Chapter published in:
Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies
Edited by Wataru Suzuki and Neomy Storch
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 55] 2020
► pp. 198–215

Talking to self while writing

Second-language writers’ languaging processes and reflections

| University of Toronto
Despite ample research on the positive effects of languaging with peers, research on languaging with oneself has received limited attention. Drawing on sociocultural theory, I examine how second language (L2) writers language with themselves while composing, and how they perceive the role of languaging in their L2 writing. Twenty university English language learners wrote an essay individually. While writing, they were encouraged to speak aloud to themselves but it was not a requirement. The analyses of languaging, stimulated recall and interview protocols showed that the learners used languaging to facilitate their composing processes using different verbal scaffolds. There were, however, individual differences in the production of languaging and attitudes towards languaging as a self-regulatory tool to mediate L2 writing.
Keywords: scaffolding, second language writing, speech-for-self, private speech, learner perspective
Published online: 14 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.09wat
References

References

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P.
(1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78 (4), 465–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M.
(2010) The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, L., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Knouzi, I.
(2010) Mediating between scientific and spontaneous concepts through languaging. Language Awareness, 19 (2), 89–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Centeno-Cortés, B., & Jiménez-Jiménez, A. F.
(2004) Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: The importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14 (1), 7–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.
(2008) Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cumming, A.
(1990) Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7 (4), 482–511. https://​doi​-org​.myaccess​.library​.utoronto​.ca​/10​.1177​/0741088390007004003
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C.
(1992) Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation vs. direct composition. Language Learning, 42 (2), 183–215. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, R. M.
(1992) Methodological concerns in the study of private speech. In R. M. Diaz, & E. B. Laura (Eds.), Private speech (pp. 33–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
DiCamilla, F. J., & Antón, M.
(1997) Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotskian perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53 (4), 609–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Private speech: A study of language for thought in the collaborative interaction of language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14 (1), 36–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donato, R.
(1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Educational Testing Service
(n.d.) Writing topics. Retrieved from http://​www​.ets​.org​/Media​/Tests​/TOEFL​/pdf​/989563wt​.pdf (2 March, 2012).
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A.
(1993) Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P.
(1985) Second language discourse: A Vygotskyan perspective. Applied Linguistics 6 (1), 19–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granott, N.
(2005) Scaffolding dynamically toward change: Previous and new perspectives. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 (3), 140–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, M. C. M. de
(2018) Going covert: Inner and private speech in language learning. Language Teaching, 51 (1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, M. C. M. de, & Villamil, O. S.
(2000) Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 51–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holton, D., & Clarke, D.
(2006) Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37 (2), 127–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, M.
(2018) Written languaging, learners’ proficiency levels and L2 grammar learning. System, 74 , 50–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knouzi, I., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Brooks, L.
(2010) Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging: Microgenetic analysis of high and low performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 23–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T.
(2008) A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, M., & Kim, D.
(2016) One wiki: Two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31 , 25–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCafferty, S. G.
(1994) Adult second language learners’ use of private speech: A review of studies. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (4), 421–436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Negueruela, E.
(2008) Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads development in the second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp.189–227). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S.
(2001) Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smagorinsky, P.
(1998) Thinking and speech and protocol analysis. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5 (3), 157–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21 , 233–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (3), 153–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 , 275–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki. W.
(2012) Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62 (4), 1110–1133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(2006a) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2006b) Verbal protocols: What does it mean for research to use speaking as a data collection tool? In M. Chaloub-Deville, A. C. Chapelle, & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 97–113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46 (2), 195–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L.
(2009) Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Langauge Journal, 93 (1), 5–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y.
(2020) Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of secondlanguage learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 667–674). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uzawa, K.
(1996) Second language learners’ processes of LI writing, L2 writing, and translation from LI into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (3), 271–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. de
(1996) Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 51–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1987) Thinking and speech. In R. W. Reiber, A. S. Carton, & N. Minik (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 37–285). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Wang, L., & Hyun, E.
(2009) A study of sociolinguistic characteristics of Taiwan children’s peer-talk in a Mandarin-English-speaking preschool. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 7 (1), 3–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y.
(2008) Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64 (1), 605–636. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Collaborative and independent writing: Japanese university English learners’ processes, texts and opinions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto.Google Scholar
(2019) The role of languaging in collaborative and independent writing: When pairs outperform individuals. In M. Haneda & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Perspectives on language as action: Festschrift in honour of Merrill Swain (pp. 63–79). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) Collaborative and individual writing: University English learners’ verbal processes while composing. In M. Riazi, L. Shi, & K. Barkaoui (Eds.), Studies and essays on learning, teaching and assessing L2 writing in honour of Alister Cumming (pp. 100–125). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M.
(2007) The effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11 (2), 121–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G.
(1976) The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17 (2), 89–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R.
(2009) Learners in Japanese language classrooms. Overt and covert participation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar