EXPLORING
INTERFACES BETWEEN
L2 WRITING AND SLA
LOURDES ORTEGA
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Symposium on Second Language Writing
Murcia – May 20-22, 2010
Please cite as:

Ortega, L. (2010). Exploring interfaces between L2 writing and second
language acquisition. Plenary delivered at the 9th Symposium on Second
Language Writing. University of Murcia, Spain, May 20-22.
Copyright © Lourdes Ortega, 2010
thanks
Rosa Manchón
& local
organizers
Liz, Julio, Yvette,
Lourdes…
Tony Silva & Paul Matsuda
My third Symposium (2006, 2007, 2010)
What does an SLA person like
me do in L2 writing?
SLA and L2 writing, an unlikely partnership?
SLA’s distrust of “writing
stuff”?
Language, not
writing, as
focus (e.g.,
feedback vs.
response)
Suspect data
(“monitored”)
Invisible site
for L2 learning
(Harklau, 2002)
Yet, for me:
L2 writing
SLA
Writing in an
L2 = freedom
& enjoyment
only comparable to learning and
living in languages I didn’t grow
up with
Often, we are so constrained by
dichotomies, at all levels:
Native
Insider
Researching
Neoliberal
Quantitative
Norms
Empowerment
Personal
Non-native
Outsider
Scholarly
Teaching
Critical
Qualitative
Originality Professional
Disempowerment
Writing has been one of the most
powerful sites for escaping
dichotomies and inventing new
spaces in which in-betweenness
(Bhabha, 1994) can be imagined,
performed, and felt
… Very different from the perpetual inferiority of L2 writers
imagined and felt by others (e.g., Flowerdew, 2008)
Perhaps because the very special ontology
of writing, as Cumming (SSLW abstract) puts it:
“develops primarily through
education and specialized
activities”
deliberate, agentive
“codifies aspects of
discourse seldom salient
in spoken interactions”
heterogeneizing/
diversifying of language
“serves as an indicator
of individual knowledge,
identity, and status”
deeply implicated in
identity and power
So, my focus:
L2 writing & SLA
interfaces
L2 writing as a whole field:
Great expansion
and development:
Journal (since 1992)
Symposium (since 1998)
Professional textbooks
(e.g., Ferris & Hedgecock, 1998)
Intense research activity,
particularly on English L2
writing (Leki, Cumming, & Silva,
2008)
PhD programs (Purdue Un.,
OISE, GSU, …)
But…
“SLA-style” L2 writing
research:
Less interest
and/or vigor?
1. Language
development &
writing
development
2. Cognitivelinguistic
inquiry on L2
writing
Sketch
generalizations
and
accomplishments
Brainstorm
opportunities for
invigoration
0. L2 writing & SLA…
… the lay of the land
“SLA-style” L2 writing research

Correlational studies of the moderating influence of L2
proficiency on L2 writing development (Cumming, 1989; Sasaki &
Hirose, 1996; Schoonen et al., 2003)



Observational-introspective studies of L2 writing
processes/strategies or “cognitive activity while writing”
(Manchón et al., 2009, p. 102; Torrance et al., 2007)
Text-based studies: L2 development in writing (Ortega, 2003;
Polio, 2001; Reynolds, 2010; Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, 2004), “small”
corpus EAP studies / genre analysis (Hyland, 2008), and
rhetorical transfer / contrastive rhetoric (Connor, 2002; Kubota,
2010; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009)
Quasi-experimental studies of error correction in writing
(Bitchener, 2008, 2010; Ferris, 2004; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010) and
other L2 writing instructional features (for L1 writing, see
Rijlaarsdam et al., 2005)
Leki, Cumming, & Silva (2008)
“Basic research”:




Writer characteristics (L2 proficiency, L1 writing ability, individual
differences such as motivation and confidence…)
Composing processes (revision, planning, formulation…)
Textual issues in written text (e.g., cohesion, rhetorical patterns,
metadiscourse…)
Grammatical issues in written text (linguistic profiling of various
kinds, accuracy/complexity…)
“Instruction and assessment”:


Formative assessment (L2 writing error correction)
Instructional interactions (L2 writing instruction studies)
Two centers of gravity for RQs:
change/development/learning:
how, whence, when, etc
language-writing
connection
1. Language
development & writing
development…
… reciprocally supportive
relationships
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
IS A PREREQUISITE FOR
WRITING DEVELOPMENT
Language development
Writing Development
The retrieval of language [converting ideas
to language, locally (formulation)] will consume
working memory resources away from
other attentional needs that are specific
of writing, such as keeping track of
discourse as a whole [producing text, globally
(planning, revision, social activity)]
(e.g., Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Torrance, SSLW)
“Below a certain threshold of FL
linguistic knowledge, the writer will be
fully absorbed in struggling with the
language, inhibiting writing processes
such as planning or monitoring”
(Schoonen et al. 2009, p. 81)
“the likelihood of attending to higherlevel concerns while writing [planning,
formulating, and revising] increases as writers
become more capable of using the L2”
(Manchón et al., 2009, p. 116)
Language development is a prerequisite/constraint on L2
writing development -- tentative generalizations so far:






Good L2 proficiency is necessary but not sufficient for the
development of L2 writing (Leki et al., 2008, p. 101)
After a certain threshold, L2 proficiency becomes less
predictive of L2 writing expertise (Ma & Wen, 1999)
Available knowledge of L2 is more important than fluent
retrieval (Schoonen et al., 2009)
Higher proficiency enables attention to higher-level
cognitive operations (Manchón et al., 2009)
For some populations, high L2 proficiency is mainly oral,
and if so L2 writing ability can be low (Blanton, 2005)
For some populations, high L2 proficiency may indicate L2
dominance and is accompanied by lower L1 composing
competence (Carson & Kuehn, 1992; McCarthey et al., 2005)
WRITING SUPPORTS
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
Writing
Language Development
(many presentations at SSLW!)





Writing --- metalinguistic reflection (Cumming, 1990; Swain
& Lapkin, 1995)
Writing -- collaboration and interaction (Storch, 2005; Swain,
Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002)... (in FL contexts this may
happen in the L1; Pennington et al., 1996)
Text reconstruction studies (Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Izumi,
2002)
Reformulation & editing studies (Adams, 2003; Sachs &
Polio, 2007; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010)
Writing -- attention & practice (Manchón & Roca de Larios,
2007)
L2 writing can be a site for heightened L2 development -tentative generalizations so far (Manchón, 2008):




L2 writers expend great attention to language
issues while writing (between 60% and 80% of
time spent in formulation)
Writing is one of the best forms of pushed output,
in all the senses outlined by Swain (1995, 2000)
Attention to language during writing is: (a) task
dependent and (b) proficiency dependent
Empirical support for L2 development benefits from
L2 writing are only short-term
MUCH IS YET TO BE
KNOWN ABOUT WRITING
AS A SITE FOR L2
DEVELOPMENT
Q: How do we adapt the construct of
“pushed output” to L2 writing?
e.g., oral appropriation of language is
valued as “input incorporation & uptake”
but written appropriation is seen as
plagiarism and instead “saying it in one’s
own words” is valued
Patchwriting (Howard,
1995; Pecorari, 2003) as a
form of pushed output in L2
writing?
e.g., by pushed output in writing, do we
mean attention to language at what level
exactly (higher levels textually or only
grammatically)?
Backtracking (Manchón et
al., 2009) as a form of
pushed output in L2
writing?
Q: How do we support engagement/motivation in
L2 writing?
Powerful effect of changing contexts for writing:
 8-to-11 month study abroad experiences (Sasaki,
2009)
Rethinking writing tasks:
 Uncorrected journal assignments (Casanave, 1994)
 Guided vs. unguided picture stories (Ishikawa,
1994)
 Writing tasks that connect with student interests and
backgrounds (Lo & F. Hyland, 2007)
 Freewriting (Hwang, SSLW)
Q: Accuracy & motivation, how do they affect
each other?
Engagement
Accuracy
Accuracy
Engagement
In sum, so far:
language and
writing
Reciprocally
supportive
development
1. Language as a constraint for writing: Progress,
expansion… however, a certain waning of
currency/interest?
2. Writing as site for language learning: High
current interest, many questions yet to explore
2. Cognitive-linguistic
inquiry into L2 writing…
… contributions & limitations
CONTRIBUTIONS
Some useful generalizations are
emerging…




