Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11

www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

Editorial
Second language acquisition and writing:
a multi-disciplinary approach
a,* b
Alasdair Archibald , Gaynor C. Jeffery
a
Language Centre, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
b
Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

Abstract

Writing is a complex activity whose components and sub-components involve action on a

number of levels. It is multifaceted, requiring proficiency in several areas of skill and knowl-
edge that make up writing only when taken together. Research into writing has mirrored this
complexity and has developed concurrently in a number of disciplines — in psychology and
the cognitive sciences, text linguistics and pragmatics, applied linguistics and first and second
language education.
This special issue of Learning and Instruction is a collection of four papers that represent
different aspects of current research into writing in a second language. They do not cover the
full range of research into this area of writing, but serve as examples of the depth and breadth
of study in this one particular part of the field. They are introduced here within the context
of a discussion of current interests in writing research and each of the papers will be presented
within the research area into which it most reasonably fits.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.

1. The study of writing

Current research into writing can be most conveniently characterised as involving

four main areas:

Investigations of:

앫 the process of writing typically involving: modelling cognitive operations; analysis

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-2380-592621; fax: +44-2380-593849.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Archibald)

0959-4752/00/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 4 7 5 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 1 5 - 8
2 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11

of composing strategies; individual differences and changes in processes over

time;
앫 the product of writing: text analysis; error analysis and contrastive analysis; con-
trastive rhetoric;
앫 the context of writing: social construction; genre analysis; analysis of the individ-
ual’s knowledge, motivation, and needs;
앫 the teaching of writing: learning processes; learning strategies; development of
language proficiency; classroom procedures; assessment.

Although process, product, and place (in the sense of settings, functions, and
background) of writing interrelate closely with one another, each also exists as a
primary focus of academic research with its own associated body of knowledge and
schools of thought. Any comprehensive theory of writing will have to involve a
synthesis of process, product, and place — and take into account the acquisition and
teaching of these in both first language (L1) and second language (L2) contexts.

2. The process of writing

Studying the operations involved in writing presents researchers with a complex

knot of processes and sub-processes. This is further complicated by the inherently
recursive nature of writing. Writers’ jump between one sub-process and the next and
back and forth within the text in a way which is largely determined by individual
differences and strategies. This has raised questions for those researching the writing
process such as: How can the processes in writing be modelled? What patterns of
writing differentiate between good and poor writers? Are there ways of structuring
the writing task which are more effective than others? What benefits do writers get
from jumping between processes and why do they do it?
Many of the studies of the writer’s operations and procedures during the process
of writing have been concerned with cognitive processes and much of the work in
this area has concentrated on developing models of the overall writing process. Such
cognitive process models (e.g. Flower & Hayes, 1981; De Beaugrande, 1984; Bere-
iter & Scardamalia, 1987) have generally focussed on writers in their native language.
The Hayes & Flower model of L1 writing (e.g. Hayes & Flower, 1980; Flower &
Hayes 1980, 1981) is one of the most influential recent models of these processes.
It sets out a relationship between the writer, the task environment and the writing
process and describes a process of composing that involves planning, translating
(formulating the text), and reviewing. It is a model of writing in one’s first language
and is somewhat idealised (as any model must be) in its assumptions about the
writer’s facility with the language being used for the task. Although it has moved
on somewhat in the past two decades (see e.g. Hayes, 1996) the early versions are
still seen as an appropriate starting point by many researchers.
Recent models of the process of writing in a second language have tended to be
either comparisons with first language models or extensions of them (for a discussion
see Kroll, 1990; Silva, 1993; Zimmermann, this issue). For such a model to apply
 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11 3

to writers in a second language certain modifications (and changes in emphasis) need

to be made to account for the writer’s first language background and knowledge of
the second language. Cumming (1989), for example, investigates how L2 language
proficiency affects L2 writing, and Cumming and Riazi (this issue) discuss the factors
involved in modelling the role of instruction in the acquisition of writing in a
second language.
The article by Zimmermann (this issue) is representative of a body of research
that is being carried out in Europe on the cognitive processes involved in writing in
a second language (see e.g. Krapels, 1990; Zimmermann, 1995; Rijlaarsdam, van
den Bergh & Couzijn, 1996; Manchón, Roca de Larios & Murphy, this issue). Zim-
mermann takes as his starting point Hayes & Flower’s model together with a number
of others that are either modifications of it or compatible with it (particularly Kese-
ling, 1993; Börner, 1987; Krings, 1989). He points out that, in the early version
considered here, Hayes & Flower give more attention to planning and revising as
sub-components of the cognitive process than to formulating, i.e. turning the plan
into words (translating in Hayes & Flower’s terminology). He argues, based on data
gathered from a study of German university students writing in English (L2) and
German (L1), that formulating the language to be used may be relatively more
important for L2 writers than either planning or revising. He suggests that for-
mulating itself is a relatively complex process comprising a number of potential and
functionally discrete sub-processes, the form and patterns of occurrence of which he
discusses and elaborates.
In applying models of the writing process to actual use, researchers have to look
at the ways in which the parts of the process can be applied by the individual writer.
A number of studies of the writing process both in the writer’s first and/or second
language have concentrated on these strategies (e.g. Raimes, 1985; Manchón, Roca
de Larios & Murphy, this issue) or on certain key operations in the writing process
such as revision (Faigley & Witte, 1981).
Such studies into the composing process have used a number of approaches to
gain access to the writer’s thoughts and actions at the time of writing. Think aloud
protocols (e.g. Raimes, 1985; Zimmermann, this issue; Manchón, Roca de Larios &
Murphy, this issue) where the writers “talk themselves through the writing process”
have been particularly useful in mapping the ways in which writers move through
the text. Such protocols are often combined with subsequent interviews and/or ques-
tionnaires which allow researchers to probe areas of interest. Another tool that has
proved itself useful in the analysis of the composing process is the computer. A
number of studies have looked not only at how writers use the computer to write
(see e.g. Severinson Eklundh & Kollberg, 1996) but also what a recording of the
writer’s actions on the computer can tell us about the composing process (e.g. Schu-
macher, Klare, Cronin & Moses, 1984; Levy & Ransdell, 1994). Warren (1997), for
example, found different patterns of pausing between L1 and L2 writers and suggests
that learners of English may be more influenced by the formal structure of English
in their writing than are native speakers.
The relationship between findings in L1 and the L2 writing process is, however,
not always clear. Raimes (1985) reviews the literature from ESL composition
4 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11

research and shows that for experienced L2 writers there are strong similarities with
L1 writing processes. L1 basic writers also have many strategies in common with
L2 writers, a major difference, she claims, being that L2 writers are less likely to
be inhibited by attempts to correct their work than are the L1 basic writers
(Raimes, 1987).
Manchón, Roca de Larios & Murphy (this issue), present a study of L2 writing
processes which focuses in particular on the recursive nature of text production.
They investigate the types of “backtracking” (processes that involve going back over
previous work) that occur in unskilled L2 writing. They explore the functions these
operations hold and how their use is influenced by task and writer variables. The
patterns of use of the writers’ L1 and L2 that emerge in the various backtracking
operations provide an insight into the ways in which writers bring their linguistic
resources to bear on the task.
A fairly recent area of research into writing processes has been the study of how
the pattern of processes changes over time, or from individual to individual (e.g.
Matsuhashi, 1987; Rijlaarsdam & van den Bergh, 1996; Levy & Ransdell, 1996).
One approach is to analyse the patterns of individual writers, and Levy and Ransdell
(1996) describe a technique for identifying the “writing signature” (or pattern of
writing processes) of a writer. A second approach is to model how the unfolding
pattern of writing processes over time relate to writing quality (Van den Bergh &
Rijlaarsdam, 1996). A final approach is to classify the various types of sub-processes
that occur and relate the relative frequencies and functions of these sub-processes
to the developing text (Torrance, Thomas & Robinson, 1996).

3. The product of writing

Perhaps the clearest characteristic of writing is its lasting textual product, a product
which has been the subject of a considerable body of research for at least twenty-
five years (see e.g. De Beaugrande, 1990; Connor, 1994).
A large number of the recent analyses of text structure have focussed on internal
regularities and structuring in texts and on factors influencing “textuality” (e.g. Halli-
day & Hasan, 1976; De Beaugrande, 1980; De Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981; Con-
nor & Johns, 1990). Relatively fewer analyses have looked at other aspects of text
as product, for example at the similarities and differences between texts with a view
to creating typologies (see e.g. Lux, 1981; Biber, 1989; Zydatiß, 1989). A third area
of research into text structure is that of text quality, where investigations have been
characterised by quite different approaches from one researcher to the next: De Beau-
grande (1980) and De Beaugrande & Dressler (1981) discuss regulative principles
which, they claim, distinguish the quality of a text; Lintermann-Rygh (1985) looks
at the use of cohesive factors, particularly connectors, in good and poor texts; Klotz
(1990) uses a concept he calls the “Information Saturated Sentence” to suggest that
good texts tend to create and maintain expectations more effectively than poor texts.
Analyses of the structure of texts by second language learners have tended to focus
on developmental issues, for example on the appearance of newly learned items
 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11 5

