Cover not available
Part of
Complexity Theory and Language Development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman
Edited by Lourdes Ortega and ZhaoHong Han
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 48] 2017
► pp. 209–232

Chapter 10
Energy conservation in SLA

The simplicity of a complex adaptive system

 | Teachers College, Columbia University
 | Columbia University
 | The College of New Jersey
This chapter takes a system view on second language (L2) development. However, unlike proponents of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) viewing the developmental system as ever dynamic without a finite state, we take up a long-standing observation about a signature L2 phenomenon, inter-learner differential attainment, and theorize about its ontology. Drawing on a fundamental physics law, the Law of Conservation of Energy – importantly, not only conceptually but also mathematically – we lay out the key parameters and their interactional relationship in engineering L2 differential attainment. The parameters include aptitude, motivation, L2 input, and L1-TL distance, all of them interacting over time vis-à-vis the developmental positioning of the learner once s/he enters the field of learning, another concept key to the system view we expound in this chapter. The resulting theory, Energy Conservation Theory in L2 or ECT-L2, promises broad descriptive, explanatory, and predictive powers. We discuss the theory in conjunction with CDST, arguing for their complementarity.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Complex system, complexity theory, and L2 development
  • An SLA-unique phenomenon and key variables
  • Energy conservation in L1A (ECT-L2)
    • Scenario A
    • Scenario B
    • Scenario C
  • A close-up of interconnectedness and self-adaptation
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.48.11han
References (65)
References
Abramowicz, M., & Kluzniak, W. (2005). Epicyclic frequencies derived from the effective potential: simple and practical formulae. Astrophysics and Space Science, 300(1–3), 127–136.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. (1993). Four operating principles and input distribution as explanations for underdeveloped and mature morphological systems. In K. Hyltenstam & A. Viberg (Eds.), Progression and regression in language (pp. 309–339). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1996). Input in institutional settings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 171–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68(4), 706–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 82–105). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 1–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (2000). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cilliers, P. (2005). Knowledge, limits and boundaries. Futures, 37, 605–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K. (2008). Second language development as dynamic process. Modern Language Journal, 79, 505–518.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. In N. C. Ellis & D. Larsen-Freeman (Eds.), Language as a complex adaptive system (pp. 230–248). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Madden, C. (Eds.). (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2000). Reading and vocabulary development in a second language. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 98–122). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. (1996). The logical and developmental problems of second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haines, S. (2011). Systems thinking: The new frontier – Discovering simplicity in an age of complexity. Chula Vista, CA: Systems Thinking Press.Google Scholar
Han, Z-H. (2010). Grammatical morpheme inadequacy as a function of linguistic relativity: A longitudinal study. In Han, Z-H and Cadierno, T. (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in second language acquisition: Thinking for speaking. (pp. 154–182). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Han, Z. -H. (2014). From Julie to Wes to Alberto: Revisiting the construct of fossilization. In Z. -H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 47–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayles, N. (1991). Chaos and order: Complex dynamics in literature and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Is the second language acquisition discipline disintegrating? Language Teaching, 46, 511–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539–588). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Odlin, T. (2000). Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(22), 535–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of ESL. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jordan, G. (2004). Explanatory adequacy and theories of SLA. Applied Linguistics, 25(4), 234–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1995). Age before beauty: Johnson and Newport revisited. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William Rutherford (1995) (pp. 219–231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Larsen Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26, 125–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (2000). Five types of input and the various relationships between form and meaning. In J. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 25–42). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649–666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1993). Assessment strategies for second language acquisition theories. Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 225–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997, May). Fossilization: Rigor mortis in living linguistic systems? Paper presented at the EUROSLA 97, Universitat Pompeu, Fabra, Barcelona.
(2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2014). Interlanguage, transfer and fossilization: Beyond second language acquisition. In Z. -H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 75–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2007). A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicism-contextualism. Human Development, 50, 154–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: W. Morrow. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piske, T., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.). (2008). Input matters in SLA. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Poniewozik, J. (2015). Streaming TV isn’t just a new way to watch. It’s a new genre. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Ringbom, H., & Jarvis, S. (2009). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In M. H. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 106–118). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning: Perspectives from linguistic and cognitive psychology (pp. 256–286). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1996). Learning and triggering in adult L2 acquisition. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and competence in SLA (pp. 70–88). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. S., Gilbers, S., & Nota, A. (2014). Ultimate attainment in late second language acquisition: Phonetic and grammatical challenges in advanced Dutch-English bilingualism. Second Language Research, 30(2), 129–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1998). The second language instinct. Lingua, 156, 133–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 209–231.Google Scholar
(1985). Attempting comprehensive and comparative empirical research in second language acquisition: A review of second language acquisition by adult immigrants: a field manual. Part one. Language Learning, 35(4), 567–584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L., & Lakshmanan, U. (1992). Language transfer and fossilization: The multiple effects principle. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 190–216). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Foreign language aptitude and its relationship with grammar: A critical overview. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 367–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, S., & Marion, J. (2004). Classical dynamics of particles and systems (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The effectiveness of grammar instruction: Analysis of a meta-analysis. English Teaching and Instruction, 28(3), 17–29.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2000). Thirty years of input (or intake, the neglected sibling). In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 287–311). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(Eds.). (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wagner-Gough, K., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2000). Second language acquisition: from initial state to final state. In J. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 130–155). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 129–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(3), 451–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Han, ZhaoHong & Gang Bao
2023. Critical period in second language acquisition: The age-attainment geometry. Frontiers in Physics 11 DOI logo
Kim, Peter
2023. Energy conservation theory for second language acquisition (ECT-L2A): a partial validation of kinetic energy–aptitude and motivation. Frontiers in Physics 11 DOI logo
Larsen-Freeman, Diane
2023. Complex dynamic systems theory: A webinar with Diane Larsen-Freeman. Language Teaching 56:3 ► pp. 402 ff. DOI logo
Fogal, Gary G
2020. Investigating Variability in L2 Development: Extending a Complexity Theory Perspective on L2 Writing Studies and Authorial Voice. Applied Linguistics 41:4 ► pp. 575 ff. DOI logo
Levine, Glenn S.
2020. References. The Modern Language Journal 104:S1 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.