This chapter reviews what is known about the acquisition of written language by examining studies from both L2 acquisition and L2 writing pedagogy. I will focus here on the language used by learners as they learn to write in their L2. Thus, the scope of the chapter will be limited to linguistic issues such as accuracy, complexity, the lexicon, and, to a lesser extent, fluency and cohesion. It will not focus on higher level matters such as learning the structure of specific genres, understanding audience conventions, or adapting to cultural writing norms. This is not to say that such issues are not important. Indeed, Flowerdew and colleagues (Flowerdew 2001, Flowerdew and Li, 2009) have argued, for example, that Chinese scholarly writers and other non-native speakers face more obstacles with regard to content and discourse structure than language. In fact, when writing is used to accomplish certain goals in society, native-like proficiency may not be necessary. When viewed from a language development perspective, however, even such advanced writers may have problems that are interesting. For example, a lack of mastery of English articles reflects incomplete language development, and infelicitous collocations may shed light on frequency issues.
By written language, I refer to learner-produced texts of at least paragraph length. Research that examines cloze tests or sentence completion, for example, is not considered. And although language used in synchronous computer-mediated discourse is written and could have an impact on learners’ subsequent oral production (e.g., Blake, 2009) or longer written texts, I will not consider that research because of space limitations.
For years, the fields of second language acquisition (SLA) and second language (L2) writing did not overlap much. An examination of the research published in the Journal of Second Language Writing, since its inception in 1992, reveals few articles that would be of obvious interest to those studying what has traditionally fallen under the realm of SLA. Much of the research on L2 writing has grown out of first language (L1) composition studies, where researchers come from a more social, less cognitively oriented tradition. (For a concise yet clear historical perspective on traditions in L2 writing, see Ferris and Hedgcock, 2005. For a summary of social issues such as those related to identity and the political contexts of writing, see Leki et al., 2008.)
Studies of SLA research published in what can be considered mainstream SLA journals (e.g., Language Learning, Second Language Research, Studies in Second Language Acquisition) have occasionally reported on research that used written data beyond the sentence level (e.g., BardoviHarlig, 1997), but little or no mention is made of the fact the studies might be useful to those interested in the teaching of L2 writing. Although SLA theory and research are relevant to L2 writing, and although L2 writing can affect how L2s are learned, only recently have such relationships been made explicit (e.g, Manchón, 2011; Williams, 2008).
I now turn to the relationship between writing and theories of SLA. Historically, L2 teaching and learning has been about the acquisition of spoken language. From structuralist approaches, such as the audio-lingual method, to more meaning-based methods, such as the natural approach, the focus was on teaching speaking. With regard to current theories or approaches in SLA—and I will use the terms interchangeably to avoid a discussion of which are considered theories—most do not explicitly deal with writing. In fact, in order to understand how various SLA theories might apply to writing, some speculation is inevitable. Nevertheless, it is important for those working in the area of L2 writing to have a theoretical framework in mind and to consider whether or not the various theories are applicable to what they want to know about L2 writing. Another way to approach the role of SLA theory in learning how to write in an L2 is to examine research that studies L2 writing and determine what approach or approaches are explicit or implicit in the researchers’ framing of the research.
SLA approaches have been portrayed in different ways. Mitchell and Myles (1998) divided approaches to SLA into six categories. Norris and Ortega (2003) divided the approaches into four general categories. Later, VanPatten and Williams (2007) classified them into nine approaches or theories, and the current volume divides them differently. Most would agree that there is overlap and that these approaches are not mutually exclusive, hence the difficulty in classifying them. I have chosen to very briefly mention approaches labeled generative, emergentist/associative, processability, and functionalist regarding their possible relevance to L2 writing. I end with a more detailed description of the sociocultural and interactionist approaches as they are the most relevant.
A generative approach, which seeks to describe the mental representation of language, generally relies on the use of judgment tasks and acquisition is indicated by “nativelike levels of rejection of illegal exemplars of the target grammar” (Norris and Ortega, 2003, p. 727). It follows that generativists would not examine written essays as evidence of acquisition. White (2007) states that judgment tasks are the most common method of trying to tap into learners’ underlying linguistic competence with a generativist approach, but also claims that judgment data are not privileged and that the data collection method must be tied to what is being investigated. Nevertheless, I know of no studies in this approach that examine written essays, since written production seems even less likely than spoken language to be a reflection of competence. In writing, one has more time to review and correct what has been written, thus drawing on explicitly learned rules; more accurate grammar in essays alone would not necessarily be seen as evidence of acquisition.
