Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351 www.elsevier.

com/locate/jeap

EFL writers social networks: Impact on advanced academic literacy development

Orna Ferenz*
EFL Unit, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel

Abstract For non-native English writers, second language (L2) advanced academic literacy encompasses knowledge of the rhetorical, linguistic, social and cultural features of academic discourse as well as knowledge of English as used by their academic disciplines. Literacy is acquired through a socialization process embedded in social practice, patterned by social institutions [Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge] and interactions between learners and their academic discourse community members. These interactions may also be identied as a writers social network, which, in turn, may inuence the writers attitude to second language academic literacy acquisition. Adopting a social network perspective, this paper poses two questions: (1) What type of relationships do English as a Foreign Language (EFL) graduate students form in order to develop L2 academic literacy? (2) What impact do these relationships have on students acquisition of L2 academic literacy and writing. The results suggest that the composition of a writers social network affects L2 advanced academic literacy acquisition and practice as disciplinary communication. Implications for FL practitioners are considered. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Social networks; Advanced academic literacy; Second language writing; English for academic purposes

1. Introduction Second language (L2) advanced academic literacy is a prerequisite for producing appropriate second language academic writing. For non-native English (NNSE) writers,

* Tel.: C972 3 531 8237; fax: C972 3 535 6231. E-mail address: ferenzo@mail.biu.ac.il.

1475-1585/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.002

340

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

academic literacy encompasses knowledge of the linguistic, textual, social and cultural features of academic written discourse as well as knowledge of English as used by their academic disciplines. Acquisition of academic literacy, within an academic environment consisting of people, institutional settings and learning materials (e.g., lectures, classes, readings), is said to be dependent upon the interactive relationships of students, teachers, advisors, and classmates (Braine, 2002) which make up the students social environment. These academic-oriented relationships may provide the linguistic and pragmatic tools needed to produce disciplinary writing (Sperling, 1996). The social environment created by these relationships may impact the writers approach to L2 academic literacy. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of the social environment in developing graduate students L2 advanced academic literacy within an English as a foreign language (EFL) setting. Adopting a social network perspective, this paper looks at the types of relationships NNSE graduate students form in order to develop an understanding of L2 advanced academic literacy practices, and the impact of these relationships on students acquisition of L2 advanced academic literacy as substantiated through the practice of L2 academic writing. Data is provided from interviews and postinterview questionnaires with six advanced MA and PhD NNSE writing students.

2. Theoretical background and rationale The present study draws upon interconnected theoretical approaches. Following Barton and Hamiltons (1998) observation that literacy as social practice is patterned by social institutions, it is believed that within an academic institution, academic disciplines use different approaches, identied as valued literacy practices (Lea & Street, 1998; Street, 1996), for knowledge creation and representation, enabling practitioners to dene problems, make claims, situate research, and argue for ndings and interpretations through academic reading and writing practices. Within an EFL context, L2 advanced academic literacy often involves a transition between knowledge acquisition in L1 and knowledge presentation in L2, which may prove problematic for and Camps (2001) have shown that the novice practitioners. Furthermore, Ivanic transfer of L1 literacy practices to L2 literacy practices relate to a writers desire to retain his or her L1 identity. Thus, when considering advanced academic literacy acquisition, two factors should be kept in mind: (1) literacy practices are acquired through socialization with practitioners of the valued literacy (Beaufort, 1997), and (2) a writers identity may impact the writers motivation for acquiring L2 advanced academic literacy since literacy is a function of a writers identity (Pardoe, 2000), and literacy practices are valued by a writer according to his or her social identity (Ferdman, 1990) and goals (Lee, 2002). The second approach is based on social networks (Boissevain & Mitchell, 1973; Gunnarsson, 1997; Milroy, 1992, 1987; Milroy & Wei, 1995) making it possible to investigate a students relationships with the local members of his/her discourse community (Casanave, 1995; Eckert, 2000), such as thesis advisors and departmental professors, who are important in shaping novice writers academic literacy skills, just as they are responsible for students enculturation (Bazerman, 1988) and socialization

