Motivational Dynamics In Language Learning Zoltn Drnyei Editor Peter D Macintyre Editor Alastair Henry Editor

Motivational Dynamics In Language Learning Zoltn
Drnyei Editor Peter D Macintyre Editor Alastair
Henry Editor download
https://ebookbell.com/product/motivational-dynamics-in-language-
learning-zoltn-drnyei-editor-peter-d-macintyre-editor-alastair-
henry-editor-51813734
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Motivational Dynamics In Language Learning Zoltn Drnyei Alastair Henry
https://ebookbell.com/product/motivational-dynamics-in-language-
learning-zoltn-drnyei-alastair-henry-4913246
Perpetrators And Perpetration Of Mass Violence Action Motivations And
Dynamics Timothy Williams
https://ebookbell.com/product/perpetrators-and-perpetration-of-mass-
violence-action-motivations-and-dynamics-timothy-williams-33977494
Reversal Theory The Dynamics Of Motivation Emotion And Personality 2
Updated Michael J Apter
https://ebookbell.com/product/reversal-theory-the-dynamics-of-
motivation-emotion-and-personality-2-updated-michael-j-apter-1778556
Dissociable Dopamine Dynamics For Learning And Motivation Ali Mohebi
Jeffrey R Pettibone Arif A Hamid Jennymarie T Wong Leah T Vinson
Tommaso Patriarchi Lin Tian Robert T Kennedy Joshua D Berke
https://ebookbell.com/product/dissociable-dopamine-dynamics-for-
learning-and-motivation-ali-mohebi-jeffrey-r-pettibone-arif-a-hamid-
jennymarie-t-wong-leah-t-vinson-tommaso-patriarchi-lin-tian-robert-t-
kennedy-joshua-d-berke-47909252

Motivational Interviewing For Working With Children And Families
Donald Forrester
https://ebookbell.com/product/motivational-interviewing-for-working-
with-children-and-families-donald-forrester-46100968
Motivational Interviewing For Mental Health Clinicians Jennifer Frey
https://ebookbell.com/product/motivational-interviewing-for-mental-
health-clinicians-jennifer-frey-46121274
Motivational Interviewing With Adolescents And Young Adults 2nd Ed 2nd
Edition Sylvie Naarking
https://ebookbell.com/product/motivational-interviewing-with-
adolescents-and-young-adults-2nd-ed-2nd-edition-sylvie-
naarking-46145116
Motivational Interviewing In Social Work Practice Second Edition 2nd
Edition Melinda Hohman
https://ebookbell.com/product/motivational-interviewing-in-social-
work-practice-second-edition-2nd-edition-melinda-hohman-46145218
Motivational Interviewing In Clinical Mental Health Counseling Todd F
Lewis
https://ebookbell.com/product/motivational-interviewing-in-clinical-
mental-health-counseling-todd-f-lewis-49133752

Motivational Dynamics
in Language Learning

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Series Editor: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and
Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language
acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other
than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in
its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in
their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical
findings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter
connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is
any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic,
etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes
final-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects,
postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and
researchers and teachers in general whose interests include a second language
acquisition component.
Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can
be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to
Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1
2AW, UK.

Motivational Dynamics
in Language Learning
Edited by
Zoltán Dörnyei, Peter D. MacIntyre
and Alastair Henry
MULTILINGUAL MATTERS
Bristol • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning/Edited by Zoltán Dörnyei, Peter D.
MacIntyre and Alastair Henry.
Second Language Acquisition: 81
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Second language acquisition. 2. Motivation in education. 3. Identity (Psychology) 4.
Self. I. Dörnyei, Zoltán, editor. II. MacIntyre, Peter D., 1965- editor. III. Henry, Alastair.
P118.2.M677 2014
418.0071–dc23 2014019602
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-256-7 (hbk)
ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-255-0 (pbk)
Multilingual Matters
UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.
USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA.
Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada.
Website: www.multilingual-matters.com
Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters
Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com
Copyright © 2015 Zoltán Dörnyei, Peter D. MacIntyre, Alastair Henry and the authors
of individual chapters.
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means
without permission in writing from the publisher.
The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are
natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable for-
ests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, prefer-
ence is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC
and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted
to the printer concerned.
Typeset by Techset Composition India(P) Ltd., Bangalore and Chennai, India.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Short Run Press Ltd.

v
Contents
Contributors ix
Foreword xv
1 Introduction: Applying Complex Dynamic Systems Principles to
Empirical Research on L2 Motivation 1
Zoltán Dörnyei, Peter D. MacIntyre and Alastair Henry
Part 1: Conceptual Summaries
2 Ten ‘Lessons’ from Complex Dynamic Systems Theory: What is
on Offer 11
Diane Larsen-Freeman
3 Attractor States 20
Phil Hiver
4 Rates of Change: Timescales in Second Language Development 29
Kees de Bot
5 Initial Conditions 38
Marjolijn Verspoor
6 Context and Complex Dynamic Systems Theory 47
Ema Ushioda
7 Human Agency: Does the Beach Ball Have Free Will? 55
Ali H. Al-Hoorie
8 Social Network Analysis and Complex Dynamic Systems 73
Sarah Mercer
9 The Dynamics of Possible Selves 83
Alastair Henry

10 ‘Directed Motivational Currents’: Regulating Complex Dynamic
Systems through Motivational Surges 95
Zoltán Dörnyei, Zana Ibrahim and Christine Muir
Part 2: Empirical Studies
11 Motivation on a Per-Second Timescale: Examining Approach-
Avoidance Motivation During L2 Task Performance 109
Peter D. MacIntyre and Alicia Serroul
12 Dynamics of the Self: A Multilevel Nested Systems Approach 139
Sarah Mercer
13 Changes in Motivation, Anxiety and Self-efficacy During the
Course of an Academic Writing Seminar 164
Katalin Piniel and Kata Csizér
14 Motivation, Emotion and Cognition: Attractor States in
the Classroom 195
Frea Waninge
15 Once Burned, Twice Shy: The Dynamic Development of System
Immunity in Teachers 214
Phil Hiver
16 Learner Archetypes and Signature Dynamics in the Language
Classroom: A Retrodictive Qualitative Modelling Approach
to Studying L2 Motivation 238
Letty Chan, Zoltán Dörnyei and Alastair Henry
17 ‘I Can See a Little Bit of You on Myself’: A Dynamic Systems
Approach to the Inner Dialogue between Teacher
and Learner Selves 260
Tammy Gregersen and Peter D. MacIntyre
18 Understanding EFL Learners’ Motivational Dynamics:
A Three-Level Model from a Dynamic Systems and
Sociocultural Perspective 285
Tomoko Yashima and Kumiko Arano
19 The Dynamics of L3 Motivation: A Longitudinal Interview/
Observation-Based Study 315
Alastair Henry
vi Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning

20 Study Abroad and the Dynamics of Change in Learner L2
Self-Concept 343
Kay Irie and Stephen Ryan
21 Self-Regulation in the Evolution of the Ideal L2 Self: A Complex
Dynamic Systems Approach to the L2 Motivational
Self System 367
Ryo Nitta and Kyoko Baba
22 The Dynamics of L2 Imagery in Future Motivational Self-Guides 397
Chenjing (Julia) You and Letty Chan
23 Conclusion: Hot Enough to be Cool: The Promise of Dynamic
Systems Research 419
Peter D. MacIntyre, Zoltán Dörnyei and Alastair Henry
Contents vii

ix
Contributors
Ali H. Al-Hoorie is a Lecturer in the English Language Centre, Jubail
Industrial College, Saudi Arabia. His interests include learning motivation,
learning theories, complexity theory and research methodology. He is cur-
rently a PhD student at the University of Nottingham.
Kumiko Arano received her Master’s Degree from the Graduate School of
Foreign Language Education and Research at Kansai University in March
2013. Her research interests include the role of motivation in EFL and its
application to teaching practice. She continues to pursue her interest in
English teaching in her current position as an educator at a public high school
in Japan.
Kyoko Baba is an Associate Professor at Kinjo Gakuin University in Nagoya,
Japan, where she teaches undergraduate and MA courses. She completed her
PhD at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of
Toronto in 2007. Her research interests include the learning of L2 writing
skills (with a focus on the instructed context), the lexical features of L2
learners’ language production and complexity theory.
Letty Chan is a Research Student in applied linguistics at the University of
Nottingham. Her current research interests include the L2 Motivational Self
System, faith and L2 identity, the use of imagery in the L2 classroom and
Dynamic Systems Theory. She has taught academic English at both the
University of Hong Kong and Nottingham Trent University. She has pub-
lished papers on vision and imagery.
Kata Csizér holds a PhD in Language Pedagogy and works as a lecturer in
the Department of English and Applied Linguistics at Eötvös University,
Budapest, where she teaches various L2 motivation courses. Her main field of
research interest focuses on the socio-psychological aspects of L2 learning and
teaching, as well as second and foreign language motivation. She has pub-
lished over 50 academic papers on various aspects of L2 motivation and has
co-authored three books, including Motivational Dynamics, Language Attitudes

and Language Globalisation: A Hungarian Perspective (2006, Multilingual Matters,
with Zoltán Dörnyei and Nóra Németh).
Kees de Bot is Chair of Applied Linguistics at the University of Groningen
in the Netherlands and research fellow at the University of the Free State
in South Africa. His current research interests include the application of
Dynamic Systems Theory in the study of Second Language Development,
language attrition, the effectiveness of bilingual schools in the Netherlands
and the history of Applied Linguistics (1980–2010).
Zoltán Dörnyei is Professor of Psycholinguistics at the School of English,
University of Nottingham. He has published widely on various aspects of
second language acquisition and language learning motivation, and he is the
author of several books, including Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
(2007, Oxford University Press), The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition
(2009, Oxford University Press), Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd edn,
2011, Longman, with Ema Ushioda), Motivating Learning (2013, Longman,
with Jill Hadfield) and Motivating Learners, Motivating Teachers: Building Vision
in the Language Classroom (2014, Cambridge University Press, with Magdalena
Kubanyiova).
Tammy Gregersen is a Professor of TESOL at the University of Northern
Iowa where she specializes in language teaching methodology. She taught
English and trained teachers in Chile for 15 years and has also been involved
in teacher education programs and conferences in Spain, Russia, Poland, United
Arab Emirates, Italy, Portugal, France, Belgium and Austria. Her research inter-
ests include individual differences and nonverbal communication in applied
linguistics. She is co-author of Capitalizing on Language Learners’ Individuality:
From Premise to Practice (2014, Multilingual Matters, with Peter MacIntyre).
Alastair Henry teaches at University West, Sweden, and has a PhD in
Language Education from the University of Gothenburg. His research has
focused on motivation in third language learning and gender differences in
L2 motivation.
Phil Hiver is a Lecturer in the Department of English Language Teaching at
the International Graduate School of English, Seoul, where he teaches courses
in language pedagogy and materials development. His research interests
include the broad areas of teacher motivation and development, and psycho-
logical constructs in instructed second language acquisition using DST and
case-based methods.
Zana Ibrahim is a PhD Student Researcher in the School of English Studies,
University of Nottingham. He is the recipient of a Fulbright Scholarship and
x Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning

obtained his Master’s degree in TESOL from the Indiana University of
Pennsylvania. He has worked in the field of foreign language teaching
and translation. His research interests include Directed Motivational
Currents, Dynamic Systems Theory and ESL syllabus design and materials
development.
Kay Irie is a Professor at Gakushuin University, Tokyo where she is develop-
ing a CLIL-based English program. She also teaches in the Graduate College
of Education at Temple University Japan. Her current research interests
include learner autonomy and motivation in language education. She is a
co-editor of Realizing Autonomy: Practice and Reflection in Language Education
Contexts (2012, Palgrave Macmillan).
Diane Larsen-Freeman is Professor Emerita at the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, and a Visiting Senior Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania.
She is also a Distinguished Senior Faculty Fellow at the Graduate SIT
Institute in Brattleboro, Vermont. Her interests include second language
development, English grammar, language teaching and language teacher
education.
Peter D. MacIntyre is a Professor of Psychology at Cape Breton University.
His research focuses on the dynamic changes in emotion and cognition that
take place as part of the psychology of communication. Recently, he
co-authored Capitalizing on Language Learners’ Individuality: From Premise to
Practice (2014, Multilingual Matters, with Tammy Gregersen) as a guide to
translating theory into classroom action. He teaches a variety of courses,
including advanced research methods, human sexuality, personality, advanced
social psychology, motivation and emotion, and positive psychology.
Sarah Mercer teaches at the University of Graz, Austria where she has been
working since 1998. She has a PhD from the University of Lancaster and her
research interests include all aspects of the psychology surrounding the for-
eign language learning experience, focusing in particular on the self. She is
the author of Towards an Understanding of Language Learner Self-Concept (2011,
Springer) and is co-editor of Psychology for Language Learning (2012, Palgrave
MacMillan, with Stephen Ryan and Marion Williams) and Multiple
Perspectives on the Self (2014, Multilingual Matters). She is also an associate
editor at the journal System.
Christine Muir is a Postgraduate Teaching Fellow at the University of
Nottingham and is currently completing her PhD under the supervision of
Professor Zoltán Dörnyei. She graduated from the University of Edinburgh
with an MSc in Language Teaching, having previously spent time teaching
English in Russia, Finland, the Czech Republic and the UK. Her current
Contributors xi

research interests include Directed Motivational Currents, vision theory,
time perspective and Dynamic Systems Theory.
Ryo Nitta is an Associate Professor at Nagoya Gakuin University, Japan,
where he teaches second language acquisition in the Faculty of Foreign
Studies. He received his PhD from the University of Warwick in 2007.
His recent research focuses on changes in second language performance
(both oral and written) and L2 motivation from a complex dynamic sys-
tems perspective.
Katalin Piniel is an Assistant Professor at the Department of English and
Applied Linguistics at Eötvös University, Budapest, where she obtained her
PhD in Language Pedagogy. She teaches courses in academic writing, research
methodology, individual differences in language learning, language anxiety
and language testing at both graduate and undergraduate levels. Her research
interests include the interrelationship of individual differences in foreign lan-
guage learning and language anxiety.
Stephen Ryan is a Professor in the School of Economics at Senshu University,
Tokyo. His research and publications address a range of issues relating to the
psychology of second language learning, with a recent interest in the moti-
vational roles of narrative and the imagination in language learning. He is
co-editor (with Sarah Mercer and Marion Williams) of Psychology for Language
Learning: Insights from Theory, Research and Practice (2012, Palgrave Macmillan).
John H. Schumann is Distinguished Professor (Emeritus) of Applied
Linguistics and former chair of the Department of Applied Linguistics and
TESL at UCLA. His research includes language acquisition, the neurobiology
of language, the neurobiology of learning and language evolution. He is co-
author of The Interactional Instinct: The Evolution and Acquisition of Language
(2009, OUP) and The Neurobiology of Learning (2004, Erlbaum). He is co-editor
of Exploring the Interactional Instinct (2013, OUP). He is also the author of The
Neurobiology of Affect in Language (1997, Blackwell).
Alicia Serroul is Student Researcher at Cape Breton University. Alicia is
completing her honours degree in psychology (BA, 2014) on the topic of
human–computer interaction regarding social stances.
Ema Ushioda is an Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies at
the Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, UK. Her research
interests are motivation for language learning and intercultural engagement,
learner autonomy, sociocultural theory and teacher development. Recent
publications include International Perspectives on Motivation: Language Learning
and Professional Challenges (2013, Palgrave Macmillan), Teaching and Researching
xii Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning

Motivation (2011, Longman, co-authored with Zoltán Dörnyei) and Motivation,
Language Identity and the L2 Self (2009, Multilingual Matters, co-edited with
Zoltán Dörnyei).
Marjolijn Verspoor gained her PhD in 1991 from The University of Leiden
and is Associate Professor at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, and
at the University of the Free State, South Africa. Her research is focused on
second language development from a usage-based, dynamic systems perspec-
tive and on second language instruction drawing on dynamic usage-based
principles.
Frea Waninge is a PhD student at the University of Nottingham, where she
researches emotion and motivation and works as a teaching assistant and lab
manager at the Centre of Research for Applied Linguistics. Her research
interests include the interaction of emotion, motivation and cognition, the
L2 learning experience and motivation in young language learners.
Tomoko Yashima is a Professor of Applied Linguistics and Intercultural
Communication at Kansai University. Her research interests include L2
learning motivation, affect and language identity. Her studies have been pub-
lished in journals such as The Modern Language Journal, Language Learning,
System and Psychological Reports. She is the author of several books published
in Japanese including Motivation and Affect in Foreign Language Communication
(2004, Kansai University Press) and has published a Japanese translation of
Zoltán Dörnyei’s Questionnaires in L2 Research.
Chenjing (Julia) You is a PhD student in the School of English, University
of Nottingham, where she also obtained her Master’s degree. In China, she
has worked as an Associate Professor in the field of foreign language teaching
and has also taught English at several high schools for more than 10 years.
Her research interests include second language motivation, vision and imag-
ery, and Complex Dynamic Systems Theory.
Contributors xiii

xv
Foreword
John H. Schumann
This book is a milestone in the study of motivation. It brings together several
important advances. First it recognizes dynamic systems theory as the epis-
temological basis for conceptualizing motivation. It provides an extensive
tutorial on dynamic systems. It introduces research methodologies that
allow, on several timescales, the study of individual motivational trajectories
in second language acquisition (SLA). The book challenges several assump-
tions about ‘scientific’ research in SLA. One is the assumption that truth is
found in the study of inter-individual variability among large numbers of
subjects. Another is that causal effects are either singular or few in number
and that they operate linearly. An additional assumption is that categories
and their labels refer to clearly identifiable entities in the world. The adoption
of dynamic systems theory (DST) allows, indeed, compels us to eschew
notions of single causes, linear causality, immutable categories and highly
specified endpoints.
Traditional research on motivation in SLA consisted of studying large
numbers of subjects using questionnaires that were administered at one
time to large numbers of subjects. This research provided a freeze frame/
snapshot perspective on motivation. However, it gave us no information
about the individual learner and, as Molenaar (2004) has demonstrated, we
cannot argue from groups to individuals except under very strict conditions
(see also van Geert, 2011). These studies gave information about motivation
at a particular moment in time. Nevertheless, they were often interpreted
as providing information about what kind of motivation had brought the
learner to this point and about what kind of motivation would carry him/
her forward.
For some researchers, there has always been a concern for what was
going on in the individual and how that changed over time. In the 1970s,
colleagues and I undertook diary studies of individuals learning a second
language (L2) in classrooms, in the environments where it was spoken or in
a combination of both. Dozens of studies were done at UCLA and other
institutions. Attempts were made to aggregate the results (Bailey, 1983,
1991), but commonalities were difficult to discern and no theory existed
with which the individual variation could be explained.

In the 1990s, stimulus appraisal theory (Schumann, 1997) was applied to
autobiographies of L2 learners. The categories of stimulus appraisal (novelty,
pleasantness, goal/need significance, coping potential, and self and social
image) were used to relate SLA motivation to underlying neural mechanisms,
but also to analyze autobiographies of the L2 learners as a way of tracking the
individual variables over longer periods. Thus, stimulus appraisal categories
provided an organizational framework, but still an overall theory was lacking.
This vacuum was filled by Diane Larsen-Freeman’s (1997, 2002; Larsen-
Freeman & Cameron, 2008) introduction of DST to our field and Zoltán
Dörnyei’s (2009) adoption of this perspective for his research on motivation.
DST allows researchers in L2 motivation to simultaneously abandon the
notion of single and linear causality and frees them from the implicit demand
in conventional research for large subject studies. As seen in this volume,
DST provides a way to see motivation from the perspective of a general
theory that applies to many phenomena. The individual is the entity of con-
cern, and case studies become recognized as the appropriate level of granular-
ity for understanding motivation trajectories in SLA. In this new work, it is
wonderful to hear the learners’ voices characterizing their motivation. In
traditional research, these voices were silenced in statistical analyses, and the
complex variation within individuals that characterizes SLA was hidden.
Several years ago at a conference, I asked a major motivation researcher
when he thought his research on SLA motivation would be finished. This is
part of a bigger question. When will we have sufficient knowledge of L2
motivation so that we can say our work is done? When will it no longer be
necessary to do research on L2 motivation? Another question is whether any
SLA motivation construct that has been proposed and studied has been
wrong? I would suggest that none of them have been wrong. They may have
been incomplete; they may have been extended too broadly or narrowly;
research on the construct may have been inadequate owing to limitations on
current technology or statistical procedures. The constructs may have been
limited because of the lack of a larger theoretical framework in which to
place them. So will we ever have the answer, and if not, why not?
Typical scientific research isolates an independent variable and a depen-
dent variable, and then looks at the singular influence of the former on the
latter. DST challenges this approach to understanding complex phenomena.
Variation within and across individuals becomes central in a dynamic sys-
tems approach. But will thousands of longitudinal studies of individuals pro-
vide the final answer? Actually, I don’t think so. The problem is that we are
not dealing with physical phenomena. We are dealing with abstract con-
structs and conceptualizations. The terms we use to refer to these concepts
are not mutually exclusive. In the neurobiological literature related to moti-
vation, the following terms are frequent: intention, incentive, desire, goal,
reward, approach, action tendency, wanting, liking, emotion, affect, arousal,
valence, appraisal, reward. The Concise Oxford American Thesaurus (2006)
xvi Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning

under the heading motivation includes: motivating source, force, incentive,
stimulus, stimulation, inspiration, inducement, spur, reason, drive, ambition,
initiative, determination and enterprise. Other terms include enthusiasm,
commitment, persistence, investment, engagement. Do all these terms refer
to independent phenomena? Certainly not. They overlap; they capture
slightly different perspectives on the issue. Are there any that we can do
without? I suspect not. A prohibition on certain terms would create the same
problem that Prohibition did – the proscribed words would be bootlegged.
When we go beyond words and look at the labels for motivational constructs
that have been explored in SLA, we find a similar proliferation. We see inte-
grative motivation, instrumental motivation, self-determination theory,
attribution theory, goal theories, situated motivation, task motivation, will-
ingness to communicate, skill-challenge perspectives, value expectancy, the
L2 Motivational Self System, identity theory, investment theory and the
stimulus appraisal perspective.
Would we have the answer if we could find the definitive neurobiological
mechanisms that produce motivation? Such reductionism is not a solution
either. Even now we know a good deal about the biology that underlies moti-
vation. It involves the amygdala, the orbitofrontal cortex, the anterior cingu-
late, the insula, the dopaminergic system, the opioid system, the endocrine
system, the musculoskeletal system and the autonomic nervous system. But
with even more detailed knowledge about how each of these systems con-
tributes to motivation, we would not have a final answer because at the
phenomenal level represented by the motivational constructs, there is so
much more to understand and appreciate. And that list is not going to end.
Different conceptualizations of SLA motivation will continue to be proposed
and will continue to inform our notions of the phenomenon. In a species
capable of generating symbolic nonmaterial constructs that cannot be iso-
lated as physical entities but only as conceptualizations built out of other
concepts, the number of possible formulations of the phenomena is poten-
tially infinite.
This brings us to a discussion of how the field of SLA motivation research
operates. Our field does not stand outside the realm of dynamic systems. In
fact, it manifests all the processes that characterize such systems. Motivation
became a focus of research in SLA in the late 1950s. Since then it has been
pursued with varying degrees of intensity. If a professor takes an interest in
this issue, he/she conducts some research often requiring a grant and gradu-
ate students as research assistants. The results of the research must be pub-
lished in order to get the ideas known and to get the professor promoted. The
students have to conduct research and publish in order to receive their
degrees, secure a position and get tenure. These academics organize to pres-
ent papers and colloquia at national and international conferences. The
research reported at these colloquia is frequently published as collections or
monographs. All this is done in order to accrue knowledge about motivation
Foreword xvii

in SLA, but also for economic reasons. The fate of universities in various
economies influences these dynamics. The variations in availability of
resources affect hiring, student support, research funding, and hence how,
where and with what intensity motivation gets studied. Interest in the phe-
nomenon among SLA researchers waxes and wanes. As argued above, we are
not likely to find the final answer as to how motivation affects L2 learning,
but the field might just get tired of the issue, and its importance in applied
linguistics could diminish. Indeed, there are areas of SLA research where
motivation is not given much attention. Among some SLA cognitivists, moti-
vation is seen as a minor intervening variable in L2 acquisition, but not cen-
tral to the process.
The commitment to DST as a framework for studying motivation does
not come automatically (Lewis, 2011). The human mind has evolved to view
the world in terms of singular causes and single chains of causality. From an
evolutionary perspective, we can assume that such cognition must have been
very important for the survival of our species. The experimental method
itself may be a manifestation of our tendency to isolate a single cause, to see
averages as the truth and to dismiss variation as noise. Complicating the
matter, is the fact that the search for a single causal variable often works and
has often been very informative; we have learned a lot from this way of
thinking. Thus, although case studies done within the framework of DST
may be the best way to study intraindividual variation in L2, pressures of
academic tradition could make many scholars retreat to the safer attractor –
experimental studies of interindividual variation between groups of learners.
All these issues play out in the dynamics of motivation research, leading into
and out of attractor states and through conditions of considerable variation.
Our field is studying the DST game while playing it.
So this volume marks an exciting new beginning. It provides a general
theory for motivation in SLA and, I believe, for applied linguistics as a whole.
It suggests new methods to do research within that theory. It prioritizes
individual accounts over groups; values variation as strongly as states; it chal-
lenges historical ideologies; it forces us to rethink our conceptions about
cause and categories; it makes us deal with the way the world actually works,
not simply the way we all think it works; it allows us to see our research
enterprise in terms of complex systems not just as the phenomenon of moti-
vation; it permits us to question our assumptions about an eventual end state
in our research; and leaves us open to the notion of investigation without an
expectation of an ultimate answer. These are big contributions.
References
Bailey, K.M. (1983) Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning:
Looking at and through the diary studies. In H.W. Seliger and M.H. Long (eds)
Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 67–102). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
xviii Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning

Bailey, K.M. (1991) Diary studies of language learning: The doubting game and the believ-
ing game. In E. Sadtono (ed.) Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language
Classroom (pp. 60–102). Singapore: SEAMEO RELC (Regional Language Centre).
Concise Oxford American Thesaurus (2006) London: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009) Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning
environment. Language Learning 59 (Suppl. 1), 230–248.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics 18, 141–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002) Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complex-
ity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition in Language
Socialization (pp. 33–36). London: Continuum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M. (2011) Dynamic systems approaches: Cool enough? Hot enough? Child
Development Perspectives 5 (4), 279–285.
Molenaar, P.C.M. (2004) A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the
person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Interdisciplinary Research and
Perspectives 2 (4), 201–218.
Schumann, J.H. (1997) The Neurobiology of Affect in Language. Malden MA: Blackwell.
van Geert, P. (2011) The contribution of complex dynamic systems to development. Child
Foreword xix

1
Introduction: Applying
Complex Dynamic Systems
Principles to Empirical
Research on L2 Motivation
Zoltán Dörnyei, Peter D. MacIntyre and
Alastair Henry
When nonlinear system dynamics was introduced into second language
acquisition (SLA) research – under various rubrics such as chaos theory
(Larsen-Freeman, 1997), emergentism (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006),
dynamic systems theory (de Bot et al., 2007) and complexity theory (Larsen-
Freeman & Cameron, 2008) – the new approach, which may be seen as the
‘dynamic turn’ in SLA, resonated with many scholars because nonlinear
system dynamics appeared to nicely describe several puzzling language
learning phenomena. To offer but one illustration, the so-called ‘butterfly
effect’ explained why language teaching input sometimes had considerable
impact on the learners’ progress, whereas at other times it led only to mini-
mal, if any, uptake. The dynamic principles introduced also made intuitive
sense research-wise. We have long known that the manifold issues and fac-
tors affecting SLA are interrelated, and the new paradigm represented a holis-
tic approach that took into account the combined and interactive operation
of a number of different elements/conditions relevant to specific situations,
rather than following the more traditional practice of examining the rela-
tionship between well-defined variables in relative isolation.
Thus, proposals for a dynamic paradigm shift in the research community
during the first decade of the new millennium were generally well received.
However, by the end of the 2010s it had become noticeable that while there
was a growing body of literature on complex dynamic systems within SLA
contexts, very little of this work was empirical in nature. In other words,
scholars spent much more time talking about research in a dynamic systems
vein than actually doing it. Furthermore, even when dynamic principles were
1

referred to in data-based studies, this was often to explain away difficult-to-
interpret results, stating in effect that such results occurred because of the
unpredictable or ‘emergentist’ nature of the system. At the same time, in
informal conversations at conferences, it was not at all uncommon to hear
scholars privately express the sense of being at a loss as to how exactly to go
about researching dynamic systems.
The Challenge of the New Paradigm
This growing uncertainty was to some extent understandable since – as
Dörnyei (2009) summarised – at least three aspects of such an approach
inevitably pushed researchers into unchartered territories (for a detailed over-
view, see Verspoor et al., 2011).
• Modelling nonlinear change (especially quantitatively); this has been suc-
cinctly summed up by de Bot and Larsen-Freeman (2011: 18) as follows:
‘If the process is nonlinear, how is it possible to make any predictions
that are likely to hold up?’
• Observing the operation of the whole system and the interaction of
the parts, rather than focusing on specific units (e.g. variables) within
it. In de Bot and Larsen-Freeman’s (2011: 18) words: ‘if everything is
interconnected, how is it possible to study anything apart from every-
thing else?’
• Finding alternatives to conventional quantitative research methodolo-
gies that, by and large, relied on statistical procedures to examine linear
rather than dynamic relationships.
The combination of these three issues seriously questioned the feasibility
of investigating cause–effect relations, the traditional basis of generalisable
theories in the spirit of the ‘scientific method’ (see Dörnyei, 2007). As Byrne
and Callaghan (2014: 173) put it:
we cannot decompose the system into its elements and use control over
discrete elements whilst varying just one of them, either directly or
through the use of treatment and control groups, in order to establish
causality in terms of the properties of those elements.
We should note here that the challenge that applied linguists and lan-
guage psychologists have been facing is not merely having to master new
research skills in order to find their bearings in a novel paradigm, but is
related also to a much broader issue: the difficulty of transferring the nonlin-
ear systems approach from the natural sciences – where dynamic systems
theory has been flourishing in several areas (such as thermodynamics) – to
2 Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning

the social sciences. In the natural sciences, where the main units of analysis
are molecules or objects, it is possible to reconstruct the movement of a com-
plex system by applying intricate mathematical modelling. However, in the
social sciences, where the basic units of analysis are self-reflective human
beings, dynamic situations tend to be so complex – and embedded in each
other in such a multi-layered manner – that accurate mathematical model-
ling might be an unrealistic expectation. De Bot (2011) explains that the
alternative to such hard-science-like attempts to adopt mathematics-
based tools and models is a ‘soft’ approach, which simply imports dynamic
metaphors from the natural sciences that are seen as useful in explaining
observed phenomena in a qualitative and interpretive manner. While this
second approach might appear more realistic, it still poses considerable para-
digmatic challenges. Many of the core metaphors of complex dynamic sys-
tems theory – for example the central notion of ‘attractor states’ – originate
in pure mathematics (Byrne & Callaghan, 2014), and it is questionable
whether we can meaningfully deploy such metaphors by mapping them
onto a social reality. For example, as Byrne and Callaghan (2014: 73) argue,
attractor states can be described well by equations in abstracted topological
spaces, while for social scientists they are ‘real regions in real state spaces’.
The social and the mathematical realms are not isomorphic, and therefore
these scholars provocatively conclude:
Frankly with some exceptions, almost all of which are spatially oriented,
mathematical and computational social science remains at the level of
the banal and trivial. This is not because the methods are at a very early
state of development. It is because ... [they are] not a proper basis for the
construction of accounts of complex realities which are made and remade
in considerable part as a consequence of human social agency. Mathe-
matics can be a useful tool for describing the reality but reality is its
messy self, not a higher abstract order existing in mathematical form.
(Byrne & Callaghan, 2014: 257)
Thus, when we started to think about the current anthology, the prevailing
situation in the field of SLA was twofold. On the one hand, dynamic systems
research was hailed as having a promising potential for a number of
reasons:
• it was hoped to be able to capture the multi-faceted complexity of the
SLA process;
• it treated learner-internal and learner-external factors in an integrated
manner, thereby creating a socially grounded approach in which the con-
text was seen as part of the system;
• it foregrounded individual-based research, thereby offering increased eco-
logical validity and better insights into seemingly ‘chaotic’ occurrences;
Introduction 3

• it offered a way of removing any qualitative/quantitative boundaries and
merging the two approaches within some form of mixed methodology;
• it highlighted the significance of change and development in general –
and thus longitudinal research in particular – which was more than
welcome in a field that was, by definition, centred around ‘acquisition’.
On the other hand, scholars interested in the approach found themselves
not only without any templates or traditions they could rely on in producing
workable and productive research designs, but also without a coherent set of
new research metaphors to use. Consequently, although the approach was
‘in the air’, it became highly elusive when it came to operationalising it in
concrete terms. The absence of established research tools and paradigms
affected PhD students in particular, because for many of them, doing
dynamic systems research seemed just too difficult and too risky.
Dynamic Systems Research and Motivation
Second language (L2) motivation research was initiated by social psy-
chologists Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert in Canada (Gardner &
Lambert, 1959) by adopting a macro perspective that captured the overall
language disposition of substantial learner samples on a large timescale. At
this level of analysis, traditional statistical procedures that utilised linear
relationships (such as correlation-based analyses) worked well. This situa-
tion, however, changed dramatically in the 1990s, when researchers’ inter-
ests shifted to a more micro-level analysis of motivation, focusing on how
motivation affected language learning behaviours and achievement in spe-
cific learning contexts such as L2 classrooms. When motivation was con-
ceptualised in such a situated manner, one could not help noticing the
considerable fluctuation in learners’ motivational dispositions exhibited on an
almost day-to-day basis, which led to attempts to reframe the concept in
process-oriented terms (e.g. Dörnyei, 2000; Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998). However,
process models that were based on cause-effect relationships failed to offer a
realistic account of the motivational phenomena observed in real-life situa-
tions; the linear progression implied by a flow-chart diagram was not reflected
in the seemingly random iterative processes that many learners described.
Therefore, as Dörnyei (2009) stated, it was only a matter of time before schol-
ars started to look for a more dynamic conceptualisation.
In 2011, Dörnyei and Ushioda prepared a book-length overview of L2
motivation research, which contained extensive arguments to support the
theoretical validity of dynamic approaches. They extended this discussion to
also include possible selves and Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self
System, which they saw as a dynamic ‘motivation–cognition–emotion amal-
gam’. However, when it came to providing sample studies in Part III of their

book, they could only identify a single paper in the literature that explicitly
embodied dynamic principles: MacIntyre and Legatto’s (2011) study, which
employed an ‘idiodynamic’ methodology to capture the fluctuation of rap-
idly changing affect in relation to the participants’ willingness to communi-
cate. The paucity of dynamic systems research closely reflected the general
trend in SLA research mentioned above, namely that while most of the
cutting-edge theorising took it for granted that the future lay along the
dynamic path, most of the actual empirical research followed traditional,
non-dynamic research approaches.
The recognition of the absence of relevant empirical studies played a
significant part in our decision to initiate a large-scale project exploring
the researchability of dynamic systems. We believed that the topic of
L2 motivation was an ideal content area for such an endeavour, partly
because motivation, with its ups and downs and ebbs and flows, was an SLA
phenomenon that seemed to lend itself to the application of dynamically
informed research designs, and partly because the currently most established
constructs in the field – the various L2 self-guides – are by nature inherently
dynamic and would therefore be well suited targets for investigation using
dynamic approaches. The challenge we set ourselves was thus fairly straight-
forward: we could either initiate a robust research project that takes well-
established motivation constructs and, by applying dynamic principles to
their investigation, produces convincing empirical evidence for the sustain-
ability of the approach; or we would have to come to terms with the fact that
the dynamic approach in SLA might be simply an attractive but ultimately
unrealisable idea. The production of this volume was therefore intended to
serve as the primary testing ground.
The Current Anthology
As a first step in our efforts, invitations to join the project were sent out
to a large number of established researchers specialising in language learning
motivation. The initial reception was very positive and over 40 scholars from
three continents agreed to participate. At the same time, we succeeded in
securing a contract for an anthology on the topic with Multilingual Matters,
which allowed the planning to start taking concrete shape. Interested sch-
olars first met at the 2013 convention of the American Association of
Applied Linguistics in Dallas, Texas, where a well-attended colloquium was
co-organised by Dörnyei and MacIntyre to showcase the goals that the proj-
ect had set out to achieve. The conference also included several other papers
on dynamic systems issues, many of them not in motivational areas, thus
prompting the idea of adding a conceptual part to the volume in which some
of the central themes and notions are discussed in a generic manner by
experts in the field.
Introduction 5

The eight months following the conference involved intensive activity
as an increasing tide of initial manuscripts were submitted, edited and
revised, resulting finally in 21 accepted papers. During this process we
applied unusually strict selection criteria in the sense that we turned down
several chapters that were of publishable quality (and will hopefully be in
print soon in some other forum) because, in our judgement, they were not
instantiating complex dynamic systems research, an issue to which we shall
return in the Conclusion. (Also, we should mention, an unintended result
of this process is that we are beginning to realise how many free drinks and
meals it will take over the next few years to reconcile our friends whose
work was deemed insufficiently dynamic. . .) As we have come to the end
of a three-year journey, we can commend to the reader the collective fruit
of a great deal of dedication and hard work on the part of all the contribu-
tors. This has not been an easy project to pursue for any of us, but it has
definitely been a project of commitment and passion – which of course
should always be the case with any book on motivation!
References
Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G. (2014) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of
the Art. Abingdon: Routledge.
de Bot, K. (2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems
theory perspective. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot and W. Lowie (eds) Epilogue
(pp. 123–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Bot, K. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) Researching second language development from
a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot and W. Lowie
(eds) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques
(pp. 5–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M.H. (2007) A Dynamic Systems Theory approach
to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), 7–21.
Dörnyei, Z. (2000) Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualisation
of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70, 519–538.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second
Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative and
Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009) The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. and Ottó, I. (1998) Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation.
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London) 4, 43–69.
Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2011) Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd edn). Harlow:
Longman.
Ellis, N.C. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied
linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics 27 (4), 558–589.
Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1959) Motivational variables in second language acqui-
sition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13, 266–272.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics 18, 141–165.

MacIntyre, P.D. and Legatto, J.J. (2011) A dynamic system approach to willingness to
communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing
affect. Applied Linguistics 32 (2), 149–171.
Verspoor, M.H., de Bot, K. and Lowie, W. (eds) (2011) A Dynamic Approach to Second
Language Development: Methods and Techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Introduction 7

11
Ten ‘Lessons’ from Complex
Dynamic Systems Theory:
What is on Offer
Diane Larsen-Freeman
In some ways, the fact that ‘theory’ is in the name of Complex Dynamic
Systems Theory (CDST) is unfortunate. While the use of ‘theory’ is not
incorrect, it tends to underestimate what is on offer. The purpose of this
chapter is two-fold: First, to introduce ten lessons from CDST as I see them;
and second, to make a convincing case that CDST has far-reaching conse-
quences, beyond what one might normally expect with a new theory. The
fact is that CDST has fundamentally challenged our goal for research and
our way of conducting it. No longer can we be content with Newtonian
reductionism, a Laplacian clockwork universe with its deterministic predict-
ability, and the use of statistics to generalize from the behaviour of popula-
tion samples to individuals. Given its potential for encouraging entirely new
regimes of thought, it has been called a paradigm by some, by others a
metatheory, and by still others a theoretical framework. The point is that its
influence and its promise extend beyond that of most theories.
This is because CDST is transdisciplinary in two senses of the term. It is
transdisciplinary in that it has been used in many different disciplines to
investigate issues ranging from the spread of disease, to the contribution of
diversity in ecologies, to the formation of ant colonies and to an explanation
for the demise of an ancient Pueblo people. More important, it is trans-
disciplinary in the Hallidayan sense (Halliday & Burns, 2006) of redefining
the structure of knowledge. Indeed, like other powerful cross-cutting themes,
such as structuralism and evolution, which have contributed the ideas of ‘orga-
nization’ and ‘the arrow of time’, respectively, CDST introduces the themes
of dynamism and emergence to modern scholarship. As for dynamism, CDST
makes the study of change central. CDST also contributes the notion of emer-
gence, ‘the spontaneous occurrence of something new’ (van Geert, 2008: 182)
that arises from the interaction of the components of the system, just as a bird
flock emerges from the interaction of individual birds. In brief, change and
emergence are central to any understanding of complex dynamic systems.1
2

For the remainder of this chapter, I briefly outline 10 lessons of CDST as
I see them. I attempt from time to time to relate them to the theme of this
chapter – motivation – although the study of motivation in second language
development (SLD) is not one for which I claim expertise. I leave it up to the
authors of the chapters in this volume to apply the lessons to motivational
research in ways that I do not. I conclude by suggesting that CDST holds the
potential for reuniting the major streams of research in the field of SLD,
bringing together an understanding of learning and learner.
Change
CDST interjects dynamicity into our ‘objects’ of concern. ‘Essentially,
nothing in its [a complex dynamic system] environment is fixed’ (Waldrop,
1992: 145).
Clearly, this lesson looms large in this volume on motivational dynamics
because it was not so long ago that the prevailing assumption of individual
difference research was one of stasis. Although characterizing individual dif-
ferences as static was never stated explicitly, it is a fact that most researchers
aimed to find correlations between certain learner characteristics theorized
to be influential in SLD and language learning success at one time.
Although the types of motivation were postulated with increasing
sophistication, the fact remained that change was not part of the picture.
Thus, this first lesson of CDST has far-reaching consequences, heightening
our awareness that motivation is dynamic. Periods of stability may be
reached, but motivation undeniably changes, sometimes often and certainly
over time. If we really want to understand motivation, and other aspects of
SLD for that matter, we must conceive of them more as processes than states.
CDST is a theory of process not state; becoming not being (Gleick, 1987).
Hence this volume, motivational dynamics, is aptly named.
Space
Not only is time foremost on a CDST agenda, so also is space. CDST uses
topographical images. It helps us see time in spatial terms. With this shift in
perspective, we gain a host of concepts to stretch our thinking in new direc-
tions. System change is seen as movement in a trajectory across a ‘state space’
or ‘phase space’. As the learner’s motivational system moves across state
space, it is attracted to certain regions of state space, repelled by others. The
former constitute attractors in space, places where the system settles, usually
temporarily.
Another interesting characteristic of its state space is its fractal geometry.
A fractal is a geometric figure that is self-similar at different levels of scale. For
instance, a visual image of motivation over time might look like Figure 2.1.
12 Part 1: Conceptual Summaries

If we compare the bottom line, say the time spent studying a modern
language over a university semester, with the middle line, say a week in that
semester, with the top line, say a lesson during the week, we see that each
line displays periods of relative stability and periods of fluctuating motiva-
tion. We also see that what appear to be periods of stability at larger time-
frames are made up of fluctuating motivation levels at shorter timeframes.
Thus, another contribution of CDST is that it gives us a new set of images
by which to describe motivation; ones that show scale independence, the
structural dynamics of fractal geometry.
Complexity
As systems make their way through space/time, they display patterns –
something novel – something that could not have been anticipated by prob-
ing their component parts one by one. An important concept in CDST,
self-organization, ‘refers to any set of processes in which order emerges from
Ten ‘Lessons’ from Complex Dynamic Systems Theory 13
Figure 2.1 Example of a visual image of motivation over time at three different time-
frames. (Figure courtesy of Frea Waninge)

the interaction of the components of a system without direction from exter-
nal factors and without a plan of the order embedded in an individual com-
ponent’ (Mitchell, 2003: 6). In contrast to preformationism (‘the assumption
that in order to build a complex structure you need to begin with a detailed
plan or template’ (Deacon, 2012: 50)), the novel behaviour of a complex
system emerges through the self-organizing interaction of its components,
be they elements in a weather system, agents in a social group or neurons in
a neural network. Thus, CDST shifts the search for understanding from
reductionism to understanding how patterns emerge from components inter-
acting within the ecology in which they operate (van Lier, 2000: 246).
Relationship
What is important in a complex dynamic system is the interdependent
relationship among the factors that comprise it. Again, from a CDST point
of view, it is not sufficient to view factors one by one, and then to conduct a
univariate analysis, such as a simple correlation between a factor and the
language proficiency of the learner. This is not only owing to the mutability
of the factor. It is also important to recognize that learner factors overlap and
interact interdependently, with factors playing a larger role at certain times
and not at others. It is not difficult to imagine, for instance, parents’ ambi-
tion for their children to learn a language for instrumental purposes being a
strong component of the children’s motivation initially. However, as lan-
guage study proceeds, the children’s own sense of self-efficacy might deter-
mine their perseverance, and the parents’ influence wanes. There is thus a
reciprocal interaction. We cannot get a true measure of the influence of a
factor if we isolate it from the others and examine it at one time.
Nonlinearity
As complex dynamic systems make their way through space/time, they
can enter into periods of criticality or chaos, where predictions are not likely
to be borne out. This is most often illustrated in terms of a sand pile (Bak,
1996). Bak explained that as grains of sand are added to a sand pile, the
height of the pile increases until a certain critical level is reached. At that
point, even the addition of one more grain will cause a different result – an
avalanche of sand. In other words, the sand pile demonstrates nonlinearity:
the effect, an avalanche, is not proportionate to the proximate cause, a single
grain of sand. Complex dynamic systems that reach this critical state are
unstable and unpredictable, in other words, chaotic. That an effect will
follow a cause is certain, but predicting exactly when or to what extent the
cause will have an effect is not. Thus, making predictions is appropriate for

periods of linearity; I can predict that the sand pile will grow commensu-
rately with each additional grain of sand, but when a system enters into
nonlinearity, predicting an outcome is hopeless.
What this means for researchers is that commonly employed regression
models are inadequate for the study of complex systems (Byrne & Callaghan,
2014: 6–7). We need all the tools in a complexity toolbox; therefore, the trick
is to recognize indicators of criticality when systems become nonlinear,
hence unpredictable. At this point, research in SLD is best carried out from a
retrospective or retrodictive perspective (Dörnyei, 2014; Larsen-Freeman &
Cameron, 2008). Retrodiction is predicting that one will find evidence of past
events of which one at the time of retrodiction has no knowledge (Herdina,
personal communication, 2013). One can explain behaviour after the fact,
and one can anticipate behaviour based on general trends, but the reliability
of a prediction is always subject to one of myriad factors unaccounted for.
CDSs Exhibit Sensitive Dependence on
Initial Conditions
A slight change in initial conditions can have vast implications for future
behaviour. It is, unfortunately, all too frequently the case that language
learners terminate their study prematurely, convinced that they have no apti-
tude for study, based on an initial unsatisfactory experience. Moreover, there
may be any one of a number of contributing factors that make the experience
unsatisfactory: the time of day of the class, the teacher, the method, the
grading, interaction with other students, etc. A change in any of these may
restore the learner’s motivation and lead to more salutary results.
In chaos theory, this concept has been popularized as ‘the butterfly
effect’, the idea that a small influence in a nonlinear system can have a large
effect at a later point in time, i.e. a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of
the world will influence the weather in another. Perhaps an example that is
easier to relate to is that of a rock at the top of a hill. Depending on its orien-
tation when it is pushed, it will end up at the bottom of the hill in very dif-
ferent places. The point is that the systems with different initial conditions
follow different trajectories, leading to divergent outcomes.
It is worthwhile pointing out that the term used, ‘sensitive dependence
on initial conditions’, may give the impression that it is only the point at
which a system commences where it is sensitive to minor disturbances.
This is not the case. At any point in the evolving trajectory of a system,
even a minor influence can lead the system in a different direction. This
phenomenon has sometimes been referred to as ‘the tipping point’. The
point is, though, that a prior state influences a subsequent one, not always
in a way that is anticipated, sometimes characterized as ‘the law of unin-
tended consequences’.

Openness and Nonfinality
As long as a complex system remains open, interacting with its environ-
ment, it will continue to evolve. It has no final state. Just as evolution is a
process without a goal, a complex dynamic system has no foresight; it is not
defined by its endpoint. Instead, a complex dynamic system is said to be
autopoietic, self-modifying. Provided it is open to outside influences, it will
continue to move and change. A complex dynamic system iterates in that it
returns to the same state space repeatedly although its orbits never intersect.
As it returns time and again, the system is built up, resulting in a hierarchical
structure of nested levels.
Feedback Sensitivity/Adaptation
The order that complex dynamic systems exhibit is shaped by the fact
that they are feedback sensitive. Feedback in SLD usually refers to the
dynamic whereby the teacher gives, and the student receives, corrections.
Positive feedback is seen as good, negative as bad. However, in CDST terms,
feedback is seen more broadly in terms of cybernetics, where change in one
instance results in either amplification (positive feedback) or dampening
(negative feedback) of that change. A complex system adapts by changing in
response to either type of feedback. In other words, an adaptive system
changes in response to feedback from its changing environment. Therefore,
adaptation is not a one-time process. ‘A system is never optimally adapted to
an environment since the process of evolution of the system will itself change
the environment so that a new adaptation is needed, and so on’ (Heylighen,
1989: 24). Thus, complex dynamic systems do not remain passive in light of
changing events; they ‘learn’ or adapt to an ever-changing environment.
Context-Dependent
In CDST terms, it would be said that a person is coupled with his or her
environment. Van Geert and Fischer (2009: 327) write that development
applies to person–context assemblies across time. One theory in biology
makes this a central point, i.e. that an organism and the environment are
coupled, co-constructed and always in transition (Oyama, 2011). With the
coupling of the learner and the learning environment, neither the learner nor
the environment is seen as independent, and the environment is not seen as
background to the main developmental drama.
It is not difficult to imagine how a person’s being in one place at one time
as opposed to others might affect motivational dynamics (Dörnyei, 2009).
The important point is that context is not simply another ‘variable’. A related

point is that the observer/researcher does not occupy a position outside of
the system that he or she is studying.
Complex Systems Also Have Non-Gaussian
Distributions
A Gaussian distribution is one that is depicted by a bell curve, with the
midpoint representing the average behaviour. It can be used with linear sys-
tems. Complex systems also have non-Gaussian distributions, often called
‘heavy-tailed’, which means that infrequent behaviour at the edge of a bell
curve is much more common than it would be in a Gaussian distribution. It
also means that computing the average behaviour does not tell us much
about the behaviour of the components or agents that comprise the system
(Larsen-Freeman, 2006).
A model based on samples of individuals does not automatically general-
ize to a model of individual processes. As van Geert puts it:
Work on individual trajectory models has shown that such trajectories
cannot be reduced to generic trajectory model trajectories based on sample
information, plus or minus some random deviations. (van Geert, 2011: 274)
He adds ‘[Molenaar] and his collaborators have shown that the implicit
step, so common in the behavioural sciences, from sample-based research to
individual process statements is often demonstrably incorrect’ (van Geert,
2011: 275). Indeed, one of Rogosa’s (1995) myths is that ‘The average growth
curve informs about individual growth’. It clearly does not.
Of course, most researchers seek to generalize beyond the particulars of
a given study. Foregoing the usual statistical means to generalize does not
make this impossible in CDST. However, how this is to be achieved would
be pursued in different ways. One way is to probe intraindividual variation
of person-specific factors rather than interindividual variation at the level of
population (Molenaar & Campbell, 2009). Individual case studies may not
reveal much about the population of language learners, but they do have a
direct bearing on theory (van Geert, 2011: 276).
A second way might be to discover particular configurations in state
space. The possible configurations, at an abstract level, may be abundant, but
not infinite. For instance, certain motivational archetypes might be identi-
fied, which would allow us to specify the signature dynamics of each arche-
type (Chan et al., this volume).
A third possibility is to search for new ways of understanding. ‘The
development of regression models is ... completely predicated on straightfor-
ward linear modelling ... The blunt point is that nonlinearity is the product
of emergence. We need to start from emergence and develop a science that

fits that crucial aspect of complex reality’ (Byrne & Callaghan, 2014: 6–7).
Methods that do just that are beginning to be developed. For instance,
MacIntyre’s idiodynamic method (2012) and others presented at the 2013
American Association of Applied Linguistics Colloquium on Motivational
Dynamics, convened by Dörnyei and MacIntyre, and included in this
volume, hold great promise to broaden our repertoire of research approaches
in keeping with CDST.
Conclusion
I conclude by suggesting, as I wrote at the outset, that it is time to end
the bifurcated research agenda in the second language acquisition field
(Hatch, 1974), which has existed for almost 40 years. On the one side
has stood the question of the nature of the process of second language
(L2) acquisition. Is it similar to, or even identical to, L1 acquisition, albeit it
with the important difference of knowledge of an L1 having already been
established? The second side has focused on language learners, centred
essentially on the differential success question, one in which ‘individual
differences’ is the major topic of investigation. For almost 40 years, the two
prongs of the research agenda have been pursued mostly independently.
While this is no indictment of either side, I have been concerned for
many years (Larsen-Freeman, 1985) about efforts to characterize the learn-
ing process removed from context, under the assumption that the process is
universal, and that once understood, learner factors can simply be added,
making some allowances for slight deviations from the general process for
individual differences. This way of thinking is misguided (Kramsch, 2002).
I think that hope for the unification of the field rests in a situated view of
learner and learning, using research methods that honour the ten lessons
compiled for this chapter – in short, the broader view of research and under-
standing that is on offer from CDST.
Note
(1) ‘Systems’ is not being used in any special way. It means a set of interrelated
components.
References
Bak, P. (1996) How Nature Works: The Science of Self-organized Criticality. New York:
Copernicus.
Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G. (2014) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. The State of
the Art. Oxon: Routledge.
Deacon, T. (2012) Incomplete Nature. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009) Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning
environment. Language Learning 59, 230–248.

Dörnyei, Z. (2014) Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative mod-
elling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching 47 (1), 80–91.
Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books.
Halliday, M. and Burns, A. (2006) Applied linguistics: Thematic pursuits or disciplinary
moorings? Journal of Applied Linguistics 3, 113–128.
Hatch, E. (1974) Second language learning—universals? Working Papers on Bilingualism
3, 1–17.
Heylighen, F. (1989) Self-organization, emergence, and the architecture of complexity. In
Proceedings of the European Congress on System Science (pp. 23–32). Paris: AFCET.
Kramsch, C. (ed.) (2002) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological
Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1985) State of the art on input in second language acquisition. In S.
Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 433–444). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the
oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27,
590–619.
MacIntyre, P.D. (2012) The idiodynamic method: A closer look at the dynamics of com-
munication traits. Communication Research Reports 29 (4), 361–367.
Mitchell, S.D. (2003) Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Molenaar, P. and Campbell, C. (2009) The new person-specific paradigm in psychology.
Current Directions in Psychological Science 18 (2), 112–117.
Oyama, S. (2011) Development and evolution in a world without labels. In The Future
of the Embodied Mind Conference, eSMCs Summer School, Donostia, San Sebastian,
Spain.
Rogosa, D.R. (1995) Myths and methods: ‘Myths about longitudinal research’, plus sup-
plemental questions. In J.M. Gottman (ed.) The Analysis of Change (pp. 3–65).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Geert, P. (2008) The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition:
An introduction. The Modern Language Journal 92 (2), 179–199.
van Geert, P. (2011) The contribution of complex dynamic systems to development. Child
van Geert, P. and Fischer, K.W. (2009) Dynamic systems and the quest for individual-
based models of change and development. In J.P. Spencer, M.S.C. Thomas and J.L.
McClelland (eds) Toward a Unified Theory of Development (pp. 313–336). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L. (2000) From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecologi-
cal perspective. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning
(pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waldrop, M. (1992) Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New
York: Simon and Schuster.

20
Attractor States
Phil Hiver
The human existence is unmistakably varied but, just as patterns materi-
alise in natural and human-made systems – one language class is ‘dead’ but
the next one is ‘engaged’, global weather patterns such as ‘El Niño’ affect
the climate for months at a time and the latest sports car is ‘fast and fun
to drive’ – it is the norm rather than the exception to see stable pat-
terns in human behaviour. These stable tendencies, solutions or outcomes for
dynamic systems are called attractor states, and they are essential in under-
standing most physical and human phenomena (Prigogine & Stengers,
1984). The goal of this chapter is to provide unambiguous definitions of
some of the central concepts in dynamic systems theories and, using
straightforward examples and analogies, to enable motivation researchers
new to this field to conceptualise attractor states and apply them in their
research designs.
What Are Attractor States?
Let us take a first-year class of high school second language (L2) learn-
ers as an example of a dynamic system. We might expect to see an initial
period of transition in which individuals establish their respective roles
and collectively formulate principles or norms to guide their behaviour and
interactions. This provides the starting idea of a number of variables at work
in the system: the number of learners all with individual ability levels,
desires and orientations that make them unique, the teacher who has either
a stronger or weaker influence on the class, and the school culture and the
education system in which it is located, all have some role to play inside the
classroom. Any system behaviour or group outcome can be influenced by
internal and external forces and events, such as the involvement of parents
or threats to group cohesiveness. Despite all this complexity, we would in
3

most cases expect to see the class stabilise into a cohesive group and a dis-
cernible pattern of behaviour emerge. This patterned outcome is called an
attractor state.
An attractor state – a critical value, pattern, solution or outcome
towards which a system settles down or approaches over time.
(Newman, 2009)
A patterned outcome of self-organisation represents a pocket of stability
for the dynamic system, and it can emerge without anyone purposely direct-
ing or engineering it into existence (Johnson, 2009). This closely mirrors
what we observe across many phenomena in the field of second language
acquisition (SLA) where dynamic collections of variables spontaneously self-
organise into attractor states that represent higher-order patterns of equilib-
rium (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Of course, the state which the
system settles in over time does not have to be described numerically. It is,
among other things, often categorical, theoretical, circumstantial or phe-
nomenological (Goldstein, 2011).
The simplest type of attractor state is a fixed-point attractor state. The fixed
point of this state refers to a unique point of equilibrium that the system
tends to settle in over time (Haken, 2006). An example of this might be
observed in the tendency for the learners in our high school class to refuse to
participate voluntarily and instead remain relatively silent when given the
opportunity to interact in the L2. In reality, because of the immense com-
plexity of life, systems that only tend to settle into a single fixed-point
attractor state are rarer than we might think (Byrne, 1998).
How Do Attractor States Work?
While we have said that attractor states are critical outcomes that a
system evolves toward or approaches over time, it is important to recognise
that attractors do not actually exert a pulling force of attraction in the way
that gravity or magnets do (Haken, 2006). The term attractor state is simply
a convenient way to describe the behaviour of a dynamic system as it moves
towards some, and away from other, critical patterns (Holland, 1995). While
in the complexity literature both terms are used in an interchangeable
manner, in order to avoid the tempting – and misleading – collocation that
attractors attract, it would perhaps be better to refer unilaterally to attractors
as ‘attractor states’. It also is worth mentioning that attractor states are not
necessarily perceived as pleasant or desirable states that a person wishes to
be in, as we can see in Gregersen and MacIntyre’s (this volume) description
of the internal conflict between in-service language teachers’ ‘teacher’ and
‘learner’ selves.
Attractor States 21

