Exploring interfaces between l2 writing and sla

1. LOURDES ORTEGA Exploring interfaces between l2 writing and sla University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Symposium on Second Language Writing Murcia – May 20-22, 2010

2. Please cite as: • Ortega, L. (2010). Exploring interfaces between L2 writing and second language acquisition. Plenary delivered at the 9th Symposium on Second Language Writing. University of Murcia, Spain, May 20-22. Copyright © Lourdes Ortega, 2010

3. thanks Rosa Manchón & local organizers Liz, Julio, Yvette, Lourdes… Tony Silva & Paul Matsuda

4. My third Symposium (2006, 2007, 2010) What does an SLA person like me do in L2 writing? SLA and L2 writing, an unlikely partnership?

5. SLA’s distrust of “writing stuff”? Invisible site for L2 learning (Harklau, 2002) Language, not writing, as focus (e.g., feedback vs. response) Suspect data (“monitored”)

6. Yet, for me: L2 writing Writing in an L2 = freedom & enjoyment SLA only comparable to learning and living in languages I didn’t grow up with

7. Often, we are so constrained by dichotomies, at all levels: Native Non-native Insider Outsider Researching Teaching Neoliberal Critical Quantitative Qualitative Norms Originality Empowerment Disempowerment Personal Scholarly Professional

8. Writing has been one of the most powerful sites for escaping dichotomies and inventing new spaces in which in-betweenness (Bhabha, 1994) can be imagined, performed, and felt … Very different from the perpetual inferiority of L2 writers imagined and felt by others (e.g., Flowerdew, 2008)

9. Perhaps because the very special ontology of writing, asCumming (SSLW abstract) puts it: deliberate, agentive “develops primarily through education and specialized activities” heterogeneizing/ diversifying of language deeply implicated in identity and power “codifies aspects of discourse seldom salient in spoken interactions” “serves as an indicator of individual knowledge, identity, and status”

10. So, my focus: L2 writing & SLA interfaces

11. L2 writing as a whole field: But… “SLA-style” L2 writing research: • Great expansion and development: • Journal(since 1992) • Symposium(since 1998) • Professional textbooks(e.g., Ferris & Hedgecock, 1998) • Intense research activity, particularly on English L2 writing (Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008) • PhD programs (Purdue Un., OISE, GSU, …) Less interest and/or vigor?

12. 1. Language development & writing development Sketch generalizations and accomplishments 2. Cognitive-linguistic inquiry on L2 writing Brainstorm opportunities for invigoration

13. 0. L2 writing & SLA… …the lay of the land

14. “SLA-style” L2 writing research • Correlational studies of the moderating influence of L2 proficiency on L2 writing development (Cumming, 1989; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996; Schoonen et al., 2003) • Observational-introspective studies of L2 writing processes/strategies or “cognitive activity while writing” (Manchón et al., 2009, p. 102; Torrance et al., 2007) • Text-based studies: L2 development in writing (Ortega, 2003; Polio, 2001; Reynolds, 2010; Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, 2004), “small” corpus EAP studies / genre analysis (Hyland, 2008), and rhetorical transfer / contrastive rhetoric (Connor, 2002; Kubota, 2010; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009) • Quasi-experimental studies of error correction in writing (Bitchener, 2008, 2010; Ferris, 2004; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010) and other L2 writing instructional features (for L1 writing, see Rijlaarsdam et al., 2005)

15. Leki, Cumming, & Silva (2008) “Basic research”: • Writer characteristics (L2 proficiency, L1 writing ability, individual differences such as motivation and confidence…) • Composing processes (revision, planning, formulation…) • Textual issues in written text (e.g., cohesion, rhetorical patterns, metadiscourse…) • Grammatical issues in written text (linguistic profiling of various kinds, accuracy/complexity…) “Instruction and assessment”: • Formative assessment(L2 writing error correction) • Instructional interactions (L2 writing instruction studies)

16. Two centers of gravity for RQs: change/development/learning: how, whence, when, etc language-writing connection

17. 1. Language development & writing development… …reciprocally supportive relationships

18. language development is a prerequisite for writing development

19. Language development Writing Development The retrieval of language [converting ideas to language, locally (formulation)] will consume working memory resources away from other attentional needs that are specific of writing, such as keeping track of discourse as a whole [producing text, globally (planning, revision, social activity)] (e.g., Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Torrance, SSLW)

20. “Below a certain threshold of FL linguistic knowledge, the writer will be fully absorbed in struggling with the language, inhibiting writing processes such as planning or monitoring” (Schoonen et al. 2009, p. 81)

21. “the likelihood of attending to higher-level concerns while writing [planning, formulating, and revising] increases as writers become more capable of using the L2” (Manchón et al., 2009, p. 116)

22. Language development is a prerequisite/constraint on L2 writing development -- tentative generalizations so far: • Good L2 proficiency is necessary but not sufficient for the development of L2 writing (Leki et al., 2008, p. 101) • After a certain threshold, L2 proficiency becomes less predictive of L2 writing expertise (Ma & Wen, 1999) • Available knowledge of L2 is more important than fluent retrieval (Schoonen et al., 2009) • Higher proficiency enables attention to higher-level cognitive operations (Manchón et al., 2009) • For some populations, high L2 proficiency is mainly oral, and if so L2 writing ability can be low (Blanton, 2005) • For some populations, high L2 proficiency may indicate L2 dominance and is accompanied by lower L1 composing competence (Carson & Kuehn, 1992; McCarthey et al., 2005)

23. Writing supports language development

24. Writing Language Development (many presentations at SSLW!) • Writing --- metalinguistic reflection (Cumming, 1990; Swain & Lapkin, 1995) • Writing -- collaboration and interaction (Storch, 2005; Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002)... (in FL contexts this may happen in the L1; Pennington et al., 1996) • Text reconstruction studies (Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Izumi, 2002) • Reformulation & editing studies (Adams, 2003; Sachs & Polio, 2007; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010) • Writing -- attention & practice (Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2007)

25. L2 writing can be a site for heightened L2 development -- tentative generalizations so far (Manchón, 2008): • L2 writers expend great attention to language issues while writing (between 60% and 80% of time spent in formulation) • Writing is one of the best forms of pushed output, in all the senses outlined by Swain (1995, 2000) • Attention to language during writing is: (a) task dependent and (b) proficiency dependent • Empirical support for L2 development benefits from L2 writing are only short-term

26. Much is yet to be known about writing as a site for l2 development

27. Q: How do we adapt the construct of “pushed output” to L2 writing? e.g., oral appropriation of language is valued as “input incorporation & uptake”but written appropriation is seen as plagiarism and instead “saying it in one’s own words” is valued Patchwriting(Howard, 1995; Pecorari, 2003) as a form of pushed output in L2 writing?

28. e.g., by pushed output in writing, do we mean attention to language at what level exactly (higher levels textually or only grammatically)? Backtracking (Manchón et al., 2009) as a form of pushed output in L2 writing?

29. Q: How do we support engagement/motivation in L2 writing? Powerful effect of changing contexts for writing: • 8-to-11 month study abroad experiences (Sasaki, 2009) Rethinking writing tasks: • Uncorrected journal assignments (Casanave, 1994) • Guided vs. unguided picture stories (Ishikawa, 1994) • Writing tasks that connect with student interests and backgrounds (Lo & F. Hyland, 2007) • Freewriting (Hwang, SSLW)

30. Q:Accuracy & motivation, how do they affect each other? Engagement Accuracy Accuracy Engagement

31. In sum, so far: language and writing Reciprocally supportive development 1. Language as a constraint for writing: Progress, expansion… however, a certain waning of currency/interest? 2. Writing as site for language learning: High current interest, many questions yet to explore

32. 2. Cognitive-linguistic inquiry into L2 writing… … contributions & limitations

33. Contributions

34. Some useful generalizations are emerging… • e.g., Attention to language during writing is: (a) task dependent and (b) proficiency dependent Manchón, 2008) • e.g., Good L2 proficiency is necessary but not sufficient for the development of L2 writing (Leki et al., 2008) • … • …

35. Gradual complexification… Motivation Goals Availability (knowledge) & accessibility (retrieval) of L2 Sasaki (2004) L2 proficiency Cumming (2006) L1 & L2 training (=meta-knowledge) Schoonen et al. (2009) Rinnert & Kobayashi (2009) L2 composing competence L1 composing expertise Process strategies (planning, formulation, revision) Problem-solving strategies (L1 use, restructuring, backtracking) Context (Abroad, at home, EAP…) Sasaki (2007) Cumming (1989) Manchón et al. (2009) Experience (=practice: how often, how much, how varied in genres & audiences)

