Aspired to popularize English so that it is “no longer linked to a single culture or nation” (McKay, 2002, p. 24), English as an international language teachers are encouraged to expose learners to different cultures, avoid privileging any native-speaking English cultures, and expect students to develop multicultural perspectives without feeling pressed to adjust their communicative behaviors to any specific English-speaking cultural group. Such teaching practices, while making English classrooms more democratic, are susceptible to unfavorable side effects on the cultivation of the intended alternative cultural perspectives. From the perspective of complex adaptive systems (CAS), mere exposure to or discussion about cultural products and practices is not sufficient for the emergence of target cultural perspectives in our knowledge system. The study discussed in this article aims to visualize the registration of alternative cultural perspectives in a person’s knowledge system and draw implications for avoiding the unfavorable side effects of teaching English as an international language.

Complex Adaptive Systems and Their “Internal Models”

A CAS is a network of many “agents” acting in parallel to adapt to all the other agents’ behaviors (Holland, 2014). Agents may be neurons, organisms, minds, or any self-sustaining entity capable of adapting to its environment. Agents are themselves complex adaptive systems. The environment of each agent is actually an emergent phenomenon resulting from its interactions with all other agents. This is why the context of communication is constantly changing (McDermott, 1976; Erickson, 2004). Agents are acting in parallel, so the system assumes no center of control. This is why one’s goal-oriented action can bring about side effects and why pure free will may not exist (Gazzaniga, 2011; Eagleman, 2015). CAS are emergent and self-organizing. New orders emerge as the agents’ interactions in novel circumstances give rise to new patterns that push the original system away from equilibrium (Kauffman, 1993). Newly emerged orders constitute a new species of agents, whose interactions give rise to further novel patterns and add other new species to the system. The constantly emerging diversities constitute the transformation of CAS over time. Active engagement in the process of transformation is crucial for CAS to survive and thrive. The emergent nature of CAS determines that higher-order thinking, such as cultural perspectives, may only emerge when people act beyond their initial patterns. Therefore, understanding how CAS learn and adapt will shed light on how cultural perspectives get registered in the learner’s knowledge system.

CAS learn from experience. According to John Holland, one of the founding fathers of complexity science, “All complex adaptive systems … build models that allow them to anticipate the world” (Waldrop, 1992, p. 177). The building blocks are the behavior patterns that worked well in previous experiences. Each concrete experience, or interaction, is registered in the agents as tacit “if [circumstances and action]/then [outcome]” hypotheses, which accumulate into an “internal model” (Holland, 1995, p. 57). The structure of the internal model is thus determined by the agent’s unique internal structure and the environment’s feedback concerning its action. Each internal model “informs the agent of previous outcomes of particular actions in particular circumstances and the likely outcomes of similar actions in similar circumstances” (Wilson, 2017, para. 15). At a very large scale, a cultural perspective is an integral internal model to a human society. Each social interaction is a fraction of the entire model, so it has the same level of detail as the entire model. If all details are not oriented toward the target cultural perspective through consistent feedback, the target cultural perspective may not get registered in the learner’s knowledge system. This will be illustrated with visual aids in a later section. The concept of internal model has been understood in a variety of different terms, such as “script” (Schank, 1990; Turner, 1991), “schema” (Rumelhart, 1980), and “proto story” (Becker, 1995). However, I will keep the term “internal model” to retain its broadest, systemic sense.

Cultural Perspectives as “Internal Models”

An understanding of how internal models emerge and change will help us understand how cultural perspectives emerge and evolve as one learns a language. Though internal models are too complex and dynamic to be modeled, a visual representation of the human knowledge system (HKS) will help us begin to conceptualize its complexity and interaction with environment. Figure 1 is a rough representation of an HKS. The representation has been inspired by Bateson’s (1972; 1979) ecology-of-mind theory, Maturana and Varela’s (1992) autopoiesis theory, Nikolić’s (2014) practopoiesis theory, Donald’s (1991) hypothesis of the three-stage evolution of the modern mind, Tomasello’s (2014) hypothesis of the three-stage development of human thinking, and Damasio’s (1999) philosophical account of different levels of consciousness. The four major species of agents represented in Figure 1 include (1) genetic knowledge (which emerged as the genes interacted with the environment), (2) temporal-spatial-corporeal knowledge (which emerged as the body interacted with the environment), (3) sociocultural knowledge (which emerged as the person interacted with the humanized environment), and (4) semiotic knowledge (which emerged as the person interacted with the shared symbolic systems). Each species is a fraction of a different but interdependent larger system and co-evolves with the larger system. For example, as the individual adjusts his behaviors in response to other agents’ actions, his adjustment also contributes to the evolution of language and culture on a larger scale over time.

Figure 1. Representation of human knowledge system.

The Environment in Figure 1 is emergent and specific to individual agents. It is not separate from the agent. Each agent interacts directly with its environment. The hierarchical structure indicates the relative generalizability of the “if/then” hypotheses registered in each species. The hypotheses in the same species also display a similar hierarchy in terms of generalizability across the larger system. For example, the reading of some gestures or facial expressions are almost universal, whereas most sound patterns and written symbols are unique to small groups of people. The more general the hypotheses, the deeper they sink below consciousness and the less frequently they change, but the more readily the relevant ones are singled out for the given circumstance. This is why our body movements and our perception of social contexts are mostly subconscious and automatic. The upward arrows represent how one species’ emergence and action are dependent on the existence of the species below it (which have emerged earlier in learning and now act more automatically).

