Complexity theory: a new way to think

Larsen‐Freeman, Diane

doi:10.1590/s1984-63982013000200002

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although now some 20 years since Larsen–Freeman () first proposed that language development is best understood as a complex system, it is only recently that a ‘dynamic turn’ has taken place in SLA, and only now that a critical mass of researchers is engaging in complexity conversations (de Bot, ; Larsen–Freeman, ). With the recognition that complexity perspectives can serve “both as a useful heuristic and an integrative platform” (Vallacher & Nowak, , p. 756), research in applied linguistics is now moving beyond the purely metaphorical use of complexity principles to the development and empirical application of complexity models (de Bot, ; Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, ).…”

Section: Complexity Theories and Emergencementioning

confidence: 99%

L2 Motivation and Multilingual Identities

Henry

2017

The Modern Language Journal

141

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By tradition, L2 motivation research has a monolingual bias – the motivational systems of a learner's different languages conceptualized as separate entities rather than as cognitively interconnected. At a time when multilingualism has become a new world order (Douglas Fir Group, ) and where there is evidence of powerful identity experiences connected to speaking several languages (Pavlenko, ) this is unfortunate. In alignment with the multilingual and dynamic turns in SLA (de Bot, ; May, ), and adopting a complexity thought modeling approach (Larsen–Freeman & Cameron, ), this article explores multilingual learners’ L2 motivation. It is suggested that the motivational systems of a multilingual learner's different languages can be understood as constituting a higher‐level multilingual motivational self system that is part of an ecology of interconnected and interpenetrating systems. This system contains multilingual self guides, one of which is the ideal multilingual self. Drawing on construal‐level theory (Trope & Liberman, ), the manner and effects of mental representations of an ideal multilingual self are assessed. Finally, it is suggested that motivation deriving from a broader identity that encompasses but, in important ways, transcends a multilingual person's language‐specific identities has a central role to play in multilingual education.

show abstract

Section: Complexity Theories and Emergencementioning

confidence: 99%

L2 Motivation and Multilingual Identities

Henry

2017

The Modern Language Journal

141

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most also emphasize that complexity has yet to be articulated in such a way that it could be termed a theory per se (Overton, ). Accordingly, our usage corresponds with what Larsen–Freeman (, ) has termed a meta‐theory —a set of coherent principles of reality (i.e., ontological ideas) and principles of knowing (i.e., epistemological ideas) that, for applied linguists, underpin and contextualize object theories (i.e., of language and language development) consistent with these principles (de Bot et al., ). The complexity meta‐theory groups together a set of well‐known relational principles (Overton, ), namely that certain phenomena involve multiple parts interacting together through dynamic, nonlinear processes that lead to striking emergent patterns over time.…”

Section: The Contribution Of Complexity To Applied Linguisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dynamic Ensemble for Second Language Research: Putting Complexity Theory Into Practice

Hiver

Al‐Hoorie

2016

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we introduce a template of methodological considerations, termed "the dynamic ensemble," for scholars doing or evaluating empirical second language development (SLD) research within a complexity/dynamic systems theory (CDST) framework. Given that CDST principles have yielded significant insight into SLD and have become central to the concerns of applied linguists in many domains, we propose the need for a practical blueprint to ensure compatibility between its theoretical tenets and empirical SLD research designs. Building on "complexity thought modeling" (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a), we present a practical catalog of 9 considerations intended to inform research design at multiple stages. We contextualize the 9 considerations of the dynamic ensemble by discussing how these have been framed and addressed within one previous CDST study. Finally, we address the issue of what practical implementation of this dynamic ensemble would entail and introduce several case-based methods for building off of the considerations in our dynamic ensemble. We hope that this user guide will help orient researchers interested in working within a complexity framework and spur continued methodological discussion in the field.

show abstract

“…While I register qualified affinities with some aspects of the received reading of the DST perspective in L2 research (de Bot, 2008;de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007a, 2007bLarsen-Freeman, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013aCameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007;Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, 2011, among others), here labeled the contextual DST, the proposed dialectical approach to DST is counterposed with the extant reading of DST on various counts. Most broadly, the guiding concern in the present argument is, nonetheless, to refine and cast some complementary light on the 'use-equals-L2 system' reading of DST in L2 studies through a scientific critique rather than to take precedence over contextual DST en bloc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%