L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives 9781934078303, 9781934078297

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Foreword
Contributors
Chapter 1 Multiple perspectives in the study of L2 writing development: An introduction
Chapter 2 Foreign language writing development from a dynamic usage based perspective
Chapter 3 Writing across languages in a bilingual context: A Dynamic Systems Theory approach
Chapter 4 Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach
Chapter 5 Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction
Chapter 6 Goal theory and second-language writing development, two ways
Chapter 7 A rhetorical genre theory perspective on L2 writing development
Chapter 8 Conceptualizing FL writing development in collegiate settings: A genre-based systemic functional linguistic approach
Chapter 9 Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research
Thematic index
Author index

Citation preview

L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives

Trends in Applied Linguistics 6

Editors

Ulrike Jessner Claire Kramsch

De Gruyter Mouton

L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives Edited by

Rosa M. Mancho´n

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-1-934078-29-7 e-ISBN 978-1-934078-30-3 ISSN 1868-6362 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. 쑔 2012 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/Berlin Cover image: Roswitha Schacht/morguefile.com Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 앝 Printed on acid-free paper 앪 Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

In memory of Cathleen Petree

Contents Acknowledgements Foreword Contributors Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Multiple perspectives in the study of L2 writing development: An introduction Rosa M. Manchón

ix x xiii 1

Foreign language writing development from a dynamic usage based perspective Marjolijn Verspoor and Hana Smiskova

17

Writing across languages in a bilingual context: A Dynamic Systems Theory approach Gessica De Angelis and Ulrike Jessner

47

Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach Gillian Wigglesworth and Neomy Storch

69

Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction Hiroe Kobayashi and Carol Rinnert

101

Goal theory and second-language writing development, two ways Alister Cumming

135

A rhetorical genre theory perspective on L2 writing development Christine M. Tardy

165

Conceptualizing FL writing development in collegiate settings: A genre-based systemic functional linguistic approach Heidi Byrnes

191

viii

Contents

Chapter 9

Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research John M. Norris and Rosa M. Manchón

Thematic index Author index

221

245 249

Acknowledgements As editor of the volume I would like to express my gratitude to a number of people whose help has been invaluable in making this book a reality. First and foremost, Cathleen Petree, who inspired the project. Sadly, Cathleen could not see it to completion. The book is dedicated to her memory, in recognition of her enormous and generous contribution to encouraging and pursuing advances in applied linguistics. My heartfelt thanks go to the contributors for their generous and insightful contribution to our collective attempt to shed light on L2 writing development. The chapters in the book have greatly benefitted from the expertise and generosity of the group of colleagues who kindly accepted to act as reviewers. Our most sincere gratitude to them all: Pilar García-Mayo, Ilona Leki, Lourdes Ortega, Julio Roca de Larios, and Miyuki Sasaki. Thank you to Lourdes Ortega too for having accepted to write the foreword. I would also like to express my appreciation to the series editors, Claire Kramsh and Ulrike Jessner, for believing in the project from its inception and for their support throughout its completion. I am also deeply grateful to Emily Farrell from de Gruyter Mouton for her invaluable and continuous support and guidance, and for her patience. Whenever there was a problem, Emily was the understanding and friendly voice at the other side of the Atlantic. Thank you also to Wolfgang Konwitschny for his generous help during the preparation of the camera-ready copy, a task most efficiently and expeditiously done by Brendan Byrne, whose invaluable contribution to the project I want to acknowledge and deeply appreciate. Finally, the preparation of this book is part of the research conducted within a programme of research on L2 writing funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through Research Grant FFI2009-14155.

Foreword Everyone knows that writing is a mysteriously complex, irremediably social, deeply visceral activity. Everyone who has made of writing a main site of professional or personal investment knows this, anyway. But beyond that certainty, many questions arise: What makes some people feel the attraction and promise of writing, to the point of persisting until they become (officially or unofficially, professionally or personally) good writers? And what about when writers function in multiple languages rather than in only one, what do we know about the making of multilingual “writerly selves” (Hirvela, 2011)? What does the experience of becoming a writer in multiple languages do to writing investment? What do the trajectories of different multilingual writers look like, and what do their texts tell us about those trajectories over time? At the heart of all these interesting questions is the notion of second language writing development that this book examines. It is thrilling to see so many currents converge into new thinking about second language writing development for the first time in this collection. The intellectual diversity that this book invites readers to discover is remarkable, and the knowledge rewards at the end of the reading journey are many. Readers will learn much about what might be gained if two cutting-edge theories of language learning – often concerned with oral activities – are used to investigate L2 writing development: dynamic systems theory (Verspoor and Smiskova, chapter 2; and De Angelis and Jessner, chapter 3) and sociocultural theory (Wigglesworth and Storch, chapter 4; and Cumming, chapter 6). Other theories also present in the book are the macroframework of systemic-functional linguistics (Byrnes, chapter 8) and the construct-centered frameworks of goal (Cumming, chapter 6), genre (Tardy, chapter 7), and multicompetence (Kobayashi and Rinnert, chapter 5). Readers will also be asked to wear bifocal lenses in order to appreciate, at their most pure extremes, the development of language in writing (Verspoor and Smiskova, chapter 2) and, conversely, the development of writing in language (Byrnes, chapter 8). Most notably, the reading of this book is an invitation that will compel many readers, I hope, to learn how to see development in second language writing as a confluence of mutually shaping forces that stem from actual linguistic usage (chapters 2, 3, and 4), strategy-shaping instructional experiences (chapter 5), tension-ridden social resources (chapters 6 and 7), and curricular structures (Chapter 8). An argument for how second language writing scholars can investigate these forces through multiple theoretical, methodological, and educational lenses is

Foreword

xi

initiated in the opening chapter by Manchón and further developed in the closing chapter by Norris and Manchón. Readers will hopefully admire, as I did, two precious qualities that reverberate throughout the book, and which are remarkable in applied linguistic scholarship, even when the explicitly stated goal of inquiry is the study of development. One is the longitudinal effort of the empirical insights afforded in most of the chapters: from six months and one academic year (of tutoring or regular course instruction in Canada, by Cumming), to two years (of high school in the Netherlands by Verspoor and Smiskova or of university in the United States by Tardy), to two and a half years (of college in Japan by Kobayashi and Rinnert), to four years (of college foreign language education in the United States by Byrnes). The second welcomed quality is the unearthing of agentive writers – writers who deliberately make choices in their multiple-language writing and strive to make sense of their own learning to become writers. This happens in four chapters where writers (rather than their texts, or in addition to their texts) are the focus of investigation. Thus, Wigglesworth and Storch (chapter 4) explore the elusive notion of “engagement” (with grammatical feedback on writing, in their case) and uncover writers who are engaged and at the same time also hold opinions about their teacher’s corrections and may even choose to put them aside if they judge them irrelevant to their writing purposes. Kobayashi and Rinnert (chapter 5) describe writers who, with increasing writing experience, become discerning in their use of diverse knowledge funds they have gradually accrued across languages, educational systems, and writing encounters. For instance, once the writers in this study learn about general and specific summaries in essay writing in Japanese and English, respectively, they may decide to apply one or the other selectively, depending on the language in which they write; yet when they learn about justification as a rhetorical formula for the structuring of arguments, many purposefully apply it across their languages because they perceive in it good value for successful time-compressed writing. Another empirical highlight of writer agentivity comes from Cumming (chapter 6), who illuminates differences between elite international students driven by clear goals to succeed and autonomous in their wise application of strategies for studying and writing, on the one hand, and, on the other, at-risk youth who through the situated, contingent support of tutors manage to learn to negotiate ambivalent forces that pull them towards and against effective means for developing the kind of writing they need in formal instructional contexts. Both groups of writers stand out, as different as they are, by the same shared agentive positioning, positive or negative, towards writing, which in turn fuels or hampers development-oriented action.

