Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:48:51.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second language writing from a complex dynamic systems perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2022

Gary G. Fogal Open the ORCID record for Gary G. Fogal [Opens in a new window]
Gary G. Fogal*
Affiliation:
Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan
*
*Corresponding author. Email: ggfogal@sophia.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This work provides a chronological and thematic account of empirical studies and position papers on second language (L2) writing scholarship from a complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) perspective. As a theoretical framework, CDST was formally introduced into applied linguistics research by Diane Larsen-Freeman in 1994 (Larsen-Freeman, 1994). However, more than a decade passed before CDST-L2 writing studies emerged in the literature, with Larsen-Freeman (2006) frequently cited as the first related publication. Initially, scholarship focused primarily on the quality of linguistic output (e.g., measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency, or CAF) in North American and European contexts. Since these early foci, studies have expanded to cover a range of constructs and contexts that employ increasingly sophisticated and diverse research methods (for a recent collection of studies, see Fogal & Verspoor, 2020). In this time, a CDST approach to L2 writing research has matured alongside a general CDST view of language change that has contributed, through empirical studies, to understanding the nonlinear, adaptive, context dependent, and complex and dynamic nature of L2 development (see Hiver et al., 2021, for an overview).

Type
Research Timeline
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 193 - 210
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baba, K. (2020). Exploring dynamic developmental trajectories of writing fluency: Who benefited from the writing task? In Fogal, G. G., & Verspoor, M. H. (Eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development (pp. 3–25). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2020b). Toward an agenda for researching L2 writing and language learning: The educational context of development. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 73–94). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Routledge.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (2015). Rates of change: Timescales in second language development. In Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 29–37). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2010). Using corpora for writing instruction. In O'Keeffe, A., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 444–457). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogal, G. G. (2020b). Unpacking ‘simplex systems’: Curricular thinking for L2 writing development. In Fogal, G. G., & Verspoor, M. H. (Eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development (pp. 271–294). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogal, G. G., & Verspoor, M. H. (Eds.). (2020). Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, A., & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2020). Investigating complexity in L2 writing with mixed methods approaches. In Fogal, G. G., & Verspoor, M. H. (Eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development (pp. 183–206). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepford, E. (2020). The elusive phase shift: Capturing changes in L2 writing development and interaction between the cognitive and social ecosystems. In Fogal, G. G., & Verspoor, M. H. (Eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development (pp. 161–182). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics (Vol. 121). Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016). A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 741–756. doi:10.1111/modl.12347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020). Research methods for complexity theory in applied linguistics. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Evans, R. (2021). Complex dynamic systems theory in language learning: A scoping review of 25 years of research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1994). On the parallels between chaos theory and second language acquisition [Paper presentation]. Second Language Research Forum, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). On the roles of repetition in language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics Review, 3(2), 195–210. doi: 10.1515/applirev-2012-0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In Ortega, L., & Han, Z. (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, G. S. (2020). A human ecological pedagogy. Modern Language Journal, 104(S1), 1–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., MacKay, E., Ross, J., & Abel, E. (2017). The emerging need for methods appropriate to study dynamic systems. In Ortega, L., & Han, Z. (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 97–122). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of second and foreign language writing (Vol. 11). De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, S. (2016). Complexity, language learning and the language classroom. In Hall, G. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 473–485). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Rosmawati, R. (2020). Profiling the dynamic changes of syntactic complexity in L2 academic writing: A multilevel synchrony method. In Fogal, G. G., & Verspoor, M. H. (Eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development (pp. 109–131). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. MIT Press.Google 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. doi:10.29173/cmplct22962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. H. (2017). Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 pedagogy: Lessons to be learned. In Ortega, L., & Han, Z. (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 144–162). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wind, A. M., & Harding, L. (2020). Attractor states in the development of linguisticcomplexity in second language writing and the role of self-regulation: A longitudinal case study. In Lowie, W., Michel, M., Rousse-Malpat, A., Keijzer, M., & Steinkrauss, R. (Eds.), Usage-based dynamics in second language development (pp. 130–154). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Technical Report #17. National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar