Teaching and Researching Writing

The new edition of Ken Hyland’s text provides an authoritative guide to

writing theory, research, and teaching. Emphasising the dynamic relation-
ship between scholarship and pedagogy, it shows how research feeds into
teaching practice. Teaching and Researching Writing introduces readers to
key conceptual issues in the field today and reinforces their understanding
with detailed cases, then offers tools for further investigating areas of
interest. This is the essential resource for students of applied linguistics
and language education to acquire and operationalise writing research
theories, methods, findings, and practices––as well as for scholars and
practitioners looking to learn more about writing and literacy.
New to the fourth edition:

 Added or expanded coverage of important topics such as translingual-

ism, digital literacies and technologies, multimodal and social media
writing, action research, teacher reflection, curriculum design, teaching
young learners, and discipline-specific and profession-specific writing.
 Updated throughout––including revision to case studies and class-
room practices––and discussion of rhetorical genre studies, inter-
cultural rhetoric, and expertise.
 Reorganised References and Resources section for ease of use for stu-
dents, researchers, and teachers.

Ken Hyland is Professor of Applied Linguistics in Education at the Uni-

versity of East Anglia, UK.
Applied Linguistics in Action
Series Editor: Christopher N. Candlin

Christopher N. Candlin (1940-2015) was Senior Research Professor in the

Department of Linguistics at Macquarie University, Australia and Professor
of Applied Linguistics at the Open University, UK. At Macquarie, he was
Chair of the Department of Linguistics; established and was Executive
Director of the National Centre for English Language Teaching & Research
(NCELTR); and was first Director of the Centre for Language in Social Life
(CLSL). He wrote and edited over 150 publications and co-edited the Journal
of Applied Linguistics. From 1996 to 2002 he was President of the Interna-
tional Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA). He acted as a consultant
in more than 35 countries and as external faculty assessor in 36 universities
worldwide.
Applied Linguistics in Action is a series which focuses on the issues and
challenges to teachers and researchers in a range of fields in Applied Lin-
guistics and provides readers and users with the tools they need to carry out
their own practice-based research.

Teaching and Researching Reading

3rd Edition
William Peter Grabe and Fredricka L. Stoller

Teaching and Researching Motivation

3rd Edition
Zoltán Dörnyei and Ema Ushioda

Teaching and Researching Writing

4th Edition
Ken Hyland

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.

com/Applied-Linguistics-in-Action/book-series/PEAALIA
Teaching and Researching
Writing

Fourth Edition

Ken Hyland
Fourth edition published 2022
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an
informa business
© 2022 Ken Hyland
The right of Ken Hyland to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Pearson Education 2002
Third edition published by Routledge 2016
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Hyland, Ken, author.
Title: Teaching and researching writing / Ken Hyland.
Description: Fourth edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2022.
Series: Applied linguistics in action | Includes bibliographical references
and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021014892 (print) | LCCN 2021014893 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Written communication--Study and teaching. |
Written communication--Research.
Classification: LCC P211 .H95 2022 (print) | LCC P211 (ebook) |
DDC 808/.04207--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021014892
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021014893

ISBN: 978-1-032-05577-0 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-05619-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-19845-1 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003198451

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Taylor & Francis Books
Contents

Series Editors’ Preface ix

Preface xi
Acknowledgements xiii
Abbreviations xv

SECTION I
Understanding Writing 1
1 An Overview of Writing 3
1.1 Text-Oriented Understandings 4
1.2 Writer-Oriented Understandings 12
1.3 Reader-Oriented Understandings 25
1.4 Conclusion 34
Further Reading 35

2 Key Issues in Writing 36

2.1 Writing and Context 36
2.2 Literacy and Expertise 39
2.3 Academic and Disciplinary Writing 43
2.4 Writing, Technology and Digital Literacy 47
2.5 Multimodal Writing 51
2.6 Writing and Identity 54
2.7 English, Dominance and Writing 57
2.8 Conclusion 61
Further Reading 61

3 Quandaries and Possibilities 63

3.1 Writing Instruction and Culture 63
3.2 Information Technology and Social Networks 67
vi Contents
3.3 Writing, Wikis and Blogs 70
3.4 Multimodal Writing Instruction 73
3.5 Writing Instruction and Plagiarism 77
3.6 Writing Instruction and Written Corrective Feedback 79
3.7 Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) 84
3.8 Conclusion 87
Further Reading 87

SECTION II
Researching Writing 89

4 Research Practices and Issues 91

4.1 Reflective Practice 91
4.2 Practitioner Research 93
4.3 Research Design 95
4.4 Research Methods 99
4.5 Research Methodologies 105
4.6 Research Topics 110
4.7 Conclusion 119
Further Reading 119

5 Research Cases: Observing and Reporting 121

5.1 Questionnaire Research on Teachers Writing Book
Reviews 121
5.2 Experimental Research on Peer-Response 126
5.3 Interview Research on Academic Blogs 130
5.4 Protocol Research on Primary Students’ Writing
Strategies 134
5.5 Diary Blogs Research on Drafting a Research Paper 138
5.6 Keystroke Logging Research on Writing Strategies 141
5.7 Conclusion 145
Further Reading 145

6 Research Cases: Texts and Contexts 147

6.1 Genre Analysis Research on Grant Proposal Abstracts 147
6.2 Corpus Research on Learner Uses of Lexical Bundles 151
6.3 Case Study Research of a Chinese Doctor Writing for
Publication 154
 Contents vii
6.4 Ethnographic Research on Student Peer Review of
Writing 158
6.5 Multimodal Research of Elementary Students’ Maths
Writing 162
6.6 Synthesis Research on the Effectiveness of Peer
Feedback 166
6.7 Conclusion 169
Further Reading 169

SECTION III
Teaching Writing 171

7 Approaches to Teaching Writing 173

7.1 Text-Oriented Approaches to Teaching 174
7.2 Writer-Oriented Approaches to Teaching 183
7.3 Reader-Oriented Approaches to Teaching 189
7.4 Conclusion 199
Further Reading 199

8 Teaching Writing: Materials and Practices 200

8.1 Research Writing: A Series of Advanced Writing
Guides 200
8.2 Corpora in Writing Instruction 204
8.3 Learner Blogs 209
8.4 Writing Teaching and Academic Word Lists 213
8.5 Scaffolding School Literacy: Writing Frames 217
8.6 Wikis in the Writing Class 221
8.7 Writing Portfolios: Pedagogy and Assessment 226
Further Reading 231

9 Teaching Writing: Classes and Courses 233

9.1 Writ 101: A Modified Process Approach 234
9.2 Genre in Australian Schools 239
9.3 English for Clinical Pharmacy: A Specific EAP
Course 246
9.4 Go for Gold: Writing for a Reason 249
9.5 Data Driven Learning for Research Postgraduates 255
Further Reading 261
viii Contents
SECTION IV
Exploring Writing 263

10 Significant Areas and Key Texts 265

10.1 Literacy and Writing 265
10.2 Rhetoric 266
10.3 Scientific and Technical Writing 268
10.4 Professional and Business Writing 269
10.5 Academic Writing 270
10.6 Journalism and Print Media 272
10.7 First-Language Writing 273
10.8 Second-Language Writing Instruction 275
10.9 Pragmatics and Writing 276
10.10 Translation Studies 278
10.11 Literary Studies 279
10.12 Writing Using Digital Technologies 281
10.13 Writing and Multimodal Texts 283
10.14 Writing and Forensic Linguistics 284
10.15 Writing and Young Learners 286
10.16 Creative Writing 287

11 Key Sources on Writing 289

11.1 Research Sources: For Analysis and the Study of
Writing 289
11.2 Teaching Sources: For Practitioners and Learners 302

Glossary 314
References 322
Index 352
Series Editors’ Preface

Note from Routledge: Christopher Candlin and David Hall were founding
editors of the Applied Linguistics in Action series when Pearson Education
Limited was the series’ publisher. After David passed away in February
2014, Christopher continued as general editor of the series for Routledge
until his passing away in May 2015. To honor their invaluable work for and
involvement in books that they commissioned for the series, we are retaining
their original series preface for this volume.
Applied Linguistics in Action, as its name suggests, is a series which
focuses on the issues and challenges to teachers and researchers in a range
of fields in Applied Linguistics and provides readers and users with the
tools they need to carry out their own practice-related research.
The books in the series provide the reader with clear, up-to-date, accessible
and authoritative accounts of their chosen field within applied linguistics.
Starting from a map of the landscape of the field, each book provides infor-
mation on its main ideas and concepts, competing issues and unsolved ques-
tions. From there, readers can explore a range of practical applications of
research into those issues and questions, and then take up the challenge of
undertaking their own research, guided by the detailed and explicit research
guides provided. Finally, each book has a section which provides a rich array
of resources, information sources and further reading, as well as a key to the
principal concepts of the field.
Questions the books in this innovative series ask are those familiar to all
teachers and researchers, whether very experienced, or new to the field of
applied linguistics:

 What does research tell us, what doesn’t it tell us and what should it
tell us about the field? How is the field mapped and landscaped? What
is its geography?
 How has research been applied and what interesting research possibi-
lities does practice raise? What are the issues we need to explore and
explain?
 What are the key researchable topics that practitioners can undertake?
How can the research be turned into practical action?
x Series Editors’ Preface
 Where are the important resources that teachers and researchers need?
Who has the information? How can it be accessed?

Each book in the series has been carefully designed to be as accessible

as possible, with built-in features to enable readers to find what they want
quickly and to home in on the key issues and themes that concern them.
The structure is to move from practice to theory and back to practice in a
cycle of development of understanding of the field in question.
Each of the authors of books in the series is an acknowledged authority,
able to bring broad knowledge and experience to engage teachers and
researchers in following up their own ideas, working with them to build
further on their own experience.
The first editions of books in this series have attracted widespread praise
for their authorship, their design, and their content, and they have been
widely used to support practice and research. The success of the series,
and the realisation that it needs to stay relevant in a world where new
research is being conducted and published at a rapid rate, have prompted
the commissioning of this fourth edition. This new edition has been thor-
oughly updated, with accounts of research that has appeared since the
previous editions and with the addition of other relevant material. We
trust that students, teachers and researchers will continue to discover
inspiration in these pages to underpin their own investigations.

Chris Candlin
David Hall
Preface

The original Teaching and Researching Writing first appeared early in

2002 in Longman’s ‘Applied Linguistics in Action’ series edited by Chris
Candlin and David Hall. This was 20 years ago, the same year that Brazil
last won the World Cup, ice deposits were discovered on Mars and people
could first spend euros. That was a long time ago and much has changed
in the interim, not least in writing. Most obviously the interconnectivity of
the internet has created new genres, styles of writing and ways of com-
posing while teachers make greater use of corpora, automated feedback
and online ‘Learning Management Systems’ in their classes. While sub-
sequent editions of this book have documented something of these changes
for teachers and researchers, the pace of change brings me back to another
thorough rewrite in this new edition. I am delighted that Routledge has invi-
ted me to update and revise the book.
Revising is a difficult task as, on one hand, you want to try and keep
what has made the book successful, while on the other to keep up with
moving times by introducing the different ideas, formats and practices that
have emerged since the last edition. Much of what is new in this book
relates to the changes that digital technologies and social practices have
brought to writing, and so readers familiar with the earlier work will
notice new sections on translingualism, multimodality, disciplinary writ-
ing, digital technologies, social networking genres, automated writing
evaluation, using wikis and blogs in the classroom, and learner corpora.
So, while what we know about writing and how we might best teach it
remain, in broad strokes, fairly similar to what we knew in 2002, the field
has certainly changed.
Despite this, writing continues to be a key metric in the life chances of
millions of people around the world: a measure of educational success,
academic competence, professional advancement and institutional recog-
nition. It is central to our personal experience and social identities, and we
are often evaluated by our control of it. Writing has also consolidated its
importance in how scholars understand the world, and the threats that
face it, and is ever more important in contemporary questions of politics,
gender, personal relationships, power, identity, culture and the creation
xii Preface
and dissemination of truth. The various purposes of writing, its myriad
contexts of use and the diverse backgrounds and needs of those wishing to
learn it, all push the study of writing into wider frameworks of analysis
and understanding.
Essentially though, and despite the fact that they increasingly interact in
very different ways, we are still concerned with writers, with readers and
with texts, and it is these components of writing which remain the core of
the book. Also unchanged in the book are the concept and quote boxes to
highlight key terms and ideas, an extensive glossary, and a resource section
pointing to websites, materials, conferences and organisations which sup-
port students, writers and teachers of writing. I hope that these features,
together with what I have tried to make an accessible style, will mean that
students, teachers and those who come to the topic without a specialised
knowledge of writing research, won’t be too daunted. All chapters, how-
ever, have been extensively rewritten and updated to include new thinking
on old topics and to take account of novel directions which have emerged
in writing studies.
The intention behind the book, however, remains the same as it was in
the first edition: to provide a clear and critical introduction to the field of
writing research and teaching. In Section I offer a conceptual overview of
the area and raise some of the key issues and questions currently occupy-
ing the field. Section II focuses on the main ways of approaching writing
research, including the design of studies, commonly used methodologies
and frequently explored topics, together with examples of these different
approaches taken from the literature with a summary and brief critical
evaluation. Section III provides a brief review of how the main theoretical
understandings of writing have emerged in classroom practices, outlining
the general orientations to teaching they involve and drawing on examples
of classroom syllabi, materials and practices from around the world.
Finally, Section IV is a compendium of resources, indicating the major
areas of writing research and practice and providing information on the
key sources and contacts.
Throughout the book, I hope the reader can see what the main under-
standings of writing are and how these relate to research and teaching,
and also see the strong cycle of practice–theory–practice which continues
to drive the field of writing. I also hope that the book will encourage
readers to engage with the topics discussed and be encouraged to explore
some of the issues the book raises.
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my students and friends for their support and
advice and give a particular mention to Susan Dunsmore, my copy-
editor, who helped make the book more accessible and reader-friendly
than I could have managed on my own. I would also like to acknowl-
edge colleagues and fiends who have shared their research and materi-
als with me. Here I would particularly like to thank John Swales and
Chris Feak for extracts from their writing guides for graduate students;
Derek Wallace and Janet Holst of the Victoria University of Wellington
for the materials and comments on Writ 101. More formally, I would
like to thank the following for allowing me to use their material and
websites.
Laurence Anthony for permission to reprint screenshots of his AntConc
programme in Figures 8.1 and 8.2.
Mark Davies for permission to reprint a screenshot from the iWeb
corpus in Figure 8.3.
Dee Gardner and Mark Davies to reprint screenshots of their ‘Word
and Phrase’ site in Figures 8.4 and 8.5.
Academic Books for permission to reprint two figures: a writing frame
for planning a discussion and a writing frame for first draft of a discussion
as Figures 8.5 and 8.6 from Wray, D. & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending lit-
eracy: Children reading and writing non-fiction. London: Routledge.
Wikiversity for permission to reprint a screenshot of its main page in
Figure 8.8, under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License
(CC-BY-SA).
West Texas A&M University for permission to reprint a student wiki
page from its website in Figure 8.9.
George Cusack and Carleton College for permission to reprint ‘Portfo-
lio guidelines’ and ‘holistic scoring guide’ from the Carleton Writing Pro-
gram webpage in Concepts 8.10 and 8.12.
Derek Wallace of the Victoria University of Wellington for permis-
sion to reprint pages from Writ 101: Becoming an Effective Writer in
Table 9.1.
xiv Acknowledgements
Jane Stokes and Laura Wakeland of the Centre for Applied English
Studies (CAES) at Hong Kong University for their English for Clinical
Pharmacy materials reproduced in Chapter 9. Lillian Wong for permis-
sion to reproduce screenshots and materials from The Hong Kong
Graduate Corpus and Thesis Writing for Graduate Students in Chapter 9,
Section 9.5.
Abbreviations

AIDCA Attention, Interest, Desire, Conviction, Action

ANOVA analysis of variance
AWE automated writing evaluation
AWL academic word list
BAWE British Academic Written English
CAES Centre for Applied English Studies
CALL computer-assisted language learning
CARS create a research space
CAT computer-assisted translation
CDA critical discourse analysis
CDL critical digital literacies
CDS critical discourse studies
CMC computer-mediated communication
COCA Corpus of Contemporary American English
DCF direct corrective feedback
DDL data driven learning
EAL English as an Additional Language
EAP English for Academic Purposes
EATAW European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing
ELF English as a lingua franca
ELT English Language Teaching
ERPP English for Research and Publication Purposes
ESL English as a Second Language
ESP English for Specific Purposes
EST English for Science and Technology
GDP gross domestic product
GfG Go for Gold
GRE Graduate Record Examinations
GWSI general writing skills instruction
xvi Abbreviations
IELTS International English Language Testing System
IR intercultural rhetoric
IWCA International Writing Centers Association
L1 first language
L2 second language
LEO Literacy Education Online
LW Learning-to-Write
MALL mobile-assisted language learning
MANOVA multivariate analysis of variance
ME metalinguistic explanation
MOOCs massive online open courses
MT machine translation
NES native English speaker
OWLs online writing labs
PSLE Primary School Leaving Examination
RAFT role and purpose, audience, focus, tone
RGS rhetorical genre studies
SATS standard attainment tests
SCI Science Citation Index
SFL systemic functional linguistics
SLA second-language acquisition
SSCI Social Science Citation Index
SWOT strength, weakness, opportunity and threat
TAP think-aloud protocol
TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language
UWL university word list
VLEs virtual learning environments
WCF written corrective feedback
WL Writing-to-Learn
Section I
Understanding Writing
1 An Overview of Writing

This chapter will …

 offer a guiding summary of the main approaches to understanding

writing;
 explore research into main dimensions of writing: the code, the enco-
der and the decoder;
 examine the principal ideas, key figures, significant findings and major
weaknesses of each view.

In this chapter I want to provide an overview of the different ways of

understanding writing. Rather than a comprehensive treatment of what we
know, I intend this to be more a map of the territory which picks out the
main landmarks and offers a direction of travel. To do this, I discuss three
broad approaches to researching and teaching writing, focusing in turn on
theories that are mainly concerned with texts, with writers and with read-
ers. The classification implies no rigid divisions, but I hope it highlights
something of what we know about writing and what each approach offers
to our understanding of this complex area. The implications of these views
for classroom practice are discussed in Section III of this book.

Concept 1.1 Approaches to Writing

 The first approach focuses on the products of writing by exam-
ining texts, either through their formal surface elements, the
vocabulary and grammar, or their discourse structure.
 The second approach, divided into expressivist, cognitivist, situ-
ated and translingual strands, focuses on the writer and discusses
the processes used to create texts.
 The third approach emphasises the role that readers play in
writing, adding an interactional dimension by elaborating how
writers engage with an audience in creating texts.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003198451-2
4 Understanding Writing
1.1 Text-Oriented Understandings
The study of the tangible, analysable aspects of writing has a long history
and perhaps informs most research into writing around the world today.
By looking at surface forms, these approaches share an interest in the lin-
guistic or rhetorical resources available to writers for producing texts, and
so reduce the complexities of communication to words on a page or
screen. Text-focused theories come in many guises, but I will describe the
two main ones here.

