Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition

Linda Harklau*
Department of Language Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA

Abstract This paper argues that writing should play a more prominent role in classroom-based studies of second language acquisition. It contends that an implicit emphasis on spoken language is the result of the historical development of the eld of applied linguistics and parent disciplines of structuralist linguistics, linguistic anthropology, and child language development. Although writing as a communicative modality has been marginalized, it is key to understanding second language acquisition in contexts such as elementary and secondary level content area classrooms where literacy plays a central role in communication and transmission of subject matter. In all, the paper argues that while it is important for classroom-based studies to investigate how students learn how to write in a second language, it is equally important to learn how students learn a second language through writing. Implications of this perspective are noted for notions of learner and target language variation, multimodality and language socialization, and interactionist approaches to classroom research. # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Writing research; Literacy; Second language instruction; Second language learning

Introduction In a recent Annual Review of Applied Linguistics article, Leki (2000) informally surveyed second language writing researchers, asking them whether they consider the eld to be part of applied linguistics. Leki found disagreement and ambivalence. Her question was a provocative one, and I found myself attempting to articulate a long-standing sense that L2 writing research is marginalized in
* Tel.: 1-706-542-5674; fax:1-706-542-4509. E-mail address: lharklau@coe.uga.edu (L. Harklau).

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

330

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

applied linguistics. This article is the result of that attempt. I argue that scholarship in applied linguistics particularly the sub-eld of classroom second language acquisition has evolved in ways that implicitly privilege face-to-face interaction over learning through written modalities. I also explore why my research in American public schools has convinced me that reading and writing are of relevance to virtually all classroom-based L2 research. I would like to begin by contextualizing my perspective in the genesis of classroom second language acquisition studies in the U.S.1 A good starting point is Longs (1980) ground-breaking article pointing out how little was known about the effects of classroom communicative processes on second language acquisition. The article prompted further work by Long (e.g., Long, 1989; Long & Robinson, 1998; Seliger & Long, 1983) and many others including Allwright and Bailey (1991), Chaudron (1988, 2001), Ellis (1984, 1990), Pica (Pica, LincolnPorter, Paninos, & Linnell, 1996), Spada and Lyster (1997), and van Lier (1988). Scholarship in this vein continues today, often focusing on similarities and differences between naturalistic or unschooled second language acquisition, and instructed (see, e.g., Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 300ff) or classroom-based second language learning. A primary objective has been to determine how classroom instruction affects the pace and nature of second language acquisition for example, the order in which morphological and syntactic features are acquired. Data analysis in these studies has focused mainly on spoken language input, interaction, task structure, and negotiation. Although seldom explicitly noted, much of this work presumes a particular archetype; namely, adult learners in classrooms where language is the object of instruction. This strand of language classroom research has yielded a rich body of empirical data on the inter-relation of interaction and second language learning. While heterogeneous in their approaches and underlying theoretical premises, these researchers seem to share an implicit assumption that processes of rst and second language acquisition can be best traced through careful analysis of classroom talk. In other words, they presume that face-to-face interactions and spoken discourse are the focal analytical units of classroom language learning. When I began to do research, my socialization into second language acquisition scholarship led me to expect that my work with high school English language learners would follow in a similar vein and that I would document how these students learned English through their face-to-face interactions with teachers and students in the classroom. But then I began collecting data. I observed learners in classroom after classroom. I spent entire days with them waiting to record the instances of face-to-face interaction that I had come to perceive as central to instructed second
This paper focuses on the development of linguistics and second language acquisition scholarship in North America. While American and European linguistic scholarship share mutual influences, they have also had different trajectories (Hymes & Fought, 1981). In particular, while Hallidayan and other functionalist perspectives have been influential in classroom second language acquisition research in the U.K. and Australia, they have had considerably less impact in North American work.
1

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

331

language acquisition processes. And waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting. In fact, I found that the learners I was observing might only interact with a teacher once or twice during an entire school day. The few interactions they did have were often monosyllabic exchanges. Students interactions with native speaker peers were seldom more plentiful. The project I had envisioned was doomed, and I despaired. At the same time, however, when I asked myself if these students were learning if they were learning English, if they were learning academic content, if they were learning how to write and to read in English, the answer was clearly yes. Several key incidents led me to reexamine the assumptions I held about the relative roles of spoken and written language in second language acquisition. For example, one day while I was watching an ESL class, the teacher held up an illustration containing a shadow and asked her students what it was. One student raised his hand and asked, Oh! Is it a s-i-l-h-o-u-e-t-t-e? The episode struck me as signicant because it was evident that the learner had acquired this lexical item through literate means. He quickly rattled off the spelling of a word that is phonetically distant from its English pronunciation. The fact that he spelled it out rather than pronouncing it further indicated that the word was acquired from a print source. I began to notice other things as well. For example, when these students were faced with information coming simultaneously from both spoken and written modalities for example, if they were listening to a lecture while looking at a text or the board they generally paid more attention to the book, or the board, or to their notes. In fact, students told me that they preferred to work with written sources of input. They found it an easier way to learn because the texts were reviewable while teacher and peer talk were not. This preference was so strong that students even reported that they regularly tuned out or ignored the spoken input from teachers and peers in order to focus on written forms. In U.S. high school classrooms such as the ones I was studying, opportunities for output in the oral mode are often more limited in both quantity and scope than in the written mode. Studies of classroom activities and language use in secondary classrooms (Alvermann & Moore, 1991/1996; Applebee, 1981; Nystrand, 1997) have consistently shown that teachers control the oor and do most of the talking during classroom discussions. Teachers in my research, mirroring national trends, were more likely to elicit short word or phrase replies to known-answer questions than they were to elicit extended turns. Moreover, in a class of 2535 students, students have only a small chance of being allotted any given student response turn by the teacher. As a result, there tended to be very few spoken language interactions between these learners and their teachers. One teacher told me that an English language learner in his class spoke so infrequently that he was not even certain he would recognize her voice. Written output in these classrooms, on the other hand, was far more copious and varied, ranging from word or phrase worksheet response to multipage multiple drafts of essays. In terms of linguistic feedback, the learners I studied received virtually no feedback on language form in face-to-face communication with teachers or peers. On the other hand, teachers

332

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

routinely provided learners with explicit feedback on language form on their written language output. In all, then, I found myself studying classroom-based second language acquisition in a setting where learners could get by quite nicely with very little face-to-face interaction. At the same time, interactions through writing and reading seemed pivotal in these particular learners acquisition processes. I did not see this dynamic addressed in research on classroom language learning at the time. Over a decade later, I believe that an implicit assumption of the primacy of spoken interaction still underlies and shapes many studies of classroom second language acquisition. Hence, I believe we need to understand and articulate why theoretically and methodologically applied linguists seem much more likely to ask how students learn to write in a second language than to ask how students learn a second language through writing.

Spoken and written modalities in linguistics and second language acquisition

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

The lack of attention to the role of literacy in classroom language learning seems in part to be a result of the historical development of the eld of second language acquisition. Emerging out of linguistics, the eld has undoubtedly been colored by the evolution and resulting predispositions of U.S. linguistic study. In particular, while there has been a tendency at least since Aristotles time to regard writing simply as speech written down (Olson, 1994), this tendency has been especially pronounced in 20th century American scholarship. As an academic discipline, linguistics in the U.S. originated in anthropology, where the main concern of language scholars was the documentation of Native American languages (Hymes, 1983). Because few of these languages possessed writing systems, it is unsurprising that writing received scant attention in this work. The nascent eld was also inuenced by European structuralist theory, particularly the work of Saussure (Hymes & Fought, 1981). Saussure was vehement in assertions that writing itself is not part of the internal system of the language (de Saussure, 1986, p. 24) and that the spoken word alone constitutes the object of linguistic theory (p. 25). Saussures view of writing was later reected in Bloomelds (1987, p. 255) assertion that The art of writing is not part of language, but rather a comparatively modern invention for recording and broadcasting what is spoken. This perspective suggests that literacy is parasitic on spoken language and that texts serve only to represent and encode spoken language, rather than being a parallel or alternate form of representing language (see Urquhart & Weir, 1998, pp. 2224). In concert, these inuences

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

333

have worked to privilege spoken language as the primary or default language modality. While subsequent transformational generative theorists have not endorsed this stance, they have not disrupted it either, declining to align their theories with either spoken or written language (Hughes, 1996, p. 136; Sproat, 2000, p. 210). The focus on spoken language or, as Derrida (1998, p. 11) terms it, phonocentrism, has continued to have a pervasive and largely implicit inuence on how U.S. linguistics constructs itself. For example, recent comprehensive introductory linguistics texts by Fromkin (2000) and by Crain and Lillo-Martin (1999) contain no references to literacy, reading, or text. Only two pages of Fromkins 747 page text discuss writing, and then only as script relates to phonology. Through what texts such as these include and exclude, they instantiate and perpetuate a view of language in which the spoken modality is the implicit default. Ironically, Olson (1994, p. 258) contends that it was the development of script as a linguistic transcription system that brought underlying linguistic structure into consciousness and rendered it an object of study. The effects of structuralist and Chomskyan paradigms on TESL and applied linguistics have been far-reaching (Firth & Wagner, 1997). For example, Matsuda (1999, 2001) documents the strong inuence of structuralist linguists, particularly Charles Fries, on the genesis of the eld of second language acquisition. However, signicantly, he also notes that the same linguists were compelled to address issues of reading and writing when considering the classroom implications of their theories. Second language acquisition work in the U.S. has also historically drawn on another facet of linguistic theory, child rst language acquisition, in search of theoretical analogies (see, e.g., Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Hatch, 1978). However, the elds predilection for borrowing theoretical perspectives from a parent discipline fail it on at least two counts when it comes to the issue of literacy. First, child rst language acquisition research and theory are notably lacking in work on the development of linguistic abilities in the school-age years and beyond (Hoyle & Adger, 1998; Nippold, 1998), even though most scholars acknowledge that language acquisition continues to take place throughout the lifespan. Syntax, a central concern of even the most narrow denitions of second language acquisition study, continues to grow slowly in later childhood and adolescence, adding structures such as appositives and the use of relative clauses as modiers (Nippold, 1998, p. 161). This gap in rst language acquisition research on older children and adolescents is particularly problematic for developing theoretical analogies for classroom second language acquisition. A signicant difference between rst and second language learners is that many, if not most, second language learners are of school-age or older. A related difculty is that researchers dealing specically with emergent literacy (see, e.g., Pellegrini & Galda, 1998; Snow, 1993) have long contended that the antecedents of reading and writing practices are an integral part of childrens early language development. Nevertheless, most child rst language researchers devote little attention to the role of literacy in language acquisition.

