An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

part of the writer’s competence.
Whereas spoken discourse represents additional meaning through prosodic 
features such as tone, pitch, intonation, volume and pauses (see Chapter 12, 
Speaking and Pronunciation), written discourse achieves similar functions through 
typographical features such as punctuation marks, capitalization, italics, bold 
face, font sizes and indentation. In formalized writing situations, where the use 
of typographical features is constrained by stylistic conventions established by 
publishers and academic societies, writers have to rely more heavily on structural 
means (for example, topicalization, nominalization) as well as discursive 
features such as the use of hedges (for example, may, probably) and boosters (for 
example, must, definitely) (Hyland, 2000). Writers also construct – intentionally 
or unintentionally – their discursive identity or ‘voice’ by using various written 
discourse features and by aligning themselves with certain discursive networks 
(Ivanic, 1998; Matsuda, 2001b; Tardy and Matsuda, 2009).
Although the ability to write presupposes some level of morphological, lexical 
and syntactic as well as idiomatic knowledge, such knowledge alone does not 
guarantee the ability to write well because writing involves much more than 
constructing grammatical sentences. Sentences need to be ‘cohesive’, that is, they 
have to be connected by cohesive devices in ways that can be followed by readers 
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976). The whole text also needs to be ‘coherent’, that is, 
various parts of the text have to work together conceptually in the particular 
rhetorical context. Although cohesion and coherence are related concepts, 
cohesive text is not necessarily coherent (Witte and Faigley, 1981; Carrell, 1982). 
Furthermore, coherence is not universal; rather, what is considered coherent differs 
from one discourse community to another. Research in ‘contrastive rhetoric’ has 

---

237
Writing
shown, for example, that the standard of coherence may vary across languages 
and cultures (Connor and Johns, 1990; Leki, 1991, Connor, 1996), although the 
differences cannot simply be attributed to language or culture alone (Mohan 
and Lo, 1985; Kubota, 1997; Matsuda, 1997). For this reason, the assessment of 
the quality of writing requires an understanding of the context in which it was 
written and especially the audience for which it was intended.
Defining Second Language Writers
Defining second language writers is more complex a task than it may seem at 
first because of the diversity of second language writers with a wide variety of 
backgrounds, characteristics, needs and goals. The term ‘second language writer’ 
is usually defined broadly to include anyone who is writing or learning to write in 
a language other than their native language. It includes both second and foreign 
language writers as well as writers who are writing in their third, fourth, fifth 
language, and so on. The boundary between first and second language writers is 
a fuzzy one; the very notion of the ‘native speaker’ is being contested, and users 
of different varieties of the target language also encounter similar issues as they 
learn to write in a dominant variety – due not only to the structural differences 
but also to functional differences among different varieties of the language (Nero, 
2001). The issue is further complicated when the political nature of the distinction 
between language and dialect is taken into account.
Writing, unlike speech, is not learned naturally by everyone but through explicit 
instruction (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996); as Leki (1992: 10) put it, ‘no one is a “native 
speaker” of writing’ . Yet, that does not mean there is no difference between L1 
and L2 writers. While learning to write – especially in academic genres – may feel 
like writing in a foreign language even for life-long users of the target language, it 
is also important to keep in mind that second language writers are often learning 
to write as they are also acquiring the structures and uses of the second language 
(Matsuda and Jablonski, 2001). A synthesis of early studies comparing adult first 
and second language writers of English have also indicated that writing in a 
second language is ‘distinct from and simpler and less effective (in the eyes of L1 
readers) than L1 writing’ (Silva, 1993/2001: 200). Aside from the acquisition of 
the second language grammar, the difference between L1 and L2 writing is largely 
a matter of degree, for all writers continue to develop their language proficiency 
and genre knowledge.
For many years, the largest body of research has been on ESL writers in North 
American higher education, partly because of the ubiquitous first-year writing 
requirement that necessitated the rise of ESL writing instruction. Within this context, 
the dominant focus has been on international students. More recently, there has 
been a growth of interest in resident second language writers – permanent residents 
and citizens of the USA and Canada (Harklau, Losey, and Siegal, 1999; Roberge, 
Siegal and Harklau, 2009). With the diversification of second language writers in 
North American higher education, identifying various types of writers and creating 
a wide variety of placement and instructional options have also become important 
issues (Ferris, 2009; Silva, 1994) – a task that is further complicated by students’ 
own identity positioning that does not match categories used by researchers and 
teachers (Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008; Costino and Hyon, 2007).
Another broad category that has been used is ‘foreign language writers’ – writers 
writing in languages in contexts where the target language is not prevalent. This 

