Writing in a Second Language - Assignment Example

ASSIGNMENT 2 The Hayes & Flower (1980) model of the composition process has been extremely influential in the area of first language writing. Evaluate the main features of this model and say how far it can be applied to second language writers. The Hayes & Flower (1980) model has been very influential as a basic theory of recursive cognitive process of composition. As a traditional recursive problem-solving model in which both process and product issues are incorporated, it has been found to be very useful and robust in the area of first language writing. The main features are (1) Planning, (2) Translating, and (3) Reviewing functions. Functions are monitored constantly throughout the writing process. The task environment of the model consists of variables such as writing task and the generated text. The relationship between the variables and long-term memory of writer is reciprocal. The theory is based on four points: “1.The process of writing is best understood as a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing 2. These processes have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization in which any given process can be embedded within any other 3. The act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer’s own growing network of goals. 4. Writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating both high-level goals and supporting sub-goals which embody the writer’s developing sense of purpose, and then, at times, by changing major goals or even establishing entirely new ones based what has been learned in the act of writing.” Planning The word `Planning’ is used in a broad sense. It is an abstract state of writer’s mind in which an internal representation of the knowledge is formed and it would be used in writing. The representation could be a key word, an image or a perceptual code. Thus planning is the art of building this internal representation and involves many sub-processes( sub-planning,  generating and revising) which are used repeatedly at different levels  and at different.These processes generate ideas drawn from information in memory. The information may be at different levels of fragmentation, maturity and connectedness. The sub-process of organizing helps the writer to derive sense from information, discover and develop concepts creatively by grouping the ideas. At a technical level, the writer decides about presentation and ordering of the text. Another major aspect of planning is goal-setting which could be procedural and substantive. Goal-setting is a crucial part of being creative. The very act of defining rhetorical problem and setting goals is crucial to creativity. It is not exclusive to pre-writing stage but an ongoing continuous process of composing. Often one idea naturally leads to another but not in a planned sequence. The model’s notion of `planning’ as an abstract internal representation of knowledge is generally relevant for first language writers. Translating The process of expressing ideas in language is called translating. During translation, the writer `clothes’ or gives `flesh’ i.e a shape to the ideas generated during the process of planning. He may use language to represent thoughts that were not structurally organized, in a linear fashion and convey the intended meaning. During the translation process, the writer’s language skills and flexibility in using them come into play. Naturally it may vary across age-groups, strategic command over knowledge/subject. Clearly while the process of planning is more natural to any language writers, it is the process of translating that presents a variety of constraints for second language writers. This is mainly because besides the extent of command over the second language, the writer has to negotiate the social construction and environment involved in the cognitive process. Theoretically the second language writers are clearly at a disadvantage compared to first language writers because they do not have the felicity of equal command over complexities that are socially and linguistically specific to situations. Hence to a certain extent, the second language writers face constraints over creativity during translation. Reviewing Reviewing depends on two sub-processes (1) evaluating and (2) revising. In this process, writers read what they have written and get back to further translating or evaluation or even revision of the text. This process helps them to check whether the intended meaning is conveyed by the text or not or whether language form has distorted the meaning and conveyed the unintended thought/idea. The reviewing process may or may not be planned. In both cases, the process of reviewing and evaluation may lead the writer to new cycles of planning and translating. They are not exclusive to only written text. In fact many times, reviewing is continuous and helps in triggering new ideas and enables natural continuity in writing. All other processes may be interrupted by these sub-processes of revising and evaluating in writing. In practice, we observe that the reviewing process is more efficient and effective in case of first language writers compared to second language writers. The first language writers have the flexibility of experimentation and improvisation with language and translation compared to that of second language writers. Monitoring During the process of composition, writers monitor their progress – a kind of evaluation. There are two types