Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (1988) 9, 210-222.

Printed in the USA

Copyright 0 1989 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/88 $5.00 + .00

WRITING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE

SARAH HUDELSON

INTRODUCTION

In an often cited essay, Hairston (1982) asserts that a revolution is taking place in the teach-
ing of composition, a revolution she characterizes as involving a basic shift in paradigms with
regard to the act of composition. Hairston describes the prevailing view of writing, a view that
had its orgins in traditional theories of rhetoric, as one that considers writing a linear process in
which writers know what they want to say before they begin to write. The major task of the
writer, then, is to find a form through which to organize the content, after which the writer
attends to editing concerns in order to perfect the manuscript. Thus the focus of composition
instruction in this paradigm is the product that the writer produces.

In contrast, the view of writing Hairston describes as challenging this traditional paradigm
focuses on writing as process rather than product. In this view writing is defined as a process, or
set of processes, through which writers, as they write, discover what they want to say. Writing
involves using intuition and hunches as well as rational thought. Writing is recursive rather than
linear, in that it involves moving back and forth between reflecting on or considering what is to
be written, drafting and making changes in what has been created. The writer is engaged in a
constant struggle to figure out how to create meaning. Writing involves taking into account
varying audiences and purposes for what is being created. This view of writing has been and
continues to be both articulated and supported by research, as Hillocks (1986) and Freedman, et
al. (1987) have demonstrated in their reviews and analyses of recent research on composing in
the native language.

Hairston was writing to an audience of English educators concerned with teaching writing to
native speakers of English. But a similar phenomenon has occurred in second language educa-
tion, as researchers and teachers, many influenced by native language research, have involved
themselves in examining the writing processes as well as the products of second language writ-
ers, and in considering what classroom instruction for second language writers should be
(McKay 1984, Raimes 1986, Spack 1984, Zamel 1987). While some would argue about the
extent of the revolution in second language composition instruction (Raimes 1983), there can be
no doubt that change is taking place. This review, then, will address some of the issues being
raised currently; specifically:

210
 WRITING 211

What are the composing processes of second language writers (particularly, how alike and/or
different are they from first language writers);
How do second language teachers view writing, and how do their views influence student
products;
How can classrooms best serve second language writers;
What demands are placed on second language writers, and how should instruction respond to
these demands;
What do the products of second language writers look like?

PROCESSES OF WRITING AND THE SECOND LANGUAGE WRITER

One of the major concerns of L2 composition researchers in recent years has been the docu-
mentation of the processes writers engage in as they create a piece in their second language.
This research, most of it done as case studies in second language classrooms, has been carried
out using techniques such as observing, interviewing, audio and videotaping, and asking writers
to compose aloud (Raimes 1986). A major finding of this research has been that the processes of
writing in a second language are similar in many ways to writing processes identified in and
described for native speakers (Zamel 1987). Two studies, carried out with students of varying
ability in English as a second language, exemplify this kind of research.

Zamel (1983) observed university level advanced ESL students as they wrote and then
interviewed them about their processes. She found that, as with native speakers, writing was a
recursive rather than a linear process. The activities of planning, drafting, reading, rereading,
and revising occurred throughout the composing process. The writers demonstrated awareness
of audience as they expressed the need to write so that another reader could make sense of what
they had written. In addition, while the writers did make comments about their English, their
major concerns were for the overall structure of the text.

In contrast to Zamel, Raimes (1985), using think-aloud protocols, investigated the writing
processes of less skilled second language writers. Her research revealed that lower level ESL
writers behaved very much like native English speaking basic writers in making minimal use of
planning strategies before starting to write (Perl 1979). Considerations of content and new ideas
occurred while writers were drafting. Rereading just written text was a strategy the writers used
often, both to reflect on ideas and to anticipate what to write next.

