the role of writing in classroom second language acquisition by harklau

The role of writing in classroom secondlanguage acquisition

Linda Harklau*

Department of Language Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA

Abstract

This paper argues that writing should play a more prominent role in classroom-basedstudies of second language acquisition. It contends that an implicit emphasis on spokenlanguage is the result of the historical development of the field of applied linguistics andparent disciplines of structuralist linguistics, linguistic anthropology, and child languagedevelopment. Although writing as a communicative modality has been marginalized, it iskey to understanding second language acquisition in contexts such as elementary andsecondary level content area classrooms where literacy plays a central role in commu-nication and transmission of subject matter. In all, the paper argues that while it is importantfor classroom-based studies to investigate how students learn how to write in a secondlanguage, it is equally important to learn how students learn a second language throughwriting. Implications of this perspective are noted for notions of learner and target languagevariation, multimodality and language socialization, and interactionist approaches toclassroom research.# 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Writing research; Literacy; Second language instruction; Second language learning

Introduction

In a recent Annual Review of Applied Linguistics article, Leki (2000) infor-mally surveyed second language writing researchers, asking them whether theyconsider the field to be part of applied linguistics. Leki found disagreement andambivalence. Her question was a provocative one, and I found myself attemptingto articulate a long-standing sense that L2 writing research is marginalized in

Journal of Second Language Writing11 (2002) 329–350

* Tel.: !1-706-542-5674; fax:!1-706-542-4509.E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Harklau).

1060-3743/02/$ – see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.PII: S 1 0 6 0 - 3 7 4 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 9 1 - 7

applied linguistics. This article is the result of that attempt. I argue that scholar-ship in applied linguistics — particularly the sub-field of classroom secondlanguage acquisition— has evolved in ways that implicitly privilege face-to-faceinteraction over learning through written modalities. I also explore why myresearch in American public schools has convinced me that reading and writingare of relevance to virtually all classroom-based L2 research.

I would like to begin by contextualizing my perspective in the genesis ofclassroom second language acquisition studies in the U.S.1 A good starting pointis Long’s (1980) ground-breaking article pointing out how little was known aboutthe effects of classroom communicative processes on second language acquisi-tion. The article prompted further work by Long (e.g., Long, 1989; Long &Robinson, 1998; Seliger & Long, 1983) and many others including Allwright andBailey (1991), Chaudron (1988, 2001), Ellis (1984, 1990), Pica (Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos, & Linnell, 1996), Spada and Lyster (1997), and van Lier (1988).Scholarship in this vein continues today, often focusing on similarities anddifferences between ‘‘naturalistic’’ or unschooled second language acquisition,and ‘‘instructed’’ (see, e.g., Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 300ff) or class-room-based second language learning. A primary objective has been to determinehow classroom instruction affects the pace and nature of second languageacquisition — for example, the order in which morphological and syntacticfeatures are acquired. Data analysis in these studies has focused mainly on spokenlanguage input, interaction, task structure, and negotiation. Although seldomexplicitly noted, much of this work presumes a particular archetype; namely, adultlearners in classrooms where language is the object of instruction.

This strand of language classroom research has yielded a rich body of empiricaldata on the inter-relation of interaction and second language learning. Whileheterogeneous in their approaches and underlying theoretical premises, theseresearchers seem to share an implicit assumption that processes of first and secondlanguage acquisition can be best traced through careful analysis of classroom talk.In other words, they presume that face-to-face interactions and spoken discourseare the focal analytical units of classroom language learning. When I began todo research, my socialization into second language acquisition scholarship led meto expect that my work with high school English language learners wouldfollow in a similar vein and that I would document how these students learnedEnglish through their face-to-face interactions with teachers and students in theclassroom.

But then I began collecting data. I observed learners in classroom afterclassroom. I spent entire days with them waiting to record the instances offace-to-face interaction that I had come to perceive as central to instructed second

1This paper focuses on the development of linguistics and second language acquisition scholarshipin North America. While American and European linguistic scholarship share mutual influences,they have also had different trajectories (Hymes & Fought, 1981). In particular, while Hallidayan andother functionalist perspectives have been influential in classroom second language acquisitionresearch in the U.K. and Australia, they have had considerably less impact in North American work.

330 L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329–350

language acquisition processes. And waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting. Infact, I found that the learners I was observing might only interact with a teacheronce or twice during an entire school day. The few interactions they did have wereoften monosyllabic exchanges. Students’ interactions with native speaker peerswere seldom more plentiful. The project I had envisioned was doomed, and Idespaired.

At the same time, however, when I asked myself if these students were learning— if they were learning English, if they were learning academic content, if theywere learning how to write and to read in English, the answer was clearly yes.Several key incidents led me to reexamine the assumptions I held about therelative roles of spoken and written language in second language acquisition. Forexample, one day while I was watching an ESL class, the teacher held up anillustration containing a shadow and asked her students what it was. One studentraised his hand and asked, ‘‘Oh! Is it a s-i-l-h-o-u-e-t-t-e?’’ The episode struck meas significant because it was evident that the learner had acquired this lexical itemthrough literate means. He quickly rattled off the spelling of a word that isphonetically distant from its English pronunciation. The fact that he spelled it outrather than pronouncing it further indicated that the word was acquired from aprint source. I began to notice other things as well. For example, when thesestudents were faced with information coming simultaneously from both spokenand written modalities — for example, if they were listening to a lecture whilelooking at a text or the board— they generally paid more attention to the book, orthe board, or to their notes. In fact, students told me that they preferred to workwith written sources of input. They found it an easier way to learn because thetexts were reviewablewhile teacher and peer talk were not. This preferencewas sostrong that students even reported that they regularly ‘‘tuned out’’ or ignored thespoken input from teachers and peers in order to focus on written forms.

In U.S. high school classrooms such as the ones I was studying, opportunitiesfor output in the oral mode are often more limited in both quantity and scope thanin the written mode. Studies of classroom activities and language use in secondaryclassrooms (Alvermann & Moore, 1991/1996; Applebee, 1981; Nystrand, 1997)have consistently shown that teachers control the floor and do most of the talkingduring classroom discussions. Teachers in my research, mirroring national trends,were more likely to elicit short word or phrase replies to known-answer questionsthan they were to elicit extended turns. Moreover, in a class of 25–35 students,students have only a small chance of being allotted any given student responseturn by the teacher. As a result, there tended to be very few spoken languageinteractions between these learners and their teachers. One teacher told me that anEnglish language learner in his class spoke so infrequently that he was not evencertain he would recognize her voice. Written output in these classrooms, on theother hand, was far more copious and varied, ranging from word or phraseworksheet response to multipage multiple drafts of essays. In terms of linguisticfeedback, the learners I studied received virtually no feedback on language formin face-to-face communication with teachers or peers. On the other hand, teachers

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329–350 331

routinely provided learners with explicit feedback on language form on theirwritten language output.

In all, then, I found myself studying classroom-based second languageacquisition in a setting where learners could get by quite nicely with very littleface-to-face interaction. At the same time, interactions through writing andreading seemed pivotal in these particular learners’ acquisition processes. Idid not see this dynamic addressed in research on classroom language learningat the time. Over a decade later, I believe that an implicit assumption of theprimacy of spoken interaction still underlies and shapes many studies of class-room second language acquisition. Hence, I believe we need to understand andarticulate why — theoretically and methodologically — applied linguists seemmuch more likely to ask how students learn to write in a second language than toask how students learn a second language through writing.

Spoken and written modalities in linguistics and second languageacquisition

Every theory of second language acquisition hypothesizes that learners come toknow the grammatical properties of some language by being exposed toinstances of it in meaningful conversation. (Carroll, 1999)

The lack of attention to the role of literacy in classroom language learningseems in part to be a result of the historical development of the field of secondlanguage acquisition. Emerging out of linguistics, the field has undoubtedly beencolored by the evolution and resulting predispositions of U.S. linguistic study. Inparticular, while there has been a tendency at least since Aristotle’s time to regardwriting simply as speech written down (Olson, 1994), this tendency has beenespecially pronounced in 20th century American scholarship.

As an academic discipline, linguistics in the U.S. originated in anthropology,where the main concern of language scholars was the documentation of NativeAmerican languages (Hymes, 1983). Because few of these languages possessedwriting systems, it is unsurprising that writing received scant attention in thiswork. The nascent field was also influenced by European structuralist theory,particularly the work of Saussure (Hymes & Fought, 1981). Saussure wasvehement in assertions that ‘‘writing itself is not part of the internal system ofthe language’’ (de Saussure, 1986, p. 24) and that ‘‘the spoken word alone’’constitutes the object of linguistic theory (p. 25). Saussure’s view of writing waslater reflected in Bloomfield’s (1987, p. 255) assertion that ‘‘The art of writing isnot part of language, but rather a comparatively modern invention for recordingand broadcasting what is spoken.’’ This perspective suggests that literacy isparasitic on spoken language and that texts serve only to represent and encodespoken language, rather than being a parallel or alternate form of representinglanguage (see Urquhart & Weir, 1998, pp. 22–24). In concert, these influences


have worked to privilege spoken language as the primary or default languagemodality. While subsequent transformational generative theorists have notendorsed this stance, they have not disrupted it either, declining to align theirtheories with either spoken or written language (Hughes, 1996, p. 136; Sproat,2000, p. 210).

The focus on spoken language or, as Derrida (1998, p. 11) terms it, ‘‘phono-centrism,’’ has continued to have a pervasive and largely implicit influence onhow U.S. linguistics constructs itself. For example, recent comprehensive intro-ductory linguistics texts by Fromkin (2000) and by Crain and Lillo-Martin (1999)contain no references to literacy, reading, or text. Only two pages of Fromkin’s747 page text discuss writing, and then only as script relates to phonology.Through what texts such as these include and exclude, they instantiate andperpetuate a view of language in which the spoken modality is the implicit default.Ironically, Olson (1994, p. 258) contends that it was the development of script as alinguistic transcription system that brought underlying linguistic structure intoconsciousness and rendered it an object of study. The effects of structuralist andChomskyan paradigms on TESL and applied linguistics have been far-reaching(Firth & Wagner, 1997). For example, Matsuda (1999, 2001) documents thestrong influence of structuralist linguists, particularly Charles Fries, on thegenesis of the field of second language acquisition. However, significantly, healso notes that the same linguists were compelled to address issues of reading andwriting when considering the classroom implications of their theories.

Second language acquisition work in the U.S. has also historically drawn onanother facet of linguistic theory, child first language acquisition, in search oftheoretical analogies (see, e.g., Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Hatch, 1978). However, thefield’s predilection for borrowing theoretical perspectives from a parent disciplinefail it on at least two counts when it comes to the issue of literacy. First, child firstlanguage acquisition research and theory are notably lacking in work on thedevelopment of linguistic abilities in the school-age years and beyond (Hoyle &Adger, 1998; Nippold, 1998), even though most scholars acknowledge thatlanguage acquisition continues to take place throughout the lifespan. Syntax, acentral concern of even the most narrow definitions of second language acquisi-tion study, continues to grow slowly in later childhood and adolescence, addingstructures such as appositives and the use of relative clauses as modifiers(Nippold, 1998, p. 161). This gap in first language acquisition research on olderchildren and adolescents is particularly problematic for developing theoreticalanalogies for classroom second language acquisition. A significant differencebetween first and second language learners is that many, if not most, secondlanguage learners are of school-age or older.

A related difficulty is that researchers dealing specifically with emergentliteracy (see, e.g., Pellegrini & Galda, 1998; Snow, 1993) have long contendedthat the antecedents of reading and writing practices are an integral part ofchildren’s early language development. Nevertheless, most child first languageresearchers devote little attention to the role of literacy in language acquisition.


For example, recent comprehensive texts on child language such as the Handbookof Child Language Acquisition (Ritchie & Bhatia, 1999) and the Handbook ofChild Language (Fletcher & MacWhinney, 1995) make little reference toliteracy, writing, reading, or text. Rather, the emphasis is on the acquisitionof highly regularized and universally acquired language competence, and whilespoken language is biologically determined and universal, literacy is not(Sampson, 1985). However, even if no first language learner starts out literate,a second language learner can be and often is literate from the start. Whiletoddlers do not say and write their first word on the same day, classroom-basedsecond language learners may do exactly that. We have yet to fully explore thisdifference and to formulate an adequate theory for how second language learnersexploit literacy in the initial stages of learning a second language.

