©Eunice de Morais e Marcos B.

Carreira SUMÁRIO
Coordenação Editorial:
Texto e Contexto Editora CULTURAS, IDENTITADES E SUBJETIVIDADES:
Editora-chefe: LINGUAGENS EM lviOVIMENTO 5
Rosenéia Hauer Prof. Dr. a Eunite de Morais (UEPG) e Prof. Dr. iv1artos B. Carreira (UEPG)
Capa:
Imagem: Phellip Willian de Paula Gruber e Melissa Garabelli
CIEL 2015 E OS DESAFIOS CONTEMPORc-\NEOS
Arte final: André ALS
Revisão: Thariane Prochner DA EDUCAÇ\0 NO BRc\SIL
Diagramação: Rosenéia Hauer Eunia de Morais 16
Supervisão Editorial: Rosenéia Hauer e Silvana Oliveira
SELOS E SIGILOS:
CORRESPONDÊNCIA DE CLARICE LISPECTOR 26
Ficha Catalográfica Elaborada pelo Setor de Tratamento da Informação Nádia Battella Gotlib
BICEN/UEPG

Congresso Internacional de Estudos da Linguagem- CIEL, 2015

RETRATOS DO DELÍRIO
C749 Linguagens em movimento: culturas, identidades e suhietividades/ Eunice de (Ex-POSIÇÃO DE FoucAULT, ARTAUD E \1:\N GoGH) 53
{orais; Marcos B. Carreira (Org.). Ponta Grossa :Texto
Daniel de Oliveira Gomes
176 p.: il.

ISBN: 978-85-94441-00-3
A PALAVRA DEFINITIVA-
1. Linguagem - estudo. 2. Literatura. 3. Leitura- faces. ESCRITURA E MILITÂNCIA NA LITERATURA ARGENTINA
o Internacional de Estudos da Linguagem. II. Moraes, Eunice (Org.). III.
(CONTI, URONDO, WALSH) 77
AndréQtteiroz
CDD: 420.7

LA INESPERADA Y SUTIL HISTORIA DE AMOR

DE UNA MUJER FEA, CHUECA Y BIZCA 93
Presidente:
Cecilia Inês Luque
Dra. Silvana Oliveira (UEPG)

Membros: DA ARTE RUPESTRE AO HIPERTEXTO:

Dr. Fábio Augusto Steyer (UEPG) A PLURALIZAÇAO DAS LINGUAGENS SOB OS
Esp. Anderson Pedro Laurindo (FacPG) OLHARES DAS MÚLTIPLAS FACES D_A
Dra. Marly Catarina Soares (UEPG) LEITURA 106
Dra. Naira de Almeida Nascimento (UTFPR) Evanir Pavloski
Dra. Letícia Fraga (UEPG)
Dra. Anna Stegh Camari (UNIANDRADE)
Dr. Evanir Pavlovski (UEPG)
LITERATURA E QUADRINHOS:
Dr" Eunice de Morais (UEPG) O CISNE E O PATINHO FEIO
Dra. Joice Beatriz da Costa (UFFS) Paulo Ramos
Dra.Luana TeL'Ceira Porto (URI)
Dr. César Augusto Queirós(UFAM- Manaus)
LANGUAGE TEACHING:
Dr. Valdir Prigol (UFFS)
A LOOK WITH THE EYES OF CO:MPLEXITY 151
conteúdo dessa obra é de responsabilidade de seus autores. Elaine Ferreira do Vale Borges
'XTO E CONTEXTO EDITORA
>]28228473/00016-60
.osenéia do Rocio Prestes Hauer- l'vffii AGRADECIMENTOS DA COORDENAÇAO
de Sapucaí, FT 1113. Uvaranas- Ponta Grossa- Paraná
DO CIEL 2015 175
42) 32269464
extoecontexto.editora@gmail.com
 LANGUAGE TEACHING:
A LOOK_ WITH THE EYES OF COMPLEXITY

Elaine Ferreira do Vale Borges, PhD- UEPG 1

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of complexity paradigm2 in applied linguistics

(AL), mainly by the -vvork of Larsen-Freeman (1997) and Larsen-
Freeman & Cameron (2008), new insights have arisen in language
studies along with the usage of a range of complexity terminology to
describe language phenomena as chaotic system.
In this work I argue in favor of a turning point in AL
perspectives into complexity / chaos theory - as also discussed in
Borges (2014b) - by briefly showing six examples o f complex
adaptive systems (CAS) that emerged the field, such as language
(BECI<NER et al, 2009), second language acquisition (SLA)
QUARTA PARTE 2005, 2012, 2014a, 2014b), identity (SADE, 2009), approach to
language teaching and learning (BORGES & 2011, 2014;
ENSINO
BORGES, 2015), language teaching syllabus (BORGES, 2014a),
and language teacher development (BORGES, 2016). Likewise,
these CAS (and others not focused here) have contributed to the
emergency of what I name complexity pedagogy in AL or additional
language complexity pedagogy which goes beyond the post-method
pedagogy, avoiding its claim for theorizers-practitioners ruoture in

1 Mestre em Linguística Aplicada pelo Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem (IEL) da UNI-

CAJ'viP (2003), doutora em Educação pela Faculdade de Educação da USP (2009) e pós-
-doutora em Estudos Linguíst:icos pela Faculdade de Letras da UFMG (2011). Fez estágio
doutoral na Universidade de Murcia (Espanha). Trabalhou como teacher assistent no The
Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Managment and International Studies da Universidade da
Pennsylvania (EUA). Tem experiência na área de Linguística Aplicada e Educação em en-
sino e aprendizagem/ aquisição de línguas adicionais (incluindo Libras como L2) e teoria
da complexidade, atuando principalmente nos seguintes temas: abordagens e pedagogia de
ensino de línguas adicionais, aquisição de segunda língua e formação pré e continuada de
professores. Atualmente é professora adjunta do Departamento de Estudos da Linguagem
(DEEL) da Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG) e no Programa de Pós-Gra-
duação em Educação (Niestrado) da mesma Universidade.

2 As one can see in Capra (2006[1982]), and Morin (2010[1982]).

150 151
the practicali!J dimension (I<.UMARAVADIVELU, 2001, 2006).
Also, by means of clarification, I highlight the importance
of conceptual metaphor (LAI<.OFF & JOHNSON, 2001) and scientiftc
metaphor (BOYD, 1993) in advancing the AL theoretical framework
into the paradigm o f complexity. This discussion is supported mainly
by the Wittgensteinian epistemological sense of paradigm in the
conception of knowledge and language-game in science; and by the
Lakoff-and-Johnsonian notion o f conceptual metaphor as a mental
representation of human experience.
The shape of a paradigm
I<.uhn (1970[1962]) has discussed paradigm as a scientific
community consensus that evolves into a model recognized as a
scientific achievement. In other words, it "is the universally recognized
scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and
solutions to a community of practitioners" (p. viii). Paradigm shift
occurs when anomalies appear and they cannot be solved or explained
by the current paradigm. In this context, "the optical illusion o f some
images, like those of the Gestalt psychology, is a good example of
paradigm shift, when the same information can be seen in an entirely
different way" (BORGES, 2014b, p. 43). Newtonian mechanics
and Einstein 's theories o f relativity are good examples o f I<.uhnian
paradigm in physics. In social science, we should use the sociological
meaning o f paradigmas "what the members o f a scientific co1munity
share, and, conversely, a scientific com..._munity consists of men who
share a paradigm" (I<.UHN, 1970[1962], p. 176, author' s italic). In this
context, we must stand for the view of social science (AL included)
as a mature science as happens with natural science. In this regarding,
I<.uhn (1970[1962], p. 179) has pointed out that "what changes with
the transition to maturity is not the presence of a paradigm but
rather its nature". Schleicherian, Saussurean and Chomskyan theories,
for example, are considered paradigms in the history of linguistics
evolution as a science (I<.OERNER, 1976; DASCAL, 1978). In the
152
same way, complexity can be contemporaneously understood as
a new paradigm in AL (BORGES, 2009; BORGES, 2014b) as it
"can push the field into a paradigm shift'' (LARSEN-FREMAN &
CAMERON, 2008, p. 13).
According to Guba & Lincoln (1994, p. 107, author's
italic), like I<.uhn, a paradigm is "viewed as a set o f basic beliefs (or
metaphysics) that deals with ultimate o r first principles. I t represents
a worldview that defines, for its holder, the nature of the world (... )".
Similarly, but sustaining a transdisciplinary approach (paradigm
of complexity) that goes beyond the fragmentation and hyper-
specialization promoted by the paradigm of simplicity, Edgar Morin
understands the concept of paradigmas "a set of rules of which we
are unaware but that govern ali the activities of thought of an age"
GOUANNET, 2012, p. 165).
Moreover, for Guba & Lincoln (1994), paradigms may also be
described in three ways: ontologically (nature of reality), epistemologicaljy
(knowledge and knower relationship), and methodologicaljy (wqys of inquirer).
These features bring a holistic view into "\vay we regard kno"\vledge
in research. Here, for the sake of the discussion in this paper, I have
special interest in the epistemological nature paradigm that can
connected with the thoughts o f Wittgenstein' s later philosophy.
According to Luckhardt (1978, p 245), the concept o f paradigm
in Wittgenstein's language-game has three essencial characteJ istics:
"(1) they are standards by which particular cases are
judged, (2) agreement in them is necessary for engaging
in any practice which employs them, and (3) they can
never be said to be (or not to be) what particular cases
judged according to them can be said to be (or not to
be)."
Still, the paradigm meter, Wittgenstein' s words, is "not
something that is represented, but is a means of representation')
and "[w]e do not judge the pictures, "\Ve judge by means of picture.
We do not investigate them, we use them to investigate something"
(LUCI<HARDT, 1978, p. 244). This is a condition for language-game
153
in any science, and so it is the case for AL when using ideas, concepts
and words from complexity science.
Complexity, a complexus of theories
As part o f the Wittgensteinian 's language-game in different
sciences we have the emergence of various terms with the same
meaning. In the context of the complexity paradigm, for instance,
we may encounter such interchangeable terminology as complexi!J,
complexi!J science, paradigm of complexi!J, complexi!J theory, complexi!J
revolution, complex thinking and so on (BORGES, 2014b; SILVA &
BORGES, 2016). Nevertheless, the realmeaning of complexity is that
it is a tis sue o f inseparably associated heterogeneous constituents, that
isto say, it is a complexus of theories (MORIN, 2007). In other words,
'"[c]omplexity science' is a term used to describe a set of concepts,
principies, propositions and ideas that have emerged and clustered
together over the course of the 20th century" (RAMALINGAM et
ai., 2008, p. 1). These concepts are used to portray and to understand
"dynamics and processes of change found in a range of physical
and biological phenomena" (ibid, p. 1) -as well as in a number of
social and language phenomena, I might add. Larsen-Freeman &
Cameron (2008, p. 2-4) provide us some of these theories as they
talk about 'disciplinary progenitors' to complexity theory, as follows 3 :
• 1880, mathematician Henri Poincaré (non-linear dynamics)
• 1940, biologist Conrad Waddington (embryology lay in
genetics)
• 1940, mathematicians John von Neumann and Norbert
Wiener (cybernetics)
• 1950, biologist von Bertalanffy (general systems theory)
• 1960, mathematician René Thom (catastrophe theory)
• 1960, meteorologist Edward Lorenz (chaos theory)
3 Some information has been added by me, like (approximate) dates and author/ s profes-
sional expertise. Also, I included Benoit Mandelbrot,Jean Piaget and Edgar Morin.
154
• 1970, chemist Ilya Prigogine (dissipative structures, self-
organization and irreversibility)
• 1970, biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela
(autopoietic system)
• 1970, psychologist Jean Piaget (transdisciplinarity)
• 1975, mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot (fractal geometry)
• 1980, neuroscientist J. A. Scott I<:.elso and mathematician
Hermann Haken (synergetics)
• 1980, philosopher Edgar Morin (paradigm of simplicity
and paradigm of complexity)
• 1984, Santa Fe Institute (interdisciplinary study center of
complex adaptive center)
• 1990, cognitive scientists Timothy van Gelder and Robert
F. Port (neural networks)
being metaononcal
Just being or not
Larsen-Freeman & Cameron (2008, p. 11, italic mine)
emphasize that "complexity theory offers applied linguistics at least
an important new metaphor that brings it new ways of thinking
about issues in the field, and, maximally, may push the field towards
radical theoretical change". Focusing on the importance of metaphor,
the authors call our attention to the fact applied linguists has been
challenged as to whether they are 'just' being metaphorical when they
talk or write about using ideas from complexity. As a matter of fact,
this challenge does not make any sense, since metaphors (overtaking
its simplified concept of being a literary tool, a rhetorical flourish
for ornamenting language) are a conceptual domain (conceptual
metaphor) (LARSEN-FREEMAN & CAMERON, 2008). In other
words, metaphors are a coherent organization human experience
that shape our communication, the way we see the world, the way
we think and act. In Lakoff & Tohnson (2001, p. 124) own "\vords,
"The concepts that govern our thought are not just
155
 matters of the intellect. They also govern our every- dynamic (chaotic) systems, any particular research phenomena
day functioning, down to the most mundane details. in this context might be seen as a system that learns and changes
Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get
around in the word, and how we relate to other people. over time. In other words, research phenomena of this kind can
Our conceptual system thus plays a central role in de- be defined as complex adaptive systems (CAS) (HOLLAND, 1995)
fining our everyday realities. If we are right in suggest
whose characteristics are: non-linearity, unpredictability, emergence,
ing that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical,
then the way we think, what we experience, and what openness, self-organization, adaptation, and dynamism. Also, they
we do every day is very much a matter o f metaphor." are highly sensitive to inicial conditions, and have a peculiar behavior
(strange or chaotic attractor4) that emerges (in fractaP shape)
From the conceptual metaphor point o f view, Larsen-Freeman
from the interactions of its various elements with no centralized
& Cameron (2008, p. 11) suggest that applied linguists should stand
control. These interactions are guided by simple rules that "tend
up for the importance of metaphor by rejecting the 'jus(. Also,
to set conditions for self-organization, and they also reinforce
applied linguists should discuss the meaning of saying "that the
those conditions as time goes on" (PATTERSON et al., 2012, p
comparison between systems in applied linguistics and complex
12). As a result, "the same system-or, at least, a system that seems
systemis more than metaphor". For the authors, "[c]omplexity theory
to have preserved its character and identity-can and will respond
will serve applied linguistics as more than metaphor if it works as a
very differendy to sets of conditions that appear identical
bridge that takes us [applied linguists] into a new way o f thinking "strict predictability and reliability of results are unreasonable
or theoretical framework, that is then rigorously developed within
criteria when dealingwith systems thatlearn" (DAVIS &
the field" (p, 15). From my perspective, in accordance with Larsen-
2006, p. 18). That is because "very similar systems under virtually
Freeman & Cameron, AL (as a mature science, in IZuhnian sense)
identical circumstances and subjected to virtually identical
uses a complexity terminology as more than metaphor because
can respond in dramatically different ways" (op. cit, p. 18)
this is part o f its language-game (in Wittgensteinian sense) to study
From now on, I am going to show and briefly discuss s1X
dynamic (chaotic) systems as language phenomena. In this context,
examples o f CAS that have emerged in (some o f them illustrated
we also have what Boyd (1993, p. 486) argues to be the case of
in a fractal shape): language, SLA, identity, approach to language
scientiftc metaphors: "those in v1hich metaphorical expression constitute,
teaching and learning, syllabus, and language teacher development.
at least for a time, an irreplaceable part of the linguistic machinery
of a scientific theory (... ) such metaphors are constitutive of the
1. LANGUAGE AS CAS
theories they express; rather than merely exegeticaf'. In addition,
Larsen-Freeman & Cameron (2008, p. 15) emphasize that "[t]he
Language as CAS has been discussed in works such as
metaphor serves 'a temporary aid thinking' (Baake 2003: 82) and is
Larsen-Freen1.an & Cameron (2008), Beckner et al. (2009), Ellis &
eventually literalized into field-specific theory, research, and practice."