xii

Foreword

Likewise, Tardy (chapter 7) construes the emer-gence of genre expertise as a function of resources into knowledge of practices, whereby access to those resources is dependent on the intricate relations willful writers are able to establish and cultivate within their personal and disciplinary communities over time. Agentivity in the development of multilingual writing is a too often missing element in previous conceptualizations of writing development, and the studies in this book have achieved much in catapulting agentive writers to the center of investigation. Finally, the book offers an only nascent but important reminder for future work: If second language writers function in multiple languages, then second language writing should be about multiple language writing, indeed (Ortega and Carson, 2010). The seeds of this reminder are seen in the inclusion of several languages in the book beyond the always omnipresent English, with references to Chinese, French, German, Italian, and Japanese writing. Everyone knows that writing is a mysteriously complex, irremediably social, deeply visceral activity. Investigating writing development is only possible if these seemingly intractable dimensions are harvested and included in our studies by whatever current means our scholarship can find. Together, the contributors of this collection have achieved a remarkable exploration of second language writing development that opens up new uncharted territory. Anyone interested in the study of second language writing should consider trading into it. Lourdes Ortega University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

References Hirvela, A. 2011 Writing to learn in content areas: Research insights. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 37–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Contributors

Heidi Byrnes, Georgetown University, USA Alister Cumming, OISE, University of Toronto, Canada Gessica DeAngelis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy Ulrike Jessner, Universität Innsbruck, Austria Hiroe Kobayashi , Hiroshima University, Japan Rosa M. Manchón, University of Murcia, Spain John Norris, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA Carol Rinnert, Hiroshima City University, Japan Hana Smiskova, The University of Groningen, The Netherlands Neomy Storch, University of Melbourne, Australia Christine M. Tardy, DePaul University, USA Marjolin Verspoor, The University of Groningen, The Netherlands Gillian Wigglesworth, University of Melbourne, Australia

Chapter 1 Multiple perspectives in the study of L2 writing development: An introduction Rosa M. Manchón

Abstract This first chapter sets the scene for the research reported in the rest of the book. It starts by situating the collective focus of the volume in recent L2 writing scholarship. Key professional initiatives and disciplinary developments in the field are highlighted and the reader is then introduced to the overarching aims of the volume against this background. A description of the structure of the book and a synthesis of the content of the chapters in it follow. The final section is a brief assessment of contribution the volume intends to make to L2 writing studies. 1. Introduction: Situating the study of development in L2 writing scholarship The study of second and foreign language (L2) writing has experienced a remarkable growth since its inception in the early 1990’s. As noted by Leki, Cumming, and Silva (2008) in their recent survey of the field, several crucial developments have taken place during this time (which they refer to as “several firsts in L2 writing research”, p. 1), including the launching of the first academic journal devoted to L2 writing (the Journal of Second Language Writing, co-founded by Ilona Leki and Tony Silva in 1992) and the birth of the first academic forum for the dissemination of L2 writing research among academics and practitioners (the Symposium on Second Language Writing, co-founded by Tony Silva and Paul Matsuda in 1998). Equally relevant is the birth of two monograph series dedicated to the promotion of research in the field and respectively published by Parlor Press and the University of Michigan Press. These various disciplinary and professional initiatives have in part prompted the notable outburst of research activity in the field, while at the same time facilitating its visibility and dissemination. The result is that the

2

Rosa M. Manchón

past 25 years have witnessed a gradual expansion of the theoretical frameworks and epistemological paradigms informing and guiding research, greater variety in theoretical, applied, and, to a lesser extent, methodological preoccupations of L2 writing researchers, enlarged range of research methods, the expansion of contexts and populations under study, and, hence, scrutiny of more diverse purposes for learning and teaching writing. The magnitude of theoretical and applied research efforts and achievements, coupled with the breadth of scholarly approaches adopted, can help to explain why, despite its short history, several edited collections and guest-edited issues in international journals have already attempted to take stock of the development of the field, at times complemented with forward-looking moves aimed at opening new research avenues. Research developments in the field have also materialized in state-of-the-art volumes and in collections of meta-reflections and empirical studies in given strands of research. As could be expected, in addition to general comprehensive syntheses (e.g. Hyland 2002/2009; Leki, Cumming, and Silva 2008; Kroll 2003), there exist edited volumes dealing with theoretical issues (Silva and Matsuda 2010), research methodology concerns (Matsuda and Silva 2005), or pedagogical matters (e.g. Matsuda, Cox, Jordan, and Ortmeier-Hooper 2006; Kasten 2010). Others have explored disciplinary interfaces (Belcher and Hirvela 2001, 2008; Charles, Peccorari, and Hunston 2009; Manchón 2011), while still others have provided critical state-of-the-art accounts or theoretical and/or empirical surveys of key areas of investigation, including (but not limited to): studies of feedback (e.g. Hyland and Hyland 2006), genre studies (e.g. Tardy 2011), or specific populations and contexts, be it foreign language writers (Byrnes, Maxim, and Norris 2010; Cimasko and Reichelt 2011; Manchón 2009), academics (e.g. Lillis and Curry 2010), or adolescent writers (Cumming forthcoming; Ortmeier-Hooper and Enright 2011). Given that a substantial part of available empirical insights is the outcome of the sustained engagement of individuals or research teams in long-term programmes of research, several summative accounts of these comprehensive research projects are available. This trend is illustrated by Cumming’s (2006) report of the research project on goals in academic writing that he led at the University of Toronto (see also Cumming, forthcoming), Manchón’s (2009) compendium of a group of influential programmes of research on foreign language writing undertaken in various parts of the world, and Byrnes, Maxim, and Norris’s (2010) recent comprehensive report of their decade-long research programme on the design and implementation of a genre-based curriculum for the development of writing skills in the German undergraduate degree programme at Georgetown.

Multiple perspectives on L2 writing development

3

The chapters in the present book are intended to add to the breath of research on L2 writing and to advance disciplinary conversations with their collective exploration of the development of L2 writing competencies, an issue of the utmost theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical relevance, and one that, surprisingly, has not been systematically approached in the otherwise abundant research in the field. It must be acknowledged, however, that a focus on development has implicitly or explicitly been present in several strands of L2 writing research. The most obvious case would be the empirical investigations centred on the study of “language” development in writing (see review in Polio 2012). A focus on development is also explicit or implicit in studies on the effects of feedback (e.g. Sheen 2011; Storch andWigglesworth 2010), and in those that have explored the changes in writing processes and products that result from progression in L2 abilities and writing expertise (e.g. Manchón, Roca de Larios, and Murphy 2009; Rinnert and Kobayashi 2009) or from participating in diverse educational experiences (e.g. Byrnes 2011; Manchón and Roca de Larios 2011; Sasaki 2004, 2009, 2011). Development has also been in focal attention in the research that has traced the acquisition of disciplinary learning (e.g. Spack 1997; Leki 2011). Despite the insights obtained in these various strands of research, many open questions still exist with respect to such central concerns as what develops in L2 writing development, which intervening factors foster or hinder advancement in the acquisition of writing competencies, which theoretical approaches can best inform research efforts in the field, which research methods can best allow the systematic investigation of the multifaceted nature of evolving L2 writing capacities, or how research on L2 writing development can be conceptualized, designed, and implemented in pedagogically relevant ways. This calls for more studies that intentionally examine the developmental acquisition of L2 writing competencies. 2. Aims of the book The present volume finds its niche in current L2 writing studies in view of the existing empirical questions in need of further scholarly attention. However, it should be emphasized at the outset that the book is more intentionally geared towards opening a dialogue and pointing to necessary theoretical and methodological developments and refinements, than to providing definitive answers to any of the empirical questions posed above. More precisely, the book was planned with three global aims in mind.

4

Rosa M. Manchón

The more encompassing aim was for the volume to represent a pioneering effort to engage diverse theoretical stances and developments in current language learning studies in order to explore how they might illuminate, both individually and collectively, the inquiry into the acquisition of evolving L2 writing capacities. An underlying assumption guiding the planning of the book has been the recognition that the development of writing competencies is a socially-mediated, individual achievement that is at the same time multifaceted in nature. Accordingly, it was assumed that a prerequisites for a principled investigation of writing development would be for the research agenda to include the analysis of dimensions other than those involved in language development, however crucial understanding language development may be. A second requirement would be for the research agenda to delve into both individual and social factors that may be at play in the development of writing competences. Consistent with this programmatic principle, the research described in the chapters in this collection aims at illuminating the manner in which diverse theoretical frameworks can shed light on the evolution of various features of the texts produced by L2 writers, on the changes in the antecedents of and motives for L2 writers’ engagement with writing, and on the writer-internal and writer-external factors and variables that may be implicated in the development of evolving L2 writing competences in their many facets. The book was also aimed at illustrating the extent to which diverse theoretical frameworks can inform research methodology in the study of writing development, and/or instructional decision-making in the planning and implementation of instructional interventions intended to foster progression in the acquisition of L2 writing capacities in a principled manner. From the methodological angle, the book adds to current disciplinary conversations on how to measure linguistic development (see Biber, Gray, and Poonpou 2011; Lu 2011; Norris and Ortega 2009, Ortega 2012for recent proposals). From a pedagogical perspective, the volume fills a gap in previous research given the scant attention paid to curricular concerns in pedagogically-oriented L2 writing research, and the equally limited interest in investigating how to foster L2 writing abilities in instructed SLA research. Finally, another important aim in the original conception of the book was to open a dialogue for how future research on L2 writing development could and should proceed: based on the insights offered in the theoreticallyinformed first seven chapters, the last chapter takes a theory-neutral perspective and adds a critical reflection on what lies ahead in our quest for answers to the still open questions on L2 writing development at the levels of theory, research, and pedagogy.

Multiple perspectives on L2 writing development

5

3. Multiple perspectives for the study of L2 writing development The theoretical perspectives embraced in the research described in the book are dynamic systems theory, sociocultural theories of language learning, theories of multicompetence in language learning studies, goal theories in education and psychology, genre theories in L2 writing research, and systemic functional linguistics. An additional clarification is pertinent at this point: the book does not aim to represent all possible theoretical approaches relevant to the study of writing development. Cumming has recently noted that “No single theory might ever explain such complex phenomena as second language writing, which necessarily involves the full range of psychological, cultural, linguistic, political, and educational variables in which humans engage” (Cumming 2010:19). I would argue that the same applies to L2 writing development: like writing more generally, and as the chapters in the book distinctively show, the development of L2 writing capacities is intrinsically a multifaceted phenomenon that is mediated by a wide range of varied personal and situational variables. Therefore, the array of theoretical perspectives represented here should be viewed as relevant lenses through which to look into the varied facets and dimensions (linguistic, psychological, affective, educational, etc.) involved in the development of L2 writing capacities. They collectively represent a comprehensive and complementary range of approaches capable of providing descriptions of, and/or making theoretically-based predictions about the multifaceted nature of development of L2 writing capacities, including the progression in language use and textual abilities, but also the evolving systems of L2 writers’ knowledge sources and goals for learning and writing. As editor of the volume, I anticipated that bringing these theories together in a single volume had the additional bonus of, first, expanding L2 writing research in other relevant ways, and, second, adding to recent attempts (cf. Manchón 2011a; Polio 2012a, 2012b; Polio and Williams 2009; Williams 2008, 2012) to explore interfaces between the fields of L2 writing and second language acquisition (SLA). Thus, some chapters constitute novel applications of theories that have previously informed the study of L2 writing, as is the case of theories of multicompetence, goal theories, or genre theories. Other chapters represent the application of theories that, although influential in other fields of inquiry, have not featured prominently in the study of L2 writing, as is the case of the chapters framed in complex dynamic systems theory and sociocultural approaches to language learning and use (although the latter have informed many studies of collaboration while writing).

6

Rosa M. Manchón

The application of SLA theories to the study of L2 writing development is also relevant for SLA studies. Several scholars (e.g. Manchón 2011b; Polio 2012a) have noted that the study of writing is, and should not continue to be, marginal in mainstream SLA research. Two main arguments can be adduced for making L2 writing more central in SLA research agendas. First, SLA theory and research cannot obviate the crucial role that literacy practices have in the experience of teachers and learners of additional languages in a variety of instructional settings, most notably in foreign language instructional contexts (see Byrnes 2011; Manchón and Roca de Larios 2011). Second, enough theorizing and empirical evidence is accumulating on the language learning potential of written output practice in instructional SLA (see Byrnes and Manchón, 2012; Manchón 2011a; Williams 2008, 2012). What the chapters in this book add is a welcome application of SLA theories to the study of written language learning per se. This has not always been the case in many SLA-oriented L2 writing studies, which, rather than being concerned with illuminating written language learning, have in effect first chosen central SLA concerns and then used writing data for illustrative purposes (see Manchón 2011b). This means that writing is in more focal attention in some of the chapters in the volume rather than being marginal to the research endeavour. 4. The chapters in the book In addition to the present introductory chapter, the book is made up of eight chapters. Chapters 2 to 7 present an empirical study on writing development each one informed by a different theoretical perspective. The first three chapters represent applications of SLA theories to the study of writing development: dynamic systems theory (Chapter 2, by Verspoor and Smiskona, and Chapter 3, by De Angelis and Jessner), and sociocultural theory (Chapter 4, by Wiggesworth and Storch). The research reported in Chapter 5, by Kobayashi and Rinnert, is framed in theories of multicompetence, an SLA theoretical approach that has previously informed theory and research in L2 writing research (see Ortega and Carson 2010; Manchón et al 2009). The next two chapters illustrate new ways of informing the study of writing development by influential theories in L2 writing studies: goals theories (Chapter 6, by Cumming) and genre theory (Chapter 7). Complementing these six empirical studies, Chapter 8 (Byrnes) presents the theoretical backing (a genre-based approach informed by systemic functional linguistics) of a curricular proposal for the development of writing competencies in a collegiate foreign language programme. Finally, Chapter 9 (by Norris

Multiple perspectives on L2 writing development

7

and Manchón) looks into the future of research on L2 writing development through a theory-neutral lens. Norris and Manchón contribute metareflections and suggestions for conducting future theoretically informed research in a methodologically-principled and educationally-relevant manner. In order to contribute to the internal coherence of the book, the theoretically-informed chapters (chapters 2 to 8) follow an identical structure: I asked contributors to open their analyses with an account of the specific theoretical perspective informing their inquiry, to be followed by an assessment of the relevance of the perspective adopted for the study of L2 writing development. Chapters 2 to 7 then present the key elements of an empirical investigation into a given dimension of L2 writing development, whose results are later interpreted from the perspective of the light they shed (at the levels of theory and/or methodology) on the general theme of the book. In the case of Chapter 8, the description of the key elements of the theory in focus is followed by a detailed analysis of the manner in which the theory informed the setting up and implementation of a curricular proposal for the development of L2 writing competencies in a university setting. The first two chapters in the book illustrate the application of two strands of current dynamic systems theory (DST) approaches to language development. In Chapter 2, Marjolijn Verspoor and Hana Smiskova, analyze the development of formulaic sequences (chunks) in the written output of two groups of Dutch high school learners of English who differed in the intensity of the L2 instruction received. In addition to reporting the effect of the independent variable on the number and type of chunks used in the course of the two years the study covered, the chapter serves to illuminate the kind of insights that a DST approach to data analysis can reveal (see also Verspoor, de Bot, and Lowie 2011): in their detailed case study of the development of two writers (one from each instructional group), Verspoor and Smiskova convincingly illustrate the variability inherent to language development in writing, as well as the power that DST approaches possess for uncovering aspects of development that would otherwise remain hidden. The chapter by Gessica De Angelis and Ulrike Jessner (Chapter 3) can be seen as a complement to the chapter by Verspoor and Smiskova given its focus on language development and its framing in DST. But whereas Verspoor and Smiskova look into variability as one of the major features of a DST approach (see recent discussion in de Bot and Larsen-Freman, 2011), the study by De Angelis and Jessner highlights a holistic understanding of the dynamics and complexity of second/multilingual writing

8

Rosa M. Manchón

processes, which is a prerequisite of a DST approach. They use their data (writing samples of multilingual users of Italian (L1), German (L2) and English (L3), collected within a wider writing assessment project carried out in South Tyrol, Italy) to discuss the construct of multicompetence and the development of emergent properties such as multilingual awareness in dynamic/complex writing systems development. Their data helps to uncover the interaction between all the languages known by their multilingual participants and the extent to which such interactions may influence writing development over time, an issue fully developed by Kobayashi and Rinnert in Chapter 5. De Angelis and Jessner advocate the advantages of adopting a holistic or multilingual approach when investigating multilingual development, in general, and writing development, in particular, a claim with important theoretical and methodological implications for future research into L2 writing development. The application of SLA theories to the study of writing development and the focus on language development continues in Chapter 4, in which Gillian Wigglesworth and Neomy Storch analyze the language used in several drafts by English L2 users of predominantly Asian backgrounds, after having received feedback on their collaboratively written texts. Their focus is on development understood as “opportunities to learn language” via processing of feedback. Wigglesworth and Storch analyze the changes observed in the texts produced before and after the participants received feedback, as well as the potential effects of the processing of the various types of feedback on writing development. Their study is hence an SLA-oriented attempt to explain the potential of writing (i.e collaborative writing) for language development and, as such, it adds to recent initiatives to uncover the language learning potential of written output practice, in general, and of the processing of feedback, in particular (see Hyland 2011). Chapter 5, by Hiroe Kobayashi and Carol Rinnert, is a comprehensive illustration of the multicompetence and multilingual approach defended by De Angelis and Jessner in Chapter 3. Complementing the focus on writing development as manifested in linguistic changes in the three previous chapters, Kobayashi and Rinnert introduce a new dimension of writing development with their analysis of changes in L2 writers’ textual abilities: their interest lies in multicompetent writers’ development of control over the texts they produce in the various languages that form their linguistic repertoire. More precisely, they analyzed their data from novice and more experienced English L2 writers of varying language backgrounds in order to illustrate both the nature of changes in the repertoire of L1 and L2 writing and the extent to which increases in L1 and L2 writing knowledge may influence the development of L2 writing textual abilities. In addition to

Multiple perspectives on L2 writing development

9

shedding light on the changing interaction among repertoires of knowledge and on the strategic way in which multilingual and muticompetent writers select from their knowledge sources as these develop, the chapter represents a worthy theoretical contribution to the volume with its proposal of a refined notion of “cross-language writing transfer”, which is fully informed by principles of multicompetence. Chapter 6 by Alister Cumming can be seen as a complement to Kobayashi and Rinnert’s study given its focus on the antecedents of L2 writers’ engagement in and with writing. Whereas Kobayashi and Rinnert delve into the evolution and interaction of the repertoire of knowledge of multilingual writers, Cumming’s object of study are the goals for learning and writing of two distinct groups of L2 writers: adult international students preparing for university admission, and at-risk adolescents participating in an afterschool tutoring program. An interesting aspect of the research reported is the analysis of the nature and evolution of the adolescent participants’ goals with respect to their school and out-of-school writing. The insights obtained have theoretical, methodological, and instructional implications. Theoretically, a robust conclusion from the two projects described in the chapter is the close interaction between goals and L2 writing development in the sense that goals “follow from but also determine development.” Methodologically, the study, much like the research reported in Chapter 2, illustrates the need to look for ways to uncover aspects of development (in this case, the evolution of goals for learning and writing) that would otherwise remain hidden. From an educational angle, Cumming convincingly argues why goals make suitable foci for instructional interventions, with some provisos related to the individual and contextual nature of goals: “goals are contingent upon contexts, learners, and purposes for writing improvement.” Chapters 7 and 8 complement the theoretical perspectives in the previous chapters with an application of genre theories. Similar to the foci of the studies by Kobayashi and Rinnert and Cumming on aspects other than language development itself, Christine Tardy delves in Chapter 7 into a crucial dimension of writing development: the nature of genre knowledge and its development in instructional and non-instructional settings. Framed in a multi-dimensional and dynamic model of genre knowledge (Tardy 2009), and using a variety of data sources, Tardy offers a comprehensive analysis of the two-year development of genre knowledge of four advanced ESL writers. Her study serves to illustrate the aspects of writing development that genre theory can illuminate, including the resources L2 writers draw upon and the strategies they deploy when developing their genre knowledge, the socially-situated nature of the acquisition of this strategic

10

Rosa M. Manchón

repertoire, and the role of writer-internal and writer-external factors in the use of strategies. Her findings add to a common thread throughout the chapters in the book: the notable individual variation that characterizes L2 writing development, and the range of socio-psychological and educational variables that may influence such development. Tardy emphasizes the unique way in which L2 writers build genre knowledge “because no two experiences are identical”, and she points to a range of personal, contextual, and task-related mediating factors, whose consideration echoes some of the conclusions reached by Cumming regarding the range of variables that may be implicated in the setting up and development of goals for learning and writing. The insights obtained in the empirical findings reported in the previous chapters are complemented by the pedagogically-oriented analysis of writing development that Heidi Byrnes offers in Chapter 8. She convincingly argues for the crucial curricular dimension that any instructional intervention aimed to foster writing development must possess. She then elaborates her argument with her detailed description of the setting up and implementation of a curricular framework for the development of advanced multiliterate writing abilities by university learners of German. Such a framework is anchored in the notion of genre, and in a textually oriented theory of language, which is fully framed in the principles of systemic functional linguistics (SFL). In addition to vindicating the curricular orientation that must guide pedagogical interventions, Byrnes’s chapter represents a comprehensive illustration of the way in which such a curricular framework can (and should be) informed by a theory of language, and by an understanding of composing as encompassing process and product dimensions “in order to understand the meaning-making resources made available by a particular language.” As mentioned in an earlier section, the book also aims to look ahead in the study of writing development. This is a task undertaken by John Norris and Rosa Manchón in the chapter that closes the book (Chapter 9), whose inquiry into the future of the study of L2 writing development is guided by three overarching questions: What the various theories represented in the book help to uncover regarding what L2 writing development is and how and why it takes place, what research methods can be used to observe L2 writing development and the multiplicity of factors that determine it, and, finally, how L2 writing development might be theorized and investigated in educationally relevant ways. This chapter serves to ascertain the contribution of the research reported in the book to our understanding of writing development, as well as to point to crucial theoretical, methodological,

Multiple perspectives on L2 writing development

11

ethical, and educational concerns that must be made central in future research agendas. 5. Insights gained I would not want to duplicate the assessment of the contribution of the book that John Norris and I offer in our concluding chapter. I will therefore close this introductory chapter by simply listing some of the insights offered in the volume, which the reader may find useful when reading the chapters that follow. I would argue that the contribution of the theory and research reported in the book can be seen at several levels. Seen from a broad, general angle, the book takes a further step towards situating written language learning at the core of applied linguistics research, in general, and SLA research, in particular, thereby attempting to redress the oral bias of theoretical and empirical work in these fields. Along the same lines, the book also adds important theoretical considerations and empirical evidence to recent initiatives aimed at understanding “development” in an additional language (see Byrnes and Ortega 2008), this time with a focus on writing. From the perspective of L2 writing research, the book serves to add to other initiatives to make theory central in the study of L2 writing (see Matsuda and Silva 2010). As Ortega and Carson (2010) remind us, “Empirical research is a cyclical process that begins and ends with theories and theory-driven interpretations” (p. 48). Complementing this perspective, Cumming (2010: 20) also stresses the role that theories must play in pedagogical decision making: “a coherent descriptive framework and practical heuristics are not only useful to guide empirical research but also to inform pedagogy and policies in such areas as second language writing.” The book also contributes to disciplinary discussions with new insights on the development of L2 writing capacities, especially regarding (i) the multifaceted nature of evolving L2 writing competencies and, hence, the realization that the development of L2 writers’ language, texts, knowledge sources and goals for writing evade simple description; and (ii) the range of variables that appear to influence the development of writing competencies in their many facets: a message that emerges from the research reported in the volume is that complex, dynamic systems of individual and social factors appear to offer more satisfactory (albeit more complex) accounts of writing development. Another important message that stems from the book is that this complexity also needs to take account of the complex and dy-

12

Rosa M. Manchón

namic inter-relations among languages and knowledge sources that characterize multilingual writers’ acquisition of writing competencies. In sum, the book intends to open a dialogue rather than to provide definite answers. With that intention it hopes to inspire others to explore the intricacies of evolving writing competencies in an additional language and to do so in a theoretically-informed, methodologically-sound, and pedagogically-relevant manner. References Belcher, Diane and Allan Hirvela 2001 Linking Literacies: Perspectives on L2 Reading-Writing Connections. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Belcher, Diane and Allan Hirvela (eds) 2008 The Oral-Literate Connection. Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other media Interactions. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray and Kornwipa Poonpon 2011 Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45 (1): 5–35. Byrnes, Heidi 2011 Beyond writing as language learning or content learning: Construing foreign language writing as meaning-making. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language, 133–153. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Byrnes, Heidi and Rosa M. Manchón (eds.) 2012 Task-based Language Teaching: Issues, Research, and Practice. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Byrnes, Heidi, Hiram H. Maxim, and John M. Norris 2010 Realizing advanced FL writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal 94, Supplement 1. Charles, Maggie, Diane Pecorari, and Susan Hunston (eds.) 2009 Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. New York: Continuum. De Bot, Kees and Diane Larsen Freeman 2011 Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In Marjolijn H. Verspoor, Kees de Bot, and Wander Lowie (eds.), A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development, pp. 5–23. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Multiple perspectives on L2 writing development

13

Cimasko, Tony and Melinda Reichelt (eds.) 2011 Foreign Language Writing Instruction. Principles and Practices. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Cumming, Alister (ed.) 2006 Goals for Academic Writing. ESL Students and their Instructors. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cumming, Alister 2010 Theories, frameworks, and heuristics: Some reflections on inquiry and second Language writing In Tony Silva and Paul Kei Matsuda (eds.), Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing, 48–71. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Cumming, Alister Forthcoming Adolescent Literacy in a Multicultural Context. New York: Routledge. Hyland, Fiona 2011 The language learning potential of form-focused feedback on writing: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language, 159–179. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hyland, Ken 2002/2009 Teaching and Researching Writing. Harlow, UK: Longman. Hyland, Ken and Fiona Hyland (eds.) 2006 Feedback in Second Language Writing. Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: CUP. Kasten, Susan 2010 Effective Second Language Writing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Kroll, Barbara 2003 Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: CUP. Leki, Ilona 2011 Learning to write in a second language: Multilingual graduates and undergraduates expanding genre repertories. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language, 85–110. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Leki, Ilona, Tony Silva, and Alister Cumming 2008 A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in English. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Lillis, Theresa and Mary Jane Curry 2010 Academic Writing in a Global Context. The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Lu, Xiaofei 2011 A Corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly 45 (1): 36–62.

14

Rosa M. Manchón

Manchón, Rosa M. (ed.) 2009 Writing in Foreign Language Contexts. Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Manchón, Rosa M. (ed.) 2011a Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Manchón, Rosa M. 2011b Writing to learn the language. Issues in theory and research. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language, 61–82. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Manchón, Rosa M., Julio Roca de Larios, and Liz Murphy 2009 The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Writing in Foreign Language Contexts. Learning, Teaching, and Research, 102–129. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, Paul K., Michele Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper 2006 Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom. A Critical Sourcebook. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Matsuda, Paul K. and Tony Silva (eds.) 2005 Second Language Writing Research. Perspectives on the Process of Knowledge Construction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Norris, John and Lourdes Ortega 2009 Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4):555–578. Ortega, Lourdes 2012 Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In Benedikt Szmrecsanyi and Bernd Kortmann (eds), Linguistic Complexity in Interlanguage Varieties, L2 Varieties, and Contact Languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Ortega, Lourdes and Heidi Byrnes (eds.) 2008 The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Ortega, Lourdes and Joan Carson 2010 Multicompetence, social context, and L2 writing research praxis. In Tony Silva and Paul Kei Matsuda (eds.), Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing, 48–71. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Ortmeier-Hooper, Christina and Kerry Ann Enright (guest eds.) 2011 Adolescent L2 writing in U.S. contexts. Special Issue Journal of Second Language Writing, 20 (3). Polio, Charlene 2012a The acquisition of second language writing. In Susan Gass and Alison Mackey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 319–334. New York: Routledge.

Multiple perspectives on L2 writing development

15

Polio, Charlene 2012b What does second language acquisition have to say about the possible effectiveness of written error correction? Journal of Second Language Writing (Special Issue Exploring SLA-L2 Writing Interfaces). Polio, Charlene and Jessica Williams 2009 Teaching and testing writing. In Michael Long and Catherine Doughty (eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching, 486–517. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rinnert, Carol and Hiroe Kobayashi 2009 Situated writing practices in foreign language settings: The role of previous experience and instruction. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research, 23–48. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Sasaki, Miyuki 2004 A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning 54: 525–582. Sasaki, Miyuki 2009 Changes in English as a foreign language students’ writing over 3.5 years: A sociocognitive account. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research, 49–76. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Sasaki, Miyuki 2011 Effects of varying lengths of study-abroad experiences on Japanese EFL students’ L2 writing ability and motivation: A longitudinal study. TESOL Quarterly 45 (1): 81–105. Sheen, Younghee 2011 Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer Spack, Ruth 1997 The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language. Written Communication 14: 3–62. Storch, Neomy and Gillian Wiglesworth 2010 Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 303–334. Tardy, Christine 2009 Building Genre Knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Tardy, Christine M. (guest ed.) 2011 The future of genre in second language: A North American perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing 20:1–85. Verspoor, Marjolijn H., Kees de Bot, and Wander Lowie (eds.) 2011 A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

16

Rosa M. Manchón

Williams, Jessica 2008 The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In Diane Belcher and Alan Hirvela (eds.), The Oral-Literate Connection. Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other Media Interactions, 1–25. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Williams, Jessica 2012 Is there anything special about writing? Journal of Second Language Writing (Special Issue Exploring SLA-L2 Writing Interfaces).