(Hecht & Green, 1993; Weissberg, this issue) or on changes in discourse structure
(Archibald, 1994).
The tools of error analysis and contrastive analysis have mainly been used in the
study of text to analyse the development of written and spoken language use in a
second language primarily in terms of sentence level grammatical accuracy (see e.g.
Corder, 1967; Svartvik, 1973; James, 1980). More recent developments have broad-
ened this approach. Archibald (1994) examines errors that affect the discourse struc-
ture of students’ writing. Thomas (1983), Edmonson, House, Kasper & Stemmer
(1984) and Péry-Woodley (1991) look at cross-cultural pragmatic errors in both the
spoken and written productions of students of English as a second language.
A further area of study initially developed in parallel with traditional contrastive
analysis is contrastive rhetoric. These studies examine the way in which writers
structure the information in their texts and at the assumptions underlying this struc-
turing. In one of the first studies of contrastive rhetoric, Kaplan (1966) suggested
that writers from different cultural backgrounds tend to approach writing tasks from
different perspectives and to structure their responses to the tasks in ways that reflect
the norms of their native culture. Since that time contrastive rhetoric has accumulated
a considerable body of research dealing both with general principles (see Fillmore,
1984; Connor & Kaplan, 1987; Péry-Woodley, 1990; Leki, 1991; Connor, 1996) and
with specifics, for example by analysing the structure of texts produced by writers
from particular cultural backgrounds (e.g. Mohan & Lo, 1985; Hinds, 1987; Clyne,
1987; Ostler, 1987). Moving from analyses of the text as cross-cultural product to
the analyses of the assumptions held by the writer Bell (1995) discusses the different
assumptions about literacy made by her and her Chinese instructor in her attempts
to become literate in Chinese while Holyoak and Piper (1997) questioned students
with different backgrounds about their beliefs about academic writing. These last
studies move this area of research closer to that of the context of writing dis-
cussed below.

4. The context of writing

The interactivity between a text and its contexts of utterance is an essential part
of any analysis of language that goes beyond the formal structure of the sentence.
This has been acknowledged in studies of the processes and products of writing and
has been foregrounded in more recent poststructuralist and postmodernist analyses.
Questions of ideology (Benesch, 1993), politics, power (Fairclough, 1989), identity
(Ivanic, 1998), and ownership (Pennycook, 1996) have become important topics in
writing research.
The social-constructive nature of writing is, and has been for some time, an
important area of research into writing and text. The focus is on language in society,
and genre and intertextuality — in its social and political contexts — are seen as
the starting points of analysis. Social constructionists reject suggestions that meaning
and identity rest solely in the mind of the individual, claiming that they are con-
structed through the particular belief systems which are only available to individuals
6 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11

in their social contexts (see Bruffee, 1986). A key concept in the analysis of genre
is that of the discourse community (Herzberg, 1986; Swales, 1990) with genre as
the forms and functions of communication within that community. Genre analysis
has been taken up as a pragmatic, ideologically neutral, field in applied linguistics
and second language learning (Swales, 1990; Santos, 1992; but see Benesch, 1993)
and as an expression of power and pressure to conform by social constructionists
(Kress, 1993). Social contexts and processes have become key issues in literacy
studies (see e.g. Cook-Gumperz, 1986; Kress, 1994; Ivanic, 1998). This social con-
text in second language writing has examined the writer’s first language background
and “outsider” status, in terms of the genres of the second language culture (Cope &
Kalantzis, 1993).
The context of writing has also been studied from the perspective of what the
individual brings to the writing process. Following Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987)
model of the writing process a fruitful direction of research has been into the writer’s
knowledge of topic and discourse (e.g. Kellogg 1987, 1994; McCutchen, 1986).
Another important individual difference is the writer’s motivation (e.g. Kellogg,
1994). This ties in with participation in discourse communities and profiles of power,
but has also been seen as the target of writing and the expectations of the producers
and recipients of the text — an important aspect of English for specific purposes
(see, for example Swales (1990) on English for academic purposes and Sorey (1997)
on writing in business).

