697 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 10 (4). 2020. 697-721 http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.4.3 http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ssllt On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem D. Reid Evans University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8341-488X reid.evans@umassmed.edu Abstract Fundamental to complex dynamic systems theory is the assumption that the recursive behavior of complex systems results in the generation of physical forms and dynamic processes that are self-similar and scale-invariant. Such fractal-like structures and the organismic benefit that they engender has been widely noted in physiology, biology, and medicine, yet discussions of the frac- tal-like nature of language have remained at the level of metaphor in applied linguistics. Motivated by the lack of empirical evidence supporting this as- sumption, the present study examines the extent to which the use and devel- opment of complex syntax in a learner of English as a second language demon- strate the characteristics of self-similarity and scale invariance at nested time- scales. Findings suggest that the use and development of syntactic complexity are governed by fractal scaling as the dynamic relationship among the sub- constructs of syntax maintain their complexity and variability across multiple temporal scales. Overall, fractal analysis appears to be a fruitful analytic tool when attempting to discern the dynamic relationships among the multiple component parts of complex systems as they interact over time. Keywords: complex dynamic systems theory; fractals; syntactic complexity; sec- ond language development; variability D. Reid Evans 698 1. Introduction It is no secret that recursive, self-similar patterns abound in the world that sur- rounds us. From the biological self-similarity evidenced, for example, in the vas- cular branching of our internal organs, to the self-similar patterning of abiotic structures including mountain ranges, river systems, clouds, and coastlines, the natural world flourishes in recursive iteration. Such self-similarity, as we learn from fields such as physics and mathematics, results from the behavior of com- plex dynamic systems as they iterate over time (Brown, Gupta, Li, Milne, & West, 2002). The feedback-sensitive nature of such systems, in which the current state of the system serves as the input for each subsequent state (Thelen, 2005), en- genders the self-similar patterns so frequently witnessed in nature. To be sure, recognition of the self-similar patterning so common in the natural world is not new; however, it was not until Benoit Mandelbrot (1982) advanced the notion of fractal geometry that a language emerged capable of examining and describ- ing the traces left by the recursive iteration of complex systems (Peitgen, Jür- gens, & Saupe, 1992). Across both time and space, complex systems in the nat- ural world commonly generate fractal-like structures, thus upholding their in- trinsic complexity at smaller and smaller temporal and physical scales. As Mandelbrot articulated, the term fractal refers to a class of geometric figures that, when magnified, reveal increasingly smaller, yet self-similar struc- tures on every scale. Fractal scaling is pervasive in nature and has been noted in a myriad of physical and biological processes. Language, of course, has not es- caped these discussions as scholars have alluded to the fractal nature of lan- guage for some time (Lyle, 2009; Shanon, 1993; Youmans & Pfeifer, 2005). This discussion, however, has been limited, relying almost exclusively on the fractal as a metaphor to describe and explain language as the requisite characteristics of fractals offer a distinct semblance to many of the defining features of human language (Pareyon, 2007). Clear reference has been made, for instance, to the oft-cited and widely recognized recursive nature of language. In this way, the iterative combinatorial process of language production results in a branching of structures that, when examined independently, frequently resemble the whole. Fruitful as the fractal metaphor may be, the extent to which fractal patterns ap- pear in language use is still uncertain (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Given this uncertainty, if language is to be accepted as fractal-like, there is a clear need for empirical evidence supporting the self-similar, scale-free nature of language use and development. Furthermore, as advances in disciplines such as biology and physiology have uncovered the pervasiveness of fractal scaling in living or- ganisms (Brown et al., 2002), our understanding of the organismic benefit derived from fractal scaling has continued to grow. If language use and development can On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 699 be demonstrated to exhibit fractal patterning, logically, the biological benefits of fractality may equally be shared by the human language capacity. Given the pervasiveness of self-similarity in the physical world, the pre- sent paper empirically explores the fractal nature of language, focusing specifi- cally on the temporal self-similarity of complex syntax. To accomplish this task, I draw on longitudinal oral production data of a second language (L2) learner of English to show that complex syntax evidences the defining characteristics of fractal structure – that of self-similarity and scale-invariance, along with a non- linear distribution of form. In doing so, this study adds to the previous body of literature discussing the nonlinear, Zipfian distributions of lexis (Larsen-Free- man, 1997; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) and lexical variation (Kretzsch- mar, 2015) by arguing that complex syntax, too, appears to be governed by the principles of scale-free, fractal fluctuation. As arguments for the biological ben- efit of fractal scaling in human physiology have gained traction in recent years (West, 2006), I advance this conjecture vis-à-vis language use and development in a discussion of the potential benefits of the fractal nature of complex syntax. Finally, recent complexity scholarship has affirmed that the components and subcomponents of the complex linguistic system develop at highly differential rates over time (de Bot, 2015), yet the true timescales of development remain elusive (Ruhland & van Geert, 1998). It follows, then, that this imperfectly un- derstood area of language development hints at a broader issue within the field of applied linguistics, one which I term the timescale problem. Given that re- search into fractal scaling in language is in its infancy, I posit the latent potential of fractal analysis to address the timescale problem and our impoverished un- derstanding of the unique timescales of language development. Adopting a frac- tal analytical framework, I will argue, accommodates a view in which language is seen not as an artifact of a single arbitrary timescale, but rather as a dynamic process situated within and across multiple scales of time. 2. Theoretical considerations 2.1. Complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) Since its introduction into the field of applied linguistics (Larsen-Freeman, 1997), CDST has gained increasing favorability. First understood as a productive metaphor to describe and explain language development and use (Larsen-Free- man & Cameron, 2008), in its application, complexity-informed scholarship has demonstrated that language exhibits many of the fundamental properties