An emergentist/associative approach assumes that language is learned through usage and that learners make links among words and structures. The approach, in part, tries to determine what influences those links (e.g., frequency or saliency of the items). In a description of what N. Ellis (2007) calls the associative-cognitive CREED theory, he states that several sources of data, including learner production data, are relevant, but he does not specifically mention written data. N. Ellis (2005) acknowledges the role explicit knowledge may play in acquisition. Thus, written data, where a learner has time to consider explicit knowledge, may be relevant to acquisition.
Processability theory, best associated with Pienemann and Johnston (1987) and Pienemann (1998, 2005, 2007), describes stages of language development across languages and explains them as being a result of processing constraints. Pienemann (2007) claims that the data examining development can be cross-sectional or longitudinal and must contain enough examples of the phenomenon being studied. He states: “In such studies the researcher collects naturalistic or elicited speech data that form the corpus on which the study is based” (p. 146). Pienemann does not say why written data is not relevant, but his theory is based on a processing model of speech (Levelt, 1989). The extent to which this model can be applied to writing is open to discussion (Alamargot and Chanquoy, 2001), but it seems that in writing tasks, learned rules could overtake processing constraints.
Functional approaches are more problematic to characterize. In some ways, the interaction approach subsumes a functional approach because both are concerned with form-meaning mappings, and, in fact, Norris and Ortega (2003) state that the interaction approach is based on a functional view of language. Meanwhile, Tyler (2011) describes three different functional approaches: systemic functional linguistics, discourse functionalism, and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics is closely tied to an emergentist/associative approach. Another functional approach is what Bardovi-Harlig (2007) calls a concept-oriented approach. She states that it is not a theory but rather a “framework for analysis” (p. 60) with regard to form-meaning mappings, as opposed to accuracy per se. In her own work that includes both oral and written production data, Bardovi-Harlig's work (reviewed in Bardovi-Harlig, 2000) analyzes L2 learners’ use of verb tenses. Work by Hinkel (2002) uses a related approach. Analyzing written essays, she describes functions of various forms (e.g., modals) in native speaker texts and then compares the frequency of use of those forms with regard to native non-native speaker differences. Instead of a detailed analysis of how learners develop with regard to a form or function, Hinkel paints a broader picture of the use of various forms in writing without discussing development.
Sociocultural SLA research, as described by Lantolf (Lantolf and Thorne, 2007; Chapter 4, this volume) is related to a Vygotskian theory of the mind and does not quantitatively measure acquisition. In fact, research in this framework investigates learning quite differently than other approaches. Lantolf and Thorne (2007) point out that if less assistance is needed in a task, as shown in a study of written error correction study by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), then learning has occurred. Lantolf and Thorne (2007) also argue that although longitudinal evidence is preferable, learning can take place during a short-term interaction. This is not to be confused with development. As Brooks and Swain (2009) point out in their study of learner discussions of reformulation, learning precedes development. Although written error correction is not often addressed within a sociocultural approach, or at least not in the same way as other approaches, it would most definitely be appropriate to look at written language as an area of investigation. Even those who view speaking as an innate process governed by rules of Universal Grammar cannot deny that writing is a learned, social process (cf., Pinker, 1994), arguably facilitated by scaffolding. Features of a sociocultural approach are apparent in studies of discourse-level language functions used in writing (e.g., Nassaji and Cumming, 2000) and collaborative writing (e.g., Storch, 2005).
The interaction approach, as summarized by Gass and Mackey (2006, 2007) and Mackey and Polio (2009), clearly has its origins in oral language. Hatch (1978) claimed that acquisition resulted from “learning how to carry on conversation, learning how to communicate” (p. 63). The work was further investigated by Long (1981, 1983), who continued to investigate oral interaction. What happened, however, is that some researchers began to study written language drawing on concepts that are central to the interaction approach (e.g., Sachs and Polio, 2007; Swain and Lapkin, 1995; Swain, 1998).1 These concepts, namely, input, output, feedback, and attention (Gass and Mackey, 2006, 2007) have all played a role in some L2 writing research, particularly attention. A discussion of each of these concepts is beyond the scope of this paper, but each is mentioned below with regard to L2 writing research.
This is not to say that everyone who works in this framework would agree that the interaction approach can be applied to writing, but one interpretation of the approach is that interactionists take a broad view of acquisition and that many types of changes in learner performance can be considered significant, even small or short-term changes2 on a wide variety of data types (Norris and Ortega, 2003). In sum, if researchers are not interested in writing pedagogy per se, examining written texts, within some approaches to SLA, can be considered as a source of learner language and might help us better understand L2 development.
