論 文“Second language composing, we would argue . . . is nota different animal from first language composing”(Jones and Tetroe, 1987). This essay discusses
the arguments for and against this claim.

Gary Littlecott

要旨「第二言語の作文は第一言語の作文と異なるものではない…と我々は主張する」（Jones and Tetroe: 1987）。本稿ではこの主張の賛否を論じ，非母語話者に対する教授においてどのようなことが問題になるかについて考察する。
1980年代，研究者は第一言語（L1）のライティングと第2言語（L2）のそれのプロセスはほぼ同一であると考えていた。しかし，最近の研究ではL1とL2の作文には基本的な類似はあるものの，重要な違いがある
ことが示されている。これにはL1とL2の作文の相違に関わる認知的，言語学的，談話的，ジャンル，読者の違いが含まれている。これらの違いはL2のライティング教師の教育的な様々な問題と同様に考察されるであろう。第一言語のライティングと第二言語のそれとの相違は第2言語学習者の特殊な必要性に合わせたライティングの指導法を採用することが必要になることが論じられる。プロセスアプローチと社会構造主義者の手法が推奨される。彼らはL2の書き手が英語を書くときに直面す
る特有の難しさについて最も本格的に取り組んでいるからである。

― 93 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 19

Abstract“Second language composing, we would argue . . . is not a different
animal from first language composing” (Jones and Tetroe : 1987). This
article discusses the arguments for and against this claim, andconsiders the implications for teaching to non-native speakers.
In the 1980s, researchers assumed the first language (L1) writing
and second language (L2) writing processes were almost identical.
However, contemporary research indicates that although there arebasic similarities between L1 and L2 composing, there are also
important differences as well. These include fundamental cognitive,
linguistic, discourse, genre and audience related differences between
L1 and L2 composing. These differences will be explored as well as
the pedagogic implications for L2 writing teachers. It is argued thatthe differences between first and second language writing necessitate
the adoption of writing instruction to suit the special needs of L2
learners. A process and social constructionist approach is recommended,as they best address the unique difficulties L2 writers face when
composing in English.
Keywords: Writing process (ライティングプロセス), Social constructionist approach(社会構造主義者のアプローチ), Discourse transfer (談話転移), Schemata(スキーマ), Genre analysis (ジャンル分析), Feedback (フィードバック),Audience (読者)

1. Introduction
In their article ‘Composing in a Second Language’ Jones and Tetroe conclude that‘second language composing is not a different animal from first language composing’(Jones and Tetroe 1987 : 55). In other words, they believe L1 and L2 (English) writing
process are, to all intents and purposes, the same.
Jones and Tetroe’s supposition can be criticised in a number of ways. Their study― 94 ―

“Second language composing, we would argue . . . is not a different animal
from first language composing” (Jones and Tetroe, 1987).
This essay discusses the arguments for and against this claim.

was based on a very small sample – only six students – so there is a likelihood of‘premature generalisations being made’ (Kroll 1990 : 50). When their article waspublished in 1987, research into the L2 writing process was in its infancy.
Contemporary research indicates that although there are basic similarities between
first language and second language composing, there are also important differences aswell. According to Kroll, ‘it should not be presumed that the act of writing in one’s
first language is the same as the act of writing in one’s second language’ (Kroll
1990 : 2). Due to the cultural and educational distance between native and nonnative writers, some researchers have suggested that there may be more differences
than similarities between L1 and L2 writing (Grabe and Kaplan 1996 : 142). L2 writing
research findings have important pedagogical implications for L2 teaching. The
challenge for teachers is to determine how and what extent it differs from L1 writing
in order to make intelligent decisions about adopting and adapting L1 instruction.
To achieve this goal, Kroll asserts ‘for those engaged in teaching second language[writing], what is needed is both a firm grounding in the theoretical issues of firstand second language writing and an understanding of a broad range of pedagogicalissues that shape classroom writing instruction’ (Kroll 2003 : 25).