---

238 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
group can be subdivided into two major groups – EFL writers and other foreign 
language writers. The distinction is significant even in so-called EFL contexts 
where English and other foreign languages are located in the same academic 
unit because of the status of the English language as the dominant language 
of global communication. While research on foreign language writing did not 
gain momentum until well into the 1980s, the interest has grown tremendously 
over the last few decades (Manchón, 2008; Reichelt, 1999). The popular binary 
between ESL and EFL has been problematized because it does not account for post-
colonial contexts such as India and Hong Kong, where English has been firmly 
institutionalized along with other local languages, or for Anglophone Canadian 
writers learning to write in Canadian French. Yet, the term EFL writing does not 
seem to be disappearing from the literature because, even within those contexts, 
there are many situations that are better described as EFL (Lee, 2008).
Second language writing has also expanded considerably in terms of age groups 
being studied. While the traditional emphasis had been on first-year college 
students, the growing recognition of the importance of writing has prompted the 
rise of interest in studies of early second language writers (Matsuda and DePew, 
2001). The success of writing and language across the curriculum movements have 
also increased the need for writing in courses across the discipline, further creating 
the need for attention to second language writing issues in broader contexts. With 
the dominance of English as a lingua franca of scholarly communication, writing in 
academic contexts for graduate students and researchers has also become a major 
emphasis not only in North America but in many other countries (Casanave and 
Vandrick, 2003; Flowerdew, 2005; Lillis and Curry, 2006; Swales, 2004).
Second Language Writing: Theory, Research and 
Pedagogy
This section will, drawing on Silva (1990), survey major developments during the 
last 50 years or so in second language writing with regard to theory, research and 
pedagogy. (For alternative perspectives, see Raimes, 1991; Blanton, 1995.) We have 
limited our attention to second language writing here because applied linguists 
interface primarily with professionals in second language studies; we focus on 
ESL writing because, to date, most of the research on second language writing has 
been done in this area.
Although developments in second language writing have been influenced by 
work in mainstream composition studies, the unique contexts of second language 
writing require distinct perspectives, models and practices. In the recent history 
of second language writing, a number of approaches or orientations (more or 
less specific to second language writing) have vied for the attention of second 
language writing professionals. These approaches or traditions will be addressed 
below in order of their appearance on the second language writing stage.
Controlled Composition
‘Controlled composition’ can be seen as an offshoot of the audiolingual approach 
to second language teaching in that it shares two of its central tenets: the idea 
that language is speech (from structural linguistics) and that learning is habit 
formation (from behaviourist psychology). Thus, it is not difficult to understand 

