6.6 Implications
6.6.2 Implications of L2 Theory Formulation
Tardy (2006) claims that the field of L2 writing does not have a cohesive theory for teaching writing. While this assertion is hardly contested, it is yet qualified. It perhaps does not mean that the field of L2 writing perennially lacks a cohesive theory. It most likely implies that the possibility of formulating a cohesive theory for the field of L2 writing has not been exhaustively explored yet. This assumption is based on the consensus that research in the field of L2 writing predominantly revolves around North America, and that the field of L2 writing critically depends of the theories of L1 writing for its
disciplinary existence. This may have explained why Silva (2006) urges L2 writing instructors and researchers to look at L2 writing other than North America and to look beyond L1 writing theories to understand the unique nature of L2 writing. Because the studies of this thesis were conducted beyond North America, and one of the studies also included both L1 and L2 writings, this thesis is a critical site to explore for a cohesive theory for the field of L2 writing.
The second study, conducted in Bangladesh, indicated that writing both in L1 and L2 was significantly similar to and moderately different from one another. A critical characteristic that stood out was that the participants perceived writing as a process both in L1 and L2. Across languages, they indicated to plan before embarking on writing; they revised almost alike; their focus of thinking during writing was significantly identical; and they indicated to take the opportunity to compose a few drafts to improve their writing. A writing process perceived and executed by the participants of the second study was akin to the process of writing stipulated by Rohman (1965) presented in the following diagram.
Figure 6: Writing process diagram, Rohman (1965)
Rohman (1965) contends that writing is a three-step process. Every writer plans before he embarks on writing, and every writer edits his writing after having written it down. These steps and stages of writing are not as invariant and sequential as they appear in the diagram, in that writing essentially is recursive. These steps and stages of writing overlap, and a writer moves back and forth between these sequences of writing. Writing is non-linear (Sommers, 1979). Rohman (1965), then, oversimplified and
underconceptualized writing. Rohman (1965) identified the steps of writing, not a universal process of writing. It merits mentioning in this context that Rohman’s (1965) model for writing is essentially meant for L1 writing.
The participants of the second study indicated the same writing process for L1 writing, which was Bangla in this context. However, when they identified their L2 writing process in English, the process moderately differed from first language writing. For L1 writing, pre-writing apparently leads straight to writing. For L2 writing in English, though, pre-writing seems to lead to an in-between place between writing and pre-writing, which is occupied by grammar and vocabulary. For writing in L1, the participants concentrated more on organization and the clarity of idea, whereas for L2 writing in English, they concentrated more on grammar and vocabulary. The writing process model emerged from the current study looks like the following one:
Re-writing
Writing
Figure 7: L2 writing process
This model of L2 writing process is not altogether surprizing or unfamiliar. Widdowson (1983) claims that people writing in a foreign language are primarily constrained in their attention to choices about the textual features of the language. This implies that a process for L2 writing in English exists in spite of grammar, not besides grammar. The process advocates for L2 writing (Zamel, 1983, for example) perhaps should re-consider their proposal, while proposing an identical process both for L1 and L2 writing.
For L2 writing, a ‘modified process theory’ appears applicable. An L2 writer is primarily a second language learner. Leki (1992) claims that an ESL learner bears a distinctive burden of learning to write and learning English at the same time, which sets him apart from a mainstream English speaking student. Presumably, then, ESL students are linguistically, at least initially, deficient compared to their native counterparts. As Silva (1997) claims, ESL students are not cognitively inferior to their native counterparts. As such, in the pre-writing stage along the process of writing, an ESL student will generate ideas, information, and argument pertinent to a topic of writing almost the same way his native counterpart will do. However, while for a native speaker pre-writing inevitably leads to writing, for an ESL writer the scenario is seldom the same. An L2 writer, who is in fact an L2 learner, apparently does not have the mechanical and linguistic capital as much as his L1 counterpart does. This concern with mechanics and language sometimes
overwhelms an L2 writer so much that he cannot transcribe his ideas in writing in a
Re-writing
Writing
Lexis
Syntax
persuasive fashion. Because the process of an ESL writer is different from that of a native one, the product is hardly the same. Therefore, in the re-writing part, an ESL writer revises more, while his focus of revision is mostly grammatical and lexical (Silva, 1992).
Conversely, for a native writer, the focus of revision is style and organization. The whole process of writing for an L2 writer is skewed, not because the process of writing in an L1 is fundamentally different from in an L2, but because an L2 writer is constrained by language and mechanics in his efforts to enact the process.