Models of L2 writing, longitudinal language development, writing tasks variables, the relevance of the written medium to SLA, and the role of error correction are some of the core issues related to the acquisition of L2 writing. The extent to which the above theories are considered in each of the issues below is minimal, but certain studies do draw on some aspects of SLA theory.
Although models of L2 writing process are central in understanding the acquisition of L2 writing, they have, arguably, had little influence over L2 writing research, perhaps because trying to model the L2 writing process is an ambitious endeavor. Models of the L1 writing process (Hayes, 1996) are quite complex; comprehensive models of L2 writing would be even more so. Flower and Hayes (1980) and Hays and Flower (1980) developed a model of the L1 writing process that included a recursive process of planning, text generation, and revision as well as the long-term memory factors (e.g., knowledge of the topic) and task environment factors (e.g., the writing assignment). Hayes (1996) modified the model to include more social and motivational factors (e.g., collaborators and goals, respectively). What is more relevant to the scope of this chapter is that he also included a working memory component and a linguistic knowledge component.
The few proposed models of the L2 writing process are not comprehensive. Zimmerman (2000) proposed a recursive model of the writing process suggesting that the L2 comes in at the formulation, repair, and reviewing stages, and that at least among his participants, writers were not translating from their L1 but rather using the L1 only at the planning stages. Wang and Wen (2002) proposed a model based on the language used by the participants at the various stages. For example, the writers in their study used their L1 to generate ideas and like the participants in Zimmerman's study, they did not generate text in their L1 and translate to their L2. Sasaki (2000) conducted a study that examined the writing processes of novice and expert L2 writers and provided a series of observations to be incorporated into a model, but she did not go so far as to propose one. Finally, the Dutch NELSON project, composed of several studies summarized in Schoonen et al., (2009), attempted to provide “a blueprint of the writer” (p. 77) and examined a number of cognitive issues such as overall proficiency, lexical retrieval, and metacognitive knowledge.
What is missing from most of these models is a clear picture of the linguistic knowledge component and any close links to SLA theories. For example, SLA theories differ on the relationship of implicit and explicit knowledge. Any proposed model of L2 writing should address the role of implicit versus explicit linguistic knowledge. On one hand, we know that as learners compose, they use metalanguage to assess what they have written (Gutiérrez, 2008; Qi and Lapkin, 2001; Sachs and Polio, 2007). On the other hand, it is not clear why learners cannot apply some of the explicit rules that they have learned. As another example, the role of working memory, an issue addressed in the SLA literature, has not been researched in L2 writing, only in the L1 literature (e.g., Kellogg, 1996, 2001) One important issue is whether or not there is a difference in the role of working memory and its limitations between oral and written production. Such a difference could be related to the nature of the inherent differences between the two modalities, as discussed below.
Over ten years ago, Wolfe-Quintero et al., (1998) compiled a comprehensive review of measures used in the study of L2 writing development. The majority of the studies that they reviewed were cross-sectional. Since that time, a few studies have examined the longitudinal development of learners’ written language. As mentioned previously, Bardovi-Harlig (2000), using a functional analysis, examined L2 learners’ narratives as one source of data on learners’ overall development of tense and aspect. But as Sasaki (2004) pointed out, studies of writing development tend to be cross-sectional and rarely follow students for more than a semester.
Sasaki (2007) followed 11 Japanese learners of English through their time at university. Six of those students spent two–eight months studying in an English-speaking country during that time. In addition to documenting how their overall proficiency and use of writing strategies changed, Sasaki examined what changed in their overall writing quality (but not specific skill areas) and fluency. She found that all students’ writing quality improved after a year, but only the students who had studied abroad continued to improve. Furthermore, although students increased their writing fluency, the increase was not linear and was not evident until 2.5 years after the study began for both groups. With regard to strategies, I mention here the use of translation and, what Sasaki calls rhetorical refinement, a focus on small wording changes. Not surprisingly, the students who studied abroad used translation from L1 to L2 less often over time than the EFL group. No significant changes were seen in rhetorical refinement. One possible interpretation is that even after 3.5 years of writing instruction, students did not feel comfortable dealing with language-related issues that were related to minor changes in meaning. Taken together, these results show a slow and non-linear progression of changes with regard to writing, at least for Japanese students at the university level.