Language teaching: a look with the eyes of complexity
As AL is contemporaneously concerned with studying
156
4 "In the topological vocabulary of system landscapes, states, or particular modes of be-
haviors, that the system 'prefers' are called attractorl' (L-\RSEN-FREEl'vLAN; CAJ'viERON,
2008, p. 49, authors' italic).
5 "In dynamic systems,jractals occur at the boundaries of attractor basins (... )"; "Fractal
organi::;ption endows a system with the flexibility to change and adapt to new circumstances"
(op.cit, p. 63 and p. 110, italic mine).
157
Larsen-Freeman (2009), Nascimento (2009), Paiva (2002, 2005,
2014a, 2014b), and Borges (2016). First, Beckner et a/. state that
language as a CAS implies the following fundamen:=al characteristics:
"The system consists of multiple agents (the speakers
in the speech community) interacting with one anoth-
er. The system is adaptive; that is, speakers' behavior is
based on their past interactions, and current and past
interactions together feed forward into future behavior.
A speaker's behavior is the consequence of competing
factors ranging from perceptual constraints to social
motivations. The structures of language emerge from
interrelated patterns of experience, social interaction,
and cognitive mechanisms." (p. 1)
Second, according to Larsen-Freeman & Cameron:
'~ complexity theo:ry perspective views language us-
ing as a dynamic system that emerges and self-orga-
nizes from frequently occurring patterns of language
use at different timescales from the milliseconds of
neural connections to the millennia of evolution, and
across a range of levels from the individual to inter-
acting pairs to entire speech communities, rather than
as a fixed, autonomous, closed, and atemporal system.
Viewing language as a complex system makes us re-
gard linguistic signs notas 'autonomous objects of any
kind, either social or psychological', but as 'contextu-
alized products of the integration of various activities
by [particular] individuais in particular communicative
situations'(Harris 1993: 311), whatwe have called their
language resources." (p. 111-112, autho:rs' bracket)
In cont:rast, Nas cimento (2009, p. 71, my t:ranslation) pointed out
thatrecursionis one o f the basicprinciples o faCAS, since self-organized
systems organize themselves by recursion. From this perspective,
the author bases his arguments on language as a CAS using, among
other references, Chomsky's Minimalist Program. He explains that
"( ... ) to assume that the inte:rphase subsystem-the
principie of :recu:rsion-acts as a facto:r that restricts,
delimits, the language 1andscape of possibilities ' in
the interface systems does not imply to assume that
158
language is a deterministic system. Rather, it is charac-
terized as a complex system, a system that continually
changes without losing its identity."
From ali these perspectives, Paiva (2014b, p. 121) has
been arguing since 20026 for a language complex model that
"can accommodate opposing theories, because it can defend the
existence of innate mental structures and, at the same time, highlight
the importance of neural connections, language identity, social
mediations, input, interaction, output, etc.", as well as linguistic
habit formations. In this matter, it is possible to understand
that the concept of language as a CAS may nest many (if not
language definitions formulated by philosophers and linguists
over time, even those regarded as incompatible with one another.
Here we have some o f these definitions: (1) Language is a
mirror where "the order of syntax mirrors order of the world"
(Aristotle) or a mirror that mediates "souls by mirroring minds"
(Plato) (NOLAN, 1990, p. 65); (2) language is ''both a social p.Lvuu\.-L
of the faculty of speech and a collection of necessary conventions
that have been adopted by a social body to permit individuais to
exercise that faculty" (SAUSSURE, 2011 [1915], p. 9); (3) language is
"a set of (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite length
constructed out of a finite set of elements" (CHOMSI<Y, 2002[1957],
p. 2); (4) language is a combination of "function (language as a tool
for communication) and structure (language as a lawful governed
whole)" GAI<OBSON, 2002[1962] p. XXJl); (5) 1-ªJJ-_guage is "part of a
theory of action, simply because speaking is a :rule-gove:rned form o f
behavior" (SEARLE, 1999[1969], p. 17); (6) language "is a continuous
generative process implemented in social-verbal interaction
of speakers" (VOLOSINOV, 2000[1973], p.98); (7) language is
"more than just a semiotic system, a system of meanings; it is also
a system that n1akes meanings, a semogenic system; the sou:rce
of this semogenic powe:r is grammar" (HALLIDAY, 2005, p. 59).
6 See Paiva (2002; 2005) and Menezes (2013).
159
 Borges (2016), in turn, advances in the attempt to systematize
the concept of language as CAS (Fig. 1; fractal in shape) by
emphasizing its systems - as the three classical conceptions of
language: expression of thought, communication instrument/
code and interaction (GERALDI, 1995) -, and its subsystems, as
suggested in Paiva (2014b): phonological, syntactic, morphological,
lexical, pragmatic, semantic, dialects, registers, language varieties, etc.
Fig. 1 - Language as CAS (BORGES, 2016, p. 372, my translation)
2. SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AS CAS
Larsen-Freeman (1997, p. 151) is the first to claim t_hat second
language acquisition (SLA) can be understood as a complex nonlinear
system, i.e.,
160
"(... ) there is a multitude of interacting factors that
have been proposed to determine the degree to which
the SLA process will be successful age, aptitude, so-
ciopsychological factors such as motivation and atti-
tude, personality factors, cognitive style, hemisphenc-
ity, learning strategies, sex, birth order, interests, etc
(Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991). Perhaps no one of
these by itself is a determining factor, the interaction
of them, however, has a very profound effect."
Along the same lines, Paiva (2005, 2012) argues in favor of a
SLA fractal model, a CAS in itself, composed of subsystems wherein
each one is also a dynamic system. These subsystems are actually
theories o f SLA (sometimes based on mental processes and sometimes
grounded on environmental perspectives) that try to explain how we
acquire an additional language. In this context, Paiva (2011, p.
explains that there is evidence to support the claim that SLA is a CAS
since it "exhibits an inherent ability to adapt to different conditions
present in both internai and externai environments". Thus, a complex
SLA perspective
"(... ) can simultaneously admit the existence of innate
mental structures, as proposed by generativists, and at the
same time sustain the notion that part of the language
is acquired by means of repetition and the creation of
automatic linguistic habits, as explained by the structur-
alists. In such a model, input, interaction and output are
also considered o f paramount importance for language
acquisition as they trigger both neural and sociocultural
connections. (op. cit., p. 61)
Therefore, Paiva (2012, 2014a; 2014b) lists more expressive
SLA theories as subsystems (Fig. 2; fractal in shape) of SLA as
automatic habits, interaction, affiliation, sociocultural mediation,
input, innate mental structures, neural connections
161

