Dear all,
The objective of this assignment is to look for ways to interpret a case of language appropriation and development and to think of it in terms of dynamic complex theories and ecology.
Procedure:
Please read the material assigned for this week.
Watch the following clips that will help you expand your knowledge on the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX_ItiZfUOQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTDIxDEHpB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhigaLxsYtU
Now go to this link and watch the clip. You will see one segment of an interaction I had with my 3-year old son. Please, watch carefully and determine to what extent concepts from complexity theory apply in language acquisition:
What are the similarities between complex nonlinear systems occurring in nature and language and language acquisition that Larsen-Freeman points out? Can the features of nonlinear systems (e.g. dynamic, complex, nonlinear, chaotic etc….) be seen in the way’s Nathan is appropriating language and other semiotic systems?
How can the concept of temporal ranges from the ecological approach be used as lens to see this interaction?
Write a reaction answering the two questions in the comment section of the blog below. Please react to two of your classmate's posts.
Make your post by Friday, Nov. 7th by midnight and your reaction by Monday 10th.
Dear Professor and partners,
ReplyDeleteThis is my reflection regarding the two proposed questions:
After reading Larsen-Freeman (1997) and watching Nathan’s interaction with his dad, which I found quite lovely and interesting, I could notice that Nathan’s communication is non-linear, dynamic and adaptive which are also characteristics of complex systems. I liked how Nathan adapted his linguistic resources. For instance, he used English and Spanish not as separate systems: when he said “me gusta snake”, “yes, mira” and “it’s a mico baby”, he was unconsciously integrating and adapting them to keep interaction and communication flowing as Larsen-Freeman mentioned in the video, Nathan and his dad were interacting and “using the language for their own purposes” (Teaching English with Oxford, 2016, 1:19). Nathan also used other semiotic resources (gestures, gaze, movements, sounds, pointing at some parts of the book, or even making his dad turn the page) to make meaning. I think one of my favorite parts of the video was when Nathan wanted to play “Freeze tag” and as his dad did not understand what he expressed with his words and with his body, he used his surroundings (going to the kitchen and showing him the fridge) to make himself understood and achieve his objective. Additionally, I am not sure, but I think I noticed a bit of morphogenesis and adaptation when Nathan mentioned “the crocodile” and “the hippo” and also some approximations and incomplete forms that emerged from his creativity and his past interactions. I think Nathan’s creative constructions are not failures but signs of self-organization and adaptation, much like the temporary “chaotic” states that precede new order in natural systems.
Larsen-Freeman also said that complex systems are feedback sensitive and it could be clearly evidenced in the video. When Nathan’s dad was pointing to a familiar picture, when he changed his intonation, when he repeated and paraphrased, when he asked questions and even when he looked at Nathan with love and patience, he was giving constant and meaningful input that helped Nathan to self-organize his own ways of making meaning. In other words, it can be connected with the camel’s back and the butterfly effect mentioned by Larsen-Freeman and how small stimulus can produce big reorganizations in language acquisition.
Regarding the second question that focuses on the concept of temporal ranges view from Uryu et al. (2014), Nathan’s Spanish use can be seen as part of the slow timescale of his linguistic history. His Spanish words connect to his family interactions and cultural identity, while his English attempts belong to the fast timescale of the immediate reading moment. I also think that Nathan’s gestures also represent two different time scales, slow timescale to show his feelings and affection towards his dad and fast timescale, gestures made meaning to the ongoing interaction. To conclude, seeing Nathan’s language acquisition through these temporal ranges helped me understand that learning does not happen in isolated moments, but across many interrelated layers that move together dynamically.
Thank you for reading my post and I look forward to your reactions.
Kind regards,
Yuranny
Hi Yuranny,
DeleteNice reflection, thanks for sharing. Regarding the second question, I really like your comment about Nathan's gestures representing two different time scales, I haven't noticed it or I haven't seen it like that, but now that you mention it, it makes a lot of sense to me. He's excited for the game and moves in a certain way and at a certain pace and at the same time he's interacting with his father so we can see the two time scales, interesting!
I think Nathan was very resourceful when he pointed at the fridge to make himself understood, an action that at the beginning seemed disconnected and then made sense. This makes me think that some of the comments children (and people in general) do are not obvious to us sometimes and it's because the way we see the world, the experiences we have and how we understand concepts, do you think these differences could also be part of the different time scales?
Hi, prof. Yuranny. Jhon here. I hope this message finds you truly well.
DeleteI have just reviewed your comment and must say that, as usual, it stands out because of your degree of analysis. Thanks. I really liked the way you shared your ideas to let us know about the features of the ecology lens and complexity theory that were present in the interaction between prof. Aldemar and his son Nathan and that you identified.
Something I would like to highlight from the comment you made is that, as rightly said by you, communication does not happen in isolated moments. It was possible to watch through the video that Nathan was not the only person presenting/building ideas or fostering communicative situations. Although I think prof. Aldemar assumed intentionally a more passive role in the context of such interaction, he was continually giving Nathan input to guide him through the communicative act.
