Introduction
In this paper, I would like to bring forward the issue of writing skills in an L2. I would like to explore the possibilities, if any, of students’ cultural backgrounds affecting or influencing their L2 writing skills. I would also, in this paper, like to critically examine the role of an ESL teacher with regard to the current theme.
As such, the present paper looks into the area of students’ culture, their L1, and the writing acquisition process in L2.
Literature Review
Writing is considered one of the most complex human activities. “It involves the development of a design idea, the capture of mental representations of knowledge, and of experience with subjects” (geocities.com). Moving along the same lines of our discussion, Hinkel (p. 1, 2002) informs us that: because written discourse and text occupy a prominent place in the academy in the United States and other English-speaking countries, much research has been devoted to formal discourse genres, their characteristics, and common linguistic features encountered in academic text.
Most students who are studying in academic institutions like schools, high schools, universities have writing skills. It may more often be the case that their writing capabilities are in conflict with the requirements of the context of a second language. There are certain differences in their writing styles and conventions that are taken as something that hinders learning. For example, Myles (p. 2, 2002) tells us that “the culture-specific nature of schemata – abstract mental structures representing our knowledge of things, events, and situations – can lead to difficulties when students write texts in L2”. Thus a student from Mandarin, or Spanish, or Portuguese cultural background is not necessarily a competent writer when it comes to the English language not because they lack writing skills but because the system of English language composition is different from that of Mandarin or Spanish, and so on. Mother tongue or L1 cultural influence is something that is apparent in the second language writing or composition. In this connection, the writer tells us that “learning to compose in English is not an isolated classroom activity, but a social and cultural experience. The rules of English composition encapsulate values that are absent in, or sometimes contradictory to, the values of other societies” (Spack, & Zamel, p. 124, 1998). Thus according to the writer when it comes to learning English composition, it means, to a great extent, actually learning of Anglo-American society.
Moving along the lines of our review, we find that language and writing in it are ongoing processes that need to be understood in connection with historical and sociocultural contexts. We note what the author (in Kaplan, 2002) observes about language and its link or relation to a person’s culture that how a language learner interprets or constructs a written text requires an ongoing negotiation among historical understandings, contemporary realities, and future desires. Thus, language learners are not only learning a linguistic system; they are learning a diverse set of sociocultural practices, often best understood in the context of wider relations of power.
The author further informs us that in recent times, researchers have shifted their attention from the area of investigation of social psychology to other such diverse areas as anthropology, cultural studies, sociology, and so on. This is surely a remarkable turn to the direction of recognizing the place of cultural knowledge of L1 and its transfer to L2 writing or composition.
Thus, we can aver that there is high evidence and acceptance among scholars about the influence of culture on second language acquisition and in the present case, writing skills.
Culture, Second Language, and Self
When we probe deeper into the issue of cultural influence on second language writing, we find that there is more to talk about now, that is to say, with relation to the influence of culture onto students’ second language writing, the concept of “self” is gaining wider recognition at the present time. Matsuda, Silva, and Erlbaum (p. 128, 2005) come up with the observation that “The charge that seeing writing as a cultural phenomenon as much as, say, a cognitive activity essentializes unique individual implies there is an essential self insulated from its context”. In the same connection, we find that the concept of ‘self’ that is being referred to in linguistic literature as something that is regarded as something hard intertwined owing to the empirical findings and implications behind these findings. Here, Eagleton (as cited in Matsuda, Silva, and Erlbaum p. 128, 2005) notes that the “essential” self is not one beyond cultural shaping, but one which is culturally shaped in a specific, self-reflexive way… to belong to culture is just to be part of a context that is inherently open-ended… Like the rough ground of language itself, cultures work exactly because they are porous, fuzzy-edged, indeterminate, intrinsically inconsistent, never quite identical.
AT the end of the literature review, it is observed that the influence of mother tongue or language one or both cultures on the target language acquisition is a phenomenon that is well-discussed in the empirical literature on linguistics. Therefore, it is worth our attention to talking about the cultural transfer of L1 to the writing development of a second language.
In the coming part of the paper, the discussion shift onto the implications that these findings yield in connection with the teaching of writing skills to the students of other languages. The paper highlights discuss and point out the considerations that an ESL teacher should take into account when it comes to teaching writing skills to students of other languages.
ESL Writing Trend
Ferris, Hedgcock, and Erlbaum (1998) inform us that “a strongly influential trend in L1 composition research and pedagogy” emerged in the 1960s and 1970s (p. 4). This trend of teaching writing to the students of other languages got popularised in the United States of America in the 1980s. This trend is known as the process approach. The writers cite Faigley, according to whom “process proponents can be divided into two distinct categories: the expressivists and the cognitivist (p. 4). For the former composing is a creative act. The latter writing is about planning, defining, rhetorical problem solving and so much more. However, there are complexities in this regard that are beyond the scope of the present paper.
However, when we come to talk about the consideration to be taken by an ESL teacher while teaching writing skills, we find literature that gives us views and ideas in this very connection.
In literature, the research on mother tongue societal and cultural factors and their influence on second language acquisition has yielded an area that is a sociohistorical approach. Goldman and Rueda (p. 1, 1988) inform us of the application of this approach to writing. This approach introduces new principles of instruction. It reinforces a number of principles that are based on cognitive development, information-processing approaches.
First of all, in this approach, all human beings (children as well) are seen as individuals who are actively participating in their own world and consequently in their learning processes. Following this approach teaching writing to the students of other languages the teacher has to view the culture of the first language rationally and intertwine the culture of the second language sensibly creating in students an awareness of both the world with a view of adding to both the poles.
The writers also inform us of another approach that is functional-interactive to teaching writing. According to this very approach, an ESL teacher teaching writing to the students of other languages is more likely to work on the systems of both the languages that a student is putting hand with so that “an interaction between the cognitive processes involved in writing and the educational and cultural contexts that influence these processes” can be adequately addressed and handled (Goldman and Rueda, p. 1, 1988).
Henceforth, the following guidelines can be put to be considered by an ESL teacher while teaching writing to students of other languages. These are as follows:
- The teacher has to bring into effect the approach that the topic for writing (which both the above-mentioned approaches stress upon) should be student-chosen since “Such topics maximize the knowledge students have to include in their writing and they minimize the cognitive load associated with content generation, thereby freeing up resources to be used on other aspects of the writing process” (Goldman and Rueda, p. 1, 1988).
- Secondly, under both or either of the approaches, the role of the teacher is somewhat highly nontraditional though highly important. The role is that “The teacher provides guided assistance by structuring input just above students’ current developmental levels and assisting students to develop self-regulatory mechanisms” (Goldman and Rueda, p. 1, 1988). In this way, the role of the teacher is to provide scaffolding that creates an interactional learning environment.
Moving along the same line, Commins, and Miramontes tell us of the duty of the teacher who is teaching students of other languages. They say that:
“Teachers must carefully consider that second language students will require much more extensive attention to language development than is required for native speakers. At every level, especially for those learning to read solely through their second language, additional steps need to be taken before students can handle text in the same way as native speakers.”
They also give us some criteria as to what should be the lines along with a teacher has to move. They say that for every comprehension strategy (which according to them depends on a number of concepts) vocabulary and grammatical awareness should be such that makes sense in front of the students of other languages. They also claim that it is more important to create a repertoire of the second language vocabulary and concepts among the students than merely trying to make them cram out the alphabets. Because this way students will become gradually capable of gripping what they are reading about. They further assert that “It will also be easier to learn to read and derive meaning when students already have had extensive practice in talking about and understanding the big ideas and vocabulary represented in the text” (Commins, and Miramontes, p. 1, 2006).
Another important area regarding teaching to ESOL individuals is that the teacher should also opt for using the physical environment so that they can help create instructions that are meaning-based, they come up with their rationale for the support of this very observation with the following comment:
“An important aspect of meaning-based instruction in a linguistically diverse environment is how the physical space in the room is used. In any good classroom, it should be apparent to students from the physical environment the topics they are learning about, the expectations for their behavior, and the main guidelines for how to accomplish their work.”
They stress that “print-rich” texts that surround the students in the classroom are not necessarily helpful unless these texts are meaningful. Henceforth, the focus must be on the meaningful transition of language rather than print-mania that nothing but confuses and hampers the cognitive development of the students. In a linguistically diverse environment, the key to teaching writing successfully to students of other languages is that the teachers “always mediate understanding by relating test, visual imagery, and oral discussion about important concepts” (Commins, and Miramontes, p. 1, 2006).
Another important strategy that the authors talk about in the present context is to create as many opportunities as possible for practice and interaction among students. Thus in their view, three poles must be considered when it comes to teaching writing to the students of other languages; these are language, culture, and context. Not until these three poles stand in complete harmony and balance is it possible to yield high result in ESL teaching:
“What teachers do and how they do it in the context of their particular school makes a difference in student outcomes. To succeed, all educators need to proactively account for the complex interactions of language, culture, and context.”
Moving ahead in the quest of empirical data and observation, we also find another very important observation made by Ferris and Erlbaum (2003) with regard to teaching writing skills to the students of other languages referring to the process approach of teaching writing. They say that in the present-day context, at least within the physical boundaries of the United States of America, the writing model is cyclic. This cyclic model is the process-oriented, multi-draft approach that regards feedback on a broad spectrum of issues, response-and-revision writing cycle. They also inform us that the latest trend has yielded empirical data that teacher-student conferences for feedback on writing and peer review sessions are also equally contributing factors when it comes to teaching writing skills. The best strategy to start with this cycle is to focus, according to them on content and meaning in the initial drafts of the students. It is only when the drafts are mature that the teacher should opt for meaning and form which to them “maybe a false dichotomy” (Ferris and Erlbaum, pp. 22-23, 2003).
Conclusion
The latest research and the trends emerging from this research tell us of the importance of the L1 cultural influence of the students of other languages to the target language and particularly on the writing skills in the present discussion. It has been observed in the paper that the teaching approach must come to address students’ needs and the core realities that they’re being the students of other languages hinge to the context of ESL.
Unless and until due importance is given to the writing skills with regard to the present research findings, it is hard to say that true address can be made to the needs of the students in the due course of time.
References
Advanced Writing in English as a foreign language. 2007. Web.
Commins, N. L., & Miramontes, O. B. (2006). Addressing linguistic diversity from the outset. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3).
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D., Hedgcock, J. S., & Erlbaum, L. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldman, S. R., & Rueda, R. (1988). Developing writing skills in bilingual exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 54(6).
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Matsuda, P. K., Silva, T., & Erlbaum, L. (2005). Second language writing research: perspectives on the process of knowledge construction. P. K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ. Publication: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Myles, J. (2002) Second language writing and research: the writing process and error analysis in student texts. 2007. Web.
R. Spack, & V. Zamel (1998), (Eds.) Negotiating academic literacies: teaching and learning across languages and cultures. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of Publication.
Robert B. Kaplan (2002), (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.