L2 writing: subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings

Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99 www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

L2 writing: subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings Ru¨diger Zimmermann

*

Philipps-Universita¨t Marburg, Institut fu¨r Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Wilhelm-Ro¨pke-Str. 6 D-35032 Marburg, Germany

Abstract Recent writing research has been heavily influenced by Hayes and Flower’s model of the L1 writing process with its emphasis on planning and a certain disregard of the formulating component (“translating”). Its structure has been largely maintained in Bo¨rner’s model of L2 writing, despite some necessary additions. On the basis of a variety of different learner data (L1 German, L2 English), we propose an alternative model of the L2 writing process in which the central formulating component is substantially elaborated through the introduction of several functionally discrete subprocesses. The data stress the importance of tentative formulations in the writing process, and call for a partial revision of the oft-cited assumption that writing is re-writing. They also suggest only a minor influence of the L1 on L2 formulating.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: L2 writing; Formulating; Pre-text; Revision; (English, German)

1. Aim Research on L2 writing has focused for a long time on composing (cf. Kroll, 1990). The research issues raised in this context (especially the quality of L2 writing products as a possible function of the writing process, and various aspects of L1 influence) deserve not only to be replicated more systematically (Rowe Krapels, 1990), but also to be extended to other text genres. In our Marburg project “Oral and written text production in L1 and L2” we looked at written narrations and minor text types such as written reminders and letters of apology and complaint.

* Tel.: +49-6421-282-1306; fax: +49-6421-282-5799. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Zimmermann) 0959-4752/00/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 4 7 5 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 1 9 - 5

74

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

One of our leading questions which can be relevant in a pedagogical context was this: Which activities during the writing process absorb most of advanced German learners’ writing time? In order to try and answer this overall question it is necessary to give an outline of major aspects of the writing process in L1 and L2 with particular focus on the formulating component. The five main questions are: 1. What are the most important subprocesses of formulating? 2. Which of them are L2-specific? 3. Is there a typical sequence in which these subprocesses occur, and is there anything L2-specific about it? 4. What are the similarities and differences between native speaker and learner behavior with respect to the central aspects of formulating, and, in particular, what is the quantitative relationship between the subprocesses in L2 and L1 writing? 5. What is the role of the L1 in the L2 formulating process? This paper focuses on the formulating component as the heart of the writing process since it seems not to have received adequate attention in the more influential lines of writing research.

2. Influential models of the writing process 2.1. Overview First of all, a remark is appropriate concerning the necessity of a new model of the L2 writing process that goes beyond the existing ones. I would like to justify this by giving a short characterization of those models which have been most influential in writing research in general and for our project. The merits of De Beaugrande’s (1984: p. 106) and Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987: p. 266) approaches notwithstanding, there can hardly be any doubt that the Hayes and Flower (1980) model of the L1 writing process has been most influential in L1 as well as L2 writing research. I will therefore take a short look at their model and then at Keseling’s (1993) approach. Then I will consider Bo¨rner’s (1987) L2 model, which is mainly an adaptation of Hayes and Flower (1980), and finally Krings’s (1989, 1992) process model. 2.2. Hayes and Flower (1980) On the one hand, this model is of a rather deductive and hypothetical character, i.e. it has a comparatively small empirical basis. On the other hand, the few data on which it is based are from apparently quite competent L1 writers. Understandably in a first phase of model building, a thorough, full-fledged quantitative analysis of informants with a wider range of writing competence was not attempted. The central component of this model has three subcomponents, namely planning, translating and reviewing, of which planning is the most elaborate, and translating the most poorly

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

75

developed (Hayes and Flower 1980: p. 16). In the following we will use the term “formulating” instead of Hayes and Flower’s “translating” since it avoids misunderstandings in an L2 context (Fig. 1). This formulating component seems to us to be too schematic for the subprocesses proposed, which are contained in the box on the right. Even if the general caveat of overlapping and recursive (sub)processes is taken into account, the model contains no information as to possible optional alternatives. Also, we cannot identify sequences of this kind in our own data. Moreover, the empirically problematic transition from sentence plan to expression of the next proposition part, i.e. the actual formulating, is not differentiated at all.

Fig. 1.

L1 writing: Hayes and Flower’s model (1980).

76

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

2.3. Keseling (1993) Keseling (1993: especially pp. 125, 143) looks at the production of what he calls a “formulation unit” in L1 German, for which he identifies three phases: 1. Reflections in pauses 2. (Free) association of a formulation unit of about three words 3. Evaluation of the formulation unit. His data are from the writing of summaries, and his informants mostly produce acceptable formulations. The way writers come to grips with problems during formulating, constitutive for the L2 writing process, is of no particular interest for him, therefore difficulties within phase 2 cannot be expected to unfold. 2.4. Bo¨rner (1987) Bo¨rner’s (1987: p. 1347; translated from German) model is mainly an adaptation of Hayes and Flower (1980) to additional outer conditions of the L2 context: He integrates aspects such as the L2 teaching agenda, the learners’ textual histories in L1 and L2 (including, for example, genre awareness) and their L2 or interlanguage competence. There is no attempt to differentiate the subcomponents of translating ¨ bertragen”) into potential subprocesses. Bo¨rner (1987) rather looks at linguistic (“U problems L2 writers have to master: expression, grammatical synthesis, orthographic aspects. In a later publication based on empirical research of his own (Bo¨rner, 1989) he identifies formulating and editing (= revision) as core areas of the writing process, but — probably owing to his (retrospective) method of data collection — cannot detect any potential subprocesses of formulating (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

L2 writing: Bo¨rner’s model (1987; translated from German).

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

77

2.5. Krings (1989, 1992) Krings’s (1989, 1992; translated from German) model of the L2 writing process contains as its core a typical formulating sequence with just two subprocesses, namely “expressing local plans in L1/L2”, and four additional subprocesses for the solution of L2 problems (box on left): identifying L2 problems, activating L2 strategies, evaluating L2 problem solutions, deciding on problem solution (Fig. 3). It seems to us that Krings (1992: p. 68) does not develop this clearly enough from his production data. Thus it is as yet unclear whether his four additional subprocesses are clearly discernible: What exactly is the difference between evaluating and deciding (Krings, 1989, p. 398)? Beyond that there is no indication of the possibility of alternative sequential arrangements of subprocesses in the model. Finally, the central subprocess “expressing local plans in L2” is presented as unstructured despite the fact that Krings’s data suggest an internal structure. 2.6. Revision research The research on revision is typically concerned with the kinds of revision (additions, deletions etc., cf. Faigley & Witte, 1981: p. 403) and their functions (conceptual, sequential, cf. Matsuhashi, 1987: p. 210), but not with structural aspects: Where in the writing process and in what sequences do the different revision types occur? The general opinion still does not seem to go beyond: “Writing is re-writing” (Murray, 1978). To sum up this very short overview: There is some evidence in research data to suggest that formulating is a complicated process (cf. also De Beaugrande, 1984: p. 114) and involves a range of linguistic problems, but there is not much on how it proceeds. Two parallel and independent studies within our project and a later more detailed one took a closer look at structural aspects of formulating in L1 and L2 writing (Dunitza, 1994; Raab, 1992; Rau, 1994).

3. Methods/data 3.1. Data Before we present and discuss the main results of our recent research, we will give a short outline of our methods of data collection. Voluntary student informants (English majors mostly in their fourth year, nine years prior English, female/male 3:1) wrote short film narratives in English (L2) and German (L1) and directions for finding the way as well as letters of complaint in German (L1). Most writing processes were accompanied by think-aloud protocols (TAPs), some followed by (additional) informal retrospective conversations between subjects and/or interviews about the writing process. TAPs, conversations and interviews were audiotaped and subsequently transcribed. We were unable to video-record the text production pro-

78

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

Fig. 3.

L2 writing: Krings’s model (1989, 1992; translated from German).

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

79

cess, although there are good arguments for the superiority of video over audiorecording with respect to certain aspects (e.g. silent rereading). For the identification of the subprocesses of writing and the structure of formulating, however, this is not relevant, since we deal only with directly observable oral and written process data. This paper only draws on the narrative data which were collected in three groups: Group 1 did German and English oral and English written narratives,1 Group 2 wrote English stories cooperatively in groups of two, Group 3 did only written narratives in English and German. The sequence of the L1 and L2 versions was varied in the subgroups (total number of informants: 52, for the written narratives: 41). The appendix contains a selection of partially coded data from different informants writing individually and cooperatively.2 The main reasons for collecting these types of data in this arrangement are the following: 앫 Pairing for individual L1–L2 comparability (Wolff, 1989). 앫 Varied sequence to avoid sequential effects (Zimmermann, 1992b: p. 473). 앫 Cooperative data for the identification of subprocesses because this kind of text production displays a particularly high degree of exteriorization of mental processes. There is a large-scale consensus in the literature that comparative data of this kind supplemented by verbal reporting are the best available for writing research (recently Levy, Marek & Lea, 1996). Their interaction is explained in the next section. 3.2. Triangulation Thus we have the following kinds of data: (a) texts by the same informants in German and English; (b) notes and drafts; (c) think-aloud protocol (TAPs); (d) spontaneous retrospective remarks by the writers (RETRO); (e) data from subsequent interviews (INT) looking at the texts produced; (f) texts by other informants of a similar standard in English. The data were triangulated as depicted in Fig. 4. (For a discussion of triangulation cf. e.g. Neumann, 1995). It is obvious that traces of the writing process in notes and drafts, TAPs and INTs are complementary. What is often of particular importance is the interaction of TAPs and INTs: Some “silent” thinkers are good interviewees, remembering a lot from their production process, whereas some good loud thinkers are poor interviewees. Let me illustrate this for the formulation of just one sentence. The writer wants to express that a boy who has stolen a basket of pears has problems in putting the basket on the front rack of his bike and riding away. The final version in the text reads as follows:

1

The oral data were collected for purposes not dealt with here. The data corpus is available for inspection in Marburg; a copy of two sets, 185 and 100 pages respectively, can be ordered. The film is characterized in Zimmermann, 1992b: p. 467. 2

80

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

Fig. 4.

Triangulation.

