Evaluative stance in Vietnamese and English writing by the same authors: A corpus-informed appraisal study

Appraisal theory (Martin and White 2005), an approach to discourse analysis dealing with evaluative language, has been previously employed in analysing newspaper articles and spoken discourses in several earlier studies, although it is gaining in popularity as a framework for comparing first and second (L1/L2) writing. This study investigated 40 English majors’ Vietnamese and English paragraphs for evaluative language, a key component of successful academic writing, as realised under Appraisal theory. To this purpose, we collected L1 Vietnamese and L2 English data from the same student writers across the same topics and using a corpus-informed Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis approach to the annotation and analysis of appraisal. A range of commonalities were present in the use of appraisal across the two language varieties, while the results also suggest significant differences between students’ evaluative expressions in Vietnamese as a mother tongue and English as a second or foreign language. This variation includes the comparative under- and over-use of specific appraisal resources employed in L1 and L2 writing respectively, in particular, regarding writers’ employment of attitudinal features. The findings serve to inform future pedagogical applications regarding explicit instruction in stance and appraisal features for novice L2 English writers in Vietnam.

The Exploration of Skilled and Less-Skilled EFL Graduate Students' on L1 and L2 Writing Strategies

This study aims to analyze the similarities, differences, and transferability of students' writing strategies in L1 (Indonesian) and L2 (English). Data were obtained from four participants majoring in English Education, two males and two females, which were categorized into skilled and less-skilled writers. The data were collected for four months using various methods, namely think-aloud protocols (TAPs), retrospective and semi-structured interviews, observations, and written drafts. The result showed that students employed similar personal strategies while writing in Indonesian (L1) and English (L2). This means that they transferred L1 strategies to L2 with some variances and similarities. The skilled writers viewed writing as a cyclical process of planning, writing, reading/rereading, rehearsing, and revising their texts. Meanwhile, less-skilled writers tended to employ linear and less recursive strategies. Furthermore, subsequent studies need to be conducted using these research findings and suggestions.

Planning in L1 and L2 writing: Working memory, process, and product

The study of planning in second language (L2) writing research is heavily influenced by two research domains: (a) early research on cognition in first language (L1) composing processes and (b) second language acquisition (SLA) research. The first research domain has been instrumental in determining the specific systems and processes involved in composing and has led to widely accepted models of L1 writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987*; Flower & Hayes, 1980*; Hayes, 1996, 2012) as well as a widely accepted model of the interaction between working memory and L1 writing systems (Kellogg, 1996*; Kellogg, Whiteford, Turner, Cahill, & Mertens, 2013). The influence of these early studies is still felt in process approaches to composition instruction commonly implemented in L1 and L2 writing classes. The second research domain—SLA and more specifically task-based language teaching/learning—has come to view planning as a feature of task complexity that can be manipulated to facilitate the production of language that is complex (syntactically and/or lexically), accurate, and/or fluent (Robinson, 2011*; Skehan, 1998*; Skehan & Foster, 2001). This research timeline traces the study of planning in L2 writing in each of these domains by reviewing key L1 and L2 writing research over the last 30-plus years and by highlighting each study's findings. Prior to presenting the timeline, the following sections provide backgrounds in each of the domains noted above and situate planning within those domains.

Gender-preferential language use in L1 and L2 argumentative essays? Evidence against lists of ‘gendered’ language features

This study identifies and compares the gender-preferential language features present in the argumentative writing of L1 Indonesian and Indonesian L2 English learners. The data is comprised of 80 English argumentative essays sampled from the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE, Ishikawa, 2011) and a comparative corpus of 80 L1 Indonesian argumentative essays collected online from Indonesian university students, both equally divided by gender. Comparison of the data was performed through quantitative analysis of three supposed ‘male-preferential’ features and seventeen ‘female-preferential’ features between the male- and female-produced corpora in L1 and L2 writing. This study investigated (1) the extent of variation in the use of ‘gendered language features’ between male and female-produced L1 and L2 texts; (2) whether the use of male/female ‘gendered-language features’ across male/female produced L1/L2 texts match their suggested gender preference, and (3) to what extent L1’s preference for ‘gender language features’ affects male and female learners’ use of such language in L2. The results suggest the majority of supposed gender-preferential features were not significantly different across male/female produced texts, indicating that argumentative essays may be gender-neutral to a certain extent. This study also revealed that L1 preference of gendered language forms does not determine their preferences in the L2. In conclusion, male and female students adopt similar linguistic features to express their arguments. We may claim that gender language forms are not fixed and absolute in academic discourse because instructive texts tend to have a set model to fulfil the pedagogical criteria.

