Cover not available
Part of
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development
Edited by Gary G. Fogal and Marjolijn H. Verspoor
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 54] 2020
► pp. 241–270

Chapter 10
Envisioning L2 writing development in CDST under a curricular optic

A proposal

| Georgetown University
The chapter presents an integrated proposal for viewing CDST-inspired inquiry into L2 writing development under a curricular optic. After establishing the need for an object theory of language that aligns with the principles of complexity theory, it considers how the educational setting itself, composing abilities and their development, and the agentive L2 writer might be imagined within a complexity theory approach. On that basis it posits that the educational construct of curriculum, interpreted as a subsystem of the complex system of formal education, can provide an environment for studying L2 writing development in an educationally motivated, holistic, and dynamic way that interprets the L2 composer’s evolving agency toward textual meaning-making in light of the structures, processes, and affordances that hold in a particular educational setting. The chapter concludes by considering broader theoretical, research, and education-oriented implications of such a proposal.
Keywords: curriculum, writing development, CDST, educational context, meaning-making
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Positioning L2 writing research
    • Calling for etic and emic inquiry in context with a system orientation
  • Setting the stage
  • Toward a proposal for integrated perspectives within a CDST framework
  • 1.CDST as a metatheory – Searching for an object theory
    • From metatheory to object theory
    • A CDST-compatible object theory of language: System, dynamism, complexity
  • 2.Writing development as an educational phenomenon
  • 3.L2 writing as textual meaning-making
    • Textual meaning-making as thinking and learning with language
  • 4.L2 writing development as the ability to compose in increasing registerial and generic environments
    • A registerial understanding of development
    • Writing development as expansion of the generic repertoire
    • Writing development along the continuum of oral–literate language use
  • 5.Evolving agency in L2 literacy development
    • Exploring agency in relation to structures and systems: A CDST perspective
    • Agency in second language learning: Some considerations
    • L2 literacy development as agency: From macro to micro and back
  • 6.Adopting a curricular view for understanding L2 writing development
    • Interrogating the choice of a curricular optic
    • Voices supporting a curricular optic
    • Complexity theory and a curricular optic: Of simplex systems and subsystems
  • Reflecting on L2 writing development under a curricular optic
  • References
Published online: 4 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.10byr
References (81)
References
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biesta, G. (2010). Five theses on complexity reduction and its politics. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.), Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 5–13). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39, 132–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D. (2011). What is an effect? Coming at causality backwards. In M. Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of innovation in research methods (pp. 80–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory and the social sciences. The state of the art. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2002). The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate FL curriculum. Language Testing, 19, 419–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Conceptualizing FL writing development in collegiate settings: A genre-based systemic functional linguistic approach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 190–218). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Linking task and writing for language development: Evidence from a genre-based curricular approach. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 237–263). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2015). Linking ‘task’ and curricular thinking: An affirmation of the TBLT educational agenda. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 193–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Toward a framework for U.S. collegiate foreign language instruction: Curricular considerations. In S. Coffey & U. Wingate (Eds.), New directions for research in foreign language education (pp. 200–222). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2018). Advanced-level grammatical development in instructed SLA. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 133–156). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Affirming the context of instructed SLA: The potential of curricular thinking. Language Teaching Research, 23, 514–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a). Developing an SFL-inspired 4-year collegiate foreign language program: Contexts, constructs, curriculum. In J. R. Martin, J. S. Knox, & D. Caldwell (Eds.), Developing theory: A handbook in appliable linguistics and semiotics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2020b). Toward an agenda for researching L2 writing and language learning: The educational context of development. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Duff, P. A. (2019). SLA across disciplinary borders: New perspectives, critical questions, and research possibilities Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 3–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (2014a). Task, task performance, and writing development: Advancing the constructs and the research agenda. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 267–299). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2014b). Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing: An introduction. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based L2 language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Maxim, H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education. Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal, 94, iv–vi, 1–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Ludlow, L., Grudnoff, L., & Aitken, G. (2014). The challenge and promise of complexity theory for teacher education research. Teachers College Record, 116(050302), 1–38.Google Scholar
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (2017). Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory: Same or different. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 51–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. & Verspoor, M. (2013). Dynamic systems theory as a theory of second language development. In M. Garcia Mayo, M. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Adrian (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47, 80–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A., & Muir, C. (2016). Motivational currents in language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement 2016), 19–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. Modern Language Journal, 103 (Supplement 2019), 39–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). Towards probabilistic interpretations. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp. 39–61). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). On grammar and grammatics. In R. Hasan, C. Cloran, & D. G. Butt (Eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice (pp. 1–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). The notion of “context” in language education. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar (pp. 323–351). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2007a). A language development approach to education (1994). In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education (pp. 368–382). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2007b). The notion of “context” in language education (1991). In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education (pp. 269–290). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2007c). On the concept of “educational linguistics” (1990). In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education (pp. 354–367). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & revised by Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success in second language acquisition. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 12–24). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
(2007). On the complementarity of chaos/complexity theory and dynamic systems theory in understanding the second language process. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 35–37. 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. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. Modern Language Journal, 103(Supplement 2019), 61–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Tedick, D. J. (2016). Teaching world languages: Thinking differently. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1335–1387). Washington, DC: AERA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L., & Sabelli, N. H. (2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. In M. Mason (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp. 112–123). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65, 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of second and foreign language writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1991). Intrinsic functionality: Implications for contextual theory. Social Semiotics, 1, 99–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, M. (Ed.) (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2015). Register in the round: Registerial cartography. Functional Linguistics, 2(9), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mick, C. (2015). Sociological approaches to second language learning and agency. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 91–109). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 27–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Language program evaluation. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement 2016), 169–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Manchón, R. M. (2012). Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 219–245). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89, 427–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2010). Complexity theory and the politics of education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2007). A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicism-contextualism. Human Development, 50(2–3), 154–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). A new paradigm for developmental science: Relationism and relational-developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 94–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1957). Essays in the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Penris, W., & Verspoor, M. (2017). Academic writing development: A complex dynamic process. In S. E. Pfenninger & J. Navracsics (Eds.), Future research directions for applied linguistics (pp. 215–242). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2015). A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: The case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 51–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, M., & Byrnes, H. (2013). Writing as learning to know: Tracing knowledge construction in L2 German compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31, 532–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2011). The history and future of genre in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G., Bowcher, W. L., Fontaine, L. & Schönthal, D. (Eds.) (2019). The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E. (2010). Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 270–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E., & Ortega, L. (2018). Usage-inspired L2 instruction: An emergent, researched pedagogy. In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A. E., Ortega, L., Uno, M., & Park, H. I. (Eds.). (2018). Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2014). The good, the bad and the ugly? The dynamic interplay between educational practice, policy and research. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 11(2), 22–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., Chan, H. P., & Vahtrick, L. (2017). Linguistic complexity in second language development: Variability and variation at advanced stages. Recherches en Didactique des Langues et des Cultures. Les Cahiers de l’Acedle, 14(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Smiskova, H. (2012). Foreign language writing development from a dynamic usage-based perspective. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 17–47). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Fogal, Gary G.
2022. System mapping simplex spaces: facilitating change in L2 educational contexts from a complexity theory perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:1 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Fogal, Gary G.
2022. System mapping simplex spaces: facilitating change in L2 educational contexts from a complexity theory perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:1 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Byrnes, Heidi
2020. Chapter 4. Toward an agenda for researching L2 writing and language learning. In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Byrnes, Heidi
2022. Heidi Byrnes's essential bookshelf: Curriculum. Language Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.