This made me reflect on our own teaching practices. While we are often expected to guide our students actively, sometimes it is equally important to guide them passively, allowing them to take an active role in making meaning. The video reminded us that communication happens at multiple levels and in multiple forms, even when it is not explicitly verbal. Therefore, it becomes essential to move beyond the verb-centric positions we have so frequently discussed in class and allow people to express their thoughts and ideas more freely. After all, as Larsen-Freeman (1997) notes, chaos is part of the natural order of things, it should not be perceived as something inherently negative in language education.
Thanks.
Hello,
DeleteThank you Carolina and Jhon for taking some time to read my post! I really appreciate it as well as your insights and reflections.
Regarding Carolina's question, I don't know if I am wrong, but based on Uryu et al. (2014) I think that I think our different ways of seeing the world are linked to these temporal ranges. Each person’s experiences, memories, and cultural background form part of a slower timescale that shapes how we act and the meanings we make.
Jhonny Segura. I also noticed what you mentioned about how complex systems are feedback-sensitive. For me, that's one of the most powerful elements of how Nathan is learning and using the language with Jose. The meaningful connection is built through different semiotic resources and the care and dedication displayed by Professor Jose.
DeleteYour point about semiotic resources is crucial. The use of gaze, pointing, embodied actions, sounds, and even gestures, such as page-turning, illustrates how meaning-making in complex systems is enacted across bodies, material objects, and language. This kind of multimodal resource demonstrates that learning isn’t limited to lexical accuracy; it emerges through affective, playful, and active engagement. In this sense, I fully agree with your interpretation of morphogenesis: Nathan’s communicative system continually reorganizes through iterative attempts that gradually consolidate in the interaction.
Folks, thank you for this interesting analysis. I will provide a sort of wrap up commentary at the end of all posts, but I wanted to highlight something that Kramsch (1992) says and that I complement based on my multimodal perspective. Language learning happens when individuals are engaged artistically, linguistically, emotionally, morally, and bodily. All of this is observed in this interaction, especially bodily, aesthetically, and emotional engagement with the text.
DeleteHello dear professor,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing the video with Nathan; it is the perfect illustration of the concepts that have been discussed in the texts. Watching him navigate the interaction really brought the theoretical points from the authors to life.
I would like to start by the core idea from Larsen-Freeman, that language and acquisition are complex nonlinear systems like those in nature. This is reflected in Nathan's attempts to communicate. I want to focus on the concepts of dynamicity, emergence, nonlinearity, and self-organization.
• Dynamic and emergent nature: Nathan’s communication isn't static; it's a dynamic process or first-order languaging. The meaning of the animal, for example, emerges not from one single component (the spanish word mico, the english word "monkey," or the "uuhh uuhhh" sound), but from the interaction of all three: his words, sounds, and body movements. His communicative act is truly more than the sum of its individual parts.
• Nonlinearity and adaptation: His attempt to play the game (congelados) demonstrated classic nonlinearity and adaptation. The small cause: his initial, failed verbal attempt to name the game, required a disproportionate effect (first acting it out, then going to the fridge) to achieve the desired outcome (successful coordination with you). This repeated effort and switch of semiotic resources is the system self-organizing and adapting to the "negative feedback" you were giving at that moment. He actively uses new resources, demonstrating his system's adaptivity to restore communicative order.
• Chaos and restructuring: Nathan's use of mixed english and spanish and the sudden switch to non-verbal cues (sounds and acting) represents a moment of high variability or "chaos" in his developing system. This turbulence shows his interlanguage is still far from a fixed, stable pattern. His subsequent use of the spanish word and the concept of "frozen" (hielo, congelado) suggests a spontaneous restructuring where he draws on a different, non-verbal experience (ice) to successfully anchor the intended meaning for you.
Now, taking into account the ecological lens, the concept of temporal ranges from the ecological approach (Uryu, Steffensen, & Kramsch) offers a valuable lens to see this interaction. Temporal ranges define the stability or coherence of an interaction by showing which organizing principle constrains the system at a given time.
In the video, the ongoing reading activity and your established roles as "reader" and "listener" represent a dialogical system (a temporal range). Nathan's spontaneous shifts between languages, sounds, and actions show that his immediate, rapid biological/cognitive timescales (his momentary semiotic choices) are being limited by the organizing principle of coordination within the dialogical system.
The perfect example of this is the final interaction about the game. When his initial verbal attempts failed to achieve coordination, Nathan instinctively reached into the socio-cultural timescale (the culturally shared activity of getting ice) and combined it with his immediate biological/bodily action (taking the ice out) to clearly reach meaning. This skillful use of resources across different timescales is precisely what the ecological approach defines as successful, adaptive languaging. He actively re-organized the entire interactional system to achieve his goal.
It’s clear that Nathan is not just "acquiring words"; he is participating in a complex, self-organizing system where all available resources: linguistic, vocal, and physical are intertwining dynamically to successfully coordinate action within the ecological context.
It was very interesting and illuminating to relate the concepts from the texts to the dynamic interaction in the video, which initially presented a rewarding challenge in matching theory and a real-life example. Consequently, I have focused on specific complexity theory concepts and key excerpts from the video.
Thank you for reading my comment.
Melisa.