Then he rode off straight away with a basket −n i−−f−o −−r very loose on the bike. Consider now the corresponding section in the TAP: \nO, with the bAsket= (.3,5) uhm (.2,5) \ was not fIxed, \ (.1,5) was not fixed at all= (.1,5) \ (.1) (reads) thEn he rode off straight awAY= with the bAsket= \ (.4) Uh:: (=.1,5) the bAsket= (.6,5) (...) (.2) \ (low voice) was not fixed \ it was l+lOOse \ can you sAY it was lOOse⬙ \ (.12) /?said/ in front of him befOre= \ (.2) (breathes in=.2) uh (reads) thEn he rode (reads) off strAIght away with the bAsket on the bIke= - on the bIke \ (writes=.7) (clicks tongue) \ It, no it’s not the bIke= (.1,5) \ the bAsket on the bike \ (.4) vEry lOOse - \ just write /?I don’t know/ \ (writes) very (.4) l:OOse (spells English) L(.)O(.)S(.)E (.2) \ (reads) with the bAsket very lOOse on the bIke \ - okay have to look at thAt one again, [TAP101E1:150–165]3 The TAP shows that the sentence is formulated without major problems until the writer reaches with the basket. The phrase was not fixed (at all) initiates a phase of reflection whose status is not quite clear. Does the writer want to continue with (a) it was not fixed on the bike or with (b) which/that was not fixed...? 3

For transcribing conventions cf. Appendix C.

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

81

The TAP does not tell us. It seems that a new sentence is chosen: It was loose. The subsequent part of the TAP shows how the writer finally arrives at very loose on the bike, but also that she is not satisfied with this phrase. The following passage from the INT (101E1, pp. 45ff.) partially confirms the information from the TAP, but it also adds new information to it: I: Here I uh, hesitated, (..) since I didn’t know, the uh with the basket (.) which was not fixed on the bike, I was basically going to write. /?Well/, With the basket very loose on the bike sounds, (laughs) sounds now, as I read it now, terrible too, but (.) I uh, I puzzled a long time here how to write that. R: But there is something else written here, isn’t it? In I: Uh, (R: in for?) with the basket yes in for, what that’s supposed to be now (R: or in f: in fr?) (.) in front I was probably going to wri- yes exactly, in f- with the basket in front of him, but now I had already written in front up there. (R: yes.) Didn’t want to write again. (INT101E1:45-52; translated from German) Originally, this writer had planned to write down a relative clause: which was not fixed. Also the discarded words in for are explained: They were the beginning of the alternative formulation in front of, i.e. we have here a slip of the pen. We also learn that this alternative was discarded in order to avoid a repetition. On the whole, it turned out that TAPs are the most information-rich data for the formulating component (despite the — potential and real — limitations of this approach).4 4. Towards a model 4.1. Relevant subprocesses of formulating Our approach focuses on the identification of typical, i.e. frequent functional units with formal correlates.5 This implies that a phrase or a (group of) word(s) only qualifies as a tentative formulation (TENT FORM), i.e. as a pre-text, if it would fit exactly as uttered into the text written so far. Thus a tentative formulation is clearly distinct from just a reflection.6 Consider the following excerpts from our TAP data: 4 Apart from the fact that not all informants are very good at thinking aloud, obviously only one line of associations/reflections during the writing process can be expressed at a time, whereby a simultaneous activation of alternative formulations will normally remain unobservable. They do emerge occasionally, however, in subsequent interviews (see also below, section “Discussion”). 5 For an attempt to establish such a correspondence for lexical planning cf. Zimmermann (1992a). 6 The necessity to distinguish between pure reflection as a group of metaactivities concerning all kinds of problems during the writing process and tentative formulation proper is becoming established in recent literature (cf. Keseling, 1993: p. 117, 125; Rau, 1994: p. 99). It is even more relevant in L2 writing with its manifold linguistic problems (cf. several subprocesses in Krings 1992: p. 397). We have therefore proposed the notions “language of text production” and “language of reflection” (Dunitza, 1994: p. 86; Zimmermann, 1995: p. 181).