Even sociolinguists advocating less innate and more socially situated views oflanguage learning in interaction often seem to assume that interaction is synon-ymous with face-to-face spoken interaction. For example, linguistic anthropol-ogist Dell Hymes’ formulation of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972), thebasis for notions of L2 communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980), hasbeen influential in second and foreign language research and teaching (Weber,1991/1996). Hymes’ biases are apparent in his acronym for this formulation,‘‘SPEAK.’’ While not excluding text, Hymes has often treated it as a commu-nicative afterthought in the same class as ‘‘song and speech-derived whistling,drumming, horn calling, and the like’’ (Hymes, 1986, p. 54, although see Hymes,1980, p. 32 for a different view). Moreover, the empirical methodologies that heand others developed to explore communication patterns (Erickson, 1992;Gumperz, 1982; Mehan, 1979; Trueba, Guthrie, & Au, 1981) foreground closeanalysis of face-to-face interaction and have been highly influential in both firstand second language classroom research.

The effect of this work in classroom first language and literacy studies has beento counter innatist developmental views of text production and decoding and toemphasize the social interactions surrounding text (see, e.g., Barton, 1994; Heath,1996; Smagorinsky, 1994). Drawing on Hymes’ work, for example, Heath (1983)developed the frequently invoked notion of literacy events, emphasizing the face-to-face interactional practices that surround text. However, because classroom L2studies had existing tendencies to conceptualize interaction as isomorphic withspoken interaction, the effect of this work has been quite different. It hascontributed to the neglect of literacy even in socioculturally oriented studiesof second language classroom communication and learning. For example,Johnson (1995) asserts that ‘‘classroom communication is a process of betweenteachers’ meanings and students’ understandings that are constructed throughface-to-face communication in the classroom’’ (emphasis mine).

Nevertheless, as scholars including Bakhtin (1986), Hyland (2000), andThompson (2001); (Thompson & Thetela, 1995) have noted, reading andwriting are likewise powerful means of linguistic input, output, and interaction,albeit lacking the immediacy of face-to-face communication. Many classroom


second language acquisition theorists might agree with Olson’s contention that‘‘literacy is a social condition. In reading and writing texts one participates in a‘textual community’ a group of readers (and writers and auditors) who share away of reading and interpreting a body of texts’’ (Olson, 1994, p. 273). Inpreparing this article, for example, I have had on-going interactions with thetexts that I draw upon here, and in turn you as a reader are reacting to andinteracting with this text. With recent technological changes, we experience anincreasingly social and socializing aspect of written communication in our dailylives. It has become commonplace to conduct discussions, negotiations, orcollaborations and the exchange of pleasantries entirely through electroniccommunication. Dialogue journaling (Mlynarczyk, 1998; Peyton & Reed,1990) is a classroom genre illustrative of the significant social and cognitivevalue to be found in dialogic written communication. Even when the reader isnot as immediate, texts are nevertheless ‘‘places where readers and writers meet,linguistically and cognitively’’ (Candlin, p. xv in Hyland, 2000). In other words,texts are always implicitly written to an imagined or real readership, and thuswritten input and output, like spoken input and output, are always intrinsicallydialogic. In focusing on face-to-face communication, we have perhaps notgiven enough attention to interactions that occur through literate or other visualmedia.

In all, then, the orientation towards face-to-face interaction in classroomstudies of second language acquisition is testament to how the historical contextin which an academic discipline develops has far-reaching and largely tacit effectson how we conceptualize research questions and answers. Given the origins of thefield, it seems apparent why applied linguists might overlook the role of literacy inclassroom second language acquisition. With notable exceptions (see, e.g.,Davies, 1999; Grabe & Kaplan, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1998), scholarsproviding overviews of the field often seem to overlook the potential contributionsof reading and writing. For example, Larsen-Freeman & Long’s (1991) compre-hensive overview of second language acquisition contains no explicit referencesto the effects of modality and its index includes no mention of literacy, reading,writing, or text. The volume contains only one potentially literacy-relateddiscussion (see pp. 317–322) of the effects of classroom exposure to ‘‘planneddiscourse’’ (Ochs, 1979). Likewise, Ellis’ (1994) award-winning volume providesperhaps the most comprehensive overview of the field of second languageacquisition to date. Yet its table of contents and index do not contain a singlereference to reading, writing, or literacy, and only two parenthetical references totext. The same holds true for Ellis’ (1990) text on classroom second languageacquisition.

This invisibility is so pervasive that it might almost convince us that writing andreading are peripheral concerns in studies of second language acquisition inclassroom settings. But picture what would happen in almost any classroomwhere second language learning is taking place, if we suddenly took away allliteracy-related materials: all texts and other books, all worksheets and handouts,


all writing on the board, all overheads, all writing implements. I suspect there arefew classrooms where this absence would go unremarked.

The roles of literacy in classroom second language learning

American public school classrooms challenged my implicit assumption thatspeech is necessarily the primary means of classroom language learning. In theU.S. educational system, as in formal schooling in many parts of the world,children are presumed to be literate by the time they reach third or fourth grade.From this point forward, reading and writing pass from being the object ofinstruction to a medium of instruction. Reading and writing are an efficient meansof passing along ever-increasing amounts of classroom information and com-munication. As a result, they permeate every aspect of students’ second languagelearning experiences by secondary school. For example, Alvermann and Moore(1991/1996) report that 60% of high school classroom activities incorporatereading in some form. Likewise, almost half of high school classroom timeinvolves writing activities (Applebee, 1981). Researchers note the tight integra-tion of writing and reading into the overall communicative life of the classroom.These practices include not only extended composition or reading but alsoinstrumental uses of literacy such as the use of outlines to structure lecturesor multimedia, completing worksheets and tests, and referring to a text to verifyspoken or written responses. Perhaps this is why Cummins’ theory of secondlanguage acquisition (see, e.g., Cummins & Swain, 1986), based upon classroomexperiences of North American immigrants in public schools, provides the mostexplicit treatment of the role of literacy in the field to date.