of complex systems. Relating both to the structural and behavioral characteristics of such systems, we now understand language to consist of a multitude of interacting D. Reid Evans 700 components and subcomponents (van Geert, 2008) whose open, feedback-sen- sitive nature leads to seemingly random, nonlinear trajectories of development over time (e.g., Dong, 2016; Schmid, Kopke, & de Bot, 2013). Complex systems are comprised of a theoretically limitless set of interre- lated component parts which may be both endogenous or exogenous to the sys- tem itself (de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011). Few would argue the applicability of this notion to the language faculty as both system-internal and system-external factors are recognized to affect language development and use. From within, psy- chological constructs and language skills such as mental grammars, phonology, and the lexicon all interface with the external linguistic environment through dis- tributed social interaction (Lowie & Verspoor, 2015). As individuals differ signifi- cantly in terms of biological propensity as well as experience, the unique ways in which the components of the complex linguistic system interact lead to highly in- dividualized developmental trajectories. As a result, complexity studies have high- lighted such inter-individual variability (Baba & Nitta, 2014; van Dijk & van Geert, 2007), thus demonstrating that group means tell us very little about how individ- ual language users develop in their abilities over time (Chan, Verspoor, & Vahtrick, 2015; Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Verspoor, Lowie, Chan, & Vahtrick, 2017). Equally relevant to human language, complex systems are said to be open, or dissipative (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984), in that they find themselves in a con- stant exchange of energy and information with the external environment (Kauff- man, 1995). Coupled with the curious interplay that results among the manifold components of the system, this continuous exchange gives rise to a complex linguistic system that is inherently mutable, yet atelic as it possesses no discern- able end state (de Bot, Chan, Lowie, Plat, & Verspoor, 2012; Larsen-Freeman, 2015). External pressures are a driving force in system evolution, yet change also initiates from within. Internal pressures exerted on the system motivate the pro- cess of self-organization by which the synergistic activity of system-internal com- ponents generates novelty in behavior (Smith & Thelen, 2003), pushing the sys- tem toward higher orders of complexity and spontaneous pattern formation (van Geert, 2008). As complex systems respond and adapt to internal and exter- nal pressures, variability is common as systems evolve over time (van Dijk & van Geert, 2011). This notion has been demonstrated in both first language (L1; Bas- sano & van Geert, 2007) and L2 development (Lowie, Verspoor, & van Dijk, 2018; Penris & Verspoor, 2017), leading some to suggest that variability not only pro- motes flexibility within the system but may truly be a prerequisite to develop- ment (Lowie, Verspoor, & van Dijk, 2018). The feedback sensitivity of complex systems equally contributes to the variability in system development over time. Dissipative systems do not pas- sively exchange information with their surroundings; instead, they actively On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 701 gather information about themselves and their environment (Gell-Mann, 1994) with each iterative exchange serving as an attempt to further benefit the system (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). As a consequence, feedback-sensitive systems evolve via an iterative process by which the current state, or iteration, of the system serves as input for the next proximal state (Thelen, 2005). This view is highly amenable to emergentist accounts of language use and development which ar- gue that grammatical regularities emerge from the interaction of the compo- nents both internal and external to the complex linguistic system itself (Ellis, 2011). In real time, the complex linguistic system adapts to the moment-to-mo- ment constraints and affordances of the context in which it is used. In turn, these exchanges reinforce certain stable conditions, or attractor states (Hiver, 2015), while equally pushing the system away from others (van Geert, 2008). Recent complexity scholarship has shaped our understanding of language as an open, feedback-sensitive, nonlinear, complex, adaptive system (Beckner et al., 2009). Significant questions remain, however, relating to how language development and use uphold additional characteristics of complex systems. We know, for instance, that the self-organization of complex systems as they iterate over time leads to the emergence of novel patterns of form and behavior (Evans & Larsen-Freeman, 2020). Fields such as mathematics and physics have demon- strated that this process of iteration frequently generates fractal-like structures, that is, those which mimic themselves on smaller and smaller scales (Feldman, 2012). Though complexity-informed scholarship in applied linguistics has hinted at the fractal nature of language (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), the extent to which these forms exist is still uncertain. 2.2. Fractals Fractals are those geometric forms which, when magnified, reveal increasingly smaller, yet self-similar patterns across all scales of measurement. A product of complex dynamic systems (Delignières & Marmelat, 2012), geometric fractals result from iterative mathematical equations that, when repeated, are capable of expressing an infinite amount of detail in a seemingly finite space (Chávez & Ragan, 2016). This process is demonstrated, for example, in the often cited Sier- piński triangle. The Sierpiński triangle is created via a recursive process in which the central triangle within an equilateral triangle is removed leaving four similar triangles. When this process is repeated iteratively with the remaining triangles, a fractal figure emerges (see Figure 1). The Sierpiński triangle illustrates two of the defining characteristics of geometric fractals – those of self-similarity and scale-invariance. When a segment of the Sierpiński triangle is magnified, the de- tails revealed are identical, or self-similar, to those of the entire figure. As this D. Reid Evans 702 process may be repeated endlessly with similar results, the Sierpiński triangle equally illustrates scale-invariance as each iteration produces equal amounts of complex detail down to the most arbitrarily small scales. Figure 1 The Sierpiński triangle Nature makes use of the efficiency of scale-free self-similarity as the iteration of simple rules makes the generation of fractals relatively “easy” (Feldman, 2012). Fractal structures found in nature, however, seldom display self-similarity with the same exactitude as their mathematical brethren due, in significant part, to the in- herent randomness of natural processes (McGrath, 2016). While geometric fractals demonstrate limitless scale-invariance, true fractals in this sense do not occur in nature. Instead, the stochastic nature of the physical world results in fractal struc- tures that rarely exhibit perfect self-similarity; that is, an isolated segment of an ob- ject is most often only an approximation of the whole (Peitgen et al., 1992). 