Melisa - Great comment and deep reflection. I completely agree with you when you say that Nathan’s interaction exemplifies the notion of language as a complex and nonlinear system that reflects the connections between language and nature (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). You bring this idea vividly to life. You also did a great job of connecting the theoretical language (for example: dynamicity, self-organization, emergence) with specific moments in the video. I would also like to add that Nathan’s emergent communication also shows how meaning isn’t necessarily transferred from father to son, but instead is co-constructed because it is developed from the continuous adaptations between the different participants, which supports the idea that language acquisition isn’t about internalizing a certain code, but rather about participating in in dynamic meaning-making moments.
DeleteI also found your reflection about the “failed” attempts being seen as moments of stems reorganization; this really echoes Larsen-Freeman’s idea that variability and perturbation are essential for language development. What may look like a communication breakdown is actually a beautiful moment where new language and forms are created. This is a hallmark of complex adaptive systems, whether they be ecological or humanistic. Learning happens in motion, in that it is not a linear progression, but instead it is a flow of learning moments across time, space, and interactions.
Finally, I would like to highlight your reflection about the chaos of the learning process, in which Nathan switches back and forth between Spanish and English, and the fact that he is able to learn and use ‘frozen’ in this particular context thanks to the chaos and restructuring process that happens in his developing brain.
Again, thanks a lot, Melisa!
Hello Melisa!
DeleteThank you for your detailed and insightful analysis of Nathan’s interaction. I clearly understood the way you connected the theoretical concepts from Larsen-Freeman and the ecological approach to the dynamics of the dialogue. Your explanation about how Nathan’s communicative system adapts and reorganizes itself through moments of “chaos” and feedback was particularly enriching as it caused me to visualize how nonlinearity operates when using language in real- life contexts.
While reading your comment, I reflected on how often we, as teachers, interpret communicative “instability” as confusion or lack of progress, when in fact, as you discussed, it is an inherent part of the developmental process. The way you described Nathan’s shifts between verbal and non-verbal semiotic resources illustrates that language learning is not a straightforward accumulation of forms, tenses or words but rather a living, adaptive process shaped by several timescales and contextual cues.
It was particularly interesting reading your explanation of the concept of temporal ranges. It made me think about institutional timescales enforced by lesson plans, grading periods, evaluation criteria, might sometimes interfere with students’ more fluid, cognitive rhythms of learning. As I also said in another comment, perhaps one of our main challenges as educators is to recognize and accommodate these different temporal ranges without leaving behind our pedagogical goals.
Thank you for sharing your perceptions with us!
Jhonny Segura. I really liked how your reflection made complex systems theory evident and even personal. In particular, I liked how you brought attention to time and history, and to the ways Nathan reaches back into past routines and longer-term relationships to steady meaning in the now. If I had to get even more specific, maybe this would be my own elaboration: what’s happening is not merely about roles in a reading game, but also about trust, familiarity, and emotional history. It’s that deep affective grounding between Nathan and his dad, the shared rhythms, and the playful tone that bring confidence and flexibility.
DeleteIn the final analysis, who sounds just right in your reflection is that Nathan’s not “learning words” as much as he is finding ways to understand and co-constructing meaning.
Melissa, thank you for sparking this interesting discussion. I. liked Drew and Jhonny's elaboration on how language development stems from participating in dynamic meaning-making moments. Language as a static entity or named languages are not predesigned entities but constantly emerging entities that take shape in as much as individuals establish patterns that become sedimented and ritualized, but even like this, no language iteration will be the same as the one created by a previous individual because every time time scales will be different; and thus meaning making is always dynamic.
DeleteDear professor and classmates, I hope you are all doing fine.
ReplyDeleteThank you professor for sharing with us this segment with your son. It was nice to see you both having fun while reading and playing.
For Larsen-Freeman, complex nonlinear systems are dynamic, chaotic, unpredictable, sensitive to initial conditions, open, self-organizing, feedback sensitive, adaptive, and, of course, complex and nonlinear. The author points out some similarities between complex nonlinear systems occurring in nature and language, since language emerges dynamically after our numerous interactions. Regarding language acquisition, learners undergo a non-linear, ongoing process in which they create their own patterns, allowing language to emerge through their use. This means that as learners and users of a language, we are expected to embrace the chaos that comes with language use. In the video, we can see Nathan’s use of L1 and L2 to answer his father’s questions and as a way to participate in the game. Spontaneous patterns emerge as he speaks, while his father adapts his patterns as a way to rephrase or make himself understood. Additionally, we could see some of the stability/unstability of interlanguage, but sometimes it was hard to follow exactly what he meant. Finally, we could see in the video that some characteristics of language as a complex system are present all the time: when Nathan provides an answer, his father provides some feedback, sometimes by repeating what he said with corrections, sometimes by paraphrasing. In this way, we can see how language can be feedback sensitive and adaptive at the same time.
Regarding the second question, temporal ranges could be used as a lens to see this interaction between father and son because the two interlocutors have very different experiences. If we think that past events influence current interactions and identities, then the father and the child are heavily influenced by their past, especially the father who has lived longer and who is a language teacher and is having a purposeful (as opposed to casual) interaction with his son. In this sense, the interaction is guided by one of the interlocutors (the father); however, this does not mean that he controls the situation, since Nathan has the freedom to be himself and, since he’s a child, he adds a lot of movement, animal noises, and sounds to the interaction, transforming “reading time” into “playing time”.
The concepts from the two readings were complex but thought-provoking. I’m glad we got to analyze a real-life situation to contrast theory and practice.
Hiii, Carolina. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I completely agree with everything you have said.
DeleteLarsen-Freeman (1997) acknowledges that language, like nature and life themselves, is disorganized, non-linear, and chaotic. This idea is perhaps one of my main takeaways from this week’s readings. However, as both the reading and your reflection suggest, this does not mean that we should fear or avoid what we cannot fully understand, predict, or control. As we could see in the interaction between Prof. Aldemar and Nathan, it is always possible to remain attentive, make use of the available resources, and guide the process toward a positive outcome.
Another aspect I would like to highlight from your comment is the way you addressed the stability/instability condition of interlanguage. I think everything in language learning works that way. Sometimes we reach moments of apparent stability, where learners seem to have mastered a structure or communicative function, but soon after, new challenges or linguistic features emerge that disrupt that balance. This dynamic fluctuation is precisely what keeps the learning process alive and evolving. It reminds us that language development is not a straight line but rather a constant process of adaptation and reconstruction.
Thanks for sharing your insights.
Thank you Carolina, I will provide a wrap up commentary below picking up on some of the concepts and ideas you present here.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo start, I would like to think of nonlinear systems in nature as well in language systems as the idea of the Butterfly Effect, in the way that small changes in a system, whether it be in the natural world or in the linguistic world, can cause large, and sometimes unpredictable, effects. For example, in the natural world, a small temperature shift affects a whole ecosystem, or in the linguistic realm, that a new word, interaction, or correction can reshape how a learner uses or learns language. In this way, the outcomes are non-proportional to input and that learning is nonlinear. Larsen-Freeman (2011), as well as many other authors, would call this notion the Chaos or Complexity Theory in language and language acquisition, where “the behavior of complex systems is more than a product of the behavior of its individual components” (p. 143). The interactions of the components within a system, whether it be natural or linguistic, are cumulative in their reactions. We can also think about this as the Domino Effect, where the falling, or changing, of one domino can alter the state of dominos much further down the chain (van Leeuwen, 2010). In language learning, this can be seen in the way that a small, tiny shift, such as exposure to one new phrase or a meaningful social interaction, can cause major learning progress later. For example, learning a new word can cause the learning of more complex sentences or more reasoning in speech later on; that a small language acquisition can cause big transformations in the language learner.
ReplyDeleteIn her videos, Larsen-Freeman talks about the ways in which Complexity Theory can emerge in language learning in the fact that our language systems are dynamic systems in which we can address the ‘inert knowledge problem,’ where learners may be able to memorize certain language features to recall during in an exam, but are unable to really apply these notions in real-life situations. We, as teachers, must recognize that language is nonlinear; language knowledge should be: connected to emotional experiences, used in meaning-making, and tied to identity, culture, and purpose. She emphasizes that social interactions are essential to true learning and use of language, where we can use grammar, vocabulary, and syntax in meaningful ways. Adaptive learning is also essential for learners to adapt their learning resources in different situations. I particularly like the example she uses with the 4-3-2 activity, where students need to tell the same story to different people in 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, then 2 minutes because it teaches them to be able to change their output as the time diminishes.
Now, looking at the interaction of father and son, this whole interaction can be seen as a nonlinear language learning process, in which the father and son are creating small interactions which can have the potential of creating large changes later down the line, in the way that these interactions will have effects in the learning and acquisition of his L2. And as Uryu et al. (2014) explains, these interactions are not the only factor in the learning process of Nathan. It is important to keep in mind the temporal dynamics, where the short-term interactions that father and son have really may not have an effect on the short-term learning of the L2, however these interactions will have an effect on the ontogenetic scale of his life (p. 43) because it help forms how he will acquire language from childhood into adulthood. Also, this multimodal interaction that they have shows that different forms of semiotic communication can build into larger and more complex forms of meaning-making for Nathan and for the father. This learning/teaching Butterfly Effect will shape the learning and understanding of animals and their behaviors for Nathan as well as shape the way the the father will see and continue developing his sense of language teaching and acquisition in the near and distant future.
Hello Drew, hugs!
DeleteThank you for sharing your perspective on the reading in such a vivid and engaging way. I particularly appreciated the parallel you drew between chaos theory and the domino effect. I find it highly relevant to analyze how our feedback as teachers may have a greater impact than we expect, even when we are not fully aware of it.
While watching the videos and reading your comment, I reflected on my own evaluation practices. I have had students who struggle significantly to comprehend the topics and overcome their difficulties in the foreign language. Sometimes, even when we provide them with tutorials, materials, and opportunities for practice, they continue to face challenges in specific areas or skills. I have considered many possible reasons for this, but I must admit I had not paid enough attention to the idea that language is a dynamic system. From this perspective, students may develop their proficiency in a non-linear way, not necessarily demonstrating their best performance in a specific task I assign. Moreover, I have been thinking about why we tend to be so goal-oriented. Most actors in educational settings are primarily concerned with outcomes, professors constantly discuss rubrics, and students frequently demand them. The more detailed, the better. In my program, we as professors are often required to adhere to strict and standardized criteria, which has been a constant challenge for me. Still, I recognize the importance of standards, and I genuinely want to help my students do their best and achieve as much as possible, even when the process is very demanding. This leaves me wondering, where exactly do we find the balance? Maybe it's a new reflection to incorporate every day.