---

239
Writing
why, within this tradition, writing is regarded essentially as reinforcement for oral 
habits and as a secondary concern (see Fries, 1945; Rivers, 1968; for theoretical 
background for this approach).
Linguistic analysis dominated the research in this tradition and is still a major 
focus, though it has become more functional and less formal over the years. 
Early work in the linguistic analysis of second language writers’ texts involved 
‘contrastive analysis’ (comparing the grammatical structures of two languages, for 
example, Spanish and English, in an attempt to ascertain structural differences, 
which were believed to pose the greatest problems for second language writers) 
and ‘error analysis’ (locating, counting and categorizing errors to discern patterns 
of error in written texts). Formal features examined include primarily lexical and 
syntactic phenomena; features such as number of words per t-unit and clause 
structure have been used to measure fluency, accuracy and complexity in second 
language writers’ texts.
In the controlled composition classroom the primary focus is on formal accuracy. 
The teacher employs a controlled programme of systematic habit formation in an 
attempt to avoid errors (presumed to be related to first language interference) and to 
reinforce appropriate second language behaviour. Practice with previously learned 
discrete units of language is privileged over concerns about ideas, organization 
and style; imitation and manipulation of carefully constructed and graded model 
passages is the central activity. Overall, in the controlled composition tradition, 
writing functions as a service activity, reinforcing other language skills. The goal 
of writing instruction is habit formation. Students manipulate familiar language 
structures; the teacher is an editor, privileging linguistic features over ideas. The 
text is seen as a collection of vocabulary and sentence patterns; there is negligible 
concern for audience or purpose. (For accounts of this pedagogical approach, see 
Dykstra and Paulston, 1967; Paulston and Dykstra, 1973.)
The Paragraph Pattern Approach
Increasing awareness of second language writers’ need to produce extended 
written texts led to the realization that there was more to writing than constructing 
grammatical sentences. The result of this realization was what Raimes (1983b: 7) 
has called the ‘paragraph pattern approach’, which emphasized the importance 
of organization at the above-sentence level. This approach owes much to Kaplan’s 
(1966) notion of ‘contrastive rhetoric’ – the notion that writers’ different cultural 
and linguistic backgrounds will be reflected in their ‘rhetoric’, with rhetoric 
typically seen as primarily a matter of textual structure. Thus, first language 
influence was believed to extend beyond the sentence to paragraphs and longer 
stretches of text.
The basic concern in this tradition was the logical construction and arrangement 
of discourse forms. Of primary interest, especially in the early years, was the 
paragraph, where the focus was on its elements (for example, topic sentences) 
as well as options for its development (for example, comparison and contrast). 
Another important concern was ‘essay’ development, actually an extrapolation 
of paragraph principles to complete texts. This involved larger structural entities 
(for example, introductions) and organizational patterns or modes (for example, 
exposition).
By far, the largest single concern in second language writing research has been 
‘contrastive rhetoric’ (for overviews, see Leki, 1991; Connor, 1996; Purves, 1988). 

---

240 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
The focus of this work has been on characterizing how first language ‘cultural 
thought patterns’ are reflected in second language writers’ texts, how some cultures 
put the responsibility for successful written communication on the writer and 
others on the reader, and how differences between ‘collectivist’ and ‘individualist’ 
tendencies manifest themselves in second language writing. The most commonly 
compared linguistic or cultural backgrounds have been Arabic, Chinese, English, 
Japanese and Spanish. A number of other specific rhetorical features have been 
addressed in the literature. These include assertions, hedging, indirectness, reader 
orientation, introductions, meta-discourse, rhetorical preferences and voice (see 
Hyland, 2000).
Contrastive rhetoric has been and still is a controversial issue, with some of 
its critics arguing that the notion can lead to stereotypes (Kubota, 1997, 1998; 
Spack, 1997) and others suggesting that the differences seen between groups are a 
matter of development rather than transfer (Mohan and Lo, 1985). More recently 
efforts have been made to reconceptualize and rename contrastive rhetoric in 
order to move out of the unproductive discussion based on the limitations of early 
contrastive rhetoric (for example Connor, Nagelhout and Rozycki, 2008; Kubota 
and Lehner, 2004; Matsuda, 1997).
Classroom procedures associated with this tradition have tended to focus 
students’ attention primarily on ‘form’. At the most basic level, students are asked 
to choose among alternative sentences within the context of a provided paragraph 
or text. At a higher level, learners are instructed to read and analyse a model text 
and then apply the knowledge gleaned from this analysis to a parallel piece of 
original writing. At their most complex, exercises require students (already given 
a topic to write on) to list and group relevant facts, develop topic and supporting 
sentences on the basis of these facts, put together an outline and compose their 
text from that outline.
In short, this tradition sees writing as basically a matter of arranging sentences 
and paragraphs into particular patterns; learning to write requires developing 
skills in identifying, internalizing and producing these patterns. The writer uses 
provided or self-generated data to fill out a pattern; thus, the reader is not confused 
by an unfamiliar pattern of expression. The text is made up of increasingly 
complex discourse structures (that is, sentences, paragraphs, sections and so 
on), each embedded in the next largest form; and all of this takes place within 
an academic context, wherein the instructor’s evaluation is assumed to reflect a 
community of educated native speakers.
The Process Approach
Dissatisfaction with controlled composition and the paragraph-pattern approach, 
due to the belief that neither adequately engendered thought or its expression 
and to their perceived linearity and prescriptivism, paved the way for the process 
approach, another import from mainstream composition studies. This tradition 
saw the composing process as a recursive, exploratory and generative process 
wherein ideas were discovered and meaning made. It was believed that guidance 
through and intervention in the process was preferable to the imposition of 
organizational patterns or syntactic or lexical constraints, and that, where there 
was a need or desire to communicate, content would determine form so as to 
convey meaning successfully. (For early work in second language composing, see 
Zamel, 1976, 1982; Raimes, 1983a, 1985.)

