Variability in Second Language Development From a Dynamic Systems Perspective

Abstract

This article illustrates that studying intra‐individual variability in Second Language Development can provide insight into the developmental dynamics of second language (L2) learners. Adopting a Dynamic Systems Theory framework (Thelen & Smith, 1994; van Geert, 1994) and using insights from microgenetic variability studies in developmental psychology (Siegler, 2006), we focus on L2 systems during a time of rapid development, applying advanced visualization techniques. A reinterpretation of a longitudinal study by Cancino et al. (1978) on the use of negation shows nonlinear patterns and peaks of regression, and illustrates the relevance of regarding internal variability as a source of information in itself. A case study of an advanced learner reveals a general increase over time for the correlates included, but the development is nonlinear, showing moments of progress and regress. The case study also brings to light an interesting dynamic interaction of subsystems. In accordance with the assumption of a limitation of resources, the learner shows a variable development for some related measurements in the course of the trajectory.

Gestures and some key issues in the study of language development

“…This is not to say that we need to explain every single instance of a deviation from a general pattern. As in other areas of language development, variation is a reflection of the developmental process resulting from the interaction of many internal variables that cannot be taken apart to study the impact of each individual factor (van Dijk & van Geert, 2005;Verspoor et al, 2008). Studies of gestures and language development will have to be methodologically creative to find ways of taking variation into account.…”

“…In SLD the effect of a range of psychosocial factors have been explored, such as intelligence, language aptitude, memory capacity, attitudes, motivation, personality traits, and cognitive style (e.g. de Bot et al, 2005: 65-75;Dörnyei, 2006;Verspoor, Lowie, & van Dijk, 2008). For instance, intelligence matters more in tutored than in untutored SLD, and more in grammar learning than in other skills.…”

Gradual development of constructional complexity in German spatial language

“…Increasing complexity at some point in the system (e.g., inflection or clause length) may also interact with developing complexity at other points in the system (e.g., subordination or global narrative skills), either in supportive or in competing ways (cf. Berman 2016; Verspoor et al 2008). Children thus acquire increasingly more tightly cohesive syntactic packaging abilities (Berman 2016: 475ff;cf.…”

“…Structural complexity can be measured in terms of phrase, clause, utterance, or turn length (e.g., Hsu 2017: 12-13;Pallotti 2015: 123-124;Verspoor et al 2008; see Bhat and Yoon 2015: 46 for an overview), degrees of irregularity (cf. Culicover 2014: 148-149), and/or levels of hierarchical structure (e.g., mean number of modifiers per noun phrase or mean number of higher level constituents per sentence, controlling for number of words, cf.…”

Development of Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in High School Students’ Written Foreign Language Production

“…Thus, concurrent attention to different areas of L2 is considered difficult. Verspoor, Lowie, and van Dijk (2008) conducted a longitudinal study (over a period of 3 years) observing the academic writing of an advanced learner of English. The researchers reported that the sentence length measure and the type token ratio did not develop concurrently and that there was a competitive relationship between them, pointing to an absence of the ability to allocate attentional resources equally on the part of the language learner.…”