Hello Drew,
DeleteI really like how you connected the domino effect to language learning, as well as the emphasis that you put on the butterfly effect to show that little changes can provoke an avalanche of consequences or further (either positive or negative) in language acquisition; that is why our role as teachers is important to foster opportunities of interaction, feedback and reflection. Sometimes, we focus on aspects without considering the theory of chaos and thinking that learners are not making any progress and take some actions that hinder their progress.
Regarding Julieth's comment, I think we are so used to the global north ways of verifying language proficiency that we look for "perfect" language use that we forget the imperfect natural processes in life that end up surprising us. I don't know if it is necessary to find the right balance or just promote interactions for making real meaning for learners.
Thank you,
Yuranny
Dear Drew, you inspired interesting discussions here. Julieth points out at one key issue in education, not only language education, which is the learning fallacy. This is dea that what I teach is learned by the end of a time period. This si why we have middle and final exams to assess that which has been taught, so in a very linear way: I teach a content, and you learn the contents, then I evaluate the content and you show you have learned it. tHis go totally against the nature of learning that as chaos and dynamic systems shows is not linear and depends on several correlational time scales that intersect in a language classroom.
DeleteIn the interaction between Professor Valencia and Nathan, what caught my attention the most was how everything revolved around the animals. For almost ten minutes, the conversation went beyond reading the book and became a story they built together. Nathan was not only identifying the animals; he was embodying them. He used sounds, movements, and gestures to give them life and to make sense of what he saw on the page of the book. From the perspective of chaos and complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, 1997), this shows that language learning is not a simple, linear process, but it is dynamic and adaptive. Nathan was reorganizing his language system while interacting with his father all the time. Every sound, word, or gesture brought small changes that helped him create meaning in new ways. When he moved from naming to performing the animals, the reading moment transformed into play, and that play became a moment of learning. The professor’s responses were very warm and patient and acted as feedback that helped Nathan keep experimenting and adjusting his language. I could see what Larsen-Freeman calls self-organization: learning emerging through variability, creativity, and the need to keep the interaction going rather than through imitation or correction.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at this scene through an ecological perspective and through the concept of temporal ranges (Uryu, Steffensen, & Kramsch, 2014), we can see that Nathan’s learning happens across several timescales. At the fast timescale, we see his immediate reactions, like his gestures, gaze, and spontaneous code-switching between English and Spanish. At the slower timescale, we can sense his history as a bilingual child and the family routines that have shaped how he experiences language. The two timescales timescales are constantly interacting. Each gesture or utterance connects the here-and-now of reading with longer histories of shared affection, teaching, and play. The professor’s role adds another dimension that reflects his pedagogical awareness and his own life as a teacher and father.
Juan - great work here about chaos theory, time scales, and non-linear learning. I love how you focus on the transformation of reading into a co-constructed story. The moment where you mention that Nathan moves from naming to performing the actions of the animals does a great job of capturing the ideas of emergence in Larsen-Freeman’s framework (1997). As a teacher, whether it be with primary or university students, I find that reading, and exploratory methodologies around reading, are one of the best ways to teach language because we can interact and engage with the story and the characters. And as father and Nathan show in the video, they use gesture and imitation to create deeper connections in their reading (first-order langauging - language as real-time process learning, what we do not something we have).
DeleteYou also mention about the playful nature of Nathan’s interaction with the reading, which can be seen as an example of order emerging from variability, where supposed chaos (his movements, sounds, etc) could lead to communicative adaptations.
Finally, I liked the part when you talk about the temporal ranges of the reading process. This makes me think about the ecological idea behind nested systems: the interplay between the biological (emotive), the interactional (the reading itself), and the sociocultural (family and linguistic upbringing. These systems all work together to create meaning (ECOLOGY!). I like to think about the nested systems as if they were the Russian dolls (matrioskas) because each system (doll) influences and contains/constrains the others. Nathan’s gestures are influenced by his interactions with the text and his father, which are also shaped by family culture, which in turn is shaped by larger and broader sociocultural structures.
This is great! It got me thinking about and remembering some of my undergraduate studies in biology…
Thanks, Juan!
Nice discussion folks, Juan David, I liked your focus on animals and how learning about them becomes embodied action and languaging as Drew points out. Yes, the idea of nested systems is very central in dynamic systems and ecology. Just like Nathan's case where family is one element of the nest, classrooms are only one components element of the entire language development system that students are engaged in.