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

341

(Gee, 2001) into discourse communities (e.g., Bawarshi, 2000; Beaufort, 1997, 2000; Herndl & Nahrwold, 2000; Swales, 1990). Understanding, the impact a social network may have upon a person requires clarifying the concepts of identity and social identity (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Stets & Burke, 2000). Within different contexts, identities are activated by identity-consistent behavior that is goal-oriented (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). Even though a persons self-denition, or self-categorization (Turner, 1999), is dynamic and uctuating according to the different contexts in which a person nds him or herself (Deaux & Martin, 2003), individuals seek memberships in social networks or groups that are most advantageous to them (Tajfel, 1981). Within an academic setting, a persons self-categorization may determine the type of social networks developed to make salient the individuals identity. In this paper, I argue that not all L2 student writers are able to access an academic and social environment that will assume a marked role in the socialization process necessary for the acquisition of advanced academic literacy. The reasons for this lack of access and socialization may be related to the relationships students form for the purpose of making salient their identities and accomplishing their goals within the academic institution.

3. Methodology Exploring students perceptions about their process of L2 advanced academic literacy (AAL) acquisition is necessary for identifying the role social environments and relationships play in developing L2 advanced academic literacy. In trying to address and understand students perceptions of their L2 AAL acquisition, a descriptive investigation is undertaken by adopting a qualitative research methodology, in the form of interviews. This exploratory study aims to gather participants experiences of their L2 AAL acquisition through the use of a small sample in order to enable in-depth analysis (Silverman, 2001). Interview was chosen for this study as the major data source because it helps identify respondents perceptions of their social and academic environments. The methodology does not attempt to represent an objective environment but essentially draws on self reported data. This study was conducted at a large Israeli university with 31,200 undergraduate and graduate students in 2003/4. The predominant language of instruction is Hebrew, with the exception of the English Language and Literature department. This university, like all universities in Israel, requires graduate students (MA and PhD) to participate in EFL academic writing courses, thus exposing students from diverse disciplines to the experience of EFL academic writing. This requirement provided a population from which a sample could be drawn for a study on L2 academic literacy. Graduate students were chosen based on assumptions regarding their familiarity with L1 academic literacy, and their exposure to and acquisition of disciplinary knowledge. Table 1 provides background information on the participants. In addition to pursuing graduate studies, almost all of the participants worked in elds related to their disciplines: Sara was teaching English language courses at the same university and was surrounded by colleagues who were either native English speakers or procient non-native speakers. Miriam was working at a local hospital as part of a research

342

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

Table 1 Participants background information Academic level Sara Rachel Miriam David Leah Judith PhD PhD MA MA MA MA Thesis Thesis language English English Hebrew English N/A N/A Academic department Linguistics Linguistics Psychology Computer Science Communication Clinical Social Work Native language Russian Hebrew Hebrew Hebrew Hebrew Hebrew Interview length (min) 40 40 40 20 40 30 Interview language English English English English, Hebrew English, Hebrew English

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

team investigating dyslexia, and David was a government-employed computer programmer. Leah was a professional EnglishHebrew translator and Hebrew journal editor, while Judith was a social worker. At the time of the study, Miriam, David, Leah, and Judith were participating in EFL advanced academic writing courses. After obtaining data from an initial larger survey study, the interview attempted to ask brief questions and provide participants with sufcient time to respond while limiting the researchers participation. Issues relevant to L2 academic literacy and language use were elicited through multiple questions in order to triangulate respondents answers. Six interviews were conducted and audiotaped with the respondents consent. The interviews were conducted in English and Hebrew (see Table 1) by the researcher in her ofce. The interview sessions consisted of two parts: rst, a short introductory conversation in the form of a semi-structured interview with questions about the participants language background and attitudes, self-identication as an academic writer, perception of their academic network and its norms, and perceived membership in an academic network. The questions were based on sociolinguistic and language background questionnaires devised by Dittmar, Spolsky and Walters (1998), and Broeder, Extra and Maartens (1998). Second, a directed conversation on L2 advanced academic literacy practices and language choice topics was conducted to elicit participants attitudes and rationales for accommodation or non-accommodation of network norms during L2 advanced academic literacy practices. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and then categorized according to four emerging and recurring patterns and themes from the data analysis. The categories are: (1) academic environment, (2) social environment, (3) participants identity and goals, and (4) L2 advanced academic literacy practices. The academic environment refers to the university institutional setting and its instructional medium, such as lectures, discussions, and texts, for the instruction of disciplinary knowledge, literacy, and language use. As such, investigating the language orientation within the academic environment may indicate the extent students in different disciplines are exposed to L2 academic literacy practices and English disciplinary