Chapter 2 Foreign language writing development from a dynamic usage based perspective Marjolijn Verspoor and Hana Smiskova

Abstract Writing in an L2 is not only useful for the learner to practice using the language in all its facets, it is also useful for the researcher to discover how all these different facets develop as the learner becomes more fluent. Assuming that foreign language development is a dynamic, usage-based process, in which frequency of input and use is one of the main factors, this article compares writing samples of Dutch high school learners of English in two groups over the course of two years, focusing on the development of formulaic sequences (chunks). The two groups are similar in many respects except in the amount of English input they receive: The low input groups received about two hours a week and the high input group about 15 hours a week of instruction in English. As expected, the high input learners produced more chunks in the end, but there were surprisingly few significant differences between both groups and the general statistics failed to give insight into the actual process of development. However, a detailed variability analysis from a dynamic systems perspective of one learner in each group showed that, unlike the low input learner, the high input learner clearly had a developmental path with peaks and narrowing bandwidth in both the number and types of chunks she used. The chunks seemed to develop in a spurt after about 960 hours of instruction. These findings give insight into the rather slow process of chunk development and have implications for both research and teaching. 1. Introduction Writing samples provide an excellent window into L2 development: they show active language use in all its facets such as the use of vocabulary,

18

Marjolijn Verspoor and Hana Smiskova

idioms, verb tenses, sentence constructions, errors, and so on. Moreover, in writing, more than in speaking, the learner can show better what he or she is capable of because writing allows for more reflection and is therefore usually somewhat more complex at both ideational and linguistic levels. An added bonus is that it is easier to collect and assess than spoken data. The two sets of written texts below are from two students at the same school, of the same age, of similar scholastic aptitude, but in two different conditions: low input versus high input. Excerpts 1 and 3 were written by a low input student who attended a traditional high school program where English is taught on average two hours a week. Excerpts 2 and 4 are written by a high input student who attended a semi-immersion program in which half of all lessons (including history, math and science) for a total of about 15 hours a week are taught in English. A month after they entered high school, they each wrote about their best holiday and towards the end of their second year about their favorite movie. In this chapter we will explore their language development, focusing on formulaic sequences, or “chunks” for short, which can be defined as conventionalized word combinations. The chunks have been bracketed in the text samples. (1) my best holiday are summer holidays. then you are six weaks free and then i [go on vacation] [to italy]. There I sleep everyday [till eleven o'clock]. I go everyday [to the swimmingpool] and [to the beach]. It's there very hot and it's everyday sunny. There is [delicious food] and it's a beatyfull land. (2) In my Autumnholiday I maby go [to a hotel] in Germany or Belgian. I go to [one of] my favourite sports. That is horse-backriding. Maby I playing hockey [for fun]. I am going to Rita or Stella to logee. (3) [there's one film I really like]. that's oceans 11. [it's about] a old thief who is [releasd from prision] and is going to [rob a casino] with [a couple of] guys. it are eleven guys and the old man [is called] mister ocean, so that is the reason of the title. there are all kind of guys, like a chinees one or a [bomb erpert]. the casino's are in [the greatest] play garden, las vegas. they are [going to] rob this casino's [on the night of] a big werstling game, so there is much money [in the save]. (4) Hi, I am Mary and [I'm going to tell you something about] a film or book I like. I have [a lot of] favourite books. [Actually], I like all the books which are made for girls. But I have a favourite film. [It's called] 17 Again. Zac Efron is [the main character].[He's really hot!] [First], you learn to know a man, who's [fourty years old]. He is [not happy with the way] he ended [high school]. He could [get a scholarship] at a

FL writing development from a DUB perspective

19

university, but he screwed his [basketball game], that was [because of] his girlfriend, who [told him that she was pregnant]. Then he [goes to] his [high school] and [because of] a [weird miracle], he becomes 17 again. [Of course], he [wants to] [get that scholarship] and make his life better than it was. But [at the end of the] film, he doesn't [want to] [get the scholarship] and he wants to stay with his wife. [Of course], there are [a lot more] details in this film, but [I can't tell them all], because it [doesn't fit in] the story!

When we keep the difference in the amount of input in mind, it is not surprising to see that in the final product the high input student (excerpt 4) writes in a more fluent and authentic style than the low input learner (excerpt 3), and one of the reasons is probably that she makes more use of chunks. Taking a dynamic usage-based (DUB) perspective, we assume that frequency of input (Ellis 2002) is a crucial factor in language development, including the gradual use of chunks. Indeed, when we compare the number of chunks the low-input and high input groups produce at the end of the study, we see some statistical differences. However, these numbers only tell us a small part of the story, and it is not until we trace two learners individually over time from a dynamic systems perspective that we see clear differences, not only in the number of chunks used at the end, but also in the acquisitional process leading to such use. Using dynamic system theory (DST) techniques and methodology, we show that development is not nice and smooth but variable. At one point, students may show a peak in chunk use, but the next time there is a dip again. In DST it is assumed that individual variability is a normal, essential part of development and that degrees of such variability may tell us something about the developmental phase L2 users are in. The chapter thus shows how a DST approach can illuminate language development, in general, and writing development in particular. The ultimate aim of the study is not only to shed more light on the process of chunk development in writing but also to show how we can capture this process. In what follows, we first elaborate further on DUB theory and then present the study. The chapter finishes with implications for both research and teaching. 1.1. Dynamic usage based theory and L2 development Dynamic usage-based (DUB) theory, a term suggested by Langacker (2000), holds that language is learned by experience. Langacker states that

20

Marjolijn Verspoor and Hana Smiskova

“language is learned through meaningful use, rather than being innate” (Langacker 2009: 628). It is assumed that first and second language development is sensitive to many individual factors – such as the learner’s attention, motivation, cognitive ability and the like – as well as to external factors such as the type and amount of meaningful input and interaction the learner has in the language. The major tenet is that language learners will gradually learn and acquire what they hear and use, and that they will learn and acquire first and best what they hear and use most (Ellis 2002). Therefore, all other things being equal, frequency of input and use are major factors in language acquisition. One outcome of frequent input is “entrenchment”: the more often a unit is repeated, the more its memory trace is stabilized in the mind and the easier it is to retrieve and use it. A unit, also called “a construction” in DUB theory, can be any meaningful utterance of varying degrees of concreteness or length. For example, a single word such as “dog”, a compound such as “doghouse” or an idiomatic expression such as “he is in the doghouse” (which means that someone, usually a husband, has done something to anger someone else, usually his wife, so that she figuratively locks him out of the house and lets him sleep in the doghouse) are all constructions of different lengths. It is possible that an L2 learner learns the expression as a whole or in parts. Whereas both routes to learning this particular expression are theoretically possible, the second route is more likely because most probably a learner is more frequently exposed to the individual words and the schematic construction “X is in Y” than to the specific construction “he is in the doghouse”. However, for other constructions the opposite may be the case. One can imagine that L2 learners may learn very frequent specific constructions – such as “how are you” , “fine, thank you, and you?” – as one chunk before they discover the meanings of each word separately and used a more schematic construction such as “how BE X”. Nick Ellis (2001) suggests that success in language learning may actually depend on how well an individual can perceive and remember such sequences. He argues that if they are stored in long-term memory, chunks may promote grammar learning because they can later be analyzed into smaller parts. He even suggests that differences in the ability to remember word strings may be related to different rates of success in gaining proficiency in the language as a whole. To summarize, learners can learn constructions of different lengths in different ways, depending on various factors such as their ability to remember strings, their own level of proficiency in the L2, and on how frequently the specific construction is used in their presence. In particular, learners may learn “chunks” in different ways, depending on the relative frequencies of the schematic construction (type frequency) versus the spe-

FL writing development from a DUB perspective

21

cific construction (token frequency, the chunk) (Ellis and Ferreira-Junior 2009). DUB theory also holds that language (or grammar) is emergent: it develops in complex, active, adaptive ways (Ellis 2008). A language like English does not consist of fixed forms; rather, it emerges because in personal relations, speakers interact using both their past experiences and their present perception of these forms (Hopper 1998: 156). Moreover, a person’s second language changes continually as a learner receives more input. The changes and mechanisms of this process of L2 acquisition can be further explored by taking a Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) approach. DST is a general theory of change in complex systems. A complex system is any system (e.g. the economy, the weather, traffic) that has different parts or subsystems, which are all interconnected and continually interact. When one part of the system changes, it will affect all other parts of the system to different degrees. DST is in line with DUB theory “because of the complete interconnectedness of the subsystems both in the mind and in the linguistic system, and because of the assumed dependency on both internal and external resources, such as perception, cognition, conceptualization, and human interaction” (Verspoor and Behrens 2011). Language, from a DST perspective, consists of a number of interacting subsystems, “none of which will be completely stable during any length of time” (Verspoor et al. 2008: 215). Moments of instability are referred to as “variability”. According to DST, the degree of variability is greatest during periods of rapid development when the learner explores and tries out new strategies or modes of behavior, which may or may not be successful (Thelen and Smith 1994). The idea is that systems have to become unstable before they can change. In other words, at a moment of change there seems to be a state of chaos. The cause and effect relationship between variability and change is not one-sided but considered to be reciprocal. In development, the learner must discover, try out and practice each part of the process him or herself, and this is accompanied by a great deal of trial and error, resulting in variability. On the one hand, this variability permits flexible and adaptive behavior and is a prerequisite to development; on the other hand, free exploration of performance generates variability. To summarize, “variability”, a term we have used to refer to variation in performance within one individual, is assumed to be functional in that it drives development. For the second language researcher, variability is interesting to study because it can show when and how different subsystems of a learner’s language change. For the second language teacher it is important to be aware of the fact that when learners first try out new constructions, they may be

22

Marjolijn Verspoor and Hana Smiskova

very inconsistent and there is a great chance there will be errors: Errors are not a sign of bad teaching but a sign of good learning. Another implication of a DUB approach to language acquisition is “variation”, a term we will use to refer to differences at the group or population level. In DUB theory, there is no “language switch” to be turned on, but each individual has to experience, discover and practice the language on his or her own: “Each individual is considered a dynamic system whose progress is best predicted by this individual’s prior experience” (Behrens 2009: 392). Because individuals will not have exactly the same experience in life, their development will not be exactly alike. In second language acquisition, we know that many variables such as the L1, aptitude, motivation, and willingness to communicate may have an effect on L2 development. For example, if the L1 and L2 are similar, the L2 will be easier to learn (Bybee 2008). But even when many variables are controlled for, we find many individual differences. As Van Dijk, Verspoor, and Lowie (2011) show, none of the six Spanish learners of English as a second language whose development of negative constructions was traced for 10 months matched the “average” curve. For the second language researcher, it is important to be aware of variation: even though there are common patterns, not every learner will behave in the same manner in all respects. For the second language teacher, it is useful to be aware of the possible variation among learners and offer a variety of instructional modes so that different types of learners may benefit. DUB is a relevant theory for the exploration of L2 writing development giving its emphasis on both the role of the individual and the variability in development, making variation – due to the many individual trajectories possible – a normality rather than an aberration. The theory allows us to look beyond group statistics and amalgamated results in an attempt to discover the process learners go through in their mastery of new skills. 1.2. Chunks and L2 development As Verspoor et al (forthcoming) have shown, the use of chunks provides one of the most robust measures of proficiency development. This is not surprising considering the fact that native speakers use chunks abundantly. Phraseological analyses demonstrate that much of communication makes use of fixed expressions memorized as formulaic chunks, that language is rich in collocational and colligation restrictions and semantic prosodies, that the phrase is the basic level of language representation where form and

FL writing development from a DUB perspective

23

meaning meet with greatest reliability, that formulaic sequences play a central role in child language acquisition, and that fluent language users have a vast repertoire of memorized language sequences (Ellis 2008: 6).

Langacker (2008) further points out that these sequences can range from standard collocations to large chunks of boilerplate language. They can be either fully specific and fixed or partially schematic and allow slotfilling in certain positions. The richness of collocational and colligation restrictions is reflected in the many types of chunks discussed and in the definitions given in the literature. However, as Granger and Paquot (2008) make clear, formulaic sequences are difficult to define and classify: they may be word combinations whose internal structure may or may not be regular and which may or may not fit predefined linguistic categories. They may have different syntactic forms, ranging from complete sentences to clauses or phrases. They may have different degrees of semantic compositionality, which refers to the extent to which the meanings of the individual parts contribute to the meaning of the expression as a whole. And finally they can have different functions. In our study, we have taken the native and near-native speakers of English and their conventionalized use of the language as our reference, including expressions or “normal ways of saying things” that native speakers may use (Langacker 2008: 84). We operationalized chunks as follows: a combination of two or more words expressing an idea (concept) in a particular context in a grammatically correct way, which is an authentic, native-like way of expressing that idea (Smiskova and Verspoor forthcoming)

Table 1 briefly presents the 20 types of chunks, originally based on Granger and Paquot (cf. Smiskova and Verspoor, forthcoming), which we identified in our students’ writings with examples to illustrate. Table 1. Chunk types arranged according to function identified in our students’ writing samples (based on Granger and Paquot 2008) CHUNK TYPES WITH A REFERENTIAL FUNCTION Compounds Lexical collocations

sunbathing, dressing rooms, deep blue, forest fire, after sun cream, two-week holiday, icecream heavy rain, closely linked, apologize profusely; the sun goes down, take a dive, strong current, pretty hard, real close, went wrong, hurt badly

24

Marjolijn Verspoor and Hana Smiskova

Particles Complements Phrasal verbs Idioms Similes Irreversible bi- and trinomials Structures Variable idioms Constructions Conventionalized sentence stems Conventionalized sentences

Aim at, afraid of, involved in, at school, in English avoid –ing; necessary to; want/going/have/ manage to; go –in; keep –ing; would like to; be able to; know+clause; say that+clause blow up, make out, crop up to spill the beans, to let the cat out of the bag, to bark up the wrong tree as old as the hills, to swear like a trooper bed and breakfast; kith and kin; left, right and centre even ADJ+er than; as ADJ as, it is easy to do, a year ago, two meters high, so happy that think nothing of –ing; pay a price for –ing; end up –ing The sooner we are finished, the sooner we can go one thing I know for sure is…; all they can do is… It`s hard to explain. I`m just who I am. I (really) like her as a friend.

