Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Diane Belcher
Abstract
The relatively young field of second language (L2) writing has come a long
way in the past few decades but still has far to go if it wishes to broaden its
research foci to consider a greater diversity of writing contexts. As a largely
pedagogically-motivated area, L2 writing has so far mainly focused on writing
in English as a second language, especially that of young adults in English-
medium universities. Far less investigated by L2 writing researchers have been
the needs of younger L2 writers, at primary and secondary-school levels, and
adults outside of universities. Still less examined have been the teaching and
learning of writing in foreign language contexts, most notably in languages
other than English. These gaps have important implications for knowledge
construction in L2 writing.
Introduction
and notable contentiousness over such issues as the value of corrective feed-
back (Ferris, 2003; Truscott 1996) and the reasonableness or even ethics of
assuming culturally-influenced writing styles (Connor, 2011; Kubota & Leh-
ner, 2004). It is easy to imagine that those who have made the considerable
time and energy investment required in finding ways to facilitate the learning
of L2 writing would be less than heartened by Canagarajah’s (2006b) lament
about “monolingualist” conceptualization of L2 writing as a “unidirectional”
(p. 569) acquisition process. To be fair to Canagarajah, we should note that the
audience for this particular article was the readership of College English, a
journal published by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) in
the United States. Thus, he was not directly or specifically addressing special-
ists in L2 writing, but clearly they are implicated in his critique.
The underlying message of Canagarajah’s commentary for those of us who
identify as L2 writing professionals is that despite much talk in the field of
English language teaching (ELT) of the “native speaker” myth (see, for ex-
ample, Canagarajah, 2002b, pp. 257–259) and much problematizing among L2
writing specialists of a “deficit” approach to teaching L2 writers (as in Cana-
garajah, 2002a), many of us remain fixated on helping learners of English de-
velop the ability to produce texts, usually academic, that are reader-friendly to
those we privilege as native speakers of English. With respect to pedagogy, this
goal could be described as rather myopic, given that there are now far more
users of English as an additional language (EAL) in the world than “mother
tongue” speakers of English (Canagarajah, 2006a) For research purposes, such
a focus, i.e., usually on tertiary-level academic writing, is at the very least con-
fining. Leki, Cumming, and Silva (2008), in probably the most comprehensive
overview of L2 writing research to date, quite succinctly describe what they
see as the limits of the 25 years of research (1980 –2005) they survey. As they
put it, L2 writing research has primarily considered adult learners of English in
academic settings. Slighted, though not totally ignored, have been younger
learners, adult learners not in universities, as well as learners and multicompe-
tent users of languages other than English. In what follows, I will discuss what
we appear to have learned and what we still have much to learn about the L2
writer populations whose needs have been much investigated and those whose
needs have not.
Undergraduate writers
settings) university students at the undergraduate level were the main focus of
attention (Leki et al., 2008). The pedagogical motivation of this work in the
United States, where much of the earliest L2 writing research first emerged,
was compelling, with increasingly large numbers of international students
(from outside the US) studying at universities, where English composition was
a requirement for virtually all first-year students – a legacy of relatively open
US college admissions (Matsuda, 1999). Inspired to a great extent by the pro-
cess movement in English composition and rhetoric research, ELT profession-
als recognized that writing was more than spoken language written down, and
more than a means of reinforcing grammar and vocabulary lessons (Grabe &
Kaplan, 1996). L2 writing, like L1 writing, was a way of discovering meaning
(Zamel, 1982), yet L2 writers could be disadvantaged, ELT specialists worried,
in conveying meaning to L1 readers if their writing exhibited the rhetorical
strategies of their home languages and cultures (Connor, 1996).
Interestingly, we now know, as Leki et al. (2008) observe, that much evi-
dence points to education in students’ L1 as a powerful predictor of success in
L2 (English-medium) higher education settings, or, the more L1 education, the
more L2 university-level success. Thus, arguably more seriously disadvan-
taged by the literacy demands of their English-medium tertiary education than
international students, the temporary sojourners that most early L2 writing
research focused on, were students who were immigrants or “Generation 1.5”
(immigrants who arrived at a young age or the children of immigrants, but
see Benesch’s, 2008, critique of labeling). Unlike international students,
immigrant/Generation 1.5 students are generally not voluntarily in an English-
speaking environment but have been uprooted from their home countries, often
for political and economic reasons, and may have received their early educa-
tion in English-medium schools ill-prepared for their needs. Not until the
1990s did this population receive any significant research attention (Harklau,
Losey, Siegal, 1999). Blanton’s (2005) research suggests that ESL undergradu-
ates with the most seriously interrupted L1 literacy education, such as refu-
gees, have little hope of surviving in English-medium universities, where their
chief support may be L2 writing classes not designed to address basic literacy
needs. How a bilingual approach would benefit young adults such as these is
more than simply an empirical question, although the logistical challenges of
bilingual literacy instruction for the linguistically heterogeneous groups often
seen in ESL settings, with, for instance, speakers of Pashto, Somali and Haitian
Creole in a single class, are daunting.
The picture is by no means completely bleak for all at-risk L2 undergradu-
ates, however, if we consider the research of Johns (1997, 2009) and Benesch
(2001), whose published works describe their own classroom efforts with L2
undergraduates, often immigrants, in linked classes, that is, ESL classes linked
with subject-area classes, such as introductory psychology. Johns has explored
134 Diane Belcher
2008). There is also evidence that idea development and argument construc-
tion may be much more amenable to improvement over relatively short peri-
ods of time, such as a school term, than is language use (though for some, this
is an argument for more instructional attention to language use; see Storch,
2011).
A comparatively recent development is the emergence of interest in multi-
lingual writers among those in the field of English composition and rhetoric,
also known as writing studies (Canagarajah, 2006b; Horner, 2006). In the
United States, perhaps still one of the few English-dominant countries where
first-year writing (FYW) is a requirement for most university undergraduates,
college student populations are increasingly linguistically diverse, with as
many as 30% of the student body at some universities considered language
minority, or EAL, students (Ferris, Brown, Liu, & Arnaudo Stine, 2011; Tardy,
2011). Ferris et al. note, however, that despite growing numbers of EAL stu-
dents in FYW classes, there can be much obliviousness to their presence or
specific needs. When they are noticed, they may be subject to what Matsuda
(2006) calls a “policy of containment” (p. 641) and sent to university writing
center tutors or filtered out of mainstream composition altogether. Canagara-
jah’s consciousness-raising (2006b, 2009) in this regard, calling L1 (English)
writing specialists’ attention to plurilingual writers, echoes messages that have
been frequently voiced in the field of L2 writing pedagogy. What Canagarajah
argues for is the need to see EAL writers as multicompetent, rather than barely
competent, and for viewing writing not in autonomous literacy terms (see
Street, 1984) but as performative and negotiated. Instead of perceiving the
other languages these writers are proficient in, Canagarajah observes, as ob-
stacles to L2 lexicogrammatical accuracy or sources of negative rhetorical
transfer, they should be valued as resources enabling “codemeshing,” or “trans-
languaging” (2009, pp. 25, 27), that is, rhetorically strategic use of various
vernaculars, or languages, in English-language texts. Tardy (2011), however,
points out that while FYW practitioners may wish to heed Canagarajah’s
call, they may, nevertheless, feel challenged by their mixed monolingual/
multilingualclasses. What is needed, Tardy asserts, is “looking local” (p. 640),
devoting more attention to articulation of policies and scaffolding of peda-
gogical practices supportive of language diversity in local institutional con-
texts.
Undergraduate writing is not, however confined to writing classes but takes
place across university curricula. We know relatively little about how EAL
writers fare in their many content-area classes in English-medium universities
and how they grow as they move through their programs of study. Few cross-
curriculum longitudinal studies specifically focused on multilingual writers
have been attempted (but see the Spack, 1997, and Leki, 2007, case studies).
Corpus linguists, though, have made great strides in developing resources
136 Diane Belcher
L2 would seem to offer a way forward for academics who wish to succeed in
reaching both domestic and international audiences (see also Cho).
L2 writing researchers have become increasingly interested over the past few
decades in younger EAL learners, at the primary and secondary-school levels.
In their overview of research on these populations, Leki et al. (2008) remark
that very young L2 writers have generally been characterized in quite hopeful
terms as exhibiting “increasing power, self-confidence, and flexibility in writ-
ing,” but that “darker pictures” can also be found (p. 11). Gebhard and Harman
(2011), present one of these darker pictures. Focused on the United States,
where many bilingual education programs have been phased out, Gebhard and
Harman point to the unfortunate impact of the federally-mandated No Child
Left Behind policy (NCLB), which has instituted a school accountability
program of mandatory standardized testing, testing that assumes English as a
mother tongue, the results of which are used to rank schools. To receive often
needed additional resources, “underperforming” schools, Gebhard and Har-
man (p. 46) note, may be forced to implement such curricular changes as
phonics-based programs, which literacy specialists have long been critical of
as inadequate for any students, L1 or L2 (Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009). In many
US schools, those that perform well or poorly, much instructional time is now
devoted to test preparation, leaving far less time, and no doubt less teacher
energy and motivation, for creative, enriched instruction designed to help
students develop strong writer identities through activities utilizing personal
background knowledge and home language and community as resources, an
approach that has been found to work especially well with linguistically di-
verse students (Ball & Ellis, 2008). With the current test-driven US public
school environment in mind, Gebhard and Harman have plotted a course for
building data-based arguments for change, a research agenda that combines
Australian-style genre analysis of student writing using a Hallidayan systemic-
functional-linguistics framework with an ethnographic, action-research ap-
proach informed by the New Literacy Studies movement, involving “local
participants in data collection and analysis as a form of sustained professional
development” (p. 52).
Very young learners in EFL (English as a foreign language, i.e., non-English-
dominant) settings where study of English is required at earlier and earlier
grade levels, e.g., China, Japan, and Korea, have begun to pique the interest of
researchers in ELT. Research on young learners has so far yielded conflicting
140 Diane Belcher
There are, however, some bright spots in the research on adolescent L2 writ-
ing in ESL settings. In Yi’s (2009, 2010) case studies of immigrant Korean
high school students in the US, her research participants were adept at finding
ways to develop their L2 literacy while maintaining L1 literacy. Social media
became the means of staying connected with the Korean immigrant commu-
nity, mostly in Korean, and self-sponsored writing, online and in personal jour-
nals, in Korean and English, became a means of connecting both literacies, as
seen, for example, in one students’ English/Korean codemeshing (see Canaga-
rajah, 2009) for a creative writing class (Yi, 2010). Although Yi’s research has
focused on a relatively small number of Korean students in the US, it offers
much food for thought for educators interested in bilingual literacy develop-
ment. Yi’s findings reinforce what others, such as those in New Literacy
Studies, have spoken much of – the importance of considering what happens
outside the classroom and of looking at learners as whole persons, with com-
plex and dynamic identities, affected by much more than just school communi-
ties. Future research could consider if findings such as Yi’s tell us more about
the literacy practices of adolescents from more privileged families, with trans-
national identities (Yi, 2009), than of what is possible for immigrant adoles-
cents more generally. Further research might also explore, by examining social
media use, how it might motivate the L2 literacy learning of students with less
advantaged backgrounds, giving them real audiences and a means of bridging
their oral fluency and emerging literacies (Bloch, 2008).
and how ongoing access to instructional resources for novice adult writers (and
readers) might be enabled.
Concluding thoughts
If theory-building is the goal, then one cannot help but be concerned by the
restricted range of the existing body of L2 writing research, both in terms of
methodology and foci. As Leki et al. (2008) and others have noted, the vast
majority of L2 writing studies have been small-scale case studies. What are
needed now, Leki et al. advise, are more large-scale, longitudinal, and multi-
method studies. Some large-scale projects have indeed been attempted, yet
have their own obvious limitations. One of the most ambitious cross-linguistic
studies of writing to date, overseen by Purves (1992) for the International As-
sociation for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), while not a
longitudinal study (and not specifically focused on L2 writing), was stratified
and mammoth, including student writers at three grade levels in 14 countries,
yet, Ortega and Carson (2010) observe, it failed to find the “language transcen-
dent” qualities of writing (p. 58) that were sought. What can be said about
writing, L2 or L1, around the globe if it is valued and assessed in decidedly
distinct ways in various ethnolinguistic and geopolitical contexts? One thing
that can be said with some certainty is that writing is context-bound, not a
“general cognitive capacity” (Ortega & Carson, p. 58).
