019) The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E.
(2010) Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 270–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E., & Ortega, L.
(2018) Usage-inspired L2 instruction: An emergent, researched pedagogy. In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E., Ortega, L., Uno, M., & Park, H. I.
(Eds.) (2018) Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H.
(2014) The good, the bad and the ugly? The dynamic interplay between educational practice, policy and research. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 11(2), 22–39. 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(1), 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X.
(2012) A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Smiskova, H.
(2012) Foreign language writing development from a dynamic usage-based perspective. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 17–47). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar