L2WS Studies

While SLA primarily discusses how languages, other than the L1, are learned, L2 writing concentrates on the process of acquiring competence in writing second/foreign languages. This indeed entails studying quite a wide range of topics, such as writing skills, learning strategies, teaching methods, pedagogical planning and development, L2 writers’ needs, writing process at different levels (e.g. word, sentence, and discourse levels), writing

52 use/purposes, differences between L1 and L2 writing along with cross-linguistic writing, amongst many other topics in which literature seem to be greatly rich (e.g. Atkinson, 2003; Hyland, 2003; Kroll, 2003; O'Brien, 2004; Matsuda, 2006). In comparison with L2 writing, L2WS is quite different and more specific. It is therefore probably sensible to introduce L2 writing before embarking on L2WS.

Even though they might have been used interchangeably, the context of learning an SL writing is relatively different from that of learning an FL writing. As a broad guideline, the difference is that an SL is spoken/written in the learner’s immediate environment (arguably for historical, political, or socio-cultural reasons), whereas the FL is mainly written inside classrooms, with no or little existence outside (Reichelt, 2001; O'Brien, 2004; Reichelt et al., 2012; Punchihetti, 2013). The purposes of learning/teaching an SL or FL also differ accordingly. While it is easy to list reasons for learning an SL writing, it is probably difficult to find purposes for learning an FL writing given that the latter is very limited outside classrooms (Ortega, 2009). Moreover, SL learners are generally expected to show higher proficiency and more developed competencies than FL learners (Kasper, 1997; Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei, 1998; Ortega, 2003). After all, however, both terms have been used interchangeably disregarding of these specific differences, which is what this study embraces. In section 3.2.3 I will focus on Arabic writing as an SL or FL, and in section 3.3.2 I mention some purposes to learning/teaching Arabic in the West.

Knowledge of a language, whether first, second or foreign, is never stable as linguists assert (e.g. deBot et al., 2005 ; Kroll and Sunderman, 2008; Cook, 2011). One’s knowledge of a particular language keeps changing, growing and declining, depending on a set of factors such as influence of other language(s), amount of use, age, motivation, learning purposes etc. which is inevitably applicable to writing skills. Indeed, language development cognitively shows more of complex, dynamic, and sometimes chaotic systems than static or linear ones (deBot et al., 2007; Lowie, 2013). L2 writers may have different grasp of knowledge, but they are regarded as unique for their bilingual, bicultural, and biliterate experiences (Hyland, 2003). English writers, for example, rely mainly on word order using same forms for various functions, whereas Arabic writers use morphological processes with minimal word order, for such functions (Umar, 2013). The sentence ‘Ahmed thanked John’ could be written in Arabic as ‘دمحأَ ركشَنوج’ (SVO), ‘َركش

53 َ نوجَُدمحأ’ (VSO), or ‘َُنوجَ دمحأَركش’ (VOS) for instance; L2 writers would have to switch and adapt to these linguistic differences at various levels.

Since this research is specifically interested in L2WS and not the broad L2 writing, there should be a clear distinction between the two disciplines. Cook and Bassetti (2005, p. 25) state that ‘the term ‘Second Language Writing System’ (L2WS) can be applied to any writing system other than the system that the person learnt to read and write for their first language’. In other words, L2 writing deals with all writing-related topics which could include different linguistic and non-linguistic matters (e.g. syntax, morphology, phonology, cognition, psychology etc.) in a second language context, whereas L2WS deals closely with everything that involves script/orthography issues in all but the native writing system. According to Cook and Bassetti (2005), ‘it is important to separate what is cross-linguistic and what is cross-orthographic’. A further distinction should also be made between a Second Language Writing System (L2WS) and a Second Writing System, where the latter can be another convention to represent the same language, as Cook and Bassetti (2005) point out.

