Complexit y Theory

Chapter 12
Complexit y t heory

Complexity theorists are fundamentally concerned with describing and tracing emerging patterns in
dynamic systems in order to explain change and growth.
The t heory and It s Const ruct s

-Complexity introduces the theme of emergence. “

the spontaneous occurrence of
something new”(Geert, 2008). how complex order emerges from interacting
components.

-Furthermore, this order emerges “ without direction from external factors and
without a plan of the order embedded in an individual component”(Mit ell, 2003,
p. 6). In other words, complex systems are self-organizing.
The t heory and It s Const ruct s

u It is important to add that saying that order emerges does not mean that the
resulting pattern remains static. In this regard, complex systems are also
known as dynamic systems.

u complex systems are open, that is, they interact with their environment (and
depending on the type of system, they exchange information, matter, or
energy with it), they will show the emergence of order.
The t heory and It s Const ruct s

u Complex systems are also adaptive. An adaptive system changes in response

to changes in its environment. Successful adaptive behavior entails the ability
to respond to novelty.

u Complex dynamic systems exhibit nonlinearity, which means that an effect is

not proport ionate to a cause.
The t heory and It s Const ruct s

u One vehicle for iteration and adaptation is the social process of co-adaptation,
where each partner in a conversation adj usts to the other over and over again
(LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008), such as in reciprocal child-directed
speech between a child and the child’ s caregiver (van Dij k et al., 2013).

In an adaptive system, learners are not passive recipients of input. From a CT

perspective, then, it is bett er to think in terms of affordances, or opportunit ies
for learning that take place, rather than input.
What Count s as Evidence?

u Because complex systems operate on many different levels from the inner
workings of the brain to the interactions of different speech communities and
on many different timescales from nanoseconds to millennia, different
sources count as evidence, including those ranging from the brain scans in
neuroscience to pattern detect ion in corpus analysis to tracing the evolution
of patterns in historical linguistics.
Common Misunderst andings

u A possible source of confusion is that the genesis of CT lies in the physical

sciences. For this reason, some might find it inapplicable to more human
concerns, such as language development.
u The other, perhaps most prevalent, misunderstanding is that “
complex”means
“complicated.”It does not. A complex system may be made up of many
heterogeneous components, but what is of interest is the complex, ordered
behavior that arises from their interactions.
An Exemplary St udy: Eskildsen (2012)

u Eskildsen’s study was two-pronged—using both a longitudinal case study and

Conversation Analysis (CA). Eskildsen concluded from this first study that the
learners’pattern of acquisition is “
mu more dynamic, which is both pattern-
and learner specific”. He added that the data for both learners supported a
view of learning of English negation from recurring expressions toward an
increasingly systematic, dynamic inventory of linguistic resources.
Explanat ions of observed findings in SLA

u Observation 1: exposure to input is necessary for SLA.

u Observation 3: Learners come to know more than what they have been
exposed to in the input.

u Observation 4: Learners’output (speech) often follows predictable paths with

predictable stages in the acquisition of a given structure
Explanat ions of observed findings in SLA

Observation 5: Second language learning is variable in its outcome.

Iteration in a complex system introduces heterogeneity; it generates variability.

Observation 6: Second language learning is variable across linguistic subsystems

Observation 7: There are limits on the effects of frequency on SLA.

Conclusion

u CT inspires a view of language that is not a fixed code but is rather an open
and dynamic meaning-making system, the learning of which is a socio-
cognitive process.
u Learning is not the taking in of linguistic forms by learners. Instead, the
language resources of learners are emergent, mutable, and self-organizing.
Chapt er 13

u Second language learning explained?

SLA across t en cont emporary t heories

u Lourdes Ort ega

Int roduct ion

u I hope to help readers review their understanding of the 10 cont emporary

theor ies of SLA gathered in this book. To do so, I will contrast and compare
the position each theory takes with regard to the five key areas outlined in
Table 13.1 .
The Nat ure of Int er-language

u How do the 10 SLA theories in this book address the systematicity and the
variability observed in interlanguage?
The Role of t he First Language
Cont ribut ions of t he Linguist ic
Envir onment
u What are the putative contributions to L2 learning of the linguistic
environment to which learners are exposed and through which they interact
with others? Each theory stipulates a different weight and role for input, input
frequency, and output in explaining additional language learning.
The Role of Inst ruct ion

