EXPLORING INTERFACES BETWEEN L2 WRITING AND

SLA

Symposium on Second Language WritingMurcia – May 20-22, 2010

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

LOURDES ORTEGA

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

thanks

Rosa Manchón& local

organizersLiz, Julio, Yvette,

Lourdes…

Tony Silva & Paul Matsuda

My third Symposium (2006, 2007, 2010)

SLA and L2 writing, an unlikely partnership?

What does an SLA person like me do in L2 writing?

SLA’s distrust of “writing stuff”?

Suspect data (“monitored”)

Invisible site for L2 learning(Harklau, 2002)

Language, not writing, as focus (e.g., feedback vs. response)

Yet, for me:

Writing in an L2 = freedom & enjoyment

only comparable to learning and living in languages I didn’t grow up with

SLA

L2 writing

Native Non-nativeInsider OutsiderResearching TeachingNeoliberal CriticalQuantitative QualitativeNorms OriginalityEmpowerment

Disempowerment

Often, we are so constrained by dichotomies, at all levels:

Personal

Scholarly

Professional

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)

Perhaps because the very special ontology of writing, as Cumming (SSLW abstract) puts it:

“develops primarily through education and specialized activities”

“codifies aspects of discourse seldom salient in spoken interactions”

“serves as an indicator of individual knowledge, identity, and status”

deliberate, agentive

deeply implicated in identity and power

heterogeneizing/diversifying of language

So, my focus:

L2 writing & SLA interfaces

L2 writing as a whole field:

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?

But…“SLA-style” L2 writing research:

1. Language developme

nt & writing

development2.

Cognitive-linguistic inquiry on L2 writing

Sketch generalizatio

ns and accomplishm

ents

Brainstormopportunitie

s for invigoration

0. L2 writing & SLA…

… the lay of the land

“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)

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)

Two centers of gravity for RQs:

change/development/learning: how, whence, when, etc

language-writing connection

1. Language development & writing development…… reciprocally

supportive relationships

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IS A PREREQUISITE FOR WRITING DEVELOPMENT

Language development Writing

DevelopmentThe 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)

“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)

“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)

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)

Language development is a prerequisite/constraint on L2 writing development -- tentative generalizations so far:

WRITING SUPPORTS LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

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)

Writing Language Development

(many presentations at SSLW!)

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

L2 writing can be a site for heightened L2 development -- tentative generalizations so far (Manchón, 2008):

MUCH IS YET TO BE KNOWN ABOUT WRITING AS A SITE FOR L2 DEVELOPMENT

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?

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?

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)

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

Engagement Accuracy

Accuracy Engagement

language and

writing

Reciprocally supportive developme

nt

In sum, so far:

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

2. Cognitive-linguistic inquiry into L2 writing…

… contributions & limitations

CONTRIBUTIONS

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)

… …

L2 proficiency

L2 composing competenceL1 composing

expertise

Gradual complexification…

Process strategies

(planning, formulation, revision)

Problem-solving strategies

(L1 use, restructuring,

backtracking)

Availability (knowledge) & accessibility (retrieval)

of L2 Schoonen et al. (2009)

Cumming (1989) Manchón et al. (2009)Experience

(=practice: how often, how much,how varied in genres & audiences)

L1 & L2 training

(=meta-knowledge)

Context (Abroad, at home, EAP…)

GoalsMotivation

Rinnert & Kobayashi (2009)

Cumming (2006)Sasaki (2004)

Sasaki (2007)

Cognitive interactionism

Skills acquisition theory

Functional-linguistic SLA

Vygotskian SLACALg socializationIdentity theorySystemic Functional Linguistics

Usage-based emergentism

Theoretical expansion in SLA-style L2 writing research

e.g., editing/reformulation: Cognitive interactionist (Sachs & Polio, 2007) and Vygotskian sociocultural (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010)

Pluralistic attitude of L2 writing as a field

(Silva, SSLW)

Cognitive interactionism

Skills acquisition theory

Functional-linguistic SLA

Vygotskian SLA CA Lg socialization Identity theory Systemic Functional

Linguistics Usage-based

emergentism

This theoretical expansion has been less antagonistic than in SLA

LIMITATIONS TO ATTEND TO

Not much accumulation, really(Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008)