We have mentioned that language elements and knowledge can transfer across L1 writing and other acquired languages in both directions, which seem well-documented as discussed. Transfer between writing systems, however, is arguably different from language transfer. Cook and Bassetti (2005, p. 29) affirm that it ‘is not so much aspects of the language itself that may be carried over as the attributes of a particular writing system’. While this is relatively true, it can be argued that most of the research done with respect to writing system transfer was not concentrated on orthographic transferability across WSs; rather, it was focused on its effect on reading (e.g. Ryan and Meara, 1991; Durgunoğlu and Hancin, 1992; Cisero and Royer, 1995; Taylor and Olson, 1995; Abu- Rabia, 1997; Abu-Rabia, 1997 ; Abu-Rabia, 2000; Gottardo et al., 2001; Abu-Rabia, 2001 ; Abu-Rabia and Siegel, 2002; Sasaki, 2005; Abu-Rabia and Taha, 2006; Schuhmann, 2012; Levin et al., 2013). Although orthographic transfer across WSs still appears controversial (Bassetti, 2008), it seems crucial to emphasise phonological and orthographic influence, particularly for the significant role they play, in which either could affect the other, or in short, the role of phonology-orthography correspondence in WSs.

54 In their book, Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008) argue that important sound-letter correspondences of one’s L1WS can later be transferred to the acquisition and use of a L2WS. Transfer, if any, would considerably affect how sounds map to letters in either system, L1WS and L2WS, especially if the scripts were similar but the orthographic systems were very different. In fact, there is some evidence that even the L2 orthographic input, if it interferes with the L1WS’s set of phonemes, may affect the L2 phonological realisation (Bassetti, 2008; Simona et al., 2010; Showalter and Hayes-Harb, 2013). In case of Arabic as L1WS and English as L2WS, for example, Arabs will have difficulty in reading /p/ in pat because /p/ and /b/ are seen as <ب> which for them is one and the same sound. In their experiment with Saudi Arabian production of Voice-Onset Time, Flege and Port (1981) report that /p/ was actually perceived as /b/ and that sometimes, the participants read /b/, which exists in the Arabic sound inventory, as /p/, which does not. Another example is that, unless they learn that <l> is silent, both Arabs and Italians would pronounce the English word <walk> with an /l/. In any case, Bassetti’s (2008) conclusion appears to agree with the argument of Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008).

Hence, whenever both languages, those of L1WS and L2WS, appear more related to each other typologically and orthographically, such as Arabic and Farsi, or English and Dutch, then the effect of transferability, borrowing, and influence becomes higher; and conversely, the more unrelated WSs are, the less the transfer effect (Anderson, 1983; Kellerman, 1983; Kellerman, 1995; Murphy, 2003). Moreover, it tends to be the case that, if both L1WS and L2WS are quite similar, say Dutch and Frisian, L2WS users can relatively exploit their knowledge of their L1WS, which makes it fairly easy to acquire. If the L2WS was unrelated to L1WS, however, Arabic and Japanese for instance, the task on L2WS users/learners becomes difficult as they need to acquire a completely new system (Cook, 2002).

Furthermore, it has been reported that direction differences interfere with two different WSs such as English and Arabic or Japanese and English, whereby bilingual children have been affected (Cook, 2008). The three experiments with different WSs in the study of Chan and Bergen (2005) suggest that the WS orientation is deeply implanted in the WS user’s cognitive system as it takes control in performing spatial tasks. Therefore, if the L2WS has different writing direction, the L2WS user/learner would have to acquire a totally different system of direction. It is the same issue with letter shapes, letter-sound

55 correspondence, spelling rules, punctuation and so on. Cook and Bassetti (2005, p. 2) write:

‘When L2 learners become fully-fledged L2WS users, they still differ from native users of the target writing system. From one perspective, they are less efficient than first language writing system (L1WS) users; they are slower at reading the second language than people who read only one writing system and often have problems with comprehension and memorising due to inefficient decoding. From a more positive perspective, they are simply different from L1WS reader-writers of the target writing system, with different reading and writing processes that result from the interaction of previously developed reading and writing processes with the characteristics of the new writing system’.

That said, this is not limited to one linguistic aspect (e.g. grammar) as explained previously, but it changes the mind of the L2 user, not just as L1/L2 or IL user, but rather as a L1+IL multi-competent user who combines their L1 and their knowledge of the L2 or more languages and may consequently interact with the world differently, as Cook (2007; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013) has often stated. Going back to L2 writing in general, it affects phonological encoding, vocabulary selection, and orthographic perception and production, for example. On top of generating, formulating, spelling, transcribing or typing, regenerating or reformulating in a cyclical process, an L2 writer has to represent and convey a message graphemically based on both cognitive and metacognitive processes, using their knowledge of their L2 (Schoonen et al., 2009). This cannot be ultimately described as a simple task.