Matsuda (2013) contends that L2 writing is “a catchall term” (p.450). This implies that as an intellectual formation, the field is simultaneously fluid and formative. It embodies multiplicity. The field of L2 writing, then, is open to and incorporates various strands of information, ideas, and ideologies from disparate intellectual formations for its categorical and terminological as well as strategic and structural development. Because the history of the field of L2 writing is implicated with the histories of some other fields such as psychology, sociology and education (Silva, 2006), to chronicle its history is, at best difficult, at worst, partial. Over the last 50 years, the task of defining an intellectual formation has become even more difficult given a resistance to limited and limiting modernist perspective, which
assumes that reality can be divided into discrete braches of knowledge for the narrowly trained specialists to conquer it (Matsuda, 2013). Matsuda (2013) further contends that
because of this resistance to modernist view of knowledge enterprise, an intellectual formation shifts from disciplinary to interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary. This considered, the field of L2 is transdisciplinary.
The transdisciplinary field of L2 writing, however, was essentially interdisciplinary in that it emerged as a result of a symbiotic relationship between its feeder disciplines such as composition studies and applied linguistics (Silva &Leki, 2004; Silva, 2006). However, the immediate ancestor of L2 writing is composition, which is a North American development (Bazerman, 2013; Silva, 2006). The scope and objective of composition studies-which is defined as the study and teaching of L1writing in English- were qualified. It was meant for the so called native speakers of English. Its origin can be traced back to the beginning of the 19th century, but by the 1930, there were around 10,000 international students in the U.S., mostly from Asia and Europe, who brought unique problems with them in the classrooms (Matsuda, 2011). Mainstream composition instructors were either underprepared or unprepared to address their unique problems. Reid (1993) contends that their needs,
backgrounds, learning styles, and writings strategies were diametrically different from those of the mainstream students. Indeed, because ESL writing has not been part of composition studies, when composition studies was undergoing revision from 1941 to 1966 for its own disciplinary identity, it “inadvertently contributed to the creation of the disciplinary division of labor that continues to influence the institutional practices in composition programs across the nation” (Matsuda, 2011, p. 675). Matsuda (2011) further contends that that was how TESL as a professional entity came into being, which accommodated L2 writing in English.
TESL, however, is an overgrowth or an offshoot of Applied Linguistics, which is also one of the feeder disciplines (Silva & Leki, 2004) of L2 writing. As Matsuda (2011)
contends, the history of North America-based applied linguistics is implicated with the establishment of the English Language Institute (ELI) in 1941 at the University of Michigan. This does not mean that prior to the establishment of ELI, the teaching of English to non- native or international students did not take place in the U.S. Matsuda (2011) claims that the first English class for international students in the U.S. was taught in 1911 by J. Raleigh Nelson at the University of Michigan. A few more universities such as Harvard University and George Washington University followed Michigan University’s lead, though most of the universities failed to recognize the peculiar needs of the international students. ELI provided specialized intensive language instruction to ESL students along with providing professional preparation program for ESL teachers. Before the 1940s and until the establishment of ELI,
ESL was not recognized as a profession in the U.S. (Matsuda, 2011). ELI professionalized ESL or TESOL in the U.S., which ultimately contributed to the formation of L2 writing as a discipline.
However, until the 1990s or so, L2 writing as a disciplinary formation was
pedagogical in nature to borrow uncritically from its feeder disciplines (Silva, 2006). After the 1990s, L2 established its disciplinary identity as far as it theories, philosophes,
pedagogies, and modes of inquiry are concerned as Silva (2006) contends. Matsuda (2013) has problematized this straightforward view regarding L2 writing offered by Silva (2006). Matsuda (2013) claims that L2 writing is an issue-driven rather than a theory or method driven field. Because L2 writers hail from diverse linguistic, academic, and cultural backgrounds, they bring unique and umpteen issues with them. Their facility in writing is contingent upon addressing those issues. No single theory or group of theories can address these issues. Theory building, as such, is an on-going process for the field of L2 writing. Since there is no straightforward, agreed upon, conclusive definition and theory of L2 writing (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005), it operated and operates under a series of context-specific and provisional theories. This doubtless makes the teaching and learning to write in an L2 difficult. Its feeder disciples such as composition studies and applied linguistics have taken decades to establish their disciplinary identities. But the field of L2 writing gains its
momentum in the 1990s to evolve and emerge as an independent intellectual formation given the presence and needs of resident second language writers and international students in North American higher education institutions. Therefore, L2 writing is relatively a new field susceptible to various influences en-route to becoming an independent discipline.