Self-organisation
Dynamic systems do not, of course, magically end up in attractor states.
Attractor states are assumed as a result of the system dynamics self-organising
(Juarrero, 1999).
System/signature dynamics – the unique causal behaviour and change in
the system’s state that results from the interactions between the system
variables/components. (Kelso, 2002)
Self-organisation is a process so central to dynamic systems theory
(DST) that we often take for granted the clearly recognisable patterns it
leads to in the world around us (Strogatz, 2003). In the biological sphere, the
growth of the body, its structures (bones, organs, blood vessels, etc.), its
systems (circulatory, digestive, neurological, etc.) and its cycles (sleep, hunger,
menstrual, etc.) are all examples of self-organisation. When the system
dynamics form a novel outcome without any agent in the system directing
change towards the new pattern, we refer to this as self-organisation (Banzhaf,
2009). Looking back to our example of a dynamic system, if we see the high
school class begin to settle into a pattern of supportive, inclusive and goal-
oriented group learning behaviour, it is because the system dynamics are
self-organising into this attractor state. Indeed we might even hear a teacher
remark that ‘things are falling into place’, or ‘things just seem to click’. We
can then extend this observation by examining the unique system dynamics
that will explain how and why it has self-organised into this particular
attractor state.
Feedback is at the heart of all self-organisation, and it plays a role in how
a dynamic system moves towards or away from an attractor (Boschetti
et al., 2011). While feedback often comes from an external source, such as
the environment or another dynamic system, it may also originate from
interaction between the system’s components. Negative feedback is the
most common type of feedback associated with how attractor states influ-
ence systems (Banzhaf, 2009). Negative feedback should not be interpreted
as unpleasant; its role is simply to minimise variance from the attractor
state. In a language lesson, the teacher of our high school class reminding
the learners why using the L2 is more desirable while on-task is likely to
shift the class away from using the L1. Conversely, iterations of positive
feedback can amplify perturbations to the system, creating unstable pat-
terns of movement that can spread erratically throughout a system and, if
the pattern is strong enough, push it into another attractor state (Manson,
2001). A common example of positive feedback is when a microphone picks
up its own signal from a loudspeaker, making an increasingly loud and
unpleasant noise in the sound system. If the learners in our high school class
repeatedly perform poorly, confirming their already low self-efficacy beliefs,

they may choose to exert even less effort, impacting further on their lan-
guage learning results. Positive feedback generates patterns that are some-
times identified as a vicious cycle – or its happier counterpart, a virtuous
cycle. Consistent positive feedback may trap students in a state of learned
helplessness wherein they give up altogether.
Attractor states offer a location of relative stability for a dynamic system.
However, as these systems are by definition open, they constantly experi-
ence a range of inputs (Juarrero, 1999). Along with feedback, one of the most
common types of inputs is a perturbation – a disturbing force that can jolt a
system out of one attractor state and into a different direction (Kra, 2009).
Early on in a school week, our high school class may be settled in a lethargic,
‘why-should-I-care’ pattern, when the sudden news of an unexpected language
exam (i.e. a perturbation) causes the learners to shift into a high-intensity
frenzy of preparation. The subsequent poor test results (i.e. another pertur-
bation) may result in the learners becoming demoralised and expending less
effort in the L2 learning process in the short term (see for example Henry,
Chapter 19, this volume). The teacher’s decision, following these events, to
use an extrinsic reward or prize (i.e. yet another perturbation) may be able
to budge the class out of this attractor state of general demotivation into a
novel pattern of increased participation and cooperation. Ultimately, we
cannot overlook the contextual and nonlinear nature of inputs. At times,
large disturbances may have little or no effect on outcomes, while at other
times relatively small perturbations may result in disproportionate or explo-
sive effects (Byrne, 1998).
The state space
The state space is the metaphorical area in which we can find a system’s
attractor states, and it represents all combined possible positions or outcomes
for the dynamic system (Johnson, 2009). Because a dynamic system could
potentially settle into almost any outcome or location in the state space over
time (a dimension of the state space), we might be tempted to think that all
of the state space qualifies as an attractor state. In reality though, because of
the dynamics of self-organisation, only a handful of salient patterns or out-
comes exist for a system.
State/phase space – the landscape of total possible outcome configurations
that a system can be found in at any given time, within which a system
can transition along a unique trajectory. (Kauffman, 1995)
To illustrate how we might conceptualise this topographical environ-
ment, let me use a parallel analogy from outside of SLA. Think of a system’s
state space as a golf course that consists of a teeing ground, a fairway, the
rough, water hazards, sand traps and a putting green with a hole. Here the
Attractor States 23

dynamic system is ‘the game of golf being played’ and the attractor state is
reached when ‘the ball stops rolling’. The hole, sand traps, water hazards and
dips in the fairway all are potential attractor states where the system might
settle – where the ball stops rolling.
The hole may be the main attractor or ultimate goal for the system, and
will have a large influence on how a game of golf is played. There are, how-
ever, other constraints on the system’s behaviour that make the system
dynamics and patterns of change not simply random. A particular set of
regulations guide the fairness of the game, the pace of play, scoring and when
penalties must be given. For instance, the ball can be hit in specific ways
using a handful of approved clubs (but not in other ways), and scoring the
game follows a strict protocol. These principles that guide the way a system
can move in its state space from one attractor state to the next are called
system parameters (Haken, 2006).
System/control parameters – the specific principles, constraints or rules
which govern the interactions between system components and the pat-
terns of change that take place. (Bak, 1996)
Awareness of the system parameters can allow us to better describe how
and why a system came to settle into a certain pattern or outcome. The rules
of golf are written in a rule book; the rules of language acquisition are still
under construction. Relevant parameters are likely to include various attri-
butes of the teacher, students, classroom setup, interpersonal relationships
and cultural context, to name but a few. In brief, a system will tend to settle
in one or another attractor state that can be more effectively understood and
described by referencing a set of system parameters (Kelso, 2002). An engaged
L2 classroom might be described with parameters such as an active and cre-
ative teacher, motivated non-anxious students, variety in classroom activi-
ties, positive relationships among students and support for the language in
the local culture.
Metaphorically speaking, attractor states differ with respect to two prop-
erties: their ‘width’, which represents the range of the attractor state’s reach,
and their ‘depth’, which represents the strength of an attractor state on the
dynamic system (Haken, 2006). The feature in state space that allows us to
describe both the range and strength of an attractor state is the basin of
attraction (Nowak et al., 2005).
An attractor basin – the set of all initial conditions that allow a dynamic
system to evolve to a given attractor state. (Abraham & Shaw, 1992)
A wider basin of attraction means that a more varied range of initial
conditions (see Verspoor, this volume), events or ideas can easily propel a
dynamic system into the attractor state, whereas a deeper basin of attraction

offers an outcome of greater stability for the dynamic system and provides
an indication of the amount of force needed to shift or transition the system
out of this attractor state (Kauffman, 1995). In golf, it is easier to hit the
wide water hazard than it is to hit the narrow hole, even though both are
deep enough to stop a rolling ball. These two properties are relevant to the
stability of a dynamic system’s current state. For instance, despite being
reminded repeatedly of how and why effort attributions are more productive
in the long term, the learners in our high school class seem to have a habit of
falling back on ability attributions to explain their language learning difficul-
ties and setbacks. From this observation we could reasonably conclude that
these learners are in a particularly strong attractor state (i.e. one with a deep
basin of attraction) and need a sustained or vigorous force of some kind to
dislodge them from it.
Attractor States and Variables
Attractor states allow us to classify or categorise the kind of thing a
dynamic system is, but they must not be confused with variables as we
normally use the term (Byrne, 2002, 2009; Byrne & Callaghan, 2014).
Instead, the closest thing in DST to the cross-sectional, quantitative mean-
ing of a variable is a system component (Harvey, 2009). An attractor state,
on the other hand, simply describes what a system is doing right now or
how it is currently acting, and the outcome or pattern it has fallen into
through self-organisation. While motivational outcomes such as apathy,
flow and learned helplessness could be considered variables in the traditional
sense, in keeping with recent developments in SLA research we may need
to conceptualise states like these as emergent, dynamic and context-
dependent rather than as absolute. Because they are all categorical patterns
that L2 learners can settle into (when casing one or more L2 learners as the
dynamic system), they can be considered as attractor states. However, while
these may be attractor states for individual L2 learners, they may also
be cased as dynamic systems themselves if instead we shift our focus to the
common dimensions among people, where theory explicates the processes
and components that constitute them. Think for instance of language apti-
tude as an intervening variable between personality and L2 achievement.
Language aptitude can be specified as a system component of the learner
who is cased as the system because it is one of the many parts that make up
the dynamic system. When we study the self-organised outcome for the L2
learner, we may also find that this component/variable has a causal influ-
ence on the system dynamics.
There is one existing alternative: we can use the term ‘variable’ to refer
to a condition of a self-organised pattern (Byrne, 2002, 2009). If we leave
aside L2 learners and instead examine L2 achievement as the dynamic
Attractor States 25

system, then personality and language aptitude can be conceptualised as
conditions/variables that impact on any contextual outcome of the system
dynamics. Determining whether to refer either to (1) a system component;
or (2) a condition for self-organised patterns as ‘variables’, will depend on
carefully operationalising the characteristics and boundaries of the dynamic
system, and specifying the level and timescale (e.g. micro, meso, macro) on
which we are observing it (de Bot, this volume). For clarity in dynamic sys-
tems motivational research, it is critically important to define the system
being considered.
Other Types of Attractor States
Periodic attractor states are one step up in complexity because they provide
more possibilities for variations in system behaviour than is the case for
fixed-point attractor states. A periodic attractor state – also known as a limit-
cycle attractor state – represents two or more values that the system cycles back
and forth between in a periodic loop. Patterns emerge when events or behav-
iours repeat themselves at regular intervals (Abraham & Shaw, 1992).
Examples of periodic attractor states can be seen when the students in our
high school class begin a school year with a high level of enthusiasm and
expectancy of success, but as the semester progresses the class loses its edge
as the familiar routine turns to a monotonous grind and, towards the final
weeks of the semester, the students contract the so-called ‘senioritis’ virus,
are repeatedly absent and have a generally dismissive and apathetic attitude –
a pattern that seems to repeat itself year in and year out. Within a particular
language lesson we might also see these students starting a task using only
the L2, then gradually getting carried away until they are all mainly using
the L1 on-task, before eventually reverting back to the L2 once they are
reminded to do so by the teacher.
Strange attractor states – also known as chaotic attractor states – represent
values that a system tends to approach over time but never quite reaches
(Strogatz, 1994). The motion of a system in a strange attractor state is called
chaotic, because the dynamics trace a somewhat erratic or irregular pattern
that never quite repeats itself, although these systems do in fact show com-
plex forms of organisation that can be understood after the fact (Gleick,
2008). Weather patterns that we experience from day to day are an excellent
example of this. The weather can be difficult to predict with precision, but
we can always look back on the movement and interactions among weather
systems to explain the weather that occurred (e.g. why a tornado formed,
why a hurricane veered away from land or how ocean currents affect a
summer day). In SLA, the L2 Self System (and the Ideal L2 Self in particular)
might be considered a strange attractor state. The competing motivational
forces acting simultaneously on the learner will draw the learner’s attitudes

and behaviours into a dynamic pattern that never exactly repeats itself. The
Ideal L2 Self can be something of a moving target as progress is made toward
goals and new, more challenging goals are constructed (see Henry, Chapter
9, this volume). Likewise, as motives and expectations from the Ought-to L2
Self are internalised, they feed into the Ideal L2 Self and vary the attention
and deliberate effort invested by the learner in learning the L2. Strange
attractor states are the most complex, but also the most common type in the
world around us (Kelso, 2002).
Conclusion
Many of life’s events can be described as a synergy between an open col-
lection of variables or components. Add to this the range of feedback and
other inputs we experience and it is clear that human behaviour constantly
changes and self-organises in ways that defy exact prediction. The schemata
we rely on in our everyday existence in a variety of social contexts are, in
part, a function of the existence of attractor states; on a bus, we expect the
throng of fellow commuters to behave in certain typical ways, while at a
large family reunion we may expect certain habitual patterns of interaction.
But even when the systems do not behave as expected – a cause for surprise,
awkwardness or even consternation – they do settle into a solution of some
sort. Attractor states, then, are the compelling tendencies and patterns that
we recognise around us, and indeed come to expect throughout life.
Personality dispositions (e.g. optimistic, empathetic), cherished holidays and
traditions (e.g. weekly worship services, Lunar New Year), SLA phenomena
(e.g. unwillingness to communicate, error fossilisation), common health
issues (e.g. insomnia, postpartum depression) and socio-political events (e.g.
economic recession, political polarisation) are all attractor states. In short,
attractor states enable us to understand how stability and predictability are
the natural outcomes of complexity.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank all three editors of this volume for their insightful
feedback on earlier drafts of this chapter, and Diane Larsen-Freeman, Kees
de Bot and David Byrne for the exchange of ideas they contributed to it.
References
Abraham, R. and Shaw, D. (1992) Dynamics: The Geometry of Behavior (2nd edn). Redwood
City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Bak, P. (1996) How Nature Works: The Science of Self-organized Criticality. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Banzhaf, W. (2009) Self-organizing systems. In R. Meyers (ed.) Encyclopedia of Complexity
and Systems Science (pp. 8040–8050). New York: Springer.
Attractor States 27

Boschetti, F., Hardy, P.Y., Grigg, N. and Horowitz, P. (2011) Can we learn how complex
systems work? Emergence: Complexity & Organization 13 (4), 47–62.
Byrne, D. (1998) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences – An Introduction. New York:
Routledge.
Byrne, D. (2002) Interpreting Quantitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Byrne, D. (2009) Case-based methods: Why we need them; what they are; how to do
them. In D. Byrne and C.C. Ragin (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods
(pp. 1–13). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G. (2014) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of
the Art. New York: Routledge.
Gleick, J. (2008) Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books.
Goldstein, J. (2011) Probing the nature of complex systems: Parameters, modeling, inter-
ventions. Emergence: Complexity & Organization 13 (3), 94–121.
Haken, H. (2006) Information and Self-organization: A Macroscopic Approach to Complex
Systems (3rd edn). New York: Springer.
Harvey, D. (2009) Complexity and case. In D. Byrne and C.C. Ragin (eds) The SAGE
Handbook of Case-Based Methods (pp. 16–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Holland, J.H. (1995) Hidden Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, N. (2009) Simply Complexity: A Clear Guide to Complexity Theory. Oxford:
Oneworld Publications.
Juarrero, A. (1999) Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Kauffman, S. (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Complexity. Oxford:
OUP.
Kelso, J.A.S. (2002) Self-organizing dynamical systems. In N. Smelser and P. Baltes (eds)
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 13844–13850).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Kra, B. (2009) Introduction to ergodic theory. In R. Meyers (ed.) Encyclopedia of Complexity
and Systems Science (pp. 3053–3055). New York: Springer.
Oxford: OUP.
Manson, S. (2001) Simplifying complexity: A review of complexity theory. Geoforum 32,
405–414.
Newman, L. (2009) Human–environment interactions: Complex systems approaches for
dynamic sustainable development. In R. Meyers (ed.) Encyclopedia of Complexity and
Systems Science (pp. 4631–4643). New York: Springer.
Nowak, A., Vallacher, R.R. and Zochowski, M. (2005) The emergence of personality:
Dynamic foundations of individual variation. Developmental Review 25, 351–385.
Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984) Order Out of Chaos. New York: Shambhala.
Strogatz, S. (1994) Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology,
Chemistry, and Engineering. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.
Strogatz, S. (2003) Sync: How Order Emerges from Chaos in the Universe, Nature, and Daily
Life. New York: Hyperion.

29
Rates of Change: Timescales
in Second Language
Development
Kees de Bot
In this contribution it will be argued that language development takes place
at different, interacting timescales ranging from the decades of the life span
to the milliseconds of brain activity. Because these timescales interact, look-
ing at phenomena at only one timescale may lead to spurious results. At the
same time, it is impossible to include all possible timescales in the study of
second language development (SLD). A compromise would be to look at the
timescale that is of primary interest, for example the learning of words over
a two-week period, along with two adjacent relevant timescales, for example
lexical development over a three-month period and lexical development on a
day-by-day scale.
Timescales
What time is, remains elusive. We talk about losing time, buying time,
saving time, forgetting time, that it heals all wounds and so on. It is seen as
a commodity, something we ‘have’. In philosophers’ views, time plays a
different role. According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of
any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe.
Humans are only capable of perceiving relative time, which is a measure-
ment of perceivable objects in motion (like the moon or sun). From these
movements, we infer the passage of time. Unlike relative time, however,
Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be under-
stood mathematically.
Here we will be concerned with time in developmental processes, so
the focus is on relative rather than absolute time. We tend to think of times-
cales as naturally given. While some timescales are defined by external
changes, like the seasons and years, or day and night, other timescales, like
4

months, weeks, hours, minutes and seconds, are cultural inventions with no
‘objective’ reference. For instance, the definition of a second as ratified in
1976 is: ‘the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation correspond-
ing to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of
the caesium-133 atom’ (Guinot & Seidelmann, 1988). Lombardi (2007) pro-
vides an interesting overview of the history of timescales and argues that the
division of the time between sunrise and sunset into 12 hours and the year
in 12 months results from the Egyptians’ use of a duodecimal counting
system. The 7-day week was common in Babylonia and was taken over by
Table 4.1 Timescales (adapted from Lemke 2000)
Typical process Timescale (s) Duration Reference events
Chemical synthesis 10−5 Neurotransmitter
synthesis.
Membrane process 10−4 Ligand binding.
Neural firings 10−3 Neuron process.
Neuronal patterns 10−2 Multi-neuron process.
Vocal articulation 10−1 Edge of awareness.
Utterance 1–10 Word, holophrase, short
monologue; in context.
Exchange 2–102 Seconds to minutes Dialogue; interpersonal
relations; developing
situation.
Episode 103 15 minutes Thematic, functional
unit; speech genre,
educative.
Lesson 103–104 Hour Curriculum genre.
Lesson sequence 104 2.75 hours Macro curriculum genre.
School day 105 Day [‘seamless day’].
Unit 106 11.5 days Thematic, functional
unit. Unit sequence
[rare].
Semester/year
curriculum
107 4 months Organizational level;
unit in next scale.
Multi-year curriculum 108 3.2 years Organizational level;
limit of institutional
planning.
Lifespan educational
develop.
109 32 years Biographical timescale;
identity change
Educational system
change
1010 320 years Historical timescale;
new institutions.

Judaism and Christianity following the description of the creation in
the book of Genesis, but it has no natural basis. ‘Unlike the day and the
year, the week is an artificial rhythm that was created by human beings
totally independent of any natural periodicity’ (Zerubavel, 1989: 4). The fact
that some timescales are socially constructed does not make them less stable;
attempts in 18th century France, and early 20th century attempts, to shorten
or lengthen the week (respectively) failed, mainly because the weekly rhythm
was linked to religious practices and traditional peasant life (Zerubavel,
1989). Minutes became units with the invention of mechanical clocks in the
16th century. There are 60 seconds in a minute for no other reason than a
parallelism with 60 minutes in an hour. Even finer timescales, like millisec-
onds came into existence only when there were devices invented to actually
measure them.
For the study of human development, only a small part of the range
of timescales is relevant. Lemke provides a useful overview of timescales
(Table 4.1) showing that humans live on timescales between 10−5 seconds
and 109 seconds.
Lemke looked at timescales and how they combine and interact in a
school learning setting. For this the scales from 10−1–107 are especially relevant.
A distinction should be made between timescales and time windows.
Timescales refer to the granularity of the developmental process; we can take
a very global perspective and look at changes over the life span, sampling
many moments of time. Time windows refer to the period of time studied.
For example, in a study of a person’s life, the time window spans the whole
period of the lifetime and the timescale might be used in examining changes
from one decade to another. In another study, we might look at the phono-
logical development of learners over a period of two years (time window),
but measure their performance every week (timescale).
The Fractal Nature of Time
As discussed elsewhere (de Bot, 2012), the sub-systems of the language
system develop on all timescales during the human life span. The nature of
time is fractal in the sense that it is scale-free. This means that although we
can look at the year scale or millisecond scale and all scales in between, there
is no scale that is the scale for language development, or even for components
of it. Through the methodology used to gather data on specific behaviour
we define the timescale we are using. A longitudinal study that takes place
over a two-year window with monthly observations may take place on the
month timescale, and the year timescale, and all timescales between them
(half year, two months and so on). A five-minute lexical decision experiment,
with measurements at 300 millisecond intervals, takes place at the 5 minute
and 300 millisecond scale and all scales in between. But that does not mean
Rates of Change 31

that development takes place only at the timescale used for the measure-
ments. Language development in that sense also is scale-free, even when the
focus is on one particular timescale.
Language Development on Different Timescales
There is no research that covers language development on the life-span
level. No individual, as far as we know, has been followed from crib to coffin.
Language development is a complex process that takes place on many inter-
acting timescales, and the timescale chosen will have an impact on the selec-
tion and interpretation of the data. The same holds for the time window
used. There is no timescale or window that gives a full picture of the total
process of development. Development on one scale is influenced by what
happens on smaller and larger scales. Development processes at various levels
will have an impact on what happens on the timescale in focus. Trinh
(2011) provides an interesting example of research showing the need to con-
sider both the timescale and time window in order to draw conclusions on
development. Considering the writings of a language expert over a 35-year
period, Trinh found that lexical complexity and syntactic complexity show
variation over time as there are periods in which they decline or grow. While
on timescales of fine granularity the data may suggest slight decline, that
change may actually be part of a pattern of growth on a scale that has a
lower granularity and a longer time window.
Research on language attrition tends to be done on larger timescales than
research on language acquisition. Attrition and acquisition typically have dif-
ferent rates of change; while acquisition may happen in terms of hours and
days, language attrition takes much more time to materialize, typically
decades. As the overview by Schmid (2011) shows, there is some research that
looks at longer language attrition timescales. An example is the 16-year lon-
gitudinal study of first language attrition among Dutch migrants in Australia
(de Bot & Clyne, 1994). Though the total period between the two measure-
ments was 16 years, we do not know when and at what timescale the attri-
tion actually took place. To define the curve of development, a large number
of measurements over time would be needed. However, such measurements
might lead to problems because the repeated testing may lead to learning.
Subsystems and Their Timescales
In a skills acquisition approach, SLD is the development of sub-skills
with different levels of control. Higher level skills, such as conceptual pro-
cessing, take more attentional resources than highly automatized skills,
like lexical access and articulation. Lower level processing is typically auto-
matized in order to free attentional resources for higher level processes

(Lyster & Sato, 2013). If smaller systems are embedded within larger
systems, and subcomponents have their own timescale and rate of change,
the question arises as to how far we can decompose systems into more and
more layers or embedded subsystems. How deep we want to go will depend
on our research question and the data available. If we are interested in code-
switching in 17th century dialects round the city of Rotterdam in the
Netherlands, we may be restricted by what written records can tell us about
code switching. There might be a rich collection of source materials, but
further refinement of analyses would be limited by the nature of the data.
In the skills acquisition approach, language, and therefore language
development, can be decomposed into skills, these into sub-skills and sub-
sub-skills, and so on. Whereas it could be argued that the sum of the devel-
opment of these skills is what constitutes development, from a dynamic
systems theory (DST) perspective it is not the sum of these components,
but their mutual influence on each other over time that is the core of devel-
opment. This is in line with the view expressed by Newell et al.:
Traditionally, the study of behaviour has been categorized into particular
kinds of tasks, such as perceptual, cognitive, motor and communicative.
These task categories, however, are more reflections of an emphasis of
particular processes than they are of mutually distinct processes in the
organization of human behaviour. It should not be surprising, therefore,
to find that the learning curves for tasks in different behavioural domains
hold some similarities. (Newell et al., 2001: 77)
Rates of Change
Development at different timescales typically is expressed in terms of
functions of different shapes, the plot of outcomes of learning or change. So
while pragmatic development may show a gradually rising function on the
scale of years, no change would be visible on the minutes or seconds scale, for
intonation learning there may be a sudden jump or discontinuity. ‘The time
scale of learning is expressed as the rate (exponent within a function) with
which learning takes place over time’ (Newell et al., 2001: 64). The change
function may take various shapes, with linear development as the exception
rather than the rule. The typical learning curve is S-shaped, with little devel-
opment at the beginning, followed by a jump that gradually levels off. This
shape reflects the interaction between the characteristics of the learning
system and the interaction with the environment. In the earlier phases there
is plenty to be learned from environmental input, but the system has to store
partly unrelated information in memory. The upper part of the function
describing the learning curve is defined by the limitations of the input. If the
environmental input remains more or less the same, the learning system will
Rates of Change 33

gradually absorb that information, leaving little left to acquire. Examples of
this process include the learning rate of vocabulary in studies on the effective-
ness of bilingual schooling in Dutch secondary education, as reported on by
Huibregtse (2001) and Verspoor et al. (2011). While the learners in the bilin-
gual classes show a levelling off of their learning curve, the control group
continues to grow. Apparently the learners in the bilingual classes already
have their vocabulary developed to such an extent that there are fewer and
fewer new words in the input they receive, which results in a slowing down
of their acquisitional rate. As early as 1919, Thurstone had already pointed out
that the limitations of the environment of learning (e.g. the range of vocabu-
lary in daily speech for learning new words) lead to a decreased effect of
practice on the rate of learning. This is what van Geert (2008) refers to as the
carrying capacity of an organism to learn. Because of the limitations of the
environment, learning curves typically asymptote over time. Thus, there may
not be a single learning curve for different organisms, or environments: ‘A
particular set of interactions of an organism, environment, and task over time
can engender a particular function or change of type of learning curve at the
task level’ (Newell et al., 2001: 58).
In research on motor learning and motor development, a distinction is
made between persistent and transitory properties of change. Persistent
change takes place at long timescales and the knowledge acquired tends to
stabilize. Transitory properties are visible at shorter timescales. An example
could be the development of the tense and aspect system in learners of French.
While the development of a part of the system, for example the Imparfait, may
show a gradual increase in correct use in tasks over time, a particular learner
may at some point realize that there is something like the Passé Simple and
will apply that new knowledge indiscriminately for a while, till the use of
that tense also stabilizes. The overuse and wrong use of that tense would
show greater variation on a shorter timescale than that of the Imparfait and
would be transitory rather than persistent.
Timescales in the Brain
There may be a neurological basis for the processing of information at
different timescales. Harrison et al. (2011) present evidence that different
parts of the brain are working on different timescales:
(the) primary visual cortex responds to rapid perturbations in the envi-
ronment, while frontal cortices involved in executive control encode the
longer term contexts within which these perturbations occur. (...) Many
aspects of brain function can be understood in terms of a hierarchy of
temporal scales at which representations of the environment evolve. The
lowest level of this hierarchy corresponds to fast fluctuations associated

with sensory processing, whereas the highest levels encode slow contex-
tual changes in the environment, under which faster representations
unfold. (Harrison et al., 2001)
Klebel et al. (2008: 7) point out that there is no theory that explains how the
large-scale organization of the human brain can be related to our environ-
ment. ‘Here, we propose that the brain models the entire environment as a
collection of hierarchical, dynamical systems, where slower environmental
changes provide the context for faster changes’. In other words, the brain
processes input from the environment depending on the timescale on which
it acts. Fast fluctuations in sensory processing are embedded in slower fluc-
tuations in the environment. So, the brain is, to a certain extent, organized
to process information at these different timescales and integrate it.
The Interaction of Timescales
To what extent do timescales interact? Following the principles of DST
(Byrne & Callaghan, 2014), all timescales interact; there are however clear
limits to that interaction. Lemke (2000: 279) refers to the adiabatic principle
which proposes that ‘very slowly varying processes appear as a stable back-
ground on the timescale of faster ones. (. . .) a very fast and a relatively much
slower material process cannot efficiently communicate with one another,
cannot efficiently transfer energy’. For example, my running has no effect
on the rotation speed of the earth. In order to interact, processes should be
close enough to impact on each other. An example could be that the develop-
ment of advanced motor skills in soccer players has little impact on their
linguistic skills; it is simply so that the systems have too little in common to
exchange energy or information.
Lemke (2000: 285) also refers to the notion of Heterochrony, defined as
‘A long timescale process producing an effect in a much shorter timescale
activity or the other way around’. Examples could be changes in the global
climate (long timescale) that reach a critical point for a particular habitat to
survive (short timescale), or the effect of a volcanic eruption (short timescale)
on the global climate (long timescale). A linguistic example might be when
a learner of a language discovers that animacy plays a role in sentence pro-
cessing within the developing language, even though the concept of animacy
is absent in her mother tongue.
Combining Timescales
It could be argued that the ‘now’ is the resultant of changes on all pos-
sible timescales up to this point. Just as we cannot ‘unscramble’ an egg (that
Rates of Change 35

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

53. “‘Are you mad, Betsy?’ says
he”
108
54. “Jobe was on his knees in the
middle of the bed”
113
55. “A strait, influential, leadin
Republican officeholder”
115
56. “Lots of fellers jist like him” 116
57. “Jobe he flew up” 119
58. “It wasent anything onusual
for a county officer to make
all he could”
120
59. “‘Hadent we all ort to be
satisfied so long as bonds
sell well?’”
121
60. “‘Times are never hard under
a gold basis,’ Jobe says”
122
61. “They whispered and
snickered at my straw hat
and Jobe’s linen coat”
125
62. “He said the rich all belong to
church”
126
63. Harvesting 129
64. “I was puttin salve on Jobe’s
hands”
130
65. The hand that voted “the
strait ticket”
131
66. “Some good men in case of
labor trouble”
133
67. “Some of the little children are
pretty”
136
68. “Jobe took what hay he could
spare”
138

69. “They are kept so busy
legislatin”
139
70. “A huntin them overhalls” 142
71. “I had sot down and went to
churnin”
143
72. “The Dimicratic bloomers” 146
73. “‘Hello, mistur’” 147
74. “‘We ketch em a comin and
we ketch em a goin’”
148
75. “I seen him a comin up the
lane”
151
76. “The fust time for nigh onto
twenty years”
153
77. “Billot jist laughed at him” 155
78. “Jobe he got mad and called
Billot a Populist”
156
79. Ornamental tailpiece—sunset 157
80. “Lawyers a talkin and a laffin” 159
81. “‘Mistur Moore, how long has
it been since you quit
advocatin the use of good,
old-fashioned greenbacks?’”
161
82. “‘Lawyer—Dimicratic lawyer
and polertician’”
164
83. “He carried a banner” 167
84. “I got a straw and tickled his
nose”
171
85. Ornamental tailpiece 179
86. “It was nearly mornin when I
heerd the patriotic sounds
of the fish-horn”
181
87. “He looked kind a pale” 182

