A critical view of L2 writing theories

Nizar Ibrahim

Has the field of second language writing, (L2 writing/composition), reached firm

theoretical grounds? Do L2 composition theories explain writing in foreign language

(FL) contexts? In exploring these questions, we need first to acknowledge that the field of

ESL writing has emerged in response to the needs of ESL students studying at

universities in English speaking countries. Moreover, most L2 writing theories and

pedagogies have emerged as subsets of L1 writing theories and pedagogies. This is

problematic: L2 writing theories have carried with them the partiality of L1 writing

theories, and L1 writing theories do not apply in their totality to L2 writing. In addition,

the needs of EFL writing students learning FL in countries in which English is a foreign

language are rarely accounted for. A critical analysis of the different theoretical

directions in L2 writing lays the grounds for a comprehensive conceptualization of the

area, which in turn leads to pedagogical implications that address different L2/FL writing

concerns. Based on the critical analysis it offers, the present article ends with theoretical

foundations for a more comprehensive view of ESL/EFL writing and explains some

pedagogical implications of such a view.

L1 Writing Theories

A brief description of L1 writing theories will clarify the influence these theories have

had on L2 composition. There are three groups of writing theories: objective, subjective

1
and transactional (Berlin, 1982/1988; Bruffee, 1986; Bizzel, 1982; Susser, 1994). (Berlin

(1982/1988), Bruffee (1986), Bizzel (1982) and Susser (1994) explain that objective

theories of writing emphasize the view that reality is out there waiting to be discovered.

They add that from this view, reality is unaffected by circumstances, conditions and the

individual’s perceptions of it. They state that current Traditional Rhetoric or the

Positivistic Rhetoric represents this view, which advances western, academic writing as

the only good form of writing and which stipulates that content is waiting out there to be

filled in this form. Subjective theories, on the other hand, perceive reality as residing

within the individual. Expressionism, which represents this view, rejects the focus on

form. Instead, it emphasizes writing as a creative act of self-discovery, in which freely

expressed ideas are manifestations of the students’ authentic voices (Raimes, 1991; Silva,

1990). Expressionists conceive of their writing pedagogy as a form of resistance to the

dominant class, during which students explore their social positions and literate

possibilities (Faigley, 1986; Raimes, 1991; Silva, 1990). The role of the teacher within

this paradigm is to stimulate the students to think and leave them a space to form their

own ideas in a cooperative and positive environment (Hyland, 2003; Raimes, 1991; Silva,

1990). According to this perspective, writing is developmental and does not need a model

(Raimes, 1991). Expressionism is associated with the Process Movement, which includes

the Cognitivist Approach to writing (Faigley, 1986; Silva, 1990). Cognitivists view

writing as a problem-solving activity that involves cognitive processes like

brainstorming, planning, writing, revising etc… (e.g., Hayes & Flower, 1983). The third

groups of theories, the Transactional or the Social Constructionist theories, view reality

as probabilistic and created by the community as well as the circumstances existing at the

2
moment of creating it (Berlin, 1987/1988; Bruffee, 1986; Bizzel, 1982; Susser, 1994).

From this perspective, writing possesses a sociopolitical and ideological nature, shaped

by the context in which it is practiced. Thus, according to many social constructionists,

academic writing reflects the discourses of powerful communities, suppressing

alternative discourses that have less power attached to them. Many social

constructionists believe that academic writing should be resisted, negotiated and

modified in order to create a more inclusive and pluralistic discourse community (Berlin,

1987/1988; Bruffee, 1983/1986; Bizzel, 1982; Susser, 1994).

L2 Writing Theories

L2 writing theories and pedagogies have been influenced by the theoretical directions in

L1 composition: the Positivistic View, the Subjective View, the Cognitive View, and the

Social constructionist View (Hyland, 2003; Johns, 1990; Raimes, 1991; Silva, 1990). A

review of these theories and pedagogies shows that each one of them focuses on some

aspects of L2 writing. It also clarifies that as ESL composition theories emerge in

reaction to each other, they tend to highlight certain aspects of composing, usually

ignored by previous theories, and neglect others, usually emphasized by preceding ones.

Thus, we are still in need to account for a full spectrum of ESL/EFL writing contexts,

processes, purposes and characteristics and to provide a more encompassing explanation

of the ideological, social, cognitive and linguistic nature of writing.

The Structural Approaches

3
In the sixties, ESL writing was taught within the general framework of the Audio-Lingual

Method, which was born from the marriage of Structural Linguistics and the Behaviorist

learning theories of second language teaching (Johns, 1990; Raimes, 1991). In this

method, speech was primary and writing, which was used to reinforce the needed

grammatical structures, took the form of fill-ins, substitutions, transformation and

completions (Raimes, 1991). The goal was grammatical accuracy and vocabulary use.

Writing development was viewed as a result of habit formation and of imitation of

models the teacher provides (Hyland, 2003; Raimes, 1991; Silva, 1990). In the seventies,

another approach, referred to as the Current Traditional Rhetoric, started to take over in

language teaching (Hyland, 2003; Silva, 1990). As a response to the critiques against the

Audio-lingual Method, this approach called for more extensive ESL writing that bridges

the gap between controlled writing and free writing (Hyland, 2003; Raimes, 1991; Silva,

1990). It combines the principles of current traditional paradigm in L1 writing and

Kaplan’s Theory of Contrastive Rhetoric (Silva, 1990).

In 1966, Kaplan wrote an influential article that introduced the concept of Contrastive

Rhetoric. In this article, English rhetoric was described as linear in contrast to other

rhetorical patterns nonlinear. Kaplan defined rhetoric as the method of organizing

syntactic units into larger patterns, suggesting that the rhetoric of ESL students as well as

their sequence of thought violate the expectations of native readers. He viewed L1

interference as extending beyond the sentence level, calling for more pattern drill at the

rhetorical level rather than at the syntactic level. From the perspective of this version of

Current Traditional Rhetoric, writing is basically a matter of arrangement, of filling

4
sentences and paragraphs into prescribed patterns. The context is academic, where the

instructor mirrors a community of educated native speakers. Kaplan’s article has led to

compensatory exercises that offer training in recognizing and using topic sentences,

examples and illustrations (Raimes, 1991). This approach stresses imitation of paragraph

or essay form. In addition, students write an outline, complete a paragraph, and reorder

scrambled paragraphs. Since this approach focuses on form, choosing a topic does not

constitute an issue (Hyland, 2003; Raimes, 1991).

A Critical View

Both directions in the Structural Approach to writing focus on form: linguistic and

rhetorical. While grammar, vocabulary, and the essay rhetorical patterns constitute

essential building blocks for writing, writing cannot be successful with this knowledge

only. Drilling and imitating patterns lead to fragmentary writing, which confuses the

learners when writing for real-life purposes. Writing in real-life is contextually variable

and does not possess universal features. Writers and readers depend on their knowledge

of each other and of contextual factors in their interaction. Writers use this knowledge to

decide what to say and how to say it, and readers use this knowledge to construct

meaning from the written text. Forms, whether rhetorical or syntactic, are not fixed slots

that, once learned, can be easily filled with knowledge. Ideas are generated by writers for

real-life purposes, and forms are manipulated to suit these purposes. Emphasizing form

decontextualizes writing and detaches it from the purposes and the personal experiences

of the writer.

5
Process Writing

The Process Writing Approach entered into the field of L2 writing as a reaction to the

Current Traditional Rhetoric (Silva, 1990). Zamel introduced Process Writing to the ESL

field in 1976. She was the first one to call for the application of L1 research to ESL

composition (Susser, 1994). Focus on the writer developed, where process, making

meaning, invention and multiple drafts became the pedagogical target (Raimes, 1991).

Since the Expressionists view of writing has not affected L2 composition in significant

ways (Silva, 1990), the following review focuses on the cognitive direction in the process

movement. The Cognitivists’ perception of writing as a problem-solving activity in which

writers use mental operations and strategies to achieve their goals has marked L2 writing

instruction. These complex cognitive processes include planning, drafting, revising and

editing (Hyland, 2003; Raimes, 1991/2010; Seow, 2010; Silva, 1990). The Cognitivists

believe that classroom tasks like journal writing, invention, peer collaboration, revision

and attention to content before form would encourage students to employ the strategies

that they need to arrive at a good product. Teachers working within this theoretical

framework allow students to select topics, to generate ideas, to write, to revise, and to

rewrite. They also provide feedback.

A Critical View

Although the Process Movement still plays an influential role in L2 writing classes, both

of its directions have drawbacks. Expressionists claim that writing as an individual act

empowers students to resist domination. However, individualism defeats the ideological

6
stance that Expressionists take. Resisting domination can never be an individual struggle.

Writing is a social act in which writers communicate with the readers who share with

them common interests. Fortunately, the Expressionist view of writing has been taken

more cautiously in L2 writing than in L1 writing (Silva, 1990). The cognitive orientation

in the Process Movement has drawn attention to cognition as an important factor in

writing, but we cannot reduce writing to cognitive strategies only. The Process Model

claims to be objective and neutral, unaffected by forces outside the writer. However,

defining a rhetorical problem, devising solutions, and shaping texts are influenced by

complex social forces outside the writer. In addition, critics of the cognitive approach

stress that we do not know yet whether or not there are universal cognitive strategies

(Bizzell, 1992; Faigley, 1986). “In fact, advocates of the English for Academic Purposes

claim that the approach neglects to seriously consider variations in writing processes, due

to differences in individuals, writing tasks and situations, the development of schemata

for academic discourse, language proficiency, level of cognitive development and

insights from the study of Contrastive Rhetoric” (Silva, 1990, p.16). According to them,

the Process Approach fails to provide students with an accurate picture of university

writing. Many process writing advocates have convincingly responded to some of these

critiques (see Raimes, 2010; Seow, 2010). However, the Process Movement mainly fails

to account for the social dimension of writing. It fails to recognize that writing

proficiency evolves as students engage in authentic literacy events that make them belong

to certain discourse communities. It also does not account for how the purposes of

EFL/ESL students as well as their social, economic and political contexts affect their

7
writing proficiency in EFL/ESL and their desires to identify with the English discourse

communities and their rhetorical traditions.

Writing for Academic Purposes

Dissatisfaction with the Process Approach led, in 1986, to a shift to “Writing for

Academic Purposes”, which includes two orientations: Content-base Instruction and

English for Academic Purposes. In “Content-base Instruction, an ESL course might be

attached to a content course in the adjunct model or language courses might be grouped

with courses of other disciplines” (Raimes, 1991, p. 411). With this approach, students

are supposed to get help with the language and the thinking processes as well as the

structure and the shape of the content specific to language courses, language culture and

literature are largely rejected in favor of the subject matter of other fields the ESL

students are studying. “The research studies that inform this approach include analysis of

the rhetorical organization of technical writing, studies of students writing and content

areas and surveys of the content and tasks L2 students can expect to encounter in their

academic careers” (Raimes, 1991, p. 411). Teachers using this approach might give

students the opportunity to do some pre-writing tasks and to revise. However, the

approach stresses the instructor’s determination of what academic content is most

appropriate (Raimes, 1991).

In English for Academic Purposes, which focuses on the expectations of the academic

readers, the teacher runs a theme-based class not necessarily linked to a content course.

The proponents of this approach argue that language teaching should socialize students

8
into the academic community and should not be used as humanistic therapy. In fact, the

Process Approach has brought to attention the focus on the reader, but the reader is inside

the language classroom as peers and teachers respond to ideas in a text. The English for

Academic Purposes Approach views the reader as the faculty representing a specific

academic community and not as a specific individual. “This reader, particularly

omniscient and all powerful, is likely to be an abstract representational generalized

construct” (Raimes, 1991, p. 412). Generalizations about the forms a reader would

expect become a short step after the concept of a powerful reader is established. Teaching

those forms as prescriptive patterns is even a shorter step (Raimes, 1991).

A Critical View

Students in universities where instruction is in English need to write academic papers in

that language, but the two orientations in academic writing represent a return to the

Current Traditional Rhetoric. The writing topics and tasks in English for Academic

Purposes must meet the demands of the academic community. “This community sets up

standards that readers of academic prose expect” (Raimes, 1991, p. 415). However,

talking about academic standards make us think that there is a fixed pattern for academic

writing that all academic communities use. Actually, academic writing varies even

among members of the same discipline. Thus, the presence of such standards is

questionable. Zamel (1997) supports the idea that academic writing is highly

idiosyncratic, i.e., the requirements and the writing standards for courses within the same

discipline vary highly. Some like Elbow (cited in Susser, 1994) even argue that we

cannot teach academic discourse because, simply, such discourse does not exist. Yet,

9
some L2 teachers base their determination of their course content, their readings, their

models and their instruction of the rhetorical form on other academic disciplines (Raimes,

1991). The problem is that teachers who emphasize the conventions of the academic

discourse community will enforce their versions of that discourse (Jones, 1982). Students

will surrender their language and mode of thought to the requirements of the target

community.

Contrastive rhetoric and the static model of writing.

The fact that English for Academic Purposes is based on some classical concepts in

Contrastive Rhetoric makes this approach to writing problematic. Contrastive Rhetoric

researchers study the discourse level structures observed in different languages.

Traditionally, many of them have attributed the apparent lack of coherence in ESL texts

to negative transfer and interference. From the perspective of contrastive rhetoric, the

students’ L1 as well as their educational and cultural backgrounds influence, if they do

not determine, the L2 organizational structures. This explanation considers academic

English as a superior rhetorical form of the learned, in the learning of which other

rhetorical forms interfere. For example, Ramanathan and Kaplan (1996) have reviewed

some writing textbooks and concluded that these books are not suitable for ESL students

because they speak to the importance of voice, argumentation, and critical thinking. This

conclusion assumes that ESL students are resistant to critical thinking, a questioning

stance, and a degree of skepticism because of what their cultures value. This prejudiced

view underestimates the ability of ESL students to reevaluate beliefs and values, rethink

issues, and raise intelligent questions. There is a determinism in this argument, an

10
attribution of students’ attempts in another language to these students’ linguistic and

cultural backgrounds, which are viewed as problematic and limiting (Matsuda, 1997;

Zamel, 1997). It suggests that challenging students to think critically oppresses them.

This causes us to limit our expectations of students, misread or underestimate what the

students write, under-conceptualize the reading and writing we ask students to do and

reduce instruction. “This reductive perspective on students and their work no doubt

accounts for the ongoing tendency to teach and assign formulaic representations of

academic discourse and models of discipline specific discourses to resist engaging

students in the messiness and struggle of authentic work that begins, values and builds on

their own ways with words” (Zamel, 1997, p. 343). These positivistic views reproduce

the academia’s claims to objectivity and to an accurate representation of academic

communities. This academic tradition tends to codify and systematize what in reality are

complex and contradictory phenomena. Zamel (1997) puts it this way: “Although cross-

cultural research has now acknowledged that an array of factors may account for student

writing in another language, recent work continues to raise the specter that teachers and

researchers who see students as bound by their cultures may be trapped by their own

cultural tendencies to reduce, categorize and generalize.” (p. 341).

The accumulating evidence from Contrastive Rhetoric suggests that the linguistic,

cultural and educational backgrounds have some influence on L2 organizational

structures, but they are not the only factors (Matsuda, 1997). Matsuda hypothesizes that

these three explanations have constituted a static pedagogical theory of L2 writing

pedagogy. He believes that the Static Theory assumes that the writer is a machine that

11
reproduces texts provided to him by his linguistic, cultural, or educational background.

The most fundamental assumption that causes these theoretical views to be static is that

the context of writing is formed solely by the writer’s and the reader’s backgrounds. In

the static model, written texts are viewed as a direct linguistic representation of the

writer’s mental processes, despite the recognition of the importance of negotiation and

construction of meaning in both reading and writing (Matsuda, 1997). The reader in this

view is a decoder of texts, and any discrepancy between the writer’s and the reader’s

schematic expectations leads to failure in understanding them. The Static Theory presents

a mechanistic view of the ESL writer, in which he is programmed to write in a certain

way. The lack of appropriate organizational structures in ESL texts reflects the lack of

proper programming. The prescriptive nature of the pedagogical approaches founded on

this theory has rendered them the ESL versions of Current Traditional Rhetoric (Matsuda,

1997).

Raimes' Balanced Approach

Raimes (1991) views academic writing in English as the result of colonization, arguing

that “…. in teaching students Standard English rhetorical conventions, we are teaching

students to reproduce, in a mechanical fashion, our preferred vehicle of understanding”

(p. 418). Raimes raises some rhetorical questions, two of which are: Do we view the

academic community as benign, open and beneficial to our students or do we view these

communities as powerful and controlling? Should we change this community to the

benefit of our students while teaching the students how to interpret the community values

and transform them? The answers to these questions form the basis for what Raimes calls

12
A Balanced Process Approach to ESL Composition. Raimes (1991) hypothesizes that if

we want to move away from composition as colonization, we need to foster the

alternative rhetoric that the ESL students bring to our language. She adds that we do not

want to treat them only as features that interfere with language learning, and she calls for

a broad use of Contrastive Rhetoric as a classroom consciousness raising tool that can

point to linguistic variety and rhetorical choices. According to her, student L1 serves as

an important resource rather than a hindrance in decision making in writing.

Raimes (1997) claims that the Balanced Approach aims to transform the academic

community to the benefit of our students, and to address issues of power and difference.

She explains that alongside its focus on the individual writer, this Approach pays

attention to form, content and reader’s expectations, and by extension, to the social

context of composing. According to her, it allows students and teachers the time and the

opportunity for exploratory activities. Raimes believes that “through the generative

process of writing about themselves and the world around them, about society, culture,

language and literature, students can discover and resist any hidden curricula imposed

upon them, including those informed by the teacher’s political agenda” (p. 420).

A Critical View

Raimes’ Approach to ESL writing integrates the academic needs of ESL university

students and the principles of Process Writing. While Raimes’ Balanced Process

Approach assumes a dynamic relationship between the writer and the reader and

constitutes a milestone in writing pedagogy, it fails to address the social and ideological

13
dimensions of ESL composition. Raimes herself says that her approach addresses the

social context by extension. In addition, while involving students in exploratory activities

is valued and desired, it does not guarantee the students’ discovery of and resistance to

the hidden curricula and the political agendas of the university faculty. Students and

professors act from differential power positions that require more than just involvement

in exploratory activities, so that these positions become appropriate for meaningful and

effective negotiations between the students and the professors. Raimes’ approach needs

to account for some factors including the following:

How can the academic ESL/EFL writing curriculum position students appropriately so

that they bring their alternative rhetorical forms to attention?

How can the policies and the curricula of the academic ESL/EFL writing programs

address issues of power and difference?

How can the academic ESL/EFL writing programs guarantee acceptance of the students’

alternative rhetorical forms in a way that ensures the production of effective

communicative texts?

The Social Constructionist View of Writing

A third group of theories, alternately called "The Transactional Theories", "The New

Rhetoric”, and "The Social Constructionist Theories" (Berlin, 1982), have emerged as a

reaction to both the objective and the subjective theories of writing. The social

constructionists base their theories of writing on the views that knowledge and reality are

probabilistic, dynamic and dialectic. According to them, audience, author, reality, and

language make up the elements of dialectic and shape the communication process. They

14
believe that the interaction among these elements and the circumstances that exist in a

certain community at the time of this interaction create reality (Berlin, 1982/1987/1988).

Hence, this interaction influences how people write (Bruffee, 1987). The Social

Constructionists critique the objective theories for their deterministic views of reality and

for their prescriptive approach to rhetoric. They also critique the Subjective Approach for

its failure to face and change the prescriptive nature of the Current Traditional Rhetoric

and the demands of the academic community. They view academic writing, which,

according to Susser (1994) and Berlin (1988), has motivated the creation of composition

programs in American colleges, as product oriented and fostering the Current Traditional

Rhetoric in both first and second language writing. Several orientations of social

constructionism have emerged, ranging from those that call for more attention to the

immediate circumstances in which a text is produced to those denying the existence of an

individual author (Faigley, 1983). Faigley identifies four lines of research guided by a

social view of writing: poststructuralist, sociologist, ethnographic and Marxist. Although

these lines of research overlap, having affinities with diverse disciplinary traditions

makes it hard to extrapolate a comprehensive social view of composing. Thus, my review

of the views of two prominent ESL writing social constructionist scholars, Canagarajah

and Matsuda, does not by any account represent all the lines of thought in this paradigm.

Canagarajah’s perspective.

Canagarajah (1993) suggests that we must challenge an explicitly mandated reality and

develop local forms of knowledge. He calls for deconstructing the dominant pedagogical

prescriptions that characterize ESL writing programs and to capitalize on local forms of

15
knowledge in shaping ESL instruction. He believes that, in addition to integrating form,

content, the writer and the reader, any approach should situate writing in its social

context. According to him, Raimes' call for pluralism in her balanced approach entails an

ungrounded relativism which misdirects the discipline of teaching L2. He explains:

“Because the approaches outlined by Raimes ignore or simplify questions of power and

difference, they are insensitive to the conflicts facing ESOL students in writing to the

academy” (1993, p. 303). Canagarajah adds that in practicing academic writing, students

acquire the set of values, discourses and knowledge of the academic community in

addition to certain skills, some cognitive processes and communicative competence. He

believes that ESL students who do not belong to the English speaking community will

face the need or temptation to abandon their native discourses based on local knowledge

and take up the academic discourse which has much more power and prestige attached to

it. Canagarajah stipulates that the students will face an identity crisis when trying to meet

the challenge of acquiring the academic discourse. According to him, individuals who

maintain the identity and values associated with their native communities will be judged

unfit for the academic community and the reverse is true. “Even if they gained

membership in the academic community, they might be second or third class members

judged as deficient, deviant or even pathological” (Canagarajah, 1993, p. 303).