Pursuing the claim that second language writing is similar to native language writing in a
different way, Jones and Tetroe (1987) approached the issue by asking whether strategies used
by writers in their native language would also be used in the second language. Using think-aloud
protocols with university students, the researchers compared the composing behaviors of stu-
dents writing both in their native language, Spanish, and in English as a second language. They
found that the writers used the same kinds of planning strategies in both languages. While
English language proficiency had an effect on the quality of the texts produced, it did not appear
to constrain the planning process. Jones and Tetroe argued, therefore, that native language
strategies transferred to the second language. Edelsky (1986) made a similar argument based on
her study of bilingual children's writing development. She discovered that young writers applied
212 S. HUDELSON

what they had learned about writing in Spanish to writing in English. Canale, Frenette, and
Belanger (1988) found a significant relationship between the first and second language writing
abilities of French-English bilingual high school students. They related their findings to Cum-
mins' (1983) linguistic interdependence hypothesis, which suggests that bilinguals have a com-
mon underlying linguistic proficiency which influences their native and second language liter-
acy. The more able the writer is in the native language, the more able the writer will be in L2.

Both Zamel and Raimes also noted that second language writers differed from one another in
terms of how they approached the task of writing and in how effectively they made use of a
variety of strategies. Jones (1985) endeavored to provide one explanation for these individual
differences in his comparison of the composing strategies of second language writers character-
ized as "monitor overusers" (meaning writers who rely on conscious, learned knowledge to
evaluate the grammaticality of sentences and apply this monitoring to the exclusion of other
composing strategies) and "monitor under-users" (see Krashen 1982, for a complete discussion
of these terms). Jones found differences in the composing processes of these second language
learners. The monitor over-user wrote in shorter chunks with more interruptions, paused more
frequently and for longer periods of time, phenomena that parallel ineffective, dysfunctional
strategies by native speakers with writers' block (Rose 1984). Hudelson (in press) documented
individual differences in the way children just beginning to write their second language re-
sponded to composing tasks, and she related these differences to issues of individual personality
and learning styles.

While many of the examinations of the writing process and second language writers have
been carried out with adult writers, child second language learners also have been the object of
study. A recent review of research (Hudelson in press) has concluded that there are many simi-
larities between children's writing processes in a first and in a second language, including:

1) While they are still learning to talk, children begin to figure out the written systems of the
language.
2) Children experiment with creating their own meanings in writing, making and testing
hypotheses about the way their written language is structured and used, including hy-
potheses about spelling, segmentation, punctuation, format, genre differences, and
purposes and functions of writing. As children's hypotheses change, so do their
products.
3) Children often engage in planning and rehearsal for writing through such activities as
drawing and talking.
4) Children demonstrate the ability to revisit what they have written and to make revisions in
content.
5) Even as beginning writers, children display individual differences as writers.

Information about the composing processes of second language writers has led (as in first
language composition research and practice) to a renewed concern for pedagogy, to a rethinking
of how writing is taught in second language classrooms, and to a conviction that classroom
contexts for writing and instructional practices should be another focus of research. The next
 WRITING 213

section of this review summarizes studies concerned with documenting and analyzing instruc-
tional contexts for second language writing.

CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AND SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING

In second language classrooms, writing instruction traditionally has been based on the
assumption that second language learners needed to be guided through a sequence of structured,
prescribed activities so that they could fit content to specific prescribed forms. Instruction,
therefore, has tended to be concerned with:

teaching specific organizational patterns and kinds of sentences;

using specific kinds of writing assignments to illustrate specific grammatical and rhetorical
points;
or moving students through a predetermined sequence of writing activities.

Revision and editing has attended more to form than to content.

Given recent information about the composing processes of second language writers, it might
be assumed that current pedagogy would reflect this new understanding rather than the more
traditional view just summarized. This is not necessarily the case. In a recent study of ESL
textbooks, Raimes (1986) demonstrates that most textbooks reflect a step-by-step, formulaic,
linear view of writing. An examination of ESL teachers' comments on student papers (Zamel
1985) reveals that teachers focus almost exclusively on rhetorical forms and correctness rather
than on more global issues of content. Writing instruction in both LI and L2 often reflects a lack
of application of research into classroom practice (Zamel 1987).

There are, however, instances where current information has led to a restructuring of instruc-
tional practices and to classroom-based research which has documented the relationship between
pedagogical approaches (based on teachers' understandings of and assumptions about writing)
and writing behavior (including both written products and student actions during class). Zamel
(1987) has reviewed classroom based research in first and second language classrooms, and
Johnson and Roen (in press) have collected a group of studies of second language writing which
share a perspective on writing as a meaningful, communicative process. This perspective has
been realized in varied classroom activities that have in common multiple opportunities for
writing, a focus on students experiencing writing as process rather than simply as products, and a
lessening of teacher dominance and control with more student input and responsibility for learn-
ing. Across settings, varying from elementary schools to university classrooms, the studies have
concluded that classrooms sharing this perspective have facilitated students' development as
writers and helped students understand the uses of writing. Still another piece of research which
documents the relationship of pedagogy to written product is the multifaceted analysis of the use
of interactive dialogue journals with elementary school ESL learners. Kxeeft, etal. (1984)
details student-teacher written interaction, with its focus on the ways in which the teacher influ-
enced the students' perceptions and uses of the journals and the roles the journals played in the
classroom.
214 S. HUDELSON

Classroom based research also has investigated the interactional nature of process approaches
to writing, giving special attention to the influence of peer and teacher response on writers'
revisions of their work. Studying university level learners, Chaudron (1983) and Mittan (in
press) discovered that peer comments provided a powerful motivation for revising and that
writers made revisions on the basis of receiving peer response. Urzua (1987) and Samway
(1987) studied elementary school second language learners and also found that they could trace
learner revisions back to student-student or student-teacher conferences.

While the process paradigm has had a substantial influence on second language writing
research and pedagogy, it has received its share of criticism, particularly from those involved in
teaching second language learners in universities. The criticism has raised the issue of whether
process writing, with it focus on self selected topics, sharing and feedback, and multiple drafts of
pieces, reflects the reality of writing in academic settings, in terms of the written product, the
classroom procedures advocated and the evaluations used (Swales 1982, Horowitz 1985, Reid
1985). Critics of the process approach express concern for doing away with teaching students to
use specific structures and models for their writing, particularly for their writing in the academic
setting. This criticism has called for investigations of the kinds of writing expected in specific
settings and the design of writing curricula based on realistic writing tasks.

Horowitz (1986) collected and analyzed writing assignments given to university students in a
variety of disciplines. His analysis revealed that most of the assignments were structured and
controlled in terms of specific directions about how to carry out the assignments and the form
that finished products should take. Horowitz concluded, therefore, that writing classes organized
to prepare second language students for university course work should not emphasize personal
discovery and invention. Rather, they should teach students to do the kinds of writing required
by academic tasks.

While acknowledging the importance of writing process research and the reality of writing as
a process of discovery, Jenkins and Hinds (1987) provide additional evidence that certain kinds
of writing may not lend themselves to the process approach to teaching. In an analysis of busi-
ness letters in English, French, and Japanese, they demonstrate that there are significant differ-
ences both in the form and in the content of business letters written in the three languages.
Because of the formulaic and highly ritualized nature of this kind of writing, Jenkins and Hinds
argue that business letter writing should be taught to second language writers through the use of
specific models. They further argue that the use of models of appropriate writing may be justi-
fied when presenting inexperienced L2 writers with certain kinds of writing.

Within elementary and secondary education, the issue of writing demands placed on the
second language learners has been considered in discussions of a continuum from personal
writing (such as letters, diaries, journals, and personal stories) to academic writing (expository
compositions about nonpersonal, academic topics) (Kreeft Peyton and Mackinson-Smyth in
press). Chamot and O'Malley (1987) have characterized personal writing as less academic and
less cognitively demanding than expository writing of reports and essays associated with school
content areas. Scardemalia and Bereiter (1986) have questioned the usefulness of personal
writing, claiming that it may be limited in the kinds and levels of writing abilities that it fosters.
 WRITING 215

Yet, in a study that compared sixth grade ESL students' assigned writing with unassigned
writing in dialogue journals, Kreeft Peyton, et al. (1988) discovered that the dialogue journal
writing was at least equivalent to the assigned writing on measures of quantity, linguistic com-
plexity, topic focus, and cohesiveness. In many cases the dialogue journal was superior to the
assigned writing. They maintain, therefore, that personal or expressive writing should continue
to be a part of second language writing experiences, both for their own purposes and as a way of
moving toward more academic writing. Spack and Sadow (1983) make this same point with
regard to university level second language learners.

Undoubtedly, investigators will continue to explore the multiple issues related to process and
product approaches to teaching writing. Criticisms of process approaches in LI writing have
resulted in increased sensitivity to the reality that different kinds of writing are done in different
ways (Hairston 1986) and to suggestions that teachers vary their approaches to teaching writing
in order to help students cope with the varying demands of writing (Farris 1987). In the Writing
Across the Curriculum movement English educators have begun to analyze what those demands
are and to design courses based on those analyses (Spack 1988). In second language settings too,
recognition that writing teachers must take into account both the immediate academic realities
and the pressures of their students' (indeed, all students') intellectual and developmental needs
(Hamp-Lyons 1986) has resulted in efforts to utilize aspects of both product and process ap-
proaches.

Johns (1986) and Reid (in press) have described ways of helping analyze the requirements of
academic work and then use process strategies for generating and revising content as those
students work through drafts of academic papers. Swales (1987) has provided a detailed ex-
ample of how both product and process issues may be addressed in academic writing in his
analysis of writing research papers in a second language. Shih (1986) argues that second lan-
guage learners in university settings will learn academic writing skills most effectively when
writing assignments are tied to subject matter in a specific discipline. Shih also demonstrates
that content based approaches may address concerns for specific products while simultaneously
utilizing writing process strategies.

But not everyone agrees with this position. After examining studies carried out in both
native language (Writing Across the Curriculum) and second language (English for Special
Purposes) settings, Spack (1988) concludes that English as a second language teachers should
not be responsible for teaching writing in the disciplines. Instead, she advocates writing pro-
grams in which students learn, within a process-centered approach, general writing principles
that will transfer to academic course work. What is most significant, in all of the preceding
discussion, is that second language educators are struggling with how to use sometimes conflict-
ing evidence from research to provide the highest quality writing experiences for the diverse
student populations they teach.

Until this point this review has concerned itself with a consideration of the writing process
and the writer, and with a discussion of classroom environments and the role of instruction in the
development of writers and writer's understandings of the writing process. The last part of this
review will focus on research that analyzes aspects of the written texts of L2 writers.
216 S. HUDELSON

ANALYSIS OF TEXTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING

With respect to second language writing, there is a general recognition that texts written in
learners' second languages often differ from texts written by native speakers. Analyses of these
texts show differences in terms of inferring the strategies and processes that second language
learners use as they write and the constraints under which they create text. A major aim of this
research is a better understanding of the writing processes and strategies of the L2 writer so that
writing instruction may be improved and so that second language writing itself may improve.

Many second language writers are already literate in their native languages; they already
write in another language. Therefore, a logical question has been: How does LI writing influ-
ence writing in a second language? For beginning writers, investigations have demonstrated that
some of the written features of the native language (features such as orthography and punctua-
tion) influence the production of text in a second language (Edelsky 1986). When the population
consists of mature writers (beyond the beginning stages of writing development), the question
has been investigated in a variety of ways through the methodology of contrastive rhetoric.

In the broadest terms, contrastive rhetoric has been defined as the study of first language
influences on the organization of text in the second language. Behind this field of inquiry are the
following assumptions: literacy skills are learned and are culturally shaped; literacy skills are
usually transmitted by educational systems (Connor and Kaplan 1987, Purves 1988). Contrastive
rhetoric may be traced back to Kaplan who, after noticing that compositions produced by second
language speakers from several different countries differed from those produced by native
speakers, examined the texts and concluded that the compositions differed in the ways the writ-
ers organized what they were writing. Kaplan found similarities in the compositions produced
by speakers of the same native language, which led him to propose that the learners' native
language schemes for rhetorical organization were different from English rhetorical organization,
and that the native language ways of organizing were being used by the ESL speakers as they
wrote in English. In the twenty years since Kaplan made his proposal, the controversy it raised
has led both to Kaplan's modification of his own position and to support from many researchers
with regard to the fundamental soundness of the basic idea (Bar Lev 1986, Grabe and Kaplan in
press). However, there are some studies that dispute the concept (Mohan and Lo 1985).

Kaplan's notion of contrastive rhetoric has prompted a significant amount of research of

direct relevance to L2 writing. One field of inquiry has concentrated on texts produced by
second language learners in their second language, mostly English as a second language, in an
effort to: document similar patterns of organization among speakers of the same native lan-
guage; contrast these patterns to native speaker writing, and trace these organizational patterns
back to patterns of written discourse in the students' native languages. Several studies have
demonstrated the influence of native language rhetorical patterns on the ESL writing of speakers
of Thai (Indrasuta 1988) and Arabic (Ostler 1987, Soter 1988). Soter's study is of particular
interest because it contrasts the ESL writing of young adolescent Arabic and Vietnamese speak-
ers rather than university level writers. Grabe and Kaplan (in press) report additional studies.
 WRITING 217

Closely connected to studies of student writing are analyses of written texts produced by pro-
fessional writers in two different languages with the goal of comparing and contrasting preferred
patterns of organization between the two languages. Kachru (1988) and Hinds (1987) have
demonstrated that there are differences between the organization of texts written in Hindi and
English and Japanese and English, respectively. However, both researchers point out that the
typical patterns of Hindi and Japanese are multiple (as they are in English), so that it is impos-
sible to make generalizations about a single organizational pattern in a language. Rather, it is
possible to contrast some patterns of organization in one language with some patterns of organi-
zation in another language. In addition, Eggington (1987) points out that structural patterns of
organization in a language may change over time, as he demonstrates that modern Korean (influ-
enced by English) differs structurally from more traditional Korean.

Other researchers have examined student texts produced in a variety of native languages,
seeking to determine whether cultural differences may be discerned in the organizational patterns
of different languages. The largest study of this kind has been the International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) directed by Purves (1987; 1988). Results so
far, both from the large study and from smaller substudies which have used part of the data
(Connor and Lauer 1988, Bickner and Peyasantiwong 1988), have confirmed that there are
systematic differences in compositions of writers from different cultural backgrounds.

Moving from contrastive rhetoric, another area of text analysis that deserves mention in
terms of second language writing is that which is concerned with explicating coherence in
written text by describing the linguistic features of coherence. Using ESL student essays,
researchers have determined how sentences within a paragraph relate to each other, either in
linear or superordinatesubordinate fashion (Connor 1987). Features of coherence have been
linked to assessment of student writing (Connor and Schneider 1988) in an effort to begin to
determine the criteria raters use when they make holistic ratings.

In addition to the preceding areas of investigation, some researchers have been interested in
questions of error in second language student compositions. Recent work has addressed such
concerns as the effect of certain kinds of teacher feedback on subsequent errors in student written
work (Robb, Ross, and Shortreed 1986), and the reactions of teachers to errors of content and
language in compositions written by second language students (Santos 1988).

CONCLUSION

The preceding discussion has been written with the intent of presenting an overview of some
of the important issues of the last few years in second language writing. The more researchers
and teachers learn about second language writing, the more questions they raise. If the past is a
valid predictor of the future, continued research will mean the further expansion of the kinds of
questions asked, the research methods used to answer those questions, and the implications made
for the teaching of writing in a second language.
218 S. HUDELSON

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Connor, U. and R. B. Kaplan (eds.) 1987. Writing across languages: Analysis of 12 text.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

The studies included in this collection examine written texts produced by adult first and
second langage writers from the perspective that the writer's cultural background has an
effect on the text produced. Of particular interest to readers who have not done a significant
amount of reading in contrastive rhetoric may be Kaplan's introductory essay in which he
revisits the ideahe first proposed in 1966.

Edelsky, C. 1986. Writing in a bilingual program: Habia una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

This volume details one of the few studies of bilingual children's early writing in their native
language (Spanish) and their addition of English writing in the third grade. The author
analyzes various aspects of the children's writing, concluding that the children applied what
they learned in their native language to writing in a second language. She also details the
socio-political forces at work in the Arizona school district where the study was conducted,
forces which ultimately destroyed the bilingual program.

Freedman, S., et al. 1987. Research in writing: Past, present, and future. Berkeley, CA: Center
for the Study of Writing.

In this monograph the authors review research done on native language writing, under the
categories: the uses of writing, the nature of writing, and the acquisition of writing. Taking
the perspective that writing research should contribute to the building of a social-cognitive
theory of writing, the authors also present an agenda for future research.

Hillocks, G. 1986. Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Council of
Teachers of English.

Hillocks categorized and summarized native language composition research since 1963, con-
centrating on the areas of the composing process, the writer's repertoire, and modes of
instruction. He also conducted a meta-analysis of the four modes of instruction he identified
(presentational, natural process, environmental, and individualized), and he found the envi-
ronmental to be the most effective, in terms of improvement of student writing. Although his
categories have been criticized, his conclusions are thought-provoking, and he presents many
suggestions for future research. Potential readers of the volume should be aware that all of
the research Hillocks reviewed was completed prior to 1983, so that many of the newer
studies are not included.
 WRITING 219

Hudelson, S. In press. Write on: Children's writing in ESL. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[Language in Education Series.]

