Dynamic Development in Speaking Versus Writing in Identical Twins

Abstract

Taking a dynamic usage-based perspective, this longitudinal case study compares the development of sentence complexity in speaking versus writing in two beginner Taiwanese learners of English (identical twins) in an extensive corpus consisting of 100 oral and 100 written texts of approximately 200 words produced by each twin over 8 months. Three syntactic complexity measures were calculated: mean length of T-unit, dependent clauses per T-unit, and coordinate phrases per T-unit. The working hypothesis was that (a) the learners' oral texts would become more complex sooner than their written texts and that (b) the two learners would show similar developmental patterns. We found that these two learners initially demonstrated syntactic complexity in their oral language rather than in their written language, yet over time they were found to exhibit inverse trends of development. This observation was confirmed with dynamic modeling by means of a hidden Markov model, which allowed us to detect moments of self-organization in the learners' spoken and written output (i.e., moments where the interaction among various measures changes and takes on a new configuration).Keywords writing; speaking; syntactic complexity; developmental patterns; HMM; usage-based; self-organization IntroductionResearchers working within a dynamic usage-based perspective on language learning and use view second language (L2) development as a dynamic process because all factors involved, including the amount of meaningful exposure and motivation, affect the process continuously (e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 2006;de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, 2011 perspective, language itself is viewed as a complex usage-based system with many subsystems, all of which are interconnected and may demonstrate shifts in the developmental trajectory at different stages. Such shifts can be described as the inevitable reorganization a dynamic system undergoes throughout its lifetime. In previous L2 studies that have employed a dynamic usage-based perspective, the focus has been on the variability found within individual measures and how these measures may interact over time (Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010; Verspoor, Lowie, & van Dijk, 2008), on the variation among learners (Larsen-Freeman, 2006), or on developmental peaks that may be demonstrative of overuse of targeted structures (van Dijk, Verspoor, & Lowie, 2011). The current article focuses on stages of development, punctuated by moments of reorganization. We investigate at what points in the learning process the interaction among different linguistic subsystems shifts.Different subsystems may show various interrelationships over time: precursor, competitive, and supportive (Caspi, 2010; Van Geert, 2008). A precursor relationship occurs when a particular subsystem needs to be in place before another can begin to develop. For example, for children learning their first language (L1), one-word utterances (i.e., individual words) precede the occurrence of two-or three-word utterances. A competitive relatio...

Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends

“…However, most of the studies that have investigated the development of L2 complexity and its relationship with overall L2 proficiency and L2 development have been cross‐sectional in nature and have not looked at the actual development of individual learners over time. The few studies that have looked at longitudinal development either covered a relatively short period of time, covered only few data collection points, or included only a small number of learners (Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, ; Chan, Verspoor, & Vahtrick, ; Larsen‐Freeman, ; Polat & Kim, ; Spoelman & Verspoor, ; Verspoor et al, ; notable exceptions are Vyatkina, , ).…”

Linguistic complexity in second language development: variability and variation at advanced stages

“…Vyatkina (2012) found that two individuals who were followed in detail followed overall group trends but differed in the specific paths they took. However, the most telling example of variation being the norm is probably Chan et al (2015), where identical twins with the same teacher and the same amount of exposure to English were traced on identical tasks for one year on both spoken and written English and showed different patterns of development even in very general measures.…”

“…Longitudinal studies from a dynamic perspective have shown that even similar learners in similar circumstances show variability and variation in their development (cf LarsenFreeman, 2006;Vyatkina, 2012;Bulté, 2013;Chan et al, 2015). However, several studies from a dynamic perspective have also pointed to the fact that some measures show less variability or variation and may be more useful in tracing general development in linguistic complexity.…”

The reliability and validity of automated tools for examining variation in syntactic complexity across genres

“…Chan et al () and Lu and Ai () are the only two studies that discussed the tool in any detail. Chan et al were the only researchers who corrected the data in anyway citing Lu's () recommendation that this should be done for beginners.…”

“…In addition, only they and Lu and Ai discussed the overlap (i.e., collinearity) among the measures. Chan et al (: 306) stated:

To thoroughly represent syntactic complexity in L2 writing, complexity metrics should measure different dimensions of complexity and provide distinctive characteristics with as little overlap as possible to avoid redundancy across measures. Therefore, we should only include metrics that represent independent traits and that do not correlate highly with other metrics.

…”