88. “‘Give us a tune, Jobe’” 183
89. “‘This is not accordin to
contract’”
184
90. “We hitched in front of Urfer’s
big dry goods store”
186
91. “‘Ready’” 187
92. “‘I am a banker, sir, a banker‘” 190
93. “He made sich a fine
argament for gold and agin
other money”
193
94. Little Jane 196
95. “I could nearly see her little
dimpled fingers pattin the
airth around the roots of
that little bush”
197
96. “‘Mamma, ... how pritty!’” 198
97. Ornamental tailpiece 199
98. “Jobe jist lays and moans” 200
99. “I have to chop all the wood” 201
100. “‘Out with it, Bill; we are
prepared for the wust’”
203
101. “‘Ile tell you, Betsy. Ive made
up my mind to try them
Populists hereafter’”
205
102. “‘O, Lord, is there no other
way to do?’”
209
103. “He drawed me over in his
arms and kissed me”
212
104. “He was wipin his eyes and
blowin his nose as he went
towards town”
213
105. “Then sot down and cried and
kept a cryin every little bit
214

all mornin”
106. “They pulled me away from
the winder”
218
107. “At all the gates around the
big fence they had signs
stuck up”
221
108. “I asked him for something to
eat”
222
109. “‘Well, old man, sich things
hadent ort to be’”
225
110. “I slipped over and put my
face agin the glass”
229
111. “The feller turned around and
looked black at me”
233
112. “I have to work hard in this
place”
236
113. “One nice little place that I
thought I would rent as
soon as I got my first
week’s pay”
239
114. “I worked there three weeks” 241
115. “Everything was cold and
dark”
242
116. Initial M—Hattie Moore 244
117. “He teched me on the
shoulder”
247
118. “I got onto a freight train” 248
119. “Pushing back the hair of the
sick woman, leaned over
and kissed her on the
forehead”
250
120. “There lay Mrs. Gaskins” 252

121. “There again was the face of
that little girl and the face of
an old man”
253
122. “In the morning there was
found a white-haired man”
254
123. Tailpiece—the rose-bush on
the grave
255
124. Initial B—the editor 256
125. “Behold! See that money!” 265
127. The world’s oppressor 274

CHAPTER I.
JOBE SETS AND STUDIES.
ISTUR EDITURE:—My name is Betsy Gaskins. I was
born a Dimicrat. My father was a Dimicrat and my
mother dident dare to be anything else—out loud.
Our family, thus, was of one mind, perlitically,
until Jobe Gaskins begin to come to see me.
I was a young woman of nineteen summers, as the poit would
say.
Jobe he was a Republican and “didn’t keer who knowed it.”
My folks opposed Jobe on perlitical grounds.
Jobe he opposed my folks on the same grounds, but hankered
arter me, though he knode I was a “Dimicrat dide in the wool.”
And I must say I hankered arter Jobe, though I knode he was a
rank Republican. On that one pint we agreed: we both hankered.
Well, the time come when Jobe and me decided to lay aside our
perlitical feelins and git married.
This our folks opposed, but we “slid out” one day, and the
preacher united the two old parties, as far as Jobe and me was
concerned, though I was still a Dimicrat, and Jobe he was still a
Republican.
Like the two great perlitical parties at Washington, when they
want to make a law to suit Wall Street, Jobe and me decided to pull
together on the question of gittin married.
We have lived together for nigh onto thirty-five years, and durin all
that time Jobe has let me be a Dimicrat, and Ive let him be a
Republican. It has never caused any family disturbance nor never
will, so long as I be a Dimicrat and let Jobe be a Republican.

We have no children livin. Our little Jane was taken from us just
arter her seventh birthday. Since then we have been left alone
together, jist as we was before little Jane was born. It is awful
lonesome, and as we grow older, lonesomer it gits. Sometimes,
when I git my work all done and have nothin to okepy my mind, I git
that lonesome, I hardly know what to do. Of late years I read a
great deal to pass away the time.
Jobe he hardly ever reads any, not because he cant,—Jobe is a
good reader,—but it seems the poor man works so hard, and has so
much to trouble him, that he would jist rather set and study than to
read.
When he gits his day’s work done and his feedin, and waterin, and
choppin of wood, he jist seems to enjoy settin and studyin.
I hardly ever disturb him when he is at it. I jist set and read or set
and knit, as the case may be, and let Jobe set and study.
I did git him started to readin a couple of years back. I had signed
for a paper that said a good deal about the Alliance and the Grange
and sich, and Jobe he read it every week, and got so interested that
he would talk on the things he read about to me and to the
neighbors. He got nearly over his settin and studyin and seemed in
better spirits so long as he kept a readin of that paper. But one day a
feller, who was a Republican canderdate for a county office, came to
our house for dinner (they allers make it here about dinner-time,
them canderdate fellers do).

“We both hankered.”
Well, arter dinner, Jobe and that feller went into the front room,
and the feller gin Jobe a segar (a regular five-center, Jobe said), and
then they set and smoked, smoked and talked, talked about the
prospect of their party carryin the county, the feller doin all the
talkin, until at last Jobe told him that he “had been readin some of
the principles of the People’s party and liked em purty well.”
The feller reared back, opened his eyes, looked at Jobe from head
to foot, and then indignant like says, says he to Jobe:

“I am astonished!—astonished to think that Jobe Gaskins, one of
the most intelligent, most prominent and influential Republicans in
this township, should read sich trash, much less indorse it.”
And from that day to this Jobe Gaskins, my dear husband, has
quit his readin and gone back to his settin and studyin.
His party principles was teched. The argament of that canderdate
feller was unanswerable; it sunk deep into Jobe’s boozim, and from
the time that that feller thanked Jobe for his dinner and hoss feed,
and invited Jobe and me both to come into his office and see him, if
he was elected, to this writin, I have not had the pleasure of talkin
with my husband as before.
“I did git him started to readin.”
That feller robbed me of all the bliss I enjoyed of havin my
pardner in life to talk with of evenins. And all I got for bein thus

robbed, and for the dinner and hoss feed he et, was a invitation to
see him okepy the high position of county officer—as though that
would pay for vittles or satisfy an achin void, caused by him a turnin
Jobe from his readin to his settin and studyin. What good would it
do me to see him okepyin a county office and drawin of a big salary?
Yes, drawin of a big salary that poor Jobe has to work his lites out of
him to help pay. All that there canderdate feller cares for Jobe
remainin to be a Republican is so that he, and sich fellers like him,
will continer to vote for him and his likes, and pay the high taxes out
of which they git their big salaries. What do they care for poor old
Jobe Gaskins, whether he be a Republican or a Dimicrat or a Populist
or one of them wild Anacrists, if it were not that he had a vote and
they want to keep him in line? What keer they what papers he
reads, or how quick he changes his polerticks, if they dident want to
git office and draw a big salary?
Say anything to Jobe about this and he
will flare up and tell you he “doesent intend
to lose the respect of all the leadin men in
the county by changing his perlitical views.”
He dont stop to ask hisself, “Who is the
leadin men?” He dont stop to ask hisself
how much taxes and interest and sich he
contributes to make them the leadin men.
Contributes it to support them and their
families in style sich as becomes leadin
people.
Yes, to support their families, I said, so
that their wives and their girls can wear
fine silks and satins, while I must git along
with a brown caliker or gray cambric dress
at best.
Jobe and his likes earns the money by
the sweat of their brows, and them
canderdate fellers and their likes spends it
in high livin and makin theirselves leadin
citizens. And then they are astonished to

“That canderdate
feller.”
hear of one of their regular voters a readin
anything that says that sich men as Jobe
Gaskins and his wife Betsy, if you please,
are jist as respectable, jist as leadin
citizens, as any county officer or polertician and their wives. Yes, it
astonishes them to hear of his readin a paper that says that the
farmers have jist as intelligent, honest and patriotic people among
them as the leadin citizens have. Now I read sich “trash,” as the
canderdate feller calls it, and I dont keer who knows it, though Ime
a Dimicrat. But as it is gittin late and milkin time is here, I will close,
promisin you more anon, as it were.
BETSY GASKINS (Dimicrat),
Wife of
Jobe Gaskins (Republican).

T
CHAPTER II
AN ARGUMENT ON THE MONEY QUESTION.
HE anon is here. Last Tuesday evenin, arter I had milked and
swept and washed up the supper dishes and done many other
things I have to do day in and day out, year in and year out, arter
Jobe had done his waterin and feedin and choppin of wood, we both
found ourselves settin before the fire, me a knittin, him a settin and
studyin.
Says I to him, all of a suddent, loud and quick like:
“Jobe, what yer studyin bout?”
You ort a seen him jump. He was skeert. I spoke so suddent and
quick.
He hemmed and hawed a minit or so, got up and turned around,
sat down, spit in the fire, crossed his legs, and says, says he:
“Well, Betsy, Ile tell you what I was a studyin about. I was jist a
studyin about the mortgage and the interest and the fust of Aprile.
Aprile, Betsy, is nearly here, and where is the money a comin from
to pay the interest and sich?”
I saw he was troubled; but all I could say was: “Well, indeed,
Jobe, I dont know.”
And I dont.
It seemed, now, as I had Jobe started, waked up as it were, he
wanted to talk, and I was willin that he should, even though it
wasent a very pleasant thing to talk about.

“Me a knittin, him a settin and studyin.”
Says he: “Betsy, I sometimes think we will never git our farm paid
for. It seems to be a gittin harder and harder every year to make
payments. It has took all we raised to meet the interest for the last
four years; we haint been able to pay anything on the mortgage;
and this spring I dont know where we will git the money to pay even
the interest. It takes twice as much wheat, or anything else, nearly,
to git the money to pay the interest with as it use to, and crops haint
any better. Besides, Betsy, if I was to sell the farm to-day, it
wouldent bring much above the $2,100 we owe on it. When I
bought it for $3,800, fourteen years ago, I thought it cheap enough,
and it was if times hadent got so hard and things we raise so cheap.
Jist to think, we have paid $1,700 on the first cost, and $2,100 in
interest besides, and if we had to sell it to pay the mortgage we
would not have a dollar left. Congressman Richer could foreclose at
any time; he could have done so for the last three years—ever since
I failed to make the payments on the mortgage.”
“Well, Jobe,” says I, “it is bad enough, to say the least.”

“Yes, Betsy,” says he, “if we cant meet the interest, Banker Jones
tells me, we will be sold out.”
I was silent.
Jobe continered: “I tell you, Betsy, these times, six per cent.
interest is hard to pay. It seems that, no matter how cheap a farmer
has to sell what he raises, interest dont get any cheaper.”
Thinks I, “Now is my time to speak.”
“Jobe,” says I, slow and deliberate, lookin him square in the eyes,
“Jobe Gaskins, haint you a American citizen? Haint you jist as good a
citizen as a banker? Haint you jist as honest? Haint you jist as hard-
workin? Haint you got as much rights in these here United States?”
Jobe was silent, but lookin straight at me, starin.
Continerin, says I: “I was a readin in my paper, the other day, that
the banker borrowed money from this here government for one per
cent. The very money he loans you and your likes at six and seven
and eight per cent. he gits from this here government for one per
cent. You, Jobe Gaskins, ort to have jist as good right to borrow
money from this here government of yourn and his as he has, if you
give good security and will pay it back, and God knows you would,
as honest as you are. Jist to think, Jobe, if you could have borrowed
the money from the government to have paid Congressman Richer
for his farm fourteen years ago, when we bought it, at only one per
cent. interest, and only paid back to the government, at the post-
office, or some other place appointed, the same as you have paid
Congressman Richer in payments and interest, we to-day would
have our farm nearly paid for and be out of debt, and you wouldent
be a settin and studyin about the mortgage and interest and the fust
of Aprile. Or even if you could borrow the money to-day from the
government at two per cent., you could git the $2,100, pay it off,
and next year only have to raise $42 interest instead of $126. Dont
you see it would be easier for you to pay? And you could pay a little
on the mortgage every year, as hard as times are?”
While I was a sayin all this Jobe was a lookin at me, a starin,
turnin on his seat, spittin in the fire, crossin fust one leg, then
another, waitin for me to stop. I seen he was teched; so, when I had
done, I sot back in my cheer, and begin to knit, and waited for what

was a comin. He begun slowly, but warmed up as he proceeded.
Says he:
“Betsy, I have lived with you for nigh onto thirty-five years; we
have allers lived in peace, though you was a Dimicrat and I was a
Republican; we have had our sorrows and our hardships, and now,
arter all these years of peace, am I to pass the last days of my life
with a pardner who is allers talkin like them blamed Populists? You
know, Betsy Gaskins, that I am a Republican and expect to die one.
I believe that all the laws made by the Republicans are just laws. If
they made laws to lend the banker money at one per cent. it must
stand, and I will try to bear my burden, though I have to pay six per
cent. interest or more, if need be, for the same money. Betsy, you
must stop readin them papers. I never look into one; they jist start a
feller to thinkin, and the fust thing he knows he dont believe a thing
he has been a believin all his life. It ruins a feller’s perlitical
principles. If a feller is a Republican, he should be one and never
read anything to cause him to think. Them Populists, Betsy, is jist
made up of a lot of storekeepers and farmers, and men who work in
shops and mills and coal-banks and sich places. They dont know
anything about makin laws, or money or bizness. Our law-makers,
Betsy, should be lawyers and bankers and rich business men and
sich.”
Well, I jist saw it was no use argyin with him, but I thought I
would have the last word, as I allers do, and says I:
“Well, Jobe Gaskins, if you ignorant farmers haint fit to make the
laws to fix the taxes you pay; if you farmers haint fit to make the
laws to govern yourselves; if you farmers haint fit to transact the
bizness in which you should be most interested, I think you ort to
begin to prepare yourselves until you are fit, by readin what hasent
been done for you that ort to have been done, and what has been
done agin you that hadent ort to been done.”

“‘Talkin like them blame Populists’.”
At that, bein ready, I skipped into the bed-room and in a twinkle
was in bed with the kivers drawed up over my head. If Jobe said any
more I heard it not. In a few minits I was asleep, where I must soon
be agin.