DeleteHiiii, dear prof. Aldemar and colleagues. I truly hope this analysis finds you well.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with all what my peers have mentioned, I would like to add that it was really interesting learning by means of the readings assigned for this week that language is not something that should be seen in a linear ways, which is perhaps one of the views that has governed second language acquisition and language teaching and learning worldwide. Based on Larsen-Freeman (1997) and Uryu et al. (2012) it became noticeable, however, that as life itself, language might spontaneously emerge and take unprecedented turns as language, says Larsen-Freeman (1997), is dynamic, complex, and nonlinear. In other words, language is chaotic. Chaos, nevertheless, must not necessarily be equated withs something negative, as we have traditionally perceived chaos. Chaos, as suggested by Larsen-Freeman (1997) holds the potential to influence mainstream perceptions of language to begin considering factors that have remained overlooked. When thinking about these aspects, I could not avoid establishing a connection between these perceptions and pro language variations paradigms like English as a Lingua Franca or Global Englishes which are currently gaining momentum in the field. Although differing from standards ways of speaking, writing, and using English, the idea of cracking standard conceptions of using English are steadily demonstrating that the world is moving in a different direction.
When thinking about all these aspects and the intending to establish a connection with the video with your son, it was very interesting seeing that such a young boy that your son was at that time could recur to many non-verbal semiotic resources to make meaning and iteratively express his ideas. Such interaction you both held demonstrates that language must go hand in hand with other resources to complement and fully deploy the meaning making process. Although I agree with Carolina in the sense that I had some challenges with a few words and expressions your son produced due to his young age, he still managed to corporally express what he intended to say. I think that there was also a trans semiotization and re-sourcing of resources as all the semiotic mechanisms available at hand were utilized to have communication. Added to this, continuously receiving feedback allowed what Larsen-Freeman (1997) regards as “self-organizing” (p.142) which means that after such continuous interaction, the resources accommodated in the right place and time to have communication.
I think your video with Nathan is very interesting as it reminds us of that language and by extension communication is possible in all directions and contexts. Additionally, it was very interesting because the concept of language as ecology by Uryu et al. (2014) was present too. By continuously listening to Nathan and you it becomes evident that beyond engagement with slow and fast time ranges, Nathan is also reproducing views of language taught promoted and by his father. There was a reciprocal sharing of ideas and communication which little by little allowed the progressive development of the reading and storytelling activities. This made me think that, as pointed out by Uryu et al. (2014) the language we speak, the words we mutter, and the ideas we build are the result of previous interaction people before us have had with language. That idea was captivating, as while we have tended to say that language is socially and culturally situated, such a study also demonstrated that language is historically situated. After all, language is a social construction that has never remained static.
Thank you for reading my comment. I look forward to reading your responses and continuing conversations regarding this matter.
Regards,
Jhon.
Hi Jhon, thanks for sharing your insights on the video, it was very interesting. I think one of the most valuable things from the Larsen-Freeman document is what you mentioned: "language is not something that should be seen in a linear ways, which is perhaps one of the views that has governed second language acquisition and language teaching and learning worldwide"; as foreign language teachers we sometimes forget that language systems are chaotic and expect certain "perfection" or organization from students, and we may be disappointed if we don't hear them say a sentence in the way we expect them to. But after watching the video we realize that Nathan is using a lot of resources, including the use of sentences that contain both English and Spanish at the same time, and it's easy to see there how chaos, as you mentioned, is not something negative.
DeleteHello dear partners and professor,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I had to divide my comment into two sections.
I really enjoyed reading and analyzing all the videos, including the interaction between a father and his son. It was meaningful for me to see how several concepts from the readings are constantly, and often unconsciously, depicted by Nathan in his learning process. These new ideas also represent for me a call to transgress my pedagogical practices, since I feel that, as teachers, we frequently try to “control” or “adjust” our students’ learning processes to the expectations we have for them. The theory of chaos/complexity breaks down these ideal notions of learning that we have, inviting us to nurture research about interactions among what we have traditionally known as “factors involved in second language learning.” Larsen-Freeman (1997) parallels the chaos/complexity theory with second language acquisition by establishing similarities between the natural world and the study of language. The first relation she discusses is that both the natural and language systems are dynamic. Language is not static; it evolves with use, just as natural systems evolve dynamically rather than remaining fixed. We observe this feature when Nathan integrates into his speech words that his father taught him or said in a previous moment of the interaction, such as “ostrich” and “there.” The second similarity comes from the fact that the natural and language systems are complex and interconnected. Derived from the first idea, this connection is factual because both systems are composed of many interacting components. In natural systems, these can be molecules in weather systems or neurons in the brain, while in language, these could be phonology, syntax, semantics, etc. Thus, language systems are complex since language use emerges from the interaction of these parts, not from any single component alone. We can see this portrayed when Nathan supports his expression in the second language by using words in his mother tongue, sounds, and facial and manual gestures to portray meaning, switching among communicative resources to send a message.