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

343

language. In contrast, the social environment category refers to the people with whom the student interacts both within and without the academic institutional setting. Within the social environment context, the participants social networks were labeled as containing academic and/or non-academic individuals and cliques. Since literacy practices are acquired through a socialization process, investigating the composition of students social networks would indicate the extent the participants interact with individuals who practice and promote L2 advanced academic literacy. The category of participants identity and goals aim at identifying the participants more self-relevant identities and goals. According to identity theory (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995), the process of selfidentication with a particular social category or group acknowledges the role others may play in supporting this categorization, and relates self-conception to behavioral practices. It is expected, then, that participants with an academic orientation would differ from participants with a non-academic orientation in terms of social network composition and reported literacy practices. Following the interviews, the participants were asked to complete a post-interview questionnaire aimed at verifying explicit language use within their social networks. Participants were asked to identify the people with whom they interact within three settings: work, home, and university, to identify the languages used with each of the people, and to estimate the extent of English and Hebrew use for different activities within the academic institutional setting.

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Academic environment The academic environment is the primary setting from which students acquire academic knowledge and literacy. It seemed that the academic institution may not always create a language environment that sufciently exposes students to English disciplinary language (see Table 2). For some, such as Sara, Rachel, Miriam, and David, the academic environment is the main source for L2 disciplinary language acquisition as the following excerpt shows: I think mainly, probably the language came from what I had to read. I read a lot of papers and books, and, in my eld, I think that I took most of the language from there, probably. From the lectures which I listened to, and things like that. (Sara)
Table 2 Academic environment: learning materials and language Sara Lectures Readings L2 (Eng.) L2 (Eng.) Rachel L2 (Eng.) L2 (Eng.) Miriam L1/L2 (Heb./ Eng.) L2 (Eng.) David L1 (Heb.) L2 (Eng.) Leah L1 (Heb.) L1/L2 (Heb., Eng.) Judith L1 (Heb.) L1/L2 (Heb., Eng.)

344

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

Even within a Hebrew-language department, the academic environment may promote L2 academic literacy acquisition. As Miriam states: [E]verything I read is in English. Everything. Thats the reason why psychology student doesnt go to learn English. Because anything we read since the rst year in the rst degree is English. you start thinking English in the subject you learn about it in English. The academic environments positive impact consists of presenting and modeling disciplinary knowledge in English. On the other hand, Leah and Judiths academic environment did not facilitate L2 academic literacy acquisition. Both women read some English disciplinary texts but cognitively stored the information in Hebrew, translating the concepts from English to Hebrew, as Leah says: I, rst I translate [the ideas] from English to Hebrew; while Judith admits reading English articles but storing information in Hebrew. As a result, they do not utilize English disciplinary texts for L2 academic language acquisition. For the participants reporting on a translating process, indicating a goal of understanding the concepts for personal reasons rather than for developing disciplinary literacy skills, the academic environments impact appears to be negative. Within an EFL setting, disciplinary discussions in English should create an environment in which students develop and practice their L2 academic disciplinary language. However, as can be seen in Table 3, not all of the participants were able to undertake disciplinary discussions in English. Sara and Rachels interactions with departmental people incorporated more English in their discussion than the other participants. Miriam reported speaking English with her English-speaking advisor while David said he used both Hebrew and English when talking to his English-speaking advisor. By considering the language environment created within the academic institution, it thus appears that not all of the participants were sufciently exposed to academic English through their lectures, texts, and discussions with disciplinary experts. 4.2. Social environment Literacy is acquired through a socialization process where interactions make up the students social networks. Below I consider the participants social networks and their impact on L2 advanced academic literacy acquisition.
Table 3 Academic environment: people and language Sara Advisor Professors Students L2 (Eng.) L2 (Eng.) L1/L2/L3 (Rus./Heb./ Eng.) Rachel L1/L2 (Heb./ Eng.) L2 (Eng.) L1/L2 (Heb./ Eng.) Miriam L2 (Eng.) L1 (Heb.) David L1/L2 (Heb./ Eng.) L1 (Heb.) Leah L1 (Heb.) Judith L1 (Heb.)

Co-workers

L1 (Heb.)

L1 (Heb.)

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351 Table 4 Social environment: participants social networks Sara Academic Advisor, Professors, Students Spouse Rachel Advisor, Professors, Students Miriam Advisor David Advisor Leah Judith

345

Non-academic

Spouse

Co-workers, Spouse

Co-workers, Friend

Neighbor

When asked with whom they discuss their English disciplinary writing tasks, the participants referred to people from a variety of different settings and backgrounds. For each participant, a social network consisting of these people was identied, and the individuals were then labeled according to the environment within which the relationship has developed, such as academic or non-academic. Academic members of social networks are advisors, professors, and fellow students. Non-academic social network members may be co-workers, spouses, neighbors, and friends. Table 4 presents the participants social networks. Sara and Rachels social networks consisted almost entirely of academic people, namely advisors, professors, and fellow students. These academic members guided the participants in acquiring advanced academic literacy practices, such as with Sara, who says: I think that over the years of our cooperation, and, right, and Im his student, of course, [the advisor] has certain expectations, probably, at this point, its probably automatic but maybe in the past, hes very organized and very structured, so I know that I really have to have my ideas outlined in a clear cut way, the thesis, right, thats what he talks about a lot, right, the thesis statement, then he wants me to be close to the data, and I really have to show how the data supports, eh, my thesis, right. In contrast, Miriam and David have only one academic social network member, their advisor. Miriam attributed to her advisor her disciplinary knowledge and L2 language acquisition. From these reports, the advisors seem to assume a role of instructing the EFL graduate student in L2 advanced academic literacy practices. This is not surprising, according to Belcher (1994), thesis advisors have the most potential for affecting graduate students academic literacy acquisition. The advisors function in the participants acquisition of L2 advanced academic literacy practices differed from that of other professors. The assistance Rachel received from other professors appears to be related to knowledge creation and representation as the following excerpt indicates: I usually meet with my professors that Im writing for them the paper, and showing them my planning of the research paper. We usually sit together and discuss it. As a result of these discussions, Rachel incorporated the professors ideas and perspectives in her papers, and she reviewed her writing keeping their point of view in mind. She reported that:

346

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

I add, eh, things that they talked about and I didnt think of, um, I think I add more perspectives of theirs. I try to read the paper from their point of view and think what they would think. It thus appears that the professors assistance and comments serve an additional function, enhancing the participants conception of academic audience awareness. Academic peers, members in Sara and Rachels social networks, serve as peer readers, providing feedback, and developing a sense of community. For Sara, discussions with other students are limited in number and in scope, providing a sense of community discussing the topic or what everybody is doing. On the other hand, Rachel relied on peers for feedback on the research and writing process. The academic social network members are attributed with promoting L2 advanced academic literacy acquisition by establishing goals, modeling literacy practices, developing disciplinary knowledge and L2 disciplinary language, and establishing academic discourse community expectations. The non-academic social network members consisted of spouses, colleagues, friends, and neighbors. David and Leah discussed their L2 academic writing with their work colleagues. The focus of discussions with work colleagues was on idea development, and the colleagues served as peer readers to verify ideas and language clarity. As David said: I speak a bit with people at work . Sometimes there are points that I develop in the thesis because I spoke with people and I understood that the rst sentence that I wrote, or the text that I wrote isnt enough and I need to expand there so people will understandsometimes a change in the order of points. When asked why he discussed his English academic writing with his Hebrew-speaking colleagues, Davids response was: in any situation, I think that the writing process is the same, in the end. Because even when I write at work documents which some of them I begin in Hebrew I, a lot of things which we learned in English, I try them now in Hebrew and its the same thing. No, you, as if, if you write a document in Hebrew and you right away pass it on and you dont go over it and it, then you get feedback later that it wasnt good.. If you discuss the ideas before you start to write it then you, you have a more points to pay attention to. From this excerpt, it appears that David views the process of professional and L2 academic writing as similar, focusing on the need for discussing with others ideas for the writing task and on the importance of receiving feedback from readers. Leah explained that her papers were focused on the same type of issues that are relevant to both her disciplinary and professional elds. The analysis indicates that the respondents social environment had either an academic or non-academic orientation, depending upon the type of relationships the respondents formed in their social networks. The academic social network members promoted L2 advanced academic literacy by establishing goals for the students and enhancing their disciplinary knowledge and advanced academic L2 language acquisition whereas the nonacademic social network members promoted general literacy skills.

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

347

4.3. Participants identity and goals Institutional setting and academic studies are not a guarantee that everyone is pursuing the same academic goals. When the participants were asked why they were undertaking their graduate studies, the students gave a variety of reasons, from which their desired social identity was derived. In order to identify the participants desired social identity, it is necessary to rst consider the participants self-categorization (Gunnarsson, 1997) within their academic context, and, then, their context-related goals since goals direct behavior, which is a function of a persons self-categorization within a specic context (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Sara, Rachel, and Miriam presented academic-oriented identities. From Saras interview, it appears that she identied herself as an academic, saying: English is my professional life Rachel would like to . be a lecturer in one of the colleges, here at the university. Miriam was more research-oriented, stating that she like(s) research. I mean, my, um, um, specialize, specialization in psychology is research. David, Leah, and Judith presented non-academic-oriented identities, emphasizing their professions. Leah explained that she hoped her studies would strengthen her professional practice because she .needed reinforcement for work, my work, because I am a professional editor, an editor of a newspaper. Similarly, Judith emphasized her professional identity in relation to her studies, which she is using .at work. Im a therapist so you need toto know more. Respondents goals appeared to fall into three categories: academic, professional, and personal. Academic goals refer to the goal of achieving an academic career, either as lecturer or as researcher, for example, Miriam believes: I need [the degree], well in psychology you cant do anything without second degree, um, besides if you need to, if you want to do research, you need second degree because you dont get the tools in the rst degree and also you dont, no one considers you as a researcher without minimum, eh, second degree, and today also, eh, with third degree Professional goals refer to the respondents non-academic work environment whereas personal goals are individualistic. When David was asked what are the reasons he was pursuing a thesis track MA degree, he responded: Its interesting. For two reasons. The rst reason because of interest. It interests me. The second reason is to receive a lot of money at work in the end. When you work in the public sector then if someone has an engineering degree he can receive a research rank. Whoever has a three year degree cannot get unless he does a MA Based on their self-categorization, goals and reasons for doing their degrees, the participants orientation was labeled as either academic or professional, as shown in Table 5. If we compare the participants desired social identity and goals to their social networks, a correspondence emerges. Sara and Rachel, who desired an academic identity, were pursuing academic goals, and their dense social networks were academic-oriented. David and Leah had dense non-academic social networks that reected their professional social identity and goals. According to Hogg, Terry, and White (1995), belonging to a

348

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

Table 5 Participants desired social identity Sara Identity Academic Rachel Academic Miriam Academic David Professional Leah Professional Judith Professional