T
CHAPTER III.
JOBE SLEEPS IN THE SPARE BED. THE DREAM.
HAT nite arter I had got into bed and kivered up my head, I went
to sleep and waked not until broad daylite. Imagine my surprise,
when I waked, to find that durin all that long nite I had been the
sole okepant of that bed. The piller on which Jobe, my dear
husband, had slept for over thirty-four years had not been teched
that nite, and, for the fust time in thirty-five years next corn-huskin,
Betsy Gaskins had slept alone. I felt skeert. I felt as though some
awful calamity had or would occur to me.
With a heavy heart I ariz and put on my skirts, all the time feelin
as if I was about to choke. Everything was silent and still about the
house. Could it be possible that my dear Jobe had dide or been
kidnapped, or what? I hurried into the room—no Jobe there. I went
into the kitchen—no Jobe there. I hastened to the spare bed-room.
The door was closed. I stopped. I rubbed my hands together,
studyin what to do, all a trimblin. Certainly the dead and lifeless
corpse of my dear husband was in there cold in death, drivin to it of
course by the cruel words of his lovin wife. There I stood stock still,
not knowin what to do. I must have stood there some three or four
minits until I came to myself. All at onct I says, says I, out loud:
“Betsy Gaskins, what are you about? Haint you allers been looked
upon as a woman of good jedgement and feerless in the face of
disaster?” At that I marched up to the door and flung it open.

“I waked not until broad daylite.”
Now what do you suppose I found? Jobe was not there, but that
spare bed had been okepied that very nite. Then it was that I
realized that the two old parties, as it were, had been divided—
divided for one nite on the money question. Yes, Jobe Gaskins and
his wife Betsy, a Dimicrat and Republican, had slept beneath the
same roof and in seperate beds.
While I stood there, contemplatin what next to do and where Jobe
might be, I heered him come onto the back porch. I met him with a
smile as he come into the kitchen.
Says I: “Why, Jobe, where have you been?”
“Feedin—feedin, of course,” says he; “where do you suppose Ive
been?” lookin at the floor and walkin apast me.
Arter reflection thinks I, “’Tis best to say nothin to him about the
split in the two old parties until a future date.” So I jist went about it
and prepared the mornin meal, thinkin all the time of a dream I had
that nite, some time between bed-time and daylite, while I lay there
all alone, while the pardner of my life okepied the spare bed.

“Feedin,—feedin, of course,” says he.
Well, while Jobe was partakin of his mornin repast, I saw all the
time that he wanted to say something. I never said a word durin the
whole meal, neither did Jobe. We jist set and eat—eat in silence.
When Jobe was done he pushed back and tipped his cheer agin
the wall. I knode he was a goin to speak. He cleared his throat like,
and says, says he:
“Betsy, I dont want you to say any more to me about what you
read in the newspapers. I am willin to listen to anything else under
the sun, but dont let me hear any more about them Populist ideas. I

“‘Do you promis?’ says
I, girlish like.”
want to talk sense to you, and you to talk
sense to me. Now what I want to know,
Betsy, is, how are we to raise the money to
pay the interest by the fust of Aprile?”
Says I: “Land a goodness, Jobe, how do I
know? Goodness knows I am willin to do all
I kin to help you raise it. I had a dream last
nite; if that dream was true I might tell you
how to raise it.”
I stopped.
“Well,” says he, arter studyin a minit,
“what was your dream?”
Lookin at him kind a girlish like, says I:
“Jobe, I wont tell you what it was unless
you make me two promises.”
Jobe actually smiled. Says he:
“Go ahead; what are your promises?”
“I sot down, ... lookin him square in the face.”

“Well,” says I, smilin, “the fust promis is that you sleep in the
same bed I do to-nite.”
At that I laffed out loud. Jobe he did, too. Then says I:
“The second promis is that you will listen without commentin until
I tell it all.”
Jobe he studied.
“Do you promis?” says I, girlish like.
“Yes, I promis,” says he; “go ahead.”
“You promis to sleep in the same bed you have for these nigh
onto thirty-five years?”
“Yes, yes,” says he, lookin half guilty.
“And you will listen?” says I.
“Yes, yes, Ile listen,” says he.
So, arter clearin away the dishes and scrapin off the crumbs for
the chickens, and puttin some dish water to bile, I sot down on the
other side of the table from Jobe, lookin him square in the face. Says
I:
“Well, Jobe, we was talkin of the mortgage and the interest last
nite when I went to bed, and I suppose that had something to do
with me havin the dream, and for that reason I dont suppose there
is anything in the dream.”
“Spose not,” says he, lookin oneasy like.
“Well, Jobe,” says I, “I dreamed that Congressman Richer had
demanded his money, and you had to raise the whole amount of the
mortgage or lose our home. I thought you and me went down to
town and went to every bank to try to borrow the money with which
to pay the mortgage. I thought every place we went we was told
that they was not makin any loans now, that there was a money
panic and they had decided not to make any more loans for some
time. I thought we could see great piles of money inside the wire
fence that seperated us from the bankers, you know.” At this he
nodded. “And I thought you said, jist as plain as I ever heard you
say anything:
“‘Why, haint you got plenty of money?’
“‘Yes, yes, we have plenty of money, but we are not loaning any at
this time,’[A]
says each banker, jist as though they had all agreed to

Bill Bowers.
say the same thing.
A. In July and August, 1893, during one of the
severest money panics ever experienced in the
United States, many of the banks not only
refused to lend money on choice security or to
discount commercial paper, but in many
instances would not permit persons to draw out
the money they had deposited with them.
Business was paralyzed. Thousands of persons
were ruined, losing the accumulations of a
lifetime by being unable to raise money as usual
to meet obligations falling due. Factories were
closed for lack of funds to pay employes, and
thousands of American citizens were thrown out
of employment. The consequent suffering among
the poorer classes throughout the nation was
indescribable. And during all this time the banks of the country held
the money of the people and refused to pay it out even to those to
whom it belonged. Hence the question: Can not a better system of
financiering be devised than our present banking system? Would it
not be better to permit the people to deposit their money with our
county treasurers?
“So I thought we traveled and traveled and coaxed and coaxed,
and we couldent git a cent, as it were.
“Finally I thought we was agoin along the street, both feelin sad
and discouraged, when jist in front of Spring Bros. & Holsworth’s big
dry goods store who should we meet but Bill Bowers of Sandyville.
“‘Hello, Gaskins,’ says he.
“That was the fust we had seen of him. Our minds was so
troubled.
“We stopped, and arter inquirin about the folks, and the stock,
and the meetin that is goin on at Center Valley school-house, he

asked:
“‘What are you doin in town?’
“And I thought you up and told him about havin to pay the
mortgage; and of our havin been to every bank; and of our havin
been told the same tale by each banker, and then you said, ‘I guess,
Bill, we will have to lose our farm.’
“When he up and says, says he:
“‘Why, Gaskins, haint you heerd it?’
“‘Heerd what?’ says you.
“‘Why, haint you heerd of the new law?’ says he. ‘Why, Congress
passed the law yisterday. I was jist over to the court-house and they
showed me the telegram.’
“‘Why, what law do you mean, Bill?’ says you.
“Then you and Bill sot down on a box and I leaned agin the
house, and says Bill:
“‘Why, yisterday, Jobe, they passed a law in Congress authorizing
the Secretary of the Treasury to, at once, have engraved and printed
full legal-tender paper money to the amount of ten dollars per capita
of the population of the United States, and that money is to be set
apart only to be loaned to counties on county bonds, and the
counties are to git it at one per cent. interest. Then the county
treasurers are to lend the money only on first mortgage real estate
security to the farmers and business men and mechanics, at only
two per cent. interest, and when the man that borrows it pays it
back, or any part of it, the amount of his payments shall be credited
on his mortgage, and as fast as it accumulates in the county
treasurer’s office he shall forward it to Washington and git it credited
on the county bond they hold. The one per cent. the government
gits is to pay for makin the money and keepin the books at
Washington. The other one per cent. that the borrowers pay is to go
toward payin the county treasurer’s salary and clerk hire. This
money, Jobe, is as good as gold, because the government agrees to
take it for postage stamps and internal revenue and duties on
imports and sich. All you have to do, Jobe, is to go over there to that
grand old court-house, give your mortgage to the people of the
county, and git your money; and after this you will only have to pay

two per cent. interest instead of six or seven, and you kin save your
farm.’
“Well, Jobe, I thought you and me and Bill Bowers all went over
there, and sure enough, what Bill told us was true. The county
treasurer told us that he would put our application on file, and as
soon as they could git the money out and here, possibly in thirty
days, we could come in and git ninety per cent. of the value of our
farm if we needed that much.
“And while we was standin there a talkin to Treasurer Hochstetter,
I heard George Welty explainin to Ed. Walters ‘how nice it was for a
person to be able to give a mortgage to the people of the county for
money to pay for a home, and then the county goin that person’s
security and gittin the money from all the people of the United
States,’ and explainin that there would always be jist enough money
to do bizness on and no more, since the county would only borrow
from the government when some citizen of the county had use for
the money and was willin to give good security and pay two per
cent. for it. And, Jobe, I thought you looked happier than you have
for ten years.”
“Well, Bet——”
“Hold on, Jobe,” says I. “Well, I thought you and me and Bill
Bowers started up street, and when we were passin Jones’s bank he
called us in.
“Says he: ‘Mr. Gaskins, I guess we can accommodate you with
that little matter you was speakin about this morn——”
“‘I dont want it now,’ says you.
“‘No,’ says I.
“‘Ide think not,’ says Bill Bowers.
“‘Well, but hold—hold on,’ says Jones. ‘I—I—we—we will let you
have that amount at four per cent.’
“‘Oh, no,’ says you.
“‘Well, how will three strike you?’ says Jones.
“‘I dont want it at all,’ says you.
“‘Come on,’ says I, and we went on up street. When we passed
the First National Bank, out comes one of the clerks a hollerin, ‘Mr.
Gaskins! Mr. Gaskins!’ We stopped. He came a runnin up and says:

‘Come in now and our people will accommodate you,’ takin hold of
your arm and startin back with you. I thought I jist took a hold of
your other arm and says, says I: ‘Jobe Gaskins, where yer goin? We
dont want any bank money in sich a panic as this. So come on and
lets git out of this panic.’
“Well, every last bank we had been to that mornin was a peckin,
and a hollerin, and a beckenin to us that evenin, until we like to a
never got out of town and away from them. They jist seemed bound
to lend you that money whether you wanted it or not. Something
had created a panic among them—a panic to git to lend you money.
Maybe they had heard of the new law. I dont know.”
Durin most of the tellin of my dream Jobe he was leanin his face
in his hands, his elbows on the table, eyes wide open, listenin as he
never did before.
When I finished, says he:
“Betsy, that will save us. What a grand country this is!” And he got
up and walked across the floor. Comin back and lookin, anxious like,
at me, says he: “Betsy, which party did Bill say passed that law—the
Dimicrats or the Republicans? It is grand! grand! It will save us.” As
he spoke he looked full of joy and happiness. Answerin, says I:
“I think I heard John Denison say it was the Popul——”
I never got to finish that word. His fist came down on the table
like a thousand of bricks. He jumped back into the middle of the
floor, cracked his fists together, stamped his foot, and says in a loud
voice: “I wont! I wont! I wont do it. It can go fust. Bill Bowers is a
dum fool. I wont! I wont!”
Says I: “Why, Jobe, what on airth is the matter? What ails you?
What yer talkin about anyhow? You wont do what?”
Answerin, says he, bringin his fists together agin:
“I wont borrow any money from any scheme them tarnal Populists
has made into a law. Ile—Ile pay ten per cent. interest fust. Ile not
lend my approval to any law they have made.”
“Why, sakes alive, Jobe,” says I, “they haint made any law. That
was jist a dream I had. What ails you, anyhow?”
At that he stepped back a step or two, lookin at me vicious like.
Movin his head up and down in short jerks, says he:

“Betsy, you must stop it. Stop it at once. Its got you crazy—so
crazy you are dreamin about it. You must stop that readin or Ile
have you sent to a lunatic asylum.”
He went out at the door then, but just as he got out, in time for
him to hear it, I hollered:
“Its you and your likes that ort to be sent to a lunatic asylum for
not seein a thing that you have to turn your back on to keep from
seein.”
This ended the second “discussion of the financial situation,” as
they say down at Washington. The two old parties—Jobe and me—
are still divided; but I have one promis he has yet to fulfill.

B
CHAPTER IV.
“THE COMERS.”
ILL BOWERS has got me into trouble. The Thursday arter I had
my dream about the money bizness, who should ride up to our
gate and hitch but Bill Bowers? I had not seen him for nigh onto two
years, except in that dream, until he rid up to that gate post.
No sooner did I lay eyes on him than I thought of our meetin him
that day in town, right there by Spring Brothers’ big store, and of his
tellin us of the money plan, and of his goin with us to the county
treasurer, and of us a learnin from the county treasurer that in a few
days he would become the people’s banker and would lend money
to the people on good security. While he was gittin off and hitchin, I
remembered of his walkin with us up apast all the banks; I
remembered of them refusin to lend us any money in the mornin; of
them a peckin and a beckenin, a hollerin and a runnin arter us,
wantin to lend us their money, in the evenin, arter we, and they too,
had heerd of the new law Congress had made the day before—a law
that turned a panic where we had to beg for money, and not git it,
to a panic where they begged to lend us money and we wouldent
borrow it.
Yes, sir, that there dream all come back to me as plain as day, Bill
Bowers and all, jist as soon as I laid eyes on him.
So it was no more than nateral for me to tell him about it. Jobe
not bein at home, I had to do the entertainin. As soon as he got in
and got settled, I says:
“Bill Bowers, I am glad to see you. I must tell you my dream.
Bring your cheer up to the fire.”

“‘Ide vote the Dimicrat ticket
at the
very next township election.’”
Then I jist up and told him that
whole dream, and he swollered
every word of it without chawin, as
it were.
When I had finished he says,
says he:
“Betsy Gaskins, if that ere dream
was only enacted into a law, what
a blessin it would be to the
creatures of this world! Betsy,
though I am one of the stanchest
Republicans in Sandyville, if this
here Dimicratic Congress would
make sich a law, Ide vote the
Dimicrat ticket at the very next
township election. Betsy, how in
the world did you come to dream
sich a dream?”
Now, how do I know how I come
to dream any particular dream? I
went to bed and went to sleep, jist as I had done for nigh onto
thirty-five years, exceptin, of course, Jobe slept in the spare bed and
me alone. But would I tell Bill Bowers of that split in the two old
parties, as it were, and have him tell all over creation that Jobe
Gaskins and his wife Betsy had quit sleepin together? No. Ide die
fust. So I jist says:
“Well, Bill, indeed I dont know how I come to dream it.”
And I dont.
Well, my tellin of Bill Bowers that ere dream is causin me no ends
of trouble. Ime jist worried and hounded about by this and that one,
to have me tell em about that dream, until I hardly git time to
breathe.
Bill Bowers he jist went, and from the time he left our house until
now he has been a tellin of my dream to every one he meets. And it
seems he is a keepin a tellin it, the way people has been flockin here
and keep a flockin. Jake Cribbs, and Joe Born, and Curt Hill, and Bill

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Motivational Dynamics In Language Learning Zoltn Drnyei Editor Peter D Macintyre Editor Alastair Henry Editor

More Related Content

Similar to Motivational Dynamics In Language Learning Zoltn Drnyei Editor Peter D Macintyre Editor Alastair Henry Editor (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Motivational Dynamics In Language Learning Zoltn Drnyei Editor Peter D Macintyre Editor Alastair Henry Editor