1887
Volume 37, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139

Abstract

This paper reports on the development of complexity and accuracy in English as a Second Language (ESL) academic writing. Although research into complexity and accuracy development in second language (L2) writing has been well established, few studies have assumed the multidimensionality of these two constructs (Norris & Ortega, 2009) or endeavoured to make long-term observations on the course of their development (Vyatkina, 2012). Given that recent research in the field of Second Language Acquisition has moved towards a more holistic perspective on language learning and development (Larsen-Freeman, 2011, 2012), there is a need to consider the potential dynamics of the longitudinal development of these constructs in L2 writing.

This study addresses this issue by exploring the dynamic unfolding of complexity and accuracy development in the academic writing of an advanced L2 learner during her postgraduate study in Australia. The results suggested that both complexity and accuracy displayed the characteristics of a dynamic system and their development was highly variable, non-linear, and idiosyncratic. Their interaction, too, was dynamic and changed over time. The findings in this study confirm and substantiate the Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) proposition of L2 developmental dynamics, including the development of L2 academic writing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.37.2.01ros
2014-01-01
2019-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Biber, D. , Gray, B. , & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, R.
    (1973) A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674732469
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674732469 [Google Scholar]
  3. Byrnes, H. , Maxim, H. H. , & Norris, J. M.
    (2010) Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate dducation: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment [Monograph]The Modern Language Journal, 94(Supplement S1), 1–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4781.2010.01136.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2010.01136.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Caspi, T. , & Lowie, W.
    (2010) A dynamic perspective on L2 lexical development in academic English. In R. Chacón-Beltrán , C. Abello-Contesse , & M. d. M. Torreblanca-López (Eds.), Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp.41–60). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cooper, T.
    (1976) Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. Journal of Educational Research, 69(5), 176–183. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1976.10884868
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1976.10884868 [Google Scholar]
  6. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for language learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cumming, A.
    (Ed.) (2006) Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.15 [Google Scholar]
  8. de Bot, K.
    (2008) Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2),166–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4781.2008.00712.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2008.00712.x [Google Scholar]
  9. de Bot, K. , Chan, H. , Lowie, W. , Plat, R. , & Verspoor, M. H.
    (2012) A dynamic perspective on language processing and development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 188–218. doi: 10.1075/dujal.1.2.03deb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.1.2.03deb [Google Scholar]
  10. de Bot, K. , & Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. H. Verspoor , K. de Bot & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic systems approach to second language development (pp.5–23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.29.01deb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.01deb [Google Scholar]
  11. de Bot, K. , & Lowie, W.
    (2010) On the stability of representations in the multilingual lexicon. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition (pp.117–133). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/celcr.13.11bot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.13.11bot [Google Scholar]
  12. de Bot, K. , Lowie, W. , Thorne, S. L. , & Verspoor, M.
    (2013) Dynamic Systems Theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development. In M. G. Mayo , M. G. Mangado , & M. M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp.199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/aals.9.13ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.9.13ch10 [Google Scholar]
  13. de Bot, K. , Lowie, W. , & Verspoor, M. H.
    (2005) Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. Oxon: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203446416
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203446416 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002732
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732 [Google Scholar]
  15. de Bot, K. , Verspoor, M. H. , & Lowie, W.
    (2005) Dynamic systems theory and applied linguistics: The ultimate “so what”?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 116–118. doi: 0.1111/j.1473–4192.2005.0083b.x
    https://doi.org/0.1111/j.1473–4192.2005.0083b.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G.
    (2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferrari, S.
    (2012) A longitudinal study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency variation in second language development. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.277–297). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32.12fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.12fer [Google Scholar]
  19. Flahive, D. , & Snow, B.
    (1980) Measures of syntactic complexity in evaluating ESL compositions. In J. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp.171–176). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ho-Peng, L.
    (1983) Using T–unit measures to assess writing proficiency of ESL students. RELC Journal, 14(2), 35–43. doi: 10.1177/003368828301400203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828301400203 [Google Scholar]
  21. Housen, A. & Kuiken, F.
    (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp048
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Housen, A. , Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I.
    (2012) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.1–20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32.01hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.01hou [Google Scholar]
  23. Hunt, K.
    (1965) Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (NCTE Research Report No. 3). Urbana, IL: The National Council of Teachers of English.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1970) Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(1), 1–67. doi: 10.2307/1165818
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1165818 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hyland, K.
    (2003) Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667251
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ingvarsdóttir, H. & Arnbjörnsdóttir, B.
    (2013) ELF and academic writing: A perspective from the Expanding Circle. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 123–145. doi: 10.1515/jelf‑2013‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2013-0006 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jiang, W.
    (2013) Measurements of development in L2 written production: The case of L2 Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1093/applin/ams019
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams019 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, M. & Sankey, D.
    (2009) Towards a Dynamic Systems Approach to moral development and moral education: A response to the JME special issue, September 2008 Journal of Moral Education, 38(3), 283–298. doi: 10.1080/03057240903101499
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240903101499 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2010) The dynamics of emergent self–organization: Reconceptualizing child development in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 79–98. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2010v35n4.6
    https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n4.6 [Google Scholar]
  30. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (1976) Evidence of the need for a second language acquisition index of development. In W. Ritchie (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Issues and implications (pp.127–136). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1978) An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448. doi: 10.2307/3586142
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586142 [Google Scholar]
  32. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. doi: 10.1093/applin/18.2.141
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  33. (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.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (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. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2009) Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp043
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp043 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2010) The dynamic co–adaptation of cognitive and social views: A complexity thoery perspective. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp.40–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp.48–72). London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2012) Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 45(2), 202–214. doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000061
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000061 [Google Scholar]
  39. Larsen-Freeman, D. , & Cameron, L.
    (2008) Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4781.2008.00714.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2008.00714.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Larsen-Freeman, D. , & Storm, V.
    (1977) The construction of a second language acquisition index of development. Language Learning, 27(1), 123–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–1770.1977.tb00296.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–1770.1977.tb00296.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Leki, I.
    (2011) Learning to write in a second language: Multilingual graduates and undergraduates expanding genre repertoires. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp.85–110). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.31.09lek
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.31.09lek [Google Scholar]
  42. Leki, I. , Cumming, A. , & Silva, T.
    (2008) A synthesis of research on second language writing in English (Vol. Routledge): New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Levkina, M. , & Gilabert, R.
    (2012) The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.171–197). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.08lev [Google Scholar]
  44. Lillis, T. , & Curry, M. J.
    (2006) Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 26(1) 3–35. doi: 10.1177/0741088305283754
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2010) Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lowie, W. , & Verspoor, M.
    (2014, March). Variability and learning mechanisms. In K. de Bot & D. Larsen-Freeman (Chair), From universality to variability in second language development. Colloquium conducted atthe meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2014, Portland, Oregon.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lowie, W. , Verspoor, M. , & de Bot, K.
    (2009) A dynamic view of second language development across the lifespan. In K. de Bot & R. W. Schrauf (Eds.), Language development over the lifespan (pp.125–145). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lu, X.
    (2011) A corpus–based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 445(1), 36–62. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.240859
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 [Google Scholar]
  49. Manchón, R. M.
    (Ed.) (2012) L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9781934078303
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078303 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mercer, S. , Ryan, S. , & Williams, M.
    (2012) Conclusion: Final Remarks. In S. Mercer , S. Ryan & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory, and practice (pp.239–247). Hamsphire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137032829_16
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137032829_16 [Google Scholar]
  51. Myles, F.
    (2012) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency: The role played by formulaic sequences in early interlanguage development. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.71–93). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32.04myl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.04myl [Google Scholar]
  52. Norris, J. M. , & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  54. Overton, W. F. , & Lerner, R. M.
    (2014) Fundamental concepts and methods in Developmental Science: A relational perspective. Research in Human Development, 11(1), 63–73. doi: 10.1080/15427609.2014.881086
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2014.881086 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pallotti, G.
    (2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 [Google Scholar]
  56. Paltridge, B. , & Starfield, S.
    (2007) Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Polat, B. , & Kim, Y.
    (2013) Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 1–25. doi: 10.1093/applin/amt013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt013 [Google Scholar]
  58. Richard, J. C. , & Renandya, W. A.
    (2002) Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667190
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190 [Google Scholar]
  59. Silva, T.
    (1997) Differences in ESL and Native–English–Speaker writing: The research and its implications. In C. Severino , J. Guena & J. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp.209–219). New York: Modern Language Association of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Silva, T. , & Reichelt, M.
    (2003) Second language writing up close and personal: some success stories. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp.93–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524810.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524810.008 [Google Scholar]
  61. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2009) Modeling second language development: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  63. Skehan, P. , & Foster, P.
    (1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120. doi: 10.1111/1467–9922.00071
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–9922.00071 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2007) Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task–based performances: A meta–analysis of the Ealing research. In S. V. Daele , A. Housen , F. Kuiken , M. Pierrard & I. Vedder (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp.207–226). Brussels: Contactforum.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. (2012) Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task–based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp.199–220). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.32.09fos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.09fos [Google Scholar]
  66. Smith, N. V.
    (1973) The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 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(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Thewissen, J.
    (2013) Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error–tagged EFL learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 77–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4781.2012.01422.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2012.01422.x [Google Scholar]
  69. van Dijk, M. , & van Geert, P.
