One of the highlights of
the 2014 TESOL International Conference was Diane Larsen Freeman’s plenary
entitled Complexity Theory: Renewing Our
Understanding of Language, Learning, and Teaching. Complexity Theory in Second Language
Acquisition is not an easy topic to digest, but Larsen-Freeman made it easy to
understand by way of her outstanding presentation skills and the illustrative
slides that helped visualize the actual simplicity of the theory and how much
sense it makes.
My first more in-depth
encounter with Larsen-Freeman’s discussion of Complexity Theory as an approach
to second language acquisition, or rather, development, was through her chapter
in Dwight Atkinson’s book on Alternative Approaches to Second Language
Acquisition (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). I have to admit I
had to read it three times to really grasp the essence of the theory and how it
related to second language acquisition.
If you’re not familiar
with Complexity Theory and its relationship with Second Language Acquisition, I’d
like to share with you my short summary of Larsen-Freeman’s fantastic TESOL
Plenary, particularly regarding the topics of language acquisition and language
input. Then, if you’re interested in
more in-depth reading on Complexity Theory, I recommend Larsen-Freeman’s
chapter in Atkinson’s book or this article
(Larsen-Freeman, 2007).
Complexity theory seeks
to explain complex, dynamic, open, adaptive, self-organizing, nonlinear systems
(Larsen-Freeman, 2011, p. 52). Fractals are the signature of complex systems;
as we go deeper and deeper into the structure, the same pattern occurs.
Larsen-Freeman’s main
thesis in her plenary is that, within the Complexity Theory framework, we can’t
really say that language is acquired, but rather, it is developed. Acquisition
implies language as a commodity that you ingest somehow. Language development
is the emergence of language abilities in real time. A pattern arises from the
interaction of the parts; emergence is the spontaneous occurrence of something
new. The edges of language are blurry; there is no end and there is no state. Acquisition
suggests completion and a one-way process, while development is bidirectional.
Larsen-Freeman also finds
the term input problematic because it dehumanizes the learner. For her,
acceptability is interlocutor-dependent. Input is problematic
because it is inert knowledge. She asks us why it is that students can do
something in the classroom but then can't do it outside the classroom later on.
It's because we don't teach language as dynamic. Meaningless repetition
contributes to the inert knowledge problem. She points out that iteration is different
from repetition. As a learner's system develops, it functions as a resource for
further development.
Students need to adapt
their behavior to an increasingly complex environment. This can be done through
iterative activity under slightly different conditions. Input suggests a one-way
action between an individual and the environment. Affordance is a better term
to use in this case - providing a language-rich environment where students will
find their own affordances; language develops from experience, afforded by the
learner's perceptions of the environment.
This development is
individual; learners define their own learning path. For this reason, we can't
average out data. What should be taught is not only language but also learners.
We need to design spaces with learners specifically in mind.
Above all, we transform; we don't transfer!
References:
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). On the complementarity of
Chaos/Complexity Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory in understanding second
language acquisitin. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), pp.
35-37.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A Complexity Theory
Approach to Second Language Acquisition/Development. In D. Atkinson, Alternative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 48-72). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Image courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net
