Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System 1788922794, 9781788922791

Citation preview

Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editors: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland and Associate Professor Simone E. Pfenninger, University of Salzburg, Austria This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical findings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes final-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers, teachers and policymakers in general whose interests include a second language acquisition component. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: 134

Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System Edited by ZhaoHong Han

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/HAN2791 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Han, Zhaohong - editor. Title: Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System/Edited by ZhaoHong Han. Description: Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, [2019] | Series: Second Language Acquisition: 134 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019003615 (print) | LCCN 2019015410 (ebook) | ISBN 9781788922807 (pdf) | ISBN 9781788922814 (epub) | ISBN 9781788922821 (Kindle) | ISBN 9781788922791 (hbk : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Second language acquisition--Study and teaching. | Language and languages--Study and teaching. | System theory. Classification: LCC P118.2 (ebook) | LCC P118.2 .P756 2019 (print) | DDC 418.0071--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019003615 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-279-1 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2019 ZhaoHong Han and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Riverside Publishing Solutions Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Sheridan, Inc.

Contents

Acknowledgments

vii

Contributors

ix

1 Profiling Learner Language from a Complex Dynamic System Perspective: An Introduction ZhaoHong Han and Jing Liu

1

2 A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy  and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  Yuan-Yuan Meng

17

3 A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions in Dyadic Interaction Natalia Sáez

48

4 A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction Heidi Liu Banerjee 5 A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in  Dyadic Interaction Vanessa Sheu

83

104

6 A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction Farah Akbar

133

7 Researching CDST: Promises and Pitfalls ZhaoHong Han

156

Index

167

v

Acknowledgments

This volume was largely borne out of a graduate course – A&HL 5008 Interlanguage Analysis – which I taught at Teachers College, Columbia University. Authors of the main chapters were among the students attending the class. The work showcased in these chapters was first presented at a colloquium of the 2015 annual conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics and subsequently at a colloquium of the 2016 Second Language Research Forum. Authors benefited greatly from the feedback received at these venues. This volume would not have materialized without the generous assistance of a number of reviewers, among them Monika Ekiert, Hoa Nguyen, Eun Young Kang, Sarah Sok, Kaylee Fernandez, Moira Hamilton and the anonymous reviewers assigned by the publisher. The support from the publisher throughout – from the inception of the project through to production – has been instrumental. Last but not least, the four participants in the transpacific intercultural communication project deserve immense recognition. Without the two longitudinal datasets they contributed, this volume would not have been at all possible.

vii

Contributors

Farah Akbar is pursuing her EdD in applied linguistics at Teachers College, Columbia University, specializing in second language acquisition (SLA). Her research interests include interactional feedback, computer-mediated communication and second language teacher education. Heidi Liu Banerjee recently completed her EdD study in applied linguistics at Teachers College, Columbia University, specializing in second language assessment. She has published on self-regulated learning, second language pragmatics and second language assessment. ZhaoHong Han is professor of language and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, where she teaches graduate courses in TESOL, applied linguistics and foreign language instruction and where she also directs the Center for International Foreign Language Teacher Education. Her research interests straddle basic and applied second language acquisition (SLA). Jing Liu, PhD (University of Washington, 2001), is a professor at the Ocean University of China. Her doctoral dissertation focused on comparative discourse analysis of Chinese and English native speakers’ use of discourse markers and hypotactic structure use in academic lectures. Her research interests include discourse analysis, ethnography of communication and intercultural communication. Yuan-Yuan Meng is a senior lecturer in Chinese at Columbia University. She holds an EdM degree in applied linguistics from Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research interests include formulaic language, second language reading, writing and vocabulary development, and usage-based approaches to language learning. Natalia Sáez is a language instructor and researcher focusing on second language acquisition of linguistic and conceptual metaphors. She holds an MA in cognitive science from Universidad de Chile and an MA in applied linguistics from Teachers College, Columbia University, where she is an EdD candidate in second language acquisition.

ix

x  Contributors

Vanessa Sheu is a lecturer in the ESL Program at the University of Iowa. She received a master’s degree in TESOL from Teachers College, Columbia University. Her interests include second language vocabulary acquisition and discourse strategies in English for academic purposes.

1 Profiling Learner Language from a Complex Dynamic System Perspective: An Introduction ZhaoHong Han and Jing Liu

Historically, the study of learner language as a system has been the bedrock of second language acquisition (SLA) research, stretching back to the dawn of the field (Corder, 1967; Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972). Although perspectives and methodologies have shifted over the years – notably from viewing learner language or interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) as an imperfect rendition of the target language (Schachter, 1974) to viewing it as a legitimate system in its own right (Bley-Vroman, 1983; Cook, 1991) and, more recently, as a complex dynamic system (de Bot et al., 2007a; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2017) – the fundamentals have remained intact: the study of learner language has continued to revolve around two foci, variability and systematicity. Research into variability began in the late 1970s and grew intense through the 1990s, centering first around sociolinguistic constructs such as style shifting and later sociocognitive constructs such as context-bound attention (see, e.g. Bayley & Preston, 1996; Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Ellis, 1995; Gatbonton, 1978; Preston, 1989; Sato, 1985; Tarone, 1979, 1983; Young, 1996). A pioneer in the study of interlanguage variability, Tarone (1979), for example, framed variability as one of style-shifting, viewing it as a continuum: learner language varies according to the ­speaker’s intended style of speech. Importantly, she claimed, as had had some before her (e.g. Selinker, 1972), that learners’ spontaneous speech, driven by a focal attention on meaning, was the most indicative of the linguistic system they had yet developed. This resonates, given that learners, when using their second language (L2) to express their own intended meanings, have little other recourse than to rely on their own systems unaided; that 1

2  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

is, by someone else’s as in a highly-controlled or semi-controlled or even a role-play or simulation activity, for example, wherein they are expected to regurgitate, either entirely or partially, what they have been formally instructed to say. Insights such as this have fed into today’s understanding that interlanguage variability is task-dependent. While research on variability has largely come down to exposing context-induced or task-dependent differences in L2 use, research on systematicity is about exploring its antithesis, context-independent overlaps. Studies on systematicity have, therefore, pursued commonalities – both within the broad L2 learning community involving miscellaneous target language (TL) and first language (L1) pairings and between L2 and L1 learning, with an eye toward unearthing universals. Further, unlike the research on variability, which traditionally is concerned mostly with the influence of social factors on learner language, the study on universals deals primarily with the psycholinguistic properties of L2 learner language or interlanguage development, such as putatively invariant stages or sequences, common processing prerequisites, constrained representations (cf. Ellis, 2009) and so on. Consequently, variability and systematicity have been almost isomorphically aligned with the sociolinguistic and the psycholinguistic perspective in SLA research. A moment of integration arrived in the late 1990s with the introduction of dynamic systems theory (DST) and complexity theory (CT), each with intellectual roots traceable to the physical sciences – thermodynamics for DST and quantum physics for CT. Joined by a holistic view on interlanguage and language development, DST and CT have recently amalgamated into one theoretical paradigm known as complex dynamic systems theory (CDST; de Bot, 2017).1 Although the significance of this unification remains to be seen, it raises the prospect of bringing together the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives, by theoretically situating the study of learner language in its ecosystem – a system formed by the interaction between a living system and its social and physical environment. Empirical research framed in CDST has been growing, shedding light on some of the theoretical claims such as system-internal collaborations or competitions among its various components. Then, too, extant research has notably confined itself to a unidimensional, albeit longitudinal, description of interlanguage (see, e.g. Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Verspoor et al., 2008, 2012; Zhang & Lu, 2014), ‘focusing on the process itself and on the quantification of change rather than on the underlying environmental, biological, or psychological reasons of change’ (van Geert & Verspoor, 2014: 537). Few studies have sought to uncover the dynamics of a micro ecosystem, defined here as a coupled system between the learner and the interactional environment; it is a challenging void to fill.

Profiling Learner Language from a CDS Perspective: An Introduction  3

Inspired by CDST, this volume presents five sets of analyses (Chapters 2–6) of two longitudinal, interactional datasets involving two dyads exchanging emails over one academic semester. Data analyses, from five different angles, exposed the dynamics of the interactional process, offering evidence of core characteristics of complex dynamic systems, including, but not limited to, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, interconnectedness of subsystems, the emergence of attractor states over time and variation in and between the individuals. Together, the five sets of analyses, each alone an engaging description, captured fine-grained patterns of change over time and demonstrated the impact of the ecosystem on individuals’ use of language. In what follows, we will provide a brief sketch of CDST, introduce the subsequent chapters and end with a brief note on the significance of this book. What is CDST?

Given that CDST is an interdisciplinary framework, it would only seem fitting to provide a slice of its history, starting with DST. The DST approach (de Bot et al., 2007a) drew inspiration from van Geert’s (1991) mathematical model of cognitive growth and language development. This model is predicated on limited resources for cognitive growth, treating growth as a system of supportive and competitive interactions between the grower and the environment. ‘Grower’ means a cognitive species that grows; environment ‘is the totality of supporting or competing resources upon which the grower feeds’ and can be internal and external (van Geert, 1991: 5). Learning is thus conceptualized as happening – m ­ etaphorically – in a biological and social ecosystem. For internal resources, there are spatiotemporal resources (i.e. one’s information processing capacity), temporal resources (i.e. the time one takes to complete a task, relative to other tasks), informational resources (i.e. the learner’s current knowledge and skills, serving as an anchor for new learning), energetic/motivational resources (i.e. the amount of energy, arousal, effort and activation and so forth invested in specific tasks of learning) and material resources (i.e. the physical properties of the learner, including but not limited to his or her working sensory and nervous systems). For external resources, van Geert posited four counterpart types: spatiotemporal resources (i.e. the amount of spatial and temporal freedom afforded to the learner by the controlling environment), informational resources (i.e. items of information that could be assimilated by the learner), energetic/motivational resources (i.e. reinforcement from the environment following successful completion of a learning task) and material resources (i.e. things such as food and shelter and objects such as books and pens). These external and internal resources vary in their availability to individual learners, but however variable, they are always limited, which is a defining attribute of cognitive development, language development included.

4  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

A principal concept in the model is that of carrying capacity, defined as ‘the maximal stable growth level of a particular grower in this specific cognitive environment – stable under the condition that the present structure and amount of resources do not drastically change’ (van Geert, 1991: 6). Important to understanding this concept is (a) that the carrying capacity of one grower is constrained by that of other growers as they compete for resources; and (b) that the carrying capacity can be realized only when the enabling resources continue to be available; that is, constantly present and balanced, a condition which may in actuality be hard to obtain. Development can be stumped by the absence of this condition. Taking inspiration from van Geert’s model of cognitive growth and learning, the DST approach in SLA (de Bot et al., 2007a) makes analogical claims about interlanguage development. First, interlanguage is a system that grows over time, enabled and constrained by the availability of external and/or internal resources and their interaction. Secondly, the finiteness of resources implies a limited carrying capacity – with the interlanguage exhibiting (a) uneven distribution of growth, with some areas or subsystems seemingly cooperating (i.e. connected growers) or competing (i.e. repulsive growers); (b) stagnation, when the interactional resources reach an equilibrium; or even (c) attrition, when resources are depleted. Further, the developmental process is iterative, with each succeeding phase dependent on its predecessor and overall displays a butterfly effect (i.e. big changes caused by small causes), variation and nonlinearity. At its core, a DST perspective on interlanguage requires a juxtaposition of the social and the cognitive factors, viewing the learner as a cognitive system interacting with their environment. de Bot et al. (2007b: 51) claim, ‘In a DST perspective, the cognitive system interacts with the environment (social and cultural), and development results from an interaction of characteristics of the cognitive system as represented in the head and the environment’. DST purportedly can handle both variability and systematicity – without resorting to such drivers of universals as universal grammar (de Bot et al., 2007b). ‘Language learning is systematic, yet it is also a process of bricolage,’ as Larsen-Freeman (2017: 32) put it. Like two ends of a continuum, variability is putatively emblematic of a changing pattern of interaction among resources or subsystems; systematicity lands when the interaction reaches an equilibrium. The seesawing of the two – variability and systematicity – gives the system’s nonlinear appearance. Therefore, it is no wonder that a DST approach to studying interlanguage development favors dense longitudinal data over group data, with the latter allegedly obfuscating individuals’ developmental processes (Larsen-Freeman, 2017). From a DST perspective, it is not enough just to identify external and internal factors/resources/subsystems; it is also important to observe how they interact over time to yield patterns of change (or lack thereof) in learner language. Variation, being progressive,

Profiling Learner Language from a CDS Perspective: An Introduction  5

permeable and largely unpredictable, augurs system change, but ‘degree of variation’ is putatively a greater telltale to such change than patterns of variation, as it ‘can tell us more about the developmental process’ (de Bot et al., 2007b: 53): Periods of high variability are transitional phases and by examining when transitional phases occur for different sub-systems we can discover precursors, successors and connected growers in the developmental process. (de Bot et al., 2007b: 53)

DST is fundamentally compatible with CT (Larsen-Freeman, 1997) – ‘there are no systematic differences in the use of the two terms’ (de Bot, 2017: 54) – both subscribing to systems thinking and both considering the system complex, dynamic and adaptive (de Bot, 2017; Larsen-Freeman, 2017). Where they differ is that, to borrow a distinction from Morin (2006), DST in SLA pursues a non-mathematical version of ‘restricted complexity’ – what the present volume investigates – while CT in SLA pursues ‘general complexity,’2 with broad implications for how to conceive and investigate language, second language development, second language instruction and teacher education (see Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2017; de Bot et al., 2007a, 2007b; Verspoor et al., 2011). DST is, therefore, akin to an object theory (i.e. dealing with a particular phenomenon, the process of language development), while CT has increasingly been referred to in the literature (see, e.g. Ortega & Han, 2017; VanPatten & Williams, 2015) as a metatheory providing a conceptual framework or general principles.3 Similar to DST, CT has its origin in natural science. When it was first introduced to the field of applied linguistics in 1997, Larsen-Freeman drew parallels between a natural system and interlanguage, stating that the systems can be characterized to varying degrees by the following ­features: they are dynamic, complex, nonlinear, chaotic, unpredictable, sensitive to initial conditions, open, self-organizing, feedback sensitive, and adaptive. In addition to these characteristics, such systems possess strange attractors, which are fractal in shape. (Larsen-Freeman, 1997: 142, emphasis added)

A complex system, according to Larsen-Freeman (1997), has two fundamental properties. First, it comprises multiple subsystems.4 Secondly, the multiple subsystems interact to create new entities. Patterns surface as a result of subsystems reaching an interactional equilibrium known as ‘attractor state’, which can then disintegrate as new relationships are formed, manifesting as fluctuation. The cyclical process of stability and fluctuation renders the system open-ended and unpredictable, albeit constrained. Among the constraining factors are the initial condition or in the

6  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

realm of language and language development, this would equal a learner’s prior knowledge – and environmental factors. Twenty years later, going beyond these parallels, Larsen-Freeman (2017) offers a distilled version of CT, summarizing its core features and pondering its implications for application. According to this version of CT, the hallmarks of second language development (SLD) as a complex system should include, but are not limited to, emergence – the spontaneous occurrence of something new – that arises from the interaction of the components of the system while interacting with its environment (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 16); openness – being permeable to influence from changing configuration of interaction; self-adaptation – being able to re-organize itself in response to such influence; context-dependence – being dependent on the intentional or inter-subjective space; and non­ linearity (known also as ‘the butterfly effect’) – big changes resulting from earlier small ones. For the implications of CT, Larsen-Freeman (2017: 25–28) presents a roundup of 30 ‘aphorisms’ concerning language, language learners/users, language learning and language instruction. For example, for language, a CT-inspired view implies that ‘[t]he genesis of language, its evolution, its use, its processing, and its development in learners all proceed from use. Changes over days, months, years, and moment-to-moment changes are produced by the same processes, differing only in their timescales’ (LarsenFreeman, 2017: 26). For language learners/users, ‘language learners/users interact in a particular context, and when they do, they may gain access to frequent and reliably contingent form-meaning-use constructions through a process of co-adaptation, an iterative and dialogic process, with each interlocutor adjusting to the other over and over again’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 26). For language learning, ‘L2 learning is not a matter of assembling an internal model of an external reality’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 27). For language teaching, ‘it is not the input, but the learner’s perception of the affordances in the ever-changing context that is fundamental to learning (a second order affordance is a relationship between the learner and the environment that a teacher can manage)’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 28). Some of these aphorisms may seem somewhat over-extrapolated; how they are derived from CT is not immediately clear5 and some up for debate. Still, taken together, they make several main tenets apparent. First, at the nexus of CT and L2 is the belief that language development is isomorphic with language use. Secondly, as a complex, dynamic and adaptive system, language development automatically reacts to contextual influences. ‘Patterns in language arise from individuals interacting, adapting their language resources to a changing environment’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 17). Thirdly, in order for the patterns to be revealed, organic interactional affordances must be available to L2 learners. ‘Language [in use] cannot be usefully segregated from its ecology’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008: 79).

Profiling Learner Language from a CDS Perspective: An Introduction  7

In applied linguistics and L2 research, the merging of DST and CT into CDST (complex dynamic systems theory) is all but natural and its emergence as an alternative conceptual and methodological framework to extant frameworks inevitable. de Bot (2017: 57), proposing the coalescence, noted that CDST is the same animal with two names – ‘we can operate with Complex Dynamic Systems Theory or CDST, as an agreed upon label’.6 But perhaps more than just a hybrid moniker, we read the ‘C’ in CDST as asserting the existence of a complex system that subsumes multiple interconnected parts, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and the ‘D’ in CDST as underscoring the mechanics and an interactional chemistry among the multiple parts – cooperative, competitive or emergent – that gives rise to a nonlinear alternation of variability and stability or trajectory over time. In the present volume, we adopt this reading of CDST as our conceptual framework, and Hiver and Al-Hoorie’s (2016) definition of a complex dynamic system as our working definition, according to which a complex or dynamic system (a) has concrete phenomenological validity, (b) is composed of multiple connected and interacting parts, including an agent (or agents), (c) is open to adaptive feedback and dynamic, nonlinear change in behavior, (d) is part of the context that is part of it, and (e) exhibits emergent outcomes. (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016: 745) Methodological Implications of CDST for Research on SLD

The methodological implication of a CT-inspired view of SLD is plain and simple: a credible picture of interlanguage dynamics may only emerge from longitudinal tracking of learners being in such interactional environments where internal and external resources meet. CT takes the ‘individual acting in context’ as a unit worthy of study … an inseparable unit in which it is impossible to isolate the behavioral and developmental states of the individual from external influences … including interaction with other individuals. (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 29)

CT-aligned empirical research will, therefore, favor single case studies over group studies. ‘There is much to be learned from a single case study in terms of learners’ language development and how it is contingent on interactional environments’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 35). Larsen-Freeman (2017) pointed out several failings of traditional Gaussian (distribution) statistical analysis – as employed in sample-based research – in investigating SLD. Chief among them are static analysis, lack of sensitivity to inter-learner variations or learner agency, presupposing linearity and obviating contextual influence. She argued, as did others (e.g. Dörnyei, 2014; Larsen-Freeman, 2017; Lowie, 2017; Verspoor

8  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

et al., 2011), that for a complex system such as SLD, whose idiosyncratic and contingent nature typically flouts normal distribution and continuity, Bayesian and Paretian statistics focusing on probabilities and sensitive to nonlinearity – min/max analysis, Monte Carlo analysis, times series analysis, to name but a few – are more appropriate analytic tools, and single case studies are a highly pertinent sampling method.7 Discussing methodology, de Bot (2017) made a point of highlighting the constraints of a CDST approach to SLD and provided an alternative path. He argued that true studies of dynamical systems require quantitative modeling, which eludes the mathematical and computational capabilities of the average applied linguist; however, applied linguists can still attempt other methodologies, including providing dynamical descriptions. de Bot (2011) likened the non-mathematical approach to a soft approach, one which adopts the metaphors from natural sciences in qualitatively studying language developmental phenomena. In keeping with de Bot’s advice for applied linguists, Larsen-Freeman counseled, echoing Overton (2007: 29), that efforts should be ‘directed towards identifying how distinct constituents of a whole relate to each other’, thereby accentuating the ‘relational’ nature of language development as a complex, dynamic and adaptive system. Still, given its nested nature (Larsen-Freeman, 2017), identifying and delineating a system can be highly elusive. In CT-for-SLA discussion, this has come to be framed as a boundary issue: where does the system begin and where does it end?8 Under CT’s probabilistic lens, there is no easy solution. A suggestion by Lewontin (1998, cited in Larsen-Freeman, 2017), nevertheless, appears to channel a promising path: Before we can recognize meaningful parts we must define the functional whole of which they are the constituents. We will then recognize quite different ways of breaking up the organism depending on what we are trying to explain. The hand is the appropriate unit for investigation if we are concerned with the physical act of holding, but the hand and eye together are an irreducible unit for understanding how we come to seize the object that is held. (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 81–82)

This would imply that what makes up a system may depend on what we seek to objectify as a target of examination, but recognizing that what we have zeroed in on, for its limited scope, is only part of a larger system, is crucial. Put another way, one way of making inroads into a system is by bringing to bear an external perspective, a strategy Larsen-Freeman (2017: 34) seemed to concur with when she advised ‘beginning with a particular point of entry into a complex system and continuing to watch as it evolves, as it modifies itself functionally through use by agents’. Further light is shed on the CDST study of SLD by Lowie (2017), who outlined four methodological principles. The first is that time and change

Profiling Learner Language from a CDS Perspective: An Introduction  9

must be explicitly included, which means having a microgenetic, longitudinal dimension that is dense, with waves of data collection between 15 and 100 iterations. Secondly, intra-individual variability must be viewed as meaningful and a necessary condition for development. Thirdly, nonlinearity must be expected. Fourthly, subsystems that continuously interact with one another across different timescales must be captured. Taken together, the minimal data requirements for CDST studies appear to be that the data should be natural, contextual, interactional, dense, individually-oriented and last but not least, longitudinal. The datasets employed in the present volume met all these criteria. This Volume

The bulk of the present volume comprises five empirical studies (Chapters 2–6) all seeking to integrate CDST methodological insights in their endeavors to uncover interlanguage as a dynamic process; but, more importantly, to do so organically in a natural ecosystem as afforded by two longitudinal dyadic interactional datasets. Each study pursued a microgenetic analysis of, or careful process tracing (Byrne & Callaghan, 2014), a subsystem related to morphosyntax, semantics, pragmatics or discourse. The collective goal was to achieve both a broader and a deeper knowledge of the complex, adaptive and relational nature of interlanguage. The social context for the five studies was a transpacific collaboration on a college-level intercultural communication course between a university in China and a university in the USA. Students at both universities participated in the project ‘Mediated Intercultural Encounter’ that aimed, inter alia, at developing intercultural competence and awareness of problems likely arising during intercultural communication. Students on both sides of the Pacific corresponded with each other via email on topics promoting intercultural understandings. Paired-up one-on-one, they interacted with each other for a period of two months. The data, which served as a common denominator for all five studies, were two longitudinal, interactional and naturalistic datasets involving two dyads and four female participants all in their early 20s. The dataset from Dyad 1 comprised 35 messages totaling 4685 words, and the other dataset from Dyad 2 contained 39 messages and 13,857 words. Of the four participants, two, Fannie and Dawn, were Chinese-speaking English majors in their junior year at the university in China. They were paired up respectively with Bianca and Alina, who, at the time, were studying graphic design and business marketing at the university in the USA. Bianca was a Spanish speaker and a long-term US resident with advanced proficiency in English, and Alina was a native-born speaker of American English. Bianca and Fannie formed one dyad and Dawn and Alina the other. Data were analyzed from a variety of perspectives, traversing, as noted, four linguistic domains – morphosyntax, semantics, pragmatics

10  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

and discourse. The shared goal was to identify properties of a complex system, in particular, the system as being relational, dynamic and adaptive. A synopsis of the five studies follows. The study reported in Chapter 2 by Meng examines the longitudinal datasets in terms of morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity. Three questions guided the data analysis: (1) How do the learners’ morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity change over time? (2) How do their morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity interact over time? And (3) what distinctive patterns, if any, emerge from the dyadic interaction over time? These questions were patently geared toward uncovering the dynamics of the participants’ use of language. (See MacIntyre et al., 2017, for a useful discussion on dynamically versus statically-­ oriented research questions.) In Meng’s study, morphosyntactic accuracy was operationalized as the ratio of error-free T-units (Hunt, 1965) to the total number of T-units, and syntactic complexity was measured in terms of clausal lengths (i.e. the ratio of the total number of clausal words to the total number of clauses) and amount of subordination (i.e. the ratio of subordinate clauses to the total number of T-units). Quantitative analyses of the emails produced by the three non-native English speakers, Bianca, Fannie and Dawn, yielded results broadly in line with previous studies (e.g. Capsi, 2010; Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Polat & Kim, 2014): there were both inter- and intra-individual variation over time; there was competition as well as cooperation between subsystems; and development was nonlinear, featuring attractor states and phase shifts. Subsequent qualitative inspection of the datasets attested to additional properties of a complex system. For example, one participant displayed ‘soft-assembly’ or coinage of expressions on the spur of the moment, such as ‘depending on X is dependent of Y’, which appeared amid the participants’ extended interaction on a particular topic. Another participant exhibited ‘adaptive imitation’, judiciously copying her interlocutor’s expressions, including the use of emoticons. Chapter 3 reports on a study by Sáez, zeroing in on the participants’ metaphorical use of prepositions and modals, an ingenious choice of focus that allowed the analyst to examine the participants’ use of English at the crossroads of syntax, semantics and discourse pragmatics. Prepositions and modals were each treated as a linguistic subsystem, and the communicative and the sociocultural context as ‘non-linguistic subsystems’. Inspired by CDST, in particular, the discourse dynamics approach (Cameron et al., 2009) and insights from cognitive linguistics, the study assumed a macro system view on learner language: ‘Different configurations of linguistic, communicative, and socio-cultural subsystem components may influence the emergence of unique form-function mappings’ (p. 57). The data analysis adopted both a top-down approach to the putative metaphorical functions of select prepositions and modals and a bottom-up approach to examining: (1) what metaphorical functions

Profiling Learner Language from a CDS Perspective: An Introduction  11

were mapped onto prepositions and modal auxiliaries; (2) which mappings emerged as patterns (i.e. exhibiting attractor states) and which varied over time; and (3) whether or not the interlocutors adapted to each other’s mappings. The results, while displaying temporal nonlinearity as is customary of spontaneous language use, offered confirming but nuanced and sophisticated evidence. For one, greater stability was found to exist for all participants’ mappings of metaphorical links of prepositions than of modal auxiliaries. For another, where modals were concerned, the two Chinese participants, Fannie and Dawn (albeit across two different dyads), behaved more alike in mapping metaphorical links, while the two US participants, Bianca and Alina, behaved similarly. These findings were subsequently discussed by tapping into the interplay of influences from linguistic and nonlinguistic systems. Further attesting to a potential interaction between linguistic and nonlinguistic influences, the study presented in Chapter 4 by Liu Banerjee delves into the pragmatic subsystem of advice acts – seeking, giving and receiving advice. Rather than merely examining participants’ linguistic expressions, the analysis set out to gauge the manner in which a putatively advice-giving sequence was co-executed within each dyad. Drawing on as its analytic framework the advice sequence identified by Varonis and Gass (1985), which begins with a trigger followed by response, reaction and sometimes a coda, Liu Banerjee pursued a microgenetic analysis, focusing on each identifiable episode and tracing its beginning through its closure. While recognizing the potential effects of ‘background noises’ – factors such as the synchronicity of participation, cultural dependence, the retrievability of messages known otherwise as ‘persistence of transcript’ – on the participants’ performance of advice acts, culture was singled out as a main source of influence; what is perceived as a caring gesture in one culture is deemed intrusive in another. Liu Banerjee’s meticulous analysis illuminated advising as a complex and dynamic process susceptible to cultural influence, both of the past (from the native culture) and the present (the ecosystem formed with the present interlocutor), resulting in increasing pragmatic synchrony between the interlocutors. Delving into the discourse domain of the system, Chapter 5 by Sheu, informed by the CDST perspective in conjunction with Mann and Thompson’s (1988) rhetorical structure theory (RST), examines the two dyadic datasets in terms of the development of rhetorical strategies for encoding writer-reader relations. RST, among other things, identifies two sets of relations between the writer and the reader: presentational relations such as antithesis, background and concession, which signal the writer’s attempt to influence the reader’s interpretation, and subject-matter relations such as circumstance, contrast and elaboration, which indicate the relationship between two ideas. Following this framework, presentational relations can be linked to a subjective stance, and subject-matter relations to an objective stance. The two sets of relations

12  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

are, however, not bifurcated as much as forming a continuum. In other words, writers are likely to crisscross between the two sets of rhetorical strategies, although it is possible as well that a given writer may consistently opt for one type of relations over the other, as a result of his or her individual rhetorical style. These are the points of interest in Sheu’s analysis. Taking each dyad as forming a joint discourse system, the study traces patterns of variability, co-adaptation and attractor states in the expression of presentational relations, difference relations and perspective-­giving relations, uncovering the dynamics within and across the dyads. Sheu concludes that the two dyads were differentially successful in attending to social and linguistic cues for writer-reader relations and mapping out the appropriate use of textual elements to achieve pragmatic goals in interaction. The systemic nature of the discourse dimension is further explored in Chapter 6 by Akbar, only that this time around the focus is on topic management. Akbar examined the dynamics of topic management in the two dyads. Previous research had established topic management as a difficult undertaking for L2 learners, who typically took a back seat when conversing with native interlocutors, who, conversely, were active and adept at initiating topics. The difference was reportedly both quantitative and qualitative. Native speakers were found to use a variety of strategies for topic initiation, while L2 learners tended to latch onto one strategy, asking questions. Akbar’s analysis essentially confirms the previous findings. Additionally, tallying the idea units (Carrell, 1985) produced by the participants in relation to a given topic (referred to in the chapter as ‘propositional density’) as well as across topics for comparative purposes, Akbar shows that not only were the topics generated within the dyads different over time, they also led to differential engagement from the interlocutors. Throughout, both dyads exhibited abundance of interand intra-individual variability, but, at the same time, of co-adaptation and cooperation. The discourse topics naturally evolved from the ongoing interaction rather than appearing out of the blue. The five sets of analyses of the same longitudinal dyadic datasets, thus, each pursue a different entry point as it were, but they nonetheless converge in finding learner language nonlinear, relational and adaptive, among many system-related attributes. These findings corroborate the claims made by CDST theorists and, in a large part, overlap with previous empirical studies. Each of the findings, however, merits a qualitative analysis, as some of the seeming similarities are, in fact, substantively different. For this reason, this volume closes with a chapter where a more in-depth discussion of the findings is offered, and where issues are highlighted that have emerged from the data analyses, issues of larger relevance to CDST research as a whole. The concluding Chapter 7 closes out with a list of questions that may help guide and substantiate future research on CDST.

Profiling Learner Language from a CDS Perspective: An Introduction  13

The study of CDST is still nascent. There are presently more essays on the topic than empirical studies. As Dörnyei et al. (2015: 1–2; emphasis original) have aptly observed: [S]cholars spent much more time talking about research in a dynamic systems vein than actually doing it. Furthermore, even when dynamic principles were referred to in data-based studies, this was often to explain away difficult-to-interpret results, stating in effect that such results occurred because of the unpredictable or ‘emergentist’ nature of the system. At the same time, in informal conversations at conferences, it was not at all uncommon to hear scholars privately express the sense of being at a loss as to how exactly to go about researching dynamic system.

The present volume, therefore, makes a timely contribution to the developing literature. Granted, the studies included herein are far from exemplary, most of them ‘retooling’ traditional methods of interlanguage a­ nalysis for unraveling complexity (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016). Nonetheless, they combine to chart a way forward by seeking a nuanced understanding of the dynamics of learner language, temporally through a longitudinal prism and spatially in its (albeit restricted) ecosystem. Notes (1) As a reviewer points out, the amalgamation is artificial in the sense that it only ­occurred in the field of applied linguistics. (2) Following Morin’s (2006) distinction, ‘restricted complexity’ enacts a classical science approach to complex natural phenomena, through mathematical formalization and modeling of complexity; ‘general complexity’ is both ontologically and epistemologically different in that complexity is viewed as an artifact of nature’s own regeneration and ability to enforce order under ever changing conditions. (3) A metatheory, according to Overton (2007: 154), ‘is a coherent set of interlocking principles that both describes and prescribes what is meaningful and meaningless, acceptable and unacceptable, central and peripheral, as theory – the means of conceptual exploration – and as method – the means of observational exploration, the context in which theoretical and methodological concepts are constructed. Theories and methods refer directly to the empirical world, while metatheories refer to the theories and methods themselves.’ (4) One reviewer points out, and we agree, that a system does not need to be composed of subsystems. Its parts may in fact be simple elements which together make up a system, and that nested systems and subsystems are a particular kind of system and not all systems are by default nested within others. (5) Larsen-Freeman (2017) acknowledged that not all of these aphorisms were stimulated by CT. (6) A reviewer helpfully counters this ‘field-specific’ interpretation of CDST that the term complex dynamic system can sound redundant to many, since complex systems are by definition dynamic, although dynamic systems are not complex by default, and that the very existence of complexity in a complex system entails interacting parts which through time may lead to emergent patterns. (7) A reviewer usefully notes that a survey of CT-informed research in fields more established than applied linguistics and SLA shows that single-case studies are only one of

14  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

many available methods. Evidently, there is as yet much to learn from these other fields of study. For a recent endeavor to learn from other fields, see Hiver and Al-Hoorie (2016). (8) A reviewer contends that the boundary issue is pertinent to methodological choices of a unit of analysis, but conceptually it is in fact less important than the realization that a system is part of the context in which it is embedded and any boundaries are permeable.

References Bayley, R. and Preston, D. (1996) Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Beebe, L.M. and Takahashi, T. (1989) Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston and L. Selinker (eds) Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse and Pragmatics (pp. 103–125). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bley-Vroman, R. (1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning 33 (1), 1–17. Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G. (2014) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. The State of the Art. Oxon: Routledge. Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P. and Stanley, L. (2009) A discourse dynamic approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol 24 (2), 63–89. Capsi, T. (2010) A dynamic perspective on second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen. Carrell, P. (1985) Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly 21, 461–481. Cook, V.J.  (1991) The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research 7 (2), 103–117. Corder, S.P. (1967) The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161–170. de Bot, K. (2011) Epilogue. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot and W. Lowie (eds) Researching Second Language Development from A Dynamic Systems Theory Perspective (pp. 123– 127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. de Bot, K. (2017) Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory: Same or different? In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development (pp. 51–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. de Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007a) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism, Cognition and Language 10 (1), 7–21. de Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007b) A dynamic view as a complementary perspective. Bilingualism, Cognition and Language 10 (1), 51–55.  Dörnyei, Z. (2014) Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching 47 (1), 80–91. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P.D. and Henry, A. (2015) Introduction: Applying complex dynamic systems principles to empirical research on L2 motivation. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 1–7). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (1995) A variable competence model of second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics 23 (1), 47–59. Ellis, R. (2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19, 222–246. Gatbonton, E. (1978) Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech. Canadian Modern Language Review 34, 335–347. Hiver, P. and Al-Hoorie, A. (2016) A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. Modern Language Journal 100 (4), 741–756.

Profiling Learner Language from a CDS Perspective: An Introduction  15

Hunt, K.W. (1965) Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18, 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. (2017) Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lewontin, R. (1998) The evolution of cognition: Questions we will never answer. In D. Scarborough and S. Sternberg (eds) An Invitation to Cognitive Science (Vol. 4, pp. 107–132). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Lowie, W. (2017) Lost in state space? Methodological considerations in Complex Dynamic Theory approaches to second language development research. In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development (pp. 123–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. MacIntyre, P., MacKay, E., Ross, J. and Abel, E. (2017). The emerging need for methods appropriate to study dynamic systems: Individual differences in motivational dynamics. In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development (pp. 97–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8 (3), 243–281. Morin, E. (2006) Restricted complexity, general complexity. Paper presented at the Intelligence de la complexite: Epistemolgie et pragmatique, Cerisy-La-Salle, France. Nemser, W. (1971) Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 9 (2), 115–124. Ortega, L. and Han, Z-H. (eds) (2017) Complexity Theory and Language Development. In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  Overton, W.F. (2007) A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicismcontextualism. Human Development 50, 154–159. Polat, B. and Kim, Y. (2014) Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics 35 (2), 184–207. Preston, D.R. (1989) Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sato, C. (1985) Task variation in interlanguage phonology. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 181–196). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schachter, J. (1974) An error in error analysis. Language Learning 24 (2), 205–214. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10 (2), 209–231. Tarone, E. (1979) Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29, 181–191. Tarone, E. (1983) On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics 4, 142–163. van Geert, P. (1991) A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological Review 98, 3–53.  Van Geert, P. and Verspoor, M. (2014) Dynamic systems and language development. In B. McWhinney and W. O’Grady (eds) Handbook of Language Emergence (pp. 537–555). New York: Wiley-Blackwell. VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (2015) Theories in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. Varonis, E. and Gass, S. (1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6, 71–90.

16  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Verspoor, M., Lowie, W. and van Dijk, M. (2008) Variability in L2 development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal 92, 214–231. Verspoor, M.H., de Bot, K. and Lowie, W. (eds) (2011) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. and Xu, X. (2012) A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (3), 239–263. Young, R. (1996) Form-function relationships in articles in English interlanguage. In R. Bayley and D.R. Preston (eds) Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation (pp. 135–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zhang, X. and Lu, X. (2014) A longitudinal study of receptive vocabulary breadth knowledge growth and vocabulary fluency development. Applied Linguistics 35 (3), 283–304.

2 A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction Yuan-Yuan Meng

In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), the constructs of ‘complexity, accuracy and fluency’ (CAF) have been used to describe second language (L2) learners’ performance of tasks (Housen & Kuiken, 2009; Larsen-Freeman, 2009). ‘Complexity’ concerns restructuring, through which the learner’s language becomes more complex and elaborate (Skehan, 1996). ‘Accuracy’ concerns the extent to which the learner’s language approximates the norm of the target language (TL) system, and ‘fluency’ is how smoothly the learner’s speech is delivered, ideally without undue hesitation or interruption (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). Within the framework of task-based language learning and teaching, numerous studies have focused on the effects of task characteristics or task conditions on the CAF of L2 oral production (Ellis, 2009; Foster & Skehan, 2013). Research on L2 writing performance, on the other hand, has more narrowly targeted learners’ complexity and accuracy (e.g. Kuiken & Vedder, 2007, 2008). In terms of research methodology, the majority of these CAF studies were cross-sectional, which compared the performance of groups of learners at one or more time points. Although these studies have jointly shed much light on L2 performance under various experimental conditions, they were unable to capture what Norris and Ortega (2009: 574) have described as ‘the complex, dynamic, and developmental nature of CAF phenomena’. To address these inadequacies, a different line of inquiry has emerged. Following Larsen-Freeman’s (1997) call for non-reductionist explanations of SLA phenomena, this new line of research has endeavored to describe the longitudinal CAF development of L2 learners from the theoretical perspective of complexity theory (CT; LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008a) or dynamic systems theory (DST; de Bot, 17

18  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

2008; de Bot et al., 2007, 2013; Thelen & Smith, 1998). CT and DST are now amalgamated into ‘CDST’ (de Bot, 2015, 2017; Han & Liu, this volume; Larsen-Freeman, 2015a). The present study examined the changes in morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity of two dyads as they engaged in email exchanges over a period of two months. In what follows, I first provide an overview of the theoretical perspectives of CDST as it relates to language development. Then I review the CDST-inspired CAF studies, highlighting areas that have not yet been sufficiently explored. After that, I present an analysis of the data and discuss the findings, with a view to identifying some of the key CDST phenomena. I conclude with suggestions for future research. Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST)

CDST views language development as a dynamic process, treating language and the language learner as complex systems. Simply put, a complex system (CS) such as interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) is one composed of interconnected subsystems (e.g. syntax and lexicon) that are in constant interaction with each other as well as with the environment. The interconnectedness of and interaction among the components of this system result in perpetual change, pervasive variability, new but nonlinear developments, and the emergence of regularity. One of the central concerns of CDST is system change, conceptualized as ‘movement in a trajectory across a “state space” or “phase space”’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a: 20; see also de Bot, 2008), resulting from an aggregate of sub-states or sub-phases. Within the state space, there are periods of relative stability and moments of turbulence. During the former, the system is said to have settled into an ‘attractor state’ (de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011; de Bot et al., 2007; Hiver, 2015a; LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008a; Thelen & Smith, 1998), which is the preferred state in which the system stays temporarily, and exhibits stable modes of behavior. Attractor states are not static. Within an attractor state, dynamic stability is accompanied by variability, which ‘contains the potential for future change’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a: 56). CDST researchers underscore the value of variability, seeing it as ‘a motor of change’ (Lowie & Verspoor, 2015: 76), and emphasize the dimension of time, which affects the degree of variability observable at a given point in time. Verspoor (2015), for instance, notes that there is usually more variability in early stages of language development, and variability is especially great at the junctures between phases. Van Geert and van Dijk (2002), too, point out that different timescales may reveal different variability patterns. When the system moves from one attractor state to another, it tends to undergo sudden, large fluctuations (i.e. variability), which compel it

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  19

to adapt and restructure itself. Eventually the fluctuations subside and the system settles into a new attractor state, completing a phase shift. Researchers who embrace systems thinking (de Bot et al., 2007; LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008a; Smith & Thelen, 2003; Thelen & Smith, 1998) argue that it is this self-organizing process (i.e. passing through a phase shift), rather than direction by an external agent or dictation of an innate, built-in program, that brings complexity and novel forms into being. Apart from sudden, discontinuous change portending developmental transition (van Geert & van Dijik, 2002), system change often appears gradual and continuous. Given time, however, the accumulation of such incremental changes may reach a tipping point and cause the system to display new behaviors (Beckner et al., 2009; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a; Thelen & Smith, 1998). In other words, continuous change can gradually build toward a critical threshold, from which point it metamorphoses into discontinuous change and brings about something surprising or completely unforeseen. Regarding second language development, CDST holds that development embodies both cognitive and social influences (Beckner et al., 2009; de Bot et al., 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 2002, 2017) whose dynamic interaction over time gives rise to emergent patterns. As a CS, the growth of a learner’s interlanguage is constrained by limited and interlinked resources, some of which are internal (e.g. motivation and working memory), and some of which are external (e.g. support from the environment and language used by the environment) (de Bot et al., 2007). As the learner’s interlanguage develops, its system components may compete for these limited resources, or they may support each other’s growth, in which case they are called ‘connected growers’; otherwise, one component may serve as the precondition for another (de Bot et al., 2007; Verspoor & van Dijk, 2011). In short, the relations between the system components are mutable. Like the CS itself, they change with time, too. Dyadic human communication is a complex, dynamic process, where the two speakers form a ‘coupled system’, each a subsystem of the larger whole, and each functioning as part of the other’s environment (LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008a). As they interact, the two speakers enter an ongoing two-way feedback loop and engage in dynamic co-adaptation, in which they ‘soft-assemble’ their language resources to meet changing demands from their interlocutor (Larsen-Freeman, 2011, 2012b, 2015b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a). During the interaction process, certain modes of behavior in their systems may emerge and stabilize, or else a stable pattern may be disrupted by sudden perturbations. Key to how their systems evolve – whether they self-organize into or move out of a particular attractor state – is feedback. Iterations of positive feedback from a speaker’s interlocutor can amplify a perturbation that enters their system, pushing the system to respond accordingly and eventually dislodging it out of its current state. On the other hand, negative feedback

20  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

can damp down the magnitude of the perturbation and cause the disturbance to fade away (Hiver, 2015a, 2015b). Importantly in a CS, the size of a perturbation is often not linearly correlated with its impact. A large disturbance that does not trigger a response from the system will exert little influence, whereas a small disturbance that is reacted to can sometimes bring about catastrophic consequences (Hiver, 2015a, 2015b; Larsen-Freeman, 2002). With regard to methodology, CDST researchers advocate longitudinal designs that would ‘honor the complexity by avoiding reductionism’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008b: 206). Methodological tools include, but are not limited to, moving min-max graphs (which show the changing bandwidths of observed scores), ‘progmax-regmin’ graphs (which help illustrate developmental jumps) and moving correlation (which shows how variables dynamically correlate over time). CAF Studies Inspired by CDST

Larsen-Freeman’s (2006) exploratory study on inter- and intra-individual variability was the first to examine longitudinally the development of CAF in learner language from a CDST perspective. In this study, five Chinese learners of English narrated the same story at four different timepoints over the course of six months, and their written narratives were then analyzed for accuracy, fluency, and syntactic and vocabulary complexity. Quantitative analysis of the data showed that, as a group, the learners’ CAF improved over time; however, the individual trajectories differed manifestly. Each learner followed a unique developmental path featuring differential growth in CAF. For instance, one participant made progress in fluency and vocabulary complexity, but her accuracy declined over time, yet another participant, who made significant progress in accuracy and grammatical complexity, showed little improvement in her use of vocabulary. Departing from the previous CAF studies, which concentrated on presenting averaged group data, the Larsen-Freeman study demonstrated that the group’s collective behavior had limited validity for its individual members, whose unique patterns and orientations provided valuable insights into how learner language evolved. Focusing more narrowly on the role of intra-individual variability, two studies by Verspoor et al., (2008) and Spoelman and Verspoor (2010) each tracked the writing development of a single learner over a three-year time span. In Verspoor et al. (2008), 18 academic texts produced by a Dutch college English major were analyzed for word length, sentence length (SL), lexical diversity and sentence complexity. Lexical diversity was measured by type-token ratio and the use of academic vocabulary, and sentence complexity was measured by the length of the noun phrase (NP) and the number of words per finite verb (W/FV). Results showed that, in the case of word length, a developmental jump was often preceded by a phase of

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  21

increased variability. This increased variability, as predicted by CDST, served as a harbinger of change. As time went on, the participant also used longer words. In addition, the study found a trade-off relationship between sentence length and lexical diversity, but a supportive relationship between NP length and the W/FV ratio. Similarly, Spoelman and Verspoor (2010) followed an adult learner for three years as she began her Finnish language studies at the university. The writing samples (n = 54) she produced for her classes were analyzed for accuracy (the correct use of Finnish cases) and complexity at the levels of word (number of morphemes per word), phrase (NP length) and sentence (the number of simple, compound, complex and compound-complex sentences). In terms of accuracy, her earliest texts showed the greatest variability, but as she moved to a more advanced level, the variation decreased and the system settled into an attractor state. In respect of complexity, there appeared to be a competition between NP and sentence complexity but a lack thereof between word complexity and both NP and sentence complexity. There also appeared to be a tension between accuracy and complexity in the early stages of the study, but it subsided from the 23rd text onward, which led the authors to suggest that ‘the level of proficiency is a major variable in the complexity vs. accuracy debate’ (Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010: 550). Vyatkina (2012) tracked the development of lexical and syntactic complexity in a group of German learners over four semesters, with the performance of two learners singled out for detailed analysis. As in Verspoor et al. (2008), syntactic complexity was measured by SL, W/FV ratio, and the ratio of finite verb (FV) units per sentence. Corroborating the findings of Larsen-Freeman (2006), the analysis revealed a general upward trend at the group level, albeit with significant inter-individual variability. Of the two learners in question, one increased his writing complexity mainly by adding more FV units progressively, whereas the other achieved hers through the use of more varied vocabulary and longer clauses. Polat and Kim (2014) examined the linguistic development of an untutored Turkish immigrant in the USA for one year, during which time the learner was interviewed once every two weeks. From each of the interview transcripts, a 100-word segment was extracted and analyzed for syntactic complexity (length, subordination and phrasal elaboration), lexical diversity and accuracy (global accuracy and the correct use of the simple present tense). Results showed considerable variability throughout the year in all aspects of the participant’s interlanguage, each exhibiting a distinctive developmental trajectory. By the end of the one-year study, the participant displayed virtually no improvement in grammatical accuracy, but did show an increase in syntactic complexity, and much progress in lexical diversity. Notwithstanding the contextual differences surrounding the data collection in these studies, the overall picture that emerges is that the

22  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

development of complexity and accuracy tended to be nonlinear, dynamic and idiosyncratic. Although a central tendency was observed at the group level (e.g. an upward trend that indicates improvement over time), ample inter- and intra-individual variability existed and grew intense leading to a phase shift. Moreover, complexity and accuracy interacted differently at different times, with a larger trade-off between the two during the early stages of development. When learners reached an advanced level, their accuracy tended to stabilize. To date, CDST studies have mostly pursued an understanding of learner language as an independent system; little attention has been paid to changes to that system as a result of communicative interaction. The present study contributes to filling that gap by examining two sets of interactional data from a two-month email communication among two dyads. The study was guided by three research questions: (1) How do the learners’ morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity change over time? (2) How do their morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity interact over time? (3) What distinctive patterns, if any, emerge from the dyadic interaction over time? Method Participants

The participants were two dyads of university students: Bianca and Fannie forming one dyad, and Dawn and Alina the other. Bianca, a native speaker (NS) of Spanish majoring in graphic design, and Alina, a NS of English majoring in business marketing, were both enrolled in an ‘intercultural communication’ (IC) class at the same university in the USA during the Spring of 2011. Their IC class paired them up with two Chinese university students, Fannie and Dawn, who were English majors enrolled in a similar IC class in their own school. As part of the course requirement, the four participants undertook a transpacific, intercultural email exchange project that lasted eight weeks. Data

During the eight weeks, the two dyads each produced a set of email texts, with one set consisting of 35 messages composed by Bianca (18 texts, 2158 words) and Fannie (17 texts, 2527 words), and the other 39 messages produced by Dawn (20 texts, 7197 words) and Alina (19 texts, 6660 words). These two datasets, totaling 74 email texts, served as the primary data in the present study. The two Chinese participants, Fannie

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  23

and Dawn, at their instructor’s request, completed application entries, which served as supplemental data.1 Variables and measures

The datasets were examined for morphosyntactic accuracy (henceforth ‘accuracy’) and syntactic complexity. Following Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998), accuracy was operationalized as the ratio of error-free T-units (EFT) to the total number of T-units. A T-unit (TU) is a minimally terminable grammatical unit that consists of one independent clause plus one or more subordinate clauses attached to it (Hunt, 1965). Syntactic complexity was measured at the phrase and clause levels. For phrasal complexification, the mean length of clause (MLC) was measured, following Norris and Ortega’s (2009) suggestion. Clausal complexification denoting the amount of subordination was, on the other hand, measured by the average number of clauses per TU. Table 2.1 summarizes these measures and their operationalizations. For accuracy, the analysis focused on lexical and morphosyntactic errors, summarized in Table 2.2. An EFT thus refers to a TU free of any of the error types listed below. The clauses analyzed in this study included independent and subordinate clauses, the latter of which breaks down into three types: (1) adverbial clauses introduced by subordinate conjunctions (e.g. because, although, unless); (2) relative clauses introduced by relative pronouns (e.g. who, which and that) or relative adverbs (e.g. when, where and why), including elliptical relative clauses; and (3) noun clauses introduced by the complementizer that or its elliptical form, the conjunction if, or a wh- word. Table 2.3 gives a summary of subordinate clauses. Data coding and analysis

The data were examined quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis began with the segmentation of texts, in which each of the 74 email texts (35 from the first dataset and 39 from the second) were broken down into individual sentences and saved in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Then the coding criteria – what counted as a TU, an EFT and a clause – were established (Table 2.4). Table 2.1  Operationalization of performance measures Performance measures

Operationalization of performance measures

Morphosyntactic accuracy

Total number of error-free T-units/ total number of T-units

Syntactic complexity

Mean length of clause (MLC)

Total number of words/total ­number of clauses

Subordination

Total number of clauses/total ­number of TUs

24  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Table 2.2  Classification of errors Error categories

Examples from the datasets

Possessive/plural conflation

PowerPoint’s are given ahead of time… (Dataset 1, Email 15)

Article omission or misuse

I am cashier at a store. (Dataset 1, Email 19) My friend and I usually go to the downtown. (Dataset 2, Email 15)

Plural omission

When this happens some of my friend will give in and pay the price, … (Dataset 2, Email 15)

Infinitive omission

Also I want go to the Cherry Garden of Yuyuantan Park to see the cherry blossoms. (Dataset 1, Email 24)

Preposition misuse

I’m preparing for BEC Higher, which will be hold in May 21. (Dataset 2, Email 3)

Sentence fragments

Doing volunteer/service hours. (Dataset 1, Email 5)

Lack of subject-verb agreement

What he said above are mostly true. (Dataset 1, Email 18)

Word merge

I don’t know if you like to run, alot of people …. (Dataset 2, Email 8)

Incomplete tense marking

I haven’t check my emails for a while. (Dataset 1, Email 35)

Wrong lexical choice

I took some modal tests myself. (Dataset 2, Email 39)

Table 2.3  Summary of subordinate clauses Type of subordinate clause

Examples from the datasets

(1) Adverbial clauses introduced by subWhen you told me your major was Business ordinate conjunctions such as because, ­Marketing I really felt excited because maybe although, unless, etc. we can talk about business later on. (Dataset 2, Email 3) (2) Relative clauses introduced by ­relative pronouns (e.g. who, which, and that) or relative adverbs (e.g. when, where and why), including elliptical relative clauses.

The main jobs that are hiring are medical fields only. (Dataset 1, Email 5) I think this is the very purpose and reason why we communicate with each other. (Dataset 2, Email 33) Right now its difficult looking for a job or career I would be interested in. (Dataset 1, Email 5)

(3) Noun clauses introduced by the ­complementizer that or its elliptical form, the conjunction if, or a whword (e.g. who, what, why, how).

I just know that they speak Hungarian. (Dataset 2, Email 29) I don’t know if you have been told where our ­university is, but we’re in deep deep south Texas. (Dataset 2, Email 2) I do not know why I thought that. (Dataset 2, Email 24)

Each individual sentence was coded for TUs, EFTs and clauses. In addition, the total number of words and sentences per text, excluding the salutation and closing signature, was tallied.2 Table 2.5 illustrates the application of the coding scheme. Both datasets were coded twice by the researcher, with the two rounds of coding separated by a five-week interval. Intra-rater agreements were

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  25

Table 2.4  Coding criteria Coding categories T-unit (TU) A TU consists of an independent clause plus one or more subordinate clauses attached to it.

Error-free TU (EFT) An EFT is a TU free of any of the error types listed in Table 2.2. Independent clause An independent clause contains a ­subject and a verb and can stand alone as a ­sentence.

Subordinate clause (SC) A subordinate clause cannot stand alone. It must be attached to an independent clause in order to make sense.

Examples from the datasets Your written English is very good.  (1 TU, Dataset 2, Email 2) I am a senior, so I will be graduating this May. (2 TUs, Dataset 2, Email 2) I don’t know if you have been told where our ­university is, but we’re in deep deep south Texas. (2 TUs, Dataset 2, Email 2) I have never heard of Jay Chou. (Dataset 2, Email 18) I am tired of this kind of dull life. (One independent clause; Dataset 1, Email 6) I like to sing as well, but I mostly do that when I am driving alone in my car. (Two independent clauses; Dataset 2, Email 18) See Table 2.3.

Table 2.5  Application of coding scheme Dataset 1, Email 2

TU

EFT

Clause

1. I’m so happy to hear from you.

1

1

1

2. Well, the class is quite challenging to me.

1

1

1

3. However, I like the idea of communicating with you native people.

1

0

1

4. It makes study more interesting.

1

0

1

……

…

…

…

……

…

…

…

12. What about you?

1

1

1

Total

13

9

16

Total number of sentences: 12 sentences Total number of words: 96 words

obtained by computing Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients. The intra-rater reliability estimates for accuracy, subordination and MLC were 0.986, 0.965 and 0.923, respectively. To further ensure the reliability of the coding of accuracy, a second coder – a NS of English with a master’s degree in applied linguistics – was invited to code about 43% of the data. Before this second coder started, a norming session was conducted to familiarize him with the coding criteria for accuracy. After that, he proceeded to code, independently, 16 texts in the first dataset and another 16 in the second dataset. The inter-rater agreements between the researcher and the second coder were 0.942 for the first dataset and 0.962 for the second. Differences were resolved by consensus.

26  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

The average scores of the participants’ accuracy and syntactic complexity were calculated. Using the coding scheme in Table 2.5 as an example, the accuracy score was calculated by dividing the total number of EFT by the total number of TU (9/13), which gave 0.69; the subordination score was calculated by dividing the total number of clauses by the total number of TU (16/13), resulting in 1.23; and the MLC score was calculated by dividing the total number of words by the total number of clauses (96/16), yielding 6. In order to enable a comparison across the measures of accuracy, MLC and subordination, the scores were further converted into Z scores and plotted in line graphs. On some of the line graphs, a second-degree polynomial trend line was added to show the general trend of a particular performance variable. Furthermore, moving windows of correlations were plotted to examine the dynamic relationships between any two performance variables (e.g. accuracy and subordination), and moving min-max graphs were created to detect possible phase shifts in the development of a certain performance variable (e.g. subordination). (For detailed information on computing the moving correlations or creating moving-min-max graphs, see Verspoor & van Dijk, 2011.) In addition to the quantitative analyses, the data were examined qualitatively in order to gain insight into how the participants soft-assembled their language resources during the email interaction as well as to capture the emergence of any meaningful patterns. Results

In this study, the language system of each participant was cased as a CS consisting of, among other things, two subsystems: accuracy and complexity (MLC and subordination). Owing to space constraints, the discussion of results focuses only on the three nonnative speaker (NNS) participants: Bianca, Fannie and Dawn. Quantitative results

The quantitative results provided here illustrate the state space, system change, attractor states and interaction between subsystems. State space

Figure 2.1(a)–(c) presents the ‘state space landscape’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a) for Bianca, Fannie and Dawn. Overall, the language use by all three learners exhibits continuous up-and-down movement in the trajectory of each subsystem; interaction between subsystems in a variety of unpredictable ways; and progression of subsystems in a nonlinear fashion. The broad similarities notwithstanding, idiosyncrasies are profuse. Of note, the two Chinese participants, in

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  27

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 2.1  (a) Bianca’s state space landscape; (b) Fannie’s state space landscape; (c) Dawn’s state space landscape

spite of their similar backgrounds – both English majors, speaking the same L1, with similar English-learning history – did not chart the same paths in their accuracy and syntactic complexity trajectories. System change and attractor state

Figure 2.2(a) and (b), shows Bianca’s accuracy and subordination, one of the measures of syntactic complexity. Her 18 texts were plotted on

28  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d) Figure 2.2  (a) Bianca’s accuracy trajectory (mean accuracy score: 0.66); (b) Bianca’s subordination trajectory (mean subordination score: 1.42); (c) Dawn’s accuracy ­trajectory (mean accuracy score: 0.74); (d) Dawn’s MLC trajectory (mean score: 7.06)

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  29

line graphs, each of which was accompanied by a moving min-max graph (with a window of five data points) that showed its score range and a polynomial trend line that indicated its general direction. Figure 2.2(a) indicates that, overall, Bianca’s accuracy was stable, with the majority of her scores staying within a relatively narrow range of between 0.6 and 0.8. Apparently, no dramatic change in accuracy had occurred during the two-month email communication. This may suggest that Bianca’s accuracy had probably settled in an attractor state even before the email exchange started. The stability carried through the interactional process. Her morphosyntactic system may have been so solidly stable that it was not permeable to external influence, in this case, the influence of the other interlocutor. With data of a longer span, however, the nature of the stability would be better determined. In Figure 2.2(b), Bianca’s subordination showed a different picture. The trajectory appeared to be rather stable between texts 3 and 7, but at the ninth text, it suddenly peaked and immediately afterwards dropped to a significantly lower level, creating an enlarged window of increased variability. Within CDST, such sudden change implies the possible presence of a phase shift. Indeed, Bianca’s subordination system settled into a new attractor state (texts 11–16) after having experienced turbulence. Another type of system change is gradual, as shown in Dawn’s accuracy and MLC trajectories. In Figure 2.2(c), the polynomial trend line indicates a downward trend in Dawn’s accuracy until the 15th text, when her score began to move up again. Between her fourth and 14th texts, her scores did not rise or fall dramatically from one point to the next. In Figure 2.2(d), the polynomial trend line indicates a steady upward trend in Dawn’s MLC, suggesting that as time went on, her phrases gradually became more elaborate. Prior to text 14, when her MLC score peaked, her system generally had moved upward in a smooth fashion. Nonetheless, between texts 14 and 19, there were signs of increased variability, which might usher in an attractor state had Dawn continued her interaction with Alina beyond the 20th text. Interaction of system components

The ongoing interaction between subsystems (i.e. between accuracy and MLC, between accuracy and subordination, and between subordination and MLC) is illustrated by moving correlations (with a window of five measurements), which are accompanied by Pearson’s Rs that show the overall strength of the correlations. In Figure 2.3(a), we see that for Bianca, accuracy and subordination correlated positively at first (until the sixth text) and then negatively in the middle (between the seventh and the 11th texts) and finally positively again from the 12th text onward. Thus, between her accuracy and complexity (as measured by subordination), there existed a nonlinear, ‘supportive-competitive-supportive’ interactional relation.

30  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 2.3  (a) Moving correlation between Bianca’s accuracy and subordination (r = 0.113); (b) moving correlation between Bianca’s accuracy and MLC (r = –0.647); (c) moving correlation between Bianca’s subordination and MLC (r = –0.014)

Figure 2.3(b) shows that Bianca’s accuracy and MLC correlated negatively throughout, suggesting that there was an ongoing competition between these two performance variables. This competitive relation is confirmed by the negative correlation coefficient, r = –0.647. It appears that the longer Bianca’s clauses became, the more likely she was to produce errors. Figure 2.3(c) shows that Bianca’s subordination and MLC were negatively correlated during the first and last thirds of the email exchange period, exhibiting a ‘competitive-supportive-competitive’ relation. Interestingly, Figure 2.3(a) and (c) together reveal that Bianca’s subordination never simultaneously competed with her accuracy and MLC. In fact, when her subordination maintained a positive relationship with

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  31

accuracy in texts 3 to 6 and 12 to 16 (Figure 2.3(a)), it had a competitive relationship with MLC (Figure 2.3(c)), and when her subordination entered into competition with accuracy in texts 7 to 11 (Figure 2.3(a)), its relationship with MLC became positive (Figure 2.3(c)). Next, Figure 2.4(a) shows that Fannie’s accuracy and subordination were positively correlated at first, but from the sixth text on, the two were negatively correlated for the most part. Figure 2.4(b) shows that Fannie’ accuracy and MLC were negatively correlated until the seventh text, after which the correlation became positive. Similar to Bianca’s, Figure 2.4(a) and 4(b) combine to show that Fannie’s accuracy rarely competed simultaneously with the two syntactic complexity measures. During the period when her accuracy and MLC were in competition (Figure 2.4(b), texts 3–7), the relationship between her accuracy and subordination was generally positive (Figure 2.4(a)),

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 2.4  (a) Moving correlation between Fannie’s accuracy and subordination (r = –0.214); (b) moving correlation between Fannie’ accuracy and MLC (r = –0.005); (c) moving correlation between Fannie’s subordination and MLC (r = –0.529)

32  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

and during the period when her accuracy and MLC were in harmony (Figure 2.4(b), texts 8–15), the relationship between her accuracy and subordination became mostly competitive (Figure 2.4(a), texts 6–10 and 12–15). As for the relationship between Fannie’s subordination and MLC, Figure 2.4(c) shows a supportive-competitive pattern. Overall, though, the two syntactic complexity measures had a moderately strong negative correlation (r = –0.529). Turing to the second dyad, Figure 2.5(a) shows that the relationship between Dawn’s accuracy and subordination was negative at first, but positive from the 12th text onward. It appears that she gained better control over her accuracy and use of subordination over time.

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 2.5  (a) Moving correlation between Dawn’s accuracy and subordination (r = –0.348); (b) moving correlation between Dawn’s accuracy and MLC (r = –0.675); (c) moving correlation between Dawn’s subordination and MLC (r = –0.093)

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  33

Figure 2.5(b) shows that Dawn’s accuracy and MLC were in competition most of the time. The competitive relation is confirmed by the negative correlation coefficient: r = –0.675. For the interaction between Dawn’s subordination and MCL, Figure 2.5(c) shows a ‘supportive-competitive-supportive-competitive’ relationship between the two. Overall, the above correlational data revealed the following patterns: first, as predicted by CDST, relations between accuracy and syntactic complexity were not fixed – they changed over time. Secondly, there generally existed a negative relation between accuracy and MLC (r = –0.647, –0.005 and –0.675, respectively for Bianca, Fannie and Dawn) and between subordination and MLC (r = –0.014, –0.529 and –0.093). Between accuracy and subordination, the overall relationship was both positive (for Bianca, r = 0.113) and negative (for Fannie, r = –0.214 and for Dawn, r = –0.348), though neither relationship was significant. It appears that MLC was the ‘destabilizer’, tending to interact negatively with the other components in the system, with the greatest tension existing between MLC and accuracy. Qualitative results

Following the quantitative analysis, the two longitudinal datasets were carefully inspected for evidence of the hallmark features of a CS, with the focus again on the three NNS participants. Novel form

For the first dyad, the qualitative analysis revealed an interesting development in Bianca’s use of the verb ‘depend’. Recall that Bianca and Fannie were strangers brought together by a class project to cultivate their intercultural awareness through email exchanges. In order to be adequately acquainted with their interlocutors, they both continually asked questions about each other’s interests, schoolwork, culture and so on. In the 14th email, Fannie reflected on the different kinds of academic pressure to which Chinese and American students were subject. Bianca responded with her thoughts in several sentences, including ‘Each situation is dependent on the individuals’ and ‘It depends on which class’ (Email 15). In this response, Bianca’s use of ‘depend on’ and its variant form ‘be dependent on’ was target-like. These uses show that she had some facility with the verb ‘depend’. Fannie also used the verb ‘depend’ to answer Bianca’s question about ‘favorite type of music’. In the 20th email, she wrote, ‘My favorite music should be rock or pop music. But that depends. Under different circumstances, I may like different types.’ Immediately after this response from Fannie, Bianca coined an elaborate structure, ‘depending on X is dependent of Y’ to express the same notion of ‘it depends’ in response to the same ‘favorite music’ question. The full sentence, preserving her errors, was: ‘Depending on my mood is

34  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

dependent of my favorite music at the moment, the 2 main one’s would have to be (english or spanish) Pop and Country’ (Email 21). This pattern recurred in the 29th email: ‘Depending on if they choose to attend, is dependent of how much of a summer break they get’, which was a reply to Fannie’s question about how long a summer break was for American college students. It is unclear if this idiosyncratic structure is something that Bianca had been using prior to the email project, but given that her first two uses of the verb ‘depend’ were well formed, it is possible that this creative invention was a novel usage that only emerged after her extended interaction with Fannie. Attractor state

Another salient feature of Bianca’s language use was her seeming inability to use punctuation and the upper-case letters correctly, which resulted in comma splices, for example, ‘I am also 22, this is my 5th year in college’ (Email 3), sentence fragments, for example, ‘Doing volunteer/ service hours’ (Email 5) and fused sentences, for example, ‘It’s getting harder there are a lot of budget cuts happing’ (Email 5). Sometimes the incorrect use of punctuation would turn a plural noun into a possessive, for example, ‘PowerPoint’s are given ahead of time…’ (Email 15) and ‘Just the movie theater’s and the park’ (Email 7). Other times, the incorrect placement of a semicolon or a comma simply obscured the clause boundaries and disrupted the flow of the texts, as in ‘There are many reason why we place the flowers on the grave the main one; is to show love and respect for them even after they pass on’ (Email 13). Bianca’s practice with punctuation was consistent throughout the email exchange with Fannie, and can thus be considered one of her attractor states. The practice did not escape Fannie’s notice. In her tenth application entry, Fannie commented, ‘My partner made a lot of mistakes in spelling and grammar in her emails.’ Likely owing to this level of awareness, Fannie never picked up Bianca’s behaviors – she did not begin to use comma splices or run-on sentences despite her continuous interaction with Bianca. Possibly, too, because of this assessment of Bianca’s English proficiency, Fannie was not enthusiastic about continuing her correspondence with Bianca once the project was completed. She disclosed her tepid feelings toward her partner in her last application entry, ‘I was thinking about quitting this relationship after the project finished, but she continued to contact me’. On the other hand, Fannie had her own attractor states that were mostly related to tense marking. For instance, she quite often, though not always, failed to conjugate the third-person singular verbs with –s when writing in the present tense, and this tendency persisted to the end of the email project. Here are two examples: ‘Seems like she don’t want to talk about’ (first application entry) and ‘My partner still keep in touch with me and email me frequently’ (last application entry). In recounting her past

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  35

experiences, she also frequently failed to use the past tense. Furthermore, she had problems with tense consistency when there was more than one verb phrase in a sentence, for example, ‘When we were children, we always celebrate our birthdays’ (Email 30). Adaptive imitation

Of the second dyad, Dawn initiated the correspondence by sending the first email to Alina. Over the two-month period, she produced 20 email texts and 20 application entries, from which one feature stood out: her consistent imitation of Alina’s language and language-using behavior, including the use of emoticons. In her first two emails to Alina, she used a particular smiley emoticon to represent the textual laughter ‘ha ha’, but after realizing that it was not a familiar symbol to her interlocutor, she immediately abandoned it and adopted the ones that Alina used. Dawn’s second type of imitation concerns the use of complimentary closing. Again in her first two emails, she closed her messages with the formal ‘Yours faithfully’ and ‘Yours sincerely’, but after having received two emails from Alina, who closed her messages with ‘Hope to hear from you soon’, she began to use the same line to close her third and fourth messages. After that, Alina switched to ‘Talk to you soon’ in her fourth text, and Dawn immediately followed suit by closing her fifth email with the same expression. From that point on, she alternated between the two adopted closings until her tenth message, where the closing line switched to ‘Have a good day’, which looked like a variant of Alina’s ‘Hope you’re having a great day’, which appeared in the preceding email. Then from her 12th message to the last one, Dawn used Alina’s ‘Hope you’re having a great day’ to close her messages four times, alternating it with several newer expressions (e.g. And hope you enjoy Easter holiday!) that exhibited a greater degree of creativity (see Appendix A). The third type of imitation was the most prominent and involved the segmentation and reworking of Alina’s sentences (see Appendix B). The whole process appeared to consist of three steps: identifying the sequence of language that was of interest, segmenting that sequence from the original text and reworking it into a new sentence to fulfill a certain communicative purpose. The segmented items included short chunks and longer sequences of words, ranging from trigrams (e.g. clear my mind) to complete sentences (e.g. They compete with teams from other universities). The transformed items were integrated into her texts and appeared in both her responses to Alina and her application entries. Below are some examples of how Alina’s language reappeared in Dawn’s. In Alina’s third email, she wrote, ‘Most students here are involved in part-time jobs or some school activity’, from which Dawn identified her target, ‘are involved in part-time jobs’. She then incorporated that phrase in a long sentence of hers by changing the be copula to the past tense

36  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

verb ‘got’. The reworked item, which appeared in her fourth application entry, was ‘they often got involved in part-time jobs, having trips or other activities.’ About 60% of the reworked items appeared in her responses to Alina, used as a way to empathize with what Alina had said or answer a question from her. For instance, Alina had a sentence lamenting that ‘Some people look down on Hispanics that do not know Spanish’, to which Dawn responded, ‘I’m sorry to hear that some people look down on Hispanics that do not know Spanish.’ Throughout the entire email exchange process, Dawn’s anxiety over an upcoming major English test was palpable, so in the 34th email, Alina wrote, ‘And I am sure you will pass the BEC test; it is about a month away, right?’ Dawn confirmed by saying, ‘You’re right that my BEC test is about a month away, and thank you for your encouragement!’ In another discussion about their respective schools, Alina wrote, ‘Your university puts a lot of importance in learning different languages, which is really good!’ and Dawn replied, ‘But different types of universities put different importance in it.’ In this new sentence, the original phrase ‘puts a lot of importance in’ was reformulated by deleting the inflectional morpheme –s and replacing the determiner ‘a lot of’ with the adjective ‘different’ before the noun ‘importance’. The efforts involved in this adaptation suggested that Dawn’s imitation was conscious and creative. It was guided by the constraints of the new sentence context, where the plural subject required a plural verb, and her specific meaning-making needs. Affordance

The email project provided affordances for learning. According to Larsen-Freeman (2014: 665), affordances are also emergent phenomena, ‘determined by the perception of the learner in relation to the context’. Again, take Dawn, who revealed her strong desire to improve her English proficiency through interactions with her NS interlocutor. In the first email, she said to Alina, ‘I hope you can teach me some methods of speaking English fluently and accurately’ and again in the 33rd email, ‘And I really hope you can give me suggestions on my writing whether they’re about words or grammar’. Alina took note of Dawn’s requests and offered helpful feedback such as this: ‘You could say ‘bachelorette’ that is the female version of bachelor’ (Email 36), which Dawn picked up and used as the ending remark of her last email to Alina: ‘I hope you can soon be no more ‘bachelorette.’’ Discussion

This study examined how three NNSs’ accuracy and complexity varied during two months of email communication. Regarding the first research question, How do the learners’ morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity change over time? – it was found that the three learners’

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  37

language systems were characterized by unpredictable ups and downs in the trajectories of accuracy, MLC and subordination. Even though Bianca’s accuracy remained relatively stable during the study period, small local fluctuations were still present, providing grounds for potential future change. This finding corroborates Polat and Kim’s (2014) study, in which the participant’s accuracy reportedly settled in an attractor state, in spite of visible variations. The current study also lends support to the claim that system change can be gradual and continuous or sudden and discontinuous (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a; Thelen & Smith, 1998). Dawn’s accuracy trajectory showed a gradual decline, but her phrasal complexity displayed a progressive increase. System change can also occur suddenly in a dramatic, discontinuous fashion, as shown in Figure 2.2(b) on Bianca’s use of subordination in her email writing over time. Figure 2.2(b) indicates that a drastic change occurred in the ninth text, after which the system settled into a new phase seemingly no different from the preceding one. Nevertheless, a close examination of her texts revealed that the two occurrences of the novel structure, ‘depending on X is dependent of Y’ actually appeared in the phase following the dramatic change (in her 11th and 15th texts), while the correct use of the phrase ‘depend on’ and its variant form, ‘be dependent on’ occurred in the phase preceding the dramatic change (in her eighth text). Thus, even though the graphed data indicate that the phases were similar in shape before and after the dramatic change, they differed, nonetheless, in terms of how the derived forms of the verb ‘depend’ were used. Given this qualitative change, it is probable that a phase shift was taking shape in Bianca’s syntactic complexity. This finding is in line with Verspoor et al. (2008), which found that increased variability often signaled a developmental shift. Regarding the second research question, How do the learners’ morphosyntactic accuracy and syntactic complexity interact over time? – the interactions proved dynamic and variable. Any two subsystems in competition at first could enter into a noncompetitive relation later, and vice versa. The fact that accuracy and syntactic complexity (represented by the amount of subordination) can eventually evolve from interacting negatively to interacting positively, as in Dawn’s case (Figure 2.5(a)), challenges the ‘accuracy-complexity trade-off’ debate (Foster & Skehan, 2013), which has spurred a good deal of studies that have failed to take into account the temporal aspect of language development. As mentioned earlier, CDST sees development as a dynamic process and regards timescales as crucial to understanding the nature of linguistic behavior or relationships. It may therefore be more meaningful to ask how linguistic accuracy and complexity interact over time as the learner matures and the context changes, rather than whether the two subsystems are in competition inherently, or

38  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

whether their competition or the lack thereof is a function of task complexity (Robinson, 2001). Another finding pointed to the interconnectedness of system components, which appeared in the interactions among Bianca’s three subsystems (Figure 2.3(a) and (c)), where subordination alternately competed with accuracy and MLC. It also appeared in the interactions among Fannie’s subsystems (Figure 2.4(a) and (b)), where accuracy took turns competing with MLC and subordination. In effect, Bianca’s and Fannie’s performance shows that in a CS, changes in component X’s relationship with component Y could affect X’s relationship with a third component Z, and changes in the X–Z relationship could also affect X’s relationship with Y. Thus, the relations between and among the subsystems of a CS can be better understood if they are viewed relationally and holistically (Larsen-Freeman, 2012a). Regarding the third research question, What distinctive patterns, if any, emerge from the dyadic interaction over time? – this study has uncovered several emergent phenomena: soft-assembly, morphogenesis, attractor state, adaptive imitation, phase shift and affordance. For example, Bianca’s use of the verb ‘depend’ evolved from the target-like variants to the non-target-like variant. Apparently, the new usage was created to meet a pressing communicative need – answering her interlocutor’s questions. It might also have been created, albeit probably unconsciously, to economize on wording so that she could compress an otherwise longer response into just one sentence. Regardless of the motivation underlying the switch to the new form, the phenomenon provides evidence for what Larsen-Freeman (2006, 2008, 2011, 2015c) calls ‘morphogenesis’ – the creation of new patterns. It seems that when Bianca marshaled her language resources to express the idea of ‘it all depends’, she was not concerned with conforming to the TL norm, of which she already had a relatively good command. Instead, her agency as a language user seemed to lead her into experimenting with new patterns of self-expression, through which her language resources were modified. Bianca and Fannie were both found to be in specific attractor states. For Bianca, her attractor basin was created by her idiosyncratic use of punctuation and spelling, which, from the perspective of the TL, was rife with errors. These punctuation errors, though not factored in the calculation of her accuracy scores, were pervasive enough to create a false appearance of syntactic complexity. For instance, some of her lengthy sentences – the result of two or more sentences fused together – if properly written, would have been replaced with two or three structurally simpler sentences, thereby reducing her overall syntactic complexity. Fannie’s attractor state notably lay in her tense marking. Throughout the entire email process, she oscillated between the correct and incorrect use of person and tense markers, at times conjugating the verbs properly according to person and tense, but at other times completely forgoing

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  39

these markers, exhibiting what Schachter (1996) has described as ‘fossilized variation’, or in CDST terms, a ‘cyclic attractor’3 (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a; see also Francis, 2014) or ‘periodic attractor state’ (Hiver, 2015a). While Bianca showed her agency through her creation of a new construction, Dawn demonstrated hers by actively attending to and imitating the language of her NS interlocutor, Alina. Dawn treated Alina as an expert source on English and looked up to her for corrective feedback. During their correspondence, she was also busy preparing for an upcoming English test that prized accuracy over everything else. Therefore, it was no wonder that she closely followed Alina’s language use and modified her own accordingly. In a sense, this imitation or ‘shadowing’ was a form of deliberate language practice that she performed to help herself internalize the language imitated. The targets of her imitation included emoticons, formulaic message-closing lines and other phrases and sentences. When these targets were detected, she immediately moved into a phase of ‘adaptive imitation’ (Macqueen, 2012) – a recursive process of perceiving, experimenting with and fine-tuning a pattern in the service of one’s own communicative goal. As illustrated by the examples in the Results section, Dawn’s imitation sometimes involved copying Alina’s language verbatim in order to maintain their dialogic momentum, but at other times it involved a more creative blending of Alina’s and her own that also took into consideration contextual and co-textual constraints (Macqueen, 2012). When adapting Alina’s language to a new context, she usually kept the overall structure of the imitated unit intact and made some small adjustments, such as changing an inflectional morpheme to achieve subject-verb agreement, replacing one word with another or even correcting a spelling error in the source text. Clearly, she was mindful all along about what to copy and how to manipulate the copied item to meet her needs. This mimetic behavior supports Macqueen’s (2012) observation that imitation of expert texts is a driving force for L2 development and that it is an insightful process. Finally, of the three NNS participants, Dawn appeared to benefit most from the affordances that emerged from the email interaction. In particular, her perception of Alina’s language expertise had inspired her to engage in the imitation process. It was probably partially through this adaptive imitation that she was able to steadily increase her phrasal complexity (Figure 2.2(d)), which, more so than subordination, is seen as an indicator of advanced proficiency (Ortega, 2003; Norris & Ortega, 2009; Vyatkina, 2012). Conclusion

In line with the findings of the CDST studies reviewed earlier (LarsenFreeman, 2006; Polat & Kim, 2014; Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010; Verspoor

40  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

et al., 2008; Vyatkina, 2012), the current study showed that the language trajectories of each of the three NNS participants were essentially individual processes of trial and error (Verspoor, 2015), where no two learners used the language in the same way. The state space of their systems was characterized by abundant variability, which seemed greater in the domain of complexity than in accuracy, and which tended to be dramatic prior to a possible phase shift. The present study also showed that accuracy and syntactic complexity changed and interacted in a dynamic, unpredictable manner. Overall, accuracy appeared to be in greater competition with MLC than with subordination; increased clause length was achieved seemingly at the expense of accuracy. Another feature unveiled by the quantitative data is the interconnectedness of subsystems, a core tenet of CDST – in a CS, everything is connected, so when one aspect changes, all others are affected (de Bot, 2015; de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Larsen-Freeman, 2002). Moreover, qualitative analysis of the data helped illuminate the phenomenon of ‘soft-assembly’, bringing to light some of the ‘messy little details’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2006: 613) of language use as the learners tried to adapt to their changing environment. As predicted by CDST, the learners’ language systems went through changes – both abrupt and gradual – as a result of their continued interaction with their interlocutors, and out of that interaction process new linguistic entities emerged. Additionally, the findings also suggested that both learner perception – how one perceives one’s interlocutor in relation to their proficiency level – and learner agency – the desire to create something different – might play a role in how internal and external resources are exploited to achieve communicative and/or learning goals. In sum, the findings support the CDST claim that changes in learner language occur through interaction with the environment – the interlocutor in this study – and through internal self-­ organization (de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Larsen-Freeman, 2012a). The findings must, however, be tempered by several palpable limitations of the study. First, the datasets it employed were of a short time scale (two months), making it impossible to determine, for example, whether the innovative structure created by Bianca was transient or durable. Data of a much longer time span are desirable to help track the waxing and waning of emergent patterns and identify phase shifts. Another limitation lay in the minimal analysis of the NS participant’s data. Incorporating analyses of the NS data would have shed valuable light on how the NS (Alina) and NNS (Dawn) differed with respect to the interaction among their subsystems. It would also have allowed for a glimpse into whether the NS was in any way influenced by the NNS interlocutor. Still another limitation concerned the measure of complexity. The construct of linguistic complexity is multidimensional and would have been more fully addressed in the present study if global complexity (e.g. mean length of TU; Norris & Ortega, 2009) and lexical complexity (Skehan, 2009) had been probed, in addition to subordination and phrasal elaboration.

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  41

Future CDST research investigating language use in the context of dyadic interaction should consider lengthening the study period to increase the chance of capturing the phenomenon of phase shift. It would be helpful to collect participant opinions, through interviews, to better understand the motivations underlying the changes in their language use. Continuing with the microgenetic method (Flynn & Siegler, 2007), future studies should also seek to identify conditions leading to a developmental change, its ongoing dynamics and its ultimate trajectory. Acknowledgments

I am deeply grateful to David Branner, ZhaoHong Han, Hoa Nguyen and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful critique and helpful suggestions. I am also indebted to Terry Liu and Michael Vlahovic for their generous assistance with data organization and data coding. Any errors that remain are solely my own. Notes (1) The application entries by the US participants are unavailable. (2) Three paragraphs in Fannie’s ninth email, which were taken directly from her English teacher’s text as a way to respond to her interlocutor’s request for cultural advice, were excluded from the analysis as they were not her own production. (3) In a cyclic attractor, the system ‘visits two different points periodically but never breaks out of that cycle’ (Francis, 2014: 258).

References Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N.C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D. and Schoenemann, T. (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59, Supplement 1, 1–26. de Bot, K. (2008) Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal 92 (2), 166–178. de Bot, K. (2015) A History of Applied Linguistics: From 1980 to the Present. New York: Routledge. de Bot, K. (2017) Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory: Same or different? In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development (pp. 51–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. de Bot, K. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot and W. Lowie (eds) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development (pp. 5–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  de Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), 7–21. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. and Verspoor, M. (2013) Dynamic systems theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development. In M. Mayo, M. GutierrezMangado and M. Adrian (eds) Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. (2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 30 (4), 474–509. Ellis, R. and Barkhuizen, G. (2005) Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

42  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Ellis, N. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics 27 (4), 558–589. Flynn, E. and Siegler, R. (2007) Measuring change: Current trends and future directions in microgenetic research. Infant and Child Development 16, 135–149. Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (2013) Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of second language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review 69 (3), 249–273. Francis, S.E. (2014) Chaotic phenomena in psychophysiological self-regulation. In R. Robertson and A. Combs (eds) Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences (pp. 253–266). New York: Psychology Press. Hiver, P. (2015a) Attractor states. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 20–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hiver, P. (2015b) Once burned, twice shy: The dynamic development of system immunity in teachers. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 214–237). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30 (4), 461–473. Hunt, K.W. (1965) Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2007) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45, 261–284. Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2008) Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 48–60. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18, 141–165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002) Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization (pp. 33–46). London: Continuum. 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. (2008) On the need for a new understanding of language and its development. Journal of Applied Linguistics 3 (3), 281–304. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009) Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30 (4), 579–589. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/ acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 48–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012a) Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching 45 (2), 202–214. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012b) The emancipation of the language learner. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 2 (3), 297–309. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014) It’s about time. The Modern Language Journal 98 (2), 665–666. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015a) Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. In Z. Dornyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015b) Complexity theory. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 227–244). New York: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015c) Saying what we mean: Making a case for ‘language acquisition’ to become ‘language development’. Language Teaching 48 (4), 491–505. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017) Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  43

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008a) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008b) Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal 92, 200–213. Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2015) Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning 65 (1), 63–88. Macqueen, S. (2012) The Emergence of Patterns in Second Language Writing: A Sociocognitive Exploration of Lexical Trails. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30 (4), 555–578. Ortega, L. (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24 (4), 492–518. Polat, B. and 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, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (ed.) Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schachter, J. (1996) Maturation and the issue of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 159–194). San Diego: Academic Press. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–231. Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17 (1), 38–62. Skehan, P. (2009) Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30, 510–532. Smith, L. and Thelen, E. (2003) Development as a dynamic system. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7 (8), 343–348. Spoelman, M. and Verspoor, M. (2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 31 (4), 532–553. Thelen, E. and Smith, L. (1998) Dynamic systems theories. In W. Damon and R. Bidell (eds) Dynamic Development of Psychological Structures in Action and Thought (pp. 258– 312). New York: Wiley. Van Geert, P. and Van Dijk, M. (2002) Focus on variability: New tools to study intraindividual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development 25 (4), 340–374. Verspoor, M. (2015) Initial conditions. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 38–46). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Verspoor, M. and van Dijk, M. (2011) Visualizing interaction between variables. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot and W. Lowie (eds) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development (pp. 85–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W. and van Dijk, M. (2008) Variability in L2 development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal 92, 214–231. Vyatkina, N. (2012) The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal 96 (4), 576–598. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. and Kim, H. (1998) Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

44  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Appendix A: Evolution of Dawn and Alina’s Message-Closing Lines Email

Dawn’s message-closing line

01

Yours faithfully

Email 02

Alina’s message-closing line Hope to hear from you soon and learn more about you! :)

03

Yours sincerely

04

Hope to hear from you soon.

05

Hope to hear from you soon

06

Hope to hear from you soon!

07

Hope to hear from you soon!

08

Talk to you soon

09

Talk to you soon!

10

Talk to you soon!

11

Hope to hear from you soon!

12

we discuss a lot of things, haha

13

Talk to you soon!

14

Or what kind of place do you go to?

15

Talk to you soon!

16

Let me know how they compare to what you see.

17

Hope to hear from you soon!

18

Hope you’re having a great day!

19

Have a good day!

20

Hope you’re having a good day!

21

Hope to here from you soon!

22

Hope you’re having a great week!

23

Hope you’re having a great day!

24

Hope your Monday is going well!

25

Hope you’re having a great day!

26

Are you considering coming to A ­ merica?

27

Haha!

28

Could you explain it to me? thanks!

29

Hope my explanation makes sense to you!

30

Hope you enjoyed the Spanish lesson! Haha

31

Hope you’re having a great day!

32

Hope you’re having a wonderful day! The week is almost over!

33

Hope to hear from you soon!

34

Hope your week is going well!

35

And hope you enjoy Easter holiday!

36

I know it is a very busy time in school right now!

37

Hope you are having a great day!

38

Hope you are having a great weekend!

39

Finally, I hope you can soon be no more ‘bachelorette’. Haha!

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  45

Appendix B: Trail of Imitation – Dawn’s Expressions Borrowed from Alina Alina’s original expressions

Dawn’s adaptations

Email 6, 3/22/2011

Application ­entry 4, 3/22/2011

She told me they had shorter winter vacation than us lasting about four weeks, but much longer summer vacations of three months, and during vacations they often got involved in part-time jobs, having trips or other activities.

Email 7, 3/22/2011

I’ve spent my past couple summer vacations working as a tutor teaching English.

Email 9, 3/23/2011

Maybe I just have to go running like you or do other exercise everyday to clear my mind!

Most students here are involved in part-time jobs or some school activity. My past couple summer vacations I have spent them taking summer classes so I have not had too many trips.

Email 8, 3/23/2011

So do you live in dorms at your school or do you live at home? I just try to go running everyday, that helps me to clear my mind, otherwise I can’t really focus during the day. I need to decide soon to reserve my spot, I think I should do it and explore living in Spain, I am only going to be young once right?

Email 12, 3/25/2011

Most of us live in dorms at school because we come from different cities that are far away from Qingdao. Email 11, 3/24/2011

You’re right- we’re only going to be young once!

Some people keep what party they are part of a secret, I suppose as not to cause conflict or discussion since each party has different views on things.

Application entry 7, 3/25/2011

In America, the power of Democratic Party and Conservative Party is balanced, and people of each party always have different views on things.

Since I have been alive it has only snowed once during the winter in the area I live in.

Application entry 9, 3/26/2011

From my partner’s reply, I’ve known that many people are having a difficult time finding a job after they graduate with a degree.

But yes, the situation is the same here, many people are having a difficult time finding a job after they graduate with a degree.

The situation is the same in China.

46  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Email 14, 3/27/2011

And yes, I think global warming is affecting everyone ­everywhere.

Application entry 11, 3/27/2011

The place she lives in is almost hot all the year round, and it has only snowed once since she was born. She totally agreed with me that global warming is affecting everyone everywhere.

Email 16, 3/28/2011

You live on campus right? And no, you are NOT a coward, you probably just don’t prefer having to hassle with something like bargaining, I don’t really like it either.

Email 17, 3/29/2011

Yes, I live on campus.

Application entry 12 3/28/2011

I found that neither of us liked hassling with something like bargaining.

Email 22, 4/1/2011

Do you use numbers when talking about what year you are in school, like we do?

Email 23, 4/2/2011

We also use numbers when talking about what year we are in school, but we use numbers separately for primary school, middle school and high school.

Email 24, 4/4/2011

I think it is good that I thought that though, it kept me motivated to respond quickly.

Email 25, 4/4/2011

Here, we don’t have to send at least 20 mails, either, but we have to turn in at least 20 short application entries in mid-April, so I have to respond quickly.

Application entry 16, 4/4/2011

She felt it interesting that my teachers and friends refer to me by saying my entire name, and said it is not like that in the U.S. at all.

I think that is very interesting that your teachers and friends refer to you by saying your entire name. It is not like that in the U.S. at all.

Email 26, 4/5/2011

To go to graduate school for business you need to take an exam called the GMAT.

Email 27, 4/6/2011

Some of my classmates are also preparing for the GMAT and they, like you, told me that to go to graduate school for business one need to take the GMAT.

Email 28, 4/9/2011

I just want to experience something different and after I graduate seems like the perfect time to travel without a care in the world.

Application entry 18, 4/9/2011

She just wants to travel without a care in the world.

Email 30, 4/12/2011

Spanish is the second dominant language where I live

Email 31, 4/13/2011

But I’m sorry to hear that some people look down on Hispanics that do not know Spanish.

Some people look down on Hispanics that do not know Spanish. Email 32, 4/14/2011

I am beginning to think that every language has a connection to another language right? Your university puts a lot of importance in learning different languages, which is really good! Our university does not put a lot of importance in it.

Maybe you should know more Spanish language as it’s the second dominant language for you Email 33, 4/15/2011

Yes, every language has a ­connection to another language, esp. when these languages belong to the same language family, like French, English and Spanish do. But different types of universities put different importance in it.

So what kind of job are you going to look for?

At present, I’m not sure what kind of job I’m going to look for.

It amazes me, I learn something new every time you send me and email!

And I want to tell you that I also learn something new every time you send me an email!

A Dynamic View on Morphosyntactic Accuracy and Complexity in Dyadic Interaction  47

Email 34, 4/19/2011

And I am sure you will pass the BEC test; it is about a month away, right?

Email 35, 4/20/2011

You’re right that my BEC test is about a month away, and thank you for your ­encouragement!

Email 38, 5/1/2011

And they compete with teams from other universities?

Email 39, 5/4/2011

They compete with teams from other universities.

Note: The Italic and underscored text represents the part of Alina’s sentence that became the target of imitation by Dawn and which Dawn reworked into a new sentence. The bold texts represent changes that Dawn had made to the imitated items.

3 A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions in Dyadic Interaction Natalia Sáez

This chapter explores mappings between prepositions, modal auxiliaries and their metaphorical functions over two months of second language (L2) written interaction. Although restricted in number, prepositions and modal auxiliaries can be mapped onto a variety of functions, depending on context. A limited set of English prepositions can denote a multitude of spatial relations, and given the particular communicative needs, speakers choose one that best fits the situation to be depicted (Tyler & Evans, 2003). Similarly, a small number of modal auxiliaries can be used for various functions of modality, broadly defined as the conveyance of speakers’ psychological perspectives on a situation, such as likelihood, obligations and needs (Collins, 2009; Nuyts, 2001, 2005; Palmer, 1979). The complex distributional patterns of these forms, compounded by crosslinguistic difference in how languages express spatial relations and modality (e.g. Alonso Alonso et al., 2016; Biewer, 2011; Boroditsky & Gaby, 2010; Munro, 2006), pose substantive challenges for L2 learners even at advanced levels of proficiency (e.g. Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Larsen-Freeman, 2010a). Such challenges may lead to constant variation in form-function mappings. Learners might also settle for stable patterns over time. Complex dynamic systems theory, henceforth CDST, promotes the analysis of both variation and stable patterns in L2 data (de Bot et al., 2013; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2003, 2006). This framework suggests that form-function mappings emerge owing to different orchestrations of linguistic and nonlinguistic systems. These systems are composed of subsystems, which, in turn, comprise subsystem components, all of which are nested within each other. Interactions between nested 48

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  49

levels of subsystems and components, as well as co-adaptation with other systems, drive a system to self-organize into patterns. Variation as well as relative stability in a system’s patterns over time give systems their nonlinear appearance (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). As noted by Hiver (2015), in CDST research it is important to clearly delimit the systems under focus of analysis, so as to better illuminate which of their subsystems and components, as well as other interacting systems, are relevant to the emergence of varying and stable patterns observed. Following this theoretical perspective, the present study considered learners’ developing second languages (i.e. interlanguages) as complex systems, composed, inter alia, of subsystems from their L1 and L2. Interlanguage prepositions and modal verbs were seen as linguistic subsystems, components of which could be observed as form-function mappings. These subsystems were deemed to interact with other linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems during communication. For example, elements in the immediate contexts surrounding prepositions and modals (i.e. co-texts) were considered interrelated linguistic subsystem components. Specifically, words collocating with prepositions were considered components of the preposition subsystem, and expressions accompanying modal auxiliaries were deemed components of the modality subsystem. The communicative context, involving information about the interlocutors and power relations, as well as the sociocultural context, including dominant beliefs and values in a society (Kövecses, 2015), were considered as interacting nonlinguistic subsystems. The view of form-function mappings as emerging from interactions between subsystems may resonate with what have been termed soft constraints in second language acquisition (SLA) (Sorace & Keller, 2005). These constraints relate to strong context dependency, complex distribution in discourse and crosslinguistic variability. In efforts to highlight such constraints, the present form-function analysis was carried out from a metaphor standpoint on prepositions and modal auxiliaries, based on the assumption that metaphorical language operates at the interface between syntax, semantics and pragmatics/discourse (e.g. Gibbs & Cameron, 2008). It is at this interface where learners must process different contextual configurations, a significant challenge to learners even at advanced levels of proficiency (Sorace & Keller, 2005; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009). Specifically, form-function mappings were observed from the discourse dynamics approach to metaphor (Cameron et al., 2009), which traces patterns of metaphorical language across timescales of discourse events and discusses influences from interacting communicative and sociocultural subsystems (e.g. MacArthur, 2016). Considering the operation of metaphor at the syntax, semantics and pragmatics/discourse interface, the present analysis did not distinguish between semantic, semantico-grammatical, pragmatic and discourse functions, as proposed by Huebner (1985). Rather, the functions focused upon here were guided by the distinction between topic and vehicle domains (Lakoff & Johnson,

50  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

1980). The former refers to abstract or intangible notions and the latter to sensorimotor knowledge. Hence, this study adopted the terms topic functions and vehicle functions, which are instantiated on the linguistic level by topic and vehicle terms, respectively. Metaphorical analogies arise when abstract concepts (i.e. topic functions) are referred to in terms of sensorimotor information (i.e. vehicle functions). Associations between topic and vehicle functions will henceforth be referred to as metaphorical functions onto which preposition and modal auxiliary forms are mapped. Small caps will be used throughout the chapter as the c­ onventional format to represent specific topic and vehicle functions, as well as links between them. It is unclear whether the interlocutors of this study were aware of the metaphorical associations underlying their uses of prepositions and modal verbs. However, from an external perspective on form-function mappings, highlighting links between topic and vehicle functions allowed for the observation of connections between linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystem components. The next section provides theoretical and empirical background relevant to the present form-function analysis, followed by a description of the study and results. The chapter ends with a discussion of the findings and concluding remarks. Prepositions and Modal Auxiliaries from the CDST Lens

Larsen-Freeman (1997) underscored two commonalities between language and complex dynamic systems found in nature: (1) they are composed of various elements that form subsystems; and (2) they display global behaviors that emerge from evolving interactions among their components. She highlighted these characteristics by evoking the image of a flock of birds, where internal behaviors of individual birds as well as external relationships, their reactions to one another, and influences from environmental factors in flight create overall patterns in the flock (LarsenFreeman, 2003). If this image is metaphorically associated with language as a complex dynamic system, then language in use could be like a flock of birds. In this analogy, speakers would be like birds, and evolving interactions among speakers and other external influences would create patterns of language use (i.e. form-function mappings), like birds creating patterns as a flock. The holistic view provided by CDST acknowledges the impact of interconnected subsystems and components that may be internal or external to the interlocutors. For instance, speakers may relate and react to internal components and subsystems of their own language systems. In the case of L2 learners, their interlanguages (i.e. developing second languages) can be considered internal complex systems composed, inter alia, of subsystems from an L1 and an L2 (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2003, 2006, 2010a, 2010b). Interlocutors also interact with other

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  51

subsystems such as linguistic, communicative and sociocultural contexts, with which they are intertwined, hence influencing and shaping each other over time (Kövecses, 2015; Larsen-Freeman, 2015; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). By taking a CDST perspective on interlanguage, a merger between social and cognitive factors can be seen, where l­earners’ cognitive systems interact with their physical, historical, cultural and social environments, such as social settings, communication topics and relationships with interlocutors. As Ushioda (2015) describes, learners and contexts are in mutually co-adaptive relationships, and can be seen as inseparable parts of a metaphorical ecosystem (see also Chapter 1, Han & Liu, this volume; Chapter 2, Meng, this volume). When learners interact with each other, they form a mutually co-adaptive relationship together with other interacting systems. Here, learners may engage in a mimetic process called co-adaptation, where each adjusts to the other (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). Changes may emerge in learners’ interlanguages as they identify contingent form-function mappings during interaction and negotiate and readjust their mappings (Dörnyei, 2009; Henry, 2015). Adaptation and adjustments may not only occur in interlocutors’ linguistic subsystems, but also in interacting contextual subsystems and in social, cultural and communicative systems at a larger scale. The idea that complex systems can also be subsystems, and that components of subsystems can be complex systems themselves, represents one of the main tenets of CDST: systems are nested within each other (LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008). From this perspective, English prepositions and modal auxiliaries could represent linguistic subsystems nested within speakers’ language systems and within any system of communicative activity. Hence, mappings between prepositions, modal auxiliaries and their functions can be deemed components of interlanguage preposition and modal subsystems. Additionally, words collocating with prepositions can also be considered components of a prepositional subsystem, and expressions accompanying modal auxiliaries components of a modality subsystem. It is unclear whether prepositions and modal auxiliaries interact with each other. From a CDST viewpoint, however, it could be assumed that their uses are influenced by other linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystem components. The interconnectedness of subsystems during communication provides a rich climate for form-function mappings to emerge. Patterns can be seen when subsystems reach relative stabilities in their interaction for a period of time. Such stable tendencies, solutions or patterned outcomes are termed attractor states (Hiver, 2015), which after a period of time may then dissolve as new interrelations are created. As noted by LarsenFreeman (1997), the emergence of patterns can be observed as traceable paths, where recurrent form-function mappings can be identified. While there may be patterned and recurrent form-function mappings, there could be mappings in constant variation or chaos, where the dynamics

52  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

seem unstable and unpredictable, featuring irregular patterns that never repeat themselves (Hiver, 2015; Larsen-Freeman, 2015). In an early form-function analysis of the article system of an L2 learner, Huebner (1979, 1985) referred to this mapping behavior as ‘scouting and trailing’. The researcher identified what he called free variation, which indicated a stage where the learner re-analyzed and restructured the language system, until eventually reaching relatively stable patterns (i.e. attractor states). Although interrelations between subsystems may fluctuate and stabilize unpredictably, there are certain factors constraining their development to a certain extent. Hence, if form-function mappings change, they might only do so within the constraints imposed on relevant subsystem components. An example from L2 learner data can be drawn from LarsenFreeman’s (2006) longitudinal study, which showed how a learner switched between the prepositions in and at in collocation with the same noun (i.e. ‘Detroit’) at different data collection points. Although ‘Detroit’ offers a linguistic context or co-text that does not allow for variation in preposition, which can be considered a linguistic constraint, the participant still could not figure out whether to use in or at, and hence varied their usage on every occasion. This variability is an example of constant competition between forms and their potential functions in the learner’s mind, reflecting a state of chaos – there is never a pattern that repeats itself (Hiver, 2015) – regarding these components of the learner’s L2 preposition subsystem. However, owing to constraints on the subsystem, the prepositions on and under were not experimented with. The learner may have been exposed to L2 input where in and at collocated with ‘Detroit’ in different linguistic environments (e.g. ‘at Detroit Metropolitan Airport’; ‘in Detroit’). Such exposure could have fed into the learner’s L2 system, where a certain level of awareness that in and at can be used with ‘Detroit’ was achieved. In addition, Larsen-Freeman (2006) argued that the participant’s L1 (Chinese) played a role in the variation observed. Since Chinese does not distinguish between in and at, the participant was not clear about which one to use. Constraints such as current awareness of which L2 form-function mappings are possible as well as influences from an L1 could be considered initial conditions from a CDST perspective (c.f. de Bot et al., 2013; Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009; Larsen-Freeman, 2010b). Larsen-Freeman (1997) noted that there may be certain universal principles that interplay with specific L1 instantiations, which will bear a strong influence on learners’ interlanguage. Regarding these universals, one of the well-known parallels between L1 and L2 subsystems is that prototypical meanings tend to be mapped first, after which peripheral or extended meanings can be processed. Although every context may be different, there will be elements that might be repeated such as what is transferred from the L1, considering that prototypical mappings are deeply engrained in learners’ minds (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Particular mappings may be used so frequently

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  53

by learners that they cease to become vulnerable to change or they may take a very long time to do so. In CDST terms, entrenchment owing to learners’ initial conditions, along with lack of corrective feedback from interlocutors or failure to notice positive evidence, could bring the evolution of their patterns to a stop (e.g. Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009). In this sense, CDST recognizes that ‘the absence of learning in a language, fossilization, occurs when the learners’ grammar system becomes closed and settles down to a fixed point attractor’ (Larsen-Freeman, 1997: 152). A fixed-point attractor state is a unique point of stability in which a system tends to settle over time (Hiver, 2015). For instance, since all languages express ability (de Haan, 2006), an L2 form mapped onto this function could be considered unmarked. Because it is unmarked, L2 learners of English, for example, may prefer to map can onto the function of ability. Maintaining this fixed attractor implies closing the mapping of can to its prototypical function without opening possibilities of mapping it onto other functions. In Georgieva (1993), for example, while participants with L1 Bulgarian overused the prototypical mapping of can onto ability in L2 English, they also tended to avoid functions related to their predictions of the likelihood of a situation (i.e. epistemic functions). The researcher argued that participants’ L1 influenced this overuse, because Bulgarian uses complementizers for these functions, which could be translated into English as the relative pronoun that (e.g. ‘I know that he is there’). Learners may not have seen the need to use can for epistemic functions. Regarding prepositions, Lam (2003) found that advanced L2 English learners of L1 Cantonese tended to avoid non-prototypical (also called peripheral, extended or idiomatic) functions of out and up that are not used in their L1. Instead, L1 prototypical (also termed core) functions were transferred when participants used the L2 forms. Likewise, participants were reluctant to transfer non-prototypical L1 functions (see also Kellerman, 1978). As noted in the CDST literature, one may think that dynamic systems can self-organize unpredictably into any attractor state. However, because of the self-organizing nature of dynamic systems, there would only be a limited number of salient patterns or attractor states into which they may settle (Hiver, 2015). Prototypical mappings may ultimately be more salient and ‘safer’ than peripheral or idiomatic ones. An important body of research focusing on idiomatic language use originated in cognitive linguistics, suggesting that this type of language is metaphorical to a great extent. Metaphorical language has been described to emerge when an expression’s function in context is incongruent with its prototypical use (Deignan et al., 2013). Such contextual use, however, would not cause incongruences due to the orchestration of culturally relevant subsystem components, but may present a substantial challenge to L2 learners precisely due to their lack of culturally relevant knowledge. The following section describes the metaphor view on English prepositions and modals adopted in this study.

54  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Prepositions and Modal Verbs from a Metaphor Perspective

In line with CDST, prepositions and modal auxiliaries are considered subsystems and are deemed to interact with other linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems during communication. At the linguistic level, prepositions and modals form part of semantic networks. They are also considered to interact functionally with elements in their immediate linguistic environment or co-text. At the nonlinguistic level, knowledge of physical perception (henceforth termed vehicle functions) is used to conceptualize abstract mental constructs (henceforth termed topic functions). Associations between vehicle and topic functions create metaphorical analogies, which are deemed to interact with components of communicative and sociocultural contexts (Gibbs & Cameron, 2008). An approach to metaphor analysis in agreement with the main tenets of CDST is the discourse dynamics view on metaphor (Cameron, 2010; Cameron & Deignan, 2006; Cameron et al., 2009). This approach ­complements the top-down stance of conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) with bottom-up analysis of contextualized language use. It acknowledges the potential of pre-existing mappings, but recognizes that they may change under different configurations of contextual constraints. The present study adopted the discourse dynamics approach in coding the data, as described in more detail below. Top-down classifications of vehicle functions for prepositions and modals were drawn from the principled polysemy model (Tyler & Evans, 2003). Prepositions

The principled polysemy model (Tyler & Evans, 2003) proposes that prepositions are conventionally mapped onto a variety of different but related functions, hence forming semantic networks. These networks are deemed to systematically originate from vehicle functions, which represent prototypical sensorimotor knowledge. This sensorimotor information can be of geometric nature, denoting spatial relationships between a located object and a landmark (Talmy, 2000). Furthermore, as noted in the literature (see Alonso Alonso et al., 2016), prepositions are also constrained by extrageometric information, such as knowing whether a located object will move if the landmark does (i.e. location control). From a metaphor perspective, geometric and extrageometric information encoded in prepositions can be extended to abstract contexts. The view adopted in this study is that metaphorical functions emerge when geometrical information is associated with abstract non-tangible notions through context. This association makes a preposition’s prototypical use incongruent with its use in context, where it would hence adopt a metaphorical function. Possible inferences derived from its metaphorical function may relate to extrageometrical information. For example, the geometric information conveyed by the preposition in is that of a

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  55

spatial relationship between a landmark and a located object, where the former encloses the latter. Therefore, the vehicle function of in could be expressed as enclosure (Evans, 2010). The principled polysemy model suggests that in always represents this vehicle function, which is conveyed in literal contexts such as ‘the water is in the glass.’ Regarding extrageometric information, the glass (the landmark) controls the location of the water (the located object). This reasoning could be extended to a metaphorical sentence such as ‘I live in China.’ Since ‘China’ is not actually a physical container, it can be considered an abstract or high-level mental construct (Dancygier & Sweetser, 2014), hence instantiating a topic function, and the use of in in this context could thus be considered non-­ prototypical and metaphorical. ‘China’ can be considered the landmark and could evoke the topic function countries. Since the preposition in represents the vehicle function enclosure, the topic-vehicle link (henceforth also termed metaphorical function) evoked by the collocation ‘in China’ could be expressed as countries are enclosures. A possible inference from this association is that countries, in this context represented by ‘China’, impose boundaries within which people can move. Hence, the extrageometrical information of location control can be extended as an inference. If another preposition, say on, is used in collocation with ‘China’, the inferences would be different. The geometric information conveyed by the preposition on is that of a spatial relationship, where a located object is in contact with the surface of the landmark. Therefore, the vehicle function of on could be expressed as contact with a surface (Evans, 2010), and its use in the phrase ‘on China’ would result in the metaphorical function countries are surfaces. Associating countries with surfaces does not highlight the necessary existence of boundaries like the vehicle function enclosure, and the location control inference may not be provided by this context. According to Jamrozik and Gentner (2015), a located object enclosed by a landmark is likely to be controlled by the landmark, but an object on the surface of a landmark could probably follow its own course of action. These extrageometrical inferences may also relate to socio­cultural beliefs of how countries operate in relation to their residents. In CDST terms, noun phrases with which prepositions are collocated may be considered linguistic subsystem components constraining form-­function mappings, which in turn interact with ­sociocultural subsystems. Modal auxiliaries

The principled polysemy model adopted Sweetser’s (1990) proposal that modality is informed by our sensorimotor experience with force dynamics. As mentioned previously, modality broadly refers to speakers’ psychological perceptions of a situation (e.g. Nuyts, 2001, 2005). These perceptions could be related to the likelihood of the situation,

56  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

whether it is an obligation, a necessity, something that is permitted and so on. Since these evaluations are abstract and non-tangible, they could be expressed as topic functions. Force dynamics, on the other hand, refers to our physical experience of how objects move along paths, propelled by weak or strong internal or external forces. This sensorimotor information could be expressed as vehicle functions. Unlike prepositions, which can be used literally or metaphorically, modal verbs are deemed to always reflect links between topic and vehicle functions, that is, modal verb use would always be metaphorical. For instance, must is deemed to reflect physical force coming from an external source onto an agent, hence its vehicle function can be expressed as strong external force. If used in a context such as ‘you must register to vote’, the topic function could be expressed as ­obligations. Hence the metaphorical function of must in this context would be obligations are strong external forces. While modals such as must, will and can reflect strong force, would, should and could are deemed to reflect weak force. Degrees of physical force have been related to past tense forms, which can also be used to convey gradations of surety and politeness (Tyler, 2012). The past tense metaphorically encodes distance as represented by the links now is here and then is there. Physical forces exerted from a distance imply weaker impacts than forces that are closer. Preference to use a modal whose vehicle function involves weak force or strong force may derive from contextual constraints. For instance, the use of can is deemed to be motivated by a strong physical force originating from the speaker. Thus, the vehicle function of can would be strong internal force. If this modal verb is used for the topic function r­ equesting in ‘Can you tell me something about yourself?’ the underlying metaphorical function evoked by can may be expressed as requesting is strong internal force. The physical force motivating could is also internal, but theoretically considered to be weak since it is a past tense modal. Hence, its vehicle function would be weak internal force. If could is preferred for the request above, it may evoke the metaphorical function requesting is weak internal force. An inference provided by a preference for could relates to the degree of impact on an interlocutor, where weak forces may imply less imposition and thus greater politeness. In CDST terms, subsystems relative to the communicative situation (e.g. knowledge of the interlocutors and how they relate to each other) interact with sociocultural subsystems (e.g. beliefs about politeness). These subsystems, from a metaphor perspective, relate to sensorimotor and linguistic subsystem components. The Discourse Dynamics Approach to L2 Metaphor Analysis

Although metaphorical form-function mappings may be considered conventional and available top-down, they can be modified through unique linguistic choices in situated contexts. From an external perspective,

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  57

‘unique’ mappings may consist of choices of topic and vehicle terms that reflect unconventional associations between corresponding topic and vehicle functions. For instance, the metaphorical function countries are enclosures may be reflected in English by conventionally collocating in with names of countries. But collocations by L2 learners may differ from those that are conventional in the target language. The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor analysis has discussed L2 learners’ so-called hybrid linguistic metaphors, which in turn represent hybrid conceptual mappings (e.g. MacArthur, 2016). These hybrids may draw from L1 linguistic and conceptual subsystems, which are mixed with those in an L2 (c.f. Biewer, 2011; MacArthur, 2016; Nacey, 2013), hence resulting in unique metaphorical functions (topic-vehicle links) and form-function mappings. This is reminiscent of what Larsen-Freeman (2006) calls ephemeral language forms that tend to appear in SLA data, which can include an LI or L2 form, or which could be unconventional in either language. Seeing learner mappings as hybrids aligns with CDST, since form-function mappings that do not converge with top-down conventions are not considered ‘errors’. Similar to the discourse dynamics approach to metaphor, CDST discards the idea of a static ‘native-speaker norm’, and believes that even mappings conventionally used by a target-language community can change. As mentioned previously, different configurations of linguistic, communicative, and sociocultural subsystem components may influence the emergence of unique metaphorical functions and form-function mappings. The discourse dynamics stance on metaphor draws from Vygotskian sociocultural theory by considering language as a mediational tool. Metaphorical expressions would hence encode aspects of experience that are culturally relevant to speakers (e.g. Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2013) and reveal influences from their involvement in different sociocultural groups (Cameron, 2010). Revealing such influences during communication may lead to the emergence of shared form-­function mappings among interlocutors, as they engage in the mimetic process of co-­ adaptation, where each adjusts to the other (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). Evidence of co-­adaptation between expert and novice language users, for instance, has been reported. MacArthur and Littlemore (2011) found that advanced learners of English tended to adopt metaphorically used words repeated in conversations with speakers from the target language community. Whether or not the interlocutors were aware of the underlying metaphorical functions was not addressed, or as MacArthur (2016) asserted, it may never be possible to know what motivated a speaker to use language metaphorically just from the discourse. The present analysis was not framed around whether learners complied with conventional, ‘native-like’ form-function mappings. Instead, it sought to describe what their unique mappings were over time and to illuminate interacting linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystem

58  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

components as well as co-adaptation. The following questions guided the data analysis: (1) What metaphorical functions (i.e. topic-vehicle links) were mapped onto prepositions and modal auxiliaries? (2) Which mappings emerged as patterns and which varied constantly over time? (3) Did the interlocutors adapt to each other’s mappings? The Study Participants

Participants were four college students (Fannie, Bianca, Dawn and Alina). Fannie and Dawn were advanced learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) with L1 Chinese, living in China. Bianca was an advanced learner of English as a second language (ESL), with L1 Spanish, living in the USA. Alina was also living in the USA, and although she came from an L1 Spanish family, she claimed to know very little Spanish and considered English to be her dominant language. Based on this information, Alina was considered a native speaker of English. Data and analysis

Data consisted of two dyadic sets of email exchanges: one generated by Fannie and Bianca and the other by Dawn and Alina. Each pair ­generated approximately 25 email turns over a period of two months (from 5 March to 28 April 2011). The emails were written entirely in English. The form-function analysis followed the steps outlined in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005). Target forms were selected, identified in the data and coded for their functions. The prepositions in, at and on were selected because they are topological prepositions. As such, their prototypical senses are constrained by the proximity of the landmarks and objects they locate. Because of this common constraint, they tend to overlap in the same prototypical contexts (Kelleher et al., 2009). Since metaphorical uses stem from prototypical functions, L2 learners may face difficulties regarding these three prepositions in metaphorical contexts because their prototypical applications overlap. Considering such difficulties, it was of interest to see whether mappings reflected chaos or stability. Uses of in, at and on were deemed metaphorical when they collocated with abstract noun phrases (NPs), and only such instances were included for analysis. Selected modal verbs were can, could, should, will, would, must and need to, which contrast in terms of their vehicle functions. For example, according to the principled polysemy model, can represents the vehicle function strong internal force, whereas could represents weak internal force.

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  59

Table 3.1  Vehicle functions for selected forms Vehicle terms

Vehicle functions

In

enclosure

On

contact with a surface

At

encounter

Can

strong internal physical force

Could

weak internal physical force

Should

weak external physical force

Must

strong external physical force

Need to

strong internal physical force

Would

weak internal physical force

Will

strong internal physical force

Will and would pair up similarly. Must and need to contrast in terms of whether the force is internal or external. Should and must both represent external force, but the former reflects weak force, and the latter strong force. The selected prepositions and modals were considered vehicle terms and were identified in the data. The coding process began by assigning vehicle functions to the vehicle terms based on the top-down taxonomy proposed by the principled polysemy model described above. Table 3.1 shows the taxonomy used to code the vehicle functions for the selected prepositions and modal verbs. Topic functions were then assigned in a bottom-up, data-driven fashion. Abstract NPs in collocation with in, at and on were considered topic terms, to which topic functions were assigned. For ‘in May’, for example, ‘in’ was the vehicle term representing the vehicle function enclosure and ‘May’ the topic term reflecting the topic function months. Codes for topic functions were intended to be as specific as possible. For instance, instead of grouping topic terms such as ‘Monday’ and ‘midday’ under the general topic function time, they were specified as days/dates and exact time, respectively. Topic functions for modals were coded based on the context surrounding each modal. For example, when participants were introducing themselves, they would request information as in ‘Can you tell me something about yourself?’ The topic function in this context was hence deemed to be requesting. In some cases, topic functions were specified based on particular contextual cues. For example, the literature describes many modals to express likelihood or predictions, but this study did not use one general topic function such as predicting. Instead, words such as ‘sure’ in the co-text suggested high confidence, as in ‘I’m sure she’ll find out new things for herself.’ When such contextual cues appeared when interlocutors expressed likelihood, the topic function anticipating was suggested. Question tags, such as ‘right?’, or words such as ‘think’ as

60  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

in ‘Your situation must be different from ours, right?’ and ‘I don’t think too more advice would be constructive’ indicated less certainty of the likelihood of a situation. For these contexts, the topic function hypothesizing was suggested. Verbs like ‘hope’ and ‘love’ in contexts such as ‘Hope you can get it over’ and ‘I’d love to learn salsa, but I don’t have the time’ suggested the topic function aspiring. It was acknowledged that assigning vehicle and topic functions would imply an external interpretation of what the interlocutors intended. By taking this external perspective, it was recognized that participants did not necessarily mean to convey the functions proposed in the analysis. Learners may not have even had awareness of vehicle functions when using the forms in question. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this study, vehicle functions described by the principled polysemy model were employed to systematically code vehicle terms. Topic functions, on the other hand, were coded bottom-up by two researchers, who shared the above contextual guidelines before beginning the coding process. An agreement of 87% was reached and the discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Topic and vehicle functions were then associated to form metaphorical topic-vehicle links, that is, metaphorical functions onto which prepositions and modal verbs were mapped. For example, the metaphorical function months are surfaces was suggested for ‘on May.’ For ‘Your situation must be different from ours, right?’, the proposed metaphorical function was hypothesizing is strong external force. Once mappings between forms and their metaphorical functions were established, they were compared over the two months of email interactions to reveal patterns or chaos within and among participants. Instances of co-adaptation were also analyzed. Inferences provided by metaphorical mappings were described and are included in the Discussion section of this chapter. Results Mappings and examples are presented here longitudinally per participant dyad (Fannie-Bianca, Dawn-Alina). Target forms appear underlined in the contexts where they occurred. Metaphorical functions are shown as links between topic and vehicle functions (e.g. COUNTRIES ARE ENCLOSURES). In response to the guiding questions posed above, the results focus on mappings that remained stable, those that varied and possible cases of co-adaptation. Prepositions

Almost the same topic functions were found in both data sets. Countries, cities, days/dates, months, exact times and educational programs were common topic functions, among others. All of these topics,

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  61

except educational programs, formed part of metaphorical functions that remained stable over time. The preposition in was consistently found to be mapped onto metaphorical functions linking enclosures to the topic functions countries, cities and months. At was consistently found to involve links between its vehicle function encounter and the topic function exact times. On stably reflected metaphorical functions between its vehicle function surfaces and the topic dates/days. Stable mappings by Bianca and Fannie are shown in Table 3.2, followed by those by Alina and Dawn in Table 3.3. The same stable mappings were found in both datasets, but those by Alina and Dawn included an additional mapping between in and the metaphorical function films/videos are enclosures, as seen in Table 3.3. However, as displayed in Tables 3.4 and 3.5, indecision was observed over time regarding which preposition to use when referring to the topic educational programs. This was especially the case for EFL participants in China (i.e. Fannie and Dawn). In contrast, Bianca, the ESL learner in the USA, and Alina, the native English speaker, did not vary regarding this topic, maintaining the mapping between in and the metaphorical function educational programs are enclosures. For Fannie, in, at and on were in constant competition with regards to educational programs and stabilization did not occur. Dawn (Table 3.5) also showed variation in her mappings like Fannie. While Fannie remained in chaos, Dawn experimented with different mappings at the beginning, but then stabilized on the same mapping as her interlocutor, Alina (mapping in and educational programs are enclosures). Dawn may have started to adapt to Alina’s mappings starting on 2 April 2011, as seen in Table 3.5. Modal auxiliaries

Contrary to prepositions, greater variation than stability was observed for modals. Can was mapped onto the greatest number of functions by Bianca and Dawn. Bianca mapped can onto four different functions, linking its vehicle strong internal force to the topics suggesting, ­ nticipating, requesting and ability. Fannie’s use of can only linked its a vehicle function with the topic ability as seen in Table 3.6. As seen in Table 3.7, Dawn mapped can onto five different metaphorical functions, linking strong internal force to the topics anticipating, requesting, ability, aspiring and permitting. Alina’s mappings only linked can’s vehicle function to the topics ability and permitting. The latter topic function was first found in an email by Alina on 17 March 2011, after which it was found in Dawn’s emails starting 23 March 2011. Since this mapping was only found in Dawn’s emails after Alina started using it, this may constitute a case of adaptation. These instances are in bold in Table 3.7.

62  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Table 3.2  Bianca’s and Fannie’s stable mappings of metaphorical links of p ­ repositions Date

Bianca Co-text

Metaphorical Fannie Co-text function

3/8/2011

 

It’s hard for college ­graduates to find a good job in China

Metaphorical function countries are enclosures

 

 

I even wanted to cry when the cities are train finally arrived in Beijing. e­ nclosures

3/17/2016  

 

I am thinking of going to ­Beijing to meet my boy friend on Tomb-­sweeping Day.

days/dates are

In China, it’s hard to get into university

countries are

3/18/2011 What is Tomb-sweeping Day? We don’t have that here in the U.S 

surfaces

countries are enclosures

3/19/2011

enclosures

3/22/2011  

 

I plan to go there on April 1st or 2nd.

days/dates are

 

 

On that day, people e ­ ngage in a lot of activities.

days are

 

 

Now young people in China celebrating w ­ estern festivals

countries are

3/25/2011  

 

But if she shows her legs, a lot of Chinese men will just stare at them, looking like they’re interested and outraged at the same time.

exact times are

surfaces

­surfaces enclosures

encounters

3/25/2011  

 

In Beijing, people seem to be pretty sure about who they are

cities are

3/26/2011  

 

I can make full of my spare time and at the same time not interfere with my study

exact times are

He said ‘foreigners are more likely to be ­offended in China than they are to give offense’.

countries are

I’m really excited that I’ll be in Beijing in four days.

cities are

 

3/28/2011 Depending on my mood is dependent of my favorite ­music at the moment

 

­enclosures

encounters

enclosures

exact times are encounters

3/29/2011

­enclosures

3/31/2011  

 

Hope she’ll enjoy life in Beijing.

cities are

 

 

I’ll be on the train at this time tomorrow.

exact times are

 

 

Do you have a break on this day?

days/dates are

4/26/2011 My birthday is also in June on the 7th to be exact.

months are

 

 

 

days/dates are

 

My birthday is also in June on the 7th to be exact.

enclosures

surfaces

 

­enclosures encounters

surfaces

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  63

Table 3.3  Alina’s and Dawn’s stable mappings of metaphorical links of prepositions Date

Dawn Co-text

Metaphorical function

3/23/2011 It’s like the ­Democratic Party and the ­Conservative Party in your country.

countries are

3/24/2011 In China, the process to join the Communist Party is so strict that a small number of the citizens have been admitted to the Party.

countries are

It’s warm in the ­daytime but cold at now in Qingdao.

exact times are

It’s warm in the ­daytime but cold at now in Qingdao.

cities are

How is your plan to go teach English in Spain?

­ ountries are c ­ nclosures e

­encounters

 

 

 

But on the day you vote, you are alone in a booth.

days/dates

I think they need more time to get used to the idea of me being in ­another country for a year.

countries are

 

 

I have seen that actor in other movies though.

films/videos are

I don’t know if you know but a famous male artist (singer) was in the movie.

films/videos are

­encounters

­enclosures

3/25/2011

3/27/2011  

 

enclosures

exact times are

Maybe the same is true in your country?

Metaphorical function

enclosures

I was too short at that time, and the river was really deep, so I nearly got drowned!

3/25/2011 Oh I nearly forget to tell you that only a few people in China use ‘facebook’

Alina Co-text

countries are

are surfaces

enclosures

enclosures

­ ountries are c ­ nclosures e  

3/27/2011

3/27/2011 I hope he can be successful in movies later.

films/­videos are

3/28/2011 Do you use youtube. com in China?

­ ountries are c ­ nclosures e

enclosures

enclosures

enclosures

 

Will and can share the same vehicle function (i.e. strong internal and both modals were found in contexts where this vehicle was linked to the topic anticipating. As shown across Tables 3.8 and 3.9, participants living in the USA remained stable in mapping will onto the force),

64  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Table 3.4  Fannie’s variable versus Bianca’s stable mappings of metaphorical links of prepositions Date

Fannie Co-text

Metaphorical function

03/05/2011

I major in English and now it’s my third year at college.

educational

Bianca Co-text

Metaphorical function

This is my 5th year in college.

educational

programs are encounters

03/07/2011

programs are enclosures

03/08/2011

We have a lot of ­assignments in this class.

educational programs are enclosures

03/20/2011

04/08/2011

In his class, he always keep speaking for two hours without break.

educational

We were classmates in high school.

educational

programs are enclosures

programs are enclosures

Do you have the same examining way on this course?

educational programs are surfaces

metaphorical function anticipating is strong internal force. Participants in China, however, fluctuated in their use of will, linking its vehicle function strong internal force to the topics anticipating and hypothesizing. A possible trend was observed regarding the topic function hypothesizing. Participants in the USA remained stable in associating this topic function to vehicles of weak forces, for which Bianca used would and Alina used should. While Fannie’s mappings showed chaos by shuffling between modals reflecting strong and weak force, Bianca consistently used would, reflecting weak force as seen across Tables 3.10 and 3.11. Dawn also alternated between modals reflecting weak and strong force in relation to the topic function hypothesizing, although she mostly used modals reflecting strong force (will and must). Alina’s single mapping in relation to hypothesizing only reflected weak force, as seen in Table 3.11. A similar trend relative to the topic suggesting was observed. This time, Fannie tended to use modals reflecting vehicle functions of weak forces (would, could and should), whereas Bianca used a modal reflecting strong force (can) as seen in Table 3.12. A possible trend regarding the internal versus external force dimension of metaphorical functions and the topic function obligations was observed. While participants in China varied between weak external force by using should and strong external force by using must, Bianca and Alina mainly used need to, reflecting strong internal force, as seen in Table 3.13. Adaptation may have occurred between Dawn and Alina, as seen in Table 3.14, where Dawn began using need to after it was consistently used

4/27/2011

4/20/2016

4/19/2016

4/13/2016

Yes, our teacher said on Monday that you’d done your presentation in class.

We learned in the class.

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

I know it is a very busy time in school right now!

Today was the last day of presentations in my ­intercultural communication class.

I did a little presentation on our ‘intercultural ­communication experience’ last Thursday in class!

We needed to have 30 messages for the ­assignment in my class!

4/04/2011

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

encounters

Do you use numbers when talking about what year you are in school, like we do?

Then you move to 9th grade which is in high school.

You just need to pass 8th grade, which is in middle school.

And yes, you are definitely in pre-training for the real world!

Some students have cars in high school.

Alina Co-text

Someone in our class mentioned that you all had a holiday this past week?

Children often spend two to three years in the kindergarten.

We also use numbers when talking about what year we are in school.

educational programs are

educational programs are surfaces

Metaphorical function

4/09/2016

4/02/2011

4/01/2011

Are you busy your work at school now?

I wanted to study some other courses on business.

3/16/2011

3/31/2016

Dawn Co-text

Date

Table 3.5  Dawn’s variable mappings versus Alina’ stable mappings of metaphorical links of prepositions

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

enclosures

educational programs are

Metaphorical function

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  65

The most important of all, I can be together with my boyfriend.

Maybe you could reduce work hours and find more time for your school work. Hope you can get it over.

I can make full of my spare time and at the same time not interfere with my study.

force

ability is strong internal

force

ability is strong internal

force

ability is strong internal

The professors critiqued my work, and well they liked it but said I can do way better.

3/25/2011

3/26/2011

Is there anything you can let me know so I could tell her?

3/24/2011

The professors critiqued my work, and well they liked it but said I can do way better. Not that i don’t believe them because I can.

When he wants to be he can be strict from that point on can be rude and ignorant

3/21/2011

force

ability is strong internal

force

Bianca Co-text

You can YouTube the type of dancing and just practice it in your home

My classmates around me are trying to get as more certificates as they can.

ability is strong internal

force

ability is strong internal

Metaphorical function

3/16/2011

3/08/2011

And I believe I can better understand intercultural communication through this.

3/05/2011

My English name is Fannie. So you can call me Fannie.

Fannie Co-text

Date

Table 3.6  Fannie’s and Bianca’s mappings of metaphorical links of can

force

ability is strong internal

force

ability is strong internal

force

requesting is strong internal

nal force

anticipating is strong inter-

force

suggesting is strong inernal

Metaphorical function

66  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

4/26/2011

4/11/2011

It’s so good that you are finishing this semester. You can relax and enjoy your holidays.

Seems that you have long holidays. You can have a good break after this semester. force

ability is strong internal

force

ability is strong internal

I’ll try and send you some pictures from different parts of the area live in. So maybe you can include them in your presentation.

When is the next Holiday for you, can you tell me about it?

4/07/2011

force

ability is strong internal

force

ability is strong internal

Did you take any pictures, can I see?

We can hardly find anywhere to sit sometimes.

You can see from the pictures how crowded it is.

4/06/2011

4/06/2011

force

suggesting is strong internal

force

requesting is strong internal

force

requesting is strong internal

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  67

requesting is strong internal

requesting is strong internal

Can you tell me more about you?

requesting is strong internal

But I don’t know how a citizen in your country can become a member of either of the two parties.

Can you tell me something about that?

3/23/2011

She can write to me if she wants or maybe you two can share the emails I’ve sent to you.

force

Can you give me some suggestions?

3/22/2011

force

permitting is strong internal

force

ability is strong internal

force

requesting is strong internal

­internal force

We don’t have enough time to do social practices or part-time jobs, which is really annoying. But we can have more time to study. anticipating is strong

force

force

aspiring is strong internal

force

When you told me your major was Business Marketing I really felt excited because maybe we can talk about business later on.

3/17/2011

3/17/2011

3/16/2011

force

Can you tell me something about yourself?

aspiring is strong internal

I hope you can teach me some methods of speaking English fluently.

3/14/2011

Metaphorical function

Dawn Co-text

Date

Table 3.7  Dawn’s and Alina’s mappings of metaphorical links of can

Sure we can talk about business if you‘d like!

Alina Co-text

­internal force

permitting is strong

Metaphorical function

68  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Juniors and seniors don’t have to take part in it, so we can do whatever we want.

So you can write me three days later or so if you want

The topic chosen can be whatever relates to school study

4/20/2011

4/20/2011

4/29/2011

5/04/2011

We can give presentations in groups, which will come soon

From the name I can see we may celebrate in a similar way

4/13/2011

5/01/2011

And I really hope you can give me suggestions on my writing

We both can relax a little bit now

4/02/2011

3/24/2011

force

permitting is strong internal

force

permitting is strong internal

force

permitting is strong internal

force

ability is strong internal

­internal force

anticipating is strong

force

aspiring is strong internal

force

ability is strong internal

We learned how to make surveys using the different types of questions you can ask and different ways of evaluating it.

Yes, you can laugh at me because I do not know my calendars

So everyone can understand you.

ability is strong i­nternal

force

ability is strong i­nternal

­internal force

permitting is strong

force

ability is strong i­nternal

force

force

Can you go swimming there? 

ability is strong i­nternal

You can be a member of whichever party you want.

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  69

We will have several days’ holidays soon.

We will get three days off then.

Even those who hardly study will easily get credits required for graduation.

Of all these holidays, I like National Day most because we will have seven days’ break time.

3/15/2011

3/17/2011

3/19/2011

3/22/2011

3/31/2011

3/29/2011

I will be on the train at this time tomorrow.

I’m really excited that I will be in Beijing in four days.

If you really have no more time to spare for your school work, maybe you could talk with the boss to see if he can reduce your work time so that you will have more time for study.

I’d like to learn dancing but I don’t have that time and money now. Maybe I will learn it someday in the future.

3/12/2011

3/24/2011

Fannie Co-text

Date

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

hypothesizing is strong internal

Metaphorical function

Table 3.8  Fannie’s and Bianca’s mappings of metaphorical links of will and can

One of my sorority sisters, will be going to Beijing during the summer

Bianca Co-text

­internal force

anticipating is strong

Metaphorical function

70  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Maybe next time I go home will be in the summer vacation.

It will be on May 21

4/29/2011

5/4/2011 force

anticipating is strong internal

force

hypothesizing is strong internal

And I am sure you will pass the BEC test

4/19/2011

force

hypothesizing is strong internal

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

force

I will be turning 23

anticipating is strong internal

Metaphorical function

I am a senior, so I will be ­graduating this May

Alina Co-text

All of the studying will be worth it when you pass your exam

Maybe they’ll be introduced into China someday in the near future

force

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

They’ll never be dumb to me!

force

I’ll have my test for BEC on May 21

anticipating is strong internal

force

anticipating is strong internal

Metaphorical function

Maybe after I’ve earned enough ­money, I’ll travel wherever I want to go.

Now I ‘m preparing for BEC Higher, which will be hold in May 21

Dawn Co-text

4/13/2011

3/29/2011

3/16/2011

3/16/2011

Date

Table 3.9  Dawn’s and Alina’s mappings of metaphorical links of will and can

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  71

I’d like to learn dancing but I don’t have that time and money now. Maybe I will learn it some day in the future.

3/12/2011

My favorite music should be rock or pop music.

3/26/2011

Spring is a season for climbing. So maybe I‘ll go climbing as well.

3/31/2011

4/07/2011

I would find a job only If I still had extra time

3/29/2011

Generally I would say rock or pop music is my favorite.

I don‘t think too more advice would be constructive

3/25/2011

3/24/2011

Fannie Co-text

Date

internal force

hypothesizing is strong

internal force

hypothesizing is weak

internal force

hypothesizing is weak

external force

hypothesizing is weak

internal force

hypothesizing is weak

internal force

hypothesizing is strong

Metaphorical function

If he were to just stay quite and let the other professors critique my work it would a lot better, and this past semester would have been a lot smoother.

Christmas, would have to be my favorite not because of gifts, but that is when i get to see a lot of my family.

Bianca Co-text

Table 3.10  Fannie’s and Bianca’s mappings of metaphorical links in the topic domain of hypothesizing

force

hypothesizing is weak internal

force

hypothesizing is weak internal

Metaphorical function

72  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  73

Table 3.11  Dawn’s and Alina’s mappings of metaphorical links in the topic domain of hypothesizing Date

Dawn Co-text

Metaphorical function

3/22/2011

I guess you and your family must have had a good time at the weekend, am I right?

hypothesizing is

3/29/2011

4/10/2011

Metaphorical function

The calendar should be the same for both of us, I think?

hypothesizing is

strong i­nternal force

3/24/2011

3/25/2011

Alina Co-text

I just guess maybe ­after ­several years snow would say ‘­goodbye’ to us forever.

hypothesizing

Maybe they’ll be introduced into China someday in the near future

hypothesizing

You must feel sad I guess.

hypothesizing

weak external force

is weak internal force

is strong internal force

is strong external force

by Alina. Instances of this adaptation in Dawn’s mappings are shown in bold in Table 3.14. Discussion

CDST and the discourse dynamics approach to metaphor both seek to find patterns, variation and co-adaptation in language use across timescales of discourse events and to discuss interconnections between linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems during communication (Cameron et al., 2009; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). The form-function analysis reported here, guided by these theoretical approaches, sought to find patterns, variation and co-adaptation over time, based on which interconnections between linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems were inferred. Mappings between forms and metaphorical functions analyzed here were deemed to operate at the interface between semantics, syntax and pragmatics/discourse. The difficulty in using language at this interface has been observed as a commonality among L2 learners, even at advanced levels of proficiency (Sorace & Keller, 2005; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009). Observing patterns and variation over time helped illuminate trends and particularities in how L2 learners explored prepositions and modals at this interface. From a CDST perspective, if chaotic mapping behaviors were observed, it could reflect a tendency to continuously experiment with and restructure patterns participants had been learning (e.g. Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007). If stable patterns were observed, it could indicate that learners settled for mappings that made sense to them in similar contexts.

4/26/2011

3/29/2011

3/25/2011

3/16/2011

Date

suggesting is weak

If I were you, I would probably focus on study first. ­internal force

­external force

suggesting is weak

­internal force

suggesting is weak

­external force

suggesting is weak

­external force

suggesting is weak

Metaphorical function

If you must abandon one, you should think over which is more important to you

If you really have no more time to spare for your school work, maybe you could talk with the boss to see if he can reduce your work time so that you‘ll have more time for study.

There is one thing she should pay attention to---Don‘t talk about political issues.

She should just go to Beijing, get to know people, have a good time, and take whatever she takes from the experience.

Fannie Co-text

I’ll try and send you some pictures from different parts of the area live in. So maybe you can include them in your presentation.

You can YouTube the type of dancing and just practice it in your home.

Bianca Co-text

Table 3.12  Fannie’s and Bianca’s mappings of metaphorical links in the domain of suggesting

­internal force

suggesting is strong

force

suggesting is strong inernal

Metaphorical function

74  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  75

Table 3.13  Fannie’s and Bianca’s mappings of metaphorical links in the domain of obligations

Date

Fannie Co-text

Metaphorical function

3/21/2011

3/29/2011

If you must abandon one, you should think over which is more important to you.

As to what I said in the previous email, it should be ‘sports meeting’.

Metaphorical function

I feel with online courses more discipline is needed because there isn’t a set time that I need to be online for the lectures.

obligations are

I need to take 2 courses during the summer to graduate.

obligations are

strong internal force

obligations are strong external force

4/19/2011

4/28/2011

Bianca Co-text

strong internal force

obligations are weak internal force

One of the commonalities observed in all four participants’ mappings was that they leaned toward stability in relation to prepositions, whereas greater variation was seen relative to modals. Reasons for this may be inferred from linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems constraining the uses of these forms. At the linguistic level, although nonmetaphorical uses of prepositions may overlap in the same contexts (e.g. ‘I’m at the corner’, ‘I’m on the corner’), it could be argued that much less overlap occurs when they are used metaphorically in collocation with abstract NPs. Tight collocations could allow for greater cue contingency in L2 input as learners find patterns among contexts (c.f. Ellis, 2008, 2011; Han, 2003, 2008; Han & Lew, 2012). These regularities may have led to the stable mappings between prepositions and topic-vehicle functions seen in the results above. Although all participants shared the same patterns for the majority of the prepositions, variation was seen in mappings by Fannie and Dawn involving the topic function educational programs. This topic function constitutes a rare case in which more than one preposition can be used metaphorically in the same context. As suggested previously, however, variation can only occur within certain constraints. Bianca and Alina preferred to collocate in with all NPs reflecting the topic function educational programs. Even when it was possible to use in or at in collocation with school, for instance, mapping in was the attractor state for these two participants in every context involving educational programs. Fannie and Dawn fluctuated between in, at and on, without experimenting with other prepositions in relation to this topic. NPs representing the topic function educational programs would hence constitute linguistic subsystem components exerting constraints on possible mappings. Interrelated with these constraints are those exerted by sociocultural subsystems. Metaphorically

Students first need to choose a topic for their project

19

Freshmen must take part in it, but the other three grades don’t have to.

Some of my classmates are also preparing for the GMAT and they, like you, told me that to go to graduate school for business one need to take the GMAT

4/06/2011

force

obligations are strong external

internal force

obligations are strong

force

obligations are strong internal

To go to graduate school for business you need to take an exam called the GMAT.

4/05/2011

nal force

obligations are weak exter-

You just need to pass 8th grade.

If so, I think it should be ‘小鲁本·蒙特福’ in ­Chinese characters.

I probably just have the date wrong, I asked my parents but they don’t know about that stuff either. I need to find someone who does.

You just need to turn it in to be a ­registered voter.

The only thing is you have to be 18 to vote and once you are 18 you just need to fill out a voter registration card.

force

obligations are strong internal

forces

obligation are strong internal

force

obligations are strong internal

force

obligations are strong internal

force

obligations are strong internal

force

obligations are strong internal

You need to pass that test!

4/01/2011

3/30/2011

3/24/2011

force

obligations are weak external

force

obligations are strong internal

force

obligations are strong internal

Metaphorical function

I just thought I should let you know since it‘s important that you learn English very well.

I need to decide soon to reserve my spot.

Alina Co-text

3/23/2011

Metaphorical function I need to make sure to keep all my grades up.

Dawn Co-text

3/17/2011

Date

Table 3.14  Dawn’s and Alina’s mappings of metaphorical links in the domain of OBLIGATIONS 76  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  77

speaking, in, at and on each represent three different vehicle functions (i.e. Enclosures, encounters and surfaces, respectively), implying three types of topological perceptions and states (Dancygier & Sweetser, 2014). If at were collocated with school, the vehicle function encounters would be involved. This would imply that the subject could move freely about the educational program school, and no location control was exerted upon the subject. If this NP appeared with in, the vehicle function enclosures would be involved, suggesting that the landmark school metaphorically restricted the subject’s freedom to move. From this perspective, opting to use in or at would not just be a matter of linguistic collocation, but may also hint at a sociocultural relationship between the speaker and the notion representing educational programs. When Fannie experimented with on in ‘Do you have the same examining way on this course?’, the function educational programs are surfaces was suggested. This metaphorical function could imply that the landmark ‘this course’ did not enclose or restrict the subject (Jamrozik & Gentner, 2015). Although retrospective interviews were not carried out to explore what Fannie was thinking when using on in this context, the external analysis of this use may provide some insight into connections between linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems. Shuffling between in, at and on without experimenting with other forms might suggest that these prepositions were closely associated in Fannie’s mind and settling on one metaphorical function was significantly difficult for her in relation to this topic function. Additionally, the initial condition of Fannie’s L1 may have also played a role in the chaos observed in her mappings. As argued by Larsen-Freeman (2006), there is no equivalent translation in Chinese for in, at and on, especially in relation to abstract notions such as educational programs. While Fannie never stabilized, Dawn began varying between the same three prepositions but later converged on the attractor state of her interlocutor, Alina (i.e. mapping in onto educational programs are enclosures). Here, the communicative context may constitute another interrelated subsystem affecting participants’ mapping behaviors. As mentioned previously, the communicative context involves awareness of the immediate social situation, where aspects of the setting such as power relations and conceptions of the interlocutors influence the type of language used (e.g. Kövecses, 2015). The results above suggest that Dawn and Alina adapted to each other’s mappings with regard to educational programs, while Fannie and Bianca never did. Given Alina’s status as a native speaker of English, Dawn, looking up to Alina as an expert user of the language, appeared to have attempted more to converge on her patterns. Fannie, on the other hand, knew that Bianca was not a native speaker of English, and this could have been an influence on Fannie, since adaptation was not seen in her mappings (see also Chapter 2, Meng, this volume). Adaptation between Fannie and Bianca was not observed relative to modals, either. Regarding can, Fannie’s mappings never changed despite

78  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

the diversity of functions her interlocutor Bianca mapped onto this modal. Specifically, Bianca’s use of can linked its vehicle function strong internal force to the topics suggesting, anticipating, requesting and ability, while Fannie’s use only linked this vehicle function to the topic ability. Using can in relation to ability has been described in the literature to be a universal mapping (de Haan, 2006; Georgieva, 1993), and Fannie did not move beyond this function. Maintaining a fixed attractor state in relation to can could be an indication of the status of development regarding the use of this form. On this point, perhaps the four participants could be placed on a continuum regarding their use of can. On one end would be Fannie, with a fixed mapping onto this modal’s most common function. On the other end would be Alina, the native speaker of English in this study. Alina consistently mapped can onto two functions (i.e. Ability is strong internal force and permitting is strong internal force), indicating that she settled on these mappings. In the middle would be Bianca and Dawn, who mapped can onto a diversity of functions, reflecting chaos and constant experimentation. Dawn eventually adopted a new mapping, which Alina was using (i.e. Permitting is strong internal force), again showing a readiness to adapt to her interlocutor. Besides the abovementioned observations regarding can, the Chinese participants tended to vary much more in their use of modals than participants in the USA, who showed to have settled upon stable mappings. This may be related to the greater amount of usage events that participants in the USA experienced in the L2 community. The use of will, for instance, by participants in the USA only reflected the link between its vehicle function strong internal force and the topic anticipating. Participants in China, however, fluctuated between two topics, namely anticipating and hypothesizing. In other words, mappings by the Chinese participants associated strong physical force and high certainty of the likelihood of an event, as well as strong physical force and low certainty. And the Chinese participants tended to use other linguistic components in the vicinity of will to indicate high or low certainty, as well. For instance, in a context such as ‘Maybe I will learn it someday in the future’, the presence of the word ‘maybe’ indicated less certainty and hence this instance of will was coded for the topic hypothesizing. Whether the surrounding context suggested anticipating or hypothesizing, their use of will from an external perspective always linked these topics with strong internal force. In fact, mappings by the Chinese participants generally tended to involve modals reflecting vehicle functions of strong forces. For instance, in addition to will, Dawn used must relative to the topic hypothesizing, a modal reflecting the vehicle function strong external force. In contrast, when hypothesizing, the USA participants remained stable in using modals reflecting weak force, thus showing congruence between surrounding contextual cues such as ‘maybe’ and the modals used.

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  79

In addition to the functional dimension of strength, whether modals reflected internal or external forces relative to certain topics cast a useful light on patterns and variation among the participants’ mappings. Regarding the topic obligations, the Chinese participants showed a preference for modals reflecting vehicle functions of external force (should and must), whereas those in the USA used modals reflecting internal force (need to). This usage pattern may be related to sociocultural subsystems influencing participants’ mappings. There is a subtle difference between ‘You need to pass that test!’ and ‘You must pass that test!’ Chinese participants’ mappings could hint at the sociocultural belief that obligations are forces coming from external authorities. Mappings from participants in the USA, on the other hand, suggest that obligations are ones that are imposed internally, where each individual can choose what commitments they want to pursue. Similarly, Tyler (2012) described must as external force that cannot be resisted, but need to represents the internalization of external societal norms and expectations. Conclusion

Both CDST and the discourse dynamics approach to metaphor discuss interrelationships between linguistic, communicative and sociocultural subsystems involved in language use. The analysis reported here only began to scratch the surface of what these interrelationships may look like and how different subsystem components may conspire to produce patterns or variation. The evidence uncovered in the present study, albeit modest, of both stability and variability in the L2 learners’ mappings provided valuable insight into how forms and metaphorical functions were dealt with over time (cf. Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2006). Whether learners stabilized into patterns or remained in chaos, where the dynamics seemed to trace irregular patterns that never repeated themselves (Hiver, 2015; Larsen-Freeman, 2015), illuminated where difficulties lay and where they did not. Such evidence, in turn, alluded to linguistic and nonlinguistic components that may have orchestrated into different contextual conditions. The sensorimotor information introduced by an external metaphor approach warrants further exploration, in that it can provide new functional dimensions for form-function analyses, dimensions specifically related to geometric knowledge and force dynamics. These dimensions, therefore, promise to open critical avenues for studying the interaction between linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems in an L2, the nexus of CDST. References Alonso Alonso, R., Cadierno, T. and Jarvis, S. (2016) Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of spatial prepositions in English as a foreign language. In R. Alonso Alonso (ed.) Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 93–120). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

80  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Biewer, C. (2011) Modal auxiliaries in second language varieties of English. In J. Mukherjee and M. Hundt (eds) Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Boroditsky, L. and Gaby, A. (2010) Remembrances of times east: Absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian community. Psychological Science 21 (11), 1635–1639. Cameron, L. (2010) The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron and R. Maslen (eds) Studies in Applied Linguistics: Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. Bristol: Equinox. Cameron, L. and Deignan, A. (2006) The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics 27 (4), 671–690. Cameron, L. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007) Complex systems and applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (2), 226–240. Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P. and Stanley, L. (2009) A discourse dynamic approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol 24 (2), 63–89. Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999) The Grammar Book (2nd edn). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Collins, P. (2009) Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E. (2014) Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. and Verspoor, M. (2013) Dynamic systems theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development. In M.P. García Mayo, M.J. Gutierrez Mangado and M. Martínez Adrián (eds) Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. de Haan, F. (2006) Typological approaches to modality. In W. Frawley, W. Klein and S. Levinson (eds) The Expression of Cognitive Categories (ECC): The Expression of Modality (pp. 27– 69). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Deignan, A., Littlemore, J. and Semino, E. (2013) Figurative Language, Genre and Register. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2009) Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning 59, 230–248. Ellis, N. (2008) Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 state. In P. Robinson and N. Ellis (eds) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 372–405). New York: Routledge. Ellis, N. (2011) Optimizing the input. Frequency and sampling in usage-based and formfocused learning. In M. Long and C. Doughty (eds) The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 139–158). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Ellis, N. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009) Language as a Complex Adaptive System. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Ellis, R. and Barkhuizen, G. (2005) Analyzing Learner Language. New York: Oxford University Press. Evans, V. (2010) From the spatial to the non-spatial: The ‘state’ lexical concepts of in, on and at. In V. Evans and P. Chilton (eds) Advances in Cognitive Linguistics: Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G.A. (2013) Sociocultural theory and second language development. In M.P. Garcia Mayo, J. Gutierrez and M. Martinez Adrian (eds) Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 49–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Georgieva, M. (1993) A cognitive approach to the acquisition of English modals by Bulgarian learners. In B. Kettemann and W. Wieden (eds) Current Issues in European Second Language Acquisition Research (pp. 151–163). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

A Dynamic View on Prepositions, Modal Auxiliaries and Metaphorical Functions  81

Gibbs, R. and Cameron, L. (2008) The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research 9, 64–75. Han, Z-H. (2003) Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Han, Z-H. (2008) On the role of meaning in focus on form. In Z-H. Han (ed.) Understanding Second Language Process (pp. 45–79). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Han, Z-H. and Lew, W.M. (2012) Acquisitional complexity: What defies complete acquisition in SLA. In B. Szmrecsanyi and B. Kortmann (eds) Linguistic Complexity in Interlanguage Varieties, L2 Varieties, and Contact Languages (pp. 192–217). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Henry, A. (2015) The dynamics of L3 motivation: A longitudinal interview/­observationbased study. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 315–342). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hiver, P. (2015) Attractor states. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 20–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Huebner, T. (1979) Order of acquisition vs. dynamic paradigm: A comparison of method in interlanguage research. TESOL Quarterly 13, 21–28. Huebner, T. (1985) System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning 35, 141–163. Jamrozik, A. and Gentner, D. (2015) Well-hidden regularities: Abstract uses of in and on retain an aspect of their spatial meaning. Cognitive Science 39, 1881–1911. Kelleher, J., Sloan, C. and Mac Namee, B. (2009) An investigation into the semantics of English topological prepositions. Cognitive Processing 10 (2), 233–236. Kellerman, E. (1978) Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism 15, 60–92. Kövecses, Z. (2015) Where Metaphors Come From. New York: Oxford University Press. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Lam, L.C. (2003) Conceptual Fluency in Second Language Learning: Chinese ESL Learners’ Production of OUT and UP Particles in English Verb Particle Constructions. Doctoral Dissertation. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Hong Kong. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18, 141–165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization (pp. 33–46). London: Continuum. 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. (2010a) Not so fast. A discussion of L2 morpheme processing and acquisition. Language Learning 60 (1), 221–230. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010b) Having and doing: Learning from a complexity theory perspective. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh and C. Jenks (eds) Conceptualising ‘Learning’ in Applied Linguistics (pp. 52–68). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/ acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 48–72). New York: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015) Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: John Benjamins.

82  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

MacArthur, F. (2016) When languages and cultures meet: Mixed metaphors in the discourse of Spanish speakers of English. In R. Gibbs (ed.) Mixing Metaphor (pp. 133–154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. MacArthur, F. and Littlemore, J. (2011) On the repetition of words with the potential for metaphoric extension in conversations between native and non-native speakers of English. Metaphor and the Social World 1, 201–238. Munro, P. (2006) Modal expressing in Valley Zypotec. In W. Frawley, W. Klein and S. Levinson (eds) The Expression of Cognitive Categories (ECC): The Expression of Modality (pp. 173–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nacey, S. (2013) Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication: Metaphors in Learner English. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. Nuyts, J. (2001) Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A CognitivePragmatic Perspective. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Nuyts, J. (2005) The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In A. Klinge and H.H. Mueller (eds) Modality: Studies in Form and Function (pp. 5–38). Bristol: Equinox. Palmer, F.R. (1979) Modality and the English Modals. New York: Routledge. Sorace, A. and Keller, F. (2005) Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115, 1497–1524. Sorace, A. and Serratrice, L. (2009) Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. The International Journal of Bilingualism 13 (2), 195–210. Sweetser, E. (1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, L. (2000) Towards a Cognitive Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tyler, A. (2012) Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York: Routledge. Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2003) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd and V. Herman (eds) Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM]: Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Ushioda, E. (2015) Context and dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

4 A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction Heidi Liu Banerjee

‘Heidi, you sounded like me just then!’

One of the joys of being an applied linguist is observing how I and the people around me adapt how we communicate to one another over time. Personally, I am aware that the more I spend time with a person, the more I tend to talk like them by adopting their speech style as a form of interpersonal bonding. Now, I cannot remember exactly what I said that triggered my husband, Ashish, to realize that I ‘sounded like him just then’, but I am fairly certain that I was quoting or talking like a Monty Python character, as he would for sarcastic humor. This anecdote of mine provides a simple illustration of how our language is constantly shaped by both internal and external factors. While early studies assumed that language development follows a linear path and bears a stimulus-response type of predictability, researchers today have moved to acknowledge that language development is a social, dynamic and complex process, highly culture-dependent and constantly changing (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; Ohta, 2013). Further, taking into account the ‘cognitive, psychological, social, societal, and historical complexity’ (Ohta, 2013: 2) of learning a second language (L2), the process of L2 development is considered even more complex than that of first language (L1). In order to better understand and explain the complexity of L2 development, researchers have recently proposed applying dynamic systems theory (DST) to capture the essence of L2 developmental processes.1 Among the various aspects of L2 development (e.g. linguistic elements, language skills), pragmatic competence, that is, knowing ‘how-to-say-whatto-whom-when’ (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013: 68), is perhaps one of the most challenging for L2 learners to acquire. As described by Purpura (2004) in his model of communicative language competence, pragmatics encompasses contextual meanings, sociolinguistic meanings, sociocultural meanings,

83

84  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

psychological meanings and rhetorical meanings, each highly influenced by a wide range of personal, temporal and contextual variables. Studies on pragmatics have generally focused on the areas of deixis, implicature, speech acts, conversational structure and extended discourse (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Levinson, 1983; Mey, 2001). While each area has attracted a fair amount of studies, speech acts, particularly those that are inherently face-threatening (e.g. requests, apologies, complaints), have attracted the most attention in L2 research, given that unfamiliarity with the culture or pragmatic norms of the target language may easily lead to miscommunication or misunderstanding for L2 learners (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Schauer, 2009). Among the various types of potentially face-threatening speech acts, advice – including advice-giving and advice-seeking – is one of the most sophisticated and complicated, for its appropriateness is closely related to the social environment in which the advice takes place, the participants’ knowledge and power asymmetry, the severity of the issue, as well as whether or not the advice is solicited (Locher, 2006; Locher & Limberg, 2012). Because of its heavily culture- and context-dependent nature, learning how to give or seek advice appropriately has been identified as challenging for L2 learners. Research has shown that learners who fail to use pragmatically-appropriate language may appear rude and insulting to native speakers, and this is especially true in the case of advice-giving since the advice-giver is essentially telling his or her interlocutors what s/ he thinks is best for them (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1990; Hinkel, 1994, 1997; Searle, 1969). However, Locher and Limberg (2012: 5) point out that the roles of advice-givers versus advice-seekers/recipients, as well as the understandings of the appropriateness of advice, are not static; instead, depending on the nature of the context of interaction and the relationship of the interlocutors, ‘these roles and understandings … are continually negotiated’ and dynamically shifting in advice exchanges. The study reported in this chapter attempts to explore how the discourse of advice is realized through advice-seeking, advice-giving and/or advice-­ receiving in the context of a longitudinal email-exchange project between university students from China and the USA. In particular, through the lens of DST, the dynamics of the advice exchanges between participants from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds were examined. In the following sections, I first provide a review of research on DST and the discourse of advice. Then, details of the data as well as the methodology are described. The subsequent section presents the results of the analysis of the advice episodes identified in the data. Finally, I conclude the chapter with a summary of the results and their potential pedagogical implications. Dynamic Systems Theory

Dynamic systems theory (DST) was first proposed in the field of mathematics for the purpose of modeling how complex systems undergo

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  85

changes caused by internal and external forces. Owing to DST’s ability to explain changes that ‘do not seem to follow predictable patterns of development’ (de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011: 9), it has later been extensively applied to the fields of physics, epidemiology, economics, meteorology and many more, since these fields often deal with nonlinear, complex, mostly unpredictable phenomena that are easily influenced by their subsystems. According to de Bot and Larsen-Freeman (2011), DST has a number of characteristics, including (but not limited to) its sensitive dependence on initial conditions, the interconnectedness of the subsystems, the nonlinearity of developmental processes and the systems’ constant change through interaction with the environment. A common example used to illustrate dynamic systems is the movements of individual birds and how they influence the formation of a flock of birds. In this case, the subsystems have multiple layers: they can be as small as the birds’ anatomical features (e.g. skeleton, nerves) and as large as the environmental conditions (e.g. humidity, wind). All of the subsystems are interconnected, and each subsystem has the potential to make an impact on the subsequent formation of the flock (for a more detailed description, see Lowie, 2013). The application of DST in second language acquisition (SLA) is fairly new. The view of language learning as a ‘dynamic, complex, nonlinear’ process is connected also to a seminal article by Larsen-Freeman (1997), who proposed a complexity theory (CT) approach to examining SLA, counteracting the traditional view of language development as a linear process (e.g. Dulay & Burt, 1973). The CT approach views the language system as consisting of various levels of subsystems, such as phonological subsystems, lexical subsystems, syntactical subsystems and contextual discourse subsystems (de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Lowie, 2013). The subsystems may dynamically influence one another, from language to language, from interlocutor to interlocutor and from context to context. ‘Language development emerges from the interaction of its components, each of which has its own timing properties and each of which dynamically interacts with its contexts’ (Lowie, 2013: 5). It has been argued that the characteristics of dynamic systems are mirrored in the process of L2 development – dynamic, chaotic, nonlinear, and complex (de Bot et al., 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Lowie, 2013). Because DST is ‘essentially a theory of change’ (de Bot et al., 2013: 213) and it emphasizes the interactions of subsystems both across contexts (spatial) and over time (temporal), DST researchers believe that there is a need for longitudinal and microgenetic studies to uncover the dynamics of these interactions and their change patterns (de Bot et al., 2007; Verspoor & Van Dijk, 2013). Caspi (2010) traced the writing development of four advanced L2 learners with diverse L1 backgrounds over approximately 10 months. She found that the learners’ lexical complexity was developed before lexical accuracy. Then, they developed syntactic complexity, followed by syntactic accuracy. Polat and Kim

86  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

(2014) investigated the development of accuracy, syntactic complexity and lexical diversity in the speech of an advanced, untutored L2 learner over one year. They found that most of the participant’s L2 development occurred in lexical diversity, with syntactic complexity showing ‘potential but unverifiable gains’ (Polat & Kim, 2014: 184) and accuracy showing no development. Through the lens of DST, these longitudinal studies were able to identify the fine-grained learning trajectories among individuals and subsequently demonstrate that L2 development does not follow a predictable pattern. What is Advice?

Advice in pragmatic research has been almost one-sidedly defined as advice-giving, a type of directive where the speaker ‘tell[s] you what is best for you’ (Searle, 1969: 67). Because of its communicative function, advice has been used interchangeably with two other terms: suggestions and recommendations. To elaborate, Martínez-Flor (2005) incorporates the general features of suggestions and recommendations and further defines advice-giving as ‘an utterance that the speaker intends the hearer ... to do something that will be to the hearer’s benefit. Therefore, the speaker is doing the hearer a favor’ (Martínez-Flor, 2005: 179). As such, advice is viewed as a delicate act that needs to be approached with caution for all involved (Hinkel, 1997; Locher, 2006). Factors affecting the appropriateness of advice include whether the act occurs in a public or private social context, whether the advice-giver can claim expertise on the subject of interest, whether the issue is severe or face-sensitive and whether the advice is solicited (Locher & Limberg, 2012). These factors should be considered for all advice-seekers, advice-givers and advice-recipients, for the participants’ roles and understandings in an advice event are constantly being negotiated during the interactions. In recent years, owing to the increasing popularity of online forums and social media, studies on advice in computer-mediated communication has attracted much attention (e.g. Locher, 2006; Morrow, 2012; Placencia, 2012). In addition to the factors that would affect advice practice in face-to-face interactions (e.g. social context, participant expertise, face-sensitivity), advice in computer-mediated communication is affected by the synchronicity of participation, the persistence of transcript, the size of message buffer and the possibility of anonymous messaging or private messaging (Herring, 2007). The factor ‘persistence of transcript’, which refers to the retrievability of messages after they are received, is particularly relevant in the context of email-exchange because emails are by default persistent. Participants can easily trace back to past messages and take previously exchanged information into account when seeking or offering advice, a practice immensely different from that in face-to-face interactions.

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  87

It is equally important to note that, face-to-face or computer-­ mediated, the perception of what counts as an appropriate advice act is heavily culture-dependent. Hinkel (1994) found that compared to native English speakers, non-native English speakers give advice more freely and frequently. While this may be viewed as inappropriate and even impolite in Anglo-American culture, advice-giving is often deemed a way of building rapport or showing affection in many other cultures. For example, in Japanese culture, offering advice ‘shows warm interest in the other’s well-being’ (Masuda, 1989: 42), a gesture embraced in many East Asian cultures. For the purposes of this study, we now turn briefly to perceptions of advice in Anglo-American versus Chinese versus Spanish cultures. Anglo-American culture, in general, values the autonomy of individuals; therefore, any interference with other people’s affairs, such as giving advice, can easily be viewed as intrusive. In fact, American English speakers often avoid giving advice directly, insisting that the hearer (i.e. advice-recipient) should be the one making the ultimate decision on action (Fitch, 1994). The reason is that in advice exchanges, the advice-giver is assumed to be the more knowledgeable other whose opinion will be valued and trusted by the advice-recipient, creating an asymmetry between the interlocutors (DeCapua & Dunham, 1993). Such an asymmetry illustrates the delicate, face-threatening nature of the speech act and lends explanation in the avoidance of direct advice-giving in Anglo-American culture where individuals’ ability to make own decisions is preferred and respected. Goldsmith and Fitch (1997) identified three dilemmas – two for advice-givers and one for advice-recipients – in advice acts in Anglo-American culture. First, for advice-givers, it is often a challenge to appear as helpful and caring rather than intrusive or critical. A second dilemma lies in the nature of the advice: should advice-givers be truthful and provide their honest opinions, or should they be supportive ‘by agreeing with the recipient’s point of view?’ (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997: 466). A third dilemma concerns the advice-recipient’s struggle between showing gratitude and respect and being viewed as the less competent other. Interestingly, without referencing dynamic systems theory in explaining their findings, Goldsmith and Fitch (1997) concluded that advice in American English is dynamic and complex. This therefore further increases the linguistic and pragmatic challenges for L2 learners. A fundamental difference between Chinese and Anglo-American cultures is that the Chinese value the collective-self with an emphasis on the interdependence on one another, while the Anglo-American embrace individualism (Scollon & Scollon, 1992). Hu and Grove (1991) observed that for Chinese speakers, giving advice is considered a gesture of benevolence and is employed to develop conversational rapport and establish group belonging. Similarly, Lii-Shih (1988: 168) noted that advice is deemed to

88  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

be a gesture of ‘friendliness, concern, admiration, or interest’ in Chinese culture. To express politeness when giving advice, Chinese speakers often utilize hedging devices, such as ‘it seems’, ‘I have a feeling’ and ‘I suppose.’ For example, while it is considered appropriate and polite for Chinese speakers to say ‘I have a feeling that it is not right for you to do it that way’ (Lii-Shih, 1988: 88, italics added) to their Chinese interlocutors, native English speakers may still perceive this statement as intrusive and impolite. It is worth mentioning, in passing, that there have been, in general, very few empirical studies on advice in Chinese. Turning to Spanish culture, relatively speaking, there have been more recent studies on advice in Spanish. It is generally suggested that advice-giving is not considered a face-threatening act. Hernández-Flores (1999) observed that, to Spanish-speaking people, giving advice is a gesture to create solidarity, to establish trust between the interlocutors and to demonstrate the speaker’s ability to act with a unique and independent opinion. However, a major limitation of Hernández-Flores’ study is that only two short conversation exchanges were analyzed, and thus the results may not be generalizable. Utilizing a perception questionnaire and role-play situations, Bordería-García (2006) found that Spanish-speaking people do not perceive indirect and direct forms of advice differently in terms of appropriateness. In fact, directness is largely desired and appreciated when giving advice in oral situations, unlike the advice preference of both the Chinese and the Anglo-Americans. In sum, different cultures exhibit different preferences for, and views on, the speech act of advice. Influenced not only by cultural factors but also local contextual factors, such as the social distance between the interlocutors and the severity of the issue to which advice is given, advice exchanges can be dynamic, complex and even chaotic. In order to have a more comprehensive view on how the pragmatic system of advice-seeking, advice-giving and advice-receiving was negotiated between participants of various L1 backgrounds in a natural setting, the current study addressed the following research question: In what ways is advice done similarly and differently by a native English speaker and L2 learners from Chinese and Spanish backgrounds? A complex dynamic system, in this study, following Dörnyei’s (2014) definition, has three attributes: (1) it has at least two or more elements that are (2) interconnected but (3) which can also change independently over time. The Study Participants

The data in the present study were collected from email correspondence between four female university students: two from a university in Qingdao, China, and two from a university in Texas, USA. One student

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  89

Table 4.1  Biographic information of the participants Dyad 1

Dyad 2

Participants

L1

Age

Major

Location

Fannie

Mandarin Chinese

22

English

China

Bianca

Spanish

22

Graphic design

USA

Dawn

Mandarin Chinese

21

English

China

Alina

English

22

Business marketing

USA

from each school paired up and exchanged emails that lasted approximately eight weeks as part of the requirements for a college-level course in intercultural communication in their respective institutions. Table 4.1 details the background information of the participants. Both students from the university in China, Fannie and Dawn, were Mandarin Chinese L1 speakers majoring in English. In this study, they were identified as English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. The students from the university in Texas, Bianca and Alina, were both Hispanic. Bianca spoke Spanish as her L1 and Alina spoke English with limited knowledge of Spanish. In this study, Bianca was identified as an English as a second language (ESL) learner, and Alina as a native speaker of English. The corpus

The emails that comprise the data were collected from an email-­ exchange project that lasted between March and May of 2011. The ­participants – Fannie and Bianca (Dyad 1), and Dawn and Alina (Dyad 2) – were all enrolled on the course, intercultural communication, at their respective universities. The email-exchange project was carried out for ­students to identify, describe and discuss various cultural practices and values relevant to the themes dealt with in the course. The data were, therefore, naturalistic and longitudinal. In addition to the entire sets of Fannie and Bianca’s and Dawn and Alina’s email exchanges, Fannie’s and Dawn’s reflection entries, in which they commented on their cultural experiences with their counterparts, served as supplemental data for triangulation. Table 4.2 provides a summary of the data. Table 4.2  Summary of the data

Dyad 1

Dyad 2

Participants

Date of first email

Date of last email

No. of emails

Total no. of email exchanges

No. of reflection entries

Fannie

March 5

April 28

16

35

11

Bianca

March 5

April 27

19

Dawn

March 14

May 4

20

Alina

March 16

May 1

19

NA 39

20 NA

90  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Data analysis

The present study differed from previous advice studies in that the participants were not explicitly expected to seek or give advice in the course of interaction. Therefore, a qualitative, exploratory analysis of the content of the emails was required to identify when, where and how advice exchanges took place. Following Ellis and Barkhuizen’s (2005) recommendation for interactional analysis, the first step in the present analysis was to define the object of the inquiry. The present study aimed to investigate how advice exchanges unfolded over time; therefore, the object of the inquiry included all instances of advice-seeking, advice-giving and advice-receiving. The next step was to identify these advice instances in the data. In order to locate the advice instances in the emails in a systematic manner, data were coded in terms of turns and fragments, referring to discourse units the participants adopted in organizing their emails. A turn in the email exchange was operationalized as all components in one email, including the sender/recipient information, the time stamp, the subject heading, the text body intended for the recipient and the sign-off. Each turn was coded as Tn. Fragments, on the other hand, were units of text within one turn that encode, among other things, various forms and functions, specifically visually recognizable units beginning on a new line of the email and continuing until the email sender hit the ‘enter’ button, creating a visual break in the text. Each of the fragments was coded as Fn. An example of how an email text was coded is shown below. From: Bianca Sent: Sat, March 5, 2011 To: Fannie Subject: Intercultural Communication HelloZhang Fengying, T1

Im Bianca, how are you enjoying this class? If at any time there is a question or comment I make that offends you Please let me know, it is not my intention to make you feel uncomfortable. So I know what to and not to speak, ask, or comment about. -Bianca L.

The final step was to establish a descriptive framework for analyzing the advice episodes. An advice episode consisted of all advice acts (i.e. seeking,

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  91

giving and receiving) related to the same issue or topic. Both solicited and unsolicited advice episodes were included in the analysis. Solicited advice episodes were those whereby the participants specifically used words or phrases that would prompt an advice-giving act, such as ‘can you give me some suggestions’ or ‘what do you think I should do’. Unsolicited advice episodes were the ones where the participants provided, without being asked, a solution to a previously stated problem. A closer analysis of the function of each fragment in all advice episodes showed a generic sequence of moves, akin to that reported in Varonis and Gass (1985). Each advice episode begins with a trigger, referring to the utterance that causes the advice exchanges; followed by a response, referring to the advice utterance that attempts to address the trigger; then a reaction, referring to the utterance that indicates a speaker’s uptake of the response; and finally a coda, a final remark or an attempt at closing an advice episode by either the advice-giver or the receiver. Results

In this section, the advice episodes identified for each dyad are described. In particular, the advice sequence – trigger, response, reaction and coda – is illustrated. Dyad 1: Fannie and Bianca

Four advice episodes were identified in the email correspondence between Fannie (L1-Mandarin Chinese) and Bianca (L1-Spanish): (1) Dance lessons, in which Bianca offered a solution to Fannie’s desire to learn dancing. (2) Etiquette rules in Beijing, in which Bianca, on behalf of her sorority sister, asked Fannie for advice regarding the etiquette rules for a foreigner traveling in Beijing. (3) Managing pressure from work and school, in which Bianca sought help from Fannie in terms of how to balance school and work. (4) Presentation, in which Fannie consulted Bianca about how she had presented the intercultural email-exchange project. By way of illustration, Table 4.3 displays the advice sequence of an unsolicited episode, dance lessons, and Table 4.4 shows the sequence of a solicited episode, managing pressure from work and school. In each display, utterances that are central to the advice acts are shown in bold. Moreover, the dates of the emails are given to show the duration of each episode, which often spanned several days, a phenomenon Herring (2007) aptly described as ‘persistence of transcript’.

92  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Table 4.3  The dance lessons episode Timestamp

Code

Sender

Function

Utterance

March 12

T6F30

Fannie

Trigger

I’d like to learn dancing but I don’t have that time and money now. Maybe I will learn it some day in the future. As our campus is in the suburban areas, we don’t have many interesting activities to do.

March 14

T7F34

Bianca

Response

I abosulety Love Dancing =D [lines omitted]

T7F35

What type of dancing are you wanting to learn?

March 15

T8F38

Fannie

Reaction

I’d like to learn Salsa, ChaCha and Bachata when I have that chance. I don’t know much about ­dancing. Hope that it won’t be difficult for me.

March 16

T9F42

Bianca

Response

You can YouTube the type of dancing and just practice it in your home thats what I used to do it helps =D You get to learn it at your own pace.

March 17

T10F47

Fannie

Reaction

Thank you for your advice. I tried and it do help a lot. It’s really a good idea. I decide to follow the video and practice at home.

March 18

T11F52

Bianca

Coda

I’m glad it helped and now your able to do something you’ve wanted to do.

Note: T = turn; F = fragment; =D is an open-mouth-grin emoticon.

In the dance lessons episode, as seen in Table 4.3, the advice sequence began with Fannie’s response to Bianca’s previous inquiry about hobbies. Fannie’s interest in learning to dance was expressed in the form of a wish (‘I’d like to learn dancing’) immediately followed by the presentation of a problem, an obstacle to fulfilling this wish (‘but I don’t have that time and money now’). In the same fragment, Fannie appeared to downplay the urgency of learning to dance (‘Maybe I will learn it some day in the future’), and accordingly, the function of advice-seeking. In response to Fannie’s wish to learn dancing, Bianca employed a number of affective devices to demonstrate, enthusiastically, that dance is a common interest shared between them, including the capitalization of ‘Love Dancing’, the open-mouth-grin emoticon ‘=D’ and the adverbial intensifier ‘abosulety’ (sic) prepositioning ‘Love’ (T7F34). In T8F38, Fannie displayed topic alignment to Bianca’s interest in dancing by opening with a direct response to Bianca’s inquiry in T7F35. By saying ‘when I have that chance’, Fannie potentially showed commitment to learning the dance moves mentioned earlier (T8F38). While the commitment then seemed somewhat attenuated when she downgraded her knowledge of dance (‘I don’t know much about dancing. Hope that it won’t be difficult for me.’), it was likely a politeness strategy on Fannie’s part or simply an attempt to close the topic of dance, as evidenced by her transitioning to the topic of holiday travel in the next immediate fragment, T8F39 (‘We will have several days’ holidays soon. So I’m planning to go for a trip. Do you like travelling?’), before closing the turn. In response to Fannie’s interest in learning to dance, Bianca claimed authority and attempted to solve Fannie’s problem of not being able to

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  93

Table 4.4  Advice sequence in the episode managing pressure from work and school Timestamp

Code

Sender

Function

Utterance

March 26

T19F122

Bianca

Trigger

My classes are driving me crazy, well one of them at least. [lines omitted]

T19F123

I know I shouldn’t complain about getting a lot of hours, but it is really interfering with my school work I dont’ know what to do, because it’s getting harder to find a job.

March 26

T20F127

Fannie

Response

Your professor seem to have great expectations for you. Maybe you could reduce work hours and find more time for your school work. Hope you can get it over.

March 28

T21F135

Bianca

Reaction

I’m getting frustrated, =( I want to do really good, but I feel like ’’m failing and i don’t like feeling this way. I have never had to worry this much over my school work =(

T21F136

March 29

T22F140

I don’t know what to do I’m thinking about quiting my job, but I want it to earn money. But i need more time for my course work, what do you think I should do? =( Fannie

Response

You needn’t feel that way. It’s not that you can’t do well, but you are busy with other things, too. If you really have no more time to spare for your school work, maybe you could talk with the boss to see if he can reduce your work time so that you’ll have more time for study.

T22F141

If you must abandon one, you should think over which is more important to you, job or school work? Then maybe you could make a decision. If I were you, i would probably focus on study first. I would find a job only If I still had extra time.

T22F143

Don’t be too hard on yourself. I believe you can handle this well.

March 30

T23F146

Bianca

Reaction

I’m doing way better. Two of my co-workers each took a shift, so I’m feeling a lot better, and less stressed.

March 31

T24F152

Fannie

Coda

I’m so happy for you that things are getting ­better. Now you needn’t be so worried about that.

Note: T = turn; F = fragment; =( is a frowning face emoticon.

learn dancing with a solution: ‘You can YouTube the type of dancing and just practice it in your home thats what I used to do it helps =D’ (T9F42). In T10F47, Fannie reacted to Bianca’s response by expressing appreciation (‘Thank you for your advice.’). Besides thanking, this utterance also serves to explicitly designate Bianca’s utterance in T9F42 as advice. This act can be considered a politeness strategy as it gives value to the advice through thanking and upgrades its status through the formal lexical choice. Fannie was then able to refer back to the advice through the use of the definite ‘it’ pronoun as a cohesive device where it is given repeated positive appraisals (‘I tried and it do help a lot. It’s really a good idea.’). Overall, the appreciation display shows Fannie’s acknowledgment and respect for Bianca’s ‘self-appointment’ as the more knowledgeable other. Finally, in T11F52,

94  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Bianca concluded this episode of advice exchanges by accepting Fannie’s appreciation, a display of solidarity. While Bianca acted as the advice-giver in the unsolicited advice exchanges in the dance lessons episode, she was the advice-seeker and receiver in the managing pressure from work and school episode where advice was explicitly solicited. As shown in Table 4.4, the trigger of this advice sequence started when Bianca expressed her struggles between school and work in T19F122 and 123. At the end of Fragment 123, Bianca stated ‘I dont’ know what to do’, giving Fannie the floor to provide advice. Fannie complied, employing linguistic strategies, such as the adverb ‘maybe’ and the modal ‘could’ to alleviate the potential face-threats. Seeing Fannie’s response to her advice-seeking as a display of empathy and involvement, Bianca became even more expressive about her emotions with the use of the frowning face emoticon ‘=(‘ in several places in her reaction to Fannie’s response (T21F135 and 136). In her reaction, Bianca reiterated her struggles, positioning herself as the less knowledgeable, helpless other, explicitly asking for advice: ‘what do you think I should do? =(.’ The affective devices, including the use of the word ‘frustrated’ and the frowning face emoticon, prompted Fannie to give extended advice in T22F140 and 141. However, while Fannie provided more concrete suggestions in terms of what she thought Bianca should do, she continued to employ a variety of linguistic strategies to avoid imposing these suggestions on Bianca. These linguistic strategies included the use of conditionals (‘If you really have no more time to spare for your school work’, ‘If you must abandon one’, ‘If I were you’), the use of modals ‘would’ and ‘could’, and again, the use of the adverb ‘maybe’, all serving as a means to decrease the degree of imposition by orienting the ultimate decision to Bianca herself. Fannie appeared reluctant to draw further attention to herself as an advice-giver. Immediately after she suggested what she would do if she were in Bianca’s position, she shifted the topic to her excitement about the upcoming trip to Beijing: ‘I’m really excited that I’ll be in Beijing in four days.’ (T22F142). In T22F143, Fannie concluded her extended advice by reinforcing and endorsing Bianca’s own ability to solve the problem before closing the turn. With Fannie’s ‘I believe you can handle this well’ endorsement, Bianca indeed responded by positioning herself as a capable and independent problem solver. In T23F146, Bianca reacted to Fannie’s advice by stating that her situation had been alleviated. No acknowledgment or show of appreciation of Fannie’s advice was expressed; it is all about Bianca’s self (‘I’m doing way better’; ‘I’m feeling a lot better’). However, Bianca’s repositioning herself as the independent problem solver did not seem to pose any conflict with Fannie’s role as the advice-giver, given that Fannie had avoided giving direct advice in the first place. In the closing turn of this episode (T24F152), Fannie displayed solidarity by

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  95

showing empathy for Bianca, acknowledging Bianca’s ability to solve her own problem. The episodes of dance lessons and managing pressure from work and school both illustrate how advice acts were structured between a Mandarin Chinese L1 speaker and a Spanish L1 speaker when they communicated in their second language, English. Similar patterns were also identified in the other two episodes. In etiquette rules in Beijing, advice was solicited by Bianca who, on behalf of a friend, asked Fannie for advice regarding the courtesy rules for a foreigner traveling to Beijing. Even though Fannie was presumably the more knowledgeable other when it comes to Chinese culture, she, again, declined to give direct advice: ‘I didn’t think of anything offensive that she may do. So I asked one of my American teachers for his ideas’ (T18F106). Nonetheless, because the advice being sought was on a more generic topic, with Bianca and her friend exhibiting a concern for sensitivity to cultural differences, Fannie went above and beyond to address the concern by producing the longest turn in their email exchanges (approximately 567 words spanned across eight fragments). By presenting most of her advice through ‘direct reported speech’ of her American teacher with occasional mention of her own opinion and experiences, the topics addressed included how to dress, typical Chinese male attitudes toward females, personal safety, foreigner-approachers, con-­artists and politeness. Interestingly, Bianca responded in a very neutral way to Fannie’s advice, giving no affective feedback or immediate appreciation. Only four days later did Bianca communicate her friend’s acknowledgment of the extended advice (‘thank you for the information you sent’; T19F117). Also noteworthy in Bianca’s advice-receipt reaction is her labeling advice as ‘information’. This could have been a discourse strategy employed by Bianca to withhold the authoritative status from the advice-giver, in this case Fannie. The last episode of advice exchanges in Bianca and Fannie’s email correspondence occurred toward the very end of the project. This is the only episode where Fannie acted as the advice-seeker. Owing to the fact that both Bianca’s and Fannie’s professors of their respective intercultural communication classes had requested that they identify cultural difference through their email communication, Fannie asked for Bianca’s opinion (‘So, what do you think?’; T32F208) because she was having trouble matching her findings with what was written in the textbook. Having already done her presentation, Bianca responded to Fannie by offering to send some pictures for her to include in her presentation. However, unlike in the dance lessons episode where Bianca provided direct, unsolicited advice in a somewhat intrusive manner (‘You can…’), here, Bianca appeared to downgrade the imposition of her using strategies including the lexical choice of ‘try’ and ‘maybe’ (‘I’ll try and send you some pictures from different parts of the area live in. So maybe you can include them in your presentation’; T34F222). Interestingly, in reaction, Fannie seemed

96  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

to have modified her approach to acknowledging the receipt of advice. Rather than explicitly labeling Bianca’s utterance as advice and thanking her for it as in the dance lessons episode, she now merely acknowledged the beneficial aspect of Bianca’s offer without much show of appreciation, nor did she nominalize the act as advice (‘Pictures will be good if you could send some’; T35F228). Still, Fannie used the conditional expression to lighten the directness of her utterance and to display politeness. Unfortunately, this is where the correspondence ended, so it is unknown whether Fannie ever received the pictures from Bianca. Dyad 2: Dawn and Alina

While Dawn and Alina’s email exchanges almost doubled the length of Fannie and Bianca’s, only two episodes of advice exchanges were identified: first, improve my English, in which Dawn explicitly and directly asked Alina to help her improve her English; and second, adjust the mood, in which Dawn, again, explicitly and directly asked Alina to give her suggestions regarding how to concentrate and stay motivated for her upcoming exam. Both advice acts were solicited and both were initiated by Dawn. Table 4.5 shows the advice sequence in the adjust the mood episode. As observed in Table 4.5, Dawn initiated this advice episode by discussing her inability to focus on her BEC (Business English Certificate) exam preparation (T7F35). She downgraded her ability to pass the BEC with self-negation (‘I don’t what’s wrong with me’; ‘I’ll be bound to fail’) and reached out to Alina, soliciting a very explicit piece of advice (‘Can Table 4.5  Advice sequence in the episode adjust the mood Timestamp

Code

Sender

Function

Utterance

March 22

T7F35

Dawn

Trigger

I’ll have my test for BEC on May 21, only two months left now. But in recent days I haven’t ­wanted to prepare for it at all. I don’t what’s wrong with me. I really hope I can get recovered soon or I’ll be bound to fail. Can you give me some ­suggestions? How can I adjust the mood? Thank you!J

March 23

T8F40

Alina

Response

I’m sorry to hear that you have not had motivation to study for your test, but I have no suggestions for you. I cant barely keep myself motivated! I just try to go running everyday, that helps me to clear my mind, otherwise I can’t really focus during the day. I don’t know if you like to run, alot of people in the area I live in don’t like it that much.

March 23

T9F47

Dawn

Reaction

I’m really sorry I’ve got your birthday wrong. ­Something has really been wrong with me these days. I can’t focus during the day. Maybe I just have to go running like you or do other exercise everyday to clear my mind!

March 24

T10F57

Alina

Coda

It’s okay you got my birthday wrong haha, and yes maybe you should go run or play badminton!

Note: T = turn; F = fragment.

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  97

you give me some suggestions? How can I adjust the mood?’). In addition, she thanked Alina in the same fragment, assuming Alina would fulfill her advice-seeking act. The thanking, as well as the final smiley face emoticon (‘’), may also be Dawn’s politeness strategy. Even though Dawn already displayed her appreciation of Alina’s anticipated advice, Alina’s immediate response in T8F40 was a refusal to provide a suggestion. Referring to Dawn’s problem as ‘have not had motivation’, Alina downgraded her status as the more knowledgeable other by stating that she had the same problem herself (‘…I have no suggestion for you. I can’t barely keep myself motivated!’). However, the refusal was not meant to completely ignore Dawn’s advice seeking; rather, it functioned more as a strategy for Alina to give Dawn the freedom to decide for herself as an independent being. Instead of directly telling Dawn what to do, Alina opted to tell Dawn what she herself tried to do (‘I just try to go running everyday, that helps me to clear my mind’). In order not to impose her personal preference on Dawn, Alina immediately added ‘I don’t know if you like to run’, giving Dawn the option of rejecting this suggestion. Ultimately, Alina’s strategy not only positioned Dawn, the advice-seeker, as the independent decision-maker, but also allowed Alina herself, the advice-giver, to avoid intruding into Dawn’s personal space. In reaction to Alina’s email, in T9F47, Dawn first addressed and apologized for her confusion of Alina’s birthday brought up at the end of Turn 8, Alina’s previous email. As a way to mitigate the potential interpersonal harm caused by the confusion, Dawn once again adopted self-negation (‘Something has really been wrong with me these days. I can’t focus during the day’) to reiterate her difficulty to ‘be in the zone’ in T9F47. Because Dawn already acknowledged her need for advice, the self-negation quickly transitioned into her acceptance of Alina’s suggestion as a possible solution to her problem (‘Maybe I just have to go running like you’). Aligning with Alina’s proposition that running might not be enjoyed by everyone, Dawn continued her advice-acceptance utterance with ‘or do other exercise everyday to clear my mind!’ Here, Dawn displayed her willingness to accept Alina’s advice, but at the same time positioned herself as the decision-maker, as Alina had hoped. The strategies included the use of the adverb ‘Maybe’ to imply that Dawn may, not must, do what Alina suggested; the use of the adverb ‘just’ to imply a positive perception on the beneficial aspects of the advice; and finally, the exclamation mark ‘!’ to depict her positive feelings about adopting the advice. Closing the advice episode, Alina opened Turn 10 with her acknowledgement of Dawn’s choice to ‘go running’ or ‘do other exercise.’ As seen in T10F57, in addition to the use of ‘yes’ as an indication of agreement to Dawn’s choice (i.e. accepting the advice but adding other options), Alina further exemplified the ‘do other exercise’ option by replacing it with ‘play badminton’. Such an amiable response appears to be a display of solidarity: Dawn was able to receive advice without losing her status

98  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

as an independent decision-maker, and Alina was able to provide advice without risking imposing her opinion on Dawn. The other advice episode, improve my English, exhibits a similar advice sequence, with the exception of a delayed response to Dawn’s solicitation of advice to improve her English, extending the episode over several weeks (Trigger: March 14; Coda: May 4). The trigger of the episode occurred in the very first email between the dyad, initiated by Dawn. In T1F3, Dawn explicitly solicited advice by stating, ‘my spoken English is poor … I hope you can teach me some methods of speaking English fluently and accurately. Thank you!’ Similar to her strategies used in the adjust the mood episode, Dawn initiated the advice-seeking act by downgrading her English ability. After stating her trouble and soliciting advice, she thanked Alina at the end of the same fragment, a politeness strategy also used when asking for advice to ‘adjust her mood’ (T7F35; see Table 4.5). In her response to Dawn’s advice-­seeking, Alina praised Dawn’s written English without providing any explicit advice (‘Your written English is very good. I would never be able to tell that your spoken English is not if you had not have told me’; T2F7), and she never did in their subsequent email exchanges. Because her advice-seeking act was not fulfilled, Dawn attempted again in Turn 33 asking for advice on her written English, a month after their initial correspondence: ‘I really hope you can give me suggestions on my writing whether they’re about words or grammar, because, you know, I’m not a native English speaker, so I’m very likely to make some mistakes in my mail’ (T33F226). This time, though not immediately addressed, Dawn’s advice-seeking was not ignored. In T37F263, when talking about boyfriends, Dawn committed a lexical error by referring to herself, a single lady, as a ‘bachelor’. In reaction to Dawn’s lexical error, Alina assumed the role of the more knowledgeable other by offering a suggestion on the word choice: ‘Haha You could say “bachelorette” that is the female version of bachelor’ (T38F272). In the coda of this episode, Dawn showed her acceptance of Alina’s word-choice suggestion by saying ‘I hope you can soon be no more “bachelorette”. Haha! ’ (T39F292). Perhaps because giving suggestions in the form of error correction was considered even more face-threatening than when the issues were more generic, both the advice-giver (Alina) and the advice-receiver (Dawn) adopted a humorous tone with the use of ‘Haha’ to lighten the situation. Other strategies employed included the use of the modal ‘could’ and the use of the smiley face emoticon ‘’, a pattern also observed in the advice exchanges between Fannie and Bianca. Discussion

This study attempted to understand the dynamics of advice exchanges between participants of different L1 backgrounds by examining how advice-seeking, advice-giving and advice-receiving unfolded in two sets

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  99

of emails exchanged over a period of eight weeks. The research question raised was: In what ways is advice done similarly and/or differently by a native English speaker and L2 learners from Chinese and Spanish backgrounds? From the detailed description of the participants’ interactions in each advice episode, a general sequence was identified, mirroring the conversation model of meaning negotiation established by Varonis and Gass (1985): trigger, the utterance that initiates the advice exchanges; response, the utterance that attempts to address the trigger; reaction, the utterance that indicates the advice-receiver’s uptake to the response; and finally, coda, a final remark from the advice-giver or the advice-receiver. This sequence was found in both solicited and unsolicited advice episodes. However, in spite of the broad similarity, the individual participants approached advice quite differently, especially in advice-seeking. In the first dyad, Bianca, a native speaker of Spanish, not only offered unsolicited advice, but also explicitly sought advice from Fannie, a native speaker of Mandarin Chinese. While it is possible that Bianca’s approach to advice came from her L1 way of building rapport, as established in the literature, it was not received well by Fannie, as evidenced by one of her reflection logs: My partner was direct in making requests or offering opinions. When I mentioned I’d like to learn dancing but didn’t have the time for it, she offered me some advice on solving this problem, which was of great help. Later, when she had problem with her studies and job, she felt frustrated and asked me for advice. That reminds me of what is said in the text book. American women are now more direct when making suggestions, expressing emotional feelings and ideas. But to me, I won’t ask for her advice at those things as we are not intimate enough to that level. This may be different between American and Chinese culture.

Even though Fannie claimed that she would not ask Bianca for advice given the social distance, she eventually initiated one advice episode where advice was solicited. While there was no further evidence to support the finding, given that this particular episode appeared at the very end of Fannie and Bianca’s correspondence, it seems to suggest that Fannie, after interacting with Bianca for eight weeks, started to show an increase in willingness to ask for Bianca’s opinion with a higher degree of directness. On the other hand, Bianca, who claimed authority in both giving and receiving advice in the first three advice exchanges, seemed to tone down her directness with her increasing use of hedging. This finding nicely supports the DST view on the nonlinearity of L2 development and mutual adaptation. From a DST perspective, the process of L2 development involves both growth and attrition (de Bot et al., 2007, 2013) instead of being a linear process. When language is used for social interaction, individuals co-adapt to

100  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

the context by dynamically and imitatively adapting to the language of another (Larsen-Freeman, 2013), a phenomenon captured in Fannie and Bianca’s interaction with respect to their (in)directness towards giving advice and (un)willingness towards seeking and receiving advice. The advice episodes between Dawn and Alina, however, tell a different story. While Fannie claimed that Chinese people tend not to ask for others’ opinions without establishing an intimate relationship first, in her reflection log, Dawn’s advice-seeking acts completely overturned this statement. In both advice episodes, Dawn directly and explicitly sought advice from Alina by acknowledging Alina as the more knowledgeable person. It should also be noted, however, that Alina tended not to provide advice directly. Even though Dawn and Alina exchanged more and longer emails than Fannie and Bianca, the extended interaction did not change the dynamics of advice exchanges between them much: Dawn remained a proactive advice-seeker and Alina a passive advicegiver. Alina’s approach to giving advice appears to correspond to the findings in previous studies that American English speakers often avoid giving advice directly (e.g. Fitch, 1994), and when they do, they would phrase the advice in a way that it is ultimately the advice-receiver’s own decision to accept or reject it. Compared to Fannie, Dawn’s behavior was more in line with the literature that the Chinese view advice as a gesture of benevolence. The differences between Fannie and Dawn, both Chinese speakers, appear to suggest that pragmatic use, though culture-dependent, can be idiosyncratic. From a DST perspective, such a difference may be explained by the unpredictability of learners’ initial states in L2 development. In this email-exchange context, the initial states of Fannie’s and Dawn’s approaches to giving, seeking, and receiving advice can be understood as their prior pragmatic knowledge regarding the speech act, which may be grossly different due to past English learning experiences, opportunities to interact with native speakers, or exposure to the target language culture, etc. The influence of the initial states is by no means constant. As learners continue to interact with others, changes will emerge over the course of interaction as ‘there is no end state of language development’ (Lowie, 2013: 6). Conclusion

The present study has provided a preliminary view on how DST can be used to describe L2 pragmatic development such as, in this case, when giving, seeking or receiving advice. The longitudinal data demonstrated that for L2 learners, the exchanges of advice-seeking, advice-giving and advice-receiving were dynamic and adaptive over the course of interaction. The data also showed that there existed variability in seeking and giving advice not only within individuals, but also across individuals from the same L1 background (i.e. Chinese).

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  101

A valuable tenet of DST is that it embraces the variability and idiosyncrasies of individual learners. DST’s emphasis on change is particularly fitting in describing L2 pragmatic development because the appropriateness of pragmatic use is largely affected by a variety of contextual factors (e.g. social distance between the interlocutors) and, thus, is constantly changing. Echoing Caspi (2010), one important pedagogical implication or a caveat that DST highlights is that L2 development is mostly unpredictable, and that the learning trajectories are highly individualized. In the case of L2 pragmatic development, learners’ use of language to express and negotiate their roles and understandings in a speech event could be influenced by their own initial conditions as well as their interlocutors. In order to allow for ample opportunities for pragmatic development, it is crucial that L2 learners have extended interaction with their interlocutors and use the target language in a variety of contexts. Note (1) This chapter tends more toward DST than to complex dynamic systems theory (CDST), a recent amalgam of complexity theory (CT, Larsen-Freeman, 1997) and DST (for a discussion, see Chapter 1 by Han & Liu, this volume).

References Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001) Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan (ed.) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 182–192). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013) Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 63 (Suppl.), 68–86. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B.S. (1990) Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning 40, 467–501. Beebe, L.M. and Takahashi, T. (1989) Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts. In M. Eisenstein (ed.) The Dynamic Interlanguage (pp. 199–218). New York: Plenum. Bordería-García, A.M. (2006) The acquisition of pragmatics in Spanish as a foreign language: Interpreting and giving advice. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Iowa. Caspi, T. (2010) A dynamic perspective on second language development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. de Bot, K. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot and W. Lowie (eds) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development (pp. 5–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. de Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), 7–21. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S.L. and Verspoor, M. (2013) Dynamic systems theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development. In M.D.P.G. Mayo., M.J. Gutiérrez and M.M. Adrián (eds) Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DeCapua, A. and Dunham, J.F. (1993) Strategies in the discourse of advice. Journal of Pragmatics 20, 519–531.

102  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Dörnyei, Z. (2014) Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching 47 (1), 80–91. Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245–258. Ellis, R. and Barkhuizen, G. (2005) Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fitch, K.L. (1994) A cross-cultural study of directive sequences and some implications for compliance-gaining research. Communication Monographs 61, 185–209. Goldsmith, D. and Fitch, K. (1997) The normative context of advice as social support. Human Communication Research 23, 454–476. Hernández-Flores, N. (1999) Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: The case of advice. Pragmatics 9 (1), 37–49. Herring, S.C. (2007) A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet 4, article 1. See www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761. Hinkel, E. (1994) Appropriateness of advice as L2 solidarity strategy. RELC Journal 25, 71–93. Hinkel, E. (1997) Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied Linguistics 18 (1), 1–26. Hu, W. and Grove, C. (1991) Encountering the Chinese. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Lantolf, J.P. and Thorne, S.L. (2006) Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chao/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18, 140–165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013) Chaos/complexity theory for second language acquisition. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–8). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lii-Shih, Y.-H. (1988) Conversational Politeness and Foreign Language Teaching. Taipei Taiwan: Crane Publishing. Locher, M.A. (2006) Advice Online. Advice-Giving in an American Internet Health Column. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Locher, M.A. and Limberg, H. (2012) Introduction to advice in discourse. In H. Limberg and M.A. Locher (eds) Advice in Discourse (pp. 1–27). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lowie, W. (2013) Dynamic systems theory approaches to second language acquisition. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–9). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Martínez-Flor, A. (2005) A theoretical review of the speech act of suggesting: Towards a taxonomy for its use in FLT. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 18, 167–187. Masuda, V. (1989) People as individuals. In S. Gilfert (ed.) Crosscultural Orientation (pp. 29–36). Nagoya, Japan: Trident College of Languages. Mey, J.L. (2001) Pragmatics: An Introduction (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Morrow, P.R. (2012) Online advice in Japanese: Giving advice in an internet discussion forum. In H. Limberg and M.A. Locher (eds) Advice in Discourse (pp. 255–279). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ohta, A.S. (2013) Social, dynamic, and complexity theory approaches to second language development: Overview. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–4). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Placencia, M.E. (2012) Online peer-to-peer advice in Spanish Yahoo! Respuestas. In H. Limberg and M.A. Locher (eds) Advice in Discourse (pp. 281–305). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

A Dynamic View on Advice Giving in Dyadic Interaction  103

Polat, B. and Kim, Y. (2014) Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics 35, 184–207. Purpura, J.E. (2004) Assessing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schauer, G.A. (2009) Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Searle, J.R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1992) Individualism and binarism: A critique of American intercultural communication analysis. Research Report, 22. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Varonis, E. and Gass, S. (1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6, 71–90. Verspoor, M. and Van Dijk, M. (2013) Variability in a dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–9). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

5 A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction Vanessa Sheu

This chapter examines the dynamic development of discourse relations and the emergence of pragmatic effects within dyadic interaction. Current approaches to language acquisition research have described language as a complex system (de Bot et al., 2005, 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2006, 2011; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; van Geert, 2008; Verspoor et al., 2011). A complex system, such as an ecosystem or an economy, exhibits certain behaviors, including self-organization, chaotic behavior owing to initial conditions and adaptive interaction of agents (Holland, 2014). These behaviors are part of the system’s unique structuring dynamics. A complex system contains a variety of modularized processes that are hierarchically ordered, which together produce the hallmark of complexity – emergence. Emergence is behavior that is not predictable from reductively analyzing each sub-process in the system; it describes system-level properties that arise from the interaction of these sub-processes with one another as well as interaction with the environment. Another concept from complexity theories to describe the behavior of dynamical systems is that of attractor states, or patterns of relatively stable behavior that the system can enter. In an attractor state, a system generally requires significant perturbation (e.g. influx of energy) to change the system’s behavior from these patterns. From this theoretical perspective, language use can be viewed as a complex system with such features as emergence and attractor states. First, meaning itself emerges from the interaction of myriad contexts, agents and processes. For instance, interpretation of utterances is highly dependent on context and shared assumptions about reference (Wilson & Sperber, 2002), and it relies on pragmatic, semantic and syntax processes, which function hierarchically and automatically typically without the language user’s awareness. Secondly, native speaker language use converges and exhibits patterns of stability over time,

104

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  105

which may be viewed as attractor states. This insight can be applied to language acquisition. Like language use, language acquisition can be viewed as the complex interaction of contexts, agents and sub-processes within a developing language system, or interlanguage. Developing language systems exhibit context sensitivity and an openness to change; at the same time, they are also autonomous and self-organizing, generating their own rules and patterns of behavior. These developing systems can also fossilize and generate certain nontarget rules that are difficult to change later, which may also be seen as the system falling into attractor states. To capture these properties of language, complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) (de Bot, 2017; Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) has been proposed as a framework for studying second language development (SLD). The object of study is the trajectory of an individual language system, the focus being on describing how interconnected processes self-organize after disrupting events (Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Methodologically, therefore, CDST research on SLD typically centers on longitudinal, case-by-case descriptions of system-level change in individual language development. CDST and other complex and dynamic perspectives in language development have generally adopted themes and analogies from their ­counterparts in the physical sciences. Such themes include state space, nonlinearity and sensitivity to initial conditions (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011, 2015; LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008). The analogies include a metaphorical model of language development as a cognitive ecosystem in which linguistic processes grow (de Bot et al., 2005, 2007; van Geert, 1991, 2008; Verspoor et al., 2011). This model defines two important constructs: cooperation and competition. It describes the learner’s cognitive ecosystem as being limited in internal and external resources (e.g. motivation), such that the growth of certain sub-processes (e.g. vocabulary learning) are in competition with one another for the same resources. Examples in the literature of competitive processes include complexity, accuracy and fluency (LarsenFreeman, 2006), the development of vocabulary and the plural inflection (Robinson & Mervis, 1998), and lexical sophistication and sentence complexity (Verspoor et al., 2012). In contrast, cooperative processes seem to be correlated with the growth of other processes. Examples that have been studied include complexity at the lexical level and the sentence level, and at the lexical level and noun phrase level (Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010), as well as multilingualism and the learning of additional languages (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011). Cooperation and competition suggest that some sub-processes are linked in development, and suggest important phenomena to attend to in studying system-level language change. Two other important constructs that describe dynamic systems are variability and stability. Variability describes oscillation between alternative attractor states in a particular feature – for example, between the

106  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

general regular past tense rule and specific irregular past tense forms. There are two broad patterns that have been identified by second language acquisition (SLA) research into variability. First, developing second language (L2) learner systems are more variable than mature L1 learner systems, and they exhibit variation as a result of sociolinguistic contexts (Tarone & Liu, 1995), task demands (Tarone & Parrish, 1988) and differences in individual resources and learner profiles (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). Secondly, while learner output generally exhibits a high degree of initial fluctuation, this variability gradually decreases and stability increases. This reduction of variability has been demonstrated in the research of the use of past tense morphemes in intermediate learners (Ellis, 1987), the acquisition of negative verb constructions (Cancino et al., 1978) and the identification of cues which trigger the subjunctive form in Spanish (Gudmestad, 2006). Emergence of L2 Pragmatic Competence

After a brief review of the main constructs in CDST, we turn to the application of CDST in L2 pragmatic development. CDST may be a revealing lens through which to approach the field of pragmatics, since pragmatic interpretations can be metaphorically seen as an emergent effect: the correct pragmatic interpretation of an utterance requires more than an understanding of its component parts (i.e. the literal words of an utterance) and the context. Pragmatics scholars distinguish between the locutionary act as the ‘surface structure’ of the utterance, or its phonetic and syntactic elements, and the illocutionary force, or the implied pragmatic meaning (Austin, 1976). This pragmatic meaning arises from a combination of elements, including but not limited to basic linguistic decoding processes, interpretation of the immediate context, the sociocultural context and the status of the interlocutors. Pragmatic meaning can also be seen as hierarchical and contain modularized processes: the syntactic, phonetic and sociocultural elements – while all separate – must be correctly interpreted separately and integrated in order to create the correct pragmatic understanding. There are many models of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), the study of how language learners develop this knowledge and use of pragmatic conventions in the target language. L2 pragmatics is informed by a variety of theories and frameworks, including the acculturation model (Schumann, 1986), sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Vygotsky, 1980), language socialization (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), interactional competence (Gumperz, 1982; Hall & Verplaetse, 2000; Schmidt, 1983) and cognitive or information processing models (Bialystok, 1993, 1994; Schmidt, 1993) (for a review, see Kasper, 2001; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Kasper & Rose, 2001), which utilize tools from empirical studies to microanalyses to e­thnographies. The diversity of perspectives used

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  107

within pragmatic research complements the DST view that language is multifaceted and can be meaningfully examined across various scales and perspectives. However, the model that best describes pragmatic awareness as emerging from hierarchical component processes in a cognitive ecosystem is Bialystok’s (1993, 1994) two-dimensional model of proficiency development. In the two-dimensional model of proficiency development, pragmatic development consists of two aspects: analysis of knowledge and control of processing. In analysis of knowledge, the learner maps his or her linguistic knowledge, such as the form of a request, in terms of conceptual categories, such as the request’s meaning and its level of politeness. This requires the learner to encode pragmatic acts, such as making a request, on three levels: formally (e.g. the specific linguistic structures used for requests), conceptually (e.g. the meaning of a request) and lastly, symbolically (e.g. mapping the various forms of a request to their range of meanings and their appropriateness in different situations). The learner is not establishing individual, one-to-one form-meaning mappings as in lower-level semantic processes, but rather relational, form-context mappings of which forms might be appropriate to which social situations, as well as learning which external cues might signal certain social situations. Secondly, learners must also develop control of processing, which means being able to use pragmatic knowledge in real time. The development of pragmatic control can be thought of in terms of the cognitive ecosystem model in which various processes compete for different resources. On the one hand, in order for successful pragmatic production, learners must select both appropriately and quickly within their mappings of appropriate forms and associated contexts in response to external stimuli. However, the increased cognitive demand caused by necessary attendance to both linguistic and social input in interaction is a source of difficulty in L2 pragmatic production. For this reason, some researchers suggest that control of processing is more difficult than analysis of knowledge for L2 learners (Bialystok, 1993, 1994; Kasper & Rose, 2001). As the discourse systems of learners develop, learners are more fully able to attend to social cues and communicate with more flexibility as social participants (Ohta, 2001). This is reminiscent of how complexity, accuracy and fluency are often tradeoffs in developing learner systems. In short, pragmatic competence involves more than refining and mapping separate component processes, such as illocutionary intentions, linguistic forms and associated contexts, onto one another. It requires the emerging development of a pragmatic awareness, or being able to identify these elements situationally in order to interpret and react to the social nature of communication in real time – ‘develop[ing] the control strategies to attend to the intended interpretations in contexts and to select the forms from the range of possibilities that satisfy the social and contextual needs of the communicative situation’ (Bialystok, 1993: 54). Pragmatic

108  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

choices emerge from interaction with the listener’s environment, depending critically on the conscious choice and manipulation of the resources in the immediate linguistic and social environment (Bialystok, 1993, 1994; Schauer, 2009). Ultimately, the listener must be aware of how these resources interact together as a whole to generate situated pragmatic meanings. The present study focused on the emergence of pragmatic competence through the observation of discourse relations. In the development of pragmatic competence, learners must develop a discourse competence of what rhetorical patterns, registers, textual structures and discourse moves are appropriate in what circumstances (e.g. how direct or indirect to be, how often one can appeal to the interlocutor, how often one is supposed to give one’s opinion or evaluation). For instance, learners who have not fully developed their knowledge of new norms may exhibit transfer of L1 rhetorical patterns as described in Kaplan’s (1966) description of cultural patterns of expression, or Kellerman’s (1995) transfer to nowhere. Additionally, analogous to the development of pragmatic awareness, a L2 learner must develop more than abstract knowledge of discourse or rhetorical norms: he or she must develop a discourse awareness which allows him or her to identify, in real time, the social and linguistic cues indicating the contexts in which these norms are expected. Applying Bialystok’s two-dimensional model of proficiency development, first, an L2 learner must map, conceptually, a variety of social effects (such as directness, politeness, intimacy or expertise); formally, the discourse features associated with each one (such as register and rhetorical patterns); and symbolically, the appropriateness of using various features in different social situations. Second, a learner must actively process interaction in terms of these mappings. The discourse feature used to analyze rhetorical difference in L2 texts in the present study was coherence or discourse relations. A well-­ established framework in the descriptive classification of discourse relations is known as rhetorical structure theory (RST), proposed by Mann and Thompson (1986, 1988) (described in detail in the following section). RST has been used in cross-cultural language studies, including analyzing linearity in Chinese and Australian news journals (Ramsay, 2000), comparing Chinese and English business letters in terms of the various rhetorical components in making a request (Kong, 1998) or comparing technical manuals written for consumers in English, French, German and Russian (Sharoff & Sokolova, 1995). RST is a descriptive framework that allows for detailed analysis of a text, whether the writer’s discourse features are ultimately attributed to individual or cultural tendencies. Rhetorical Structure Theory and Discourse Organization

Rhetorical structure theory (RST) describes how written or spoken texts are constructed through the relations between ideas (Mann &

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  109

Thompson, 1986, 1988). Positing that texts are organized through hierarchical inferences, RST can be used to describe the relational structure of a text, as well as classify these inferred discourse relations in terms of the effect that they have on the reader (Taboada & Mann, 2006). At its most basic discourse level, a text consists of its semantic propositions, or the literal idea units, which has been analogously described in SLA research as a textbase (Kintsch, 1988; Nassaji, 2003). The juxtaposition of two idea units forms a relational proposition, or an inferred relation between the two ideas. This inference is what the reader recovers in reconstructing the meaning of the text. The inference joins the two propositions into a larger discourse unit, and these units themselves also have inferred relations between them. As the reader makes wider and wider inferences which structurally join more discourse units, the resulting relational structure allows the reader to perceive the text as a coherent whole. It may be helpful at this point to provide some examples of relational propositions – also known as coherence, rhetorical or discourse ­relations – in order to understand how they structure a reader’s understanding of a coherent text: (1) The bottle fell. It broke. (Taboada & Mann, 2006: 434)

In the sequence above, the inferred relation to be identified is cause. The first part – the bottle falling is understood to have caused the second – the bottle breaking. The existence of this unifying proposition is so necessary that if it is contradicted, the result is a message which is incoherent: (2) The bottle fell. It broke. I don’t know why it broke. (Taboada & Mann, 2006: 434)

Relations, therefore, are a fundamental and necessary part of interpretation of any text. Example (3) below shows the relation of elaboration, which is used to give examples or detail upon a previous topic: (3) Karen is so photogenic. Her smile is perfect.

(Mann & Thompson, 1986: 64)

The relation of elaboration – that the second idea gives detail about the first – is what the reader needs to recognize in order to join both statements in a coherent way. In all, Mann and Thompson (1988) outline an inventory of 23 relations used to describe the construction of a text (Table 5.1). A key feature of the inventory is that there are two types of relations. Subject matter relations – such as the cause and elaboration examples

110  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Table 5.1  Mann and Thompson RST inventory (1988) Presentational relations

Subject matter relations

Antithesis (increases positive regard)

Circumstance

Otherwise

Background (increases ability)

Condition

Purpose

Concession (increases positive regard)

Contrast

Restatement

Enablement (increases ability)

Elaboration

Sequence

Evidence (increases belief)

Evaluation

Solutionhood

Justify (increases acceptance)

Interpretation

Summary

Motivation (increases desire)

Non-volitional cause

Volitional cause

Non-volitional result

Volitional result

above – describe the relationship between two ideas. In subject matter relations, the relation is perceived as being between the content of the propositions itself and does not involve the writer acting on the reader through the presentation process. However, presentational relations are those which ‘facilitate the presentation process itself’ and thus ‘whose intended effect is to increase some inclination in the reader’ (italics in original) (Mann & Thompson, 1988: 256). Textually, the writer attempts to influence the reader in some way, either by increasing the reader’s positive regard, belief or desire for an idea. Mann and Thompson (1988) also suggest that their inventory aligns with van Dijk’s (1977) distinction of semantic and pragmatic coherence relations: the category of semantic relations corresponds to subject matter relations, as the proposition only involves information about events in the world, and the category of pragmatic relations corresponds to presentational relations, as the proposition involves some degree of illocutionary force between the writer and the reader.

Here, an example showing the difference between the subject matter and presentational relations might be illustrative. For example, a writer can express a difference between two ideas either neutrally, or the writer can actively attempt to influence the reader. Using the subject matter relation of contrast, the writer expresses a difference as a matter of content without attempting to influence the reader to side with one idea over the other: (4) Contrast: I have a budget of $600. The two-week tour is priced at $1000.

However, in the presentational relation of concession or antithesis, the writer presents two different ideas but attempts to increase the reader’s positive regard for one over the other. In concession, the writer concedes the truth of the non-favored idea to the reader, but still sides with the favored idea. (5) Concession: The two-week tour sounds wonderful, but it’s out of my price range.

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  111

In antithesis, the writer presents the two ideas as fundamentally incompatible and rejects one while identifying with the other. (6) Antithesis: The two-week tour is expensive. I don’t want an expensive tour.

The preceding examples show that the same basic semantic idea can be conveyed in three discursively unique ways. Each relation varies in the degree of influence on the reader. For instance, of the three relations, contrast presents two ideas without attempting to influence the reader, concession acknowledges potential reader objections while still arguing for the opposing idea and antithesis directly acts upon the reader to identify with the writer’s idea against its opposite. Discourse is concerned with the matter of choice in expression, and a competent user of discourse adapts his or her expression depending on the situation to achieve different textual effects. As Mann and Thompson (1986: 257) comment, ‘the distinction of subject matter and presentational relations appears, to us, to be laden with implications for text interpretation’. One such interpretation is that a writer’s choice to use certain relations in adapting within an interaction might be seen as a measure of discourse awareness. A writer’s sensitivity to the types of relations that he or she uses – whether subject matter or presentational – can reveal a lot about the writer’s control over the production of his or her discourse and his or her awareness of its textual effects on the reader. Therefore, applying the framework of RST relations provides a framework from which to examine how a writer’s use of discourse relations with illocutionary force might develop dynamically within an interaction, and how this usage might yield various pragmatic effects in terms of the writer-reader relationship. It is essential to note that RST refers to a writer’s ‘intention’ as a linguistic and textual inference created in the reader’s mind in order to interpret the text, not as an actual pragmatic device used to convey social intention (though some researchers consider discourse relations to be cognitive devices used by writers and understood by readers (Sanders et al., 1993)). It is impossible to determine a writer’s precise reasons for choosing between subject matter or presentational relations, given that relations cannot be considered independently from the propositional content and context. However, RST is used in the present study to identify relations that require the reader to infer the writer’s influence or perspective. Without positing that these relations are intentionally used to communicate any particular social message on the part of the writer, but rather that different discourse choices and textual effects have wider emergent pragmatic effects on the writer-reader interaction, the present study aimed to examine whether co-adaptation occurs in the use of these textual functions. This was taken to be a measure of discourse awareness in writer-reader textual interaction. Additional data from participants’

112  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

personal logs shed light on what the broader pragmatic effects of this co-adaptation might be. RST and Pragmatic Development in Writer-Reader Relationships

In CDST research, since complex phenomena can be studied on different timescales and at different levels, it is emphasized that all studies must carefully define the ‘system’ and the ‘components’, as well as select a method of analysis that is appropriate to the phenomena being observed. The present study examined how pragmatic effects emerge from the interaction of two learners’ language systems by focusing on the level of relational propositions. Therefore, the object of the study is the emergence of pragmatic effects, the system is the dialogue of two interlocutors and the component processes are the various types of relational propositions. The study examined patterns of variability/stability in the system’s behavior. The current study focused on the specific types of relations in which the reader must go beyond the literal text and reconstruct the writer’s stance toward the statements being presented. Therefore, presentational relations – antithesis, background, concession, enablement, evidence, justify and motivation – were chosen because in these relations, the writer attempts to actively influence or increase some inclination in the reader. Specifically, the study chose to look at relations of difference – contrast, concession, antithesis – to examine how direct the writer would be in presenting statements that were opposed: would the writer represent contrasting ideas neutrally through subject matter relations (contrast), or would the writer attempt to influence the reader to take the writer’s stance through presentational relations (concession and antithesis)? Lastly, relations of perspective-giving – evaluation and interpretation – were chosen to examine the degree to which the writer would give his or her perspective upon a situation. While both are subject matter relations, they require the reader to recognize the role of the writer in reconstructing the inference: in an evaluation relation, the reader understands that the writer has positive or negative regard toward a particular idea, and in an interpretation relation, the reader understands that the writer is suggesting an interpretative relationship between a situation and an external lens. For each of the different types of relations, the study sought to examine whether these relational propositions would be used, and if their joint usage would show patterns of variability/stability and co-adaptation. To observe pragmatic and discourse development, the study traced two dyads of speakers who did not know each other prior to the exchange. The mode of communication, email correspondence, can be ambiguous in its formality. This meant that discourse norms, which may be thought of as potential attractor states to which each dyad might or might not co-adapt, had to be jointly attempted by each dyad – norms such as the

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  113

appropriate length of an exchange and the degree of writer influence in text (specifically, through presentational relations and through evaluation/ interpretation relations). Lastly, participants’ attitudes toward the relationship were recorded in a reflective log kept by one member of the dyad, as a possible window into the pragmatic effect of the discourse choices made by the pair. The questions guiding the study were the following: (1) In each dyad, what patterns of variability or stability can be observed in length, presentational relations, difference relations and perspectivegiving relations? Are attractor states reached for each dyad? (2) In individuals, what patterns of variability or stability can be observed in length, presentational relations, difference relations and perspective-giving relations? Do they have an impact on system variability/stability? (3) Do pragmatic effects emerge from each dyad’s behavior in presentational relations, difference relations and perspective-giving relations? Method Participants

The study examined the written correspondence of two dyads of university students enrolled in a cross-cultural communication class. Each pair had one student from China and one from the USA and exchanged emails as part of a project during the course. One dyad, Bianca and Fannie, consisted of a bilingual Spanish/English speaker and an advanced Chinese L2 speaker of English. In total, Bianca and Fannie exchanged 35 emails. The other dyad, Alina and Dawn, consisted of a native speaker of English and an advanced Chinese L2 speaker of English. Alina and Dawn exchanged 39 emails. Data analysis

In conducting the RST analysis, each email was divided into clauses (excluding clausal subjects and complements and restrictive relative clauses) representing the basic idea unit, or semantic proposition. The clause is a commonly used unit in RST analyses (Mann & Thompson, 1986). In addition, some ideas were excluded from analysis, as they were not important to the exposition of the main topics in the text. Opening and closing salutations were removed. Questions were excluded since their function was to nominate new topics (see Akbar, Chapter 6, this volume). Expressions of well-wishing or sympathy (e.g., ‘I hope you feel better soon’) were also removed because, like questions, they were often used to

114  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

close an exchange politely or formulaically, rather than being involved in active structuring of ideas. Each email was then imported into RSTTool 3.45 (O’Donnell, 2000). RSTTool is a software program that allows the user to divide the text into basic idea units (in this study, the clause) and assign relations. Relations assigned between adjacent idea units form a larger span, and relations between one span and the next can be assigned until the rhetorical structure of the text has been determined. Each email was then analyzed into its relational structure, similarly to the emails illustrated in Figures 5.1 to 5.4. Lastly, the data were divided in three successive phases to look at correlation over time. This was used to address questions of stability/­ variability and the degree to which each participant had co-adapted her discourse behavior to the other’s behavior over time. Results Length and number of relations

The total and average number of idea units (clauses) produced in each exchange were calculated. First, in terms of length, the total output was notably different between the two dyads. The first dyad wrote fewer and shorter emails compared to the second dyad, with an average length of 14.78 (Bianca) and 18.59 (Fannie) idea units per exchange compared to 38.84 (Alina) and 39.90 (Dawn) respectively. Additionally, the American speakers wrote slightly less than their Chinese counterparts. In the first dyad, Bianca’s total output was 84% of Fannie’s. In the second dyad, Alina’s total output was 92% of Dawn’s (see Table 5.2). The total number of relations, as well as the average number of relations per exchange, were calculated for each individual. Given that fewer ideas being expressed due to the shorter length, the first dyad generated fewer relations both on average (Bianca, 9.06; Fannie, 12.53) and in total (376) compared to the second dyad’s averages (Alina, 26.32; Dawn, 27.6) and total (1,052) (see Table 5.2). The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for each dyad, as was the overall correlation across the entire exchange. In addition, each exchange was divided into three phases to examine correlation over time: the first phase represented the first six emails sent by each participant; the second phase represented the next six emails; and the third phase represented the last six (or seven, in the case of dyad 2) set of emails (see Figure 5.5). In the first dyad, shown by the dashed lines, there was a slight overall positive correlation (r = 0.315) in length. Over time, there was a slight positive correlation of r = 0.466 in the first phase, no correlation (–0.096) in the second phase and a slight positive correlation of r = 0.292 in the third phase (see Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.2  Coding sample: dyad 1, Fannie (nonnative speaker), email 1

Figure 5.1  Coding sample – dyad 1, Bianca (bilingual), email 3

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  115

Figure 5.4  Coding sample: dyad 2, Alina (native speaker), email 1

Figure 5.3  Coding sample: dyad 2, Dawn (nonnative speaker), email 1

116  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  117

Table 5.2  Length (clauses) of exchange for dyads 1 and 2 Bianca (NNS)

Fannie (NNS)

Alina (NS)

Dawn (NNS)

266

316

738

798

Average length (clauses)

14.78

18.59

38.84

39.90

Total number of relations

163

213

500

552

Average number of relations

9.06

12.53

26.32

27.60

Total length (clauses)

Figure 5.5  Length in idea units (clause) of email

The second dyad showed a greater overall correlation in length. Overall, there was a high positive correlation of r = 0.769 in length. In the first phase, there was a high positive correlation of r = 0.867, the second phase showed a moderate positive correlation of r = 0.592 and the third phase showed a moderate high positive correlation of r = 0.695 (see Figure 5.5). Presentational versus subject matter relations

The composition of each individual’s production was analyzed into two types of relations: presentational and subject matter relations. The average percentage of presentational and subject matter relations in terms of total relations was found. In dyad 1, the percentage of presentational relations (10.80% and 14.72%) was slightly less than in dyad 2 (15.40% and 16.49%) (see Table 5.3). Lastly, the correlation was calculated for each dyad, for the overall exchange as well as for the three phases (as described before of dividing the exchange into sets of approximately six emails by time). In dyad 1, there was overall no correlation in the use of presentational relations.

118  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Table 5.3  Average presentational versus subject matter relation composition for dyads 1 and 2 Bianca (NNS)

Fannie (NNS)

Alina (NS)

Dawn (NNS)

Presentational relations

14.72%

10.80%

15.40%

16.49%

Subject matter relations

85.28%

89.20%

84.60%

83.51%

Figure 5.6  Percentage of presentational relations

In the first phase, there was no correlation (r = –0.134), a moderate positive correlation of r = 0.449 in the second phase and no correlation (r = –0.043) in the third phase (see Figure 5.6). Dyad 2 showed a slight overall positive correlation of r = 0.333, a slight positive correlation of r = 0.222 in the first phase, a high positive correlation of r = 0.952 in the second phase and no correlation (r = –0.120) in the third phase (see Figure 5.6). Relations expressing difference

Contrast, concession, and antithesis are the three relations used to express difference; contrast is a subject matter relation, while the last two relations are presentational. As mentioned above, contrast serves as a neutral presentation of two differences, whereas concession and antithesis serves to increase the reader’s inclination toward one of the two ideas in the difference, as opposed to the other (Mann & Thompson, 1986). First, for each individual, the composition of expressions of difference was analyzed into type: subject matter (contrast) and presentational relations (concession and antithesis) (see Table 5.4). Secondly, the correlation between the number of presentational expressions of difference (concession and antithesis) was calculated for each dyad. Overall, a slight negative difference was found in dyad 1

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  119

Table 5.4  Presentational composition of expressions of difference in dyads 1 and 2 Percentage of presentational expressions of difference (concession and antithesis)

Bianca (NNS)

Fannie (NNS)

Alina (NS)

Dawn (NNS)

66.67%

50.00%

58.02%

47.31%

Figure 5.7  Number of presentational difference relations

(r = –0.229); a high negative correlation (r = –0.707) was found in phase 1, a slight negative correlation was found in phase 2 (–0.320) and a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.468) was found in phase 3 (see Figure 5.7). In dyad 2, a moderate positive correlation of 0.473 was found overall; a moderate positive correlation of 0.433 was found in phase 1, a high positive correlation of 0.753 was found in phase 2 and no correlation was found in phase 3 (see Figure 5.7). Concession versus antithesis

While concession and antithesis both compare two different ideas, concession is a relation that acknowledges the potential truth of one idea, which may detract from the writer’s positively regarded idea while identifying with the latter. Antithesis, on the other hand, presents two ideas and rejects one in favor of the other (Mann & Thompson, 1986). Thus, the use of concession relations may be seen as more indirect than antithesis relations. The composition of each individual’s presentational relations of difference was analyzed for the proportion of concession and antithesis statements. Dyad 1 showed a higher proportion of using antithesis, or non-concessive direct contrast, with an average composition of 47.5%

120  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Table 5.5  Composition of concession and antithesis in presentational difference relations in dyads 1 and 2 Bianca (NNS)

Fannie (NNS)

Alina (NS)

Dawn (NNS)

Concession

55.00%

50.00%

68.60%

58.00%

Antithesis

45.00%

50.00%

31.40%

42.00%

of presentational difference relations being antithesis rather than concession. Dyad 2 showed a slightly lower proportion of antithesis use, with an average composition of 38% of presentational differences being antithesis (see Table 5.5). A moderate positive correlation overall was found in dyad 1 (r = 0.324) and dyad 2 (r = 0.396). Concession and antithesis were not evaluated in three phases over time because of their frequency of appearance. Relations expressing perspective-giving

Evaluation and interpretation are subject matter relations whose textual function is for the reader to recognize the value or interpretation that the writer attributes to a certain situation. While presentational relations try to influence the reader, as subject matter relations evaluation and interpretation express the writer’s perspective. In evaluation, the reader recognizes the degree of positive regard that the author is expressing. In interpretation, the reader recognizes the author’s relation of that situation to an external framework of ideas, a perspective that does not involve the author’s personal regard (Mann & Thompson, 1986). The correlations for evaluation and interpretation relations for each dyad were computed. No correlation was found for the first dyad, while a moderate positive correlation of 0.509 was found for the second dyad (see Figure 5.8). Like concession and antithesis, evaluation and interpretation relations were not examined in phases, because they appeared too infrequently to analyze in smaller intervals. Reflection log data

Reflection logs about the email exchange project were kept by the Chinese students. Dawn (dyad 2) wrote 20 logs. Fannie kept 11 logs. Two dimensions of the relationship can be observed in the reflective logs given by the Chinese participants: perceived intimacy and directness. Fannie (dyad 1) seemed to reflect with a degree of indifference or negativity on her experience. She commented on what she perceived to be the brevity of her partner’s emails, a lack of intimacy, her partner’s directness, her partner’s grammar and spelling mistakes, and her own lack of interest in maintaining the relationship after the project. Fannie’s writing may indicate that the pair did not achieve pragmatic success in their communication.

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  121

Figure 5.8  Number of evaluation and interpretation relations Table 5.6  Comparison of dyadic discourse behaviors Dyad 1

Shorter emails.

Fewer presentational ­relations; greater variability; no correlation (overall).

Fewer perspective-­giving relations (evaluation/ interpretation).

Fewer concession relations/more ­antithesis relations.

Dyad 2

Longer emails.

More presentational ­relations; less variability; slight positive correlation (overall).

More perspective-giving relations (evaluation/ interpretation).

More concession relations/fewer ­antithesis relations.

Dawn (dyad 2) seemed to have a positive assessment of the relationship. She commented on the intimacy in the relationship, meditated over (but did not criticize) cultural differences, mentioned that her partner was polite and commented that she was very lucky to have met her partner. Dawn expressed a feeling of rapport with her partner, which might be indicative of certain pragmatic success. A summary of dyadic behaviors is given in Table 5.6. Discussion Research question 1: What patterns of dyadic adaptation can be observed in length, presentational relations, difference relations and perspective-giving relations? Finding 1: Early strong co-adaptation in length may be connected to ­greater overall correlation in length

The two dyads were notably different in the degree of co-adaptation between the two participants. One clear instance of difference in adaptation is in the length of the average email: the average lengths of Bianca and Fannie’s emails have a difference of nearly four idea units, while the

122  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

average lengths of Alina and Dawn’s emails differ by only one idea unit. The email length of the first dyad showed a low moderate positive correlation (r = 0.315), while the email length of the second dyad showed a high positive correlation (r = 0.769). Furthermore, earlier adaptation to the other partner may lead to greater overall stability. In dyad 1, there was a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.466) in length for the first phase and then no correlation (r = –0.096), followed by a very slight positive correlation (r = 0.292) in the second and third phases. This suggests that while there may have been an initial attempt (particularly by Fannie in emails 4–9, as described in the following sections) for each partner to adapt to her partner’s length, over time these efforts were dropped. On the other hand, in dyad 2, the highest correlation was exhibited in the first phase (r = 0.867), with a moderate positive correlation in phase 2 (r = 0.529) followed by a slightly higher correlation (r = 0.695) in phase 3. What this may suggest is that dyad 2 displayed an initial high degree of responsiveness at the outset to the feature of length, continuing over time to mirror each other’s behavior. Finding 2: Greater co-adaptation in the use of presentational relations and continued maintenance of presentational relations may be connected

Secondly, the difference in co-adaptation between dyad 1 and dyad 2 also occurred in the use of presentational relations, relations which serve the function of increasing an inclination in the reader. Dyad 1 showed no overall correlation in the percentage of presentational relations used overall (r = 0.039). In the first phase of emails, there was no correlation (r = –0.134), followed by moderate positive correlation (r = 0.449) and no correlation (r = –0.043) in the second and third phases. Dyad 2 had a slightly positive overall correlation (r = 0.333), with a weak positive correlation in the first phase (r = 0.222), a very high positive correlation in the second phase (r = 0.952) and no correlation in the last phase (r = –0.120). Notably, dyad 2 differs from dyad 1 in that the percentage of presentational relations always remained positive (7.9–31.25%), compared to dyad 1 (0–50%) which fell to zero. This shows that dyad 2 had less variability and maintained the feature of presentational relations continually in the joint discourse system. Finding 3: Greater co-adaptation in the use of presentational relations overall may be connected with greater co-adaptation in expressions of difference

Further differences in co-adaptation between the two dyads can be seen in the use of presentational difference relations (concession and antithesis). In fact, a slight negative overall correlation was seen in dyad 1 (r = –0.229); in phase 1, there was a high negative correlation (r = –0.707), followed by a slight negative correlation in phase 2 (r = –0.320) and a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.468) in phase 3. This could suggest that members of

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  123

dyad 1 were not particularly sensitive to how their partners were expressing differences between two ideas, whether in a concessive or antithetical way. On the other hand, overall, a slight moderate positive correlation was seen in dyad 2 (r = 0.473), with a slight positive correlation in phase 1, a high positive correlation in phase 2 (r = 0.753) and no correlation in phase 3 (r = –0.184). One implication may be that members of dyad 2 were more sensitive to how differences between two ideas were being expressed in discourse. It is interesting to note that dyad 1 also showed less use of presentational relations and co-adaptation in them compared to dyad 2. Finding 4: Greater co-adaptation in the use of perspective-giving r­ elations may be connected to continued maintenance of perspective-giving ­relations

A difference in variability and stability was observed in the use of perspective-giving relations (evaluation and interpretation). Overall, dyad 1 showed no correlation (r = 0.054) in the use of evaluation and interpretation relations, while dyad 2 showed moderate positive correlation (r = 0.509). This might indicate that the discourse behavior of dyad 2 was sensitive to the use of opinion-giving relations and, like their behavior in terms of presentational relations, viewed it as an important feature to maintain in the joint system, offering at least one evaluation or interpretation relation in 33 of 39 emails (85%) (see Figure 5.8). On the other hand, dyad 1 may not have been sensitive to the use of perspective-­giving ­relations or view them as valuable to maintain in shared discourse, only offering one evaluation or interpretation relations in six of 35 emails (17%) (see Figure 5.8). Finding 5: Attractor states are reached differentially for each dyad

Shared attractor states were viewed as the stable use of discourse features which arose out of dyadic interaction and which were subsequently maintained within the joint discourse system. While an attractor state is difficult to define precisely in something as fluid as communication, the patterns of stability mentioned above suggest the presence or absence of shared discourse norms between the partners. In dyad 1, it does not seem that joint attractor states were reached; in terms of length, Bianca and Fannie had a difference of four idea units, and either no or negative correlation in the remaining discourse relation measures. This suggests that each member continued to use the original patterns of her language system rather than form a new, stable pattern of behavior with her partner. In dyad 2, however, new discourse norms appear to have been negotiated in some areas. Most notably, in average length, Dawn and Alina differ by one idea unit. In terms of the use of presentational relations, not only was there a moderate positive correlation in the percentage of presentational relations, but this discourse feature was present in every exchange

124  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

(unlike in dyad 1); both members maintained this feature in the joint system. Lastly, in dyad 2, a weak attractor state may have been reached in the use of perspective-giving (evaluation and interpretation) relations. As evaluation and interpretation are specific relation types, it is interesting to note that this particular relation was used in 33 out of 39 emails for dyad 2. Beginning from when Dawn offered a perspective-giving relation in email 2, both speakers seemed to adopt this feature into the joint discourse system and increased the number of evaluation and interpretation relations until a maximum of eight perspective-giving relations in email 9; afterwards, the use of these relations decreased somewhat, but the feature remained mostly present in the system (see Figure 5.8). Research question 2: How can individual variability/­stability in length, presentational relations, difference relations and ­perspective-giving relations have an impact on system variability/stability

Variability and stability on the system level may have been affected by variability in the individuals themselves and their individual ecosystems. Variability within each member could result from individual-specific factors such as motivation or stressors or interest in a particular topic. Dyad 1 shows a clear example of this. Notably, Bianca’s discourse expression exhibited the greatest amount of variability. In terms of length, her shortest email had six idea units, her longest had 48 and her average had 14.78 idea units. Bianca also mentioned being under a lot of pressure: she was a fifth-year student with a part-time job who was finishing a project as a graduation requirement. This may have decreased Bianca’s motivation in the exchange (as she produced the shortest emails of the participants) and also caused her discourse expression to behave the least consistently, depending on whether a particular stressor was imminent. In Bianca’s case, variability may have indicated that limited resources such as time and interest were being diverted to other tasks rather than to maintain linguistic growth. Bianca’s variability in length seemed to greatly affect her partner’s behavior in the short-term, but cause less adaptation in the long-term. In dyad 1, Fannie showed less overall variability than Bianca in her output length; it ranged from seven to 35 idea units per exchange, and her average was 18.59 idea units. In fact, throughout the course of the exchange, Fannie continually produced more idea units than Bianca, so overall she did not co-adapt in length to her partner’s shorter emails. Yet Fannie’s minimum and maximum length occurred in the turn after Bianca’s minimum and maximum length. The erratic nature of Bianca’s behavior seem to have disrupted Fannie’s discourse behavior so that it varied from its usual length and mirrored Bianca’s, at least for two exchanges. However, this variability is temporary; although Fannie attempted to mirror her partner’s

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  125

length, perhaps Bianca’s high degree of individual variability in length did not allow Fannie’s changing system to identify a new potential attractor state. After a few turns of greater variability (emails 4–9), Fannie’s system returned to its original state. This may be an instance where a high degree of variability in a sub-process, while it may cause temporary perturbation in surrounding processes, may not cause these processes to shift in the long-term if the variability is too great. Research question 3: Do pragmatic effects emerge from each dyad’s behavior in the use of presentational relations, difference relations and perspective-giving relations?

Two pragmatic dimensions of the relationship can be observed in the reflective logs kept by the Chinese speakers: intimacy and directness. These may be interpreted as evidence of the pragmatic effects that emerged from the lower-level sub-processes in each individual’s discourse styles – and also indicate the success or lack thereof in negotiating appropriate discourse norms. As higher-level behavior, neither intimacy nor directness can be isolated within particular discourse features. Nor do certain features always point to fixed meanings: for example, both dyads use presentational relations, but these in themselves are not enough to produce the effect of ‘intimacy’ or ‘directness’. Rather, it is sensitivity to the interaction of these features with one another and with their contexts that generates pragmatic success. As Bialystok’s (1993, 1994) two-dimensional model of proficiency suggests, it is not merely the particular relation being used, but also its potential meaning in different contexts. In fact, dyad 2, which seemed to show greater overall rapport, used more presentational relations, which could be socially risky as the author attempts to influence the reader. Yet dyad 2 also showed a higher correlation in their use. Dyad 2 may have been willing to attempt a new discourse feature and map out its appropriateness in the evolving context. Dyad 1, on the other hand, attempted less presentational relations overall and had a lower correlation in use. This may be indicative of indifference toward or a lack of confidence in taking the social risk of influencing the other. This differing willingness to attempt new features and sensitivity to these features’ effects also occurred with evaluation and interpretation relations, with dyad 2 attempting more and adapting more, and dyad 1 attempting fewer and adapting less (see Table 5.6). While it is difficult to trace the exact emergence of intimacy or directness to any particular feature or combination of them, some possibilities stand to reason. In dyad 1, Fannie, the Chinese participant, reported a low degree of intimacy. She seemed aware of the brevity of her partner’s email and lack of substance in content, writing, ‘In the first email, my partner didn’t tell me anything about herself. She just mentioned her name … I didn’t ask about her personal life. Seems like she don’t want to talk about private

126  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

things.’ As described earlier, Bianca was facing a lot of personal stressors and demands on her time. Her lack of external (e.g. time) and internal (e.g. motivation) resources may have had a negative impact on her pragmatic expression and led to the shortness of her emails. Fannie echoed this frustration in two later logs, discussing how she unsuccessfully attempted to elicit information from Bianca on intimate subjects. She also wrote later, ‘I won’t ask for her advice at those things as we are not intimate enough to that level’. This perceived lack of intimacy may have emerged from the combination of shorter length and fewer presentational relations overall, indicating that the writer/reader attempted to influence one another less. Fewer evaluation and interpretation relations (relative to dyad 2) were used. Evaluation and interpretation relations were not adopted into the joint discourse system as they were in dyad 2. Additionally, Fannie perceived her partner as being direct. She wrote, ‘My partner was direct in making requests or offering opinions’ and ‘Compared with Americans, Chinese are more implicit in conversation… Americans are more direct.’ This may be connected with Bianca’s tendency to use presentational expressions of difference over neutral relations, with the highest proportion at 66.67%. In Bianca’s requests for advice, antithesis and concession relations were often used. Also, dyad 1 used antithesis over concession at a slightly higher rate (about 10% higher) than dyad 2. While antithesis and concession relations in themselves are not indicative of directness, it may have been the context in which they were used (making requests), combined with other features such as a lack of adaptation in other features, from which the higher-level effect of directness emerged. In dyad 2, Dawn’s reflection log suggests more intimacy between the participants. Unlike Fannie, who felt that her partner did not want to discuss certain topics, Dawn wrote, ‘My partner told me in the sixth letter that she would answer any of my questions, which made me feel my effort put into avoiding sensitive topics seemed completely unnecessary.’ Dawn’s comfort with discussing topics with Alina may have arisen from several features. The first is dyad 2’s greater use of presentational relations and its adoption as a fixed feature within the system. The same pattern can be observed for evaluation/interpretation relations, perhaps indicating that the speakers were comfortable in giving their opinion. The last is length, which may have signaled an early investment in the relationship. In terms of directness, Dawn never seemed to consider her partner rude. In her second email, Dawn reflected on a minor mistake that she made and wrote, ‘Fortunately, [my partner] didn’t show the slightest anger. Instead, she patiently explained to me the formation of English names. This made me more convinced that Americans were really easy-going and considerate.’ Additionally, in her 18th email, Dawn told Alina that she was polite. This may be linked to overall positive correlation in the number of concession and antithesis relations, showing a

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  127

sensitivity to expressions of difference, in conjunction with the overall greater length, which may indicate that each party perhaps expressed ideas less directly. Overall, the difference in pragmatic behaviors of intimacy and directness seems to have led to a different relationship between the two dyads. In her final log, Fannie revealed her lack of interest in maintaining the relationship after the project had finished and commented on the difference, not similarity, between Chinese and American friendships. In contrast, in email 18, Dawn wrote, ‘I hope we will go on emailing each other even though the project has finished... You know, we’re friends now, or even good friends, am I right? And you’re really a nice girl – polite, considerate… I’m so lucky meeting you!’ To return to Bialystok’s (1993, 1994) two-dimensional model of proficiency development, while the dyadic systems both used the different types of presentational relations, they were variably successful in the way in which they mapped on the appropriateness of each relation to its current context. In dyad 2, participants may have been more willing to attempt influencing relations and give opinions, and the adaptation of their partner to that behavior caused them to experience positive feedback. This in turn led to more adaptation and more risk-taking. On the other hand, in dyad 1, the overall higher variability may have made it difficult for participants to adapt to one another. This reflects the bottom-up and top-down nature of complex systems: component processes (e.g. discourse features) can influence higher-level states (e.g. directness), but also one’s perception of directness as a higher-level state can in turn influence the discourse relations that are expressed. Initial conditions

Given the biographic similarities between the two dyads, what would have led to the discourse differences observed? One explanation might be found in the difference in initial conditions: the effect of starting point is often critical (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). Differences in the initial condition of dynamic systems that seem similar can result in different outcomes. In the first dyad, Bianca was the initiator in exchange. Bianca had two notable features in her discourse: first, she produced the least on average, and second, she showed the greatest range in the length of her exchanges. A possible explanation is that the perceived lack of effort shown in Bianca’s first email (at six idea units long) had a significant effect on the remainder of the communication, particularly as Fannie did note this in her reflection log. In the subsequent email, Fannie responded with a longer email of 15 idea units, but Bianca’s length continued to fluctuate. After five emails, Fannie may have perceived a difficulty in establishing a new discourse norm owing to a lack of stability on Bianca’s part. In her subsequent email, Fannie broke from the pattern of her partner’s comparatively short

128  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

output and returned to her individual attractor state, producing an email with greater length. All in all, perhaps because of a lack of initial co-adaptation in length between the two discourse systems, the subsequent discourse features showed more variability and asynchrony. In contrast, the initial conditions in the second dyad were different, with Dawn initiating the exchange with an email of 21 idea units. Alina responded with a longer email of 25 idea units, following a pattern of increasing length which both partners continued. This early co-­ adaptation seems to be fundamental to establishing overall synchrony, as Alina and Dawn had a much stronger correlation on several aspects of writer-­reader relational expression. In sum, if interaction is seen as a joint system, and each dyad is working to establish norms, or attractor states, in the shared discourse system, developing one shared parameter (length) early on might have motivated both members to continue putting attentional resources into discovering other attractor states. This may broadly suggest that length is a cooperative process with discourse relational awareness for two reasons: first, from the point of view of mapping situationally appropriate discourse features, increased output offers more discourse patterns towards which partners can identify and adapt. Secondly, once synchrony is established in a salient feature such as length, the individuals may decide that it is worth investing effort to maintain shared norms in discourse. Conclusion

The present study examined, within a CDST framework, how patterns of adaptability, variability and stability occur at the discourse level within dyadic interaction, focusing on the features of length, presentational propositions that influenced the reader and perspective-giving relations. It also asked whether pragmatic effects emerged from these patterns. Overall, the joint discourse system of dyad 1 showed high variability, fewer use of presentational relations and perspective-giving relations, little co-adaptation and no attractor states in these features. In contrast, the joint discourse system of the second dyad showed less variability, some co-adaptation, greater use of presentational relations and perspective-giving relations, and the development of attractor states in these features. Lastly, data from the reflection logs of the Chinese participants were used to identify the broader pragmatic effects of these textual features. One participant in dyad 1 perceived her partner as not intimate and overly direct, and therefore did not enjoy a close relationship with her. One participant in dyad 2 perceived her partner as intimate and polite, and characterized her relationship with her partner as close. What this may highlight is that use and co-adaptation (or the lack thereof) of certain types of discourse relations may have contributed some pragmatic effects which influenced each pair’s relationship. Bialystok’s (1993, 1994) two-dimensional model

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  129

of proficiency might suggest that the dyads were differentially successful in attending to social and linguistic cues for writer-reader relations and mapping out the appropriate use of certain textual elements to achieve pragmatic goals in interaction. Several potential improvements to the study should be mentioned. The exploratory study adopted, as its analytic framework, RST. One criticism of RST is that the relations are assigned through an analyst. Additionally, at times there are multiple interpretations possible for what relation was intended by the writer, much as there may be different possible interpretations of a sentence. RST analyses, however, do show high degrees of agreement for trained analysts (Taboada, 2006). A future study might benefit from having additional RST analysts review the same sets of data. The second improvement could involve methodological fit. CDST research draws terminology from complexity sciences as an analogy, without some of the quantitative tools that accompany the terminology (see, however, Ortega & Han, 2017). Without the accompanying analytic techniques, it is difficult to show whether a process is truly ‘dynamic’, or whether it is metaphorically so (see, however, Verspoor, de Bot & Lowie, 2011). In this study, to describe co-adaptation, certain methods may be more appropriate, such as serial correlation or auto-regressive models. The conclusions about co-adaptation in this study were drawn from the method of Pearson correlation, whereas a different quantitative method, such as time-series analyses, may have led to different conclusions. As an exploratory study, this chapter suggests that discourse features such as length and relation types are subject to dynamic behavior and development, exhibiting variability, co-adaptation, attractor states and dependence on initial conditions. Combined with Bialystok’s (1993, 1994) two-dimensional model of proficiency, this suggests one possible pathway for the development of pragmatic competence: increased co-adaptation in these discourse features may be related to greater pragmatic success in interaction. Future research may continue to analyze additional types of interaction through discourse relations and determine whether other features besides length are connected growers in the development of discourse awareness. Future studies may also examine how the timing of co-­ adaptation in discourse relations – whether it occurs earlier or later – impacts the development of stable joint attractor states. Such research may help build a more sophisticated picture of the linguistic and social factors involved in the development of a learner’s discourse and pragmatic awareness. References Austin, J.L. (1976) How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures, Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bialystok, E. (1993) Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 43– 59). New York: Oxford University Press.

130  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Bialystok, E. (1994) Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16 (2),157–168. Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. and Schumann, J. (1978) The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E.M. Hatch (ed.) Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings (pp. 207–230). New York: Newbury House Publishers. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2011) Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 356–369. de Bot, K. (2017) Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory: Same or different? In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development (pp. 51–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. de Bot, K., Verspoor, M. and Lowie, W. (2005) Dynamic systems theory and applied linguistics: The ultimate ‘so what’? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (1), 116–118. de Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism, Cognition and Language 10 (1), 7–21. Ellis, R. (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9 (1), 1–19. Gudmestad, A. (2006) L2 variation and the Spanish subjunctive: Linguistic features predicting mood selection. In C.A. Klee and T.L. Face (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 170–184). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Gumperz, J.J. (1982) Discourse Strategies (Vol. 1). Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J.K. and Verplaetse, L.S. (2000) Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction. Routledge. Holland, J.H. (2014) Complexity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaplan, R.B. (1966) Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning 16, 1–20. Kasper, G. (2001) Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22 (4), 502–553. Kasper, G. and Blum-Kulka, S. (eds) (1993) Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kasper, G. and Rose, K.R. (eds) (2001) Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Kellerman, E. (1995) Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15, 125–150. Kintsch, W. (1988) The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructionintegration model. Psychological Review 95 (2), 163. Kong, K.C. (1998) Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 18 (1), 103–141. Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G. (1994) Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. 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. (2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/ acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 48–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015) Ten lessons from CDST: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

A Dynamic View on Relational Propositions in Dyadic Interaction  131

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. Modern Language Journal 92 (2), 200–213. Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1986) Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9 (1), 57–90. Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse  8 (3), 243–281. Nassaji, H. (2003) Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal 87 (2), 261–276. O’Donnell, M. (2000) RSTTool 2.4: A markup tool for rhetorical structure theory. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Natural Language Generation (Vol. 14, pp. 253–256). Israel: Mitzpe Ramon. Ohta, A.S. (2001) A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese as a foreign language. In K.R. Rose and G. Kasper (eds) Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 103–120). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ortega, L. and Han, Z.-H. (eds) (2017) Complexity Theory and Language Development. In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ramsay, G. (2000) Linearity in rhetorical organisation: A comparative cross-cultural analysis of newstext from the People’s Republic of China and Australia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (2), 241–256. Robinson, B.F. and Mervis, C.B. (1998) Disentangling early language development: Modeling lexical and grammatical acquisition using and extension of case-study methodology. Developmental Psychology 34 (2), 363–375. Sanders, T.J., Spooren, W.P. and Noordman, L.G. (1993) Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (2), 93–134. Schauer, G. (2009) Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Schieffelin, B.B. and Ochs, E. (1986) Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology 15 (1), 163–191. Schmidt, R. (1983) Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schmidt, R. (1993) Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schumann, J.H. (1986) Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development 7 (5), 379–392. Sharoff, S. and Sokolova, L. (1995) Analysis of rhetorical structures in technical manuals and their multilingual generation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Multilingual Generation (International Joint Conference on AI ’95, pp. 119–128). Montréal, Canada. Spoelman, M. and Verspoor, M. (2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 31 (4), 532–553. Taboada, M. and Mann, W.C. (2006) Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8 (3), 423–459. Tarone, E. and Liu, G.Q. (1995) Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition theory. In. G. Cook and G. Seidhofer (eds) Principles and Practices in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 107–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E. and Parrish, B. (1988) Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language Learning 38 (1), 21–44. van Dijk, T. (1977) Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.

132  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

van Geert, P. (1991) A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psycho­ logical Review 98 (1), 3–53. van Geert, P. (2008) The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. Modern Language Journal 92 (2), 179–199. Verspoor, M., De Bot, K. and Lowie, W. (eds) (2011) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques (Vol. 29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M.S. and Xu, X. (2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (3), 239–263. Vygotsky, L.S. (1980) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2002) Relevance theory. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds) The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.

6 A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction Farah Akbar

The complex dynamic systems approach to second language (L2) development emanating from dynamic systems theory and complexity theory (de Bot, 2015; Verspoor et al., 2011) promises to be a fruitful approach to studying second language acquisition (SLA). The approach considers not only what is systematic, stable, situated, chaotic, variable and dynamic, but also a host of external and internal variables (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; Polat & Kim, 2014). This chapter draws on complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) to guide an examination of how discourse topics are managed in naturalistic and longitudinal asynchronous computer-mediated dyadic discourse (ACMD), using the same sets of data as used in Chapters 2 to 5 in this volume. Addressing the relationship between language as a complex adaptive system and L2 development as a dynamic process, Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) maintain that the two are shaped by, adapted for, developed and applied in context. According a ‘special status’ to context in language, Thelen and Smith (1994) posit that context – the here and now – is a crucial ingredient in making, selecting and adapting knowledge. Context is defined as the ‘field of action within which an event is embedded [emphasis added]’ (Duranti & Goodwin, 1992: 3). This renders context and contextual factors not external to the system, but part of the system (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). An apt example would be a person walking across a field in which every moment of the walk would involve adaptation by the body to the context, ‘in the form of the ground surface or all that is seen or noticed. The action of walking changes if there are stones on the path, if the ground becomes wet or muddy, if the path becomes steeper or bends around a corner’ (LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008: 34). Similarly, language use is not divorced from context or contextual factors; rather, it is a dialogic process involving the context and the user. Mercer (2016: 12) cautions against viewing

133

134  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

contexts ‘as static, monolithic, external entities which affect individual characteristics in a simple unidirectional manner’. The discourse environment, which includes ‘the topic, oneself, and “the other”’ (Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007: 10), stands at the center of discussion on L2 development. Yule (1996) alludes to a similar thought by rejecting the idea of treating elements of discourse vis-à-vis topical content, topic management, context and interlocutors as the ‘wastepaper basket’ category of linguistics, in general, and applied linguistics, in particular. The analysis reported in this chapter shows that the topics interlocutors choose and manage over time can be crucial to understanding interand intra-individual variability and language use. In the sections that follow, CDST as applied to discourse and topic management is briefly discussed, followed by a brief review of literature on L2 topic management. Next, a detailed description of the current empirical study is given and the findings are reported. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the study, highlighting the usefulness of CDST in studying discourse topic management. Complex Dynamic Systems Theory

CDST integrates complexity theory (CT) and dynamic systems theory (DST) (de Bot, 2017; for a discussion, see Chapter 1, Han & Liu, this volume). In her seminal paper, Larsen-Freeman (1997) discussed the ­relevance of several principles of chaos/complexity theory to language learning, underscoring language as a complex adaptive system and L2 development a dynamic process featuring complexity, nonlinearity, unpredictability, adaptation and so on. From a CDST perspective, language and its use are mutually constitutive – they determine each other (de Bot, 2015). Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008: 26) broadly defined system as ‘a set of components that interact in particular ways to produce some overall state or form at a particular point in time; [and] belonging to the system affects the properties of the components’. A complex dynamic system is one in which the interaction among elements and agents changes all the time and over time. The system exhibits variation, interconnectedness of subsystems, attractor states and sensitivity to initial conditions (de Bot et al., 2005). Variability is an intrinsic property of a complex dynamic system, which renders the outcome of the system unpredictable (de Bot et al., 2005). ‘Variability is a metric of stability and a harbinger of change’ (Thelen & Smith, 1994: 342), and intra- and inter-individual variabilities are important characteristics of development. De Bot and Larsen-Freeman (2011) argued, accordingly, that variability should be elevated in L2 research as a central object of study. A complex dynamic system consists of multiple subsystems, ‘none of which will be completely stable during any length of time’ (Verspoor

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  135

et al., 2008: 215). In language, subsystems do not refer to the fixed, water-tight, ready-made and homogeneous theoretical units predefined by linguists, but to any and all possible ‘elements, agents, and/or processes’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008: 28). One marked way in which complex dynamic systems differ from simple systems is in ‘having many different types of elements or agents, i.e. they are heterogeneous’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008: 28). The transport system of a city can be taken as an example of a complex system in which the agents include the drivers, citizens, engineers and policymakers, while elements include roads, traffic laws, other vehicles and the local weather. As such, the components of a system may be processes, rather than entities, and dynamic systems are characterized by intra- and interconnectedness. In a complex system, change in a subsystem will bear on all others that are part of that system. Complex systems evolve and adapt in a myriad of ways, both internally and through external connections to their environment. Since every system is always part of another system, the same dynamic principles are in action at all levels, and as the component parts develop over time, they can settle in stable states, called attractor states. Conversely, there can be repeller states, states that are not preferred by a system or its components. Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008: 43) noted that ‘stability and variation around attractors are key constructs in applications of complexity in applied linguistics’, applicable to the study of language evolution, language use and an individual’s language development. Attractor states can be simple or complex, with chaos as an attractor state. An attractor state is an unstable mode of behavior and can be visualized as a ball perched on the top of a steep hill where any small perturbation of the system can push it off and downwards into a state of chaos. De Bot et al. (2005: 51) cautioned that chaos in this sense should not be confused with complexity or entropy as there ‘is order in the apparent chaos!’. Attractor states are temporary; however, more or less energy is needed to move the system away and on to another attractor basin. To illustrate, Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) employed the analogy of a ball rolling over a surface with holes and bumps, where development is represented by the trajectory of the ball, the holes as attractor states and bumps as repeller states. The starting point of the ball’s journey depends on initial conditions, which include, but are not limited to, the weight and size of the ball and the amount and source of energy that causes the ball to start moving, and which determine the hole(s) the ball is likely to be attracted to and the bump(s) the ball is likely to avoid in its journey. The sensitive dependence on initial conditions is also known as ‘the butterfly effect’, that minimal differences in systems’ beginning conditions can have massive effects later on (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). Minimal differences between language learners may, even if they go through similar learning experiences, lead to divergent learning outcomes. As Gleick (1987, cited in Larsen-Freeman, 1997:

136  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

144) put it, ‘Tiny differences in input could quickly become overwhelming differences in output’. By investigating discourse topic management through the lens of CDST, the present study attempted to uncover the complexity and dynamics of dyadic interaction, particularly in relation to inter- and intra-­ individual variability and patterns. Topic management

Conversations between native speakers (NSs) and nonnative speakers (NNSs) are generally deemed to be ‘inevitably fraught with problems, including an inability to handle topic management’ (Morris-Adams, 2016: 1). For example, topical continuity is difficult for NNSs to achieve, resulting in conversations that are disjointed and incoherent. NNSs frequently change topics with a tendency to prefer so-called ‘safe topics’ or deal with such topics superficially (Meierkord, 2000). They tend also to employ short turns and thus appear to be less than collaborative conversational partners (Schwienhorst, 2004). Research on topic management by NNSs (Itakura, 2002; Iwata, 2010; Viswat & Kobayashi, 2008) has demonstrated that topic management is an area of marked difficulty. In studies on NS/NNS face-to-face discourse with unassigned topics, distinct characteristics in the treatment of topics have been identified for NS versus NNS. Schwienhorst (2004), for example, found that NSs initiated almost as many conversational topics as NNSs but used a much higher percentage of questions for topic nomination than NNSs. Long (1981, 1983) reported that NSs initiated more topics and tended to do so by using WH-questions 96% of the time. Long also observed abrupt topic shifts by NNSs and the majority of their topic initiations mediated by different types of questions. NSs, on the other hand, tended to use framing (e.g. okay, now, well) as utterance boundary markers and to signal topic change. NSs also employed a variety of techniques, for instance, laughter, to help sustain conversation or to lighten NNSs’ interactional burden. Morris-Adams (2016) noted that NSs usually accepted an unintentional topic-switch by NNSs and tended to favor questions to statements when conversing with NNSs (see also Schwienhorst, 2004). Goody (1978) observed that a question can compel, require and may even demand, a response which makes topic-initiation through questions more effective and efficient. Research on topic management from a CDST perspective is as yet nonexistent. Most of the empirical studies on topic management have been conducted in face-to-face conversations, and only a few in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments (see Sauro, 2011 for a brief review). In a bilingual study, Schwienhorst (2004) examined the frequency of speech acts associated with topic initiation, defined as an interlocutor’s agency to kick-start a particular conversational topic, and

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  137

topic negotiation, defined as an interlocutor’s ability to stay on topic, to move from topic to topic and to introduce new topics appropriately. He analyzed NS/NNS discourse in a MOO (object-oriented multiple-user domain) environment where the participants were divided into 15 dyads and seven triads. The participants included 29 second-year Irish students of information and communications technology, who were learning German for the first two years of a four-year degree program, and 22 first-year German students of information technology, who were learning English as part of a four-year degree. The Irish group had a low intermediate proficiency in German, while the German group had advanced proficiency in English. The dyads met once a week for eight weeks in a text-based synchronous environment and discussed topics based on their work interest. The study found that the NNSs initiated more topics than did NSs in the first two sessions; however, the NS initiated slightly more topics during the remaining six sessions. The questions used to initiate topics were mostly WH-questions, followed by YES/NO-questions, with a small percentage of tag and OR-choice questions. It appeared that the more proficient L2 learners displayed features that are more often encountered in NS–NS than in NS–NNS conversations. A larger-scale study by Abrams (2008) corroborated Schwienhorst’s (2004) findings on the influence of topic on learner-learner interaction, learner agency in topic initiation and topics as the focal point instead of the activities. The topic-focused, as opposed to activity-focused, approach to interaction was proposed by van Lier (1988), who argued that topic-­ focused interactions are beneficial to learners as they are afforded not just a full control of the interaction, but the ability to exchange ideas and information using discourse characterized by evenly distributed topic initiation by all participants and a collaborative expansion of these topics. Abrams’ (2008) study investigated co-construction of opening and closing sequences and patterns of topic development by learners of L2 German. Conducted synchronously via Blackboard, the study examined the group-chat scripts of 78 English-speaking undergraduate students enrolled in four sections of a second-semester German course at an American public university. The topics of the chat sessions corresponded to general themes covered in the course book (e.g. entertainment, sports) and invited opinion exchanges on several subtopics related to the overarching themes. For each chat session, the participants were encouraged to expand or change the discussion topics in addition to receiving questions to help generate ideas for discussion. The findings of the study revealed multi-turn and elaborate opening and closing sequences. Abrams observed that the participants were very forthcoming on topics thought to be ‘safe’, for example, weekend plans. The topics were developed both sequentially (one topic commented on by several participants) and simultaneously (not related to each other and originated by topic nominations). In most cases, an overt repetition of a key noun served as a topic marker, but the role of

138  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

some comments made by the participants was unclear in topic development. From his data, Abrams inferred that synchronous CMC (SCMC) could potentially lead to an exchange of ideas among learners because of the democratic nature of the forum and because the shared control over interaction meant that questions, in van Lier’s terms, were not activity-focused but topic-focused. In other words, the questions produced by the participants were intended to solicit genuine information instead of being for display only. The present study explored topic management in naturalistic CMC dyadic interaction. Within the framework of CDST, the study addressed the following questions: (1) How were discourse topics managed in online asynchronous, dyadic interactional discourse? (2) Was topic shift connected to variations in propositional density? The Study Participants and data

The same two longitudinal datasets as used in the previous chapters of this volume fed the data analysis. The first dataset came from the dyadic interaction between Fannie and Bianca. Fannie and Bianca were both female and 22 years old. Bianca was a native speaker of Spanish and a long-term resident in the USA, majoring in graphic design at a university in Texas. Fannie was a native speaker of Chinese, a full-time English major studying at a university in Qingdao, China. Bianca and Fannie exchanged 35 emails (5083 words) from 3 March to 28 April 2011, fulfilling an email exchange project requirement of the intercultural communication (IC) course at their respective institutions. The overall aim of the course was to provide students from two different countries an opportunity to experience, compare and contrast cultural similarities and differences with their international peers. The second dataset came from the dyadic interaction between Dawn and Alina, both female, Dawn 21 and Alina 22. Dawn was a native speaker of Chinese and an English major studying at the same university as Fannie. Alina was a native speaker of English, studying business marketing at the same university in Texas as Bianca. Dawn and Alina exchanged 39 emails (13,203 words) from 14 March to 5 April 2011. Data analysis

The data were coded qualitatively for topics using an inductive approach (i.e. data-driven) for each dyad and for all four participants. Topic initiations and shifts were identified and tallied. Once the topics were determined, the number of words produced on each topic was

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  139

counted. Data were then inspected for topical patterns, including the means by which topic initiations and shifts were accomplished, and whether the attempts were successful. A topic initiation was counted successful if the conversational partner engaged with the new topic. The linguistic strategies that motivated topic shifts and initiations were also coded and counted. Topics in the present study were defined as the classification of the contents of the emails, for example, hobbies and interests. Propositional density served as a measure of topic engagement with a distinction made between major and minor idea units. The study adopted Carrell’s conception of idea units. Carrell (1985) provided an operational definition of an idea unit: ‘each idea unit consist[s] of a single clause (main or subordinate, including adverbial and relative clauses). Each infinitival construction, gerundive, nominalized verb phrase, or conjunct was also identified as a separate idea unit. In addition, optional and/or heavy prepositional phrases [are] also designated as separate idea units’ (Carrell, 1985: 737). Accordingly, the following sentence comprises five idea units: ‘serious nuclear accidents...have led/in the past/to the implementation of strict safety rules/regarding the construction/and operation of nuclear power stations’ (Carrell, 1985: 752). Each email in the dyadic interactions was coded for major and minor idea units to identify topics. Topics were determined based on the major idea units. Email subject headings were not taken into consideration in coding for topics because almost all of the emails with a singular subject heading contained multiple, and often unrelated, topics. Once the topic was determined, the number of major and minor idea units per email per topic was tallied. Then, the total number of major and minor idea units, or the propositional density, per topic was calculated. Figure 6.1 illustrates the coding of idea units, where ‘the class’, referring to the course in which the participants carried out the email exchange, was coded as the major idea unit (MajIU) and hence the topic, followed by five minor idea units (MinIU). Topics were also coded across emails over time as shown in Figure 6.2. In this case the topic was ‘the class’ (as in Figure 6.1) and the emails were written by Fannie from dyad 1. Fannie indulged in this topic across three emails (emails 1, 2 and 16), with a steady increase in the number of words produced on the topic and the number of minor idea units. In her first email, she produced four minor idea units and 35 words on this topic, then five minor idea units and 45 words in email 2, and, finally, 67 words, almost twice as many words as in email 1, in email 16. For her ‘Well, the class(Topic) is quite challenging to me(MajIU). However, I like the idea of communicating(MinIU-1) with you native people(MinIU-2). It makes study more interesting(MinIU-3). And I believe I can better understand intercultural communication through this(MinIU-4). (Dyad-1/Fannie 1/3-5-2011)

Figure 6.1  Coding: Topic and idea units

140  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

March 5th Email #1

March 8th Email #2

April 21st Email #16

35 words

45 words

67 words

Well, the class is quite ­challenging to me.

We have a lot of ­assignments in this class.

We are required to hand in ­application entries for the course of International Communication soon.

Major Idea Unit

Minor Idea Units 1

However, I like the idea of communicating

Those assignments are complex

And may be also a presentation at the final.

2

with you native people.

and difficult to complete.

I feel it so difficult as I have to read through the textbook

3

It makes study more ­interesting.

What’s more, we have to so many courses this semester.

and find out intercultural differences as is referred in the text.

4

And I believe I can better understand ­intercultural communication through this.

we may be too busy to spend much time on this class.

I don’t think there are many differences to write about.

That’s why I think it ­challenging.

A lot of my classmates feel the same way.

5 6

So, what do you think?

7

Do you have the same examining way on this course?

Figure 6.2  Sample topic development over time Email #7

Alina:

So what do you do on the weekends? Do you have time to hangout with friends? Do you go out? Or what kind of place do you go to?

Email #8

Dawn:

I often hangout with my roommates or other friends … My friends and I usually go to the downtown. We have a shopping mall here… (Dyad-2/3-27-2011)

Figure 6.3  Topic shift via a series of questions Email #8

Bianca:

This may be a weird question, but ‘how do you all study?’ I’ve seen the perceptions by the media, but is it all true? What is fake? (Dyad-1/3-21-2011)

Figure 6.4  Topic shift through multiple questions

propositional density on this topic, Fannie produced three major and 16 minor IUs across her three emails. The strategies for topic shifts were also coded. Figure 6.3 displays an episode where Alina attempted a topic shift, through posing a series of questions. This came towards the end of her seventh email after replying to and continuing discussions on on-going topics. As shown, her topic shift was successful, initiating a response in her partner, Dawn. Sometimes a mixture of questions and statements was used to initiate a topic, as illustrated in Figure 6.4, where the topic of education was initiated.

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  141

Results

The results vis-à-vis the research questions are reported here in terms of macro and micro levels. The former addresses the first research question and the latter the second research question. First, at the macro level, the general ways in which the system organizes, structures and changes itself over time is reported. This includes the evolution of the interactions between the two dyads from week 1 to week 8 of the study based on the topics discussed by each dyad. At the micro level, the details of how the interactions were operated to introduce new topics and create understanding between the interlocutors are reported. This includes descriptive statistics on the total number of words, shortest and longest emails, number of emails and total number of words for both dyads and each participant. In addition, dyad-specific topics are also reported in order to underline variation in and between the dyads. Dyad 1: Fannie and Bianca

Fannie and Bianca’s interaction first exhibits variation but interconnectedness (Figure 6.5). The pattern of interconnectedness is sustained throughout the eight weeks of interaction. Figure 6.5 shows that the two subsystems, in this case the interlocutors, engage in a changing pattern of interaction, reciprocating each other and, overall, exhibiting nonlinearity. The ongoing fluctuation is not surprising given that the topic(s) for each of these emails were different and the dyad produced different amounts of language in each case. Of equal note is that, in the second half of the interaction, the topic trajectories almost level off suggesting that the two subsystems reached some stability. Figure 6.6 zooms in on the email exchanges between 18 and 28 March where variability was at its peak (see Figure 6.5), revealing inter-interlocutor

Figure 6.5  Interaction over time: Dyad 1

142  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

differences in terms of the number of words produced in each email but the two interlocutors moving towards an interactional equilibrium, or, in CDST terms, an attractor state. Juxtaposing Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6, the heightened variability appears to usher in a phase shift (see also Chapter 2, Meng, this volume). The first research question specifically asks how topics were managed in the dyadic online interactional discourse. Figure 6.7 displays the results for dyad 1. Two main strategies were employed for topic management: (1) questions and (2) statements. As shown in Figure 6.7, Bianca primarily used questions for topic initiation (TI) and topic shifts (TS) and asked a total of 28 questions. Only in one instance did she use a statement to initiate a topic. All of these attempts were successful, in that Fannie responded to them all. In contrast, Fannie used both questions (17 in total) and statements (five in total) for topic initiation. Bianca, therefore, used almost twice as many questions as Fannie, but Fannie used more statements. Fannie mostly used questions in the first half of the emails and she used three statements in

Figure 6.6  A slice of interaction over time: Dyad 1

Figure 6.7  Dyad 1: Questions versus statements for topic initiation (TI) and topic shifts (TS)

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  143

Figure 6.8  Dyad 1: Question types by each participant

three consecutive emails (emails 3–5) for topic initiation. Bianca, on the other hand, was fairly consistent in her use of questions throughout and changed her strategy to statements only three times (emails 3, 5 and 17). Fannie, for the most part, seemed to follow the lead of Bianca’s topics, notably from emails 7 to 11 during which time she initiated a topic twice using questions. The types of questions the two participants employed pattern differently, as displayed in Figure 6.8. Bianca employed a variety of question types to nominate topics. These included WH-questions (why, which, where, when, how, what), Yes/No-questions, Tag-questions and OR-choice questions, with Yes/No questions (11 in total) being the most frequent, followed by seven what questions, five and two respectively of how and when questions, and the why, which and where questions each used once. Fannie, for her part, mostly used Yes/No questions and WH (how and what) questions, almost evenly (five versus six). Both participants used one OR-choice question each. Fannie used one tag-question, which Bianca did not use. Overall, Bianca used a greater number and variety of questions than Fannie. The second research question investigated if change in topics was tied to variability in propositional density. For the entire dataset of 35 emails from dyad 1, a total of 24 topics were established between Bianca and Fannie, as summarized in Table 6.1. Most of these topics reoccurred in subsequent emails. Table 6.2 provides the propositional density, in terms of major and minor idea units, in relation to each of the 24 topics. The propositional density was calculated by counting, and then adding up, the major and minor idea units. Table 6.2 shows that overall, Fannie’s propositional density exceeds Bianca’s (301 versus 260 idea units), meaning that Fannie contributed more to the topics than Bianca. Of the 24 topics the dyad engaged with, the topic undergraduate school generated the most minor ideas or details

144  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Table 6.1  Topics initiated (TI) by Bianca and Fannie TI by Bianca

TI by Fannie

1. Holidays

1. Beijing

2. IC course

2. Dance

3. Student-life

3. Festivals

4. Employment

4. Language certification

5. Introduction

5. Music

6. Email etiquette

6. Relationships

7. Birthdays

7. Sleepover

8. Undergraduate school

8. Teaching style

9. Hobbies

9. Traveling

10. Jobs

10. Weather

11. State of being 12. Future plans 13. Education 14. Vacations

(80 idea units) and the topic language certification the least (six idea units). Both participants seemed concerned with their work-load and with the need to balance between school and part-time work. Figure 6.9 charts the time course and frequency of the participants broaching the topic undergraduate school. The topic was introduced by Fannie via a statement in her second email when she shared that her classes were challenging with many assignments, and closed by her as well in her 17th email. Bianca indulged in this topic nine times and Fannie 10 times. Figure 6.10 shows the propositional density of each topic. Four out of the 24 topics failed to result in any interaction: three of the topics (weather, sleepover and festivals) were initiated by Fannie and one (future plans) by Bianca. These were counted as failed topics. Of the rest of topics, a few elicited differential amounts of idea units in Fannie and Bianca. For instance, as shown in Table 6.2, the topic hobbies attracted more attention from Fannie who produced 13 major and minor idea units as compared to Bianca’s three major and minor idea units. Similarly, the topic education yielded more major and minor idea units (21 in total) on Bianca’s part than on Fannie’s part (eight in total). In addition to propositional density, the data were further analyzed for linguistic ‘markers’ in relation to topic management. The automated lexical analyzer, The Compleat Lexical Tutor (Cobb, 2008), was used to determine the lexical density of the emails. A great deal of variability was found from topic to topic, as shown in Figure 6.11 in Bianca’s and Fannie’s lexical choices. For example, she showed greater lexical density on the topic employment than on any of the other 23 topics. Similarly, in Fannie’s case, Beijing yielded the highest lexical density. Moreover,

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  145

Table 6.2  Topics and propositional density for Bianca and Fannie (dyad 1) Topics

Fannie

Bianca

Total

Beijing

41

19

60

Birthdays

12

10

22

Dance

15

11

26

Education

8

21

29

Email etiquette

2

11

13

Employment

4

8

12

Festivals

8

0

8

Future plans

0

2

2

Hobbies

13

3

15

Holidays

19

23

41

IC course

20

14

34

Introduction

19

10

29

Jobs

10

4

14

Language certificate

2

4

6

Music

8

6

14

Relationships

17

2

19

Sleepover

4

0

4

State of being

8

17

24

Student life

8

3

11

Teaching style

12

10

22

Travelling

17

22

39

Undergraduate school

43

37

80

6

23

29

5

0

5

301

260

Vacations Weather Total

considerable variability was observed between the participants on the topics of teaching style, student-life, Beijing and traveling. Dyad 2: Dawn and Alina

Turning to dyad 2, Dawn and Alina, Figure 6.12 shows similar t­ rajectories as observed in dyad 1. The two subsystems move in accordance to each other. Exhibiting nonlinearity but indicating systematicity (de Bot et al., 2007), the two subsystems exhibit a constant c­ hanging pattern of interaction. The variability is at its greatest from 24 March to 3 April. The time-series graph in Figure 6.13 illustrates the emergence of an attractor state across time. This contrasts with dyad 1 where an

146  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

03/08 Email 2

Fannie

We have a lot of assignments in this class. Those assignments are complex and difficult to complete… I think it challenging.

03/09 Email 3

Bianca

Your classes seem very time consuming… Doing volunteer/service hours.

03/09 Email 3

Fannie

It seems that you are living a full life… I’ve always been trying to enjoy studying, though I’ve never made it. 4 email turns and 10 days later…

03/19 Email 7

Fannie

There’s still more than one year before we graduate… Your situation must be different from ours, right?

03/20 Email 7

Bianca

Our Bachelor’s is the same. As far as getting into a college/university… its1 really up to the person.

03/20 Email 8

Fannie

So what’s your class really like?

03/21 Email 8

Bianca

It depends on which class… from that point on can be rude or ignorant. 2 emails and 5 days later…

03/26 Email 10

Bianca

My classes are driving me crazy, well one of them at least… I don’t know what to do, because it’s getting harder to find a job.

03/26 Email 10

Fannie

Your professor seem to have great expectations for you… We are supposed to look for jobs and take practical training. 2 emails and 2 days later…

03/28 Email 11

Bianca

Yeah, she does have great expectations for me… This summer will finish my last 2 courses (for my minor).

03/30 Email 12

Bianca

I spoke wiht my professor and he said my work has improved, which gave me Hope

03/31 Email 12

Fannie

I’m so happy for you that things are getting better. Now you needn’t be so worried about that. 1 email and 6 days later…

04/06 Email 13

Fannie

How’s your school work?

04/07 Email 14

Bianca

Doing a lot better still a bit stressed… I’ve been able to work on my ­projects and reading for classes.

04/08 Email 14

Fannie

A lot of exams will come one after another. This semester may be the most challenging one during my college years. Things will be much better after this semester. 2 days later…

04/10 Email 15

Bianca

I also can’t wait till this semester ends once it’s over I’ll be able to breathe better. 11 days later…

04/21 Email 16

Fannie

Your final examination must be around the corner. How’s your test preparation?

04/25 Email 17

Bianca

Yup I actually did my presentation this past week… 1 email and 3 days later…

04/28 Email #17

Fannie

I’m so happy for you that your presentation went well… we are always very excited and come to life again. End of email exchange

1 email later…

Figure 6.9  On the topic of undergraduate school

Note: 1Errors and/or typos are reported as used by the participants in the data.