    (2007) Wobbles, humps and sudden jumps: A case study of continuity, discontinuity and variability in early language development. Infant and Child Development, 16(1), 7–33. doi: 10.1002/icd.506
    https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.506 [Google Scholar]
  70. van Dijk, M. , Verspoor, M. H. , & Lowie, W.
    (2011) Variability and DST. In M. H. Verspoor , K. de Bot & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp.55–84). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.29.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.04van [Google Scholar]
  71. van Geert, P.
    (2008) The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 179–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4781.2008.00713.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2008.00713.x [Google Scholar]
  72. (2009a) A comprehensive dynamic systems theory of language development. In K. de Bot & R. W. Schrauf (Eds.), Language development over the lifespan (pp.60–104). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (2009b) Nonlinear complex dynamical systems in developmental psychology. In S. J. Guastello , M. Koopmans & D. Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp.242–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. (2011) The contribution of Complex Dynamic Systems to Development. Child Development Perspectives, 5(4), 273–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1750‑8606.2011.00197.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00197.x [Google Scholar]
  75. (2012) Dynamic Systems. In B. Lauren , T. Little , & N. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp.725–741). New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. (2014, March). L2 acquisition and the study of change in complex systems. In K. de Bot & D. Larsen-Freeman (Chair), From universality to variability in second language development. Colloquium conducted atthe meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics 2014, Portland, Oregon.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. van Geert, P. , Steenbeek, H. , & van Dijk, M.
    (2011) A dynamic model of expert-novice co-adaptation during language learning and acquisition. In M. S. Schmid & W. Lowie (Eds.), Modelling bilingualism: From structure to chaos: In honor of Kees de Bot. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sibil.43.17gee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.43.17gee [Google Scholar]
  78. van Geert, P. , & van Dijk, M.
    (2002) Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behaviour and Development, 25, 340–374. doi: 0163–6383/02
    https://doi.org/0163–6383/02 [Google Scholar]
  79. (2003) Ambiguity in child language: The problem of inter-observer reliability in ambiguous observation data. First Language, 23(3), 259–284. doi: 10.1177/01427237030233001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/01427237030233001 [Google Scholar]
  80. Verspoor, M. H. , & Behrens, H.
    (2011) Dynamic systems theory and a usage–based approach to second language development. In M. H. Verspoor , K. de Bot & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp.25–38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.29.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.02ver [Google Scholar]
  81. Verspoor, M. H. , de Bot, K. , & Lowie, W.
    (2004) Dynamic Systems Theory and variation: A case study in L2 writing. In H. Aertsen , M. Hannay & R. Lyall (Eds.), Words in their places: A festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie (pp.407–421). Amsterdam: Department of English Language and Culture, Vrije Universiteit.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Verspoor, M. H. , de Bot, K. , & Xu, X.
    (2011) The role of input and scholastic aptitude in second language development. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 86, 47–60. doi: 10.1075/ttwia.86.06ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ttwia.86.06ver [Google Scholar]
  83. Verspoor, M. H. , Lowie, W. , & de Bot, K.
    (2009) Input and second language development from a dynamic perspective. In T. Piske & M. Young–Scholten (Eds.), Input matters in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  84. Verspoor, M. H. , Lowie, W. , & van Dijk, M.
    (2008) Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4781.2008.00715.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2008.00715.x [Google Scholar]
  85. Verspoor, M. H. , & Sauter, K.
    (2000) English sentence analysis: An introductory course. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/z.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.100 [Google Scholar]
  86. Verspoor, M. H. , Schmid, M. S. , & Xu, X.
    (2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  87. Verspoor, M. H. , Smiskova, H.
    (2012) Foreign language writing development form a dynamic usage based perspective. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp.17–46). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9781934078303.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078303.17 [Google Scholar]
  88. Verspoor, M. H. , & van Dijk, M.
    (2011) Visualizing interactions between variables. In M. H. Verspoor , K. de Bot & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp.85–98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.29.05ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.05ver [Google Scholar]
  89. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4781.2012.01401.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2012.01401.x [Google Scholar]
  90. (2013) Specific syntactic complexity: Developmental profiling of individuals based on an annotated learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 11–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4781.2012.01421.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–4781.2012.01421 [Google Scholar]
  91. Witherington, D. C.
    (2007) The Dynamic Systems Approach as metatheory for Developmental Psychology. Human Development, 50, 127–153. doi: 10.1159/000100943
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000100943 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wolfe-Quintero, K. , Inagaki, S. , & Kim, H.-Y.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.37.2.01ros
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accuracy , complexity , dynamic development , interaction and L2 academic writing
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error