1.1.1 Texts as Objects

The dominant model of writing for many years saw it as a textual product,
a coherent arrangement of elements structured according to a system of
rules. Writing was an outcome. It was a finished product that could be
studied for what it told us about language, rather than about making
meanings.

Concept 1.2 Texts as Objects

Based on ideas inherited from structuralism and implicit in the Trans-
formational Grammar of Noam Chomsky (1965), a basic premise of
this approach is that texts are autonomous objects which can be ana-
lysed and described independently of particular contexts, writers or
readers. Texts have a structure, they are orderly arrangements of words,
clauses and sentences, and by following grammatical rules, writers can
encode a full semantic representation of their intended meanings.

The idea that texts can function independently of a context carries

important ideological implications, and one of the most serious is the
mechanistic view that human communication works by transferring ideas
from one mind to another via language (Shannon & Weaver, 1963). Writ-
ing is disembodied. It is removed from any context and from the personal
experiences of writers and readers, because meanings can be fully encoded
in texts and recovered by anyone with the right decoding skills. Meaning
lies in the words, not in the minds of text users, and writers are passive in
following the rules of grammar.
Such a focus on form has led to considerable research into the regula-
rities we find in texts. In recent years, for example, computer analyses of
large corpora have been used to identify how features such as evaluative
adjectives like nice, good, great (De Cock, 2011) are typically used, and to
determine the significance of regular high-frequency bundles such as at the
same time as and on the other hand (Hyland, 2012) in creating texts. An
orientation to formal features of texts has also underpinned a great deal of
 An Overview of Writing 5
research into students’ writing development. From this perspective, writing
improvement can be measured by counting increases in features such as
relative clauses, modality and passives through successive pieces of writ-
ing. White (2007), for instance, sought to assess language improvement in
student writing by measuring increases in the number of morphemes,
words and clauses in student essays. Alternatively, learner corpora can be
studied to see the effect of L1 (first language) transfer to writing in the
learner’s L2 (second language) (e.g. Osborne, 2015).
From a perspective that regards texts as autonomous objects, then, lear-
ners’ compositions are seen as langue—that is, a demonstration of the wri-
ter’s knowledge of forms and his or her awareness of the system of rules to
create texts. Good writing is accurate and conveys the writer’s meaning
explicitly. But the claim that good writing is fully explicit and needs no
context for its sense draws on the old-fashioned conduit metaphor: that we
transfer ideas from one mind to another through language. In this view, a
text has a single watertight sense, as meanings can be written down and
understood by others in exactly the way they were intended. There can be
no conflicts of interpretations, no reader positions, no different under-
standings, because we all see things in the same way. Meanings correspond
with words, and writing is transparent in reflecting meanings rather than
constructing them.

Quote 1.1 On ‘Explicitness’

A text is explicit not because it says everything all by itself but rather
because it strikes a careful balance between what needs to be said and
what may be assumed. The writer’s problem is not just being explicit; the
writer’s problem is knowing what to be explicit about.
(Nystrand et al., 1986: 81)

However, focusing exclusively on formal features of texts as a measure of

writing competence ignores how texts are the writer’s response to a particular
communicative setting. Written texts cannot be autonomous precisely
because they respond to a particular situation, including a relationship
between the writer and reader, and display that situation in their pages.

Quote 1.2 Brandt on Autonomous Texts

Identifying the mode of a text or enumerating its T-unit length or the
density and range of its cohesive devices may lend insights into the
structure of written texts, however, it can describe only one or another
static outcome of the writer’s dynamic and complex effort to make
meaning. Yet the finished text need not be abandoned in our pursuit to
6 Understanding Writing

understand the composing act—not, that is, if we shift our focus from
the formal features of an isolated text toward the whole text as an
instance of language functioning in a context of human activity.
(Brandt ,1986: 93)

Modem perspectives, then, point out that an autonomous view of texts fails
to take account of the beliefs and knowledge writers assume readers will draw
on in reading their texts. Even legal contracts, which are the most explicit of
genres, are open to multiple interpretations and endless disputes by lawyers.
Similarly, the apparently unambiguous and impersonal surface of academic
articles draws on readers’ presumed background knowledge. Through techni-
cal jargon, references to other research and assumed familiarity with particular
ways of constructing arguments, writers work to establish a coherent context
which will persuade a particular community of readers (e.g. Bazerman, 1988;
Hyland, 2004a). In sum, inferences are always involved in recovering mean-
ings: no text can be both coherent and context-free.

1.1.2 Texts as Discourse

While an autonomous model views texts as forms which can be analysed
independently of any real-life uses, another way of seeing writing as a
physical thing looks beyond surface structures to see texts as discourse—
the way we use language to communicate, to achieve purposes in parti-
cular situations. Here the writer is seen as having certain goals and inten-
tions, and the ways we write are resources to accomplish these. So instead
of forms being disembodied, independent of contexts, a discourse
approach sees them as located in social actions. Teachers following this
line therefore aim to identify the ways that texts actually work as com-
munication by linking language forms to purposes and contexts.

Concept 1.3 Discourse

Discourse refers to language in action, and to the purposes and functions
linguistic forms serve in communication. Here the patterns of language
in a text point to contexts beyond the page, indicating a range of social
constraints and options which influence writers in any context. The
writer has certain goals and intentions, certain relationships to his or her
readers, and certain information to convey, and the forms selected in a
text are the ways the writer believes can best accomplish these. Thinking
about these factors draws the analyst into a wider perspective which
considers the context: locating texts in a world of communicative pur-
poses and social action to understand how texts work as communication.
 An Overview of Writing 7
A variety of approaches have considered texts as discourse, but all have
tried to discover how writers organise language to produce coherent,
purposeful prose. An early contribution was the ‘functional sentence
perspective’ of the Prague School, which sought to describe how we
structure text to represent our assumptions about what is known (given)
or new to the reader (e.g. Firbas, 1986). This was taken up and developed
in the work of Halliday (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) in the con-
cept of theme–rheme structure. Roughly, theme is what the writer is
talking about and rheme is what he or she is saying about it: the part of
the message that the writer considers important. Theme and rheme help
writers organise clauses into information units that push the commu-
nication forward through a text and make it easy for readers to follow.
This is because we expect old information to come first as a context for
the new information that follows, so breaking this pattern can be con-
fusing. Like here:

(1) Non-verbal communication is traditionally divided into para-

language, proxemics, body language and haptics. Paralanguage refers
to the nonverbal vocal signs that accompany speech. Proxemics con-
cerns physical distance and orientation. Body language describes
expression, posture and gesture. The study of touch is called haptics.

We can see that the writer sets up a pattern in which the rheme of the first
sentence becomes the themes of the next three, clearly signposting the
progression. We feel comfortable about reading this until we reach the last
sentence where the theme breaks the sequence, surprising us and disturb-
ing our processing of the text.
A different strand of research has tried to identify how writers organise
stretches of texts to help readers see the unfolding purpose of their mes-
sage. What are pieces of text trying to do and how do they fit into a larger
structure? Winter (1977) and Hoey (1983), for example, distinguish several
text patterns which they label problem-solution, hypothetical-real and gen-
eral-particular. They show that even without explicit signalling, readers
can draw on their knowledge of familiar text patterns to infer the connec-
tions between clauses, sentences or longer passages of text. For example,
we all have a strong expectation of how a story will proceed; we anticipate
a problem-solution pattern where, following a context introducing the
participants and situation (Cinderella is a downtrodden girl bullied by her
sisters), we anticipate a problem will arise for the participants to solve (she
can’t go to the ball), then we look for a response to the problem (the fairy
godmother works some magic) and finally an evaluation whether the
response worked (she goes to the ball and marries the prince). This pro-
blem-solution pattern is found in other genres too, such as the conference
abstract in Concept 1.4.
8 Understanding Writing

Concept 1.4 Problem-Solution Pattern

1 Situation: We now accept that grammar is not restricted to
writing but is present in speech.
2 Problem: This can lead to assumptions that there is one kind of
grammar for writing and one for speech.
3 Response: A large-scale corpus survey of English has been
undertaken.
4 Evaluation of response: Results show the same system is valid for
both writing and speech.
(Example based on a conference abstract)

These descriptions lead us to the idea that we probably draw on shared

assumptions to account for what we recognise as connected text. That is to
say, part of what makes writing coherent lies in our background knowl-
edge and interpretive abilities rather than in the text. One model of how
we do this suggests that readers call on their conventionalised knowledge
to impose a coherent frame on a message. We interpret discourse by
comparison with our earlier experiences, which are organised in our heads
as scripts or schemata (e.g. Schank & Abelson, 1977). Thus, we carry
around stereotypical understandings which we use as scaffolding to inter-
pret the texts we encounter every day, allowing us to read texts as diverse
as detective thrillers and tweets.
A second approach to how we are able to follow texts is based on
philosophical pragmatics rather than cognitive psychology. This pro-
poses that writers try to create texts which are as relevant to readers as
possible, and that readers anticipate this when trying to recover mean-
ing. This approach originates with Grice’s (1975) principles of con-
versational inference, which explain successful communication in terms
of interactants’ mutual assumptions of rationality and cooperation.
Building on this idea, Sperber and Wilson (1986) argue that readers
construct meanings by comparing the information they find in a text
with what they already know about the context. This helps them
to establish meanings that are relevant. In other words, when we read,
we assume that the writer is being cooperative by thinking of what we
need to fully understand what is going on, and so we look for ways
of interpreting what we read as relevant to the ongoing discourse in
some way.
In these theories, interpretation depends on the ability of readers to
supply the needed assumptions from memory, but the construction of
meaning from texts is a rhetorical and not just a cognitive process, as
suggested by Kramsch (1997) in Quote 1.3.
 An Overview of Writing 9

Quote 1.3 A Rhetorical Approach to Text Interpretation

1 Texts both refer to a reality beyond themselves and a relationship to
their readers.
2 The meaning of texts is inseparable from surrounding texts, whether
footnotes, diagrams or conversations. Intertextuality refers to the
extent our texts echo other texts.
3 Texts attempt to position readers in specific ways by evoking
assumed shared schemata.
4 Schemata are created by relating one text or fact to another through
logical links.
5 Schemata reflect the ways of thinking of particular communities or
cultures.
6 Schemata are co-constructed by the writer in dialogue with others.
7 Schemata are rhetorical constructions, representing the choices
from other potential meanings.
(Kramsch, 1997: 51–2)

Forms express functions and these vary according to context. This is a

central notion of discourse analysis and underpins the key notion of genre
(Concept 1.5).

Concept 1.5 Genre

Genres are abstract, socially recognised ways of using language. It is a
term for grouping texts together, representing how writers typically use
language to respond to recurring situations. Every genre has a number
of features which make it different to other genres: each has a specific
purpose, an overall structure, specific linguistic features, and is shared
by members of a culture. For many people it is an intuitively attractive
concept which helps to organise the common-sense labels we use to
categorise texts and the situations in which they occur.

The concept of genre is based on the idea that members of a community

usually have little difficulty in recognising similarities in the texts they use fre-
quently and can draw on these repeated experiences with such texts to read,
understand and perhaps write them relatively easily. This is, in part, because
writing is a practice based on expectations: the reader’s chances of interpreting
the writer’s meanings and purpose are increased if the writer takes the trouble
to anticipate what the reader might be expecting based on previous texts he or
she has read of the same kind. We know immediately, for example, whether a
text is a recipe, a joke or a love letter, and we can respond to it and perhaps
write a similar one if we need to. We all have a repertoire of these responses we
10 Understanding Writing
can call on to communicate in familiar situations, and we learn new ones as we
need them. Thus, teachers, for example, come to develop expertise in writing
lesson plans, class tests and student reports.
Genres encourage us to look for organisational patterns, such as the pro-
blem-solution structure I mentioned above. These patterns show how texts are
written to achieve a particular purpose, and we find such patterns in even the
most apparently personal kinds of writing, such as the acknowledgements in
the opening pages of a student dissertation. The acknowledgements in 240
dissertations written by PhD and MA students in Hong Kong, for example,
showed a three-move structure consisting of a main Thanking Move sand-
wiched between optional Reflecting and Announcing Moves (Hyland, 2004b).
As shown in Concept 1.6, the writer typically begins with a brief intro-
spection on his or her research experience, and this is followed by the main
Thanking Move, where credit is given to individuals and institutions for
help with the dissertation, and this can consist of up to four steps. The first
step is a sentence introducing those to be thanked, followed by thanks for
academic help. This was the only step that occurred in every single text,
and supervisors were always mentioned and always before anyone else.
Next there is thanks for providing resources such as clerical, technical and
financial help, and then thanks for moral support from family and friends
for encouragement, friendship, etc. The final Announcing Move is rare,
but here writers take responsibility and ownership of the thesis to claim it
is theirs and not that of those they have thanked.

Concept 1.6 Dissertation Acknowledgements

Move Example
1 Reflecting Move The most rewarding achievement in my life, as I
approach middle age, is the completion of my doctoral
dissertation.
2 Thanking Move
2.1 Presenting During the time of writing I received support and help
participants from many people.
2.2 Thanks for I am profoundly indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Robert
academic help Chau who assisted me in each step to complete the
thesis.
2.3 Thanks for I am grateful to The Epsom Foundation whose research
resources travel grant made the field work possible and to the
library staff who tracked down elusive texts for me.
2.4 Thanks for Finally, thanks go to my wife who has been an impor-
moral support tant source of emotional support.
3 Announcing Move However, despite all this help, I am the only person
responsible for errors in the thesis.
 An Overview of Writing 11
The analysis showed this structure was common in almost all the
acknowledgements, and that where steps occurred, they did so in this
sequence. It also showed that, of the many ways of expressing thanks (I
am grateful to, I appreciate, I want to thank, etc.), the noun thanks was
used in over half of all cases, and this was modified by only three adjec-
tives: special, sincere and deep, with special comprising over two-thirds of
all cases. Writers also always stated the reason for thanking the person, as
in these examples:

(2) First of all, special thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Franco Lin, for
his consistent and never-failing encouragement, support and help.
My special gratitude goes to my family who made it possible for me
to embark on writing a PhD thesis at all.
I should also thank my wife, Su Meng, who spent days and nights
alone with our daughter taking care of all the tasks that should have
been shared with me.

This suggests that writers address not only the people they acknowledge,
who obviously know the help they give, but a wider audience which
sometimes includes examiners. In this way they are able to represent
themselves as good researchers and real human beings deserving of the
degree. Examining specific genres by studying patterns and recurring fea-
tures, therefore, tells us a lot about what writers are trying to achieve and
the language they are using to do it.
We cannot, however, assume that a particular text will always rigidly
observe a given genre structure. Often analyses show that moves overlap or
occur out of sequence, and there is frequently less uniformity than might
be expected. This is partly because writers make different choices about
what to include and partly because local communities may have specific
uses that override common structures. Moreover, the same genre can look
very different in different communities or when written in different lan-
guages, while a report in chemistry will look very different from one in
economics or engineering.
There is also the danger that our genre descriptions might oversimplify
a more complex reality, particularly if we ignore that writers may have
indirect purposes, or what Bhatia (2004) calls ‘private intentions’, in
addition to ‘socially recognised’ ones. Analysts also need to be cautious
about imposing their intuitions on the structure of the text. To avoid this,
our studies need to say how moves are linguistically signalled or ask text
users for their ideas. Analysts have therefore attempted to show how par-
ticular language features cluster together in texts, or parts of texts. Thus
research shows how lexical bundles like as a result of, it should be noted
that and as can be seen help identify a text as belonging to an academic
genre, while with regard to, in pursuance of and in accordance with are
likely to mark out a legal text (Hyland, 2008a).
12 Understanding Writing
Other genre variations are the result of interdiscursivity, or importing
conventions from other genres into a text. We can see this in the increasing
intrusion of promotional or advertising elements into genres often con-
sidered ‘neutral’, such as job announcements which advertise the hiring
company and the ‘synthetic personalisation’ of formal public genres, such
as business letters which address us as close friends (Fairclough, 1995).
Mixing genres in this way blurs clear distinctions between genres, thus
creating blends such as infotainment, advertorial and docudrama. Ulti-
mately, however, genres are the ways that we engage in, and make sense of,
our social worlds, and our competence to use them does not lie in our
ability to identify monolithic uses of language, but to modify our choices
according to the contexts in which we write.

1.2 Writer-Oriented Understandings

The second broad approach takes the writer, rather than the text, as the
point of departure. The opening theories in this section contribute to the
hugely influential process movement and ask what it is that good writers
do when composing so they can help learners acquire these skills. The
third takes the immediate social context of the writing more seriously and
the fourth, a more recent development, encourages L2 learners to see their
L1 as a strategic and creative choice in writing. These writer-centred
understandings focus on:

1 the personal creativity of the individual writer;

2 the cognitive processes of writing;
3 the writer’s immediate context;
4 the writer’s translingual repertoire.

1.2.1 Writing as Personal Expression

Concept 1.7 The Expressivist View of Writing

Originating with the work of Elbow (1998), Murray (1985) and
others, this view encourages writers to find their own voices to pro-
duce writing that is fresh and spontaneous. There is an underlying
assumption that thinking precedes writing, and that the free expres-
sion of ideas can encourage self-discovery and cognitive maturation.
Writing development and personal development are seen as symbio-
tically interwoven to the extent that “good therapy and composition
aim at clear thinking, effective relating, and satisfying self-expres-
sion” (Moffett, 1982: 235).
 An Overview of Writing 13
The Expressivist view strongly resists a narrow definition of writing based
on notions of correct grammar and usage. Instead, it sees writing as a
creative act of discovery in which the process is as important as the pro-
duct to the writer. Writing is learnt, not taught, and the teacher’s role is to
be non-directive and enabling, providing writers with the space to make
their own meanings through an encouraging, positive and cooperative
environment with minimal interference. Because writing is a develop-
mental process, teachers are encouraged not to impose their views, give
models or suggest responses to topics beforehand. On the contrary, they
are urged to stimulate the writer’s thinking through pre-writing tasks, such
as journal-writing and analogies (Elbow, 1998), and to respond to the
ideas that the writer produces. This, then, is writing as self-discovery.

Quote 1.4 Rohman on ‘Good Writing’

‘Good writing’ is that discovered combination of words which allows a
person the integrity to dominate his subject with a pattern both fresh and
original. ‘Bad writing’, then, is an echo of someone else’s combination
which we have merely taken over for the occasion of our writing …‘Good
writing’ must be the discovery by a responsible person of his uniqueness
within his subject.
(Rohman, 1965: 107–8)

Unfortunately, as North (1987) points out, this ‘hands-off’ approach

offers no clear theoretical principles from which to evaluate ‘good writing’
nor does it furnish advice that can help accomplish it. This is because
good writing, for Expressivists, does not reflect the application of rules but
flows from the writer’s free imagination.
The Expressivist manifesto, as Faigley (1986) observes, is essentially a
Romantic one. It promotes vague goals of ‘self-actualisation’ and even vaguer
definitions of good writing which depend on subjective, hazy and culturally
variable concepts such as originality, integrity and spontaneity. This, then, is
the extreme learner-centred stance. The writer is the centre of attention, and
his or her creative expression is the principal goal. Unfortunately, the basic
assumption is naïve: not all writers have similar innate intellectual and crea-
tive potential and just need the right conditions to express themselves effec-
tively. Essentially the approach is seriously under-theorised and leans heavily
on an asocial view of the writer, operating in a context where there are no
cultural differences in the value of ‘self-expression’, no variations in personal
inhibition, few distinctions in the writing processes of mature and novice
writers, and no social consequences of writing.
While Expressivism has helped to move writing teaching and research
away from a restricted attention to form, it ignores communication in the
14 Understanding Writing
real-world contexts where writing matters. But despite its limitations, the
Expressivist approach is still influential in many U.S. first-language class-
rooms and underpins courses in creative writing. It has also helped inspire
research to support a cognitive view of writing.

1.2.2 Writing as a Cognitive Process

Interest in writers’ composing processes has been extended beyond notions
of creativity and self-expression to focus on the cognitivist view of writing.
This is a very different view of process, as it draws on the techniques and
theories of cognitive psychology and not literary creativity. Essentially it
sees writing as a problem-solving activity: how writers approach a writing
task as a problem and bring intellectual resources to solving it. This view
of writing has developed a range of sophisticated investigative methods,
generated an enormous body of research and was, until recently, the
dominant approach to teaching writing in the United States.

Concept 1.8 The Writing Process

At the heart of this model is the view that writing is a ‘non-linear,
exploratory and generative process whereby writers discover and
reformulate their ideas as they attempt to approximate meaning’
(Zamel, 1983: 165). Following Emig’s (1983) description of compos-
ing as ‘recursive’ rather than as an uninterrupted, Pre-writing-
>Writing->Post-writing activity, a great deal of research has revealed
the complexity of planning and editing activities, the influence of
different writing tasks and the value of examining what writers do
through a series of writing drafts. Investigating case studies and
analysing think-aloud protocols, rather than just texts themselves, are
widely used as research methods to get at these processes.

Flower and Hayes’ (1981) model was extremely influential. It suggested

that the process of writing is influenced by the task and the writer’s
memory. Its main assumptions are that:

 Writers have goals.

 Writers plan extensively.
 Planning involves defining a rhetorical problem, placing it in a con-
text, then exploring its parts, arriving at solutions and finally trans-
lating ideas onto the page.
 All work can be reviewed, evaluated and revised even before any text
has been produced.
 Planning, drafting, revising and editing are recursive, interactive and
potentially simultaneous.
 An Overview of Writing 15
 Plans and text are constantly evaluated in a feedback loop.
 The whole process is overseen by an executive control called a
monitor.

This, then, is a computer model typical of theorising in cognitive psy-

chology and Artificial Intelligence, giving priority to mechanisms such as
memory, Central Processing Unit, problem-solving programmes and flow-
charts. A well-known version of such a flow-chart is shown in Figure 1.1.
Faigley (1986) points out that the Flower and Hayes model helped to
promote a ‘science-consciousness’ among writing teachers which promised
a ‘deep-structure’ theory of how writing could be taught. The beauty of
the model is its simplicity, as the wide range of mental activities which
may occur during composing can be explained by a fairly small number of
sub-processes. The model also purports to account for individual differ-
ences in writing strategies, so immature writers can be represented as using
a composing model that is a reduced version of that used by experts and
so guided towards greater competence by instruction in expert strategies.

Figure 1.1 A (simplified) model of process writing instruction

16 Understanding Writing
The process approach to teaching writing was assisted by the increasing
availability and affordability of personal computers in the early 1980s.
Word processing was not just a new form of typing but a different way of
manipulating texts, making it easier to re-draft, revise and edit. Teachers
were quick to see the pedagogical possibilities of this, encouraging stu-
dents away from a fixation on local editing and towards block text cut and
paste and split screen functions which encourage more global editing. In
discussing this approach to teaching, Bloch (2008: 52) observed: ‘The ease
with which one could make changes or incorporate new ideas made it
clear how all of these aspects of the writing process were now integrated.’
The impact on research and teaching has been enormous, and we now
know much more about composing processes. Process approaches also
extended research techniques beyond experimental methods and text ana-
lyses to the qualitative methods of the social sciences, often seeking to
describe writing from an emic perspective by taking account of the views
of writers and readers themselves through retrospective interviews (e.g.
Ha, 2017) and writers’ verbal reports while composing (e.g. Yang, 2016).
These techniques have been supplemented in recent years with technolo-
gical advances and the use of keystroke logging (e.g. Lindgren & Sullivan,
2019) and eye tracking (e.g. Conklin et al., 2018) during writing. Often
research is longitudinal, following a few students over an extended period
of their writing development (e.g. Zhang & Hyland, 2018) and uses mul-
tiple techniques which may include recall protocols and product analyses
of several drafts.
Overall, however, the extension of this research into studies of L2 wri-
ters has been disappointing. Many teachers will find little that is surprising
in the findings of process writing studies summarised in Concept 1.9, and
the research generally supports our intuitions about the practices of skilled
and unskilled writers. Even less encouraging for teachers is the fact that
different studies often produce contradictory findings, often because they
are limited to small samples of writers in a particular context and so lack
generalisability to wider populations of writers. Moreover, despite the
massive output of this research, serious doubts have been raised about the
methods used to reveal the cognitive processes of writing.

Concept 1.9 Process Findings of L2 Writing

Silva (1993) summarises the main results of research into composing
practices as:

 General composing process patterns seem to be similar in L1

and L2.
 Skilled writers compose differently from novices.
 Skilled writers use more effective planning and revising strategies.
 An Overview of Writing 17

 Skilled writers revise more at the global level while L2 writers

focus on revisions at word and sentence levels.
 L1 strategies may or may not be transferred to L2 contexts.
 L2 writers tend to plan less than L1 writers.
 L2 writers have more difficulty setting goals and generating
material.
 L2 writers revise more but reflect less on their writing.

One serious problem is that these results often rely on concurrent think-
aloud protocols, a method where researchers ask writers to report their
thoughts and actions while writing. Thus, Li (2006) and Leighton and Gierl
(2007), for example, argue that protocols provide a detailed record of what
a writer attends to when he or she is writing. But the method has been cri-
ticised as offering an incomplete picture of the complex cognitive activities
involved in writing, many of which are unconscious and not available to
verbal description. In addition, asking subjects to simultaneously write and
verbalise what they are doing slows down task performance by overloading
short-term memory or what Afflerbach and Johnson (1984: 311) call
‘crowding the cognitive workbench’. Things may even be worse than this as
the act of reporting itself may be just a story that participants construct to
explain, rather than reflect, what they do, potentially distorting the thought
processes they are reporting on.
Reservations have also been expressed about the writing models them-
selves. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1986), for example, argue that such
models do not represent fully worked-out theories and fail to either explain
or generate writing behaviour. The models do not tell us why writers make
certain choices and therefore cannot help us to advise students on how to
write better. In fact, Flower and Hayes’ original model was too imprecise to
predict the behaviour of real writers or to carry the weight of the research
claims based on it. In subsequent work they have emphasised the impor-
tance of appropriate goal-setting and rhetorical strategies far more (Flower
et al., 1990). But such refinements cannot obscure the weaknesses of a
model which seeks to describe cognitive processes common to all writers,
both novice and expert, and all learners in between these poles.
Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) suggest that because skilled and novice
practices differ so radically, we need two models to account for the
research findings (see Concept 1.10).

Concept 1.10 Knowledge Telling and Knowledge Transforming

A knowledge telling model addresses the fact that novice writers plan
less often than experts, revise less often and less extensively, and are
primarily concerned with generating content from their internal
18 Understanding Writing

resources. Their main goal is simply to tell what they can remember
based on the assignment, the topic, or the genre.
Acknowledge transforming model, in contrast, suggests how skilled
writers use the writing task to analyse problems and set goals. These
writers are able to reflect on the complexities of the task and resolve
problems of content, form, audience, style, organisation, and so on
within a content space and a rhetorical space, so that there is con-
tinuous interaction between developing knowledge and text. Knowl-
edge transforming thus involves actively reworking thoughts so that
in the process not only text, but also ideas, may be changed.
(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987)

Bereiter and Scardamalia’s model certainly adds psychological insight to

writing activity and helps explain the difficulties often experienced by
unskilled writers because of the complexity of the writing task and their
lack of topic knowledge. It also helps account for reflective thought in
writing, and therefore suggests that students should participate in a variety
of writing tasks and genres to develop their skills. It also draws attention
to the importance of feedback and revision in the process of developing
both content and expression. It remains unclear, however, how writers
actually make the cognitive transition to a knowledge-transforming model,
nor is it spelt out what occurs in the intervening stages and whether the
process is the same for all learners. Many students, for example, continue
to have considerable difficulty with their writing despite years of intensive
teaching in expert strategies.

Concept 1.11 Main Pros and Cons of Process Approaches

Pros
 Major impact on the theory and methodology of teaching writ-
ing to L1 and L2 students.
 A useful corrective to preoccupations with ‘product’ and student
accuracy.
 Important in raising teachers’ awareness of what writing
involves—contributing to a professionalisation of writing teaching.
 Gives greater respect for individual differences among student
writers.
 Stimulates considerable research into the ways students write in
different contexts.
 Raises many new research questions which remain to be answered.
 An Overview of Writing 19

Cons
 Overemphasises psychological factors in writing.
 Focuses on the writer as a solitary individual and fails to recog-
nise social aspects of writing.
 Based on individualistic ideologies which may hamper the
development of English as a Second Language (ESL) students.
 Ignores important influences of context, especially differences of
class, gender and ethnicity.
 Downplays the varied conventions of professional and academic
communities.
 Uncertain whether this approach greatly improves student writing.

The impact of process ideas on writing instruction has been enormous, in

both L1 and L2 classrooms, with the adoption of a range of brainstorming, pre-
writing, drafting and feedback practices (see Chapter 7, Section 7.2). But while
there is a great deal of case-study and anecdotal support for this model, there is
actually little hard evidence that process-writing techniques lead to significantly
better writing. Writers, situations and tasks differ, and no single description can
capture all writing contexts or be applied universally with the same results.
In sum, the process-writing perspective allows us to understand writing
in a way that was not possible when it was seen only as a finished product.
It does, however, overemphasise psychological factors and fails to consider
the forces outside the individual which help guide problem-definition,
frame solutions and ultimately shape writing.

1.2.3 Writing as a Situated Act

A third writer-oriented perspective goes some way to addressing the criti-
cisms levelled at cognitive modelling by giving greater emphasis to the
actual performance of writing.

Concept 1.12 Writing as a Situated Act

Writing is a social act that occurs within a particular situation. It is
therefore influenced both by the personal attitudes and prior experiences
that the writer brings to writing and the impact of the specific political
and institutional contexts in which it takes place. By using the situationist
view, i.e. detailed observations of acts of writing, participant interviews,
analyses of surrounding practices and other techniques, researchers have
developed interesting accounts of local writing contexts. These descrip-
tions give significant attention to the experiences of writers and to their
understandings of the demands of the immediate context as they write.
20 Understanding Writing
Less a single theory than several lines of enquiry, this research incor-
porates the writer’s prior experiences and the impact of the immediate,
local context on writing, and it has had an important influence both on
the ways we see writing and on how it might be studied. This perspective
takes us beyond the possible workings of writers’ minds and into the phy-
sical and experiential contexts in which writing occurs to describe how
‘context cues cognition’ (Flower, 1989). Of crucial importance is the
emphasis placed on a notion of context as the ‘situation of expression’
(Nystrand, 1987). Flower (1989: 288) describes this as the effects of prior
knowledge, assumptions and expectations, together with features of the
writing environment, which selectively tap knowledge and trigger specific
processes. The goal is to describe the influence of this context on the ways
writers represent their purposes and so studies seek to analyse, often in
considerable detail, how writing is created as a feature of local situations.

Quote 1.5 Prior on Situated Writing

Actually, writing happens in moments that are richly equipped with tools
(material and semiotic) and populated with others (past, present and
future). When seen as situated activity, writing does not stand alone as
the discrete act of a writer, but emerges as a confluence of many
streams of activity: reading, talking, observing, acting, making, thinking
and feeling as well as transcribing words on paper.
(Prior, 1998: xi)

To accomplish such exhaustive or ‘thick’ descriptions (Geertz, 1973) of

writing contexts, researchers have relied heavily on ethnographic methods.
The term ‘ethnography’ remains somewhat fuzzy and contested, but it
essentially refers to research which is highly situated and minutely
detailed, attempting to give an holistic explanation of behaviour using a
variety of methods and drawing on the understandings of insiders them-
selves to minimise the assumptions brought to the event by the researcher
(Watson-Gegeo, 1988; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999b). Applying this
method to an understanding of how and why people write involves
detailed observations of the setting, such as a classroom, and the writing
that occurs within it over a period of time, without interfering with either
the writers or the writing context.

Concept 1.13 Ethnographic Research

Ethnography is a type of research which attempts to make sense of
events in terms of the meanings people bring to them. The key features
include studying people’s behaviour in everyday rather than experimental
 An Overview of Writing 21

settings and gathering data from a range of sources, mainly observation

and relatively informal interviews, that are not based on pre-set cate-
gories or hypotheses but which arise out of an interest in an issue.
Research is typically small in scale, focused on a single setting or group
and involves prolonged engagement by the researcher.

In addition to close examination of interactions, data are also typically

collected through interviews with participants about their writing and
relevant biographical issues, together with analyses of diaries and other
written texts (e.g. Pigg et al., 2014). Course books, handouts, course out-
lines, and so on are also often studied, as are student writing itself and
teachers’ responses to this. Sometimes the researcher participates in the
class and follows students around to observe their daily activities and gain
insights into the contexts and practices which might illuminate the writing
process (Lillis, 2008; Starfield, 2015).
Ethnography, however, is not a term that everyone feels comfortable
with. Its origins in anthropology carry connotations of the researcher’s
total immersion in another culture rather than simply an attitude towards
research. The fact it involves multiple methods and sustained engagement
with a context means it is labour-intensive and time-consuming, demand-
ing considerable know-how and resources (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). As
a result, it is not a methodology much used by teachers. Because of this,
John Swales’ (2018) coining of the term textography in his case studies of
particular writing contexts and discipline-specific texts in a university
building has offered a more manageable way of exploring the richness of
writing contexts while avoiding a full cultural description (see also Star-
field et al., 2014).

Quote 1.6 Swales on Textography

As textographer of the second floor I have tried to do justice to a number
of themes that have emerged over a three-year involvement with its
practices, rhythms, texts and personalities. One is a sense of locale, a
sense of autonomous place … Juxtaposed to that, I have tried to capture
a feeling of the academic personalities, and especially the scriptural
personalities, of those I have chosen for inclusion … And juxtaposed to
the partial accounts of careers that a textography engenders, the use of
close, but nontechnical, analysis of particular stretches of text, illumi-
nated on occasion by text-based interview data, shows how the lan-
guage of normal science can … reveal the individual humanities of the
authors.
(Swales, 2018: 141–2)
22 Understanding Writing
The features of local setting that have particularly interested ‘situated’
researchers have been the roles individual writers perform and how wri-
ters’ interactions with others feed into the writing task, especially in col-
laborative contexts. Contexts are sites for interactions. They are places
where relationships, and the conventions which organise them, can both
assist and constrain writing. The social routines surrounding acts of writ-
ing have therefore been studied in detail (e.g. Storch, 2005) and attention
given to certain tangible features of the local environment which have
meaning for writers. Thus, Chin (1994) has shown how students on a
journalism course saw the use of physical space in their department as
barriers which excluded them and restricted access to the material resour-
ces they needed for writing. Similarly, (Handuleh, 2013) discusses how he,
as a scholar in Somalia, struggles to publish academic papers in the
absence of resources like libraries and computers and grant funding.
There is little doubt that this research has produced rich, detailed descrip-
tions of particular contexts of writing, greatly expanding our understanding
of the personal, social and institutional factors which can impinge on writing.
One problem, of course, is that while these methods might illuminate what
goes on in a particular act of writing, they cannot describe everything in
either the writer’s consciousness or the context which might influence com-
position, so we can never be certain that all critical factors have been
accounted for. More importantly, this approach runs the risk of emphasising
writers’ perceptions and the possible impact of the local situation to the det-
riment of the rhetorical problems to which writing responds. In other words,
by focusing on the context of production, we might be neglecting the effects
of the wider social and institutional orders of discourse which influence wri-
ters’ intentions and plans for writing.
One potential impact of such wider social worlds is the experiences writers
might bring to the classroom as a consequence of prior negative evaluation of
their writing. Social inequalities of power, educational and home back-
grounds, and so on can result in what has been called writing apprehension
(Faigley et al., 1981), where individuals experience high degrees of anxiety
when asked to write. This apprehensiveness about oneself as a writer, one’s
writing situation, or one’s writing task can seriously disrupt the writing pro-
cess and educational success. The term is used to describe writers who are
intellectually capable of the task at hand, but who nevertheless have difficulty
with it (e.g. Sanders-Reio et al., 2014), feeling their writing isn’t sufficiently
creative, interesting, sophisticated or well expressed. This can result in stu-
dents avoiding courses or careers which involve writing, feelings of low self-
esteem and confidence, or the production of poor texts.

1.2.4 Writing as a Translingual Activity

A final writer-oriented perspective regards L2 writers as agents with the
resources to use their language(s) successfully across diverse norms in
 An Overview of Writing 23
response to specific contexts. It is a view which sees writing as fluid and
not bound by the conventions of a single language, encouraging the
writer to bring his or her various languages to the act of writing
(Canagarajah, 2013a). Translingualism, then, is a theoretical perspec-
tive on writing which respects linguistic variations that reflect a writer’s
multiple identities.

Concept 1.14 Translingualism

Translingualism rejects a monolingual orientation to writing which
assumes that effective communication requires the use of a common
language with shared norms. Instead it advocates that in mono-
lingual settings writers should ‘use strategies that go beyond com-
municative competence in any given language’ (Canagarajah, 2013a)
by drawing on the repertoire of the languages they can use.

Translingual writing is therefore a particular view of how language, and

writing, are conceptualised, studied and taught, emphasising writer agency
and privileging multiple languages as resources in negotiating meaning
and identity. Writers are encouraged to attempt to embrace the diverse
world in which we live by combining their native language with standard
English to communicate with a broad audience. Supporters celebrate the
creative and strategic ways in which individuals can draw on what they
know of different languages as they write. Strategies such as repurposing
English sound–symbol correspondences in spelling and composing using
strings of non-Roman symbols are seen as ways of expressing individuality
and identity. Essentially, then, this is a political position which advocates
that writers have a right to their own language and should be allowed to
use different varieties of English, rejecting the view that use of a non-
standard English is defective.
Translingualism is therefore a highly individualistic model, embedded
in ideals of inclusivity and celebrating an ideology of American indivi-
dualism where linguistic standardisation risks discriminating against
minorities. It is, however, a position, largely confined to scholars in
North America and has failed to find its way beyond those borders.
Second language writing teachers and theorists in the United States are
confronted by considerable linguistic diversity among their students and
translingual theories have emerged as a means of understanding and
assisting these students to express themselves with pride and respect for
their identities. Ebonics, i.e. black English regarded as a language in its
own right rather than as a dialect of standard English, is widely spoken
in urban America and has made its way into student writing in schools,
despite controversy.
24 Understanding Writing

Quote 1.7 Horner et al. on Translingual Writing

We call for a new paradigm: a translingual approach. This approach sees
difference in language not as a barrier to overcome or as a problem to
manage, but as a resource for producing meaning in writing, speaking,
reading, and listening. When faced with difference in language, this
approach asks: What might this difference do? How might it function
expressively, rhetorically, communicatively? For whom, under what con-
ditions, and how? The possibility of writer error is reserved as an inter-
pretation of last resort.
(Horner et al., 2011)

There are doubtless numerous reasons why this model has not generated
similar enthusiasm among teachers elsewhere, but having taught in EFL
situations in both schools and universities for 40 years, I cannot remember
ever having met a student who did not want to write with as much control
over a standard English as they could achieve. Students in these contexts
are often learning English for instrumental reasons, to pass the exams that
will admit them to universities or professions and to further their careers.
They are not generally seeking to reach a broad audience or communicate
an identity, which they can perfectly well express in their L1. So, for them,
what Canagarajah (2011) calls ‘code-meshing’, or combining local, verna-
cular and colloquial languages with standard English, is less important in
formal assignments than trying to reach and convince a scholarly audi-
ence. The inclusion of multiple literacies in the classroom can certainly
help create a positive learning environment, but writing in this way does
not promote ‘agency’ or change the dominant social structure. It serves to
restrict access to opportunity and perpetuate inequalities, marking such
writers as failing to master the means of communication most valued in
academia and society (e.g. Miller, 2005).
There also seems to be a serious misapprehension about the nature of
L2 writing by many translingual theorists. A number of leading L2 writing
specialists in the United States, for example, are alarmed at a growing
‘tendency to conflate L2 writing and translingual writing and view the
latter as a replacement for or improved version of L2 writing’ (Atkinson et
al., 2015). One serious problem is that translingual theorists position
second language writing instruction as discriminatory and its classrooms
as sites of forced linguistic homogenisation where grammar and genre are
taught with little tolerance of linguistic variation. While many second
language writing classrooms expose students to valued genres and the
ways these are typically realised, this is often done recognising that these
are plans not moulds and the sensitivity to acknowledge that form and
 An Overview of Writing 25
genre varies across contexts (e.g. Tardy, 2009; Halliday & Matthiessen,
2014). Williams and Condon (2016), however, see possibilities for a fruitful
alliance between translingualism and second language writing if these
negative views could be ironed out.
The agenda of translingualism proponents is clearly a noble one. their
desire to pluralise writing assignments clearly values students’ own lan-
guages, and code meshing the students’ preferred local dialect with Stan-
dard Written English may eventually reform society’s expectations of how
formal assignments can be written. However, this is an experiment which
risks students’ life chances as the ability to express personal identity and
merge multiple literacies is not likely to be the most direct way to achieve
upward mobility. So while translingualism is an apparently ‘writer-centred’
orientation to instruction, teachers might ask themselves if this is the best
way they can serve their students’ interests.
Overall, then, all these perspectives which focus on writers lack a
developed theory of the ways experience is created and interpreted in
social communities, underplaying the workings of wider factors by
ignoring audience response. As a result, they fail to move beyond the
local context to take full account of how an evolving text might be a
writer’s response to a reader’s expectations. This neglect of the social
dimension of writing encourages serious consideration of more socially
situated approaches.

1.3 Reader-Oriented Understandings

A final broad approach expands the notion of context beyond features of
the composing situation to the purposes, goals and uses that the com-
pleted text may eventually fulfil. The perspectives discussed in this sec-
tion share the view that writers select their words to engage with others
and to present their ideas in ways that make the most sense to their
readers. This involves what Halliday and Mathieson (2014) refer to as the
interpersonal function of language, and it is encoded in every sentence we
write. Our ability as writers to draw readers in, influence or persuade
them depends on making language choices which are not only gramma-
tical, but which are organised in ways familiar to readers and which
show we are taking their processing needs, background understandings
and possible objections into account. Thus, writing is an interactive, as
well as cognitive, activity which employs accepted resources for the pur-
pose of sharing meanings in that context. I will discuss this social view
under three headings:

 writing as social interaction

 writing as social construction
 writing as power and ideology.
26 Understanding Writing
1.3.1 Writing as Social Interaction
‘Writing, when properly managed, is but a different name for conversa-
tion.’ This was written some 250 years ago by Laurence Stern in The Life
and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman (1883). The idea that writing
is an interaction between writers and readers moves away from our ste-
reotype of an isolated writer hunched over a quill or keyboard to explain
composing decisions in terms of the writer’s projection of an audience.
Who am I writing for? What are their interests, understandings, and
needs? This view was elaborated by Martin Nystrand, who argued that the
success of any text is the writer’s ability to satisfy the rhetorical demands
of readers, which means embedding our writing in a discourse world
which is not restricted to the local situation, i.e. social interactionism.

Quote 1.8 Nystrand on Writing as Social Interaction

The process of writing is a matter of elaborating text in accord with what
the writer can reasonably assume that the reader knows and expects,
and the process of reading is a matter of predicting text in accord with
what the reader assumes about the writer’s purpose. More fundamen-
tally, each presupposes the sense-making capabilities of the other. As a
result, written communication is predicated on what the writer/reader
each assumes the other will do/has done.
(Nystrand, 1989: 75)

In a social interactive model, meaning is created via ‘a unique configura-

tion and interaction of what both reader and writer bring to the text’
(Nystrand et al., 1993: 299). This means writers shape a text by attempting to
balance their purposes with the expectations of readers through a process of
negotiation. For Nystrand, a text has ‘semantic potential’, or a variety of
possible meanings, all but a few of which are closed down by a combination
of the writer’s intention, the reader’s cognition and the language of the text
itself. In other words, meaning is not transmitted from mind to mind as in the
model of autonomous texts, nor does it reside in the writer’s mind as in pro-
cess models. Instead, it is created between the participants themselves.
These writer–reader interactions are essential to achieving coherence
and understanding. Hoey (2001), in fact, suggests they are like ballroom
dancers following each other’s steps, each building sense from a text by
anticipating what the other is likely to do. Skilled writers are able to create
a mutual frame of reference and anticipate when their purposes will be
retrieved by their audiences, providing greater elaboration where they
expect that there may be misunderstanding, and being succinct when they
feel readers will get the point. The drafting process thus becomes a way of
 An Overview of Writing 27
responding to an inner dialogue with readers, part of how the writer
monitors the evolving text for potential trouble-spots. Writing, then, is not
an act of an isolated individual but a joint endeavour between writers and
readers, co-constructed through the active understanding of rhetorical
situations and the likely responses of readers.
Audience can be a difficult concept for writers, and especially for stu-
dents or those new to a genre. Clearly, a writer who understands some-
thing of the needs and interests of his or her audience possesses important
rhetorical knowledge about appropriate genre, content, stance and style.
The ability to analyse an audience, however, obviously becomes more
problematic the larger and less immediately familiar the audience gets. It
becomes even more complex where texts are addressed to several audi-
ences simultaneously. As I write this book, for example, I am picturing
you, the reader, as someone with more than a passing interest in writing,
but I cannot predict your cultural background, your knowledge of the
subject, or what you want from this book. Perhaps you are a teacher, a
student, a trainer; maybe someone supervising a thesis or a casual browser
scanning a few free pages on Amazon. In other words, I am aware that my
book could be read by specialists, novices, practitioners and lay people,
and while I try to make the subject as explicit as I can, I know that not all
readers will recover every intended meaning.
The notion of audience is a contentious area of debate in literary studies
(e.g. Lecercle, 2000), has been much discussed in rhetoric (Park, 1982),
and has become more complex in the era of social media posting (e.g. Litt
& Hargittai, 2016) and blogging (Zou & Hyland, 2019). Audience is, in
fact, rarely a concrete reality, particularly in academic and professional
contexts, and must be seen as something imagined by the writer and cre-
ated in the linguistic choices he or she makes while writing.

Concept 1.15 Audience

Two main models of audience have traditionally been influential in writ-
ing theory. Ede and Lunsford (1984) refer to these as audience addressed,
the actual or intended readers who exist independently of the text, and
audience invoked, a created fiction of the writer rhetorically implied in the
text and which can be persuaded to respond to it in certain ways. For Ede
and Lunsford, audience invoked refers to the audience called up or ima-
gined by the writer distinguished from audience addressed, which refers
to the real-life people who read a text. Park’s (1982) more sophisticated
conception focuses less on people and more on the writer’s awareness of
the external circumstances which define a rhetorical context and requires
the text to have certain characteristics in response. Audience therefore
exists in the writer’s mind and shapes a text as ‘a complex set of conven-
tions, estimations, implied responses and attitudes’ (Park, 1982: 251).
28 Understanding Writing
A key idea here is that texts display how authors understand an audi-
ence because they exploit readers’ abilities to recognise intertextuality
between texts. The notion of intertextuality originates in Bakhtin’s (1986)
view that language is dialogic: a conversation between writer and reader in
an ongoing activity. Writing builds on and anticipates other texts because
when we write, we respond to what others have said and how they have
said it. In this way the choices a writer makes about a new text are influ-
enced by an awareness of what earlier, similar texts were like, so that
genres can be seen as parts of repeated and typified social situations rather
than particular forms. The text, then, is the place where readers and wri-
ters meet to jointly create meanings.

Concept 1.16 Intertextuality

Intertextuality is a relationship between a given text and one or more
earlier texts which have influenced it. Because texts are not produced in a
social vacuum, intertextuality is a feature of all texts, but it varies in terms
of how directly visible the influences of the earlier texts are. Fairclough
(1992) distinguishes between manifest intertextuality, or ways of incor-
porating or responding to other texts through quotation, paraphrase,
irony, and so on, and interdiscursivity, which is the writer’s use of sets of
conventions drawn from a recognisable genre. This connects text-users
into a network of prior texts and so provides a system of options for
making meanings which can be recognised by other texts-users.

1.3.2 Writing as Social Construction

The idea of interdiscursivity encourages us to step back and see interac-
tion as a collection of rhetorical choices rather than as specific encounters
with real readers. Here the writer is neither a creator working through a
set of cognitive processes nor an interactant engaging with a reader, but a
member of a community. The communicating dyad is replaced by the dis-
courses of socially and rhetorically constituted groups of readers and
writers.

Concept 1.17 Social Construction

Social construction is based on the idea that the ways we think, and
the categories and concepts we use to understand the world, are ‘all
language constructs generated by knowledge communities and used
by them to maintain coherence’ (Bruffee, 1986: 777). The everyday
interactions that occur between people produce the world that we
take for granted. Language is not just a means of self-expression, it
 An Overview of Writing 29

is how we construct and sustain reality, and we do this as members

of communities, using the language of those communities. The fea-
tures of a text are therefore influenced by the community for which it
was written and so best understood, and taught, through the specific
genres of communities.

Originating in sociology and post-modern philosophy, this approach

takes the view that what we know and do is influenced by a collective
conceptual schema. To see writing as a social act we must go beyond the
decisions of individual writers and see the regular features of texts as
representing the preferences of particular communities. A text carries cer-
tain meanings and gains its communicative force only by displaying the
patterns and conventions of the community for which it is written. Essays
produced by biology students, for example, draw on very different forms of
argument, interpersonal conventions and ways of presenting ideas than
those written by business students. So, while interactionists understand
writing by working from individuals to groups, constructionists proceed
from social group to individuals. For them, writing is a cultural practice
tied to forms of social organisation.
Another way of putting this is that writers always have to both demon-
strate their credibility and assert that their text has something worthwhile
to say and they do this by positioning themselves and their ideas in rela-
tion to other ideas and texts in their communities. The notion of a dis-
course community draws attention to the idea that we do not use language
to communicate with the world at large but with other members of our
social groups, each with its own norms, categorisations, sets of conven-
tions and ways of doing things (Bartholomae, 1986). The value of the term
lies in the fact that it offers a way of bringing writers, readers and texts
together into a common rhetorical space, foregrounding the conceptual
frames that individuals use to organise their experience and get things
done using language.
More than this, through the idea of community, we can see writing as a
means by which organisations actually create themselves, and how indivi-
duals signal their memberships in them. When we engage with others
through writing, we enter a culture of shared beliefs concerning what is
worth discussing and how things should be discussed. Our language choi-
ces allow us to align ourselves with, challenge or extend what has been
said before, and at the same time this confirms we are legitimate commu-
nity members. Community is a means of accounting for how communica-
tion succeeds through the individual’s projection of a shared context,
whether this is a group of stamp collectors or troupe of high court judges.
Communities help us to see that valued ways of writing are not just
30 Understanding Writing
conventional templates or regularities of style that we might follow.
Instead, they activate specific recognisable and routine responses to recur-
ring tasks.

Concept 1.18 Discourse Community

The term ‘discourse community’ is one of the most indeterminate in
the writing literature. It is possible to see discourse communities as
real, relatively stable groups whose members subscribe, at least to
some extent, to a consensus on certain ways of doing things and
using language. On the other hand, ‘community’ can be regarded as
a more metaphorical term for collecting together certain practices
and attitudes. Overall, the expectations, practices and norms of
communities have an effect on writing and knowledge in these com-
munities—at the same time, it is the routine practices and conven-
tions they use which turns groups into communities.

In a real sense, it is through these repeated practices that we ‘construct’

the institutions we participate in. Texts are created in terms of how their
authors understand reality and, in turn, these understandings are influ-
enced by their membership in social groups. But there is considerable dis-
agreement about what a discourse community is. Swales (1990), for
instance, sets out criteria for using language to achieve collective goals or
purposes, while other writers have suggested a weaker connection (e.g.
Barton, 2007).

Quote 1.9 Barton on Discourse Community

A discourse community is a group of people who have texts and prac-
tices in common, whether it is a group of academics, or the readers of
teenage magazines. In fact, discourse community can refer to the people
the text is aimed at; it can be the people who read a text; or it can refer
to the people who participate in a set of discourse practices both by
reading and writing.
(Barton, 2007: 75–6)

As Bazerman (1994: 128) notes, ‘most definitions of discourse commu-

nity get ragged around the edges rapidly’. To see discourse communities as
determinate and codifiable runs the risk of framing them as closed, self-
sufficient and predictable arenas of shared and agreed-upon values and
conventions. On the other hand, reducing them to mere collections of
competing voices reduces the idea’s explanatory authority. Clearly, we
 An Overview of Writing 31
have to avoid the strong structuralist position of a single deterministic
consensus among collections of people as this overlooks how communities
might be created in moments of writing. At the same time, however, we
need to acknowledge the obvious effects that groups can have on the ways
individuals communicate with each other.
The fuzziness of the term means that it is often unclear where to locate
a discourse community. Does it, for example, refer to all academics? Or is
it those working in a particular university? Or a discipline? Or a special-
ism? We also have to account for the ways these groupings come into
being. How can people join or leave? How do they exercise power and
accommodate differences and conflict? How do they develop and change?
Clearly the term is only useful if it is seen as connected to real individuals
and the cultural frames that carry meaning for them. As a result, some
writers have sought to ‘localise’ the concept into ‘place discourse commu-
nities’ (Swales, 1998) or ‘communities of practice’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991),
defining a community in terms of the literacy practices and social relations
which emerge in some mutual endeavour over time.
Despite the term’s imprecision, there is a core meaning of like-mind-
edness or membership, and this concept has proved central to research on
writing. It has contributed to how we understand writing in engineering
(Kanoksilapatham, 2015), the law (Vass, 2017), dentistry (Crosthwaite
et al., 2017), and banking (Smart, 2008). Constructionism has been most
influential, however, in describing academic writing. This approach tells us
that essays, reports, memos, dissertations, and so on are not the same in all
courses and disciplines, and that the ability to produce them does not
involve generic writing skills. Only when we use a language to create
genres in specific contexts does our competence in writing cease to be a
display of control of a linguistic code and take on significance as dis-
course. Expert writers are obviously better able than novices to imagine
how readers will respond to a text because they are familiar with the ways
experience is typically constructed in their communities.

1.3.3 Writing as Power and Ideology

A third reader-oriented view of writing also emphasises the importance of
social context on writing but stresses that the key dimension of context is
the relations of power that exist in it and the ideologies that maintain
them. The importance of power as a force which mediates discourse and
social groups has been most extensively explored by researchers in critical
discourse analysis (CDA). Norman Fairclough’s (1992; 1995) work is the
source of the term and the basic idea is that CDA attempts to unpack the
ideological underpinnings of discourse that have become invisible over
time. A central aspect of this view is that the interests, values and power
relations in any institutional and sociohistorical context are found in the
ways that people use language.
32 Understanding Writing

Quote 1.10 Van Dijk on Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is discourse analytical research that
primarily studies the way social-power abuse and inequality are enacted,
reproduced, legitimated, and resisted by text and talk in the social and
political context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts
take an explicit position and thus want to understand, expose, and ulti-
mately challenge social inequality. This is also why CDA may be char-
acterized as a social movement of politically committed discourse
analysts.
(van Dijk, 2015: 352)

Analysts therefore take an explicit position to understand, expose and

challenge social inequality. This is why CDA may be characterised as a
social movement of politically committed discourse analysts. This is not,
however, a particular method of conducting discourse analysis but an
attitude towards study which draws on various methods––a methodologi-
cal ‘toolbox’ as Rheindorf, (2019) points out. To emphasise that many
methods and approaches may be used in the critical study of text and talk,
many analysts now prefer to talk of critical discourse studies (CDS) (e.g.
van Dijk, 2015). As Wodak (2021) observes, ‘CDS can be defined as a
problem-oriented interdisciplinary research programme, subsuming a vari-
ety of approaches, each with different theoretical models, research meth-
ods and agendas.’ They are, however, united by an interest in power,
identity politics, and social change.

Concept 1.19 Principles of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS)

 CDS addresses social problems and not simply language use by
itself.
 Power relations are based on language.
 Discourse constitutes society and culture, and every instance of
language use contributes to reproducing or changing them.
 Discourse does ideological work, representing and constructing
society in particular ways.
 Discourse is historical and related to other discourses.
 Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory, requiring
systematic methods.
 Discourse is a form of social action.
(Wodak, 2021)
 An Overview of Writing 33
The notion of ideology is important because it is concerned with how
individuals experience the world and how these experiences are, in turn,
reproduced through their writing. Fairclough (borrowing from Michel Fou-
cault) uses the term ‘orders of discourse’ to refer to the relatively stable con-
figurations of discourse practices found in particular domains or institutions.
These are frames for interaction, such as patient case-notes, lab reports,
newspaper editorials, student records, academic articles, and so on, which
have prestige value in different institutions, and which are rhetorically shaped
by its dominant groups. They provide writers with templates for appropriate
ways of writing, which means that any act of writing, or of teaching writing,
is embedded in ideological assumptions.
But while these frameworks help enforce the authority of particular forms of
discourse in any community, they do not exclude possibilities for divergence.
This is because when we write, we not only take up socially ratified social roles
and relationships, but also draw on our personal and social experiences which
cross-cut what we write. We are not just English teachers, for example, but
belong to certain age groups, genders, ethnicities, social classes, and so on.
Of importance in this perspective is the view that writing is both texts
and contexts: the work of both individuals and institutions. This requires
us to consider not only texts but also their relationship to the wider social
environment and the part they play for individuals within specific situa-
tions. CDA is, therefore, analysis with attitude. It proclaims an interest and
sets an agenda, as Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 259) make clear: ‘What is
distinctive about CDA is both that it intervenes on the side of the domi-
nated and oppressed groups and against dominating groups, and that it
openly declares the emancipatory interests that motivate it.’
While CDA does not subscribe to any single method, it often focuses on
the communicative situation, ‘because it is the context model that in turn
controls the pragmatic appropriateness of the of discourse’ (van Dijk,
2009). Others (e.g. Fairclough, 2003; Wodak & Chilton, 2007) have drawn
on systemic functional linguistics (SFL). This is because the model sees
language as systems of linguistic features offering choices to users, but
these choices are considerably circumscribed in situations of unequal
power. Young and Harrison (2004: 1) claim that SFL and CDA share
three main features:

1 a view of language as a social construct, or how society fashions

language;
2 a dialectical view in which ‘particular discursive events influence the
contexts in which they occur and the contexts are, in turn, influenced
by these discursive events’;
3 a view which emphasises cultural and historical aspects of meaning.

SFL thus offers CDA a sophisticated way of analysing the relations

between language and social contexts, making it possible to ground
34 Understanding Writing
concerns of power and ideology in the details of discourse. In practice,
CDA typically examines features of writing such as:

 vocabulary—particularly how metaphor and connotative meanings

encode ideologies;
 transitivity—which can show who is presented as having agency and
who is acted upon;
 nominalisation and passivisation—how processes and actors can be
repackaged as nouns or agency otherwise obscured;
 mood and modality—which indicate relationships, such as roles, atti-
tudes, commitments and obligations;
 theme—how the first element of a clause can be used to foreground
particular aspects of information or presuppose reader beliefs;
 text structure—how text episodes are marked;
 intertextuality and interdiscursivity—the effects of other texts and
styles on texts—leading to hybridisation, such as where commercial
discourses influence texts in other areas.

Unfortunately, much CDA/CDS analysis has relied exclusively on the

researcher’s interpretations of texts, cherry-picking both the texts it studies
and the features it chooses to discuss. This has the effect of simply con-
firming the analyst’s prejudices while reducing pragmatics to semantics in
assuming just one possible reading of the text (Billig, 2002). Participants
are rarely involved in analyses and context is treated as a given (Breeze,
2011). Moreover, as Blommaert (2005) observes, this privileging of the
analyst’s viewpoint is often reinforced by appeal to an explanatory level of
social theory which lies above any analysis of the text itself. In other
words, there is little dialogue with real readers, and interpretation becomes
a black box rather than a product of analysis. The plausibility of any
interpretation of a text, however, depends on our willingness to accept it,
and this is best achieved by getting the views of the text producers and
readers. So, although it might be acknowledged that no analysis can be
neutral, and that a clear political agenda helps to redress the invisible
ideological assumptions in much writing research, we need to go beyond
good intentions. It is essential that any theory of writing is thoroughly
grounded in the contextual understandings of the users that give it
significance.

1.4 Conclusion
In this overview I have been concerned not only to cover the major fra-
meworks used to look at writing, but also to question the widely held
views that writing is either simply words on a page or an activity of soli-
tary individuals. Rather, contemporary conceptions see writing as a social
practice, embedded in the cultural and institutional contexts in which it is
An Overview of Writing
Casanave, C. (2017). Controversies in second language writing, 2nd edn. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Fairclough, N. (2014). Language and power, 3rd edn. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Manchón, R. & Matsuda, P. (eds) (2016). Handbook of second and foreign language writing.
The Hague: Mouton.
Ramanathan, V. & Atkinson, D. (1999). Ethnographic approaches and methods in L2 writing
research: A critical guide and review. Applied Linguistics, 20(1): 44–70.2
Second Language Writing List www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=SECOND-
LANGUAGE-WRITING.

Key Issues in Writing

Block, D. & Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. & Shaw, P. (eds) (2016). The Routledge handbook of English for academic
purposes. London: Routledge.
Nesi, H. & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher
education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Rowsell, J. & Pahl, K. (eds) (2015). The Routledge handbook of literacy studies. London:
Routledge.

Quandaries and Possibilities

Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition
and writing. New York: Routledge.
Block, J. (2021). Creating digital literacy spaces for multilingual writers. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Hayton, T. (2020). Using social media in the classroom. London: British Council. Available at:
www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/using-social-media-classroom.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds) (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and
issues, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. & Wong, L. (eds) (2019). Innovation and change in English language education.
London: Routledge.
Myers, G. (2010). The discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Bloomsbury.
Pecorari, D. (2013). Teaching to avoid plagiarism: How to promote good source use.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Research Practices and Issues
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioners. London: Routledge.
Casanave, C. (2016). Qualitative inquiry in L2 writing. In R. Manchón & P. Matsuda (eds),
Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 497–518). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2015). Researching writing. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (eds), Continuum
companion to second language research methods, 2nd edn (pp. 335–48). London:
Continuum.
Kinkeid, J. (2016). Researching writing: An introduction to research methods. Logan, UT:
University of Utah Press.
Paltridge, B. & Phakiti, A. (eds) (2015). Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical
resource. London: Bloomsbury.

Research Cases
See also the recommended texts in Chapter 6.
Brown, J.D. & Rodgers, T.S. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied
linguists. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Lomax, R.G. & Hahs-Vaughn, D.L. (2020). An introduction to statistical concepts, 3rd edn.
New York: Routledge.
Rose, H., McKinley, J. & Briggs Baffoe-Djan, J. (2020). Data collection research methods in
applied linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.
Yin, R.K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods, 6th edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Research Cases
See also the recommended texts in Further Reading in Chapter 5.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
McKay, S. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. London: Routledge.
McKinley, J. & Rose, H. (eds) (2019). The Routledge handbook of research methods in
applied linguistics. London: Routledge.
Paltridge, B. & Phakti, A. (eds) (2015). Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical
resource, 2nd edn. London: Bloomsbury.
Richards, K., Ross, S.J., & Seedhouse, P. (2011). Research methods for applied language
studies: An advanced resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Approaches to Teaching Writing
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. & Hedgecock, J. (2013). Teaching ESL composition, 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Johns, A. (1997). Text, role and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tardy, C. (2016). Beyond convention: Genre innovation in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.