of monitoring. Depending on the fluency in language and command over knowledge, writers may `think through’ the entire composition and then only write the whole text. Other writers may put down their ideas as and when they occur, review and evaluate and proceed further in a chain-like manner. Recursion The components of Hayes & Flower (1980) model establish the fact that writing is a nonlinear and recursive process consisting of sub-processes that are both consciously and unconsciously experienced and experimented by writers. However it is not known how the thought processes are coordinated and organized during the writing process.The model assumes that the processes of writing are hierarchically organized, with component processes embedded within other larger components.The authors say that writing process is hierarchical, i.e.the composing process is a large system that subsumes other less inclusive systems such as generation of ideas, which in turn contain other systems and this continues. In the process of composition, recursion i.e. embedding a process in a larger example of itself is natural in the process of writing for e.g. depending on the goal, a writer may think about a different style or format or even the size of content if linguistic problems or lack of clarity or any other translating issues are encountered. The model represents a writer’s tool kit in which the broad process of composing consists of embedded sub-processes among which the basic are planning, translating and reviewing. Goal-directed nature of composing The Hayes & Flower (1980) model realistically assumes that composing is a goal-directed process and in that process, they create their own network of goals which guide the writing process. However the main issue is whether there could be a trade-off or contradiction between goal-directedness and creativity. Two key processes of generating and evaluating govern the process and ensure that a flexible collaboration among the writer’s knowledge, his goals and text takes place, even if it means emergence of new goals and sub-goals! Writers can succeed in striking the right combination of openness and purposefulness by remembering the golden principle “in the act of writing, people regenerate or recreate their own goals in the light of what they learn”. In both cases of L1 and L2 writers, the principle is immensely applicable. Generation of goals Creation of goals and the supporting sub-goals is a recursive process by which writers use their existing knowledge, newly acquired knowledge and many clarifications to achieve the ultimate goal of composing. Often the goals themselves may change. Some goals may be expressed or conscious and others, especially the sub-goals may not be expressed. Many times, writers review the existing knowledge, explore and research a given topic and change the structure and content of composition. They may test the relevance and depth of the content by reading established articles. There are two basic processes used by writers – creating sub-goals and regenerating goals. They have the freedom and flexibility to organize the two processes according to their convenience and needs. The model identifies three patterns of goals --- `Explore and consolidate’, `State and develop’ and `Write and regenerate’. Patterns of goals: Explore and consolidate `Explore and consolidate’ pattern of goal is observed in the beginning stage of composition during which the writer explores his own knowledge, acquires and consolidate new knowledge.In case the writer is writing a new topic, this pattern becomes a critical skill and may be daunting and repeated revision of the main as well as sub-goals may take place. In other typical cases, the consolidation process should clarify and freeze the main goal and enable progress towards the next stage in the composition process. Intuitively L2 writers may face more problems in this pattern unless they acquire professional expertise in the process of exploration and knowledge consolidation. State and develop In this pattern of goal, a writer is clear and specific about his general high-level goal and also the sub-goals. His task is to come out of his vague intentions and start writing the text. He is in a position to tentatively develop the structure of sub-goals and allocate the content with purpose mentioned at each component of the structure. In this process, he may change the sub-goals and even the extent of the content if this process gives him a new total perspective of the developing text and also the sub-goals. Writer’s plans and strategies become the sub-goals or just operational details in this recursive methodology of the model. The end result of this pattern of goal is that the writer has moved forward and developed a network of goals and sub-goals. The relative extent of specificity of goals and content depends on the success of the previous pattern because he can always jump to the previous pattern with respect to one or more sub-goals in the network that has emerged in the current pattern. Write and regenerate The process of writing yields unexpected results in terms of unintended information, elaboration and a feeling that the content demands less restrictive goals. In such situations, the explicit planning carried out in the previous patterns are questioned. This leads the writer to think about new plans but unless he learns from writing and planning, he cannot succeed in writing the intended text.Irrespective of the subject, L1 or L2, it is the creativity of writer which facilitates all the processes and goals. Application of model to second language writers The fundamental method for evaluation of Hayes & Flower(1980) model for its application to second language writers is to understand whether the process of second language writing can be assumed to be the same as that in the first language. It is nor certain that learners have a uniform approach to writing, writers in mother tongue may approach differently than second language writers. There are a number of studies that suggest that the processes of second language writers varies in many ways from those of first language writers. Silva(1993) evaluated 72 studies comparing L1(first language) writing with L2(second language) writing. He identified a number of important differences between L1 and L2 writing. The differences were regarding composing processes and sub-processes such as planning, transcribing, and reviewing and also features of written texts such as fluency, accuracy, quality, and structure(discoursal, morphosyntactic, and lexicosemantic).These differences are more striking in the case second language writers who are low in proficiency in second language.Moreover it is natural on the part of second language writers to often rely heavily on their first language resources, especially in the early stages of writing in second language.Due to the varying proficiency in second language, considerable variation in their writings is bound to exist. In this context, Weissberg (2000) suggested that “…. writing plays an important role in second language development, not only in the development of accuracy but also in the emergence of new structures. The ways in which such individuals write, and use writing, in their L2 is likely to be quite different from their colleagues for whom writing in their L1 plays a lesser role. For writers who are more proficient in their L2, differences may be fewer”. It is also interesting to note the finding of Matsumoto (1995) that proficient bilingual writers tend to use the same strategies when writing in both L1 and L2. A similar study by Beare (2002) supports this finding. Role of social and community contexts There are many studies which emphasize that it is not only the writer but also the social and community contexts that are important in cognitive process, for e.g. “writing should not be viewed solely as an individually-oriented, inner-directed cognitive process, but as much as an acquired response to the discourse conventions . . . within particular communities" (Swales, 1990, p. 4). In contrast, the Hayes & Flower (1980) model is individual(writer)-centric. Therefore the model needs modification for applicability to second language writers in whose contexts, the impact of discourse conventions and social influences play significant role in the process of writing. “Students writing in a second language are also faced with social and cognitive challenges related to second language acquisition. L1 models of writing instruction and research on composing processes have been the theoretical basis for using the process approach in L2 writing pedagogy. However, language proficiency and competence underlies the ability to write in the L2 in a fundamental way. Therefore, L2 writing instructors should take into account both strategy development and language skill development when working with students”( Johanne Myles,2002). Example to demonstrate the impact of social and community contexts on L2 writers: A study of Chinese students' essays (written in English) focused on the sociocultural and sociolinguistic forces that influence their writing. A pre-determined set of marking criteria. Were used for analyses(including a metalinguistic) of the scripts. In many cases, data indicated that students' patriotism and lack of awareness of reader needs (as reflected in their use of language and claims) impede their capacity to construct coherent, objective and effectively substantiated written arguments. Therefore there is a justification for a sociocultural consideration of the pedagogical issues related to the writing processes of second language writers. . Students were asked to write an essay expressing their views on the topic: 'Is it better to do your higher education in China or overseas? An example of a representative writing of a group of Chinese students: If you remember your own homeland you should return to your own homeland after graduation. You can use those (sic) knowledge to build our homeland . . . There are (sic) better wisdom in China. .Overseas, if that country is a developed country the study conditions is (sic) good and I can study better. Being alone in overseas can build my character. In the above writing, one aspect is clear, i.e. “the pivotal role played by cultural values and beliefs in the process of developing the writer's self. The literature highlights the significance of the communitivistic concern of the Chinese for the well-being of family, community and society (Hsu, 1985 et al). The topic evoked a strong sense of patriotism and concern for the greater good of the community. At the same time, it was evident that some students were attempting to express their views about what would be best for them as individuals…Thus, the apparently egocentric nature of these essays must be interpreted in the light of the sociocultural context in which they were written”. A representative writing of a group of English writers writing in second language, for