334

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

For example, recent comprehensive texts on child language such as the Handbook of Child Language Acquisition (Ritchie & Bhatia, 1999) and the Handbook of Child Language (Fletcher & MacWhinney, 1995) make little reference to literacy, writing, reading, or text. Rather, the emphasis is on the acquisition of highly regularized and universally acquired language competence, and while spoken language is biologically determined and universal, literacy is not (Sampson, 1985). However, even if no rst language learner starts out literate, a second language learner can be and often is literate from the start. While toddlers do not say and write their rst word on the same day, classroom-based second language learners may do exactly that. We have yet to fully explore this difference and to formulate an adequate theory for how second language learners exploit literacy in the initial stages of learning a second language. Even sociolinguists advocating less innate and more socially situated views of language learning in interaction often seem to assume that interaction is synonymous with face-to-face spoken interaction. For example, linguistic anthropologist Dell Hymes formulation of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972), the basis for notions of L2 communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980), has been inuential in second and foreign language research and teaching (Weber, 1991/1996). Hymes biases are apparent in his acronym for this formulation, SPEAK. While not excluding text, Hymes has often treated it as a communicative afterthought in the same class as song and speech-derived whistling, drumming, horn calling, and the like (Hymes, 1986, p. 54, although see Hymes, 1980, p. 32 for a different view). Moreover, the empirical methodologies that he and others developed to explore communication patterns (Erickson, 1992; Gumperz, 1982; Mehan, 1979; Trueba, Guthrie, & Au, 1981) foreground close analysis of face-to-face interaction and have been highly inuential in both rst and second language classroom research. The effect of this work in classroom rst language and literacy studies has been to counter innatist developmental views of text production and decoding and to emphasize the social interactions surrounding text (see, e.g., Barton, 1994; Heath, 1996; Smagorinsky, 1994). Drawing on Hymes work, for example, Heath (1983) developed the frequently invoked notion of literacy events, emphasizing the faceto-face interactional practices that surround text. However, because classroom L2 studies had existing tendencies to conceptualize interaction as isomorphic with spoken interaction, the effect of this work has been quite different. It has contributed to the neglect of literacy even in socioculturally oriented studies of second language classroom communication and learning. For example, Johnson (1995) asserts that classroom communication is a process of between teachers meanings and students understandings that are constructed through face-to-face communication in the classroom (emphasis mine). Nevertheless, as scholars including Bakhtin (1986), Hyland (2000), and Thompson (2001); (Thompson & Thetela, 1995) have noted, reading and writing are likewise powerful means of linguistic input, output, and interaction, albeit lacking the immediacy of face-to-face communication. Many classroom

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

335

second language acquisition theorists might agree with Olsons contention that literacy is a social condition. In reading and writing texts one participates in a textual community a group of readers (and writers and auditors) who share a way of reading and interpreting a body of texts (Olson, 1994, p. 273). In preparing this article, for example, I have had on-going interactions with the texts that I draw upon here, and in turn you as a reader are reacting to and interacting with this text. With recent technological changes, we experience an increasingly social and socializing aspect of written communication in our daily lives. It has become commonplace to conduct discussions, negotiations, or collaborations and the exchange of pleasantries entirely through electronic communication. Dialogue journaling (Mlynarczyk, 1998; Peyton & Reed, 1990) is a classroom genre illustrative of the signicant social and cognitive value to be found in dialogic written communication. Even when the reader is not as immediate, texts are nevertheless places where readers and writers meet, linguistically and cognitively (Candlin, p. xv in Hyland, 2000). In other words, texts are always implicitly written to an imagined or real readership, and thus written input and output, like spoken input and output, are always intrinsically dialogic. In focusing on face-to-face communication, we have perhaps not given enough attention to interactions that occur through literate or other visual media. In all, then, the orientation towards face-to-face interaction in classroom studies of second language acquisition is testament to how the historical context in which an academic discipline develops has far-reaching and largely tacit effects on how we conceptualize research questions and answers. Given the origins of the eld, it seems apparent why applied linguists might overlook the role of literacy in classroom second language acquisition. With notable exceptions (see, e.g., Davies, 1999; Grabe & Kaplan, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1998), scholars providing overviews of the eld often seem to overlook the potential contributions of reading and writing. For example, Larsen-Freeman & Longs (1991) comprehensive overview of second language acquisition contains no explicit references to the effects of modality and its index includes no mention of literacy, reading, writing, or text. The volume contains only one potentially literacy-related discussion (see pp. 317322) of the effects of classroom exposure to planned discourse (Ochs, 1979). Likewise, Ellis (1994) award-winning volume provides perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the eld of second language acquisition to date. Yet its table of contents and index do not contain a single reference to reading, writing, or literacy, and only two parenthetical references to text. The same holds true for Ellis (1990) text on classroom second language acquisition. This invisibility is so pervasive that it might almost convince us that writing and reading are peripheral concerns in studies of second language acquisition in classroom settings. But picture what would happen in almost any classroom where second language learning is taking place, if we suddenly took away all literacy-related materials: all texts and other books, all worksheets and handouts,

336

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

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

The roles of literacy in classroom second language learning American public school classrooms challenged my implicit assumption that speech is necessarily the primary means of classroom language learning. In the U.S. educational system, as in formal schooling in many parts of the world, children are presumed to be literate by the time they reach third or fourth grade. From this point forward, reading and writing pass from being the object of instruction to a medium of instruction. Reading and writing are an efcient means of passing along ever-increasing amounts of classroom information and communication. As a result, they permeate every aspect of students second language learning experiences by secondary school. For example, Alvermann and Moore (1991/1996) report that 60% of high school classroom activities incorporate reading in some form. Likewise, almost half of high school classroom time involves writing activities (Applebee, 1981). Researchers note the tight integration of writing and reading into the overall communicative life of the classroom. These practices include not only extended composition or reading but also instrumental uses of literacy such as the use of outlines to structure lectures or multimedia, completing worksheets and tests, and referring to a text to verify spoken or written responses. Perhaps this is why Cummins theory of second language acquisition (see, e.g., Cummins & Swain, 1986), based upon classroom experiences of North American immigrants in public schools, provides the most explicit treatment of the role of literacy in the eld to date. In most U.S. high school classrooms, literate, visual, and oral/aural modes of presentation support and reinforce each other. For example, high school teachers I have observed will often present the same information through textbooks and lecture-discussion, or present a body of facts in one modality and add examples or highlights in another. Likewise, they may use a face-to-face recitation format to check student comprehension, and a composition to get students to extend and synthesize the information. Similarly, Goldman (1997) describes the orchestration of face-to-face and textual means of communication in middle school classrooms where student group projects center around members joint selection, interpretation, and synthesis of outside texts. In other words, literate students and their teachers communicate through the constant coordination and orchestration of multiple modalities. The notion of multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000) embodies this view, suggesting that computers and other technological advances are making multimodal communication increasingly prevalent. In American public schools, for example, web-based resources are now routinely used for reference and communication with other schools and school announcements are presented on video, integrating spoken language, text, music, graphics, and images.

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

337

In addition, there are many potential incentives for literate learners to make use of writing and reading in their acquisition process. At a basic level, writing is handy. It serves as a mnemonic strategy; e.g., lists of vocabulary or common phrases. It can also serve analytic purposes; e.g., writing down examples of grammatical rules or diagramming sentences. On a broader level, a distinguishing characteristic of print is the possibility for language learners to interact without the pressures of face-to-face communication, allowing them to slow the pace, make exchanges reviewable and self-paced, and to put contributions in editable form. Literate learners also have the ability to choose an interactional modality based upon personal preferences gained from previous home and school socialization practices and self-concept. Individuals with a tendency towards introversion may prefer quiet and reection (Ornstein, 1993, pp. 5657) and therefore written forms of communication, while extroverts may prefer the sounds and eye contact associated with face-to-face communication. Likewise, individuals with a preference for deliberation and self-regulation of actions may prefer to communicate through writing while those who favor spontaneity might prefer the immediacy of speaking (pp. 6165). Although research has shown that second language learners are sometimes silent in classrooms because they are passed over in classroom discussions (Pang, 1996; Verplaetse, 1998), Pang contends that students may also refrain from speaking because they come from cultural backgrounds that do not share the high valuation given to talk in many U.S. classrooms. She suggests that students from these backgrounds may regard speaking up in a classroom as unnecessary, or even inconsiderate or undignied. For these students, then, writing may provide a more culturally compatible option for communicating with teachers and other students. Likewise, Belanoff (2001) contends that the American classroom communicative practices reect a culture fearful of silence and argues that our pedagogical approaches have not given adequate consideration to the value of silence and reection in learning. Given the prevalence of multimodal classroom language learning environments, it seems fair to ask why wouldnt second language learners who are already literate in their rst language avail themselves of literate strategies and resources in order to acquire a second language? Why shouldnt students acquisition of an L2 take place through literate as well as oral modalities? In fact, that is exactly what August and Hakuta (1997, p. 73) suggest can happen. Nevertheless, they note that it remains an important and yet curiously unaddressed question whether literacy can be used as a route to second language learning, and if so, under what circumstances and with what consequences.

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

338

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

and target language variation, interactionist approaches, and multimodality and language socialization. Language variation Literacy creates a wider range of options for communication, or, as Halliday puts it, expands ones meaning potential (Halliday, 1993). A consideration of literacy as a language learning mode therefore highlights variability in how target language prociency is dened in different contexts and necessitates the recognition of a range of possible outcomes for adult L1 and L2 language acquisition. Nippold (1998, p. 3), for example, notes that one of the hallmarks of rst language acquisition in older children and adolescents is differential exposure to language domains depending on individual and social factors, and thus greater individual variation in language acquired. Likewise, Hoyle and Adger (1998, p. 7) report that the mastery of a range of registers is a major aspect of rst language development in later childhood and adolescence. Thus, prociency in basic morpho-syntax and phonology the predominant objects of second language acquisition studies may be necessary, but they are not sufcient to be considered procient in most domains. For example, in order for second language learners in U.S. public school classrooms to be considered procient, they require a wide range of academic and interpersonal registers of language use in both face-to-face modalities and more formal academic literate modalities, or what Cummins (1979) once termed cognitive academic language prociency. Research needs to address the relative contributions of each modality to classroom second language development and how modality affects what is acquired. Weissberg (2000), for example, found that over a course of a semester, adult literate second language learners tended to introduce new syntactic forms more often in writing than in speaking, and that the kinds of new syntactic forms that appeared were differentiated by modality (e.g., irregular verbs in speaking; modal auxiliaries in writing). Likewise, to return to the silhouette example above, since vocabulary knowledge has been shown to co-develop and co-vary signicantly with literacy experiences (Fitzgerald, 1995), we might look at learners who know how to spell a word well before they can pronounce it or whose pronunciation is inuenced by acquisition through reading and writing. Moreover, Scribner and Cole (1981) suggest that conversance with various script systems may enhance learners metalinguistic (and thus, second language learning) capabilities in specic and discrete ways. For example, learners who know a script system in which word boundaries are not indicated may have increased ability to segment a stream of spoken or written input into words. Hughes (1996, p. 134) believes that an acknowledgment of multiple language modalities raises more fundamental theoretical questions about the notion of a target language. For example, if writing is not simply a modality parasitizing speech, but rather a parallel modality with its own representations and conventions for language use, it demands a consideration of how the greater prestige

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

339

associated with standardized written language forms inuence judgments of language grammaticality and thus notions of a unitary target language system. It also demands a reconciliation of the notion of a single language system with the fact that written and spoken language typically (but not always) correspond with different registers, styles, and genres. Thus, if we take seriously the notion of writing and speaking as making possible separate if overlapping language forms, it problematizes views of target language as an autonomous system of xed symbols and abstract rules for their lawful combination, all dened independently of their possible contexts of use (Ninio & Snow, 1999, p. 348). Instead, it lends support to theories that learners in different social settings develop different, context-sensitive L2 systems (Tarone, 2000) or even problematizes the notion itself of a constant, full developed, and complete target language system (Firth & Wagner, 1997). In other words, it suggests the need to account for the fact that if learners work more through written than spoken sources of language, they will tend to develop the linguistic features that are associated with written registers in that particular context. Access to different language domains and language varieties also co-varies with access to school-based language and literacy (Foster & Purves, 1991/1996). A modality-sensitive theory of second language acquisition suggests, then, that while second language researchers have often distinguished naturalistic from classroom-based second language acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 1990, pp. 6061; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 299), there is nothing inherently more natural about second language learning without recourse to classrooms or to literacy. Both are natural learning environments given the social worlds that older children and adults inhabit. In other words, if, as Nippold (1998, p. 4) and Urquhart and Weir (1998, p. 24) suggest, second language learners acquire much of their lexicon and knowledge of complex grammatical structure via the written language, and if access to the written language is differentiated by social factors, it follows that second language acquisition is inextricably linked to social factors. A consideration of the role of literacy in language variation and second language acquisition might be tied protably to a multiliteracies approach (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), with its emphasis on proliferation of language varieties in global communication. The New London Group contends that globalization and increasing ease of world-wide computer and satellite communication are resulting in the proliferation of English registers and dialects, making it ever more difcult to distinguish a central or core language prociency. They suggest that classroom second language learners will not need to learn to produce a single correct language variety as much as they will need to learn how to negotiate meaning across diverse linguistic, visual, iconic, and textual environments. Interactionist approaches The notion of participant structures, often utilized in contextualizing spoken classroom interactions in local classroom contexts, might be recast to reect the

340

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

nature of interactions occurring through writing as well. A good deal of research has examined participant structures in face-to-face dyadic, small group, and whole class communication in both L1 and L2 classrooms (Hall & Verplaetse, 2000), and demonstrated the importance of talk in the development of reading and writing (see, e.g., Daiute, Campbell, Grifn, Reddy, & Tivnan, 1993; Schieffelin & Gilmore, 1986). Yet these approaches often treat text as an artifact or trace of social interactions that lie largely outside of the text itself. We have yet to ask how instructional conversations (Goldenberg & Patthey-Chavez, 1995; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) occur in and through writing, to describe their dimensions and compare their dynamics to those of spoken conversations. Swain (1985) and Swain and Lapkins (1995) work on classroom-based output and negotiation also suggests possible routes for investigation of the dynamics of written interaction and its effects on second language acquisition. Swains (1985) original formulation of the role of output encompassed both spoken and written language, noting differences in immersion students performance on literacybased and oral tasks. However, other researchers who have taken up the notion of output have tended to consider its implications primarily in terms of face-to-face interaction (see, e.g., Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998). Based upon work on the role of output by Swain (1985), Swain and Lapkin (1995), Cumming (1990), and Polio, Fleck, and Leder (1998) suggest that students interactions with their own texts during revision may serve as a means of noticing and revising target language form, and suggest further research in this vein. Along the same lines, Zaki and Ellis (1999) suggest that the interactive processes involved in talking may differ signicantly from those involved in reading and suggest more research on negotiation and immediacy of feedback in spoken versus written input, output, and interaction. Another investigative approach to L2 writing as interaction is exemplied by Lam (2000). She chronicles the transformation of a struggling English language learner into a uent and enthusiastic English user through web-based written and visual communication with fellow fans of Japanese pop singers. The techniques that have been developed in careful case studies of L2 college students negotiating academic discourse communities (see, e.g., Belcher & Braine, 1995; Prior, 1998) might likewise be reoriented to show how interactions in and through text inuence L2 acquisition. Swales (1998) proposes textography as a naturalistic method of data collection that locates written interactions simultaneously within local, institutional, and disciplinary contexts. Multimodality and language socialization Another potential avenue of investigation for a modality-sensitive perspective on classroom second language acquisition highlights the integrated and parallel use of multiple modalities in classroom communication. The New London Group (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), for example, suggests that there is an increasing interface of visual and linguistic meaning in multimedia (p. 9) in media such as