---

241
Writing
The advent of the ‘process approach’ prompted research on composing that 
focused on the person (that is, the writer) and the process (that is, strategies) 
involved in writing. Many variables affecting second language writers have 
been identified and addressed in the literature. The second language writer has 
been looked at primarily in terms of the extent of transfer of first language 
proficiency or writing ability to second language writing and the relationship 
between general second language proficiency and second language writing 
ability. Also of interest are the possible connections between second language 
writing ability and first language writing experience and expertise, writing 
apprehension, gender, learning style, language and instructional background, 
the second language writer’s perceptions with regard to writing and writing 
instruction, and the amount of reading (in both first and second languages) a 
second language writer engages in. Research in this area has gone from seeing 
writer variables as simple and relatively discrete to very complex and greatly 
intertwined.
There is also a substantial body of scholarship on second language writers’ 
composing processes (for overviews, see Krapels, 1990; Sasaki, 2000; Manchón, 
2001). Predominant in this area are general ‘composing process’ studies, that is, 
research that looks at second language writing processes holistically. There are 
also studies that focus on particular sub-processes and elements of the composing 
process. The most common of these are studies of planning, drafting, revising and 
editing. However, a number of other elements have also been examined. These 
include translating, backtracking, restructuring, formulating, monitoring, the use 
of the first language when writing in the second, language switching and the use 
of dictionaries and background texts when composing.
In the classroom, the process tradition calls for providing and maintaining 
a positive, encouraging and collaborative workshop environment, and for 
providing ample time and minimal interference so as to allow students to work 
through their composing processes. The objective is to help students develop 
viable strategies for getting started, drafting, revising and editing. From a process 
perspective, then, writing is a complex, recursive and creative process that is very 
similar in its general outlines for first and second language writers; learning to 
write requires the development of an efficient and effective composing process. 
The writer is engaged in the discovery and expression of meaning; the reader, on 
interpreting that intended meaning. The product (that is, the written text) is a 
secondary concern, whose form is a function of its content and purpose. In the 
process tradition it is up to the writer to identify a task and an audience and to 
make the response to the former meet the needs of the latter.
Genre-Based Approach
Perceiving theoretical and practical problems and omissions with regard to the 
process approach, critics suggested that the emphasis in ESL composition research 
and instruction be shifted from the writer to the reader, in particular academic 
and professional discourse communities. Most of the aforementioned criticism of 
the process approach came from proponents of an English for academic purposes 
orientation wanting to consider more seriously issues such as developing schemata 
for academic discourse, deriving insights from research on contrastive rhetoric, 
understanding what constitutes realistic preparation for academic work, learning 
about the nature of high stakes academic writing tasks, giving students a better 

---

242 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
idea of how university writing is evaluated, and, generally, understanding the 
socio-cultural context of academic writing (Reid, 1984; Horowitz, 1986).
Research in writing English for academic purposes has looked primarily at the 
issues of audience and, more recently, ‘genre’. The audience research has focused 
primarily on one particular readership: the academic discourse community, in