Keywords
fractals
syntactic complexity
second language development
variability
How to Cite
Number of views: 759
Number of downloads: 588
Abstract
Fundamental to complex dynamic systems theory is the assumption that the recursive behavior of complex systems results in the generation of physical forms and dynamic processes that are self-similar and scale-invariant. Such fractal-like structures and the organismic benefit that they engender has been widely noted in physiology, biology, and medicine, yet discussions of the fractal-like nature of language have remained at the level of metaphor in applied linguistics. Motivated by the lack of empirical evidence supporting this assumption, the present study examines the extent to which the use and development of complex syntax in a learner of English as a second language demonstrate the characteristics of self-similarity and scale invariance at nested timescales. Findings suggest that the use and development of syntactic complexity are governed by fractal scaling as the dynamic relationship among the subconstructs of syntax maintain their complexity and variability across multiple temporal scales. Overall, fractal analysis appears to be a fruitful analytic tool when attempting to discern the dynamic relationships among the multiple component parts of complex systems as they interact over time.
References
ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. https://www.actfl.org/files/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (2014). Phase transitions in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic system perspective. Language Learning, 64(1), 1-35.
Bassano, D., & van Geert, P. (2007). Modeling continuity and discontinuity in utterance length: A qualitative approach to changes, transitions and intra-individual variability in early grammatical development. Developmental Science, 10(5), 588-612.
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C. . . . Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1-26.
Brown, J. H., Gupta, V. K., Li, B.-L., Milne, B. T., & West, G. B. (2002). The fractal nature of nature: Power laws, ecological complexity and biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 357(1421), 619-626.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 21-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chan, H., Verspoor, M., & Vahtrick, L. (2015). Dynamic development in speaking versus writing in identical twins. Language Learning, 65(2), 298-325.
Chávez, O., & Ragan, G. A. (2016). Fractals. In M. R. Bonk (Ed.), Mathematics (2nd ed.; pp. 98-105). Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
de Bot, K. (2015). Rates of change: Timescales in second language development. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 29-37). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
de Bot, K., Chan, H., Lowie, W., Plat, R., & Verspoor, M. (2012). A dynamic perspective on language processing and development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 188-218.
de Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development (pp. 5-23). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Delignières, D., & Marmelat, V. (2012). Fractal fluctuations and complexity: Current debates and future challenges. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 40(6), 485-500.
Dias Martins, M., Laaha, S., Freiberger, E. M., Choi, S., & Fitch, W. T. (2014). How children perceive fractals: Hierarchical self-similarity and cognitive development. Cognition, 133, 10-24.
Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tiang, X., & Poeppel, D. (2016). Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, 19(1), 158-168.
Dong, J. (2016). A dynamic systems theory approach to development of listening strategy use and listening performance. System, 63, 149-165.
Ellis, N. C. (2011). The emergence of language as a complex adaptive system. In J. Simpson (Ed.), Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 654-667). London, UK: Routledge.
Evans, D. R., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Bifurcations and the emergence of L2 syntactic structures in a complex dynamic system. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-12.
Feldman, D. P. (2012). Chaos and fractals: An elementary introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Filipović, L., & Hawkins, J. A. (2013). Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model. Linguistics, 51(1), 145-176.
Fischmeister, F. P., Martins, M. J. D., Beisteiner, R., & Fitch, W. T. (2017). Self-similarity and recursion as default modes in human cognition. Cortex, 97, 183-201.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.
Gell-Mann, M. (1994). Complex adaptive systems. In G. Cowan, D. Pines, & D. Meltzer (Eds.), Complexity: Metaphors, models, and reality. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity (pp. 17-45). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579.
Hiver, P. (2015). Attractor states. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 20-28). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. (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. (2020). Research methods for complexity theory in applied linguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kretzschmar, W. A. (2015). Language and complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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(4), 590-619.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45(2), 202-214.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 11-19). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liebovitch, L. S., & Shehadeh, L. A. (2005). Introduction to fractals. In M. A. Riley & G. C. Van Orden (Eds.), Tutorials in contemporary nonlinear methods for the behavioral sciences (pp. 178-266). http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/bcs/pac/nmbs/nmbs.jsp
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65(1), 63-88.