In a very different context, Serrano and Howard (2007) presented two case studies from a larger study in which they followed a native English speaker and a native Spanish speaker in a two-way immersion program. They described the development of these learners from grades 3 to 5. They used a rubric, which although divided into components, was too broad to fully detail language development. The grammar component of the rubric included verbs, agreement, placement, and prepositions. They went so far as to suggest that their native Spanish speaker's early rapid improvement in English grammar and mechanics as opposed to composition is because “grammar and mechanics are much easier to teach and learn, as there are specific rules that can be explained and followed” (p. 161). What is problematic is that language development was studied using only a section of an analytical grading rubric. Most likely, raters focused on errors in the above structures as opposed to complexity, the latter being an important component in development (Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998). Their study is noteworthy in that like Sasaki (2007), they found differences in learning to write in a L2 setting (i.e., the Spanish speaker learning English) and a foreign language setting (i.e., the English speaker learning Spanish).
Byrnes and Sinicrope (2008) studied the longitudinal development of relative clauses among 23 English learners of German. They provided a very clear analysis of the development of relative clauses and challenge the universality of the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. They do mention that one limitation of their study is that topic was not held constant.
In summary, it is difficult to generalize about longitudinal development particularly when many longitudinal studies are, understandably, case studies. Studies that use a larger number of participants, such as Byrnes and Sinicrope (2008), may focus on only one linguistic feature. Nevertheless, such studies can shed some light on how at least one feature develops over time and may provide insight into some of the differences between speaking and writing. Furthermore, how one chooses to analyze the data should be theoretically motivated, as in the Byrnes and Sinicrope study. Processablity theory is the one approach that makes clear predictions about longitudinal development, but as mentioned earlier, how much the theory is applicable to written language is open to debate.
A large amount and wide variety of research on task variables and L2 writing has been completed by those interested in pedagogy, SLA, and assessment. Some variables studied include task complexity, direct writing vs. translation, and planning time. I describe some example studies below.
The effect of task complexity has been widely studied in speaking (see Robinson, 2005 for an overview) and but only somewhat studied in writing. Students’ performance on writing tasks of various types have been compared in the writing assessment literature (see review in Weigle, 2002) but less so in relation to the SLA literature. Two such studies include Zhang (1987) and more recently, Kuikken and Vedder (2008). Zhang (1987) found that cognitively more complex tasks elicited more writing and more syntactically complex writing from L2 learners. Students did not, however, vary in their level of accuracy. Kuikken and Vedder (2008) tested Skehan's limited attentional capacity model and Robinson's cognition hypothesis by comparing how L2 learners of Italian performed on more and less complex tasks. Their findings lent partial support for Robinson's model in that students wrote more accurately on the more complex task.
Some studies have examined differences in learners’ writing when translating from their L1 versus composing directly in their L2. Kobayashi and Rinnert (1992) found an improvement for lower proficiency students in terms of grammatical complexity (as measured by clauses per T-unit) if they wrote first in their L1 and then translated. Later Cohen and Brooks (2001) completed a small-scale study comparing native English speakers writing directly in their L2 (French) or translating from English. They found that more of the students did better writing directly, but unlike Kobayashi and Rinnert (1992), they assessed linguistic features using only an holistic rubric. Nevertheless, these studies are important and may help explain on how learners access the L2 when writing and how that process changes for different proficiency levels. Related studies, although not studies of task variables per se, include those that examine the effect of using the L1 or L2 during the prewriting stage (Friedlander, 1990; Lally, 2000; Stapa and Majid, 2009).
Planning time is another task variable that can affect language use in writing. The effects of planning on oral production have been studied extensively (Foster and Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Mochizuki and Ortega, 2008; Ortega, 1999; Sangarun, 2005; Wendel, 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997; Yuan and Ellis, 2003) with the general finding that planning increases linguistic complexity but seems to have a variable or no effect on accuracy. With regard to writing, however, few studies have been conducted. Ellis (1987) conducted a study with varying conditions, one of which included having students write as a form of planning. This study, however, confounded planning with modality, so the implications are not clear. Later, Kawauchi (2005) studied the effect of writing as a planning device for speaking and found no effect. Neither of these studies, however, examined the effect of planning on written language, a topic of relevance to teaching and assessing writing. Ellis and Yuan (2004) investigated the effect of different types of planning on writing. They found that pre-task planning increased syntactic variety and fluency, but that online planning increased accuracy.
In summary, these studies may indicate something about the role of attention in producing language. Manipulating task variables often results in differences to where a writer'sattentionis focused. This is one area in particular where L2 writing research might be able to inform SLA and one area, as addressed below, that has potentially the greatest number of teaching implications.
Several studies (most notably by Swain and her colleagues) have examined the effects of various tasks on learning where those tasks are writing tasks. It is important to consider writing as one type of output that can help students focus on language and perhaps even more so in collaborative writing (Gutiérrez, 2008; Storch, 2005) where students are producing oral output about written output. These studies bring in elements of both the sociocultural and interaction approach (e.g., scaffolding, feedback).
Some researchers have mentioned, mostly in passing, that the written modality is helpful for helping draw learners’ attention to form and thus may have a facilitative effect on overall proficiency. Cumming (1990, p. 483) stated:
Composition writing elicits an attention to form-meaning relations that may prompt learners to refine their linguistic expression—and hence their control over their linguistic knowledge—so that it is more accurately representative of their thoughts and of standard usage. This process appears to be facilitated by the natural disjuncture between written text and the mental processes of generating and assessing it.
(Cumming, 1986; Zamel, 1983; also see Olson, 1977 )
Wong (2001) showed that in writing, unlike in speaking, learners can pay attention to form and meaning at the same time, and Adams and Ross-Feldman (2008) investigated whether or not written output increases attention to form, as measured by the number of language-related episodes, but their results were not statistically significant. Kim (2008), from a small-scale case study concluded that integrating written language with oral leads to greater gains in oral proficiency. Weissberg (2000) and Harklau (2002) both showed that language may emerge first in the written modality before speaking, while Tarone and Bigelow (2005) have argued that L1 literacy has an impact on the processing of L2 oral language. In a review article, Williams (2008) nicely summarizes the possible benefits of writing on oral language as well as the effect of oral language on written.
Of course, studies outside of L2 learning have investigated oral/written differences that may affect acquisition. In the area of discourse analysis and corpus linguistics, Biber and his colleagues (e.g., Biber, 2006; Biber et al., 2002) have detailed linguistic differences that, given the importance of frequency in SLA, could impact acquisition. From a psycholinguistics perspective, psychologists have examined modality differences. For example, Cleland and Pickering (2006) studied differences in syntactic priming with regard to modality and found no effects. Further studies both in discourse analysis and psycholinguistics could be relevant to the relationship between learning oral and written language.
Ultimately, we need to consider that writing can be slower and more deliberate than speaking and that it can involve a different set of skills. Thus, even those approaches that consider the role of explicit knowledge to be minimal in oral acquisition cannot deny some role for explicit knowledge in learning to write. In fact, studies from the Barcelona Age Factor project, summarized in Celaya and Naves (2009), point to the fact that the benefits of an early start, even in the long term, are not evident in foreign language writing, perhaps because of the cognitive demands of the task. (For a detailed discussion of differences in tasks completed in oral and written modes, see Kuiken and Vedder, Chapter 22, this volume.)
The issue of written error correction has dominated the field of L2 writing since Truscott's (1996) polemic against the practice. Since then, many empirical studies have appeared, but most do not directly refute Truscott's original claim. To cover all the studies would take too much space, so instead, I refer readers to discussions of research methods (e.g., Guenette, 2007), meta-analyses (Russell and Spada, 2006; Truscott, 2007), and critiques of the research (Chandler, 2004; Truscott, 2004; Xu, 2009).
To summarize, Truscott (1996) opened the debate about written error correction by claiming that empirical studies showed that error correction was ineffective and that this was to be expected “given the nature of the correction process and the nature of language learning” (p. 328). Since that time, the issue of error correction has been debated on pedagogical grounds (i.e., that learners want and expect error correction, Bitchener et al., 2005; Ferris and Roberts, 2001) and through empirical studies claiming to demonstrate that error correction works (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener et al., 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2007). Nevertheless, all of these studies can be refuted on methodological grounds. Chandler (2003) did not control for the amount of writing between the experimental and control groups, and Bitchener et al. (2005) did not control for the amount of outside instruction. Sheen (2007) used a grammar test as one measure, and Bitchener (2008), and Ellis et al. (2008) examined only the accuracy of articles. All of these studies omitted other measures of learner language including syntactic complexity, thus ignoring one of Truscott's (1996) central points: measures taken to improve accuracy may harm the complexity of written language produced.
In addition, surprisingly few have refuted Truscott's (1996) claim that written error correction should not be expected to work given the nature of language learning. Some theories or approaches discussed above might predict the effectiveness of written error correction. From a sociocultural perspective, Aljareef and Lantolf (1994) argued that one individualized type of correction could work. From an interactionist perspective, Sachs and Polio (2007) argued thatcertain types of error correction might be effective, particularly given the importance of attention in SLA. Both studies, however, were limited in their conclusion. Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) did not show a cause-effect relationship, and Sachs and Polio (2007) studied only short-term changes. In sum, future studies of error correction not only need to be improved in terms of design, but also need to be grounded in SLA theory.
Research on L2 writing involves many different methodologies, both quantitative and qualitative (For a comprehensive review of approaches, see Polio, 2003). L2 writing research that focuses on language generally examines writers’ texts, but also sometimes their writing process.
Some research on the writing process focuses on language-level issues such as composing (e.g., Miller et al., 2008), or editing and dealing with feedback (e.g., Brooks and Swain, 2009; Sachs and Polio, 2007). Like other more general studies of the writing process, process research focusing on language uses a variety of techniques including stimulated recall, think-aloud protocols, and key-stroke logging. In addition, research on collaborative writing can capture these processes as they are verbalized in group work. All of these studies are valuable in that they examine the process of sentence construction while writing, something not seen through text analysis only, as well as the editing process. Furthermore, these techniques are effective for tapping into learners’ explicit knowledge because learners can directly comment on what knowledge they are using to make language decisions. Even when that knowledge is not explicit, the researcher can see uses of language that may be attempted orally but that do not make it on to paper. I address the advantages and disadvantages of the various techniques for studying the writing process in Polio (2003) and focus here on studying written texts because research on texts more often involves an analysis of learner language, the focus of this chapter.
Data elicitation for studies related to linguistic features consists mostly of having students write. Of course, as mentioned above, there are a variety of writing task variables, and the specific task used depends on the focus of the study.
The way that these texts are collected is an important issue and there are a number of variables to consider when having participants write. Such variables include time, opportunity for revision, access to and use of outside sources, topic, genre, and so on. The most typical task is to have students respond to a question without the use of outside sources and without prewriting in a limited amount of time. Such procedures ensure internal validity but result in great sacrifices to ecological validity. The issue of limiting research to studies of timed writing without any preparation or revision has not been widely discussed in the literature related to research methodology. It has, however, been addressed at length in the writing assessment literature. For example, the use of timed writing in assessing writing has been criticized (National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2005) and supported (Cumming, 2002) in large-scale assessment. Most studies of L2 writing done within an experimental paradigm do continue to use relatively short timed essays despite problems related to external validity.
How one analyzes written texts is an important topic. Some research attempts to describe features of students’ texts (e.g., Hinkel, 2002) while many others attempt to measure certain features to make claims about, for example, an effective treatment or the effect of a task variable. In Polio (2001), I summarized how researchers have measured accuracy, fluency, complexity, the lexicon, and discourse level features. In addition, the previously mentioned Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) volume reviewed most of various possible measures.
Generally, as with any measures used in L2 research, the key is operationalizing variables and ultimately choosing a reliable and method for measuring those variables. To take the example of accuracy, there is a constant struggle between reliability and validity (Polio, 1997). When measuring accuracy through general measures such as number of errors or error-free T-units, it can be very easy to achieve interrater reliability. Nevertheless, such measures do not capture differences in error types and thus may not be valid in measuring the construct of accuracy. Tabulating error types is probably a more valid measure, but because of problems of interpreting learner errors, appropriate levels of interrater reliability are difficult to achieve.
Models of the L2 writing process and longitudinal development. Research in these two areas may not have many implications for the teaching of writing. First, models of L2 writing are not well developed and have not been tested among different groups of writers. Even if the models were better developed, it is not clear what a teacher would do with the knowledge, for example, that working memory is an important factor in composing. Similarly, if we know that students at lower levels rely more on translation, the implications for teaching are not obvious. As for longitudinal studies, again, we do not have a clear picture of language development across languages and learners. But, taking as an example the development of negation, which has been fairly well described for oral language, even a clear picture of development does not inform classroom practices. What it can do is to make teachers aware of why learners may not be progressing. Hinkel's (2002) study of learner writing, which was not a longitudinal study, can serve as a basis for helping teachers decide what structures need to be explicitly addressed. Indeed, Hinkel (2004) is based on her own descriptive work.
