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. 207–238
Chapter 9A critical appraisal of the CDST approach to investigating linguistic
complexity in L2 writing development
Published online: 4 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.09bul
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.09bul
Abstract
This chapter aims to help the complex dynamic systems
theory (CDST) approach to second language acquisition reach its full
potential by critically appraising its current applications to complexity in
L2 writing development. To further this end, we first review five
representative empirical CDST-inspired studies on complexity in L2 writing.
Second, we contrastively analyze a dataset of beginning L2 writing
productions from both a “traditional” and a CDST perspective. Several issues
central to a CDST approach are discussed, including the link between CDST
concepts and research methods, the emphasis on variation and variability as
a window on and a driver of L2 development, the generalizability of
findings, anti-reductionism, and the treatment of measurement noise as
important information about L2 development. We identify challenges for
applying CDST concepts and methods to L2 (writing) development, illustrate
how researchers try to come to grips with these challenges, and offer
suggestions for addressing them.
Keywords: critical review, linguistic complexity, L2 writing
Article outline
- Introduction
- CDST studies on L2 writing development
- A ‘traditional’ versus CDST analysis of L2 writing development: A case study
- Participants, data, and measures
- A traditional analysis
- A CDST analysis
- Discussion
- Added value of a CDST approach
- Controversial issues
- Link between new (metaphorical) concepts and research methods
- Confirmation and selection biases
- The forest and the trees, or why size matters and extreme anti-reductionism is self-defeating
- To generalize or not?
- Bring the noise
- Conclusion
Notes References
References (54)
Anderson, P., Arrow, K., & Pines, D. (Eds.). (1988). The economy as an evolving complex system. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (2014). Phase transitions in development of writing fluency from
a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64, 1–35.
Bassano, D., & van Geert, P. (2007). Modeling continuity and discontinuity in utterance
length: A quantitative approach to changes, transitions and
intra-individual variability in early grammatical
development. Developmental Science, 10(5), 588–612.
Bulté, B. (2013). The development of complexity in second language
acquisition. A dynamic systems approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Brussels (VUB).
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2
complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Investigating
complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2
writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65.
(2018). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways
and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 147–164.
(2019). Beginning L2 complexity development in CLIL and non-CLIL
secondary education. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 153–180. .
Cameron, L., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 226–239.
Caspi, T. (2010). A dynamic perspective on second language
development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Retrieved from <[URL]> (7 January, 2020).
Chan, H., Verspoor, M., & Vahtrick, L. (2015). Dynamic development in speaking versus writing in
identical twins. Language Learning, 65(2), 298–325.
Churchill, E. (2007). A dynamic systems account of learning a word: From
ecology to form relations. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 339–358.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language
acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, N. (2007). Dynamic systems and SLA: The wood and the
trees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 23–25.
Ellis, R. (1984). Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal
instruction on the acquisition of WH questions by
children. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 138–155.
“Five Graces Group”, Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., … & Schenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position
paper. Language Learning, 59, 1–26.
Fogal, G. G. (2019). Tracking microgenetic changes in authorial voice
development from a complexity theory perspective. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 432–455.
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A., & Gilmore, A. (2018). Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event:
Second language writers at different proficiency
levels. Language Learning, 68(2), 469–506.
Gregersen, T., Macintyre, P., & Meza, M. (2014). The motion of emotion: Idiodynamic case studies of
learners’ foreign language anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 574–588.
Gregg, K. R. (2010). Shallow draughts: Larsen-Freeman and Cameron on
complexity. Second Language Research, 26(4), 549–560.
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.
Hiver, P. & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020). Research methods for complexity theory in applied
linguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language
acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.
Larsen–Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the
oral and written production of five Chinese learners of
English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–619.
Larsen–Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lowie, W., Plat, R., & de Bot, K. (2014). Pink noise in language production: A nonlinear approach
to the multilingual lexicon. Ecological Psychology, 26(3), 216–228.
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and variation in second language acquisition
orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65, 63–88.
MacIntyre, P., & Legatto, J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate:
Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing
affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.
Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many
guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in
instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating
constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.
Pienemann, M. (2007). Variation and dynamic systems in SLA. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 43–45.
Plaza–Pust, C. (2008). Dynamic systems theory and universal grammar: Holding up
a turbulent mirror to development in grammars. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 250–269.
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses,
and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687.
Polat, B., & Kim, Y. (2014). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case
study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 184–207.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production:
Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.
Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 2: Cognition, perception,
and language (pp. 464–510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
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.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and
action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
van Geert, P. (1991). A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language
growth. Psychological Review, 98(1), 3–53.
(1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and
chaos. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
van Geert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual
variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development, 25, 340–375.
van Gelder, T. & Port, R. (1995). It’s about time: An overview of the dynamical approach to
cognition. In R. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of
cognition (pp. 1–45). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic
systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92, 214–231.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Li, Huixian & Yongyan Zheng
Li, Huixian & Yongyan Zheng
Zhang, Jianhua & Lawrence Jun Zhang
Duan, Shiping & Zhiliang Shi
Wang, Peng, Lesya Ganushchak, Camille Welie & Roel van Steensel
Pallotti, Gabriele
Verspoor, Marjolijn & Kees de Bot
Yu, Hanjing, Hongying Peng & Wander M. Lowie
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. 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.
