Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing: The ESL Research and Its Implications
Abstract
Dealing effectively with L2 writers requires a clear understanding of the nature of L2 writing. In an attempt to develop such an understanding, 72 reports of empirical research comparing L1 and L2 writing were examined. The findings of this research indicate a number of salient differences between L1 and L2 writing with regard to both composing processes (and subprocesses: planning, transcribing, and reviewing) and features of written texts (fluency, accuracy, quality, and structure, i.e., discoursal, morphosyntactic, and lexicosemantic). Implications of the findings for L2 and L1 writing theory; future comparative writing research; and the practical concerns of assessment, placement, staffing, and instruction are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Adult L2 writing is more constrained, more difficult, and less effective than native writers' writing.
“research shows that the L2 writing of adults 'is more constrained, more difficult, and less effective' than that of native writers (Silva, 1993, p. 668).”
From Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing (2021) · cites this paper as Silva, 1993
L2 students often struggle to produce quality writing in the target language.
“As noted by several researchers (Schoonen et al. , 2009; Silva, 1993; Weigle, 2005), L2 students often struggle to produce quality writing in the target language.”
From Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing (2021) · cites this paper as Silva, 1993
Cites
CULTURAL THOUGHT PATTERNS IN INTER‐CULTURAL EDUCATION
Kaplan, R. B. (1966) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x · Cited by 2,069 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The influence of teacher commentary on student revision
Ferris, D. R. (1997) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3588049 · Cited by 618 · see citing works
The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing
Paulus, T. M. (1999) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80117-9 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class
Zhang, S. (1995) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00046-7 · Cited by 383 · see citing works
Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing
Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2021) · The JALT CALL Journal · doi:10.29140/jaltcall.v17n2.336 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Castro, C. D. (2004) · Asia Pacific Education Review · doi:10.1007/bf03024959 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G. C. W., Van den Bergh, H. H., & Sercu, L. (2014) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9318-5 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Pourmousavi, Z., & Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. (2020) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-020-00088-w · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Silva, T.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Corresponding author
- Silva, Tony
- ORCID
- Silva, Tony
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1993
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 657
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2070413714
- Cited by
- 860
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 45
- FWCI
- 51.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- TESOL Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
- Keywords
- second language writing, writing process, planning, transcription, reviewing, writing fluency, writing accuracy, text quality, discourse structure, morphosyntactic features, lexical-semantic features, writing theory, writing assessment, ESL teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