social category, such as an academic or non-academic orientation, provides a denition of ones identity, which is then linked to behavioral and affective outcomes. Deem and Brehony (2000) found that strong identication by second language research students with their academic environment, and social networks of academic support and friendships, enhanced students identity as researchers and as members of their academic community. Thus, it may be said that students developed certain types of relationships in order to make salient their identity and to pursue their goals regardless of their academic status. 4.4. L2 advanced academic literacy practices It is expected that the respondents reported L2 advanced academic writing processes would indicate the extent they had acquired L2 advanced academic literacy. The respondents reported writing processes may be divided into two patterns. Sara, Rachel, and Davids L2 writing processes appear to follow a sectional pattern, isolating and allocating attention to specic writing elements for focus and development, similar to knowledge-transformers (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). This type of writing process enables the writer to divide his or her attention between content development and language formulation (Manchon, de Larios, & Murphy, 2000). In contrast, Miriam, Leah, and Judiths L2 writing processes appear to follow a linear pattern, involving uncensored transfer of ideas to paper without consideration of relevance or t, similar to knowledgetellers (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). According to Zimmerman (2000), second language formulation is based upon multiple processes for accessing and applying linguistic knowledge to ideas. These processes involve decision-making in terms of selection and application of appropriate lexis and syntax, disciplinary-specic appropriate generic and rhetoric features, and goals for voice and register. Of the six students, only Sara, Rachel, and Miriam appear to undergo a decision-making language process. David, Leah, and Judith, on the other hand, did not report such a process, claiming they translate L1 lexis into L2 when encountering lexical recall difculties. During the process of writing, it may be said that language use is dependent upon the language in which knowledge was acquired and mentally stored. A review of the respondents reported language use indicates that Sara, Rachel, and Miriam utilize English throughout the writing process whereas David, Leah, and Judith utilize Hebrew during prewriting and Hebrew/English during the writing phase. The use of English during the prewriting phase would indicate acquisition of disciplinary knowledge in L2. Yet, David clearly stated his preference for Hebrew use during prewriting because it is easier for him to understand the topic. Furthermore, he believes that paying attention to language issues during the writing phase would distract him from formulating his ideas. This approach may indicate his non-academic orientation in that he does not set goals for academic

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

349

language related issues despite writing his MA thesis in English. If the practice of L2 advanced academic literacy involves setting goals related to content, rhetoric, genre, or language formulation (Hayes, 1996), then the academic-oriented participants were reporting on L2 advanced academic literacy practices to a greater extent than the nonacademic oriented participants.

5. Conclusion This exploratory study has found that within an EFL environment, the participants identities and goals appear to impact the nature of their social networks which in turn inuence each students L2 AAL acquisition. Since different literacies hold greater power and status within each social network (Street, 1996), the academic-oriented social networks were reported to reinforce the social and cultural features of advanced academic literacy (Thompson, 2003), utilizing disciplinary avenues for knowledge production and representation, as well as modeling English disciplinary language use. In contrast, the nonacademic-oriented social networks were reported to emphasize general literacy practices. Lee (2002) found that individuals appropriate L2 literacy practices according to their goals. In this study, a correspondence was also found between the participants identity and goals, and their L2 literacy practices. For students with an academic-oriented identity, their goals were academic in nature, and they emphasized disciplinary expectations in terms of issues, organization, and language when reporting their L2 advanced academic literacy practices. For students with a non-academic-oriented identity, their goals were professional or personal, and they undertook their L2 literacy practices initially in L1 and then in L1/L2, focusing on ideas. These ndings are in keeping with Canagarajahs (2002) notion of writers adopting community-based orientations to literacy according to their interests and values. For the non-academic-oriented students, functioning in the academic institution would require a switch in literacy practices from one setting, their work, to another, the university, and acquiring a set of literacy practices appropriate to each setting (Lea & Street, 1998). However, as the data has shown, not all of the participants desired to acquire a thorough understanding of L2 advanced academic literacy practices. As a result, not all of the EFL graduate writers developed a social environment capable of assuming a role in the socialization process towards L2 advanced academic literacy. Graduate students encountering difculties with L2 discourse production processes may seek assistance from a supportive cast of advisors, who may not be providing the appropriate assistance in achieving L2 academic literacy. Pardoe (2000) argues for recognizing low-status literacy practices as possibly highly functional in a writers social context and central to her sense of identity and success in functioning in other contexts. In the case of the non-academic-oriented students, low status literacy practices may reect the writers identity in terms of positioning in academia and prioritizing social contexts. Although the non-academic-oriented graduate students had disciplinary knowledge and general literacy skills, as Braine (2002) notes, these may be insufcient for the acquisition of L2 advanced academic literacy. The results of this study have a number of implications for FL practitioners. First, students identities and goals may inuence motivation to acquire L2 advanced academic