Teaching Writing
Chaudhuri, T. & Cabau, B. (eds) (2017). E-portfolios in higher education: A multidisciplinary
approach. Singapore: Springer.
Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. (2014). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, practice, 3rd
edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flowerdew, L. (2011). Corpora and language education. London: Palgrave.
Hamp-Lyons, L. & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory,
and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Lewis, M. & Wray, D. (1997). Writing frames. Reading: NCLL.
Weisser, M. (2016). Practical corpus linguistics: An introduction to corpus-based language
analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Teaching Writing
Caplan, N. & Johns, A. (eds) (2019). Changing practices for L2 writing classrooms. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Derewianka, B. & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context, 2nd edn. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Devitt, A., Reiff, M.J. & Bawarshi, A. (2004). Scenes of writing: Strategies for composing with
genres. New York: Longman.
Hirvela, A. (2016). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction, 2nd
edn. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. & Wong, L. (eds) (2013). Innovation and change in language education. London:
Routledge.
Ruggles Gere, A. (ed.) (2019). Developing writers in higher education: A longitudinal study.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
References
ACARA (2015). Australian Curriculum: The arts foundation to Year 10. Sydney: Australian
Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority.
Adam, C. . & Artemeva, N. . (2002). Writing instruction in English for Academic Purposes
(EAP) classes: Introducing second language learners to the academic community. In A.
Johns (ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ädel, A. . & Erman, B. . (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native
and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific
Purposes, 31, 81–92.
Adlington, R. . & Feez, S. . (2019). Reading, writing and co-authorship in blogs. Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy, 42(1), 5–16.
Afflerbach, P. . & Johnson, P. . (1984). On the use of verbal reports in reading research.
Journal of Reading Behaviour, 16(4), 307–322.
Akhiar, A. ., Mydin, A. . & Adi Kasuma, S. . (2017). Students’ perceptions and attitudes
towards the use of Instagram in English language writing. Malaysian Journal of Learning and
Instruction, Special Issue, 47–72. http://e-
journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/mjli/article/view/7796.
Alghasab, M. ., Hardman, J. . & Handley, Z. . (2019). Teacher-student interaction on wikis:
Fostering collaborative learning and writing. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21,
10–20,
Ammon, U. . (ed.) (2001). The dominance of English as a language of science. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Anthony, L. . (2018). AntConc 3.4.3. Available at: www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html.
Arneil, S. . & Holmes, M. . (1998–2009). Hot potatoes. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria and
Half-Baked Software Inc.
Arslan, R. . & Şahin-Kızıl, A. . (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing
process of English language learners?, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3),
183–197.
Atkinson, D. . (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Atkinson, D. . (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric
needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4),
277–289.
Atkinson, D. ., et al. (2015). Clarifying the relationship between L2 writing and translingual
writing: An open letter to writing studies editors and organization leaders. College English,
77(4), 383–386.
Avila, J. . & Pandya, J. . (eds) (2013). Critical digital literacies as social praxis: Intersections
and challenges. new literacies and digital epistemologies. New York: Peter Lang.
Aydin, Z. . & Yildiz, S. . (2014). Using wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language
Learning & Technology, 18(1), 160–180.
Bader, M. ., Burner, T. ., Hoem Iversen, S. . & Varga, Z. . (2019). Student perspectives on
formative feedback as part of writing portfolios, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 44(7), 1017–1028.
Bai, B. . (2018). Understanding primary school students’ use of self-regulated writing
strategies through think-aloud protocols. System, 78, 15–26.
Bailey, K.M. . (1990). The use of diary studies in teacher education programs. In J.C.
Richards & D. Nunan (eds), Second language teacher education (pp. 215–226). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bakhtin, M. . (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas
Press.
Ballard, B. . & Clanchy, J. . (1991). Assessment by misconception: cultural influences and
intellectual traditions. In L. Hamp-Lyons (ed.) Assessing second language writing in academic
contexts (pp. 19–35). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Barajas, M. . & Frossard, F. . (2018). Mapping creative pedagogies in open wiki learning
environments. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1403–1419.
Barlow, M. . (2005). Computer based analyses of learner language. In R. Ellis & G.
Barkhuizen (eds), Analysing learner language (pp. 335–358). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bartholomae, D. . (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5, 4–23.
Barton, D. . (2000). Researching literacy practices: Learning from activities with teachers and
students. In D. Barton , M. Hamilton & R. Ivanic (eds), Situated literacies: Reading and writing
in context (pp. 167–179). London: Routledge.
Barton, D. . (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language, 2nd edn.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Barton, D. . & Hamilton, M. . (2012). Local literacies, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
Barton, D. ., Ivanic, R. ., Appleby, Y. ., Hodge, R. . & Tusting, K. . (2007). Literacy, lives and
learning. London: Routledge.
Bass, R. . (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education.
EDUCAUSE Review, March–April, 23–33.
Bauer, L. . & Nation, P. . (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6(4),
253–279.
Bawarshi, A. . & Reiff, M-J. . (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, research and
pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlour Press.
Baynham, M. . (1995). Literacy practices. Harlow: Longman.
Bazerman, C. . (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Bazerman, C. . (1994). Constructing experience. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press.
BBC (1983). Bid for power. London: BBC English by Television.
Beach, R. ., Anson, C. ., Kastman Breuch, L-A. . & Reynolds, Tv. (2014). Understanding and
creating digital texts. Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield.
Becher, T. . & Trowler, P. . (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the
cultures of disciplines, 2nd edn. Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press.
Bednarek, M. . & Martin, J.R. . (eds) (2010). New discourse on language: Functional
perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation. London: Continuum.
Beiler, I. . & Dewilde, J. . (2020). Translation as translingual writing practice in English as an
additional language. The Modern Language Journal, 104, 533–549.
Benesch, S. . (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a
critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 723–738.
Benesch, S. . (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Benwell, B. . & Stokoe, E. . (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Bereiter, C. . & Scardamalia, Mv. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berkenkotter, C. . & Huckin, T. . (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bestgen, Y. . & Granger, S. . (2014). Quantifying the development of phraseological
competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 26, 28–41.
Bezemer, J. . & Kress, G. . (2016). Multimodality, learning and communication: A social
semiotic frame. New York: Routledge.
Bhatia, V.K. . (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Harlow:
Longman.
Bhatia, V.K. . (2004). Worlds of written discourse. London: Continuum.
Biber, D. ., Conrad, S. . & Cortes, V. . (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university
teaching and textbook. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.
Biber, D. ., Johansson, S. ., Leech, G. ., Conrad, S. . & Finegan, E. . (1999). Longman
grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Billig, M. . (2002). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss & R.
Wodak (eds), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 35–46). London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Binstock, A. . (2012). An interview with Ward-Cunningham. Dr Dobbs. Available at:
www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/interview-with-ward-
cunningham/240000393?pgno=1.
Bitchener, J. . (2019). Feedback delivery: Written corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E.
Kartchava (eds), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bitchener, J. . & Knoch, U. . (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to
language development: a ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.
Bitetti, M. . & Ferreras, J. . (2017). Publish (in English) or perish: The effect on citation rate of
using languages other than English in scientific publications. Ambio, 46, 121–127.
Bloch, J. . (2001). Plagiarism and the ESL student: From printed to electronic texts. In D.
Belcher & A. Hirvella (eds), Linking literacies: perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections
(pp. 209–228). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bloch, J. . (2008). Technology in the second language composition classroom. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Bloch, J. . (2012). Plagiarism, intellectual property and the teaching of L2 composition.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Bloch, J. . (2021). Creating digital literacy spaces for multilingual writers. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Bloch, J. . & Crosby, C. . (2006). Creating a space for virtual democracy. The Essential
Teacher, 3, 38–41.
Blommaert, J. . (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boulos, M.N.K. , Maramba, I. . & Wheeler, S. . (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new
generation of web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC
Medical Education, 6(41). www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-6-41.pdf.
Boulton, A. . & Cobb, T. . (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A metaanalysis.
Language Learning, 67(2), 348–393.
Bourdieu, P. . & Passeron, J-C. . (1996). Introduction: Language and relationship to language
in the teaching situation. In P. Bourdieu , J-C Passeron & M. de Saint Martin (eds), Academic
Discourse (pp. 1–34). The Hague: Mouton.
Bowen, N. . & Thomas, N. . (2020). Manipulating texture and cohesion in academic writing: A
keystroke logging study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100773
Braaksma, M. ., Rijlaarsdam, G. . & Janssen, T. . (2007). Writing hypertexts: Proposed
effects on writing processes and knowledge acquisition L1. Educational Studies in Language
and Literature, 7(4), 93–122.
Bradley, L. ., Lindstrom, B. . &. Rystedt, H. . (2010). Rationalities of collaboration for
language learning in a wiki. ReCALL, 22(2), 247–265.
Brandt, D. . (1986). Text and context: how writers come to mean. In B. Couture (ed.),
Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp. 93–107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Breen, M. . (2001). The social context for language learning: A neglected situation? In C.
Candlin & N. Mercer (eds), English language teaching in its social context (pp. 122–144).
London: Routledge.
Breeze, R. . (2011). Critical Discourse Analysis and its critics. Pragmatics, 21(4), .493–525.
Bridgeman, B. ., Trapani, C. . & Yigal, A. . (2012). Comparison of human and machine
scoring of essays: Differences by gender, ethnicity, and country. Applied Measurement in
Education, 25(1), 27–40.
Brock, K. . & Mehlenbacher, A.R. . (2018). Rhetorical genres in code. Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication, 48(4), 383–411.
Brown, J.D. . & Hudson, T. . (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(4), 653–675.
Brown, J.S. , Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Brown, R. . (2011). Manuscript makeovers: A rhetorical study of revisions made to
dissertations turned into books. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(4), 442–475.
Bruffee, K. . (1984). Collaborative learning and the ‘conversation of mankind’. College
English, 46, 635–652.
Bruffee, K. . (1986). Social construction: Language and the authority of knowledge. A
bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773–779.
Bruner, J.S. . (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair , R.J. Jarvelle
, & W.J.M. Levelt (eds), The child’s concept of language. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bruner, J.S. . (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruton, S. . & Childers, D. . (2015). The ethics and politics of policing plagiarism: A qualitative
study of faculty views on student plagiarism and Turnitin. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1008981.
Bullingham, L. . & Vasconcelos, A.C. . (2013). ‘The presentation of self in the online world’:
Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science, 39(1), 101–112.
Burniske, R.W. . (2007). Literacy in the digital age. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burns, A. . (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. . (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioners. New York: Routledge.
Burns, A. . (2013). Innovation through action research and teacher-initiated change. In K.
Hyland & L.C.L. Wong (eds), Innovation and change in English language education (pp.
90–105). London: Routledge.
Byrne, R. ., Tang, M. ., Truduc, J. . & Tang, M. . (2010). eGrader, a software application that
automatically scores student essays: With a postscript on the ethical complexities. Journal of
Systemics, Cybernetics & Informatics, 8(6), 30–35.
CAES (2017). Introduction to thesis writing. Hong Kong: Centre for Applied English Studies,
Hong Kong University.
Campbell, A.P. . (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes. Available at:
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-Weblogs.html.
Campbell, Y. . & Parke, N. . (2018). Using paragraph frames to scaffold the text-based
argumentative writing of low-performing 8th grade students. Journal of Teacher Action
Research, 4(2), 47–61.
Can, C. ., Kutluca, C. . & Nur, A. . (2019). Effect of using reflective diaries in teaching Turkish
on bilingual students’ academic achievement and writing skills. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 82, 1–25.
Canagarajah, A.S. . (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Canagarajah, A.S. . (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable
strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417.
Canagarajah, A.S. . (2013a). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan
relations. New York: Routledge.
Canagarajah, A.S. . (2013b). From intercultural rhetoric to cosmopolitan practice: Addressing
new challenges in lingua franca English. In D. Belcher & G. Nelson (eds), Critical and corpus-
based approaches to intercultural rhetoric. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Canagarajah, A.S. . (2016). Translingual writing and teacher development in composition.
College English, 78, 265–273.
Candlin, C.N. . (1999). How can discourse be a measure of expertise? Paper presented at
the International Association for Dialogue Analysis, University of Birmingham.
Carless, D. . (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher
Education, 31(2), 219–233.
Carson, J.G. . & Nelson, G.L. . (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response
group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1–19.
Carter, M. . (1990). The idea of expertise: An exploration of cognitive and social dimensions
of writing. College Composition and Communication, 41(3), 265–286.
Carter, R.A. . & McCarthy, M.J. . (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Casanave, C.P. . (2016). Qualitative inquiry in L2 writing. In R.M. Manchón & P.K. Matsuda
(eds), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 497–517). Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Casanave, C.P. . (2017). Controversies in second language writing, 2nd edn. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Cassidy, S. . & Schmidt, T. . (2017). Tools for multimodal annotation. In N. Ide & J.
Pustejovsky (eds), Handbook of linguistic annotation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Centre for English Corpus Linguistics (2019). Learner corpora around the world. Louvain-la-
Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain. Available at: https://uclouvain.be/en/research-
institutes/ilc/cecl/learner-corpora-around-the-world.html.
Chamcharatsri, P. . (2009). Negotiating identity from auto-ethnography: Second language
writers’ perspectives. Asian EFL Journal. Professional Teaching Articles, 38, 3–19.
Chandler, P. . (2017). To what extent are teachers well prepared to teach multimodal
authoring? Cogent Education, 4(1).
Chapelle, C. . (2021). Validity in language testing. In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (eds), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing. Oxford:
Routledge.
Charles, M. . (2012). ‘Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do-it-
yourself corpus-building. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 93–102.
Charles, M. . (2014). Getting the corpus habit: EAP students’ long-term use of personal
corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 35, 30–40.
Charles, M. . (2015). After EAP courses, what next? Students’ independent use of corpora .
Paper presented at BALEAP, Leicester University, April 2015.
Charters, E. . (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: An introduction
to think-aloud methods. Brock Education Journal, 12(2), 68–82.
Chaudhuri, T. . & Cabau, B. . (eds) (2017). E-Portfolios in higher education: A
multidisciplinary approach. Singapore: Springer.
Chen, B. . & Bryer, T. . (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in
formal and informal learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 13(1). www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1027/2073.
Chen, C-F . & Cheng, W-Y . (2006). The use of a computer-based writing program: facilitation
or frustration? Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on English Teaching
and Learning, Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages, Kaohsiung.
Chen, C-F . & Cheng, W-Y . (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation:
Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language
Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112.
Chen, M. . & Flowerdew, J. . (2018). Introducing data-driven learning to PhD students for
research writing purposes: A territory-wide project in Hong Kong. English for Specific
Purposes, 50, 97–112.
Chen, S. ., Nassaji, H. . & Liu, Q. . (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of
written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian.
Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-
016-0010-y.
Chen, Y. . & Baker, P. . (2016). Investigating critical discourse features across second
language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1.
Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 849–880.
Cherry, R. . (1988). Ethos versus persona: Self-representation in written discourse. Written
Communication, 5, 251–276.
Chin, E. . (1994). Redefining ‘context’ in research on writing. Written Communication, 11,
445–482.
Chomsky, N. . (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christie, F. . (2005). Language education in the primary school. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Christie, F. . & Martin, J.R. . (eds) (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the
workplace and school. London: Pinter.
Cimasko, T. . & Shin, D-S. . (2017). Multimodal resemiotization and authorial agency in an L2
writing classroom. Written Communication, 43(4), 387–413.
Clark, R. . & Ivanic, R. . (1997). The politics of writing. London: Routledge.
Coe, R.M. . (2002). The new rhetoric of genre: Writing political briefs. In A.M. Johns (ed.),
Genre in the classroom (pp. 195–205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coffin, P. . (2020). Implementing collaborative writing in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ and
students’ perspectives. Learn Journal, 13(1). https://so04.tci-
thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/237844.
Cohen, A. ., Glasman, H. ., Rosenbaum-Cohen, P.R. , Ferrara, J. . & Fine, J. . (1988).
Reading English for specialized purposes: Discourse analysis and the use of standard
informants. In P. Carrell , J. Devine & D. Eskey (eds), Interactive approaches to second
language reading (pp. 152–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, L. ., Manion, L. . & Morrison, K. . (2018). Research methods in education, 8th edn.
London: Routledge.
Conklin, K. ., Pellicer-Sanchez, A. . & Carrol, G. . (2018). Eye-tracking: A guide for applied
linguistics research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. . (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. . (2018). Intercultural rhetoric. In J.I. Liontas (ed.), The TESOL encyclopaedia of
English language teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Coxhead, A. . (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
Coxhead, A. . & Demecheleer, M. . (2018). Investigating the technical vocabulary of
plumbing. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 84–97.
Coxhead, A. . & Nation, I.S.P. . (2001). The specialized vocabulary of English for academic
purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (eds), Research perspectives on English for
academic purposes (pp. 252–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craig, J. . (2013). Integrating writing strategies in EFL/ESL university contexts: A writing
across-the-curriculum approach. New York: Routledge.
Creme, P. . (2005). Should student learning journals be assessed? Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education, 30, 287–296.
Crestodina, A. . (2020). Bloggers unite! A 10-point guide for blogger cooperation. Convince
and Convert. Available at: www.convinceandconvert.com/content-marketing/10-point-guide-
for-blogger-collaboration/.
Crosthwaite, P. ., Cheung, L. . & Jiang, F.K. . (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression
in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46,
107–123.
Crosthwaite, P. ., Wong, L. . & Cheung, J. . (2019). Characterising postgraduate students’
corpus query and usage patterns for disciplinary data-driven learning. ReCALL, 31(3),
255–275.
Crystal, D. . (2008). Two thousand million? English Today, 24(01), 3–6.
Crystal, D. . (2012a). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. . (2012b). An interview with David Crystal with Rakesh Bhanot. Language Issues,
23(1), 29–37.
Cummins, J. . (1982). Tests, achievement, and bilingual students. Focus: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 9, 2–9.
Cutting, J. . (2002). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. London:
Routledge.
Davies, M. . (2012). Corpus of contemporary American English (1990–2012). Available at:
http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (accessed June 2015 ).
Deane, P. . (2013). On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of
the writing construct. Assessing Writing, 18, 7–24.
De Cock, S. . (2011). Preferred patterns of use of positive and negative evaluative adjectives
in native and learner speech: An ELT perspective. In A. Frankenberg-Garcia , L. Flowerdew
& G. Aston (eds), New trends in corpora and language learning (pp. 198–212). London:
Continuum.
De Guerrero, M.C. . & Villamil, O.S. . (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2
peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51–68.
Denzin, N. . & Lincoln, Y. . (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 5th edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dent, A. . & Koenka, A. . (2016). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic
achievement across childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 28, 425–474.
Derewianka, B. . & Jones, P. . (2016). Teaching language in context, 2nd edn. Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Devitt, A. ., Reiff, M.J. . & Bawarshi, A. . (2004). Scenes of writing: Strategies for composing
with genres. New York: Longman.
Ding, A. . (2019). EAP practitioner identity. In K. Hyland & L. Wong (eds),Specialized English:
New directions in ESP and EAP research and practice (pp. 63–75). Abingdon: Routledge.
Ding, A. . & Bruce, I. . (2017). The English for academic purposes practitioner. London:
Palgrave.
Ding, H. . (2007). Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application
essays to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 368–392.
Doughty, C. . & Long, M. . (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Douglas, J.Y. . (1998). Will the most reflexive relativist please stand up?: Hypertext,
argument and relativism. In I. Snyder (ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic
era (pp. 144–162). London: Routledge.
Ducate, L. ., Anderson, L. . & Morena, N. . (2011). Wading through the world of wikis: An
analysis of three wiki projects. Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 495–524.
Ducate, L. . & Lomicka, L. . (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog
writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28.
Dudeney, G. . & Hockly, N. . (2012). ICT in ELT: How did we get here and where are we
going? English Language Teaching Journal, 66(4), 533–542.
Durrant, P. . (2014). Discipline and level specificity in university students’ written vocabulary.
Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 328–356.
Duranti, A. . & Goodwin, C. . (eds) (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive
phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ede, L. . & Lunsford, A. . (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of
audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication,
35(2), 155–171.
Edelman’s Trust Barometer (2020). www.edelman.com/research/trust-2020-spring-update.
Elbow, P. . (1994). Voice and writing. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
Elbow, P. . (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. ., Sheen, Y. ., Murakami, M. . & Takashima, H. . (2008). The effects of focused and
unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System,
36(3), 353–371.
Elola, I. . & Oskoz, A. . (2017). Writing with 21st-century social tools in the L2 classroom:
New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36,
52–60.
Emig, J. . (1983). The web of meaning. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Ericsson, K.A. . (2002). Toward a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of nonverbal
experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the
theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981–987.
Ericsson, K. . & Simon, H. . (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, 2nd edn.
Boston: MIT Press.
Evans, C. . (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of
Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120.
Evans, S. . & Green, C. . (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary
students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 3–17.
Faigley, L. . (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College
English, 48, 527–542.
Faigley, L. ., Daly, J. . & Witte, S. . (1981). The role of writing apprehension in writing
performance and competence. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 16–20.
Fairclough, N. . (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. . (1995). Critical discourse analysis. Harlow: Longman.
Fairclough, N. . (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London:
Routledge.
Fairclough, N. . & Wodak, R. . (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (ed.),
Discourse as social interaction (pp. 33–77). London: Sage.
Fang, Y. . (2010). Perceptions of the computer-assisted writing program among EFL college
learners. Educational Technology and Society, 13(3), 246–256.
Farrell, P. . (1990). Vocabulary in ESP: A lexical analysis of the English of electronics and a
study of semi-technical vocabulary. CLCS Occasional Paper No. 25. Dublin: Trinity College.
Fazio, L. . (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy
of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4),
235–249.
Feak, C. . & Swales, J.M. . (2009). Telling a research story: Writing a literature review. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Feak, C. . & Swales, J.M. . (2011). Creating contexts: Writing introductions across genres.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Feez, S. . (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: Macquarie University/AMES.
Fereday, J. . & Muir-Cochrane, E. . (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.
Fernandez, J. . & Jamet, E. . (2017). Extending the testing effect to self-regulated learning.
Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 131–156.
Ferris, D. . (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–10.
Ferris, D. . (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and
long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds), Feedback in
second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ferris, D. . & Kurzer, K. . (2019). Does error feedback help L2 writers? Latest evidence on the
efficacy of written corrective feedback long-term effects of written error correction. In K.
Hyland & F. Hyland (eds), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 2nd
edn (pp. 106–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. ., Liu, H. ., Sinha, A. . & Senna, M. . (2013). Written corrective feedback for
individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329.
Firbas, J. . (1986). On the dynamics of written communication in light of the theory of
functional sentence perspective. In C. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (eds), Studying writing:
linguistic approaches (pp. 40–71). London: Sage Publications.
Fisher, D. . & Frey, N. . (2014). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for
the gradual release of responsibility, 2nd edn. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Flower, L. . (1989). Cognition, context and theory building. College Composition and
Communication, 40, 282–311.
Flower, L. . (2003). Talking across difference: Intercultural rhetoric and the search for situated
knowledge. College Composition and Communication, 55(1), 38–68.
Flower, L. . & Hayes, J. . (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32, 365–387.
Flower, L. ., Stein, V. ., Ackerman, J. ., Kantz, M. ., McCormick, K. . & Peck, W. . (1990).
Reading-to-write: Exploring a social and cognitive process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flowerdew, L. . (2012). Corpora and language education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Forceville, C.J. . & Urios-Aparisi, E. . (eds) (2009). Multimodal metaphor. New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Fredricks, J. . (2013). Behavior engagement in learning. In J. Hattie & E.M. Anderman (eds),
International guide to student achievement (pp. 42–44). New York: Routledge.
Fredricks, J. ., Blumenfeld, P.C. . & Paris, A. . (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Freebody, P. . & Luke, A. . (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural
context. Prospect, 5, 7–16.
Freebody, P. . & Luke, A. . (1999). Further notes on the four resources model reading online.
International Reading Association. Available at: www.readingonline.org.
Freedman, A. . (1994). “Do as I say?”: The relationship between teaching and learning new
genres. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (eds), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 191–210).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Freeman, B. ., Higgins, K. . & Horney, M. . (2016). How students communicate mathematical
ideas: An examination of multimodal writing using digital technologies. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 7(4), 281–313.
Freire, P. . (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving the pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
Continuum.
Freire, P. . (2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gardner, D. . & Davies, M. . (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics,
35(3), 305–327.
Gass, S. . (2015). Experimental research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (eds), Research
methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 101–118). London: Bloomsbury.
Gebhard, J. . & Oprandy, R. . (1999). Language teaching awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Geertz, C. . (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz ,
The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.
Gibbons, P. . (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Gilster, P. . (1997). Digital literacy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Giroux, H. . & Penna, A. . (1979). Social education in the classroom: The dynamics of the
hidden curriculum. Theory and Research in Social Education, 7, 21–42.
Goff, B. . & Rish, R. . (2020). What’s brought along and brought about: Negotiating writing
practices in two high school classrooms. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 24.
Gosden, H. . (1996). Verbal reports of Japanese novices’ research writing practices in
English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 109–128.
Graddol, D. . (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a
foreign language’. London: British Council.
Grande, S.M. . (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Granger, S. . (2009). The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and
foreign language teaching: A critical evaluation. In K. Aijmer (ed.), Corpora and language
teaching (pp. 13–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Greene, J.A. , Deekens, V.M. , Copeland, D.Z. . & Yu, S. . (2018). Capturing and modeling
self-regulated learning using think-aloud protocols. In D.H. Schunk & J.A. Greene (eds),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 2nd edn (pp. 323–337). New York:
Routledge.
Grice, H.P. . (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and
semantics, vol. 3, Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Grimes, D. . & Warschauer, M. . (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of
automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Language, and Assessment, 8(6),
1–43.
Gu, Y. ., Hu, G. . & Zhang, L.J. . (2005). Investigating language learner strategies among
lower primary school students in Singapore. Language and Education, 19, 281–303.
Ha, A.Y.H. & Hyland, K. (2017). What is technicality? A technicality analysis model for EAP
vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 28, 35–49.
Ha, H. . (2017). Researching writing processes: The case of foreign language learners’
metaphor production. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473971967.
Hafner, C.A. . (2013). Digital composition in a second or foreign language. TESOL Quarterly,
47(4), 830–834.
Hafner, C.A. , Chik, A. . & Jones, R. . (2015). Digital literacies and language learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 1–7.
Hafner, C.A. . & Ho, W.V.J. . (2020). Assessing digital multimodal composing in second
language writing: Towards a process-based model. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47.
Hall, L.A. . (2018). Using blogs to support reflection in teacher education. Literacy Research
and Instruction, 57(1), 26–43.
Halliday, M.A.K. . & Matthiessen, C. . (2014). Introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn.
London: Edward Arnold.
Hamilton, M. . (2000). Expanding the new literacy studies: Using photographs to explore
literacy as social practice. In D. Barton , M. Hamilton & R. Ivanic (eds), Situated literacies:
Reading and writing in context (pp. 16–34). London: Routledge.
Hammond, J. . & Macken-Horarik, M. . (1999). Critical literacy: Challenges and questions for
ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 528–544.
Hamp-Lyons, L. . (2016). Purposes of assessment. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (eds),
Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 13–27). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hamp-Lyons, L. . & Condon, W. . (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice,
theory and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Han, C. . & Hyland, F. . (2019). Learner engagement with written feedback: A sociocognitive
perspective. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds),Feedback in second language writing: Contexts
and issues, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Handuleh, J. . (2013). Scientific publishing in Somalia. Available at:
http://blog.inasp.info/scientific-publishing-in-somalia/.
Harman, R. . & Shin, D. . (2018). Multimodal and community-based literacies: Agentive
bilingual learners in elementary school. In G. Onchwari & S. Keengwe (eds), Handbook of
research on pedagogies and cultural considerations for young English language learners (pp.
217–238). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Harris, P. ., McKenzie, B. ., Fitzsimmons, P. . & Turbill, J. . (2003). Writing in the primary
school years. Tuggerah, NSW: Social Science Press.
Hattie, J. . & Timperley, H. . (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Hayton, T. . (2020). Using social media in the classroom. British Council. Available at:
www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/using-social-media-classroom.
Heath, S. . (1983). Ways with words: Language life and work in communities and classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hedge, P. . (2005). Writing, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Helms-Park, R. . & Stapleton, P. . (2003). Questioning the importance of individualized voice
in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 245–265.
Hesse-Biber, S. . & Leavy, P. . (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Higgins, J. . & Green, S. . (eds) (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of
interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at:
http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
Hoey, M. . (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.
Hoey, M. . (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written text analysis. London:
Routledge.
Horner, B. ., Lu, M-H. ., Royster, J. . & Trimbur, J. . (2011). Language difference in writing:
Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303–321.
Hudson, J. . (2018). Using wikis for collaborative writing in the ELT classroom. International
Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 2(2), 413–426.
Huisman, B. ., Saab, N. ., van den Broek, P. . & van Driel, J. . (2019). The impact of formative
peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880.
Humphrey, S. ., Droga, L. . & Feez, S. . (2012). Grammar and meaning. Newtown, Australia:
PETAA.
Hunston, S. . (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, F. . (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System,
31, 217–230.
Hyland, F. . & Hyland, K. . (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
Hyland, K. . (1998). Hedging in science research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. . (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351–358.
Hyland, K. . (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. . (2004b). Graduates’ gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation
acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 303–324.
Hyland, K. . (2004c). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. . (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. . (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for
Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21.
Hyland, K. . (2008b). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching,
41(4), 543–562.
Hyland, K. . (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
32, 150–169.
Hyland, K. . (2013a). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180–187.
Hyland, K. . (2013b). Corpora, innovation and English language education. In K. Hyland & L.
Wong (eds), Innovation and change in English language education (pp. 218–232). London:
Routledge.
Hyland, K. . (2013c). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 240–253.
Hyland, K. . (2015a). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of
knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. . (2015b). Corpora and written academic English. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (eds),
The Cambridge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 292–308). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hyland, K. . (2016a). Writing with attitude: Conveying a stance in academic texts. In E. Hinkel
(ed.),Teaching grammar to speakers of other languages (pp. 246–265). New York:
Routledge.
Hyland, K. . (2016b). Methods and methodologies in second language writing. System, 59,
116–125.
Hyland, K. . (2017). English in the discipline: Language provision in Hong Kong’s new
university curriculum. In E. Sung Park (ed.), English education at the tertiary level in Asia (pp.
27–45). New York: Routledge.
Hyland, K. . (2018). Sympathy for the devil? A defence of EAP. Language Teaching, 51(3).
383–399.
Hyland, K. . (2021). Academic discourse. In K. Hyland , B. Paltridge & L. Wong (eds),
Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis, 2nd edn. London: Bloomsbury.
Hyland, K. . & Hyland, F. . (1992). Go for gold: Integrating process and product in ESP.
English for Specific Purposes, 11, 225–242.
Hyland, K. . & Hyland, F. . (2019). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and
interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds), Feedback in second
language writing (pp. 206–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. . & Jiang, K. . (2019). Academic discourse and global publishing: Disciplinary
persuasion in changing times. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. . & Milton, J. . (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205.
Hyland, K. . & Tse, P. . (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in
abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139.
Hyland, K. . & Tse, P. . (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2),
235–253.
Hynninen, N. . & Kuteeva, M. . (2017). “Good” and “acceptable” English in L2 research
writing: Ideals and realities in history and computer science. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 30, 53–65.
Hyon, S. . (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4),
693–722.
Hyon, S. . (2008). Convention and inventiveness in an occluded academic genre: A case
study of retention–promotion–tenure reports. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 175–192.
Hyon, S. . (2017). Introducing genre and English for Specific Purposes. Abingdon: Routledge.
IELTS (2012). Academic word list in use. Available at: www.ieltsbuddy.com/support-
files/academic-word-list.pdf
Ivanic, R. . (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic
writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ivanic, R. . & Weldon, S. . (1999). Researching the writer-reader relationship. In C.N. Candlin
& K. Hyland (eds), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 168–192). Harlow: Longman.
Jiang, L. . (2018). Digital multimodal composing and investment change in learners’ writing in
English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 60–72.
Johns, A.M. . (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A.M. . (ed.) (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johns, A.M. . (2013). The history of English for specific purposes research. In B. Paltridge &
S. Starfield (eds), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 5–30). Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Johns, A. ., Bawashi, A. ., Coe, R. ., Hyland, K. ., Paltridge, B. ., Reiff, M. . & Tardy, C. .
(2006). Crossing the boundaries of genres studies: Commentaries by experts. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 15(3), 234–249.
Johns, T. . (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning
materials. English Language Research Journal, 4, 1–13, Special Issue, Classroom
concordancing, ed. T. Johns & P. King .
Johnson, R. . (2011). A study of the impact of professional development on teacher attitude
toward writing and implementation of writing strategies. Thesis, Texas A&M University.
Jones, R.H. . & Hafner, C.A. . (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction.
London: Routledge.
Kacetl, J. . & Klímová, B. . (2019). Use of smartphone applications in English language
learning: A challenge for foreign language education. Education Sciences, 9(179).
doi:10.3390/educsci9030179.
Kanoksilapatham, B. . (2015). Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural
variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for
Specific Purposes, 37, 74–86.
Kargozari, H.R. . & Zarinkarmar, N. . (2014). Lexical development through podcasts.
Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 98, 839–843.
Kaufer, D. . & Young, R. . (1993). Writing in the content areas: Some theoretical complexities.
In L. Odell (ed.), Theory and practice in the teaching of writing: Rethinking the discipline (pp.
71–104). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kellogg, R.T. . (1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kellogg, R.T. . (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive development perspective. Journal of
Writing Research, 1, 1–26.
Kemp, S. . (2019). Digital trends 2019 . TNW. Available at:
https://thenextweb.com/contributors/2019/01/30/digital-trends-2019-every-single-stat-you-
need-to-know-about-the-internet/.
Kenneally, C. . (2007). The first word: The search for the origins of language.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Kessler, M. . (2020). A text analysis and gatekeepers’ perspectives of a promotional genre:
Understanding the rhetoric of Fulbright grant statements. English for Specific Purposes, 60:
182–192.
Kim, H.R. . & Bowles, M. . (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written
corrective feedback? Insights gained from thinkalouds. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 913–938.
Kirszner, L.G. . & Mandell, S.R. . (2012). The brief Wadsworth handbook, 7th edn. Boston:
Wadsworth.
Knapp, P. . & Watkins, M. . (2005). Genre, text, grammar. Sydney: University of NSW Press.
Korstjens, I. . & Moser, A. . (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4:
Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–124.
Kostouli, T. . (ed.) (2005). Writing in context(s): Textual practices and learning processes. In
G. Kress (ed.), Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kramsch, C. . (1997). Rhetorical models of understanding. In T. Miller (ed.), Functional
approaches to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 50–63). Washington, DC: US
Department of State.
Krause, K.L. , Hartley, R. . James, R. . & McInnis, C. . (2005). The first year experience in
Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Available at:
www.griffith.edu.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0006/37491/FYEReport05.pdf.
Kress, G. . (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. . (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. . & van Leeuwen, T. . (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of
contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
Kress, G. . & van Leeuwen, T. . (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design, 2nd
edn. London: Routledge.
Krishnamurthy, R. . & Kosem, I. . (2007). Issues in creating a corpus for EAP pedagogy and
research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 356–373.
Kubota, R. . (2002). Japanese identities in written communication: Politics and discourses. In
R. Donahue (ed.), Exploring Japaneseness: On Japanese enactments of culture and
consciousness (pp. 293–315). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Kubota, R. . & Lin, A. . (eds) (2009). Race, culture, and identity in second language
education: Exploring critically engaged practice. New York: Routledge.
Kuo, Y.C. , Belland, B. . & Kuo, Y.T. . (2017). Learning through blogging: Students’
perspectives in collaborative blog enhanced learning communities. Educational Technology &
Society, 20(2), 37–50.
Kurt, S. . (2017). Wikis in education: How wikis are being used in the classroom. Educational
Technology. Available at: https://educationaltechnology.net/wikis-in-education/.
Kurzer, K. . (2018). Dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental ESL writing
classes. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 5–33. doi:10.1002/tesq.366.
Kuteeva, M. . & Airey, J. . (2013). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher
education: Reflections on recent language policy. Higher Education.
doi:10.1007/s10734%9610013%969660%969666.
LaFrance, M. . (2019). Institutional ethnography: A theory of practice for writing studies
researchers. Colorado, UT: Utah State University Press.
Lam, R. . (2017). Taking stock of portfolio assessment scholarship: From research to
practice, Assessing Writing, 31, 84–97.
Lammers, J. ., Magnifico, A.M. . & Curwood, J. . (2014). Exploring tools, places, and ways of
being: Audience matters for developing writers. In K. Pytash & R. Ferdig (eds), Exploring
technology for writing and writing instruction (pp. 186–201). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference.
Lan, Y.J. . (2018). Technology enhanced learner ownership and learner autonomy through
creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 859–862.
Lankshear, C. . & Knobel, M. . (eds) (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies, practices.
New York: Peter Lang.
Lantolf, J.P. . (1999). Second culture acquisition: Cognitive considerations. In E. Hinkel (ed.),
Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 28–46). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lave, J. . & Wenger, E. . (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lecercle, J-J . (2000). Interpretation as pragmatics. London: Palgrave.
Lee, D. . & Swales, J. . (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students:
Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific
Purposes, 25, 56–75.
Lee, G. . & Schallert, D. . (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher-student
relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 165–182.
Lee, I. . (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312.
Lee, I. . (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts.
Singapore: Springer.
Lee, I. . (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching,
52(4), 524–536.
Leech, G. . (1997). Teaching and language corpora: A convergence. In A. Wichmann & S.
Fligelstone (eds), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 1–24). Harlow: Longman.
Leech, G. . (1998). Preface. In S. Granger (ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. xiv–xx).
Harlow: Longman.
Lei, X. . (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated
actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217–236.
Leighton, J. . & Gierl, M. . (eds) (2007). Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education:
Theory and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leijten, M. . & van Waes, L. . (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research using Inputlog to
analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392.
Leitch, R. . & Day, C. . (2000). Action research and reflective practice: Towards a holistic
view. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179–193.
Leki, I. ., Cumming, A. . & Silva, T. . (2008). A synthesis of research on second language
writing in English. London: Routledge.
Lewis, M. . & Wray, D. . (1997). Writing frames. Reading: NCLL.
Li, J. . (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its implications for writing
assessment. Assessing Writing, 11(1), 5–21.
Li, J. ., Link, S. . & Hegelheimer, V. . (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing
evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing,
27, 1–18.
Li, M. . (2020). Multimodal pedagogy in TESOL teacher education: Students’ perspectives.
System, 94. 102337.
Li, M. . & Kim, L. . (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL
collaborative writing tasks. Second Language Writing, 31, 24–42.
Li, M. . & Storch, N. . (2017). Second language writing in the age of CMC: Affordances,
multimodality, and collaboration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 1–5.
Li, M. . & Zhu, W. . (2011). Patterns of computer mediated interaction in small writing groups
using wiki. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61–82.
Li, M. . & Zhu, W. . (2017). Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between
group interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38–53.
Li, Y-Y. . & Flowerdew, J. . (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), 17–29.
Lichtenstein, A. . (2020). The power of literacy narratives. ThoughtCo. Available at:
thoughtco.com/how-to-write-a-literacy-narrative-4155866
Lillis, T. . (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”: Closing the
gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3),
353–388.
Lillis, T.M. . & Curry, M.J. . (2010). Academic writing in global context. London: Routledge.
Lim, J. . & Polio, C. . (2020). Multimodal assignments in higher education: Implications for
multimodal writing tasks for L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47.
Lim, R.R. . & Noor, N. . (2019). Digital storytelling as a creative teaching method in promoting
secondary school students’ writing skills. International Journal of Interactive Mobile
Technologies, 13(7). https://onlinejour.journals.publicknowledgeproject.org/index.php/i-
jim/article/view/10798.
Lin, Y.S. . (2014). A third space for dialogues on creative pedagogy: Where hybridity
becomes possible. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.03.001.
Lindgren, E. . & Sullivan, K. . (eds) (2019). Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging
and handwriting. Brill: Leiden.
Litt, E. . & Hargittai, E. . (2016). The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media
and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116633482.
Liu, J. . & Han, L. . (2015). A corpus-based environmental academic word list building and its
validity test. English for Specific Purposes, 39(1), 1–11.
Liu, P-H. . & Tannacito, D. . (2013). Resistance by L2 writers: The role of racial and language
ideology in imagined community and identity investment. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 22(4), 355–373.
Liu, S. . & Kunnan, A. . (2016). Investigating the application of automated writing evaluation
to Chinese undergraduate English majors: A case study of Write to Learn. CALICO Journal,
33, 71–91.
Liu, Y. . & Du, Q. . (2018). Intercultural rhetoric through a learner lens: American students’
perceptions of evidence use in Chinese yìlùnwén writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 40, 1–11.
Lomax, R.G. . & Hahs-Vaughn, D.L. . (2020). An introduction to statistical concepts, 3rd edn.
New York: Routledge.
Loughran, J.J. . (1996). Developing reflective practitioners: Learning about teaching and
learning through modelling. London: Falmer.
Lundstrom, K. . & Baker, W. . (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer
review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second language Writing, 18, 30–43.
Lupton, D. ., Mewburn, I. . & Thomson, P. . (2018). The digital academic: Critical perspectives
on digital technologies in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Luzón, M.J. . (2017). Connecting genres and languages in online scholarly communication:
An analysis of research group blogs. Written Communication, 34(4), 441–471.
Mabuan, R.A. . (2018). Using blogs in teaching tertiary ESL writing. English Review: Journal
of English Education, 6(2). doi:10.25134/erjee.v6i2.1238.
MacCallister, C. . (2016). Critical perspectives. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (eds), The Routledge
handbook of English for academic purposes. London: Routledge.
Machili, I. ., Papadopoulou, I. . & Kantaridou, Z. . (2020). Effect of strategy instruction on EFL
students’ video-mediated integrated writing performance. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 48.
Macken-Horarik, M. ., Love, K. ., Sandiford, C. . & Unsworth, L. . (2017). Functional
grammatics: Re-conceptualizing knowledge about language and image for school English.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Malinowski, W. . (1949). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In A. Ogden & C.
Richards (eds), The meaning of meaning: A study of influence of language upon thought and
of the science of symbolism (pp. 296–336). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Manchón, R.M. . (ed.) (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional
language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manchón, R.M. . (2017). The potential impact of multimodal composition on language
learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 94–95.
Manchón, R.M. , Murphy, L. . & Roca de Larios, J. . (2005). Using concurrent protocols to
explore L2 writing processes: Methodological issues in the collection and analysis of data. In
P.K. Matsuda & T. Silva (eds), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the
process of knowledge construction (pp. 191–205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Manchón, R.M. . & Vasylets, O. . (2019). Language learning through writing: Theoretical
perspectives and empirical evidence. In J. Schweiter & A. Benati (eds),The Cambridge
handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maréchal, G. . (2010). Autoethnography. In A.J. Mills , G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (eds),
Encyclopedia of case study research, vol. 2 (pp. 43–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Martin, J. . (2004). Mourning – how we get aligned. Discourse and Society, 15(2–3),
321–344.
Martin, J.R. . (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Martin, J.R. . (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics
and Education, 20(1), 10–21.
Martin, J.R. , Christie, F. . & Rothery, J. . (1987). Social processes in education: A reply to
Sawyer and Watson (and others). In I. Reid (ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current
debates (pp. 58–82). Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J.R. . & Rose, D. . (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause.
London: Continuum.
Martinez, I. ., Beck, S. . & Panza, C. . (2009). Academic vocabulary in agriculture research
articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 183–198.
Matzler, P.P. . (2021). Grant proposal abstracts in science and engineering: A prototypical
move-structure pattern and its variations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100938
Mauranen, A. . (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
McCarthy, M.J. , McCarten, J. . & Sandiford, H. . (2006). Touchstone. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Meneghini, R. . & Packer, A.L. . (2007). Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to
increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down
language barriers in scientific communication. EMBO Reports, 8(2), 112–116.
Miceli, T. ., Visocnik, S. . & Kennedy, C. (2010). Using an L2 blog to enhance learners’
participation and sense of community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4),
321–41.
Mikanowski, J. . (2018). Behemoth, bully, thief: How the English language is taking over the
planet. The Guardian. Available at: www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/27/english-
language-global-dominance.
Millar, N. . (2011). The processing of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32,
129–148.
Miller, C. . & Devitt, A. . (eds) (2019). Landmark essays on rhetorical genre studies. New
York: Routledge.
Miller, L. ., Hafner, C.A. . & Ng, C. . (2012). Project-based learning in a technologically
enhanced learning environment for second language Learners: students’ perceptions. E-
Learning and Digital Media, 9(2), 183–195.
Miller, R. . (2005). Writing at the end of the world. New York: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Miller, R.T. , Mitchell, T.D. . & Pessoa, S. . (2016). Impact of source texts and prompts on
students’ genre uptake. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 11–24.
Miller-Cochran, S. . (2017). Understanding multimodal composing in an L2 writing context.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 88–89.
Min, H-T . (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and
writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141.
Mittan, R. . (1989). The peer review process: harnessing students’ communicative power. In
D. Johnson & D. Roen (eds), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207–219).
New York: Longman.
Moffett, J. . (1982). Writing, inner speech and mediation. College English, 44, 231–244.
Moreno, A. . & Swales, J. . (2018). Strengthening move analysis methodology towards
bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 40–63.
Morris, K. . (2020). 150 Student writing prompts for blogs, digital portfolios, or websites. The
edublogger. Available at: www.theedublogger.com/prompts-student-writing/.