CHUNK TYPES WITH A TEXTUAL FUNCTION Textual Prepositions Textual Conjunctions Textual Adverbs Textual sentence stems

with respect to, in addition to, apart from, irrespective of so that, as if, even though, as soon as, given that in other words, last but not least, more accurately, what is more, to conclude, the reason for, however the final point is …; another thing is …; it will be shown that …; I will discuss ...;

CHUNK TYPES WITH A COMMUNICATIVE FUNCTION Communicative speech act formulae Communicative attitudinal formulae and sentence stems Commonplaces

good morning; take care; you`re welcome; suggesting (why don’t we), concluding (that’s all) in fact, to be honest, it is clear that, I think that… it`s a small world; we only live once; the sky is the limit

The types of chunks in Table 1 are arranged according to their functions (referential, textual and communicative) and do not necessarily reflect

FL writing development from a DUB perspective

25

any developmental principles. For L2 development, one would expect that the shorter chunks are easier to remember and acquire. Also each “fully fixed chunk” is unique and just as a lexical item has to be remembered one by one, whereas a “partially schematic chunk” has a slot to be filled and therefore can become productive. Once it has been learned, it can be used over and over again. Because we expect differences in the developmental paths of these two types we have grouped them as fully specific and fixed chunks and partially schematic chunks. Table 2. Fully specific versus partially schematic chunks FULLY SPECIFIC CHUNKS

PARTIALLY SCHEMATIC CHUNKS

Lexical Collocations Particles Compounds Phrasal Verbs Textual Adverbials Textual conjunctions Speech act formulae Idioms Variable idioms Bi and trinominals Commonplaces

Complements Structures Constructions Conventionalized sentence stems Attitudinal formulae and sentence stems Conventionalized sentences Textual sentence stems

To summarize chunks are combinations of words that native speakers use abundantly and that L2 learners must acquire to sound more proficient and native like. If we assume that frequency of use is one of the greatest factors in L2 development, we can expect chunks to be acquired more slowly than individual words because fixed combinations of words are by nature less frequent than separate words. We can also assume that the shorter the chunk or the more frequent the chunk, the sooner it will be used by our learners.

2. The study The study reported on here is part of a larger study examining the effects of low input and high input conditions (cf. Verspoor et al 2010) and a project comparing language development of L2 learners cross-sectionally (cf.

26

Marjolijn Verspoor and Hana Smiskova

Verspoor et al, forthcoming) and longitudinally. In this study, we will focus on the longitudinal development of chunks in two conditions: low input and high input. 2.1. Rationale In language development all kinds of subsystems -such as the lexis, and the syntax- will develop, each again with their own subsystems. Each of these would be interesting to follow. In this study, however, we focus on “formulaic sequences” or “chunks”, which occur quite frequently in the language of English native speakers and must be acquired by the learner to sound fluent and native like. Chunks are particularly interesting because, as Eyckmans, Boers, and Stengers (2007) argue, classroom-based language learning cannot “provide sufficient opportunities for learners to build a phrasal repertoire that could in any way come close to the size of a native speaker’s” (2007: 2). Classroom materials and textbooks do provide the learner with useful word-strings, which they can learn by heart, although, according to Wray (2008), learners have the tendency to home in on the individual words, instead of the phrase, throwing away all the important information that the context provides (Wray 2008: 206). To test these assumptions, we will compare two types of learners, those in a low input condition (regular instructional setting with about two hours a week of English) and a high input condition (bilingual setting with about 15 hours a week of English). The type of instruction is important because in the high input condition, learners are expected to be exposed to and use chunks more frequently than in the low-input condition. 2.2. Aims and research questions The aim of the study is to explore language development, in particular the development of chunks, through L2 writing samples. By taking a DST approach and examining the variability in individual trajectories, we hope to capture the actual developmental process. Taking a DUB perspective, we will assume that there are two main principle factors at play that may not be mutually exclusive: the frequency of occurrence of the chunk as a whole and the total length of the chunk. Compared to their low-input counterparts, we expect our high input learners to use more chunks sooner, not only in number of tokens but also in number of types. Another factor that may be involved is whether the chunks are fully fixed and have to be learned one at

FL writing development from a DUB perspective

27

the time or partially schematic and can become productive once acquired. The fully fixed ones are expected to develop rather steadily (without a clear jump) and the partially schematic ones are expected to show a clear jump. The research questions for the group study are as follows: 1. Are frequent chunks used before less frequent ones? 2. Are short chunks used before longer ones? 3. Do high input learners use more chunks than their low input counter parts? The research question the two case studies are as follows: 4. Do fully fixed chunks show a developmental pattern with jumps? 5. Do partially schematic chunks show a developmental pattern with jumps? 6. Do high input learners use more chunk types than their low input counterparts? 7. Do high input learners learn chunks in the same sequence as low input learners? 3. Method We collected informal written texts from both high- and low-input group at the start (Oct 2007) and towards the end of the study (May 2009)1 and totaled the counts (tokens) of all chunk types identified in the texts. Students were asked to write on informal topics. The collected texts were analyzed and hand-coded for the different types of chunks shown in Table 1 using researcher intuition, supported by computerized searches of reference corpora. To obtain a general view of differences between the two conditions, we identified and classified all chunks used by all learners in both groups in the first and last writing assignments, and calculated for each type of chunk the ratio of chunks per 100 words. To discover developmental patterns in the different conditions, we traced the development of chunk use in two individual, rather average learners (whose first and last texts were shown in the Introduction). For each learner, we calculated the total number of chunks and the total number of types of chunks per text. The longitudinal profiles of these individual learners were examined for patterns of variability in the development of 1. Due to subject dropout we had to take May 09 as the end-point to our longitudinal group study; for our two case studies, the data was available until November 09.

28

Marjolijn Verspoor and Hana Smiskova

different chunk types and in the developmental interactions between different chunk types. 3.1. Participants The participants of the group study were twenty two high school students with similar socio-economic backgrounds, scholastic aptitude, and interest in learning languages. These students had a high scholastic aptitude as determined by the Dutch CITO test, which most children take around age 11 or 12. They were enrolled in the highest Dutch school type: gymnasium or the VWO-English immersion program. The gymnasium students attended a regular program with 2 hours of English with a non-native speaker of English and 2 hours of Latin. At the end of the study, they had had approximately 220 hours of instruction in English. They are referred to as the low input group. The VWO-English immersion students attended a program with 15 hours a week of English, about five of which by a native speaker of English. At the end of the study they had had approximately a total of 1320 hours of exposure to and instruction in English. They are referred to as the high input group. The students were similar in many respects, even in their interest in languages, but they differed in the amount of exposure to English. For the study on individual trajectories, we selected from each group an average learner who started at about the same level. Neither of them belonged to the strongest or weakest language learners in the class.

3.2. Data sources The two groups of learners were asked to write short texts on informal topics such as “My vacation” for a period of about 2 years. The first texts were written in October 2007, about six weeks after school had started. This means that the low input group had received about 10 hours of English instruction at that time, compared to about 60 to 80 hours of English exposure the high input group had had. This might explain some differences found at the beginning of the study. These texts were collected in class with the help of the teacher. We were able to collect more texts written by the high input learners (on average 18 texts) than by the low input learners (on average 11 texts).

FL writing development from a DUB perspective

29

4. Results The first section will first show the group analyses (research question 1–3) and the second one the analyses of the individual trajectories (research questions 4–7). 4.1. Group data analyses Table 3 shows the average ratio of each chunk type per 100 words of text used by the low input group and high input group at the beginning of the study and at the end of the study. The data is presented twice in two columns. In the column “differences over time” the groups are compared to themselves. In the column “compare groups”, the two groups are compared to each other. For ease of reference, significant differences have been boldfaced and highlighted. Among the 18 different chunk types, a repeated measures ANOVA shows significant increase over time for both groups in three chunk types: lexical collocations (F(1,20)=10; p