Second Language Writing: State of the Field

The field of Second Language Writing is characterized by incredible divergence with respect to certain paradigms.  On the applied linguistics side, there seems to be quite a bit of debate (Kachru, 1985; Canagarajah, 2007; 2006; Lippi-Green, 1997) as to whose linguistic ideology we accept.  And while prescriptive grammar has fallen out of favor, at least in theory, it is still alive in the form of a "deficit model" for ESL students (Hinkel, 2003; Crossley & McNamara, 2011).  With regards to grammar instruction more generally, there is a hardline position against it (Truscott, 1996) that has developed over the last decade and a half.  Most scholars, however, seem to favor some sort of treatment of grammar (Bitchener, 2008; Ferris, 2004; Chandler, 2009).  Error correction is another related subfield that has garnered much attention in recent years.  At least since Lyster & Ranta's (1997) seminal study, researchers have examined in depth what sorts of error feedback are most facilitative toward learning (Bitchener, 2008; Ferris, 2006; Ashwell, 2000; Lee, 2005; 2003).  Here too, there is quite a bit of divergence among scholars, with respect to which mode(s) of feedback yield the best payoff for students.

From a composition studies standpoint, several of the popular theoretical models have been examined, e.g. process approach and, more recently, genre approach as a reaction to the process model (Hyland, 2003).  Researchers/educators have also tried to combine the two approaches, with mixed results (Tarnopolsky, 2000).  Another powerful theoretical tool employed in composition studies is critical theory.  Certain scholars (Atkinson, 2010; Canagarajah 2007; 2006; Leki, 2006) have mobilized this framework to help gain more of a macro-level perspective on the ideologies and power structures that underlie L2W pedagogy.  Lippi-Green (1997), specifically, characterizes the insidious monolingual ideology that pervades speech and writing and has for centuries.  This sentiment is echoed by others in more specific academic contexts (Shuck, 2006; Matsuda, 2006).

From an educational standpoint, much work has been done to try and determine not only what kind of feedback, but also what kinds of writing tasks are the most effective. Many scholars have recognized that the old paradigm of teacher-centered instruction has many setbacks.  To this end, they have advocated collaboration among students as a way empowering students.  A particular popular strategy has been peer review (Diab, 2011).  However, other scholars have shown the limitations of this technique, particularly among certain cultural groups such as the Chinese (Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999).   Still others advocate making collaboration a more comprehensive part of the writing process, with peer review comprising only part of the collaboration piece (Storch, 2005).  Also, issues of assessing student writing have been eagerly taken up by researchers in the field (Weigle, 2007).

It follows, then, that with at least three different academic fields in play in which competing ideas abound, what scholars and educators are seeking is not so much a single, overarching process or approach to teaching writing to second language students.  Rather, teachers and researchers are exploring a multitude of strategies, theories, and models for teaching.  Essentially, whatever works, goes. Except that, as I intend to argue in my research paper for this class, ideology still has a strong sway over the field of second language writing pedagogy.  The problem is not a single, overarching ideology, but rather, as one might expect for a field characterized by so much diversity, different competing ideologies.  Costino & Hyon (2011) explore the ideology gap between applied linguists and L1 compositionists by compiling an inventory of “scare words” that conjure up negative images for teachers/researchers in these respective disciplines.  Although they are successful in their bid to use genre as a way of neutralizing these scare words, the fact remains that many teachers and scholars in the field of second language writing seem hesitant or unwilling to abandon their respective field’s dominant ideology in order to move the field forward.

Specifically, I argue that in both cases, the dominant ideology is predominantly Western.  Although both the above paper and Atkinson’s (2010) provocative discussion of “theory” and “practice” (not coincidentally, two of the “scare words” mentioned above) help us to operationalize this gap (basically, it characterizes L1 compositionists as more liberal and applied linguists as more conservative), it is clear to me that both parties’ dominant ideologies are rooted in Western paradigms.  Unfortunately, among applied linguists the “deficit model” seems to largely hold sway.  This model views second language writers as imperfect writing machines whose mechanisms need to be constantly tinkered with in order for them to produce “better” (read: error-free) written compositions.  For example, Hinkel (2003) and Crossley & McNamara (2011) bemoan the syntactic & lexical “simplicity” of L2 writers as a problem urgently needing to be addressed.

For L1 compositionists, while the dominant ideology may indeed be more “liberal” in terms of not advocating a deficit model, it is still rooted in Western notions of individualism and self-expression.  As Hyland (2003) points out, the widely accepted “process approach” emphasizes the writer’s individuality and voice, and may serve to downplay notions of audience, hugely influential for writers from collectivistic cultures where indirectness and preserving harmony in social relationships is highly valued.  Similarly, as noted above, teachers and researchers enthusiastic about the use of peer review as an effective technique to help students improve their writing may run into problems with students from collectivistic cultures (Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999).   

The most successful efforts to date seem to have developed out of work like Hyland’s (2003) and Costino & Hyon’s (2011), and Tardy’s (2009), who advocate placing genre front and center when trying to holistically develop L2 writers’ sense of purpose and audience.  Although genre theory is more situated in L1 compositionist notions than in those of applied linguistics, it still, interestingly, has resonance with the concept of register, which has been utilized to great effect in recent research in corpus linguistics (Biber, Gray, & Poonpon, 2011; Biber & Gray, 2010).  Genre theory has great promise in bringing applied linguists and L1 compositionists out of their respective ideological “shells” so they can come together to effectively synthesize knowledge from both disciplines in order to better help students successfully meet writing tasks.

That being said, genre theory itself also comes out of a Western tradition, and we should be cautious about adopting it, or any metanarrative, completely wholesale.  The point is not that it is bad to use mainly Western theories to form our pedagogy.  On the contrary; many second language writers will be writing for contexts in which Western paradigms hold sway.  Rather, what is important is that both teachers and scholars in the L2W field learn not only to bridge the ideological gap between applied linguistics and composition studies, but also to develop an awareness of the cultures of writing and learning of the students being taught.  Since both fields are rooted in Western paradigms, it is essential that teachers make an effort to understand some of the culture-specific challenges that their students may face in the L2W classroom.  It is to this end that the fields of Contrastive Rhetoric and cross-cultural studies must play an integral part in informing the pedagogy of teachers of second language writing.  Also, it is critical that non-western scholarship be given due attention in these matters.  It is no coincidence that some of the most groundbreaking scholarship in our field has been done by non-Western scholars such as Kachru and Canagarajah.  More collaboration, not only between applied linguists and L1 compositionists, but also between Western and non-Western scholars, should also be encouraged.