We can apply the representation of HKS to visualizing the potential modifications to the internal model of a Chinese L1 learner’s system, depending on the English L2 teacher’s feedback style. Figures 2, 3, and 4 represent the eventual effects of accuracy-oriented feedback (Figure 2), fluency-oriented feedback (Figure 3), and context-oriented feedback (Figure 4). All three representations assume the class is communicative and the teacher employs elicitation strategies to allow students to anticipate her action (i.e., an offer). In each figure, the arrows indicate the alternative hypotheses that may be useful when an offer is anticipated. The dotted arrows indicate the hypotheses registered in the sociocultural agents. The purple colors indicate the patterns emerged from L1 interactions, whereas the green color indicates the patterns emerge from L2 interactions. Since adaptation is conservative (Maturana & Varela, 1992), in any given circumstance, the system will first test the hypothesis that requires the minimum structural change of the system. If the action brings about the anticipated outcome, the hypothesis will be considered viable and used again in similar circumstances.

Figure 2. Accuracy-oriented models.

Figure 3. Fluency-oriented models.

Figure 4. Context-oriented models.

To respond to an offer in L2, the least costly action for the system is to find an L2 “equivalent” for what one would say in L1, such as “Thanks” for the Chinese word “谢谢xièxie” in the case of accepting. If the only condition for positive feedback is accurate production of the phrase “Thanks”, the modifications to the existing internal models (Figure 2) will only involve the semiotic agents, namely “if accept an offer and ‘Thanks’ instead of ‘Xiexie’, then positive feedback.” With such models students may either appear retarded or be unintelligible in spontaneous L2 communication due to the lack of “equivalents” between cultures. To improve the situation, students may repeatedly perform the speech act till the phrase “Thanks” becomes activated simultaneously with the action of accepting. The modification (Figure 3) will then involve the semiotic and the temporal-spatial-corporeal agents, namely “if accept an offer and accompany the accepting movement with ‘Thanks’, then positive feedback.” With such models students may become more fluent in L2, but not more intelligent or likeable to L2 speakers who are not familiar with their L1 culture because the judgement as to whether it is appropriate to take the offer is still made from their L1 perspective. Different societies have different criteria for culturally-appropriate behaviors (Agar, 1994) and verbalize different aspects of events (Slobin, 1996).

For the student to automatically recognize social contexts from an L2 perspective in spontaneous communication, modifications to internal models must involve the sociocultural agents (Figure 4). For the sociocultural agents to register useful hypotheses, the social context of the offer (including the relationship between the people involved and the content of the offer) must be specified and the teacher must give negative feedback and model expected actions in the given situation. The social context contains the basic elements of any interpersonal interaction, so it is often taken for granted until the action fails to bring about the anticipated outcome. This is why the teacher’s consistent context-oriented feedback is crucial for the emergence of alternative internal models in the learner’s system. For example, since the Chinese counterpart for “Thanks” is only expected when one accepts the offer, Chinese L1 learners tend to decline offers by just saying “No”, whose Chinese counterpart “Búyòng” would suffice for declining offers in Chinese-speaking contexts. Therefore, in L2 roleplaying, if a student tends to decline offers by just saying “No”, it is necessary to always remind him to also say “Thanks” and have them redo the act in the expected manner. The teacher may also have the student enact situations where it is appropriate to decline offers by just saying “No” without “Thanks”. For example, if on a cold day my friend makes an offer by saying “Shall I close the door?” I may simply say “No. I’m fine” to decline it. By contrast, if the offer is “Shall I close the door for you?” or “Shall I get you a blanket?” then it would be more appropriate to decline it by saying “No. I’m fine. Thank you.”

Implications

Because consistent teacher feedback concerning cultural behavior is key to the registration of cultural perspectives, the target English culture(s) for any given class should naturally be the one(s) of which the teacher can be representative. The construction of alternative sociocultural models would require the teacher to make explicit the specific context and react to students’ behaviors in the ways a local of the target community might act in the given context. Specific contextual information is crucial for useful alternative sociocultural models to emerge. A basic goal for cultural learning is to cultivate the awareness that communication patterns are specific to particular groups, though some patterns may be more generalizable than others. For this awareness to be registered in the learner’s system, the teacher’s feedback must consistently orient the learner’s communicative behaviors toward specific cultures. With this awareness, learners will be more observant and tolerant with cultural differences in cross-cultural communication. Over time, this awareness will evolve into full-fledged alternative cultural perspectives.

References

Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York, NY: E.P. Dutton.

Becker, A. L. (1995). Beyond translation: Essays toward a modern philology. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Eagleman, D. (2015). The brain with David Eagleman. [DVD]. United States: PBS.

Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Gazzaniga, M. S. (2011). Who’s in charge? Free will and the science of the brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York, NY: Helix Books.

Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kauffman, S. (1993). Origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding (R. Paolucci, Trans.). Boston, MA: Shambhala.

McDermott, R. P. (1976). Kids make sense: An ethnographic account of the interactional management of success and failure in one first grade classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Stanford University, CA.

McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Masny, D., & Waterhouse, M. (2011). Mapping territories and creating nomadic pathways with multiple literacies theory. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 27(3), 287–307.

Nikolić, D. (2014). Practopoieses: Or how life fosters a mind. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 373, 40–61. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.03.003

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell me a story: A new look at real and artificial memory. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Turner, M. (1991). Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Wilson, J. (2017). Learning, adaptation, and the complexity of human and natural interactions in the ocean. Ecology and Society, 22(2). Retrieved from https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art43/