3 studies

2% findings

Writer characteristics

Composing processes

Grammatical analyses

Textual analyses

2 studies

4% findings

3 & 5 studies

0.3 % findings

2 studies

2% findings

2 studies

4% findings

6 studies -0.03%

3 studies – 1%

2 studies

6% findings

94% known = single study

97.4% known = single study

5 studies – 0.3%

3 studies – 0.5%

95.2% known = single study

92.97% known = single study

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”

Empirically naïve approach to the constructs(Reynolds, 2010, pp. 169-170)

…one variable at a time

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.”

Empirically naïve approach to the constructs(Reynolds, 2010, pp. 169-170)

Instead…

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?

Argumentative writing, almighty!

Time-compressed essay writingSchool-sponsored genres

Very narrow focus regarding genres and purposes

The value of genres and purposes for writing is not inherent, but locally createdTeachers can and do

exercise their agency to engage genres and purposes that make sense in their classroom and under their educational constraints

Caution!

“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”

(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”

“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”

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.

Yet, narrow research vis-à-vis diverse purposes for L2 writing, varied genres

UtilitarianWriting toLearn L2 (FL)

Humanistic

Exams

Degrees

Trade

Tourism

Science

Technology

Practicing L2/FL

Motivational boost

Cultural learning

Creativity & self-expression

Critical thinking

Identity construction

Personal

Friends/family

CMC

Pop culture

… Could it be that much of L2 writing instruction ends

up promoting homogenizing and formulaic types of knowledge in writers?

5-paragraph

essays

systematic

grammar

feedback

tests

How can we research this?

It often treats L2 writers as fundamentally deficient (“less than” L1 writers)

It typically imagines the goal of L2 writers to be the attainment of two monolingual writers in one

It portrays L1 writing as permanently “fixed” and L2 writing as irrevocably “unfinished”

SLA-style writing research hasn’t yet caught up with the theoretical promise of multicompetence (Cook, 2008)

Some strategies for producing SLA-oriented L2 writing that is attuned to multicompetence:

Ortega & Carson (2010): Investigate the same writers as they compose across languages, using crosslinguistic and bilingual analyses, rubrics, and raters

Canagarajah (2006): Focus on multilingual writers and their mutiplicity of contexts, not only texts; focus on versatility as much as consistency

Anticipated positive side consequences:

Overturn the deficit approach: Focus on what multicompetent writers can do, as opposed to what they cannot or wish not to do in their L2

Ameliorate the dominance of English: Healthy increase of dialogue and collaboration among L2 writing researchers and researchers working on English and on other L2s

Promote social transformation as an educational goal: Both resistance and accommodation are possible in the same writing

Cognitive-linguistic inquiry in L2 writing

Contributions

&Limitations

In sum:

1. Glass half full: Empirical generalizations, complexification of models, peaceful theoretical expansion2. Glass half empty: Little accumulation, empirically naïve, narrow conception of writing, irresponsive to multicompetence

4. In conclusion

At some level, good writers know that:

requires hard work, persistence, engagement

writing is

deliberate,agentive

deeply implicated inidentity and power

heterogeneizing/diversifying of language

demands heterogeneous,

diverse language resources

can be used for empowerment and

affirmation

Good writers approach writing with flexibility and sophistication, as a highly complex and social activity

At the broadest level, L2 writing researchers and teachers know that…

So, at the broadest level, we are all interested in finding out:

Q: How does expert writing come about, developmentally, and what complex systems of variables play main roles in the process?Q: How can we support productive engagement with L2 writing?

Q: How can we support productive kinds of knowledge about writing?

Research at the intersection between L2 writing and SLA has two centers of gravity:

change/development/learning: how, whence, when, etc

language-writing connection

These are important enough to warrant

attention and sustained effort!