2.2.1. Distribution of form As demonstrated in the Sierpiński triangle, each successive iteration contains fur- ther reduced triangles that resemble the whole. In this way, the distribution of form within fractal structures is a function of the scale of measurement – while only a limited number of large triangles can be discerned, countless smaller and smaller triangles are observed as the shape is magnified. This unique relationship, when plotted graphically, results not in a normal, or Gaussian distribution of form, but in a probability density function governed by a power-law (see Figure 2). In- dicative of self-similar, fractal processes (West, 2001), power-laws describe scaling relationships in which each successively smaller structure is exponentially more On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 703 frequent than that which precedes it (Feldman, 2012). In the case of the Sier- piński triangle, a large probability exists of observing a small triangle, yet the probability of observing a large triangle is exponentially diminished. Figure 2 The asymptotic, long-tail curve of a power-law distribution The asymptotic, long-tail distribution of power-laws embodies the scale-free nature of fractals as the “average” form depends not on the traditional bell curve, but rather on the degree of resolution used in observation (Feldman, 2012). Thus, power-law probability density functions challenge the commonly held assumption in science and mathematics that measurement on a single scale results in an appro- priate description of a fractal object (Liebovitch & Shehadeh, 2005). Alternatively, investigating fractal forms necessarily warrants measurement across scales as scal- ing relationships provide significant insight into the patterns found in nature. 2.2.2. Self-similar structure versus self-similar dynamics While physical, or geometric, self-similarity is highly prevalent in nature and mathe- matics, fractal scaling is equally observed in the temporal dynamics, or behavior, of complex systems as they iterate over time. Whereas fractal geometry describes self- similarity in physical form, in the temporal dimension, self-similarity is an expression of the system’s dynamics (West, 2001) and is suggestive of a process in which fluctu- ations in behavior appear identical at increasingly smaller moments in time. Certainly, all biological processes, including language, exhibit a certain degree of variability in their developmental trajectories. When examined at successively smaller time scales, patterns of variability frequently appear self-similar across temporal scales (Rhea et al., 2014). In this way, as geometric fractals maintain their complexity across physical scales, a system’s dynamics do not diminish in complexity as temporal scales are mag- nified. Instead, the moment-to-moment fluctuations of complex systems retain their complexity as the system “dances among the time scales” (West, 2001, p. 397). It is D. Reid Evans 704 the “dance” among time scales and the emergent patterns that it produces that is of most interest to those seeking to understand the fractal nature of behavior. In sum, power-law scaling relationships and fractal self-similarity are rec- ognized as a robust analytic framework for investigating the emergence and be- havior of complex systems (Brown et al., 2002). As power-law probability den- sity functions are the “signature” of fractals (Feldman, 2012), evidence of these distributions supports the fractal nature of complex biological processes. Fields such as physiology and medicine have capitalized on this understanding leading to new perspectives on health (West, 2006), advancing the importance of fractal scaling in the human organism. 2.3. Fractal patterns in human physiology The pervasiveness of fractal scaling in human behavior and physiology is widely acknowledged (Stephen, Arzamarski, & Michaels, 2010), and such patterning is now recognized as an important characteristic of a “healthy” biological system. Our emerging understanding of fractal scaling now suggests that health is often incor- rectly attributed to “order” within the physiological system (Varela, Ruiz-Esteban, & Mestre de Juan, 2010). On the contrary, living systems are rarely in states of equi- librium, and “most healthy behaviors are highly irregular and pseudo-random” (Varela et al., 2010, p. 585). Thus, while pathology was once understood as chaos and disorder within a physiological system, in many ways it is now viewed as a de- crease in the patterns of self-similarity in aging or diseased systems (Delignières & Marmelat, 2012; Rhea & Kuznetsov, 2017). Not surprisingly, physiological systems derive benefit from their fractal char- acteristics, particularly when considering the adaptability and/or flexibility afforded by scale-invariant self-similarity. From an evolutionary perspective, the redundancy of fractal systems at every timescale permits organisms to overcome and adapt to both the stress and unpredictability of environments (McGrath, 2016) – on the or- der of milliseconds in cellular functions to the entire lifespan, and perhaps on even greater timescales such as that of phylogeny (Potts, 1996). Outwardly, self-similarity equates to fluctuations in performance resulting in manifold behavioral assemblies allowing biological systems to be “optimally sensitive” to environmental change (Stephen et al., 2010). The flexibility and adaptability of human behavior to the per- ennial dynamism of our environment has been heralded as perhaps the defining characteristic of the genus Homo (Potts, 1996). Yet the fitness of our phenotypes is hardly the sole beneficiary of fractal scaling as, inwardly, the human cognitive function equally derives benefit from self-similarity. As fractals are constructed via iterative processes in which simple rules engender self-similar structures at various scales, the cognitive load required On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 705 to generate and process multiple hierarchical levels of self-similarity is reduced (Fischmeister, Martins, Beisteiner, & Fitch, 2017). Representation of multiple hier- archical levels by a single rule may reduce cognitive demands (Dias Martins, Laaha, Freiberger, Choi, & Fitch, 2014) while equally aiding in parsing complex, recursive structures (Fischmeister et al., 2017), hierarchical units such as pho- nemes, syllables, and sentences (Ding, Melloni, Zhang, Tiang, & Poeppel, 2016), and even lexical processing (Plat, Lowie, & de Bot, 2018). Taken further, others have suggested that self-similarity and recursion are more than simply “hallmark traits” of cognitive processing; instead, these may fully equate to the default mode of the human cognitive function (Fischmeister et al., 2017). In human phys- iology and behavior, fractal scaling appears to be the norm and not the exception. 