A few large-scale studies of writing have been longitudinal as well as
massive, such as those conducted at two US universities, Harvard (Sommers
& Salz, 2004) and Stanford (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october12/
lunsford-writing-research-101209.html), which tracked with multiple methods
hundreds of English-language (L1 and L2) writers as they progressed across
the curriculum in their four-year undergraduate programs and, in the case of
Stanford students, one year beyond graduation. These, of course, are elite,
highly selective tertiary schools with the resources to undertake such enor-
mous naturalistic studies. While the findings are intriguing – Harvard students’
motivation when viewing writing as “more than an assignment” (Sommers &
Salz, p. 127) and Stanford students’ prolific production of spontaneous non-
academic texts – one cannot help but wonder to what extent these studies can
be seen as relevant and useful by those who work with very different L2 or L1
populations and learning contexts. The large-scale studies on L2 (or any) writ-
ing that are becoming increasingly more feasible are computer-facilitated cor-
pus studies, with the potential of compiling huge databases of authentic (learner
or published) texts and conducting multi-dimensional corpus-tool enabled
analyses. Such textlinguistic studies are limited, however, in what they can tell
us about writing processes and social contexts (but see Hyland, 2004, on com-
bining corpus and more ethnographic research methods). Atkinson’s (2011)
recommendation for the field of second language acquisition may be equally of
value for future knowledge construction in L2 writing, namely, that it should
be based on individual aggregation, “built on . . . [the] back” of case studies
Considering what we know and need to know 145
References
Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12, 3–15.
Atkinson, D. (2010). Between theory with a big T and practice with a small p: Why theory matters.
In T. Silva and P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 5–18).
West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Atkinson, D. (2011). A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition: How mind, body,
and world work together in learning additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative
approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 143–166). London: Routledge.
Atkinson, D., & Connor, U. (2008). Multilingual writing development. In C. Bazerman (Ed.),
Handbook of research on writing (pp. 515–532). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baker, W. (forthcoming). Interpreting the culture in intercultural rhetoric: A critical perspective
from English as a lingua franca studies. In D. Belcher & G. Nelson (Eds.), Critical and corpus-
based approaches to intercultural rhetoric. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ball, A. & Ellis, P. (2008). Identity and the writing of culturally and linguistically diverse students.
In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp. 499–512). New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy. English for
Specific Purposes, 13, 23–34.
Belcher, D. (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined fu-
tures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 133–156.
Belcher, D., & Lukkarila, L. (2011). Identity in the ESP context: Putting the learner front and
center in needs analysis. In D. Belcher, A. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in Eng-
lish for specific purposes research (pp. 73–93). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Considering what we know and need to know 147
Benesch, S. (2008). “Generation 1.5” and its discourses of partiality: A critical analysis. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education, 7, 294 –211.
Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The role of literacy level in second language acquisition:
Doesn’t who we study determine what we know? TESOL Quarterly, 38, 689–700.
Blanton, L. L. (2005). Student, interrupted: A tale of two would-be writers. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 14(2), 105–121.
Bloch, J. (2008). Technolgies in the second language composition classroom. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so
straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136 –140.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002a). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002b). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgb, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006a). The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued.
College Composition and Communication, 57(4), 586 – 619.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006b). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning
from multilingual writers.” College English, 68(6), 589– 604.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2009). Multilingual strategies of negotiating English: From conversation to
writing. JAC [Journal of Advanced Composition], 29, 711–743.
Casanave, C. P. (1995). Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate
sociology program. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language
(pp. 83–112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Casanave, C. P. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices
in higher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cheng, A. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness: Under-
standing writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy framework. English for Specific
Purposes, 26, 287–307.