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

341

the world-wide web. Yet Alvermann and Moore (1991/1996, p. 966) note that there is not enough research in rst language studies (and even less in second language studies) about how students incorporate literacy into on-going classroom communication systems. This suggests the need to look not only at audio, spacial, and/or behavioral modalities but also textual and visual modalities in classroom communicative processes. More research is also needed on how teachers orchestrate learning through textual and non-textual modalities, as well as on when and how this orchestration breaks down and its effects on language learning. The dynamics of multiple modalities in L2 classroom communication may also be protably tied to language socialization perspectives. Students ability to draw upon literate modalities presumably affects the social organization and distribution of classroom activities and participation structures. For example, while reading books aloud is a staple of early elementary classroom instruction, we would expect it to be far less prevalent in high school or college classrooms because students are presumed to be able to read independently. Thus, this work might compare how students are socialized into different distributions of modalities in classroom communicative processes across different age groups and literacy levels, and how these differences affect second language learning. In particular, it would be theoretically important to document the modality-driven division of communicative labor and how it changes as literacy becomes naturalized or taken for granted by teachers and second language learners in classrooms. Moreover, one would expect that language socialization in these classrooms would take more implicit and subtle forms than it does in students initial school experiences, and it would take place through both face-to-face and written modalities. In other words, the tight integration of speech and writing in upper grade level instruction suggests that descriptions of classroom second language learning and language socialization must account for the presence of print and for the medium of writing. This work might also explore the capacity for multiple communicative modalities to convey different and even conicting forms of interactions and language socialization simultaneously, and the related proposition that messages about student and teacher identity conveyed through written modalities may reinforce, mitigate, or subvert messages in spoken classroom interaction. For example, I found that face-to-face interactions in one high school classroom emphasized a colorblind ethos in which students ethnic backgrounds were not addressed, while written work often emphasized their unique status as immigrants (Harklau, in press). In all, implicit foundations exist to build a strong argument for why writing should stand on equal footing with face-to-face interaction as semiotic activity (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 20) in classroom second language learning. As yet, however, there has been very little work drawing on these foundations to articulate why writing should be considered, not as auxiliary, not simply of pedagogical interest, but as central to second language acquisition processes in most contemporary societies. In fact, one might argue that descriptions and theories of

342

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

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

Implications for L2 writing research Although L2 reading and writing research has undergone tremendous growth in the past two decades, very little of it has been conducted in reference to broader theories of classroom second language acquisition. Leki (2000), for example, notes that relatively little writing research appears in applied linguistics journals besides TESOL Quarterly. Few L2 writing researchers seem to explicitly relate their work to the question of how students use writing to learn a second language, tending instead to address the issue of how students learn to write in a second language. While it is undoubtedly important to understand L2 writing development in its own right, research cast exclusively in these terms may contribute to the marginalization of the eld and to the perception that second language writing research is, as it was considered in Fries day, a pedagogical sidelight in the real business of second language acquisition. Because there appears to be growing dissatisfaction with existing conceptualizations of second language acquisition (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Leki, 2000), it may be a particularly opportune time for L2 writing researchers to assert the broader signicance of what we do. By enlarging the denition of what constitutes writing, a modality-sensitive view of second language acquisition can enrich theory and research on second language writing. For example, because of the high prestige and valuation given to essay writing in academic contexts, L1 and L2 writing research with adults has tended to focus on extended composition. Research has often taken an implicitly evaluative stance in which many prevalent forms of reading and writing in L1 and L2 classrooms e.g., discrete answer comprehension questions, worksheets, and multiple choice tests are either critiqued as mechanistic or overlooked entirely. However, a focus exclusively on the presence or absence of extended composition may have the unintended side-effect of making invisible the myriad of other literate activities in L1 and L2 classrooms. For example, while Sternglass (1997) paints rich and detailed longitudinal case studies of college students experiences with composition across the curriculum, the literacy experiences of one L2 student become all but invisible over the course of the study because the student entered an academic discipline in which extended composing was infrequent. While it is true that more mechanical forms of literate activity may not be as highly valued (see, e.g., Knott, 1987), Silva, Leki, and Carson (1997) argue that we need to recognize that writing often serves practical, mundane, and communicative purposes that may not be life- or thought-transforming but are nevertheless copious and vital in the academic and literate lives of L2 learners. A modality-sensitive view of second language acquisition can also enrich second language writing research by drawing in research from other areas. For example, a consideration of written language as a communicative modality almost

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

343

by denition includes both reading and writing. However, as Belcher and Hirvela (2001) note, L2 reading and L2 writing have been dealt with separately (see, e.g., Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Urquhart & Weir, 1998; Weber, 1991/1996) and there has been notably little work spanning both (but see Carson et al., 1990; Carson & Leki, 1993). A growing but as yet incomplete body of literature is looking more broadly at all of the written forms surrounding the creation of texts such as notes, outlines, and lists of points (Walvoord et al., 1995) and more holistically at all of the literacy demands of college classrooms (Carson, 2000; Leki & Carson, 1994). More work in this vein is needed. In particular, research remains to be done that looks broadly at how learners textual interactions are integrated into overall classroom communication patterns. An important part of developing a modality-sensitive perspective on classroom second language acquisition is to address more explicitly the theoretical frameworks and methodological choices we make. Research on the role of literacy in language learning arguably requires somewhat different theoretical underpinnings than research that has privileged talk. While much of American linguistic theory in the 20th century has been inimical to the study of writing, Harris (1995, p. 3) notes that the last few decades have seen a noticeable increase in the number of linguists willing to consider writing as a form of language in its own right (see also Coulmas, 1996; Harris, 1995; Hughes, 1996; Sampson, 1985). There are thus increasing possibilities for grounding studies of writing and second language learning in contemporary linguistic theory. The growth of studies examining language variation through corpus linguistics (see, e.g., Biber, 1995) provides additional theoretical rationales for a consideration of modality in classroom second language development. Studies focusing on classroom-based interactions through text also require a specialized methodological arsenal. For example, classroom observation and recordings of classroom talk and behavior have yielded important insights into second language learning processes, and in fact have become synonymous with classroom ethnography for some (see e.g., Watson-Gegeo, 1997). Nevertheless, since classroom recordings are limited in their ability to capture text-based interactions, it is probably not coincidental that they do not play a central role lil-Carter, 1997; in recent analyses of L2 writer experience (see, e.g., Ange Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Leki, 1995, 1999; Prior, 1995; Spack, 1997). The nature of interactions with text is typically more opaque than those in aural/ oral modes and not necessarily elucidated through observation of interactants gesture, speech, or behavior. This is particularly true in secondary or college settings where literacy is assumed and there is little face-to-face scaffolding for literate interactions. In addition, because teacher talk overwhelmingly predominates in the face-to-face interactions in most American classrooms, studies that rely primarily on observation privilege teachers communicative practices and are not well suited for investigation of learner-focused interactions through text. Moreover, some interactions take place in writing precisely in order to conceal them from observation (e.g., passing notes in class; teacher evaluation of student work).