Specifically,

1. Language constrains writing, and the expanded models for the relationships between language and writing (in dynamic interaction with other variables & for different populations and contexts) is worthy of further sustained research attention

2. Writing is also a site for language learning, and the constructs associated with “learning” in SLA (e.g., pushed output, uptake) and with “language” (e.g., grammar? textual-rhetorical repertoires?) ought to be elucidated and investigated as they are relevant for “writing” specifically

3. Some of the challenges will be in taking the complexity of writing seriously and being willing to invest creative methodological and conceptual efforts at:

Powering our empirical tools:

Complex/dynamic systems?Mixed methods?Stochastic statistics?

Greatly expanding scope of what counts as “writing”

Accreting knowledge:

Single studies and one-shot studies cannot do justice

Heeding multi-competence

So, L2 writing and SLA...

…or perhaps solidified interdisciplinary partnership in the future?

…unlikely partnership?

Thank Youlortega@hawaii.edu

References

Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347-376.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 1-17. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective

feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.

Blanton, L. L. (2005). Student, interrupted: A tale of two would-be writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 105-121.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Toward a Writing Pedagogy of Shuttling between Languages: Learning from Multilingual Writers. College English, 68, 589-604.

Carson, J., & Kuehn, P. (1992). Evidence of transfer and loss in developing second language writers. Language Learning, 42, 157-182.

Casanave, C. (1994). Language development in students' journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 179-201.

Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98.

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 493-510.

Cook, V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition research? In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 16-26). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141.

Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511.

Cumming, A. (Ed.). (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "grammar correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and what do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime...?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman’s ‘‘Stigma’’ tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 77-86.

Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329-350.

Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57, 788-806.

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41, 543–562.

Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51-69.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.

Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.

Kubota, R. (2010). Critical approaches to theory in second language writing: A case of critical contrastive rhetoric. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 191-208). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590-619.

Leki, I., Silva, T., & Cumming, A. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English: 1985-2005. New York: Routledge.

Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 219-237.

Ma, G., & Wen, Q. (1999). The relationship of second language learners' linguistic variables to second language writing ability. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4, 34-39.

Manchón, R. M. (2008). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language learning contexts: Lessons from research. Plenary delivered at the Symposium on Second Language Writing, Purdue University, IN, June 2008.

Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101-121). Dordrecht: Springer.

Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J. , & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes: Implications for theory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102-129). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

McCarthey, S. J., Guo, Y.-H., & Cummins, S. (2005). Understanding changes in elementary Mandarin students' L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 71-104.

Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492-518.

Ortega, L., & Carson, J. G. (2010). Multicompetence, social context, and L2 writing research praxis. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 48-71). Wes Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317–345.

Pennington, M. C., Brock, M. N., & Yue, F. (1996). Explaining Hong Kong students' response to process writing: An exploration of causes and outcomes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 227-252.

Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text-based studies. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reichelt, M. (2005). WAC practices at the secondary level in Germany. WAC Journal, 16, 89-100.

Reynolds, D. W. (2010). Beyond texts: A research agenda for quantitative research on second language writers and readers. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 159-175). Wes Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Rijlaarsdam, G., Bergh, H. V. D., & Couzijn, M. (Eds.). (2005). Effective learning and teaching of writing: A handbook of writing In education (2nd ed.). NY: Kluwer Academic Publishing.

Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2009). Situated writing practices in foreign language settings: The role of previous experience and instruction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 23-48). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.

Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 54, 525-582.

Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multiple-data analysis. Modern Language Journal, 91, 602–620.

Sasaki, M. (2009). Changes in English as a foreign language students' writing over 3.5 years: A sociocognitive account. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 49-76). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students' expository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137-174.

Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic fluency, linguistic knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53, 165-202.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 153-173.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' uptake, processing, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.

Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185.

Torrance, M., Waes, L. V., & Galbraith, D. (Eds.). (2007). Writing and cognition: Research and applications. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Verspoor, M. H., Bot, K. d., & Lowie, W. M. (2004). Dynamic systems theory and variation: A case study in L2 writing. In H. Aertsen, M. Hannay & R. Lyall (Eds.), Words in their places: a Festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie (pp. 407-421). Amsterdam: VU.

You, X. (2004). "The choice made from no choice": English writing instruction in a Chinese university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 97-110.