Does second language writing theory have gender?

On Second Language Writing

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 59-71

  Belcher, Diane ^a,b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TOEFL Test of Written English Committee   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85071799061     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410600899-11     Document Type: Chapter

References (65)

1. Anzaldua, G. (1990). Makingface, making soul/haciendo caras: Creative and criticalperspectives by women ofcolor. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation.
2. Belcher, D. (1993, April). Constructing relevant realities: The qualitative approach to L2 writing research. Paper presented at the 29th annual TESOL convention, Atlanta, GA.
3. Belcher, D. (1997). An argument for nonadversarial argumentation: On the relevance of the feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 1-2l.
4. Berlin, J. (1988). Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English, 50, 477-494.
5. Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Up the garden path: Second language writing approaches, local knowledge, and pluralism (Comment on Ann Raimes’s “Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing�?). TESOL Quarterly, 27, 301-306.
6. Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). From critical research practice to critical research reporting. TESOLQuarterly, 30, 321-330.
7. Casanave, C. P. (1992). Cultural diversity and socialization: A case study of a Hispanic woman in a doctoral program in sociology. In D. Murray (Ed.), Diversity as resource: Redefining cultural literacy (pp. 148-181)..Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
8. Casanave, C. P. (1995). Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research andpedagogy (pp. 83-112). Nolwood, NJ: Ablex.
9. Casanave, C. P. (1998). Transitions: The balancing act of bilingual academics. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 175-203.
10. Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 33-49.
11. Cayton, M. K. (1994). What happens when things go wrong: Women and writing blocks. In G. Olson & S. Dobrin (Eds.), Composition theoryfor thepostmodern classroom (pp. 49-65). Albany: State University of New York Press.
12. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects ofsecond-language writing. New York: Cambridge.
13. Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 138-159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14. Connor, U., & Mayberry, S. (1996). Learning discipline-specific academic writing: A case study of a Finnish graduate student in the United States. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 231-253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15. Connors, R. J. (1996). Teaching and learning as a man._ College English, 58, 139-157.
16. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511.
17. Cumming, A. (1992). Instructional routines in ESL composition teaching: A case study of three teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 17-35.
18. Cumming, A., & Gill, J. (1992). Motivation or accessibility? Factors permitting Indo-Canadian women to pursue ESL literacy instruction. In B. Burnaby & A. Cumming (Eds.), Sociopolitical aspects of ESL education in Canada (pp. 241-252). Toronto: OISE Press.
19. Elbow, P. (1986). Embracing contraries: Explorations in-learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Languagejournal, 81, 285-300.
21. Flynn, E. (1990). Composing “Composing as a woman�?: A perspective on research. College Composition and Communication, 41, 83-89.
22. Flynn, E. (1991). Composition studies from a feminist perspective. In R. Bullock & J. Trimbur (Eds.), The politics of writing instruction: Postsecondary (pp. 137-154). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
23. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory andpractice ofu’riting. New York: Longman.
24. Hall, J. K. (1997). Aconsideration of SLA as a theory of practice: Aresponse to Firth and Wagner. The�?Modern Languagejournal, 81, 301-306.
25. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
26. Hirsh, E., & Olson, G. (1995). Starting from marginalized lives: A conversation with Sandra Harding AC. A Journal of Composition Theory, 15, 193-225.
27. hooks, B. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston: South End Press.
28. Johns, A. (1981). Necessary English: A faculty survey. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 51-57.
29. Johns, A. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. (pp. 24-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Johns, A. (1991). Interpreting an English competency examination: The frustrations of an ESL science student. Written Communication, 8, 379-401.
31. Johns, A. (1992). Toward developing a cultural repertoire: A case study of a Lao college freshman. In D. Murray (Ed.), Diversity as resource: Redefining cultural literacy (pp. 183-201). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
32. Johns, A., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students, Applied Linguistics, 11, 253-271.
33. Kasper, G. (1997). “A�? stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Languagejournal, 81, 307-312.
34. Keller, E. F. (1984). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35. Kirsch, G. (1993). Women writing the academy: Audience, authority, and transformation.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
36. Lamb, C. (1996). Other voices, different parties: Feminist responses to argument. In D. Berrill (Ed.), Perspectives on written argument (pp. 257-269). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
37. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-217.
38. Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 235-260.
39. Li, X. (1996). “Good writing�? in cross-cultural context. Albany: State University of New York Press.
40. Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Languagejournal, 81, 318-323.
41. Lutz, C. (1995). The gender of theory. In R. Behar & D. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 249-266). Berkeley: University of California Press.
42. Matsuda, P. K. (1998). The first five years of the jSLW’ A retrospective [On-line]. Available .
43. Miller, S. (1991). The feminization of composition. In R. Bullock &J. Trimbur (Eds.), The politics ofwriting instruction: Postsecondary (pp. 39-53). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
44. North, S. (1987). The making ofknowledge in composition: Portrait ofan emergingfield. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
45. Ogulnick, K. (1998). Onna rashiku (like a woman): The diary ofa language learner in japan.Albany: State University of New York Press.
46. Olesen, V. (1994). Feminisms and models of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research (pp. 158-174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47. Ong, A. (1995). Women out of China: Traveling tales and traveling theories in postcolonial feminism. In R, Behar & D. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 350-371). Berkeley: University of California Press..
48. Pennycook, A. (1994), The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.
49. Poulisse, N. (1997). Some words in defense of the psycholinguistic approach: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern LanguageJournal, 81, 324-328.
50. Raimes, A. (1993). The author responds (to A. S. Canagarajah). TESOL Quarterly, 27, 306-310.
51. Sandler, B. (1986). The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women faculty, administrators, and graduate students. Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges..
52. Schneider, A. (1998). Why don’t women publish as much as men? The Chronicle oj’Higher Education, A14-A16.
53. Shotter, J., & Logan, J. (1988). The pervasiveness of patriarchy: On finding a different voice. In M. Gergen (Ed,), Feminist thought and the structure ofknowledge. New York: New York University Press.
54. Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Spender, D. (1989). The writing or the sex? Or why you don’t have to read women s writing to know its no good. New York: Pergamon.
56. Spivak, G. C. (1988). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics. New York: Routledge.
57. Sullivan, P, (1992). Feminism and methodology in composition studies. In G. Kirsch & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology in composition research (pp. 37-61). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
58. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175-191.
60. Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Movingfrom debate to dialogue. New York: Random House.
61. Tompkins, J. (1988). Fighting words: Unlearning to write the critical essay. The Georgia Review, 42, 585-590.
62. Trinh, M. (1989). Woman, native, other: Writing postcoloniality andfeminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
63. Vandrick, S. (1994). Feminist pedagogy and ESL. College ESL, 4, 69-92.
64. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.
65. Zamel, V. (1990). Through students’ eyes: The experiences of three ESL writers. Journal of Basic Writing, 9, 83-98.