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  147

Figure 6.10  Emergence of topics and propositional density in dyad 1: Bianca and Fannie

Figure 6.11  Variability of lexical density across topics in dyad 1: Bianca and Fannie

Figure 6.12  Interaction over time: Dyad 2

148  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Figure 6.13  A slice of interaction over time: Dyad 2

attractor state was predicted based on the behavior of the subsystems or the interlocutors; however, the linear trend lines in Figure 6.13 mark a clear attractor state that the two subsystems ease into in emails exchanged on 2 and 3 April. The two lines overlap, cross each other and then disintegrate as new relationships are formed in the emails after 3 April (not shown in the graph). Altogether, dyad 2 exchanged 39 emails wherein 44 topics were established, as shown in Table 6.3. Alina and Dawn each initiated 22 topics. Of the combined 44 topics, there were five topic initiations that were unsuccessful because there was no response from the other participant. These topics were global warming, street dancing and bachelor’s degree attempted by Dawn, and English proficiency and food attempted by Alina. In terms of propositional density or the extent of detail and information provided by the participants on the topics, Table 6.4 shows that two topics stood out: the IC course and foreign/second language. The former yielded 173 major and minor idea units, and the latter resulted in 138 major and minor idea units. The least discussed topics were race and singing. Overall, Dawn produced far more idea units than Alina (1021 versus 625). Figure 6.14 gives a visual representation of the prepositional density observed in each participant vis-à-vis the topics, exhibiting an interesting flow of topics. Along with explicit topic initiations, a natural development from one topic to another was observed. The topic shift seemed natural and seamless. Data from dyad 2 were further inspected for lexical density in relation to topic management by using the online lexical analyzer, The Compleat Lexical Tutor. Substantial variability was observed on topics such as school location, student housing, teaching abroad and

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  149

Table 6.3  Topics initiated (TI) by Alina (NS) and Dawn (NNS) TI by Alina

TI by Dawn

1. Future plans

1. Bachelor’s degree

2. IC course

2. Car ownership

3. Roommates

3. English proficiency

4. Vacations

4. Foreign/second languages

5. Weekends

5. Global warming

6. Boyfriend

6. Introduction

7. Swimming

7. K-12 education

8. Social networking sites

8. Language certificate

9. Hobbies & interests

9. Movies

10. Internship

10. Music

11. Birthdays

11. Other courses/projects

12. Weather

12. Political affiliation

13. Food

13. Race

14. Teaching abroad

14. School

15. School location

15. Shopping

16. Keyboard symbols

16. Singing

17. Names

17. Solar & lunar calendars

18. Student housing

18. Sports

19. Visa

19. Standardized tests

20. Siblings

20. Street dancing

21. Chinese (language)

21. Travel

22. Easter

22. Visiting family

shopping. But there was stark similarity on other topics, such as birthdays, social networking sites, vacations and sports. Figure 6.15 gives the visual display of variability and similarity in lexical density across the topics. Lastly, like dyad 1, Dawn and Alina in dyad 2 employed two main strategies for topic initiation and topic shifts: (1) questions and (2) statements. As shown in Figure 6.16, while both Dawn and Alina used similar strategies, Dawn used more questions and fewer statements: Alina used 27 questions and eight statements, while Dawn used 30 questions and seven statements. Thus, compared to dyad 1, there was greater convergence within dyad 2 in terms of topic strategies. Figure 6.16 shows that both Alina and Dawn relied much more on questions when initiating or shifting topics than on statements. Figure 6.17 illustrates that Dawn used four different types of questions: WH-questions, Yes/No questions, tag-questions and OR-choice questions. The majority of her questions are the Yes/No type (19), followed by tag questions (four), How-questions (three), What-questions (two),

150  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Table 6.4  Topics and propositional density for dyad 2: Alina and Dawn Topics

Alina

Dawn

Total

Topics

Alina

Dawn

Total

Birthdays

9

19

28

K-12 education

20

13

33

Boyfriend

12

18

30

Shopping

10

40

50

Car ownership

11

13

24

Siblings

11

23

34

6

12

18

Singing

4

3

7

Social networking sites

21

23

44

Solar & lunar ­calendar

29

19

48

Sports

25

27

52

Standardized tests

13

23

36

3

24

27

Chinese (language) Easter

13

9

22

Foreign/second language

32

106

138

Future plans

28

35

63

Hobbies & interests

12

8

20

IC course

56

117

173

Internship

12

4

16

Swimming

11

18

29

Introduction

9

17

26

Teaching abroad

16

5

21

Keyboard symbols

4

7

11

Travel

12

8

20

Language ­certificate

7

33

40

Vacations

23

63

86

Movies

12

22

24

Visa

8

11

19

Music

25

38

63

Visiting family

Names

23

27

50

Weather

Other courses/ projects

24

48

72

Political affiliation

21

22

43

5

2

7

Roommates

27

13

40

School

27

50

77

School location

14

34

48

Race

Student housing

3

13

16

22

12

34

Weekends

6

16

22

Global warming

0

11

11

Bachelor’s degree

0

27

27

Street dancing

0

7

7

English proficiency

5

0

5

Food

3

0

3

Total

625

1021

1646

OR-choice questions (two), When-questions (one) and Which-questions (one). Alina employed similar question types, with a narrower distribution: 13 Yes/No-questions, seven What-questions, three OR-choice questions, two tag questions and two How-questions. Discussion and Conclusion

In this chapter, we examined the email interactional data from two transpacific female dyads participating in an intercultural communication course project in China and the USA. The analytic focus was on topic management – how topics were established and what propositional density they induced. After careful inspection of two longitudinal datasets (for dyad 1 and dyad 2), and by chronological mapping of the interaction, it appeared that the emergence of topics was nonlinear but not random. Several notable differences existed both within and between the

Figure 6.14  Emergence of topics and propositional density in dyad 2: Dawn and Alina

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  151

Figure 6.15  Lexical variability across topics in dyad 2: Dawn and Alina

152  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  153

Figure 6.16  Dyad 2: Questions versus statements for TI and TS

Figure 6.17  Question types by each participant

two dyads. Participants individually made differential amounts of verbal contribution to the interaction, evoking a key attribute of a complex system or a core principle of CDST – that of inter-learner variation. As a subsystem of a complex dynamic system, topic management did not happen in isolation; rather, it was a product of complex interplay of the dynamics between the interlocutors. The topics were not marked by clear boundaries; they were connected and exhibited variability. At times, the interaction eased into an attractor state only to disintegrate and reorganize later, which mirrors the CDST claim of competition as well as cooperation between subsystems. The development of topics was nonlinear, featuring attractor states and phase shifts. This embodies the interconnected and iterative nature of a complex system: ‘the outcome of one process becomes the input for subsequent processes’ (Lyle, 2012: 221). Such an iterative process is claimed to be ‘a hallmark of dynamical systems and is thought to be one of the means by which order emerges from chaos’ (Lyle, 2012: 11–12; see also Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2002;

154  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Polat & Kim, 2014). The natural flow of topics was particularly striking for dyad 2 (see Figures 6.13 and 6.14). In terms of strategies adopted by the dyads for topic initiation, the results show that participants frequently resorted to questions, akin to an attractor state in a complex dynamic system, though the strength of such a state differed between the dyads. In dyad 1, Fannie bounced between questions and statements – another common topic initiation strategy – more often than Bianca, who overwhelmingly used questions for topic initiation. This finding concurs with that of previous studies in that NS or near-native speakers primarily employ questions for topic initiation (Long, 1981; Schwienhorst, 2004). Owing to such strategies, topics in the two dyadic interactions emerged through a dynamic interplay of one topic leading to another but with lingering traces of the previous topic (Figure 6.10). The findings from the study are all approximative, however, due to methodological limitations. The naturalistic datasets, while excelling in ecological validity, lent themselves best to descriptive findings. Little can therefore be said about what lay under the findings, be they similarity- or variability-­related. The contributions from participant internal and external resources have, therefore, remained largely unknown and should constitute a topic of future investigation. Still, the present study demonstrated that a deeper look at discourse features such as topics, including topic initiations and shifts, can provide a complementary picture on learner language as a complex dynamic system. Given the interconnectedness of the system, the discourse topics that learners choose to engage in and the language they choose to use are useful windows onto other aspects or subsystems of learner language (cf. Verspoor et al., 2011), as explored in the previous chapters of this volume. And lastly, acknowledging the role of contexts is only a small first step, and research needs to undertake a deeper consideration of the nature of contexts and their role in language learning (Mercer, 2016). References Abrams, Z.I. (2008) Socio-pragmatic features of learner to learner computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal 26, 1–27. Cameron, L. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007) Complex systems and applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (2), 226–239. Carrell, P. (1985) Facilitating ESL reading by teaching texts structure. TESOL Quarterly 19 (4), 727–752. Cobb, T. (2008) The Compleat Lexical Tutor. See http://www.lextutor.ca/. de Bot, K. (2015) A History of Applied Linguistics. New York: Routledge. de Bot, K. (2017) Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory: Same or different? In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development (pp. 51–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. de Bot, K. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot and W. Lowie (eds) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development (pp. 5–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

A Dynamic View on Topic Management in Dyadic Interaction  155

de Bot, K., Verspoor, M. and Lowie, W. (2005) Dynamic systems theory and applied linguistics: The ultimate ‘so what’? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (1), 116–118. de Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007) A dynamic view as a complementary perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10, 51–55. Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (1992) Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books. Goody, E.N. (1978) Towards a theory of questions. In E.N. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 17–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Itakura, H. (2002) Gender and pragmatic transfer in topic development. Language, Culture and Curriculum 15 (2), 161–183. Iwata, Y. (2010) Pragmatic failure in topic choice, topic development, and self-disclosure by Japanese EFL speakers. Intercultural Communication Studies 19 (2), 145–158. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18, 141–165. Larsen Freeman, D. (2002) Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization (pp. 33–46). London: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. Modern Language Journal 92 (2), 200–213. Long, M.H. (1981) Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379 (1), 259–278. New York. Long, M.H. (1983) Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native-speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5 (2), 177–193. Lyle, C. (2012) The co-emergence of Spanish as a second language and individual differences. A dynamical systems theory perspective. University of Texas Electronic Theses and Dissertations. See http://hdl.handle.net/2152/ETD-UT-2012-05-5298. Meierkord, C. (2000) Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction: An analysis of nonnative-/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online 5 (1). See https://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik-online/article/view/1013/1673. Mercer, S. (2016) The contexts within me: L2 self as a complex dynamic system. In J. King (ed.) The Dynamic Interplay between Context and the Language Learner. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Morris-Adams, M. (2016) Negotiating topic changes: Native and non-native speakers of English in conversation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 26 (3), 1–18. Polat, B. and Kim, Y. (2014) Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics 35 (2), 184–207. Sauro, S. (2011) SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal 28 (2), 1–23. Schwienhorst, K. (2004) Native-speaker/Non-native-speaker discourse in the MOO: Topic negotiation and initiation in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning 17 (1), 35–50. Thelen, E. and Smith, L. (1994) A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development in Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. van Lier, L. (1988) The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman. Verspoor, M.H., Lowie, W. and van Dijk, M. (2008) Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal 92 (2), 214–231. Verspoor, M.H., de Bot, K. and Lowie, W. (eds) (2011) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Viswat, L. and Kobayashi, J. (2008) Cultural differences in conversational strategies. Journal of Intercultural Communication 18 (October). See http://www.immi.se/intercultural/. Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7 Researching CDST: Promises and Pitfalls ZhaoHong Han

This volume has engaged with complex dynamic systems theory (CDST), an emerging paradigm for applied linguistics and second language acquisition research and practice. The incipient paradigm – an amalgam of complexity theory and dynamic systems theory – essentially joins two compatible sets of properties. On the one hand, the ‘C’ in CDST asserts the existence of a complex system that subsumes multiple and interconnected parts and where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. On the other hand, the ‘D’ in CDST underscores the mechanics and chemistry among the multiple entities, or subsystems as they are often called, within a complex system, where they interact in various forms – cooperative, competitive or emergent – manifesting a nonlinear alternation of variability and stability or trajectory over time. Complexity theory (CT) as delineated in Larsen-Freeman (1997, 2017) serves as a metatheory in applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA) research (see also Chapter 1, Han & Liu, this volume). It provides both a conceptual and methodological framework for attempts to solve all forms of language-related problems. More profoundly, the CT inspired approach has the potential of transforming the relationship between applied linguistics (and for that matter, SLA), which has long sought to be part of the realm of social science, and natural science, which applied linguistics and SLA have long sought to keep at their arm’s length – for any number of reasons. While the case for the interface between applied linguistics/SLA, on the one hand, and natural science, on the other, has to be more compelling than made thus far1 (see Larsen-Freeman, 2017; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), the projected significance of an appeal to/for systems thinking cannot be overstated. One ramification would be an increasing awareness of the need for a broader focus in phenomenological conception and research, which would help to curb the fields’ tendency to perpetuate their comfortable narrowness. Another potential effect would be a realization of the need to view phenomena as part of a larger system where multiple forces mutually interact, adapt and constrain. A further 156

Researching CDST: Promises and Pitfalls  157

consequence would be an evolving perception of the need to transcend the fields’ internal and external ‘boundaries’ and to seek collaboration in order to achieve systems thinking. In the absence of a metatheory, the past four decades of SLA research have been gripped by the implicit assumption that treats language development as a linear process. Methodologically, this has meant the excessive, if not exclusive, use of linear additive methods such as the analysis of variance (better known as ANOVA) and regression models2 in data analysis, unjustified promulgation of large-scale studies, and little consideration of the interaction between environmental and cognitive resources in shaping learning in individuals. Echoing Larsen-Freeman (2017), our understanding of second language development should benefit from both the studies of groups and of individuals, the two types of studies being complementary. Complementary pairs are coexistent, yet distinguishable, interacting and mutually dependent with neither member of the pair considered more fundamental than the other, and with both needed to adequately capture the nonlinear dynamics of SLD (see, for example, Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 2010). (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 30)

Whether CDST will eventually usher in a field-wide paradigmatic shift remains to be seen. Much of the rhetoric has yet to be matched by empirical work to gauge or even to establish the veracity of CDST (cf. Dörnyei et al., 2015). Although such work has been growing (see, e.g. Housen & Kuiken, 2009; Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010; Verspoor et al., 2008, 2012), the focus has been narrowly on providing longitudinal descriptions of elements of interlanguage – often in a top-down fashion – and asserting their inter-relationship, which is, at its core, a unidimensional approach to uncovering the systemic nature of interlanguage. What has yet to be sought after is an understanding of how interlanguage interacts with its environment, a key tenet of CDST. This is a shortfall that neither applied linguistics nor SLA research to date has caught up with (see, e.g. Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Han, 2016). Against this backdrop, the present volume has attempted to make modest inroads. To what extent, though, it has succeeded in its endeavors should be left up to the reader to judge. The collective findings from the five sets of dynamic analyses of the dyadic, longitudinal datasets are, nevertheless, worth underscoring, as these findings may serve as pointers to future research seeking to expose the interactional dynamics of interlanguage in its micro ecosystem. In what follows, I will, therefore, highlight the converging findings. I will also discuss issues that surfaced in the analyses and call attention to questions which, it is hoped, future research can tackle.

158  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Summary of Findings

As stated in Chapter 1, the shared goal of the five sets of analyses reported in Chapters 2 through 6 of the same two longitudinal, dyadic interactional datasets was to ‘achieve both a broader and a deeper knowledge of the complex, adaptive and relational nature of interlanguage’ (p. 9). While the choice of what to focus on in each study was made by the analysts, the five sets of analyses collectively offered a dynamic view both of how participants used language, in this case English, on a given interactional occasion (i.e. a micro timescale) and of how they did it over the span of two months (i.e. a more macro timescale). Idiosyncratic findings aside, the five sets of analyses have jointly uncovered evidence of the following: (1) L2 use fluctuates both on a micro and a macro timescale, suggesting that the system was operating under different sets of contingencies (Byrne & Callaghan, 2014). (2) L2 users creatively imitate their interlocutors, turning external resources internal. (3) L2 users adapt their language to their interlocutors, as social familiarity increases. (4) L2 users, over time, show greater pragmatic synchrony than grammatical synchrony with their interlocutors. (5) L2 users soft-assemble linguistic resources, creating novel expressions in response to communicative demands. (6) L2 users produce hybrids of L1 and target language (TL) formmeaning mappings, suggesting dependence on initial conditions. (7) L2 use exhibits interaction between linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems. (8) L2 use exhibits attractor states, variably for different grammatical, semantic and pragmatic subsystems. (9) The ecosystem formed by the interlocutors comes with greater or lesser synchrony or solidity, which, in turn, reflects participants’ engagement level and level of social, psychological and linguistic adaptation. (10) The ecosystem featuring greater synchrony (e.g. in textual length and communicative strategies) provides greater affordances and, in turn, engenders greater developmental space and greater prospect for L2 users to build and realize their ‘carrying capacity’ (van Geert, 1991). Together, these findings underscore the complex, emergent, adaptive and interconnected nature of L2 use. In addition, the studies yielded a critical insight into what would make a worthy target for a CDST study. In general, discourse pragmatic phenomena appeared to have greater potential than morphosyntactic phenomena

Researching CDST: Promises and Pitfalls  159

including the currently popular triadic constructs of complexity, fluency and accuracy, in revealing interactions between external and internal subsystems. For example, reporting on advice giving in Chapter 4, Liu Banerjee noted that ‘Influenced not only by cultural factors but also local contextual factors, such as the social distance between the interlocutors and the severity of the issue to which advice is given, advice exchanges can be dynamic, complex and even chaotic’ (p. 88). We saw a similar interplay of linguistic and nonlinguistic systems in Chapter 3, where Sáez provided convincing evidence of the participants’ preferential use of modal auxiliaries was connected to their cultural backgrounds, and in Chapter 5, to which I return below. The adaptation that happened within the dyads was iteratively show cased across the chapters. For instance, in Chapter 2, Yuan described Dawn (dyad 2) relinquishing her own semiotic expressions in favor of Alina’s, ranging from her use of emoticons to conversational closings (e.g. Hope to hear from you soon. Talk to you soon). In traditional terms, Dawn underwent restructuring of her interlanguage while interacting with Alina. Another example, from Chapter 2, is when Bianca (dyad 1) said ‘Some people look down on Hispanics that do not know Spanish’ at one time, and it was subsequently adopted by Fannie (an English as a foreign language (EFL) learner) saying ‘I’m sorry to hear that some people look down on Hispanics that do not know Spanish.’ In non-CDST frameworks, this would have been called sociolinguistic convergence (Preston, 1989) or permeability (Adjemian, 1976), the latter referring to the fact that the system is open to external influences or interactional benefits (Gass & Mackey, 2015; Long, 1996). More evidence of the system’s ability to adapt was reported in other chapters. In Chapter 3, Sáez reported that Dawn (EFL learner, dyad 2) ultimately converged on Alina’s (native speaker of English) use of modals as a result of extended interaction. The adaptation was not always one way, however. Chapter 4 provides compelling evidence of mutual adaptation. Liu Banerjee showed how, after several weeks of interaction, Fannie and Bianca (dyad 1) felt more at home with each other: not only were they more open to seeking and giving advice, but more interestingly, their discourse strategies became more aligned, unlike at the beginning when Fannie was shy about giving advice but Bianca very direct. Bianca’s strategy grew increasingly more indirect over time, which was Fannie’s style, while Fannie’s became more like Bianca’s in responding to advice. The following excerpt illustrates the change. However, unlike in the dance lessons episode where Bianca provided direct, unsolicited advice in a somewhat intrusive manner (‘You can…’), here, Bianca appeared to downgrade the imposition of her using strategies including the lexical choice of ‘try’ and ‘maybe’ (‘I’ll try and send you some pictures from different parts of the area live

160  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

in. So maybe you can include them in your presentation’; T34F222). Interestingly, in reaction, Fannie seemed to have modified her approach to acknowledging the receipt of advice. Rather than explicitly labeling Bianca’s utterance as advice and thanking her for it as in the dance lessons episode, she now merely acknowledged the beneficial aspect of Bianca’s offer without much show of appreciation, nor did she nominalize the act as advice (‘Pictures will be good if you could send some’; T35F228). (p. 95)

Such mutual alignment happened not only on the pragmatic plane of advice seeking and giving; it also showed up in the linguistic devices used. For instance, during an advice episode, Alina (dyad 2), in response to Dawn’s explicit request for advice, said, ‘I just try to go running everyday, that helps me to clear my mind, otherwise I can’t really focus during the day’, to which Dawn replied, ‘Maybe I just have to go running like you or do other exercise everyday to clear my mind!’ (emphasis added). The overlapping here, as highlighted in italics, shows that Dawn was ‘shadowing’ or imitating Alina’s expressions. Evidence of mutual adaptation was also reportedly found at the larger discourse level. In Chapter 5, Sheu noted that Fannie’s variation in the length of her emails coincided with the changing length of her interlocutor, Bianca’s. Bianca’s shortest email induced Fannie’s shortest email, and her longest led to Fannie’s longest email; however, the extent of adaptation seemed to vary from dyad to dyad. Both Sheu (Chapter 5) and Akbar (Chapter 6) observed that Bianca and Fannie (dyad 1) exhibited less adaptation compared to Dawn and Alina (dyad 2). On the whole, there was greater similarity within each dyad than between the dyads, a strong telltale of the impact of the micro ecosystem. For instance, Bianca and Fannie, on average, produced fewer idea units than did Dawn and Alina, suggesting that each dyad created a unique environment, within which participants were mutually responsive – mirroring each other’s discourse behavior and strategies (see also Sáez, Chapter 3) – or otherwise. Sheu (Chapter 5) reported that dyad 1 showed greater directness – deploying greater number of presentational r­ elations – than dyad 2. Co-adaptation can be tied to another CDST concept, that is, interconnectivity. In Chapter 5, Sheu explored the connection to its fullest when she examined how the dyads each achieved or fell short of achieving interconnectivity, resulting in success – in the case of Alina and Dawn (dyad 2) or failure – in the case of Bianca and Fannie (dyad 1), of building a writer-reader relationship in their interactional discourse. Exploring further the evidence of interconnectivity or lack thereof, Sheu took a remarkable step to tie in the ‘offline’ reflections of the two Chinese participants. In doing so, she was able to establish interconnectivity within the larger ecosystem, connecting the individual to her social and psychological contexts, hence arriving at a fuller explanation of the discourse data. For instance,

Researching CDST: Promises and Pitfalls  161

in an attempt to understand the lack of interconnectivity between Bianca and Fannie, Sheu invoked Fannie’s offline reflections: In dyad 1, Fannie, the Chinese participant, reported a low degree of intimacy. She seemed aware of the brevity of her partner’s email and lack of substance in content, writing, ‘In the first email, my partner didn’t tell me anything about herself. She just mentioned her name… I didn’t ask about her personal life. Seems like she don’t want to talk about private things.’ As described earlier, Bianca was facing a lot of personal stressors and demands on her time. Her lack of external (e.g. time) and internal (e.g. motivation) resources may have had a negative impact on her pragmatic expression and led to the shortness of her emails. Fannie echoed this frustration in two later logs, discussing how she unsuccessfully attempted to elicit information from Bianca on intimate subjects. She also wrote later, ‘I won’t ask for her advice at those things as we are not intimate enough to that level’. This perceived lack of intimacy may have emerged from the combination of shorter length and fewer presentational relations overall, indicating that the writer/reader attempted to influence one another less. Fewer evaluation and interpretation relations (relative to dyad 2) were used. Evaluation and interpretation relations were not adopted into the joint discourse system as they were in dyad 2. (p. 126)

All data evaluated, Sheu concluded that discourse features and social factors (e.g. the rapport between the interlocutors) can be connected growers, such that greater rapport may lead to greater co-adaptation, and in turn, greater pragmatic success. The presence or absence of interconnectivity within the dyads can be a window onto how much language learning might have come about as a result of the intercultural project. It appears that where interconnectivity was high, as with Alina and Dawn (dyad 2), there was more learning. Low interconnectivity, as between Bianca and Fannie (dyad 1), led to less learning. This understanding was corroborated through the offline reflections of Fannie and Dawn, the two Chinese participants. While Fannie’s reflections were dominated by complaints about her partner’s lack of interest in the e-communication, Dawn’s featured much attention to cross-cultural differences, the deliberate focus of the collaborative project. That participants’ psychology played a role in building and sustaining a dyadic system is further illuminated in Sheu’s analysis in Chapter 5 of discourse propositional relations on the personality of the participants. Bianca, the American participant in dyad 1, appeared more opinionated than her counterpart, Fannie, her Chinese-speaking interlocutor, in that Bianca used more direct rhetorical strategies than did Fannie in asserting differences and was more vocal about her personal preferences. Bianca also behaved more ‘erratically’ as seen in the dramatic variability in her production of idea units from one day (i.e. six idea units) to another (i.e. 48 idea units). Bianca’s emails also revealed that she was under a lot of

162  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

pressure, ‘she was a fifth-year student with a part-time job who was finishing a project as a graduation requirement’ (Sheu, Chapter 5, p. 124). Connecting the dots, Bianca’s more assertive discourse style may have stemmed from the pressure and frustration she was experiencing at the time. Overall, the longitudinal datasets proved critical to unveiling the dynamics of the dyadic interactions, shedding light, in particular, on how the micro ecosystem formed by each dyad provided affordances (or lack thereof) for linguistic and pragmatic synchrony, social solidarity, and, not least, creative expressions and adaptations of one’s linguistic and cultural identity. The biggest growth seen in the two datasets appears to lie in discourse pragmatic subsystems. This suggests that extended communicative interaction is especially beneficial for pragmatic development. One interesting observation worthy of mention is that the pragmatic mutual alignment happened only after some time into the dyadic interactions, about a week for dyad 1 and 10 days for dyad 2 (Liu Banerjee, Chapter 4). Future research should look to substantiate this insight. It might prove a highly worthwhile endeavor, as it may help explain and rectify the generally observed lack of pragmatic development in classroom L2 learners (see, e.g. Tarone & Swain, 1995). Standing Issues

Issues that surfaced in and across the five sets of analyses were many, and here I will only mention a subset. A major one relates to, what, after all, constitutes a system? Is the system superimposed by the analyst or does it emerge naturally? Take the analysis reported in Chapter 2, for example. Informed by the literature, which views learner language through a trifocal lens of complexity, accuracy and fluency (Skehan, 1998), the analyst elected to focus on grammatical accuracy and syntactic complexity and operationalize the latter as clausal length and amount of subordination, treating them as ‘subsystems’. Correlational analyses were then performed on the data to determine the relationship among the putative subsystems, taking positive correlation as suggestive of cooperation and negative correlation as suggesting competition. The results, not surprisingly, showed both. But it is far from clear whether the results were real or analytically artifactual. It is possible that with data spanning a substantially longer time period, such ambiguity will be resolved, but even so, it would still not tell us whether or not there were indeed a ‘genetic’ relationship among grammatical accuracy, syntactic clausal length and subordination. Equally, what constitutes a subsystem has remained elusive. Should subsystems exist by natural selection or by arbitration? As seen in the five sets of analysis, the analysts mostly fell for the latter, following in the footsteps of previous studies (e.g. Capsi, 2010; Polat & Kim, 2014; Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010; Zheng, 2016) or, in some cases, of traditional structural

Researching CDST: Promises and Pitfalls  163

prescriptions or anything in between. The mostly ad hoc practice has clearly spilled into the idiosyncratic use of labels – ‘variables’, ‘factors’, ‘subsystems’, ‘elements’ and ‘components,’ to name but a few. Yet the most profound issue relates to, how can a CDST study go beyond merely describing the observed surface attributes of a complex system; that is, variability, emergence, nonlinearity, interconnectedness, attractor state and so on? The present volume, although providing ample evidence of the surface hallmarks of a complex system, has only offered sporadic glimpses into what might lie underneath. Put differently, even if we were to believe the validity of the alleged subsystems and assume also that they genuinely connect to, or interact with, one another within a larger system, what underlies the relational dynamics is still a big mystery. Perhaps data of a longer temporal span and a greater spatial scope might help in solving the mystery. But might it also be necessary to employ a combination of data types and of methodologies, say, Bayesian, Poisson and Gaussian statistics, within CDST framed studies, in order to achieve a deeper understanding of system dynamics?3 Or given CDST’s intellectual affinity with natural sciences, might it be desirable to employ physics and mathematical methods – as challenging as this might be for the majority of applied linguists and SLA researchers (de Bot, 2017; see also discussion in Chapter 1, Han & Liu) – to help us deepen our understanding? The Future Outlook for CDST

While still in its infancy (Larsen-Freeman, 2017), CDST in applied linguistics has already sparked innovative thinking about language and second language development, and, with further conceptual and methodological advances, it may potentially usher in a paradigmatic shift in the fields of applied linguistics and second language acquisition. The new era may come with field-wide transformations, including but not limited to curtailing the tendency toward dichotomous or isolated thinking about learning phenomena, pursuing, in its stead, systems thinking or a holistic understanding, rejecting linearity, and reconceptualizing generalizability. Operationalizing CDST in applied linguistics and SLA research can be difficult, however. Dörnyei et al. (2015) discussed three major challenges: (1) modeling nonlinear change; (2) observing the operation of the whole system and the interaction of the parts; and (3) finding ways to examine dynamic relationships. Larsen-Freeman cautioned that ‘complexity theory encourages the search for ways to access the relational nature of dynamic phenomena, a search that is not the same as the pursuit of an exhaustive taxonomy of factors that might account for behavior of any given phenomenon’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 38; emphasis added). Indeed, a substantive bulk of SLA research over the past four decades has engaged in ‘cataloging’ factors, with almost every study identifying

164  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

something new. While, arguably, much of the research has endeavored to identify the relational nature of a given phenomenon, for example, through factor analysis, the general approach, by virtue of its reliance on Gaussian statistics, has been nondynamic, resulting in findings that, at best, constituted a slice of the process. For that reason, the SLA field as a whole, despite its decades of existence, has come up short of a fuller and more credible understanding of the evolving nature of learning, much less its relational and contingent nature in response to the changing configuration of interaction between learner-internal and learner-external resources. A CDST approach to interlanguage should not be descriptive only. Like all science, it should go beyond description and elucidate causality. Partnering with an explanatory inclination, it can increase its potency greatly. Among other things, it may lead to rich and dynamic descriptions of interlanguage, on the one hand, and uncover the underlying dynamics, on the other. Doing so would require willingness and ability on the part of CDST researchers to cross boundaries and unite with disparate conceptualizations and methodologies (cf. Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016), within and beyond their own frontiers. The preponderance of extant CDST research has pursued what amounts to an ad hoc approach in establishing a system, driven more by the researcher’s imagination or traditional structural prescriptions than reality or rationality. There has been a plain paucity of theoretical guidance. If CT is to function effectively as a metatheory (Larsen-Freeman, 2017), then there is a glaring void of object theories in urgent need of filling. Such theories, first and foremost, should rationalize L2 phenomena as systems, delineate system-constituting constructs, and reason their mutual relations (cf. Han et al., 2017). Guided by such theories, empirical research can then set out to determine the scope and duration of data sampling, analytical methods and pursue principled interpretation of the results.4 Achieving theoretical and empirical unity, without a doubt, is not going to be easy and, therefore, takes concerted efforts. But then, without moving in that direction, the value of CDST research would be gravely undermined (cf. Dörnyei, 2014). To help cultivate the theory-research interface, it is befitting to close this chapter with some questions for future reference (see also the discussion on ‘dynamic ensemble’ in Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016). First, given that ‘complex dynamic systems can operate at different nested levels of scale (e.g., from molecules to whole ecologies) and across different time scales (from nanoseconds to supereons, or in the case of humans, across a lifespan)’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2017: 17), what would be an appropriate level or timescale at which to study interlanguage and to unearth its patterns of growth and development? This issue is also tied to that of validity and generalizability. Secondly, how are the system components or variables to be identified? And how would their influence be determined? Is it true, as Larsen-Freeman

Researching CDST: Promises and Pitfalls  165

(2017: 19) has suggested, ‘that even if we could identify important independent variables in the SLD process, we could not determine their influence in any absolute sense because what was relevant was how they related to each other in context’? Or is it possible to approximate an understanding of the key drivers of the surface attributes of the system in question? (See Dörnyei, 2014, introducing retrodictive qualitative modeling as a methodological option for investigating ‘signature dynamics’.) Thirdly, how are the boundaries of a system to be identified? Is it entirely up to the arbitration of the researcher, and should boundaries naturally present themselves as the system evolves?5 Finally, and more importantly, what, after all, forms a system? How is it to be established? Are the constituents subjectively assumed, factually observed or theorized? Notes (1) A reviewer contests this characterization, as have Byrne and Callaghan (2014), noting that substantial contributions to CT have been made by social scientists, especially in the second half of the 20th century, and that CT, clearly, is no longer the domain of the physical and mathematical sciences. (2) The reviewer usefully reminds us that there are regression models used in social science that can do justice to situated and dynamic data, and even nonlinear versions of regression. (3) The reviewer recommends looking beyond the applied linguistics literature and to ­explore existing methodological advances in social complexity that offer some very ­accessible methods and templates for research. (4) Again, I am gratefully reminded by the reviewer of the need to consult outside the ­applied linguistics literature, as such methods may already be in existence and even widespread in the rest of the social sciences that have successfully incorporated CT perspectives. (5) The reviewer seems to think that the issue will be alleviated if a clear definition is given of what a system is and what constitutes a unit of analysis.

References Adjemian, C. (1976) On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning 26, 297–320. Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G. (2014) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. The State of the Art. Oxon: Routledge. Capsi, T. (2010) A dynamic perspective on second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen. de Bot, K. (2017) Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory: Same or different? In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development (pp. 51–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dörnyei, Z. (2014) Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching 47 (1), 80–91. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P.D. and Henry, A. (2015) Introduction: Applying complex dynamic systems principles to empirical research on L2 motivation. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 1–7). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

166  Profiling Learner Language as a Dynamic System

Douglas Fir Group (2016) A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal 100 (Suppl.), 19–47. Ellis, N.C. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 27 (4), 558–589. Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2015) Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. William (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge. Han, Z-H. (2016) A ‘reimagined SLA’ or an expanded SLA?: A rejoinder to the Douglas Fir Group. The Modern Language Journal 100, 736−740. Han, Z-H., Bao, G. and Wiita, P. (2017) Energy conservation in SLA: The simplicity of a complex adaptive system. In L. Ortega and Z-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development. In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 210–231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  Hiver, P. and Al-Hoorie, A. (2016) A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. The Modern Language Journal 100 (4), 741–756. Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2009) Special issue: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition research. Applied Linguistics 30, 461–601. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18, 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. (2010) The dynamic co-adaptation of cognitive and social views: A chaos/complexity theory perspective. In R. Ratstone (ed.) Sociocognitive Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp. 40–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017) Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega and Z.-H. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–459). San Diego: Academic Press. Polat, B. and Kim, Y. (2014) Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics 35 (2), 184–207. Preston, D.R. (1989) Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spoelman, M. and Verspoor, M. (2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 31 (4), 532–553. Tarone, E. and Swain, M. (1995) A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal 79, 166–178. van Geert, P. (1991) A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological Review 98, 3–53. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W. and van Dijk, M. (2008) Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal 92, 214–231. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M.S. and Xu, X. (2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21, 239–263. Zheng, Y. (2016) The complex, dynamic development of L2 lexical use: A longitudinal study on Chinese learners of English. System 56, 40–53.

Index

accuracy 10, 17–18, 20–3, 25–33, 36–40, 85–6, 105, 107, 159, 162 adaptive imitation 10, 35, 38–9, 49 advice advice exchanges 84, 87–8, 90–1, 94–6, 98–100, 159 advice-giving 11, 84, 86–8, 90–1, 98, 100 advice-receiving 84, 88, 90, 98, 100 advice-seeking 84, 88, 90, 92, 94, 97–100 affordance 6, 36, 38–9, 158, 162 alignment 92, 160, 162 attitude 95, 113 attractor state 3, 5, 10–12, 18–19, 21, 26–7, 29, 34, 37–9, 51–3, 75, 77–8, 104–5, 112–13, 123–5, 128–9, 134–5, 142, 145, 148, 153–4, 158, 163

dyadic interaction 9–10, 17, 21, 38, 41, 48, 83, 104, 123, 128, 133, 136, 138–9, 154, 158, 162 Dynamic Systems Theory 2, 7, 17–18, 48, 83–4, 87, 101, 105, 133–4, 156 ecosystem 2–3, 9, 11, 13, 51, 104–5, 107, 124, 157–8, 160, 162 emergent 7, 13, 19, 36, 38, 40, 106, 111, 156, 158 fixed-point attractor 53 fluency 17, 20, 105, 107, 159,162 framing 136 hybrid linguistic metaphors 57 idea unit 12, 109, 113–4, 117, 121–4, 127–8, 139–40, 143–4, 148, 160–1 inductive approach 138 interactional 2–7, 9, 22, 29, 90, 106, 136, 138, 142, 150, 157–60 interactional analysis 90 interconnectivity 160–1

boundary 8, 14, 136 carrying capacity 4, 158 chaos 51–2, 58, 60–1, 64, 77–9, 134–5, 153 co-adaptation 6, 12, 19, 49, 51, 57–8, 60, 73, 111–12, 121–3, 128–9, 160–1 coda 11, 91–3, 96, 98–9 Complex Dynamic Systems Theory 2, 7, 18, 48, 101, 105, 133–4, 156 complexity 2, 5, 10, 13, 17–23, 26–7, 29, 31–3, 36–40, 83, 85–6, 101, 104–5, 107, 129, 133–6, 156, 159, 162–3, 165 complex system 5–8, 10, 13, 18, 49–51, 84, 104, 127, 135, 153, 156, 163 Complexity Theory 2, 17, 85, 101, 133–4, 156, 163 contrast 11, 58–9, 61, 78, 105, 110–12, 118–19, 127–8, 138, 145, 145 convergence 149, 159

longitudinal 2–4, 7, 9–10, 12–13, 17, 20, 33, 52, 60, 84–6, 89, 100, 105, 133, 138, 150, 157–8, 162 metaphorical functions 10, 40, 48, 50, 54, 57–8, 60–1, 64, 73, 79 modal auxiliaries 11, 48–51, 54–5, 58, 61, 159 morphogenesis 38 persistence of transcript 11, 86, 91 perspective-giving 12, 112–13, 120–1, 123–5, 128 phase shift 10, 19, 22, 26, 29, 37–42, 153 pragmatic competence 83, 106–8, 129 pragmatics 9–10, 49, 73, 83–4, 106 prepositions 10–11, 48–56, 58–61, 73, 75, 77

directness 88, 96, 99–100, 108, 120, 125–7, 160 discourse competence 108

167

168 Index

presentational relations 11–12, 110–13, 117–28, 160–1 Principled Polysemy Model 54–5, 58–60 propositional density 12, 138–40, 143–5, 147–8, 150–1 reaction 11, 50, 91–9, 160 relational propositions 104, 109, 112 response 6, 11, 20, 33, 35–6, 38, 60, 83, 91–4, 96–9, 107, 136, 140, 148, 158, 160, 164 self-organization 40, 104 soft assembly 10, 38, 40 soft constraints 49 solicited advice 91, 94–5, 98–9, 159 speech acts 84, 136 stability 5, 7, 11, 18, 29, 49, 53, 58, 61, 75, 79, 104–6, 112–14, 122–4, 127–8, 134–5, 141, 156 synchrony 11, 128, 158, 162 system change 5, 18–19, 26, 29, 37, 135 systematicity 1–2, 4, 145

tag-question 143, 149 timescale 6, 9, 18, 37, 49, 73, 112, 158, 164 topic 9, 10, 12–13, 49–51, 54–61, 63–4, 69, 73, 75–9, 91–2, 94–5, 109, 113, 124, 126, 133–54 topic function 50, 54–6, 59–61, 64, 75, 77 topic management 12, 133–4, 136, 138, 142, 144, 148, 150, 153 topic shift 136, 138–40, 142, 148–9 topic-initiation 136 trigger 11, 20, 83, 91–4, 96, 98–9, 106 unsolicited advice 91, 94–5, 99, 159 variability 1–2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 18, 20–2, 29, 37, 40, 49, 52, 79, 100–1, 105–6, 112–14, 122–5, 127–9, 134, 136, 141–5, 148–9, 153, 154, 156, 161, 163 vehicle function 50, 54–61, 64, 75, 77–9