Another key issue which has been highlighted in the research literature is the use of L1 and its effect upon EFL writing processes and this forms the basis for discussion in this section.
According to Krapels, using the L1 is ―a fairly common strategy among L2 writers‖
(1990:49). Van Weijen et al (2009) investigated their subject writers‘ use of L1 when engaged in writing in the L2. The number of subjects in their study were twenty students who each wrote four short argumentative essays in the L1 (Dutch) and another four essays in their L2 (English) under think-aloud conditions. Results showed that all subjects used their L1 when writing in their L2 to some extent, although this varied among conceptual activities. Moreover, L2 proficiency was directly related to L2 text quality but was not related to the occurrence of conceptual activities either in L1 or L2. General writing proficiency, however, has a negative influence on L1 use during L2 writing and a positive effect on L2 use during L2 writing. L1 use during L2 writing is negatively related to L2 text quality, at least for metacomments. Finally, L2 use appears to be positively related to L2 text quality for goal setting, generating ideas, and structuring, but negatively for self-instructions and metacomments.
35
Likewise, many studies have shown that L2 learners use their L1 and L2 interactively for various strategic purposes while composing in L2 (Arndt, 1987;
Bosher, 1998; Cumming, 1990; Raimes, 1987; Sasaki, 2000; Uzawa, 1996; Wang and Wen, 2002; Woodall, 2002; Zamel, 1983).
In the domain of L2 writing, one consistent and salient characteristic is that L2 writers, whether described as proficient or less proficient, switch back and forth between their L1 and L2 in order to overcome an issue they are facing while writing in the L2. [Nevertheless, this is not the case in the present research, as among the good writers those who either never or rarely resort to their L1 while composing as we shall see in the later chapters of this study].
As several studies have reported with respect to the functions of L1 use in L2 composing, L2 writers use their L1 to plan their writing for text generation (Cumming, 1990), transfer their L1 knowledge to L2 writing contexts and develop ideas and produce text content and organisation (Lay, 1982), conduct heuristic searches and make evaluations of their texts (Cumming, 1990). Moreover, these investigators have pointed out that L2 proficiency may exert effects on different aspects of writers‘ writing processes and the quality of L2 writing (ibid), such that it is a determining factor distinguishing strong from poor writers. For instance, Jones and Tetroe (1987) found that L2 proficiency constrained the amount of writers‘
planning while writing in the L2 (see 2.10).
Wang and Wen (2002) indicated that writers in L2 ―were more likely to rely on L1 when they were managing their writing processes, generating and organizing ideas, but more likely to rely on L2 when undertaking task-examining and text-generating activities‖ (p.225).Wang and Wen also reported that writers of lower English proficiency were more likely to translate from their L1 into L2 when writing, while the more proficient writers tended to employ the L1 strategically to generate ideas, and for monitoring and lexical-searching purposes, but they still depended more on their L2. Their results explained that L2 proficiency determined the focus of concerns of strategy use in L2 writing. Woodall (2002) also confirmed that L2 writers used less and less L1 for text-generating purposes as their proficiency in L2 increased, and ―that more difficult tasks increased the duration of L1 use in L2 writing‖ (p.7).
36
Krapels (1990:49-50) reported that ―the composing processes of L2 writers are somewhat different to L1 writers (e.g. Raimes, 1985, 1987; Arndt, 1987)‖ and summarised the main differences as follows:
L1 use varies as a strategy among L2 writers.
Using L1 when writing frequently focuses on vocabulary and enables the L2 writer to continue the composing process.
L1 use is often an inventional, sometimes organisational, and occasionally a stylistic strategy.
Uzawa (1996) states that L2 writers use translation to compensate for their lack of vocabulary (Cumming, 1989; Uzawa and Cumming, 1989). Friedlander, as cited in Macaro (2003:231) investigated the effects of L1 on L2 writing of Chinese students of English at an American university. The researcher concluded that for advanced writers ―translation does not appear to hinder writers in their text production‖
(Friedlander, 1990:118).
Another study by Kobayashi and Rinnert (1992) which is similar to the previous one, compared the L2 writing of 48 Japanese university students of English when writing directly in L1 and then translating to L2, and when writing directly in L2. It was found that when writing in L1, then translating to L2, students wrote texts of ―greater syntactic complexity and with more sophisticated vocabulary‖, than when writing directly in L2. However, if translated, a greater number of errors were made, perhaps explaining why the students themselves reported that it was easier to write directly in L2.
Cohen and Brooks-Carson (2001), however, found contradictory results. By investigating how the strategy of translation from the L1 affect essays written in the L2 (French) by 39 university students of French, the researchers found that 75% of the student subjects did better in the essay written directly in L2, rather than the translated task, concluding that ―the findings suggest that direct writing may be the most effective choice for some learners when under time pressure‖ (p.169).
However, Macaro (2003) argues that regardless of the proficiency of the L2 writer, some translation from L1 is involved when generating new language. He also states
37
that ―even advanced L2 writers use L1 to assist the transition from idea to the written phase‖ (p. 250).
Choei and Lee (2006), using think-aloud and retrospective interview, studied the use of L1 in the L2 writing process in an attempt to investigate the impact of L2 writing proficiency and writing task difficulty on the use of L1. The informants were ten Korean college students (one male, nine female), and were divided into two groups, (high vs. low), according to the scores they received on their writing which were evaluated holistically concentrating on four dimensions: content, organisation, language use, and fluency. They were engaged on two writing activities (letter and argumentative). The amount of each language type, and the frequency of language used (L1 or L2) were counted by the number of words in English and that of word clusters in Korean. The results revealed that most of the subjects used a significant amount of L1 in their L2 writing process. The researchers found that the less proficient writers depended on L1 more than their more-proficient counterparts.
Moreover, results also showed that the low group used L1 for searching suitable vocabulary or grammatical structures and for translating, while, the high-level group used L1 dominantly for idea generating and meta-comments. The investigation by Choei and Lee has similarities with the present study as both focus on university students, and they both use the think-aloud method, but in the present study, an additional instrument (interviews) is adopted as a means of triangulating data.
To sum up, from the above studies it is clear that using L1 while writing in L2 is a common strategy among EFL/ESL writers. Moreover, it was found that using L1 in the L2 writing process enables the L2 writers to maintain the writing process (i.e., Arndt, 1987; Alam, 1993), and facilitate writing in English (i.e., Rashid, 1996; El-Aswad, 2002). Additionally, the writing proficiency determines to what extent L1 is used in L2 writing. In other words, L1 use in L2 writing differs among L2 writers according to their language proficiency. The writer who is higher in proficiency uses his/her L1 less than his/her less proficient counterpart (Rashid, 1996; Sasaki and Hirose, 1996). In short, and as the above studies show, L1 plays an important role in L2 writing, L2 writers switch to L1 frequently for strategic purposes in the process of writing. In the following section, the researcher will highlight research done on EFL writing of Arab learners.
38