e.g., Attention to language during writing is: (a)
task dependent and (b) proficiency dependent
Manchón, 2008)
e.g., Good L2 proficiency is necessary but not
sufficient for the development of L2 writing (Leki et
al., 2008)
…
…
Gradual complexification…
Goals
Cumming (2006)
Availability (knowledge)
& accessibility (retrieval)
of L2 Schoonen et al. (2009)
L2 proficiency
L1 composing
expertise
Motivation
Sasaki (2004)
Rinnert &
Kobayashi (2009)
L2 composing
competence
Context (Abroad, at home, EAP…)
Sasaki (2007)
Experience
(=practice: how often, how much,
how varied in genres & audiences)
Cumming (1989)
Manchón et al. (2009)
Theoretical expansion in SLA-style L2
Vygotskian SLA
writing research
Cognitive interactionism
Skills acquisition theory
Functional-linguistic SLA
CA
Lg socialization
Identity theory
Systemic Functional
Linguistics
Usage-based
emergentism
e.g., editing/reformulation: Cognitive interactionist (Sachs
& Polio, 2007) and Vygotskian sociocultural (Storch &
Wigglesworth, 2010)
This theoretical expansion has been
less antagonistic than in SLA
 Cognitive interactionism
 Skills acquisition theory
 Functional-linguistic SLA





Vygotskian SLA
CA
Lg socialization
Identity theory
Systemic Functional
Linguistics
 Usage-based
emergentism
Pluralistic attitude of
L2 writing as a field
(Silva, SSLW)
LIMITATIONS TO
ATTEND TO
Not much accumulation, really
(Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008)
94% known = single study
97.4% known = single study
Writer characteristics
Composing processes
3 studies
2 studies
3 & 5 studies
2 studies
2% findings
4% findings
0.3 % findings
2% findings
95.2% known = single study
92.97% known = single study
Textual analyses
Grammatical analyses
5 studies – 0.3%
3 studies – 0.5%
2 studies
4% findings
6 studies -0.03%
3 studies – 1%
2 studies
6% findings
Empirically naïve approach to the constructs
(Reynolds, 2010, pp. 169-170)

Text-based studies of linguistic profiling investigate
“… the ways that texts vary linguistically with
respect to multiple variables, including tasks, writer
characteristics such as educational background and
language proficiency, and judgments of writing
quality”
…one variable at a time
Empirically naïve approach to the constructs
(Reynolds, 2010, pp. 169-170)
Instead…

what may be needed is to show interactions among
variables and how “textual characteristics might be
the product of differential learner characteristics
interacting with task variables to accommodate
different audiences.”
L2 writing development as a
dynamic/complex system?
Larsen-Freeman (2006);
Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie
(2004)
But focus: just on
language, or on
language-in-writing?
Very narrow focus regarding
genres and purposes
Argumentative writing, almighty!
 Time-compressed essay writing
 School-sponsored genres