Canagarajah stresses that formulating writing approaches that will unravel much hidden

curricula in ESOL academic writing and that enable students to employ their own local

knowledge in composition constitutes a challenge to ESL teachers and researchers. He

believes that these approaches should empower the students with counter discourses to

16
resist ideological domination, forge positive subject positions and engage in

emancipatory interests. According to him, “ESL students will communicate with the

academy, contributing to its construction of knowledge as members of their native

communities. He explains that this requires them to construct an alternate discourse that

derives from the negotiation of the academic discourse of English in light of their

indigenous forms of knowledge, discourses and languages, making the academic

environment more democratic, pluralistic, and enabling to intellectual advancement.

The Dynamic Model of Writing.

Matsuda (1997) develops the Dynamic Model of writing as an alternative to the Static

Model. He explains that while in the Static Model, the L1 reader’s background alone

constitutes the context of writing, in the Dynamic Model, both the reader’s and the

writer’s backgrounds constitute this context. According to him, in the Dynamic Model,

the background includes more than the cultural, linguistic and educational experiences; it

encompasses factors like knowledge of the subject, past interaction with the reader and so

on and so forth. Matsuda (1997) emphasizes that the backgrounds of the writer and the

reader are complex and flexible. He posits that the context of writing is dynamic and

bidirectional and that the discourse community is shared by both the writer and the

reader. He adds: “The shared discourse community is local, historical and interactive” (p.

55), and this interaction transforms the writer’s and the reader’s backgrounds. Matsuda

states: “The writer is also capable of deviating from the influences of his or her

background as well as transforming it by changing the way he/she perceives and relates

17
to it.” (p. 55). According to him, the reader transforms his discourse as a result of

interacting with the writer through the text, and they construct a shared social reality.

From Matsuda’s perspective, the text constitutes a medium through which the context of

writing is negotiated. “With this view of texts, the writer needs to learn more than just the

organizational pattern preferred by the reader or the accepted genre convention in the

shared discourse community. Teaching ESL students to organize L2 writing then, does

not mean imposing on them the cultural values of native English speakers or prescribing

patterns. Rather, it should be considered as a way of raising ESL students’ awareness of

various factors that are involved in structuring the text, including readers’ expectations

and certain organizational patterns” (Matsuda, 1997, p. 56).

A Critical View

The social Constructionists have pointed out significant drawbacks in the cognitive

approaches to ESL/EFL writing, particularly the dissociation of the composing act from

its social context and their claims to neutrality. They rightly theorize for the social and

ideological nature of composition. For instance, Canagarajah highlights the role of

ideology and identity in composing and calls for integrating the social context with other

aspects of writing. Matsuda’s Dynamic Model departs from the static view that ESL

writing is determined by the ESL writer’s cultural background, educational experiences

and their L1 rhetorical structure. The model represents the ESL writer as an intelligent

human being who is capable of developing new skills and of acquiring new knowledge.

Within Matsuda’s model, not only does the writer acquire new knowledge, but the reader

18
also changes his expectations. Thus, social constructionism explains the complex social

and ideological construction of the writer and of the text he/she produces, illuminating

the dialectical interplay between the social constraints placed on composing and the

agency of the writer. However, many social constructionist views entail some

contradiction and leave us with many unanswered questions.

It is true that the dominance of academic English, like other Englishes, results from

sociopolitical and socioeconomic domination. However, resisting and altering the status

quo cannot happen through denying students access to the discourses that promote

domination. On the contrary, access to the dominant rhetorical traditions may help in

transforming the conditions that have made them dominant. However, neither access nor

resistance alone can bring about this transformation. Rather, access and resistance to the

dominant forms of knowledge should be situated in broader sociopolitical and ideological

contexts so that transformation may become possible. ESL/EFL students should be

provided opportunities to both access and resist the dominant forms of knowledge in

academic writing curricula that engage students in exploring the unjust social, economic

and political circumstances that force people to leave their place of origin, to take on new

identities, to learn new languages, and to change their lifestyles in order to maintain

acceptable life standards. These curricula may lead to socioeconomic and sociopolitical

transformation only if they generate or are embedded in a wider sociopolitical movement

with compatible goals. The assumption here is that the dominant academic discourses

cannot be transformed apart from the broader social, political and ideological forces

which gave rise to them.

19
In addition, students from various discourse traditions should be viewed as intelligent

agents capable of shaping the academy. However, the idea that ESL students may

experience an identity crisis when demanded to learn and write academic English

contradicts this view. Those students, like anyone else in any society, already possess

multiple identities, which may facilitate taking on a new one. They might acquire

academic writing and use it for their own purposes and at the same time maintain their

local forms of knowledge. This does not mean that we should not address the social

context of writing and the ideological issues inherent in rhetoric, but we should not

overemphasize it at the expense of other aspects. Yes, writing is political, context-bound,

community-specific and power driven. Yes, integrating local forms of knowledge is

important, but how? What role do we want the local knowledge to play in the academic

community? What forms do we want the academic discourse to take up after the

integration? How is it possible to help our students achieve their goals for learning how

to write in a second or a foreign language while simultaneously engaging them in

resisting and modifying the prescribed patterns of knowledge? Since any text constitutes

a form of knowledge that is community bound, any future form or forms of knowledge

will also be community bound. Rhetoric, or any form of knowledge for that matter, is a

medium of communication, socially and historically situated, aiming to affect its readers

in one way or another. Thus, it should meet certain communication standards about

which a community agrees. Integrating the local forms of knowledge means creating

another community with different standards. Whose standards are these? What shape will

this community take? Can it be inclusive of all other communities? These questions do

20
not aim to oppose the call for acknowledging the students’ alternative rhetorical forms,

but to reveal the complex dynamics involved in this process, so that we conceptualize

ESL/EFL writing policies and programs that are situated appropriately in their social,

political and ideological contexts in order to advance the students’ interests and to play a

constructive role in social transformation.