While the previous features are constitutive, the third one refers to a temporal dimension. Both natural and language systems are nonlinear. Progress is not a straight path but one with advances, regressions, and changes. In the video, Nathan gets confused when recalling the name of a tiger, naming it a giraffe. His dad corrects him, and even when he does not repeat the word or express understanding of his mistake, later on, he uses his knowledge to name the giraffe properly. He even seems to hesitate for a second to remember exactly what he had previously missed. Also, even when Nathan clearly understands the vast majority of what his dad says, he still resorts to Spanish in some interactions, which shows how he is still appropriating the foreign language as natural speech. Such an example could also serve to portray the fourth similarity: natural and linguistic systems are chaotic yet patterned. While appearing random at times, both systems exhibit underlying order. The author describes language and interlanguage as having “chaotic” periods that eventually self-organize into new structures. We might argue that Nathan first internalized lexical knowledge and is now developing phonological knowledge to use all these words confidently throughout the interaction, however, sometimes he produces whole sentences in English, uses some words in Spanish, and also resorts to sounds and gestures, moving back and forth between translanguaging and trans-semiotizing.
The last similarity I would like to address is how natural and language systems are feedback-sensitive and adaptive. Natural systems receive feedback through natural selection, and in language, the feedback comes from teachers and experience. Language learners adapt through feedback. Positive and negative evidence in communication helps them reshape their internal systems. In Nathan’s case, the first time they saw a bear, he said “oso” in Spanish. His dad replied with the name in English, and later Nathan spotted the bear and said, “A bear!” He had internalized the new word in his mind. This also happens in other cases with words such as “there” and “ostrich.”
ReplyDeleteApproaching the video from the concept of temporal ranges, proposed by Uryu, Steffensen, and Kramsch (2014), requires us to see this communicative event not as an isolated, momentary exchange but as a layered process influenced by different temporal dynamics interacting among each other. Each of these ranges is governed by a shared organizing principle, such as human sense-making (culture), physical laws (physics), or interpersonal coordination (dialogical system). These principles link fast, embodied processes with slower, cultural, and historical ones. This relation is co-constitutive, meaning that the slow is part of the fast. Each temporal range contains diverse timescales, such as micro scales integrated by embodied reactions (seconds and milliseconds), and macro scales representing cultural and historical influences (years, generations).
Seen from this perspective, the dialogue between Nathan and his father becomes an ecological event where multiple temporal ranges converge. Micro scale reactions happen when Nathan answers his dad by using gestures, words, and pointing at animals in the book. He looks at his dad and touches him, strengthening the emotional connection. He even mirrors his actions to create a micro temporal coordination. Both dad and son participate in this attunement, which Uryu et al. (2014) describe as a dialogical system that self-organizes in real time. We can observe how embodied coordination and emotions guide the interaction, showing how meaning emerges naturally rather than being transmitted.
Nevertheless, behind the instant coordination to interact lies a macro temporal range, constituted by Nathan’s ongoing process of second language acquisition. Each time he corrects himself, repeats, or reuses a word like “bear” or “there,” his current utterance carries traces of previous interactions. He remembers earlier corrections, repetitions, and emotions experienced with his father. The instant dynamics of the interaction reorganize the slower acquisition processes, while these slower processes simultaneously constrain and give shape to the immediate exchange. Together, they constitute what Uryu et al. call a specification hierarchy. Micro scale and macro scale interactions are joined to construct the ecological event, and, broadening its influence, they both must be considered when analyzing second language acquisition.
Thank you so much for reading. I appreciate your comments.
Thank you Julieth, very detailed analysis. I will comment on some of these things below, but I want to highlight that your commentary about feedback makes a good point. I normally draw more on the noticing hypothesis and this is why Nathan little by little starts picking up the words and expressions. iI cannot say that due to our interaction he grasped the concept of bear, perhaps he had heard the word before and had already started internalization, or perhaps this was the time where he could sediment the concepts, I don't know and that is the point: learning is nonlinear, self-organizing unpredictable and others; this ecological moment was just an instance where he could language and embody language in a particular way that allowed him to construct the specific interaction with me.
DeleteJhonny Segura
ReplyDeleteWhat are the similarities between complex nonlinear systems occurring in nature and language and language acquisition that Larsen-Freeman points out? Can the features of nonlinear systems (e.g. dynamic, complex, nonlinear, chaotic etc) be seen in the way’s Nathan is appropriating language and other semiotic systems?
The interaction between Professor Jose and Nathan can be understood as a dynamic, non-linear, evolving system that shows a real-time example of how language learning naturally unfolds. A good example of this is evident when Pro Jose asked, “What is the lion doing?” and Nathan responded through a mix of English, Spanish, gestures, and “roars.” This moment clearly reflects Larsen-Freeman’s view that language acquisition is far from being linear but emerges through spontaneous, small interactions that, over time, lead to deeper learning. I notice that Professor Jose avoided forcing Nathan to use English or to verbalize specific animals; instead, he helped him discover them through his own body (when they both acted or through spontaneous miming). Through this non-linear process, which could seem chaotic for any “grammar police teacher,” Nathan could identify patterns, arising understanding through interaction, feedback, and trial and error. Most importantly, it was not just an interaction; it was an emotional exchange with a loved one. I want to mention I was genuinely moved by the scene, as it resonates with my own experience with my son: my wife and I adopted a one-person, one-language approach. I still treasure those special moments of discovery and emotional connection through language.
How can the concept of temporal ranges from the ecological approach be used as lens to see this interaction
Looking at the interaction through the ecological lens shows how time operates in the immediate moment in different layers: when Professor Jose plays with Nathan miming the animal together. In this moment, we can see more than just a play; we see a form of co-learning in which comprehension occurs as we navigate bilingual, multimodal ways of communicating. This moment can also be understood when related to other layers of the ecology: a routine of shared storytime, parenting values, and everyday life experiences, showing the big picture in which this moment is interwoven.