Fig. 2- SLA as CAS (PANA, 2012, p. 22, my translation)
As it happens with theories in others CAS discussed nere, some
o f these SLA theories are said to be incompatible with one "'-H'--' LL,_.._.._,
but as a CAS they nest in the acquisition dynamic system as pJprnp;,-r.:,
that interact with others to emerge the behavior of the system as
a whole. As highlighted by Paiva (2005, p. 23), SLA theories "are
compatible with a fractal theory of language acquisition, since each
one o f them describes a certain aspect o f the complex system called
language acquisition''.
3. T'\lC'l'.T'T'T'lr'V" AS CAS
For a long time, identity has been understood a Cartesian
framework. In other words, identity was perceived as a consciousness
o f self that remains identical throughout time, "a unified experience
belonging" (PANA, 2011, p. 62), "an abstract idea ora label, such as a
162
title, an ethnic catego:ry, or a personality trait" (\XlEN G ER, 2000, p. 23 9)
that could be explained by simple (innate) causes and deterrninistic laws.
Contemporaneously, identity has been discussed in a Bakhtinian
perspective in the sense that discourse contributes to its continuing
construction. In this context, identity emerges as a result of social
formation (nesting different actors, contexts, linguistic and non-
linguistic behaviors) throughout the interaction amongst "several
communities of practice: family, school, club, and so on" (SADE,
2009, p. 519). As Giddens points out (1991, p. 190), "as
leaves one encounter and enters another, he sensitively adjusts
'presentation o f self' in relation to whatever is demanded o f a particular
situation". The result of this iterative social process over time is
has been called fragmentation oJ the se!f But L.1is process, as emphasized
by Giddens, is much more complex than just a disintegration of
individuais into multiple selves. Within this standpoint, Sade argues for
the replacement o f "the widely used term 'fragmented identities' to
'fractalized identities '", reminding us that "the process o f identity
(re)construction and emergence can be viewed as a complex system"
(SADE, 2009, p. 525). Regarding this, Sade explains
"This new term evokes the properties of fractais and
can be ~ better metaphor to encompass ali the com-
plexity which is involved in the process. The word
'fragmented' leads us to think of 'fragments', or 'bro-
ken pieces' (... ) the idea that the process of identity
emergence causes the human to be 'broken into piec-
es' as if the emerged identities were isolated construc-
tions o f one 's self (... ) . As in fractal, there are infinite
possibilities of identity fractalization, as it is also in-
finite the number of possible discourses we may have
access throughout our life span (... ) [and] no matter
the number of internal fractalizations, the parts are in-
terconnected into a whole which is self-similar to the
parts." (p. 525).
163
4. APPROACH TO LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING AS CAS

