Grammar and 

Second Language
Writing
JAN FRODESEN

­Framing the Issue

Nowhere has the role of grammar in language instruction been as hotly debated
as it has in writing research and pedagogy. The relationship between grammar
and writing in English language teaching has changed dramatically since the
mid-20th century. Up until the late 1970s, this relationship was largely defined
by the principles of dominant language teaching methodologies, such as audio-
lingualism, with roots primarily in structural linguistics and behavioral psychol-
ogy. Based on these principles, grammar was not only an essential component of
writing instruction and practice but, more accurately, was often the reason for
writing. That is, the goal of guided writing practice was to develop linguistic
knowledge and competence. During the last decades of the 20th century, lan-
guage teachers were influenced by research in composition pedagogy for native
English speakers which challenged the effectiveness of grammar teaching in
helping students develop ­writing competence. At the same time, second lan-
guage (L2) acquisition theorists questioned the relationship between conscious
learning of language forms and ­language acquisition. More recent research in
second language writing, second language acquisition, and linguistics has
helped to define the issues and to suggest new roles of grammar in writing, roles
that have emerged with changing perspectives on the teaching and learning of
writing as a second or foreign language.

­Making the Case

As the field of TESOL began to develop in the 1960s, writing pedagogy for English
learners was for the most part concerned with guided or controlled writing
techniques followed by what was termed “free composition.” In the first volume
of TESOL Quarterly, a review of Lois Robertson’s Guided and Free Writing

The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, First Edition.

Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0534

eelt0534.indd 1 11/3/2017 7:34:13 PM

 2 Grammar and Second Language Writing

summarized guided procedures as first presenting a structural pattern, such as

verb tenses, followed by grammar rules and then writing exercises (Ross, 1967).
Based on structural linguistic theory and following audiolingual pattern practice
drills, writing exercises such as copying paragraphs, filling in sentence blanks, or
transforming questions into statements aimed to provide grammar practice with
emphasis on correctness. In short, the focus was not on rhetorical principles but on
language skill in using correct sentence-level grammar. Like most ESL textbooks of
this period, the chapters designated specific grammatical points. Lessons did not
contextualize the grammar; as the reviewer notes, the introduction to one chapter
presented forty rules for article usage, after which the student was expected to
apply them. Other theory-based practices in teaching grammar in writing contexts
at this time included applications of transformational-generative grammar, in
which students were asked to transform underlying “kernel sentences” into sur-
face forms, such as active sentences to passive sentences or statements into ques-
tions, in order to understand relationships between surface forms. However, this
linguistic theory was less accessible to many classroom teachers and did not have
far-reaching applications. In both structuralist and transformational-based guided
writing, rhetoric was not part of instruction since guided writing was intended to
prepare students of English as a foreign language to enter mainstream college
composition courses, where they would be taught rhetorical principles.
Around the same time that TESOL educators were developing materials for
guided writing based on structural patterns, researchers focusing on composi-
tion for native speakers (L1 composition) began to voice concerns not only about
the value of grammar instruction and practice but about its potential negative
effects on writing improvement. It was not, however, until the early 1980s that
sharp debate arose in L1 composition about the benefits and drawbacks of teach-
ing formal grammar in writing classes. In opposition to teaching grammar, L1
composition experts argued that writers possess an internalized system of gram-
mar rules and an intuitive knowledge of their native language, thus not needing
to be re-taught grammar they already know. They also noted that learning and
practicing isolated rules of grammar did not transfer to mastery of structures in
actual writing contexts; such mastery required using language in meaningful
contexts. As further support for their claims, some composition researchers
pointed to second language acquisition hypotheses stating that formal knowl-
edge of linguistic structures, while perhaps available to learners for editing their
language output, did not necessarily lead to acquiring a language. With the
development of process-based rather than structural approaches to composition
in the 1980s, attention to grammar in first language (L1) writing instruction
became largely relegated to final editing stages and teacher correction of errors
in students’ papers.
As for the role of grammar in second language writing during the latter part of
the 20th century, a sharp distinction was developing between English as a foreign
language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL) contexts. With large popu-
lations of non-English speaking immigrants entering English-speaking countries
at this time, the number of ESL writing classes for learners in secondary and