e.g in Chinese, when translated into English would read as follows: You can learn about the business environment and cultural aspects of China. The knowledge and contacts would be very useful in future either for advanced studies in Chinese culture or business ventures with Chinese companies. In this case, the focus is on the benefits of studying in China and knowing its culture and not patriotic and communitivistic aspects of the topic. There are several issues specific to second language writers that are not incorporated the model, for e.g. “in addition to instructional and cultural factors, L2 writers have varying commands of the target language, which affect the way structural errors are treated from both social and cognitive points of view. Much of the research on L2 writing has been closely dependent on L1 research. Although L2 writing is strategically, rhetorically, and linguistically different in many ways from L1 writing (Silva, 1993), L1 models have had a significant influence on L2 writing instruction and the development of a theory of L2 writing”. Main constraints in application to L2 writers Second language writers face two basic constraints which typical first language writers do not --- (1) transition to academic discourse community which is conditioned by society and linguistic conventions and (2) the role the new situation will play in what is learnt. Thus writing is viewed not just as an individual-oriented endeavour but as a communicative act that is socially situated. Therefore the model of Hayes & Flower (1980) cannot be applied to L2 writers straight away without improvisations/modifications. In this context, “The view that writing is typically a socially situated, communicative act is later incorporated into Flower's (1994) socio-cognitive theory of writing. In the social cognitive curriculum students are taught as apprentices in negotiating an academic community, and in the process develop strategic knowledge. Writing skills are acquired and used through negotiated interaction with real audience expectations, such as in peer group responses. Instruction should, then, afford students the opportunity to participate in transactions with their own texts and the texts of others (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996).” In case of L2 writers, cognitively revision becomes a very difficult task. The quality of revision depends on the ability of students to analyze the feedback that they receive. Also the evaluation of the feedback is complex because even that depends on his relative language proficiency and his ability to transition to a new language successfully. In the cognitive model of Hayes & Flower (1980), several goals, sub-goals and sub-processes interact in a nonlinear pattern simultaneously. However in the case L2 writers, “ due to the complex process of writing in a second language, learners often find it difficult to develop all aspects of the stages simultaneously. As a result, they selectively use only those aspects that are automatic or have already been proceduralized (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). The Hayes and Flower model, according to Scarmadalia and Bereiter (1986), " . . . appears to do what it is supposed to do, which is to serve as a frame for working out more detailed and possibly more controversial accounts of how the mind copes with writing tasks." Importance of proficiency in second language A major factor that influences the cognitive process of composing by second language learners is their relative proficiency in the second language. As Bardovi-Harlig (1995) et al, observed, “ the writer’s relative proficiency in the target language is also claimed to be a source of differences between L1 and L2 writing as is the writer’s knowledge of the target language genres and associated sociocultural expectations (Cope & Kalantzis 1993 et al), and the interaction between the writer’s L1 experiences and the meaning of literacy in the target language culture (Bell 1995 et al).” Considering the several new factors that influence the cognitive process of second language writers as enumerated above, it can be concluded that the Hayes & Flower (1980) model is not applicable to second language writers without modifications and improvements. However it can be used as a basic framework to diagnose and understand the cognitive process of writing in general for both first and second language writers. REFERENCES 1.Flower Linda and John R.Hayes(1981) A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.College of Composition and Communication, Vol.32, 365-387 2.Language Learning, A Journal of Research in Language Studies(1995) Language Learning. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00447(accessed 3/4/2007) 3.Queen's University(2002) Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis in Student Texts.www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESl-EJ/ej22/a1.html(accessed 5/4/2007). 4.The Writing Notebook(1990) A Framework for the Activities Involved in the Writing Process. http://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/hunter/papers/frame.html(accessed3/4/2007) 5.The Higher Education Academy(2004) Writing in a second language. http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/goodpractice.aspx?resourceid=2175(accessed 4/4/2007) 6. Macquarie University.Adolescent Chinese Writers: Juggling sociocultural influences and writing demands www.aare.edu.au/00pap/kra00446.htm(accessed 9/4/2007) Read More