A ‘modified process theory’ of L2 writing reflects the scholarship in the field of L2 writing as Silva (1992) claims that the difference between L1 and L2 writing is significant but moderate. The ‘significant but moderate’ difference between L1 and L2 writing was demonstrated as the participants of the second study reflected on their process of writing. The testimonies of the participants of their writing established that there is a process in place for writing, but the process moderately varied across L1 and L2. The process theory to teaching writing is an import from the discipline of L1 composition into the field of L2 writing. Originally, it had no provision for the linguistic and mechanical needs of L2 writers. A modified process theory combines mechanics with rhetorics. It does not consider a process of writing independent of mechanics. But it considers mechanics as an added but integral component in the continuum of the process for L2 writing. It, however, does not essentialize mechanics in the process of writing, in that the process in writing is universal, but mechanics as well as language is unique and contextual.
6.6.3 Implications for Learning
Teaching L2 writing is potentially challenging and apparently frustrating given the apprehension that teaching necessarily does not lead to learning (Ellis, 2012). L2 writers are vulnerable to the influences of multiple factors such as learners’ native
language and culture, proficiency in L2, as well as prior instruction in and attitude toward writing both in an L1 and L2. Besides these apparent factors, learning to write presupposes higher level thinking, extensive reading, and nuanced comprehension, in that writing is the most holistic of all language skills (Kietlinska, 2006). These traits of writing propose two implications for learning writing in an L2.
For one, the principles of learning to write in an L2 are not essentially different from the principles of learning that language. L2 writing does not exist independent of L2
learning. Second language learning is a slow and gradual process (Ellis, 2012), so is
learning to write in an L2. Besides, because we cannot teach writing in a single semester or year (Bazerman, 2013), learners cannot learn writing in a single semester or year, too. Learning to write in general, and L2 writing in particular, is a developmental process. And the developmental process is critically dependent on the acquisition of second language. Therefore, the symbiotic relationship between second language writing and second language acquisition must be appreciated as learners write in an L2.
Secondly, like Kietlinska (2006), several writing and language acquisition scholars (e.g., Krashen, 1984; Lunsford 1978; Murray 1982; Pinker, 2014) have also stressed the need for extensive reading to learn writing. Common knowledge holds that reading leads to improved writing, and what accounts for this assumption is that reading familiarizes a reader with the syntactic, semantic, mechanical, and discursive options to understand and adopt the techniques of writing. Zinsser (1998) puts this synergistic relationship between reading and writing more blandly as he claims that people learn writing through imitation, which is acquired by extensive reading. Pinker (2014) claims that writers acquire their techniques by spotting, savouring, and reverse-engineering examples of good prose. Although there is extensive research both in second language acquisition and second language writing, interest in linking the two second language literacy skills has increased since the 1990s only with the help of meaningful perspectives put forward by L2
researchers (e.g. ,Belcher, Hirvela, & Swales, 2001; Riley, 1994). Because both common knowledge and research recognize an essential relationship between reading and writing, learning to write in an L2 precedes and concurrently requires extensive reading in that language. Reading skills in a second language can be acquired independent of writing, but writing skills in a second language cannot be acquired without extensive reading in a specific second language.
The participants of the first two studies of this thesis indicated that the two areas of difficulties in writing for them were vocabulary and grammar. Apparently, both
vocabulary and grammar are linguistic and formulaic in nature, whereas writing is rhetorical and discursive in nature. However, empirical evidence in this thesis demonstrated that L2 writers did not perceive or proceed to writing rhetorically and discursively. They, instead, perceived or proceeded to writing linguistically and in a formulaic fashion, at least initially. Admittedly, L2 learners learn language first to learn
writing. Extensive reading can definitely help L2 writers cope with difficulties with vocabulary. Because second language acquisition theories discover and deal with the dimensions and difficulties of second language learning, helping learners address linguistic issues (grammar in this context , for example) is more of a function of second language acquisition theories than L2 writing theories. This implies that L2 writing theories should be compatible with and be borrowing from second language acquisition theories.
This proposal is not antithetical in any way with the orientation and the objective of the field of L2 writing, in that one of the feeder disciplines of L2 writing is applied
linguistics (Silva, 1996); hence, the field of L2 writing partially emerges from the field of second language acquisition. But the problem is, when it comes to grammar with reference to L2 writing, experts are deeply divided. Even Krashen (1984) contends that L2 writing has nothing to do with learning grammar, echoing Ellis (2012). Given the developmental route of the L2 writers as evidenced by this thesis, this stance is apparently more arbitrary than informed. Both Krashen (1984) and Ellis (2012) may have overlooked the learning needs and preferences of L2 writers; at least, the participants of the first and second study of this thesis fed this perception.