Furthermore, many social constructionist views seem to de-emphasize the language and

academic needs of ESL/EFL students. These students need to acquire the language

elements and rhetorical structures that help them produce clear and rich texts that

communicate effectively with the target audience, and these should be tackled in

ESL/EFL writing theories and pedagogies. In addition, in their reaction to the cognitive

models, many social constructionist scholars downplay the role of the cognitive processes

of writing. Matsuda talks about “the text as a medium of communication”, but his model

does not explain how students produce this text. In this model, a writing pedagogy is one

that raises the writer’s awareness of the reader’s expectations not in order to meet those

expectations but to negotiate with the reader in order to arrive at a new social reality. But

how? In which form should the text be so that it does not misrepresent the intentions of

the author? What is the role of instruction in helping the writer arrive at this text? What

concrete strategies and steps does the writer use in constructing the text, and how can we

enhance or make him/her aware of these strategies? We want to make sure that our

students have a range of strategies in their repertoire that helps them achieve their

rhetorical goals and consequently realize their academic purposes. The social

constructionist views have provided more satisfactory explanations of the complex social,

21
political and ideological constitution of writing in both L1 and L2. However, there is a

need to materialize these views into writing programs that encompass the students needs

and aspirations and that empower them to both access the dominant forms of knowledge

and to participate in projects that aim to transform their unfavorable sociopolitical and

socioeconomic conditions which foreground all kinds of domination, including rhetorical

domination.

The Genre Approach

Genre pedagogies are grounded in various theoretical traditions. The following review is

based on Hyland’s conceptualization of the genre approach. Hyland (2003) defines genre

as a set of texts that share the same purpose, and consequently the same structure.

According to him, these texts use language in specific ways to get things done. He

explains: “To get things done, to tell a story, request an overdraft, craft a love letter,

describe a technical process and so on, we follow certain conventions for organizing

messages because we want our readers to recognize our purpose. These abstract, socially

recognized ways of using language for particular purposes are called genres” (p. 19).

Advocates of the genre orientation to writing assume that in recurring communicative

situations, people employ specific rhetorical patterns, and these represent resources to

teach students writing. In order to communicate effectively in writing, students should

recognize the differences among genres and their communicative functions, and they

should learn the various rhetorical and language patterns to produce coherent prose that

serves specific purposes. Thus, in the Genre Approach, teachers focus on how texts use

certain linguistic patterns that represent social choices and constraints (Hyland, 2003).

22
“Writing instruction (from this perspective) begins with the purposes for communicating,

and then moves to the stages of a text which can express these purposes. Teachers can

help students to distinguish between different genres and to write them more effectively

by a careful study of their structures” (Hyland, 2003, p. 20). Thus, the teacher starts with

an emphasis on direct instruction. Students are guided to produce typical rhetorical

patterns needed for the functions in question. These patterns are learned through

analyzing “expert texts” rather than through experiment and exploration (Hyland, 2003).

A Critical View

The genre approach shares with writing for academic purposes its emphasis on structure,

but it addresses a broader range of text types. The idea that students learn through model

analysis and explicit instruction rather than through exploration takes us back to the static

conceptualization of writing. It is true that students should write for different purposes

and should be aware of the rhetorical patterns that help them achieve these purposes.

However, the extent to which they should be proficient in these patterns depends on their

purposes and needs. More importantly, this proficiency will develop as students practice

and explore writing and reading different genres and not through explicit instruction. The

emphasis should be on reading and writing different genres for transactional and

intellectual purposes, in the context of which explicit instruction and model analysis are

used to raise the students’ awareness of the possible patterns they can employ. Thus,

meaning, and not genre analysis, should be the focus of instruction.

Grabe’s and Kaplan’s Taxonomy of Writing

23
Grabe and Kaplan (1996) offer “A Taxonomy of Academic Writing Skills, Knowledge

Basis and Processes” (p. 217) which, they argue, integrates all the aspects of writing,

social, cognitive and linguistic. They base their taxonomy on Delhyme’s and Canal and

Swane’s notion of communicative competence, developed primarily to account for oral

communication. Grabe and Kaplan hypothesize that one of the best ways to attempt a

first ethnography of writing is to ask the basic question: Who writes what to whom, for

what purpose, why, when, where and how? According to them, providing a taxonomic

answer to this question will lead to an initial approximation for an ethnography of

writing. The authors present their taxonomy in four pages, in which they list different

elements in the form of points and questions. These elements include cognitive factors,

contextual factors, and linguistic factors.

A Critical View

The first concern with Grabe’s and Kaplan’s Theory is that writing does not involve a

hierarchy of structures or processes and cannot be explained taxonomically. It is a

complex, cyclical process in which the different elements of the rhetorical situation

interact dialectically. The writer, the context, the reader and the rhetorical purpose

influence each other in different ways, for which a taxonomy cannot account. While their

questions are important to consider in doing an ethnographic exploration of writing, this

investigation can never be taxonomic.

The second concern lies in that the different writing elements in the Taxonomy are not

linked in any way. In fact, Grabe and Kaplan refer to each element as an “independent

24
contributor” to writing. It is not clear for example what role a written text plays in

relation to other elements in a theory of writing. According to the Cognitivists, for

instance, the text emerges as a result of the different cognitive processes that the writer

employs. The Social Constructionists view the text as a medium through which the writer

and the reader negotiate meaning, the process of which is embedded in specific social,

political and historical circumstances. In Grabe’s and Kaplan’s Taxonomy, each element

of writing is discussed as a separate entity. The authors do not seem to explain the role of

each element in relation to the others in their framework. This may indicate that they

approach the ethnography of writing without a clear theoretical stance. However, any

meaningful explanation of composing should be grounded in theory.

In addition, The Taxonomy includes many points irrelevant to a theory of writing.

Linguistic knowledge—“knowledge of phonology and morphology, sound-letter

correspondences, syllables, morpheme structure” (p. 220) -- exemplifies these points.

These elements bear little relationship, if any, to writing as an act of generating ideas in a

specific genre for a specific purpose, and hence to a writing theory. For example, it is not

clear how “sound letter correspondences” and “syllables” would enter into a theory of

writing.

Common Major Drawbacks

ESL writing theories have been developed in response to the needs of ESL students who

are either immigrants to English-speaking countries or university students in these

countries. However, the influence of these theories has extended to non-English speaking

25
countries that adopt English as a second or foreign language in their schools and

universities. This is problematic. The conditions and the needs of the three groups:

immigrant students, non-immigrant students studying in a foreign country with a

language different from their own, and students studying FL/SL in their own countries,

differ greatly. Although the various ESL writing theories enlighten professionals

regarding some common writing aspects, they ignore the particularities of a large group

of learners who study EFL or any other FL in their own countries as an integral subject in

the school curricula or at language colleges. A question that ESL writing theories have

failed to address is: Why do these students need to write in English? Actually, many

students learn to write in English for general or vocational purposes. They study English

because it is a school requirement or because of a variety of personal reasons. The

language policies in many non-English speaking countries are influenced by the

domination of English in the market and in education. Moreover, in some non-English

speaking countries, some ESL writing concepts are used inappropriately, and this

misguides language programs. For example, Content-based Instruction has been designed

to teach ESL university students reading and writing through the content of their areas of

specialization. In some non-English speaking countries like Lebanon, the concept of

Content-based Instruction is claimed to be the basis for school language curricula, which,

however, are based on a thematic approach to language. This illustrates the application of

some ESL writing theories in inappropriate contexts, resulting in inappropriate

pedagogical consequences.

Foundations for a more comprehensive view of Second/foreign Language Writing

26
The debate around L1 and L2 writing has been enlightening of the many facets that

composing in one’s native tongue and in another language share. These include

ideological, social, cognitive and linguistic dimensions of text construction. Text

construction, however, cannot be explained in isolation from the other literacy acts, both

written and oral. Text construction and text consumption are interrelated in complex

ways. They are socially and historically situated and circumscribed by ideology. Writing

is an act of generating ideas to achieve a socioeconomically/sociopolitically situated

purpose that might be transactional, intellectual, or aesthetic. Thus, the writer interacts

with an audience about something of interest to both. The writer and the audience belong

to a specific community, the members of which share certain rhetorical forms as well as

an interest in and knowledge about the topic. The writer negotiates meaning with the

assumed reader. This negotiation constitutes one of the determiners of the ideas about

which he/she will write, the form in which these ideas will be presented, and the language

that will be used. At the same time, the writer chooses the ideas to be presented and

manipulates the rhetorical forms available to him/her as well as the language to be used.

Certainly, the individual writer is a key player in this process, but he does not freely

control the writing act. The ideas he writes about are a production of a social, political,

economic and historical circumstances that exist at the time of writing. These

circumstances circumscribe the act of writing and influence how the writer produces

knowledge, generates new ideas, or discusses ideas from new perspectives. The writer's

uniqueness lies in how he/she capitalizes on what already exists to achieve his/her

purposes. Hence, the writer possesses some degree of freedom as an agent, but he is at

the same time bound by certain social constraints.

27
The attributes discussed above characterize the act of composing in general, so what

distinguishes L2 writing from L1 writing? In answering this question, we need to

consider the following:

L2 writing is learned and practiced for varied purposes, including academic (passing

school and university courses, writing a thesis/dissertation, writing research reports,

writing journal articles, etc.), vocational (formal letters, memos, reports, etc.), and

personal (just as an interest in the second/foreign language). Each of these purposes helps

in shaping the learners’ desires to affiliate with the rhetorical traditions of the target

language. To illustrate, let us take two dominant purposes in many FL/SL contexts:

meeting school requirements in foreign language contexts and passing university courses

in second language contexts. Although in some cases these might be interrelated, many

students learning English as a foreign language do not wish to pursue their higher

education in English speaking countries or to pursue higher education at all. These

students most likely do not have the desire to learn the discourses of academic English,

and it maybe that the whole issue of acquiring a new discourse identity is irrelevant to

them. Students wanting to pursue their higher education in English speaking countries

may vary between those wishing to identify with the target discourse community and

those who do not wish so. Those complex social factors are compounded by various

institutional circumstances that include the type of institution in which the learners are

enrolled (school, language center, college, etc.), time allocated to teach a foreign

language, the institutional goals for foreign language instruction, the used materials, and

the institutional pedagogical practices. Those factors determine the type of experiences

28
through which any individual learner of L2 writing goes and how these experiences help

him/her achieve his/her purposes. The type and the scope of the learning experiences

needed by someone to meet school requirements in a foreign context differ from those

needed by someone wishing to become a member in the academic or vocational second

language community. Thus, any theory of second/foreign language writing should

account for the varied purposes of and learning experiences needed by all potential

learners of foreign/second language writing. In addition, any pedagogical translation of

such a theory should admit the limits of formal teaching and foresee the contributions of

potential real-life rhetorical experiences to the development of the needed proficiency.