2.4. Fractal scaling in the study of language The potential of fractal analysis has not gone unnoticed in the study of language. Clearly, the iterative patterning of fractal forms evokes a distinct parallel to the recursive nature of human language (Chomsky, 1957). Recursion, by definition, is iterative as it “takes a finite set of elements and yields a potentially infinite array of discrete expressions” (Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002, p. 1571). Itera- tion in language is evidenced, for example, in the generation of syntactic trees as the hierarchical branching of constituents, when isolated, frequently resem- bles the tree diagram in its entirety. Generally speaking, however, these discus- sions have stemmed from synchronic representations of recursion at the level of the utterance, that is, at a single temporal scale. This representation, while productive, fails to account for the diachronic iteration of language over tem- poral scales beyond the utterance and, from a complexity standpoint, for the ways in which such recursion may lead to language development over time. By contrast, scholars attempting to situate the recursive, nested patterns of language use across multiple timescales have drawn on the fractal metaphor to describe phenomena such as the acquisition of French tense and aspect (Lyle, 2009) and the “ebb and flow of information” in discourse (Youmans, 1991; Youmans & Pfeifer, 2005). In this way, Lyle (2009) argues for a fractal model of L2 development in which learners soft assemble (Thelen & Smith, 1994) their lan- guage resources in response to the constraints of the linguistic environment. This occurs across multiple levels of analysis as a “narrower focus reveals equally com- plex but perhaps qualitatively different patterns when compared to a wider an- gle” (Lyle, 2009, p. 61), yet the extent to which these patterns occur in the acqui- sition of tense-aspect morphology at multiple temporal scales is still unclear. Others have argued that power-law distributions of lexis (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) and lexical variation (Kretzschmar, 2015) provide the most D. Reid Evans 706 compelling evidence for language as a complex system. Linguist George Kingsley Zipf (1935) first noted that, given a text of sufficient size, the probability of the most common word occurring in the text is inversely proportional to its rank. Thus, language use is characterized by a small number of highly recurrent words, and a reduced number of those which are less common. This phenomenon oc- curs not just in the distribution of words within a text (i.e., Zipf’s law), but equally in lexical variation as the most common semantic and phonological var- iants of a particular word occur with exponentially greater frequency than the least common variants (Kretzschmar, 2015). The longstanding recognition of the nonlinear distribution of the lexicon has motivated Larsen-Freeman and Cam- eron (2008) to argue that “conceivably there are fractals in other language-using patterns” (p. 111) ostensibly extending beyond just the lexicon. Indeed, empiri- cal evidence of power-law distributions in other language patterns would fur- ther support the fractal nature of language. Perhaps the most credible empirical evidence of the self-similar dynamics of discourse is offered by Youmans (1991). In an attempt to discern the distribu- tion of given versus new information within a text, Youmans followed a simple algorithm to assign values of 1.0 to words appearing for the first time and 0.0 to repetitions, that is, new versus given information respectively. Next, moving aver- ages of the values were plotted, generating vocabulary-management profiles (VMPs). As new vocabulary correlates with new information and repeated vocab- ulary with given information, the increasing and decreasing VMP trendlines illus- trate the ebb and flow of information in discourse. Upon closer inspection, the VMP profiles revealed fractal patterning as givenness cycles throughout discourse with smaller peaks and valleys of given versus new information at the sentential level nested within larger peaks and valleys across paragraphs, sections, episodes, and so on. The nested dynamics of givenness offered by the VMP profiles offer distinct evidence of a linguistic system in which self-similar patterns of variability retain their complexity regardless of the scale of measurement. In sum, fractal analysis allows us to observe and describe the patterns of complex dynamic systems as they iterate over time across multiple timescales (McGrath, 2016). As we are still somewhat eluded by the true timescales of lin- guistic development (de Bot, 2015; Ruhland & van Geert, 1998), viewing emerg- ing patterns in this way holds great potential for research into the human lan- guage capacity. This potential, coupled with the relative paucity of empirical studies specifically examining the fractal nature of language, speaks to the ur- gency of work in this area. As such, the present study responds directly to these issues and was informed by the following research question: On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 707 · In what way(s) do the developmental trajectories of complex syntax ex- hibit the characteristics of self-similarity and scale invariance typical of fractal scaling over time? 3. The study Upholding the preference for process-oriented data collection and analysis in CDST, this study employed a nonlinear time series analytic framework (Myers, 2016). Time series analyses rely on consecutive, equally spaced observations of a given phenomenon for a specified period of time. Once a longitudinal dataset is compiled, time series designs then allow for the full dataset to be represented graphically in a time series plot (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020), or scrutinized via CDST-informed analyses such as min-max graphs, Monte Carlo simulations, and moving correlations (Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, 2011). 3.1. Participant The participant, Alceste,1 was an adult male learner of English as a second language who worked as an instructor of French for one academic year in a large, public uni- versity in the northeastern United States. Coming from the francophone region of Switzerland, Alceste reported only two years of formal education in English at the secondary level and suggested that his linguistic ability in English had developed through interaction with English-speaking friends in Switzerland. Alceste was 27 years old upon commencement of data collection and his oral proficiency in English was informally assessed at the intermediate low level (ACTFL, 2012), an assumption affirmed by a colleague with extensive knowledge of L2 assessment. During his time in the United States, Alceste frequently sought opportunities to interact with speak- ers of English and communicated a desire to improve his linguistic abilities, though he did not enroll in any formal instruction in ESL. Consistent with other literature in SLA (e.g., Polat & Kim, 2014), Alceste is considered an untutored learner of English given his lack of exposure to the instructed setting. Although he was cognizant that my objective was to study the development in his language proficiency, he re- mained unaware of any specific focal areas of study. 3.2. Data collection Dialogic conversations between Alceste and myself were audio recorded and transcribed at weekly intervals over the course of one academic year for a total 1 The name is a pseudonym. D. Reid Evans 708 of 30 conversations. To uphold the most naturalistic setting possible, conversa- tions were not scripted in any way, although I frequently began by asking Alceste about his week and inquiring as to the opportunities that he had had to engage in interaction in English. Recurrent conversation themes included his position as an instructor of French, his interest in French literature, cultural differences be- tween Switzerland and the United States, and the like. Weekly conversations were held for a minimum of 20 minutes, although the desire for prolonged con- versation was never impeded. To maintain consistency, I limited the analysis of each conversation to the first 20 minutes. 