Writing academic texts in second language

Myles (2002) explores the process of composing academic texts in second language. In general, the study presents an examination of basic features of second language writing, an analysis of writing errors and the role of writing instructors in the development of literacy skills in second language learners. The article focuses on intertwined aspects of writing in second language in an academic audience-oriented context.
In particular, Myles (2002) draws a distinction between the development of skills to compose texts efficiently in first language and the demands to write well in the second language. In most cases, non native students trying to pursue western standard goals in academic literacy face a double problem: schemata of knowledge -rhetoric issues- and multiple social factors that motivate integration to a discourse community; i.e. job needs.
For this reason, appropriate knowledge of the western discourse community seems to be crucial for effective composing and particular conventions that regulate the organization of academic texts are to be respected. Indeed, on analyzing Myles’ (2002) paper, readers will find elements of certain aspects in connection to discourse requirements.
A typical example of this issue is the use of introductory phrases that appear in the first sentence in an academic summary. Similarly to in-text-citations, introductory phrases mention the source of information and the date; the first paragraph includes the name of the author, year of publication and the main idea (Pintos, 2008b); i.e. “The Flower and Hayes (1980, 1981) model focuses on what writers do when they compose” (Myles, 2002, p. 3).
Ellipsis signal the partial omission of a sentence or more in a paragraph, with three dots (Pintos, 2008b); i.e. “students' strategic knowledge and the ability of students to transform information . . . to meet rhetorically constrained purposes" (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p. 116, as cited in Myles, 2002, p. 3). This sentence provides an example of direct quotation, using the author’s exact words from the original text within quotation marks (Pintos, 2008a).
Equally important is the use of insertion of a letter, between square brackets, to show a change in a word that belongs to a direct quote (Pintos, 2008b); i.e. “[A]lthough we should not cripple our students' interest in writing (…)” (Yau, 1991, p. 268, as cited in Myles, 2002, p. 14). In this example, the upper-case letter marks the difference from the original source (Pintos, 2008b).
Finally, to introduce another voice in an academic text, so as to make the reading compelling, special attention should be paid to the choice of reporting verbs such as argue, state, propose, claim; i.e. “Schumann (1998) argues (. . . ). He states that (. . .)” (Myles, 2002, p. 7); “Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) also propose (. . .)” (Myles, 2002, p. 3); “Behaviorist accounts claim that (. . .)” (Myles, 2002, p. 8).
Furthermore, Myles (2002) discusses factors in relation to writing errors; social factors are what motivate students to learn a second language. And they can be used by writing instructors to promote proficiency. For example, English for Academic Purpose (EAP) students that “have a desire to achieve their professional goals (. . .) can become more proficient in their ability to write in English (. . .)” (Myles, 2002, p. 5).
Cognitive factors refer to knowledge acquisition; i.e. vocabulary, style, how information is structured -schemata of knowledge-, use of strategies and the influence of language transfer (Myles, 2002). Whereas some theorists view language transfer “as a resource that the learner actively draws upon in interlanguage development” (Selinker, 1972, as cited in Myles, 2002, p. 8), others disagree and consider transfer as problematic.
According to Myles (2002), “Anderson’s (1985) model of language production” (p. 7) comprises three spiraled stages: construction, transformation and production of the text. In all, errors in second language writing emerge due to the operation of many non overt internal factors that affect second language students. Myles (2002) contends that schemata for language literacy respond to exclusive socio-political contexts of a discourse community.
Moreover, Myles (2002) discusses teacher’s part in the process of second language writing in connection to language proficiency, modeling, self-evaluation, feedback and confidence. Considering the attainment of clear standards, Myles (2002) suggests that as learner’s production “vary in the ultimate level of proficiency they achieve, with many failing to reach the target- language competence” (p. 11), this matter should be considered.
Besides, Myles (2002) supports written modeling in the target language as a form to reinforce input of the target language. Another strategy proposed is the use of prompts and student self-evaluation (Cumming, 1995, cited in Myles, 2002). On balance, students’ response to teachers’ intervention, whether they feel confident and motivated to express themselves, clearly influences writing in a second language.
To conclude, Myles’s study (2002) goes beyond the domain of text composing in second language, exploring how the articulation of skills developed for the first language shape the cognitive development of second language abilities. Non native students undergo a process of meta-cognitive transformation to deal successfully with academic standards and to be active part of a discourse community.

References
Myles, J. (2002). Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis in Students Texts. TESEL-EJ, 6 (2). Retrieved September 10, 2009, from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESl-EJ/ej22/a1.html
Pintos, V. (2008a). Unit 2: Personal narratives in teaching. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved August 29, 2009, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/modresource/view.php?id=2724
Pintos, V. (2008b). Unit 3: Academic writing. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2725