Cover not available
Part of
Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 53] 2020
► pp. 189–208

Chapter 8
Complexity Theory

Relational systems in interaction and in interlocutor differences in second language development

 | University of Michigan
Complexity theorists are interested in understanding the relations among components in a complex system and how individual differences in the components affect their relationship to other components. Specific to our interests here, the ability of speakers to adjust their speech depends on the relationship with the person with whom they interact. Further, all interactions involve mutual influence (Ricca, 2012). Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008a) call this bidirectional influence “co-adaptation.”
Existing research on interaction is briefly surveyed before turning to the view of interlocutor interaction that Complexity Theory inspires. Before concluding, research attesting to the effect of interlocutor individual differences (age, experience, sex, status, similarity, identity, first language) is reviewed. Finally, four considerations for enhancing future research on interlocutor individual differences are proposed.
Keywords: affordances, Complexity Theory, co-adaptation, emergent synchrony, socially-induced linguistic coordination
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Interaction: A relational systems perspective
  • Interlocutor individual differences
    • Age
    • Experience
    • Sex
    • Status (in a task)
    • Similarity of interlocutors
    • Identity
    • First language
  • Moving forward in interlocutor research, informed by CDST
    • 1.Isolating IDs and encountering unanticipated ones
    • 2.Temporally and spatially contextualized
    • 3.Emerging and contingent effects
    • 4.Relationships that are reciprocal
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.53.08lar
References (87)
References
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 169–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Babel, M. (2012). Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 177–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. (1980). Risk-taking and the language learner. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 39–66). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2003). Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT Journal, 57(2), 105–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. (1996). Using language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Pickering, M. J., & Sorace, A. (2008). Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 528–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowley, S. J. (2011). Distributed language. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dale, R., & Spivey, M. (2006). Unraveling the dyad: Using recurrence analysis to explore patterns of syntactic coordination between children and caregivers in conversation. Language Learning, 56(3), 391–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. New York, NY: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning, 59(Suppl 1), 230–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.) (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duran, N., & Dale, R. (2014). Perspective-taking in dialogue as self-organization under social constraints. New Ideas in Psychology, 32(1), 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 90–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emirbayar, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1975). Toward a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (Eds.) (2014). Special Issue on linguistic coordination: Models, dynamics, and effects. New Ideas in Psychology, 32(1), 115–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallotti, M., & Frith, C. D. (2013). Social cognition in the we-mode. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17(4), 160–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition, 27(2), 181–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction, and output. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dörnyei (Eds.), Themes in SLA research: AILA Review, 19, 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, K. (this volume). Variationist perspective(s) on interlocutor individual differences. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences (pp. 127–157). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ghanem, R. (2017). Nonnative speakers’ alignment of linguistic features with different interlocutors. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.Google Scholar
Giles, H., & Smith, P. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of conversation. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45–65). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guiora, A., Acton, W., Erard, R., & Strickland, F. (1980). The effects of benzodiazepine (Valium) on permeability of language ego boundaries. Language Learning, 30(2), 351–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, F. (2012). Agency. In D. Favareau, P. Cobley, & K. Kull (Eds.), A more developed sign: Interpreting the work of Jesper Hoffmeyer (pp. 13–16). Tartu, Finland: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (this volume). Synthesizing cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences (pp. 247–266). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(1), 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harvey, L. (2015). Beyond member-checking: A dialogic approach to the research interview. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016). A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 741–756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiver, P. & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020). Research methods for complexity theory in applied linguistics. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Iacoboni, M. (2008). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Google Scholar
Jackson, P., & Cosca, C. (1974). The inequality of educational opportunity in the Southwest: An observational study of ethnically mixed classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joaquin, A. D. L., & Schumann, J. H. (Eds.). (2013). Exploring the interactional instinct. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller-Cohen, D. (2015). Audience design and social relations in aging. Research on Aging, 37(7), 741–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S. (1999). The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, M., Horton, W. S., & Bradlow, A. R. (2011). Phonetic convergence in spontaneous conversations as a function of interlocutor language distance. Laboratory Phonology, 2(1), 125–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, J. (Ed.) (2016). The dynamic interplay between context and language learner. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kirk, S. (2017, September). The function of rhythm and interactive alignment in creating confluence in conversation. Paper presented at the British Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, University of Leeds, UK.
