A Diverse Contributing Body

A Study of Second Language Writing’s Influence on Writing Studies in Inkshed

Abstract

In 1962, the CCCC released a report titled “The Freshman Whose Native Language is Not English.” In this report, the chair argued for separate courses dedicated to teaching language-diverse students and staffed by instructors specially trained in Linguistics. Paul Kei Matsuda (1999; 2013) argues that this moment marks the institutional divide between U.S. Composition and Applied Linguistics that would go on to create a vacuum of knowledgeable peers in Composition. This vacuum meant that new composition theories interested in language learning were not held accountable by scholarship in Applied Linguistics. If Matsuda’s assessment of this division of labour is correct, it begs the question: does the same division of labour exist in a Canadian context between Writing Studies and L2 writing? How have these two fields related historically, and what implications does this relationship (or lack thereof) have on the future of writing instruction in Canada’s increasingly language-diverse classrooms? The purpose of this paper is to construct a narrative of the history of the relationship between Writing Studies and L2 Writing as it pertains to one of Canada’s two writing organizations: the Canadian Association for Studies in Language and Literature, also known as Inkshed. 

To that end, this paper excavates the Inkshed newsletters and conference programs from 1980 onward for archival research elucidating any potential cross-pollination between Writing Studies and L2 Writing. To further explore the relationship between these two fields in Inkshed’s past, this research builds on the work of Miriam E. Horne who composes a rich picture of Inkshed’s development in her book, Writing in a Community of Practice: Composing Membership in Inkshed.  

The findings from this paper reveal that not only did Writing Studies and L2 Writing scholarship “cross-fertilize” during the tenure of Inkshed, these two fields remained closely linked through the decades. In other words, at the writing of this paper, there does not appear to have ever been an institutional division of labour between Writing Studies and L2 Writing in the Canadian context. 

Ultimately, these findings contribute to the broader narrative of how Writing Studies has professionalized in a Canadian context. They also contribute to the ongoing conversation regarding how writing instructors, writing program administrators, and writing centre professionals can best support culturally and linguistically diverse writers in Canadian classrooms. By drawing on this longstanding relationship with L2 Writing, Writing Studies scholars and practitioners are uniquely situated to move into the future of higher education equipped with language-based writing theories that are rooted in a community of knowledgeable L2 Writing peers.