In most U.S. high school classrooms, literate, visual, and oral/aural modes ofpresentation support and reinforce each other. For example, high school teachers Ihave observed will often present the same information through textbooks andlecture-discussion, or present a body of facts in one modality and add examples orhighlights in another. Likewise, they may use a face-to-face recitation format tocheck student comprehension, and a composition to get students to extend andsynthesize the information. Similarly, Goldman (1997) describes the orchestra-tion of face-to-face and textual means of communication in middle schoolclassrooms where student group projects center around members’ joint selection,interpretation, and synthesis of outside texts. In other words, literate students andtheir teachers communicate through the constant coordination and orchestrationof multiple modalities. The notion of ‘‘multiliteracies’’ (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000)embodies this view, suggesting that computers and other technological advancesare making multimodal communication increasingly prevalent. In Americanpublic schools, for example, web-based resources are now routinely used forreference and communication with other schools and school announcementsare presented on video, integrating spoken language, text, music, graphics, andimages.


In addition, there are many potential incentives for literate learners to make useof writing and reading in their acquisition process. At a basic level, writing ishandy. It serves as a mnemonic strategy; e.g., lists of vocabulary or commonphrases. It can also serve analytic purposes; e.g., writing down examples ofgrammatical rules or diagramming sentences. On a broader level, a distinguishingcharacteristic of print is the possibility for language learners to interact withoutthe pressures of face-to-face communication, allowing them to slow the pace,make exchanges reviewable and self-paced, and to put contributions in editableform.

Literate learners also have the ability to choose an interactional modality basedupon personal preferences gained from previous home and school socializationpractices and self-concept. Individuals with a tendency towards introversion mayprefer quiet and reflection (Ornstein, 1993, pp. 56–57) and therefore written formsof communication, while extroverts may prefer the sounds and eye contactassociated with face-to-face communication. Likewise, individuals with a pre-ference for deliberation and self-regulation of actions may prefer to communicatethrough writing while those who favor spontaneity might prefer the immediacy ofspeaking (pp. 61–65). Although research has shown that second language learnersare sometimes silent in classrooms because they are passed over in classroomdiscussions (Pang, 1996; Verplaetse, 1998), Pang contends that students may alsorefrain from speaking because they come from cultural backgrounds that do notshare the high valuation given to talk in many U.S. classrooms. She suggests thatstudents from these backgrounds may regard speaking up in a classroom asunnecessary, or even inconsiderate or undignified. For these students, then,writing may provide a more culturally compatible option for communicatingwith teachers and other students. Likewise, Belanoff (2001) contends that theAmerican classroom communicative practices reflect ‘‘a culture fearful ofsilence’’ and argues that our pedagogical approaches have not given adequateconsideration to the value of silence and reflection in learning.

Given the prevalence of multimodal classroom language learning environ-ments, it seems fair to ask whywouldn’t second language learners who are alreadyliterate in their first language avail themselves of literate strategies and resourcesin order to acquire a second language? Why shouldn’t students’ acquisition of anL2 take place through literate as well as oral modalities? In fact, that is exactlywhat August and Hakuta (1997, p. 73) suggest can happen. Nevertheless, theynote that it remains an important and yet curiously unaddressed question whetherliteracy can be used as a route to second language learning, and if so, under whatcircumstances and with what consequences.

Implications for classroom second language research

Adopting a modality-sensitive perspective has implications for inquiry onclassroom-based second language acquisition on several levels including learner


and target language variation, interactionist approaches, and multimodality andlanguage socialization.

Language variation

Literacy creates a wider range of options for communication, or, as Hallidayputs it, ‘‘expands one’s meaning potential’’ (Halliday, 1993). A consideration ofliteracy as a language learning mode therefore highlights variability in how targetlanguage proficiency is defined in different contexts and necessitates the recogni-tion of a range of possible outcomes for adult L1 and L2 language acquisition.Nippold (1998, p. 3), for example, notes that one of the hallmarks of first languageacquisition in older children and adolescents is differential exposure to languagedomains depending on individual and social factors, and thus greater individualvariation in language acquired. Likewise, Hoyle and Adger (1998, p. 7) report thatthe mastery of a range of registers is a major aspect of first language developmentin later childhood and adolescence. Thus, proficiency in basic morpho-syntax andphonology — the predominant objects of second language acquisition studies —may be necessary, but they are not sufficient to be considered proficient in mostdomains. For example, in order for second language learners in U.S. public schoolclassrooms to be considered proficient, they require a wide range of academic andinterpersonal registers of language use in both face-to-face modalities and moreformal academic literate modalities, or what Cummins (1979) once termed‘‘cognitive academic language proficiency.’’

Research needs to address the relative contributions of each modality toclassroom second language development and how modality affects what isacquired. Weissberg (2000), for example, found that over a course of a semester,adult literate second language learners tended to introduce new syntactic formsmore often in writing than in speaking, and that the kinds of new syntactic formsthat appeared were differentiated by modality (e.g., irregular verbs in speaking;modal auxiliaries in writing). Likewise, to return to the ‘‘silhouette’’ exampleabove, since vocabulary knowledge has been shown to co-develop and co-varysignificantly with literacy experiences (Fitzgerald, 1995), we might look atlearners who know how to spell a word well before they can pronounce it orwhose pronunciation is influenced by acquisition through reading and writing.Moreover, Scribner and Cole (1981) suggest that conversance with various scriptsystems may enhance learners’ metalinguistic (and thus, second language learn-ing) capabilities in specific and discrete ways. For example, learners who know ascript system in which word boundaries are not indicated may have increasedability to segment a stream of spoken or written input into words.

Hughes (1996, p. 134) believes that an acknowledgment of multiple languagemodalities raises more fundamental theoretical questions about the notion of atarget language. For example, if writing is not simply a modality parasitizingspeech, but rather a parallel modality with its own representations and conven-tions for language use, it demands a consideration of how the greater prestige


associated with standardized written language forms influence judgments oflanguage grammaticality and thus notions of a unitary target language system.It also demands a reconciliation of the notion of a single language system with thefact that written and spoken language typically (but not always) correspond withdifferent registers, styles, and genres.

Thus, if we take seriously the notion of writing and speaking as making possibleseparate — if overlapping — language forms, it problematizes views of targetlanguage as ‘‘an autonomous system of fixed symbols and abstract rules for theirlawful combination, all defined independently of their possible contexts of use’’(Ninio & Snow, 1999, p. 348). Instead, it lends support to theories that learners indifferent social settings develop different, context-sensitive L2 systems (Tarone,2000) or even problematizes the notion itself of a ‘‘constant, full developed, andcomplete’’ target language system (Firth & Wagner, 1997). In other words, itsuggests the need to account for the fact that if learners work more through writtenthan spoken sources of language, they will tend to develop the linguistic featuresthat are associated with written registers in that particular context.

Access to different language domains and language varieties also co-varieswith access to school-based language and literacy (Foster & Purves, 1991/1996).A modality-sensitive theory of second language acquisition suggests, then, thatwhile second language researchers have often distinguished ‘‘naturalistic’’ fromclassroom-based second language acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 1990, pp. 60–61;Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 299), there is nothing inherently more naturalabout second language learning without recourse to classrooms or to literacy.Both are ‘‘natural’’ learning environments given the social worlds that olderchildren and adults inhabit. In other words, if, as Nippold (1998, p. 4) andUrquhart and Weir (1998, p. 24) suggest, second language learners acquire muchof their lexicon and knowledge of complex grammatical structure via the writtenlanguage, and if access to thewritten language is differentiated by social factors, itfollows that second language acquisition is inextricably linked to social factors.

A consideration of the role of literacy in language variation and secondlanguage acquisition might be tied profitably to a ‘‘multiliteracies’’ approach(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), with its emphasis on proliferation of language varietiesin global communication. The New London Group contends that globalizationand increasing ease of world-wide computer and satellite communication areresulting in the proliferation of English registers and dialects, making it ever moredifficult to distinguish a central or core language proficiency. They suggest thatclassroom second language learners will not need to learn to produce a single‘‘correct’’ language variety as much as they will need to learn how to negotiatemeaning across diverse linguistic, visual, iconic, and textual environments.

Interactionist approaches

The notion of participant structures, often utilized in contextualizing spokenclassroom interactions in local classroom contexts, might be recast to reflect the


nature of interactions occurring through writing as well. A good deal of researchhas examined participant structures in face-to-face dyadic, small group, and wholeclass communication in both L1 and L2 classrooms (Hall & Verplaetse, 2000), anddemonstrated the importance of talk in the development of reading and writing(see, e.g., Daiute, Campbell, Griffin, Reddy, & Tivnan, 1993; Schieffelin &Gilmore, 1986). Yet these approaches often treat text as an artifact or trace ofsocial interactions that lie largely outside of the text itself. We have yet to ask how‘‘instructional conversations’’ (Goldenberg & Patthey-Chavez, 1995; Tharp &Gallimore, 1988) occur in and through writing, to describe their dimensions andcompare their dynamics to those of spoken conversations.

Swain (1985) and Swain and Lapkin’s (1995) work on classroom-based outputand negotiation also suggests possible routes for investigation of the dynamics ofwritten interaction and its effects on second language acquisition. Swain’s (1985)original formulation of the role of output encompassed both spoken and writtenlanguage, noting differences in immersion students’ performance on literacy-based and oral tasks. However, other researchers who have taken up the notion ofoutput have tended to consider its implications primarily in terms of face-to-faceinteraction (see, e.g., Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998). Based upon work on the roleof output by Swain (1985), Swain and Lapkin (1995), Cumming (1990), andPolio, Fleck, and Leder (1998) suggest that students’ interactions with their owntexts during revision may serve as a means of noticing and revising targetlanguage form, and suggest further research in this vein. Along the same lines,Zaki and Ellis (1999) suggest that ‘‘the interactive processes involved in talkingmay differ significantly from those involved in reading’’ and suggest moreresearch on negotiation and immediacy of feedback in spoken versus writteninput, output, and interaction.

Another investigative approach to L2 writing as interaction is exemplified byLam (2000). She chronicles the transformation of a struggling English languagelearner into a fluent and enthusiastic English user through web-based written andvisual communication with fellow fans of Japanese pop singers. The techniquesthat have been developed in careful case studies of L2 college students negotiatingacademic discourse communities (see, e.g., Belcher & Braine, 1995; Prior, 1998)might likewise be reoriented to show how interactions in and through textinfluence L2 acquisition. Swales (1998) proposes ‘‘textography’’ as a naturalisticmethod of data collection that locates written interactions simultaneously withinlocal, institutional, and disciplinary contexts.

Multimodality and language socialization

Another potential avenue of investigation for a modality-sensitive perspectiveon classroom second language acquisition highlights the integrated and paralleluse of multiple modalities in classroom communication. The New London Group(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), for example, suggests that there is an increasing‘‘interface of visual and linguistic meaning in multimedia’’ (p. 9) in media such as


the world-wide web. Yet Alvermann and Moore (1991/1996, p. 966) note thatthere is not enough research in first language studies (and even less in secondlanguage studies) about how students incorporate literacy into on-going classroomcommunication systems. This suggests the need to look not only at audio, spacial,and/or behavioral modalities but also textual and visual modalities in classroomcommunicative processes. More research is also needed on how teachers orches-trate learning through textual and non-textual modalities, as well as on when andhow this orchestration breaks down and its effects on language learning.

The dynamics of multiple modalities in L2 classroom communication may alsobe profitably tied to language socialization perspectives. Students’ ability to drawupon literate modalities presumably affects the social organization and distribu-tion of classroom activities and participation structures. For example, whilereading books aloud is a staple of early elementary classroom instruction, wewould expect it to be far less prevalent in high school or college classroomsbecause students are presumed to be able to read independently. Thus, this workmight compare how students are socialized into different distributions of mod-alities in classroom communicative processes across different age groups andliteracy levels, and how these differences affect second language learning. Inparticular, it would be theoretically important to document the modality-drivendivision of communicative labor and how it changes as literacy becomesnaturalized or taken for granted by teachers and second language learners inclassrooms. Moreover, one would expect that language socialization in theseclassrooms would take more implicit and subtle forms than it does in students’initial school experiences, and it would take place through both face-to-face andwritten modalities. In other words, the tight integration of speech and writing inupper grade level instruction suggests that descriptions of classroom secondlanguage learning and language socialization must account for the presence ofprint and for the medium of writing.

This work might also explore the capacity for multiple communicativemodalities to convey different and even conflicting forms of interactions andlanguage socialization simultaneously, and the related proposition that messagesabout student and teacher identity conveyed through written modalities mayreinforce, mitigate, or subvert messages in spoken classroom interaction. Forexample, I found that face-to-face interactions in one high school classroomemphasized a ‘‘colorblind’’ ethos in which students’ ethnic backgrounds were notaddressed, while written work often emphasized their unique status as immigrants(Harklau, in press).