82

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

(reads) didn’t nOtice the stOne lYing in frOnt of him= (.2) (loud) [rode agAInst it=] (.3,5) (writes) rOde agAInst it= [TAP106E2:3] ¨ tz (.1,5) lich U ¨ ber (.1) einen im WEge (.2) (writes) [...] und (.1) dAnach (.1) plO lIEgenden (.2) StEIn (.1,5) kann man mitm FAhrrad stOlpern⬙ (“and suddenly after that over a stone lying in the way”) [TAP100G2:5] Whereas the first phrase rode against it can be and is fitted into the text in exactly this wording, the second phrase kann man mitm Fahrrad stolpern (“can one stumble with a bike”) is only a reflection on a possible formulation, in this case the appropriateness of the German verb stolpern. Raab (1992) proposes a list of subprocesses (cf. Table 1 below) based on a minute analysis of the verbal protocols of two cooperative film narratives (25 and 75 pages of transcript, cf. selection in Appendix F). Whereas categories L to L-V relate to recurrent reflections on the content of writing problems (“How am I going to express this idea?”, “Can I use Present Perfect here?”), L-T and L-C are concerned with the structure of formulating (i.e. the sequence of subprocesses). The tentative formulations under L-T correspond to a large extent to what Witte (1987) calls “pre-texts”, whereas L-C largely codes the cooperative or inner dialogue of revising passages. What is potentially most revealing about the formulating process is the relative frequency of tentative formulations uttered before the actual act of writing versus the revisions performed mainly after it. The subprocesses of formulating proposed here are in the lower part of the taxonomy from L-T to L-C. In usual terminology, they relate to various kinds of pretexts and text revisions, L2-specific problems, and acts of control, evaluation, simplification as well as postponement. Here is a short illustration from a TAP: \ piece of clOth, \ - (whispers) piece of textile - wrapped Tentform1 Tentform1(modified) around - the bOdy= - hm \ doesn’t make any sense at All \ (.6) Reject and pOcket \ - TAsche – \ no - not exactly, \ TentForm2 TentForm2(L1) Reject - I’ll think upon that lAter, \ - pUts the pEArs into a\ Postpone Read/Repeat pOcket, (.3) TentForm2(repeated) [TAP57:70-90] Piece of cloth is the first tentative formulation (TENT FORM1) for “Schu¨rze” (apron), piece of textile a modified tentative formulation (TENT FORM1 (MODIFIED)) for the same concept. Piece of textile is coded not as a new tentative formulation, but as a modified one, since the overall structure of the tentative formulation as a paraphrase is preserved in the modification. This tentative formulation is rejected in the next relevant step. Then the writer

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

83

Table 1 Subprocesses of the L2 writing process (Raab, 1992: 47) CB:

PP: G:

L:

L-T:

L2-P: L-C:

W:

Rd:

Cognitive Basis CB: CB-Me: Preliminary Planning Global Planning G: G-T: G-G: G-O: G-S: G-Ch: G-E: G-I: G-R: Local Planning L: L-L: L-S: L-G: L-O: L-V: L-T (L1): L-T: L-T (Md): L-T (Rp): L2-P: L2-Df: L-C: L-C-A/R: L-C-S: L-C-P: Writing D: W: Reading

Contents of the pear film memory problems

unspecific global planning type of narrative gist, point; topic organization of narrative setting description of main characters episodes, events interpretations, evaluations relevance, detailedness unspecific local planning lexical considerations, concepts syntactic decisions grammatical considerations (other) orthography, punctuation various formulations not meant for writing tentative formulations in German tentative formulations modifications of tentative formulations repetitions of tentative formulations L2 (lexical) problems statements of L2 deficits controlling of formulations accepting and rejecting simplification of formulation problems postponement of formulation problems dictation of formulations co-articulation of formulations

thinks about continuing with pocket after into (cf. uncoded TAP in Appendix B). TENT FORM2 codes this as an alternative tentative formulation: It is not a paraphrase anymore, but a simple (non-complex) lexical approximation. The form Tasche (German for pocket) is a tentative formulation in the L1, a rare phenomenon in our data. After further acts of rejection and postponement the second tentative formulation is repeated. Here, owing to the lack of video recording, it is unclear whether the form pocket is already written down, or whether this happens in one of the subsequent pauses. The text produced (cf. text 57 in Appendix A, line 5) shows that the writer had written down cloth, and that she added pocket despite her doubts, i.e.

84

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

she finds a compromise between two tentative formulations (for a longer tentative formulation consisting of a clause cf. Appendix E, TAP 100 E1: p. 4, ll. 8f.). 4.2. Subprocesses of L1 formulating Rau (1994: p. 86) showed for written directions and letters of complaint in L1 German that what she calls “pre-text revisions” is a constitutive aspect of L1 writing as well. On the whole, she finds 197 pre-text revisions vs. 147 text revisions in letters of complaint and 47 pre-text revisions vs. 40 text revisions in written directions (Rau, 1994: p. 189). As a first result of these two studies and ongoing work on other data we can state that Murray’s (1978) famous formula that “writing is re-writing” may have to be changed to the proposition that “writing is pre-formulating” (cf. Results below). 4.3. Our models We are now ready to look at the integration of the subprocesses in a production model, always keeping in mind that it is derived from a very narrow empirical basis using simple text types. We have known since Hayes and Flower (1980) that the stages and processes of writing are overlapping and recursive. By way of example: Writers may already mention a good formulation during global planning, and they may even jot it down “for later”. On the other hand, a revision loop can result not only in a new formulation, but beyond that in a reconsideration of aspects of the writing plan. So if in principle almost any subprocess can occur at any time, is it justifiable at all to model the writing process as a largely linear sequence of stages? If we narrow down our view to production at the level of individual sentences or shorter paragraphs, the answer can be yes and no at the same time. In our data there are certainly several subprocesses which do not have “privileged” places of occurrence. This holds in particular for all kinds of control activities in our taxonomy:7 Control activities (e.g. “Does that sound good?”) can and do occur most frequently during tentative formulations, in repair sequences and probably during reviews, especially in connection with L2 problem solving. But their exact location is unpredictable. The situation is different with other subprocesses. They seem to have typical “privileged” positions of occurrence and to come in minor sequential structures. Also, writers seem to have a tendency to first come to grips with what they want to say, i.e. to finish their (local) writing plan, and then to go on to formulate the text (Rau, 1994: p. 104) (Fig. 5). Our model is an attempt to capture these tendencies. The overall as well as the formulating model are partial models in a double sense: (a) They disregard the exter-

7 Our solution to the terminological problem is to keep REVISION as the cover term and distinguish EVALUATING during FORMULATING from REPAIR after writing down (i.e. structurally similar to the oral repair process), and REVIEW as a final overall process dealing with paragraphs or the whole text.

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

Fig. 5.

85

L2 writing: Our overall model.

nal background factors (such as writers’ knowledge, topic, audience, prior texts) contained, for example, in Hayes and Flower (1980, p. 16): We have nothing to add to these aspects. (b) They focus on the production of individual sentences. Therefore the overall model only places formulating between planning and review and shows where L2 problem solving activity appears most typically, namely in formulating and repair sequences, but without a fixed place in them (Fig. 6). The formulating component has a central subcomponent (= middle box) and a few peripheral subprocesses. The model contains the most typical processes in the struc-

86

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

Fig. 6.

L2 writing: Our formulating model.

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

87

tural setting in which they mostly occur in our data. A “typical” subprocess is not an obligatory one. The only observable obligatory act in the complex mental and physical process of writing is of course the mechanical act of writing itself, the inscription. All other subprocesses contained in the model are rather frequent across text types and data collection methods, therefore here referred to as “typical”. In our data, the most frequent sequences of subprocesses resulting in the writingdown of a sentence or just a few words are the following: 1. Utterances of a Tentative Form (TENT FORM1) → Evaluation → Acceptance (followed by Writing down and Repair outside Formulating proper). 2. Often there is only one tentative form which is slightly modified (TENT FORM1/Mod) and/or repeated (TENT FORM1/Rep) before being accepted; modifications and repetitions seem not to occur in preferential sequences. 3. Evaluating often results in rejection, sometimes in simplification and postponement. 4. Whereas simplified tentative forms (TENT FORMS) are accepted despite their — overtly observed — shortcomings, rejection triggers one or more new alternative tentative formulations (TENT FORM2, N) which are often processed through the core sequence (= solid arrow back). 5. Tentative formulations in L2 (typically the first ones) can be preceded by a tentative formulation in L1 followed by a statement of L2 problems and activation of strategies (L2 Problem Solving). These subprocesses are presented in parentheses since they are very rare in our data (likewise in Ko¨nigs, 1988; Bo¨rner, 1989, but much more frequent in Krings, 1989). There is very little evidence in our data that L2 writing consists to a large extent in translating tentative L1 formulations into the L2 (as Krings’s data clearly suggest). What comes frequently in the writing process of many of our informants, however, is reflections in the L1 on what and how to write. Thus Raab (1992: p. 103) found that tentative formulations in L1 account for only 5 to 8% of all relevant subprocesses as opposed to ca. 50% for tentative formulations in L2 (cf. Appendix G, line L-T under L1/L2). This observation underlines the necessity of drawing a distinction between reflection and tentative formulation.8 8 For a possible theoretical foundation in Levelt’s (1989) model of text production cf. Zimmermann (1995: p. 181). In other data comparing oral and written narration in L1 and L2 we observed a stronger L1 influence in written L2 narrations (Zimmermann, 1992b: p. 488), which must, however, be seen as a sequential effect: the cognitive basis for (part of) the story established during a prior oral L1 narration affected the subsequent written story in the L2. Krings’s observation (1989: p. 415) of a relatively strong L1 influence (ca. 40% of tentative formulations in L1 German; Krings, 1989: p. 422) can probably be explained to a large extent along two lines: He seems to treat many aspects of lexical problem solving as tentative formulations (in his terminology “Feinpla¨ne realisieren” — “expressing local plans”), even where the reflective character of the protocol is obvious (cf. the example in Krings, 1989: p. 422). We classify such aspects under L2 (lexical) problem, deficit statement or local planning. Krings’s text type “letter of application” is highly routinized in fixed formulaic structures which emerge in the L1. Thus part of his high L1 figures may be owing to a genre-specific effect.

88

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

Summing up this short outline, two points deserve emphasis: Firstly, there seem to be very few L2-specific subprocesses (marked by dotted underlining), namely tentative formulations in the L1 and L2 problem solving (cf. Krings 1989: p. 397). Simplification is also included since it seems to be so typical of L2 writing, but fairly rare in L1 productions of the same text genres. Secondly, the notion of pre-text can be operationalized/subclassified to encompass the core subprocess of tentative formulation and the secondary categories of modified, repeated and simplified tentative formulation (cf. solid underlining). Our model places repair outside formulating for two reasons: (a) The mechanical writing act comes in between. (b) The reformulating part of repair has the same structure as text formulation, i.e. all steps from (alternative) planning through tentative formulation(s) to rejection and new tentative formulation(s) to final acceptance and inscription can be observed. Since, however, text formulation and the writing act proceed in parallel or rather incrementally, we see no principled reason against integrating repair into a wider notion of formulating. It might be argued that this is not specifically a model of L2 writing, but to a large extent of text production including speaking. This may be the case. But even if some or most of the subprocesses might occur (less observably or unobservably) in oral text production, we think they should be highlighted in a model of writing because they seem to be constitutive of the (L2) writing process.

5. The Writing Model in Relation to Levelt’s (1989) Model of Speaking It was mentioned above that writers who are mainly engaged in one of the three major components of writing easily switch to another one. Thus specifically during formulating there are occasional looks back into planning and, during planning, forward to formulating. Also the act of writing is often interrupted to check a formulation. On the other hand, evaluating can probably intervene at any time. This seems to go perfectly well with Levelt’s (1989: p. 9) idea of the modular nature of the Conceptualizer and the Formulator in oral speech production. These processing components are conceived of as being fairly autonomous, which would account for the relative sequence of the main stages. On the other hand, their incremental interaction during articulation/inscription comes to the fore less frequently in some remarks in retrospective interviews: During the articulation or writing-down of one text segment the following one is already being formulated (silently) and the next one is already being planned, as illustrated by the following transcript: I: Well, here I was already ahead in my thoughts, which by the way (.) I noticed, happened quite frequently. (R: Yes.) I was then still writing the sentence in front (R: Yes), but in my thoughts already further ahead (R: Exactly.)(?with that) sentence. (INT 104G1: 110ff; translated from German)

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

89

6. Results Returning to our initial questions we can formulate the following conclusions: 1. Our restricted range of data suggests some sequential structure within a fairly autonomous formulating process, which was presented in a partial model of the L2 writing process. The notion of “pre-text” was specified into the subcategories of “tentative formulation in L1/L2”, “modified”, “repeated” and “simplified tentative formulation”. (The additional subprocesses occurring during formulating, namely evaluating, rejecting, accepting, postponing and simplifying are not subcategories of pre-text because of their reflective status as meta-processes.) 2. The only clearly L2-specific processes seem to be tentative formulations in L1 and L2 problem solving, whereas simplified tentative formulations have merely a much higher frequency in the L2 writing of same text types as compared to the L1 writing of the same informants. 3a. The most typical formulating sequence is Tentative Formulation(s) in L2 → Evaluation → Acceptance → Writing Down with Coarticulation → Repair. 3b. The position of L2 problem solving is not predictable, whereas tentative formulations in L1 precede those in L2. This implies that in qualitative terms (almost) nothing is L2-specific in the core of the writing process. 4. The forth initial question can be answered from different perspectives, as shown in the detailed study by Dunitza (1994), which was mainly based on a comprehensive analysis of the think-aloud protocols of four informants with different levels of writing competence (cf. Appendix H). 4a. The same writers revise clearly more frequently in their English L2 than in their German L1 texts (tentative formulations and revisions/repairs):9 10.7 vs. 7.9 revisions in 100 words of think-aloud protocol. 4b. Tentative formulations are much more frequent than text revisions in L1 as well as L2 text production. This holds also for all individual informants studied in detail. 4c. On average L2 protocols contain only ca. 2% more tentative formulations than L1 protocols of the same writers (84 vs. 82%). 4d. There are more repeated tentatitve formulations in L2 writing (not in table). 4e. In both types of revision there are more technical corrections (esp. grammar and orthography) than reformulations proper in L2 writing. 4f. L2 effects are clearly less important than interindividual differences. They relate to the revision ratio, i.e. the ratio between pre-texts and revisions/repairs and to preferences for subprocesses of formulating. 5. In our data L1 pre-texts of all types are considerably rarer than L2 ones (ratio between 1:10 and 1:6).

9

In Dunitza’s table tentative formulations and repairs are subsumed under revisions.

90

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

7. Discussion Our observations rely heavily on the think-aloud method. Thus the frequency of tentative formulations could be a methodological artifact. Retrospective interviews are much less revealing in this respect since informants usually remember the kind of problem they had, but not the exact way they tried to solve it. In addition, retrospective interviews are not reliable enough (Levy et al., 1996). There are, however, three types of evidence to discard this reservation: (a) The many crossed-out forms in a text often in the middle of words/sentences which testify to the simultaneous activity of alternative tentative formulations. (b) The many silent pauses in the context of tentative formulations. (c) In retrospective interviews, informants sometimes come up with their original tentative formulation which is not observable in the text. In addition, our conclusions are based on only three text genres of which only one, namely letters of complaint, is of a slightly more demanding nature. Thus, our tentative conclusions may not hold for other, especially more demanding, text genres, such as expository writing. But then the formulating model should be explicit enough to be tested against other data. The question is whether additional subprocesses come to the fore in more complex text types. We would not expect this looking at Rau’s (1994) L1 results: There, differences between stories and letters of complaint, for example, consisted only in longer and more complex pre-texts and revisions in the latter text type. Finally, the inclusion of L1s and L2s other than English and German may of course necessitate further modification.

8. Pedagogical implication Starting out from Flower and Hayes (1980: p. 41) suggestion that the partitioning of problems may result in an improvement of written products, we had to look at the subprocesses with which writers (seem to) have most problems. It was shown that, whatever the problems are in detail, considerably more time is spent on the pre-text than on the repair phase. Whereas it is possible to influence repair (and, of course, overall review) by proposing various partitioning strategies, this seems to be impossible or much more difficult with tentative formulations, owing to their more spontaneous and associative character. So the only direction for writers might be to encourage them to shift their efforts from preformulation to repair in the first place.