Hello Jhonny,
DeleteI agree with you when you mention that "it is not an interaction, it is an emotional experience"; I imagine those father and son moments where they could spend some time together are also full of memories for both of them; besides, this experience and many others that I am sure they had, are full of emotional histories that make meaning for them and between them. I think Nathan was not focused on how accurate he was when using the language, he just wanted to be with his dad. Reading became an excuse to strengthen their family bond while purposefully using the language.
Thanks,
Yuranny
Jhonny, I loved the part of "seem chaotic for any “grammar police teacher.” Yes, seen from the family bond perspective and how these language learning moments are sharing moments, I agree with you that these language learning experiences become strengthen emotional connections between family members and with languages and living entities.
DeleteDear all,
ReplyDeletePART 1:
This has been a very rich discussion. You have certainly expanded my understanding of what this interaction means. I appreciate the detailed and in-depth analyses you have offered and the insights each of you brought to help make sense of this moment, which only became “data” once I revisited it from a researcher’s perspective. I will not repeat what you have already pointed out: yes, most principles of complex dynamic systems are clearly at play here. I was certainly not thinking about complexity when I sat down to spend time with my son. However, several years later, when I reviewed the video, I realized that Nathan had essentially given me a lesson on what developing lenguaje implies. I use lenguaje in the sense of the human faculty to express experience and make meaning through diverse semiotic systems, including named languages.
I guess I can take some credit for how the temporal range we co-created allowed a dialogical system to emerge, one in which I let myself be guided by the trajectories or attractors that were meaningful to Nathan. I was inhabiting multiple timescales with several assumed roles: a dad, a teacher, perhaps even an academic and researcher. Yet Nathan kept pulling me into other timescales and temporal ranges he was inhabiting, especially those shaped by play and imagination, which were much stronger attractors for him. So, while I was more or less dragging him toward desired timescales of literacy and literacy-like behaviors, he was dragging me toward his world of play and imagination—interacting with me sometimes as if I were another child, a playmate, and other times as his dad. It was interesting to see how this mutual pulling made visible the multiscalar relationality that enabled the dialogical system. It is precisely this multiscalar relationality; these multiple timescales and their resonances (e.g., the resonance of being a child), that allowed us to take on different identities throughout the interaction, even that of an animal. It makes sense, then, to say that we take on proxy identities in dialogical systems.
At a subconscious level, Nathan was aware he was navigating two semiotic systems and that transemiotizing was a resource available to him. This aligns with an important principle of complex systems: they are adaptive, meaning they turn things to their own advantage. We see how Nathan moves across timescales: transforming a relatively “serious” literacy moment into a game: turning it to his advantage as a child, but also as a learner who appropriates the world through experiential and interbodily contact: jumping, hiding, screaming, and so on.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThere is one aspect I want to expand on, something that really struck me when I rewatched the full video months after the interaction. The clip you saw is part of a longer 45-minute interaction. I shortened it because it might have been too long to watch. But once we finished the book about animals, Nathan grabbed another book and sat down to read it with me. Much of what happened in the first interaction happened again. This new book was about the ABC, and I felt that the second interaction was a fractal of the first. So I cut that part and jumped to the end of the video.
At the end on minute 8:20 or so (you can check again), Nathan asks me to play, and when I ask “What do you want to play?” he says “ati” and immediately freezes his body. I didn’t understand, so I asked again. Then he says “telou” while approaching me and repeating it. I still couldn’t make sense of it. Then he walks to the kitchen saying “venga a mesto,” and I follow him with my phone recording. He reaches the fridge and begins pressing buttons. I ask what he is doing. He keeps pressing, but nothing seems to happen. He turns to me again and says “este es telou,” stiffening his body and producing an “ahhh.” Suddenly, out of nowhere, it comes to him: “codelado…” pause… and then, more clearly: “cogelado!” He jumps, his voice full of confidence. And I realize he had been trying to tell me he wanted to play “congelado”—freeze tag.
To me, this is a powerful example of distributed cognition, relational ontologies, and materialities (if you go back to our readings on posthumanism and postmaterialism). It shows how temporal ranges are co-constructed by material entities and how they become instrumental for cognition. Nathan drew on several semiotic resources but initially failed because he lacked the phonetic resources to produce intelligible phonemes. Then he used gesture and paralinguistic cues, though still unsuccessful. Then he attempted a kind of metaphor—“telou” for hielo—trying to link it to congelado. Still not enough. So he resorted to the affordances of the current timescale and space: the kitchen and the fridge. In the end, I failed as an interlocutor as far as making the needed meanings to understand him, but his brain created an excellent trajectory to retrieve a word he could not produce. He drew on the affordances of his body, voice, gestures, posture, and finally the materiality around him to make meaning. So, I could finally understood that he wanted to play freeze or congelado. This is a godo proof as you most of you asserted that meaning-making is chaotic, nonlinear, unpredictable, self-organizing, adaptive, and deeply dynamic.