Caution!
The value of genres and purposes for
writing is not inherent, but locally
created
Teachers can and do exercise their
agency to engage genres and
purposes that make sense in their
classroom and under their educational
constraints
(You, 2004, p. 107)
“The writing tasks in the CETB-4 ask students to
write short argumentative or expository essays.
[Mrs Meng] explained that writing for daily
applications and writing for examinations serve
different purposes. In her own teaching, she
encouraged students to translate Chinese notices
and graffiti into English, or to keep an English
diary, all of which interested her students
enormously”
“The writing tasks in the CETB-4 ask students to
write short argumentative or expository essays.
[Mrs Meng] explained that writing for daily
applications and writing for examinations serve
different purposes. In her own teaching, she
encouraged students to translate Chinese notices
and graffiti into English, or to keep an English
diary, all of which interested her students
enormously”
“The writing tasks in the CETB-4 ask students to
write short argumentative or expository essays.
[Mrs Meng] explained that writing for daily
applications and writing for examinations serve
different purposes. In her own teaching, she
encouraged students to translate Chinese notices
and graffiti into English, or to keep an English
diary, all of which interested her students
enormously”
Reichelt (2005, p. 230) FL writing in Poland: Tenthgraders’ Advertisements for a New Teacher
WANTED!!! An excellent upper-intermediate class is
searching for a new English teacher. If you think
(optional) you can handle a group of loud,
unorganized, annoying students who never do their
homework, you are welcome. We offer you a
headache, stomach diseases, concussion, neurosis,
and lots of ulcers. If you are a real man, prove it,
and take your chance.
Yet, narrow research vis-à-vis diverse
purposes for L2 writing, varied genres
Utilitarian
Exams
Degrees
Trade
Tourism
Science
Technology
Writing to
Learn L2 (FL)
Humanistic
Personal
Practicing
L2/FL
Cultural
learning
Friends/family
Motivational
boost
Creativity &
selfexpression
CMC
Critical
thinking
Identity
construction
Pop culture
5-paragraph
essays
systematic
grammar
feedback
tests
… Could it be that much of L2 writing
instruction ends up promoting
homogenizing and formulaic types of
knowledge in writers?
How can we research this?
SLA-style writing research hasn’t yet caught up with the
theoretical promise of multicompetence (Cook, 2008)
It often treats L2 writers as fundamentally
deficient (“less than” L1 writers)
 It typically imagines the goal of L2 writers to
be the attainment of two monolingual writers
in one
 It portrays L1 writing as permanently “fixed”
and L2 writing as irrevocably “unfinished”

Some strategies for producing SLA-oriented L2
writing that is attuned to multicompetence:
Ortega & Carson (2010): Investigate the
same writers as they compose across
languages, using crosslinguistic and
bilingual analyses, rubrics, and raters
 Canagarajah (2006): Focus on
multilingual writers and their mutiplicity
of contexts, not only texts; focus on
versatility as much as consistency

Anticipated positive side consequences:



Overturn the deficit approach: Focus on what
multicompetent writers can do, as opposed to
what they cannot or wish not to do in their L2
Ameliorate the dominance of English: Healthy
increase of dialogue and collaboration among L2
writing researchers and researchers working on
English and on other L2s
Promote social transformation as an educational
goal: Both resistance and accommodation are
possible in the same writing
In sum:
Cognitivelinguistic
inquiry in L2
writing
Contributions
&
Limitations
1. Glass half full: Empirical generalizations,
complexification of models, peaceful theoretical
expansion
2. Glass half empty: Little accumulation,
empirically naïve, narrow conception of writing,
irresponsive to multicompetence
4. In conclusion
At some level, good writers know that:
writing is
deliberate,
agentive
heterogeneizing/
diversifying of language
deeply implicated in
identity and power
requires hard work,
persistence,
engagement
demands
heterogeneous,
diverse language
resources
can be used for
empowerment and
affirmation
At the broadest level, L2 writing
researchers and teachers know that…
Good writers approach writing
with flexibility and sophistication,
as a highly complex and social
activity
So, at the broadest level, we are all
interested in finding out:
Q: How does expert writing come about,
developmentally, and what complex
systems of variables play main roles
in the process?
Q: How can we support productive
engagement with L2 writing?
Q: How can we support productive kinds
of knowledge about writing?
Research at the intersection between L2
writing and SLA has two centers of
gravity:
change/development/learning:
how, whence, when, etc
language-writing
connection
These are important enough
to warrant attention and
sustained effort!
Specifically,
1. Language constrains writing, and the expanded
models for the relationships between language
and writing (in dynamic interaction with other
variables & for different populations and contexts)
is worthy of further sustained research attention
2. Writing is also a site for language learning,
and the constructs associated with “learning” in
SLA (e.g., pushed output, uptake) and with
“language” (e.g., grammar? textual-rhetorical
repertoires?) ought to be elucidated and
investigated as they are relevant for “writing”
specifically
3. Some of the challenges will be in taking the
complexity of writing seriously and being
willing to invest creative methodological and
conceptual efforts at:
Accreting
knowledge:
Powering our
Greatly
Heeding
empirical tools: expanding multiSingle studies
scope of
competence
Complex/dynamic
and one-shot
what
systems?
studies cannot do
counts as
Mixed methods?
justice
“writing”
Stochastic
statistics?
So, L2 writing and SLA...
…unlikely partnership?
…or perhaps solidified
interdisciplinary partnership
in the future?
Thank You
lortega@hawaii.edu
References








Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL
development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347-376.
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17, 1-17.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to
language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
Blanton, L. L. (2005). Student, interrupted: A tale of two would-be writers. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 14, 105-121.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Toward a Writing Pedagogy of Shuttling between
Languages: Learning from Multilingual Writers. College English, 68, 589-604.
Carson, J., & Kuehn, P. (1992). Evidence of transfer and loss in developing second
language writers. Language Learning, 42, 157-182.
Casanave, C. (1994). Language development in students' journals. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 3, 179-201.







Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1
and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98.
Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 493510.
Cook, V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language
acquisition research? In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp.
16-26). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language
Learning, 39, 81-141.
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language
composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511.
Cumming, A. (Ed.). (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their
instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "grammar correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we,
and what do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime...?). Journal of
Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.







Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language:
What can Goffman’s ‘‘Stigma’’ tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7,
77-86.
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329-350.
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty.
College English, 57, 788-806.
Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language
Teaching, 41, 543–562.
Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51-69.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language
acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.







Kubota, R. (2010). Critical approaches to theory in second language writing: A case of critical
contrastive rhetoric. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing
(pp. 191-208). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral
and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590-619.
Leki, I., Silva, T., & Cumming, A. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in
English: 1985-2005. New York: Routledge.
Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case
of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 219-237.
Ma, G., & Wen, Q. (1999). The relationship of second language learners' linguistic variables
to second language writing ability. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4, 34-39.
Manchón, R. M. (2008). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language learning
contexts: Lessons from research. Plenary delivered at the Symposium on Second Language
Writing, Purdue University, IN, June 2008.
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning
contexts. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language
learning (pp. 101-121). Dordrecht: Springer.





Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J. , & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension
and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes: Implications
for theory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning,
teaching, and research (pp. 102-129). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
McCarthey, S. J., Guo, Y.-H., & Cummins, S. (2005). Understanding changes in
elementary Mandarin students' L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 14, 71-104.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2
proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24,
492-518.
Ortega, L., & Carson, J. G. (2010). Multicompetence, social context, and L2 writing
research praxis. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second
language writing (pp. 48-71). Wes Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic
second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317–345.





Pennington, M. C., Brock, M. N., & Yue, F. (1996). Explaining Hong Kong students'
response to process writing: An exploration of causes and outcomes. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 5, 227-252.
Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The
case of text-based studies. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language
writing (pp. 91-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reichelt, M. (2005). WAC practices at the secondary level in Germany. WAC
Journal, 16, 89-100.
Reynolds, D. W. (2010). Beyond texts: A research agenda for quantitative research
on second language writers and readers. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.),
Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 159-175). Wes Lafayette, IN:
Parlor Press.
Rijlaarsdam, G., Bergh, H. V. D., & Couzijn, M. (Eds.). (2005). Effective learning and
teaching of writing: A handbook of writing In education (2nd ed.). NY: Kluwer
Academic Publishing.





Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2009). Situated writing practices in foreign language
settings: The role of previous experience and instruction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.),
Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 23-48).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a
L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL
student writers. Language Learning, 54, 525-582.
Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multipledata analysis. Modern Language Journal, 91, 602–620.
Sasaki, M. (2009). Changes in English as a foreign language students' writing over
3.5 years: A sociocognitive account. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign
language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 49-76). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.





Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students' expository
writing. Language Learning, 46, 137-174.
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a
blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of
foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language
contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., &
Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of
linguistic fluency, linguistic knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Language
Learning, 53, 165-202.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 153-173.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' uptake, processing, and retention
of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303334.





Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook
& B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language (pp. 125-144).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3),
371-391.
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of
second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185.
Torrance, M., Waes, L. V., & Galbraith, D. (Eds.). (2007). Writing and cognition:
Research and applications. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.


Verspoor, M. H., Bot, K. d., & Lowie, W. M. (2004). Dynamic systems theory and
variation: A case study in L2 writing. In H. Aertsen, M. Hannay & R. Lyall (Eds.),
Words in their places: a Festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie (pp. 407-421).
Amsterdam: VU.
You, X. (2004). "The choice made from no choice": English writing instruction in a
Chinese university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 97-110.