344

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

Interactions with text also differ signicantly from those in the spoken mode in that they are not as site-dependent. In other words, methodologies are required that capture students interactions with text not only in the classroom, but also in the library, in their homes, on e-mail, or on the bus. One way to make these elusive but highly signicant sorts of interactions more accessible in research is the use of introspective and retrospective self-report techniques interviews, think-aloud protocols, and the like. While such methods have a long history in studies of rst language literacy and second language acquisition studies (see, e.g., Faerch & Kasper, 1987; Gass & Mackey, 2000), there has been a countervailing concern, particularly among positivistically oriented researchers, that such data are less reliable than direct observation of language behavior (Block, 2000; Smagorinsky, 1994). For example, interview data are inevitably affected by factors such as researcherinformant relationships and selectivity in informant recollections. Nevertheless, second language writing research could make a more explicit and theorized case for why these methodologies form a vital means of getting at the role of written modalities in interaction and language learning. Similarly, written documents compositions, teacher comments on papers, homework, tests, journals, textbooks and other reading materials, student vocabulary glosses, and even doodles in the margins provide a vital path of inference about the nature of text-based interactions among teachers and L2 learners in classroom settings. Approaches to the study of written texts have proliferated (see, e.g., van Dijk, 1997) and many in recent years have worked to illustrate the social situatedness of text in institutional, disciplinary, cultural, and political contexts (see, e.g., Fairclough, 1995). Thompson (2001) and Thompson and Thetela (1995) have documented a range of ways in which discursive signals of interaction can be analyzed within texts. However, such approaches need to be adapted for the description of local contextual dynamics, interactional functions, and participant structures for written texts within classrooms. Finally, with recent and coming technological advances, it becomes increasingly feasible to coordinate video of teacher talk and student behavior with classroom texts read and produced in order to develop naturalistic, real-time portraits of how students integrate (or do not integrate) oral, literate, and visual modalities in classrooms in learning a second language. In all, as Breen (1985) and more recently, Bailey and Nunan (1996) have contended, any approach must marshal multiple perspectives and data sources if it is to delve into the complex and multilayered spoken and written interactions occurring in classrooms where second language learning is taking place. Research on classroom second language literacy would benet by placing the methodological approaches on which we have relied into a more principled and explicitly theorized position analogous to that of microethnographic and other approaches to spoken discourse. In concluding, my reply to Lekis question is still admittedly incomplete and drawn in strokes too broad. Nevertheless, I believe that this is a fruitful direction

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

345

for further inquiry. I have identied a number of ways in which further work could both expand on and rene literacy as a central concern of applied linguistics and as an important mode of second language acquisition in classroom settings. I have argued that it is important to investigate how L2 learners learn how to write, but it is just as important to learn more about the instrumental role that writing can play in the acquisition of a second language in educational settings. While recognizing that L2 writing research is by its nature interdisciplinary and that researchers have a variety of afliations and interests, I believe that we as a eld have at least two legitimate and vital roles to play in applied linguistics and classroom second language acquisition research. One is to relate the implications of our work in ways that make its relevance to the broader eld of applied linguistics more apparent. The other is to interrogate research and theories of second language acquisition that do not adequately account for the role of literacy in classroom learning.

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

References
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991/1996). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 951983). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. lil-Carter, S. (1997). Second language acquisition of spoken and written English: Acquiring the Ange skeptron. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 263287. Applebee, A. N., & Auten, A. (1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the content areas. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539568. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language minority students: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (1996). Introduction. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education (pp. 114). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.) & V. W. McGee (Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Belanoff, P. (2001). Silence: Reflection literacy, learning, and teaching. College Composition and Communication, 52(3), 399428. Belcher, D., & Braine, G. (Eds.). (1995). Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

346

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2001). Introduction. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 readingwriting connections (pp. 112). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. New York: Cambridge University Press. Block, D. (2000). Interview research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 757763. Bloomfield, L. (1987). Linguistics and reading. In C. F. Hockett (Ed.), A Leonard Bloomfield anthology (Abridged ed., pp. 255266). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language learninga neglected situation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 135158. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language learning and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 147. Carroll, S. (1999). Putting input in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337388. Carson, J. G. (2000). A task analysis of reading and writing in academic contexts. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 readingwriting connections (pp. 4883). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Carson, J. E., Carrell, P. L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P. A. (1990). Readingwriting relationships in first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 245266. Carson, J. G., & Leki, I. (Eds.). (1993). Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chaudron, C. (2001). Progress in language classroom research: Evidence from the Modern Language Journal, 19162000. Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 5776. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. New York: Routledge. Coulmas, F. (1996). Blackwell Encyclopedia of writing systems. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Crain, S., & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482511. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222251. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research, and practice. New York: Longman. Daiute, C., Campbell, C. H., Griffin, T. M., Reddy, M., & Tivnan, T. (1993). Young authors interactions with peers and a teacher: Toward a developmentally sensitive sociocultural literacy theory. In C. Daiute (Ed.), The development of literacy through social interaction (pp. 4163). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Davies, A. (1999). An introduction to applied linguistics: From practice to theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. de Saussure, F. (1986). Course in general linguistics. In C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, & A. Riedlinger (Eds.) & R. Harris (Trans.). La Salle, IL: Open Court. Derrida, J. (1998). Of grammatology. In G. C. Spivak (Trans., corrected ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201225). New York: Academic Press.