Cheng, A. (2011). ESP classroom research: Basic considerations and future research questions. In
D. Belcher, A. Johns, & B. Paltridge (eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes,
(44 –72). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cho, S. (2010). Academic biliteracy challenges: Korean scholars in the United States. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 19, 82–94.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Cumming, A. (2010). Theories, frameworks, and heuristics: Some reflections on inquiry and
second language writing. In T. Silva and P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second
language writing (pp. 19– 47). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Cumming, A., & Gill, J. (1991). Learning ESL literacy among Indo-Canadian women. Language,
Culture, and Curriculum, 4, 181–200.
De Silva Joyce, H., & Hood, S. (2009). English for community membership: Planning for actual
and potential needs. In D. Belcher (Ed.), English for specific purposes in theory and practice
(pp. 244 –263). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Feak, C. (2009). Setting the stage for scholarly evaluation: Research commentaries in the EAP
graduate writing curriculum. In D. Belcher (Ed.), English for specific purposes in theory and
practice (pp. 60 –82). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., & Arnaudo Stine, M. E. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college
writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 207–234.
148 Diane Belcher
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international
publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 18, 1–16.
Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis
in EAP/ESP: Countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific
Purposes, 24, 321–332.
Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to
school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 45–55.
Gentil, G. (2011). A biliteracy agenda for genre research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20,
6 –23.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English language
learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35– 67.
Harklau, L. (2003). Representational practices and multi-modal communication in US high
schools. In R. Bayley & S. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multi
lingual societies (pp. 83–97). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Harklau, L. (2011). Commentary: Adolescent L2 writing research as an emerging field. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 20, 227–230.
Harklau, L., Losey, K., & Siegal, M. (Eds.) (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition:
Issues in the teaching of writing to US-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hedgcock, J., & Ferris, D. (2009). Teaching readers of English. New York: Routledge.
Horner, B. (2006). Introduction: Cross-language relations in composition. College English, 68,
569–574.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jensen, A. (2009). Discourse strategies in professional e-mail negotiation: A case study. English
for Specific Purposes, 28, 4 –18.
Johns, A. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Johns, A. (2009). Tertiary undergraduate EAP: Problems and possibilities. In D. Belcher (Ed.),
English for specific purposes in theory and practice (pp. 41–59). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Kachru, B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010). “English? – Oh, it’s just work!”: A study of
BELF users’ perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 204 –209.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2008). Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writ-
ing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 7–29.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2011, June). L1/L2/L3 writing development: Longitudinal case
study of a Japanese multicompetent writer. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second Lan-
guage Writing, Taipei.
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language
Writing 13, 7–27.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (2006). The academic literacies model: Theory and applications. Theory into
Practice, 45(4), 368–377.
Considering what we know and need to know 149
Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case
study. Written Communication, 14, 3– 62.
Storch, N. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the
development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 108–118.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2008). Foreword. In C. P. Casanave & X-M Li (Ed.), Learning the literacy practices of
graduate school (pp. ix–xi). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
Talmy, S. (2008). The cultural productions of the ESL student at Tradewinds High: Contingency,
multidirectionality, and identity in L2 socialization. Applied Linguistics, 29, 619– 644.
Tardy, C. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette: Parlor Press.
Tardy, C. (2011). Enacting and transforming local language policies. College Composition and
Communication, 62, 634 – 661.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learn-
ing, 46, 327–369.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yi, Y. (2009). Adolescent literacy and identity construction among 1.5 generation students: From
a transnational perspective. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 19, 100 –129.
Yi, Y. (2010). Adolescent multilingual writers’ transitions across in- and out-of-school writing
contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 17–32.
Yigitoglu, N., & Reichelt, M. (forthcoming). Teaching Turkish and Turkish-language writing in
the U.S.: A descriptive report. Journal of Second Language Writing.
You, X. (2010). Writing in the devil’s tongue: A history of English composition in China. Carbon-
dale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195–209.
Diane Belcher, Professor of Applied Linguistics at Georgia State University, is former co-editor
of the journal English for Specific Purposes and current co-editor of TESOL Quarterly. She also
co-edits a book series titled Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers. She has authored a
number of articles on advanced academic literacy. hdbelcher1@gsu.edui
Copyright of Applied Linguistics Review is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.