The focus of this monograph is on children's second language writing. The monograph
reviews research conducted on young second language learners and then details applications
of the research findings to classroom practice.

Johnson, D. and D. Roen (eds.) In Press. Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. New
York: Longman.

This collection of papers about ESL writers and second language writing is especially strong
because it considers the diversity of students clustered under the title ESL learner. The
volume includes studies of children and adolescents in public school settings as well as
university classes. The theme of the volume, the empowerment of second language students,
is realized as the chapter authors report on research carried out on: classroom contexts for
teaching composition; specific writing tasks that address such writing problems as purpose,
audience, and topic, and crosscultxral differences in conveying meaning.

Kreeft, J., et al. 1984. Dialogue writing: Analysis of student-teacher interactive writing in the
learning of English as a second language. National Institute of Education (NIE-G-83-0030).
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. [ERIC Document NO. ED 252 097.]

This study is a detailed analysis of dialogue journal writing done by six ESL learners in a
sixth grade classroom. The study includes case-study portraits of the children, analyses of
selected journal entries, and an examination of the teacher's role in the dialogue journal
activity, including the teacher's written language strategies to promote student involvement
in the activity, the teacher's tailoring of written input to the children to make it compre-
hensible to them, and the language functions exhibited by the teacher (and the students) in
their writing.

McKay, S. (ed.) 1984. Composing in a second language. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

This volume brings together papers on teaching ESL writing to adults originally published in
several professional journals. Most of the pieces were originally published late in the 1970s
or early in the 1980s, so the book presents a recent historical perspective on applying current
research in the classroom.

Purves, A. (ed.) 1988. Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

The papers collected in this book address in one way or another the issue of contrastive
rhetoric—the fact that differences in cultural expectations about the form and content of
written text create an obstacle for those learning to write in a second or foreign language.
The volume begins with several papers which address some of the methodological ap-
220 S. HUDELSON

preaches to the study of issues in contrastive rhetoric and then presents several specific
studies of cross-cultural differences in native language writing and the influence of cultural
patterns of organization on second language writing.

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bar Lev, Z. 1986. Discourse theory and "contrastive rhetoric." Discourse processes. 9.235-246.
Bickner, R. and P. Peyasantiwong. 1988. Cultural variation and reflective writing. In A. Purves
(ed.) Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications. 160-176.
Canale, M., N. Frenette, and M. Belanger. 1988. Evaluation of minority student writing in first
and second languages. In J. Fine (ed.) Second language discourse: A textbook of current
research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 147-166,
Chamot, A. and M. O'Malley. 1987. The cognitive academic language learning approach: A
bridge to the mainstream. TESOL quarterly. 21.2.227-250.
Chaudron, C. 1983. Evaluating writing: Effects of feedback on revision. Paper presented at the
17th Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Toronto.
[ERIC document No. ED 227 706.]
Connor, U. 1987. Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL quarterly. 21.4.677-696.
. and J. Lauer. 1988. Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A.
Purves (ed.) Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications. 138-159.
. and M. Schneider. 1988. Topical structure and writing quality: Results of an ESL
study. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages. Chicago.
Cummins, J. 1983. Language proficiency and academic achievement In J. W. Oiler, Jr. (ed.)
Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 81-96.
Eggington, W. 1987. Written discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In
U. Connor and R. B. Kaplan (eds.) Writing across languages: AnatysisofL2 text. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley. 153-168.
Farris, C. 1987. Current composition: Beyond process vs. product. English journal. 76.1.28-33.
Grabe, W. and R. B. Kaplan. In press. Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D.
Johnson and D. Roen (eds.) Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. New York:
Longman.
Hairston, M. 1982. The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of
writing. College composition and communication. 33.1.76-88.
. 1986. Different products, different processes: A theory about writing. College
composition and communication. 37.4.442-452.
Hamp-Lyons, L. 1986. No new lamps for old yet, please. (In The Forum.) TESOL quarterly.
20.4.790-795.
Hinds, J. 1987. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor and R. B.
Kaplan (eds.) Writing across languages: Analysis ofL2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley. 141-152.
 WRITING 221