3.3. Unit of analysis and syntactic complexity Dialogic conversation data were first segmented into analysis of speech units (AS- units; Foster, Tonkyn, & Wigglesworth, 2000), defined minimally as any “inde- pendent clause, or sub-clausal unit, together with any subordinate clause(s) asso- ciated with either” (p. 365). Unlike other units of analysis employed in text/dis- course studies, the AS-unit allows for the inclusion of sub-clausal units in analysis, or those utterances that do not necessarily contain a finite verb (and/or other syntactic elements) yet figure prominently in dialogic oral data (Norris & Ortega, 2009). A methodological note is warranted, however, as few studies employing the AS-unit explicitly discuss the level of application adopted for analysis. In this study, I employed the AS-unit at the second level given the highly interactive na- ture of the dialogic conversation task. At this level, one-word minor utterances (e.g., yeah) and verbatim echoic responses are excluded from analysis. The operational definitions of syntactic complexity were consistent with much of the extant literature (Bulté & Housen, 2012; Norris & Ortega, 2009). In this way, complex syntax was viewed at the clausal, supra-clausal, and sentential levels. Clausal complexity was calculated as the mean length of clause in words; supra-clausal complexity as the total number of clauses per AS-unit via the mechanism of subordination; and sentential complexity was calculated as the mean length of AS-unit in words. 3.4. Data analysis Notably, there is no “cookbook” approach to fractal analysis (McGrath, 2016) as each distinct field has employed numerous tools to analyze and interpret fractal scaling given the respective data at hand. Thus, I sought to determine the frac- tal-like nature of language in two distinct ways – via the presence of power-law probability density functions and by examining the self-similar temporal dynam- ics of the system. On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 709 To determine the probability density distribution of complex syntax in conversation, I first calculated the number of clauses per individual AS-unit over the 30 weeks of data collection, which allowed me to determine the total num- ber of AS-units with a density of one clause (e.g., one independent clause), two clauses (e.g., one independent plus one subordinate clause), three clauses (e.g., one independent plus two subordinate clauses), and so forth. Finally, I plotted the results of this analysis graphically with frequency of occurrence on the y axis and clausal density on the x axis to identify the extent to which a power-law probability density function governs the distribution of complex syntax. Next, to examine self-similar dynamics, raw data for clausal, supra-clausal, and sentential complexification were standardized and the z-scores were plot- ted graphically with time in weeks on the x axis. Similar to other complexity studies (e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 2006), plotting the standardized scores in this way allowed the three developmental trajectories to be scrutinized compara- tively. To address the potential self-similarity in the dynamic interactions among the subconstructs of complex syntax, the relationships between these measures were plotted and examined at three distinct temporal levels. This included the successive magnification of the conversation data from the level of the entire dataset (30 weeks), to 30 conversation turns within one week, and finally to 28 AS-units within a single conversation turn as 28 was the maximum number of contiguous AS-units within a single turn. The scaling of this analysis was chosen specifically to reflect the possible adaptations of complex syntax over the vari- ous legitimate timescales of language use and development – within one con- versation turn, across a single conversation, and finally over one academic year. Typical of nonlinear time series analyses, inspection of the phase space plots for each successive temporal level visually indicated self-similar patterns in variabil- ity across timescales. To confirm this finding, the percentage of total variance of each of the three constructs of complex syntax (clausal, supra-clausal, and senten- tial complexification) was calculated in Excel at each of the three distinct timescales. If complex syntax is indeed fractal-like, the percentage that each construct accounts for the total variability would ostensibly remain equal across temporal scales. 4. Results 4.1. Power-law probability density function In total, Alceste produced just less than 5,900 clauses during our weekly conser- vations over the academic year. Frequency/density calculations of clausal pro- duction were plotted graphically to illustrate the probability density function of their distribution. The results of this analysis across 30 weeks of conversation data D. Reid Evans 710 is shown in Figure 3. Clearly, the long-tail, asymptotic curve of a power-law dis- tribution is evident in the visualization. This is suggestive of a rapidly attenuating distribution of clausal density in which, over a prolonged period, a speaker in dialogic interaction demonstrates a preference for single-clause AS-units at a rate that is exponentially greater than the preference for two-clause, three-clause, or greater AS-units. While longer AS-units were indeed produced throughout the academic year (with a 7-clause AS-unit occurring just twice in the data), the occur- rence of these longer units was rare. Figure 3 The frequency/density distribution of clausal density over 30 weeks The distribution in Figure 3 points to the constraints and affordances of the external linguistic environment and the way in which these interact with the internal language faculty. Clearly permissible are long, dense utterances capable of transmitting vast amounts of information, yet the preference for truncated utterances may be indicative of a desire to minimize processing effort (Filipović & Hawkins, 2013). When necessary, however, the power-law governing the pro- duction of complex syntax engenders the requisite flexibility to respond to the demands of language in use, thus empowering the speaker to convey even the most highly intricate information. 4.2. Self-similarity across temporal scales The dynamic self-similarity among the constructs of clausal, supra-clausal, and sen- tential elaboration across three temporal scales can be seen in Figures 4, 5, and 6. On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 711 Figure 4 The dynamics of syntactic complexity over 30 weeks (z-scores) Figure 4 illustrates the nonlinear nature of Alceste’s complex syntax over 30 weeks. Although no construct demonstrated a marked increase over one aca- demic year, several observations can be made. To begin, we see that overall sen- tential elaboration appears highly variable over the period of data collection. At times, a degree of relative consistency can be observed (e.g., Weeks 16 through 21), while at others, there are much larger differences between the peaks and valleys of the trajectory (e.g., Weeks 11 to 13). Next, the dynamic relationship between subordination and clausal elaboration suggests that sentence length is, at times, accounted for by clausal elaboration and subordination rather equally (e.g., Weeks 1 through 3), while at other weeks, there is significant disparity be- tween the mechanisms which best account for sentence length (e.g., Week 4). Figure 5 The dynamics of syntactic complexity over 30 conversation turns (z-scores) D. Reid Evans 712 Figure 6 The dynamics of syntactic complexity over 28 AS-units (z-scores) Next, to illustrate the dynamic self-similarity and scale-invariance of com- plex syntax, Figures 5 and 6 show the trajectories of these constructs at further reduced temporal scales – that of 30 conversation turns within one week and that of 28 contiguous AS-units within a single conversation turn. When viewed to- gether, the variability within the trajectories of subordination, clausal elaboration, and sentential elaboration in the three graphs is strikingly similar at all three time scales. Further supporting the fractal nature of complex syntax, Table 1 illustrates the self-similarity of the variability among the three constructs. In the same way that a smaller and smaller ruler will return increasingly larger measurements of a coastline, total variance predictably differs across the three distinct periods of measurement, yet the percentage of the total variance that each construct ac- counts for remains the same independent of temporal scale. In this way, complex syntax demonstrates the fractal characteristic of self-similarity in that it equally accounts for total variance regardless of the scale of measurement. Table 1 Variance and percentage of total variance of constructs across three temporal scales Level 30 weeks 30 conversation turns 28 AS-units in one conversation turn Clausal 13% (.07) 13% (3.08) 14% (9.22) Supra-clausal 2% (.01) 2% (.37) 1% (.67) Sentential 85% (.43) 85% (20.07) 85% (55.26) Total 100% (σ2 = .51) 100% (σ2 = 23.52) 100% (σ2 = 65.15) Across temporal scales, a complex interplay exists between the subcon- structs of syntactic complexity. As utterance length varies, the mechanisms by On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 713 which this process occurs vacillate between a reliance on subordination and clausal elaboration. At times, these two constructs function in unison to com- plexify Alceste’s speech; at others, they appear to exist in competition. Perhaps most important, however, is the self-similar, scale-free nature of these trajecto- ries as they maintain their nonlinearity at every temporal scale. 5. Discussion From a complexity theory perspective, examining the fractal-like nature of lin- guistic phenomena represents a novel approach to the study of language, a point echoed by Larsen-Freeman (2012) who writes that “complexity theory in- spires us to think differently about language and language development” (p. 202). Naturally, different ways of conceptualizing a construct require different ways of approaching that construct both theoretically and methodologically. The fractal analysis detailed herein allows us to do just that. From the data pre- sented above, we see that clausal density in discourse is governed by a power- law distribution typical of fractals found in the physical world. In addition, the dynamic patterns of variability of complex syntax appear self-similar across three distinct temporal scales. Taken together, the results of this analysis pro- vide support for the fractal nature of language, which is a key assumption in a complexity-informed perspective (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). What such fractal scaling suggests is that complex syntax, like many hu- man behaviors, demonstrates scale-invariant temporal flexibility (Delignières & Marmelat, 2012), allowing language to adapt to the needs of the speaker across timescales (see also Lyle, 2009; Shanon, 1993). Within a single conversation turn, the fluctuating variability of sentence length, clause length, and density of subordination permit the speaker to expressly communicate their developing thoughts on a moment-to-moment basis. Across an entire conversation, the same flexibility allows for changes in topic and context, dynamic discourse prag- matics including givenness (Youmans & Pfeifer, 2005), and stylistic choices such as repertoire. The macrogenetic flexibility exhibited at greater timescales (i.e., one academic year or beyond) accommodates the slower dynamics associated with changes in sociolinguistic environment, brain maturation in children, levels of education, interpersonal relationships, and so forth. In sum, it seems that the human language faculty capitalizes on the adaptability and flexibility of fractal scaling in much the same was as many, if not all, living organisms. As a complexity-informed view of language suggests, learners do not pro- gress from one conceptual level of linguistic ability to another in linear fashion (Larsen-Freeman, 2006). Instead, distinct properties of linguistic proficiency develop recursively according to their own subjective timescales. As most will recognize, D. Reid Evans 714 many systems may demonstrate change on larger timescales (e.g., pragmatic competence), while others (e.g., pronunciation) may demonstrate much more acute, perhaps discontinuous shifts (de Bot, 2015). Acknowledging the disparate timescales of development is without question a salient contribution of the complexity paradigm, yet developing a more precise understanding of the true timescales of development presents a significant conceptual hurdle (Ruhland & van Geert, 1998). In this way, applied linguistics is currently faced with a time- scale problem. As traditional analysis has relied on measurements of language at single temporal scales, viable methods of tracing the development of linguis- tic constructs across distinct scales of time have remained elusive. The timescale problem, then, relates to the limitation of these methods and the imperfect un- derstanding of the subjective timescales of development that results. The behavior of complex systems emerges as the result of the synergistic relationship between the components germane to the system. This notion takes the timescale problem a step further. As van Geert (1994) prudently outlines, not only do the components of complex systems develop in a stochastic manner, but the synergistic relationships between these components express equal dynamism over time. Importantly, as the system progresses through periods of self-organi- zation, the dynamic relationship between some system components may both support and/or hinder the development of others. Further still, some relation- ships may even be precursory in nature given that the emergence of one behavior is predicated on the existence of another (van Geert, 1994). This conjecture begs the question as to the ways in which constructs developing on shorter temporal scales may ultimately influence the development of other constructs over longer periods of time. I argue that fractal analysis, in which trajectories of development are plotted and scrutinized at hierarchically temporal scales, may serve as an ef- fective tool capable of providing insight into the timescale problem. Examining rates of change (de Bot, 2015) in regard to the myriad time- scales of development will prove indispensable in pushing our understanding of the complex linguistic system. The importance of timescales reifies the method- ological significance of dense data collection over extended periods of time as consistency in measurement permits the magnification of developmental tra- jectories to further and further reduced moments in time. 6. Conclusion The fractal analysis presented here, though rudimentary, clearly supports the transdisciplinary nature of CDST (Larsen-Freeman, 2012). As this theoretical ori- entation has hinted at the fractal nature of language (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), the self-similarity and scale invariance of syntactic complexity illustrated On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 715 herein lends support