Lantolf, J. P. (this volume). I ~ You > You ~ Me: The hidden other in L2 development. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences (pp. 79–97). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 140–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015). Ten ‘lessons’ from Complex Dynamic Systems Theory: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2017a). Shifting metaphors: From computer input to ecological affordances to adaptation. In Proceedings from the IATEFL 50th Anniversary Conference, Birmingham (pp. 10–19). Kent, UK: IATEFL.Google Scholar
(2017b). Complexity Theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z.-H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory in language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017c, October). On particularizing second language development. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, The Ohio State University.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008a). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008b). Research methodology on language development from a Complex Systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee, N., Mikesell, L., Joaquin, D. J., Mates, A. W., & Schumann, J. H. (2009). The interactional instinct: The evolution and acquisition of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macqueen, S. (2012). The emergence of patterns in second language writing: A sociocognitive exploration of lexical trails. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mascolo, M. F., van Geert, P., Steenbeek, H., & Fischer, K. W. (2016). What can dynamic systems models of development offer to the study of developmental psychopathology? In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 665–716). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56(4), 693–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meadows, S. (1993). The child as thinker. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Namy, L., Nygaard, L. C., & Sauerteig, D. (2012). Gender differences in vocal accommodation: The role of perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 422–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & Han, Z.-H. (Eds.) (2017). Complexity Theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oullier, O., de Guzman, G. C., Jantzen, K. J., Lagarde, J., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2008). Social coordination dynamics: Measuring human bonding. Social Neuroscience, 3(2), 178–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pardo, J. S. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 2382–2393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). The interactive-alignment model: Developments and refinements. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 212–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pikovsky, A., Rosenblum, M., & Kurths, J. (2001). Synchronization. A universal concept in nonlinear sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricca, B. (2012). Beyond teaching methods: A complexity approach. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9(2), 31–51.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, C. (1982). Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL ’81 (pp. 11–24). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Serafini, E. J. (2017). Exploring the dynamic long-term interaction between cognitive and psychosocial resources in adult second language development at varying proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 369–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(this volume). The impact of learner perceptions of interlocutor individual differences on learner possible selves during a short-term experience abroad. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences (pp. 209–243). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Snow, C. (1972). Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Development, 43(2), 549–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spevack, S. C., Falandays, J. B., Batzloff, B., & Spivey, M. J. (2018). Interactivity of language. Linguistics and Language Compass. <[URL]> (June 30, 2018). DOI logo
Spivey, M. (2013). The emergence of intentionality. Ecological Psychology, 25(3), 233–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strogatz, S. (2003). Sync: How order emerges from chaos in the universe, nature, and daily life. New York, NY: Hachette Books.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (2015). Second language acquisition in applied linguistics: 1925–2015 and beyond. Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 444–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second-language use in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 166–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15(2), 255–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibault, P. (2015). The microgenesis of meaning and value: Differentiation-articulation in brain and body and the text-context relation in systemic functional linguistics. In G. Kvåle, E. Maagerø, & A. Veum (Eds.), Kontekst, språk og multimodaltitet (pp. 201–269). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS.Google Scholar
Thoms, J. J. (2014). An ecological view of whole-class discussions in a second language literature classroom: Teacher reformulations as affordances for learning. Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 724–741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognoli, E., & Kelso, S. (2015). The coordination dynamics of social neuromarkers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, article 563, 1–16.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Kennedy, S. (2014). Interactive alignment between bilingual interlocutors: Evidence from two information-exchange tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(4), 822–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Van Engen, K. J., Baese-Berk, M., Baker, R. E., Kim, M., & Bradlow, A. R. (2010). The Wildcat Corpus of native- and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language & Speech, 53(4), 510–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Yu, Hanjing & Hongying Peng
2024. Developmental dynamics in oral fluency and learner motivation: A dual‐focus approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Li, Cha & Lawrence Jun Zhang
2023. The Development of Accuracy and Fluency in Second Language (L2) Speaking Related to Self-Efficacy Through Online Scaffolding: A Latent Growth Curve Modeling Analysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 52:5 ► pp. 1371 ff. DOI logo
Han, ZhaoHong
2022. Issues of narrowness and staticity in ISLA. Instructed Second Language Acquisition DOI logo
Hiver, Phil, Ali H. Al-Hoorie & Diane Larsen-Freeman
2022. Toward a transdisciplinary integration of research purposes and methods for complex dynamic systems theory: beyond the quantitative–qualitative divide. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
LARSEN–FREEMAN, DIANE
2022. Combinations and Connections: Reaching Across Disciplinary Boundaries. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 132 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 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.