Words manifest writing physically. Writing, then, is word. This definition of writing applies to both L1 and L2 writing. Ironically, despite being so central to writing, vocabulary is the least cultivated field in all of composition research (Shaughnessy, 1977). Composition studies has not researched vocabulary so critically and rigorously as styles, strategies, politics, and ideologies of writing, But “verbal fitness levels” (Sword, 2007, p.1) determines the quality of a piece of writing more than any other constituent component of writing. Vocabulary potentially makes a piece of writing either vibrant or vapid. Even syntactic and mechanical accuracy of a piece of writing fails partially or completely to convey an intended message until it is appropriately worded. This may have prompted Lunsford (1980) to claim that vocabulary choice and linguistic virtuosity are closely tied to the levels of writing skills. Therefore, vocabulary indicates facility in writing and influences the evaluation of writing skills both in L1 and L2 contexts.
For the L2 writers, however, the problem with vocabulary is more apparent relative to L1 writers given that L2 writers learn vocabulary consciously at a later phase of their lives instead of acquiring it subconsciously since they were born. In the academic context, the problem gets further confounded in that they grapple with the distinctive burden to write, while they continue to learn the language (Leki, 1992). They possess inadequate vocabulary, and they have limited control over that vocabulary. Consequently, their writing lacks variety, complexity, and elegance. Restricted vocabulary makes writing tasks difficult for L2 writers (Williams, 2005). Writing embodies thinking, but for L2 writers, their writings may not be an appropriate reflection of their thinking. Bizzell (2011) claims that the development of thought and the acquisition of a language are the concurrent events, so one does not have an idea unless one has a word for it. Since L2 writers are generally impoverished as far as their vocabulary is concerned, their thoughts are often not captured in their writings. For L2 writers, then, writing is not synonymous with thinking. Their writings misrepresent them.
Vocabulary accounts for this misrepresentation. Silva (1997) claims that L2 writers use shorter words, less specific words, and they manifest less lexical variety and
sophistication. Academic writing, as Sword (2012) contends, is higher order thinking, which often cannot be captured by short, simple Anglo-Saxon words. As such, for academic writing, complex Latinate words are sometimes a necessity. But manoeuvring complex words
may explain why L2 writers use simple words and avoid complex words. When knowledge about vocabulary is inadequate, words are often less specific. Lexical variety and
sophistication is contingent upon knowing the “shades of meaning” (Zinsser, 1998, p.34), of “strong and supple words” (p.34) of the rich English language. Because English words are not tied to the experience of L2 students (Spack, 1984), they are not subliminally attuned to their various semantic properties and sophistication. Learning vocabulary words does not seem to solve the problem for the L2 writers unless they are internalized. Internalizing vocabulary words is a time-consuming process.
So, too, is learning to write in an L2 given that L2 learning is a long and slow process, which takes many years of training (Bazerman, 2013; Harris & Silva, 1993; Silva, 1997). Developing an appreciation for the nuances of meaning is being the main reason why it takes so long to learn a language. Words are not agentive by themselves, but the writers are. Words are essentially inanimate, but a writer makes them animate by making them symbols of meaning. For L2 writers, this is a daunting task. Words are animate only when a writer “breathes experience into words” (Elbow, 1981, p.322). An L2 writer experiences the world through his L1. His experience is inseparable from his language, which is too idiosyncratic to be similar to another language. The lexical resources of another language cannot capture that unique experience of L2 writers. It is, then, not the inadequate vocabulary of an L2 writer, which accounts for infelicity in writing of L2 writers. An L2 itself confounds the crisis of an L2 writer.
Pertinent in this context is Flower’s (1979) classification of memory in two categories such as episodic and semantic. Episodic memory is the ability to remember an event as it occurs or occurred. Semantic memory is the linguistic ability to transcribe that memory. Writing manifests semantic memory. However, for an L2 writer, unlike an L1 writer, the process of transforming an episodic memory into a semantic one is different, perhaps even difficult. Under normal circumstances, episodic memory is a given, and because there is something natural in one’s becoming a writer in his native language (Bradatan, 2013), he can transform an episodic memory into a semantic one with some grace and elegance. An L2 writer’s episodic memory, on the other hand, is etched to his L1.Therefore, the natural process of writing, when an episodic memory is transformed into a semantic one, differs for an L2 writer, who is constrained by the semantic and syntactic restrictions (Zamel, 1983) of an L2. Given this intricate interplay between episodic and semantic memory, writing in an L2 is challenging and constricting for an L2 writer, particularly because of vocabulary.
Pinker (1996) claims that the English language has approximately one hundred thousand (1 00,000) basic words. By basic word, he means an original word (e.g., teach), not its derivative (e.g., teaching). Apparently, it does not look to be a daunting task to learn those words, but it indeed is. Tucker (2003) contends that humans are capable of learning eight words a days. This considered, it takes a life time of training to learn those words. Learning all these words, however, is not a fundamental prerequisite to learning to write in English, in that Raimes (1985) contends that the acquisition of an adequate vocabulary does not
necessarily have to precede writing. However, to undertake works in English at
undergraduate level, a student needs at least 17,000 words (Williams, 2005). Apparently, an L2 writer, who starts to learn English at a later phase of his life, does not possess a repertoire of vocabulary of that ballpark. An L2 writer is not essentially intellectually deficient, but because of an inadequate vocabulary, his writing lacks linguistic refinement and conceptual sophistication. As is, “one frequent impediment to academic success for L2 writers is their limited vocabulary” (Williams, 2005, p.29).
Because, for an L2 writer, learning vocabulary is motivated by academic purpose, it is not completely aligned with the actual purpose of writing, which is communication. The scope and application of academic writing is qualified as such. Writing is a creative endeavor for constructing meaning, but Sword (2011) claims that academic writing crushes creativity, because it is too reified. Likewise, given the constraints of academic writing, Elbow (1991) contends that there is no such thing as academic discourse. Academic discourse is essentially syntax driven, not semantics driven, at least initially for L2 writers. Consequently, L2 writers are not aware of the semantic possibilities of words. Sommers (1980) contends that
inadequate vocabulary compels basic writers to adopt a “thesaurus philosophy of writing” (p. 381) when they concentrate on lexical changes, not semantic changes. They tend to consider a single word as the most critical unit of discourse, when they are unaware of “the semantic relationship between words” (Webb & Sasao, 2013, p. 269). L2 learners learn words
disembodied, that is, form-meaning connection, and independent of other words. For this reason, the limited vocabulary of an L2 writer gets further anemic. To some extent, the focus and purpose of academic writing may have confounded the crisis with words for L2 writers.
Folse (2008) contends that vocabulary significantly influences grading and evaluation, but vocabulary is hardly taught to native as well as to non-native students. He presented the grading criteria of some the language proficiency tests such as TOEFL and IELTS and demonstrated that in those tests, vocabulary is considered critical to assigning a grade. Folse
(2008) further contends that the problem with vocabulary of L2 students can cripple learners so badly that it might lead them to plagiarism. It is arguable whether or not inadequate vocabulary leads to ethical infraction, but an impoverished vocabulary is consequential especially for L2 writers. Silva (1992) contends that L2 texts are less sophisticated and less expressive of writer’s thoughts and intensions because of less figurative language. L2 composing is strategically, rhetorically, and linguistically different in important ways from L1 writing (Silva, 1993), but unusual word combinations in speech and writing tend to distinguish non-native speakers from native speakers (Webb & Sasao, 2013). Because the fluid, effective, and evocative style of composing of native speakers is the ultimate objective of instruction in L2 writing, teaching vocabulary is perhaps the most critical candidate for the instructors to achieve that objective.