Lowie, W., Verspoor, M., & van Dijk, M. (2018). The acquisition of L2 speaking: A dynamic perspective. In R. Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Speaking in a second language (pp. 105-125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyle, C. (2009). The fractal nature of French tense/aspect acquisition. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45-67.
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
McGrath, D. (2016). Fractals. In N. Sterigou (Ed.), Nonlinear analysis for human movement variability (pp. 261-300). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Myers, S. A. (2016). Time series. In N. Sterigou (Ed.), Nonlinear analysis for human movement variability (pp. 29-54). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
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.
Pareyon, G. (2007, November). Fractal theory and language: The form of macrolinguistics. Talk presented at the 2007 Form and Symmetry: Art and Science conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Peitgen, H. O., Jürgens, H. & Saupe, D. (1992). Chaos and fractals: New frontiers of science. New York, NY: Springer.
Penris, W., & Verspoor, M. (2017). Academic writing development: A complex, dynamic process. In S. E. Pfenninger & J. Navracsics (Eds.), Future research directions in applied linguistics (pp. 215-242). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Plat, R., Lowie, W., & de Bot, K. (2018). Word naming in the L1 and L2: A dynamic perspective on automatization and the degree of semantic involvement in naming. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-14.
Polat, B., & Kim, Y. (2014). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 184-207.
Potts, R. (1996). Humanity’s descent: The consequences of ecological instability. New York, NY: Avon Books.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York, NY: Bantam.
Rhea, C. K., Kiefer, A. W., Wittstein, M. W., Leonard, K. B., MacPherson, R. P., Wright, W. G., & Haran, F. J. (2014). Fractal gait patterns are retained after entrainment to a fractal stimulus. PLoS One, 9(9), 1-10.
Rhea, C. K., & Kuznetsov, N. A. (2017). Using visual stimuli to enhance gait control. Journal of Vestibular Research, 27, 7-16.
Ruhland, R., & van Geert, P. (1998). Jumping into syntax: Transitions in the development of closed class words. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 65-95.
Schmid, M. S., Kopke, B., & de Bot, K. (2013). Language attrition as a complex, non-linear development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(6), 675-682.
Shanon, B. (1993). Fractal patterns in language. New Ideas in Psychology, 11(1), 105-109.
Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 343-348.
Stephen, D. G., Arzamarski, R., & Michaels, C. F. (2010). The role of fractality in perceptual learning: Exploration in dynamic touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1161-1173.
Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15(2), 255-283.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
van Dijk, M., & van Geert, P. (2007). Wobbles, humps, and sudden jumps: A case study of continuity, discontinuity and variability in early language development. Infant and Child Development, 16, 7-33.
van Dijk, M., & van Geert, P. (2011). Heuristic techniques for the analysis of variability as a dynamic aspect of change. Infancia y aprendizaje, 34(2), 151-167.
van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 92(ii), 179-199.
Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 132(3), 331-350.
Varela, M., Ruiz-Esteban, & Mestre de Juan, M. J. (2010). Chaos, fractals, and our concept of disease. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 53(4), 584-595.
Verspoor, M. H., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., Chan, H. P., & Vahtrick, L. (2017). Linguistic complexity in second language development: Variability and variation at advanced stages. Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures, 14(1), 1-27.
West, B. J. (2001). Fractal probability measures of learning. Methods, 24, 395-402.
West, B. J. (2006). Where medicine went wrong: Rediscovering the path to complexity. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.
Youmans, G. (1991). A new tool for discourse analysis: The vocabulary-management profile. Language, 67(4), 763-789.
Youmans, G., & Pfeifer, P. (2005). Fractal dimensions of discourse. Language, 81(2), 297-300.
Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language. Oxford, UK: Houghton Mifflin.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.