This helps pedagogues and curricula developers in designing second/foreign language

composition programs that help students with various interests in achieving their

purposes and in gaining rhetorical experiences and skills that enable them to enter into

their target rhetorical communities and benefit from the non-formal learning, real-life

literacy events.

The writer's native language, cultural background, and educational experiences play a

significant role in writing. Even when the educational background and the rhetorical

traditions differ to a large extent from those of the second/foreign language, they

constitute a resource that enriches L2/FL writing. Thus, the L2/FL writing student should

be viewed as a smart person with specific rhetorical, educational, social and political

experiences and capable of capitalizing on these experiences to achieve his/her purposes.

29
In addition to the social dimension, writing involves cognitive strategies, which the writer

employs in generating, shaping and reshaping, and formulating ideas. Although not all

these strategies are clear, we at least know about some strategies that are employed in

idea generation, idea development, and revision. The writer's knowledge about the topic,

his/her purpose, the addressed audience, the medium of publication, and other factors

determine the cognitive strategies that will be employed. All these factors interact in

shaping the text.

In short, any comprehensive view of writing should explain the social and ideological

nature of writing, the contexts that may affect the composing act positively or negatively,

the agentive roles that FL/SL writers may play, the positive contributions that the various

backgrounds of the FL/SL writer may have in composing, and the linguistic and cognitive

tools necessary to compose in various situations. Once these factors are accounted for,

appropriate language policies may be developed and successful writing programs may be

designed. Such a comprehensive view may guide policy makers and program developers

in developing appropriate language programs, curricula and materials that vary, based on

the context, the institutional goals, and the learner goals. It may also reduce the gap

between the institutional goals and the learner goals and may lead to inclusive curricula

and instruction.

Conclusion

The discussion in this article aims to empower teachers with a clear vision about teaching

FL/SL writing. This vision makes teachers reflective practitioners and skilled decision-

30
makers, able to design instructions that suit their students and their institutional and

instructional contexts. We must always remember that EFL/ESL students are language

learners that have their goals and aspirations. We should help our students achieve what

they want. To do so, we must understand the students and respect them. Silva (1997)

specifies four ways in which ESL writers need to be respected: They need to be:

A. understood

B. placed in a suitable learning context

C. provided with appropriate instructions

D. evaluated fairly

Although the theoretical foundations discussed in this article do not by any means

represent a theory of L2/FL writing, they shed light on important factors that should be

dealt with by any L2/FL writing theory. They indicate possible ways of explaining the act

of composing in FL/SL, of understanding and respecting FL/SL writing students, of

placing those students in suitable learning contexts, and of evaluating them fairly.

31
 References

Berlin, J. A. (1982). Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical theories.

College English, 44, 765-777.

Berlin, J. A. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges,

1900-1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Berlin, J. A. (1988). Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English, 50, 477-

494.

Bizzel, P. (1982). College composition: Initiation into the academic discourse

community. Inquiry, 12, 191-207.

Bruffee, K. A. (1983). Writing and reading as collaborative or social acts. In J. N. Hayes

Et Al. (Eds.), The writer’s mind: Writing as a mode of thinking (pp. 159-169).

National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL: National Council of

Teachers of English.

Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge - A

bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773-790.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Comments on Ann Raimes' "Out of the woods: Emerging

traditions in the teaching of writing": Up the Garden Path: L2 writing

approaches, local knowledge, and pluralism. TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 301-310.

Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College

English, 48 (6), 527-542.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & practice of writing: An applied linguistic

perspective. New York, NY: Longman.

32
Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An

introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamar, & S. A. Walmsley

(Eds.), Research in writing (pp. 206-220). New York, NY: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, C.S. (1982). Attention to rhetorical form while composing in a second language. In

C. Campbell, V. Flashner, T. Hudson, & J. Lubin (Eds.), Proceedings of the Los

Angeles Second Language Research Forum (Vol. 2, pp. 130-143). Los Angeles,

LA: University of California, Los Angeles.

Johns, A. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories in L2

composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23).

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, R.B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language

Learning, 16, 1-20.

Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive Rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing.

Journal of L2 Writing, 6 (1), 45-60.

Matsuda, P.K. (1998). Situating ESL writing in a cross-disciplinary context. Written

Communication, 15 (1), 99-121.

Raimes, A. (2010). Ten steps in planning a writing course and training teachers of

writing, In J. Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language

Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (19th ed.) (pp. 306-314).

Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.

TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-30.

33
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Audience and voice in current L1 composition

texts: Some implications for ESL student writers. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 5, 21-34

Seow, A. (2010). The writing process and process writing, In J. Richards & W. Renandya

(Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice

(19th ed.) (pp. 315-320).

Silva, T. (1990). L2 composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in

ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), L2 writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-

23). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Silva, T. (1997). On the ethical treatment of ESL writers. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 359-363.

Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of L2

Writing, 3 (1), 31-47.

Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of tansculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 341-352.

Note: This paper was written in 2000 and has since been revised a few times.

34