The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Writing

Rosa M. Manchón, Charlene Polio, Rosa M. Manchón, Charlene Polio

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780429576416
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Filología
• Subtopic: Enseñanza de las artes lingüísticas

This unique state-of-the-art volume offers a comprehensive, systematic discussion of second language (L2) writing and L2 learning. Led by experts Rosa Manchón and Charlene Polio, top international scholars synthesize and contextualize the salient theoretical approaches, methodological issues, empirical findings, and emerging themes in the connection between L2 writing and L2 learning, and set the future research agenda to move the field forward. This will be an indispensable resource for scholars and students of second language acquisition (SLA), applied linguistics, education, and composition studies.

1 L2 Writing and Language Learning

Rosa M. Manchón and Charlene Polio

University of Murcia and Michigan State University

DOI: 10.4324/9780429199691-1

Introduction

The Routledge Handbook in Second Language Acquisition: Second Language Acquisition and Writing is intended as a comprehensive compendium of theoretical perspectives and historical and recent empirical developments on how and why writing in an additional language (L2) can be a site for language learning. Despite the fact that this area of scholarly interest is a newcomer to second language acquisition (SLA) studies, several reasons can be adduced to justify the publication of an entire handbook on the landscape of this research domain.

First, the scholarly interest in the connection between L2 writing and L2 learning has developed into a vibrant research area with rich, although arguably disparate, scholarly output in the form of both theorizing and empirical research. Thus, SLA-based theoretical accounts of the learning affordances related to L2 text production and of the use of written corrective feedback (WCF) have been copious (e.g. Bitchener, 2012, 2016, 2019; Manchón, 2020a; Manchón & Williams, 2016; Polio, 2012a; Williams, 2012). Similarly, a fast-growing body of SLA-oriented empirical research has directly or indirectly tested and, in some cases, provided evidence for, the theoretical predictions of the learning affordances of L2 writing (see, for instance, contributions to Byrnes & Manchón, 2014, and to Manchón, 2011, 2020c) and of WCF use (as reviewed in Bitchener, 2019; Bitchener & Storch, 2016). This notable expansion of theoretical and empirical work hence invites the field to scrutinize past developments and advance future directions, as attempted in the present Handbook.

A second, and in our view more powerful, reason for the publication of a comprehensive compendium on SLA-L2 writing interfaces, and for doing so in the Routledge series Handbooks of SLA, derives from the contribution that SLA-oriented L2 writing theory and research can make to current SLA knowledge, two research domains that until recently have not spoken to each other. Thus, it is perhaps not particularly controversial to argue that early theoretical accounts of SLA are premised on the centrality of (oral) input processing (rather than output production, a notable exception being the Output Hypothesis, cf. Swain, 1985, 2005) and oral (rather than written) output (Byrnes & Manchón, 2014b for a fuller discussion). This explains, in part, why up until recently writing has not been a high priority in SLA research agendas, either in general, or in specific research domains. For instance, work on the role of feedback by mainstream SLA researchers had traditionally focused almost exclusively on oral feedback (see discussion in Bitchener, 2019 and Ferris, Chapter 28) and the same applies to theorizing and empirical work on tasks (as discussed in Byrnes & Manchón, 2014b). Although early research on WCF exists (e.g., Semke, 1984; Kepner, 1991), such studies were framed only as a pedagogical issue. Truscott’s (1996) paper was among the first to relate theories of SLA to written feedback, albeit with a focus only on selected theories.

In her Epilogue to a special issue on SLA-L2 writing interfaces published in the Journal of Second Language Writing, Ortega (2012) explained the neglect of writing in SLA agendas in terms of different disciplinary goals as well as divergent ontological and epistemological principles in the two disciplinary domains. She noted that literacy is seen by the SLA community as “a culture-dependent, secondary manifestation of human language, a derivation of the primary oral capacity for language that all healthy individuals of our species share, allegedly regardless of culture, education, or walk of life” (p. 405). Given that, as Cumming (2013) has also argued, writing is “highly variable and contingent on education, opportunities for learning, and needs for use” (p. 1), writing and its contingency and variability make it more intractable for SLA researchers, who value the generalizability of findings. Writing can also be seen as lacking spontaneity because, with minor exceptions such as diverse forms on online written communication, monitoring pervasively characterizes the process of text composing, and this makes written texts “compromised evidence,” which explains why “written evidence takes a back seat compared to oral evidence in SLA research programs” (Ortega, 2012, p. 405).