Task variables. Research on task variables is highly relevant to both teaching and assessing writing. If it is the case that certain tasks elicit more complex language, then this should inform teachers and writing assessors who may want to vary writing tasks accordingly. The same is true for planning, particularly in testing situations. Also relevant is the role of collaboration in completing writing tasks. Not only is writing one additional form of output, but the research above suggests that collaboration increases attention to form, promoting Swain's (2005) metalinguistic function of output.
Relevance of the medium. Given that writing is a way to get more students on task (i.e., producing output) in large classes, it can be used in various ways in the classroom. For example, by having students freewrite on a topic as a prereading or prelistening activity, every student is engaged. In a teacher-led class discussion, the same may not be true. Freewriting can also be used for five or ten minutes at the end of class to help students produce more language and possibly use new vocabulary from the day's lesson. In addition, the teacher can check all students’ comprehension, not just those who were speaking. Written language is both an additional source of input and output. And as discussed earlier, for some students, morphosyntactic structures and vocabulary may emerge first in writing for a variety of reasons.
The effect of using writing as form of planning for speaking is not completely clear. Given the repeated positive results for the effect of planning on syntactic complexity in oral language, however, it is reasonable to assume a positive effect for writing as a form of planning on oral language. Thus, using writing as a prespeaking activity should be beneficial in all language classrooms, even those where oral proficiency is the primary goal.
Error correction. Of all the areas of investigation, this topic should have the greatest impact on teaching. Nevertheless, it has not. First, as discussed above, many of the studies are methodologically flawed. Second, written error correction is ingrained as a teaching practice. Students want and expect error correction, and teachers feel that they are not doing their job if they do not correct (e.g., Ferris, 2002; Lee, 2004). Nevertheless, if we extrapolate from other research on the effectiveness of explicit instruction (for reviews see Norris and Ortega, 2000 and Ellis, 2001), it is certainly tempting to say that written error correction should work. In addition, some of the approaches to SLA discussed above, can be interpreted as suggesting a role for written error correction. Most teachers agree that regardless of the type of feedback (uses of codes, underlining, direct correction), student have to do something that forces them to pay attention to the feedback such as revising their writing or even commenting on the corrections. Ultimately, however, because of the conflicting views and research, teachers should not feel compelled to address all written errors in all writing. Given the other benefits of writing as additional source of output and a possible way to focus on the form of the language, writing even without written feedback should be effective in promoting SLA.
With so few longitudinal studies of speaking or writing, it is not surprising that studies comparing the development of the two skills do not exist. In addition to the difficulties in conducting longitudinal research, problems in measuring development are quite complex. One way to approach the issue is to focus on one specific feature. The Byrnes and Sinicrope (2008) study is useful in that it studied a fairly well-researched phenomenon, relative clauses, and thus comparisons to other studies can be made. Future studies could also compare measures of accuracy, complexity, and fluency with regard to modality.
This question is extremely important to language teaching in foreign language contexts where students may not have enough exposure to oral language. Even when students get enough exposure, they may not produce much oral output because of teacher centeredness or large class size. Writing is a way to have students produce more output. One possible way to investigate the matter is to have learners engage in writing tasks that force production of certain structures or vocabulary and then examine whether or not they carry over into oral tasks.
Despite the plethora of studies, most are methodologically flawed. Often, variables are not controlled in experimental and controlled groups. More often, learners’ texts are not examined for a wide range of features. In other words, as discussed above, only measures of accuracy are reported. In order for written error correction to be considered effective, as argued by Truscott (1996), studies must show that other aspects of learners’ writing does not suffer, namely complexity. The issue of written error correction is both one of the most widely researched and least understood issues in L2 writing.
Of the empirical studies discussed in this chapter, none examined students writing in a L2 using anything other than a Roman script. Although research on learning how to read in other scripts is common, the same is not true for writing. Replication of studies with writers learning new scripts would add to what we know about learning to write. Certainly, learning how to write logographs is a significant challenge. As for learning syllabaries or non-Roman alphabets, the issues are not obvious. For example, are the challenges of learning to write in Arabic trivial (i.e., memorizing a new writing system) or are they qualitatively different than learning to write in other languages?
1 The interaction approach has been widely applied to synchronous computer-mediated communication. Although the modality investigated is written, I am not considering it here.
2 Nevertheless, Gass and Mackey (2007) state that long-term development is the most important evidence.
Adams, R. and Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In D. Belcher and A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interaction (pp. 210–225). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Alamargot, D. and Chanquoy, L. (2001). General introduction: A definition of writing and a presentation of the main models. In D. Alamargot and L. Chanquoy (Eds.), Through models of writing (pp. 1–32). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–83.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1997). Another piece of the puzzle: The emergence of present perfect. Language Learning, 51, 215–264.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2007). One functional approach to second language acquisition: The concept-oriented approach. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 57–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Belcher, D. and Hirvela, A. (Eds.) (2008). The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., and Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9–48.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–124.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., and Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.
Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 93, 227–240.
Brooks, L. and Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 58–89). New York: Routledge.
Byrnes, H. and Sinicrope, C. (2008). Advancedness and the development of relativization in L2 German: A curriculum-based longitudinal study. In L. Ortega and H. Byrnes (Eds.), The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 109–138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ceyala, M. L. and Navés, T. (2009). Age-related differences and associated factors in foreign language writing: Implications for L2 writing theory and school curricula. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 130–155). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
Chandler, J. (2004) A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345–348.
Cleland, A. and Pickering, M. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations?. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 185–198.
Cohen, A. and Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. Modern Language Journal, 85, 169–188.
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511.
Cumming, A. (2002). Assessing L2 writing: Alternative constructs and ethical dilemmas. Assessing Writing, 8, 73–83.
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, N. (2007). The associative-cognitivist CREED. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 77–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51 (Supplement 1), 1–46.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakima, M., and Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
Ellis, R. and Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. and Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
Flower, L. and Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 310, 21–32.
Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to non-native speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121–150.
Flowerdew, J. and Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academic in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 1–16.
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as Second Language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom (pp. 109–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3– 17.
Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53.
Gutiérrez, X. (2008). What does metalinguistic activity in L2 learners’ interaction during a collaborative writing task look like? Modern Language Journal, 92, 519–537.
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329–350.
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. Levy and S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, J. R. and Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In M. C. Levy and S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175–192.
Kim, Y. (2008). The effects of integrated language-based instruction in elementary ESL learning. Modern Language Journal, 92, 431–451.
Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation vs. direct composition. Language Learning, 42, 183–215.
Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.
Lally, C. (2000). First language influences in second language composition: The effect of pre-writing. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 428–432.
Lantolf, J. and Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 197–220). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., and Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition: Annals of the New York academy of science, 379, 259–278.
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non–native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.
Mackey, A. and Polio, C. (2009). Introduction. In Mackey, A. and Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge.
Manchón, R. M. (2011). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts: Lessons from research. In M. Reichelt and T. Cimasko (Eds.), Foreign language writing: Research insights (pp. 44–64). West Lafayette: Parlour Press.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.
Miller, K., Lindgren, E., and Sullivan, K. (2008). The psycholinguistic dimension in second language writing: Opportunities for research and pedagogy using computer key stroke logging. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 433–454.
Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.
Mochizuki, N. and Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12, 11–37.
Nassaji, H. and Cumming, A. (2000). What's in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialog journals. Language Teaching Research, 4,95–121.
National Council of Teachers of English (2005). The impact of the SAT and ACT timed writing tests. http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Positions/SAT-ACT-tf-report.pdf
Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717–761). New York: Blackwell.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (2007). Processability theory. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 137–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pienemann, M. and Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.
Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101–143.
Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text-based studies. In T. Silva and P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Polio, C. (2003). An overview of approaches to second language writing research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing (pp. 35–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Qi, D. and Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing. Studies in componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32.
Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris and L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sachs, R. and Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), pp. 67–100.
Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 259–292.
Sasaki, M. (2004). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing processes. In S. Ransdell and M. -L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 49–80). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multiple data analysis. Modern Language Journal, 91, 602–620.
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., and Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreing language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77–101). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Serrano, R. and Howard, E. R. (2007). Second language writing development in English and in Spanish in a two-way immersion programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(2), 152–170.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
Stapa, S. and Magid, A. (2009). The use of first language in developing ideas in second language writing. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4), 41–47.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (p. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Tarone, E. and Bigelow, M. (2005). Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 77–97.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 255–272.
Tyler, A. (2011) Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 270–291.
VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (2007). Introduction: The nature of theories. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams, (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wang, W. and Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 225–246.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weissberg, R. (2000). Developmental relationships in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs. speech. Learning and Instruction, 10, 37–53.
Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished PhD thesis. Temple University, Japan.
White, L. (2007). Linguistic theory, Universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 37–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85–106.
Williams, J. (2008). The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In D. Belcher and A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interaction (pp. 10–25). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., and Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. (Technical Report #17). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345–368.
Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al., (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270–275.
Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.
Zhang, S. (1987). Cognitive complexity and written production in English as a second language. Language Learning, 37, 469–481.
Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing subprocesses. A model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10, 73–99.