Horowitz, D. 1985. Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. (In The Forum.) TESOL
quarterly. 20.1.141-144.
. 1986. What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom.
TESOL quarterly. 20.3.445-462.
Hudelson, S. In press. A tale of two children: Individual differences in ESL children's writing. In
D. Johnson and D. Roen (eds.) Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. New York:
Longman.
Indrasuta, C. 1988. Narrative style in the writing of Thai and American students. In A. Purves
(ed.) Writing across language and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications. 206-226.
Jenkins, S. and J. Hinds. 1987. Business letter writing: English, French and Japanese. TESOL
quarterly. 212.327-343.
Johns, A. 1986. Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching.
TESOL quarterly. 20.2.247-266.
Jones, S. 1985. Problems with monitor using in second language composition. In M. Rose (ed.)
When a writer can't write. New York: The Guilford Press. 96-118.
. and J. Tetroe. 1987. Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (ed.) Writing
in real time: Modeling production processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 34-57.
Kachru, Y. 1988. Writers in Hindi and English. In A. Purves (ed.) Writing across languages and
cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury Park, CA: 109-137.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:
Pergamon.
Kreeft Peyton, J. and J. Mackinson-Smyth. In press. Writing and talking about writing:
Computer networking with elementary students. In D. Johnson and D. Roen (eds.) Richness
in writing: Empowering ESL students. New York: Longman.
., et al. 1988. Beyond writing assignments: The influence of communi-
cative context on ESL students' writing. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Convention of
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Chicago.
Mittan, R. In press. The peer review process: Harnessing students' communicative powers. In D.
Johnson and D. Roen (eds.) Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. New York:
Longman
Mohan, B. and W. Lo. 1985. Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmen-
tal factors. TESOL quarterly. 19.3.515-534.
Ostler, S. 1987. English in parallels: A comparison of English and Arabic prose. In U. Connor
and R. B. Kaplan (eds.) Writing across languages: Analysis ofL2 text. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley. 169-185.
Perl, S. 1979. The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the teaching of
English. 13.317-336.
Purves, A. 1987. Literacy, culture and community. In D. Wagner (ed.) The future of literacy in a
changing world. New York: Pergamon. 216-232.
Raimes, A. 1983. Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TESOL quarterly. 17.4. 535-552.
. 1985. What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of
composing. TESOL quarterly. 19.2.229-255.
222 S. HUDELSON

_. 1986. Teaching ESL writing: Fitting what we know to what we do. The writing
instructor. Summer. 154-165.
Reid, J. 1985. The radical outliner and the radical brainstormer: A perspective on the composing
process. (In The Forum.) TESOL quarterly. 18.4.529-534.
. In press. ESL composition in higher education: The expectation of the audience. In D.
Johnson and D. Roen (eds.) Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. New York:
Longman.
Robb, R., S. Ross, and I. Shortreed. 1986. Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL
writing quality. TESOL quarterly. 20.1.83-95.
Rose, M. 1984. Writer's block: The cognitive dimension. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Samway, K. 1987. The writing processes of non-native English speaking children in the elemen-
tary grades. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester. Ph.D. diss.
Santos, T. 1988. Professors' reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students.
TESOL quarterly. 22.1.69-90.
Scardemalia, M. and C. Bereiter. 1986. Research on written composition. In M. CWittrock (ed.)
Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan. 778-803.
Shih, M. 1986. Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL quarterly.
20.4.617-648.
Soter, A. 1988. The second language learner and cultural transfer in narration. In A. Purves (ed.)
Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications. 177-205.
Spack, R. 1984. Invention strategies and the ESL college composition student. TESOL quarterly.
18.4.649-670.
. 1988. Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far
should we go? TESOL quarterly. 22.1.29-52.
. and C. Sadow. 1983. Student-teacher working journals in ESL freshman composition.
TESOL quarterly. 17.4.575-593.
Swales, J. 1982. Examining examination papers. English language research journal. 3.9-25.
. 1987. Utilizing the literatures in teaching the research paper. TESOL quarterly.
21.1.41-68.
Urzua, C. 1987. 'You stopped too soon': Second language children composing and revising.
TESOL quarterly. 21.2.279-304.
Zamel, V. 1983. The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL
quarterly. 17.2.165-187.
. 1985. Responding to student writing. TESOL quarterly. 19.1.79-101.
. 1987. Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL quarterly. 21.4.697-716.