Larsen-Freeman & Cameron (2008) have suggested that a

complexity approach to language classroom should cover at least
four components, namely: connectivity across alllevels, dynamics of
language-usillg, co-adaptation, and dynamics of learnillg managed by
teachlng. From this perspective, Borges & Paiva (2011, 2014) have
developed a complexity approach to language teachlng and learnillg
(CALTL) (Fig. 3; fractalm shape) addlng other components to it, such
as language and SLA as CAS (Fig. 1 and 2), reconstructive dynamic
climension of teachlng and learnillg as a multifaceted process, focus
on learner 's performance (to promote competence) and on language
social practices, reception o f multiple identities or 'fractalized
identities' (SADE, 2009), eco-semiotic syllabus co-construction
(Fig. 4), affordance awareness, illdividual autopoietic organization. In
addition, Borges (2015) and Pereira & Borges (2016) have showed
how the CALTL can be used 1n English as additionallanguage (EAL)
classrooms with the help of the Brazilian Alive textbook series (for
Fig. 3 - CALTL as CAS - Produced by the author.
elementary and secondary school) that is equally based on complexity
theory. Also, by proposillg a chaotic mode! of reflective development of
Language as a CAS has been previously discussed 1n this secrion
language teachers 'professionality (CMRD), Borges (2016) and Borges et
(see topic 1, Fig. 1). Teaching and learning as a multifaceted process
a!. (2017) discuss the possibility of usmg the language conceptions
is related to co-adaptation in the classroom 's actions-and-responses.
as CAS (Fig. 1) as an initial conditions to get to the CALTL 1n initial
These actions-and-responses are correlated to the use of different
teacher education.
types of language teaching approaches and methods required for
As we (applied linguists 1n the language teachlng area) already
managing the dynamics of language social practices: teacher
know, Anthony (1963) has argued for two pillars that support an
manages the dynamics and the apprentices perform it in a co-adaptive
approach to language teachlng: one dealing with the nature of
process. This co-adaptation process (helped by the autopoieticindividual
language and other with the nature o f learnillg. So these two pillars
organization) may be accomplished with (a) the assistance of eco-
(CAS 1n themselves) are the CALTL's core (but they do not centralize
semiotic syllabus co-construction (discussed in the next topic; Fig.
the system control) - named, 1n the Fig. 3, as "language as CAS" and
4), (b) the affordance a-vvareness to learn an additionallanguage, (c)
"multifaceted teachlng & learnillg", respectively.
the reception of the students fractalized idenrities (topic 3). these
CALTL components are connected to each other across alllevels
a network of mteractions where each one changes in response to
other.
164 165
 5. UNGUAGE TEACHING SYLLABUS AS CAS
The severalltypes o f syllabuses (structural, situational, functional-
notional, procedural,_lexical etc.) found in language teaching literature
can be divided into two large blocks: synthetic and/ or grammatical
syllabuses (subject-centered) and analytic and/ or communicative
syllabuses (skills-based and process-oriented) (BORGES, 2009;
BORGES, 2014a). They have given rise to very different n1.ethods and
approaches to language teaching (grammar-translation, audiolingual,
communicative, language for special purposes etc.) (CLARl<:., 1987).
Contemporaneously, Finney (201 0[2002]) proposes a mixed-
focus curriculum whereupon we have a blend of grammatical
(content) and communicative (objective and process) syllabuses. In
this sense, Borges (2014a) suggests an eco-senúotic syllabus (ESS)
(Fig. 4) based on van Lier' s (1996, 2000) Autonomy-Authenticity-
Awareness (AAA) curriculum and complexity theory. The ESS is one
of the CALTL elements (see topic 4; Fig. 3) anda CAS in itself
autonomy-authenticity-awareness
~
linguistic creativity
(varíety and invention)
.. "'
usage-meaning-use
Unguistic normativity
(habit and structure)
Fig. 4- Language syllabus as CAS (the ESS) - Adapted from Borges
(2014a, p. 22)
The ESS is structured along two axes (vertical and horizontal)
166
that give dynanúcity (dialogism) in language development, i. e.:
a) horizontal - linguistic normativity (habit and structure) as a
language centripetal force which "forg[es] links between different
subjects, explor[es] cross-curricular themes, and deal[s] -vvith global
linguistic problems and issues"; b) vertical - linguistic creativity
(variety and invention) as a language centrifugai force which
"provid[es] deep and rich language experiences throughout the
child's acadenúc career, and build[s] usable and lasting language
skills, both oral and written" (van LIER, 1996, p. 19, brackets mine).
As in ali syllabuses, teachers must have a starcing
to initiate their actions in classroom aiming at fostering teacher
and students interactions to promote language acquisicion. In
ESS context, this starting point is the syllabus' "inicial condicions"
as CAS which can be thought of as the students' needs and wants
(previously veriiied) as well as the contents and goals required by the
school curriculum. Along with the inicial conditions, teachers must
also have a sense of plausibili!J (PRABHU, 1987) to bring out their
methodology (BORGES, 2010) that will introduce the dynamics
required in the interaction and co-adaptation o f these tvvo classroom
forces in the SLA: linguistic normativity and linguistic creativity.
6. LA.NGUAGE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT AS
The teaching profession development in the field of language
teacher education has evolved through the influence of classical
reflective training models such as those in Smyth (1989),
(1990), and Wallace (1991). From this base, Borges (2016) argues for
a chaotic model oj reflective development of language teachers' professionali!J
(CMRD) (Fig. 5) moving forvvard on the proposals already established
in the area by introducing elements and concepts derived from system
theory (block diagram). The CMRD focuses on language as CAS
(Fig. 1) as an inicial condition for language teacher development in
the complexity paradigm. The model emerges, as Borges explains,
from the evident difficulty of developing inicial teacher education
167
in accordance with the complexity perspective; and it provides
important subsidies that may help comb:ing all CAS conceptions
(discussed in this paper) in the language teacher development.
language as CAS
Fig. 5- Language teacher deve1opment as CAS (the CMRD) (BORGES,
2016, p. 379).
In the contex of pre-service language teacher education,
the CMRD begins by mapping (first stage) (using questionnaire,
encouraging discussions) the teacher students (TS) language
conceptions. These conceptions are believed to be an important
chaotic attractor that can define/ show the cll.trent behavior/way o f
thin.king on teaching and learning an additionallanguage. N ot ignoring
the value of many other conceptions nested in this process, it is also
assumed that language conceptions will certainly set out (consciously
or unconsciously) actions in the classroom, including the methods