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

347

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1974). Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly, 8, 111127. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1987). Introspection in second language research. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: Papers in the critical study of language. New York: Longman. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285300. Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145190. Fletcher, P., & MacWhinney, B. (Eds.). (1995). The Handbook of Child Language. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Foster, P., & Purves, A. (1991/1996). Literacy and society with particular reference to the nonwestern world. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Peason (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 2645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fromkin, V. A. (Ed.). (2000). Linguistics: An introduction to linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 299307. Goldenberg, C., & Patthey-Chavez, G. (1995). Discourse processes in instructional conversations: Interactions between teachers and transition readers. Discourse Processes, 19, 5773. Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357398. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1992). Introduction to applied linguistics. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistics perspective. New York: Longman. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J. K., & Verplaetse, L. S. (Eds.). (2000). Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93116. Harklau, L. (in press). Representational practices and multimodal communication in U.S. high schools: Implications for adolescent immigrants. In S. R. Schecter & R. Bayley (Eds.), Language socialization and bilingualism. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Harris, R. (1995). Signs of writing. New York: Routledge. Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: A book of readings (pp. 401435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B. (1996). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hoyle, S. M., & Adger, C. T. (1998). Introduction. In S. M. Hoyle & C. T. Adger (Eds.), Kids talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 322). New York: Oxford University Press. Hughes, R. (1996). English in speech and writing: Investigating language and literature. New York: Routledge. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Essex: Pearson Education. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269293). New York: Viking Penguin.

348

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

Hymes, D. (1980). Language in education: Ethnolinguistic essays. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Hymes, D. (1983). The Americanist tradition in linguistics. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Essays in the history of linguistic anthropology (pp. 115134). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hymes, D. (1986). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 3571). New York: Blackwell. Hymes, D., & Fought, J. (1981). American structuralism. New York: Mouton. Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (Eds.). (1998). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics: A handbook for language teaching. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Knott, G. (1987). Literacy instruction in secondary school classroom contexts. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 354371). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457482. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York: Longman. Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 235260. Leki, I. (1999). Pretty much I screwed up: Ill-served needs of a permanent resident. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of English as a second language (pp. 1743). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Leki, I. (2000). Writing, literacy, and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 99115. Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 81101. Long, M. (1980). Inside the black box: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning, 30, 142. Long, M. H. (1989). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, process. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1541). New York: Cambridge University Press. Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication, 50, 699721. Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Reexamining audiolingualism: On the genesis of reading and writing in L2 studies. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 readingwriting connections (pp. 84105). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mlynarczyk, R. (1998). Conversations of the mind: The uses of journal writing for second-language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ninio, A., & Snow, C. E. (1999). The development of pragmatics: Learning to use language appropriately. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Child Language Acquisition (pp. 347383). New York: Academic Press. Nippold, M. A. (1998). Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 12, pp. 5180). New York: Academic Press.

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

349

Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ornstein, R. (1993). The roots of the self: Unraveling the mystery of who we are. San Francisco: Harper. Pang, V. O. (1996). Intential silence and communication in a democratic society: The viewpoint of one Asian American. High School Journal, 79(3), 184190. Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (1998). The development of school-based literacy: A social ecological perspective. New York: Routledge. Peyton, J. K., & Reed, L. (1990). Dialogue journal writing with nonnative English speakers: A handbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 5984. Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). If only I had more time: ESL learners changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 4368. Prior, P. (1995). Tracing authoritative and internally persuasive discourses: A case study of response, revision, and disciplinary enculturation. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 288325. Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of Child Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press. Sampson, G. (1985). Writing systems: A linguistic introduction. London: Hutchinson. Schieffelin, B. B., & Gilmore, P. (Eds.). (1986). The acquisition of literacy: Ethnographic perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Seliger, H. W., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (1983). Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition studies: Some thoughts from the disciplinary margins. Written Communication, 14, 398428. Smagorinsky, P. (1994). Introduction. Potential problems and problematic potentials of using talk about writing as data about the writing process. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. ixxix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Snow, C. E. (1993). Families as social contexts for literacy development. In C. Daiute (Ed.), The development of literacy through social interaction (Vol. 61, pp. 1124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14, 362. Spada, N., & Lyster, R. (1997). Approaches to observation in classroom research: Macroscopic and microscopic views of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 787795. Sproat, R. (2000). A computational theory of writing systems. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternglass, M. S. (1997). Time to know them: A longitudinal study of writing and learning at the college level. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371391. Swales, J. M. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with context in interlanguage theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 182198. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

350

L. Harklau / Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (2002) 329350

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 5878. Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text, 15, 103127. Trueba, H. T., Guthrie, G. P., & Au, K. H.-P. (Eds.). (1981). Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. New York: Longman. van Dijk, T. A. (1997). The study of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. New York: Longman. Verplaetse, L. S. (1998). How content teachers interact with English language learners. TESOL Journal, 7, 2428. Walvoord, B. E., Anderson, V. J., Breihan, J. R., McCarthy, L. P., Robison, S. M., & Sherman, A. K. (1995). Functions of outlining among college students in four disciplines. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 390421. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1997). Classroom ethnography. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Research methods in language and education (Vol. 8, pp. 135144). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Weber, R.-M. (1991/1996). Linguistic diversity and reading in American society. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 97 119). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Weissberg, B. (2000). Developmental relationships in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs. speech. Learning and Instruction, 10, 3753. Zaki, H., & Ellis, R. (1999). Learning vocabulary through interacting with a written text. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 151169). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.