Intra-individual Variability in the Emergence of Lexical Complexity in Speaking English at Secondary School
A Case Study of a Good, Average, and Poor Language Learner
Abstract
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) focuses on second language development (SLD) as opposed to second language acquisition (SLA). Emphasising internal complexity of the language system as well as dynamic and non-linear nature of language development, it represents a new approach to the role of variability which is rooted in developmental psychology. This approach agrees with research findings from the 1980s which identified different types and causes of variability, but it treats variability as the main factor responsible for language development and not as a peripheral phenomenon. Intra-individual variability, defined as differences in the level of a developmental variable within individuals and between repeated measurements, is said to have a positive influence on language development at various levels of proficiency. The present paper describes the third part of the case study whose aim is to analyse intra-individual variability in the emergence of lexical complexity in speaking English as a foreign language at secondary school in the case of a good, average and poor language learner. The first part of the case study examined this phenomenon with respect to general measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency, whereas the second part–with respect to specific measures of syntactic complexity. The results of the third part of the case study show some significant differences between the learners in terms of lexical variation as opposed to density, sophistication and frequency but hardly any such differences in intra-individual variability, pointing at the same time to a weak positive relationship between this type of variability and the rate of development.
Keywords
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST), lexical complexity, variability, learner corpus, speaking
References
fluency in speaking English at secondary school–a case study of a good, average and poor language learner. Anglica Wratislaviensia, LVII, 181-204.
Author. (2019b). Intra-individual variability in the emergence of syntactic
complexity in English L2 speech at secondary school–a case study of a good, average
and poor language learner. In press.
Ai, H. & Lu, X. (2010). A web-based system for automatic measurement of lexical
complexity. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Symposium of the Computer-Assisted
Language Consortium (CALICO-10). Amherst, MA. June 8-12.
Bailey, C. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, DC: Centre for Applied
Linguistics.
Bickerton, D. (1975). Dynamics of a creole system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. & Schumann, J. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and
interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E.M. Hatch (Ed.) Second language
acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 207-230). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “Speaking” model adapted.
Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-24.
Cobb, T. Compleat Web VP v. 2 [computer programme]. Accessed 24 April 2018 at
https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/.
Crystal, D. 1982. Profiling linguistic disability. London: Edward Arnold.
de Bot, K. (2017). Complexity Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory: Same or different? In
L. Ortega, L. & Han, Z. (Eds.), Complexity Theory and language development. In
celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 51-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Decamp, D. 1971. Implicational scales and sociolinguistic linearity. Linguistics 13: 30-43.
Ellis. R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gatbonton, E. (1978). Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech: A gradual
diffusion model. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 335-47.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia, PA.: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Kowal, I. (2016). The Dynamics of Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Second Language
Development. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.
Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale, 23, 30-87.
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language:
Same or different. Applied Linguistics, 19, 255-271.
Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written
production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
Laufer, B. & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer
adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 399-436.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency and accuracy in the oral
and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590-
616.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral
narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190-208.
Malvern, D., Richards B., Chipere, N. & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language
development: Qunatification and assessment. Houndmills: Pelgrave MacMillan.
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In Givon, T. (Ed.) Syntax and semantics,
Vol. 12: Discourse and semantics. New York: Academic Press.
Pfenniger, S. (2019). Non-systematic variation as a driving force in language acquisition (and
change). Paper presented at the 31st International Conference on Foreign and Second
Language Acquisition (ICFSLA ), Szczyrk, Poland.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmid, M., Verspoor, M. & MacWhinney, B. (2011). Coding and Extracting Data. In:
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (Eds.) A dynamic approach to second language development. (pp. 39-54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Schmitt, N. & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge
framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 17-36.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-31.
Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. S. (Eds.)
Handbook of child psychology, volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language (6th
edition) (pp. 464-510). Hoboken, NJ.: Wiley and Sons.
Spoleman, 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.
Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4/2, 143-
63.
Thelen, E. & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of
cognition and action. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density: a computational technique and some findings. In Coultard, M.
(Ed.) Talking about text (pp. 24-48). Birmingham: English Language Research,
University of Birmingham.
van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M. & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In Verspoor, M., de
Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (Eds.) A dynamic approach to second language development (pp.
55-84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
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, 340-375.
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W. & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development
from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92, 214-231.
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language
development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., van Geert, P., van Dijk, M. & Schmid, M. S. (2011). How to
sections. In Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (Eds.) A dynamic approach to
second language development (pp. 129-199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Ingaki, S. & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing:
Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Report No 17). Honolulu: University of
Hawaii, Second Language Curriculum Centre.
Jan Dlugosz University in Czestochowa Qatar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
1. License
The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.
If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".
ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).
3. User Rights
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
4. Co-Authorship
If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.