5. The teaching of writing

A considerable amount of the research mentioned under process, product, and

place has stemmed from studies or analyses of the first and second language class-
room situation. Literacy education in the first language, particularly in the U.S. (see
Hillocks, 1986; Nystrand, Green & Wiemelt, 1993), has been a major recent con-
tributor. In the second language context, much of the work on genre (e.g. Swales,
1990; Cope & Kalantzis, 1993) comes from second language teaching situations.
Much of the work on modelling the processes of writing in a second language
has come about as part of analyses of the learning processes and strategies of second
language writers and from analyses of the role and outcomes of learning and instruc-
tion and their effects on this process. A number of these studies (e.g. Raimes 1985,
1987; Cumming 1989, 1995; Silva, 1993) have highlighted the distinctiveness of and
peculiar features of L2 writing and have called for models of the L2 writing process
that account for this.
Cumming & Riazi (this issue) discuss the factors involved in modelling the role
of instruction in the acquisition of writing in the L2. They do not aim to produce a
model of instruction and learning in writing in a second language, but rather theirs
is a preliminary study which discusses the factors that are involved in such a venture
and highlights some of the complexities. They suggest that conceptualisations of
learning and teaching writing in a second language need to be more sophisticated
than is currently the case if the learning behaviours and effects of teaching are to
 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11 7

be adequately accounted for and they set out some of the conditions that will need
to be met if a coherent and comprehensive model of the effects of learning and
teaching on writing in a second language is to be produced.
When addressing L2 writing instruction and the development of proficiency in a
second language, its position in this development relative to speaking should be
considered. A traditional view has generally been that written language development
is secondary to oral language development. However, some recent studies have
shown that this may not always be the case (e.g. Scinto, 1986; Valdes, Hazro &
Echevarriarza, 1992; Hansen-Strain, 1989). Weissberg (this issue) extends the
research into this aspect of L2 language development by modelling the effects of the
L2 learner’s language use on unfolding oral and written L2 skills, and the relationship
between them. He not only considers the literacy backgrounds of his L2 learners,
but also how the context of their L2 usage (primarily oral or written) affects their
learning. He suggests that, while there are large differences in the pattern of language
development from student to student, for L1 literate adults, writing plays an
important role in second language development, not only in the development of
accuracy but also in the emergence of new structures.
Just as studies of the classroom have prompted theoretical models of writing, so
theoretical analyses of the process, product, and place of writing have led to the
development of classroom procedures. Raimes (1991) focuses on emerging traditions
in approaches to writing and in a more recent paper (Raimes, 1998) discusses the
recent consequences for the classroom of some of the issues of product, process,
and place discussed here.
Another area of research into the teaching of writing has been in the area of
effective tools and technology to aid learner writers. This has included the use of
technology with computers being used to support the development of writing in the
first language classroom (e.g. Sharples & Evans, 1992) and in the foreign language
classroom (e.g. Dam, Legenhausen & Wolff, 1990; Davidson, 1996). For a survey
of research on computer use in the L2 writing classroom see Pennington (1996).
One final area of research into writing is that of assessment. Assessment of writing
may take the form of assessment of classroom work using portfolios (Belanoff, 1997)
or direct feedback on the written product either through the reader responding to the
writer’s message (Ferris, Pezone, Tade & Tinti, 1997) or evaluating the product
itself. Evaluations of the product usually entail either an assessment of the overall
quality of the text, usually based on a holistic analysis or a multiple-trait scoring
(Hamp-Lyons & Henning, 1991), or an assessment of linguistic accuracy (Polio,
1997). For a comprehensive overview of assessment in second language writing, see
Hamp-Lyons & Henning (1991) or Kroll (1998).
There has been considerable interplay over the years between research into writing
and learning and instruction in writing. Much of the research has had direct reper-
cussions on the classroom, and classroom practice and observation has often been
the source of research studies. This interplay has made and is constantly making
writing a dynamic and fruitful area of work, a clear theme in reviews of second
language writing research (see Kroll, 1990; Silva, 1993; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996;
Cumming, 1998).
8 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11

