Speaker
Description
How do multilingual writers compose and revise poetry in a second language (L2)? This presentation addresses this question by examining textual and linguistic differences between the first and final drafts of L2 English poems written by multilingual university students in Japan.
Abstract section 2: Contribution/research questions
To address the gap, the current study examines textual and linguistic differences between the first and final drafts of L2 poetry written by multilingual writers.
Abstract section 5: References
Hanauer, D. I. (2010). Poetry as research: Exploring second language poetry writing. John Benjamins.
Iida, A. (2016). Exploring earthquake experiences: A study of second language learners’ ability to express and communicate deeply traumatic events in poetic form, System, 57, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.004
Iida, A. (2025). Haiku across borders: Evocative voice in second language poetry writing. Routledge.
Liao, F. (2016). Identities in an ESL poetry book: A case study of one Chinese student. The Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, 5(1), 45–61.
Abstract section 1: Relevance
Scholarship in second language (L2) poetry writing has demonstrated the ability of L2 writers to express themselves (Iida, 2025) and explored their various experiences, including study abroad (Hanauer, 2010), family issues (Liao, 2016), and trauma (Iida, 2016). While these studies primarily focus on the final product, little attention has been paid to the actual process of composing poetry in the target language.
Abstract section 4: Outcomes/results
The overall analyses of both corpora showed that multilingual writers’ first and final poetic drafts shared similar textual and structural features. However, the use of punctuation in the final drafts was significantly more frequent than in the first drafts. This suggests that, while maintaining consistent content and emotional tone across drafts, multilingual writers tend to strategically use punctuation such as periods, commas, question marks, and exclamation points during the revision process. Reflecting on these findings, this presentation concludes with pedagogical implications for teaching L2 poetry writing to multilingual students.
Abstract section 3: Content/method
This study follows Hanauer’s (2010) methodological guidelines for poetry writing as a research method. The data comprise 140 English poems—both first and final drafts—produced by 14 English majors at a Japanese private university. Drawing on Hanauer’s (2010) computational analytic tools, the first and final draft corpora are separately analyzed using SPSS, LIWC 2022, and Concordance software programs to identify differences in text length, linguistic categories, punctuation use, lexical content, and expressed emotions.
| Title | Tracing the Revision Process in L2 Poetry Writing |
|---|---|
| Teaching Context | College and university education |