u How does instruction interact with natural L2 learning processes?And what

are the limits of what can be achieved, and what can be not, with instruction?
Of the 10 SLA theories in this book, some make claims as to whether
instruction is necessary or sufficient, beneficial or detrimental, whereas only
a few go further to make specific proposals as to what features are needed
for the design of optimal L2 instruction.
Chapt er 9. Processabilit y Theory
The Theory and It s Const ruct s
u At any stage of development the learner can produce and comprehend only
those second language (L2) linguistic forms which the current state of the
language processor can handle.
u The core of PT is formed by a universal processability hierarchy that is based
on Levelt ’
s (1989) approach to language production.
u Developmental traj ectory
u PT addresses developmental problem (i.e., why learners follow universal
stages of acquisition).
u logical problem (i.e., how do learners come to know what they know if their
knowledge is not represent ed in the input?
Processabilit y Hierarchy

u It is based on the notion of transfer of grammatical information within and

between the phrases of a sentence.
subj ect-verb agreement’
u ‘
u feature unification:: Grammatical information has to be matched between
parts of the sentence.
1. every procedure is a necessary prerequisite for the next procedure,
2. the hierarchy mirrors the time-course in language generation
Hypot hesis Space

u Hypothesis space is created by the interplay between the processability

hierarchy and the leeway (the amount of freedom to move) it generates at
every level.
u In the following examples, you can see how learners delete something or use
a nonstandard or unexpected word order to avoid moving elements across
phrases:
u A. Where he been?
u B. Where has been?
u C. Where he has been?
u D. He has been where?
Transfer of Grammat ical Informat ion
and
Feat ure Unificat
u Every entry in the learner’
ion
s mental lexicon needs to be annotated for the
specific features of the target language. For instance, the entry Peter needs
to be assigned to the lexical class “
noun.”

u 1. No exchange of grammatical information (= no unification of features),

u 2. Exchange of grammatical information within the phrase,
u 3. Exchange of grammatical information within the sentence
Lexical-Funct ional Grammar
Lexical Mapping Theory

u It specifies the mapping processes from a-structure to f-structure, that is,

from arguments to grammatical functions.

u Universal argument roles can be expressed using a whole range of different

grammatical forms.

u The relationship between argument structure and the other two levels of
structure is variable in a specific language and it also varies between
languages.

u Linearization problem: The output of the processor is linear, but it may not
be mapped onto the underlying meaning in a linear way.
Unmarked Alignment

u In PT the default mapping principle is unmarked alignment , which is based

on the one-to-one mapping of argument roles onto grammatical functions.

u Unmarked alignment is the initial state of development and results in

canonical word order (i.e., the most typical word order for that language).
The TOPIC Hypot hesis

u In LFG TOPIC is a grammatical function. In the sentence ‘

Ann, he likes’
,‘Ann’
has two functions, OBJECT and TOPIC.
u Topicalization: The TOPIC function is assigned to a constituent in sentence-
initial position other than the SUBJECT.
u Initially, the first noun phrase is mapped onto the SUBJ function. Later, TOPIC
is differentiated from SUBJECT. Finally, the TOPIC function is assigned to a
core argument that is not the subj ect.
What Count s as Evidence?

u Given the focus of PT on developmental dynamics, the most suitable research

design is a longitudinal or cross-sectional study with a large set of data
relevant for the phenomena.

u In such studies the researcher collects Naturalistic or elicited speech data

that form the corpus on which the study is based. The data need to be
relevant to the point to be studied.

u Apart from corpus data, Reaction time experiments also constitute a valid
basis of a test of PT.
Common Misunderst andings

u The idea that it can be applied to any language without first considering how
particular features of a target language are processed

u It should be noted that languages differ in how grammatical functions, such as

SUBJ and OBJ, are realized at the phrase structure level.
The Explicit/ Implicit Debat e

u PT does not address the explicit/ implicit debate directly.

u it shares Levelt ’
s assumptions regarding the automaticity and implicit nature
of several of the processing components.
u The key component: Grammatical Encoder, which is seen as a component that
runs largely automatically and is based on implicit knowledge.
u Explicit knowledge comes into play through monitoring.
u PT is less concerned with how a grammar comes to be in a learner’ s
mind/ brain and instead focuses on the processes that make use of that
grammar in real time.
u Not taking a stand on explicit/ implicit learning.
u Thanks for your at t ent ion