eelt0534.indd 2 11/3/2017 7:34:13 PM

 Grammar and Second Language Writing 3

postsecondary institutions soared. While in EFL contexts, grammar rules and exer-
cises still tended to be an essential component in writing instruction focused on
sentence or paragraph production. Instructors of ESL writing classes, often trained
in applied linguistics, composition studies, or both, began by the mid-1980s to
incorporate process-based writing pedagogies into their classes and to de-empha-
size formal grammar instruction, especially traditional de-contextualized sentence
exercises unrelated to learners’ writing topics. Most ESL writing teachers did not
abandon grammar instruction and practice in writing contexts to the extent that
their L1 counterparts did, as evidenced by attention to grammar in many ESL com-
position textbooks published in the 1980s and beyond. However, greater emphasis
was placed on integrating grammar and writing instruction, targeting grammati-
cal structures needed for particular rhetorical strategies, such as relative clauses
in defining terms, or for specific academic writing skills, such as achieving cohe-
sion across sentence boundaries or appropriately paraphrasing reference to
sources. In addition, grammar was contextualized in extended prose, typically
with reference to assigned thematic or content-based readings.
Research in the field of second language writing, which rapidly developed as an
interdisciplinary field apart from composition studies during the late 1980s and
early ‘90s, has documented how the instructional needs of writers of English as a
second language differ from those of native English speakers. In contrast to L1
writers, L2 writers do not have access to intuitions about their second language;
thus, they have greater need for overt focus on grammar, especially structures in
academic English that are not used in less formal, spoken English (Silva, 1993).
In recent decades, the role of grammar in second language writing has been
influenced and enhanced by changing perspectives on the nature of writing and
writing instruction, with shifts in focus from the composing processes of individ-
ual writers, to writers as members of academic and research communities, and to
the act of writing as a social activity, with attention to reader–writer interactions
and to the purposes for written communication. In text analyses of academic gen-
res, researchers in English for academic purposes (EAP), have described not only
rhetorical features but grammatical structures that characterize genres in order to
make the grammar of writing more explicit. For example, Swales (1990) identified
typical patterns of verb tense and verb voice in the sections of research articles.
Others have identified lexicogrammatical patterns that realize pragmatic func-
tions of texts, such as writer stance, both within and across disciplines of academic
writing (Hyland & Sancho-Guinda, 2012).
Applications of functional linguistics and corpus linguistics to writing instruc-
tion have offered new insights into ways that explicit focus on grammatical struc-
tures assists English learners in gaining awareness of language use in a range of
written texts, recognizing register differences between spoken and written genres,
and across written genres, and developing linguistic resources needed for a range
of writing tasks. In the case of younger learners at the elementary and middle
school levels, educators in English-speaking countries have developed academic
language development curricula based on descriptions of school-based writing
needs such as writing about science or history. These descriptions, informed by

eelt0534.indd 3 11/3/2017 7:34:13 PM

 4 Grammar and Second Language Writing

systemic functional linguistics, show the ways in which grammatical features

­construct texts in school genres, with the goal of making explicit to learners the
written language forms they need to acquire (Schleppegrell, 2004).
In corpus linguistics, focus on the interaction of lexis and grammar has identi-
fied lexicogrammatical patterns within and across written registers such as
academic writing, journalism, and fiction. These findings have enriched our
­
understanding of the ways in which vocabulary and grammar interact. Other
studies have used corpora of student writing to compare differences between
native English writers and second language writers in their use of grammatical
structures such as linking adverbials.
Meanwhile, research in second language acquisition has continued to investi-
gate the effects of instructional focus on form, including grammatical structures,
on learner’s acquisition. A distinction is made between focus on forms, including
grammatical structures taught in isolation and sequentially, and focus on form,
which draw learners’ attention to linguistic features in meaningful contexts of
communication. While issues remain as to whether structures consciously learned
can transfer to long-term acquisition, some research supports the need for atten-
tion to linguistic form as a part of developing communicative competence
(Schmidt, 1990). In a synthesis and meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-
experimental studies, Norris and Ortega (2000) found support for the effectiveness
of form-focused instruction as judged by target-oriented gains. However, the great
majority of outcome measures in the studies included were discrete and narrowly
focused linguistic tasks and not ones involving communicative use of L2. To date,
most second language acquisition research concerned with grammar in writing
has not been focused on classroom instruction to help learners’ develop written
fluency and complexity but rather on the effectiveness of error correction in teacher
feedback on writing.

­Pedagogical Implications

As this historical overview of the role of grammar in writing has shown, grammar
has always been a part of writing instruction for English learners. However, early
instructional approaches that viewed linguistic competence as the central purpose
of writing and that restricted writing to the sentence or paragraph level have been
replaced by approaches that integrate grammar instruction with rhetorical con-
cerns, considering how grammatical structures construct texts for different pur-
poses and audiences. In addition, a great deal of recent research has focused on
learner variables, including educational and cultural backgrounds, which help to
inform the kinds of grammar instruction that may be needed and appropriate in
classroom settings. In Grammar in the Composition Classroom, Byrd and Reid (1998)
advised that planning how to incorporate grammar in writing instruction should
start with students and not structures.
The learner variable of age has long been a factor in guiding the extent to which
explicit grammar should be focused on in language teaching. In general, because