Acknowledgements This paper is a considerably enlarged version of a paper presented at the seminar “Second Language Acquisition and Writing: A multi-disciplinary approach”, University of Southampton 11th–12th July, 1996, which appeared in the Proceedings. We gratefully acknowledge a grant by the Hessisches Ministerium fu¨r Wissenschaft und

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

91

Kunst for our project “Mu¨ndliche und schriftliche Textproduktion in Mutter- und Fremdsprache”. Thanks to Marcus Callies, Kristine Scholz and Christian Uffmann for help in preparing this article and to Stephanie Helmuth for reviewing my English. Remaining errors are mine. Special thanks to the two reviewers whose suggestions hopefully helped me to make this text more reader-friendly.

Appendix A A.1. English text (SE 57) The film is a silent movie in the sense that nobody speaks a single word. It is set in the mountains, somewhere in a −h t−−i Latin-American country, I presume, because the main some of the actor look hispanic. The film starts with a man, standing on a ladder picking pears from a tree. A −−t f−e −−r He puts the pears into a cloth pocket. As soon as the pocket is full, he climbs down the ladder to pack the pears into a basket. W There are three baskets standing under the tree. (...)

Appendix B B.1. Think-aloud protocol (TAP 57) (...) oh - die Schu¨rze – (writes) he-e - put - the pears (.5) in-to - ach - Schu¨rze (.3) I’ve no idea what - Schu¨rze could be – puh (.3) piece of cloth - piece of textile – wrapped around - his body - hm - doesn’t make any sense at all (.6) and pocket Tasche – no - not exactly - it’s (incompr.) - puts the pears into a pocket (.3) (incompr.) sind voll - (writes) as soon - as – the pocket - hm mit pocket bin ich u¨berhaupt nicht zufrieden - ich wußte das doch mal – Schu¨rze (.5) fucking hell (reads) as soon as the pocket – (writes) is full (...)

Appendix C C.1. Transcribing conventions TAP: Our transcription follows established norms. Intonation is indicated as follows: falling by comma (yes,), rising by quotation mark (yes⬙), level by equation mark (yes=); particular word accent by capital letters, usually one (bandAna), in cases of doubt (G. nouns) two or three (ENGlisch). Pauses in seconds (.3). INT: Text of interviews in near-standard orthography and punctuation. Pauses: short (.), middle (..), long (...)

92

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

Appendix D D.1. TAP53 (p. 1–2)

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

Appendix E E.1. TAP100E1 (p.4)

93

94

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

E.2. TAP100E1 (p. 7–8)

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

Appendix F F.1. TAP92 (cooperative)

95

96

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

97

Appendix G Table 2 Local planning and formulatinga 97 (PP + middle)

92 categ. total

total 3531

% L L L-L L-S L-G L-O L-V L-T L-T(L1) L-T L-T(Md) L-T(Rp) L2-P L2-P L2-Df %

185 5 71 8 77 12 12 1046 45 669 165 167 125 101 24

a

5.2% 0.1% 2.0% 0.2% 2.2% 0.3% 0.3% 29.6% 1.3% 18.9% 4.7% 4.7% 3.5% 2.9% 0.6%

L1 1924

L2 1607

total 8569

5.9% 0.3% 2.7% 0.3% 2.0% 0.6% – 8.4% 2.3% 3.7% 1.3% 1.0% 6.1% 4.8% 1.3%

4.5% – 1.2% 0.1% 2.4% – 0.8% 55.0% – 37.15% 8.7% 9.15% 0.5% 0.5% –

1043 100 367 201 165 65 145 2210 49 1262 497 402 230 110 120

12.2% 1.2% 4.3% 2.3% 1.9% 0.8% 1.7% 25.8% 0.6% 14.7% 5.8% 4.7% 2.7% 1.3% 1.4%

L1 4720

L2 3849

16.5% 2.1% 6.6% 3.8% 2.3% 1.25% 0.5% 5.2% 1.0% 2.9% 0.7% 0.5% 4.4% 2.1% 2.3%

6.5% 0.1% 1.5% 0.5% 1.4% 0.2% 3.2% 51.1% – 29.2% 12.1% 9.8% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2%

(Raab 1992, p. 103).

Appendix H Table 3 Text revisions: tentative formulations and repairsa subj. and texts

no. of words no. of revisions no. of revisions pre-text revisions absolute per 100 words (tent forms)

100 E1 495 52.5 100 G2 437 24.5 101 E1 522 33 101 G2 396 16.5 106 G1 191 7.5 106 E2 221 19 107 G1 368 66 107 E2 408 71.5 mean general mean English texts mean German texts mean texts producted first mean texts produced second a

(Dunitza 1994, p. 75).

10.2 5.6 6.3 4.2 3.9 8.6 17.9 17.5 9.3 10.7 7.9 9.6 9.0

45⇒86% 20⇒82% 23⇒70% 10.5⇒67% 7⇒93% 18⇒95% 56⇒85% 61.5⇒86% 83% 84% 82% 84% 82%

text revisions (repairs) 7.5⇒14% 4.5⇒18% 10⇒30% 6⇒33% 0.5⇒7% 1⇒5% 10⇒15% 10⇒14% 17% 16% 18% 17% 18%

98

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

References Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ¨ berlegungen zu einem Modell [Writing in Bo¨rner, W. (1987). Schreiben im Fremdsprachenunterricht: U the foreign language classroom: thoughts on a model]. In W. Lo¨rscher, & R. Schulze, Perspectives on language in performance, studies in linguistics, literary criticism and language teaching and learning (Vol. II) (pp. 1336–1349). Tu¨bingen: Narr. Bo¨rner, W. (1989). Planen und Problemlo¨sen im fremdsprachlichen Schreibprozeß: Einige empirische Befunde [Planning and problem solving in the foreign language writing process: some empirical results]. In U. Klenk, K.-H. Ko¨rner, & W. Thu¨mmel, Variatio linguarum. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Gustav Ineichen (pp. 43–62). Wiesbaden: Steiner. De Beaugrande, R. (1984). Text production. Towards a science of composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dunitza, A. (1994). Pra¨textrevisionen und Textrevisionen beim Schreiben in der Fremdsprache Englisch — eine Fallstudie an Filmerza¨hlungen [Pre-text revisions and text revisions in writing in English as a foreign language: a case study based on film narration], MA thesis. Marburg University. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. P. (1981). Analyzing revision. College composition and communication, 32, 400–414. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg, Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of the writing process. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg, Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Keseling, G. (1993). Schreibprozeß und Textstruktur. Empirische Untersuchungen zur Produktion von Zusammenfassungen [Writing process and text structure. Empirical studies in the production of summaries], Reihe Germanistische Linguistik. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Ko¨nigs, F. G. (1988). Auf der Suche nach dem richtigen Wort. Analysen zum lexikalischen Suchverhalten beim Schreiben in der fremdsprache und beim Hinu¨bersetzen [Searching for the right word. Analyses of lexical search behavior in writing in a foreign language and translating]. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen, 17, 99–117. Krings, H. P. (1989). Schreiben in der Fremdsprache — Prozeßanalysen zum “vierten skill” [Writing in a foreign language — process analyses of the fourth skill. In G. Antos, & H. P. Krings, Textproduktion. Ein interdisziplina¨rer Forschungsu¨berblick (pp. 377–436). Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Krings, H. P. (1992). Empirische Untersuchungen zu fremdsprachlichen schreibprozessen — ein forschungsu¨berblick [Empirical studies of foreign language writing processes — a research survey]. In W. Bo¨rner, & K. Vogel, Schreiben in der Fremdsprache. Prozeß und Text, Lehren und Lernen (pp. 47–77). Bochum: AKS-Verlag. Kroll, B. (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: CUP. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levy, M. C., Marek, P. J., & Lea, J. (1996). Concurrent and retrospective protocols in writing research. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Conzijn, Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 542–556). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Matsuhashi, A. (1987). Writing in real time: Modelling production processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Murray, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. R. Cooper, & L. Odell, Research on composing: Points of departure (pp. 85–103). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Neumann, G. (1995). Laut denken und still schreiben. Zur Triangulierung von Prozeß- und Produktdaten in der L2-Schreibprozeßforschung [Thinking aloud and writing in silence. On the triangulation of process and product data in L2 writing research]. Zeitschrift fu¨r Fremdsprachenforschung, 6 (1), 95–107. Raab, U. (1992). Stages and levels of the L2 writing process. MA-thesis. Marburg University. Rau, C. (1994). Revisionen beim Schreiben. Zur Bedeutung von Vera¨nderungen in Textproduktionsprozessen [Revisions in writing. On the significance of changes in text production processes]. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer. Rowe Krapels, A. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll, Second language writing. Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37–56). Cambridge: CUP. Witte, S. P. (1987). Pre-text and composing. College composition and communication, 38, 397–425.

R. Zimmermann / Learning and Instruction 10 (2000) 73–99

99

Wolff, D. (1989). Zweitsprachliche und muttersprachliche Textproduktion fortgeschrittener Englischlerner im Vergleich [A comparison of second language and first language text production in advanced learners of English]. In B. Kettemann, P. Bierbaumer, A. Fill, & A. Karpf, Englisch als Zweitsprache (pp. 337–353). Tu¨bingen: Narr. Zimmermann, R. (1992a). Lexical knowledge: Evidence from L1 and L2 narratives and L1-L2 translations. In M. Markus, & C. Mair, New departures in contrastive linguistics. Innsbrucker Beitra¨ge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Anglistische Reihe Band 5 (Vol. II) (pp. 301–311). Budapest: Akaprint. Zimmermann, R. (1992b). Renarration: Oral L1 and L2 narrations as bases of written narratives. In D. Stein, The pragmatics and comprehension of written texts (pp. 467–492). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zimmermann, R. (1995). Fremdsprachenspezifische Aspekte des Schreibens in der L2 Englisch [Foreign language specific aspects of writing in English as an L2]. In B. Spillner, Sprache: Verstehen und Versta¨ndlichkeit. Kongreßbeitra¨ge zur 25. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft fu¨r Angewandte Linguistik, GAL e.V. (pp. 172–186). Frankfurt: Lang.