2. L2 Writing Research
Until the 1980s, L2 writing teachers have relied on L1 research findings and theories.
They reasoned that the theoretical issues and concerns in L1 writing were also
relevant in L2 composing. (It should be noted that important L2 research was being
conducted at the time but only in three main areas: contrastive rhetoric, assessment
research and English for Specific Purposes). L1 writing research generally paid little
attention to L2 writing and stressed the similarities between native and non-native
writing. However, L2 writers and teachers intuitively felt that second language
composing was different to first language composing. According to Raimes, ‘all of us
who have tried to write something in a second language . . . sense that the process ofwriting in an L2 is startlingly different from writing in our L1’ (Raimes 1985 : 243).
Reliance on L1 research caused concern among L2 teachers who raised doubts about‘the applicability in the L2 context of pedagogical instruction that had beendeveloped for L1 writers’ (Kroll 2003 : 21). Initiated by Zamel (1983), L2 researchers― 95 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 19began to turn their attention to what non-native writers actually did as they wrote(cited in Grabe and Kaplan 1996 : 28). Researchers, therefore, focused on the writing
process rather than the finished product – the dominant approach of L1 research at
the time (Raimes 1991 : 409). Since then a large amount of new and sometimes
contradictory information on L2 writing has been gained through research.
However, researchers and writing teachers are aware that there is still a lack ofunderstanding of the L2 writing process. Kroll argues that ‘we [still] have very little
information on how people actually learn to write in second languages or how
teaching might influence this’ (Kroll 2003 : 6). More studies are needed before
researchers fully understand the L2 composing process and can recommend the mostefficient pedagogic methodologies. At present, there is no coherent andcomprehensive theory or model of L2 writing that ‘adequately explain learning towrite in a second language or precisely . . . how [L2] writing should be taught’ (Wongand Weng 2002 : 226). Many researchers and teachers voice the need to develop acomprehensive theory of L2 writing as L1 theories are ‘largely monolingual, monocultural, ethnocentric and fixated on the writing of native speakers in North
American tertiary education’ (Silva 1993 : 657). The inability to characterise L2
writing owes to the relative newness of L2 writing research and the traditional belief
that L1 and L2 composing were, more or less, the same.

3. The composing process
The main similarity between L1 and L2 writing are the composing process patterns.
L1 and L2 writing processes are recursive and involve planning and revising todevelop ideas and ways to express them (Silva 1993 : 657). L2 writers are able todiscern goals, consider organisational possibilities and deal with concerns about gist.
In general, therefore, L2 writers can function in a similar way to L1 writers (Leeds
1996 : 28). However, there is a fundamental difference – unlike monolingual L1
writers, L2 learners can cognitively switch to another language.

4. L1 to L2 transfer
Whereas L1 writers work in one language, non-native learners can apply to L2― 96 ―

“Second language composing, we would argue . . . is not a different animal
from first language composing” (Jones and Tetroe, 1987).
This essay discusses the arguments for and against this claim.

writing what they have acquired in L1. Writing protocol studies have shown L2
writers reverting to their L1s as they compose in English (Leeds 1996 : 30). L2 writers
are thinking in different languages at different times and are translating while
composing (Fulcher 1997 : 16). Researchers are not sure exactly how much of their L1
ability is available to L2 writers but they are certain that transfer occurs (Leeds
1996 : 28).
Research has indicated that students’ proficiency in L1 seems to have a positive
impact on their L2 writing. In other words, L2 students who are skilled writers in
L1 are able to transfer composing strategies over. Therefore, students who have goodwriting skills in their native language tend to be better at writing in L2 than learners
who do not (Sasaki 2000 : 262). For example, L2 students may be able to transfer
planning strategies and use sophisticated words and expressions translated from their
L1. The L1 therefore represents a resource, reflecting what the writer already knows
about the composing process (Grabe and Kaplan 1996 : 240).
In summary, researchers have found that L1 writing skills and strategies, especiallyamong writers proficient in their L1, transfer over to their L2 (Hyland 2002 : 213,
Leeds 1996 : 28). Whereas L1 writers work in just one language, proficient L2 writers
utilize both their L1 and L2 cognitive processing resources when composing (Wongand Weng 2002 : 225).

5. L2 writing characteristics
Although L1 and L2 writing processes are considered similar, non-native writers tend
to experience more difficulty when composing (Silva 1993 : 660; Grabe and Kaplan
1996 : 141). L2 writers are likely to be less fluent, less accurate and be less effective
writers than L1 writers. L2 writing tends to be a more laborious process for most
non-native students with more attention paid to sentence construction and less togenerating ideas, planning and goal setting (Wong and Weng 2002 : 239). They are also
likely to be less productive than native speaker writers with fewer words of written
text. In addition, they are likely to make more errors than L1 writers, use more
undefined terms and are less able to paraphrase. Furthermore, L2 writers tend not tohave the same command of vocabulary that most English L1 writers do (Silva andMatsuda 2001 : 44). L2 writers are likely to spend more time in choosing words and― 97 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 19expressions to convey their ideas. Arndt, for example, notes a lack of lexical
knowledge and the need for more word-choice revision in L2 (Arndt 1987 : 265).
Unlike L2 writers, English L1 writers seem to rehearse word choices more and listen
to how chosen words resonate with the intended meaning and perhaps even developa different perspective on the intended meanings as a result (Leeds 1996 : 29).
Jones and Tetroe state it is ‘obvious . . . that the level of performance in the second
language will be less than that in the first (Jones and Tetroe 1987 : 36). They base theirconclusion on the simple fact that L2 writers tend to have limited exposure andpractice of composing in English. Most L2 writers therefore, have not had the sameamount of writing practice as native learners. Less exposure to the target languagemeans less linguistic knowledge of the L2 when they begin to write. From birth,
native learners implicitly acquire grammar and lexical knowledge before they start
formal writing instruction at primary school. This is not the case for L2 students
who usually begin writing at beginner or intermediate levels and are, in addition,
studying the other main skills of speaking, listening and reading at the same time.
Therefore, the efforts in learning to write a new language are compounded by thecomplexities and difficulties inherent in mastering a new language (Leki 1992 : 8, Kroll
1990 : 2).
Research concerning information processing suggests that cognitive resources become
more limited in L2 writing. If processing capacity is being used for one function,other functions can only make use of whatever capacity is left over (Leeds 1996 : 29).
Therefore, if students must use part of their cognitive capacity to focus on language
because they are not familiar with that language, other functions, perhaps higher
functions of organisation cannot be engaged at full capacity (Leeds 1996 : 29).

6. Discourses and GenreIn many cases, English native speakers can intuitively distinguish an L2 writer’s text
from that of an L1 writer. Culture affects the use of language in many ways andcontrastive rhetoric research has discovered that each culture has its own patterns of
discourse. Therefore, L2 students are likely to transfer their native schemata to L2
writing situations (Hyland 2002 : 214). Schemata, according to Johns are ‘the priorknowledge that individuals bring to current writing situations’ (Johns 1997 : 10). The― 98 ―

“Second language composing, we would argue . . . is not a different animal
from first language composing” (Jones and Tetroe, 1987).
This essay discusses the arguments for and against this claim.

likely transfer of native schemata may be due to the social and cultural distance of L2
students from the educational norms and values of English speaking cultures. Since
learners from different cultures present written ideas in different ways, the L2 writeraudience sense may be culturally different from L1 students (Silva and Matsuda
2001 : 45). L2 schemata may be unsuitable in an L1 context, as it may not match the
expectations of the native speaker audience. In other words, L2 learners may fail todevelop a sophisticated understanding and concept of audience requirement (Leeds
1996 : 32, Leki 1992 : 102). English speaking discourse cultures emphasise criticalthinking, logic of argument, originality, creativity, cogency, individual voice andaudience. These are fundamental considerations when L2 writers ‘encounter theacademic curriculum beyond the L2 writing classroom’ (Leki and Carson cited in Silva
and Matsuda 2001 : 44).