eelt0534.indd 4 11/3/2017 7:34:13 PM

 Grammar and Second Language Writing 5

young learners are not cognitively able to process abstract grammar rules, rule-
based instruction has been considered ineffective. However, as mentioned earlier,
genre-based pedagogies have been implemented to guide young English learners
in acquiring linguistic structures needed to develop literacy in a variety of text
types across the disciplines. For example, in an upper elementary science class,
instructional materials may start with learners writing in everyday language about
an experiment, after which activities transition into writing that provides practice
in the language of science reports, such as the use of past tense, action processes,
and time connectors.
With the tremendous growth of immigrant populations in many English-
speaking countries, writing researchers and teachers have been concerned with
the differing academic language needs of student writers depending on their educa-
tional, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Composition teachers realized they
needed to rethink approaches that had been designed mainly for international
students, who typically had explicit grammar knowledge from previous instruc-
tion in their home countries. In contrast, many immigrant students educated in
English-speaking countries have acquired English in informal oral contexts as well
as in classrooms. This latter group of students, while certainly not homogeneous,
tend to have more implicit knowledge of English grammar and to be unfamiliar
with grammatical terms often used in ESL textbooks. Thus, instructors needed to
avoid too much metalanguage in grammar-based instruction, at the same time
determining what basic writing grammar terminology, such as subject–verb agree-
ment or verb tenses, might be most useful to help writers develop accuracy as well
as fluency. In contexts where student writers have the opportunity to meet with
instructors or tutors outside of class, attention to each individual’s academic
language needs and awareness of linguistic features often seems to be most
­
successful.
Since many writing classes in school settings integrate reading and writing, the
expository texts students are assigned often provide rich opportunities for them to
notice the ways that language shapes meaning as well as patterns of language use
in authentic contexts, patterns that may be very different from those in spoken
grammar. Ellis (2006) defines grammar teaching as any instructional technique that
draws the attention of learners to grammatical form in ways that will help them
understand the structure or process it in comprehension or production. Grammar
noticing in texts can be facilitated by making structures salient through highlight-
ing, underlining, or boldfacing. Such techniques can, for example, highlight verb
tense patterns in discourse or chains of parallel structures used for focus and
emphasis. Alternately, students could be directed to underline, bracket, or in other
ways highlight structures in order to gain familiarity with them and to incorporate
them later in writing tasks. The structures that are chosen will depend on their sali-
ence in a text as well as the purpose for having students notice them. For ­example,
if students have been learning how to reference sources appropriately in academic
writing, texts that contain rich examples of reporting verbs might be the focus, fol-
lowed by guided activities that help them understand the semantic ­distinctions
among these verbs and restrictions in the grammatical structures that follow them.

eelt0534.indd 5 11/3/2017 7:34:13 PM

 6 Grammar and Second Language Writing

Just as reporting verbs represent a functional category in writing grammar,

other structures that serve specific functional or pragmatic purposes, such as creat-
ing cohesion or marking stance, can be the focus of grammar-based i­nstruction.
Stance markers, for example, include a wide range of grammatical categories:
modal verbs, lexical verbs, probability adverbs, and adjectives and quantifiers,
among others. Their use in written registers is documented in published analyses
of large corpora. Advanced students can identify the types of stance markers
within their own disciplines by compiling corpora based on published articles or,
more generally, explore uses within academic registers of large corpora such as the
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA).
While attention to the differences between spoken and written registers appears
to have increased in language teaching, instruction has tended to emphasize
vocabulary rather than grammatical differences. Yet writers in post-secondary
school contexts often lack familiarity with and ability to produce the complex lexi-
cogrammar of some academic genres, such as subject nominalizations in many
kinds of research writing that connect readers to prior text, offering the “given” or
“old” information that will introduce new information to follow. Student writers
need not only to learn how to craft such structures but to understand both their
functional purpose and, stylistically, the conciseness they achieve. They need to
see how different structures in spoken English may express similar meanings but
function differently in informal, face-to-face interactions.
Finally, with the rise of international English and English as a lingua franca,
teachers of English for multilingual writers need to be aware of variation in
writing grammar across international contexts, to consider how this variation
may affect what are regarded as grammar or usage errors, and to include this
knowledge in deciding what aspects of writing grammar may be most useful
in particular contexts of communication. Early instruction in second language
writing during the 1960s viewed writing mainly as an additional form of gram-
mar practice, with its emphasis on correctness, uniformity, and stable forms. In
contrast, current pedagogies consider not only the patterning but the variation
of grammatical structures within and across written genres. Rather than preoc-
cupation with ­ student errors, much current focus on grammar in writing
instruction seeks to help student ­writers learn about and develop the linguistic
resources they need to communicate effectively and appropriately for diverse
purposes and contexts.

SEE ALSO: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency; Consciousness-Raising Tasks;

Discourse Grammar; Isolated Versus Integrated Form-Focused Instruction;
Meaning-Focused Versus Form-Focused Instruction; Teacher Written Feedback

References

Byrd, P., & Reid, J. (1998). Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on teaching ESL for
college students. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

eelt0534.indd 6 11/3/2017 7:34:13 PM

 Grammar and Second Language Writing 7

Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.
Hyland, K., & Sancho-Guinda, C. (Eds.). (2012). Stance and voice in academic writing. London,
England: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Ross, J. (1967). Review of guided writing and free writing: A textbook in composition for
English as a second language by L. Robinson. TESOL Quarterly, 1(2), 58–60.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11(2), 129–58.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657–77.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Suggested Reading

Frodesen, J. (2014). Grammar in second language writing. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton,

& M. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.), pp. 238–53.
Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.

eelt0534.indd 7 11/3/2017 7:34:13 PM