and approaches to language teaching to be used. If the TS do not yet
possess the vision of language as CAS, the CMRD can initiate at any
conception that emerges among them7 (at the mapping stage) in order
to achieve the notion of language as CAS. After the ffiapping stage,
other processes might initiate such as iifonning (readings, counseling),
interrogating (criticai reflection), evaluating (discussion, reports), and
redirecting (connecting theory-practice). The disturbing stage may
happen at any moment. The feedbacking stage is intended to energize
the entire process by stabilizi.t"'1g the system whenever it is necessary.
7 See Borges (2016) for further details.
168
Final remarks
As well known, the language teaching field has progressed
through what has been called 'eras': methods, approaches and post-
method. The post-method pedagogy - seen as a contemporary paradigm
shift in language teaching- rejected the predetermined set o f generic
principies underlying methods and approaches to language teaching.
This led to the abandonment of methods and approaches (already
developed in the area) encouraged by the theorizers-practitioners
rupture in the post-method pedagogy' s practicality dimension
(I<UMARAVADIVELU, 2001, 2006). Consequently, teachers were
asked ta construct their own theory if practice, adapting their classroom
methodologies in accordance with local and contextual factors.
With the advent of complexity paradigm in what I
coined. as additional language complexity pedagogy goes beyond the post-
method condition concerning its practicality. This is the case because
all CAS discussed in this work (language, SLA, identity, CALTL,
ESS and CMRD), especially the CALTL and the CMRD, requires
strong connectivity between teachers and theorizers. Therefore,
CAS (in language teaching area) are key parts for the emergence
of a complexity pedagogy in AL. But for that matter, we (applied
linguists) should look at this field with the eyes o f complexity.
REFERENCE
ANTHONY, E. M. Approach, method, and technique . .L4.1.JL?;:;,JU.ou
Teaching Forum, v. 3(1), p. 7-10, 1963.
BARTLE!T, L. Teacher dev~lopment through reflective teaching.
In. RICHARDS, J. C., NUNAN, D. (Eds.). Second Lan-
guage Teacher Education. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1990. p. 202-214
BECI<NER, C. et al. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive sys-
tem: position paper. Language Learning, v. 59(1), p. 1-26.
BORGES, E. F. V.; GABRE, B. S.; PUHL,J. Abordagem complexa
de ensino e de aprendizagem de línguas no estágio curricular
supervisionado em língua inglesa. In: Práticas pedagógi-
169
 cas exitosas na UEPG. NUTEAD. Ponta Grossa: Editora
UEPG, 2017. (in press)
BORGES, E. F. V. Um modelo caótico de desenvolvimento reflexi-
vo da profissionalidade de professores de línguas. ReVEL,
v. 14(27), p. 364-388, 2016.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Complexity approach to language teaching and
learning: moving from theory to potencial practice. In: GIT-
SAI<:.I, C.; ALEXIOU, T. (Org.) Current Issues in Sec-
ond/Foreign Language Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion: Research and Practice. upon UI<:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Planejamento semiótico-ecológico de ensino de
línguas. Contexturas, n. 23, p. 39-61, 2014a.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Paradigm shift in language teaching and lan-
guage teacher education. The ESPectalistJ v. 35(1), p. 42-
59, 2014b.
_ _ _ _ _ _ . Metodologia, abordagem e pedagogias de ensi-
no de língua(s). Linguagem & Ensino, v. 13(2), p. 397-
414, 2010.
BORGES, E. F. V. Uma reflexão filosófica sobre abordagens e
paradigmas na constituição da subárea ensino-apren-
dizagem de LE/L2 na Linguística Aplicada. 298f. Tese
de Doutorado Faculdade de Educação, Universidade de
São Paulo, 2009.
BORGES, E. F. V.; PAIVA, V. L. M. O. Towards a complexity ap-
proach to language teaching and learning. 17th World
Congress of the International Association of Applied Lin-
guistics (AILA), Brisbane, Austtalia, Abstract Book, 2014.
. Por uma abordagem complexa de ensino de lín-
guas: Linguagem & Ensino, v. 14(2), p. 337-56, 2011.
BOYD, R. Metaphor and theory change: whatis "metaphor" a met-
aphor for? In: Andrew ORTONY (Ed.). Metaphor and
thought. 2nd ed. Austtalia: Cambridge University Press,
1993. p. 481-532.
CAPRA, F. O ponto de mutação. Trad. _Álvaro Cabral. São Paulo:
Culttix, 2006[1982], p. 47-48.
170
CHOMSI<:.Y, N. Syntactic structures. Berlim: Die Deutsche Bib-
liothek. (2002 [19 57])
CLARI<:., J. L. Curriculum renewal in school foreign language
learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
DASCAL, M. (Org.). Fundamentos metodológicos da linguísti-
ca. Concepções gerais da teoria linguística. São Paulo: Glob-
al, v. i, 1978.
DAVIS, B. & SUMARA, D. Complexity education: inquiries
into learning teaching, and research. N ew York: Rout-
ledge, 2006.
ELLIS, N. C.; LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. (Eds.).
complex adaptive system. Michigan:
2009.
FINNEY, D. The ELT curriculum: a flexible model for a chang-
ing world. In: J.C. RICHARDS; RENANDYA (Eds.)
Methodology in language teaching. anthology of
current practice, 2010[2002]. p. 69-79
GERALDI,J. W Portos de passagem. 3. ed. São Paulo: Martins
Fontes, 1995.
GIDDENS, A. P. Modernity and self-identity: self society
the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 1991.
GUBA, E. G.; LINCOLN, Y S. Competing paradigms in qualita-
tive research. In: DENZIN. N. I<:..; LINCOLN, Y S. (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 1994.p. 105-117
HALLIDAY, M. A. I<.. On matter and meaning:
human experience. Linguistics the
v. 1(1), p. 59-82, 2005.
HOLLAND, J. H. Hidden adaptation buHd.s com-
plexity. New York: Basics Books: 1995.
JAI<:.OBSON, R. Selected writings. New York: Mouton de Gruy-
ter, 2002[1962].
171
I<OERNER, E. F. I<. Paracligms in the 19th and 20th century his-
tory o f linguistics: Schleicher, Saussure, Chomsky. In: HEI-
LMANN, L. (Ed.). Proceeding of the eleventh interna-
tional congress o f linguistics. Bologna: II :l\1ulino, v. 1,
1976.
I<UHN, T.S. The Structure of Scientifi.c Revolutions. 2nd ed.,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970[1962].
I<UMARAVADIVELU, B. TESOL methods: changing tracks, chal-
lenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, v. 40(1), 2006, p. 59-81.
_ _ _ _ _ _. Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly, v. 35(4), 2001, p. 537-560.
JOUANNET, E. The liberal-welfarist law of nations: a histo-
ry of internationallaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2012.
p. 257-276.
NASCIMENTO, M. Linguagem como um sistema complexo: in-
terfases e interfaces. In: PAIVA, V. L. M. 0.; NASCIMEN-
TO, M. Sistemas adaptativos complexos: lingua(gem)
e aprendizagem. Belo Horizonte: Faculdade de Letras da
UFMG,2009.
NOLAN, E. P. Now through a glass darkly: specular images
being and knowing from Virgil to Chaucer. Michigan:
The University of Michigan Press, 1990.
PAIVA, V. L. M. O. Main second language acquisition theories: from
structuralism to complexity. Contexturas, n. 23, p. 112-124,
2014a.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. Aquisição de segunda São
rábola Editorial, 2014b.

LAI<OFF, G.;JOHNSON, M. Metaphors we live by. In: O'BRIEN, _______ . Identity, motivation, autonomy from
].; I<OLLOCH, P. The production of reality. Essays and pe~spective ~f complex dynat?ical sy~te~s. In: MURRAY,
readings on social interaction. 3rd ed., London: Pine Forge G, GAR, X., LAMB, T. Identtty, mottvatton autono-
Press, 2001. p. 124-134 my in language learning. Bristol, Buffalo. Toronto:
lingual Matters, 2011. p. 57-72
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D.; CAMERON, L. Complex systems
and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . O modelo fractal de aquisição de línguas. In:
2008. BRUNO, F. C. (Org.). Reflexões e prática em ensino
aprendizagem de língua estrangeira. São Paulo: Clara
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Chaos/Complexity Science and second Luz,2005. p. 23-36
language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, v. 18(2), 141-
165, 1997. _______ . Ensino de inglesa no ensino
teoria e prática. São SM, 2012.
LUCI<HARDT, C. G. Beyond I<nowledge: Paradigms in Wittgen-
stein's Later Philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenolog- _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Caleidoscópio: fractais uma 'U'JI.JI. ..... Ji.Ji.JL"""'

ical Research, v. 39(2), p. 240-252, 1978. ensino aprendizagem. Memorial para concurso de Pro-
fessor Titular. Faculdade de Letras. Universidade Federal de
MENEZES, V. Second Language Acquisition: Reconciling Theo- Minas Gerais, 2002.
ries. OpenJournal of Applied Science, v. 3(7), p. 393-403,
2013. PATTERSON et al. Radical rules schools: adanttve a\...uuu
for complex change. Circle Fines: u,.-v">.
MORIN, E. Introdução ao pensamento complexo. 3a. ed., Porto mies Institute, 2012.
Alegre: Sulina, 2007.
PEREIRA, L. S.; BORGES, E. F. Potencialidades da abordagem
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . O sistema: paradigma ou/ e teoria. Ciência complexa no uso da coleção Alive! inglês Ensino Funda-
com consciência. Trad. de Maria Alexandre e Maria A. S. mental. In: SILVA, W ·BORGES, E. F. (Orgs.).
Dória. 13a ed., Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2010[1982], plexidade em ambientes ensino e aprendizagem
172 173
 de línguas adicionais. Curitiba: CRV, 2016. p. 93-114
PRABHU, N. S. Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford ·
University Press, 1987.
RAMALNGAM, B. et al. Exploring the science of complexity:
ideas and implications for development and humani-
tarian efforts. ODI Working Paper 285. London: Overseas
Development Institute, 2008.
SADE, A. S. Complexity and identity reconstruction in second lan-
guage acquisition. RBLA, v. 9(2), p. 515-537, 2009.
SAUSSURE, F. Course in generallinguistics. Translated by Wade
I<.askin. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2011 [1915].
SEARLE, J. R. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of lan-
guage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999[1969].
SILVA, W M.; BORGES, E. F. V. (Orgs.). Complexidade em am-
bientes de ensino e de aprendizagem de línguas adi-
cionais. Curitiba: CRV, 2016.
SMYTH, J. Develo_ping and sustaining critical reflection in teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, v. 40(2), p. 2-9,
1989.
van LIER, L. From input to affordance: social-interactive learning
from an ecological perspective. In: LANTOLF; J. P. (Ed.).
Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. p. 245-259
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. Interaction in the language curriculum:
awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Long-
man, 1996.
VOLOSINOV, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Lan-
guage. Trad. Ladislav Matejka and I.R. Titunik. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2000[1973].
WALLACE, M. Training foreign language teachers: a reflec-
tive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge Universlty Press,
1991.
174
AGRA.DECIMENTOS DA COORDENAÇAO DO CIEL 2015
Para alcançarmos os objetivos desta grande realização, o CIEL
UEPG contou com a colaboração imprescindível dos professores
Jhony Skeika, Eliane Raupp, Débora Sheidt, Rosita Bastos, Luisa
Cristina dos Santos Fontes, Marly Catarina Soares, Lucimar Braga,
Larissa A. Ribeiro, Valeska G. Carlos, Miguel Sanches Neto, Sebastião
L. dos Santos, Rosana A. Harmuch, Isabel Volett Marson, J\!Iariza
Tulio, Jane I<.eli Oliveira, Elaine Borges, Fábio Augusto Stayer, Rúbia
Silva, Daniel de Oliveira Gomes, Diego Gomes do Vale, Rosângela
Schardong.
Somos imensamente gratos ao corpo discente dos cursos de
graduação em Letras da Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa,
bem como aos alunos do Mestrado em Linguagem, Identidade e
Subjetividade, pelo apoio e pelo desejo de dar ao CIEL um rosto, uma
linguagem. O nosso rosto, a nossa linguagem sempre em movimento.
Agradecemos de modo específico à aluna do mestrado, Silvely Brandes,
nossa fiel e corajosa assistente, que enfrentou com determinação e
paciência o processo de inscrição de nossos participantes. Nossos
alunos foram a continuidade das nossas mãos, de nossa voz e de
nossos ouvidos e buscaram com empenho a realização ideal oara o
nosso evento.
Queremos agradecer ainda o apoio financeiro da CAPES,
da Prefeitura de Ponta Grossa e da Fundação Araucária, que
possibilitaram a presença de convidados importantes para movimentar
nossas reflexões científicas e acadêmicas. Além destas instituições
foram essenciais para esta realização do CIEL, para a promoção
e valorização do ensino, da pesquisa e da extensão universitária,
constituindo-se como parceiros da Educação Brasileira, as empresas:
Heineken, Editora Estúdio Texto, luliane Pneus e Caixa Econômica
Federal.
175