to this notion. The variability of complex syntax as it dances among the timescales is a reminder of the power of the human language faculty and its ability to adapt to the perpetual dynamism of the linguistic environment over time. In sum, fractal analysis aligns with the goals of complexity research in that we seek to “represent and understand specific complex systems at various scales of description” (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016, p. 752). Yet the timescale problem is reflective of the fact that we are still unaware of what scales of description may be most suitable in the study of language development. Examining the fractal self- similarity and scale-invariance of language use and development across tempo- rally hierarchical scales may yield significant insight into this phenomenon. As discussed above, Alceste’s use of complex grammar did not experience growth in the customary sense of a marked increase over time. This may be due to the advanced nature of his language before arrival or, equally, to his status as an untutored learner receiving little to no explicit language instruction during his residency (Polat & Kim, 2014). Thus, from this particular dataset, we are un- able to glean how these trajectories may have changed, on various timescales, had he arrived with lower levels of proficiency. As one reviewer rightfully pointed out, the lack of growth in the participant’s use of complex syntax pre- cludes any claims as to the emergence of fractal dynamics in L2 development. Instead, emphasizing the exploratory nature of this study, the hope is that the results indicate the promising nature of a fractal analytic framework while equally motivating L2 researchers to further address the timescale problem. Had a discontinuous jump, or phase shift (Baba & Nitta, 2014), occurred in Alceste’s data at a certain timescale, say at the level of weeks, this particular tran- sition may have indicated a point at which to zoom in via fractal analysis. When phase shifts are identified in timeseries data, researchers may focus on smaller and smaller temporal scales to potentially identify the mechanics motivating such change. Equally, this process may provide indication as to those particular mo- ments that merit further scrutiny from a qualitative perspective. If discontinuity is detected, for example, within a single conversation turn or across multiple turns within a conversation, more detailed qualitative analysis of those moments may be productive as a way to interpret the relationship between micro and macroge- netic development. Doing so would allow scholars to make claims regarding the situatedness of micro-levels of development as they relate to development across much broader temporal scales. Likewise, as data were collected on a weekly basis, any attempt to view self-similarity could only be completed at one point within one week. Though the opportunity never arose, it would have been prudent, at least once, to collect measurements with even greater levels of density within a single week. This could have been as simple as meeting for perhaps three consec- utive days to permit a much more in-depth analysis of self-similarity. D. Reid Evans 716 In other disciplines such as physiology, psychology, and medicine, fractal analyses have relied on dense quantitative measurements of behavior and phys- iological processes facilitated greatly by advances in technology. These have been extended by complex analytic methods such as detrended fluctuation analysis, the box counting dimension, 1/f scaling (Van Orden, Holden, & Turvey, 2003), and so on. As the data and the interpretations presented in this article are exploratory in nature, the application of these tools is suggestive of a logical next step. In applied linguistics, much complexity-informed scholarship has equally relied on dense numerical data analyzed via methods such as Monte Carlo simulations, moving min-max graphs, moving window correlations, and so on. Yet few studies, if any, have generated data points in the tens of thousands necessary for the analytic approaches found in other fields. Lastly, as this investigation was exploratory in nature, the fractal features of complex syntax were not compared in terms of their relation to development in other areas of the language faculty. Emphasis on the interconnectedness of complex systems points directly to the potential significance of viewing self-sim- ilarity in this way. By looking at the dynamic interactions between components across multiple timescales, the changing relationships between constructs may be viewed as both a macro and microgenetic phenomenon. On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 717 References ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. https://www.actfl.org/files/public/ACTFLProficiency Guidelines2012_FINAL.pdf Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (2014). Phase transitions in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic system perspective. Language Learning, 64(1), 1-35. Bassano, D., & van Geert, P. (2007). Modeling continuity and discontinuity in utterance length: A qualitative approach to changes, transitions and intra- individual variability in early grammatical development. Developmental Science, 10(5), 588-612. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C. . . . Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1-26. Brown, J. H., Gupta, V. K., Li, B.-L., Milne, B. T., & West, G. B. (2002). The fractal nature of nature: Power laws, ecological complexity and biodiversity. Phil- osophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 357(1421), 619-626. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 21-46). Amster- dam: John Benjamins. Chan, H., Verspoor, M., & Vahtrick, L. (2015). Dynamic development in speaking versus writing in identical twins. Language Learning, 65(2), 298-325. Chávez, O., & Ragan, G. A. (2016). Fractals. In M. R. Bonk (Ed.), Mathematics (2nd ed.; pp. 98-105). Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. de Bot, K. (2015). Rates of change: Timescales in second language development. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 29-37). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. de Bot, K., Chan, H., Lowie, W., Plat, R., & Verspoor, M. (2012). A dynamic per- spective on language processing and development. Dutch Journal of Ap- plied Linguistics, 1(2), 188-218. de Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language develop- ment from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development (pp. 5-23). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Delignières, D., & Marmelat, V. (2012). Fractal fluctuations and complexity: Cur- rent debates and future challenges. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engi- neering, 40(6), 485-500. D. Reid Evans 718 Dias Martins, M., Laaha, S., Freiberger, E. M., Choi, S., & Fitch, W. T. (2014). How children perceive fractals: Hierarchical self-similarity and cognitive devel- opment. Cognition, 133, 10-24. Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tiang, X., & Poeppel, D. (2016). Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neurosci- ence, 19(1), 158-168. Dong, J. (2016). A dynamic systems theory approach to development of listening strategy use and listening performance. System, 63, 149-165. Ellis, N. C. (2011). The emergence of language as a complex adaptive system. In J. Simpson (Ed.), Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 654-667). London, UK: Routledge. Evans, D. R., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Bifurcations and the emergence of L2 syn- tactic structures in a complex dynamic system. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-12. Feldman, D. P. (2012). Chaos and fractals: An elementary introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Filipović, L., & Hawkins, J. A. (2013). Multiple factors in second language acqui- sition: The CASP model. Linguistics, 51(1), 145-176. Fischmeister, F. P., Martins, M. J. D., Beisteiner, R., & Fitch, W. T. (2017). Self-similarity and recursion as default modes in human cognition. Cortex, 97, 183-201. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375. Gell-Mann, M. (1994). Complex adaptive systems. In G. Cowan, D. Pines, & D. Meltzer (Eds.), Complexity: Metaphors, models, and reality. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity (pp. 17-45). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579. Hiver, P. (2015). Attractor states. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 20-28). Bristol, UK: Mul- tilingual Matters. Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. (2016). A dynamic ensemble for second language re- search: Putting complexity theory into practice. Modern Language Jour- nal, 100(4), 741-756. Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. (2020). Research methods for complexity theory in ap- plied linguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self- organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kretzschmar, W. A. (2015). Language and complex systems. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language ac- quisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165. On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 719 Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Ap- plied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45(2), 202-214. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 11-19). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguis- tics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liebovitch, L. S., & Shehadeh, L. A. (2005). Introduction to fractals. In M. A. Riley & G. C. Van Orden (Eds.), Tutorials in contemporary nonlinear methods for the behavioral sciences (pp. 178-266). http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/bcs/pac/ nmbs/nmbs.jsp Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and variation in second language ac- quisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65(1), 63-88. Lowie, W., Verspoor, M., & van Dijk, M. (2018). The acquisition of L2 speaking: A dynamic perspective. In R. Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Speaking in a second lan- guage (pp. 105-125). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lyle, C. (2009). The fractal nature of French tense/aspect acquisition. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 45-67. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company. McGrath, D. (2016). Fractals. In N. Sterigou (Ed.), Nonlinear analysis for human movement variability (pp. 261-300). Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Myers, S. A. (2016). Time series. In N. Sterigou (Ed.), Nonlinear analysis for hu- man movement variability (pp. 29-54). Boca Raton, FL: CRC. 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. Pareyon, G. (2007, November). Fractal theory and language: The form of mac- rolinguistics. Talk presented at the 2007 Form and Symmetry: Art and Sci- ence conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Peitgen, H. O., Jürgens, H. & Saupe, D. (1992). Chaos and fractals: New frontiers of science. New York, NY: Springer. Penris, W., & Verspoor, M. (2017). Academic writing development: A complex, dy- namic process. In S. E. Pfenninger & J. Navracsics (Eds.), Future research di- rections in applied linguistics (pp. 215-242). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Plat, R., Lowie, W., & de Bot, K. (2018). Word naming in the L1 and L2: A dynamic perspective on automatization and the degree of semantic involvement in naming. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-14. D. Reid Evans 720 Polat, B., & Kim, Y. (2014). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 184-207. Potts, R. (1996). Humanity’s descent: The consequences of ecological instability. New York, NY: Avon Books. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York, NY: Bantam. Rhea, C. K., Kiefer, A. W., Wittstein, M. W., Leonard, K. B., MacPherson, R. P., Wright, W. G., & Haran, F. J. (2014). Fractal gait patterns are retained after entrainment to a fractal stimulus. PLoS One, 9(9), 1-10. Rhea, C. K., & Kuznetsov, N. A. (2017). Using visual stimuli to enhance gait con- trol. Journal of Vestibular Research, 27, 7-16. Ruhland, R., & van Geert, P. (1998). Jumping into syntax: Transitions in the de- velopment of closed class words. British Journal of Developmental Psy- chology, 16, 65-95. Schmid, M. S., Kopke, B., & de Bot, K. (2013). Language attrition as a complex, non- linear development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(6), 675-682. Shanon, B. (1993). Fractal patterns in language. New Ideas in Psychology, 11(1), 105-109. Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 343-348. Stephen, D. G., Arzamarski, R., & Michaels, C. F. (2010). The role of fractality in perceptual learning: Exploration in dynamic touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1161-1173. Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psy- choanalytic Dialogues, 15(2), 255-283. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the develop- ment of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. van Dijk, M., & van Geert, P. (2007). Wobbles, humps, and sudden jumps: A case study of continuity, discontinuity and variability in early language devel- opment. Infant and Child Development, 16, 7-33. van Dijk, M., & van Geert, P. (2011). Heuristic techniques for the analysis of varia- bility as a dynamic aspect of change. Infancia y aprendizaje, 34(2), 151-167. van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between com- plexity and chaos. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf. van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 ac- quisition: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 92(ii), 179-199. Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Self-organization of cog- nitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 132(3), 331-350. On the fractal nature of complex syntax and the timescale problem 721 Varela, M., Ruiz-Esteban, & Mestre de Juan, M. J. (2010). Chaos, fractals, and our concept of disease. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 53(4), 584-595. Verspoor, M. H., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic approach to second lan- guage development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., Chan, H. P., & Vahtrick, L. (2017). Linguistic complexity in second language development: Variability and variation at advanced stages. Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures, 14(1), 1-27. West, B. J. (2001). Fractal probability measures of learning. Methods, 24, 395-402. West, B. J. (2006). Where medicine went wrong: Rediscovering the path to com- plexity. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific. Youmans, G. (1991). A new tool for discourse analysis: The vocabulary-manage- ment profile. Language, 67(4), 763-789. Youmans, G., & Pfeifer, P. (2005). Fractal dimensions of discourse. Language, 81(2), 297-300. Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language. Oxford, UK: Houghton Mifflin.