Literature Review

1. Literature Review

2. Research Title: Contrastive Rhetoric, Lexico-Grammatical Knowledge, Writing Expertise, and Metacognitive Knowledge: An Integrated Account of the Development of English Writing by Taiwanese Students

3. Chapter Two: Literature Review 2.1 Language competence and performance 2.2 Factors involved in writing outcomes Relevant knowledge Relevant skills (strategic competence) Possible task formats Summary and insights for this study

4. Chapter Two: Literature Review 2.3 Writing across cultures and languages 2.3.1 Writing across cultures Summary and insights for this study 2.3.2 Writing across languages Second language acquisition and errors in writing Lexical knowledge Summary and insights for this study 2.3.3 Writers’ knowledge and beliefs in writing Summary and insights for this study

5. Chapter Two: Literature Review 2.4 Writing development 2.4.1 Spoken language used in writing Inner speech and private speech Three-stage model of oral usage in writing Writer-based prose Knowledge-telling strategy Conjunction in written texts Summary and insights for this study 2.4.2 Connection of writing expertise in L1 and L2 Summary and insights for this study 2.5 The multi-faceted nature of writing

6. 2.3.2 Writing across languages One common constraint faced by L2 writers when they compose is their second language ability. Since most L2 writers are still in the process of learning the second language, one major cause for the deficiency of some ESL/EFL writers is the lack of acquisition of the English language (Krashen, 1984, p. 29).

7. Second language acquisition and errors in writing One most common problem with the language exhibited in L2 writing is the prevalence of errors. Research on second language acquisition indicates that transfer is a critical factor in shaping written texts. According to the theory of contrastive analysis (cf. James, 1980), grammatical errors and mistakes made by L2 learners are mainly due to the interference caused by their native language. In other words, errors are caused by cross-linguistic influence. For example, in a study that examines English composition by 80 Taiwanese students, Horney (1998) found that the greatest number of errors came in the linguistic areas where contrastive analysis indicated the greatest differences between English and Chinese.

8. Lexical knowledge Steps of information • First paragraph: introduction about language proficiency in writing • The problem of language proficiency as a factor to explain writing competence • The solution (the study): lexical knowledge ---- vocabulary ability ---- essay length

9. First paragraph: Introduction about language proficiency in writing Writers must achieve certain language competence before they can control the language used in writing. Numerous studies have examined the role of L2 proficiency in L2 writing, but the results have been mixed. Some have found that L2 writing performance was unrelated to L2 proficiency (e.g., Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Raimes, 1985, 1987; Zamel, 1983). For example, students’ scores in the Michigan Test of English Proficiency in Raimes’ studies (1985; 1987) did not correspond with their demonstrated writing proficiency measured by holistic ratings. Yet, others have found that L2 proficiency plays a major role in explaining L2 writing performance (e.g., Cumming, 1989; Hirose & Sasaki, 1994; Pennington & So, 1993; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996)

10. The problem of language proficiency as a factor to explain writing competence One possible explanation for the divergent findings lies in the research methodology. Most research assesses students’ language proficiency by using language proficiency tests like the Michigan Test of English Proficiency or the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). It is still not clear to what extent language competence is pertinent to L2 writing performance, although some of the general criteria of language competence can be applied to the development of writing skills. On the other hand, most studies that claim competence in the composing process is more important than linguistic competence are process-oriented research, which observed or investigated a limited number of subjects. It is difficult to form conclusive generalizations from such experimental research.

11. The solution (the study): lexical knowledge Kirby and Kantor (1983) described linguistic competence as being composed of three measurable elements: vocabulary content (words as indicators of knowledge), vocabulary fluency (the ability to call forth words for appropriate expression), and syntactic fluency (syntactic processing ability). A number of studies have addressed the issue of lexical and syntactic features in L2 writing. Studies that compare the compositions of L2 writers with those of L1 writers have shown that the great disparity of linguistic features in native and non-native speakers’ texts is largely associated with issues of familiarity with and access to lexical features (Silva, 1997, for an overview ).

12. The solution (the study): lexical knowledge • The development of high-quality writing in L2 requires an ever-increasing vocabulary that is capable of expressing writers’ thoughts (Angelova, 1999). From writers’ standpoint, the importance of possessing a sufficient vocabulary for L2 writing has been substantiated. Leki and Carson (1994) surveyed 128 non-native English-speaking undergraduate students in the writing courses of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and found that vocabulary was cited as the most important factor for writing within the category of language skills. The finding suggests that L2 writers may be primarily constrained by their ability to choose from a repertoire of lexical options.

13. The relation of vocabulary and writing From readers’ or raters’ standpoint, vocabulary proficiency is perhaps the best indicator of overall composition quality. Astika (1993) assessed foreign students’ writing by using the ESL Composition Profile (Jacobs, Zingraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey, 1981). Of the five components (content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics), variations in the ability to employ vocabulary were found to account for the largest amount (84%) of variance in the total writing scores.

14. The relation of vocabulary and writing In a study of Koda (1993) who investigated descriptive and narrative texts of Japanese as a foreign language, there was a strong correlation between vocabulary knowledge and text quality. Her findings also show that vocabulary knowledge contributes substantially to the writing quality, while sentence complexity has relatively little independent influence on the writing quality (Koda, 1993, p. 337).

15. The relation of essay length (words in a text) and writing Among eleven linguistic/rhetorical features, essay length was the second best predictor of essay quality. Similar results were also found in L2 writing. Ferris (1994), using a multidimensional approach to investigating a corpus of 160 timed compositions written by ESL students of mixed ethnic backgrounds, found that of the 28 text variables, essay length (number of words) contributed most significantly (R2 = .38) to holistic writing scores.