350

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

literacy and as shown by Cadman (2005), discussion of identities and goals is a good starting point. Second, a writers use of L1 and L2 may serve as a diagnostic tool (Durgunoglu, 2002) indicating the extent of L2 disciplinary language acquisition, and as a starting point for language instruction, as suggested by Turner (2004). Finally, graduate writing practitioners may need to be realistic in terms of the level of L2 advanced academic literacy achievement expected of students, taking into account students identities and goals, and access to supportive social and academic environments.

References
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge. Bawarshi, A. (2000). The genre function. College English, 62(3), 335360. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Beaufort, A. (1997). Operationalizing the concept of discourse community: A case study of one institutional site of composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(4), 486529. Beaufort, A. (2000). Learning the trade: A social apprenticeship model for gaining writing expertise. Written Communication, 17(2), 185223. Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specic Purposes, 13(1), 2334. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Boissevain, J., & Mitchell, J. C. (1973). Network analysis: Studies in human interaction. Mouton: The Hague. Braine, G. (2002). Academic literacy and the nonnative speaker graduate student. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 5968. Broeder, P., Extra, G., & Maartens, J. (1998). Durban language survey. In G. Extra, & J. Maartens (Eds.), Multilingualism in a multilingual context: Case studies on South Africa and Western Europe (pp. 121138). Tilburg UP: Tilburg. Cadman, K. (2005). Towards a pedagogy of connection in critical research education: A REAL story. Journal for English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), this issue. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.07.001 Canagarajah, S. (2002). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 2944. Casanave, C. (1995). Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 83112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Deaux, K., & Martin, D. (2003). Interpersonal networks and social categories: Specifying levels of context in identity processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 101117. Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2000). Doctoral students access to research culturesare some more unequal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 149165. Dittmar, N., Spolsky, B., & Walters, J. (1998). Convergence and divergence in second language acquisition and use: Towards an integrated model. In V. Regan (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition in social context (pp. 124136). Dublin: University College Dublin Press. Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 189205. Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Ferdman, B. M. (1990). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review, 60(2), 181204. Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714725. Gunnarsson, B.-L. (1997). The writing process from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. Written Communication, 14(2), 139188.

O. Ferenz / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 339351

351

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new model of cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Herndl, C. G., & Nahrwold, C. A. (2000). Research as social practice: A case study of research on technical and professional communication. Written Communication, 17(2), 258296. Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255269. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Intergroup similarity and subgroup relations: some implications for assimilation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948958. , R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Ivanic Language Writing, 10(12), 333. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157172. Lee, H. (2002). Different individuals, different approaches to L2 literacy practices. Paper presented at the 2nd International knowledge and discourse conference, Hong Kong. Manchon, R. M., de Larios, J. R., & Murphy, L. (2000). An approximation to the study of backtracking in L2 writing. Language and Instruction, 10(1), 1335. Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, L., & Wei, L. (1995). A social network approach to code-switching: The example of a bilingual community in Britain. In L. Milroy, & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching (pp. 136157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. Pardoe, S. (2000). Respect and the pursuit of symmetry in research literacy and student writing. In D. Barton, M. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 149166). London: Hamilton, & R. Ivanic Routledge. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage. Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: Challenges for research on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 66, 5386. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224237. Street, B. (1996). Preface. In M. Prinsloo, & M. Breier (Eds.), The social uses of literacy: Theory and practice in contemporary South Africa (pp. 19). Cape Town: Sached Books. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284297. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, M. D. (2003). Disparate academic environments: An emergent framework of socialization. The Qualitative Report, 8, 408434. Turner, J. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theory. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 634). Oxford: Blackwell. Turner, J. (2004). Language as academic purpose. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 95109. Zimmerman, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical ndings. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 7399.

Orna Ferenz holds a PhD in Linguistics from Bar Ilan University, Isarel. She is a senior lecturer in the EFL Unit at Bar Ilan Unversity, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate EFL courses.