36. Theoretical expansion in SLA-style L2 writing research • Vygotskian SLA • CA • Lg socialization • Identity theory • Systemic Functional Linguistics • Usage-based emergentism • Cognitive interactionism • Skills acquisition theory • Functional-linguistic SLA e.g., editing/reformulation: Cognitive interactionist(Sachs & Polio, 2007) and Vygotskiansociocultural(Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010)

37. This theoretical expansion has been less antagonistic than in SLA • Vygotskian SLA • CA • Lg socialization • Identity theory • Systemic Functional Linguistics • Usage-based emergentism • Cognitive interactionism • Skills acquisition theory • Functional-linguistic SLA Pluralistic attitude of L2 writing as a field (Silva, SSLW)

38. Limitations to attend to

39. Not much accumulation, really(Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008) Writer characteristics Composing processes 94% known = single study 97.4% known = single study 3 studies 2% findings 2 studies 4% findings 3 & 5 studies 0.3 % findings 2 studies 2% findings Textual analyses Grammatical analyses 95.2% known = single study 92.97% known = single study 5 studies – 0.3% 3 studies – 0.5% 2 studies 4% findings 6 studies -0.03% 3 studies – 1% 2 studies 6% findings

40. Empirically naïve approach to the constructs(Reynolds, 2010, pp. 169-170) • Text-based studies of linguistic profiling investigate “… the ways that texts vary linguistically with respect to multiple variables, including tasks, writer characteristics such as educational background and language proficiency, and judgments of writing quality” …one variable at a time

41. Empirically naïve approach to the constructs(Reynolds, 2010, pp. 169-170) • what may be needed is to show interactions among variables and how “textual characteristics might be the product of differential learner characteristics interacting with task variables to accommodate different audiences.” Instead…

42. L2 writing development as a dynamic/complex system? Larsen-Freeman (2006); Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie (2004) But focus: just on language, or on language-in-writing?

43. Very narrow focus regarding genres and purposes • Argumentative writing, almighty! • Time-compressed essay writing • School-sponsored genres

44. The value of genres and purposes for writing is not inherent, but locally created Caution! Teachers can and do exercise their agency to engage genres and purposes that make sense in their classroom and under their educational constraints

45. (You, 2004, p. 107) “The writing tasks in the CETB-4 ask students to write short argumentative or expository essays. [Mrs Meng] explained that writing for daily applications and writing for examinations serve different purposes. In her own teaching, she encouraged students to translate Chinese notices and graffiti into English, or to keep an English diary, all of which interested her students enormously”

46. “The writing tasks in the CETB-4 ask students to write short argumentative or expository essays. [Mrs Meng] explained that writing for daily applications and writing for examinations serve different purposes. In her own teaching, she encouraged students to translate Chinese notices and graffiti into English, or to keep an English diary, all of which interested her students enormously”

47. “The writing tasks in the CETB-4 ask students to write short argumentative or expository essays. [MrsMeng] explained that writing for daily applications and writing for examinations serve different purposes. In her own teaching, she encouraged students to translate Chinese notices and graffiti into English, or to keep an English diary, all of which interested her students enormously”

48. Reichelt (2005, p. 230) FL writing in Poland: Tenth-graders’ Advertisements for a New Teacher WANTED!!! An excellent upper-intermediate class is searching for a new English teacher. If you think (optional) you can handle a group of loud, unorganized, annoying students who never do their homework, you are welcome. We offer you a headache, stomach diseases, concussion, neurosis, and lots of ulcers. If you are a real man, prove it, and take your chance.

49. Yet, narrow research vis-à-vis diverse purposes for L2 writing, varied genres Utilitarian Writing to Learn L2 (FL) Humanistic Personal Cultural learning Creativity & self-expression Critical thinking Identity construction Friends/family CMC Pop culture Exams Degrees Trade Tourism Science Technology Practicing L2/FL Motivational boost

50. systematic grammar feedback tests 5-paragraph essays … Could it be that much of L2 writing instruction ends up promoting homogenizing and formulaic types of knowledge in writers? How can we research this?