7. Pedagogic implications
As a result of researchers’ traditionally stressing the similarities between L1 and L2
writing, second language teachers used to accept the idea that teaching techniques
recommended for native speakers would also be suitable for non-native speakers aswell (Leeds 1996 : 27). However, with contemporary writing research highlighting thedifferences between L1 and L2 composing processes, writing teachers have been
obliged to reassess teaching methodologies.
Although teaching English to L2 learners may not be wholly different from teachingnative speakers, it is different enough to warrant adjustments to writing instruction(Leeds 1996 : 32). Raimes was the first to acknowledge that the differences between
L1 and L2 writers justified the adaption not the adoption of L1 writing instruction(Kroll 1990 : 44). Raimes advised that [L2 writing teachers] should neither use thesame pedagogical strategies for ESL students in writing classes as for native speakers
nor should we treat our students simply as learners who need large doses of language
instruction to improve their writing’ (Raimes 1985 : 250). Researchers tend to agreewith Raimes’ contention that ‘the academic success of L2 writers of English may be
negatively affected by the uncritical application of L1 writing pedagogies’ (Land andWhitley (1989), Santos (1992), Silva (1993), cited in Leki (1996 : 43)).

― 99 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 19

8. Teaching discourse and genre
Since contrastive rhetoric researchers have identified L1 discourse transfer in L2
writing, writing teachers should be aware of the potential problems L1 rhetoricalstyle can cause in English L2 writing (Leki 1992 : 92). Although it may be difficult toshift the influence of L1 schemata from the L2 writing context, a social
constructionist approach may assist students to familiarise themselves with thediscourse and genres of English writing. A social constructionist approach todiscourse and genre instruction has been advocated by Dudley Evans and St. John.
Johns also advocates this approach which she labels ‘socio-literate’ (Johns 1997 : 14).
According to Dudley Evans and St. John, the social constructionist approach is‘closely related to the development of genre analysis . . . and encourages writers toconsider their role as members of a discourse community and what this implies interms of the style and stance they would adopt’ (Dudley Evans and St. John 1998 : 118).
The approach helps students to understand how knowledge is represented in different
cultures and to successfully produce and process texts within certain genres (St. John
1997 : 15). According to Johns, the constructionist approach ‘expands the concept ofschemata to include not only the readers’ and writers’ prior knowledge of text
content and form but of the situations and communities for which texts from a genre
serve identified purposes (Johns 1997 : 15).
In English tertiary level education it is important that writing teachers highlight the‘culturally driven English L1 assumptions that differentiate L1 and L2 writing’ andteach the expectations of an English speaking audience (Silva and Matsuda 2001 : 44,
Leki 1992 : 102). Non-native speakers may need explicit instruction of what is sociallyand culturally appropriate in terms of the writers’ roles, audience expectations,rhetorical patterns, stylistic conventions and contextual features in L2 written
discourse. Furthermore, L2 teachers should highlight the rhetorical options available
to them; including explicit instruction in L1 rhetorical and cultural preferences foressay organisation and argument structure (Silva and Matsuda 2001 : 44). Exposure toacademic essays, letters and reports for example, may help L2 students to becomeaware of the rhetorical differences in discourse and genre.

― 100 ―

“Second language composing, we would argue . . . is not a different animal
from first language composing” (Jones and Tetroe, 1987).
This essay discusses the arguments for and against this claim.

9. The learning environment
A debate has raged within L2 writing circles about the most appropriate classroom
environment for L2 English writers. Some L2 professionals favour mainstream
classes mixing native and non-native speakers as the best introduction into the L1
academic discourse community. Others, however, favour the more narrow English
for Academic Purposes (EAP) approach as the most appropriate way to teach writing
to non-native speakers (Leki 1992 : 8). Researchers and writers who prefer the EAP
approach believe L2 writers have special needs and should be given the option oftaking writing classes designed especially for them and not forced into main-stream
composing classes (Silva 1993 : 670). Perhaps what is more important than the debate
about general or specialist classrooms are the professional qualities of the writing
teacher. If the teacher has the experience, skills and knowledge of L1 and L2 theory
and practice, it is more likely that he or she can make appropriate adjustments to suit
L2 students (Santos et al 2000 : 17).