Muller, S. . , Janks, H. . & Stiles, J. . (2015). Literacies with mobiles in print-poor
communities. In J.P. Gee (ed.), The Routledge handbook of literacy studies. London:
Routledge.
Munoz, V.L. . (2015). The vocabulary of agriculture semi-popularization articles in English: A
corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 26–44.
Murray, D. . (1985). A writer teaches writing, 2nd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Murray, J. . & Lutkewitte, C. . (eds) (2013). Multimodal composition: A critical sourcebook.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Myers, G. . (2010). The discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Bloomsbury.
Na, L. . & Hyland, K. . (2020). International publishing as a networked activity: Collegial
support for Chinese scientists. Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/amz071.
Nagy, W. . & Townsend, D. . (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as
language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108.
Nassaji, H. . & Kartchava, E. . (eds) (2017). Corrective feedback in second language
teaching. Abingdon: Routledge.
Nation, I.S.P. . & Webb, S. . (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston: Heinle.
National Literacy Trust (2020). Benefits of writing frames. Pivotal Education. Available at:
https://pivotaleducation.com/hidden-trainer-area/training-online-resources/benefits-of-writing-
frames/.
Negretti, R. . & McGrath, L. . (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacognition:
Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing,
40, 12–31.
Nesi, H. . & Gardner, S. . (2012). Genres across the disciplines. Student writing in higher
education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noblit, G.W. . & Hare, R.D. . (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Noel, E. . (2017). From a culture of testing to a culture of assessment: Implementing writing
portfolios in a micro context. In R. Al-Mahrooqi , C. Coombe , F. Al-Maamari & V. Thakur
(eds), Revisiting EFL assessment: Second language learning and teaching (pp. 221–235).
Cham: Springer.
Norris, J. . & Ortega, L. . (2006). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
North, S. . (1987). The making of knowledge in composition. London: Heinemann.
Noytim, U. . (2010). Weblogs enhancing EFL students’ English language learning. Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1127–1132.
Nunan, D. . & Bailey, K. . (2009). Exploring second language classroom research. Boston:
Heinle.
Nystrand, M. . (1987). The role of context in written communication. In R. Horowitz & S.J.
Samuels (eds), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 197–214). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Nystrand, M. . (1989). A social interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66–85.
Nystrand, M. ., Doyle, A. . & Himley, M. . (1986). A critical examination of the doctrine of
autonomous texts. In M. Nystrand (ed.), The structure of written communication (pp. 81–107).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Nystrand, M. ., Greene, S. . & Wiemelt, J. . (1993). Where did composition studies come
from? Written Communication, 18(3), 267–333.
O’Halloran, K. . (2021). Multimodal discourse analysis. In K. Hyland , B. Paltridge & L. Wong
(eds), The Bloomsbury handbook of discourse analysis. London: Bloomsbury.
O’Halloran, K. . & Smith, B. . (2012). Multimodal text analysis. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.),
Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
O’Keefe, J. . (2000). Invitation to reading and writing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Oppenheimer, D. ., Zaromb, F. ., Pomerantz, J. ., Williams, J. . & Park, Y.S. . (2017).
Improvement of writing skills during college: A multi-year cross-sectional and longitudinal
study of undergraduate writing performance. Assessing Writing, 32, 12–27.
Ortega, L. . (2015). Research synthesis. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (eds), Research methods
in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 225–244). London: Bloomsbury.
Osborne, J. . (2015). Transfer and learner corpus research. In S. Granger , G. Gilquin & F.
Meunier (eds), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 333–356).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Oxford English Dictionary (2020). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at:
www.oed.com/
Pacheco, M. ., Daniel, S. ., Pray, L. . & Jimenez, R. . (2019). Translingual practice, strategic
participation, and meaning-making. Journal of Literacy Research, 5(1), 75–99.
Paltridge, B. . (2008). Textographies and the researching and teaching of writing. Iberica, 15,
9–23.
Paltridge, B. ., Tardy, C.M. . & Starfield, S. . (2016). Ethnographic perspectives on academic
writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pankiewicz, G. . (2018). A rationale for writing and teaching about blogs. NCTE.
https://ncte.org/blog/2019/10/a-rationale-for-writing-and-teaching-about-blogs/
Park, D. . (1982). The meanings of ‘audience’. College English, 44(3), 247–257.
Pecorari, D. . (2016). Intertextuality and plagiarism in EAP. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw
(eds),Handbook of EAP. London: Routledge.
Pecorari, D. . & Shaw, P. . (eds) (2018). Student plagiarism in higher education: Reflections
on teaching practice. London: Routledge.
Pegrum, M. . (2009). From blogs to bombs. Crawley: UWA Publishing.
Pennycook, A. . (1996). Borrowing others’ words: texts, ownership, memory, and plagiarism.
TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201–230.
Pennycook, A. . (2010). Language as local practice. London: Routledge.
Perelman, L. . (2012). Mass-market writing assessments as bullshit. In N. Elliot & L.
Perelman (eds), Writing assessment in the 21st century: Essays in honor of Edward M. White
(pp. 425–438). New York: Hampton Press.
Perelman, L. . (2013). Critique of Mark D. Shermis & Ben Hamner, “Contrasting state-of-the-
art automated scoring of essays: analysis”. The Journal of Writing Assessment, 6(1).
www.journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=69.
Pérez-Llantada, C. . (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing:
Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 84–94.
Petticrew, M. . & Roberts, H. . (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Phillipson, R. . (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. . (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European
integration and globalisation. World Englishes, 27(2), 250–267.
Pigg, S. ., Grabill, J.T. , Brunk-Chavez, B. , Moore, J.L. , Rosinski, P. & Curran, P. . (2014).
Ubiquitous writing, technologies, and the social practice of literacies of coordination. Written
Communication, 31(1), 91–117.
Polio, C. ., Fleck, C. . & Leder, N. . (1998). “If I only had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in
linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68.
Polio, C. . & Shea, M. . (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy
in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27.
Polit, D.F. . & Beck, C.T. . (2021). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for
nursing practice, 10th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Porte, G. . & McManus, K. . (2019). Doing replication research in applied linguistics.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Pressley, M. . & Afflerbach, P. . (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Price, M. ., Handley, K. ., Millar, J. . & O’Donovan, B. . (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but
what is the effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.
Prior, P. . (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the
academy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Purcell, K. ., Buchanan, J. . & Friedrich, L. . (2013). The impact of digital tools on student
writing and how writing is taught in schools. Available at:
www.pewinternet.org/2013/07/16/the-impact-of-digital-tools-on-student-writing-and-how-
writing-is-taught-in-schools/.
Ramanathan, V. . & Atkinson, D. . (1999a). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45–75.
Ramanathan, V. . & Atkinson, D. . (1999b). Ethnographic approaches and methods in L2
writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 44–70.
Ramineni, C. . (2013). Validating automated essay scoring for online writing placement.
Assessing Writing, 18, 40–61.
Reyna-Barron, E. . (2016). An analysis of the comprehension instruction and reading
comprehension and vocabulary strategies used by teachers to facilitate students’ ability to
understand text. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University. Available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/157058.
Rheindorf, M. . (2019). Revisiting the toolbox of Discourse Studies. New trajectories in
methodology, open data and visualization. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, J. . (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Roche, T. . (2017). Assessing the role of digital literacy in English for Academic Purposes
university pathway programs. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 11, A71–A87.
Roen, D. . & Willey, R. . (1988). The effects of audience awareness on drafting and revising.
Research in the Teaching of English, 22(1), 75–88.
Roettgers, J. . (2017). How Facebook’s move to video will fundamentally change its business.
Variety. Available at: https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/facebook-future-business-margins-
video-1202509145/.
Rohman, D.G. . (1965). Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College
Composition and Communication, 16, 106–112.
Römer, U. . (2010). Using general and specialized corpora in English language teaching:
Past, present and future. In M. Campoy-Cubillo , B. Bellés-Fortuño & M. Gea-Valor (eds),
Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching (pp. 18–38). London: Continuum.
Roscoe, R.D. , Brandon, R.D. , Snow, D.L. ., & MacNamara, D.S. . (2014). Game-based
writing strategy practice with the Writing Pal. In K.E. Pytash & R.E. Ferdig (eds), Exploring
technology for writing and writing instruction (pp. 1–20). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Rowntree, D. . (2018). Statistics without tears: An introduction for non-mathematicians.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Rowsell, J. . & Pahl, K. . (eds) (2015). The Routledge handbook of literacy studies. London:
Routledge.
Russell, D.R. . (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis.
Written Communication, 14(4), 504–554.
Rutherford, W. . (1987). The meaning of grammatical consciousness-raising. World
Englishes, 6(3), 209–216.
Sa, J. . (2001). Diary writing: A research method of teaching and learning. Education Line.
Available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001698.htm.
Sabbaghan, S. . (2013). How noticing is affected by replay of writing process during
stimulated recall. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 629–633.
Saldaña, J. . (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 2nd edn. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sanders-Reio, J. ., Alexander, P. ., Reio, T. . & Newman, I. . (2014). Do students’ beliefs
about writing relate to their writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance? Learning
and Instruction, 33, 1–11.
Sarac, S. . (2014). Benefits and challenges of using Second Life in English teaching: Experts’
opinions. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 326–330.
Savin-Baden, M. . & Howell Major, C. . (2013). Observation. In M. Savin-Baden & C. Howell
Major , Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice (pp. 391–402).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Scardamalia, M. . & Bereiter, C. . (1986). Research on written composition. In M. Wittrock
(ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan.
Schank, R. . & Abelson, R. . (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmitt, D. . & Schmitt, N. . (2005). Focus on vocabulary: Mastering the academic word list.
London: Longman.
Schmitt, N. . & Schmitt, D. . (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2
vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484–503.
Schmidt, R. . (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Schön, D.A. . (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Schriver, K. . (1992). Teaching writers to anticipate readers’ needs. Written Communication,
9(2), 179–208.
Schunk, D.H. . & Greene, J.A. . (eds) (2018). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance, 2nd edn (pp. 323–337). New York: Routledge.
Scollon, R. . (2001). Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. London: Routledge.
Scollon, R. . & Scollon, S. . (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Scott, M. . & Tribble, C. . (2006). Textual patterns: Keywords and corpus analysis in language
education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Scribner, S. . & Cole, M. . (1981). The psychology of literacy. London: Harvard University
Press.
Seidlhofer, B. . (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELF Journal, 59(4), 339–340.
Shannon, C. . & Weaver, W. . (1963). Mathematical theory of communication. Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Shaw, P. . (1991). Science research students’ composing process. English for Specific
Purposes, 10, 189–206.
Shaw, P. . (2016). Genre analysis. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (eds), The Routledge handbook of
English for academic purposes (pp. 244–256). London: Routledge.
Shin, D-S. ., Cimasko, T. . & Yi, Y. . (2020). Development of metalanguage for multimodal
composing: A case study of an L2 writer’s design of multimedia texts. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 47.
Shin, Y.K. . (2019). Do native writers always have a head start over non-native writers? The
use of lexical bundles in college students’ essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
40, 1–14.
Shuman, A. . (1993). Collaborative writing: Appropriating power or reproducing authority? In
B. Street (ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 247–271). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Silva, T. . (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 665–677.
Singer, L. . & Alexander, P. . (2017). Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades
of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1007–1041.
Skinner, E.A. ., & Pitzer, J.R. . (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement,
coping, and everyday resilience. In S.L. Christenson , A.L. Reschly & C. Wylie (eds),
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). New York: Springer.
Smart, G. . (2008). Ethnographic-based discourse analysis: Use, uses and prospects. In V.
Bhatia , J. Flowerdew & R. Jones (eds.)Advances in discourse studies (pp. 56–66). London:
Routledge.
Smith, B. ., Pacheco, M. . & Rossato de Almeida, C. . (2017). Multimodal codemeshing:
Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 36: 6–22.
Spelman Miller, S. ., Lindgren, E. . & Sullivan, K. . (2008). The psycholinguistic dimension in
second language writing: Opportunities for research and pedagogy using computer keystroke
logging. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 433–454.
Sperber, D. . & Wilson, D. . (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Stake, R. . (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Starfield, S. . (2015). Ethnographies. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (eds), Research methods in
applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 137–155). London: Bloomsbury.
Starfield, S. ., Paltridge, B. . & Ravelli, L. . (2014). Researching academic writing: What
textography affords. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (eds), Theory and method in higher education
research, vol. II (pp. 103–120). Oxford: Emerald.
Stern, L. . (1883). The life and opinions of Tristram Shandy, gentleman. Available at:
https://archive.org/details/lifeopinionstri01stergoog.
Stevenson, M. . (2016). A critical interpretative synthesis: The integration of automated
writing evaluation into classroom writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 42, 1–16.
Stevenson, M. . & Phakiti, A. . (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the
quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65.
Stevenson, M. . & Phakiti, A. . (2019). Automated feedback and second language writing. In
K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds),Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 2nd
edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Storch, N. . (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.
Storch, N. . (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. . (2018). Collaborative writing. In The TESOL encyclopedia of English language
teaching. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0395.
Storch, N. . & Wigglesworth, G. . (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of
corrective feedback on writing case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2),
303–334.
Street, B. . (1995). Social literacies. Harlow: Longman.
Street, B. . (2009). The future of ‘social literacies’. In M. Baynham & M. Prinsloo (eds),The
future of literacy studies (pp. 21–37). London: Palgrave.
Street, B. . & Lefstein, A. . (2008). Literacy: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
Sullivan, K. . & Lindgren, E. . (eds) (2006). Computer keystroke logging and writing. London:
Elsevier.
Swales, J. . (1988). Episodes in ESP: A source and reference book on the development of
English for Science and Technology, 2nd edn. New York: Prentice Hall.
Swales, J. . (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. . (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swales, J. . (1999). How to be brave in EAP: Teaching writing in today’s research world. In D.
Novotna (ed.), Proceedings of “LSP Forum 99” (pp. 61–88). Prague: Charles University
Press.
Swales, J. . (2018). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building.
20th Anniversary Issue. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swales, J. . & Feak, C. . (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. . & Feak, C. . (2011). Navigating academia: Writing supporting genres. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. . & Feak, C. . (2013). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and
skills, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Talmy, S. . (2015). Critical research in applied linguistics. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti
(eds),Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 153–168). London:
Bloomsbury.
Tan, S. ., O’Halloran, K.L. . & Wignell, P. . (2020). Multimodality. In A.D. Fina & A.
Georgakopoulou (eds), Handbook of discourse studies (pp. 263–281). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tardy, C. . (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or
tyrannosaurus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 247–269.
Tardy, C. . (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press LLC.
Tardy, C. . (2019). Appropriation, ownership, and agency: Negotiating teacher feedback in
academic settings. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds),Feedback in second language writing:
Contexts and issues, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teaching and Learning Innovation Park (2020). Using wikis. University of Huddersfield.
Available at: https://ipark.hud.ac.uk/content/wikis?q=content/wikis.
Teo, A.K. . (2006). Social-interactive writing for English language learners. The CATE- SOL
Journal, 18, 160–178.
Tong, A. ., Flemming, K. ., McInnes, E. . et al. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting
the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology,
12(181).
Tribble, C. . (1997). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trofimovich, P. . & Turuseva, L. . (2015). Ethnic identity and second language learning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 234–252.
Truscott, J. . (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46, 327–369.
Truscott, J. . (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
Trzebiatowski, K. . (2018). The power of substitution tables. EAL Journal.
https://ealjournal.org/2018/11/19/the-power-of-substitution-tables/.
Turnitin (2020). Plagiarism spectrum 2.0. Available at:
www.turnitin.com/resources/plagiarism-spectrum-2-0.
University College London (2020). Plagiarism. Available at: www.ucl.ac.uk/current-
students/guidelines/plagiarism.
University of Oslo (2006). In the next hundred years: the University of Oslo and language in
that age of internationalization. Recommendation of the Committee on Language Policy at
the University of Oslo. Available at: www.uio.no/om_uio/innstillinger/.
Usher, R. . & Edwards, R. . (1994). Postmodernism and education. London: Routledge.
Valizadeh, M. . (2020). The effect of comprehensive written corrective feedback on EFL
learners’ written syntactic accuracy. Advances in Language and Literacy Studies, 11(1),
17–26.
van Beuningen, C. ., de Jong, N.H. . & Kuiken, F. . (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of
comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.
Vandergriff, I. . (2016). Second-language discourse in the digital world: Linguistic and social
practices in and beyond the networked classroom. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Vandermeulen, N. ., Leijten, M. ., & Van Waes, L. . (2020). Reporting writing process
feedback in the classroom: Using keystroke logging data to reflect on writing processes.
Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 109–140.
van Dijk, T.A. . (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T.A. . (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk
New York: Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T.A. . (2015). Critical discourse analysis.In D. Tannen , H.E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin
(eds), The handbook of discourse analysis, 2nd edn (pp. 466–485). London: Wiley.
Vass, H. . (2017). Lexical verb hedging in legal discourse: The case of law journal articles
and Supreme Court majority and dissenting opinions. English for Specific Purposes, 48,
17–31.
Victoria State Government (2019). Literacy teaching toolkit. Available at:
www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/writin
g/Pages/default.aspx.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2020). The Foundation-10 English
Curriculum. Available at:
https://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/english/english/introduction/rationale-and-aims.
Villamil, O.S. . & de Guerrero, M. . (2019). Sociocultural theory: A framework for
understanding socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland
(eds),Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 2nd edn (pp. 25–44).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vojak, C. ., Kline, S. ., Cope, B. ., McCarthey, S. ., & Kalantzis, M. . (2011). New spaces and
old places: An analysis of writing assessment software. Computers and Composition, 28,
97–111.
Vygotsky, L. . (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. . (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vurdien, R. . (2013). Enhancing writing skills through blogging in advanced English as a
foreign language class in Spain. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(2), 126–143.
Walker, R. . (1985). Doing research. London: Methuen.
Wallace, D. . & Ruegg, R. . (2020). WRIT 101 workbook: Becoming an effective writer and
researcher. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University of Wellington.
Wang, C. . (2016). Why are my Chinese students so quiet? A classroom ethnographic study
of Chinese students’ peer review activities in an American multilingual writing class.
INTESOL Journal, 13(1).
Ware, P. . & Kessler, G. . (2013). CALL and digital feedback. In M. Thomas , H. Reinders &
M. Warschauer (eds), Contemporary studies in linguistics: Contemporary computer-assisted
language learning (pp. 323–339). London: Continuum.
Warschauer, M. . (2000). Online learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic
study. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (eds), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and
practice (pp. 41–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. . (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly,
22, 575–592.
Weaver, C. . (1990). Understanding whole language: From principles to practice. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Webb, P. ., Williams, Y. . & Meiring, L. . (2008). Concept cartoons and writing frames:
Developing argumentation in South African science classrooms? African Journal of Research
in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(1), 5–17.
Wei, L. . (2019). Ethnography: Origins, features, accountability, and criticality. In J. McKinley
& H. Rose (eds), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics.
London: Routledge.
Wette, R. . (2017). Source text use by undergraduate post-novice L2 writers in disciplinary
assignments: Progress and ongoing challenges. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37,
46–58.
Whalen, K. . & Ménard, N. . (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A
model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 44, 381–418.
Wheeler, G. . (2009). Plagiarism in the Japanese universities: Truly a cultural matter?,
Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 17–29.
White, A. . (2007). A tool for monitoring the development of written English: T-unit analysis
using the SAWL. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 29–41.
White, R. . & Arndt, V. . (1991). Process writing. Harlow: Longman.
Whitney, K. . (2019). Bridging rhetorical genre studies and ethics of representation in meeting
minutes. Prompt: A Journal of Academic Writing Assignments, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.31719/pjaw.v3i1.33.
Williams, J. . & Condon, F. . (2016). Translingualism in composition studies and second
language writing: An uneasy alliance. TESL Canada Journal, 33(2), 1–18.
Williams, R. . (1962). Communications. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Wilson J. . & Czik, A. . (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English Language
Arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality,
Computers and Education, 100, 94–109.
Wind, S. ., Stager, C. . & Patil, Y.J. . (2017). Exploring the relationship between textual
characteristics and rating quality in rater-mediated writing assessments: An illustration with
L1 and L2 writing assessments. Assessing Writing, 34, 1–15.
Winter, E.O. . (1977). A clause relational approach to English texts: A study of some
predictive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional Science, 6(1), 1–92.
Wodak, R. . (1996). Disorders of discourse. Harlow: Longman.
Wodak, R. . (2021). Critical discourse studies. In K. Hyland , B. Paltridge & L. Wong (eds),
Bloomsbury handbook of discourse studies. London: Bloomsbury.
Wodak, R. . & Chilton, P. . (eds) (2007). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis, 2nd
edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wong, A.T.Y. . (2005). Writers’ mental representations of the intended audience and of the
rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed.
System, 33(1), 29–47.
Wong, L.L.C. . (2013). Technological innovation and teacher change: IT in teacher
professional development. In K. Hyland & L. Wong (eds), Innovation and change in English
language education (pp. 248–262). London: Routledge.
Wong, L.L.C. . (2019). Enhancing disciplinary postgraduate thesis writing via a data-driven
learning approach: TDG Final Report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.
Wray, D. . & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing nonfiction.
London: Routledge.
Wyatt, M. . & Dikilitaş, K. . (2019). English language teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for
grammar instruction: Implications for teacher educators. The Language Learning Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1642943.
Xue, G. . & Nation, I.S.P. . (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and
Communication, 3(2), 215–299.
Yang, C. . (2016). The reactivity and veridicality of concurrent verbal reports in second
language writing. PhD thesis. University of Auckland. http://hdl.handle.net/2292/29843.
Yang, H. . (1986). A new technique for identifying scientific/technical terms and describing
science texts. Literacy and Linguistic Computing, 1, 93–103.
Yang, W. . (2015). ‘Call for papers’: Analysis of the schematic structure and lexico-grammar
of CFPs for academic conferences. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 39–51.
Yi, Y. . (2017). Establishing multimodal literacy research in the field of L2 writing: Let’s move
the field forward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38(4), 90–91.
Yi, Y. . & Angay-Crowder, T. . (2016). Multimodal pedagogies for teacher education in
TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 988–998.
Yi, Y. ., Shin, D-S. . & Cimasko, T. . (2020). Multimodal composing in multilingual learning
and teaching contexts. Editorial Journal of Second Language Writing, 47, 2–5.
Youn, S.J. . (2018). Task-based needs analysis of L2 pragmatics in an EAP context. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 86–98.
Young, L. . & Harrison, C. . (2004). Introduction. In L. Young & C. Harrison (eds), Systemic
functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–11). London: Continuum.
Yu, L. . (2020). Investigating L2 writing through tutor-tutee interactions and revisions: A case
study of a multilingual writer in EAP tutorials. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48.
Zamel, V. . (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case-studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165–187.
Zeichner, K.M. (1993). Action research: Personal renewal and social reconstruction.
Educational Action Research, 1, 199–219.
Zhang, Z.V. . & Hyland, K. . (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated
feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.
Zhang, Z.V. . & Hyland, K. . (2021). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An
integrated approach. Assessing Writing.
Zhao, C.G. . (2019). Writer background and voice construction in L2 writing. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 37, 117–126.
Zheng, B. ., Yim, S. . & Warschauer, M. . (2017). Social media in the writing classroom and
beyond. In The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0555.
Zhou, H. . (2015). An empirical study of blog-assisted EFL process writing: Evidence from
Chinese non-English majors. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(1), 189–195.
Zou, H. . & Hyland, K. . (2019). Reworking research: Interactions in academic articles and
blogs. Discourse Studies, 21(6), 713–733.
Zou, H. . & Hyland, K. . (2020). “Think about how fascinating this is”: Engagement in
academic blogs across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 43.