Yablo (2008) claims that every word that flows from mind to paper reveals something about a writer. Writing portrays a writer culturally, intellectually, and emotionally. However linguistically empowered or impoverished, an L2 writer is not immune to self-portrayal, in that human agency cannot transcend cultural biases (Canagarajah, 2002a). Consequently, when an L2 writer writes, his cultural biases or his unique culture-dependent styles of writing surface, which always do not conform to the styles and expectations of academic writing in North America. In L2 writing literature, academic writing is generally appreciated with reference to the North American style of writing, for the field has evolved and emerged there. North American academic writing is more conventional than creative, and it is more
institutional than individualistic. It may have accommodated the western expectations of writing, but it is not responsive to the fact that writing is cultural, and that writing is too creative and individualistic a process to conform to conventions. Having discovered the qualifications of academic writing in the west, Fox (1994) contends that it is cool and objective as well as it is unrealistically uniform and monolithic. Conforming to the North American style of academic writing for L2 writers, who hail from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, is consequential.
Under such circumstances, natives of different languages are converted (Shaughnessy, 1977) to learn the crafts of academic writing. Western academic writing is generally
impersonal, objective, and arid that follows lock-step sequences: claim, defend, and conclude. It is a top-down or what Canagarajah (2006a) calls front-weighted writing. In this
dispensation, a writer proposes something at the beginning of a paragraph; defends it with adequate information, illustration, and explanations, which form the body of a paragraph; and finally re-states the theme of the whole paragraph in a single sentence to conclude it. An L2 writer from a specific culture might find this style of writing unwieldy because of his perception of writing perpetuated by his culture. For example, Zamel (1997) contends that Japanese writing values subtlety and indirect expression. Japanese culture expects that a writer does not explain everything to the readers. Readers must apply his judgement and intelligence to appreciate a text. In Japanese culture, explaining everything to the readers is insulting. But the North American academic writing values directness and elaboration. Good academic writing is reader-based, where a writer explains everything to the readers. Writer- based prose that fails to transform private thought into public (Flower, 1979) is considered non-academic and unacceptable. For an L2 writer, then, learning to write academic prose means un-learning his culture-specific style of writing.
This process of acculturation into the L2 writing culture is neither instantaneous nor spontaneous for some L2 writers because of affective reasons. It requires them to assume a new identity, which may have derogatory connotation to some of them. For example, one of the participants of Ortmeier-Hooper’s (2008) case study claims that though English is not his native language, he is not an ESL. The resistance of this student to an ESL denomination merits a critique, which has ramifications for L2 writing. An ESL or an L2 writer is a generic term, which disregards diverse cultural, linguistic, and academic backgrounds of L2 writers. They are, instead, lumped together as a monolithic group of students, who need to learn the same thing and in the same way. Instruction is not tailored to the needs of a particular learner;
neither is it responsive to his unique style of learning. But ESL students come to study in the U.S. institutions having learned to learn in certain ways (Leki, 1991). Raimes (1991) cautions about “a generalized ESL student” (p.420). These two dimensions of L2 writing are
incongruous with the essential principles L2 writing as an intellectual formation. As Silva (2006) contends that the development of the field of L2 writing has been contributed by many intellectual formations, which implies that it is essentially a hybrid field. But when it comes to teaching L2 writing, it is blandly unipolar. It demonstrates no hybridity and diversity. It avowedly conforms to North American principles and perceptions of academic writing.
The North American principles and perceptions of academic writing are not so reified as the writing instructors would claim. Professional native speakers of English do not
necessarily write in a straight line beginning with a topic sentence and moving directly to support it (Leki, 1991b). Different writers approach writing differently because of the disciplines or the discourse communities they belong. Every discourse community has its own principles of academic writing, which are, of course, dynamic and protean. Academic writing, then, is fluid and contingent even in North America. For L2 writers, however, it is always constant. They must master the crafts of academic writing, which is critical in nature. In academic writing, being critical means being “remote, distant, and imponderable”
(Sommers, 1993, p. 425). It discourages, even forbids, an L2 writer to be personally involved with a piece of writing. He cannot write with his soul, in that he has to produce pretentious and inflated prose that seems like written by machines (Toor, 2013). But personally involved writing generates more writing and satisfaction (Perl, 1980). As such, an L2 writer is denied access to “extraordinary generative power of language” (Ramies, 1985, p. 248) as well as the satisfaction of writing.
An L2 writer is culturally, linguistically, and academically already deeply situated. Transplanting him anew into another academic and linguistic culture renews a deficit model of learning. This may have contributed to confounding the crises of an L2 writer. Because “teaching is learning” (Reid, 2008, p.198), L2 instructors must learn to challenge and change their “time-bound preferences of North American academy” (Tucker, 1995, p.8) to help L2 learners learn to write. Provisions must be made so that L2 learners can draw on their rich repertoires of knowledge and experiences that they bring with them. Learning to write in an L2 is not synonymous in any way with un-learning one’s history of being and knowing. Canagarajah (2002) contends that by bringing their own histories into their writing projects, L2 writers are empowered, not paralyzed or confused. Empowering L2 writers is not
contingent upon an absolute rejection or acceptance of learners’ culture, but it is presumably contingent upon a pedagogical approach that combines learners’ cultures with the culture of the contexts of L2 instruction. The field of L2 writing values contingent knowledge (Silva, 2006). Therefore, for learning and teaching L2 writing, neither students nor instructors can afford to cower to a constant culture.