10. The L2 writing teacher
The experience, knowledge and skills a teacher brings to the writing classroom are
key if L2 learners are to be treated fairly, taught effectively and given an equal chance
to succeed in their writing (Silva et al 1997 : 401/2). Writing teachers should have aclear understanding of the nature of L2 writing and be sensitive to, and be able todeal positively with the needs and concerns of non-native learners. Knowledge ofstudent L1 backgrounds can help to inform and guide L2 writing pedagogy (Sasaki
2000 : 283). Teachers need to talk and listen to students as individuals to discover andunderstand their particular situation. Teachers can provide more individualised andeffective teaching for their students if they are familiar with students’ cultural,
educational and linguistic backgrounds and attitudes to L2 writing. Furthermore,
knowledge of the students’ literacy in L1, understanding of English speaking cultures
as well as experience of composing is only of benefit to teachers. For example, many
L2 researchers and teachers agree that it is difficult to predict L1 to L2 transfer ofrhetorical styles in writing. In some cases, L2 students may not use L1 rhetoricalstyles. For instance, L2 students with extensive exposure to English, access to English― 101 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 19resources and current contacts with English speakers may have a better command of
the nuances of rhetorical structure than those who do not. In this case, a teacher’s
knowledge of an L2 student’s cultural, social and educational background would help
in the writing classroom.
L2 teachers should remember that different teaching approaches to writing suitdifferent individuals and there is no one best method that every student should use.
According to Fulcher, L2 teachers must be even more versatile than L1 teachers in
adapting teaching strategies to individuals (Fulcher 1997 : 18). As Johns writes ‘we arein a post methodological era and thus to imply that there is one way to teach orlearn . . . would be irresponsible (Johns 1997 :  xi).

11. More time for everything
L2 research has shown that non-native students share a need for more time forcompleting writing tasks (Leeds 1996 : 35). What might be a reasonable length oftime for a native English writer to complete a writing assignment may not be so for
non-native writers. Raimes argued that L2 writers might need ‘more of everything,more time, more opportunity’ to address the lexical, rhetorical and linguistic
concerns. L2 writers, for example, may need more time to master ‘vocabulary to
make their own background knowledge accessible to them in their L2’ (Raimes
1985 : 250). Writing teachers, therefore, should make time available in class for L2
students to compose in English. As Silva and Matsuda point out ‘people improve in
activities that they regularly practice, particularly in . . . complex processing activities
such as writing’ (Silva and Matsuda 2001 : 44).
According to Silva, the need for ‘more time’ casts doubt on the reasonableness that
L2 writers will perform as well as L1 writers on writing tests and that L2 writers will
be able to meet standards developed from L1 writers (Silva 1993 : 670). This is adifficult issue because it raises the question of whether L2 students should be assessed
differently from L1 writers. The repercussions could include L2 students feeling that
their writing has been devalued in the minds of other people and possibly allegations
to of unfairness from L1 students if they are assessed from non-native learners.
Nevertheless, it is doubtful that many L2 students would want to be treateddifferently than L1 students in the first place.
― 102 ―

“Second language composing, we would argue . . . is not a different animal
from first language composing” (Jones and Tetroe, 1987).
This essay discusses the arguments for and against this claim.

12. Feedback
Raimes makes the claim that revision is the main difference between L1 and L2
writers (Raimes 1987 : 439). This is because research has discovered that L2 writers
have less concern for making language errors than L1 writers. The findings suggestthat specific feedback from the teacher helps improve the writing of the L2 student(Ferris 1997 cited in Silva and Matsuda 2001 : 44). However, revision seems to have little
effect on L1 writing improvement. Native writers on the other hand sometimes
misinterpret the teacher’s commentary as a personal attack on them and fail toappreciate why the comments were written in the first. The opposite appears to betrue for L2 writers. L2 writers are likely to welcome feedback from teachers andincorporate comments and ideas when they revise text. L2 writers may seek teacher
feedback because of their relative lack of practice in L2 composing – ‘limited-practiceover a lifetime’ – which tends to disadvantage L2 writers in their command ofwritten English (Silva and Matsuda 2001 : 44). In short, concrete feedback fromteachers is expected and required from non-native writers.