In all, implicit foundations exist to build a strong argument for why writingshould stand on equal footing with face-to-face interaction as ‘‘semiotic activity’’(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 20) in classroom second language learning. As yet,however, there has been very little work drawing on these foundations to articulatewhy writing should be considered, not as auxiliary, not simply of pedagogicalinterest, but as central to second language acquisition processes in most con-temporary societies. In fact, one might argue that descriptions and theories of


second language acquisition that deal with classrooms or with literate individualsare incomplete until they consider the role of writing and reading in acquisition.

Implications for L2 writing research

Although L2 reading and writing research has undergone tremendous growth inthe past two decades, very little of it has been conducted in reference to broadertheories of classroom second language acquisition. Leki (2000), for example,notes that relatively little writing research appears in applied linguistics journalsbesides TESOL Quarterly. Few L2 writing researchers seem to explicitly relatetheir work to the question of how students use writing to learn a second language,tending instead to address the issue of how students learn to write in a secondlanguage. While it is undoubtedly important to understand L2 writing develop-ment in its own right, research cast exclusively in these terms may contribute tothe marginalization of the field and to the perception that second language writingresearch is, as it was considered in Fries’day, a pedagogical sidelight in the ‘‘real’’business of second language acquisition. Because there appears to be growingdissatisfaction with existing conceptualizations of second language acquisition(Firth & Wagner, 1997; Leki, 2000), it may be a particularly opportune time forL2 writing researchers to assert the broader significance of what we do.

By enlarging the definition of what constitutes writing, a modality-sensitiveview of second language acquisition can enrich theory and research on secondlanguagewriting. For example, because of the high prestige and valuation given toessay writing in academic contexts, L1 and L2 writing research with adults hastended to focus on extended composition. Research has often taken an implicitlyevaluative stance in which many prevalent forms of reading and writing in L1 andL2 classrooms— e.g., discrete answer comprehension questions, worksheets, andmultiple choice tests— are either critiqued as mechanistic or overlooked entirely.However, a focus exclusively on the presence or absence of extended compositionmay have the unintended side-effect of making invisible the myriad of otherliterate activities in L1 and L2 classrooms. For example, while Sternglass (1997)paints rich and detailed longitudinal case studies of college students’ experienceswith composition across the curriculum, the literacy experiences of one L2student become all but invisible over the course of the study because the studententered an academic discipline in which extended composing was infrequent.While it is true that more mechanical forms of literate activity may not be ashighly valued (see, e.g., Knott, 1987), Silva, Leki, and Carson (1997) argue thatwe need to recognize that writing often serves practical, mundane, and commu-nicative purposes that may not be life- or thought-transforming but are never-theless copious and vital in the academic and literate lives of L2 learners.

A modality-sensitive view of second language acquisition can also enrichsecond language writing research by drawing in research from other areas. Forexample, a consideration of written language as a communicativemodality almost


by definition includes both reading and writing. However, as Belcher and Hirvela(2001) note, L2 reading and L2 writing have been dealt with separately (see, e.g.,Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Urquhart &Weir, 1998; Weber, 1991/1996) and there hasbeen notably little work spanning both (but see Carson et al., 1990; Carson &Leki, 1993). A growing but as yet incomplete body of literature is looking morebroadly at all of the written forms surrounding the creation of texts such as notes,outlines, and lists of points (Walvoord et al., 1995) and more holistically at all ofthe literacy demands of college classrooms (Carson, 2000; Leki & Carson, 1994).More work in this vein is needed. In particular, research remains to be done thatlooks broadly at how learners’ textual interactions are integrated into overallclassroom communication patterns.

An important part of developing a modality-sensitive perspective on classroomsecond language acquisition is to address more explicitly the theoretical frame-works and methodological choices we make. Research on the role of literacy inlanguage learning arguably requires somewhat different theoretical underpin-nings than research that has privileged talk. While much of American linguistictheory in the 20th century has been inimical to the study of writing, Harris(1995, p. 3) notes that ‘‘the last few decades have seen a noticeable increase in thenumber of linguists willing to consider writing as a form of language in its ownright’’ (see also Coulmas, 1996; Harris, 1995; Hughes, 1996; Sampson, 1985).There are thus increasing possibilities for grounding studies of writing and secondlanguage learning in contemporary linguistic theory. The growth of studiesexamining language variation through corpus linguistics (see, e.g., Biber, 1995)provides additional theoretical rationales for a consideration of modality inclassroom second language development.

Studies focusing on classroom-based interactions through text also require aspecialized methodological arsenal. For example, classroom observation andrecordings of classroom talk and behavior have yielded important insights intosecond language learning processes, and in fact have become synonymous withclassroom ethnography for some (see e.g., Watson-Gegeo, 1997). Nevertheless,since classroom recordings are limited in their ability to capture text-basedinteractions, it is probably not coincidental that they do not play a central rolein recent analyses of L2 writer experience (see, e.g., Angelil-Carter, 1997;Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Leki, 1995, 1999; Prior, 1995; Spack, 1997).

The nature of interactions with text is typically more opaque than those in aural/oral modes and not necessarily elucidated through observation of interactants’gesture, speech, or behavior. This is particularly true in secondary or collegesettings where literacy is assumed and there is little face-to-face scaffolding forliterate interactions. In addition, because teacher talk overwhelmingly predomi-nates in the face-to-face interactions inmost American classrooms, studies that relyprimarily on observation privilege teachers’ communicative practices and are notwell suited for investigation of learner-focused interactions through text.Moreover,some interactions take place in writing precisely in order to conceal them fromobservation (e.g., passing notes in class; teacher evaluation of student work).


Interactions with text also differ significantly from those in the spoken mode in thatthey are not as site-dependent. In other words, methodologies are required thatcapture students’ interactions with text not only in the classroom, but also in thelibrary, in their homes, on e-mail, or on the bus.