Yet, sometimes language production in the written mode is spontaneous, and the application of explicit knowledge never materializes, which makes understanding language production while writing even more challenging. What is more, inspecting L2 writing from an SLA angle is fully justified on account of the likely learning outcomes that may derive from the monitoring activity that characterizes written production (before, during, and after the processing of WCF) and, as a result, from the associated implementation of explicit learning mechanisms while writing and while WCF processing (see further elaboration in Bitchener, 2019; Williams, 2012. See also Chapters 2, 3, 6, 7, and 23, this volume). As repeatedly stated in the relevant literature, the possibility of implementing explicit learning processes is in part facilitated by the idiosyncratic, more expanded time nature of written production, which makes the study of attentional processes while writing and likely associated learning outcomes worth inspecting, as done, for instance, in studies of writing processes, of written feedback processing, and in task-modality studies (see Bitchener, 2019; Leow, 2020; Manchón, 2020b; Manchón & Leow, 2020; Manchón & Vasylets, 2019; Polio, 2012a, b, 2020. See also Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, this volume).

From a more applied perspective, additional reasons to make the study of L2 writing more central in SLA research agendas and hence to reflect on current developments in the domain stem from the recognition of the ever-present role that the printed word possesses in instructed second language (ISLA) settings. This is precisely why Harklau (2002) advocated a modality-sensitive SLA research agenda almost twenty years ago. On the basis of her own classroom-oriented research, Harklau drew attention to the distinctive role of literacy practices in instructed SLA: “my research in American public schools has convinced me that reading and writing are of relevance to virtually all classroom-based research” (Harklau, 2002, p. 330). Accordingly, she argued for a more central position of the study of the language learning potential of writing in both L2 writing and instructed SLA research agendas (see Manchón, 2020a for further elaboration of Harklau’s crucial contribution to the research on writing and language learning). The other side of this coin is the lack of literacy skills in language learning (e.g., Bigelow & Vinogradov, 2011; Tarone, Hansen, & Bigelow, 2013) and how such a lack may affect oral language processing and learning. This topic is not addressed in this volume because of the fairly limited amount of research on the topic (but see Polio, 2020), although it is nonetheless an important issue for fully understanding the role of reading and writing in language learning.

Very much in line with Harklau’s arguments, Manchón and Cerezo (2018) have recently reiterated the relevance of the study of the writing-L2 learning interface for both L2 writing and SLA scholarship. They claimed:

Being fully cognizant of the socially situated nature of L2 writing teaching and learning, L2 writing research cannot afford to ignore the important, and at times even predominant, instrumental role that writing can have in the learning experience of many L2 learners across the globe. Similarly, it would be myopic for SLA theory and research to disregard the crucial role that literacy practices play in the learning experience of millions of instructed L2 learners; hence the relevance of the consideration of writing as a site for studying and promoting L2 learning in current and future SLA research agendas.

(p. 1, our emphasis)

The study of the language learning affordances of L2 writing has certainly made its way into both fields. In the case of L2 writing research, it is no coincidence that the new version of Hyland and Hyland’s (2006) acclaimed book on feedback in L2 writing (Hyland & Hyland, 2019) includes a new chapter on “The intersection between SLA and feedback research” (Bitchener, 2019). Similarly, the most comprehensive handbook on L2 writing to date (Manchón & Matsuda, 2016) includes a chapter on “L2 writing and SLA studies” (Manchón & Williams, 2016), and Hyland’s (2019) revised edition of Second Language Writing alludes to the “learning-to-write/writing-to-learn” dichotomy (Manchón, 2011) as a novel, relevant distinction in understanding the varied contexts in which writing is learned and taught. Following a similar trend, SLA scholarship is replete with insights about the role that L2 writing can play in the learning of additional languages, and so handbooks and compendia of SLA published in the last ten years include chapters on L2 writing, whether conceptual pieces (e.g. Manchón & Vasylets, 2019; Polio, 2012b; Polio & Lee, 2017) or empirical studies (see, for instance, L2 writing contributions to Leow, 2019).

In short, although still an expanding research domain and hence open to further work to be done theoretically and empirically, SLA-oriented L2 writing scholarship has developed sufficiently for the field to engage in a retrospective critical analysis of achievements thus far and their wider implications for central SLA disciplinary discussions, and in an equally broadening of the agenda through a critical prospective analysis on what lies ahead in terms of theory, research, and, when appropriate, applications.

The Handbook of SLA and Writing: An Overview

The Handbook of SLA and Writing is divided into three parts: Theoretical Perspectives, Core Issues, and Expanding Research Agendas, and includes this Introduction and a Coda (Chapter 28). Part I begins with Leow and Suh’s chapter (Chapter 2) that summarizes the theoretical approaches and models invoked in research examining how writing and written corrective feedback may be related to language learning in individual writing conditions. The next chapter by Storch (Chapter 3) also considers the role of writing and corrective feedback in language learning but in collaborative conditions. As such, Leow and Suh summarize various cognitive models while Storch also highlights the role of sociocultural theory, a framework used in much research on collaborative writing.

Part II constitutes the bulk of this volume and includes six sections: Tasks and Writing; Language Processing; Language Transfer and Writing; The Role of Individual Differences; Writing Research, Corrective Feedback, and Language Development; and Writing Research in Different Contexts. Each section contains two to four chapters on specific topics all following the same format. After a...