References

Archibald, A. (1994). The acquisition of discourse proficiency: A study of the ability of German school
students to produce written texts in English as a foreign language. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Belanoff, P. (1997). Portfolios. (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bell, J. S. (1995). The relationship between L1 & L2 literacy: Some complicating factors. TESOL Quar-
terly, 29 (4), 687–704.
Benesch, S. (1993). ESL, ideology, and the politics of pragmatism. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (4), 705–716.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Biber, D. (1989). A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 3–43.
Börner, W. (1987). Schreiben im FU: Überlegungen zu einem Modell. [Writing in the foreign language
class: Some thoughts on a model]. In W. Lörscher, W. Schulze, & R. Schulze, Perspectives on langu-
age in performance, studies in linguistics, literary criticism and language teaching and learning (Vol.
II) (pp. 1336–1349). Tübingen: Narr.
Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical
essay. College English, 48, 773–790.
Clyne, M. (1987). Discourse structures and discourse expectations: Implications for Anglo-German aca-
demic communication in English. In L. E. Smith, Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world
Englishes. London: Prentice Hall International.
Connor, U., & Johns, A. M. (1990). Coherence in writing. Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Connor, U. (1994). Alternatives in TESOL research: Text analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 682–684.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cook-Gumperz, J. (1986). The social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The powers of literacy: a genre approach to teaching writing. London:
Falmer Press.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5
(4), 161–171.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39 (1),
81–141.
Cumming, A. (1995). Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evalu-
ation. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine, Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and
pedagogy (pp. 375–397). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,
61–78.
Dam, L., Legenhausen, L., & Wolff, D. (1990). Text production in the foreign language classroom and
the word processor. System, 18 (3), 325–334.
Davidson, C. (1996). Taking advantage of technology: Using word-processing to teach writing to students
of English as a second language. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn, Effective
teaching and learning of writing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
De Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, discourse and process. London: Longman.
De Beaugrande, R. (1984). Text production: Towards a science of composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
De Beaugrande, R. (1990). Text linguistics through the years. Text, 10 (1, 2), 293–310.
Edmonson, W., House, J., Kasper, G., & Stemmer, B. (1984). Learning the pragmatics of discourse: A
project report. Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 113–127.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. P. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4),
400–415.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11 9

Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descrip-
tions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155–182.
Fillmore, C. J. (1984). Remarks on contrastive pragmatics. In J. Fisiak, Contrastive linguistics: Prospects
and problems. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints.
In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg, Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32, 365–387.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Henning, G. (1991). Communicative writing profiles: An investigation of the transfer-
ability of a multiple-trait scoring instrument across ESL writing assessment contexts. Language Learn-
ing, 41, 337–373.
Hansen-Strain, L. (1989). Orality/literacy and group differences in second language acquisition. Language
Learning, 39 (4), 469–496.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, &
E. R. Steinberg, Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy, &
S. R. Ransdell, The science of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hecht, Kh., & Green, P. S. (1993). Englischunterricht im Gymnasium: Wie wachsen Wissen und Können?
Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Lernersprache. [English teaching in the Gym-
nasium: How does knowledge and ability develop? An empirical study into the development of learner
language] Die Neueren Sprachen, 1/93.
Herzberg, B. (1986). The politics of discourse communities. Paper presented at the CCC Convention,
New Orleans, LA, March, 1986
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and NCRE.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor, & R. B. Kaplan,
Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Holyoak, S., & Piper, A. (1997). Talking to second language writers: Using interview data to investigate
contrastive rhetoric. Language Teaching Research, 1 (2), 122–148.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. London: Longman.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.
Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive
effort to writing processes. Memory and Cognition, 15 (3), 256–266.
Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keseling, G. (1993). Schreibprozeß und Textstruktur. Empirische Untersuchungen zur Produktion von
Zusammenfassungen. [Writing processes and text structure. Empirical studies into the production of
summaries] Reihe Germanistische Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Klotz, P. (1990). Some pragmatic aspects of text Grammar: Freeplay within the sentence. Journal of
Pragmatics, 14 (3), 483–487.
Krapels, A. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll, Second langu-
age writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G. (1993). Genre as social process. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis, The powers of literacy: A genre
approach to teaching writing. London: Falmer Press.
Kress, G. (1994). Learning to write. (2nd ed). London: Routledge.
Krings, H. P. (1989). Schreiben in der Fremdsprache-Prozeßanalysen zum “vierten Skill”. [Writing in the
foreign language-analysing the processes in the “fourth skill”]. In G. Antos, & H. P. Krings, Textpro-
duktion. ein interdisziplinärer Forschungsüberblick. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Kroll, B. (1998). Assessing writing abilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 219–240.
10 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11