13. Conclusion
In the 1980s, researchers such as Jones and Tetroe believed that L1 and L2 writing
processes were the same. This is true at a basic level since first and second language
composing are both recursive in style and require planning, editing, redrafting and soon. However, the fact L2 writers can switch to their L1 while composing and haveunique culturally derived schemata highlight significant differences between nativeand non-native writers. In addition, research into the L2 writing process has
discovered fundamental cognitive, linguistic, discourse, genre and audience relateddifferences between first language and second language composing. We canconclude, therefore, that first language composing is a ‘different animal’ from second
language composing. The differences between L1 and L2 writing necessitate theadaption of writing instruction to suit the special needs of L2 learners. For example,
providing genre and discourse pattern awareness raising strategies and giving moretime ‘for everything’ in and outside the writing classroom. Furthermore, teachers
should familiarise themselves with the L2 learners’ cultural, social and educational― 103 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 19backgrounds to inform and guide tuition. Finally, a process and social constructionist
approach is recommended to teaching L2 learners as they best address the uniquedifficulties non-native students face when they write in a second language.

Bibliography
Arndt, V. (1987) Six Writers in Search of Texts: A Protocol-based Study of L1 and L2 Writing
ELT Journal 41 257–267
Dudley-Evans, T. and St John, M. J. (1998) Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multi
Disciplinary Approach Cambridge University Press
Fulcher, G. (editor) (1997) Writing in the English Language Classroom Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall in association with the British Council
Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. B. (1996) Theory and Practice of Writing Longman, London
Hyland, K. (2002) Teaching and Researching Writing Longman, London
Johns, A. M. (1997) Text, Role and Context: Developing Academic Literacies Cambridge University
Press
Jones, S. and Tetroe, J. (1987) Composing in a Second Language in A. Matsuhashi (Editor)
Writing in Real Modeling Production Processes Norwood New Jersey 34 –57
Kroll, B. (Editor) (1990) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom Cambridge
University Press
Kroll, B. (Editor) (2003) Exploring the Dynamics of Second language Writing Cambridge
University Press
Leeds, B. (Editor) (1996) Writing in a Second Language: Insights from First and Second Language
Teaching and Research Longman New YorkLeki, I. (1992) Understanding ESL Writers: A Guide for Teachers Boynton and Cook Publishers
Raimes, A. (1985) What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing
TESOL Quarterly Vol. 19 : 2 229–258
Raimes, A. (1987) Language proficiency, writing ability and composing strategies: A Study of
ESL college student writers Language Learning Vol. 37 : 3 439–468
Raimes, A. (1991) Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing TESOL
Quarterly Vol. 25 : 3 407–430
Sasaki, M. (2000) Toward an empirical model of ESL Writing Processes: An Exploratory Study
Journal of Second Language Writing Vol. 9 : 3 259–291
Sasaki, M. and Hirose, K (1996) Explanatory Variables for ESL students’ Language Learning: A
Journal of Research in Language Studies Vol. 46 : 1 137–174
Santos, T. et al (2000) On the Future of Second Language Writing: A Colloquium Journal of
Second Language Writing Vol. 9 : 1 1–20

― 104 ―

“Second language composing, we would argue . . . is not a different animal
from first language composing” (Jones and Tetroe, 1987).
This essay discusses the arguments for and against this claim.
Silva, T. (1993) Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing: The ESL
Research and its Implications TESOL Quarterly Vol. 27 657–677
Silva, T. and Matsuda P. K. (Editors) (2001) On Second Language Writing New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum
Silva, T., Leki, I and Carson, J. (1997) Broadening the Perspective of Mainstream Composition
Studies Written Communication Vol.14 : 3 398–428
Wang, W. Y. and Wen, Q. F. (2002) L1 Use in the L2 Composing Process: An Exploratory Studyof 16 Chinese EFL Writers Journal of Second Language Writing Vol. 11 : 3 225–246― 105 ―