Child EFL learners’ attitudes towards a collaborative writing task

The way learners engage with tasks can crucially impact on learning opportunities and, therefore, more attention is now being devoted to task affect. This study examines the attitudes of an underresearched population, child EFL learners, towards a collaborative dictogloss task. Thirty-two Spanish EFL children (ages 11–12) completed the task in pairs and small groups at their school, and an attitude questionnaire one week after. Results show that learners had a positive attitude towards L1 and L2 writing, collaboration in the classroom, and the task itself, regardless of their grouping condition. Although these children did not mention in their responses any explicit grammar gains as a result of the task, they considered the blend of the written and oral mode and the opportunities for peer assistance to be beneficial. These results are encouraging for the promotion of collaborative writing tasks with young learners in communicative contexts.

Revision Strategy and Self-Diagnosis in Italian L1 and L2 Argumentative Essays

The present study investigates the effects of Revision Strategy (RS) on Argumentative Essay (AE) writing. Specifically, the study provides an analysis of 58 short AEs written by L1 and L2 university students. Two different levels of errors are examined: linguistic (Spelling, (Morpho)syntax, Lexicon, Syntax, Punctuation) and structure (Text structure and Coherence) errors, in order to measure how RS influences the texts. The comparison between RS and non-RS samples shows a significant difference in favour of texts with RS. In fact, we can surmise that RS positively influences text production both in L1 and L2 writing. In the third section we provide a quantitative analysis of the errors and we find some common issues within the specific rhetorical and linguistic framework of AE.

Written feedback in heritage Spanish classrooms

Although feedback is a well-established and widespread technique in L1 and L2 writing, little is known about written feedback practices in Spanish heritage language (SHL) classrooms. This study examines how written feedback is used in SHL courses across the United States. Professors, instructors, graduate teaching assistants, program directors, and students who had taught, directed, or taken an SHL course completed online questionnaires about instructional practices and their perceptions of the feedback provided on writing assignments. Both instructors and students reported that written comments, correction codes, circles/underlines, and correct forms were frequently provided. Instructors indicated the most challenges when providing feedback on organization, grammar, and orthography. Nevertheless, students reported that every kind of feedback that they received was useful and comprehensible. Although further exploration of writing in the SHL classroom is needed to more concretely delineate best practices, the current findings suggest that several effective feedback practices are already in place.

MAPPING MASTER’S STUDENTS’ USE OF EXTERNAL SOURCES IN SOURCE-BASED WRITING IN L1 AND L2

This article examines how master’s students consult and process sources in source-based writing tasks in L1 and L2. Two hundred eighty master’s students wrote a text in their L1 (Dutch) and L2 (English) at the beginning and end of the academic year. They wrote these texts based on three sources: a report, a web text, and a newspaper article. Their writing processes were registered using the Inputlog keylogging program. This allowed us to determine how much time the students spent reading the sources, when they did so, which sources they consulted most frequently, and how often they switched between the various (types of) sources. The quality of the texts was assessed holistically using pairwise comparisons (D-pac). Confirmative factor analysis showed three components to be relevant to describe source use in L1 and L2 writing: (a) initial reading time, (b) interaction with sources, and (c) the degree of variance in source use throughout the writing process. Individual text quality remained stable in L1 and L2 throughout the academic year. Structural equation modeling showed that the approach in source use, especially source interaction, is correlated with text quality, but in L1 only.