Kroll, B. (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL
Quarterly, 25 (1), 123–143.
Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. R. (1994). Computer-aided protocol analysis of writing processes. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 26, 219–223.
Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. R. (1996). Writing signatures. In C. M. Levy, & S. R. Ransdell, The science
of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lintermann-Rygh, I. (1985). Connector density — an indicator of essay quality? Text, 5 (4), 347–357.
Lux, F. (1981). Text, situation, textsorte. [Text, context, text type]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Matsuhashi, A. (1987). Writing in real time: Modelling production processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability.
Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444.
Mohan, B., & Lo, W. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors.
TESOL Quarterly, 19 (4), 515–534.
Nystrand, M., Green, S., & Wiemelt, J. (1993). Where did composition studies come from? An intellectual
history. Written Communication, 10 (3), 267–333.
Ostler, S. E. (1987). English in parallels: A comparison of English and Arabic prose. In U. Connor, &
R. B. Kaplan, Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 169–185). Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Pennington, M. (1996). The computer and the non-native writer: A natural partnership. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quar-
terly, 30 (2), 201–230.
Péry-Woodley, M.-P. (1990). Contrastive discourses: Contrastive analysis and a discourse approach to
writing. Language Teaching, 23, 143–151.
Péry-Woodley, M.-P. (1991). Writing in L1 and L2: Analysing and evaluating learners’ texts. Language
Teaching, 24, 69–83.
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language
Learning, 47 (1), 101–143.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A Classroom study of composing.
TESOL Quarterly, 19 (2), 229–258.
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL
college student writers. Language Learning, 37 (3), 439–468.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the Woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly,
25 (3), 407–430.
Raimes, A. (1998). Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 142–167.
Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). The dynamics of composing: An agenda for research into
an interactive compensatory model of writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell, The science of writing.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & Couzijn, M. (1996). Theories, models and methodology in writing
research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Santos, T. (1992). Ideology and composition: L1 and ESL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 1–15.
Schumacher, G. M., Klare, G. R., Cronin, F. C., & Moses, J. R. (1984). Cognitive activities of beginning
and advanced college writers: A pausal analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 169–187.
Scinto, L. F. M. (1986). Written language and psychological development. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Severinson Eklundh, K., & Kollberg, P. (1996). Computer tools for tracing the writing process: From
keystroke records to S-notation. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn, Theories, models
and methodology in writing research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Sharples, M., & Evans, M. (1992). Computer support for the development of writing abilities. Instructional
Science, 21 (1-3), 99–108.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and
its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–677.
Sorey, M. (1997). Business writing: Determining and meeting the need. In A. C. McLean, SIG Selections
 Editorial / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 1–11 11

1997: Special interests in ELT. Whitstable, Kent: International Association of Teachers of English as
a Foreign Language.
Svartvik, J. (1973). Errata: Papers in Error Analysis. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 91–112.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1996). Finding something to write about: Strategic and
automatic processes in idea generation. In C. M. Levy, & S. R. Ransdell, The science of writing.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Valdes, G., Hazro, P., & Echevarriarza, M. P. (1992). The development of writing abilities in a foreign
language: Contributions toward a general theory of L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 76,
333–352.
Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). The dynamics of composing: Modelling writing process
data. Signatures. In C. M. Levy, & S. R. Ransdell, The science of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Warren, E. (1997). The significance of pauses in written discourse: A comparison of native speaker and
learner writing. In A. Archibald, & G. Jeffery, Second language acquisition and writing: A multidisci-
plinary approach. Proceedings of a symposium, July 11-12 (pp. 152–168). Southampton: University
of Southampton.
Zimmermann, R. (1995). Fremdsprachspezifische Aspekte des Schreibens in der L2 Englisch. [L2 specific
aspects of writing in English as a foreign language]. In B. Spillner, Sprache: Verstehen und Verständ-
lichkeit. Kongreßbeiträge zur 25. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für angewandte Linguistik. GAL e.V.,
Frankfurt: Longman.
Zydatiß, W. (1989). Types of texts. In R. Dirven, W. Zydatiß, & W. J. Edmonson, A user’s grammar of
English. Word, sentence, text, interaction (pp. 723–788). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.