Official Blog Entry #1

Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011).  Shared features of L2 writing: Intergroup homogeneity and text classification. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 271-285.  doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.007

This is a study reported in the style of a scientific report.  Not unlike the format used by the physical sciences for lab and research reports at both the academic and professional levels.  It rather reminded me of research reports that I referenced in college when I was Biology major.  The objective of the study “is to investigate the potential for linguistic features related to text cohesion, lexical sophistication and syntactic complexity to discriminate between texts written by L1 and L2 writers” (Crossley & McNamara, 2011).  In other words, they were hoping to identify and prove certain linguistic markers and patterns can be used to predict and identify L2 writers and L1 writers in a diverse collection of argumentative papers. 

                They compared a selection of 904 L2 argumentative papers (a mixture of German, Czech, Spanish and Finnish L1 writers) from the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) and 211 L1 essays from “native English speaking college students in first year persuasive writing classes” (Crossley & McNamara, 2011).  Several tests and measures were used for data collection and analysis.  After presenting their reasons for the methods selected and presenting the results that they found, they discussed the findings.   They felt that the results supported their claim that “intergroup homogeneity exists in the linguistic patterns of L2 writers” (Crossley & McNamara, 2011).  They argue that their results show that L2 writers use “less sophisticated lexical features and less sophisticated morphological features” (Crossley & McNamara, 2011).  These are indicated in the four linguistic features of hypernymy, polysemy, stem overlap and lexical diversity.  L2 writers words are more general resulting in lower hypernymy scores and less ambiguous and so give lower polysemy scores (Crossley & McNamara, 2011).  For stem overlap, L2 writers are not as likely to use words that “share stems between sentences” (Crossley & McNamara, 2011).  That is they are not as likely to repeat the same root concept in different morphologies in the same paper or paragraph (i.e. artisic and artistically).   While L2 writers were found to employ a greater lexical diversity than the L1 writers that did not mean that they were more proficient than the L1 writers.  That is more an indicator of “rhetorical strategies” (Crossley & McNamara, 2011). 

While their study and findings appear to prove their point, I am not sure that this article has aided my focus for the semester or done anything for my personal development other than to add to my lexical knowledge of field specific terminology.  I will say that it has me wanting to explore the test and measures they used for future personal academic use.  Would I recommend this article to peers and scholars?  I would say ‘yes’ with qualifications.  If the individual is looking to determine factors that influence L2 writing styles or methods for identifying L2 writers from L1 writers in a mixed pool of essays, then yes this article could be a useful tool.  However, for myself, it did not offer as much insight into the Czech EFL psyche as I would like and only gave me limited clues as to how to specially tailor L2 writing exercises for Czech and other Slavic EFL students.

Purpose of the Blog…

This blog is in part a writing exercise for my current class:  Second Language (L2) Writing Pedagogy.  There will be about 5 posts that are reflections on articles geared toward my personal focus for the semester.  However, this blog may continue past this semester and, with that in mind, I hope to include more reflections on class readings and discussions from this current class and others,  comments on pedagogy and my development as a both a linguist and a teacher.  In that sense, I hope that this will be more like a blog in the true sense of the word…a biography/log of my development of thought, discourse savvy and understanding of my chosen profession…an online journal of sorts.

An Introduction

My name is Cathryn J.  I am a Masters of Applied Linguistics student with an emphasis on Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).  I have studied, to varying degrees, about 8 other languages than my native American English.  In chronological order, these are German, Spanish, French, German, Latin, Italian, Russian, German, Czech and American Sign Language (ASL). 

As you can see by the list, I have an affinity for German and have studied it independently in grade school, intensively in high school and again non-degree seeking after completing my BA.  My first introduction to German came at the family dinner table in casual phrases tossed into conversations and the names of traditional food favorites.  In addition to an ancestral link to German food and culture, my family lived in Germany for about 5 or 6 years before my birth and most of my siblings and both parents have varying degrees of proficiency in the language.

Russian was an attempt to get as close as I could to a foundation in Slavic Languages on my path to living and working in another ancestral homeland, the Czech Republic.  Towards that end, I enrolled in an intensive 4 week certificate program in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) in Prague, Czech Republic.  Immediately following completion of the program, I sought work in Prague.  I eventually ended up working for 3 different schools and agencies.  My six months of teaching taught me several lessons about myself, the expectations of my teaching clients, teaching support from the agencies and ultimately how much more I would have to learn to make future international English education endeavors a success. 

The issues of second language writing that interest me are how to best interpret the needs of your students and mold your lesson plans to build on existing skills and develop better English writing techniques.