One way to make these elusive but highly significant sorts of interactions moreaccessible in research is the use of introspective and retrospective self-reporttechniques— interviews, think-aloud protocols, and the like. While such methodshave a long history in studies of first language literacy and second languageacquisition studies (see, e.g., Faerch & Kasper, 1987; Gass & Mackey, 2000),there has been a countervailing concern, particularly among positivisticallyoriented researchers, that such data are less reliable than direct observation oflanguage behavior (Block, 2000; Smagorinsky, 1994). For example, interviewdata are inevitably affected by factors such as researcher–informant relationshipsand selectivity in informant recollections. Nevertheless, second language writingresearch could make a more explicit and theorized case for why these meth-odologies form a vital means of getting at the role of written modalities ininteraction and language learning.

Similarly, written documents — compositions, teacher comments on papers,homework, tests, journals, textbooks and other reading materials, student voca-bulary glosses, and even doodles in the margins — provide a vital path ofinference about the nature of text-based interactions among teachers and L2learners in classroom settings. Approaches to the study of written texts haveproliferated (see, e.g., van Dijk, 1997) and many in recent years have worked toillustrate the social situatedness of text in institutional, disciplinary, cultural, andpolitical contexts (see, e.g., Fairclough, 1995). Thompson (2001) and Thompsonand Thetela (1995) have documented a range of ways in which discursive signalsof interaction can be analyzed within texts. However, such approaches need to beadapted for the description of local contextual dynamics, interactional functions,and participant structures for written texts within classrooms. Finally, with recentand coming technological advances, it becomes increasingly feasible to coordi-nate video of teacher talk and student behavior with classroom texts read andproduced in order to develop naturalistic, real-time portraits of how studentsintegrate (or do not integrate) oral, literate, and visual modalities in classrooms inlearning a second language.

In all, as Breen (1985) and more recently, Bailey and Nunan (1996) havecontended, any approach must marshal multiple perspectives and data sources if itis to delve into the complex and multilayered spoken and written interactionsoccurring in classrooms where second language learning is taking place. Researchon classroom second language literacy would benefit by placing the methodo-logical approaches on which we have relied into a more principled and explicitlytheorized position analogous to that of microethnographic and other approachesto spoken discourse.

In concluding, my reply to Leki’s question is still admittedly incomplete anddrawn in strokes too broad. Nevertheless, I believe that this is a fruitful direction


for further inquiry. I have identified a number of ways in which further work couldboth expand on and refine literacy as a central concern of applied linguistics andas an important mode of second language acquisition in classroom settings. I haveargued that it is important to investigate how L2 learners learn how to write, but itis just as important to learn more about the instrumental role that writing can playin the acquisition of a second language in educational settings. While recognizingthat L2 writing research is by its nature interdisciplinary and that researchers havea variety of affiliations and interests, I believe that we as a field have at least twolegitimate and vital roles to play in applied linguistics and classroom secondlanguage acquisition research. One is to relate the implications of our work inways that make its relevance to the broader field of applied linguistics moreapparent. The other is to interrogate research and theories of second languageacquisition that do not adequately account for the role of literacy in classroomlearning.

Acknowledgments

My thanks to Joan Carson, Bill Grabe, and Charlene Polio for constructivecomments on earlier versions of this chapter. Errors and omissions are my own.

References

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction toclassroom research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991/1996). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil,P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 951–983).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Angelil-Carter, S. (1997). Second language acquisition of spoken and written English: Acquiring theskeptron. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 263–287.

Applebee, A. N., & Auten, A. (1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the contentareas. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 andL2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539–568.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language minority students: Aresearch agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (1996). Introduction. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from thelanguage classroom: Qualitative research in second language education (pp. 1–14). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.) & V.W. McGee (Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.

Belanoff, P. (2001). Silence: Reflection literacy, learning, and teaching. College Composition andCommunication, 52(3), 399–428.

Belcher, D., & Braine, G. (Eds.). (1995). Academic writing in a second language: Essays on researchand pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.


Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2001). Introduction. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linkingliteracies: Perspectives on L2 reading–writing connections (pp. 1–12). Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.

Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Block, D. (2000). Interview research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 757–763.Bloomfield, L. (1987). Linguistics and reading. In C. F. Hockett (Ed.), A Leonard Bloomfield

anthology (Abridged ed., pp. 255–266). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language learning—a neglected situation? Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 7, 135–158.Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language

learning and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.Carroll, S. (1999). Putting ‘‘input’’ in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337–388.Carson, J. G. (2000). A task analysis of reading and writing in academic contexts. In D. Belcher & A.

Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading–writing connections (pp. 48–83).Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Carson, J. E., Carrell, P. L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P. A. (1990). Reading–writingrelationships in first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 245–266.

Carson, J. G., & Leki, I. (Eds.). (1993). Reading in the composition classroom: Second languageperspectives. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Chaudron, C. (2001). Progress in language classroom research: Evidence from the Modern LanguageJournal, 1916–2000. Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 57–76.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of socialfutures. New York: Routledge.

Coulmas, F. (1996). Blackwell Encyclopedia of writing systems. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Crain, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition.

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written

Communication, 7, 482–511.Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual

children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research, and

practice. New York: Longman.Daiute, C., Campbell, C. H., Griffin, T. M., Reddy, M., & Tivnan, T. (1993). Young authors’

interactions with peers and a teacher: Toward a developmentally sensitive sociocultural literacytheory. In C. Daiute (Ed.), The development of literacy through social interaction (pp. 41–63).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davies, A. (1999). An introduction to applied linguistics: From practice to theory. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.

de Saussure, F. (1986). Course in general linguistics. In C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, & A. Riedlinger(Eds.) & R. Harris (Trans.). La Salle, IL: Open Court.

Derrida, J. (1998). Of grammatology. In G. C. Spivak (Trans., corrected ed.). Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Cambridge,

MA: Blackwell.Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, &

J. Preissle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). New York:Academic Press.


Ervin-Tripp, S. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly, 8, 111–127.Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1987). Introspection in second language research. Philadelphia:

Multilingual Matters.Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: Papers in the critical study of language. New

York: Longman.Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in

SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive reading processes: A review

of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145–190.Fletcher, P., & MacWhinney, B. (Eds.). (1995). The Handbook of Child Language. Cambridge, MA:

Blackwell.Foster, P., & Purves, A. (1991/1996). Literacy and society with particular reference to the non-

western world. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Peason (Eds.), Handbook ofreading research (Vol. 2, pp. 26–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fromkin, V. A. (Ed.). (2000). Linguistics: An introduction to linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second languageacquisition. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 299–307.

Goldenberg, C., & Patthey-Chavez, G. (1995). Discourse processes in instructional conversations:Interactions between teachers and transition readers. Discourse Processes, 19, 57–73.

Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future.Discourse Processes, 23, 357–398.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1992). Introduction to applied linguistics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguisticsperspective. New York: Longman.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Hall, J. K., & Verplaetse, L. S. (Eds.). (2000). Second and foreign language learning through

classroom interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education,

5, 93–116.Harklau, L. (in press). Representational practices and multimodal communication in U.S. high

schools: Implications for adolescent immigrants. In S. R. Schecter & R. Bayley (Eds.), Languagesocialization and bilingualism. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Harris, R. (1995). Signs of writing. New York: Routledge.Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second

language acquisition research: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Heath, S. B. (1983).Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New

York: Cambridge University Press.Heath, S. B. (1996). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr, M.

L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 3–25).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hoyle, S. M., & Adger, C. T. (1998). Introduction. In S. M. Hoyle & C. T. Adger (Eds.), Kids talk:Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 3–22). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hughes, R. (1996). English in speech and writing: Investigating language and literature. New York:Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Essex: PearsonEducation.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). New York: Viking Penguin.


Hymes, D. (1980). Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays. Washington, DC: Center forApplied Linguistics.

Hymes, D. (1983). The Americanist tradition in linguistics. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Essays in the historyof linguistic anthropology (pp. 115–134). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hymes, D. (1986). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D.Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71).New York: Blackwell.

Hymes, D., & Fought, J. (1981). American structuralism. New York: Mouton.Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New York:

Cambridge University Press.Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (Eds.). (1998). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics: A

handbook for language teaching. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Knott, G. (1987). Literacy instruction in secondary school classroom contexts. In D. Bloome (Ed.),

Literacy and schooling (pp. 354–371). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the

internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457–482.Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition

research. New York: Longman.Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL

Quarterly, 29, 235–260.Leki, I. (1999). ‘‘Pretty much I screwed up’’: Ill-served needs of a permanent resident. In L. Harklau,

K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching ofwriting to U.S.-educated learners of English as a second language (pp. 17–43). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Leki, I. (2000). Writing, literacy, and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20,99–115.

Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needsacross the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 81–101.

Long, M. (1980). ‘‘Inside the black box’’: Methodological issues in classroom research on languagelearning. Language Learning, 30, 1–42.

Long, M. H. (1989). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in secondlanguage acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, process. In C. Doughty & J.Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor.College Composition and Communication, 50, 699–721.

Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Reexamining audiolingualism: On the genesis of reading and writing in L2studies. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading–writingconnections (pp. 84–105). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Mlynarczyk, R. (1998). Conversations of the mind: The uses of journal writing for second-language

learners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Ninio, A., & Snow, C. E. (1999). The development of pragmatics: Learning to use language

appropriately. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Child Language Acquisition(pp. 347–383). New York: Academic Press.

Nippold, M. A. (1998). Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years (2nd ed.).Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understandingthe dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 12,pp. 51–80). New York: Academic Press.


Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing andreading. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ornstein, R. (1993). The roots of the self: Unraveling the mystery of who we are. San Francisco:Harper.

Pang, V. O. (1996). Intential silence and communication in a democratic society: The viewpoint ofone Asian American. High School Journal, 79(3), 184–190.

Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (1998). The development of school-based literacy: A social ecologicalperspective. New York: Routledge.

Peyton, J. K., & Reed, L. (1990). Dialogue journal writing with nonnative English speakers: Ahandbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How doesit address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.

Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘‘If only I had more time’’: ESL learners’ changes inlinguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.

Prior, P. (1995). Tracing authoritative and internally persuasive discourses: A case study of response,revision, and disciplinary enculturation. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 288–325.

Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of Child Language Acquisition. New York:Academic Press.

Sampson, G. (1985). Writing systems: A linguistic introduction. London: Hutchinson.Schieffelin, B. B., & Gilmore, P. (Eds.). (1986). The acquisition of literacy: Ethnographic

perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Seliger, H. W., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (1983). Classroom oriented research in second language

acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition

studies: Some thoughts from the disciplinary margins. Written Communication, 14, 398–428.Smagorinsky, P. (1994). Introduction. Potential problems and problematic potentials of using talk

about writing as data about the writing process. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing:Reflections on research methodology (pp. ix–xix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Snow, C. E. (1993). Families as social contexts for literacy development. In C. Daiute (Ed.), Thedevelopment of literacy through social interaction (Vol. 61, pp. 11–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal casestudy. Written Communication, 14, 3–62.

Spada, N., & Lyster, R. (1997). Approaches to observation in classroom research: Macroscopic andmicroscopic views of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 787–795.

Sproat, R. (2000). A computational theory of writing systems. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Sternglass, M. S. (1997). Time to know them: A longitudinal study of writing and learning at thecollege level. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input insecond language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

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

Swales, J. M. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with ‘‘context’’ in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics, 20, 182–198.

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in socialcontext. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. AppliedLinguistics, 22, 58–78.

Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management ofinteraction in written discourse. Text, 15, 103–127.

Trueba, H. T., Guthrie, G. P., & Au, K. H.-P. (Eds.). (1981). Culture and the bilingual classroom:Studies in classroom ethnography. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice.New York: Longman.

van Dijk, T. A. (1997). The study of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure andprocess. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-languageclassroom research. New York: Longman.

Verplaetse, L. S. (1998). How content teachers interact with English language learners. TESOLJournal, 7, 24–28.

Walvoord, B. E., Anderson, V. J., Breihan, J. R., McCarthy, L. P., Robison, S. M., & Sherman, A. K.(1995). Functions of outlining among college students in four disciplines. Research in theTeaching of English, 29, 390–421.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1997). Classroom ethnography. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.),Encyclopedia of language and education: Research methods in language and education (Vol. 8,pp. 135–144). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Weber, R.-M. (1991/1996). Linguistic diversity and reading in American society. In R. Barr, M. L.Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 97–119). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weissberg, B. (2000). Developmental relationships in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs.speech. Learning and Instruction, 10, 37–53.

Zaki, H., & Ellis, R. (1999). Learning vocabulary through interacting with a written text. In R. Ellis(Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 151–169). Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.


the role of writing in classroom second language acquisition by harklau

Documents